Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

G.O.P. Purity Resolution

Posted by on Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:35 PM

The Caucus:

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 source of the specific number of things a candidate has to agree with is a speech by Ronald Reagan:

President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

This is some scary shit. Reagan pulled a random number out his folksy-wisdom ass, and now the party is basing their support of candidates on that specific ratio of agreement to non-agreement, as if it were the gospel. They really do think Reagan is God.

Here's the list of resolutions that prospective nutjobs have to 80% (or more!) agree with:

(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.


Comments (44) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Mahtli69 1
Why is this scary shit?

My first thought is why don't Democrats do something similar, instead of being stuck with fuckwads like Joe Lieberman?
Posted by Mahtli69 on November 24, 2009 at 9:43 PM · Report this
Mahtli69 2
And, the other thing is, I can read down the list and disagree with all of them.

OK, I'm borderline on #7 and #10, but still, apparently, Ronald Reagan's enemy. That makes me feel good, not bad.

Posted by Mahtli69 on November 24, 2009 at 9:45 PM · Report this
I don't see this as being scary to anyone but republicans. This list is so specific and narrow... and for the their leadership to expect all republican leaders to adopt it, well I can't help be expect that resolutions such as these will be the literal undoing of the republican party.Things like this will continue to feed the independent and libertarian parties. heck, maybe even us Dems will get a few more members.
Posted by pony on November 24, 2009 at 9:48 PM · Report this
Arsenic7 4
Notice that there's nothing in here about creating jobs.

Nothing about serving the poor.

Nothing that really protects anyone's freedoms, except for the right to bear arms.

Nothing about ending violence anywhere.

But there is the ultimatum of, "you're either with us or against us."

This is what the republican party values above anything else, being a team player.
Posted by Arsenic7 on November 24, 2009 at 9:52 PM · Report this

Wait, does this mean I'm excommunicated?
Posted by RHINO van Burean on November 24, 2009 at 9:59 PM · Report this
In a sql query, 9 & 10 would be linked so thats like 88% agreement. 9 & 10 are a double doozie.
Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs on November 24, 2009 at 10:12 PM · Report this
Most of those contradict each other.

My head a-splode.
Posted by JesseJB on November 24, 2009 at 10:16 PM · Report this
Sweet. The more they drive out moderate republicans, the more they diminish into oblivion. I'm waiting for the dems to split into progressives and conservatives.
Posted by kersy on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM · Report this
Catalina Vel-DuRay 9
Contract with America, part II

After all, we were stupid enough to buy it the first time!
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay on November 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM · Report this
jvm 10
@7 most of these contradict themselves! "We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation"... what could be more market-based than cap and trade?
Posted by jvm on November 24, 2009 at 10:47 PM · Report this
Christampa 11
This is scary shit, Mahtli, because it's punishing reasonable dissent. Reasonable dissent, especially within one party is a great thing. The only reason intra-party dissent, reasonable or unreasonable, seems bad to us (ala Lieberman) is because there's already almost no dissent on the opposing side. If the individuals become even less likely to disagree with the party mantra, that would mean that the Democrats would be forced to do the same. And you can be sure that the repeal of DOMA, and several other "overly" progressive items aren't going to be on the list, even if healthcare is.

In fact, I'd bet that if the Democrats had their own such list, within 50 years the two lists would be near identical.
Posted by Christampa on November 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM · Report this
SchmuckyTheCat 12
If you read each of these as two clauses, it is easy to agree with the first half and think the second half is loony tunes.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on November 24, 2009 at 10:56 PM · Report this
I agree with 7 of 10 and I voted for Obama. Hell, Obama himself could be argued to agree with 5 of 10.
Posted by David Wright on November 24, 2009 at 10:57 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 14
Reagan himself wouldn't have passed this test (e.g., increased size of gov't, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, sold weapons to Iran, signed Brady bill, etc., etc., etc....)

This is good news though... if the GOP splinters itself into multiple branches, they'll never win another election.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 24, 2009 at 11:09 PM · Report this
Knat 15
Jesus Christ, they're even starting to believe their own bullshit about rationed healthcare [for the old people], it would seem.
Posted by Knat on November 24, 2009 at 11:35 PM · Report this
You go, GOP. Keep driving out the moderates, keep turning off the independents, keep alienating minorities. Keep transforming yourself into a sad, crazy, regional party.
Posted by JenV on November 24, 2009 at 11:46 PM · Report this
dnt trust me 17
[a sad, crazy, regional party.]

This is where I like going on the weekend.
Posted by dnt trust me on November 25, 2009 at 4:57 AM · Report this
Vince 18
They support smaller government unless they have power.
They support market based health care unless they have power.
They support market based energy reform that continues to rip off consumers.
They oppose unions and liveable wages.
They support hiring illegal immigrants for the rich.
They support the illegal and immoral war against the Iraqi people.
They support blitzkrieg style attacks against third world countries with the excuse of pre-emption.
They support special rights for themselves.
They support the corruption of our government and healthcare by the insurance companies that is leading to thousands of inexcusable deaths.
They support the continued flooding our streets with weapons that are leading to death and destruction for the profits of gun manufacturers.
Posted by Vince on November 25, 2009 at 5:12 AM · Report this
dnt trust me 19…

Hush, in key ways Obama is slowly and deliberately acting the same way as Bush. Appease the Repubs, run up the war debt, continue with Bernanke - give it time, Rome didn't fall in a day.

