Right Agenda

Prospects and Problems for the Louisiana GOP

2005-12-14T09:18:00.000-06:00

The Republican Party in my home state has an unclear future much like the rest of Louisiana. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the region displacing thousands, many of which were reliable votes for Democratic candidates. Louisiana politics was volatile before the hurricanes and now no one is certain how drastic their affects will be for the political landscape. The poor response to Hurricane Katrina at all levels of government has riled up emotions of Louisiana citizens. Governor Blanco’s approval numbers are terrible and just about everyone has someone in government to blame. Undoubtedly this will bring up interesting state elections in 2007: many statewide-elected offices will be up for grabs and many seats in the state legislature will be open. The 2007 Election will be the year most legislators will be unable to run for re-election due to the enactment of term limits. Needless to say, many political rumors have been circulating. A fellow blogger has recently posted an excellent summary of the newest political buzz. The LAGOP has a major opportunity to couple Blanco’s incompetence with the major wave of term limits and ride these factors into sweeping victories across the state.

The Governor’s Race

As of now, three Republicans’ names have been widely rumored as potential candidates for the Governor’s office. Here’s the breakdown:

US Representative Bobby Jindal: Jindal almost beat Blanco in the 2003 Election in what was his first political campaign. He now represents US Sen. David Vitter’s former district in the House and is very popular. Jindal is a highly-intelligent man and both national and state Republicans have high hopes for him. Jindal was the president of the GOP freshman class in the House and conservative journalists love his youth, believing he has a high-ceiling for political potential. Jindal’s conservative credentials are strong; he has successfully presented himself as both socially and fiscally conservative. The LAGOP has also basically endorsed Jindal, selling bumper stickers reading “Don’t blame me, I voted for Jindal.” This could have just as easily read “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for Blanco,” but the name recognition indicates an early move to associate anti-Blanco sentiment with pro-Jindal enthusiasm.

US Senator David Vitter: Vitter has not been shy in admitting his White House aspirations and he is well-aware that the best road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is traveling as a successful governor. Vitter is regarded as a far right conservative, especially pertaining to social issues. However, some doubt Vitter's personal morality; he was accused having an affair with a prostitute during his exploration of the state’s gubernatorial election in 2003. He withdrew his name from consideration citing marital problems, but went on to win the next year’s statewide election in 2004 claiming John Breaux’s vacated seat in the US Senate. Vitter’s approval numbers have also risen since Hurricane Katrina as he currently holds a 64% approval rating.

State Senator Jay Dardenne: Dardenne is a long-time state legislator from Baton Rouge whose term expires in 2007. He also has obvious political ambition and his name was originally thrown around with other races. Many suspected that he would run for secretary of state or lt. governor. Dardenne’s name recognition is not even comparable with Jindal or Vitter, and the previous two mentioned offices would make sense as a logical step to get statewide credibility. As cited at The New New Orleans Blog, he has indicated that he will run for governor. Dardenne is known as a true fiscal conservative and is a vocal leader of the state senate.

Buzz and Outlook: I spoke with an anonymous source from the LAGOP who told me that US Sen. David Vitter has told US Rep. Bobby Jindal that he will not run for governor in the 2007 Election. Jindal and Vitter were rumored to be feuding as to who will run as the Republican candidate. The public’s Louisiana political informant, PoliticsLA.com, previously reported the dispute between Jindal and Vitter over who would run. Jindal’s camp believed that first refusal went through him since Jindal nearly beat Blanco in the last gubernatorial race. Vitter’s camp believed the first refusal went through him since Vitter was the last Republican to win the last statewide election. My source also tells me that the LAGOP prefers Jindal to Vitter because of Jindal’s ability to create enthusiasm within the party and other “incidents” causing a rift between Vitter and LAGOP leadership. He also tells me Jindal is strongly supported by both social and fiscal conservatives within the party, while Vitter is mainly supported by social conservatives. The new bumper stickers certainly show the state party’s approval of linking Jindal’s name to anti-Blanco sentiment. State Sen. Jay Dardenne is an unlikely candidate to win the governor’s race at this point. His chances are low with either Jindal or Vitter running in the same race. As good of a conservative legislator as Dardenne is, he might get around 5% in the primary. He would be best served to run for secretary of state or lt. governor and prepare for a future campaign for governor.

Inside the Louisiana Republican Party

The Prospects: After the color system was adopted after the national 2000 Election, Louisiana is designated as one of the many “red states.” Louisiana politics is also very unique and unpredictable; Democratic and Republican candidates have equal chances in much of the state in past elections. Corruption and charisma have proven to be massive assets and liabilities in political races, and have proven to be sufficient enough to propel candidates to victory or drive them to defeat. However, the hurricanes have changes things. Many of the state’s evacuees came from the Ninth Ward in New Orleans which has been a stronghold for Democrats, often providing enough votes to win close elections. With these people gone, term limits setting in, and many dissatisfied with current Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, Republicans have a shot at making the state more red than it already is. The LAGOP has a chance to make 2007 the foundation of increasing party identification throughout the state however they need to prepare and organize for that election now for efficient and convincing wins.

The Problems: The LAGOP is notorious for its past failures of uniting around one candidate in an election. Candidates are more successful in Louisiana’s open primary system when one party runs one viable candidate so party members will not split their vote. If what my source tells me is true, Jindal should be the only Republican candidate and very well could win without a run-off assuming several Democratic candidates run as they did in 2003. He would have a better chance at winning the 50% plus one if Republican votes are not divided. Party leadership must assure that Jindal is their man and lobby to keep other Republicans out. These party leaders must be united first. Another source within the GOP has told me of inter-party problems in the leadership. During and after the 2004 Election, social and fiscal conservatives often feuded about the top of the state party’s agenda. This was the problem: hard-line social conservatives were also fiscally conservative, but they wanted social issues to dominate the LAGOP agenda. Hard-line fiscal conservatives were also socially conservative, but preferred conservative fiscal policy to be above anything else on the agenda. Sources tell me this fracture has closed significantly, but also says there are new problems. He tells me since Vitter won last year’s election, there is a disconnect between the US Senator and LAGOP leadership. When Vitter won, he wanted to use his own political capital and demanded the LAGOP would operate as he wanted. Changes were initially made but Vitter wanted more. LAGOP leaders refused after previous compromises and Vitter has since ceased to help the state party from major fundraising. If this is true, the problems must be resolved in time for the 2007 Election. As a US Senator, Vitter commands money with powerful fundraising abilities. The LAGOP will need major financial resources to be successful in 2007 and will need to draw water from Vitter’s well. The fractured relationship will hurt Vitter as well. If Vitter wants to either run for re-election in 2010 or wants to run for governor in 2007 or 2011, he will need support from the LAGOP. The LAGOP’s power will grow after the state elections in 2007 and Vitter might not be able to win a future election in the state without that power. Louisiana Republicans must resolve their differences and look ahead, which looks like a bright future if everyone can unite and realize the opportunities presented.

Pros or Cons?

2005-12-13T06:15:00.000-06:00

This year’s late push for fiscally conservative policies by Republicans gained political momentum when two prominent GOP senators each separately called for change, both claiming the Republican Party must refocus its agenda on the party’s limited government platform. Not coincidently, these two headlining senators are John McCain and George Allen, both currently regarded as the two most likely candidates to win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Their recent speeches calling for fiscal conservatism appeal to limited government conservatives, indicating their early attempts of “running to the right” to gain support from the base to get the nomination. A presidential candidate must first be elected by his party-mates to advance to the general election, and because small government conservatives are a core group of the Republican base, potential presidential candidates need to win their support and approval.

Both John McCain and George Allen assert their conservative beliefs of limiting government, but the real question about the Republican presidential frontrunners has to be explored: are they pros or are they cons? Are these senators professional politicians or conservative policy makers? There is a difference between the two: the professional politician says what wants to be heard and is willing to do the opposite after he is elected; the conservative policy maker acts on his platforms and principles and stands by his campaign promises. If these either of these two senators gets the nomination, how reliable will they be to small government principles?

The following is a collection of rankings by different organizations and news publications comparing McCain and Allen’s records in Congress. This information seeks to reveal what the senators have already done in an attempt to possibly foresee what they will/might do if elected president. Also, one miscellaneous side note will be included to show an initiative that McCain and Allen has recently taken to enhance small government principles.

National Journal Rankings

Each year the National Journal provides a congressional ranking system, placing individual congressmen on ideological scales based on their voting, giving each member a liberal or conservative rating. They are based on votes on economic, social and foreign policy issues. This is the latest ranking of how conservative the senators were. The ranking was released in 2005 and is based on the senators’ 2004 votes. The higher the number, the more ideological the member was in 2004 voting.

Allen.......78.2
McCain....73.3

Citizens Against Government Waste Rankings

Citizens Against Government Waste also compiles a congressional ranking system based on each member’s voting in support of responsible government spending and voting against new government programs and pork-stuffed spending bills. The first ranking shown is collected from votes in 2004. The second ranking is a lifetime ranking; the latest lifetime ranking was collected from votes up to 2003. Both rankings are based on the same criteria. The higher the number indicates the more favorable voting a member was in supporting responsible government spending legislation. The numbers are also divided into brackets which group congressmen into categories of favorable and unfavorable rankings.

Allen.......63 (“Friendly”)
McCain....88 (“Taxpayer Hero”)

Allen.......73 (“Taxpayer Hero”)
McCain....87 (“Taxpayer Hero”)

National Taxpayers Union Rankings

The National Taxpayers Union releases their congressional rankings each year as well. The rankings are based on votes on every bill affecting taxes, spending and debt. Members’ votes are collected each year and they are given a grade. This ranking is based on votes in 2004. The higher the number, the more supportive a member was voting in favor of lowering taxes, spending and debt.

Allen.......67 (B)
McCain....77 (B+)

Additional Initiative

Allen’s Line Item Veto: George Allen proposed legislation this September proposing legislation that would bring back a presidential line item veto. This was an attempt by Allen to give the president more power to reject specific appropriations in bills forwarded for White House approval. Sen. Allen argued this was necessary for the president to identify and eliminate specific pork barrel projects attached in bills which permits specific cuts in spending. He believes it will help to “eliminate some of the waste that Congress is so efficient at producing.” The line item veto was originally passed in 1996, but overruled by the Supreme Court in 1998. Allen contended that this power provides the president with a more powerful tool to reduce spending and government waste.

McCain’s No Pork Pledge: John McCain recently signed the “Hurricane Katrina No Pork Pledge” to assert his opposition to any pork-barrel spending attached to federal bills passed to aid the Gulf Coast. It is a promise that “members vow to oppose any project or provision that is not directly related to the impact of Hurricane Katrina in any supplemental appropriations bill that provides funds for hurricane relief.” Immediately after Hurricane Katrina’s devastation was shown to the rest of the country people estimated up to a $300 billion cost for hurricane relief. Many people across the nation, including Sen. McCain, were cautious of the estimated cost and warned against simply throwing money at the problem. Advocates of this pledge wanted to assure responsible relief action and wanted to avoid passing relief packages that sent more money to the area than necessary. McCain is one of only two senators to sign this pledge.

Overview

Comparing the rankings, Allen received higher marks only in the National Journal, rating more conservative overall in 2004 votes. McCain rates higher than Allen in the three other rankings, which all focus specifically on small government voting. Below is a comprehensive summary, with the higher score in bold. The difference is listed below with A denoting Allen’s advantage and M denoting McCain’s advantage.

Senator............NatRev.....CAGW-04.....CAGW-Life.....NTU
Allen.................78.2..........63..............73............67
McCain...............73.3..........88.............87............77
Difference..........A +4.9.......M +25.........M +15........M +10

McCain ranks substantially higher than Allen in all ratings specifically tailoring to votes concerning small government issues. Allen proved to vote more conservative overall in 2004, but the difference is not nearly as wide as McCain’s rating advantages. By analyzing only this data, McCain proves to be more supportive of small government conservatism than Allen.

Are They Pros or Cons?

McCain and Allen are both cons; the data used above shows both senators are proven conservatives who have voted on behalf of their principles. If either Allen or McCain wins the presidential nomination, small government conservatives should be comforted with the Republican candidate. Although most of McCain’s rankings are higher than Allen’s rankings, Allen still proves to be a small government conservative. Allen and McCain’s rankings indicate they are indeed conservative policy makers and are not just professional politicians. Both of their individual initiatives are encouraging; they both show they are willing to take steps on their own to push for limited government policy. Much of the information used only includes information from their 2004 votes, but with 2008 on their minds one can only expect their rankings to climb to further prove their conservatism. These senators show they are both principled and reliable conservatives, and each is qualified to represent the conservative agenda in 2008.

Back to Basics, Intermission

2005-12-12T23:19:00.000-06:00

The previous three posts describe a Republican movement to further a conservative economic agenda. This agenda includes tax cutting and reducing federal spending to enhance the Republicans’ platform of smaller government. It is acknowledged that government spending has increased during the Bush administration and thus the theory of small government is being impeded by a Republican president. This problem has been more openly and seriously addressed by Republicans in the recent weeks, which Right Agenda has analyzed in the first three acts of the GOP returning “Back to Basics.” This intermission explains what this initiative means politically and how the policies are part of a longer-term strategy to regain political momentum.

The Gameplan

The Republicans’ late push to reform current economic policies and returning “Back to Basics” is actually preceded with the House approval of the Deficit Reduction Act on November 18. As covered in an earlier post, the House passed a version of this bill that would slash about $50 billion of the federal spending over the next five years. The Senate passed their version of this bill prior to the House vote; the Senate’s bill cuts $35 billion of spending during the same time. The two chambers will soon meet to draft a joint resolution to compromise the discrepancies.

Political steam mounted shortly after the House’s Deficit Reduction Act as prominent Senate Republicans drew focus to conservative fiscal policy in two separate speeches. This is considerably important because two of the prominent senators happen to be 2008 presidential contenders. Senators John McCain and George Allen are widely perceived as the two most viable Republican candidates for the nomination, and they each separately made speeches shortly after the Deficit Reduction Act was approved. News that potential presidential candidates make draws attention in Washington and each of these potential candidates conveniently decided to address the need for conservative fiscal policy soon after the Deficit Reduction Act passed. When major politicians within one party focus on an issue, they send a message to their party’s leader calling for action. Their party leader happens to be President of the United States who can dictate how important his and his party’s agenda is in Washington.

President Bush got the message. The day after Sen. Allen called for conservative economic reform in Virginia, Bush spoke in North Carolina with the economy as the center of his speech. Bush stand in front of a banner reading “Foundation for Growth” insinuating his determination to create a favorable economy for Americans. His “foundation” centers on fiscal conservatism which includes tax cuts and responsible government spending. His message might contrast with reality concerning the latter inclusion, but Bush has remained an adamant supporter of tax cuts. The reality of the lack of responsible government spending is less known by much of the public allowing Bush to claim Democrats are hindering small government based on their reputation of growing the government. This allows Bush a free pass among much of the public who assume Bush has limited government spending simply because he is a Republican. The White House pounded their economic message from Monday to Wednesday citing recent reports of the strong and growing economy as a result of the tax cuts in Bush’s first term. They called for Congress to maintain this strength with the renewal of soon-expiring tax cuts and the passage of additional measures to further economic growth. The political message was sent to fellow Republicans calling for public policy.

The Republican-controlled House answered the call immediately and passed four bills cutting taxes, three bills on Wednesday and one bill on Thursday. Critics of the tax cuts quickly pointed out that these tax cuts would cut $95 billion from anticipated federal tax revenue over the next five years. Proponents of the legislation responded with the economic figures from 2004-2005, which were the first two financial years after the 2003 tax cuts went into effect. They noted that federal tax revenue increased from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005. Republican congressional leaders have also stated they intend on reaching joint resolutions on these bills soon and they will continue to propose and pass fiscally conservative policies to continue the country’s economic success.

How it happened and what it means

There was no coincidence in the close timing of these political actions and policies. The speeches by McCain and Allen were surely spurred by the Deficit Reduction Act. Partisanship in legislative approval attracts attention, and this bill passed as House Republicans v. House Democrats, with a few GOP defectors. The polarizing vote reminded Republicans how they stand against big government. Presidential hopefuls took notice and addressed the issue in their respective speeches to assure Republicans (and future voters) that they support fiscally conservative policies. President Bush, whose poll numbers are horrendous, heard their messages and used their strategy in efforts to get some of his support back. The White House capitalized off of recent favorable economic news and patted themselves on the back asserting that Bush’s fiscal policies are the reason. Bush’s political message about the economy helped him gain political capital among Republican legislators and the House brought tax cutting measure to the floor. The House rallied around positive economic data and pushed through their tax cuts.

The Republicans were in dire need of something to unite around in Washington; many political mistakes have hurt Bush and Republican Congress’ approval ratings. The news, and thus public opinion, focused heavily on Iraqi insurgents and Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s call for troop withdrawal. With public support and Republican unity declining regarding the Iraq War, the GOP needed an issue to bring them together, and almost nothing brings Republicans together more than tax cuts. As the public and the media focused their attention with Iraq, Republicans quietly united around fiscal conservatism. Because tax cuts can be framed as reducing federal income, coupled with the federal deficit, there are many opponents to these policies. But with so much concentration on Iraq, Republicans avoided what could have been a very large and open debate over their new economic legislation.

The tax cuts and spending cuts are not strictly political, but are good public policy. If opponents to these measures want to open debate simply citing the loss of anticipated federal tax income revenue, Republicans can shoot back using recent economic data to help bring support to their policies. This data can most easily be explained by referring to the overall increase of federal revenue from 2004-2005, which are the first years affected by Bush’s previous tax cuts. There is a $200 billion increase during this time, covering the anticipated sum of revenue reduction caused both House measures. Over the next five years the Deficit Reduction Act would “cost” $50 billion and the tax cuts would “cost” $95 billion, totaling $145 billion. If federal income continues to grow at this rate of about 11%, there would be an increase of $230 billion next year, which would more than cover the “cost” of the $145 billion loss. These tax cuts will pay for themselves, and if the growth rate continues it will cover the “cost” in less than one year. Republicans expect the tax cuts to continue to help grow the economy by encouraging Americans to put this saved money back into the economy with increased consumer spending and investments. And after all, most people hate paying taxes and love keeping their own money.

What’s to come: previews of Act 4 and Act 5

Republicans are gearing up for the 2006 midterm elections. Democrats want to capitalize on their low approval ratings and gain seats in both houses. Democratic campaigns will accuse sitting Republicans of “flip-flopping” by showing their voting on pork barrel spending and tax cuts (1, 2, 3, 4) and spending cuts, contrasting the difference between wasting the government’s money and adding to the deficit. The dilemma of liberal spending for one’s constituency and fiscal conservatism will certainly give Democrats ammunition. However, the timing of these economic policies is key for Republicans. Many of the pork barrel projects will be underway in the representatives’ districts. Also, the resolutions of the tax cutting legislation should be passed early in 2006, so they will be immediately applicable to the citizens’ taxes. This means constituents will visually see construction of the projects and will benefit from tax cuts. This allows Republican incumbents to counter the dilemma by showing that they can bring money back to the district and help their constituents' personal finances at the same time. If Republicans can accomplish this in time, it’s advantage: Republicans.

Act 4: The House and Senate draft joint resolutions on the Deficit Reduction Act and the tax cuts. During committee meetings, Republican committee members from both houses will unify in the media to send a clear message advocating limited government policy. President Bush and other prominent Republicans who will not be in the joint committee will send similar messages and will attack Democrats, who are likely to oppose both bills. GOP members outside the committee will take advantage by going on the offensive attacking Democrats in the public accusing them of promoting big government and taking money away from Americans’ pockets; this allows the GOP joint committee members to exploit the attacks by including more hard-line policy in the final draft. This draft will be less of a compromise and more of a political stance. The resolution will more than likely embody much of the House versions, both of which cut more taxes and more spending. This bill will be passed and probably strictly on party lines.

Act 5: President Bush will sign these resolutions and the White House and other leading Republicans will launch an issue campaign based on the economic principles of the bills. This campaign will use the recent economic data showing a strong economy to prove how the conservative economic policy was successful and use the new bills to show how Republicans are active in continuing the economic growth. This is also a disguise for a 2006 campaign attack on Democrats. Democrats want to nationalize local congressional elections to use unfavorable opinions of the GOP to help them win seats across the country. This Republican campaign will attack Democrats who tried to obstruct the furthering of the GOP’s successful economic policies because of partisanship. Republicans will claim Democrats objected to the bills because they are Republican policies, even though they have proven to be good for the economy.

The future of the Republicans returning “Back to Basics” will occur soon into 2006 and should be politically divisive. Acts 4 and 5 are simply predictions of the Republicans’ plan to rally around limited government policy and use this in the coming election. They quietly laid the groundwork at the end of 2005, setting the stage for the completion of restoring limited government principles into public policy.

Back to Basics, Act Three

2005-12-09T23:09:00.000-06:00

As the week comes to an end, the House passed four tax cuts, three on Wednesday and one yesterday. The first three bills passed with bi-partisan support, but Thursday’s bill passed almost entirely on party lines, 234-197. The passage of these bills follow President Bush’s last three days of lobbying on behalf of his economic agenda calling for further tax cuts. Bush and Republican congressmen believe tax cuts help grow the economy and lead to long-term economic stability, and they want to advance this agenda. Bush’s 2003 cut of tax rates is credited to the growth of tax revenue, increasing from $1.9 trillion in 2004 to $2.1 trillion in 2005. The House tax cuts would reduce federal income tax revenue by $95 billion over the next five years. The Senate passed a similar bill that approved the first three tax cuts but not the fourth, so the Senate must now approve the fourth tax cut.

These are brief summaries of the House tax cuts:

1-Slows the expansion of the alternative minimum tax: the alternative minimum tax, also know as the “stealth tax,” is a provision forcing “wealthy” families to pay a minimum amount of income taxes to prevent the overuse of tax write-offs. This means if their adjusted post-deduction tax payment is less than the alternative minimum tax, they must pay the alternative minimum tax because it is the higher amount. The original alternative minimum tax measure has not been changed since 1970, and inflation was not included in the first version. Because inflation was not accounted for, the old rate was increasingly hurting middle class families living in areas with high costs of living, so this bill adjusts the brackets of tax payers who would have qualified for paying the alternative minimum tax. The number of tax payers subject to the alternative minimum tax would have jumped from 3.5 million to 19 million by next year. The 15.5 new tax payers were expected to qualify for this tax for the first time next year, so this bill prevents them from paying taxes intended to affect the “wealthy.” This bill is a short-term solution for 2005, and a long-term measure to change alternative minimum tax laws will be determined next year.

2-Provides several tax breaks for the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Businesses can write off much of the costs for rebuilding equipment and structures. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama will be granted tax-exempt bond authority for rebuilding. This furthers Bush’s call for Congress to create his proposed Gulf Opportunity Zone to help reconstruction.

3-Extends tax break which allows military personnel to use their combat pay to claim the earned income credit.

4-Extends the preservation of lower rates for capital gains and dividends through 2010: These tax cuts were scheduled to expire in 2008 and will be extended if the Senate approves. This maintains the original rate reductions for capital gains from 20% to 15% and dividends from (as high as) 38.5% to 15%. This bill is an effort to reduce and eliminate the double-taxation of capital gains and dividends. This is a brief explanation of double-taxation: a corporation pays taxes on net income and then issue dividends to stockholders. Individuals who receive these dividends from their investments then have to pay taxes on their dividends.

The actions by the House show the ambition of the Republicans in Washington for 2006. This sets the stage for the continuance of legislation promoting limited government principles. These bills will be forwarded to the Senate for debate before Bush can sign them, but Senate Republicans have been vocally supportive of implementing these types of economic policies in Washington. The Senate is expected to debate these bills early next year which will lead to resolutions of the House versions assuming different versions are passed. Although many are expected intense debate over a resolution of the tax cut on capital gains and dividends, political pressure from Republican leadership to limit the scope of government is likely to prevail and likely by a party-line vote.

The GOP seems to be uniting to make good their promise by limiting government taxation and spending in the coming years. Once seizing complete control over the elected branches of the federal government, they became the “tax-and-spend” politicians they accused Democrats of representing. They have seemed to acknowledge their vagrancy and are moving to correct their mistakes.

Back to Basics, Act Two

2005-12-08T23:14:00.000-06:00

President Bush took his economic agenda on the offensive this week, beginning with a speech in North Carolina to tout the strength of the American economy and encourage Congress to further favorable policies to continue growth. He stood in front of a backdrop reading “Foundation for Growth” and stated his confidence the American people’s as the foundation for economic success. Bush urged Congress to pass legislation to create a business-friendly environment for Americans to succeed. This business-friendly environment entails more tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. Bush also did not hesitate to attack Democrats who criticized his tax cuts.

“Government does not create wealth. American and businesses and workers and farmers and entrepreneurs create the wealth for this country,” said Bush. “And so I called on the United States Congress to let the people keep more of their own money, to cut their taxes, and Congress responded.”

“One way to keep this economy growing is to have certainty in our tax code, and to let you keep more of your paycheck, and so the United States Congress needs to make this tax relief permanent. We're going to re-double our efforts to restrain the spending appetite of the federal government. Listen, we're at war, and we're going to spend what it takes to support our troops in harm's way. And that means we've got to show real discipline in other areas of the federal budget.”

“Now some of those people up in Washington said the tax cuts wouldn't work. In the spring of 2003, one Democrat leader called tax relief a ‘tragedy,’ and said it would not create jobs or grow the economy. Another Democratic leader said the tax cuts ‘are ruining our economy and costing us jobs,’” said Bush.

Bush continued his speech urging Congress to quickly pass a spending reduction resolution. The House and Senate had passed two different versions of this bill in November. He reiterated the need for responsible government spending in Washington throughout his speech.

The White House also released an official fact sheet outlining the administration’s economic agenda on Monday. They continued stressing the economy the following day as Press Secretary Scott McClellan summarized many of Bush’s talking points from his North Carolina speech at the press briefing.

On Wednesday, a CBS/New York Times poll showed a growth in both Bush’s overall approval ratings as well as his economic approval ratings. The poll was taken from Dec. 2 to Dec. 6. Bush’s approval ratings jumped from 35% in October to 40% in December. The economic approval ratings jumped from 47% to 55% during the same time frame.

This economic offensive has deserved attention for some time. Bush has felt heat from conservatives who are dissatisfied with the growth of government spending during his administration. There were legislative and political motivations that called for this action. The House and Senate passed spending reduction bills to earn some credibility back with action. Senators McCain, Graham and Allen, all prominent conservatives, have all made statements calling for economic change. The combination of these events has drawn real attention from the White House as Bush reinforced the senators’ message promoting limited government.

The White House’s economic message this week was a two-pronged strategy: it moved to strengthen support for a conservative economic agenda and attack Democrats who oppose his policies. This push was an agenda for policy with political motives.

The “Foundation for Growth” theme in North Carolina signals Bush’s efforts to right the economic ship during the last three years of his presidency. His policies are not only a foundation for growth, but a foundation for conservatives to rebuild before upcoming elections. Government spending has increased under Bush and he is beginning his initiative to correct the problem. Bush’s speech in North Carolina highlighted the most attractive talking points Republicans have concerning economic policy: tax cuts and fiscal restraint. If policies from Bush’s economic agenda are passed in Congress from now to November 7, 2006, it will help Republicans in the midterm election. These policies can close the credibility gap among conservatives by proving Republicans have re-dedicated themselves to their limited government principles. This strategy can solidify limited government conservatives who want legislative action from the GOP in Washington just in time for the election. Voting for legislation cutting taxes and government spending will help Republican incumbents prove they are actively supporting their campaign promises.

Bush’s economic message also sets the stage for feuding with Democrats. Democrats intend on using voters’ discontent with the Republican legislature in the upcoming congressional elections, making local campaigns referendums on the national performance of the Republican houses. While Americans are regaining confidence in Bush’s economy, he can (and does) argue that his tax cutting policies are working. If Bush is able to get Congress to pass his policies, Bush can simultaneously attack Democrats on the national level undermining their election strategy. If American confidence in the Bush economy continues to rise, Bush can accuse Democrats who oppose his economic agenda of obstructing successful policy. If negativity toward Republicans decreases while Bush’s approval increases, nationalizing local elections will be much less effective than the Democrats had planned.

The most important purpose of Bush’s message is to restore faith and unity among conservatives in time for the elections. Bush is emphasizing the conservative message to prompt real action. As his party’s leader he has responsibilities to command the party’s agenda and maintain support. As his support among limited conservatives declined and other prominent Republicans called for action, Bush took command and called for his Republican legislators to keep their promise and act on behalf of the conservative principles they represent.

Back to Basics, Act One

2005-12-05T00:03:00.000-06:00

Prominent Republican senators have begun the first stage in emphasizing the need to implement limited government policies. In the past two weeks Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and George Allen have all made news urging Republicans to regain its focus on the party’s traditional conservative principles to succeed in the 2006 midterm elections.

On November 22, Senators McCain and Graham voiced their concerns in South Carolina stating that the GOP will have problems in upcoming elections unless policy changes are made. The two Republican senators offered broad solutions by identifying areas that the GOP needs to address. They want to re-define the party’s current image by restoring core conservative principles in Washington.

“(The party must show) progress in Iraq, we need a comprehensive energy package and we need to stop this profligate spending,” said McCain.

Graham continued by reinforcing the Republicans’ need to work on cutting government spending.

“If we really wanted to do well in 2006, we need to have fiscal discipline like Republicans campaigned on. We have lost our way as a party. Our base is deflated and taxpayers don’t see any difference between us and the Democrats,” said Graham.

Two weeks later Senator Allen carried on McCain and Graham’s theme at his 2006 re-election event in Virginia. He told his supporters that he would stand for low taxes, energy independence and oppose activist judges. Allen also said the party must stand behind “common-sense Jeffersonian conservative principles.”

“Less taxation, less litigation, greater energy independence in this country. These are the foundational ideals that (Americans and Virginians) believe in,” said Allen.

The senators’ statements appear to be the Republicans’ first stage in stressing limited government values however there are several facets to these events. On Thursday, several Republican political consultants spoke at a forum at the University of Virginia to discuss the future of the GOP. The consultants all agreed on two assumptions: Republicans still have an advantage over Democrats concerning ideas, and Senators McCain and Allen are the only two realistic possibilities for the 2008 presidential nomination.

First, many agree there is a perception that Democrats have a bankruptcy of ideas. It is fairly obvious the dominant and current Democratic strategy is based on criticism and hatred of the Bush Administration. This strategy has yet to offer substantive solutions to their criticisms, leaving Republican ideas as the only option. While legislative evidence shows Republicans distancing themselves from conservative policies, they still maintain the perception that they offer answers to problems (even though many of these problems are self-imposed). However, this perception is dwindling among conservatives. Republican supporters are becoming more aware of the growth of government under Republican control which is causing the party to lose credibility from within. These senators are all high-profile Republicans signaling the party’s desire and willingness to close this credibility gap.

The more intriguing assumption centers on McCain and Allen’s positioning for the 2008 nomination. McCain wears many hats: party renegade, media darling, the Republican leader of the moderate “Gang of 14” and the most electable Republican in a national election (A September poll had McCain over Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by eight points.). His focus on limited government could be an effort to ease conservatives who doubt his loyalty to the party. The growth of government gives McCain an opportunity to step into a leadership position in the Senate by pushing fiscally conservative policies to return the GOP to its traditional principles. However this opportunity is not limited to McCain. Allen can also take advantage by assuming the leadership role among Republican senators in efforts to shrink the government. Allen’s loyalty to conservative values is not nearly as questionable as McCain’s loyalty. Because Allen is considered a more dependable conservative, he has an advantage to rise above McCain in this visible leadership role. A friendly competition will likely arise between the two senators as they begin their quest to win over the base, and apparently winning over limited government conservatives will present the first skirmish.

Republican Politics v. Conservative Policy

2005-12-04T18:45:00.000-06:00

Dick Armey writes an op-ed asking why Republicans are governing like Democrats. He describes the difference between politics and public policy, asserting that good policy is good politics for the GOP. However, Armey believes that the current Republican policies are bad, resulting in what is becoming more obvious: bad Republican politics. He worries that Republicans are following a political agenda rather than a governing agenda which is causing a massive growth of government in order to please their political bases. The political agenda focuses on perks for one's district (such as the Highway bill) which starkly contrasts traditional Republican policy of limited government spending and taxing. This contradiction is gaining more attention from traditional conservatives who worry that the politicians they elected are not delivering the policies that they vocally supported. Not surprisingly, many lawmakers are showing that it is easier to give in to political pressure than to stand by their principles. It is becoming more evident that the "Republican" party is becoming less synonomous with "conservative" policy.

Congressional Tax Ratings in the Bush Era

2005-11-30T18:35:00.000-06:00

President Bush won over many conservatives in his election campaigns promising to cut taxes and enforce conservative tax policies in Washington. However, Bush’s tax policies could not have passed without the approval of both congressional houses. Congressional Republicans seemed to unite under this policy and passed Bush’s first wave of proposed tax cuts and intend on cutting taxes again next year.

While income tax-cutting bills attract media coverage, Congress votes on many other bills concerning taxes. The National Taxpayers Union, which is an organization promoting limited government and low taxes, provides a rating system that grades Congress on tax-related bills. The highest grade is an “A” which is a “taxpayers’ friend,” and the lowest grade is an “F” which is a “big spender.” Their scale changes each year according to the frequency of tax bills, so a score of 75% can be an “A” one year and a “B” the next year.

The list below shows the grades that each Republican congressional delegation received from 1999-2004. The average score from the House and Senate is shown and election years are in bold.

Year ..... House ..... Senate
1999 ..... 60% B ..... 74% A
2000 .... 63% B .... 73% B
2001 ..... 64% B ..... 80% B+
2002 .... 58% B .... 62% B
2003 ..... 63% B- .... 73% B
2004 .... 62% B .... 71% B

These numbers are interesting because they illustrate many inconsistencies for Republican politics. Of the six years examined, the ratings are highest in Bush’s first year as president in 2001, but have decreased since that year. The ratings from 2002-2004 have not been as high as 2001. Also, the ratings decrease in every election year except the House rating in 2000. The ratings during 2000 are very similar to 2004, both years being presidential election years yet 2000 was under the Clinton presidency and 2004 under the Bush presidency.

Maybe talk isn’t so cheap. According to these scores Republican congressmen have not been as friendly to taxpayers as they were in Bush’s first year in the White House. The GOP has had an opportunity to deliver and strengthen limited government policy, yet these ratings contrast their platform. The ratings do remain high (with the lowest grade of a “B-“), but Republican congressmen have seemingly strayed away from strong limited government policy since 2001. During elections Republican politicians promise conservative tax policies, but their collective scores decrease while they are emphasizing these promises.

At Best, A Moral Victory

2005-11-21T18:29:00.000-06:00

On Friday the House barely passed a bill that will cut federal spending by almost $50 billion over the next five years. The bill was passed 217-215. The Senate passed their version earlier this month cutting spending by $35 billion over the same time frame. The vote on the Senate's bill was almost as close as the vote in the House with a vote of 52-47 in favor. There will be a joint session next month to draft a compromise of this bill and it will be forwarded to the White House if agreed upon by both houses. Both bills cut spending on Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies.

George Will does the math to assess this budget reduction: the House version cuts roughly $10 billion per year off of five budgets which will total around $12.5 trillion. This is about a 0.4% reduction of the budget. Four-tenths of one percent.

Don’t be fooled. This bill barely cuts the budget and was barely passed. Even though House Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Blunt fought tooth-and-nail to get this bill passed, it was only approved by two votes. Fourteen Republicans voted against it.

I would like to know where Mr. Hastert’s efforts were when the Transportation Equity Act was debated on the House floor. This pork-laden highway bill was signed into law in August allotting over $286 billion for roads, bridges, parking lots and bike paths among other projects. Citizens Against Government Waste identified $24 billion as pork-barrel spending and over 6,000 pet projects included in this bill. However, it was approved overwhelmingly, passing 412-8 in the House and 91-4 in the Senate.

Not to say that the entire highway bill was pork, but appropriating over $286 billion for transportation is not responsible government spending. Republicans are supposed to stand for fiscal restraint, yet they have strayed farther from the principle that provided the foundation for the party’s current strength. This current budget reduction is not enough. Is it the first step to resolve the booming growth of government? Only time will tell, but both Republican-controlled houses need to stop growing the government instead of expanding it and then shrinking it.

I support cutting the fat from other government programs, but what about the bacon that has already been brought home to these lawmakers’ constituencies? Further cuts in spending are necessary and they could have been avoided if the expansion of government was stopped before it started. With a growing deficit and midterm elections around the corner, Republicans must get back to the basics and shrink the government, as they promised with their Contract with America over a decade ago: “That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money.”

Splitsville?

2005-11-18T19:56:00.000-06:00

George Will writes an excellent article questioning the marriage between limited government conservatives and social conservaties. Will debates the future of this unity in the GOP and questions a possible alternative for limited government conservatives in national politics.

Keep This Crazy Train Rolling

2005-11-14T22:01:00.000-06:00

Last Friday Pat Robertson, a prominent leader of the Religious Right, notified Dover, Pa. residents that God's wrath might be upon the town because their city council voted against teaching intelligent design in their schools. After the vote, Robertson said, "I'd say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city." This statement comes just three months after Robertson called for the U.S. to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

What a devout Christian he is. Not only does he suggest God will punish these people for not ignoring science, but he believes this vote was somehow a referendum of God. Wow. I must say that the Religious Right has the perfect voice to prove many of their views are out of touch with this country. If people want to believe in intelligent design, that's fine. But to go as far as imposing faith-based beliefs over the science of evolution in schools is crazy. In three months, Robertson calls for murder and demands that his Evangelical beliefs be enforced in public schools. Now that's a Christian who respects all of God's children.

Right Agenda's Code of Ethics

2005-11-06T21:37:00.000-06:00

For Posts:
1. Posts made by the blogger will only be edited to correct grammatical errors or to add necessary hyperlinks.
2. Posts will not be edited to correct factual errors made in the posts. If a major factual error is made, the blog will provide an additional entry to address the incorrect fact(s) made and make the correction.

