Should GOP leaders be teaching conservatism?

May 4, 2009


Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh believes Republicans need to teach Americans about conservatism and Ronald Reagan

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh believes Republicans need to teach Americans about conservatism and Ronald Reagan

It has been widely documented that the Republican Party has totally come apart over the course of the past two elections. The reasons for the collapse, however, are greatly disputed. Some say that the party has drifted too far to the right, not wanting moderates to become part of the party. One of the people that believes this is senator Arlen Specter, who has just changed sides to the in power Democratic Party. While many suspect this was purely a move based on political perseverance, Specter contends that the Republicans had moved too far to the right. Others, like radio host Rush Limbaugh, believe that in reality, Republicans have become too moderate and there doesn’t seem to be a difference between most of their policies and those of the Democrats. Limbaugh says that GOP leaders have forgotten the principles of Ronald Reagan and conservatism and that has led to their demise.


Conservatism has been a concept that many people no longer understand. It is based on what the Founding Fathers wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This focuses on people keeping and controlling their private property, which includes income and real property. This is the first point of the Republican Party’s platform, which is otherwise known as fiscal conservatism. GOP leaders need to teach people what fiscally conservative ideas actually are and what the differences are between them and the Democratic Party’s economic ideas. The fact is, Republicans have not ran a truly fiscally conservative president since Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush raised taxes. His son, George W. Bush, spent out of control. Although they were both Republicans, neither of them were truly conservatives and this hurt the image of the party that Reagan had spent eight years building up. Younger voters don’t remember the values of Ronald Reagan and many people have no idea what his values actually are. This is why GOP leaders need to get back to actual fiscal conservatism and teach people what that means and how a free market empowers and helps everyone instead of a government tearing down some to give hand outs to others.

Lots of pundits argue that the religious right has taken over the Republican Party and this has turned voters off because of their “controversial” views on social issues. My question is, when did it become controversial to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? When did it become controversial to oppose the killing of innocent children? In reality, more people share the views of the religious right on social issues than the media would lead you to believe. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, views on gun rights and abortion seem to be turning towards the conservative point of view. California recently voted in favor of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in what is thought of as a vastly liberal state. According to exit polls, African-Americans and Hispanics, two minority groups that are largely thought of as being excluded from the Republican Party, were a huge part of passing Prop. 8. GOP leaders could connect with these two groups on these social issues and then proceed to help them understand how fiscal conservatism and a free market will benefit them.

Republicans tried to become moderates with the nomination of John McCain in the 2008 election and they got destroyed. Instead, Republicans need to re-educate Americans on conservatism and how it has worked in the past, instead of liberal ideas that have never in history been able to work. As a start, I would suggest these leaders and other people who want to learn about conservatism read the book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” by talk radio host Mark Levin. It is a simple, brilliant way of breaking down conservatism and how it relates to the Founding Fathers of our nation and how it is undisputedly a better option than Statism, which is the term Levin uses to describe liberals. Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia did a great thing by organizing the National Council for a New America and making sure GOP leaders listen to the concerns of Americans. It would be a better thing, however, if these same leaders taught the basics of conservatism to those same American people.


Articles for Monday; former Congressman Jack Kemp dies; Lincoln Quote

May 4, 2009

Capitalist for the Common Man   This past weekend, former Congressman Jack Kemp, 73, passed away. Although I didn’t know it until I started reading a few of his obituaries, Kemp was one of the originators of the tax-cut theory to help an economy. Kemp was a staunch believer in slashing taxes across the board to help out individuals, families, small businesses and big businesses as well. The Wall Street Journal details in an editorial his accomplishments. Kemp also had the rare ability to bring many sorts of people in to the Republican Party and was known as a working-class man that could connect to anyone. His eternal optimism inspired Republicans and he was almost named the presidential nomination for the Republicans in 1980. Instead, Ronald Reagan was given the nomination and Kemp went on to help Reagan start the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen. In a time where Republicans are lacking ideas and the ability to get their ideas out, Jack Kemp was a man who was a leader in both of those areas. If there was ever a time that Kemp was needed most to be a lightning rod, this would be it. Hopefully, some Republicans will look back on Kemp’s writings and speeches and learn something from them.

