I’m a conservative – and this is another reason why Republicans suck
Posted by Clyde Middleton
on Nov 23 2009 Filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
h/t to Hot Air for starting this conversation.
The writing below was published in WaPo, with the following opening paragraph: “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.”
As the preamble suggestions, they foist these ten points out there as if they reflect the believes of conservatives. They are insultingly weak. My comments [are in italics and bracketed].
If this is the best they can do, they these clowns need to go, too.
The writing:
The “Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” follows:
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and [OK, but why the call out of President Reagan? Can't you stand on your own? This is one reason we don't like you - you constantly look for some pre-existing artifice. Stop it. We're grown-ups. Tell us what you believe and why. Tell us what you will do. Stop looking for touchstones. They are for your benefit, not ours.]
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and [8? You're going to suggest compromise in the preamble?]
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and [If you stuck to your supposed "conservative principles," we wouldn't be in this mess.]
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and [Got that right - except the "its" part. You abdicated conservatism decades ago.]
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and
WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) [It's now eleven - see below] 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; [Poorly drafted. You are pigeon-holing a single piece of legislation. This isn't high school. You need to add "less regulation" and revise the tax bit to read "lower taxes on individuals and businesses covering income and profits, including capital gains." Then you need to say - in addition - that you "oppose a stimulus bill not designed to support the jobs-engine of this country - small business."]
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare; [Wow. You guys REALLY suck. Let me write it for you: "We support market-based health-care reform including insurance-company competition across state lines and Med-Mal reform including caps. We do not support government intervention or involvement in the nature propose by President Obama."]
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; [That's IT? Really? What about an accelerated program to develop domestic energy resources including oil and natural gas? What about building new refineries and new nuke plants? You OPPOSE something and that's IT? You see why we don't like you? You commit to NOTHING.]
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check; [Nothing more? What about the increased reporting requirements by unions that President Bush put in place and Obama took out? You don't want members to see where their money goes?]
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; [ARGH!! Not "by opposing." Change it to "and we oppose." Get it? Take a position - do something other than oppose. You could "satisfy" merely by taking back the House and killing an amnesty bill. DO SOMETHING!]
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges; [Well, that's about the most stupid thing I have ever read. What if the military recommends something other than troop surges? You people actually published this? Try this: "We recognize that there is a serious threat to our nation from terrorist organizations. We support a considered and victorious military solution to this threat. We do not view captured terrorists as criminals, but as enemy combatants. More specifically, we will take jurisdictional action pursuant to Article III of the Constitution to strip the federal courts of their ability to try terrorists in the criminal courts."]
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; [Gee, just NK and Iran? What about Syria? Do you think Yemen may be a storage facility today and a source tomorrow? "We support strong and decisive action to end the nuclear-weapons ambitions of rogue nations, including NK, Iran, Syria, and any other nation suspected of developing nuclear capabilities outside the framework of international control."]
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; [A steady state? You devote one-tenth of this diatribe to a steady state? How about: "We support an amendment to the United States Constitution to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman. We will support any state that desires to do likewise."]
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and [Again. "By opposing." Nothing more. Where's what you believe and will do? "We are pro-life. We will legislate away the insultingly broad definition of 'health of the mother' which allows for such things as anticipated stress over another mouth to feed, and replace it with the true and narrow definition resulting from a decision to save the mother or the child."]
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further [Sigh. What will you do besides oppose? Guys, if you win back the House, several of the ten things are satisfied BY DOING NOTHING. That isn't good enough - get it? Add - "We will pass a federal 'shall issue' bill. We will remove the restrictions on FFLs created by the Clinton Administration. We will pass a bill recognizing the citizens and residents right to enter into private transactions to purchase and sell firearms without registration of those sales by or through a federal firearms licensee."]
[Add (11) We interpret broadly the 10th Amendment, and thus recognize the limited role of the federal government. We will remove all penalties applicable to the several states that could result from their desire to "opt out" of federal programs (e.g., education). Further, we will not pass any legislation applicable to the states except on an "opt in" basis.]
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more [compromising, I see. Sad. That's why you're not conservatives.] of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or [drop the "/or" - it allows a voting record to be overcome by a signed statement.] signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN
Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR
Related Posts
- Republicans Post Eight-Point Lead On Generic Ballot
- You Know You Suck When People Like The IRS More Than You
- Generic Ballot: Republicans 44%, Democrats 35%
- Republicans statements being issued
- Stupid Republicans and Their Friggin Lists
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=8977
Go get ‘em, Clyde. This asinine piece of fiction is exactly the reason that every piece of mail I receive from the RNC goes straight into the trash unopened & unread. they do not have a clue.
Clyde…with all respect…
How about “This is why eleven (11) Republicans suck”? And when the RNC actually adopts this, let me know — but it won’t.
I have a problem with using a platform this way to begin with — but it seems as though your problem/argument is this: If you’re going to have a litmus test, it had better be a doozy.
Lame, bad drafting — sure. It is. It’s bass-ackwards, and it shouldn’t be so pop-culture and inaccurate as to cite “Obama-style” healthcare when these proposals are from the Congress, and most of the “planks” are just dumb.
However, I think the real problem is the premise, not the execution. There’s no utility in defining a lowest common denominator so simplistically.
Clyde, you’re my hero, and I wish I’d had this in hand when the GOP phoned my to ask for money yesterday. All I managed was an ill-prepared speech about how they’d better talk to Sarah Palin if they want to even exist.
You make a great point, Rose. My thought is that there is not a chance in Hell anything of this nature will get approved by the RNC. Steele isn’t smart enough to see that vetting candidates would bring the party more into the conservative fold (and I agree with you that litmus tests can be dangerous). He’s also too star-struck by money and people telling him how great he is.
So I began to view this differently immediately, and chose a rather cryptic path. Now, shush about this – don’t tell anyone – because I sent this post to a friend in the House and asked that it get to the folks that wrote this monstrosity. My suggestions are more geared to rewriting a Contract with America than some litmus test for candidates. As I said above, the latter will never happen.
My greater fear is that the pseudo-conservative Newt “I support Dede” Gingrich will show up with his revised K. He’s on restriction – no 2010 election voice for him. He blew it way too much in NY23. So we need existing pubs to step up with there own K.
Now promise me – not a word! Let’s take this one step at a time. Let them revise their doc, get their hopes up, get shot down by the RNC, want so badly to make the doc meaningful anyway, and then on their own say “Hey, we can rewrite it as a new K with America!”
Thank you, Melissa! Being registered as an independent helps to keep the calls down. So does Caller ID. The latter even more. I have four phones on the home line. I have three set to not ring. So when a call does come, it’s some faint ringing in a back room upstairs. It’s not hard to ignore it if I choose.
My friends have my Skype. Smile …
Thanks, MSD. You know, I’ve made $5 donations to political parties that I didn’t like just to compel them to spend $50 on postage and printing for a year’s worth of crap following. I’ve grown up since, but it was fun at the time.
Good advice, thanks!
Caller ID is great, but I don’t have to make the ringing of the phone faint to ignore it. I just look at the caller ID & if I don’t recognize the name & number, or I don’t want to speak with whomever is on the other end I simply don’t answer. If it’s someone I particularly don’t want to speak with I answer & then disconnect them. Very easy for me. I’m sure there are a lot of folks who consider me to be the rudest person in the world, but their opinions of me matter not.
Clyde is a hero to a lot of folks, Melissa. He is definitely the hero type. The other guys at this site ain’t too shabby either.
Very kind, MSD, but I’m just another girl on the runway … I am glad, however, that you all read some of my musings. It warms me …