GOP Pledge: My Strong Disagreement With Redstate

People have no idea how hard I'm struggling against the impulse to have some real fun and just wail away on this disappointing rant from Erick Erickson, so unfortunately at the top of Memeorandum just now, where the Left wants it. But these are important times, so I'll try to be a bit more responsible than, in my opinion, Redstate was.

Let's take it point by point, while making any others, as opportunity permits. As for this, some of us may have wanted to borrow Redstate when it failed to take on John McCain and when it bailed on Christine O'Donnell at crunch time. But it didn't happen, because it isn't a perfect world. And the imperfect does itself little good by simply banging on the table, or stomping its feet, demanding perfection from others, when it often falls so glaringly short itself.

I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time.

This bit of cherry picking on health care ignores the more comprehensive elements of a pledge prudently designed to remove a landmine for Republicans and conservatives, while advancing the ball in a free market, smaller government direction over the longer-term.

The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.

America doesn't want a health care system in which insurance companies can simply abandon  policy holders when they need their insurance the most. And if the GOP proposed that, it would simply be handing the Left the type of cudgel it used to assume power in the first place. The very thing that Redstate cites as unacceptable is what tells me this is more along the lines of a prudent, well thought out proposal to get America going in the right direction, as opposed to simply fodder for the gullible. In short, the pledge contains answers, not just talking points. 

We need a center-Right GOP that can take a majority and keep it - not one content to play ping pong with Democrats, knocking the American people back and forth between two extremes they do not want.

The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting. There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.

Some would argue ending the stimulus is, indeed, substantive. And an America with its economy reeling isn't about to accept any plan threatening to jar it from its course, putting it in reverse on some uncharted path to wherever - one it would be impossible to explain to the electorate, let alone sell right now. Do we want a pledge that feels good, or one that actually works for the greater good? Also, we all know what the GOP did. And it did it under a mostly popular GOP president at the time.

To be clear, I don't trust today's GOP any more than anyone else out here does. But are we going to turn the page and work together in the right direction, or invest all our energies re-living past disappointments, while the country goes to hell under the current far-Left leadership?

I wonder if some aren't simply looking for a ten-point plan they can vote for in November, check off the boxes on next June and go fishing, or some such. If the American Right is going to take the country back, it must do it over the long haul. That presumes we are going to remain a responsible presence and voice out here after November, January, June, or whatever. Being responsible now sets the tone and direction for that. Simply complaining about what we may not like, or didn't like in the past, does not.

And thank God for this:

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.

America is going to hell in a hand-basket post-haste. This is no time to go chasing Constitutional Amendments that would take a decade, or more, to pass. Had the pledge contained such gimmicks, I'd have judged it un-serious pap, designed only to appeal to the base for November, while offering no prudent, practical way forward. Frankly, I'm thrilled that the House didn't pursue that course. Had they done so, I'd be dismissing it as nonsense, as opposed to strongly endorsing it as a serious effort by serious people to at least begin accomplishing good things in perilous times.

And don't even get me started on earmarks, as I've seen some others mention. Good grief, when are we going to stop chasing red-herrings that amount to a neglible portion of the budget so John McCain can continue to portray himself as a fiscal conservative? The argument tends to be about tone setting. Tone setting? I thought the Right valued substance over style, not tone setting. Let's leave the silly contrivances to the Left, shall we?

Melissa Clouthier took the time to go through it and offer a serious point-by-point look, coming out the other end mostly pleased. So am I, frankly, I'm actually impressed. It's far more substantive than I feared it would be. And we need substance, not more slogans right now. Hope and change, anyone? Now, that's dreck! The GOP's pledge is not.

I don’t see the need for division. Maybe some addition, but no division..at least not yet. Like Michelle Bachman, I’m inspired, hopeful even, about the Pledge. I wish our Representatives well.

Finally, if I might offer some unsolicited advice to conservative bloggers in general. We are a democratic medium. But, over time, there will emerge opportunities for would be citizen leaders to step up and be heard. If we are to be effective, we should think about whether we want to be prudent new voices at the table, or forever resigned to the children's table, where we can clown and kick the legs, while being mostly ignored. Good leaders don't just lead in one way. They sometimes face off against an enemy to the front, true. But they shouldn't neglect the responsibilty of turning around to any that might be following them from time to time to tell them hard, prudent but honest truths when times demand it for the greater good.

