Thursday, December 10, 2009

"That's a great plan, Walter. That's fuckin' ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It's a Swiss fuckin' watch."

A draft resolution for a "GOP Purity Test" has been banging around RNC members' email for comments prior to ratification by the party. Basically, the proposal is to deny party funding to any Republican politician who does not submit to at least eight of ten "principles" from a list supposedly ascribed to Ronald Reagan. I guess the operative theory is that the Republican party is faltering because voters feel it's not extreme pure enough.

I'm not an RNC member but I am a moderate conservative, and here is my comment: Who the hell do you think you represent? Pull your head out of the sand and get with the millennium that began almost a decade ago. Ronald Reagan saved the party in the 1980's, but the 1980's were 20-30 years ago. If you really feel the need, go ahead and cling to them as though they were Eden and Reagan were god, but do not expect salvation.

Or my vote.

Update: "What are you people for?"

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reagan was 20-30 years ago, but he wouldn't survive their ideological purity measures today.

12/10/2009 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still have my bow tie, Patrick. I hope you are using it to continue the grand tradition of bow tie Tuesdays.

Clearly, my most anonymous post.

12/10/2009 12:14 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Slam Master.

12/10/2009 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further"

Ooooh... is the RNC going to stop funding the majority of its candidates based on some nutjob digging up statements/obscure voting records? It this, perhaps, the best idea the RNC has ever had?

12/10/2009 2:35 PM  
Blogger James said...

Yeah, this is actually exactly what we want the RNC to do. Now y'all can see how it feels to support a party plagued by infighting and the inability to come to a consensus on key issues.

12/10/2009 3:50 PM  
Blogger Beetle Aurora Drake said...

I don't think those platforms are nearly extreme enough for this list to matter at all. Anyone who doesn't support 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10 isn't going to be able to get Republican votes anyway. I don't think I've heard any Republicans critical of DOMA, either, and those who support abortion rights are typically savvy enough to avoid making that view public. The most impact this list is going to have is to avoid folks like Scozzafava claiming to be Republican so they can be a token minority congressdude for "bipartisan" laws.

After Bush, there were a lot of Republicans scratching their heads and trying to figure out why they should keep supporting the Republican party. This isn't about who the RNC is going to fund, it's about trying to convince conservative voters that the GOP still represents them.

And the list isn't ascribed to Ronald Reagan, it's too modern for that.

12/11/2009 1:48 AM  
Anonymous '93 Alum said...

I'm not a Republican and I can support six of those positions. You have to be pretty left wingish IMHO to object to that list.

12/11/2009 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I especially like, "We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges."

We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, but only if accomplished through violence.

12/12/2009 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(11) We oppose uniform formatting, and support the right to change fonts whenever we like, even in the same word.

12/12/2009 9:45 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

9:45, it's because certain words (like "Obama," see #1) are tricky to spell. Cut & paste is just safer all the way around.

12/12/2009 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Hersh said...

What a bunch of horseshit. They support the right of individuals to decide for themselves when it comes to guns and healthcare, but they want government to get all up into everyone's business when it comes to who you are allowed to hire to work for you (i.e. they don't want illegals to work). Why the fuck are illegals "illegal" anyway? Wouldn't that be like us making guns illegal, and then gun owners would be "illegal" too.

Hiding behind the law while violating a fundamental libertarian ideal, the freedom of contract between individuals, is what makes this GOP a bunch of morons. Their agenda is just prejudice wrapped up in a libertarian blanket. An ideologically pure perspective is one like the Cato institute's. They are consistently against centralized systems of control. That makes them opposed to healthcare, but then they are also pro-immigration.

If you trust the market to sort out your healthcare issues by implementing a variety of solutions and weeding out the bad ones, why wouldn't you trust the decentralized market to absorb labor -- foreign or domestic. Where are the papers from famous economists when it comes to advocating against immigration reform? GOP seems to use such documents in bushels when it comes to healthcare ... why don't they look and see what economists have to say about immigration and free movement of labor and capital?

Of course they wouldn't do that. Fuckin hypocrites. So much easier to talk out of your asses and wave flags.

12/16/2009 5:16 PM  
Blogger Beetle Aurora Drake said...

I think the answer to all your questions is "because they want to win the occasional election."

12/16/2009 8:06 PM  
Blogger haris said...

This is a very nice blog,I have seen this variety of post after a elongated moment. I value your endeavor for compiling such post.

Dissertation Proposal

10/21/2010 4:11 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home