Laura Ingraham's Weekly E-Blast, 11/21/06

Laura Ingraham's Weekly E-Blast, 11/21/06

E-Blast Archive
November 21, 2006
It's getting drafty in here!
Less than two weeks after the Democrats won both houses of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) went on a Sunday talk show to push for a military draft. What's going on here? One of two things--
First, he knows that a draft--even as just one option in compulsory national service--would never be approved. So this move is not a serious effort to strengthen the U.S. military but merely another attack on Bush--a cynical ploy to frighten Americans and erode support for the war. The commanders I have interviewed bristle at the idea of messing with the all-volunteer force. Leading reluctant soldiers into battle is the last thing they need.

And let's not forget, Rangel is using the tired old left-wing tactic of class warfare, based on the faulty premise that the military is only comprised of poor people who have no other options. But this is nonsense. As we saw with the blowback from Sen. Kerry's "botched joke"--our military is diverse, professional, and better educated than the civilian population!

But there is always the possibility that Rangel could be totally serious. And heck, in theory, the idea of national service seems attractive--a great way to encourage patriotism, sacrifice and an appreciation of our military. But in practice, any compulsory service program would become one more bloated, unrestrained government bureaucracy.

Rangel's plan would require you either to join the military or go to work for some "government-approved" organization. Oh, like what? The separation-of-church-and-state-mafia would never stand for church work as "national service." The PC police would wail if anyone suggested that the Boy Scouts get government service approval. However, I am guessing that in Rangel's perfect world, joining an anti-global warming coalition, Planned Parenthood, or moveon.org would be ideal ways to fulfill a "national service" requirement. Plus, let's not forget that our most recent experience with a draft (which ended in 1973) failed to foster a greater affection and respect for our armed forces among members of the '60s generation.

This draft or national service talk is probably a lot of hot air, and even the Democratic leadership is shooting down the Rangel proposal. They know that pushing this would create a huge backlash from moderates, libertarians, and many conservatives who want less government intrusion into their lives, not more. And it probably wouldn't be too popular with most Democratic voters either.

Let's remember--we don't serve the government. The government is supposed to serve us.

Look Who's Cutting and Running Now

Fighting words: A wartime lexicon.

Look Who's Cutting and Running Now
James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Nov. 20, 2006, at 4:39 PM ET

According to the Associated Press, Henry Kissinger made it official Sunday morning in London, when he told a BBC interviewer that military victory was not possible in Iraq. Actually, what he said was this:

If you mean by "military victory" an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible.

There are a couple of qualifications in there, and what Kissinger is describing is really more the definition of a political victory than a military one, but say what you will about our Henry, he wasn't born yesterday. He must have known that the question would come up, what his answer would be, and what the ensuing AP headline ("Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible") would look like.

Taken together with the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld, the nomination of Robert Gates, and the holy awe with which the findings of the Iraq Study Group are now expected, this means that the Bush administration, or large parts of it, is now cutting if not actually running, and it is looking for partners in the process. (You have to admit that it was clever of the president to make it appear that Rumsfeld had been fired by the electorate rather than by him.) It seems that Kissinger has been giving his "realist" advice even to the supposedly most hawkish member of the administration, namely the vice president, and at a dinner in honor of the president-elect of Mexico a few nights ago, I saw him mixing easily with such ISG elders as former Rep. Lee Hamilton. Members of this wing or tendency were all over the New York Times on Sunday as well, imputing near-ethereal qualities of leadership to Robert Gates, so a sort of self-reinforcing feedback loop appears to be in place.

The summa of wisdom in these circles is the need for consultation with Iraq's immediate neighbors in Syria and Iran. Given that these two regimes have recently succeeded in destroying the other most hopeful democratic experiment in the region—the brief emergence of a self-determined Lebanon that was free of foreign occupation—and are busily engaged in promoting their own version of sectarian mayhem there, through the trusty medium of Hezbollah, it looks as if a distinctly unsentimental process is under way.

