GOP Purity test?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!




    November 23, 2009, 1:32 pm G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates

    By ADAM NAGOURNEYThe battle among Republicans over what the party should stand for — and how much it should accommodate dissenting views on important issues — is probably going to move from the states to the Republican National Committee when it holds its winter meeting this January in Honolulu.
    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.”
    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.
    The development is going to put pressure on Michael Steele, the party chairman, as he tries to maintain a balance between those in his party who have been saying the road to victory is to include divergent views, and those who say the party needs to embrace conservative principles that have been at its core.
    Mr. Steele managed, at his party’s last meeting, to steer clear of potentially contentious resolutions, including one that equated Democrats with socialists.
    Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for the committee, said it was not clear what Mr. Steele would do.
    “The deadline for submitting resolutions for the R.N.C. Winter Meeting is more than 30 days away,” she said. “At this point, we do not what resolutions will be submitted nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be.”
    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.​

    Sounds like a good start. Maybe all of those surveys I've been sending back, with unhappy notes, is starting to make a difference.
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,415
    63
    Oklahoma
    ...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...

    (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.​

    I'd just like to note here that with this, the Republican Party itself has said that I'm not a Republican. Perhaps this can put an end to demands that I vote like one.
     

    squisher

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 2, 2009
    75
    6
    47201
    That reads more closely Libertarian than typical GOP.

    Yay!

    Now if we can get them to go strictly, properly constitutional (though the judicial branch *should* have kept us from getting as far away from that as we have, but that's the problem with "activist" and "liberal/socialist" justices)
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,415
    63
    Oklahoma
    That reads more closely Libertarian than typical GOP.

    Um... no. Items 6, 7, and 8 are all arguably anti-libertarian (there are some libertarian hawks, but they don't seem to be in the majority). Item 9 may or may not be... it's so vague that it could mean anything in practice.

    Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 say "we support X by opposing Democrat plan Y", which is a statement of strategy, not of principle. Item 10 is a statement of principle, because it talks about resisting ALL efforts to control guns. Item 2 uses the word "and" instead of "by", so it could arguably be a statement of both strategy and principle.

    You can say you support the "free market", but if your own party's plans or behavior include anti-market tactics like corporate welfare and farm socialism, you don't really support the free market. Libertarians oppose government handouts to anybody.
     

    jpo117

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    187
    16
    It seems like this is destined to push even more moderates out of the Republican party. Which as a Dem, I think is good. :D But also means that more conservatives will join the Democratic party, making it even harder for us libs to focus on one thing long enough to actually do anything about it...

    1. Republicans marginalize themselves into ineffectiveness.
    2. Democrats dilute themselves into ineffectiveness.
    3. The federal government wanders around in circles trying to figure out how to get anything done (even more so!).
    4. ???
    5. PROFIT!!!!
     

    squisher

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 2, 2009
    75
    6
    47201
    Um... no. Items 6, 7, and 8 are all arguably anti-libertarian (there are some libertarian hawks, but they don't seem to be in the majority). Item 9 may or may not be... it's so vague that it could mean anything in practice.

    Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 say "we support X by opposing Democrat plan Y", which is a statement of strategy, not of principle. Item 10 is a statement of principle, because it talks about resisting ALL efforts to control guns. Item 2 uses the word "and" instead of "by", so it could arguably be a statement of both strategy and principle.

    You can say you support the "free market", but if your own party's plans or behavior include anti-market tactics like corporate welfare and farm socialism, you don't really support the free market. Libertarians oppose government handouts to anybody.


    True enough -- Still something of an improvement.

    Though the post is confused on the "Protection of marriage act". The description says "repeal" but the bulleted list says "retain". Which is it? I'd rather repeal, the .gov shouldn't be in that business.
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,415
    63
    Oklahoma
    True enough -- Still something of an improvement.

    Though the post is confused on the "Protection of marriage act". The description says "repeal" but the bulleted list says "retain". Which is it? I'd rather repeal, the .gov shouldn't be in that business.