For Comments:
1. Advertisements disguised as comments will be removed. This blog is not a channel for the unsolicited promotion of a website or product. References of an individual's blog will be allowed only when that reference is included with a comment that is related to a blog entry.
2. Profanity will be tolerated to a certain extent. This blog respects the freedom of speech and recognizes that certain issues and topics can elicit passionate opinions which may include foul language. These opinions are welcome to this blog. However comments that include a gratuitous use of profanity will be removed. "Gratuitous use" will be determined by this blog. Unnecessary profanity does not contribute debate or reflection to posts, which is why these comments will be omitted.
3. "Flame wars" (exchange of personal attacks between people via comment section) will not be tolerated and will be removed.
4. Obscene comments or images will also be removed. "Obscene" will be determined by this blog. Comments that are solely posted with the intent to offend will be considered "obscene."

Justice Paisano

2005-10-31T19:58:00.000-06:00

Today President Bush surprised few by nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Alito is viewed as a close friend to the conservative agenda inside the federal judiciary. He is acknowledged as a staunch conservative and his nomination immediately fueled partisan attacks. Both parties as well as the media have already been centers of controversy surrounding the nomination. Alito has often been referred to as "Scalito" because of the comparison to Justice Antonin Scalia. The spin cycle is in full stride as Republican strategists are calling this moniker "ethnically insensitive." This is only the first defense of Alito's Italian descent. Along with calling Alito an extremist candidate, Democrats are circulating documents criticizing Alito for not winning a case in 1988 that would have sent mobsters to prison. Evidently, the race issue will be used in attacking Alito. The media's reaction has also received some coverage. In today's morning gaggle, a CBS reporter asked press secretary Scott McClellan if Alito got "sloppy seconds" in the nomination. Although his nomination is not 24 hours old, politicians and reporters are all in the middle of what is sure to be a bruising fight in Washington.

Well, this is the battle that everyone seemed to want, but I must admit I did not foresee the race card (against Italians?) being used. Liberals are already on the offensive painting Alito as a radical judge and referring to him as "Scalito" more often than his real name, and they might try to use Italian stereotypes to slander him. Republicans have responded and are basically calling the Democrats racist against Italians because of the nickname (I didn't know that "Scalia," or any variation of that surname, was a racial slur.). The mobster document just recently surfaced adding credibility to the Republicans' claim that Democrats are biased against Italians.

Interest groups on both sides have been waiting to wage this battle and have massive war chests to begin their campaigns. Roberts was not controversial enough to legitimately object to, but Alito's federal rulings run since 1990 which is more than enough to spin accordingly. Pro-life and pro-choice groups will finally have the face-off they've been waiting for. A law professor has commented that no one will sit to the right of Alito on abortion, so it's going to be a rough fight between the groups.

Alito looks like a good choice to unite both sects of the Republican Party. He seems to fit his nickname as Bush nominated a judge in Scalia's mold. His abortion rulings greatly comfort the Religious Right and fiscal conservatives seem to be initially pleased. Bush can get a major political victory if Alito is confirmed. Bush seemed to escape last week, deemed the worst week in his presidency, with fewer losses than expected. He kept Karl Rove, Iraq ratified a constitution, Congress is condemning the large profits of oil companies (which could lead to a drop in gas prices) and the news about Miers' withdrawal was squashed because of the Libby indictment (which is now overshadowed by the Alito nomination). Bush has a great opportunity to get some momentum with Alito. Alito is undoubtedly a polarizing figure, but his confirmation might remind Democrats that Republicans are still in power and the negative news of late is not enough to stop the conservative realignment.

However, the key is to sell Alito's qualifications as a capable judge rather than his political positions. His credentials will be hard for Democrats to attack (I would also advise the Democrats against using the term "sloppy seconds" to show Alito is less qualified than Miers, but that's just me. They've been known to say some crazy things.). The White House can only accomplish this by separating itself from the Religious Right and let only the nomination speak for what it is: pleasing the social conservatives. Promoting Alito's positions and rulings on social issues will only give Senate Democrats substance to paint Alito's nomination as a strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Democrats are successful in this portrayal and they choose to filibuster, Americans might be convinced that it is necessary and could support against confirmation. Alito's confirmation process will be an interesting one, and will surely be divisive.

The New Obstructionists: The Religious Right

2005-10-27T16:44:00.000-05:00

Here are some of the statements made today by the most loyal left-wing senators about the effect of the Religious Right on Harriet Miers withdrawing from her nomination.

Sen. Harry Reid:
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."

Sen. Ted Kennedy:
"The loudest voices heard in this process were the voices of the extreme factions of the President's own political party. They had a litmus test, and they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet that test even before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice heard. That's not what the confirmation process is about. The fact that the White House and Senate Republicans were not willing to stand up for principle and fairness against the extremists in their midst should be disturbing to all Americans."

Sen. John Kerry:
"Caught up in a wave of scandal and concerns about the war in Iraq, the President has allowed right wing interest groups to decide the fate of his Supreme Court nominee rather than stand up to his ultra conservative base. It's a telling statement about the instability and ideological confusion facing the White House and the Republican Party."

Why are extreme liberal senators making the most sense for Miers? I know their intent is to further divide the Republican base by alienating the social conservatives, but their statements make sense. Apparently the extremists of the party do have more power than the center-right majority. They effectively prevented Bush's agenda because of their uncertainty about ONE ISSUE. Evangelicals now replace the "obstructionist" role that the Democrats once held.

Thank you Religious Right. You got your way and now you've basically forced Bush to nominate a more divisive candidate during what is probably the most tumultuous time in his political career. If there is a filibuster, Democrats can capitalize on Bush's unpopularity and keep eroding the conservative movement by convincing the American people that the next nominee is "out of the mainstream." The Religious Right has now officially proven it does more harm than good for the conservative agenda.

A Conservative Voice of Reason

2005-10-26T20:46:00.000-05:00

Former Republican Senator John Danforth, an Episcopalian priest, articulates how the Religious Right is divisive and bad for both the Republican Party and the government. Dansforth uses Iraq, Palestine and Northern Ireland to show the danger of including religion into government.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Hopefully this will start a trend of Republican politicians growing a collective spine and focusing on important policy.

Is Miers Going to Withdraw?

2005-10-25T22:03:00.000-05:00

Last night on The Daily Show, Washington insider and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that Harriet Miers will withdraw from the Supreme Court nomination within the next two weeks. Kristol has previously reported Beltway rumors that have materialized. When it was widely speculated that the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist would resign last summer, he reported that Sandra Day O'Connor was actually the Supreme Court Justice stepping down. Several conservative leaders, including Kristol, have questioned the nomination and have called for Miers to withdraw. Miers has received scrutiny from the Religious Right about her positions on social issues. Many documents that may indicate her position on abortion have recently surfaced in the media.

