RNC members circulating 10-point “purity test” for candidates

posted at 4:55 pm on November 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

At first blush I thought this was the new “Contract With America” that Gingrich claimed Steele was preparing a few weeks ago, but no. Apparently, Steele has nothing to do with it. It comes from a bunch of members working on their own, who want the full list put before the RNC for adoption at the next convention.

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 said he has not talked to party chairman Michael Steele about the resolution, which Bopp said could come up for a vote at the RNC’s winter meeting in January in Hawaii. He also said he hadn’t checked to see if any candidates currently seeking RNC funds violate more than two of the document’s principles.

The full resolution’s at the link but here are the 10 bullet points. You need to say yes to eight if you want to get paid, per Reagan’s saying that anyone who agrees with him 80 percent of the time is his friend, not his opponent:

(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, 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

For a “purity test,” they’re not demanding much purity. The only points on which there’s any serious intraparty dispute are five and eight (and not much on the latter). From what I know of McCain’s current policy positions, even the maverickiest Maverick of them all would hit nine out of 10; Grahamnesty, who’s squishy on cap-and-trade, would score eight out of 10 if I’m not mistaken. Note also that there’s no pro-life requirement here. Point nine refers to abortion only in the context of ObamaCare. Why they didn’t draft that more broadly, I don’t know.

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test. I’d vote no on numbers eight and six — the latter not because I don’t support victory but because the condition at the end would reduce the president to a rubber stamp on military recommendations. Feel free to score yourselves below. (Just kidding; you’re all tens, I know.) Exit quotation: “The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

3 out of 10 is rather generous.

SouthernGent on November 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

So, who goes up to 11?

Number 2 on November 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

So essentially opposition to socialized health care, support for the Second Amendment, support for winning the war on terrorism, containing terrorist states, and family values.

Not very strict. Half of it even many Democrats can claim to agree with.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

3 out of 10 is rather generous.

No, you only get to disagree with two. If you disagree with three or more, no money.

Allahpundit on November 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Sure, but would Dede get an 8?

Esthier on November 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM

I mean, really, I can think of Blue Dogs who have positions agreeing with at least five or six of those.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test.

Yes, but that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM

Half of it even many Democrats can claim to agree with.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I’m sure that’s the point.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Not interested. Advertised hope for real change is a date rape drug and I see a lot of moderates with sore azzes.

abobo on November 23, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Why don’t we just stop being candy asses and waterboard our candidates?

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Gotta say that this lacks Contract with America-like impact. I think even Dede could have passed this. Heck, I could practically pass it.

Bleeds Blue on November 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

It’s a good start. Look at it this way. If a potential GOP candidate can’t meet 8 out of 10 from this list(like Scuzzy-flavor for example), then they have no business being in the party.

Doughboy on November 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

In reference to the top article in headline news…I do believe Steele is looking “blacker”…

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Bleeds Blue on November 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

See? Not very good “purity test” if that’s the purpose.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Well I’m about 8.5 out of ten.

Free Constitution on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM

The real problem is the same with the “conservative” rankings. It presumes all things are equal. Some answers damn you immediately, while others would not.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Yeah, but what will you say in the morning?

d1carter on November 23, 2009 at 5:05 PM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-Esque RINO Candy Ass like me

You need to cut that down to C.E.R.C.A.

Allah, you are a CERCA Republican.

portlandon on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Cap and trade is a market-based energy reform plan (maybe a stupid one, but still).

Or is the RNC claiming that the energy market will just reform itself, through, say, the magic of the 100 year plan perhaps, and that’s the reform they want?

I don’t get it. What’s the market based reform the RNC wants?

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I am having an identity crisis; I am only 2 (or even 1) away from being a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass. I gotta call my therapist.

Geochelone on November 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM

portlandon on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Doesn’t have the impact. Needs a “beta” in there somewhere, though. BERCA republican. LOL

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Anyone failing Point #1 needs to go under the bus.

a capella on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I’m 9 out of 10, and the one I deviate on would probably be considered the least important of those by most.

