How to increase membership in the Republican Party
Sunday, July 21, 2002
by Kenneth Stremsky
NOTE: 'The Green Papers' is a non-partisan website "dedicated to the dissemination of facts, figures, tidbits and commentary- in fact, information of all different kinds" (to quote from our site's own Mission Statement ) about Politics; at the same time (to again quote from 'The Green Papers' Mission Statement ) "this site is an exercise in Free Speech. We certainly support the notion that you have the same right of Free Speech we are here exercising ourselves." Therefore, we have no objection to submissions to the 'vox Populi' section of our website from candidates for public office, subject to the same "rules" re: our policy on 'vox Populi' submissions that anyone else submitting material to that section must also follow. At the same time, the publication of such a 'vox Populi' submission from a candidate for public office should not, in any way, be construed as an endorsement- either express or implied- of that person's particular candidacy or the views expressed in the course of that person's campaign by either 'The Green Papers' as an institution or members of the website's Staff; we, indeed, welcome appropriate responses and/or comments from the opponent(s) of the submitting candidate- or spokespersons for their campaigns- for publication in our 'vox Populi' section.
How to increase membership in the Republican Party
I am running for the United States Senate from New Hampshire in 2002 and President of the United States of America in 2004 as a Republican. I am a Republican because I believe the best form of government is a Republic that allows its people to elect their leaders.
My website is http://www.geocities.com/kstremsky
On my website I discuss negative information about myself, including some of my ethical lapses in judgement, because I believe the voters have a right to know a lot about a candidate before election day. [NOTE: Mr. Stremsky is on the Republican ballot in the New Hampshire Primary scheduled for Tuesday 10 September 2002-- TheGreenPapers.com]
I discuss more issues on my website than most candidates discuss on their websites.
For example, I discuss Niccolo Machiavelli's Discourses and I plan on discussing the Art of War written by Sun Tzu in great detail on my website. Niccolo Machiavelli's works and the Art of War by Sun Tzu have shaped my political philosophy and my campaign strategies. I have a long campaign strategy section on my website that may help other people win elective office.
Other authors have also shaped my political philosophy and campaign strategy.
I hope to have a better website in the future.
I also list many of my positions on the League of Women Voters website which is http://www.dnet.org. One needs to click on 'New Hampshire' and then 'Senators' to read my positions on the issues. The League of Women Voters site allows about 3850 characters per section. I wish the site allowed 7000 characters for Election Reform and Campaign Finance Reform. I discuss the topics I discuss on 'dnet.org' in greater detail on my own website.
I hope that readers of 'The Green Papers' will e-mail feedback to me at
I believe in limited government and I do not trust government when government has too much power.
Governments should not tell people who are at least 18 years of age what they may do with their own bodies.
The Bill of Rights discusses some of the civil liberties that citizens of the United States of America have.
I do not believe in weak government.
I believe our country should have a strong government.
The preamble of the United States Constitution says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States."
I believe our country needs a strong government that maintains law and order, protects us from our domestic and foreign enemies, "promotes the general Welfare," and makes sure we and our descendents have the "Blessings of Liberty."
The following ideas will help the Republican Party increase its membership in New Hampshire and reduce the chances that the Republican Party will lose seats in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate:
Republican candidates should distance themselves from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney who do not have much ethics because they have not told the American people everything they should tell them about their dealings with Enron and the oil industry. Their unwillingness to tell the truth makes me think there are bigger things they are trying to hide. I do not think the American people will re-elect another unethical President of the United States of America the way they did President Clinton.
The Republican Party should not be known as the party that treats women as second class citizens. Women have the same unalienable rights that men have and among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The Human Life Amendment would make women into SLAVES for reproduction and I am against the Human Life Amendment. I do not believe any government should have the power to keep women from having abortions.
The Republican Party should not be known as the party that treats homosexuals as second class citizens. Homosexuals have the same rights that heterosexuals have. No government should have the power to keep homosexuals from marrying and adopting children.
The Republican Party should be known as the party that believes businesses should behave in an ethical fashion. The budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission should at least be tripled and the number of employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission should be at least be doubled.
The Securities and Exchange Commission should regulate accountants instead of an Independent Accounting Board which would probably be independent of the influence of accountants in name only.
White collar criminals should serve hard time in maximum security prisons and face penalties significantly harsher than President Bush has mentioned. President Bush's hands off policies concerning regulation dealing with Enron and other companies has caused Americans to lose billions of dollars in the stock market.
The Republican Party should ask President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to resign before the November election and allow the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives [NOTE: the Speaker of the U.S. House is Congressman Dennis Hastert of Illinois- TheGreenPapers.com] to become President of the United States of America. If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney do not resign before November, I think the Democratic Party will comprise more than two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives and will have more than 55 Senators next year. I will not be surprised if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached next year if they do not resign.
The Republican Party should allow candidates to post their positions on a website similar to the website of the League of Women Voters which is http://www.dnet.org. The website should allow candidates to have 7000 characters per section and allow candidates to have fifteen sections. Candidates should be allowed to ask opponents questions on the website.
The Republican Party should support Bayh-Dole which allows the Federal Government to license the patents of prescription drugs based on Federal Government research to other companies. Information dealing with Bayh-Dole is discussed on Duke University's website which is http://www.duke.edu. If more companies are able to make the same drugs, drug prices will probably decline.
The Republican Party should say that money from the Social Security tax should only be used for the Social Security Administration and the Medicare tax should only be used for Medicare except when Congress and the President of the United States of America declare a National Emergency. A National Emergency should only be declared when at least 60 percent of the United States Senate, at least 60 percent of the United States House of Representatives vote for a National Emergency approved of by the President of the United States of America. The last time our country had a National Emergency was World War II.
The Republican Party should realize that Trade Promotion Authority for the President of the United States of America is not constitutional because the United States Constitution says that a treaty requires the Advice and Consent of the United States Senate. Trade agreements are treaties and people with
The Republican Party should support trade agreements that are win for us and win for other countries. The United States of America increases the probability that trade wars will take place- trade wars similar to those that helped cause the Great Depression- when the United States of America places tariffs and import restrictions on countries that have decent human rights records and fair elections.
The Republican Party should realize that it is stupid to arm our enemies and defend our enemies. The current government of Saudi Arabia is an enemy of the United States of America. The current government of Saudi Arabia has helped terrorist groups that hate the United States of America. The current goverment of Saudi Arabia is holding female citizens of the United States of America prisoner in Saudi Arabia.
The Republican Party should stop being a puppet of the oil industry and the Republican Party should start caring about the environment. The Republican Party should support tax incentives that increase the likelihood that automobile manufacturers will make cars similar to the Toyota Prius that has a hybrid engine that gets great gas mileage. I believe humans have the ability to make heavy pickup trucks that are able to get great gas mileage because of hybrid engines.
The Republican Party should support the hydrogen fuel cell industry via tax incentives and research funding.
The Republican Party should not support the current War on Drugs because many of the tactics being used are not constitutional.
Prohibition did not work against alcohol and prohibition is not working against illegal drugs.
People who are at least 18 years of age should be allowed to buy currently illegal drugs and sell such drugs to people who are at least 18 years of age.
I believe people have a right to ruin their own lives.
The Republican Party should make sure that governments do not infringe on civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Federal Government, many state governments, and many local governments infringe on our civil liberties on a regular basis.
The Republican Party should support the creation of a National Health Maintenance Organization that will be similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits programs discussed at http://www.opm.gov.
The Republican Party should be the party that makes sure that any American who wants health insurance is able to have health insurance.
Non-profit health insurers and for profit health insurers should be allowed to compete with this National Health Maintenance Organization.
Richard E. Berg-Andersson (in his capacity as Commentator/Researcher for TheGreenPapers.com ) responds:
I am not here going to respond to Mr. Stremsky as far as his positions on the issues of the day he himself wished to emphasize in his piece above are concerned per se. Mr. Stremsky has clearly stated his views and they should be freely taken for what they are by anyone reading his piece without any undue influence- positive or negative- by me: whether I- as a private citizen- agree or disagree with any, many, most or all of his specific views on such issues is, of course, immaterial; in any event, should I ever wish to address any of the issues Mr. Stremsky has raised, I will, perhaps, do so in my own future Commentaries for this site and certainly in my own time.
Having said that, I would like to here address at least a couple issues primarily involving the political process (which, after all, is the principal focus of TheGreenPapers.com as a website) brought up by Mr. Stremsky in his piece:
In Mr. Stremsky's number Five above, he expresses his opinion that "If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney do not resign before November, I think the Democratic Party will comprise more than two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives and will have more than 55 Senators next year." I think that, at this writing, this is rather high an estimate as to the fortunes of the Democrats (or, for that matter, the misfortunes of the Republicans) in this coming November's elections; in addition, I am assuming- given the topics covered in Mr. Stremsky's number Four immediately preceding- that he expects such a political debacle for the Republicans to result from the possibility that Mr. Bush and/or Mr. Cheney might themselves have committed so-called "white collar crimes": therefore, it has to be understood that the comments which follow in the next few paragraphs are based on just such an assumption on my part as to Mr. Stremsky's own belief.
