Deroy Murdock makes the case on NRO today.
I made the case back in July here (for his viability, that is, not for the reasons he should win).
Meanwhile, Rudy Blog notes that the conventional wisdom on Giuliani is changing, slowly but surely.
Archive for November, 2006
Chester Finn has a pretty brutal takedown of the modern GOP today on NRO:
What’s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): “I’m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn’t the Republican party want me?”
There’s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today’s GOP doesn’t really want gays — and it yearns to supervise everybody else’s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that’s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.
And for daring to suggest that the GOP might back away from the homophobia and anti-immigrant nastiness, Mark Levin (another NRO-nik) dubs Finn’s article: “a prescription for disaster for the conservative movement.”
Like this year’s disaster?
Chuck Todd lays out the case that Hillary is no lock for the Democratic nomination in ‘08.
I have to say I agree. I’ve never met a Democrat who feels anything more than “like” about Hillary or anything more than “resigned” when it comes to her being the nominee.
The strongest case against her, in my mind, is that we need an end to the dynastic politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton — fucking shoot me in the head.
It should probably go without saying, but if Andrew Sullivan or anyone else wants to post a picture of Mormon temple garments, that’s his or her right. And not only is it a right, there’s not a single thing “offensive” about it.
This is America, and we value free discourse. We don’t have riots if someone prints a picture of Muhammad (yet), and we don’t have any reason to get our undies in a bunch over a discussion of the somewhat-odd-to-outsiders practices of various religions.
Mormons probably don’t believe anything wackier than any other religion (ahem, Catholics, Mr. Sullivan). And given that their history is shorter than those of other world religions, they’ve had a lot less time to commit atrocities on any sort of grand scale.
Mitt Romney’s candidacy is going to unleash a very rough-and-tumble public examination of Mormonism. People can’t be afraid to engage in this examination for fear of treading on others’ delicate sensibilities. Romney has eschewed the JFK approach, making it clear that his religious beliefs will directly dictate his public policies. There’s nothing wrong with an examination of Mormonism in any case, but he put this on the table.
Rush Limbaugh Show on Wednesday
Published by November 29th, 2006 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 CommentsI’m scheduled to be on the Rush Limbaugh Show at 1:15 p.m., tomorrow (Wednesday). I’ll be talking about the book.
A list of stations that carry the show can be found here.
I’ll also be traveling over the next few days. Wednesday night, I’ll be at the Dole Institute in Kansas. On Thursday, I’m scheduled to be on a panel in Washington, D.C., hosted by National Journal. We’ll be talking about the field for the ‘08 election. I’ll be — extremely unofficially — representing the pro-Rudy camp. My panel’s the one at 11 a.m.
UPDATE: I won’t be able to make the National Journal panel (trouble with travel out of Kansas). Hopefully, Rudy won’t go totally unrepresented.
Brendan Miniter has some praise today for Mitt Romney and his attempt to overturn gay marriage in Massachusetts. While, from a legal and political standpoint, Romney doesn’t have half a chance, Miniter believes there is value in the governor, “push[ing] the debate over marriage back into the court of public opinion … and into Republican presidential primaries, where he aspires to be the candidate with the strongest social conservative credentials.”
Why is this debate worth having?:
Although advocates of same-sex marriage will deny there is any connection to extending the institution to gay couples, a recent report released by the National Center for Health Statistics reveals why this debate is worth having now. The study found that although teen pregnancy rates are dropping, the number of out-of-wedlock births in America has been steadily rising since the 1990s. It seems women in their 20s and 30s are having children without getting married first. Last year the proportion of births that are illegitimate reached an all time high of 37%, or 1.5 million children.
Gee. I must have missed gay marriage becoming legal in the 1990s and causing women in the 20s and 30s to start popping out illegitimate children. Of course, to the extent any of these children are being had by lesbian couples — and they’d be out-of-wedlock births since lesbians can’t get married, except in Massachusetts, and even there not until recently — gay marriage could actually help reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births.
I, and other advocates of gay marriage, are thrilled to have this debate. There isn’t a shred of evidence that gays, as opposed to straight people, have had any negative impact on the institution of marriage. Meanwhile, it’s very clear that marriage will be a stabilizing force for kids who are adopted by gay couples.
So, let the debate commence. I’d love to hear what Romney could actually add to the debate — save for platitudes aimed at winning over voters on the Christian Right.
David Bernstein makes an excellent point: There’s a damn good reason Israel “harasses” old women and children at checkpoints.
One of the only good things to have come out of George W. Bush’s generally disastrous foreign policy has been the end of “even-handedness” between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. One side is a democracy trying to survive in peace; the other side is a band of murderers.
It’s not the first time it’s come up. It won’t be the last.
My feeling: It wouldn’t work if McCain is beaten in the GOP primary by the other “centrist,” Rudy Giuliani. It could work if McCain and Rudy are beaten by the Christian Right candidate, Mitt Romney.
I’ll be away from the computer through Thanksgiving. But while I’m gone from my beloved New York City, I’ll be mourning the passing of the One Times Square Cup Noodles sign. People always think I’m kidding when I say that Times Square is my favorite part of the city, but it is. Capitalism, consumerism, unfettered commerce and materialism. I cannot get enough.
I wish I’d known it was being removed. I would have taken roughly 1,000 more pictures of it.
It had actual steam rising from the noodles, people. Actual steam. Wake me when it’s New Years…
…discovers the West.
Mitt Romney: Dense or Disingenuous?
Published by November 21st, 2006 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 CommentsApparently, Mitt Romney has never heard of federalism.
In trying to get to the right of Rudy and McCain, Romney is criticizing John McCain for opposing gay marriage at the state level but also opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level.
While I disagree with McCain’s support for the Arizona gay marriage amendment (which failed on November 7), this sort of cultural federalism is exactly what the GOP needs to start embracing.
Romney, of course, is far too busy courting the National Review crowd to make any such fine distinctions. But his lack of intellectual honesty (or capacity) ought to be kept in mind as the campaign proceeds.
Rudy’s left-wing enemies in New York City want to go on the attack against him.
John Podhoretz writes this morning: Bring it on.
The Salt Lake Tribune picks up an interesting trend out West:
After the Republican landslide of 1994, Democrats spent six years in a Western political wilderness. But since 2000, Democrats regionwide have hacked into the Republican majorities.
A Tribune analysis of U.S. House results shows that Democrats have narrowed a 20-point GOP edge in 2000 to a slim 48 percent to 47 percent deficit in 2006. In three states - Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico - Democrats have turned their red states blue, winning a majority in the House races.
In 1996, the eight states in the Rocky Mountain West sent 18 Republicans and four Democrats to the House. When Congress convenes next year, there will be 11 Democrats and 15 Republicans representing the Western districts.
Democrats now control five of the eight governorships and, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, picked up seats in five of the eight legislatures in 2006.
Where have we heard this all before?
The paper also offers this handy map (download as PDF here):
It might be a little tough to read unless you download it, but, essentially, red is Republican, blue is Democratic (sorry for insulting your intelligence). You see a solid Republican advantage in most states since 1994. The red over blue dominance reached its peak in most places in 2000. But that’s been followed by a steady uptick in the Democratic vote in all eight states of the interior West over the last three elections.
Republicans can choose to believe this is just a blip (or that it hasn’t been caused by the GOP’s abandonment of small-government principle in favor of a God-and-government coalition). But the numbers don’t lie. Especially that pull-out pie chart in the bottom right-hand corner.
(HT: Darcy)
Some people have written in asking if I’m really banned at Heritage.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
UPDATE: OK, a slightly longer answer since this has taken on a life of its own.
Here’s what happened, to the best of my knowledge: I spoke to a small group called the Prosperity Caucus last Wednesday night. Heritage had had a very soft commitment to host the group this month, as the conservative think tank sometimes does. When Heritage found out I was the speaker, however, they asked the Prosperity Caucus to meet elsewhere.
Heritage is well within their rights — they’re under no obligation to host anything they don’t want to.
Their official response, which takes no issue I can see with any of the facts set out here, is here.
…about Newt Gingrich. But the man gives good interview:
“I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.”
Clear as a frosted shower door.
It appears our fearless leader has pulled the plug on that extremely ill-conceived O.J. book.
Says Rupert:
“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.”
Riiiiight … Good call.
A new Pew poll shows Rudy and McCain neck-and-neck. I’m not going to stick cotton in my ears every time there’s good news for McCain. But I’ll just note that this poll is a pretty big aberration from most other polls of Republican voters. And it was taken November 9-12 — right when McCain announced but before news of Rudy’s toes-in-the-water committee hit.
While we’re on the topic of Rudy, however, I can’t believe I missed this a while ago … RudyBlogger highlights a poll from Cook / RT Strategies that shows Giuliani’s numbers remain strong even when respondents are prompted regarding his views on social issues. I continue to think the social-issues question won’t kill Giuliani in the primaries. His personal life and characters like Kerik … well, we’ll see.
This morning brought the sad news of Milton Friedman’s passing. Perhaps there’s not much to be said, especially between lovers of liberty — all of us have long appreciated the world-changing contributions Friedman made to the technical aspects of economics as well to the popularization of free-market ideas. He will be missed.
That said, here are a few places you can go to read up:
* The New York Times, of all places, has a wonderful column about the reaction at the University of Chicago.
* The Wall Street Journal weighs in here.
* The Cato Institute has put up this page.
* Instapundit has a good link roundup, as always.
And, lastly, I think people will enjoy this. Here’s Ahnold, back in 1990, introducing “Free to Choose”:
I love how he says, “Chase your own rainbow.” Friedman, suffice it to say, was no economic girly man.
How far along is the GOP in the stages of grief? That’s the question in my latest column at RealClearPolitics:
If they’re in denial about what happened last Tuesday, Republicans will stick with both of the men at the top of the team that just led them to a crushing defeat: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip. If they’ve made it to bargaining, they might keep one and ditch the other. But if they’ve worked all the way through their grief to anger, or even to acceptance, they’ll realize what they need to do to take their first steps out of hell.
They need to cleanse themselves of the sulfuric stench of the DeLay years, the K Street lobbying culture and the failure of President Bush’s big-government conservatism. And, to do so, they need to toss out both Boehner and Blunt in favor of the two men now running as Reaganite reformers: Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) for minority leader and Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for whip.
If the GOP had held or lost the House by a narrow margin, there might be an argument for keeping the current team. They’re experienced. They know how to move legislation. They’re the Establishment.But as the president said, the GOP took a thumpin’. Experience matters less now. The party doesn’t get to move legislation. And the Republican Establishment is what the American people just tossed out on its ear.
It’s time for Republicans to let go of their majority mindset and start thinking like a minority.
The return of Trent Lott to the Senate Republican leadership tells me they’re not too far along in this process. But, actually, I’ll let my N.Y. Post colleague Robert George have the last word on that:
“There’s something painfully ironic about Trent Lott being named ‘minority whip.’“
The South has risen again.
I’m going on the road with my Destroy the GOP Road Show for the next two days (OK, just down to D.C. and back). So, I’ll be doing a limited amount of blogging.
Just wanted to weigh in quickly then on another troubling move by Bush/Rove: Mel Martinez for RNC.
That would be Mel “How Can We Make Political Hay of This Vegetative Woman” Martinez.
Bad choice. Terrible choice.
How do you say “Miers” in Spanish?
Rise up, my libertarian brethren, and help stop this. Call anyone whose number you know.
This isn’t the “Bush Party” anymore. Serious appointments can’t be made on the basis of who’s loyal to the president. Or, more likely, whose name the president has heard before.
Forget Martinez. Remember Michael Steele. And, while we’re at it, forget Boehner and Blunt and remember Mike Pence and John Shadegg.
A lot of choices are being made in a short period of time. Unfortunately, they all matter.
Hot Air has posted a clip of my appearance on “Heartland with John Kasich.” There seem to be some … mixed emotions regarding what I have to say.
Now, the assumption behind much of the discussion seems to be that I am “attacking” Evangelicals. This is a common misperception about my book, so I suppose I accept a good portion of the blame that the message has gotten garbled. But as I try to explain in my exchange with Kasich (note, it’s Kasich saying I have a problem with Evangelicals and trying to goad me into attacking them … I say no such thing), it’s not that I want to kick Evangelicals out of the party — nor is it anything even approaching that.
What I argue in the book — again, for those of you who’ve heard this too many times — is that conservatism used to be based on an idea called fusionism. Libertarians and social conservative agreed, for the most part, that small government was the goal. This wasn’t social conservatives “sitting down and shutting up.” This was a recognition on the part of social conservatives that an expanding federal government was the biggest threat to the Republic’s morals. In recent years, some, but by no means all, on the Religious Right have lost their appreciation of just how dangerous government is. So long as Republicans are in charge, they’ve assumed, they can ride the beast, so to speak.
I’m not the one causing a split between libertarians and Evangelicals (would that I had such sway). I’m not the one who campaigned on the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and then abandoned it in 2005. I’m not the one who campaigned on an expansion of the charitable-giving tax credit in 2000 and then threw it overboard to make room for a repeal of the estate tax. And I’m not the one doing all this while throwing away the GOP’s reputation for fiscal responsibility for a generation.
The GOP’s cynical and dysfunctional relationship with Christian conservatives well predates me — and it may outlive us all. As for big-government conservatism — well, that’s the real beast I set out to attack in the first place.
So, in closing, I haven’t spent four years — or one second — of my life “trying to purge the GOP of all Christians and everyone else who doesn’t agree with [my] pretty narrow libertarianism.” I’m a big-tent guy. I just happen to think the GOP should represent more than the South (I direct everyone to the continuing erosion of the GOP in the West this election cycle if you still doubt we have a problem out there).
I’m sorry some people see any criticism of where the GOP is going as an attempt to sabotage or divide the party. But the GOP just suffered a pretty big setback, and more may be on the way if we don’t change direction. Maybe it’s worth — I don’t know — thinking about why we are where we are.
Rudy Giuliani is forming an exploratory committee.
Immediately sending libertarians into fits.
And giving pause to some chronic Rudy doubters.
Great news for anyone who cares about the future of the GOP.
I finally figured out how to post pictures on this new blog set up. (Word Press is fantastic, but not necessarily intuitive — at least to me.)
So, anyway, to celebrate the return of pictures, I’ve added a picture of Stan Jones (Libertarian Blue Man) below.
And, here, for no particular reason, is a picture of Tina Fey that I tried to post a long time ago to accompany a post about “30 Rock”:
It’s a really good show. Funny, as opposed to, say, “Studio 60.”
Outside of changing course in Iraq, I think it’s fairly obvious that there really isn’t one — especially when it comes to domestic policy.
And here’s a pretty good reason to be skeptical about any claims made on the basis of the Democrats’ popular-vote margin in the Senate: Almost all of it came from safe seats in California, New York and Massachusetts.
UPDATE: Over at Reason, David Weigel makes the head-slappingly obvious point that if you do the same math to discount the Republican margins in safe Republican seats, you get totally different results. I haven’t done the math myself, but David comes up with 4.5 million more Democratic votes in competitive races — a lot more votes than Bush won by in 2004.
I hold to my original contention, however, that there’s precious little here in the way of a Democratic mandate. The Democrats won by not having a program, not by presenting a more attractive program. That matters as to how they might best govern over the next two years.
The ‘Blue Man’ Who Changed the World
Published by November 12th, 2006 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments
‘The Heartland with John Kasich’
Published by November 11th, 2006 in Misc. Self Promotion. 0 CommentsI forgot to post this earlier, but I’m scheduled to be on “The Heartland with John Kasich” at 8 p.m. tonight.
I’ve got a real fan down in Alabama:
Yes, Ryan Sager, I mean you. When I need lectures about the “true meaning” of conservatism and the history (or the future) of the Republican Party, I’ll damn sure not be listening to a 27-year-old smart-ass who thinks he’s God’s gift to punditry.
Young Mr. Sager has made himself into a latter-day Larry Sabato, a quote-whore consulted whenever someone wishes to oversimply politics: San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, The Myrtle Beach Sun News (!?) …
Damn, son, I wish when I was 27 I could have found a job where all I had to do was answer calls from reporters desperate for my keen insight into What It All Means. You have made an auspicious start toward being one of the all-time great windbags of American political punditry, a worthy peer of Kevin Phillips and Andrew Sullivan in the pantheon of overrated blowhards.
TO ALL REPUBLICANS: It is imperative that you shun the counsels of Ryan Sager. His sudden emergence as an opinion-monger this year should have been seen for what it was — and what I immediately recognized it to be — an ill omen, a portent of the impending doom that befell the GOP on 11/7.
There is no “Battle to Control the Republican Party” in the sense that Sager claims, for the simple reason that what he is describing is just the incessant bitching of one side of that alleged “battle,” namely certain urban sophisticates who don’t like being considered gauche because they vote Republican.
Sager is pimping for the Giuliani/McCain wing of the party — those who, 10 years ago, were what you might call the “Arianna Huffington Republicans” — which simply doesn’t have the votes to nominate, much less elect, a Republican president.
The McCainiacs have been pouting ever since McCain lost the South Carolina primary in 2000. Giuliani’s supporters are New Yorkers nostalgic for the mid-1990s, when Rudy was cracking down on urban blight and the Long Island Republican machine, in combination with old Jack Kemp Upstate Republicans, could elect a D’Amato and a Pataki.
These are the same people — some at National Review, others at The Weekly Standard — have been trying to handicap the 2008 GOP presidential field since the day after Election Day 2004. It is imperative to the Northern urban-sophisticate type of Republican that the guy (or gal) who gets the GOP nomination in 2008 be their kind of candidate, i.e., someone who can make the Republican “name brand” a more marketable commodity in places like Long Island, so the sophisticates can feel good about themselves again.
I don’t blame them. But they have completely misconstrued the nature of the problem, just as they’ve misconstrued the GOP’s problems in post-Reagan California. The problem really isn’t about policy or ideology, it’s about culture. The refusal of the urban-sophisticate Republicans to take seriously the culture war is at the root of these problems, and has been ever Pat Buchanan and Dan Quayle tried to warn them back in the early 1990s.
In the short term, those who wish to see the Republican Party recover from the 11/7 disaster must cease attempting to project their inner worries onto the GOP by casting the 2006 election in ideological terms. We can fight these battles after the GOP gets its mojo working again. Right now, we’ve got a busted mojo, and intra-party bickering ain’t gonna fix it.
Sager’s arguments — except so far as they reflect the general Republican consensus on such matters as corruption and out-of-control spending — are divisive and harmful to the GOP. There is nothing to be gained for the Republican Party by listening to Sager’s attacks on evangelical Christians, social conservatives and Southerners. Get new leaders, recruit new candidates, and watch like hawks for opportunities to capitalize on the predictable blunders of liberal Democrats.
Fix that mojo. Everything else is just noise.
There’s not much I can do about being 27 (I’ll be 28 next year, Bubba). As for the rest of the argument, I’ll just note that my book is not an attack on Evangelicals or the Religious Right. It’s a call to return to an earlier understanding of the libertarian-traditionalist alliance, one focused on small-government instead of the mixing of government with religion. I do think the GOP has too much of a southern flavor, to its detriment in the rest of the country. And I think that’s clear to anyone who can read the results of the last election (massive losses in the Northeast, big losses in the Midwest, and the West turning into a real swing region).
You can’t win the presidency or the Congress back with just the South. Dixie’s loss of political clout may be difficult for some to take, but it’s the direction things are headed. And it is, I submit, a good thing for the GOP and for America.
Here are two analyses particularly worth looking at after the Republican wipeout:
1) Over at TAPPED, Tom Schaller (author of Whistling Past Dixie, which reaches similar conclusions to that of my book when it comes to the South and the West) looks at the Democrats’ gains by region. The South is by far the most solidly Republican region and saw almost no change in partisan makeup. The Northeast had a huge realignment toward the Dems and the Midwest a smaller one. The “West” had a slightly smaller one — but that presumably includes California, Oregon and Washington as well. I’d be interested to see a breakdown of just the interior West (when I have a few minutes, maybe I’ll do the math). Either way, the West is on its way toward becoming a swing region — or, really, I think it’s already become one.
2) Over at the Washington Monthly blog, Kevin Drum looks at which voters actually seem to have switched this election. I think he underplays the Evangelical factor, but here’s his list (based on exit polls): Latinos, no high school, people rating the economy “good,” Jews, no religion, income $200K-plus, independents. I’m utterly unsurprised to find that the GOP’s gains among Hispanics are mythical (I go into this in chapter 7 of my book) — especially after the year of Tom Tancredo. It’s also interesting to see Jews moving back toward the Democrats at a higher-than-average rate, given that the Democrats are pretty much the official anti-Israel party these days. But I wonder if between the numbers for Jews and “no religion” we have some solid proof of a backlash against the GOP’s anti-secularism and pandering to the Religious Right. I think, in fact, that it’s pretty clear that we do.
God damn it. One of my favorite bands, Rainer Maria, has called it quits.
That actually makes two of my favorite bands in one year.
At this rate, I rather expect to see local favorite Palomar call it quits before Christmas.
Here, in memoriam, is a video from R|M’s latest album, Catastrophe Keeps Us Together:
R|M will have two final shows:
12/15 - Philadelphia, PA - First Unitarian Church
12/16 - New York, NY - Bowery Ballroom
Don’t buy my damn tickets.
Out with the Old, In with Mike Pence
Published by November 10th, 2006 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 CommentsOver at The American Spectator, Philip Klein makes the excellent point that one strike against John Boehner for minority leader is his role in passing the No Child Left Behind Act:
No two laws better represent the modern brand of big government Republicanism than the Medicare prescription drug law and the No Child Left Behind Act. Any congressman who voted for either legislation should not be taken seriously as a proponent of limited government, and yet Boehner voted for both of them.
Not only did Boehner vote for the largest federal expansion into education since the Carter administration, but he sponsored the legislation. Shortly after President Bush signed the bill with Boehner standing over one shoulder and Sen. Ted Kennedy standing over the other (see photo), Boehner said its passage was “one of the proudest accomplishments of my tenure in Congress.”
No Child Left Behind is up for reauthorization next year and in his post-election press conference President Bush cited it as an issue he wanted to work together with Democrats on. If they are going to be negotiating education policy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Republicans can ill afford to be led by Boehner, a man who is personally invested in the legislation and who proved willing to compromise conservative principles in order to get a “bipartisan” bill passed.
The original No Child Left Behind bill included provisions for school vouchers, but Boehner was willing to abandon those provisions in desperate pursuit of Democratic votes. Boehner also ditched a push by House conservatives to allow some states to decide how to spend federal education dollars.
Boehner is better than some of the others in the DeLay-Hastert crew. But he’s still part of the problem. It’s time for fresh blood.
Along those lines, Rep. Mike Pence has released a vision statement for the new GOP minority. From the first page:
Let me be very clear. I do not believe we need to figure out what our vision should be. I do not think we need to go back to the drawing board and mix and mash into place a set of principles to guide us. We already know what those first principles are – the same ones articulated by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and the authors of the Contract with America. We just need to remember them and why we came here.
We came here to promote freedom and opportunity. We came here to allow American families to keep more of their hard-earned money and spend it on their own priorities rather than Washington’s, a reality that only can be accomplished through less government, lower taxes, less federal spending, and economic prosperity. We came here to rekindle the fires of men, material, and morale that warm the warriors who stand on freedom’s ramparts in far-off lands. And we came here to assert again the constitutional rule of law, an unalienable right to life, and the traditional values shared by millions of Americans.
That is our vision. It does not need to be constructed out of papier-mache or run through a focus group. Instead, it must be remembered, embraced in our hearts, and endlessly articulated, even in the midst of adverse political winds.
The whole thing is here (in PDF form).
Recent Comments