Two and a half years ago, the Republican Party suffered a major blow in the 2006 midterm elections as the Democrats regained control of Congress and began laying the groundwork to take back the White House in 2008.

As a Party, we were stunned. Having failed to anticipate shifting national dynamics and the growing appetite for change in America, we lost critical voting constituencies including independents, Hispanics, and young voters nationwide. And with Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in 2008, the Democrats acquired an even broader and stronger majority in Congress, leaving Republicans with very little power in Washington to fight against wasteful spending as our nation spiraled into an economic crisis.

Many rightfully wondered where our Party would turn to regain the ground we lost.

With an almost filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at the helm in Washington, the Democrats have already successfully used their majority to grow our nation’s debt to more than $11 trillion in just four months. They’ve promised to wage a battle on card check, healthcare, and energy. And they may attempt to ram through the President’s new Supreme Court nominee before Republicans are given adequate time to review her record. After Senator Specter’s party switch earlier this month, the Democrats effectively control everything in Washington, leaving us with little power to push back on their liberal agenda.

While this political environment appears dire and presents short-term setbacks for Republicans, I believe that it also provides us with a real opportunity for 2010. Next November could be a turning point for the future of our Party – but only if we unite and take advantage of this critical opportunity. That means holding the Democrats accountable for their records, providing real solutions, reaching out to new constituencies, and fielding candidates who can win in states where Republicans have traditionally failed to wage competitive races.

Some believe that we should be a monolithic Party; I disagree. While we all might wish for a Party comprised only of people who agree with us 100 percent of the time, this is a pipedream. Each Party is fundamentally a coalition of individuals rallying around core principles with some variations along the way. My job as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee is to recruit candidates who have the best chance of winning and holding seats – and to do so in as many states as possible. Earlier this month, two Republicans candidates emerged for the open Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez in the Sunshine State: Marco Rubio, the young and talented Hispanic former Speaker of the state House, and Charlie Crist, the state’s popular Governor.

There is no doubt both of these candidates have a bright future in the Republican Party. But with his record of leadership and astronomical approval ratings, including strong numbers among Republicans, Democrats and Independents, Charlie Crist represents the best chance for Republicans to hold this seat in Florida. That is why I endorsed Governor Crist for the U.S. Senate. That is also why Governor Crist was endorsed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, outgoing Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator John McCain, and other leaders within the Republican Party.

The NRSC’s endorsement is not a reflection on Marco Rubio; it is a realistic assessment of both the 2010 Florida Senate race and the national map. With the Democrats standing on the precipice of a filibuster-proof majority, we cannot afford to lose this seat in 2010. Endorsing Charlie Crist will save the NRSC precious resources that can be used to fight in other states. It will also ensure that the strongest Republican candidate maintains control of this seat, and build our numbers with the resulting opportunity to shape policy.

While Rubio is certainly an up-and-comer in Florida, a recent Mason Dixon poll showed that he only has a 44 percent name ID among Republicans, which will ultimately force him to spend a lot more money introducing himself to Floridians. Govenor Crist, in contrast, has a 100 percent name ID among Republicans, according to the same poll. In a general election match-up with Democrat Congressman Kendrick Meek, Charlie Crist wins handily 55 percent to 24 percent.

We have a chance to field competitive candidates in Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, California, Arkansas, and Colorado in 2010. But in order to succeed, we need candidates who fit their states. Winning back the majority requires not only that we hold the Democrats accountable, but also that we embrace the vast number of issues upon which Republicans agree. Failing to do so will hand the Democrats yet another victory in 2010, and deny the American people a check on Democrat-controlled government.

If we succeed in electing Republican Senators in 2010, issues like relocating Gitmo detainees to the United States, socializing healthcare, and eliminating workers’ secret ballots may never reach the floor of the United States Senate. But we have to work together to make that a reality. The tides are turning, and Republicans have an opportunity in 2010. However, we cannot win if we are focused on tearing each other down.

We have a chance in 2010 to unite around our common goal to rebuild the Republican Party and fight against the Democrats’ agenda. I hope that all Republicans will join me in that fight.

To strengthen penalties against these predators and enhance safety measures in place to protect our children, I joined forces with my colleague on the House side, Congressman Lamar Smith, to introduce the Internet Safety Act. While Internet crimes like the distribution of child pornography are not new challenges, we recognize more resources and tools need to be available to further combat crimes against children.