This will present few difficulties to Baker, who supported the Syrian near-annexation of Lebanon. In order to recruit the Baathist regime of Hafez Assad to his coalition of the cynical against Saddam in the Kuwait war, Baker and Bush senior both acquiesced in the obliteration of Lebanese sovereignty. "I believe in talking to your enemies," said Baker last month—invoking what is certainly a principle of diplomacy. In this instance, however, it will surely seem to him to be more like talking to old friends—who just happen to be supplying the sinews of war to those who kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Is it likely that they will stop doing this once they become convinced that an American withdrawal is only a matter of time?

At around the same time he made this statement, Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. It's interesting to know that he still feels himself invested in that grand bargain of realpolitik, which, contrary to what he may think, has not by any means been forgotten. It's also interesting in shedding light on the sort of conversations he has been having in Baghdad. For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it. This apprehension about another sellout is especially strong among the Shiite and Kurdish elements who together make up a majority of the population, but it seems from its public reports so far that the ISG has not visited the Kurdish north of the country. If Baker thinks that the episode is a closed subject, it shows us something of what the quality of his "listening" must be like.

In 1991, for those who keep insisting on the importance of sending enough troops, there were half a million already-triumphant Allied soldiers on the scene. Iraq was stuffed with weapons of mass destruction, just waiting to be discovered by the inspectors of UNSCOM. The mass graves were fresh. The strength of sectarian militias was slight. The influence of Iran, still recovering from the devastating aggression of Saddam Hussein, was limited. Syria was—let's give Baker his due—"on side." The Iraqi Baathists were demoralized by the sheer speed and ignominy of their eviction from Kuwait and completely isolated even from their usual protectors in Moscow, Paris, and Beijing. There would never have been a better opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a dictator who was a permanent menace to his subjects, his neighbors, and the world beyond. Instead, he was shamefully confirmed in power and a miserable 12-year period of sanctions helped him to enrich himself and to create the immiserated, uneducated, unemployed underclass that is now one of the "root causes" of a new social breakdown in Iraq. It seems a bit much that the man principally responsible for all this should be so pleased with himself and that he should be hailed on all sides as the very model of the statesmanship we now need.

In Memoriam: Andre Waters (1962-2006)

I just heard on Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia that former Philadelphia Eagles and Arizona Cardinals strong safety Andre Waters died this morning in Tampa, FL. He apparently committed suicide. He was forty-four years old.

Once I find a link with more details, I will post it.

Bill

Republicans Must Follow Reagan's Vision

Government & Constitution

Republicans Must Follow Reagan's Vision
by Rep. Mike Pence
Posted Nov 16, 2006

Rep. Mike Pence, candidate for House minority leader, delivered the following speech to the Republican Conference today.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know there are many traditions in this room but permit me begin by acknowledging God. He has given my family and my staff the health and strength to give our colleagues a choice: to endure this contest of worthy opponents with grace.

I want to thank my supporters in this room, loyal friends who have stood at my side in this cause, wherever life takes my little family, I will always see you in this moment and admire your courage and your willingness to act on principle whatever the cost.

And to those of you who oppose me, thank all of you for the kindness, even in opposition. Many whom I have dueled with on the floor and in conference showed me the greatest respect.

I haven't been turned down this often or this nicely since I was trying to get a date for the prom!

To the good men and women of the 110th Congress, thank you for your courtesy and your encouragement. I love you guys.

I am running for Republican leader because I believe we did not just lose our Majority, I believe we lost our way.

We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress.

But there is a way out.

Mark Helprin wrote, "the way out of the wilderness is the truth; recognizing it, stating it, defending it, living by it." Here's the truth as I see it.

The Truth

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the real scandal in Washington, D.C. was runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of a limited federal government.

In recent years, our Majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100 percent, created the largest new entitlement in forty years, and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision.

I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our government and our most dedicated supporters.

And I am not saying this because I bear no blame for this departure.

While I opposed No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug entitlement, my opponent voted against the Farm Bill and never requested earmarks in his entire career. I supported the Farm Bill and have requested earmarks every year I have been in Congress.

None of us are blameless, least of all me.

When I say we lost our way, I mean all of us, to one degree or another, lost our sense of true north.

