"Pledge to America" Gets Mixed Reviews from Conservatives

Getty Images

House Republicans on Wednesday night released their long-anticipated "Pledge to America" to mixed reviews from conservative commentators. Some pundits reacted favorably, calling the 21-page document an impressive step beyond the 1994 GOP "Contract with America." But others blasted the document as light on substance and short on promises to key conservative voting blocs, such as the Tea Party and social conservatives.

"Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?" write the editors of the National Review. "The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous."

"Pledge to America": The New Republican Agenda
Read the Text of the "Pledge to America"
GOP Rep. Mike Pence Defends Pledge

The conservative magazine goes on to call the Pledge's section on jobs "impressive" and hails the GOP for addressing social issues by promising to enact a law banning federal funding of abortion.

By contrast conservative blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.com says the Pledge pales in comparison to the Contract.

"These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama," Erickson writes. "Like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high."

He contends that the pledge fixates on goals the GOP should already be working toward while ignoring meaningful, long term goals.

"There is a promise to 'immediately reduce spending' by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting," he writes.

David Frum, a former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, responds to Erickson: "What did he expect?"

"Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory," Frum writes. "Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?"

The Pledge's timidity amounts to "a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party," Frum continues.

"Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government," he writes. "Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky."

While Frum interprets the document as a rejection of Tea Party principles, blogger "Allahpundit" on HotAir.com sees a rejection of social conservative priorities. The National Review praised Republicans for mentioning social values, but Allahpundit says it's not enough.

"In fact, here's the sum total of language in the document about that: 'We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values,'" he writes. "One line, buried at the end of the preamble on page one, and according to sources, even that was only added at the very last minute after Mike Pence objected... Think social cons are going to like that, after all the warnings lately about not taking them for granted?"

Commentator Doug Powers writes on MichelleMalkin.com that he's cautiously optimistic about the document.

"I love it, provided the words jump off the paper and into reality at some point soon," he wrote. "Sure, signing off on political pledges is a little like ordering X-Ray glasses from a comic book -- you just know it's not going to be nearly as good as advertised -- but I like the GOP's effort so far."

Liberal commentators, meanwhile, weren't shy in their criticisms of the Pledge.

While some on the right complained the document is not substantive enough, liberal-leaning Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein blasted the document as too specific -- to the point that it reveals blatant hypocrisy.

"The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it," he writes. "It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to 'greater liberty' and then, in the next, that it will protect 'traditional marriage'... It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong -- debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government -- and a solid promise to make most of it worse."

Joan McCarter of the liberal blog DailyKos, meanwhile, reduced the Pledge to "this year's gimmick."

She took the Republicans apart for their pledge to support small businesses.

"How convenient for Republicans. On the day they release their pledge, they'll also have an opportunity to vote for the small business bill," she writes. "So here's their chance to get an early start on fulfilling their pledge and actually voting for small businesses. They could show voters that the really mean it this time. Except that this bill doesn't have any tax breaks for rich people or for companies which ship jobs overseas, which in Republican speak is the definition of "small business," so it doesn't seem too likely."

Similarly, the White House on Wednesday gave a pre-emptive critique of the GOP agenda, calling out the Republican party for ignoring Americans' interest in protecting U.S.-based jobs.

This story was corrected to note that the commentary cited from MichelleMalkin.com was written by Doug Powers, not Michelle Malkin.

Critical Contests: Interactive Map with Election Race Ratings

---

Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[P0ST1ING_AWAY]

PLEASE make sure you ask YOUR local Tea-Bagging-Bozo which government programs (IN THEIR STATE) they want to cut first. Nothing shows
commitment more sincerely that cutting LOCAL spending.

[babooph]

Truth is BOTH parties will reduce soc sec medicare & pensions,to pay for the 2 lost wars,tax cuts for the rich & bailouts for crooked corporations-same as when the dems teamed up with Reagan-tax cut for the rich,reduced soc sec for the poor slobs who [unlike the exempted rich]are in all the way.The "news" will be directed to laud the "reform".

[mecury69]

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - John Adams This fluff by a bunch of empty heads is a joke. How can they determine what the founding fathers values were? Just uphold the constitution! The name calling on these boards, the blame game...is so freaking old. When the right candidate steps up...this two party power swap system that's killing this country is coming down.

[letswrap]

Plague on America- PDF document properties list "Wild, Brian" as the "Author." Brian Wild - was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Anadarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.
Who are Republicans and Dems listening to, the American people, or big business?

[RealiteBites]

re: IrishJohn2 ... I went to read that article, and that makes me think twice about my theory that the politicians aren't putting forth ideas that'll solve problems. Now I get the sense that they stick to the rhetoric because they really don't know what they're doing.

From the abc article: ""We've got to cut spending and we need more economic growth in America that puts more Americans back to work, caring for themselves and caring for their families and you can't have real economic growth in America if you insist on raising taxes on the American people," Rep. Boehner said."

Does he really not get that the economy is now GLOBAL in nature, and that therefore cutting spending and cutting taxes STILL wouldn't be enough to bring production costs on par with China's?

We don't live in a vacuum - I don't you can develop balanced trade, and therefore demand (and therefore revitalize the economy) without talking to China.

The implementation I'm sure will be tricky and very thorny, but the big picture goal - that shouldn't be that hard to understand ... so why are these politicians so stuck on 90's rhetoric as if the last decade didn't really happen? It's bizarre ...