Vegi on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I don’t care for how number six is worded either…also weak on the abortion. Could have added and do not support the advocacy or support abortion, something more then not supporting gov. funded.
A group of ideas to appeal to the “undecided”…a little weak but a almost clever idea.
At least it is a list that the dems have a difficult time objecting to.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

It’s not the restrictions on gun ownership that worries me, it’s the taxes and restrictions on ammunition that seems to be the loophole Obama is targeting.

behiker on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Cap and trade is a market-based energy reform plan (maybe a stupid one, but still).

If you add “fake” in front of market, perhaps.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Generous, not that stringent really.

But people will still have disagreements. For example, they will argue over what actually constitutes amnesty.

But they need to come up with basic principles that people from different walks of life and different parts of the country can agree on, for that purpose this seems very reasonable.

Terrye on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Well I’m about 8.5 out of ten.

Free Constitution on November 23, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Pretty much where I am, #3 and #6 could use some work.

fourdeucer on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Good question. I increasingly think even a near perfectly written and managed cap and trade program would be opposed by the GOP.

Free Constitution on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Well, I know Michael Steele is definitely fuzzy on number 10, which just makes the list that much more juicy.

MadisonConservative on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

f you add “fake” in front of market, perhaps.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Sure, maybe, but I’m not sure what a market-based energy reform plan is if it’s not cap and trade, unless the RNC is seriously arguing they support crossing their fingers and hoping the energy industry reforms itself in a positive way.

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I was going to say I’m 9 out of 10 (#8 can’t fly) but Allah makes a good point re: #6. But that’s more an issue of semantics than policy. Change it to something more general like supporting victory over withdrawal and it would work fine.

Hannibal Smith on November 23, 2009 at 5:12 PM

It’s too late to be fooled again by these apparatchiks. The answer for people is in the Internet. No money for parties; donate only to individual candidates who represent your values.

Feedie on November 23, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Hey~let’s play a game:

List which points you disagree with and why. Also, if it is badly worded, but you agree with it, explain how you would change the wording.

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM

hoping the energy industry reforms itself in a positive way.

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I really am hating having gas available at any gas station, always having gas to heat my house and cook my food, and reliable electricity for my home, all at reasonable prices. Reform NOW!

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Heck, I could practically pass it.

Bleeds Blue on November 23, 2009 at 5:03 PM

The point being, the true liberals cannot pass this…Obama could not pass this, yet you probably could.
It shows that you are supporting an “idea”, and not facts.

The facts are…Pelosi and gang, and the rest of the liberal leaders couldn’t pass three of these with their actions.

Amazingly, you are much closer to Republican ideals, then democrats actions and ideals.

Of course, that is what is so odd…that has been true for most of political history, but weak minded liberals fall for the “guy”. They get mesmerized by the message, and do not analyze the impact or acknowledge what they actually do.

You are a perfect example, you are easily taken in by words of your leaders, and you don’t question them…even with record unemployment, financial disaster, a health care program that can’t be explained, diddling on major military, can’t close Gitmo, can’t fulfill hardly any of his campaign promises…but you “believe” in him, he is such a smooth talker.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:16 PM

9 out of 10. I reject #8 but only because I don’t buy the notion of marriage as a Constitutional right. This is a matter correctly left to states and municipalities. Or better still get the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it as the social and religious construct it was intended to be.

NoLeftTurn on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

I have another idea for a game: Someone explain to me what “market-based energy reform” is that the RNC wants.

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

List which points you disagree with and why. Also, if it is badly worded, but you agree with it, explain how you would change the wording.

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM

I would leave the Obama references out. If I am making a qualifying list to be a Republican, I would like to have the list be a little more permanent. ONe that Can be used beyond Jan 2013.

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

I really am hating having gas available at any gas station, always having gas to heat my house and cook my food, and reliable electricity for my home, all at reasonable prices. Reform NOW!

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Right. You don’t want any reform, which is fine. I don’t think I do either. But what is the reform the RNC wants?

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM

#3 should be the goal of energy independence. How hard is that?

fourdeucer on November 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Hannibal Smith on November 23, 2009 at 5:12 PM

#8 is easy, 31 states have already supported it, and it has never been defeated in election. So whether one supports it or not, it has broad and deep support…tough to win 31 to nothing, even Maine and California.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Sure, maybe, but I’m not sure what a market-based energy reform plan is if it’s not cap and trade, unless the RNC is seriously arguing they support crossing their fingers and hoping the energy industry reforms itself in a positive way.