National Review’s Goodbye to Jack Kemp  

Weekly Standard’s Article on Jack Kemp   Fred Barnes does a nice job of actually listing the many accomplishments of jack Kemp. He points out that even though Jack Kemp didn’t attend the most prestigious of school for economic study (he majored in physical education at Occidental College) but he was still able to come up with revolutionary ideas. His energy was unmatched by any and he was a great supporter and assistant of Ronald Reagan.

Intrusion of Reality   Mark Steyn, who is often a guest host for Rush Limbaugh, writes about how Barack Obama’s first 100 days seem to forget about many realities. For example, a man in California wrote to thank Obama for getting him over 300 extra dollars each month because of the stimulus package. What he forgot to ask, however, is how that is going to be sustained over time. Eventually, with socialized health care and federalized payments for education, taxes are going to kick in. Obama might just send those taxes on to the next president and let him deal with them. Either way, as Steyn points out, America is drifting closer and closer to a European style of government, one which has parties debate on who can offer the “best services”. This style is ultimately unsustainable. And anyways, remember when Americans took pride in working to earn things and not be handed entitlements by the government? Why have those years passed us by? Margaret Thatcher once said, “The facts of life are conservative.” Let’s hope that someone in Washington has the courage and ability to remind us of that soon.

“Property is fruit of the labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” -Abraham Lincoln 

Article for Sunday; Opinion on the Supreme Court

May 3, 2009

Neither a Souter nor a Specter be   William Kristol of the Weekly Standard writes about the rather dismal week the Republican Party just went through. The defection of senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party was bad enough, but then liberal Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced he will be stepping down soon. It would be easy for Republicans to be worried or upset about the departures,especially that of Specter, but Kristol argues that this gives Republicans many opportunities to counter and rebuild. It is undoubtedly Obama’s Congress now and what he says will go. This means the GOP will have ample opportunity to provide alternatives. There will be no excuses if Obama’s plans do not work out because it is all on the Democrats now. Kristol concludes that in the end, neither Specter nor Souter were going to help the conservative movement. There is much work to be done, but conservatives now have a better chance to present a reasonable, unified alternative.

That leads to what my opinion is of what will happen in the new search for a Supreme Court Justice. The chance of nominating a justice is a fabulous opportunity for Democrats. This gives Barack Obama the ability to nominate a younger liberal judge that would establish the presence of a long term liberal Justice. The average age of the three remaining “liberal” judges is 78 years old, while the four judges that are thought of as conservative only average out to be 61 years old. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is thought to be the swing vote of the Justices, is 72 years old. With this info, it is reasonable to assume that Obama will be able to nominate more than one justice during his term.

The process of naming a new Supreme Court Justice is a interesting one. After Obama makes a nominee, they have to be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a 19 member committee. Of course, Arlen Specter was the ranking Republican on this committee, so it only makes sense that he will have an impact on who the new Justice is. If the SJC approves the nominee, the entire Senate votes on approval of the nominee. All that is needed is a majority vote to approve the nominee. While there is no doubt that will happen in the Senate with plenty of Democrats willing to carry out Obama’s agenda, there seems to be a bit of an issue about the SJC which was brought up Rush Limbaugh on Friday.

Because Arlen Specter has now switched to the Democratic Party, he is no longer part of the minority party, the GOP. For a Supreme Court Justice nominee to be approved by the SJC, he or she needs ten votes of approval from members of the SJC. The catch, however, is that one of those votes must be from the minority party. Had Specter remained a Republican, he would have been the easy vote for Democrats to get from the minority. Specter, however, switched parties so if the remaining Republicans wanted to, they could band together to prevent the approval of a liberal Supreme Court Justice. This all of a sudden doesn’t look like such an easy path for Democrats to get what they want.

