PrintEver on the lookout for ways to shrink the party’s tent still further, a few of the masterminds at the Republican National Committee are pushing a resolution to establish an ideological purity test for prospective GOP candidates. Those who fail on three or more of the following ten criteria would be deemed ineligible for RNC funding and endorsement:
(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 healthcare;
(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;
Beyond its exceptionally dubious prospects as a national political strategy, a few things about the document leap out. First, it demands that adherents oppose President Obama’s health care reform twice, but nowhere requires opposition to abortion (only the government funding of abortion), which is either a shocking slap in the face to social conservatives or, more likely, evidence that the compilation of this list was exactly as careless and haphazard as its stilted language suggests.
Second, in a hamfisted effort to avoid the “Party of No” label, the ten points are all framed in terms of what Republicans are expected to support. The problem is, in seven of those ten cases, they explicitly define what they support in terms of opposition to President Obama. If he’d endorsed a Senate resolution on the innocence of kittens, the document would probably have included an item on the superiority of puppies. But don’t call them reactionary!
Finally, the authors have named this document “Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates,” drawing on the former president’s semi-famous line, “My 80 percent ally is not my 20 percent enemy.” In their reading, 80 percent agreement is the floor of what Reagan would have tolerated, so if you fail more than two of their ten criteria, you’re out. Of course, this is the exact opposite of the sentiment the line--which is a plea for inclusiveness, not expulsion--was intended to convey. (In his presidential campaign, Rudy Giuliani tried to use it to paper over his differences with social conservatives.) But don’t bother trying to explain that to the RNC.
COMMENTS (15)
Number 6 is particularly breathtaking, as the implications tend toward an evisceration of the American principle of civilian command of the military. Moreover, it's insulting as it suggests that anyone with a different view wants defeat.
More GOP whining and posturing.
Number 6 is particularly breathtaking, as the implications tend toward an evisceration of the American principle of civilian command of the military. Moreover, it's insulting as it suggests that anyone with a different view wants defeat.
More GOP whining and posturing.
Is rock bottom even in sight for the GOP?
Is rock bottom even in sight for the GOP?
Oh, please, can we call this RUPSOC? Can we call adherents "RUPSOC Republicans?" Can we say "he got RUPSOC'd" in regards to candidates who fail the test?
Because that would be awesome.
Oh, please, can we call this RUPSOC? Can we call adherents "RUPSOC Republicans?" Can we say "he got RUPSOC'd" in regards to candidates who fail the test?
Because that would be awesome.
MMMM - give me some of that "Obama-style" health care!
MMMM - give me some of that "Obama-style" health care!
Substantive problems:
1. Lower taxes and lower deficits, but military "surge" anytime a general says he needs more troops? Can't be done. Smaller government means less military; bigger military means higher taxes.
2. The conservative foreign-policy establishment has spent the last six years shouting about how "containment" of Iran and North Korea isn't possible, and previously spent 40 years claiming that containment would never work against the USSR either. Also, "effective action to eliminate" Iran's nuclear threat is both a military impossibility, according to the generals whose judgment the document endorses, and also the opposite of what "containment" means.
Substantive problems:
1. Lower taxes and lower deficits, but military "surge" anytime a general says he needs more troops? Can't be done. Smaller government means less military; bigger military means higher taxes.
2. The conservative foreign-policy establishment has spent the last six years shouting about how "containment" of Iran and North Korea isn't possible, and previously spent 40 years claiming that containment would never work against the USSR either. Also, "effective action to eliminate" Iran's nuclear threat is both a military impossibility, according to the generals whose judgment the document endorses, and also the opposite of what "containment" means.
Other substantive problems:
1. "Obama-style" healthcare is market-based healthcare reform.
2. Cap-and-trade is market-based energy reform.
Other substantive problems:
1. "Obama-style" healthcare is market-based healthcare reform.
2. Cap-and-trade is market-based energy reform.
And most importantly, how many of these would you be willing to sign off on? I could affirm my loyalty to two of them. Which I suppose makes Ronald Reagan my 80 percent enemy.
And most importantly, how many of these would you be willing to sign off on? I could affirm my loyalty to two of them. Which I suppose makes Ronald Reagan my 80 percent enemy.
With irony on #6, for similar reasons. It's almost silly; the military's recommendations are welcome--period.
There's some bait and switch going on, too. Like #1. Expressing "support" for smaller government is not the same as "opposing" the stimulus bill. In addition, one may oppose the stimulus and support smaller government for different reasons. Personally I prefer smaller government in many regards (e.g., reducing federal control of consenting adults' genitalia...which contradicts #8), but my main criticism of the stimulus bill is that, if anything, it doesn't go far enough.
I'm okay with maybe 3 of 10. They might get me on another one if they could tighten it up a bit. Like for instance d ... view full comment
With irony on #6, for similar reasons. It's almost silly; the military's recommendations are welcome--period.
There's some bait and switch going on, too. Like #1. Expressing "support" for smaller government is not the same as "opposing" the stimulus bill. In addition, one may oppose the stimulus and support smaller government for different reasons. Personally I prefer smaller government in many regards (e.g., reducing federal control of consenting adults' genitalia...which contradicts #8), but my main criticism of the stimulus bill is that, if anything, it doesn't go far enough.