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Energy industry reform? What reform is so needed that I should spend more for every good I purchase and 3 times as much for my electricty? What are you talking about?

ROCnPhilly on November 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

That is an excellent point.
I would refine #6, as pointed out, saying we support victory over surrender or defeat.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM

This is a really terrible “purity” test. It’s all about what Obama policies we oppose, in other words, by the time this was adopted in 2010 half of the questions will be obsolete. Furthermore, it refers to specific bills (DOMA, card check, cap-and-trade) rather than general principles (like abortion, as Allahpundit points out). How about this:

1. We believe in reducing the size of the federal government to its Constitutional definition, and making it accountable to the states and people.

2. We oppose any further expansion of government into our private decision-making, especially health care decision-making.

2-4. We believe in free-market capitalism with the minimum practical regulation in the health care, energy, and labor markets.

5. We believe in legal immigration and naturalization of people who believe in the American system and principles, and oppose immigration or amnesty for those who violate our laws and disdain our principles.

6-7. We believe in a foreign policy that puts our national interest ahead of our President’s psychological need to be loved.

8. We reject the victim culture (see Ann Coulter’s “Guilty”) and do not believe in the creation of new privileged classes such as homosexuals, Islamists, evangelical atheists, etc.

9. We believe that human life is sacred and we oppose the murder of innocent human beings from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Murderers and rapists, on the other hand, can be hung from the nearest convenient tree.

10. We believe in the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, in case all other methods of defending our principles fail.

joe_doufu on November 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM

I have another idea for a game: Someone explain to me what “market-based energy reform” is that the RNC wants.

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Take electricity. Let multiple firms connect to the grid and you can choose your electricity provider. So if want to use Solar R Us and pay the higher KW/hr rates, go ahead. If you want to use Dino Energy, pay lower rates, go ahead. May the best company win. Oh yeah…no subsidies for ANY energy provider.

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM

As others are going to…let me add to the list…If the Conservatives win the midterms …
Institute the HUAC again…give it teeth…sunset it in Oct. 2012…that should be enough time..;)

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The sentiments are a reasonable start, the language is awful.

“We support by opposing” – gack. More Party of No.

How about “we support the Constitution” for starters?

And far fewer comparatives “smaller government” “smaller debt” etc. Smaller than what? $787 billion? How about something less mushy such as, oh I dunno, “no national debt.”

It’s a start. But it worries me that everything is either wishy washy or reactionary or both. No original ideas here. No conviction. Try harder, RNC.

Ozwitch on November 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I would leave the Obama references out. If I am making a qualifying list to be a Republican, I would like to have the list be a little more permanent. ONe that Can be used beyond Jan 2013.

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM

I agree. Quit playing against obama~he’s screwing himself for 2012.
EXPLAIN market based theories~many liberals and squishy rinos are indoctrinated and do not understand the capitalist system.
#5~we need to clean up the immigration system:
-fine and jail illegal alien employers.
-deny/stop paying entitlements/welfare for illegal aliens.
-Interpret the 14th amendment~stating that those born on US soil must be in LEGAL standing with the US. Illegal alien anchor babies do NOT qualify.
-Update system that alerts immigration to visa overstays and remove said ‘aliens’.
-Streamline legal immigration system. Make sure legal immigrants will be able to be gainfully employed and not supported by US taxpayers. Make sure we look toward US citizens to fill jobs before we look offshore for immigrant labor.

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Probably has to do with clean coal. Opening up drilling, etc. People always talk about the “next generation” of energy; but no one wants to build a bridge to keep the energy flowing till this mythical market exists.

lorien1973 on November 23, 2009 at 5:25 PM

I’d support 9 of 10, maybe 8 of 10 given cumulative quibbles.

dedalus on November 23, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Ok so lets make the list stricter and more comprehensive. What’s stopping us?

dogsoldier on November 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM

A funny Althouse site comment:

Palladian said…
What do you want to bet that when Sullivan returns home at night and puts the beagles to bed, he slips on his CPAP mask and connects the hose to a tank of nitrous oxide, inhales deeply and shrieks “Mommy! Mommy! Baby wants to ****!” before stuffing a piece of fabric clandestinely cut by a Sullivan operative from one of Palin’s returned RNC-funded skirts into his mouth and smacking the shit out of his trembling boyfriend who’s unwillingly donning the “costume”.

