Yesterday, the Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia voiced its support of SB 66, a bill which prohibits different types of discrimination in public employment — including discrimination against same-sex attracted workers. The bill defines “sexual orientation” as a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, or gender identity or expression.

Several Virginia RLC members have been vocal on the issue, including David Lampo, who penned an op-ed in The Richmond-Times Dispatch, and RLCVA Board member Rick Sincere, who spoke at a press conference organized by Equality Virginia on the bill’s passage.

Said Lampo in his op-ed, “… Republicans could lose it all again if we let our party go back to the culture wars and religious extremism that some in our party seem to relish. Not only must we resist the divisive urges of the more extreme elements of our party; we need to restore the image of our party to one of social tolerance and support for individual liberty, two of the important values it was built on.”

He continued, “One of the ways to do this is to implement a policy of employment nondiscrimination for all government employees, including gays and lesbians. Virginia currently has no statute establishing a statewide policy against discrimination in employment for any public employees.”

Rick Sincere, a longtime RLC member, spoke on the issue:

The RLC received press hits in the Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and Fredricksburg Free-Lance Star. Governor Bob McDonnell has stated repeatedly that he opposes discrimination in state employment, including discrimination based on sexual orientation — affirming the RLC’s position on the issue.

If you missed the RLC teleconference with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, here’s a full 90 minute recording of his opening remarks and all the questions from the great crowd who called in.

Governor Gary E. Johnson has been called the next Ron Paul.  He has not yet announced his candidacy for president, but has been widely mentioned as a potential Republican presidential candidate who reflects the Tea Party’s and liberty Republicans’ perspectives.

I recently blogged about Governor Johnson’s background.  He received good grades from the Cato Institute when he was governor and has a taste for honesty that is rare in politics and business today.

Besides serving as governor of New Mexico for two terms, he had built a significant corporation from scratch, which he sold in 1999.  Readers who would like to contribute or help Governor Johnson can find contact information on http://ouramericainitiative.com/. He also has a Facebook group page with 2,000 members.

Langbert: Governor Johnson, it is a privilege to interview you.  I teach business administration at Brooklyn College.  What are three things that you learned from your business career that could be applied to the federal government or that you did apply as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: I started my company in 1974 and I was the only employee.  In 1994 we had 1,000 employees.  Things that I learned and applied as governor include the importance of hiring good people; cutting mistakes short; and sticking to basic principles.

I’m good at hiring people and have a great track record.  But mistakes are inevitable. When you make a mistake in hiring, you need to cut it short.   As governor, I avoided political appointments as much as possible.  There was one instance where I was forced to make one, and I closely monitored the individual’s performance.

The obvious things are most important. The basic principles:  being on time, sticking to principles, telling people to tell the truth.  As governor, I sat down in cabinet meetings and I told people to tell the truth.

L: One of the realities of large organizations is the use of information to manage conflict and improve social compatibility and coordination.  Managers call these patterns interpersonal skills.  Might not 100% truth telling interfere with interpersonal skills? Of course, if everyone in industry tells the truth, costs and performance will be improved.

J: On the contrary, being honest 100% of the time makes it easy.  If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.  What you’re talking about is managing conflict.  Someone once said that honesty is where what you say and what you think are the same as what you do.  But of course you can say things that minimize conflict.

L:  To what degree is it possible to cut the federal budget? How would you go about cutting?

J: I faced the same situation in New Mexico as the president faces.  I could have cut big government in New Mexico drastically and no one would have noticed.  (That is, these government employees produce no value for the economy.) The spending train is out of control.  But the Democratic legislature fought me and the courts handed down adverse rulings.  The legislature was 2 to 1 Democratic.  Common sense has gone out the window.  First you have to stop the spending.  The time is ripe for doing so in Washington, and it’s accomplishable.

We are a bankrupt nation.  We’re not taking care of our own house. Unlike the generation before us, interest and principle payments are due now. The enormous budget deficits will lead to inflation and an ever weaker dollar.

