Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category


Supervisor Pat Herrity Explains Fairfax County’s Priorities

Here is Pat Herrity on the January 8, 2009 edition of Reston Impact:

On February 3, 2009, in Fairfax County, vote for:

  1. ending $650 million dollar budget shortfalls that amount to more than the total budget of the Police, Fire & Rescue, Sheriff, Libraries, Parks, and Health Departments combined.
  2. ending the spending of $200 million to make the Fairfax County government that biggest landlord in the county that subsidizes housing for those making as much as $99,000 a year.
  3. ending the spending of $130 million on fancy school administration buildings while
  • classrooms are overcrowded
  • school buildings are in need of renovation AND
  • Fairfax County teachers have fallen from the best paid in the region to sixth best.

On February 3, 2009, Vote for Pat Herrity.


click on the banner & visit Pat’s site to find out how you can help


Tolerating Democrats’ Spending

The Republican National Committee will be electing a new Chairman as early as January 29, 2009. 

Bloomberg has an interesting story.  The author, Heidi Przybyla, comments on the state of the Republican Party in the northeast, particularly New England by stating:

The hard line taken by the leaders has already cost the party, which has become increasingly rural and Southern. With the defeat last year of Representative Chris Shays in Connecticut, Republicans no longer hold any House seats in socially moderate New England. The party also lost three House seats in New York, one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania, making Republicans an endangered species in the Northeast.

Here is a question: where is the “hard line”?  Was it on spending?  Before losing power, Republicans exercised little, if any fiscal responsibility.

Is this just about social issues?  Maybe.

One problem that the Republican Party is facing is that we are too defensive against charges that are nothing more than labels.  These labels are thrown at us to prevent any meaningful discussion on issues.

Take issues of spending.  Is it “hard line” to say that we need to cut spending because we cannot resort to confiscatory taxation to support it?  Many Americans would say, “no,” but Republicans cannot get into this issue if they let themselves be put on the defensive with words like “hardline,” which carry a “guilty until proven innocent” connotation.

So what do we do?  We do need to broaden our base.  How do we go about doing that?  Former RNC Chairman Rich Bond thinks:

“We need a great deal more tolerance for the other guy’s point of view,” Bond said. “Not everybody comes from the same constituency as a majority-white homogenous district in the South where all people care about is keeping their guns and taxes.”

Putting the social issue of guns and the right to self-defense aside, what does this mean?  Do only white Southerners care about keeping what they earn?

This points to an ugly truth about Democrats that Republicans not only have failed to expose, but too many have gone along with: Democrats divide Americans based on race, class and gender.

Democrats divide Americans by telling:

  1. black Americans that they have been historically wronged and that you need Democrats in power to enact compensation through government
  2. poor Americans that you are at the mercy of the rich and that you need Democrats in power to oversee the spreading of Americans’ wealth, from rich to poor, through government
  3. women that they are not on an equal footing with men and that you need Democrats in power to engineer equality through government

By doing so, Democrats deny any of these groups their natural right of self-determination because confiscatory taxation in necessary for Democrats to right these purported wrongs through more government spending.  Confiscatory taxation robs Americans of their self determination which is their right to pursue happiness.  Confiscatory taxation is a veritable form of slavery.

Do Republicans need to ” tolera[te] … the other guy’s point of view” when the “other guy” is pushing confiscatory taxation on the American people?  Do Americans, regardless of race, class or gender want the majority of the proceeds of their labor going to government?  If anyone thinks they are getting valuable services in exchange for their confiscated wealth, can we get into the issue of government waste and how this waste cripples our economy?  Are we going to go in depth in what we mean by “low taxes” or are we going to cower when the word “hardline” is thrown at us?


Parting Thoughts on the Bush Presidency & the State of the Republican Party

Chris of Mason Conservative had a spirited discussion in his comment section with Loudon Insider of Too Conservative (and others) regarding the Bush Presidency.

Chris runs through some strong points of the Bush Presidency:

I would have voted for him again. Part of our weakness as a party grew from our willingness to join the Dems in bashing Bush. I’m proud to have voted for him, he stood up to terrorists, to the media, to Democrats, for life issues. Yeah he wasn’t great on the economy, we all know that. But the real reason Deomcrats took power was over Iraq, but it was (and is) the right war and he pressed forward to victory even in the face of defeat at home. I’m not saying George W. Bush didn’t make mistakes, far from it, but from where I stand politcally I thank god we had his eight years compared to what Al Gore or John Kerry would have done to us, and what Barack Obama is about to do to us.

while decrying that  “it[‘s] trendy to bash, it[‘s] also intellectually lazy to lay all the problems of the Republican Party at [Bush’s] feet.

Loudon Insider’s central criticism of Bush is that:

…he kept taxes “low” while running up HUGE deficits and nearly bankrupting future generations with BS like his Medicare plan enhancement.

Along with past problems in Iraq, Loudon Insider contends that defending Bush is a losing proposition for the future of the Republican Party.