I'm okay with maybe 3 of 10. They might get me on another one if they could tighten it up a bit. Like for instance defining "effective action" in #7. Is "effective action" going all Hiroshima on NoKo, or cutting a grain deal with them, or what, exactly? Also, by "supporting containment," that means they're all willing to strap on the uni of the United States of America and parachute into Iran themselves, right? Or are they saying they'll pull a neocon and expect our sons and daughters to do it?
Also, if they added a #11 to eliminate teacher tenure, I'd support it mainly to piss off irony and jhildner. (Just kidding, guys!)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
The GOP post-Dubya is like the Democratic Party post-Johnson -- better to be ideologically correct than actually win elections and govern.
The Republicans must like the wilderness. They keep marching in lock step further and further into the dunes hoping to find... what? The Promised Land? El Dorado? Shangri-la? McTeague's fate in the final reel of Erich von Stroheim's "Greed"?
Between this and Glenn Beck's call for conservatives to leave the GOP and form a new party, is the Republican Party beginning to have death throes?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
The GOP post-Dubya is like the Democratic Party post-Johnson -- better to be ideologically correct than actually win elections and govern.
The Republicans must like the wilderness. They keep marching in lock step further and further into the dunes hoping to find... what? The Promised Land? El Dorado? Shangri-la? McTeague's fate in the final reel of Erich von Stroheim's "Greed"?
Between this and Glenn Beck's call for conservatives to leave the GOP and form a new party, is the Republican Party beginning to have death throes?
Or even McTeague's fate in the last chapter of Frank Norris's original novel.
Or even McTeague's fate in the last chapter of Frank Norris's original novel.
bill yard, bill yard! You always say it best. You focus on teacher tenure and reforming education, but the GOP is thinking of federal control of consenting adults' genitalia.
Oh, and victory in Afghanistan. You know, if we're free some afternoon.
bill yard, bill yard! You always say it best. You focus on teacher tenure and reforming education, but the GOP is thinking of federal control of consenting adults' genitalia.
Oh, and victory in Afghanistan. You know, if we're free some afternoon.
Given that the main author of the list (according to the MSNBC article) is Jim Bopp, Jr., "general counsel to the National Right to Life," a specific plank about opposition to abortion was probably left off the list for the same reason that the list doesn't specify that GOP candidates have to be American citizens and registered members of the GOP.
If we don't adopt ratnerstar's proposal about "RUPSOC," we could say that rejected candidates were Jim-Bopp'd.
Given that the main author of the list (according to the MSNBC article) is Jim Bopp, Jr., "general counsel to the National Right to Life," a specific plank about opposition to abortion was probably left off the list for the same reason that the list doesn't specify that GOP candidates have to be American citizens and registered members of the GOP.
If we don't adopt ratnerstar's proposal about "RUPSOC," we could say that rejected candidates were Jim-Bopp'd.
RUPSOC. I got one of those when I moved the credenza without bending my knees.
RUPSOC. I got one of those when I moved the credenza without bending my knees.
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill (except when Republicans are in power, because, as Dick Cheney observed, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare; (in other words, do nothing)
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (in other words, do nothing again, and pretend our buying Arab oil doesn't go in jihadists pockets)
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check (in other words, break every union, because we all know how successful unionism is in the South)< ... view full comment
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill (except when Republicans are in power, because, as Dick Cheney observed, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare; (in other words, do nothing)
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (in other words, do nothing again, and pretend our buying Arab oil doesn't go in jihadists pockets)
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check (in other words, break every union, because we all know how successful unionism is in the South)
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; (in other words, exploit illegal immigrant labor while depriving them of all rights)
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(in other words, when Republicans are President the President is Commander in Chief, but when Democrats are they have to surrender that right, remember it was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and all Republicans who laughed at Gen. Shinseki when he said occupying Iraq would require many more troops)
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat (yes, because just saying it will make it happen)
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; [emphasis added] (in other words, screw gays, just not sexually)
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and (in other words, call not providing insurance for the uninsured somehow protects them, magic I guess)
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership (in other words, we are gun nuts, completely ignoring the fact that even on a heavily armed military station a lone deranged gunmen can wreak havoc)
Wow, sounds entirely feasible to me, where do I sign up (and check my brain in at the same time?)
Oh, Rhubarbs, where are you going with this logical consistency thing? The GOP has always loved to support the idea of smaller government while supporting deficit spending. Deficit spending for war doesn't count, because it is a matter of national security! Do you want the terrorists to win?
I would sign up to support 0 out of 10. Although I would not oppose all of them with much energy. And several would be fine if you deleted certain words or phrases, although in most of those cases that would reverse the meaning.
Oh, Rhubarbs, where are you going with this logical consistency thing? The GOP has always loved to support the idea of smaller government while supporting deficit spending. Deficit spending for war doesn't count, because it is a matter of national security! Do you want the terrorists to win?
I would sign up to support 0 out of 10. Although I would not oppose all of them with much energy. And several would be fine if you deleted certain words or phrases, although in most of those cases that would reverse the meaning.