The bill has recently come under criticism for certain data retention requirements intended for Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight. Current law states that Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and related subscriber records must be retained for three months at the request of law enforcement. This is because often the only mechanism for identifying the operator or user of a child pornography website is his IP address. Unfortunately, it is commonplace that by the time law enforcement has discovered the Internet child pornography and made the request to retain records under current law, the ISP has already purged the subscriber records and the investigation hits a dead end. Our legislation closes this gap by requiring ISPs to retain the records for a limited period of time without first receiving a request from law enforcement. That way, we’re able to hold accountable the criminals behind these despicable acts that violate the dignity and threaten the security of our children.

It’s also important to point out that IP addresses are assigned by their ISP – Comcast, Verizon, Road Runner, to name a few. IP addresses cannot be generated by individual users who subscribe to an ISP. The record retention requirements fall solely on ISPs and do not apply to operators of Wi-Fi access points, hotels, local coffee shops and home users – as publications have erroneously reported. Moreover, the record retention requirements do not involve user content.

Retaining this type of information is neither new nor unprecedented. Telephone companies and the like are already required by law to keep similar records. The Internet Safety Act would simply extend the time period these records are kept, which I believe will help law enforcement officials do their job by identifying and penalizing these dangerous criminals.

To protect them from prison gangs eager to attack law enforcement officers, the Bureau of Prisons keeps the two agents separate from the general prison population. Today, Ramos and Compean sit in solitary cells in Phoenix, and Elkton, Ohio, respectively, hundreds of miles from their homes and families in Texas.

Because of the excesses of the prosecution against them, they will continue to sit alone in those cells for another decade. That is unless President Bush commutes their unjust sentences. In his remaining days as President, I ask President Bush to show mercy and use his clemency power to give back Agents Ramos and Compean the next 10 years of their lives.

Along with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, I have written two letters to the President urging commutation—and have spoken publicly many more times on this injustice.

Law enforcement officers hold a special place in our society. Those with authority to investigate and incarcerate others possess enormous power. But, like their fellow citizens, law enforcement officers must be held accountable when they act outside the law—and must be treated no better and no worse if prosecuted for a crime. While a jury of their peers found that Ramos and Compean exceeded the authority entrusted to them, I have reached the conclusion as a Senator, a former judge, and a citizen, that the loss of their jobs and the prison time they have already served has been more than enough punishment.

This is a case of prosecutorial overreaching.

For starters, prosecutors hid from the jury the full criminal character of the drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was also the government’s key witness. The jury was kept from hearing one of the most critical pieces of information regarding the case—that Aldrete-Davila was running drugs at the time of his altercation with the border agents. Nor did the jury hear that after he was granted immunity to testify against the agents, Aldrete-Davila breached his agreement and continued to smuggle drugs into this country. Finally, the jury was told neither that Aldrete-Davila’s friends had organized a “hunting party” to shoot border agents in revenge for his injuries, nor that Aldrete-Davila had refused to help law enforcement identify and stop these vigilantes. Instead of hearing this evidence, the jury was told by the prosecutor in closing statements that Aldrete-Davila had run from the border agents simply because he wanted to go home. Several jurors have since come forward to state that if they had been told about the excluded evidence, they would have changed their verdict.

What’s more, long before their trial, Ramos and Compean suffered unfair treatment by federal prosecutors, who made an unprecedented move to charge Ramos and Compean with a federal gun crime that was never intended to be used against law enforcement officers. As a result, the penalty levied on these men was grossly excessive.

Ramos and Compean were the first, and so far are the only, law enforcement agents to be charged under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) for actions taken in the regular course of their duties. That statute provides a mandatory minimum of 10 years in jail for anyone who fires a gun while “during and in relation to any crime of violence.”

The dangerous result of prosecutors reading this statute liberally to prosecute law enforcement officers is obvious. Our law enforcement officers—whose chief responsibility is to protect and serve—carry guns and are sometimes required to use them as part of their job. The statute used to prosecute Ramos and Compean was originally intended as a punishment enhancement to deter individuals from dealing drugs and engaging in violent crimes. Until the Ramos and Compean case, prosecutors understood this distinction—practicing their discretion accordingly and not charging it against law enforcement acting in the regular course of their duties.

If Ramos and Compean had been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for every charge against them except for the 10-year mandatory minimum gun charge, they would both be free men by the end of this year. Because of prosecutors’ use of this unprecedented and unjust charge, that day of freedom is still a decade away.

Even U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who supervised the prosecution, has now conceded that concerns about the fairness of the sentence are legitimate. Let us hope that President Bush will hear these concerns and right the wrongs against Ramos and Compean.

