MOVING FORWARD PART II
Yesterday, I laid out the first 3 points in moving forward: (1) that we’re ok with a big tent as long as the RINO’s are with us on the big things; (2) that we have a coherent appealing agenda and (3) that we need to pick some ideological fights.
My 4th point is related to the third point:
We must get back to our idealist roots. That means talking proudly of the effects of the tax cuts. That means talking about the necessity of missile defense. That means talking about the attacks that the Patriot Act and the SWIFT and NSA intercept programs thwarted. That means talking about closing down the Mexican border before any immigration reform legislation moves an inch. That means talking about confirming judges that aren’t squishy moderates or make up the Constitution on the fly.
I’d frame missile defense in the context of North Korea developing ICBM’s. I’d frame the Patriot Act, the SWIFT and NSA programs as tools that we’ve used to prevent real terrorist attacks, specifically citing the terrorist plots they’ve prevented. Let Democrats defend their actions. Put them in position where they either abandon their positions or they’re forced to say ‘Yes, we want to prevent terrorist attacks but we’re more worried about American’s civil liberties.’ Filibuster the immigration reform legislation. Let them defend the position of granting illegal immigrants citizenship so illegal immigrants ruin municipal and state budgets.
5. We must be a team again. That means relegating John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Hagel to the back bench. If you aren’t with us on the important stuff, you’re out of there. Yes, there’ll be headlines about how they’ve been shunned by ‘far right ideologues’ but we don’t have time to worry what the Agenda Media says.
Another thing that we’ve got to do is take our message on the road, explaining what our agenda is, why we believe in it and how we’ll implement that agenda if given another majority opportunity.
6. We must reject timid, status quo policies. That doesn’t mean that everything on the agenda must be big sweeping reforms. It does require that conservatives confront liberals when they advocate the wrong policies.
Missile defense is something that I’d challenge Democrats on. It’s guaranteed that they’ll say that (a) it’s too expensive and (b) it doesn’t work. Our first response should include this question: What amount is too much for defending ourselves from North Korea’s, and eventually Iran’s, nuclear weapons? Another question I’d ask is this: We put a man on the moon. We’re creating life-lengthening perscription drugs and medical treatments daily. We’re building high tech things all the time. Why should we believe that we aren’t capable of building an effective missile defense system in the next 5 years if we commit to a robust research and development program?