We're in challenging times right now. I'd argue for doing the right thing by supporting the pledge, not simply doing what might make us feel good for a short time, while accomplishing nothing for America, Conservatism, or grassroots blogging in the end.

Comments

[barfo]

"We need a center-Right GOP that can take a majority and keep it..."

An odd statement for an O'Donnell supporter to make.

I thought it was all about ideological purity.

[Pasadena Phil]

Another good sign. I just watched Jeb Hensarling interviewed about the pledge on CNBC. First of all, it says something that Jeb Hensarling (the highest ranking House Republican who didn’t eat the crap sandwich) is carrying the ball today. He also wrapped himself in the Tea Party. The interviewing reporter asked him point blank if he isn’t just allowing the Tea Party to “destroy” the Republican Party and with no equivocation, Jeb said “No!” taking the further position that the Tea Party is the voice of America.

Had the GOP paraded out Boehner or Cantor (crap sandwich gobblers), there would have been no traction for arguing "we heard you"). This could be a signal that House leadership is in for a much needed change and Hensarling is more than acceptable to me. Pence wouldn't be bad either.

So far, so good.

(And I couldn't read through Erick Erickson's irrational diatribe. I don't think he gets it.)

[Joan of Argghh!]

I thought the GOP made a pledge when they raised their hand for the oath of office. If they would do just that much, we'd all be better.

[Huey]

The biggest problem with The Pledge is that it is simply too big.

If it is intended for undecided voters to read and decide to "give the other guys a chance to govern," then it needs to be short, simple, direct, and bold and needs to set forth a specific LEGISLATIVE agenda of what the Republicans intend to DO with the power granted to them.

This pledge doesn't do that. Not even close.

[William Teach]

Some excellent points, Dan, particularly about a center-right GOP. That is where the document is aimed at, with the stuff thrown in for conservatives.

As far as the health care goes, the GOP establishment can certainly read polls, and understands that many of the specific points in ObamaCare, such as no denial of health insurance for previous health problems, is VERY popular with the American People. Yes, it might be getting too involved in private industry, but, if the GOP repeals and replaces with their ideas, insurance companies will be able to bring these types of people in to the pools without losing money.

They really need to add nationwide pooling into the document, but, it is what it is, and when they actually get the legislation going (particularly in 2013, when they have all of Congress and the WH), things like that will certainly be in the mix.

[Neo]

Some people won't be satisfied till wagyu is banned from the White House.

[SM]

"We need a center-Right GOP that can take a majority and keep it..."

An odd statement for an O'Donnell supporter to make.

---------------------------

Castle was neither center nor right.

[mark l.]

i think the simple answer, if one just wants to reduce the healthcare bill is keep some of the more benign elements and just work on catastrophic coverage for 18-64.

It undercuts the kids(?) who are under 26 getting to be kept on their parents policies argument.

[mark l.]

"I thought it was all about ideological purity."
a rather bizarre statement from barfo.

the democrat party is about to get anhilated over their own ideological purity.

o'donnell was the 'popular choice' in the gop primary.
the democrat policies were performed against popular will of the people.

o'donnell's selection is mighty small potatoes compared to the betrayal of the american public by the democrat majority.

I can live with the consequences of o'donnell, and it would seem you can live with the consequences of your party. guess who should be happier.

[richard mcenroe]

It ain't the pledge, kingfish, it's the pledgers.

We're going to give the GOP the weapons they need this November. After that, if they won't get up and fight, they can just get out.

[seekeronos]

RedState.com is little more than an echo chamber of deluded RINO worshippers. And their golden boy Juan McCain realllly needs to retire already, that charming old glory hog that he is.

[Bob C]

The most pertinent point you made, Dan: it's all going to take time. Ranting about eliminating departments and across the board spending cuts may be good for the soul, or to burnish one's blogging street cred, but it is useless and futile, a feel-good exercise only. The welfare state we see today was carefully crafted by liberal statists over 70 years...and it's gonna take a long time to dismantle it. It is oh so chi-chi today to rag on Republicans, particularly the leadership; makes for good, righteous conversation at the next tea party rally.

Not that I disagree with any of these rants; I'm all for getting rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Homeland Security, et. al. But the reality of politics and elections that Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the leadership must face is first to get elected. DeLay and company blew it the first time. I know for a fact that the missed opportunity that was '94 has not been forgotten.

