Here's The Washington Post:
Conservative Indiana Republican James Bopp Jr. on Monday began circulating a draft resolution calling on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of its ten planks.
Bopp, an attorney, is vice chairman of the RNC; ten other committee members signed onto his call to arms.
There follows a lot of blah blah blah and "Whereas Ronald Reagan", and "Whereas the Republican party", and "Whereas we're trying to avoid another electoral meltdown", blah blah blah.....
I'll cut to the chase. Bopp wants RNC cash limited to candidates who can affirm their beliefs in at least 8 of these 10 agenda items. It really isn't a system of beliefs, it's just a list of things that irritate Republicans.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
That's a good start. Less government.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
We're doing great. Once again, less government.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
I can't believe it. The Republicans are for letting the market find less expensive solutions to the energy non-crisis. They're for less government !
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
The secret ballot is the best way to ensure that there is no intimidation on the part of union thugs. And, as a general rule, less unions = less government. Go Republicans !
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Hang on a second....a lot of those illegal immigrants are paying money into the Social Insecurity fund, money that they'll never be able to collect. Who or what is going to replace their contribution to the tax base and to the workforce? I don't see unemployed Wall Streeters applying to pour all that concrete or hang all that sheetrock. Oh well....the immigrants aren't worth taking a stand over.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Wait a minute, wait a minute....let's go back to #1. How are we going to have smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes if we're going to go surging into The Sandbox, especially when each additional thousand troops costs us a billion dollars?
I think we have a contradiction here. #1 and #6 might be mutually exclusive.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
I support containment of Iran and North Korea too. Especially when the containment is being done by France, Switzerland, South Korea, and China. See #1. I think we have another contradiction in the Republican Litmus Test.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Once again, #1 rears its head. How can you advocate a "smaller government" everywhere but in bedrooms?
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and....
Well, dammit, did they totally forget #1 ? Is the government going to eliminate ANY denial of healthcare? Are our county "charity" hospitals going to be required to do kidney transplants on indigent 90-year-olds? The market currently acts as a rationing device, BTW.
Conservative Indiana Republican James Bopp Jr. on Monday began circulating a draft resolution calling on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of its ten planks.
Bopp, an attorney, is vice chairman of the RNC; ten other committee members signed onto his call to arms.
There follows a lot of blah blah blah and "Whereas Ronald Reagan", and "Whereas the Republican party", and "Whereas we're trying to avoid another electoral meltdown", blah blah blah.....
I'll cut to the chase. Bopp wants RNC cash limited to candidates who can affirm their beliefs in at least 8 of these 10 agenda items. It really isn't a system of beliefs, it's just a list of things that irritate Republicans.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
That's a good start. Less government.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
We're doing great. Once again, less government.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
I can't believe it. The Republicans are for letting the market find less expensive solutions to the energy non-crisis. They're for less government !
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
The secret ballot is the best way to ensure that there is no intimidation on the part of union thugs. And, as a general rule, less unions = less government. Go Republicans !
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Hang on a second....a lot of those illegal immigrants are paying money into the Social Insecurity fund, money that they'll never be able to collect. Who or what is going to replace their contribution to the tax base and to the workforce? I don't see unemployed Wall Streeters applying to pour all that concrete or hang all that sheetrock. Oh well....the immigrants aren't worth taking a stand over.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Wait a minute, wait a minute....let's go back to #1. How are we going to have smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes if we're going to go surging into The Sandbox, especially when each additional thousand troops costs us a billion dollars?
I think we have a contradiction here. #1 and #6 might be mutually exclusive.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
I support containment of Iran and North Korea too. Especially when the containment is being done by France, Switzerland, South Korea, and China. See #1. I think we have another contradiction in the Republican Litmus Test.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Once again, #1 rears its head. How can you advocate a "smaller government" everywhere but in bedrooms?
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and....
Well, dammit, did they totally forget #1 ? Is the government going to eliminate ANY denial of healthcare? Are our county "charity" hospitals going to be required to do kidney transplants on indigent 90-year-olds? The market currently acts as a rationing device, BTW.
Was this list generated by dividing up into small groups, and then each group appointing a spokesperson, and each group got to contribute two items, no matter what?
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions 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.....
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions 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.....
Wouldn't it be fun to question Republican candidates about their commitment to these ten resolutions?
************
The picture of people taking the loyalty oath came from here.
7 comments:
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.
As someone on the outside looking in on this pissing contest, I can only wonder at the bright bulbs that came up with this notion.
Let's see -- they've managed to scare off a huge number of moderate voters in the last election, and now they're going to chase off the remaining few moderate candidates in their party.
Whoops.
While I'm not going to bother to debate the virtues or follies of each of their checkpoints (I never seem to hear you refer to the any of the Wall Street pigs at the trough as "thugs" and I certainly felt financially like I'd gone through an ass-kicking recently), I have to agree with you and the esteemed Republican Redefined that this is, for the GOP, an amazingly bone-headed move.
Having seen the Democrats self-destruct for so many years, it's rather refreshing to see it go on somewhere else for a change.
Too much inbreeding among those elephants, I'd say.
Rep Redo,
Glad to have you here.
Ya know what makes this so difficult? Until the last half century, those who believed what you say tended to call themselves "liberals".
Doctor,
I don't know that I've ever called them "thugs" either. But you can see my posts referencing "Wall Street" by going here:
http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/search?q=%22wall+street%22
(I apologize for the WSJ references that sneak in.) I tend to use the word "thug" in the traditional sense....the one who actually does the butt-kicking, as opposed to someone who delegates.
With that lithmus test... I believe this is no longer the party of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
WS - not go to wandering too far off topic, but that's the beauty of being a white collar thug: you can sub-contract the dirty work out, keep your hands clean, *and* write off the cost as a business expense.
Sweet!
In every article I have read, the Republican Statement of Principles is referred to as a "Litmus Test" this, a term of derogation. They are for people who have given up thinking.
The list here is poorly written, and does not refer clearly to first principles but to outcomes on current issues.
That said, a statement of principles is critical. Leftists, and plain crooks and perverts have used the ambiguity of such words as "Moderate" or "Independent" to con voters into false perceptions.
Here is one example. McCain holds himself out as a "Conservative." Simply nothing could be further from the truth. His duplicitous use of the word lost him the election. McCain along with Feinburg sponsored a "bipartisan" bill, recently struck down by the Supreme Court. McCain's express purpose, one he accomplished for the eight years of the Bills existence, was to criminalize, abridge and "chill" the expression of free speech.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states clearly that "Congress shall pass no law.... that abridges free speech." That is precisely what McCain did. How can he therefore have the temerity to refer to himself as conservative. A conservative does not seek to destroy, in bits and pieces the Bill of Rights. He is about as conservative as the French Revolution's Robespierre.
Here are a few conservative principles that should be stated expressly by anyone seeking to win votes, like McCain, by calling himself a Conservative.
1. I believe and adhere to the principles of the American Constitution and its Bill of Rights, in particular its rules of construction, the ninth and tenth amendments.
2. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written to create a central government vastly smaller and less powerful than the states.
3. The People are sovereign, not the central government.
4. I believe in the sanctity of property. That right shall not be diminished or destroyed by the people's government.
5. To the degree that the central government has violated the Ninth and tenth Amendments which acknowledge that the People and their states are sovereign, the central government should be dismantled.
6. The first power and duty of a of a sovereign state is to protect and maintain its boarders.
7. A committee of the states shall be created by the people, to serve by their grace and will. It shall have the power to over rule dictates of the Supreme Court that violate the Constitution.
8. Only those who are citizens of America shall have the right to claim the benefits its welfare state.
9. As the Welfare State violates the sovereignty of the People, is shall with dispatch be dismantled.
In every article I have read, the Republican Statement of Principles is referred to as a "Litmus Test" this, a term of derogation. They are for people who have given up thinking.
The list here is poorly written, and does not refer clearly to first principles but to outcomes on current issues.
That said, a statement of principles is critical. Leftists, and plain crooks and perverts have used the ambiguity of such words as "Moderate" or "Independent" to con voters into false perceptions.
Here is one example. McCain holds himself out as a "Conservative." Simply nothing could be further from the truth. His duplicitous use of the word lost him the election. McCain along with Feinburg sponsored a "bipartisan" bill, recently struck down by the Supreme Court. McCain's express purpose, one he accomplished for the eight years of the Bills existence, was to criminalize, abridge and "chill" the expression of free speech.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states clearly that "Congress shall pass no law.... that abridges free speech." That is precisely what McCain did. How can he therefore have the temerity to refer to himself as conservative. A conservative does not seek to destroy, in bits and pieces the Bill of Rights. He is about as conservative as the French Revolution's Robespierre.
Here are a few conservative principles that should be stated expressly by anyone seeking to win votes, like McCain, by calling himself a Conservative.
1. I believe and adhere to the principles of the American Constitution and its Bill of Rights, in particular its rules of construction, the ninth and tenth amendments.
2. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution was written to create a central government vastly smaller and less powerful than the states.
3. The People are sovereign, not the central government.
4. I believe in the sanctity of property. That right shall not be diminished or destroyed by the people's government.
5. To the degree that the central government has violated the Ninth and tenth Amendments which acknowledge that the People and their states are sovereign, the central government should be dismantled.
6. The first power and duty of a of a sovereign state is to protect and maintain its boarders.
7. A committee of the states shall be created by the people, to serve by their grace and will. It shall have the power to over rule dictates of the Supreme Court that violate the Constitution.
8. Only those who are citizens of America shall have the right to claim the benefits its welfare state.
9. As the Welfare State violates the sovereignty of
Post a Comment