"Neither he nor his advisers has detailed an exit plan, but the strategy he is expected to describe next week would include specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary, a senior military official said. The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision was not final."
Posted by dnt trust me on November 25, 2009 at 5:22 AM · Report this
Anyone else find it odd that Republicans call us Obamatons and say we think Obama's the messiah when they treat any random politicized crap that spewed out Reagans ass as the word of god?

I think it's time to turn that around. Reagatons? Reagbots? I don't know, it's too early but I figure one of us should be able to come up with something good.
Posted by Root on November 25, 2009 at 6:14 AM · Report this
Cracker Jack 21
@20: Reggaetons?
Posted by Cracker Jack on November 25, 2009 at 6:38 AM · Report this
Posted by COMTE on November 25, 2009 at 6:47 AM · Report this
Hey folks:

for a party to actually have stuff it believes in, and state it concisely, and attempt to rally 'round it, is a smart thing. What we here disagree with is the content of the list, duh, but to mock them for having a vision and program is pretty lame.

In fact the Democrats' problem is they don't stand for anything.

"let's sit down with insurers" = oh yeah we accept teh GOP garbage that the profit motive in health care i s a-okay.
"we want a public option to increase competition to tame the insurers and allow choice but this option won't actualy drive them out of business it will be weak and opt out blah blah blah blah blah " = confusing hodgepodge. Look we think everyone should have health, the insurers are a scam, but our side is just too chicken to say so!

and on and on.

One of the commenters here has a nice antiGOP response list. Problem is the D's don't got no pro D list! We define ourselves only in opposition to them ("they're too extreme and unbalanced..." is true, but not a definition of US))

Then, we moan and whine because the crackers and conservadems like Baird and those in Arkanas and whatnot don't believe in what liberals and progressives believe in. Well, it's our own damn fault because we don't express what we really believe in, which is that yes, government IS the answer and any higher taxes are WORTH IT and in fact they ought to lie more heavily on the rich because they can afford it and the rest of us can't.

"Reasonable dissent" is for a whole society. For a political party once you discuss and debate but then you HAVE A PROGRAM.

Or do you think it's fine and dandy for Baird to be against health reform in his longtime democratic district and for Liberman to screw us by running as a D, losing a primary then entering as an I, and do you really believe that what we need in this country is nice "responsible bipartisan reform [ thatis, our opponents are pretty nice folks, we agree with lots of what they say, we're not actually different, blah blah blah]"????

Please point out to me the nation that achieved universal health coverage and a good national health system by cooperating with insurers.

Nope, there aren't any.

In fact, the way progress seems to be made is this:
1. have a strong communist party like in france or italy, or a tradition of millitant laborism (UK) or prior revolutionary attempts (germany)
2. this pushes the social democrats to actually be for the people and fight the rich
3. this also terrorizes the rich enough, they basically agree to the semi socialized economy of those nations
4. result: half free market leading to higher standards of living and healthy tax base, half socialized leading to more justice, prosperity and growth, together with real elections between parties that are really different; the voters switch between SD's or labor making progress, then halting the progress for a while by electing CDs or conservatives (who don't, however dismantle the progress already made).

NOT ONE of those nations achieved progress by having their SD's not stand for something. The implicit argument of most comments above is it's wrong to have a party stand for something, as if that is censorship or a supression of dissent. So what these folks are for is the vague abstract "competition of ideas" not actually anyprogram that benefits the majority of the people in the nation in a demonstrable, economic way that makes a diff. in their daily life.
Not ONE of those nations with nationalized health care achieved it by saying "let's sit down at the table to work it out in a bipartisan fashion" with their opponents the christian democrats/conservatives.

The path to progress is well trodden, it's about standing for something and telling people about it, so they GET IT, instead of watering it down so you don't stand for anything.

It's too bad our own party doesn't take this clear and well defined path to progress.
Posted by Palo Alto (a "long post") on November 25, 2009 at 6:53 AM · Report this
#23: WTF dude? The Republican's entire list is either 1) Opposing Democrats' ideas, or 2) Escalating wars. How can you say the Republicans have more ideas when almost all of their ideas consist wholly of opposing Democrats' ideas?
Posted by conservative means anti-change on November 25, 2009 at 7:30 AM · Report this
it's worthwhile to articulate your values, but not to punish dissent. so backwards.
Posted by layna on November 25, 2009 at 7:53 AM · Report this
Baconcat 26
I agree with number 10.