[sockeye35]

I just want to say to the powers that be at CBS, if they happen upon this comment, that in terms of comment configuration and ease/versatility of referring back to one's own comments, this blog scheme may be the worst I have ever seen on the entire world wide web- and there are some pretty bad ones out there. Having said that, I was going to post a comment on the matter at hand but I think I will refrain. You ought to model your posts after the website espn.com, which is very user friendly. Thanks.

[P0ST1ING_AWAY]

I am going to second that motion.

[IrishJohn2]

If I'm not allowed to use comments from another site (ABC.com) just delete this comment... but the following pretty much sums it up:
>>Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, opened the event with an admission: "Listen, when Republicans were in charge of Congress, we made our fair share of mistakes."
>>There was not even a promise to eliminate the "earmarks" or pork barrel spending.
>>Republicans are seeking to make clear they have no intention of returning to the big spending and high deficits of the previous Republican Congress.

that last comment... implies what?

[sockeye35]

I think it's pretty clear what he said here. The comment implies exactly what it says. You don't need a cracker jack word decoder to figure it out dude.

[RealiteBites]

I went to read that article, and that makes me think twice about my theory that the politicians aren't putting forth ideas that'll solve problems. Now I get the sense that they stick to the rhetoric because they really don't know what they're doing.

From the abc article: ""We've got to cut spending and we need more economic growth in America that puts more Americans back to work, caring for themselves and caring for their families and you can't have real economic growth in America if you insist on raising taxes on the American people," Rep. Boehner said."

Does he really not get that the economy is now GLOBAL in nature, and that therefore cutting spending and cutting taxes STILL wouldn't be enough to bring production costs on par with China's?

We don't live in a vacuum - I don't you can develop balanced trade, and therefore demand (and therefore revitalize the economy) without talking to China.

The implementation I'm sure will be tricky and very thorny, but the big picture goal - that shouldn't be that hard to understand ... so why are these politicians so stuck on 90's rhetoric as if the last decade didn't really happen? It's bizarre ...

[RealiteBites]

From the article:
He contends that the pledge fixates on goals the GOP should already be working toward while ignoring meaningful, long term goals. David Frum, a former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, responds to Erickson: "What did he expect? Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory," Frum writes. "Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that says it all, doesn't it? For the politicians on both sides of the aisle, if they were to actually TRY and get something done that could potentially get in the way of their ambition. And they wouldn't want that to happen, would they?

So all they do is throw the rhetoric at each other and posture for the cameras.

It's just as bad on the Democratic side too - for example, why on earth would Pres. Obama put Larry Summers in charge of righting the economy when apparently he was the one who advocated for all those policies like outsourcing, deregulation, and reducing oversight that caused the economy to falter in the first place? Substantively that made no sense.

I guess realistically, politicians will always be like that - I just don't understand why they don't focus more on substance as well. Because once the politicians get the power they covet, if they don't start producing results, then there's always going to be somebody around the corner who's going to be able to beat them at their own game when they don't deliver on their promises, right?

At some point, hopefully one of these politicians'll realize that it's in their best interest too to really put some thought into actually solving some of the problems they said they'd fix once they got the chance ... I mean, we already know tax cuts and deregulation alone can cause more problems than they solve. So why would you go back to doing the exact same thing? That'd be just like Obama making Laurence Summers his go-to guy ...

Crazy ...

[pubsrtoast]

It's a foregone conclusion that this country is going to hell under both parties. The only real difference is that its going slightly faster under the Republicans.

[mgeg1]

No offense to you sir, but you say politicians put their own ambition ahead of responsible governing as if it should surprise people. It takes a unique type of person to prosper in politics; a person who feels no responsibility to do what is right, whose convictions are as malleable as putty, and who is willing to be the proverbial prostitute to their party, corporate campaign donors, and the 24 hour news networks. It will only get worse with the supreme court decision to allow unlimited and anonymous campaign donations from corporations.

[dumdeduh]

To those bashing the GOP for government expansion and increased deficit during the Bush administration: CONGRESS is to blame. Guess who has the power to spend money? CONGRESS. Guess who has the power to either reduce or expand governmental control? CONGRESS. The major party in control during the Bush administration? Democratic majority...

To those that say, "During the Clinton administration there was a surplus!" The major party in control during the Clinton administration? Republican majority...

U.S. Government 101 people...read it sometime.

[pubsrtoast]

Sure thing duh. Except then, when Clinton left on January 20th 2001 that same Republican Congress that you are claiming the mantle of fiscal responsibility for, lost their frigging minds and raised the debt ceiling 5 times in Bush's first term.

[sjc_1]

Bush claimed the deficits were under $300 billion each year, yet accumulated $6 trillion in debt. The wars and other spending were said to be "off budget".

[IrishJohn2]

For me, No Plan, no vote! I really don't care who comes up with the concrete plan, but must provide handle:
1- Jobs/Economy .. must have... no money, obviously no taxes for state or federal programs.
2- health care, status quote is obviously not the answer.. people have not been covered far too long and/or insurance companies refuse pre-existing conditions.
3- Must balance budget before end of next term? No more going from surplus to major debt.. Yep that also means cutting ALL pork projects by all? and we know every politician has them?

I don?t want to hear promises or excuses; put the plan on the table? this includes the tea party people? Just get it done!!!