L:  What is your position on the bailout and TARP?

J: I would have opposed both.  Government should not have been involved in this. The Paulson connection amounts to this being an inside job.  Why should Goldman and AIG be saved but not Lehman?

L: What is your position on health reform?  How would you recommend the system control health costs?

J:  I would recommend a free market approach to health care reform.  Increase supply through the free market.  Gall Bladders R Us. We ended up with an insurance entitlement rather than health care.  Extending the current approach will lead to shortages and rationing health care.

The same principle applies to education.  We should blow the lid off publicly controlled education.

L: What is your position on the Fed and the gold standard?

J: The Federal Reserve deserves full responsibility for the housing bubble and as well deserves credit for mitigating the bust.  Overriding that, the dollar is now worth a nickel.  I understand the arguments for a free market in money and I support them.  I shy away from the phrase “regulate the Fed” because I do not want Barney Frank deciding monetary policy.  I wouldn’t say the Fed needs to be abolished.  I understand the argument for a gold standard, though.  The US government should be pursuing a strong dollar policy, which the Fed hasn’t done.

L: What is your position on the Middle East and Israel?

J: I’ve been to Israel and the Golan Heights and I understand the threats Israel faces from outside and within. I can’t summarize my position as the issues are too complex. I do believe in a strong national defense.  But our security is not threatened by Iraq and Afghanistan.

L: Where do you stand on Iraq and Afghanistan?

J: I believe we should pull out of both and return our focus to fighting terrorism. The focus needs to be protecting America. I’m not sure if that is still the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was surprised that Obama increased US presence in Afghanistan.

L: What about Social Security reform?

J:  Social Security is flawed.  When it was brought into existence the life expectancy was  55. Benefits started at 65.  Now, life expectancy is 75, and benefits start at about the same age. It’s a Ponzi scheme.  A combination of benefit reduction and/or privatization are necessary.  At least part of Social Security should include private accounts that are counted in your estate.

L: What do you think of making Social Security voluntary and converting it into a defined contribution plan?

J: That would make it viable.

L: What is your position on states’ rights and state sovereignty?

J: The states are 50 laboratories of democracy.  The burden that the federal government places on the states is outrageous.  The same is true of health care.  A return to federalism is needed.

L: Thank you, Governor.  I am certain that liberty Republicans will be interested in learning more about your ideas.

We are putting together a new promotional video for the Republican Liberty Caucus. This is one of several RLC video projects which are in development, each with a different approach to making people aware of what the RLC is and what we believe in.

For this project to succeed, I need short video clips from as many RLC members from all over the country as I can get, with a simple message. All your clip needs to say is “I believe in X and I am the RLC” where X represents a fundamental right which you believe in.

It’s simple and it doesn’t require much work and you can submit your clips by e-mail. I can handle any video format and will edit them together into a coherent whole. I don’t guarantee to use every submission, and it would be a good idea for each participant to do 3 or more different clips on different topics so that I have plenty to work with.

We need diversity. Some of the clips should have groups of people, some should be individuals and there should be a mix of ages, genders and ethnicities if possible.

There are two kinds of group clips we’d like to see.

Individual: One person saying “I believe in X and I am the RLC.”

Small Group: A group of 2-5 people each saying “I believe in X” in sequence, followed by all of them saying together “and we are the RLC.”

Large Group: Everyone speaks in unison, saying “We believe in X and we are the RLC.”

Everyone should look happy, upbeat and smiling within reason. Feel free to submit multiple different clips with different approaches and themes. The more variety we get the less we’ll have to duplicate the themes, so do some you think are unusual or unexpected, not just the obvious ones. You can also vary saying “RLC” and “Republican Liberty Caucus.” There can even be a few where you throw in some additional details or commentary, but most should be kept as simple as possible. We could even have some where you say “I don’t believe in X and I am the RLC” where X is something undesirable.

Here are some suggestions of specific issues you might want to consider mentioning in your clip, but if you can think of more unusual but relevant ones, go wild.