The rest, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, gonna have to take a pass.
Posted by Baconcat on November 25, 2009 at 8:11 AM · Report this
bondwooley 27
It's all part of the new GOP marketing strategy:

Posted by bondwooley on November 25, 2009 at 8:14 AM · Report this
Cool. It's their own Nolan Quiz. I scored 5:5. Seriously, it's a pretty good set of short positions.
Posted by Fritz on November 25, 2009 at 8:41 AM · Report this
SpecialBrew 29
Goddamn the current GOP misreads Reagan at every turn. Reagan was successful BECAUSE he was likeable, even by Liberals who hated his policies. He never made the GOP take a purity test: he wanted the liberal Rockerfeller Republicans on board as well as the religious right-wingers.

In fact, I'd say one of Reagan's greatest successes was the level of mastery at which he would keep all these diverse segments of the Republican party aboard and proud to be a Republican.

So if the current GOP are following that 8 out of 10 rule will they be kicking out former Republican first ladies like Barbara Bush and Betty Ford then? I don't think they would fit into such a narrow definition. Hell, I'm not so sure Reagan himself would.
Posted by SpecialBrew on November 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM · Report this
....and assimilation into American society.....

Sounds like the Borg.
Posted by StuckInUtah on November 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM · Report this
Annag 31
I bet they would never liken this kind of unity among party lines to a parliamentary style system.
Posted by Annag on November 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 32
#7 Mostly yes, #10 mostly yes (with severe caveats--no private citizen needs crap like an M1Awhatever or an Uzi, for example).

1.5/10, better than I expected!
Posted by Joe Szilagyi on November 25, 2009 at 9:23 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 33
why are 2 & 9 separated? they're both about health care. and "obama-style government-run health care" isn't what's in the bill. that's utterly devoid of meaning.

please keep this up, conservatives. by marginalizing yourselves, you're making a progressive break from the democrats possible.
Posted by Max Solomon on November 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM · Report this
Right #29! If you take out the opposition part of the 10 you have the following:
1) It is not the government's role to regulate or help out when companies become big enough to control the economy.
2) We support the insurance companies over the consumer.
3) We support the energy companies. (Enron, etc...)
4) Unions serve no role in the workplace.
5) People can come here as long as they become like us.
6) The constitutional CIVILIAN Commander in Chief shall defer all decisions to the military. We also can't define victory, but it sounds good!
7) We need to bomb the nuclear reactors in Iran and N Korea.
8) We are against gays.
9) We are too frightened to just put opposition to abortion as it's own item so we mask it by tying it to health care reform.
10) Militias are the answer!
Posted by kmq1 on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM · Report this
What freaks me out is that they use the phrase "Obama's socialist agenda." It's such a grotesque distortion of what socialism is, that it's nonsense to my ears.
Posted by dwight moody on November 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM · Report this
michael strangeways 36
If they pass the purity test will a Jonas Brother give them a purity ring?
Posted by michael strangeways on November 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM · Report this
@30- It just means "Make English the only language taught in schools, used in government, and make them stop serving that funny food."
Posted by dwight moody on November 25, 2009 at 11:12 AM · Report this
Lord Basil 38
This is the foundation upon which a traditionalist resurgence will begin in Obama's America. Liberal Marxist Fascists in the Democrat Party are quaking in their boots because the hard traditionalists are going to thrash them back to where they came from, and they won't dare pollute America with their pot smoking and homosexuality.

Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama has united traditionalists in a way Ronald Reagan could only dream of, and I predict a 75-80 seat gain for them in the House, and all 37 Senate seats that are up for re-election in 2010.

America gets to live again!
Posted by Lord Basil on November 25, 2009 at 11:57 AM · Report this
Loyalty oaths. Hooray! I hope they run with this. In fact, I hope they run further and further rightward. I enjoy seeing them lose.
Posted by They Didn't Get The Memo on November 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM · Report this
Geni 40
Thanks for the giggle, Master of Herbs. "all 37 Senate seats" Honey, you should be writing for the Onion.

Oh wait - I rather suspect you are.
Posted by Geni on November 25, 2009 at 12:32 PM · Report this
Timrrr 41
I so love it when the GOP goes back to traditional (Hellenic) values and eats their own young!
Posted by Timrrr on November 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Timrrr 42
And "purity pledges" have such a fine and well proven record of stopping teen pregnancies & preventing the spread of STDs, why wouldn't you want to apply that technique to politics as well!

(Personally, I find "abstinence only" is the best approach when dealing with the GOP, however.)
Posted by Timrrr on November 25, 2009 at 2:03 PM · Report this
dreadpiratepuck 43
so, the republicans are for lowering the deficit by pouring more and more money into troop surges? man, i wish i lived in THEIR mathematical reality!
Posted by dreadpiratepuck on November 27, 2009 at 11:11 AM · Report this
I think all of them are ok except for no 8 (Clinton's DOMA)!

One Big Ass Mistake America!!!!
Posted by KrisnAtlanta on November 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM · Report this

Add a comment


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy