You’re Damn Right I’ll Take The GOP Pledge
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.
I STILL don’t trust the GOP. These are the guys who are talking about possibly making Obamacare “smaller” rather than aggressively pushing for its repeal. They give themselves a smaller or repeal out. I don’t like the positioning of that. Had they said repeal or smaller, maybe okay. But as phrased, repeal is not their primary objective. Me, I’ll follow Reagan: trust, but verify.
The Pledge sucks, period. What a sham.
We ought to demand that all sitting repub reps/senators take the pledge, at the cost of all committee responsibilities if they don’t. Goodbye lisa monstrosity.
yes what a sham
I’m reposting (and rewriting) a comment from an earlier thread if for no other reason than to correct all of the typos in the original.
Now that I’ve read the Pledge, it’s not merely a bullet-point plan. It’s much more. It is a powerful indictment of our current government that has seized power it is not entitled to in the constitution. The gist of the pledge is a bold statement to restore constitutional government to the original intent of the founders.
It reads like many of the early American founding documents, like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. It’s not quite Thomas Paine but I can’t recall seeing anything like this written in my lifetime other than Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny”. The preamble introduces the bullet points in an “among these are the following but not limited to…” manner and like the ancient documents, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the spirit and intent.
The bullet points are extensive but not comprehensive. But because of the clear intent embodied in the preamble and throughout, it is clear what is intended even if the shopping list is not complete. For instance, we all know what “limited” and “constitutional” government means so if important items are missing from the bullet points, and I don’t really see any, they are implied and can be brought into play later. This will be a very difficult document to weasel out of later which is the most important thing of all.
I would be interested in finding out who wrote this. It doesn’t have the elegance or poetic touch of Jefferson or Paine but it is very good.
“Now that I’ve read the Pledge, it’s not merely a bullet-point plan. It’s much more.”
Unless the Democrats in the Senate filibuster it, of course.
The Republicans aren’t off to a very good start by filibustering the defense authorization bill at the same time they pledged to fund our troops.
Hmmmm.
1. A “pledge” means nothing unless it is fulfilled.
2. What does this “pledge” say about earmarks?
3. We’ll see.
“Unless the Democrats in the Senate filibuster it, of course.”
The obvious solution is the get rid of the filibuster once the GOP retakes Congress and then enforce strict rules on germane amendments, making all legislation public well before it is voted on, and enforcing strict pay-go procedures.
The House and Senate themselves need reform as institutions. Clear the path now, and with a Republican Congress and President, pass the kind of legislation conservatives have been waiting on for decades, starting with the end of earmarks and spending cuts that can be classified with the words “in trillions”.
Defecit reduction is not enough. I want deficit elimination…and national debt reduction.
“Defecit reduction is not enough. I want deficit elimination…and national debt reduction.”
Are there really Americans gullible enough to believe the Republicans are going to somehow balance the budget if they win control of the House?
They should have just provided a piece of paper which simply says Repeal legislation from 2009-2010 over 100 pages. Investigate Obama Administration. Cut all funds for Czars.
“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.”
sums it all up in 27 words.
the delaware republican primary will yield far more consequence in shaping the very nature and character of the path the gop, given the house majority, will follow.
O’donnell?
if she doesn’t win the primary, there would be far more republicans in office post nov, who would believe they can choose their own course and forget their broader obligations. don’t let the establishment gop pull that ‘unelectable’ crap to recriminate those who are committed to conservatism. Mike Castle was ‘unelectable’ to the conservatives of delaware, and they need to remember this, always.
don’t let o’donnell’s probable loss in delaware diminish her achievements. she has been ESSENTIAL and CONSEQUENTIAL.
she is still a very big longshot, but in time, the primary victory will prove far more valauble than the eventual statewide results.
her lesson:
if you govern as lukewarm republicans, we will spit you out in the primary.
“if you govern as lukewarm republicans, we will spit you out in the primary.”
Pay no attention to all the Tea Party candidates that were crushed by normal Republicans in the primaries.
I have nothing against the pledge. I had nothing against the contract. But what the hell have the GOP leadership and incumbents done to make us trust them to live up to this one? McCain? Cornyn? McConnel? Sessions? Snow? Graham? Seriously?
