Well, maybe I shouldn't say "ideas". Perhaps one can say McCotter puts forth a governing philosophy, which is a bit more helpful than a chum-bucket full of programs, as there are always situations that arise that you never campaigned on, or discussed in a debate, or envisioned about in your worst nightmare (just ask George W. Bush). But if one has a solid philosophy, well...all one needs to do is to apply it to the situation at hand, and while it won't provide instant solutions, it will at least give you a roadmap to your destination, and will assure that the paths that lead too ill ends are avoided.
I've mentioned McCotter's Five Principles before; personally I think every candidate should be asked to provide theirs, as oppose to peppering them about, say, their thoughts on men marrying men. But McCotter made an important statement in Iowa the other day, one that should act as a campaign mantra and a governing philosophy for the Republicans in 2012:
“The answer,” he said, “is not to put your dreams in centralized bureaucratic Washington. The future is self-government, empowerment of the individual, a citizen-driven and more horizontal government."
Michael Barone adds:
Barone is glib and too free with hip-speak, but he does point out the basic problem with the over-reaching government that Obama and the Democrats dream of. Not to mention giving us a good talking point at college rallies.
McCotter's statement is the fundamental, over-riding difference between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and it cannot be stressed often enough that our choice will be one or the other, not any illusory "middle ground", in the 2012 elections (for the 'bipartisan agreement: so lusted after by the media is usually an understanding between both parties that they will screw the citizenry), and the decision we make will have implications lasting a generation.
Not over-dramatizing here. Note the remarks made by one of the presiding judges of the 11th Circuit Court on Friday that ruled ObamaCare's "insurance mandate" to be unconstitutional:
“The government’s position,” said the judges, “amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.”
That threat is why we need philosophy as much as we need "ideas" come 2012...
That threat is why we need philosophy as much as we need "ideas" come 2012...