Posted on 09/22/2010 11:15:02 PM PDT by Qbert
NRO signs on to the new GOP "Pledge To America."
We’ll Take the Pledge
The inevitable question will be: Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?
The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous.
Via the Weekly Standard.
Jay Cost argues in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the "real worth" of the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America "was in governing, not electioneering." The same could be said of the House Republicans new governing agenda, a copy of which is now making the rounds.
I've reviewed the pledge in more depth and consulted with some conservatives I trust, though I had already made up my own mind. I support it unequivocally and without condition, as I know what war I'm fighting, along with the importance to America of our winning it in November. Donald Rumsfeld, someone who knows something about leadership, said:
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
That's not to say it isn't a solid document. Frankly, I believe it is just that. But it's far more than that, as well.
It is, in essence, the standard we've been issued to get behind and march on toward November, when America faces one of, if not the, most important election of our times. If there's some other side worthy of fighting on, I haven't seen it. And I'm not the least bit interested in entertaining it, even if I did. So, I'm going to defend this pledge against the Democrats and an often complicit media and any one else if I have to. Because I know what side I'm on and how desperately America needs our side to prevail.
Might there be other battles or complaints come January? I assume there will be. But now is not the time for wasting energy, or misdirecting our efforts on them. The candidates have been selected. The political battles lines have been drawn between Left and Right, Democrat and Republican. I know which side I'm on, along with the importance of this document in terms of shaping the battle space in front of us and as we move through.
I don't intend to hand-wring and I certainly don't intend to take prisoners. What anyone else does is up to them. But I'd encourage everyone to contemplate the consequences of the pending election, even more so than they might any document at hand. That's what we should be fighting over now until November, that and nothing else. And we need to be fighting our clear political opposition, the Democrats, not among ourselves. Now isn't the time for nonsense. Now's the time to win.
“[W]e need to be fighting our clear political opposition, the Democrats, not among ourselves. Now isn’t the time for nonsense. Now’s the time to win.”
Someone get the word to Turdblossom.
The pledge seems a little weak on securing the border and booting out the illegals. That’s my only opinion on this at this point.
The Republicans moistened their finger, stuck it in the air, and then wrote this pledge. This is worthless. After the election, they’ll be up to their same old tricks, IMHO.
At least we have a back up plan if we expend most of our efforts taking control of the State governments.
I don’t trust Federal Politicians to keep their word in reducing their own power. Its simply not in their innate interest.
I do place greater faith in the self-interest of State leaders to activity work to take that power from them.
By the Time Federal leaders formaly give up power, that must be a paper change to reflect an already existing reality.
The “pledge” isn’t bold at all.
In fact it is timid.
Republicans are not going to stay in office even if they win in November if they don’t shrink government in real terms, not just trimming around the edges.
“Republicans are not going to stay in office even if they win in November if they don’t shrink government in real terms, not just trimming around the edges.”
Good point. And the thing is, I think that really should be a winning political issue, as well as the necessary thing to do. All they would need to do is point out examples of excessive government waste and corruption, and then use that to get the public on their side to start chopping away at the fat. It doesn’t have to feel like going to the dentist...
On January 3, 2007,the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress...
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
It was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
Remember the date.
This pledge is mere words until put into action and action ALWAYS speaks louder than words.
That’s why from now until we get our Constitution back we cannot let up.
Winning the election is simply step one in a long series of steps over many years and many Congresses.
Repeal Obamacare, yes. Replace it? With what?
Leave our healthcare alone. Period.
The fact that the GOP has to create a new contract, or pledge, or whatever they’re calling it this time, only shows that they’re still attached to style over substance.
Note to the GOP: you blew it. Get out of the way, and let the competent people get to the work of fixing the things you helped screw up.
BINGO!
Vote each candidate on their own merit/record. "Pledges" & "contracts" are not worth the paper they are printed on!
“The fact that the GOP has to create a new contract, or pledge, or whatever they’re calling it this time, only shows that they’re still attached to style over substance.
Note to the GOP: you blew it. Get out of the way, and let the competent people get to the work of fixing the things you helped screw up.”
—It’s a start though; an acknowledgement that they went astray. I mean, we have to remember that squishy Dennis Hastert, of all people, used to be leading the way all those years. It’s the leadership that defines the group many times, especially if the non-leaders don’t speak up loudly when the leaders go astray.