    It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
    "Repealing" is a noun, specifically a gerund. Thus the "and" is grouping not actions, but the objects of one specific action. The action is "oppose", the objects are "amnesty" and "repealing". Thus:

    It calls on candidates to oppose ... repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
    To make it mean "support repealing", you would have to remove the "-ing" from the end and eliminate "of". Then you would have "oppose ... and repeal the DoMA".
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    This is just a hail Mary pass from desperate politicos. No-one in their right mind is going to believe this. These are the same republicans who grew the government to phenomenal levels during the Bush regime. They also took the first big steps towards socialised meds with their multi-trillion dollar prescription plan, that indentured all of our children. Nope. This is just a desperation move by people who can see that their time is past and very limited. Only a fool would vote for one of these liars again. As Fletch points out, they are certainly not going to garner the libertarian segment. Or the independents. No-one wants much of what they are offering.
     

    gund

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 28, 2009
    135
    16
    The only chance we have is if libertarians members of congress break away from the republican party and democrat party and form their own party.

    Unfortunately, we are assuming there are any libertarian members in congress.

    Religious issues should be left to the state or the people. This means abortion, gay marriage, etc.

    Social issues should be left to the state or the people. This means healthcare, education, social security, welfare, etc.

    Unions are screwing the country. The worst ones are government unions. Teachers, police, firefighters are the obvious ones, had to say it. Private company unions screw their company, government unions screw the citizens.

    A greater burden of overseas military projects should be shifted to NATO. Stop wasting money on wars which do not benefit the population, or increase security in any tangible way. There were so little checks and balances in distributing money in the two wars, corruption was rampant. Quick in-and-out strikes are more than enough. Humanitarian or nation rebuilding of countries should be UN's problem, not USA.

    Taxes need to be lowered substantially. This makes the federal government less powerful and makes them more careful in how they spend it. All they should focus on is foreign trade and defense.

    Move all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the borders. TADA. No illegal immigration. In a generation all the illegal immigrants here will be dead.

    No restrictions on inter-state commerce. This means no laws that depend on congress arguing it affects interstate commerce and no other reason.

    I'm all for states rights and a curb of federal intrusion. The best thing is, don't like it, move to another state.

    Whatever isn't in the constitution, is reserved for the states. 10th amendment you jerks. Follow it.
     

    squisher

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 2, 2009
    75
    6
    47201
    "Repealing" is a noun, specifically a gerund. Thus the "and" is grouping not actions, but the objects of one specific action. The action is "oppose", the objects are "amnesty" and "repealing". Thus:

    To make it mean "support repealing", you would have to remove the "-ing" from the end and eliminate "of". Then you would have "oppose ... and repeal the DoMA".


    And thus my normally adequate (and beyond) levels of reading comprehension fail me whilst perusing an interesting and complicated forum post betwixt time periods of furious labor.

    (* Hard to catch subtle stuff like that while I'm trying to look busy at work :p )
     

    Fletch

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    6,415
    63
    Oklahoma
    And thus my normally adequate (and beyond) levels of reading comprehension fail me whilst perusing an interesting and complicated forum post betwixt time periods of furious labor.

    (* Hard to catch subtle stuff like that while I'm trying to look busy at work :p )

    So what you're saying is that you forced me to channel my 10th-grade English teacher for NOTHING? We got problems, you and I. :draw:

    :):;)
     

    antsi

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2008
    1,427
    38
    . The federal government wanders around in circles trying to figure out how to get anything done (even more so!).

    I am not necessarily opposed to this. I think a divided government that can only enact legislation with the greatest difficulty is generally a good thing. When one party controls the whole government, and gets all their whims and impulses instantly enacted, the effects are more often than not deplorable.
     

    Titanium Man

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 16, 2009
    1,778
    36
    Indy---USA
    I didn't see anything about-"Not dissing Sarah Palin in her conservative climb to the top of all the GOP Moderate Snot Bags" .

    Did I miss that, anybody.

    :patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:
     
    Top Bottom