GOP Purity Test

[TheGame]

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting. The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

Here's the list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

-------------------

Quoted from http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/11/gop-agree-with-us-on-8-out-of-10.html but I saw this on MSNBC: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/23/2134917.aspx

-------------------

Do any of you subscribe to 8 out of 10 of these ideals? I think the party is moving the wrong way with this, but hey I might be suprised.

[Vampyr]

Good old defense of marriage act - what would we do without you?

[Dylflon]

The republican party is a well oiled machine whose key strength lies in forcing most members to low the party line.

This is damaging to the democratic process.

[TheGame]

How Ronald Reagan stood on these issues:

Let's see:

(1) Deficit spending soared during Reagan's presidency.Strike one.

(2) As governor of California, Reagan oversaw the development of Medi-Cal, the nation's largest Medicaid program – expanding it to cover long-term care and developed massive new managed care systems. Strike two.

(3) As governor of California, Reagan Reagan established the Air Resources Board to battle California's smog problems and supported aggressive government intervention where the market had failed to protect the environment. As president, Reagan signed more wilderness protections laws – which restrict private-sector exploitation of natural resources – than any president in history. Strike three.

(4) Reagan was a former union president who campaigned against the Taft-Hartley Act and other restrictions of the right of unions to organize. Strike four.

(5) Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to most undocumented workers who could prove they had been in the country continuously for the previous five years. After he finished his presidency, Reagan continues to speak out forcefully for immigration rights. Strike five.

(6) After the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut, Reagan was urged by some to surge more troops into the region. Instead, he ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. Strike six.

(7) Reagan acknowledged that during his presidency the U.S.sold weapons to Iran. Strike seven.

(8) Reagan was the first president to invite an openly gay couple to spend the night in the White House and he famously argued that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in a 1978 television advertising campaign. Strike eight.

(9) Shortly after his inauguration as governor of California, Reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion statute of its day". Strike nine.

(10) Here's Reagan, in 1991, on gun control: "I support the Brady Bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." Strike ten.

Shows how far the party has come. Though I think if Ronald Reagan was asked to support or go against those 10 items, I'm sure he would probably sign onto at least half of them, its just that the party in general is hipocritical.

[Professor S]

If this thread is about the 10 question test I heard about, then I agree it's ridiculous. It drives me nuts when republicans try and weed out the "RINOS". Hell, Reagan not only supported moderates, but he reached out the Democrats to get support for his plans. That's how you win elections and make policy happen.

It doesn't matter how "pure" you are if you can't win elections! That Conservative candidate in New York getting a large amount of votes wasn't a victory. He lost! How many votes does a loser get you? NONE.

Right now the US has never been more politically divided and alienated, and that's a opportunity for Republicans to bring more people into the fold. Instead, it looks like they're trying to weed people out. Next time I renew my license I've going back to being an independent. I live in PA so my primary votes are irrelevant in most cases anyway.

Morons. If they lose in 2010 and 2012 it'll their own damn fault.

[TheGame]

Right now the US has never been more politically divided and alienated, and that's a opportunity for Republicans to bring more people into the fold.

I think the division is a lot of their own doing. From their failed leadership creating the situation we're in now, down to their failed politics causing the party to become unpopular. IMO the Republican party has moved too far to the right, and they opened the door more for there to be moderate democrats.

Its good in a way that they're all on the same page, so they make policy happen with no civil wars like the dems.. but I think they're signing onto one too many unpopular views.

The name of the game in politics, is adjusting to what the majority of people want (Or at least being somewhat sympathetic with that view). If you don't do that, you start losing districts you've held for over 100 years.

[Jason1]

The republicans will lose in 2012 because they will probably nominate Palin or Cheny...or some other fat old guy who likes to hunt stuff...laughable.

[Professor S]

I don't think Palin or Cheney will get it. Cheney won't run (due to age and condition, and I don't think he cares much for politics) and Palin probably will but is too divisive to get the nomination. Palin will be worse than the candidate. She'll be a massive distraction from any real candidates, because the media LOVES to concentrate on her regardless of relevancy.

I see Huckabee as a major contender, and Pawlenty and Romney as strong contenders. I'll also expect to see some young Senators coming out of the woodwork with Obama dispelling the myth that Senators aren't realistic presidential candidates due to their long voting records.

