G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates

G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates

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 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.”

Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans support “smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,” denial of government funding for abortion, and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Here is the resolution’s 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.

--NY Times

Click to expand...

Glinda said:

Hoo boy. :doh



Looks like the Republicans are trying to shoot themselves in both feet with this one.

Who would fail the GOP/Reagan litmus test?

To start with, Reagan.

1. Reagan expanded the government taxes and the deficit.

5. Reagan supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.

6. Reagan ignored the military recommendation to pull out of Beirut.

7. Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

8. Reagan opposed California's anti-gay prop six, and hosted the first openly gay sleepover at the White House.

10. Reagan signed a gun control law in California and supported the Brady Bill after he and his press secretary were shot.

Guess the great Republican hero doesn't lean far enough to the right for his own party, now. :rofl

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

I don't care about a pledge of what they'll OPPOSE, I want to know what they'll DO. I want to know generally what the plan is... What I dislike about it is so much of it is reactionary. There's no attempt in this for the party to find a topic they want to push heavily that's generally neglected, or forge a new direction on certain things, but seems to just be "We pledge not to do what the democrats are doing now"

Click to expand...

Glinda said:

Y'know, I made a bet with myself when I posted this.

"Glinda," I said, "there's not a right winger on this site that will touch this lunacy with a ten-foot pole."

And I was right.

:rofl

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

I have little issue with the notions behind most of those 10 things. However, I have issues with those being a pledge.

I don't care about a pledge of what they'll OPPOSE, I want to know what they'll DO. I want to know generally what the plan is.

(1) Wonderful, all around. However are you going to acknowledge that Bush's "stimulus" as something you'd oppose as well, and will this include even things in the name of "defense"

(2) Okay. I don't need specifics in something like this and you're telling me how you want to do it generally with market based reforms. Good.

(3) No no no no no. You don't support it BY opposing something else. That's not an answer, that's opposing someone elses answer. This is a good notion here, but they need to frame it in a way that they're doing something not that they're doing it by opposing something else.

(4) Good here

(5) Again, like 3. No no no. You are not "supporting legal immigration" by fighting illegal. State your opposition to illegal immigration and your resolve to fight it while acknowledging a general idea or view in regards to reforming the current legal immigration route.

(6) Idioticly stupid, short cited, and narrow focused by going after the surge thing. This is a legitimate point and I have no real issue with it, sans the surge part. That's just there to take political jabs.

(7) Fine here

(8) I don't like it, but I'd stomach a platform that only had one or two major "religious right" type of plank.

(9) Again, this is just political point scoring and most of it could function in the health care comment earlier. What this is is trying to slip the whole abortion thing into it somewhat unnoticed. Look, you don't have to make anti-abortion a major platform plank anymore. The anti-abortion people got it, republicans are against legalizing it. Stop making this a major point or loosen up on the gay marriage one.

(10) Good here

What I dislike about it is so much of it is reactionary. There's no attempt in this for the party to find a topic they want to push heavily that's generally neglected, or forge a new direction on certain things, but seems to just be "We pledge not to do what the democrats are doing now"

Click to expand...

What I dislike about it is so much of it is reactionary. There's no attempt in this for the party to find a topic they want to push heavily that's generally neglected, or forge a new direction on certain things, but seems to just be "We pledge not to do what the democrats are doing now"

Click to expand...