Fergus Cullen - espousing Conservative ideas?
Now where did I get that notion - oh yeah, he told me in his new "The Conspiracy Report" that just got emailed to me:
Thought you might be interested in a couple items. First, some stats looking back on last fall's election. Second, my latest op/ed piece. I expect to send out a similar newsletter from time to time looking at NH politics, offering objective analysis with a conservative bent. Suggestions for content and feedback always welcome....
You asked, I'm delivering!
Conservative bent, eh? Last time I received any emails concerning Fergus, it was because he was fragging the NH Reagan Network as they were "taking over" the Merrimack Republican Committee by getting their conservative Repubs elected.
So, I decided to take a look at his latest Union Leader column to see how much of a "conservative bent" it had. Let's go play...
Fergus Cullen: NH GOP needs broader messageOK, good title. I DO believe that the NH GOP failed in delivering a broader spectrum message the last few years. We have concentrated on just taxes and smaller government as the main themes of our message. Heck, it pretty much HAS BEEN the message.
Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009
What we have failed to do is to take out Platform, our ideals, our philosophy, and broaden it in explaining how it applies to situations and scenarios that every day people have every day. We need to get out our message of what our solutions are and WHY they are better then the Dems.
Umm, Fergus - wasn't that your JOB for the last couple of years?
For any candidate interested in winning elections in New Hampshire, the math is pretty simple. Our state is about 30 percent Republican, 30 percent Democrat and 40 percent independent. Neither party is able to win elections when it only appeals to its own base.
It took huge defeats in 1992 and 2002 for New Hampshire Democrats to figure out this basic math. The Democrats realized that when they advocated for broad-based taxes, gun-control and left-wing social policy, they made their base happy at the expense of having any chance with centrist voters who have other priorities.
So New Hampshire Democrats changed. They became less ideological and more pragmatic. Today, they take The Pledge against broad-based taxes, give lip service to Second Amendment rights, and while they haven't abandoned left-wing social causes,...
Hey Fergus - I would think that homosexual civil unions would be considered a left-wing social cause. Never talked about but it certainly ended up right at the top of the agenda when the House and Senate took effect, right? Expanding spending on social spending is not left wing? Egads....
Conservative bent? I think blinders would be more appropriate....
...few Democrats lead with them either. The Democrats expanded the portion of the electorate willing to listen to them, and they started winning elections.
How much of a disconnect between New Hampshire voters and Republican candidates is there? It's worse than many activists think. According to exit poll data from last November, 31 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of self-described conservatives voted for Democrat John Lynch for governor. In the U.S. Senate race, John Sununu carried men, 53-45 percent, but lost among women, 60-37 percent -- a staggering 31 point gender gap.
Sure, all Republican candidates suffered collateral damage as voters expressed their disappointment in the Bush administration by voting for Democrats at all levels. But it's awfully hard -- no, make that mathematically impossible -- to win elections when we are only talking to base Republicans and ignoring the priorities of centrist voters.
To appeal to a broader segment of the electorate, Republicans need to talk about a broader range of issues that swing voters care about. Specifically, Republicans need to offer positive proposals dealing with education, health care and conservation. I'm not saying we need to moderate our positions or move to the middle. We can talk about a broader range of issues while still offering conservative, free-market alternatives that are consistent with our principles. But it can't be all about taxes and social issues all the time.
Speaking my language here: conservative, free-market, sticking with principles (Republican principles)! So far, I'm with him. That said, I think I'm about to hear, as Laura Ingraham is wont to say, a "butt-monkey"...
A new GOP agenda for education needs to be emphatically pro-public education and transcend school choice
One of the Republican Platform planks is unambigious:
We oppose state interference with parental rights and believe that:
- Only parents can be entrusted to control the education of their children and choose schools that best suit their children's needs
- Laws should be implemented to encourage school choice and competition and allow all parents to choose the best public, private, charter or home school program for their children
- School vouchers or tuition tax credits should be made available to assist in school choice
- The so-called "Blaine Amendment" should be repealed so as to end discrimination against religious schools
- We support increased use of market forces to provide and improve education
Instead of saying "every child deserves a public education", we should be saying "every child deserves a publicly funded education" and allow the parents to decide what is best for their children instead of edu-govtcrats. Choice & freedom = enhanced individual liberty (Hey Fergus, that's in the Preamble of the Party Platform!).