And Game: If your last post was intended for me, you're still set to ignore, so don't bother. I only posted on this thread because I could see the title and I thought a Republican's point of view on the situation might be enlightening. And isn't it nice that we've avoided our usual ridiculous arguments? (yes, that question is rhetorical)

[TheGame]

The republicans will lose in 2012 because they will probably nominate Palin or Cheny...or some other fat old guy who likes to hunt stuff...laughable.

Palin has a chance of winning in the primaries, and that's kinda scary. What they should do is let her go in the primaries and let all the republicans bash her and kick her out fast so that she's ailenated from the party. If they do that, they'd become more legit, in my eyes at least. :)

Heck invite Cheney too.

[Dylflon]

And Game: If your last post was intended for me, you're still set to ignore, so don't bother. I only posted on this thread because I could see the title and I thought a Republican's point of view on the situation might be enlightening. And isn't it nice that we've avoided our usual ridiculous arguments? (yes, that question is rhetorical)


I couldn't see how he could be baiting you with that post, and now you're just being rude.

[Professor S]

I couldn't see how he could be baiting you with that post, and now you're just being rude.

I don't know if he was baiting me. I can't see his posts. He is set to "Ignore". The reason why I posted that was because he posted directly above my post and immediately after my post. I can't see what he writes, I only see that he posted something (the body of the post says he is set to ignore). Now if he was posting something with nothing to do with my statements, then I made the incorrect assumption, but I wouldn't know either way.

Quite literally, he shouldn't bother trying to address me directly because I can't see what he's asking or challenging. I'm trying to save him time and effort that would be wasted. I thought it was only fair that he should know. That said, this will be the last time I mention it, because as you say, it comes off as a bit "dickheadish" (which it is, but only incidentally).

[manasecret]

GOP "Purity" Test? What mentality these people have. Sounds like the GOP is going to continue to ride their ideals right out of office.

The rebuttal using Reagan's own record is pretty telling, too. What's that called? When you use a popular symbol that everyone can agree with and associate it with your own agenda (even if in fact the symbol hardly represents your agenda) to persuade people to your side? There's a term for that.

[TheGame]

I couldn't see how he could be baiting you with that post, and now you're just being rude.

Don't worry, I don't care if he's ignoring me. If he's spreading false propaganda, I'll still point it out for the sake of everyone else. If he wants to live in his dream world where Fox news and MSNBC are equals, let it be. If he wants to spew out his ideas, and not take the time to defend them that's his own loss.

[Professor S]

GOP "Purity" Test? What mentality these people have. Sounds like the GOP is going to continue to ride their ideals right out of office.

The worst part for me as a socially moderate conservative is that they are going to make these alienating types of moves, and still probably gain some seats in the House and Senate in 2010, and they'll see it as a validation of the "purity" strategy. The fact is they'll gain seats just because thats what happens in American politics when one party has two much control. The shift is inevitable (and I would argue healthy regardless of the party in power), and might ruin Republican chances for 2012 if they don't recognize it for what it is.

Then again, if they are stupid enough to run Palin in 2012, it won't matter to me as I'll have moved to Australia.

[Fox 6]

Speaking of Palin

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheGame]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PTz5vEQoQaI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PTz5vEQoQaI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Bond]

What's the point of posting these videos about Sarah Palin? Didn't she receive enough lambasting during the campaign?

[TheGame]

What's the point of posting these videos about Sarah Palin? Didn't she receive enough lambasting during the campaign?

No she didn't, IMO.

As long as I feel she has a legit chance to run for national office again, she will continue to get this treatment. If she turned into a nobody who doesn't have a chance anymore (which she SHOULD be), then I wouldn't feel obligated to waste my time posting about her.

[Jonbo298]

Wait, did she answer that question or not? My brain lost itself about 20 seconds in...

[Bond]

No she didn't, IMO.
So the media went too easy on her? How so?

Was she treated more kindly in relation to Joe Biden?

[TheGame]

So the media went too easy on her? How so?

Was she treated more kindly in relation to Joe Biden?

I don't believe that the media should be balanced, I belive that they should be in pursuit of the truth. And the truth is that Sarah Palin is an absolute joke. So I think it is the Media's job to expose her for what she is.

It's not like I linked a video to someone's opinion of her, she made herself look bad. And if I was the owner of any news station, I'd allow her on any time to answer these kind of questions so people understand what she is.