11/23/09 3:36 PM

Mr. Joe on November 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Charlie Crist couldn’t pass the test.

Incidentally I would like to see a few more on that list.

11. Energy independence from foreign sources of oil by exploiting domestic sources and expanding nuclear power by building 20 new plants.

12.Make english the official language to conduct any and all elections and stricter ID requirements to vote.

13. Congress cannot have a pay raise unless it is approved by the voters.

NeoKong on November 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Adding to above: this list sounds like something you would go INTO a meeting with, then it gets thrashed around and whiteboarded and everybody comes up with something better at the end. It doesn’t sound like something you come out of a meeting with as a summary of your roundtable debate. It’s unpolished and half-formed to me.

Ozwitch on November 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM

“Build the damn wall” isn’t there?

and 10 should read:

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by which are incredibly useful when opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

TexasDan on November 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM

#8 is easy, 31 states have already supported it, and it has never been defeated in election. So whether one supports it or not, it has broad and deep support…tough to win 31 to nothing, even Maine and California.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Then leave it to the states. The Fed should recognize the state’s power to grant marriage licenses.

dedalus on November 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Love it. But there’s no need for all of the references to Obama. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who proposed it. For example, I oppose spending regardless of WHO proposed it, you GOP self-serving morons!

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM

6-7. We believe in a foreign policy that puts our national interest ahead of our President’s psychological need to be loved.

joe_doufu on November 23, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Thanks that made me LOL. BTW I scored 10/10 on your version :)

SouperConservative on November 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM

It’s unpolished and half-formed to me.

Ozwitch on November 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM

They need to ask Sarah…

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM

#5 We support securing the border.

fourdeucer on November 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM

A federal purity test such like this would, IMHO, would differ from a state test. For example, I fully welcome a person that supports abortion if that person is against Roe v Wade (i.e., they want they states to decide their own social and moral laws).

Give me a person you loves liberty and hates a broad expansive federal government, and that a person that I can agree with almost ALL isssues at the federal level.

WashJeff on November 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM

When you really look at this list…it’s as pure as yellow snow..

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:34 PM

It’s unpolished and half-formed to me.

Ozwitch on November 23, 2009 at 5:28 PM
They need to ask Sarah…

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Mishy/Mashy, squishy. Need to grow some onions and
fly our flag. Indeed.

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM

The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”

That’s because you won’t let them run, you self-serving GOP morons. The good people of California kicked out Gray Davis, and demanded someone who would clean up Sacramento. What did the GOP come up with? Arnold Spendenegger.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM

#6 We recognize we are in a GWOT and will use the full power and might of the country to win it.

fourdeucer on November 23, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Stick with the Constitution it. This list making is really wasting time.

BetseyRoss on November 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test.

Well, that’s progress. Exposure to true conservatives over the last few years here at HA has moved even you, AP, from being a McGovern-esque Commie happy ass who couldn’t even score 3 on the test.

Someday soon, you will be completely “saved”.

TXUS on November 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Hornet…

I’d also like to add monthly drug testing for all members of the House and Senate…

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test.

Your self-deprecation is funny.

The far left and the far right (5-10% of each side) should have a civil war, so the rest of us can pick up the country and move forward.

Schadenfreude on November 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM

I’m only an 8.75 on here.

My problem with this list is that it puts too much emphasis on what the RNC opposes. Which is fine for this list, I suppose. But the GOP, like it or not, it already being cast as the party of ‘no’, so if this is the jumping off point for a new contract with America they’re going to need to make the focal points more positive.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM

(1) Stimulus bill notwithstanding, not many GOP incumbents can claim any past support of this one. Certainly not Kay Bailey, McCain, Gramnesty, any east coaster.
(2) We’ll see. Snowe and Collins have been outed already.
(3) We have some on record already on board for this BS, hello Ms Gramnesty again.
(4) Dede would have supported this and the RNCC backed her. Glad to see them respond.
(5) McCain, Gramnesty, Kay Bailey and about 15 other GOP senators are on record supporting amnesty already.
(6) I’d listen to the generals on the ground and get my reports from Michael Yon. No media around to inform us on this issue.
(7) That’s an easy one. Even Dede would whiff this.
(8) Allah be damned! no virgins for you!
(9) Another easy one with the exeptions of #2.
(10) Not aware of any GOPers on the wrong side of this.