As we choose who will lead us in the days ahead, it is important we learn the right lessons from 2006. It is even more important that we move forward with a renewed commitment to do our duty.

While tragic necessity has placed us in this position, I urge you to seize this day and join me as we return our Conference and our party to the conservative principles that minted our Majority in 1994.

We must reject the path of big government Republicanism that led us into the box canyon of 2006.

Only by renewing our commitment to fight for the principles embodied in the Contract with America can we hope to have the credibility to earn back the opportunity to lead this national legislature.

Let me say a word about my opponent, John Boehner.

I am not running because I think John Boehner did a bad job as Majority Leader. Quite the contrary. I think the guy deserves a medal.

John Boehner is an honorable man and John Boehner is a conservative.

He took a tough job under the worst circumstances and made the best of it and I commend him for it.

I am not running because I think I am a better man. I am running because I think I might just be the best man to lead this conference as Minority Leader.

And the role of the Minority Leader is different from Majority Leader. Each demand different skills and each have different goals.

Our goal in the Majority was to pass legislation reflecting Republican principles.

Our goal of the Republican Minority in the 110th Congress should be to defeat the liberal agenda of the Democrat Party and become the majority in Congress again.

We will only defeat the Democrat agenda by presenting a positive, conservative message in vivid contrast to the big government liberalism of the new Majority.

New Vision

To renew our Majority, we must offer this nation a compelling vision of fiscal discipline and reform.

It is written "without a vision, the people perish." What is true of a people is also true of any political movement.

Our new Republican minority must rededicate itself to the ideals and standards that minted our majority in 1994.

Now, as then, we must pledge ourselves to find a consensus agenda, acceptable to every member of our conference, like the Contract with America, and promote that agenda through policy and persuasion that will resonate with the American people.

We must again embrace the notion that Republicans seek the Majority not simply to govern but to change government for the better. We are the agents of change and we must return to that reformist vision.

New Voices

And I believe we must confront this moment with new leadership and new voices.

We must take a page from the playbook of President Ronald Reagan who taught us that it is not enough to believe great things, we must effectively communicate great things to the American people.

Throughout my public career, I have worked to provide a credible and persuasive voice for the Reagan agenda. I became a Republican because of Ronald Reagan.

My decade as a working radio and television broadcaster combined with the credibility that has earned me the support of dozens of conservative leaders and publications, might just prove that I am uniquely prepared to renew the confidence of millions of Americans in our commitment to core Republican values.

Without the votes necessary to stop the advance of their liberal priorities, our mission will be one of persuasion and tactics.

We don't just need leaders in the air to member districts, we need leaders on the air.

Each of us must commit ourselves to using our voices and expertise to dismantle Democrat arguments and expose their liberal, big government agenda at every turn.

I see every Republican member as a leader, with unique gifts and talents, and I am offering my talents as both spokesman and coach to bring this team of leaders to the American people.

But our challenge in the majority won't just be about opposing the Democratic agenda.

There may be one other task.

In 1990 I was a candidate for Congress when the last Bush Administration sided with a Democrat Majority in Congress to pass the largest tax increase in history.

I watched as a Republican president worked with a Democratic Congress to the detriment of every Republican candidate in the country.

As Moses famously said, "I've been burned by a Bush before."

As most of you know, I have never hesitated to stand with this President when I thought he was right-even on tough issues like the war.

And, I have never hesitated to oppose this President, publicly and boldly, when he has pursued policies at odds with my commitment to limited government.

This Republican Conference and its new leaders must be prepared to stand up to this President when he is wrong ...when he pursues policies at odds with the principles of limited government and the rule of law.

I will represent the Conference to the White House, not the other way around.

As your Minority Leader, I will defend our nation, our treasury and our values.

I will stand with those who stand for freedom and defeat the voices of retreat.

I will fight to renew our reputation for fiscal discipline and reform.

And, while I will exercise and abundance of respect for all members on matters of conscience....let me say with clarity:

This is a pro-life conference and I will be a pro-life Minority Leader.