[Bond]

I don't believe that the media should be balanced, I belive that they should be in pursuit of the truth. And the truth is that Sarah Palin is an absolute joke. So I think it is the Media's job to expose her for what she is.

It's not like I linked a video to someone's opinion of her, she made herself look bad. And if I was the owner of any news station, I'd allow her on any time to answer these kind of questions so people understand what she is.
Did Joe Biden, on the other hand, receive the proper amount of lambasting, too little, or too much?

[TheGame]

Did Joe Biden, on the other hand, receive the proper amount of lambasting, too little, or too much?

Lambasting is a strong term to use for what the media does. I wouldn't even call what O'reily or Katie did to Palin lambasting. So I'm going to assume you're talking about the reaction from people.

Witht that said, I think that people got on Biden's case as much as he deserved. He was invited on many shows and did plenty of interviews where he didn't make a fool of himself. Unfortunately Palin is not capible of doing this, so she gets a lot more negative attention. And she deserved every bit of it.

[Bond]

Lambasting is a strong term to use for what the media does. I wouldn't even call what O'reily or Katie did to Palin lambasting. So I'm going to assume you're talking about the reaction from people.

Witht that said, I think that people got on Biden's case as much as he deserved. He was invited on many shows and did plenty of interviews where he didn't make a fool of himself. Unfortunately Palin is not capible of doing this, so she gets a lot more negative attention. And she deserved every bit of it.
Well, here is how I see it. Palin was not the most qualified vice-presidential candidate ever, but I'm not so sure if Joe Biden was either. To be honest, I would be saddened if either ever attained the office of the Presidency. Palin received so much more flak because she is an average person, perhaps even a simpleton (which doesn't necessarily need to carry a negative connotation). What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election. That being said, I like a lot of the elitists at The New Yorker, but it is important to look at the issue both ways.

Biden ranked near the bottom of his class when he studied at Delaware for his BA. He also attended a third-rate law school that any serious student should be able to gain admission to... he's not a mental giant by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Palin, as I said, but one did receive quite the more negative coverage.

Clinton would have been a far more experienced and qualified choice over Biden, but she likely wasn't nominated because of Obama's ego and / or fear of her internally challenging him for the 2012 nomination. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hillary replaces Joe for the 2012 run, provided she does not challenge him for the nomination.

[Vampyr]

One of the important aspects of picking a vice presidential running mate is choosing someone who at the very least doesn't do anything to make you look bad.

That being said...

[TheGame]

Well, here is how I see it. Palin was not the most qualified vice-presidential candidate ever, but I'm not so sure if Joe Biden was either. To be honest, I would be saddened if either ever attained the office of the Presidency. Palin received so much more flak because she is an average person, perhaps even a simpleton (which doesn't necessarily need to carry a negative connotation). What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election. That being said, I like a lot of the elitists at The New Yorker, but it is important to look at the issue both ways.

Biden ranked near the bottom of his class when he studied at Delaware for his BA. He also attended a third-rate law school that any serious student should be able to gain admission to... he's not a mental giant by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is Palin, as I said, but one did receive quite the more negative coverage.

Clinton would have been a far more experienced and qualified choice over Biden, but she likely wasn't nominated because of Obama's ego and / or fear of her internally challenging him for the 2012 nomination. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hillary replaces Joe for the 2012 run, provided she does not challenge him for the nomination.

Joe Biden has been in office since 1973. The only person who was compareable to him in experience was John Mccain. And guess what? John Mccain has a good 10+ years less experience in washington.

And you talk about which college he went to... which college did John Mccain go to? Where did he rank in his class? Last time I checked it wasn't Ivy league, and there wasn't even a dozen students who did worse then him in his class. (While Biden did better then only 15 dozen people in his class that was a good 200 students smaller then Mccains)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Formative_years_and_education

We can go off subject about Biden all day, and his experience or qualifications. But he's easily a step ahead of Mccain, Palin, Clinton, or Barrack Obama himself on paper. What he lacks in education, he can make up for with experience. But the fact is, none of that matters.