[Lou]

Like Bob C I want all kinds of departments shut down however eliminating them in this economic climate would be bad. The last thing we need is tens maybe hundreds of thousands of former Fed employees on unemployment.

Get the economy roaring again then we can start shutting down useless progressive departments that have weakened us. So all those fed employees can find work in the private sector.

Look, I have a deep respect for Bachmann and if she signed on to this then I'll trust her. We'll see. Americans just want to get out of this trainwreck then once we do they'll listen to shutting down departments and agree.

[mark l.]

"Get the economy roaring again..."

the longer bambi holds it down, the harder it come will come back with a vengance. once his boot has been removed from the throat of business, gdp will explode.

[barfo]

I think the "pledge" is already old news.

[Jana]

Bravo, Dan!

[rsfjp]

I'd like to add that the new Congress will have to be somewhat pragmatic, in order to get anything done with Obama still in the White House for two years. Very little on the conservative wish list will survive his veto pen. Congress will have its hands full just trying to reverse some of the damage at this point, never mind trying to pass Constitutional Amendments.

[BobInFL]

Wow, seekeronos. You really have no effing idea what you are talking about, do you? Redstate was wracked during the entire primary with the same fight going on everywhere else: Fred!heads vs. Romneyites vs. Hucksters vs. Giulianis vs. a very very very very small cohort of McCainiacs. It got ugly. REAL ugly.

But..."conservative in the primary, Republican in the general" is the site's unofficial motto. So, most of them -- like most of us everywhere else -- sucked it up and supported McCain (or, as I did, pretended I was voting for the Palin/McCain ticket instead) with a Sam's-Club-sized clothespin firmly attached to the nose.

RedState.com full of "RINO worshippers"? With an abundance of love for "Juan McCain". That's about as silly as the bilge spewing from Gibb's mouth each day. And the accusation is a bit off-point in this discussion anyway: Dan is criticizing EE for being TOO hard-line conservative-or-bust, and praising the GOP Party leadership/establishment for proposing modest but achievable goals that even RINOs can support...

[Lisa Graas]

As Homey the Clown might say...."so let I get this straight!" Erickson rants against the entire Republican Party, hits the top of memeorandum with it and he's not getting the Little Green Footballs treatment?

Thanks, Dan. I can always count on you to say something.

Sigh. I'm going to go see what the Islamofascists are up to. At least we can all agree on that. Oh, wait...never mind.

[Steve]

We have two videos of the GOPs "Pledge to America" posted on Common Cents now.

First is the official rolling out ceremony in Northern Virginia.

2nd is the Preamble posted by John Boehner...

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

[Ragspierre]

So, Dan...

Conforming to the Constitution is a silly, Pyrrhic exercise? Amendments are gimmicks? Huh...

And earmarks are another issue that is just dreck? No big deal...

Don't get me wrong. Da Pledge is peachy, as precatory pap goes. There really is nothing WRONG with it.

There just isn't much RIGHT with it, in the fullest sense. It damn sure isn't a new Declaration, as some breathless commenters have exulted.

IF GOP candidates subscribe to it, SWELL. If they ACT on it, ALL TO THE GOOD, as a SHORT TERM PALLIATIVE TO OUR PRESENT CRISIS. But it isn't going to fix the machine. Not remotely.

[Demosthenes9]

"We need a center-Right GOP that can take a majority and keep it -'

Dan, I'm beginning to think that you might be schizophrenic as this is a very pragmatic statement to make.

"Center right" ?? While I agree with that position of course, it's quite different from where you have been for the past few weeks vis a vis the Castle v. O'Donnell primary and the Buckley vs. Limbaugh rule.

I'm glad to see that you have come to your senses :)

[blindside]

I simply don't see this as a return to Constitutional Government, it's just changing the direction to something that the Republicans like and can use to keep a permanent majority. As long as we continue to let pols get away with abuses, we are at the mercy of whomever is in power, and that should be, to anyone with an ounce of sense, frightening. I might trust the GOP leaders now (frankly, I don't), but what about the GOP and Donk leaders 10 or 20 years from now.

This document might be a start to getting turned around; it's going to be up to us to hold their feet to the fire and force them to keep turning. Otherwise, they'll slip into complacency and we'll end up back where we are now.

The real measure of how serious these guys are is if we could get a veto-proof majority or a strong Conservative in the WH with control of both Chambers of Congress. If we control the senate, the rules can be changed to drop the filibuster, and then the demolishing of these various departments can begin.