Conclusion

In 1995, House Republicans wrote the following in one of their first governing documents:

America stands at a crossroads. Down one path lies more and more debt and the continued degradation of the Federal Government and the people it is intended to serve. Down the other lies the restoration of the American dream...we choose the second of these roads.

We are once again at a historic crossroads in the nation's future.

The result of last week's election means that America is poised to go down the other path--the wrong one.

Our Minority must stand in the gap and point the path to the other road. We must be a light in the darkness. I brought a weathered pocket copy of the Ten Commandments with me this morning. The card is yellow from nearly twenty years of use. As I was preparing to speak, my eyes fell on a passage I had not noticed before. Exodus 20:20 reads, "Do not be afraid for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you."

Men and women of the Republican conference, Providence has come to test us and I know we will pass this test. We will do the work the American people elect Republicans to do; defend our nation, defend our treasury and defend our values with all we've got.

In the words of the founder of our Republican Party, "with malice toward none and charity toward all," I ask for your support for Minority Leader of the 110th Congress.

Mr. Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, represents the 6th District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was chosen as the HUMAN EVENTS "Man of the Year" in 2005.

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID

Things that make you think a little:



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
Month of January. That' s just one American city,
About as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.



When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
Have started this war, state the following:



A. FDR led

us into World War II.

B. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..
An average of 112,500 per year.



C. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
An average of 18,334 per year.

D. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

E. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
An average of 5,800 per year.

F. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
Times by Sudan and did nothing Osama has attacked us on
Multiple occasions.

G. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
Has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
Slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.



The Democrats are complaining
About how long the war is taking.


But It took less time to take Iraq

than it took Janet Reno
To take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.



We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
In Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
The Rose Law Firm billing records.



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
Than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick



It took less time to take Iraq than it took
To count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In- Chief is doing a HARD JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased

media hopes we are too ignorant
To realize the facts



But Wait there's more!



JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13



Some people still don't understand why military personnel
Do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
Is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
Impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
Services do what they do for a living



This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
Some who have never served think of the military.



Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate
When you've never held a real

job?"



Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
Occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
Checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
Not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
Daily cash receipts to the bank."



"I ask you to go with me ... As I went the other day...
To a veteran's hospital and look those men ...
With their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
didn't hold a job!



You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
And go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
Of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
And you look those kids in the eye and tell them
That their DADS didn't hold a job.


You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
Buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
Those waving flags



You stand there, and you think about this

nation,
And you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?"


For those who don't remember
During WW.II, Howard Metzenbaum

was an attorney Representing the Communist Party in the USA.

Now he's a Senator!



If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English

thank a Veteran.







It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating.







Let us live like we are worth the price he paid! -unknown

E-Shopping Big This Holiday Season

E-Shopping Big This Holiday Season
Monday, November 13, 2006 - Millennium Radio

A recent survey shows on line holiday shopping is expected to see a huge boost...With sales zooming to 32-billion dollars. The survey shows e-shoppers are expected to shell out about 1,000-dollars each on line...An 8 percent boost over 2005.

Ellen Davis, Spokesperson for Shop.org, says there's a variety of marketing efforts this year, like free shipping, wish lists and multiple zoom options to make it easier to see the items.

The three biggies are Google, Ebay and Amazon are all expected to see heavy traffic this holiday season from those looking for items both in store and online.


By: Racquel Williams


(Copyright 2006 by Millennium Radio Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill's Comment: E-commerce is nearly a $100 BILLION industry. I will be doing my part in helping these numbers. I will update you all about it soon, here on the Phillips Philes.

Bill

Martin wins Busch title -- as series' greatest driver

Martin wins Busch title -- as series' greatest driver

NASCAR
November 15, 2006
02:07 PM EST (19:07 GMT)

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Mark Martin has been ranked No. 1 among the "25 Greatest NASCAR Busch Series Drivers" in Internet polls on NASCAR.COM and NASCARMedia.com in conjunction with the season-long celebration of the 25th anniversary of the NASCAR Busch Series and its association with series sponsor Anheuser-Busch.

Martin, the all-time series leader in wins (47) and Busch Poles (30) despite having run only one full season (1987) throughout his 220 starts, received the most votes in both polls, which allowed fans and media to rank their top 25 selections from a list of 41 nominees. A write-in candidate also was permitted among the 25 choices. One vote per Web site was allotted per fan or media member.

Inside the Numbers
Mark Martin' Busch Series stats
Year Races W T5 T10

1982 1 0 0 0
1987 27 3 5 13
1988 13 1 2 6
1989 17 1 6 8
1990 12 1 3 5
1991 1 0 0 0
1992 14 1 5 9
1993 14 7 7 7
1994 15 3 8 11
1995 15 3 9 11
1996 14 6 11 12
1997 15 6 10 12
1998 15 2 6 9
1999 14 6 9 10
2000 13 5 12 13
2004 5 0 1 4
2005 8 2 5 6
2006 7 0 5 5
Totals 220 47 104 141



"We had a lot of fun racing in the Busch Series," Martin said. "There has been a lot of talent in that series over the years, both with the full-time Cup guys and some of the Busch regulars, so to be voted at the top of the top 25 really does mean a lot to me.

"I'd just like to say thanks to both the fans and the media. We've always gone out and given 100 percent to whatever we were doing and to be recognized for our effort means as much as any of the wins or any trophies."

The series' first two-time champion, Sam Ard, finished second in the NASCARMedia.com poll; followed by Dale Earnhardt Jr. in third, another multiple champion; Jack Ingram, the first series champion in 1982 (he won again in '85) in fourth and Dale Earnhardt, who won the first NASCAR Busch Series race at Daytona International Speedway in 1982, in fifth.

The NASCAR.COM fan poll ranked Earnhardt Jr. second. Kevin Harvick, the newest multiple champion following his 2006 title, finished third. Earnhardt was fourth and Martin Truex Jr., the 2004-05 series champion, was fifth.

Drivers with one or more Busch Series titles were automatically among the list of nominees. Other criteria included a minimum of 150 series starts and/or top percentages of wins versus starts, top fives versus starts and top 10s versus starts.

More than 152,000 fans voted in the NASCAR.COM poll, while more than 160 individuals voted in the NASCARMedia.com poll. Voting began on Oct. 16 and ended Nov. 12.

The 25th anniversary NASCAR Busch Series season culminates Saturday with the Ford 300 at Homestead-Miami Speedway. The race begins at 7:10 p.m. ET and will be televised on TNT.

NASCAR Busch Series 25 Greatest Drivers Poll Results
NASCAR.COM Rankings NASCARMedia.com Rankings
No. Driver Votes No. Driver Votes
1. Mark Martin 10,590 1. Mark Martin 1,428
2. Dale Earnhardt Jr. 10,250 2. Sam Ard 1,378
3. Kevin Harvick 9,938 3. Dale Earnhardt Jr. 1,376
4. Dale Earnhardt 9,039 4. Jack Ingram 1,343
5. Martin Truex Jr. 7,342 5. Dale Earnhardt 1,295
6. Harry Gant 5,963 6. Harry Gant 1,273
7. Matt Kenseth 5,818 7. Kevin Harvick 1,244
8. Jeff Burton 5,388 8. Tommy Houston 1,239
9. Bobby Labonte 5,204 9. Randy LaJoie 1,113
10. Greg Biffle 4,868 10. Tommy Ellis 1,077
11. Darrell Waltrip 4,763 11. David Green 995
12. Kenny Wallace 4,508 12. Greg Biffle 988
13. Joe Nemechek 4,034 13. Jeff Green 953
14. Randy LaJoie 3,848 14. Matt Kenseth 932
15. Dale Jarrett 3,474 15. Bobby Labonte 929
16. Johnny Benson 3,413 16. Chuck Bown 922
17. Sam Ard 3,293 17. Martin Truex Jr. 898
18. David Green 3,259 18. Jeff Burton 871
19. Michael Waltrip 3,096 19. Larry Pearson 868
20. Ron Hornaday Jr. 2,967 20. Jason Keller 848
21. Jack Ingram 2,964 21. Johnny Benson 843
22. Jeff Green 2,872 22. Darrell Waltrip 813
23. Tommy Houston 2,674 23. Joe Nemechek 801
24. Jimmy Spencer 2,652 24. Rob Moroso 733
25. Brian Vickers 2,503 25. Dale Jarrett 715

Winning the Future Special Edition: Open Memorandum to House Republicans

Winning the Future Special Edition: Open Memorandum to House Republicans

by Newt Gingrich
November 15, 2006
SPECIAL EDITION

An Open Memorandum to House Republicans

Date: November 15, 2006
To: House Republicans
From: Newt Gingrich

RE: Reflections on being back in the minority and how to become a governing majority.

As we think about the 2006 election and where House Republicans go from here, I want to suggest a few principles and actions that might be helpful.

When I was first elected in 1978, House Republicans had been in the minority for 24 years. Despite our best efforts to win enough seats to gain the majority, it took us 16 more years. If we do not want to return to a possible 40 years in the minority, it is essential that we spend time now thinking about the lessons of 2006 and what has to be done. If we do this, we can accept 2006 as a corrective but necessary interruption in our pursuit of a governing majoritarian party.

In 1946 and 1952, the Democrats found themselves in the minority. On both occasions it only lasted two years. They found the methods to recover, even though in the second case they were operating under a very popular Republican President Eisenhower.

When the Republicans lost their brief majority status in 1954, they could not recover it two years later, despite the fact that Eisenhower was winning a massive re-election. Similarly, they could not regain the majority even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984.

There are some key questions and key principles to keep in mind as we work through the process of earning back the majority.

1. Republicans lost the 2006 election. Do not hide from this. Do not shrug it off. Our team lost. Why did we lose? What do we have to do differently?

2. Are House Republicans electing a leadership team to be an effective minority or a leadership team to regain the majority? These are very different roles and require very different considerations, very different strategies and very different leaders.

3. To regain majority status, we have to focus on the country first and on Washington and the Congress second. If we are responsive to the country, they will support us and return us to power. If we are focused on action in Washington (whether White House action, legislative action or lobbyist and PAC action), we are probably entering a long period in minority status.

4. Are House Republicans electing leaders to represent House Republican values and strategies to the White House or leaders to represent the White House to House Republicans? Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons. If we want to regain majority status, we have to focus on the building of a grassroots coalition which supports real change in Washington.

5. From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.

6. House Republicans should establish new principles for appointing people to the Appropriations Committee. Nothing infuriated the Republican base more than the continued process of earmarks, set asides and incumbent-protection pork. There is no reason for the House Republican conference to reappoint a single appropriator unless they agree to be part of the Republican team. First establish the principles of representing Republican values on appropriations and then ask each appropriator to commit themselves to living by those principles or accept appointment to another committee. There is a legitimate role for set asides in the legislative-executive branch process, but there is no reason to give the executive branch a blank check. There has to be some limits, and those limits should be set by the Conference and not by the committee members.

7. All of this will take time. As rapidly as possible there should be a three-day member-only retreat to discuss issues like this and to set strategies for the next two years. These kinds of decisions should be a key part of thinking through who should lead House Republicans for the next Congress and how they should lead.

One Last Note

Do not underestimate Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and her team. She and Rahm Emmanuel finally put together a disciplined recruiting system that allowed a lot of Democrats to run as conservatives, even while they were planning to elect the most liberal Speaker in history. Pelosi is a tough, smart, disciplined professional. She is not going to be easy to beat, and she and her team are going to work hard to keep you in the minority for a decade or more.

This is going to be hard work and will require a lot of dedication and a lot of thought.

With best wishes for a return to majority status as quickly as possible.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Winning the Future for November 13, 2006

Winning the Future for November 13, 2006

by Newt Gingrich
November 13, 2006
Vol. 1, No. 30

Raising a Banner of Bold Colors: Republicanism Lost, but Conservatism Did Not

When it comes to the lessons of the 2006 elections, it's very important to set the record straight. I traveled throughout the country this election year. I met with Americans in all the key states. And what I now understand is this: Republicans lost, but conservatism didn't.