The real difference between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, is Joe Biden knows how to answer easy political questions and Sarah Palin doesn't. If you go back and look at old threads when Sarah Palin was picked, and see my reaction to it.. you can see that I clearly wanted to give her a chance. In fact, I went as far to bash the media's first reaction to her, and said they were picking on her because she's a woman. (go ahead and search it, it's in the record books)

But then I heard her speak for herself, and I realized that her even being considered for national office was a huge mistake. If she was really qualified for the job, and really smart, and was media savy, then she'd be as legitamate of a canadate as anyone else (see Barrack Obama). But she proved quickly that she clearly lacks the knowlege to carry such a job.

If Barrack Obama had an interview with Katie Couric that went the same way or would have treated the presidential debate as a joke like she did, he would have been harassed just as much. If John Mccain did, he would too. If Biden did, he would to. But they didn't, and she did. The problem isn't the media and how "fair" their coverage is, the problem is Sarah Palin.

[Dylflon]

Well, here is how I see it. Palin was not the most qualified vice-presidential candidate ever, but I'm not so sure if Joe Biden was either. To be honest, I would be saddened if either ever attained the office of the Presidency. Palin received so much more flak because she is an average person, perhaps even a simpleton (which doesn't necessarily need to carry a negative connotation). What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election. That being said, I like a lot of the elitists at The New Yorker, but it is important to look at the issue both ways.


Whoa dude...I don't think 'elitists' are afraid of her. I could not imagine her being politically threatening to anyone.

The reason people insult her is because she's an awful public speaker who comes off as quite dumb as she spits out buzz phrases and fails to answer the actual questions posed to her.

Who the hell are these "elitists" anyways? Is elitist is now a negative term used by Republicans to refer to educated people? I remember in the Obama run, when people brought up his education, Fox News would refer to him as an elitist. It's just another new buzz word that we'll hear used over and over again. And it's a shame because being smart should not have negative connotations.


I was actually surprised by your comment here, Bond.

Also: Being a simpleton is a negative thing in politics. Common sense, small town values, and a can-do maverick attitude should not qualify someone to be a politician. Not to say that these are bad things but they need to be coupled with intelligence and communicative abilities.

[Typhoid]

What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election.


I would just like to point out that the only people who seemingly like Sarah Palin, like her because she's just so damn easy to pick apart.

[Professor S]

As for the media bias concerning Palin as opposed to Biden, it's obvious and doesn't warrant discussion, IMO. Biden is an experienced buffoon. Palin is just an inexperienced naive. Neither are qualified but one at least has an excuse...

I think the media went after Sarah Palin for multiple reasons, and I'll list them in order:

1) She was unprepared for the office of Vice President. If she had aced or at least been passable in the Katie Couric interview, there would be no issue (or at least far less of one). It was a disaster. She gave those that were drooling at the thought of criticizing her all the ammo they needed.

2) She represents a part of America that the left and even NE Republicans simply do not understand. As a result, I think there is an element of almost xenophobia regarding her sudden rise and popularity, and also a tendency to dismiss her/mock her and her supporters because they don't know what to make of the phenomenon. I think this is where the term "elitist" comes from that Bond intoned.

3) She is a female Republican, and therefore a "traitor". For a while now it has been difficult for minorities and women to "come out" as Republicans because if they do they somehow are viewed an not being authentically female, black, etc. This is especially true of black Republicans.

4) She is an easy target with her accent and "folksiness".

In any case, she needs to diminish her publicly facing role in the party, if she cares about the health of her party. She attracts the social/religious base, but damages the attraction to moderates and fiscal Republicans and with the level of media scrutiny she attracts she is a distraction and prevents attention being made for real ideas to be presented by the GOP.

[TheGame]

The funny thing in this all, is that I'm a social conservative.. and I am against her. I think it'd be a disaster if someone like Sarah Palin became the president. I think she ruins the reputation of the republican party and actually helps the left. From a politics standpoint, I don't think that the dems are 'afraid' of her.

I'm afraid that the republican party will make itself even more irrelevant if they allow her to run in 2012, and on the same token I'm afraid that people might actually be stupid enough to vote for her over Obama, or feel that they have no choice... and get her elected.

Dedicated republicans should be afraid that she makes people like me feel like we have no choice but to vote for Obama. Which would be exactly what she does if she runs in 2012.. and exactly what she did to a lot of republicans in 2008.

So as I said, the fact that she's still a good possibility for 2012 makes me feel obligated to point out her downfalls to people I know. I welcome a reasonable canidate from the republican party to run, but she shouldn't even be considered. IMO

[Vampyr]

Whoa dude...I don't think 'elitists' are afraid of her. I could not imagine her being politically threatening to anyone.

