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...out-of-10.html but I saw this on MSNBC: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...3/2134917.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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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)

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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).

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by 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 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