I’ve been pondering this after reading about the NRCC lost 3 straight special elections. The answer is now clear. It’s time to stop pussyfooting around. It’s time to start rebuilding. I’m not worrying about Minnesota House seats. John Kline and Michele Bachmann will be fine. Erik Paulsen should keep MN-3 in GOP hands. What I’m worrying about is having leaders who don’t give a damn about Reagan’s principles. It’s been fashionable this year to dismiss Reagan. Ed Rollins started it. Mich Daniels told us to get over Reagan.

The day the Republican Party forgets about what Ronald Reagan stood for is the day that the Republican Party becomes Liberal Lite. Some think it’s already there. I’m not sure I’d disagree, though I’m not that fatalistic.

The good news for Minnesotans is that we’re building a strong farm team here. There are other glimmers of hope elsewhere, too. Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are helping rebuild the party. What we need is someone with a Reganite vision of conservatism. That person must have a confidence that liberty and prosperity are the cornerstones of Reagan’s conservatism. That person must be an optimist. That person must be a leader with well-thought through convictions.

It’s always been my contention that people didn’t understand Reagan’s greatness. Tip O’Neill and others thought of him as an “amiable dunce.” Far from it.

We don’t need another Reagan. We just need a true conservative leader. We need someone who doesn’t pick RINOs when he can have a conservative.

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

8 Responses to “Rebuilding From the State Up”

  • Freealonzo says:

    I think conservatives like to focus on the “idea” of Ronald Reagan rather than the actual President.

    Would Reagan be relegated to a RINO when in 1982-83 he raised taxes across the board? How about when he was an eyelash away from giving away our entire nuclear capability to the Soviets. Or his absolute lack of action on abortion?

  • Gary Gross says:

    It’s apparent that Alonzo is a revisionist historian. Ronald Reagan cut taxes by 25 percent in 1981-83. Now Alonzo is saying that Reagan raised them. Shame on him for trying his hand at revisionist history.

  • J. Ewing says:

    We don’t need Reagan. We don’t even need a strong conservative “leader” of the Party. All we need is for enough people to get together and describe conservative solutions to the problems of the day, in clear-cut, actionable terms, and then “sell” that agenda to the public and the candidates alike. I don’t think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative. I think it’s that we keep asking each of them to re-invent the wheel, every election, and then sell it single-handedly to a majority who already believe it, if they knew what it was.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I don’t think our problem is that our candidates, by and large, are not conservative.

    That’s where we disagree. There’s too many RINOs in Washington. I think we’re fine in St. Paul in terms of the legislators in St. Paul being solid conservatives.

    Another bone I have to pick with national Republicans is that they don’t fight for the things they believe. One Washington Port or NYTimes article & they turn tail. Pathetic.

  • Freealonzo says:

    You can call it revisionist history, I’ll call it facts:

    In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

    According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

    In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

    In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

    The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

  • Gary Gross says:

    In 1982 alone, Reagan signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.,/i>

    TEFRA didn’t happen until 1986. Please get your facts straight.

  • J. Ewing says:

    I think we’ve stretched the definition of “RINO” too far. Reagan said that somebody that agreed with you 80% of the time was an ally– a Republican in this context. Considering how far left the Democrats have become, I think any Republican that agrees more than 50% of the time deserves our support UNLESS and UNTIL we can elect somebody better. Winning elections matters, and who controls the majority matters.

    Besides, I think that many of these RINOs (the Override Six excepted) are just underinformed and confused by a lack of “direction” that ought to be established by the State and National Party. Yes, they aren’t that “strong” on principle and let themselves get buffaloed by the MSM, but that’s because they are “islands of principle” without a strong central grassroots-driven agenda.

    We’ve got a chicken-and-egg situation here. If we could elect strong conservatives into a majority, we would likely get a conservative agenda enacted, but the ohly way to get a conservative majority is to convince people that a conservative agenda [is established and] would be enacted.

  • Freealonzo says:

    Sorry Gary, try again. Here’s the language from the IRS for the 1982 TEFRA:


    If link is too long, just google 1982 TEFRA

Leave a Reply