It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservative Republican Litmus Test. Your Thoughts?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
In order to weed out what they see as RINOs, Tea party Republicans have come up with a "litmus test" they hope will be used to vette potential candidates to determine if they are worthy of party funding.

LINK




Specifically, the proposal being offered for ratification by the whole of the RNC requires that in order for a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate to receive financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee or the Republican Senatorial Committee (the two arms of the Party tasked with distributing RNC funds) he or she must not “disagree with 3 or more of the above stated public policy positions.” This threshold level of fidelity to these 10 Republican articles of faith is inspired by an aphorism attributed to Ronald Reagan that held that someone who agreed with him 80 percent of the time was his friend, not his enemy. Authors of the measure are such dyed-in-the-wool acolytes of the late President that they have styled their proposal the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and they invoke his mighty name in the first clause.

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

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




It goes on with the "Wheras Reagan Believed" stuff for several more lines (I'm sure Reagan is turning in his grave) before it finally gets to the good stuff.

They say that in order to qualify, a true Republican must not disagree with more than 3 of the following;




(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; and be further


One party strtigest was brave enough to speak out against the test. Anonymously of course;



One Party strategist, for example, defended his resistance to adoption of the test by explaining, “We already have screen tests in place, and they are called Republican voters. If a candidate doesn’t support the principles of the party, Republican voters aren’t going to choose them as a candidate, which renders the whole coordinated-funds issue completely moot.” Notably, the strategist spoke only on condition of anonymity, perhaps an indication of the powerful sway already held by those seeking enshrinement of the proposal in the RNC’s operating by-laws.


The article concludes with the author's assessment of the Bush Presidency;




And, curiously, were the proposed standard in place in 2000, then it is unlikely that George W. Bush would have merited RNC sanction.




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   


nd, curiously, were the proposed standard in place in 2000, then it is unlikely that George W. Bush would have merited RNC sanction.


Would have saved the RNC a lot of face if that had been the case. I would love to see this edict unofficially adopted by everyone hoping to take any office. I wouldn't trust the RNC to actually abide by it either way after seeing how far they've come, but I'd love to see the candidates themselves take up the mantle and use the list themselves in their own campaigns.

Hope doesn't usually pan out, though. Pretty sure this is the last we'll see of this.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Wow, this is not the Reagan I remember.

Before he was president, he publicly opposed the homophobic Briggs Initiative in California, and Rock Hudson was a good friend from Hollywood. When he was pres, he was the first pres to invite a gay couple to spend the night (in 1984, for Nancy's birthday party, I believe).

His "greatest disappointment" was the huge debt.

He was in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. Wasn't the knickname for the 1986 bill, the Amnesty Bill?

He DIDN'T listen to General Vessey, leading to the slaughter in Beirut.

Iran-Contra happened under his watch.

Maybe this "litmus test" is just the usual enhancement to biographies as time passes. Bill Brasky.

If the Democratic Party left him, then his own GOP is leaving him behind, too. Poor Ronnie's ghost.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
wow 2010 is going to be a bloodbath for the repubs and 2012 will see them in total free fall. They have alienated 18-35r olds in every way possible. The old racist & maniacal white men are going down hard, finally. Who know though, maybe McCain's daughter and Bristol can make the party cool again haha. It's over.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
wow 2010 is going to be a bloodbath for the repubs and 2012 will see them in total free fall. They have alienated 18-35r olds in every way possible. The old racist & maniacal white men are going down hard, finally. Who know though, maybe McCain's daughter and Bristol can make the party cool again haha. It's over.


Don't be too sure, with the Dems spending us into bankruptcy and the financial mess they still haven't done anything about, people will be looking for another change.

If no REAL 3rd party comes about for voters to run to, the Republican party will be the only game in town.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
We all should throw our suppor behind Klobucher, she is the voice of the revolution. She is the change we need. Klobucher 2012!



-E-

[edit on 24-11-2009 by MysterE]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterE
 


Wow MysterE, you're really hot for this Klobucher, I've seen you post about her on lots of threads.

Where can I find out more about her, besides on short little youtube videos?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
We all should throw our suppor behind Klobucher, she is the voice of the revolution. She is the change we need. Klobucher 2012!



-E-

[edit on 24-11-2009 by MysterE]


FOOKING A YA!!!!

Up with Kloblutcher 2012!!!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Wasn't that BUSH'S bailout bill? Oh and God Bless Amy Klobucher, she is the force we need.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I like "must believe in limited government" and a few lines later "government has to keep those gays from getting married."

WTF.


I wish these religious mock family values a-holes would stop mingling themselves with us "gov, just leave me the hell alone" types.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by MysterE
 


Wow MysterE, you're really hot for this Klobucher, I've seen you post about her on lots of threads.


How could I not be? check out this mug!



-E-



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I'm confused by where the party enthusiasts stand, are they supporting reagan or the constitution?

because someone might wanna mention the great amnesty....o just forget it. I mean seriously...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by reasonable
wow 2010 is going to be a bloodbath for the repubs and 2012 will see them in total free fall. They have alienated 18-35r olds in every way possible. The old racist & maniacal white men are going down hard, finally. Who know though, maybe McCain's daughter and Bristol can make the party cool again haha. It's over.


Don't be too sure, with the Dems spending us into bankruptcy and the financial mess they still haven't done anything about, people will be looking for another change.

If no REAL 3rd party comes about for voters to run to, the Republican party will be the only game in town.


No worries: look how often the Reps have spent the US to the brink of bankruptcy and they are still around:
upload.wikimedia.org...



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Definately positive. I think it'd be positive if the Democrats did the same. Parties get a very substantial amount of votes based on party identification alone. Parties enforcing their platform like this can only lead to one of two things:

1. Greater protection of voter expectations when they vote based on party identification. But also more reason for voters to cross party lines based on actual policy preferences.

2. A rise of third parties to fill the holes left by 2 formerly 'big tent coalition parties.'

Principles are a good thing, even if they're not your principles. Everybody stands to gain if our parties enforce some kind of principle.

Remember: This kind of strict platform enforcement is common in other, european, parliment governments. What happens? Voters that allign with ideaology and issues instead of a letter (D),(R), etc. And more third parties.

I support this.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by snusfanatic
 


I agree, if parties would put in place simple, easy to understand platforms defining their core values, it would be hard to fool so many voters.

If the voters know what is expected of a condidate in order to recieve party funding it would eliminate "dumbed down" definitions such as ; Democrats are "for the people" and Republicans are for "big buisness".

If all parties were forced to come up with 10 "core principals" all candidates were expected to agree to in order to recieve party funding, it would result in a more educated electorate.

Who could argue against that? (besides TPTB)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join