Republican purity test

[Ixiah]

There is a resolution in the RNC to eliminate the RINO's by not funding or endorsing the candidate if they differ with certain base platforms of the party. Anyway, Republicans be honest with yourself and see if you are a "true" republican or a RINO. You can only disagree with two items on the list below and still be "pure". I also put a poll up to see how people faired.

If your curious I'm not a Republican and scored 6.5 on that list (disagreeing with 2, 4, half of 7, and 9).

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/

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

[Maggie]

Yawn. Sorry, Ixiah. This “purity test” really doesn’t mean what this author hopes it means.

Articles like this represent a continuation of two themes: (1) There was an actual ideological realignment a year ago; and (2) there is a “civil war” within the Republican Party - the Republican Party is growing smaller and more ideologically pristine.

Both contentions have zero merit.

As soon as the election was over liberals and the media insisted that Mr. Obama was going to be FDR 2.0 and that this was the dawn of a new progressive era. Countless magazine articles and newspaper columns were dedicated to the idea we were poised for a “new New Deal.” Of particular note, Newsweek became so obsessed with Mr. Obama as a redeemer-saint-Jedi reincarnation of both FDR and Lincoln — and also the sexiest man alive — it’s a wonder the Secret Service didn’t issue a restraining order.

A true ideological realignment of the sort that people associate with the New Deal requires a massive move in the political center of gravity, with both the middle and the right moving leftward. There is absolutely zero evidence of anything like that at play. In fact, the middle has moved rightward and the right continues to hold its ground. The truth is that Obama’s signature issue in 2008 was also repeal — repeal of George W. Bush. He achieved that on Election Day. And now he is left looking for a mandate he never really had.

As for the so-called “civil war”, the most insistent claimants of a GOP civil war are those who have the most to gain by (mis)defining the party as extremist-excluders. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans, independents outnumber Democrats. Neither party can win without independents. Generally, independents tend to be more conservative on principle and policy, and do not see themselves or their beliefs through the progressive prism. Hence the need to pigeon hole all Republicans as wackos who require blood oaths of loyalty.

Although I am not registered as such, I tend to vote Republican because that party, generally speaking, better represents my view of the world. The true “tests” are primaries. And if you think for a moment that the national party will refuse to endorse or give funds to a candidate who scores a 7 on this “test”…well….that is just asinine. This is merely an attempt, by some members of the GOP, to distinguish their party from the Democratic Party. And also an overreaction to what happened in NY-23.

[SubGod22]

Yawn. Sorry, Ixiah. This “purity test” really doesn’t mean what this author hopes it means.

Articles like this represent a continuation of two of themes: (1) There was an actual ideological realignment a year ago; and (2) there is a “civil war” within the Republican Party - the Republican Party is growing smaller and more ideologically pristine.

Both contentions have zero merit.

As soon as the election was over liberals and the media insisted that Mr. Obama was going to be FDR 2.0 and that this was the dawn of a new progressive era. Countless magazine articles and newspaper columns were dedicated to the idea we were poised for a “new New Deal.” Of particular note, Newsweek became so obsessed with Mr. Obama as a redeemer-saint-Jedi reincarnation of both FDR and Lincoln — and also the sexiest man alive — it’s a wonder the Secret Service didn’t issue a restraining order.

A true ideological realignment of the sort that people associate with the New Deal requires a massive move in the political center of gravity, with both the middle and the right moving leftward. There is absolutely zero evidence of anything like that at play. In fact, the middle has moved rightward and the right continues to hold its ground. The truth is that Obama’s signature issue in 2008 was also repeal — repeal of George W. Bush. He achieved that on Election Day. And now he is left looking for a mandate he never really had.

As for the so-called “civil war”, the most insistent claimants of a GOP civil war are those who have the most to gain by (mis)defining the party as extremist-excluders. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans, independents outnumber Democrats. Neither party can win without independents. Generally, independents tend to be more conservative on principle and policy, and do not see themselves or their beliefs through the progressive prism. Hence the need to pigeon hole all Republicans as wackos who require blood oaths of loyalty.

Although I am not registered as such, I tend to vote Republican because that party, generally speaking, better represents my view of the world. The true “tests” are primaries. And if you think for a moment that the national party will refuse to endorse or give funds to a candidate who scores a 7 on this “test”…well….that is just asinine. This is merely an attempt, by some members of the GOP, to distinguish their party from the Democratic Party. And also an overreaction to what happened in NY-23.

:good:

[pogo]

Maggie,
I think you expressed my sentiments better than I could have. Thank you.

