Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Tough on Crime

I think these are great ideas. Maybe we could even campaign by being tough on crime, which will in turn help the poor people in inner cities and other places where it's really hard to succeed. We should put a positive emphasis on being a law abiding, hard-working citizen who doesn't wait for the government to rescue them. The democrats have done a good job convincing people that they need the government to rescue them, and I feel like the republican party has a rap of "we don't care about the people, let them suffer" instead of a message of individual empowerment which is IMO what we should be talking about. We can find ways of including minority voters in this as well, because Republicans have the rap of "being the bad guy who doesn't care" and by being inclusive we will do much better. Sort of like Huckabee's "Hucktown" example.

The RNC ought to be all the people at Huck's Army :D

As for Steele, I still think that conservatives ought to be conservatives first and not republicans first. I believe that the people ought to have a choice about their government, and they ought to know the stances of every candidate they vote for. Most people do not do their homework when it comes to voting for congressional candidates, and they just vote party lines. I don't think we should actively be trying to get moral conservatives to vote for pro-choice people just because they're Republican. As Mike Huckabee says, better to lose an election than lose the principals that got you into politics. What good is it if we have a 60-40 Senate majority and 15 Republicans don't agree with the majority of people who voted for them on the issue that matters most to a lot of that majority?

I hope someone can answer my thoughts. I did pass judgement a little too quickly on Steele (sorry guys!) as I really don't know much about him, but this seems like a "party" over "policy" message. Is he saying we should promote moderate republicans in primary races against conservative republicans just so we're more inclusive? If so, that message does not sit well with me.

No comments: