The one that I would have to definitely disagree with you on is that of Closed Primaries. I cannot see any downside to this practice. Remember, we are talking about the Primary, where the Republican Party is choosing who should represent the Party in the General election. In the Primary, I want those who subscribe to the beliefs of the Republican Party to make that decision. I believe that having John McCain as our 2008 Presidential Candidate was due in part to people in early states being allowed to crossover and vote in the Republican primary for the candidate they felt would least be capable of defeating a Democrat challenger. As you may recall, Rush Limbaugh then used this same tactic against the Democrats by launching Operation Chaos to have conservatives register as Democrats for the express purpose of voting for Hillary to keep her in the race as long as possible in order to drain the war chests of both Hillary and Obama and to make sure they were both sufficiently bloodied up by each other before the General. If we want truly conservative candidates, then we need a closed Primary.

On the issue of Loyalty Oaths, I am not so certain, as I can see the case for both sides. I do not see it necessarily as an anointing from Party Elites. It could very well be protection from a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing candidate. However, the Republican Party platform must truly represent us as conservatives. Conservatism is what has made our Nation and our Party great. When we have strayed from conservatism, bad things have happened. I would not want a small number of elites crafting a party platform that took a soft stance on abortion or the definition of marriage, just so that we could claim a "big tent" mentality. Then, we would have to turn around and require our candidates to uphold that platform, though we do not support it.

"We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation . . . we make the brain perfect before we blow it out."

--Orwell 1984

On the Loyalty Oath, I do not see any direct correlation to "winning" the General Assembly. As far as Closed Primaries are concerned, I am more interested in winning the hearts and minds of the people of North Carolina than winning whatever the cost. I believe in a conservatism that is typically defined as Reagan Conservatism, not just some fiscal responsibility sans the controversial family values/social conservative aspects. Therefore, yes, I want to win, but I want those elected to have the conviction of traditional morals and conservative principles. Without that foundation, you end up with RINOs. I hope that by enlightening the electorate, conservatives will be elected over liberals, and by having a closed primary, the people will have a true conservative to choose from, not someone who is Democrat-light.

Justin, if I understand you correctly, you are advocating that we have an Open Primary so that a diversity of voices can shape the Republican candidate put forth in the General Election. This is in line with the "big tent" philosophy of General Colin Powell. My problem with this is that the candidate put forth then may not represent conservatism. You might end up with a Democrat-light candidate. I contend that this is what we got with our 2008 Presidential nominee. It was the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin for the Vice Presidency that finally gave the campaign some momentum among the base of the Party.

We have a blue print for victory. President Ronald Reagan won two land slide victories by taking the conservative message directly to the people of the United States and allowing the people to come around to a conservative way of thinking, not by pandering and moving his positions more to the left or the center.

I want messengers of conservatism elected to office, and that is why I favor a Closed Primary. I understand that a Closed Primary is not going to guarantee that we get a "true" conservative in each and every office on the ballot. However, it is more probable under the Closed Primary scenario than under the Open Primary. At the end of the day, there is nothing that would keep a person from changing their Party affiliation in time for the Primary and then reverting to unaffiliated after the Primary vote.

Justin, thank you for welcoming me to the 21st century. If I understand the overarching point of your argument, you are saying that times have changed, and we must move on to what is new. There are a greater number of Unaffiliated voters. Therefore, we must keep our primary open and cater to that voting segment so that we can have a groundswell of commitment in the General election. Also, the Era of Reagan is over, and we must find our footing as a Party in the "New Era," whatever that is. The point of the election is to win.

The reason why the Unaffiliated vote is growing is because i) the Democrat Party is becoming the Socialist Party USA and is increasingly intruding into the lives of private citizens, and ii) the Republican Party has been trying to fashion itself after the Democrat Party, thus the term Democrat-light. Republican candidates have not given the People a reason to vote for them. The Republican Party controlled the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches. Did we begin to provide Constitutional government by delivering implementations of our principles of fiscal responsibility? No, over time we increased spending on more entitlement programs. Did we cut the government down to Constitutional size? No, we made it larger. People are starting to wake up and discover that both parties have been shafting them. Thus, I know some who were registered Republicans that have switched to Unaffiliated because the Republican Party has not lived up to conservative principles. If Republican candidates begin to move to the center, then those Unaffiliated will continue to see the Republican Party as still trying to fashion themselves as Democrats, yet somehow better. Given the choice between a charlatan and the real thing, the People will choose the real thing.

Should we then ignore those that are Unaffiliated in the Primary? No, we should take our message to everyone who will listen. You argue that Obama's campaign was successful because he did such a great job of organizing and targeting people with his message. I fail to see how this is any different from Reagan. President Reagan took the message of conservatism to the people and Democrats and Republicans came to his conservative position. The Era of Reagan is not over, it's just that the methods of getting the message to the electorate have changed. The Republican Party must be better situated to reach out to the electorate through all modes of communication, including radio, television, Twitter, Facebook, My Space, blogs. We also need to have the organizational capabilities to put grassroots activist boots on the ground in the districts and put forth candidates of which we are proud. Obama didn't win because he did something radically different. He communicated his message of "Nothing" to the American people, and he communicated that message of "Nothing" well, through all methods of communication. The People thought they heard him say something that resonated within them, and his base of supporters, both financial and boots-on-the-ground activists, grew. In the end Obama won because more people turned out to vote for his message of "Nothing", than for our message of "We'll do what their saying, but with a conservative twist."

President Reagan is the first president of whom I have a living memory. I was much too young to vote in either of those Presidential Elections. However, core principles never go out of style, and there is nothing new under the sun. So, I will never tire of learning from Reagan's policies and listening or reading speeches that he gave. After all, is the Declaration of Independence less relevant today than it was 233 years ago? Should the U.S. Constitution be thrown to trash heap because it is so 1787? God forbid.

My take on the lessons learned from the last General election at both the State and Federal levels is that we must get back to our core principles, and use every means available to get that message to the People. Without messengers that inspire the grassroots, this will not be possible.