Many of the Democrats who won this year ran as non-liberals -- in some cases, as outright conservatives. A number of them, including some incumbents, explicitly disavowed liberal Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and San Francisco values. Many repudiated Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry's smear of American troops in Iraq. Remember, he was effectively driven off the campaign trail for the last 10 days by his own party.

The result was that, by Election Day, Democrats were seen as better at controlling government spending and at reducing taxes.

In Two Short Years, Republicans Lost the Advantage of Reform

Republicans, in two short years, gave up the advantages on taxes, balancing the budget and controlling spending that they had spent three generations earning.

On Katrina, controlling the border and Iraq, Republicans gave up the advantage as the party of management that could get things done -- an advantage they had held since the 1950s.

And here's the key: The elite media, liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans will do everything they can to portray this election as a repudiation of conservatism. Their game plan is to panic Republicans into selling out their grassroots base and adopting a series of really bad ideas which will -- in their words -- "salvage" the Bush Administration.

In fact, such a strategy would be an absolute disaster for the Republican Party, guaranteeing a division within the Republican ranks by sparking a revolt by the conservatives.

Reagan at CPAC: 'No Pale Pastels'

The last time Republicans had an electoral disaster (and make no mistake, that is what 2006 was -- in the Senate, the House, the governorships and state legislatures), California Gov. Ronald Reagan had some straightforward advice for the Republican Party. In 1975, he came to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and said:

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

Reagan at the 1976 GOP Convention: 'Bold, Unmistakable Colors'

Again and again, Reagan would come back to this theme of bold clarity. In his impromptu speech at the 1976 Republican National Convention, Gov. Reagan again said:

"There are cynics who say that a party platform is something that no one bothers to read and it doesn't very often amount to much.

"Whether it is different this time than it has ever been before, I believe the Republican Party has a platform that is a banner of bold, unmistakable colors, with no pastel shades.

"We have just heard a call to arms based on that platform, and a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the American people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party, which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a running of a late, late show of the thing that we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years."

The Problem Has Not Been With Conservatism or Our Voters

For the next four years, Gov. Reagan would continue to be bold, clear and decisive. In 1980, he won a landslide election for the presidency and brought with him a Republican Senate and a 33-seat increase in House Republican numbers.

Today, some Republican leaders will advocate that we steer a different course. They will insist that we find a way to be appealing to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They will be wrong.

We should appeal to the Blue Dog Democrats who claim to be conservative. We should appeal to their voters and their supporters back home. Even more, we should appeal to the majority of the American people by returning the Republican Party, once again, to the party of reform, ideas, solutions and common-sense conservatism.

We should rebuild the grassroots conservative movement. From the Reagan Revolution of 1980 through the Contract with America in 1994, it was this movement from outside Washington that carried us to the first center-right majority governing coalition in more than 60 years.

The problem has not been with conservatism or with our voters.

The problem has been with Republican leaders who forgot who elected them and what values their supporters expected to see implemented in Washington.

Over the next few weeks, I will report to you directly and clearly about the proposals that are coming forth and the strategies that are being recommended. I will be your eyes and your ears in this time of profound challenge and opportunity for our movement and, as always, I will not be afraid to speak out. In the meantime, I hope you will let your congressman and your senators know where you stand on these vital concerns.

This was not a realigning election as 1994 was. Voters did not vote "for" the Democrats but "against" Republicans. Now, it will be up to us to see that the results of the 2006 election serve as a temporary but necessary corrective interruption in our goal of getting to a conservative governing majority. Take heart, while there is much to be done, I believe if we are focused, disciplined and we work together, we will Win the Future for America.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. - Just yesterday it was reported that incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supporting Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader. This is a sign that Pelosi, despite all her talk of moving to the center and reaching out to conservatives, will govern from the left. It is a direct assault on the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and a deliberate break with the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.). The next test for whether Pelosi will govern from the left or the center will be if she appoints Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), the impeached former federal judge, to chair the Intelligence Committee. No national security supporter will be comfortable with Hastings' having oversight of the nation's secrets, but the pressure on Pelosi to appease the Black Caucus is immense. Stay tuned.