RNC endorsement criteria

[kyzr]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - Yahoo! News

Good to see the Republican party attempting to create a unified identity. I don't agree with everything on the list, but 8 out of 10.....

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;

Where in here are they creating jobs?

Great point. They can't wait to get back in so they can whore for Wall Street.

 

[JWBooth]

Lots of wiggle room for some mush brained empty suits to run on.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I read this as the GOP trying to create the illusion of decisiveness without really saying or doing anything decisive.

 

[Bern80]

GOP purity test would have banished Bush, Reagan | Raw Story

The latest trend in the Republican Party is an effort to weed out moderates -- witness New York Republicans' successful effort to oust their own candidate in an upstate House race, in preference for an independent conservative.

But a new GOP "purity test" named for Ronald Reagan moves the line even farther to the right, and a liberal website has found that the test -- if used in the past -- would have screened out President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush as viable conservatives.

Trouble is, the measure would likely have screened out President Ronald Reagan, under whose watch the US deficit ballooned. The federal deficit mushroomed from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1980, to 6 percent in 1983.

Reagan also agreed to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security, in contradiction of conservative orthodoxy (though he did drastically reduce the top income tax brackets for Americans).

The Gipper also raised the gasoline tax in 1983.

Irony be thy name.

You listed two here. How is that not 8 out of 10. I'm not even sure the liberal moron who wrote those should get credit for them.

 

[Polk]

Glad to know you guys aren't going to fund Castle in Delaware.

 

[Bern80]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - Yahoo! News

Good to see the Republican party attempting to create a unified identity. I don't agree with everything on the list, but 8 out of 10.....

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;

Where in here are they creating jobs?

It isn't government's job to create jobs, hence why it isn't on the list. Next dumb question.

 

[Bern80]

Does anyone think that the GOP will NOT win seats in 2010? Does anyone think that Obama will be re-elected in 2012? Why??

I do think Reps will pick up seats in 2010. I don't envy the dems positions because I think they know this which is why they are trying to cram this crap down our throats before they get booted. Unfortunately that may very well be the reason they get booted as well.

Obama for a 2nd term gonna take longer to determine. Let's hope that he continues to strongly consider not running at all.

 

[kyzr]

It isn't government's job to create jobs, hence why it isn't on the list. Next dumb question.

The Bush Doctrine Redux. Just let the economy manage itself and capitalism will prevail....

1. Tax policies greatly affect the economy and can create or lose millions of jobs. The GOP's "American Jobs Creation Act" gave massive tax breaks to companies to move US factories overseas. That lost millions of US jobs.

2. Tax breaks for places like Puerto Rico also cause jobs to be moved out of the US and cost tax dollars by creating windfall profits for Wall Street at the expense of mainstreet.

3. If the government doesn't create jobs, how the hell can they collect taxes? They are systematically destroying their "TAX BASE".

 

[beowolfe]

I say it's about darn time. What good is being in a party with a supposed set of beliefs if you won't adhere to them. You have a club then that cares only if you pay your dues to them regularly. THAT we don't need.

Beliefs you aren't willing to support or defend or enforce are worthless.

Probably because your stance leads to civil wars? That's why compromise has served us so well. It keeps us from violently being at each others throats. I thought we learned that lesson during the period of 1860 to 1865. Unfortunately, I guess, some of us are just real anxious to repeat history.

 

[beowolfe]

As you may have heard here and there, Ronald Reagan couldn't qualify for eight out of ten.

Thats because most of those issues weren't around in 1980s...

Its like comparing Obama to Lincoln or FDR despite the fact that Lincoln wasn't a communist and FDR didn't pass a trillion dollar deficit.

How old are you? The only issue in that list that didn't exist in the 80's is DOMA and only because there was no DOMA at that time, but the issue of gay marriage was around then. You are an example of one of the things that is wrong with politics in the US. An uneducated populace. How can you serve as a check on the politicians when you don't even know the history of the past 30 years?

Know your history. Don't let politics and history get confused in your mind.

 

[Bern80]

It isn't government's job to create jobs, hence why it isn't on the list. Next dumb question.

The Bush Doctrine Redux. Just let the economy manage itself and capitalism will prevail....