The reason people insult her is because she's an awful public speaker who comes off as quite dumb as she spits out buzz phrases and fails to answer the actual questions posed to her.

Who the hell are these "elitists" anyways? Is elitist is now a negative term used by Republicans to refer to educated people? I remember in the Obama run, when people brought up his education, Fox News would refer to him as an elitist. It's just another new buzz word that we'll hear used over and over again. And it's a shame because being smart should not have negative connotations.


I was actually surprised by your comment here, Bond.

Also: Being a simpleton is a negative thing in politics. Common sense, small town values, and a can-do maverick attitude should not qualify someone to be a politician. Not to say that these are bad things but they need to be coupled with intelligence and communicative abilities.

Haha, yeah, I like it when people to refer to Obama, or other people in general, as being part of the "intelligent, liberal elite" like it's a bad thing.

[Dylflon]

I'm actually really hoping Palin does run for president n 2012 solely because it would be super funny.

[Bond]

I realize now I did not properly explain my remarks. Let me try to make what I meant to say a little more clear, and hopefully this will alleviate some confusion.

I do not like Sarah Palin, on a personal or political level. I would not vote for her or support her in any election. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate was one of the main reasons why I chose not to vote for McCain.

But my intention was not to voice my personal view on Palin, but rather how I viewed her coverage by the media, and more specifically The New Yorker.


Who the hell are these "elitists" anyways? Is elitist is now a negative term used by Republicans to refer to educated people? I remember in the Obama run, when people brought up his education, Fox News would refer to him as an elitist. It's just another new buzz word that we'll hear used over and over again. And it's a shame because being smart should not have negative connotations.
I think you may have overly generalized my comment. I said, specifically:
What do elitists who write for The New Yorker and other such publications fear the most? The likable Republican. Hard to beat in an election. That being said, I like a lot of the elitists at The New Yorker, but it is important to look at the issue both ways.
I was specifically referencing certain persons who write for The New Yorker, a magazine that I read and listen to regularly. I was specifically thinking of Dorothy Wickenden, Hendrik Hertzberg, and Ryan Lizza, as the "elitists" I mentioned.

Now, I also do not attach a negative connotation to elitist, just as I do not attach a negative connotation to being a "commoner" or "common person." But, there are stark differences between the two, rarely can the two see eye-to-eye, and rarely can the two understand each other. What is not understood is often feared.

Edit: This inability to relate leads to my point of the elitist New Yorker writers fearing Sarah Palin, because she is a fairly popular political figure, especially in the more rural areas of our country. It is difficult for those political pundits I mentioned above to understand Palin's appeal because they cannot relate to her - just as I also cannot relate to her. Of course, I do not fear her, but I also do not have any sort of financial or other stake in politics.

[Bond]

Does that clear my position up?

[Typhoid]

4) She is an easy target with her accent and "folksiness".

In any case, she needs to diminish her publicly facing role in the party, if she cares about the health of her party. She attracts the social/religious base, but damages the attraction to moderates and fiscal Republicans and with the level of media scrutiny she attracts she is a distraction and prevents attention being made for real ideas to be presented by the GOP.


First off, I don't think she has an accent. Then again you're from the east coast and all.


I don't think it has anything to do with the health of the party anymore. She's not hurting Republicans at this point, just herself. She's slowly getting distance from the Republicans by doing what she's been doing for the past year and a half.

I think her main problem is that she's clearly playing up the "White middle class America" role. Constantly talking about how "normal" she is, and how she's just a "hockey mom" and "likes hunting like the typical Alaskan family" and things of the like. I would respect her more if she wasn't such a puppet to trying to get popular. She isn't normal. She was the head of a state. That immediately removes "normal" status.

At this point Sarah Palin is only hurting Sarah Palin. I don't think anyone associates the stupid things she says/gets caught on double-talking about with the Republican party anymore.

[TheGame]

Does that clear my position up?

Yup, the only thing I'd say to that is that her role in you not voting for Mccain proves a point. She turns off people who really follow politics closely. If I'm only going to have two realistic choices, I'd prefer she not be one of them.

Though I do have a question for this topic, since you and prof both mentioned that Biden isn't qualified to be president. In your book, what does someone have to do to be qualified to be the president of the united states?