Now, on the topic of an actual nominee for the Supreme Court. Many sources seem to indicate that the early betting money is on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, currently a federal appeals court judge on the 2nd circuit. Sotomayor is getting early attention not because she is qualified or because she has been highly regarded as a fair judge, but because she is of Latin descent and a female. Hispanics are begging the first African-American president to name the first Hispanic to be a Supreme Court Justice. Obama has long campaigned when talking about the Supreme Court that a new justice should have “empathy” and have real-life experiences. Hispanics believe that Sotomayor brings these qualities to the table and they also believe that they are owed a favor for their historic turn out in the 2008 election in support of President Obama.

Call me crazy, but shouldn’t a potential Supreme Court Justice be nominated on a basis of accomplishments and qualifications, instead of her heritage? It seems a little dangerous and irresponsible to be using the Supreme Court, the highest court in our nation, as a platform to give political paybacks for certain groups of people. We shouldn’t be looking at this as an opportunity to name the “first this” or the “first that”. Instead, the nominee should be the person who has been most reasonable as a judge and has the most qualifications to become a Supreme Court Justice. It shouldn’t matter what the person looks like or where the person’s parents come from. What if there was a male, white, Christian liberal judge who has all the qualifications and experience needed to be a Supreme Court Justice, more so than any other nominee? Will Obama pass over that person because he is a white male and we already have those? Doesn’t that sound like racism? So does picking a judge just because of how she looks.

If Sotomayor has more experience and qualifications to be a judge than anyone else Barack Obama can find, then she should be the nominee. Just because she is a female of Latin heritage, however, doesn’t mean she is a good nominee and people that say she should be because of her gender and heritage border on promoting racism. The political correctness that has run amok in this country will prevent anyone from truly calling out this disturbing trend of racism. Let’s hope that President Obama refuses to cave in to doing political favors for minority groups and instead picks the person who has earned the nomination.

New Articles for Friday, my opinion on the future of the GOP

May 1, 2009

Torture? No. Except…   The brilliant Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer writes about the use of enhanced interrogation methods. He first begins by saying that in a time of crisis, the CIA did what it needed to do to save lives. If we had reacted differently and another terrorist attack had happened, Bush administration officials would probably be prosecuted for having not done enough. They tried countless other methods to get information from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed but he would only respond with “Soon you will know.” So they stepped up their intensity with waterboarding and got results. Officials from the Bush administration say this, officials from the Obama administration say this. It is now undeniable, waterboarding worked. Now, members of Congress are attempting to prosecute those who kept our nation safe during the past eight years, citing that these methods look so horrible on “a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009”. The reason we have a bright, safe, sunny day in April 2009 is because these methods worked. Memos also show that members of Congress approved of these methods, even going as far as to ask the CIA if they needed any more help from Congress. Nancy Pelosi was one of these members of Congress that was briefed by Congress. Her attempts to deny any knowledge of waterboarding are cowardly and nearly criminal. Krauthammer covers all of this in his usual brilliant, simple style.

A Blow for Income Equality   National Review Editor Rich Lowry writes that President Obama might be enjoying this economic crisis a little more than he is letting on. Going to back to Obama’s most infamous slip up (of course it came while not using his teleprompter), Obama had stated its better when we “spread the wealth around”. It was genuine, but it only would have been approved in a communist or socialist nation, two things America has never been. During the economic crisis, many wealthy Americans have been hit the hardest. Problem solved for Obama. While there has certainly been less wealth and less inequality, there have been 1.2 million jobs lost since Obama has taken office, squashing the statistic he told America that 150,000 jobs have been created since the passing of his stimulus bill. Now, America closely resembles socialistic-Europe. Is this what President Obama wants? Good article by Lowry.

The GOP After Specter   The debate rages on about how Republicans should react to the departure of veteran senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party. While one side of the argument favors Specter leaving, saying now the Republican Party is more together and purer in their conservative ideals, the other side complains that there is no room for moderates in the Republican Party.