(11) one strike and you’re out on financial ethics. Salary, pension, position, all of it…buh-bye!

DanMan on November 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM

“The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”

Then the answer is to sell conservatism to those parts of the country. The alternative is to elect liberals and call them Republicans, and that accomplishes nothing.

Ronnie on November 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I think at this point, this may not go far enough to solve America’s problems. They oppose a lot, but don’t favor a lot.

How about supporting the expanded pursuit of all energy sources within U.S. borders?

How about enforcing existing U.S. laws, or removing those laws from the books?

How about supporting the limits on Federal authority specified (not just outlined) in the U.S. Constitution?

How about winning wars against America’s enemies, regardless of the cost?

How about supporting the pursuit of freedom in liberty all over the world?

Geez- this isn’t that hard. Conservatism isn’t an about opposing things. It’s about pursuing the right things, and leaving the rest for individuals to enjoy or ignore as they see fit.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM

The alternative is to elect liberals and call them Republicans, and that accomplishes nothing.

Ronnie on November 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Amen to that. Better a smaller GOP that stands for something than a larger GOP that speaks with forked tongue.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM

I don’t get it. What’s the market based reform the RNC wants?

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Wind, solar and ethanol subsidies distort the market, as does hindering the ability to drill domestically.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Allah hearts teh gays?

Joe Caps on November 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Yay! Nothing about God or the Almighty. Maybe they are learning.

Speedwagon82 on November 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Scozzy Bear wouldn’t have passed 8,9, and 3 (remember her husband is a union shill).

Speedwagon82 on November 23, 2009 at 5:48 PM

What a horrible list! With “principles” like these, no wonder memes like “the party of no” get legs!

How about some forward-looking, broad principles that show a thoughtful party with a foundation in the Constitution? If all we can muster is “we won’t vote for crap the other guy puts up”, we can expect a lukewarm reception everywhere.

RNC strikes again!

johnny alpha on November 23, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Hornet…

I’d also like to add monthly drug testing for all members of the House and Senate…

jerrytbg on November 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Oh yeah. Also, maybe an IQ test?

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Right. You don’t want any reform, which is fine. I don’t think I do either. But what is the reform the RNC wants?

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM

The federal government currently manipulates the energy market in a bunch of ways, so ‘reforming’ that is presumably what they mean. Plus, ‘reform’ is a positive buzzword. People love reform as a nebulas concept.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Oh- one I left off.

The GOP should be the party that supports reading legislation.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Might be nice if they defined “victory” as I don’t know how anyone can expect to get someplace if they don’t know where they are going. Maybe a word or two about ROE might be nice too. And in case they have forgotten so soon the “surge” was already done in Iraq so by their way of thinking we already have “victory” in Iraq.

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 5:51 PM

The only points on which there’s any serious intraparty dispute are five and eight

You forgot number 6.

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Smaller and lower by what magnitude?

5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

And discouraging further illegal immigration how?

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Support victory? How big of you.

9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion

Support the lives of vulnerable persons? How big of you, again.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

And……..and………ammo. The arms need ammo.

nico on November 23, 2009 at 5:54 PM

I liked Glenn’s 9 12 list better

Conservative Voice on November 23, 2009 at 5:59 PM

The far left and the far right (5-10% of each side) should have a civil war, so the rest of us can pick up the country and move forward.

Schadenfreude on November 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM

So true, and we should remember that only about 20% of the population supported the Revolutionary War against England, and only 10% actually fought on the battlefields.

And, the tyranny here is even worse than existed then.

But, we still have a chance, a secret window of opportunity — secret in the sense that the left is still intoxicated right now — to do what needs to be done without bullets.

The window, however, is about to slam shut.

TXUS on November 23, 2009 at 6:00 PM

For a “purity test,” they’re not demanding much purity.

Indeed. This is as weak as water.

However, I wonder whether there can be a Republican “purity test.”

