There has been and will continue to be a great deal of speculation surrounding which Republican candidate has the best chance of succeeding President Bush in 2008. Some Republicans have suggested that only a “centrist” Republican such as Rudy Giuliani or John McCain can win. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that checkered pants “Rockefeller Republicans” don’t win landslides. Reagan-style conservatives do.
This past November, voters made it clear that the Republican Party had moved too far left, especially on entitlement spending and immigration. I believe the candidate with the best chance of winning a Reagan landslide would be solidly conservative both fiscally and socially and would be able to clearly articulate a bold conservative vision for America.
He (or she) would be 100% pro-life. He would propose a human-life amendment and would oppose embryonic stem cell research and would fully recognize what Thomas Jefferson did, which is that government’s primary role is to protect human life. He would echo the words of Ronald Reagan, who said, “America will never be whole as long as the right to life as granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn.” No Republican president has ever been pro-choice on abortion. The pro-life movement is the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Republicans may hold their proverbial “noses” and vote for a candidate with an ambiguous record on abortion such as McCain or Mitt Romney, but they won’t be as likely to walk door to door tirelessly campaigning for him.
He would be 100% opposed to same-sex marriage. We need a president who can clearly articulate to the nation why a federal marriage amendment is needed to protect marriage from activist courts and state legislatures who have attempted to usurp the legislative authority of “we the people” to define marriage.
He would be fiscally conservative and would propose bold tax and spending cuts. The American taxpayer is over taxed. My ideal candidate would make the case once and for all for a flat tax. Even Iraq has one. It is absurd that our nation doesn’t. He would also propose abolishment of the death tax, capital gains tax, and dividend tax and dare the Democrats to oppose him.
He would propose specific market based reforms for Social Security and education. He would not propose “saving Social Security.” He would propose transforming it entirely so that younger workers could invest in their own private accounts. He would explain how minorities and the poor are disproportionately harmed by the current social security system and how, by enabling them to own their own retirement accounts, they could build greater long-term wealth and earn the same market rates of return federal employees earn with their Thrift Savings Plans. He would also make the case for expanded school choice voucher programs and charters explaining how they primarily benefit the least advantaged minorities in our society and would dare Democrats to oppose him.
He would be 100% opposed to illegal immigration. He would call for the immediate deportation of all illegal aliens in our federal prisons and would demand that a security fence be constructed across the entire southern border—not just 700 miles. He would also propose federal legislation that would bar any non-U.S. citizen from receiving any government services. He would opppose “guest worker” style programs and instead encourage Congress to draft legislation to increase immigration for citizens from other countries that wish to become American citizens and who will assimilate into our culture, learn our history, and speak our language.
He would call on Congress to repeal McCain-Feingold—the most egregious violation of core 1st Amendment political speech in U.S. history.
He would promise the American people to only nominate conservative constructionist jurists to the federal bench in the “Scalia-Thomas” mold.
He would call on Americans to recommit themselves to the founding principles of our nation and would speak frequently about how fragile the unalienable rights that we enjoy are and that the most important purpose of our government is to protect life, liberty, and property not to redistribute wealth and provide cradle to grave welfare.
Finally, my ideal Republican presidential candidate would speak unambiguously about the jihadist threat facing our nation and Western Civilization in general. He would make it clear to the American people and the world that we will never negotiate with terror states such as Syria and Iran and that we will not hesitate to pre-empt a terrorist attack on our nation with overwhelming force. He would also announce that we are the most tolerant country in the world but that the United States will never tolerate those on U.S. soil who preach jihad who call for the destruction of our nation and those who do will be jailed or deported. He would be unequivocal in his support for Israel and announce to the world that any attack on Israel would be considered an attack on the United States. Finally he would call on every American citizen to unite in the war on Islamofacism and ask each individual American to take part in the overall war effort by serving their country—not by “shopping” but by joining the military, sponsoring a soldier, or volunteering to assist deployed soldiers’ families. He would make it clear, as Reagan did, that no foreign power or hate filled ideology could defeat a united America.
A candidate who possessed these beliefs and boldly articulated these positions and repeated them every chance he could would, no doubt, win a Reagan style landslide in ’08. Anything less in my mind results in President Hillary Clinton.