Miers' nomination has been one of the many problems surrounding the White House in the past two months. Recent news has not helped the Bush Administration's dwindling approval ratings. Today marked the 2000th American casualty in Iraq. This news was accompanied with The New York Times story that revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney might be involved in the CIA-Plame scandal. The indictments for this case are expected to be handed out on Wednesday, which could include Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby and Bush's top political advisor Karl Rove.

If Cheney and/or Libby and/or Rove are indicted tomorrow, the last thing Bush should do is withdraw Miers' nomination. If one (or any combination) of these men are indicted, they will resign from the White House giving the Democrats more fuel to brand the GOP as the "culture of corruption." Bush is well-known for standing by his decisions and withdrawing Miers would be admitting another defeat. He would already suffer a massive political loss with a shaken White House staff and losing the Miers battle would further reduce any political capital he has left (if any at all). He should at least try to keep presenting himself as an unwavering leader and stick with HIS choice. The Religious Right will still complain, but he needs to focus on the campaign stressing Miers' professional qualifications instead of catering to the lone issue of abortion. Giving in to the Religious Right would admit a mistake and would give Democrats another advantage on top of the recent problems. Democrats will probably get a big victory with even one indictment, but Bush can get some momentum back if he is able to successfully push Miers through confirmation.

Miers Means Business: Bush Satisfies His (Other) Constituency

2005-10-09T18:05:00.000-05:00

President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court did in fact appease conservatives, although it wasn't the same conservatives that everyone expected. Business groups, not social conservatives, seem to be pleased with Bush's nominee.

Bush nominated his close friend Harriet Miers, a former corporate lawyer who has represented Microsoft and Walt Disney among other large businesses. In her private practice in Texas, Miers specialized in "commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes." Miers has been chosen by Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, who is often referred to as big business' best friend on the Supreme Court. Many in the business community were concerned that O'Connor's seat would be filled with a judge in the model of Justices Scalia or Thomas, whose judicial philosophy often contrasted to corporate interests in Supreme Court decisions. While the more outspoken social conservatives have questioned and objected to Miers' nomination, many in the business community are happy with Bush's decision. Many believe her experience representing corporations will allow her to view cases more from the business' perpective and will result in pro-business voting.

Business cases and business political involvement have been subtly prominent in the judiciary in recent years. About 40 percent of Supreme Court cases in the past two years have involved business issues. Business lobbies have also entered the judicial political arena. O'Connor's vacancy marks the first time that business lobbies have worked to influence the White House on a Supreme Court nomination. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business association, along with other business groups told the White House this summer that they would be involved in promoting a candidate who would be likely to rule in favor of a pro-business philosophy. The Committee for Justice, a corporate-funded organization, also lobbied the White House for a pro-business candidate. C. Boyden Gray, the founder of the Committee for Justice, said, "I've made the White House aware of the availability of corporations as a potential ally. I hope that the White House is more cognizant [of companies' interests] than they might otherwise have been." The Committee for Justice has since issued the statement "Harriet Miers is well qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court."

President Bush did not bite the hand that feeds him. Although social conservatives are upset and confused about Miers' nomination, Bush silently delivered to the other Republican constituency, the corporations and businessmen whose contributions have been so vital to GOP finances. Business groups and social conservatives have been at odds with several current Republican issues, including the Supreme Court nominees. Many believe that Miers could be another stealth liberal like Justice Souter, but Miers appears to be a quiet friend to corporate America. Miers' experience defending corporations eases the fear that O'Connor would be replaced with a vote against business. O'Connor, along with Justice Kennedy and the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, have been the most dependable in pro-business decisions while Justices Scalia and Thomas have been moderate in their voting. Chief Justice John Roberts is also viewed as a safe bet among many in the business community. Roberts also worked for large corporations in his private practice and clerked for Rehnquist, which relieves many corporate concerns. Should Roberts and Miers vote in place of Rehnquist and O'Connor, the Supreme Court will still maintain a 5-4 pro-business tilt on business-related issues.

Social issues such as abortion have dominated the coverage of Bush's Supreme Court nominees, and Bush seemed to satisfy the Religious Right with Roberts' nomination. Miers however is unknown and offers no paper trail or evidence of social conservatism. Bush is receiving large criticism for nominating Miers, but he might have calculated a long-term victory with both sides of the Republican Party. Recent reports state Miers is devoutly religious which indicates a probability of anti-abortion rulings. Even if Miers or Roberts do not vote in favor of every socially conservative issue, it appears that Bush has chosen two judges who will make pro-business and anti-abortion votes in the Court. As long as they both make pro-life votes, the Religious Right should be content. This sect of GOP support seems to almost exclusively care about abortion and will praise Bush as long as Roberts and Miers vote as Bush expects them. Just like every other major move Bush has made as President, his decision looks terrible in the short-term but will probably result with vast long-term success.

About Right Agenda

2005-10-08T20:26:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Right Agenda. Right Agenda is a blog for conservatives who are concerned with the direction of the Republican Party. Today a conservative is mainly perceived as an Evangelical concerned only with social issues, namely abortion and gay marriage. The Republican Party used to stress an anti-tax, pro-business, strong foreign policy, small government platform. That platform has been drastically changed since the 2000 Election and President George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Bush's strategy won over the Religious Right and many fellow Republicans adopted this tactic to win this newly defined voting block. Because politicians are in perpetual campaigns, Republican lawmakers are now more likely and more willing to communicate socially conservative messages to appease and attract the Religious Right. The GOP has long been known to consider itself as the moral authority and promote socially conservative policies, but prominent Republicans have seemingly shifted the importance of government policy to the importance of social issues. Among other stories important to conservative issues, Right Agenda will monitor national Republican politicians who are believed to have a role in the 2008 Election. These newsmakers will be observed to show their constant campaining to the Religious Right and the prevalence of their socially conservative messages.

Right Agenda is by no means anti-religion or anti-God. It is only intended to show the GOP's shift away from communicating governmental policy issues to communicating religious philosophy. Right Agenda believes that the separation of church and state is important to both the foundation and the future of the American government. This blog will provide the content and interpretation of stories and statements and will hopefully facilitate thought and discussion on the issues at hand. The content of the stories will be based on factual evidence and research. Stories that summarize or use information from other published works will be properly referenced. Right Agenda will not take credit for other authors' works. All viewpoints are welcome to this blog. Readers will have full rights to their own opinions, ideas and statements on the discussion boards; however, inappropriate statements or materials will not be permitted on this blog and will be censored.