First of all, the mortgage mess is especially infuriating because some of us saw it coming. Two years ago, I joined with 19 of my colleagues demanding that we crack down on mortgage abuse, particularly by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A bill doing exactly that, The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, was approved by the Senate Banking Committee. But it was killed on the Senate floor by Democrats who favored pushing out mortgages to people with dubious prospects for paying them back. They claimed we were concocting a problem that didn’t exist. We were not, and that makes the resulting mess all the more disgusting.

The decision we faced this week was not on whether to bail out Wall Street. If this was merely about assisting those who had gambled and lost in the financial markets, I would have opposed this bill without question. But the inward spiral of restricting credit now underway across our country threatens the jobs and savings of millions of ordinary Americans. I voted for the 65-year-old worker who suddenly has seen his retirement nest egg evaporating, and a lifetime of hard work thrown into jeopardy. I voted for the small business owner who is days away from failing to make his payroll because his line of credit has been frozen. I did it for the thousands of innocent employees who were soon to be facing layoffs due to excesses that were no fault of their own.

I believe that my colleagues and I have done a poor job explaining to the American people exactly what is included in the final plan, as well as the probable consequences of inaction. Some conservative leaders have begun filling the void. Newt Gingrich said the plan “is a temporary measure to stop a hemorrhaging of credit and the potential collapse of the American and world economy.” My highly respected Senate colleague, Dr. Tom Coburn, was eloquent in explaining the stakes involved here:

““Taxpayers deserve to know that there is no guarantee this plan will work, but there is a guarantee that we will face a financial catastrophe if we do nothing. If banks continue to fail and stop lending the average American could lose their job, be unable to secure a loan for a car, home or college education, and find their life savings and retirement in jeopardy. Our economy depends on having liquid assets available for credit and lending just as an automobile engine needs oil. If those liquid assets stop flowing, our economy will be seriously damaged and will require far more costly and lengthy repairs.”

“This bill does not represent a new and sudden departure from free market principles as much as it represents an emergency response to congressional actions that have ignored free market principles, and our Constitution, for decades. If anyone in Washington should offer their resignation it should be the members of Congress who peddled the fantasy of free home ownership without risk.”

The proposal we approved is significantly improved over the blank check sought by the Treasury only ten days ago. We managed to excise many special interest provisions, such as the ACORN subsidy, that Democrats tried to slip in. If the plan works as expected, and the economy regains its footing, most or even all of the upfront costs involved will be recouped. Of the choices facing us, I believe this one will involve the least amount of overall cost to taxpayers, and give us the best chance of avoiding permanent damage to our system.

This exceptional government intervention is a bitter pill for those of us who believe that free market capitalism, with our civil liberties, are the foundation of American exceptionalism. I’m convinced it was necessary. I understand that many of my longtime supporters will disagree, but I hope they know that I took their arguments seriously, and made the best call I could. My goal now will be reforming the conditions that got us into this mess so we will not ever face this type of choice again.

President Bush has taken an important step to lower gas prices. But now Congress needs to get out of the way and let the free market produce more energy.

The U.S. is the only country in the world that refuses to develop its own natural resources. We have placed 85 percent of our best energy lands off limits. Yet we are willing to enrich foreign governments—including some that foster anti-Americanism—instead of helping ourselves.

 At last, some Democrats are finally getting the message. The ice around their rigid anti-U.S. production position is starting to crack. (It is mid-July, after all.) At least ten Democratic Senators are now making statements amenable to offshore exploration.

But the Democratic leadership is delaying energy-related votes. They evidently fear these proposals could pass. At this rate, I suspect Republicans are going to do better in this fall’s elections than most pundits assume.

I’m backing several bills to move America closer to energy independence. They include the Gas Price Reduction Act, to facilitate offshore and western shale exploration. The U.S. is well on the way toward transitioning away from over-reliance on fossil fuels. I support aggressively pursuing every source of energy—including nuclear, clean coal, shale, wind and solar. We need it all. But as we move toward alternatives sources, our infrastructure relies on traditional energy.

The Democratic leadership thought it could skate through this crisis by relying on shopworn ideas that are proven losers—such as taxing American energy companies, suing OPEC and investigating so-called “price gouging.” These proposals would do nothing to lower gas prices. They would increase our dependence on foreign oil. Congress cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.

I’m currently hosting “Energy Independence Days” on my Web site, including new online interactive features, video messages and guest posts. We’re building momentum toward real energy independence solutions. The initiative has generated record traffic on our blog. It’s more proof—if any is needed—that Americans want action on gas prices from the Democrat-led Congress.

I appreciate Erick Erickson and other Redstate hosts for the opportunity to communicate with your online community. Please join me at www.johncornyn.com this week, and share your thoughts on the growing need for real energy solutions.