_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Welcome to the 1st Fundamentalist Reformed Church Of Republicanism

And once again, Republicans decide to eat their young:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(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

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

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Sponsors:
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

 

It simply astounds me that Republicans have allowed the ideologues to take over their party.

It utterly appalls me that those selfsame hypocritical parasites, the fanatical rightwing ideologues just in case I’m not being clear here, continue to refer to themselves as “the party of Lincoln.”

I strongly suspect that Abraham Lincoln would have spit in Jim Bopp’s face – or more likely given him a good old fashioned thrashing, something the 16th President was fully capable of doing. I strongly suspect that any group of people who could pen and approve and seriously consider the kind of fanatical, almost religiously, exclusionary ideology embodied in the above resolution wouldn’t have been on the same side of the fence as Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt would have walloped the tar and feathers out of these fanatics, mostly likely without working up a sweat – but then again the hard line rightwing RNC considered old TR a heretical Progressive and a party traitor - a designation Teedee* was proud of – and they probably would consider Lincoln the same, if they actually bothered to learn anything about him.

The resolution above is being circulated within the Republican National Committee. Sponsored by ten senior members of the committee and penned by committeeman Jim Bopp, the resolution will be submitted for discussion and vote at the Republican Party’s Winter Meeting in Hawaii.

This proposed resolution was supposed to be a secret, but somebody leaked it to the media.  There’s a certain amount of chagrin going on over that –  even these loons are a little embarrassed to have their secret fanaticism exposed, they still retain just enough shreds of sanity to know how it sounds and they’d prefer to have a fait accompli before the majority of conservatives find out that their party has been turned into a fundamentalist religion. 

This really isn’t a new concept for the fanatical far right conservatives who have hijacked the Grand Old Party, they’re big on loyalty tests and solemn oaths of fealty to their ideology. These are the same folks who wanted republican voters to sign a loyalty pledge during presidential primaries and they are the same batch of jackasses who make up moronic groups like the Oath Keepers and who like to elicit celibacy and virginity pledges from their kids – how’s that working out for you by the way?

The ten items listed above are being called the GOP’s core principles for the 2010 election cycle by party fanatics such as Bopp, who feels that such a resolution is necessary to codify who is and who is not a true Conservative, and who will and who will not be considered an enemy of the Party and America. One assumes that he is angling to head up the Politburo when the Neocons finally do manage to take back the country for real American Jesuspeople.

I don’t know about you, when I hear hacks speak about Party Purity and a litmus test to determine who and who is not a true believer and an American, I get a cold chill right down my spine and the small hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I find myself dangerously close to invoking the ire of Godwin’s Law.  The similarities to historical examples of other fanatical and uncompromising political ideologies is striking: a small group of extreme hardliners moving further and further from the middle, defining themselves by rigid core principles that only they control, an abiding hatred for the current administration and a consuming passion to bring it down by any means including lies and deception and a firm belief that the ends justify the means, representing only a small fraction of the population but telling themselves that they are the only true [insert appropriate national identity here], telling themselves that only purity will save their party, belief in the righteousness of their actions and a sense of destiny, listing those that they hate, and vilification of everyone who does not share their ideology.  The first step is always purging themselves of moderate and dissenting voices. They turn on themselves ridding their party of perceived weakness and the faithless, then when they seize power they turn on the rest of their population rooting out the undesirables and those designated as scapegoats for whatever perceived ills the country is suffering, then they turn on the world – They may not start out that way, but they almost always end up that way. Those other movements all eventually self destructed, but not before they did tremendous and horrifying damage. 

But it always begins with a small group of fanatics, secretly scheming in the beerhalls and the darkened backrooms of power.