“Of course, the new Pledge won’t work, unless the electorate hold the electeds’ collective feet to the fire. If they, the elected, don’t produce in short order, don’t give them a chance to entrench themselves in incumbency. Instead, vote them out at the next opportunity. Otherwise, we’ll end up right back in the same, if not worse, condition.”
Good point. What I would love to see is a ‘100 day’ plan of attack for the GOP Congress (like what incoming presidents often have), to start hammering away at all the important things that need to be changed, and quickly. Obama will veto it all of course, and the MSM will yammer away at how ‘extremist’ the proposed changes are, but it would give the public a feeling that something really is being done, and that this isn’t the lame, ineffectual GOP we’ve known all these years.
“Repeal Obamacare, yes. Replace it? With what?
Leave our healthcare alone. Period.”
—I thought Paul Ryan had interesting ideas for improving the health care system that we had, from a Conservative perspective.
The trick I think, is to locate all the aspects in which government was involved in our pre-Obamacare health care world, and replace all of those parts with free-market solutions.
Leave our healthcare alone. Period.
Exactly!
I agree with Ed Morrissey when he said :
After reading through this a couple of times, I’d call it the Two Year Plan, or perhaps the Guiding Principles for a Two Year Plan.
People tend to forget that the Contract With America was a rather short-term document, too — and became even more so once the effort to get term limits got dropped.
This Pledge is far more about policy than process; in fact, it’s almost entirely a challenge to Obama and a promise to undo everything he’s done, and some of what George Bush did wrong on top of it.
That’s not to say that it couldn’t have gone farther. The plan calls for rolling back spending to a pre-bailout, pre-stimulus level, but that’s not going to be good enough to start reducing debt.
It won’t eliminate the current deficit, especially with the pledges for rolling back some of the Obama-era tax and fee hikes contained in the bill.
Spending would have to roll all the way back to FY2007 or FY2006 just to hit the break-even mark. But here again, perhaps it’s good to remember to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Rolling back to FY2008 levels would at least be going in the right direction, and may be all that the GOP can get if the Senate remains in Democratic hands and Obama wants to provoke another government shutdown.
Some of the rules and promises in the bill are rather gimmicky and obviously intended just to tweak Democrats.
Republicans propose a “must read” rule for voting on bills that would be difficult to enforce, even within their own caucus, for instance.
Voters need to hold their own Representatives accountable for ignorant vote-casting.
Demanding a Constitutional citation for every bill that hits the floor sounds like a great idea, but it would only mean a little more work to develop boilerplate language regarding the Commerce Clause to append to every bill.
The problem with Congress isn’t that they can’t make an argument for Constitutionality of their schemes, after all. They mutter platitudes about the Commerce Clause and the “good and welfare clause” by rote, except for the clueless few who are foolish enough to admit they don’t care about controls on their power anyway.
The weekly spending-cut votes seem like another gimmick, but that may have more teeth than one would presume. It’s actually a rather clever device to keep the grassroots engaged. When controversial votes take place in either chamber, bloggers and talk radio flood Congressional offices with calls, hang on the outcomes, and publish the vote lists. Having those on a weekly or otherwise regular basis isn’t a bad idea, and putting elected officials on the spot for spending reductions isn’t a bad idea either.
If the House sends a spending cut once a week to the Senate and/or the White House, they’ll either force Democrats to publicly oppose them or start signing off on some of the cuts — and either would be a pretty good development for small-government conservatives.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss this Pledge. It’s not the alpha and omega of small-government goals, but it may at least be the alpha and beta of getting the process started.
“...Don’t be too quick to dismiss this Pledge. It’s not the alpha and omega of small-government goals, but it may at least be the alpha and beta of getting the process started.”
—Agree. It’s not perfect by any means, and numerous critics on the right have pointed out valid objections. But it’s a start. And what really matters is whether they will take the necessary actions.
The way see it, the key difference going forward, between all the times in the past is the Tea Party movement. It doesn’t simply vanish because the GOP takes control- in fact, it gets stronger as a means of doing everything possible to keep the GOP from straying into elitism the way they did so many times in the past.
**And if they don’t believe us and realize how serious we really are...next time around, the entire GOP leadership should be primaried...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.