Here’s the tortured logic, from a resolution being passed around the RNC:
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent…
[A list of policy positions that all Republicans must adhere to follows]
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee
{facepalm}
Are you freakin’ kidding me here? Are Republicans so incapable of abstract thought that they really think that’s what Reagan meant when he espoused the “8 out of 10” principle? This explains so much…
You know, I think the policy itself is bad enough. I hope this will put to rest the debate over which party is the party of inclusion and which is the party of teabaggers. Once the GOP goes down the road of purity tests, I don’t believe they’ll come back. But the policy aside, it’s the logic behind this resolution that really hurts me. Do you know what happened to the party of Reagan, folks? It’s now run by yahoos who can’t even understand what Reagan was trying to tell them.
Just in case you were interested, the list of policy positions is below the break:
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
It doesn't matter. Their 10 items are so vague and general. There is no specificity. Like everything the Republicans do, it is not about governing or leading, just winning elections with platitudes.
There list says nothing.
A similar Democratic list might look like this:
Democrats must:
believe in empathy and compassion
1) believe in freedom
2) believe in fiscal responsibility
3) believe in America
4) believe in the middle class
5) believe in enfranchisement of the masses
6) believe in the entrepreneurial spirit
7) believe in peace
9) believe in the health and life of human beings
10) believe in responsible, pragmatic, and compassionate immigration reform
I like your list, btw
"…it is not about governing or leading, just winning elections with platitudes.
Damn. I wish we'd thought of "Hopenchange".
Hmm, I thought Reagan meant that a good friend is not always going to agree w you, which can be boring in a friend.
This sounds like the RINO argument on paper. Is this saying get out if you don't agree, moderate Republicans?
I have some questions/ comments about the issues.
1. Population is up up, and government should b smaller? No. We have good government, anyway.
2. Market based health care reform? Where does that work in the world?
3. Someone missed the boat on what is green energy.
4. Worker's rights are pretty limited in that sentence to secret ballot no card check.
5. No amnesty? That doesn't go with the first part of the sentence, which was Legal immigration and assimilation into American society. Sounds like we're proposing a witch hunt, here.
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by troop surge? Oops, this is a pretty old one. I bet even 80% of the Repubs can't agree w this one. That means they can only disagree on one more…
7. Containment sounds good. So do limited objectives.
8. DOMA was for something, but really ended up being against something. Plus, people are voting for painful discrimination when states use the popular vote to decide gay marriage.
I think: Let the church still define marriage, but let's go civil unions for all in the eyes of the state. No one can be discriminated against for being in a union. Two people in a union. Says civil unions on our tax forms, and our insurance forms, and etc. GLBT can pick up the marriage argument in the church. People can enter civil unions in a courthouse before a judge, if they want.
So, would any Republicans agree to that? Religious freedom, but ends painful discrimination?
9. Protecting the vulnerable? Ha ha ha. Sorry, if you're a woman, your life means nothing. And, I'd like to see the Republican plan to end the rationing that is already done based on cost and availability, and is that what they really want.
10. So terrorists should be able to buy guns? And can I walk around with a bazooka or a M16? Might have trouble getting through the library doors, but could I carry if I wanted?
#2 actually works right here. Services such as LASIK that are paid for from peoples' pockets are the only types of medical care whose cost has decreased while outcomes have improved.
Holly,
Here here. And I definitely agree with number 9. Its appalling that women's reproductive choices and health have become a bargaining chip in the health care debate. I'm almost looking forward to 2010 and a blue dog bloodbath.
Do you guys eat Fruit Loops by chance for breakfast?
no, why?
Oooh, a blue dog bloodbath? Yikes! I love my Democrats. What's this — blue dogs wanting to outlaw abortion or not wanting to pay for them or what?
Personally, I'd like to reduce the number of abortions being performed somehow. Not by forcing women to give birth, but by figuring out why women choose abortion and seeing if we can help somehow. Is it because of economic struggle? What can we do to help.
I did say "almost" looking forward. But if Bart Stupack loses, I certainly won't need any tissues.
Stop Stupak! Damn that Stupak.
A Conservative Checklist for Republican Candidates: The Dumbest Idea I Have Ever Heard
I am rarely surprised when the group of conservatives that the mainstream media calls the “Far Right” decide to grab something and run with it, but this one really has my head shaking. This group of “Right Wingers,” that clearly lacks the ability to set down their Going Rogue textbooks long enough to recognize that conservatism is not about a checklist of talking points and issues, has decided to draft a resolution to submit to the RNC that would force Republican candidates to adhere to a 10-point checklist of key issues / principles. To be as kind as I can about the matter, and to avoid using the expletives I screamed out loud as I read about this (I am trying to clean up my potty mouth a bit), I will simply state that this is the dumbest Republican idea I have heard in my lifetime. I understand that I may not be as old as some who may read this, but nearly three decades of stupid ideas and gimicks all pale in comparison to this one. My only hope is that the idiots who drafted this resolution, and those who allowed it to leak to the press, are so fringe, so far out in “lala land”, that no one in the Party gives them even a moment of their time. These people are not the “right wing” of the Party and they are not conservatives. They think they are because they purport to stand for “conservative” issues and principles, but they lack any understanding of the fundamentals of True Conservatism.
True conservatism is about a principled and virtuous adherence to the fundamental intentions of our Founding Fathers expressed through our Founding Documents. The principle and the virtue are individual in nature and are not derivative of any one religion or culture. The intentions are strictly interpreted and rely primarily upon the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Conservatism is NOT about a laundry list of issues. This is why many on the “far right” lose me. They get so caught up in defending issues they deem to be “conservative” that they lose sight of the explanation and justification for their arguments. This is where religion gets infused with conservatism on a compulsory level and discredits the message altogether. The religion, or more accurately the principle or virtue, are supposed to be individual in nature. Our Founding Documents which we as conservatives purport to protect make it so. That is the very idea behind the 1st Amendment.
http://republicanredefined.com/2009/11/24/stupid-...
Yeah, what you said.
Except that I would add that even Tomas Jefferson said we need good government. He never got around to the new Constitution idea of 1806 or so because he realized the new federalism was working, and the checks and balances were working.
I think I'm more of a Hamilton. (Really I'm a Burr but that will be misunderstood, so I'll just say I'm a Hamilton. Burr was a feminist, was against slavery, didn't make his money off of slaves as Hamilton's backing family did, etc) Actually, I'm more of a Mary Wollstonecraft. Yeah. But she's not a founding father or is she? Who's a founding father?
"True democratic progressive liberalism is about a principled and virtuous adherence to the fundamental intentions of our Founding Fathers expressed through our Founding Documents."
Sounds exactly like Jeffersonian liberalism to me. Conservatives don't own the constitution, declaration, or bill of rights.
Uh oh, Jeffersonian liberalism. How about Jeffersonian Libertyism?
I value liberty, and protection. Maybe that's Burrlibection.
Nice to see that on a post chastising one party for enforcing a certain ideological purity it only takes three posts before the same idea is promoted by supporters of the other party. I almost had to look to see if I had accidentally ended up at The Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congress_app...
"Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges" is a true gem. Apart from turning civilian control of the military into an exercise in rubber-stamping, it assumes that victory is possible by military means and only by military means.
If they want to look foolish, once again it's "mission accomplished."
No one on the left really thinks we should hve a purity test
That's not right Alex!!! I believe a Purity Test is needed and critical… for the Republicans. Watching them self-destruct between the Pallin/Beck lead Know Nothings against the Romney lead corporatists while getting potshots from the Huckaby lead Religious Right is entertaining. Watch when the various talking heads get to answer for the candidates these questions… and disagree on which ones they are apostate on. And I thought the DFL knew how to run a circular firing squad… they got nothing on the GOP.
Agreed:)
You might have a big tent when it comes to recruiting candidates who will attract voters, but when it comes to your Centrists hemming and hawing about a health reform bill that doesn't sit well with them, they aren't necessarily loved by the party establishment.
In other words, Collin Peterson is cool when he can hold on to a red district for you, but he kinda sucks when he doesn't support Pelosi's agenda, doesn't he?
Still, I think Democrats are doing it right to have the big tent, vs. the GOP uniformity in this era. I prefer not to call it purity.
I believe the problem with trhe conservadems (at least 4 of them anyway) is their threatening to join the GOP in the dumb, overused filibuster to block passage of the healthcare bill. They can vote however they want on final passage, but bills should be decided by simple majority rule as the founders intended.
The funniest part is that Reagan himself would have failed points #1, 5, 10, and probably 7, if covertly selling arms to Iran's government violates what is meant by "containment".
How dare Ronald Reagan betray the principles of Ronald Reagan!!
Yeah, and Ronald who? the youngest voter back then would be 46. I do not recall..
Boy is the Republican party in trouble. That's pretty long ago and the youth on that side will prob not be feeling it.
The RNC is promoting this because they are losing support of the Palin/Bachmann brand of Republican donors. Formerly reliable contributors across the country have slammed their checkbooks shut because they don't want their donation to benefit Olympia Snowe and other RINOs. It's not a purity test for purity's sake. It's a publicity stunt to get their donors back.
Funny thing, Holly, is that Liberty and protection, taken to their extremes excludes the other. With unlimited liberty we would have few freedoms unless we were the ones on top of the heap. With total protection we would be stifled and have no liberty. We need a balance between both. Jeffersonian Liberalism. A middle ground between individualism and community. The rugged individualist only exists in American myth. Daniel Boone did not kill a bear when he was only three, and the west was really conquered by communities bravely venturing out together in wagon trains.
hmm, I do not think you and the rad right agree on the meaning of Jeffersonian Liberalism. I like balance and so I'll run w you on that.
But, I'll argue that liberty and protection, even taken to their extremes, don't have to exclude each other. It all depends on how people view it… who is "us" and "them," for example?
And you didn't like my burrlibection idea? C'mon!
I'm gonna risk embarrassment and ignorance and admit I don't get the Burr reference.
In a world of unlimited personal liberty only the strong would actually have freedom of choice. The most powerful corporations would undercut and freeze everyone else out of the marketplace(think WalMart but even worse). The powerful would control all the markets, because they are free to do so, and there would be no entrepreneurial opportunity at all. Right now it is impossible to start a retail store, car company, bank, etc, can you imagine how it would be if there was unlimited liberty to stifle all competition?
On the flip side, if you want to ensure absolute protection you would have to live in bubble wrap and be monitored 24/7. Not very liberating. I'm going to go try and google more on Burr.
You need to read (or re-read) Milton Friedman.
Economic freedom is a necessary prerequisite for personal freedom.
Hello! Unfettered capitalism doesn't work. Just look around you. We're in this mess because of NOT ENOUGH regulation (NINAs, for example), and the middle class got clobbered.