Freedom of speech
Freedom of assembly
The rule of law
Freedom of religion
Limited government
Responsible government
Free enterprise
Entrepreneurial capitalism
The constitution
National sovereignty
Individual liberty
The right to privacy
Individual responsibility
Do it yourself capitalism
Private property
Gun rights (pose with your gun?)
Government by the people
Free labor
The right not to join a union
Lower taxes
Sound money
Educational choice
Ending the war on drugs

I’m sure you can think of more examples and good variations of these.

For the best results, if you don’t have a high-end digital video camera and some sort of studio lighting, shoot your clip outdoors in good natural light. It doesn’t matter what format video file you produce and you can shoot individual clips or a series of takes in one video which I can then edit. Get some RLC friends together and shoot a bunch of clips and send them all in together if you want. Do it at a rally or event.

When you send them in include the names of the participants and what state they are from. We will assume that submission of a video clip implies permission to use those clips in a video promoting the RLC.

The deadline for inclusion in the project is January 31st. Get your clips in by then. Send them to: dave@fontcraft.com.

Thanks for helping to spread the word.

Dave

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
From: Michael W. Dean
Wyoming contact, Republican Liberty Caucus

[Disclaimer: This letter is from Mr. Dean himself, not the Republican Liberty Caucus.]

Dear Republican Party,

In the next presidential election, and in all state and local elections, you need to support candidates who are true Republicans and genuine lovers of liberty. The party will not succeed if it does not run candidates who truly understand and respect the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

America was once a constitutionally limited republic, and it needs to be returned to that. In the past 100 years, and especially in the past 20 years, America has been reduced to a so-called “democracy”, where 51% of the people can rob and over-regulate 49% of the people.

A true constitutional republic could last in perpetuity; whereas democracies historically survive for 200 to 300 years. After that, they devolve into socialism or oligarchies, as the people who do not want to work vote into office people who will let them not work, and can pay them to do so by stealing from those who do work.

We are at a tipping point. America is in her 235th year. The next presidential election can determine if we regain our constitutional republic, or slide into a permanent “progressive” majority helmed by a deluded far-left who do not listen to the people, and are chomping at the bit to bankrupt us into a socialist oligarchy. Those folks see Republicans not as a force to work with in a bipartisan capacity, but as an impediment to robbing from the productive so they can “give” to those who have no desire or ability to produce.

If Washington followed the Constitution, it would barely matter who was president. The checks and balances would work. But ours has been co-opted into a popularity contest wherein people vote for the candidate with the slickest tongue and the shortest slogan….especially slogans like “HOPE” and “CHANGE.” As we’ve seen, these basically mean “Get me in, and you’ll find out my actual core beliefs later, when it’s too late.”

If the President and Congress followed the Constitution, DC would not be permitted to arbitrarily dictate most of what a citizen does in a given state. We need candidates who stand up for the Constitution, including the true meaning the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the original intent of all parts of the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second and Tenth Amendments.

If the Republican Party establishment supports a spend-o-crat RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the next presidential election, you will guarantee a victory for the Democratic Party.

The Democrat Party used to have some principles, but has lately been taken over by a few dozen extreme leftist “progressives” with radical ideas and ties. They think they know what’s best for everyone, consider the Constitution a detriment, and consider Republicans a speed bump to be routed around behind closed doors.

America has woken up to the waste, “legal” stealing and “legal” bribes that can only lead to the destruction of America. The Democrats are largely responsible, but some Republicans have helped along the way. If you run a RINO for president, you will guarantee AINO (America in Name Only) in the near future, and forever.

The American people have finally woken up. Americans who have never been active in politics have taken to the streets by the millions. This is just the beginning.

The Democrats have been exposed for their gross spending of other people’s money at all levels, but in doing so have also shown that the Democrats aren’t the only ones. Some Republicans have contributed to this as well.

If you run a constitutional candidate like Gary Johnson, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, or Paul (Ron or Rand, take your pick) in the next presidential election, you’ll have a chance. I’ll vote Republican, and help out. So will millions of libertarians, tea partiers, swing voters, independents and even some of the smarter disgruntled Democrats. All combined, this will be enough to make the difference in the outcome of that election.

But 2012 is likely the very last year where even this will be possible. The leftists are working 24/7 to stack the deck against the possibility of retaining any America in America.

The Republican Party needs to run constitutional candidates, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it will keep the party from being perceived as “irrelevant naysayers” without any of their own ideas on how to make the country better. Running constitutional candidates will keep you from becoming a footnote in history. And even that footnote will likely be erased with time when a permanent socialist majority takes control of all media and education.

This road to serfdom can possibly be avoided, but it’s up to the Republican Party. You must run Barry Goldwater candidates, not George W. Bush, John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani candidates. Otherwise you’re going to end up with an America you don’t recognize, while you cling to your “Don’t blame me, I voted Republican” buttons.

Politics has become far too complicated. Lawmakers don’t think they’re doing their jobs if they don’t enact dozens of new laws and endless pork-barrel projects to “bring home the bacon” every day. This leads to honest folks becoming criminals, and the federal government having a stranglehold over every single aspect of our lives. We need candidates who will simplify, not complicate. We need candidates who will leash the beast, not feed the beast.

The Republican Party must run candidates who follow the Constitution and understand natural law… people who believe in their heart of hearts that government does not grant rights, does not restrict rights, but has only one legitimate role: protecting rights.

Our Founders are likely rolling in their graves at what the Democrats are doing now. But the Founders surely wouldn’t be pleased with what some in the Republican Party have done, either.

Why make us pick from the lesser of two evils? Here’s a novel idea: how about running someone who’s NOT evil!

Try it, you’ll like it. And America will be better for it.

–Michael W. Dean
http://www.libertarianpunk.com

Concerned American patriots fear not; there is a true grassroots movement of volunteer activists dedicated to drastic reduction of government involvement in our lives. The movement starts with you, the concerned citizen, and stretches across the country from Maine to California and everywhere in between.

The Republican Liberty Caucus has been providing principled leadership for the Republican Party since 1991. Since Americans have awakened in response to the Bush Administration’s crushing blows to our liberties and since the Ron Paul Presidential campaign of 2008, the RLC has seen unprecedented growth.

There’s never been a better time to become active. Here is a review of some the RLC’s most successful activities in the past year. Keep in mind that all of these successes were achieved through voluntary participation. The benefit of an organization that is operated by volunteers is that it stays true to message and principle — it can’t be co-opted by people with other interests or intents.

Earned Media
______________________________
The RLC has had tremendous success gaining earned media over the past year. This has included several mentions in the New Hampshire Union-Leader, Village Voice (NY), Nashville Post (TN), Charleston Post and Courier (SC), and regular coverage in newspapers throughout Florida. Several of our members or endorsed candidates have appeared on “Freedom Watch” with Judge Andrew Napolitano and local talk radio programs.

Major Events
______________________________
RLC members and chapters leaders have had a busy but successful year hosting events. Among the speakers: economists like Lawrence E. Reed, William Sirakos, and Thomas Woods; scholars like Dr. Bob Levy of the Cato Institute; physicians/health care experts like Dr. B.J. Lawson and Dr. Rand Paul; talk radio hosts like Mike Church; financial experts like Vern McKinley and Lawrence Lepard; several judges and county sheriffs; and elected officials ranging from Florida House Speaker Mike Haridopolos to Michigan State Representative (and RLC member) Justin Amash. Additionally, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will address RLC members several times in upcoming months. We also hosted a successful RLC National Convention (see also: RLC Convention 2009 photos) in Jacksonville, FL last March.

Original Legislation
______________________________
RLC members have been working constantly to influence the legislative process. From drafting their own legislation to encouraging GOP Convention delegates to adopt RLC proposals, RLC members are making their influence known. The Texas RLC led a campaign against a proposal to give more unconstitutional authority to Child Protective Services. And the Tennessee RLC helped endorsed Representative Susan Lynn draft and pass a State Sovereignty resolution. RLC-endorsed legislators were behind many of the other state sovereignty proposals. In RLC chapters like Missouri, most of the efforts were focused on advancing pro-liberty legislation — with great success. RLC members in Missouri blasted the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), which published a report critical of Ron Paul supporters in The Show Me State. Legislators are increasingly becoming aware of our organization and the impact it can have at the state level.

Public Outreach for Liberty
______________________________
The RLC has conducted public outreach for liberty at our own events, at GOP events, and at liberty movement events. Many of the liberty movement events are expensive, so we only focused on events that were not costly and could bring in new members such as the seven Students for Liberty regional conferences that took place this fall. The RLC had members or speakers (see also: this link) at five of the seven conferences; in IL, MA, NC, PA, and TX. RLC affiliates also conducted outreach at GOP State Conventions or Meetings in CA, FL, NE, NC, TX, UT, and VA. (Not all states had statewide meetings in 2009.) We also had a booth at the Young Republicans National Convention in Indianapolis. Finally, the RLC itself had some all-star events with movement leaders like Bob Levy, Tom Woods, and Rand Paul (see also: this link). These RLC photos illustrate the great meetings that RLC members participated in 2009.

Social Networking Outreach
______________________________
The RLC is at the forefront of social networking, with large followings on Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo! eGroups, and a new YouTube channel that includes our 2009 Convention speeches and a new video introduction. View our most recent social networking report.

Electoral Successes
______________________________
Our biggest electoral success in 2009 was helping Dan Halloran, a member of our National Board, gain election to the New York City Council. In addition, RLC members contributed to an electoral victory for Ken Cuccinelli (pictured, left) to the post of Attorney General in Virginia. We also helped elect or re-elect state legislators in New Hampshire and New Jersey. The RLC offered Liberty Slates of candidates at state GOP Conventions in California, North Carolina, and Utah — and several of the slate members had successes. For example, in Utah, the RLC helped Morgan Philpot attain the post of Utah GOP Vice-Chair, while RLC members in Alameda County, California were able to gain a temporary majority on the GOP Central Committee.

Chapter Growth
______________________________
The growth of our chapters is the biggest news of the last year. What an inspiration! Since December 2008, we have chartered eight new chapter affiliates and re-organized or re-activated three affiliates. For all of these successes, our members/chapter officers deserve a great deal of credit. The chapter successes are a testament to the rapid growth of our movement and solidify influence at the state/local levels.

What a year it’s been for liberty.  Let’s continue the positive RLC growth into 2010.  There’s a lot of work still to be done.

Please view the new RLC intro. video!

by Aaron Biterman

A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.

No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies.  This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.

In Florida, State Senator Paula Dockery is challenging Attorney General Bill McCollum for the Republican nomination for Governor and Senator Carey Baker is challenging U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam in the primary for Florida Agriculture Commissioner. Both Dockery and Baker are more conservative than their moderate and establishment opponents. RLC members are supporting Dockery and Baker.

The reason that governorship is open, of course, is that Charlie Crist is running to become Florida’s junior U.S. Senator. Crist faces opposition from Marco Rubio — who has been endorsed by Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund — and former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith.

But, never fear, the National Republican Senator Committee (NRSC) has plans to come to the rescue. As has been standard practice since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the NRSC has already coronated its top-tier candidates for Senate in 2010 — without any regard for the opinions of GOP primary voters.

Those candidates include Crist, Carly Fiorina in California, and Trey Grayson in Kentucky.  All three have more conservative and credible opponents: former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, and Kentucky taxpayer advocate Dr. Rand Paul.

Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.

I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.

Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.

In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.

The strategy, a familiar Rove tactic, was employed masterfully by George W. Bush throughout both terms as President, and trickled down to candidates that the NRSC and NRCC supported (mostly unsuccessfully) in 2006 and 2008 such as John Gard in Wisconsin and Darren White in New Mexico. Both Gard and White — unfamiliar names to most readers — had primary challengers that were more conservative, but simply relied on the Bush Administration and the NRCC to “ignore at all costs” these opponents. Both Gard and White went on to lose their general election contests in conservative-leaning districts.  The result was Democrat pickups.

The title of Rove’s article is, “Can Republicans take back the Senate in 2010?”

The answer is yes, but not if they listen to Karl Rove or the NRSC.

The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.

Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.

by Aaron Biterman

I live in Virginia and followed the race of Governor-elect Bob McDonnell fairly closely. An article in Politico last week explains that some Republican Party strategists now believe that they have a winning strategy for 2010.

They’re calling it the McDonnell strategy.

Politico’s Jonathan Martin describes the strategy: “[R]un on economic policy, downplay divisive cultural issues, present an upbeat tone, target independent voters and focus on Democratic-controlled Washington — all without attacking President Barack Obama personally.”

McDonnell is a far-right social conservative, so it only made sense for him to downplay his religious and social views — which (I believe) are far outside of the mainstream. (Although his views probably coincide with many Virginians.)

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to develop a strategy for McDonnell that courts the largest base of the electorate (Independent voters) or, as I said, to downplay his true views on social issues.

Those were obviously successful points in the strategy developed by the McDonnell team.  Another positive point was that Bob McDonnell stayed focused on the issues: transportation, jobs, and budget, mostly.  As Haley Barbour has said, these issues are the issues that Virginians were talking about around the kitchen table.

But, despite victory for McDonnell in Virginia, there’s one base of supporters — and one strategic point — that the McDonnell campaign missed the boat on: Independents and Republicans that have a decisive libertarian streak.

There is an entire base of voters that are tired of politics-as-usual and will only support candidates that will roll back the nation’s deficit — which means voting for no more spending and voting to cut ineffective government programs.

It’s somewhat obvious why McDonnell did not court these voters: Virginia doesn’t have that many of them.

Case in point, Dr. Ron Paul received just five percent of the vote in Virginia’s 2008 Presidential primary, taking around 22,000 votes.  Contrast that total with the second-place finisher, Mike Huckabee, who took 41 percent, or nearly 200,000 votes.

Huckabee, of course, has moderate views on economics, but is socially conservative.  Bob McDonnell is much more of a Huckabee populist than a Ron Paul constitutionalist.

If the Republican Party is going to develop a national strategy to succeed in elections, its candidates should elevate discourse by discussing real political issues — “back to basics” fundamentals that fall under the rubric of constitutionally limited government, individual liberty, free-market economics, and the rule of law.

Candidates that combine these core issues with local concerns (jobs, economy, and even more local issues that vary by state or district) will be more likely to succeed than candidates that follow the populist approach of Bob McDonnell.

The main flaw with the McDonnell strategy is that it appears McDonnell has no principles whatsoever.  So, while he did win an election in a state that had been trending Democrat, Virginians now have a Governor-elect that never outlined his core philosophy of governance.

At a time when most states are facing budget shortages, the unemployment rate continues to climb, and the dollar continues to erode in value, Republican Party candidates that want to win must tell the truth to voters.  Hopefully that truth is their commitment to vote against more spending and to cut waste and redundancy from government.

In the 2006 and 2008 elections, Republicans that were not shy about their belief in limited government were overwhelmingly successful at the polls.

This is evidenced by Ron Paul’s strong showing in state primaries as well as elections in which Tom McClintock (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), and Paul Broun (R-GA) won races in notable Congressional upsets — in the Midwest, the South, and the Left Coast.

Will the Republican Party adopt Bob McDonnell’s flawed election model in other states?  If it does, Republicans may not succeed.

The best strategy for the Republican Party is to look back to Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater for the healthy dose of skepticism about government’s ability to solve societal problems that once defined the Republican Party — and still defines its core base.

Republican candidates with this philosophy — that government cannot solve all ills in society, nor should it — who have financial support will succeed in 2010.