Replies

It won't be enough to have a great conservative blog. It won't be enough to put conservatives back in the driver's seat, either. What is needed to shape the next Congress, and more importantly, to save America's freedom, is that Conservatives need to formulate a new kind of plan. Most of us would agree: A) Reform Congress and Senate rules. We need to curtail privileges for elected leaders. No more writing their own salaries, no more keeping the millions in cash left over from their campaigns (a thinly disguised form of bribery if ever there was one),no lifetime pension plans,and no exemptions from the rules that apply to everybody else (such as health care). FEC must do their job, and not just help their preferred political party. (Not sure how to achieve this one.) Term limits. B) Balanced budget amendment. I would suggest the next conservative president impose an emergency balanced budget rule as an executive order (limited to the the first year) while insisting Congress must pass a permanent rule quickly. All “Stimulus” measures and other high dollar spending on hold on an emergent basis until the rules are rewritten. C) Stop giving away our country to illegal aliens and enemies! Close the blankety-blank border NOW. Stop allowing terrorists to recruit in America's prisons and schools, under “free speech” and “freedom of religion” cover. This is NOT a religion. It is a movement aimed to overthrow democracy and end human rights.

Blogs play an important role, but the problem is that the great divide is not closed by them. Liberals stick to theirs and conservatives to theirs. There is only a trickle of cross-communication. I want to suggest a moderated forum of some kind, where ad hominem attacks are not permitted at all, and a team of equally balanced reviewers from both sides vet statements on a given subject to hone a consensus statement. Either members of the panel or site members can submit a question for discussion, and then submissions are considered by the panel. Statements on the topic are submitted by any member, posted immediately as “not yet reviewed.” The panel undertakes review to determine if each statement (one statement of alleged “fact” per submission) is marked “true” or false” by panel members, and justification of their position is posted after the statement in question. Undoubtedly, one side or the other will dispute most of the statements coming from the other direction. These statements can be marked as “disputed.” Then, after adequate time for review is allowed, the facts that can be agreed upon are put together into a consensus statement. It would be nice to see that contributors whose submissions make it into “consensus” get some kind of recognition. I think if it could be made to work out, it would be the most talked-about idea on the Internet. Both political sides are forced to wrangle with the issues that can be factually established by the other side.