1. Tax policies greatly affect the economy and can create or lose millions of jobs. The GOP's "American Jobs Creation Act" gave massive tax breaks to companies to move US factories overseas. That lost millions of US jobs.

2. Tax breaks for places like Puerto Rico also cause jobs to be moved out of the US and cost tax dollars by creating windfall profits for Wall Street at the expense of mainstreet.

3. If the government doesn't create jobs, how the hell can they collect taxes? They are systematically destroying their "TAX BASE".

Those things certainly INFLUENCE job creation. You may think it's semantics but it's not. If government practices many of the economic points of that list than job creation will take care of itself.

Your third point is especially dumb. Why can't 'I' create jobs for government to collect taxes from?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We don't really need you guys anymore and I predict that the socialist thinking in this country will be squashed in a few years.

If by "you guys" you mean moderates and independents, you should plan on losing for a long time to come with that attitude.

Elections are won in the middle. Keep or lose the middle and you keep or lose the election. Ignoring that is just stupid and a formula for disaster.

That's why "purity" tests are bad idea. Its the same reason that inflexible ideologies always fail.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Does anyone think that Obama will be re-elected in 2012? Why??

Kerry v. Bush pt II. Only this time Bush will be played by Obama, and Kerry played by Palin.

It isn't enough for the GOP to be simply anti-Obama. The Democrats tried that in 2004 and lost. You have to have an actual platform to run on and a candidate worth electing. I suspect strongly that most voters will look at the Obama/Biden ticket and the Palin/Huckabee ticket, hold their nose, and re-elected Obama.

 

[Bern80]

We don't really need you guys anymore and I predict that the socialist thinking in this country will be squashed in a few years.

If by "you guys" you mean moderates and independents, you should plan on losing for a long time to come with that attitude.

Elections are won in the middle. Keep or lose the middle and you keep or lose the election. Ignoring that is just stupid and a formula for disaster.

That's why "purity" tests are bad idea. Its the same reason that inflexible ideologies always fail.

Or you can use the other method few have the courage to try. Instead of pandering to the moderates, someone could actuallty try convincing people that their way is the best way. Someone could grow a pair and tell people what you want is not always what is best for you. If your ideology is flexible than you have no ideology at all.

 

[Polk]

Does anyone think that Obama will be re-elected in 2012? Why??

Kerry v. Bush pt II. Only this time Bush will be played by Obama, and Kerry played by Palin.

It isn't enough for the GOP to be simply anti-Obama. The Democrats tried that in 2004 and lost. You have to have an actual platform to run on and a candidate worth electing. I suspect strongly that most voters will look at the Obama/Biden ticket and the Palin/Huckabee ticket, hold their nose, and re-elected Obama.

Possible. Really depends on the economy.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Or you can use the other method few have the courage to try. Instead of pandering to the moderates, someone could actuallty try convincing people that their way is the best way. Someone could grow a pair and tell people what you want is not always what is best for you. If your ideology is flexible than you have no ideology at all.

Call it what you want. Pandering, Appealing, Convincing, but in the end it is still the same. Get independents or moderates to vote for you or you lose. I'm actually a bigger of fan of convincing than pandering.

As for "flexible" ideology, what I'm talking about is an ideology that helps equip your followers and supporters to make their own decisions instead of telling them what to think. The problem with the "purity test' in the OP is that of the 10 points, 7 of them include "oppose". Its not a list of do's, its a list of don't's.

You don't convince independents without a real plan of action. Simply saying "No" is not a plan... at least not a winning plan.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or you can use the other method few have the courage to try. Instead of pandering to the moderates, someone could actuallty try convincing people that their way is the best way. Someone could grow a pair and tell people what you want is not always what is best for you. If your ideology is flexible than you have no ideology at all.

Call it what you want. Pandering, Appealing, Convincing, but in the end it is still the same. Get independents or moderates to vote for you or you lose. I'm actually a bigger of fan of convincing than pandering.

As for "flexible" ideology, what I'm talking about is an ideology that helps equip your followers and supporters to make their own decisions instead of telling them what to think. The problem with the "purity test' in the OP is that of the 10 points, 7 of them include "oppose". Its not a list of do's, its a list of don't's.

You don't convince independents without a real plan of action. Simply saying "No" is not a plan... at least not a winning plan.

Terrific points