Bush spent way too much (along with the Republican Congress).  One purported motivation for this was to maintain support for the Iraq war. Up until 2006, many commentators recounted that Bush could not openly disagree with Congress, on budget and spending items, because it would show weakness in the Party and undermine Republicans’ power.

How has this worked for Republicans?

Here is how:

  1. Bush went along with a Republican Congress and spent without recourse.
  2. The Republican Party’s base, for the better part of the last fifty years, has been based on fiscal responsibilty.
  3. Democrats seized opportunity by making Republican spending an issue; in short, they managed to co-opt fiscal responsibility.
  4. Combined with Republicans’ mishandling of Iraq (through 2006, and pre-surge), co-opting fiscal responsibility as an issue allowed Democrats to destroy Republicans’ overall credibility which culminated in the election results of 2008.

Politically, Republicans are now past Bush, and it is time to start drawing lessons from his Presidency.  The time for advocacy is over.  Now it is time to analyze the history and the first step is to argue over the metrics by which we will measure the Bush Presidency.  So far we have:

  1. Chris: Should the results of the Bush Presidency with respect to the promises of his 2000 and 2004 opponents?  His other success: tax cuts, two “conservative” Supreme Court appointments, no terrorist attacks since 9/11, etc.?
  2. Loudon Insider: Have Bush’s policies of deficit spending,  creating new social entitlements, and the mishandling of Iraq diminished the future prospects of the Republican Party?
  3. 10 kt: Could Bush (and Republicans whom he presumably led) have done anything to prevent Democrats from co-opting the issue of fiscal responasibility in their favor?

How do we answer these questions; what other questions are there; and what lessons do we need to draw in order to move forward?


Upcoming FAYR Events

FAYR Banner

FAYR Social
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Time: 7:30pm-??

8130 Arlington Blvd. Falls Church, VA
Ask for the Fairfax Young Republicans at the door

FAYR Monthly Meeting
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Time: 7:30pm-9:30pm
Glory Days Grill
3900 Nutley St., Fairfax, VA
(at the Micro Center Shopping Center)
Ask for the Fairfax Young Republicans at the door


Bailouts: The Clock is Ticking

Here’s an AP video regarding the situation in Chicago with the closing of Republic Windows & Doors:

THE SITUATION: Republic Windows & Doors is unable to secure credit from Bank of America to continue operations.  Republic Windows & Doors thus gave its union workers 3 days notice of layoffs instead of the 60 days required by law.

THE CONSEQUENCES: Union workers are demanding vacation and severance pay.

REPUBLIC WINDOWS & DOORS ARGUMENT: Bank of America will not let Republic Windows & Doors make payment.

UNION WORKERS’ ARGUMENT: Bank of America received bailout money for the purpose of extending credit to Republic Windows & Doors so that it can meet union workers‘ demands.

Do you see it coming?

The tidal waves of failing businesses and the endless demands for the bailout money to be used so that everyone can get theirs.  When is it going to end?

Will there be enough money?  Will we have to borrow more?  Will we have to print more?  Will our money even be worth anything?

Can labor laws, designed to protect workers, provide for a thriving economy?

Can government direct prosperity?  Should it?

Will we hit a point when it is too late to do anything?


War Heroes

Too often in recent history, Republicans have run war heroes under the false notion that their exemplary character allows them to deflect substantive policy accusations.  The pattern goes like this:

  • CANDIDATE: I’m _____________, I’m running for _______________, and I served __ years in the ___<<military branch>>___ (and fought in the _______war[s]).
  • OPPONENT: I respect Mr. _______’s service   The problem is, Mr. ______ supports ___<<ridiculously wasteful government expenditure>>___ and we just cannot afford it without wrecking our economy because…..
  • CANDIDATE: I have fought for this country for ___years proving that I love this country and that’s why you have to believe me when I say we need ___<<ridiculously wasteful government expenditure>>___.

What a great way to engage in a substantive policy debate?  Sound familiar?

This is how we get Presidential candidates making careers on opposing wasteful pork barrel spending only to support $150 billion of pork on top of $700 billion to address a perceived credit crisis.  That’s right, no talk of economic pros or cons, just: “I fought for this country and I am doing what’s best regardless of politics.”  So much for fighting for a country where we can have opposition politics over critical matters such as these.

This is not to say that we have no respect for war heroes.  We love our veterans.  We certainly respect their service, but if we expect to have strong candidates we must not let our candidates use military records as an excuse to disengage from substantive policy debates.   This tactic does the country a great disservice.

Finally, it must be noted that most Americans under 50 did not live through a draft (yet).  In light of the volunteer military, these Americans have a different view of the military and military serviceman than Americans over the age of 50.  These younger Americans view all politicians (former servicemen or not) with the same degree of skepticism and demand substantive arguments, not argumenta ad hominem.


Hard to Hear

Here’s an ad from Keith Fimian:

This one should not even be close.  The Democratic Congress has been a disaster.  They do not deserve to increase their numbers with the likes of Gerry Connelly.

Gerry Connelly is too corrupt….even for the Democratically controlled Congress.

The choice is clear: On November 4, please vote for Keith Fimian in VA-11.