“Are there really Americans gullible enough to believe the Republicans are going to somehow balance the budget if they win control of the House?”
not a chance. with a 3.6 trillion dollar budget, it is impossible, and obama will never admit defeat in the matter.
were obama to swallow his pride, here are the numbers-
2008 outlays, 2.9 trillion, receipts 2.7 trillion, deficit 200 billion
2009 outlays, 3.1 trillion, receipts 2.7 trillion, deficit 400 billion
2010 outlays, 3.6 trillion, reciepts 2.4 trillion, deficit 1.2 trillion
lets pretend that the budget were fixed at 3 trillion, and allow for 1% growth of govt. At a 08-09 revenue level of 2.7 trillion, growing at 3% per year, the budget is balanced in 5.26 years.
look at 2010…our deficit is over a trillion because obama increased the size of govt by 16%, 500 billion, in ONE year.
if we left the budget at 3.6 trillion, and managed 4% growth off the 2.7 trillion figure, it would take 7.2 years. If we allowed for 1% growth from that 3.6 trillion budget, it would take 9.6 years.
bottom line?
this budget can be balanced, and more significantly, we can get below the trillion dollar number which is the gravemarker on this country, with a vote and a stroke of a pen. It is just a matter of how quickly one wants to do it.
the only SINGLE requirement to getting on a path to a balanced budget is a commitment.
something obama would know nothing about. He was the guy who said in the third debate that he would produce a “net spending cut”. at the time the budget was 2.9 trillion.
he told a 700 billion dollar lie.
let me give you the previous obama blueprint for 2011…cause his blueprint for govt is OVER.
3.8 trillion dollar budget, reciepts 2.53 trillion, 1.27 trillion dollar deficit.
in winning the house, the gop will save 200 billion, just for not being democrats.
the ultimate irony, barfo?
in stretching the budget so far, so fast, the gop can actually give out tax cuts that will be offset by spending reductions. They can knock 200 billion off the obama budget, and turn around and give 200 billion in tax breaks.
it isn’t subject to filibuster as it is consitent with budget reconciliation.
obama created the fertile soil for supply side tax cuts, along with blowing what had been previously reported as pending democrat rule for the next couple of aeons.
obama is the greatest president of our time. he is the only guy who could have killed the democrat party and liberalism. truly he is up there with reagan. he borught the gop back from the dead in less than two years.
i might have to crossover and vote in the 2012 dem primary, just to make sure he is on the ballot.
“something Obama would know nothing about”
He’ll have all our troops out of Iraq next year and begin our withdrawal from Afghanistan, too.
That ought to save quite a bit of money.
What you have here is a set of hard promises that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take health-care insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out of an economy that’s already got too little of it.
This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular — even when the two conflict. That, I fear, is a bad idea.
“It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular ”
Indeed.
The Republicans pledge to cut the debt then pledge to vote for tax cuts that will increase the debt by $4 trillion.
I used to think libertarians were the most juvenile political group around but the Tea Party is giving them a run for their money.
“He’ll have all our troops out of Iraq next year and begin our withdrawal from Afghanistan, too.”
obama has seen more casualties in afghanistan, in less than two years in office, than transpired under the 7 years of the afghan war under bush. he has acheived nothing, only increasing the humiliation and emboldening of our enemies for being drawn into the ‘good’(but unwinnable) war.
if you find success in his actions, you appear to be adjusting to life in the minority quite well.
I must admit, you ability to assess conflicts is consistent with how you ganrer joy over the probable vicotry in delaware, while facing a loss of 60-70 house seats and 7-9 senate seats. Along the lines of casualties…it took obama half the time to lose a triumverate in dc, as it did bush. spectacular achievements all around.
kennedy’s seat, byrd’s eat, boxer, reid, feingold…
these were permanent fixtures. gone.
I have a modest confession about the feingold loss…I respected the guy, and I thought that the people of wisconsin would as well. He was almost always against war(except bosnia) and he along with kennedy were the two anti-war heavyweights. Someone should always make the argument against, even if it is a minority view, out of philosophical considerations. Losing those two…
this is the rather bizarre thing about the dems’ slaughter of 2010. They had overweighted the role of Iraq in determining the cause of their large victories of 06, but now face an extinction level event bourne completely on policy.
there is no scandal, nor any other issue, but the consumption of liberal koolaid poured down house and senate seats, who in turn tried pouring it down the throats of the american public.
there is no deep analysis of why this happened. the public rejected the liberla plans and ideas, and the democrat party went ahead and did it anyway, ignoring a ridiculng the public who opposed it. a tad different from iraq, as, at the time, the public supported it.
show up on election night…we can exchange o’donnell jokes. forgive me if I give her a chance, and, you’ll have that as fig leaf to hold up, to hide your shame.