It would be interesting to see what his definition of "transcend" means...
Conservative bent? Taking and keeping that choice from parents? Flunked this one....
by allowing students to get credit for real world, out-of-classroom learning. It needs to address the affordability of higher education that makes parents worry that even if they open a college fund and put money away, their kid who works hard and gets good grades still won't be able to attend the best school she can get into because of cost.
So, does he want increased government funding for students (which raises taxes) or does he favor putting incentives in place so that colleges themselves try to contain their costs (which they have failed to do lately - just look at their overhead costs of Administrators of almost everything under the sun)?
He brings up a problem and then fails to give his idea on how to fix it.
Conservative bent? Unable to rate...other than he does not like the present system.
A new GOP agenda for health care would embrace the idea of universal coverage instead of defending a system in which people without insurance are left to hope they never get hurt or sick, and to go to the emergency room when they do. Republicans should fight for using market competition to control costs so more consumers shop for health care like we shop for other goods and services; Republicans can be for universal coverage and still oppose government as the single payer. Accessibility and affordability are the two health care issues voters care about -- for themselves, for their children and for their elderly parents.
Universal coverage can only be accomplished by two ways:
- Government completely taking over 1/6 of our economy. In doing so, we end up with a system like Britain where all decisions are made in advance by gov't technocrats who have no problem saying "no". At least with insurance companies, one has the ability to choose plans (even if they have to be self-funded); once government takes over, it's over.
- Government mandates that all have to have private insurance. While this does seem to have choice still available, all one has to do is to look to MA to see how this is working. Taxes are up, RomneyCare costs are up, waiting times are up; you decide.
In either case, the Government has to apply more and more regulations - which means more intrusions into everyone's life and less choice for all.
Republicans should fight for using market competition to control costs so more consumers shop for health care like we shop for other goods and services; Republicans can be for universal coverage and still oppose government as the single payer.
Sorry Fergus, but these are two incompatible ideas. Universal coverage has to be coerced by Government. Even if it is not a single payer system, it STILL means more government stepping further and further into my life, controlling what choices I have.
Conservative bent? HOW? If he had sent an expansion of Health Savings accounts and "oh my God" insurance to cover those expenses that could bankrupt people, along with a more transparent way of determining prices.
Accessibility and affordability are the two health care issues voters care about -- for themselves, for their children and for their elderly parents.Conservation - the careful stewardship of the environment? Yes, I can agree to it. But HOW does he wish to accomplish that? Getting like minded people together to volunteer their time and treasure - sure! Private purchase of land and resources and then deciding what to do with that outside of government - Bingo!
A new GOP agenda for conservation and open space preservation -- which are fundamentally conservative ideas -- gives our party something positive to talk about with voters who have bought the left's theories about climate change and who are turned off by the GOP's perceived indifference to environmental issues.
Using the grease of taxpayer money and / or the use of government "planning" regulations? No. Once again, government only complicates things and sets up hoops and strictures in order to get things done.
Conservative bent? Not sure until he let's us know by what method he'd use.
Just six years ago, New Hampshire Democrats suffered huge defeats. They made changes, became relevant to voters and started winning elections and advancing their agenda on all fronts. New Hampshire Republicans can do the same thing and have the same success -- but first we must broaden our message.
Gee, the NH GOP made a recent change too. Will it make a difference?
Yes, we need to broaden the message - but not at the expense of our core philosophical ideas or Platform planks. We need to become more skilled in applying those ideals to the every day problems.
How say you, Fergus? Feedback that you wanted?
Comments
You would think that because you yourself are the epitome of a wingnut and therefore view civil unions as some radical concept. I know a lot of Republicans who recognize it as perfectly legitimate.
More to the point, they know to mind their own business when other people's actions don't affect them. If you care about freedom as much as you pretend to, you would simply let this one go. If a couple of gays tie the not, it impacts your pocketbook, your life, your freedoms and liberties not one iota.
Gay unions have been legalized in lots of places now, and not one of them has collapsed as a result. Inductive reasoning, should you care to put it to use, tells you that it is therefore not damaging.
Now, if queerdom merely offends your biblical or other sensibilities, well, tough. I'm a straight guy with no interest in another dude's hairy, sweaty junk and I'm okay with gay unions because it's clear that a certain fraction of the population is predisposed to fall in love with members of the same sex. What of it?
Posted by: kemibe | February 17, 2009 2:47 PM