Here is the way I look at it. Moderate, to me, means that you don’t really know what your ideological beliefs are. You can be swayed from issue to issue and you will vote how you want to vote. In that case, it doesn’t matter what actual party you are counted as being a member of. Although Republican Senate members thought they had enough votes to stand up to the president’s mammoth spending bill, which goes against the true ideological beliefs of conservatives, they actually didn’t because there were some Republicans, like Specter, who had different views. Therefore, these people should just be called independents. Specter made the switch to the Democratic Party to save his political career. He knew he was going to get destroyed in the Republican primaries against a conservative candidate, Pat Toomey, who actually acted like a Republican is supposed to. Hmm, what a novel concept! I do believe that even though there will be less Republican senators, there will now be more unity amongst them. This presents an image of togetherness and actual political theories and concepts that can either be accepted by Americans or rejected by Americans. The theory that conservative values have been rejected by Americans in the last election is false. Republicans have only paid lip-service to being true conservatives and instead acted like weaker Democrats. This notion of having no idea which direction the party cost them in the elections. The Democrats were organized and true to their beliefs and had a plan, which although many Americans still lean center-right, appealed to Americans because they at least had a plan while Republicans had nothing. Now is the time for a stronger, more conservative Republican party to rise together with a united message for the American people.

Obama’s “swagga” takes over moderate CNN

April 30, 2009

And people wonder why conservatives believe the media overdoes its love for President Barack Obama. I could not believe this segment actually aired, especially on CNN, a channel I tended to think of as most in the middle. If Glenn Beck had done this exact same segment, the liberals would have screamed for head and riots would have taken place. Fast forward in the video to the :46 second mark. Words can’t even describe it. Kyra Phillips and T.J. Holmes on the report for CNN.

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Justice Souter Retiring

April 30, 2009

News broke late Thursday night that Supreme Court Justice David Souter intends to retire within the next year, giving President Barack Obama a chance to make his first impact on the nation’s highest court. Souter has often been associated with the liberal side of the court, so because Obama’s choice will likely be a judge that has a tendency to rule in favor of the liberal position anyways, it is unlikely that the next Supreme Court Justice will bring much change to the Court. In the past 14 years, only two new judges have been named as new Supreme Court Justices. Former President George W. Bush appointed Associate Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts to the panel of judges. Roberts, who as Chief Justice is the highest judicial officer in the nation, was confirmed on September 29, 2005, and Alito was confirmed on January 31, 2006.

Obama will clearly look to pass a liberal judge and because he will have 60 Democratic senators, it should be a fairly easy task. The Senate also only needs a majority vote to approve. Politico has a story up on who Obama could choose and a list of other factors that will go into his decision. Being Harvard Law student, it would make sense that Obama would look for someone from that academic area. It would also make sense that Obama would attempt to nominate a minority, as Clarence Thomas is the only current minority serving as a Justice.  

Although nominees for the role as a Supreme Court Justice are made by the president, the judges still need to be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the entire Senate. While many veteran Justices passed the Senate vote with ease, recent nominees have faced lots of opposition. Alito was formally opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Senator John Kerry attempted to have him blocked as well. After much debate, Alito was approved by the Senate with a vote of 58 to 42. Roberts also faced initial opposition but was passed with a vote of 78 to 22. The case of Roberts was unique because President Bush originally nominated Roberts to replace the retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Conner. After Chief Justice William Rehnquist unexpectedly died, Bush withdrew the original nomination and renominated Roberts to become the Chief Justice.

The real interesting debate will be if a Justice that tends to vote conservative retires or passes away. Obama would then have the power to nominate another Justice that could potentially swing the Supreme Court towards the left. Antonin Scalia, widely considered to be a conservative Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, will be 74 years old this year.

More Articles for Thursday

April 30, 2009

Our Jekyll and Hyde President   Victor Davis Hanson writes in the National Review about how President Obama seems to have two different personalities when it comes to foreign policy. His first personality is a weak, apologetic president who has infuriated many Americans for his constant “confessing” of all of America’s sins, attempting to win enemies over and those who don’t think highly of us to begin with. The other side of Obama’s foreign policy personality is a strong believer in force and reminiscent of the Bush administration. He has taken on right-wing military gurus like Jim Jones and also kept Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense, who served the same role under Bush. He has also approved of gunning down Somalian pirates and using Predator missiles, both things you wouldn’t expect from a president who so strongly objects to enhanced interrogation methods of captured terrorists. Hanson wants to know what Obama’s agenda is behind all of these actions and which type of personality Obama actually has. Hanson also wonders if Obama even knows what his foreign policy personality is going to be.