From the Politico link:

“The fastest way to a lasting Republican minority is to repeat the mistakes of the last decade — simply chasing numbers and power without living up to our principles,” DeMint said.

Our core principles are those things for which we should stand and fight. But then how do we treat those who only agree with us 80% or less of the time? I prefer Rubio to Crist. What happens if the voters of Florida choose Crist? I prefer DeVore to Fiorina, but suppose the voters in California disagree?

Is there a way we can stand for core principles, but allow for disagreement? And how much disagreement? Sorry, but this continues to puzzle me. I like having at least some differences of opinion.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:03 PM

I liked Glenn’s 9 12 list better

Conservative Voice on November 23, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Glenn was great today. He had David Horowitz on. Horowitz says we should use the Alinsky tactics on the left; they won’t know what to do.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Yep, that is how you win a national election, come out with a 10 point list of things you oppose. What retards. Here is a 10 point list for conservatives:

1) Believe in the constitution and abide by the limits on governmental power dictated within it
2) Reduce spending, no excuses
3) Pay off the debt as quickly as possible
4) Reduce corporate tax
5) Reduce illegal immigration until its almost non existent, and then and only then begin discussing what to do with the illegals already here
6) Invest in all types of energy production including alternative energies with an emphasis on nuclear power
7) Market based healthcare reforms
8) Term limits for congress
9) No bailouts and support a bill stating that if a company is too big to fail, its too big to exist.
10) Strong foreign policy focused on Iran and North Korea while slowly reducing the number of military bases

This is how you create a 10 point plan, it has to be something generic that most people agree with. You let the candidate fill in the rest, whether it be abortion or legalization of marijuana. You don’t make a 10 point plan that pisses of the majority of people who read it. 80% of America probably agrees with a majority of the points I listed up there, when you throw in abortion and other crap, you drastically limit who is paying attention to you.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM

I can’t say I’m totally committed to each of these because they are rather vague (not that I need to agree with all of them, because I don’t consider myself conservative). Take 10 for instance, even the NRA supports restricting violent offenders from getting firearms (which I also approve of), and in an effect supports government interference. Like I said, vague.

DanStark on November 23, 2009 at 6:08 PM

Number 8 doesn’t matter anymore.
Most states have banned gay marriage including California with the most important state court rulings indeed would have an effect on others states.. If DOMA were recinded now it would work against gay people not for them.
Gay marriage is a dead issue on a national office level.
Number 6 half matters….We won in Iraq. I know victory is somewhat hard to grasp sometimes but…We won.
(personally I think, we should have even more troops available to go into Afganistan than the highest estimate, it would discourage the enemy and give a renewed sense of support to the Afganis who would support the our efforts but fear the result if the US isn’t in it to win it.)
Number 5 is a stated exactly like what most Americans thiink including legal immigrants who did it the right way.

LeeSeneca on November 23, 2009 at 6:10 PM

I am having an identity crisis; I am only 2 (or even 1) away from being a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass. I gotta call my therapist.

Geochelone on November 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM

I’m much better off than you. I’m three away. Of course I’m the SouthernGent standard, here.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Does it depend on talk, or voting record and some other kind of recorded personal history..or what? Maobamas could claim he is for whatever any list specified..

Itchee Dryback on November 23, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Here’s the Fire Fifty Platform(http://bit.ly/6FECON ):

Ethics For the duration of our service, we swear that we will put our country and our constituents ahead of everything but our family and our faith.
Fiscal Sanity We will restore fiscal sanity to the Federal government. We will spend fewer actual dollars in 2011 than DC does in 2010.
Fighting Smart We have soldiers on the field of battle. We will fight smart and we will not jeopardize our warriors for political gain.
Our Children We will not wait any longer to for DC to fix our schools. We want school choice now and we are not losing one more child.
Individual Rights We will advance the American ideal of individual liberties and we will not discriminate for or against any American.
Rule of Law We are a nation of laws, and we will either enforce the law or change the law through the democratic process.

motionview on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

would Dede get an 8?

Esthier on November 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM

She could if she lied.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

They brush up against it with some of their “points” but they don’t even directly mention liberty and the constitution.

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Reads like it was written by a college sophomore. Reasoning and logic processes are not fully developed yet.

huckleberryfriend on November 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2