Frankly, I don't see it happening, and it's only going to ever continue to grow until a collapse of some kind occurs.

[Demosthenes9]

Blindside, careful with your wish of dropping the filibuster as Repubs / Conservatives won't always have the majority.

True "Democracy" often sucks which is one of the reasons the Founding Fathers saw to it that we weren't incumbered with one.

[Toni]

Yep yep. When did Redstate turn into NRO? Even Rush was talking about the Pledge as a good thing. He wasn't ripping it apart like so many have (ahem....Glenn Beck).

[astonerii]

Erick Erickson has morphed into the very same worthless gutless spineless pathetic excuses of republican excrement that he gained his influence and audience from by fighting against. Is that such a surprise though? It is his way of living now. He has become nothing more than a career political person. Much like Rahm, All the RINOs who are not giving up after defeat in the primaries and the people who ran poor little Bell township. He has to tow the line that his masters steer for him or his paycheck disappears. I used to like reading redstate, but it has become a bland sterilized ghost town of what it once was because of his need to ensure that nothing that someone, particularly leftwingers, might find offense at. Clint Eastwood should paint over "RedState" and replace it with "hell".

[blindside]

Demosthenes9,
We need to have the long view of permanently removing power from the Executive branch in the form of 'Departments' and reigning in the Government. Assuming we can get a conservative president and Congress, I believe it's going to require removal of the filibuster unless we can get to 60+ seats. It's a lot easier to abolish the various departments than it is to recreate them; especially when even the buildings they were once housed in have been sold off. If/when the liberals retake power, it will take many years for them to rebuild.

Frankly, if the Democrats keep the Senate, I'm looking for them to drop the filibuster and change a number of Senate rules so that they can ram through anything that doesn't have to come from the House (ie, judicial appointments). We won't have to worry about it because it will be done for us.

[Toni]

This is interesting. According to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, 'The Pledge' is for what the House GoP can do NOW, not when they take back the House?She just had an interview with Ralph Bristol. So,'The Pledge' is just a starting point?It's for Pelousi and Dems to follow now?I was going to give the GOP a pass on this but the dissembling starts cause the response has been luke warm to disbelieving.

[John.Frank]

On the issue of earmarks, people may forget, but the House Republicans have already made a promise to forego earmark spending.

While statist talking heads pan the document and some conservative bloggers express disdain, the GOP Pledge for America is a serious document, written by adults for adults, setting out a pathway forward.

http://pledge.gop.gov/

[nishner]

The should also pledge to hire themselves a math tutor. Cause you can't cut the deficit and give out huge tax cuts at the same time. You get to choose one, not both.

But what would you expect from a party that started two wars, gave out a huge medicare benefit AND cut taxes.

"We pledge to spend no more than we take in."

Lies.

[Ragspierre]

As usual, nish-feratu is lying. Anyone who can read knows that lower taxes on the Lafrer curve means higher revenues to the government (within reason, of course).

And anyone with a brain knows that INCENTIVES to produce yield MORE production, while DISINCENTIVES yield LESS.

[nishner]

Right, it worked so well for Reagan he ended up having to raise taxes.

And it worked great for Bush - two wars, one huge unfunded entitlement, multiple tax cuts = CRASH!

[Sandy]

John Frank- The House ban on earmarks was for one year, and it is about to expire. They are not going to renew it. Cantor himself said that there are "valid earmarks" whatever that means, when suggesting the ban should expire.

[Sandy]

For those above who are ranting against Erick Erickson at RedState, you have missed the boat. EE has professed conservative in the primary, and, Republican in the General. Those candidates that he has come out in support of, are in fact the Conservatives that have successfully won their primaries. He has a pretty good batting average. Heck, even DeMint has missed on a few.

The RINOS posting on Redstate are not in the majority of posters there. Yes, absolutely there are some, but, all you have to do is read there for a week or so, and, they stick out like sore thumbs. One of the worst of them is now gone, he got the boot. Look at some of the RINOS, and outright liberals that post here at Dan's site.

I respect Dan's opinion that he has a strong dissagrement with EE's take on the Pledge. Some of those same sentiments have been expressed right here. Isn't the 1st Amendment a beautiful thing?

I could care less about any Pledge from anyone, about anything. I want results, when you have been entrusted with the power to bring about those results.