Tough Questions   The debate over enhanced interrogation methods rages on as President Obama refuses to say the Bush administration authorized torture but refuses to rule out the possibility of prosecuting them. National Review puts together an defense expert team of conservative views that continue to talk about these methods, how effective they were and if we really needed to use them.

Fact Checking Obama’s Recent Statements   The Associated Press does some fact checking on recent statements made by President Obama, some during the prime-time press conference and others made while he was in Missouri. Too often we believe everything politicians say, so the AP does a nice job here of putting in context the truth of Obama’s words. One of the things I brought up last night, the number of jobs actually created by the stimulus plan, is also disputed by the AP fact checkers, saying that saved jobs have been counted as jobs created by the Obama administration and they still have no actual formula that can truly count how many jobs have been created.

The Media’s Overreaction to Swine Flu

April 30, 2009

Over the past week or so, the popular item of the media has been swine flu and its coverage of this new epidemic has been relentless. I guess it is good that the media has been letting people know about it, but at the same time swine flu has been completely overblown. It seems that on every channel there’s another “health expert” estimating this could be the one that takes out millions of people. Of course, the hosts are quick to point out that they don’t want to freak people out or make them panic, but then they have these experts come on predicting catastrophic results. Vice President Joe Biden went around the morning broadcast talk shows saying that people should basically avoid confined places, like traveling on airplanes. That, of course, kills the airline industry even more, which is in dire straits as it is. American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith said Biden’s advice borders on “fearmongering”.

On a quick side note, I understand that a lot of people were turned off by Sarah Palin’s perceived lack of intelligence, but I am fairly certain she could not do worse than Joe Biden. Has he done anything have significance? He has basically been nothing but an issue for President Obama, with people constantly trying to cover up for statements made by the VP. Check out this list of Biden’s flubs over the past year and a half

Again, in regards to swine flu, there has been a ridiculous amount of hype for the disease that really has barely done any damage. It seems as though once every year or so, scientists and the media get fired up and freak out over a potential sickness or disease. Remember bird flu? Remember West Nile Virus? How about SARS? None of those diseases wound up causing any large damage to Americans. They were overhyped by the media and caused way more panic and anguish than it should have.

According to stats I found on CNN’s Jack Cafferty’s blog, they really downgrade the significance of swine flu. Although the World Health Organization has graded this outbreak at a level 5 pandemic alert, the second highest level, there have only been 257 confirmed cases of it worldwide. Not just Mexico or the U.S., but the entire world. And out of 300 million people in the United States, only one person has died of swine flu so far. Since January, there have been 13,000 deaths connected to seasonal flu in the United States. Why has there been no rampant media coverage of that? Swine flu is also being found in more countries because doctors are now actually looking for it. Scientists also believe that in the current form of the swine flu virus, it won’t be as harmful as the regular flu virus. The fact that it is called swine flu has done huge damage to the pork industry as well. Countries have blocked pork imports from Mexico and the U.S. because they believe the swine flu virus comes through pigs, which is actually false in this case of the virus.

While many people believe that the media, newspapers in particular, is changing or dying, this example of an overblown virus shows that the media still has plenty of power over the people of this country. President Obama did a great job of simply stating that people should wash their hands, cover their mouths while coughing and stay home from work or school if they are sick. If people calmly start doing that, swine flu will become irrelevant, just like every other potential disease epidemic in the past few years.

Daily Articles for Thursday; Conservative opinions on Obama’s 100 days

April 30, 2009

100 Days: ‘Harry, I have a gift’   After delivering an outstanding speech as a freshman senator, Barack Obama was greeted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The senator of Nevada congratulated Obama on his performance and Obama responded “Harry, I have a gift.” Yes, even the staunchest conservative can realize that when Obama has his teleprompters in front of him, he has the ability to turn words into magic and make everyone believe that he is with them and understands their side of the problem. Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal points out that Obama’s gift might end up hurting him in the long run. Henninger points out that Obama’s habit of making everyone hear what they want to hear has already misled some top aides, leading to what seems to be an unclear view of policies and contradiction on issues like the AIG bonuses and the enhanced interrogation memos. Going back to Obama’s days at the Harvard Law School, he had the same ability to connect with people on both sides of an argument, leading Al Gore’s former chief of staff Ron Klain to comment that that style of leadership is more effective running a law review than it is running a country. In the next few years, we will truly see how effective this style of leadership is.

