A Conservative Answer to MoveOn
276007
When a group of former White House aides formed a political advocacy group called Freedom's Watch last summer, its initial wave of ads featured battered Iraq war veterans pleading for support for President Bush's "surge" of troops.
56089
Conservatives may not like President Bush's nominee for attorney general, but they are not rebelling against Michael Mukasey.
459465
Leadership is going to be the single most important issue to Republican voters. That, along with the conservative animus towards McCain, is why Rudy has the edge
567171
In speech to conservatives, senator confronts critics over issues such as immigration head on.
353758
The Republicans have a plank on just about everything. They've taken positions not only on disabled people and hunters, but specifically on disabled hunters. They found 80 different things to "applaud" in their platform, 17 to "hail" and a dozen to "commend."
284654
Christine Todd Whitman and others think a moderate stance is GOP's key to survival.
125846
The following is adapted from an article published Wednesday on CQ.com.
421012
To forgive is divine. To forget may be asking too much of religious conservatives when it comes to Sen. John McCain.
442660
Analysis: Socialist Strauss-Kahn is a widely admired economic manager. Better to have him in Washington than heading up the opposition in Paris
333503
Before announcing his bid for the G.O.P. nomination, Mitt Romney contributed to conservative groups in a position to influence his image on the right.
230847
With the conservative maverick on the brink of a nomination, colleagues grapple with the prospect.
218428
Commentary: Conservative Beltway pundits have been panning the candidate's first days, but their opinion isn't what counts the most
47935
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, in his longshot bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, advocates what he calls his Ã¢ÂÂcompassionate brand of conservatism.Ã¢ÂÂ
317450
Yesterday's piece on health care and the presidential election got a great response, and some of it from Republicans, using the slogans and logic I hoped they wouldn't. But that's okay, it helps me focus my rhetoric on the precise point of disagreement, and hopefully by illuminating it, I can either convince some of the Republicans to come over to my side, or help eliminate some of the confusion on both sides. Or maybe it'll just keep the argument from slopping over into all kinds of irrelevant issues. The basic Republican argument goes like this. Why should I pay for the health needs of people who are so irresponsible as to not have health insurance.  If I got it wrong, please set me straight. Now I'd like to answer this, very carefully. The Democrats aren't proposing that you should pay for the uninsured. Key point. They either agree with you, or know that they're not going to get their proposal passed unless they take this into account. The Obama plan says you don't get care unless you have insurance. His proposal aims to get a lot more people insured. Clinton goes one step further, by requiring everyone to have health insurance.  Also, you already pay for the health needs of the uninsured. Whether you or I like it, we don't look the other way when someone is in need. You may feel the system should work differently, but that's not responsive to the proposal the Democrats are making. The debate is how health care works for the non-indigent.  If you have property, a car, a house, or if your kids go to private school or college, or if you want to take a vacation, or have a baby, or exercise between jobs, getting sick without insurance is a sure way to go from being middle class to being poor, quickly. This is why we have health insurance, to smoothe out the risk, to protect our family's lifestyle. It seems to me it's a good thing. It's the market solving a basic human need.  So this is what we should be discussing, how can we get insurance for all the people who want it, or should we require it for everyone -- this is the debate of 2008. This is what the Democrats are putting on the table, and what McCain, or whoever is the Republican nominee, will have to respond to, if we're going to have the respectful debate everyone is talking about having.  Why is this such a problem?  A lot of people, even healthy people without pre-existing conditions, can't get health insurance. And what if you have a pre-existing condition? Do you really think it's cool for the insurance industry to refuse them coverage? Why is that a good thing? I honestly don't get it. Consider the penalty for not having insurance. (See above.) So far the leaders of the Republican Party have managed to keep health care off the national agenda, but this year, it's there. If you doubt me, just ask a few people you know, and don't just ask poor people or Democrats, ask Republicans. Disease isn't a party issue, and while poor people tend to have poorer health, even well-off people need health care. And most people can't afford to pay for a catastrophic illness, and enough of them can't get health insurance to make this an important national issue. If you disagree with this, please let me know why. PS: Phil Windley asks where it stops. Should we provide free housing for the homeless? And what about free cable TV for people without cable TV? (He provides other examples.) No, this is only about health insurance. It's not about any of the other things mentioned in Phil's post.
324900
How and why did President Bush and the Republicans do so well in Tuesday&#39;s elections? I&#39;ve jotted down a few quick thoughts on what, in my opinion, led to the GOP&#39;s 2004 victories.
121072
A look at conservative Republicans and their preferences for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, based on recent Associated Press-Ipsos polls.
753184
There are relatively simple solutions to a looming problem.