Even should newer and more negative revelations come out about either President Bush's or Vice-President Cheney's pre-inauguration business dealings well before the upcoming Midterm Elections, I don't honestly see any such potential scandal (and certainly in terms what is most likely to be known about such a currently hypothetical scandal by the time the voters first arise on the morning of 5 November) being on the level of "Watergate" which I myself still remember all too well, as that political scandal played itself out at just about the time I first became a registered voter and, thus, an active- albeit single- participant in the Great Experiment we all know as American Democracy. Therefore, I think that the Democrats this year achieving the kind of electoral success they achieved back in the 1974 Midterm Elections for the House (290 of 435 seats) is a rather far-fetched proposition right now; even Mr. Stremsky's prediction of 55 Democratic Senators (while quite modest in comparison to the 60 the Democrats held after the dust had settled re: the 1974 Elections [here counting Republican Louis Wyman as the "apparent victor" of what became a disputed election for Senator from New Hampshire which ultimately resulted in a "do-over" and the later election of Mr. Wyman's opponent, John Durkin, as a 61st Democrat]) seems a bit too high to me at this time (though, of course, things could change by 5 November-- if only here taking note of the well-worn adage that "a week is a year- and a month a lifetime- in Politics").
Mr. Stremsky also writes "I will not be surprised if President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached next year if they do not resign." I see Impeachment as a rather unlikely proposition- assuming, for the sake of my comments herein, that there could be further negative revelations about Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney or both rising to the level of a "Watergate"-type scandal, even after the 2002 Midterm Elections but before the next Presidential Election in 2004.
In the first place, it seems clear that Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution was only intended to reach "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" while in office; therefore, so it seems to me, Congress cannot impeach and remove a public officer liable to impeachment (and only those of the Executive and Judicial branch are so liable; Legislative officers- Senators and Congressmen in the Federal system- are not liable to impeachment, though they are- as we are currently seeing in the case of Congressman Traficant of Ohio- liable to expulsion by Congress itself) for any such Crimes and Misdemeanors- no matter how "high" they might be- committed before that person held office. On the assumption- if only for sake of the argument- that many of Mr. Bush's and/or Mr. Cheney's activities, as part of their respective business lives, prior to their entering upon the duties of the offices they each, respectively, now hold should- eventually, if not sooner- prove to have been, in fact, criminal (something that, at this writing, I- for one- cannot at all here opine), I don't see how these would then rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the terms of Article II, Section 4!
Secondly, the ultimate vehicle for "impeachment and removal" of wrongdoing officeholders in general is something called "the next election". We cannot at all forget that the People remain the principal lawmakers in our political/legal system and that, for the convenience of we Americans going about our everyday lives, it is "We, the People" that have allowed our elected representatives and their appointees to carry out duties and obligations that, after all, are really always our own! (You don't know how many times I have wanted to throw my shoe through the screen of my television set when I have so often seen a political party functionary or media pundit talk about how, in a given State, "the right to vote on a pending [State] constitutional amendment [or referendum on the ballot, in those States that have such referenda] is the one time our legislators allow the ordinary citizen to pass or defeat what is, after all, just another form of legislation" or words to the same effect!! In actual fact, it is WE who are allowing the LEGISLATORS to pass or defeat legislation in our name the vast majority of the time through the language of a State's Constitution ordained by US; members of a State Legislature grant we citizens of that State absolutely nothing: being allowed- in the vast majority of the States of this Union- to vote on a constitutional question or other referendum is merely "We, the People" taking back from our legislators power which is ours to begin with!!! Remember-- Freedom should never be taken for granted, else someone will be tempted to think they granted it and then try to take it away!!!!).
Impeachment (as the Republicans of the U.S. House of Representatives 105th Congress [1997-1999], stupidly believing in the efficacy of their own press clippings, found out the hard way when they engaged in the altogether silly exercise of attempting to themselves help remove Bill Clinton from the Presidency through such a means) has always been intended to be, for the most part, something of a last resort: it is quite interesting that the only two times a President of the United States has been impeached by the House- though, in each case, he was not removed from office in the ensuing trial in the Senate- the failure to remove him from office was largely due to those bringing the charges of impeachment (overfilled with "political adrenalin", as it were) forgetting this very salient fact; indeed, the only President who clearly deserved Removal from Office via Impeachment on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"- that being Richard Nixon- resigned before Impeachment was even voted on by the full House. The simple fact is that Presidents know how to well read the polls (despite their constant claims to the contrary) as well as count the votes they have in Congress- or, at the very least, those who can do so (where a President might be lacking in such a skill) can rather easily find employment in any Administration! Nixon resigned the Presidency because, as he himself said in his final televised speech as President, "I might not have the support of the Congress..."-- code for 'I have already done a head count (or have had one done) of the Senate re: removal on impeachment and I lose'; likewise, Clinton did NOT resign precisely because he had done a head count of the Senate that (as the votes of that body on the Articles of Impeachment in early 1999 would themselves prove) had told him otherwise.
It will be the American People- going to the polls and electing the 108th Congress this coming 5 November and then doing the same to choose the President (or at least the Electors for President from each State and D.C. who will do so) for the 55th Administration, as well as the members of the 109th Congress come 2 November 2004- who will ultimately thereby pass judgment on President George W. Bush and his 54th Administration. The use of Impeachment as a substitute vehicle for such judgment before 2 November 2004 seems rather far-fetched to me!
Another point made by Mr. Stremsky in his piece above which I here would like to address (since it seems to deal more with political process rather than substantive political viewpoint, though one can't avoid the latter in so addressing this) is that which forms part of his number Eight in which he opines that "A National Emergency should only be declared when at least 60 percent of the United States Senate, at least 60 percent of the United States House of Representatives vote for a National Emergency approved of by the President of the United States of America." This suggests to me the necessity for a Constitutional Amendment to put his proposal into effect and I, for one, am rather wary- even in the supposedly changed post-September 11th world (which I don't see as at all having changed as much as the pundits and politicians, for their own many and varied reasons, would like to have us all believe; saying something is so does not at all make it so!)- of giving the President the express power (which is what such a Constitutional Amendment would, in fact, do) to declare what is, in effect, a State of Emergency of such magnitude, even with his having to- in Mr. Stremsky's proposal- have a supermajority of each house of Congress to make it enforceable. Civil Liberties, for example, are best protected when you make it difficult for Government to diminish or even suspend them (which, in turn, forces Government to "pick its spots"- by putting the onus of such diminuition or suspension squarely on the public officials who seek to do so- before so blithely diminishing or suspending them)-- giving the Government the express power to declare what Mr. Stremsky calls a "National Emergency" is a potential danger to such Civil Liberties.
Now, while I think that much the same caution should also apply when Congress and the President are merely considering dipping into revenues collected for one purpose in order to apply them to another quite different purpose- even within that which Mr. Stremsky calls a "National Emergency", I don't think that one can- nor, for that matter, should one- require Congress to have to submit to the same "proofs" as regards an issue of taxation, collection and disbursement of Federal funds as one would- or so I would hope!- in a State of Emergency that could possibly diminish or suspend Civil Liberties. The Framers of Our Nation's Constitution gave the House of Representatives the power to originate all Federal revenue bills and then required that the members of that body be elected more often than any other elected officials within their then-new Federal system for a reason!! If Congress should use the Federal Treasury in a way that does not largely adhere to the way the People themselves wish it to be used, there is always (again) that "next election" (and every two years in the case of the House, mind you!)... on the other hand, if the People wish to utilize (where not outright squander) moneys originally collected for either Social Security or Medicare through the actions of their elected representatives, then that is the People's right!
The same can also be said in relation to Mr. Stremsky's comment- in his number One above- that "I do not think the American people will re-elect another unethical President of the United States of America the way they did President Clinton" when, in fact, the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996 itself undermines that very argument!! For, were the American People to re-elect (or, for that matter, elect for the first time) one whom Mr. Stremsky would consider to be an "unethical President of the United States", that- too- is their right!!! To quote a man who once held the very office Mr. Stremsky himself is seeking (though in a seat among the other Electoral "Class" of Senators assigned to his State)- Warren Rudman (as said to Oliver North in the course of Col. North's testimony before the Joint Iran-Contra Committee a decade and a half ago): "The American People have the constitutional right to be wrong". Constitutional artifices to make it that much more difficult for the American People to freely exercise their "right to be wrong" well fly in the face of the notion that "the best form of government is a Republic that allows its people to elect their leaders"- to quote Mr. Stremsky himself from the beginning of his piece above; moreover, such artifices are also potentially dangerous- as they are much too vulnerable to being thereafter subjected to the infamous Law of Unintended Consequences.