The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism   A truly fabulous article by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks points out that the real social issue in America today is free market economics, not abortion or same -sex marriage. The issue is whether or not believe that free enterprise and capitalism are still the building blocks our economy should be built on. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are what make this country so great, showing the ability to be creative and work hard and eventually create a viable company from scratch while having minimal interference and taxing from the government. President Obama, according to many economists, seems to be against these principles and instead favors a system in which the government is the big player in the economy and that redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is the way to go. Liberals agree, while conservatives believe that capitalism is still the best thing our country has, even though there may be severe drops every 25 to 30 years or so. Brooks argues that “fairness” is protecting merit, freedom and hard work, not taking from the minority to give to the majority to make financial situations closer to equal. Poll numbers seem to indicate that many Americans still agree with Brooks. He also points out that it is not fair for politicians to reward companies who performed poorly, banks that cheated and homeowners who didn’t pay mortgages. The companies and banks that did things right and the homeowners that took care of their mortgages are being treated unfairly. A universal health-care plan, Brooks says, will make going to the doctor about as enjoyable as going to the local DMV. Free market based options for health care are still the way to go but if people and politicians don’t stand up for capitalism soon, we may not see them ever again.

UPDATE: GOP leaves social issues behind on new council

April 29, 2009


Virginia Representative Eric Cantor is said to be the mastermind behind the new GOP initiative, National Council for a New America

Virginia Representative Eric Cantor is said to be the mastermind behind the new GOP initiative, National Council for a New America

UPDATE (4/30): Fresh off Ben Smith’s blog on Politico, the new GOP council created by Eric Cantor, called the National Council for a New America, has released the set of issues they will be speaking about in the town-hall meetings across the nation in the upcoming weeks. The list includes the economy, health care, education, energy and national security. Notably missing are the social issues that have been a problem for Republicans, like same-sex marriage, abortion and immigration. I would have to say this is a fabulous decision by Cantor, showing the signs of a young, promising decision by one of the new leaders of the Republican Party. While many people agree with the GOP on these social issues, just as many people disagree on the left and both sides are prone to getting heated and defiant on these issues. The point of this council is to listen to all people, which includes conservatives, liberals and, most importantly, independents. Social issues are not very high on the priority list of the majority of Americans. They want to hear the solutions that the GOP has to the economy, energy independence and health care. If the GOP can regain the trust of Americans on these issues, they will be able to talk about social issues at a later date. The council needs to be able to not only come up with alternatives to the liberal agenda taking place in Washington right now, but they need to present them in an articulate, simple fashion. At the same time, Republicans cannot come across as disagreeing with the president just to disagree. Obama is still three times as popular as any important GOP politician so Obama will get the benefit of the doubt from the people if the council members present anything less than stellar ideas. Cantor understands this and has made a wise decision to focus on the relevant issues. 

ORIGINAL STORY (4/29): After taking shots from President Obama, seeing a veteran Republican senator defect to the Democratic party and basically seeing their image and named destroyed, the GOP looks like they have finally stood up and began their attempt to recreate the Republican brand. With the full report coming from CNN’s John King, the GOP will announce Thursday their intentions to began an initiative called the National Council for a New America. This council will include a “National Panel of Experts”, which include some of the biggest names in the Republican Party.


Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour will all be members of the panel, as well as Arizona Senator John McCain and former Florida Givernor Jeb Bush, brother of former President George W. Bush. The panel will hold town-hall meetings across the nation with the America people to listen to them and reconnect with voters, as well as pass on legitimate alternative solutions promoted by the GOP. The panel will report to the Republican congressional leaders, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Cantor is said to be the mastermind of this project.

Will this be the start of the Republican Party’s movement to reshape its image? Will it be effective? How will Democrats respond? I am looking forward to the official announcement of this panel and how it will affect Washington.