[1979Shocker]

For those who agreed with all 10 points, what programs would you cut in order to have a smaller government, lower deficits, and lower taxes?

Just curious. I have no idea.

I know the cost of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq could have paid for healthcare for the next 10 years.

The Cost of War

Incidentally, Reagan would have failed this purity test.

[Ixiah]

Yawn. Sorry, Ixiah. This “purity test” really doesn’t mean what this author hopes it means.

Can anybody translate that?

Articles like this represent a continuation of two themes: (1) There was an actual ideological realignment a year ago; and (2) there is a “civil war” within the Republican Party - the Republican Party is growing smaller and more ideologically pristine.

Both contentions have zero merit.

As soon as the election was over liberals and the media insisted that Mr. Obama was going to be FDR 2.0 and that this was the dawn of a new progressive era. Countless magazine articles and newspaper columns were dedicated to the idea we were poised for a “new New Deal.” Of particular note, Newsweek became so obsessed with Mr. Obama as a redeemer-saint-Jedi reincarnation of both FDR and Lincoln — and also the sexiest man alive — it’s a wonder the Secret Service didn’t issue a restraining order.

A true ideological realignment of the sort that people associate with the New Deal requires a massive move in the political center of gravity, with both the middle and the right moving leftward. There is absolutely zero evidence of anything like that at play. In fact, the middle has moved rightward and the right continues to hold its ground. The truth is that Obama’s signature issue in 2008 was also repeal — repeal of George W. Bush. He achieved that on Election Day. And now he is left looking for a mandate he never really had.

As for the so-called “civil war”, the most insistent claimants of a GOP civil war are those who have the most to gain by (mis)defining the party as extremist-excluders. Though Democrats outnumber Republicans, independents outnumber Democrats. Neither party can win without independents. Generally, independents tend to be more conservative on principle and policy, and do not see themselves or their beliefs through the progressive prism. Hence the need to pigeon hole all Republicans as wackos who require blood oaths of loyalty.

Although I am not registered as such, I tend to vote Republican because that party, generally speaking, better represents my view of the world. The true “tests” are primaries. And if you think for a moment that the national party will refuse to endorse or give funds to a candidate who scores a 7 on this “test”…well….that is just asinine. This is merely an attempt, by some members of the GOP, to distinguish their party from the Democratic Party. And also an overreaction to what happened in NY-23.

Fella, you are wayyyyy too serious. :roll:

[Maggie]

For those who agreed with all 10 points, what programs would you cut in order to have a smaller government, lower deficits, and lower taxes?

Just curious. I have no idea.

I know the cost of the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq could have paid for healthcare for the next 10 years.

The Cost of War

Incidentally, Reagan would have failed this purity test.

If we were not spending a trillion dollars prosecuting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we could pay for health-care. Seriously, you pick health-care but is there anything you couldn't finish that sentence with?

I didn’t cast a vote in the poll but do you really think Reagan would have “failed” the “purity” test?

[CharlieHog]

I'm a Republican and don't see how #8 fits into my philosophy on government at all.

[1979Shocker]

I didn’t cast a vote in the poll but do you really think Reagan would have “failed” the “purity” test?

GOP purity test would have banished Bush, Reagan

The latest trend in the Republican Party is an effort to weed out moderates -- witness New York Republicans' successful effort to oust their own candidate in an upstate House race, in preference for an independent conservative.

But a new GOP "purity test" named for Ronald Reagan moves the line even farther to the right, and a liberal website has found that the test -- if used in the past -- would have screened out President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush as viable conservatives.

[Maggie]

I didn’t cast a vote in the poll but do you really think Reagan would have “failed” the “purity” test?

GOP purity test would have banished Bush, Reagan

The latest trend in the Republican Party is an effort to weed out moderates -- witness New York Republicans' successful effort to oust their own candidate in an upstate House race, in preference for an independent conservative.

But a new GOP "purity test" named for Ronald Reagan moves the line even farther to the right, and a liberal website has found that the test -- if used in the past -- would have screened out President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush as viable conservatives.

Look the subject of this thread and this poll are worthless exercises. As an aside, according to the article you linked to the proposed resolution was drafted by a man who also formally suggested that the Democratic Party should be referred to as the “Democrat Socialist Party”. Of course, I’m sure he represents a majority in the Republican Party.

Notwithstanding, the article states that Reagan failed to abide by the first “guideline” because the deficit increased, the gasoline tax was raised and he bailed out Social Security during his eight years in office. Even if I were to concede this as a “failure” on Reagan’s part (which I don’t – I could make several counter-arguments especially about Social Security) he doesn’t fail the test.