“This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance.”
bwahahaha….
barfo-
let reemphasize a key point:
you are about to lose on 100% policy.
when the gop lost in 06, they could spin up a mixture,
ex. 15% scandals, 20% iraq war, 30% policy, 35% spending…
this is the problem the dems face. if they lose on 100% policy, it carries PERMANENT weight upon them and their policies. how can you govern if your policies, and polices alone, are the cause of voter rejection on this scale?
repealing healthcare is simply an eventuality.
the libs, using the moderate dems, have done the equivalent of waterboarding upon this country. we all know the torturers and we’ll always remember the moment.
how does obama govern, after his party and their core beliefs have become completely toxic to a majority of americans?
his lame duck status is all but confirmed on nov 3.
i imagine the libs would like to find the congress at fault for any economic shortcomings, but the recent financial collapse of 08 occurred under a democrat majority in both houses. the dems told the public, ignore congress, blame the president.
in less than 4 years, they’ll be saying ignore the president, blame congress?
obama=reagan. ends justifies the means.
Exactly! The GOP went back on their taxpayer-forced-anti-earmarks position! Once they saw that things were going their way, Cantor et al stepped back and won’t pledge on it.
The pledge is the only way to start to get out of the mess the dems put us into. The alternative is what? no pledge–continue with the progressive agenda?
From Erikson—
There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.
The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.
So now, the Republican Party vets have tightened the reins with what amounts to a “purity test” designed to tame the rebellious Tea Partiers. “The Tea Party wanted a Declaration of War,” says Varadarajan. “What it has got is a pledge. The natural order has reasserted itself.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-23/pledge-to-america-the-republican-partys-purity-test/?om_rid=MR$hOk&om_mid=_BMm0imB8U2aKac
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/09/critique-of-gops-new-pledge-to-america.html
The GOP Pledge to America
We pledge that every action we take will be gauged by the answer to a single question: Does it show fidelity to the Constitution, our highest law?
With that as our guide, we solemnly pledge the following as our first actions:
• We will repeal the Democrat health care bill and, if vetoed by the President, will de-fund every aspect of that bill until such time as the American people have input into a sensible health care reform process.
• We will slash the size of the federal government bureaucracies (Commerce, Education, Energy, the EPA, Labor, etc.) by 20% in 2011 with a goal of reducing each by 50% over the next three years, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
• We will secure the border with physical fencing suitable to repel drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorists, while encouraging legal immigration and enforcement of the law.
• We will confront the entitlement crisis — Social Security and Medicare — by preserving benefits for those who depend upon them and moving to privatized options for younger workers. Anything less condemns future generations to mountains of debt and economic catastrophe.
• We will strengthen our armed forces, space and missile defense programs to retain our unparalleled superpower status.
• We will begin the process of paying down our debts, spending within our means every year.
• We will ban public sector unions, which exist solely to wage war against the taxpayers who fund their operations.
Put simply: we intend to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Faith, Family, and the Founding. That is our creed.
That’s pretty stinking good, right there…
“this is the rather bizarre thing about the dems’ slaughter of 2010.”
I remember similar Republican overconfidence in 2008.
I guess if you never learn from the past, every single day is a surprise.
“You’re Damn Right I’ll Take The GOP Pledge”
I completely DISAGREE!!!
I support Paul Ryan’s proposals, NOT the Tea Party dismissing House Republican leaders, go along to get along “Pledge” proposals. The have excluded Paul Ryan from any input in the so called “Pledge.” Also, Paul Ryan will not be present at the unveiling on Thursday.
Again, any “Pledge” that does not include Paul Ryan or Mike Pence is worth the dog crap under my shoe. In order to stay successful, the Tea Party must remain leaderless. The only leader that I have, is the Constitution.
***In order to stay successful, the Tea Party must remain leaderless. The only leader that I have is the Constitution.***
I agree with that part.
The Pledge is just…odd. It has a lot of nice verbiage, but somehow fails.
Which begs the question; What is it supposed to be? I think the answer is that it fails to be any specific thing. It is all over the map in terms of what it seems to try to do.
Focus is good.
I’m reminded of the saying about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.
“Some kind of idea is at the beginning of every political movement. It is not necessary to put this idea in a thick book, nor that it take political form in a hundred long paragraphs. History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under a short, clear theme. That is clear from the French Revolution, or Cromwell’s movement, or Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. Christ’s goal was clear and simple: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He gathered his followers behind that straightforward statement. Because this teaching was simple, crisp, clear, and understandable, enabling the broad masses to stand behind it, it in the end conquered the world.”
- A very bad man who was very good at propaganda
“I guess if you never learn from the past, every single day is a surprise.”
enjoy your reeducation.
classes begin nov 3.
take notes.
Precatory
That’s a term I never came across until law school (not that long ago, BTW).
It means “hopeful” or “aspirational” language. Which I think pretty well defines The Pledge.
OK. Good. Nice. But hardly sufficient in the moment.