Written by Matthew Hayward The political landscape is often rife with hyperbole and sensationalism, but the recent uproar over "Project 2025" takes it to a new level. The political left has unleashed a torrent of hysteria, painting the project with apocalyptic tones and dire warnings. This reaction, however, reveals more about their own strategies and insecurities than the project itself. Earlier today, Trump’s campaign cheered the news of internal turmoil within the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Despite the left’s attempts to link Trump with this initiative, the former President has consistently denied any association. This move was highlighted by the departure of Project 2025 Director Paul Dans, announced by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. Roberts emphasized that Dans’s departure was in line with the project’s timeline and not a result of external pressure. FOX45 News reported the Trump campaign’s enthusiastic response, highlighting their clear disassoc...

By Matthew Hayward In a time when discussions of civil unrest and even civil war permeate the national conversation, on July 8, 2024, President Joe Biden made a statement to his donors that has since sparked significant controversy: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye." This remark, coming from the highest office in the land, raises serious concerns about the impact of such language on an already tense political environment. With the nation still reeling from January 6th, where Trump has been alleged to have incited an insurrection , and the ongoing heated debates about election integrity, Biden's words fanned the flames of division. Given Biden's access to intelligence from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which are acutely aware of the effects of political radicalization, it cannot be argued that Biden was unaware his comments could be interpreted literally, especially when his supporters and the liberal media regularly ...

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

 By Matthew Hayward In the intricate dance of political strategy, the story of Michele Caldier's 26th legislative campaign in 2014 serves as a compelling case study. Tasked with the formidable challenge of unseating a Democratic incumbent who had held the seat for 14 years, Caldier's campaign was a testament to the power of strategic pragmatism in action. Despite criticisms of her moderate stance, Caldier's consistent support for Republican leadership in the House underscores a nuanced understanding of political realities. An ideologue supporting a moderate is a strategic choice, prioritizing the advancement of broader political goals over strict ideological alignment. This narrative is not merely about the outcomes of a single campaign but illuminates the broader implications of strategic voting in swing districts. My experience managing Caldier's campaign highlights the delicate balance between principle and pragmatism, a balance that is necessary in having success in...

If past actions by government union leadership are any indication, it's fair to assume unions will spend hundreds of millions of dollars targeting the presidential election and conservative candidates across the nation. Two big questions exist: 1.       Will labor unions change their model back toward the workplace issues the rank-and-file care about, or will they remain hyper-partisan political players? 2.      W ith public employees now having the option to cease all union dues payments, and organizations like the Freedom Foundation working 24/7 to make sure they're informed of their rights and able to exercise them, will government unions still be able to generate enough revenue by overcharging their members to make record donations? Let's travel back to 2017 to assess these questions. With the death of Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association . Had Scalia cast a tie-break...

One great thing about the Freedom Foundation is that nearly everything we do is successful. Even when we appear to lose a battle, by the simple act of climbing into the ring and fighting, we’re always advancing in the overall war to defund and distract the political influence of government unions. A great example of our win-win policy is our door-to-door opt-out today program . The hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost dues to the S ervice Employees International Union ( SEIU) annually because of members opting out is a win. Still, we’re also winning because of the time and money SEIU is forced to devote to countering it. In response to our efforts, SEIU has recruited a small army of thugs to spread lies to prevent people from learning and exercising their rights. SEIU 775 is currently running ads offering to pay hired goons upwards of $50,000 a year to “encourage” individual providers to sign the membership cards, which entitles the union to skim money from workers...

By Matthew Hayward Why is it that the only people I've heard say they like Chris Christie and think the GOP should consider him and move toward moderates are all Democrat strategists? Am I wrong, or should we believe that Chris Matthews is genuinely trying to aid the Republican Party in becoming competitive again? It's often said, in every campaign school you'll hear it, that you must move to the middle and go after those swing voters. If the Republican Party moves toward the middle of the spectrum, that means moving away from the left toward the right. The Republican Party has long ago moved past the middle toward the left. While I’m not a "Tea Party" person, I respect that those who are understand how far left the Republican Party has gone. Most of my friends on the left believe the Republican Party has never been more to the 'right,' and they think the Democrats have moved too far to the 'right.' But let’s look at right and left in simple te...