RNC leaders feel that something like this “Purity Test” is necessary after NY23, the special election in New York where the RNC stabbed its own party candidate right in the eye, called her a traitor, backed the independent frothy lunatic candidate instead, and got its ass handed to it by the Democrats when the voters told the GOP to fuck right off.  Rather than learn a lesson from this, or from their resounding defeat on the national stage during last year’s presidential elections or their defeat during the previous Congressional election cycle, the RNC has decided to double down on its ideology and pull even further to the hard right – this is yet another primary indicator of fanaticism. These people have no intention of sharing power with anybody, they have no intention of compromising their ideology – most especially they have no intention of seeking a middle ground within their own party. They don’t represent traditional conservatives, as NY23 demonstrated, and this enrages fanatics like Bopp who cannot think beyond his utter hatred for Barack Obama and the reviled Liberals who he sees as traitors and enemies – and this is also typical of fanatics, they must always have something or someone to hate – and he intends to get rid of anyone not as fanatical as he is.  This group of ten intends to impose their ideology on the entire party. They intend to purge the Republican Party of moderates and those they see as weaklings, like Dede Scozzafava, and then they intend to turn traditional conservative values and guidelines into a fanatical ideological belief system.

Their strategy can be summed up in the ominous words of one of their spiritual leaders, i.e. you’re either with us, or you’re against us.

These people are making their political beliefs a fundamentalist religion.

And like any extremist religion, they demand blindly obedient adherents that are utterly incapable of compromise and of seeing the hypocrisy inherent in their belief system – and, in point of fact, will deny that there is any flaw in their beliefs.  They demand loyalty, but give none in return – as Scozzafava found out when she was branded a heretic and promptly excommunicated. They demand compromise and submission from all but yield nothing in return, theirs is the ultimate arrogance. There is no room within the party’s fundamental ideology for those who would compromise with non-believers, with moderates, or progressives.

It’s hard to understand how a rational educated adult could write something like this resolution, even as a rough draft. Read it through again, dispassionately, as if you were grading a high school English paper and you’ll see what I mean.  It appears to be a random and incomplete assemblage of ideas culled from rightwing militia websites – and it’s obvious that it is driven by a number of inherent obsessions, rather than a logical and comprehensive structuring of ideals.

1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes…

OK. It starts out by stating a well established conservative plank. And if the sentence contained a metric to provide values for the concepts of “smaller” and “lower” it would be ok, but it doesn’t. Rather the stated core value is really “by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.” Not expensive bills per se. Not government spending. Not even stimulus bills, but rather Obama’s “stimulus bill.”   The resolution mentions Obama by name twice, not liberals or liberal or moderate or progressive ideas, but President Obama specifically – rather an odd thing for a policy position, isn’t it? We only want folks who hate Barack Obama the man and will oppose him at every step, we don’t want people in Congress who represent the will of their constituents, or who decide the issues based on the merits of each – no, we will only support candidates for office who absolutely hate Obama and will oppose anything and everything proposed by the opposition based solely on ideology and nothing else, no matter what.

In fact, there are a number of very odd words and turns of phrase in this list (see? Feel that cold chill on your neck?)

Now, Bopp led off with this and it’s obviously very, very important to him and the other fanatics whose names appear on the resolution. Small government, small national debt, low deficit, low taxes – these are traditional planks of the Republican Party and goals I can heartily agree with – except, how does that square with

(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;

How do we get to smaller government with smaller debt and deficit and lower taxes by massively increasing the size of the border patrol and the INS and those agencies that inspect workplaces and enforce the laws and detain and process  the illegals and return them to the border? How do we get smaller, cheaper government by increasing the administrative and legal functions? How do we get smaller government and lower taxes by increasing the size of the Army and sending 40,000 more troops overseas? Those guys don’t just pick up and go, you know, they need administrative support and in-country facilities and support contracts and equipment and food and supplies and transport and hundreds of other things, all of which require contractors and bureaucrats and administrators and communications and systems and money, gobs and gobs of money. How do we get lower taxes by continuing to fight on multiple fronts? (Pillaging? The army is required to support itself the way Roman Legions did maybe? Foraging? Farming perhaps?). How much money is the RNC willing to spend on “effective action” in North Korea and Iran and how will that “effective action” reduce the size and expense of government? How do we get less government interference in our lives by letting it decide who can get married and who can’t and by having two “separate but equal” systems for domestic or married partnerships?  I guess it’s in the wording “we support,” we didn’t say we were going to do it, just that we support the idea – during election years especially.

(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;

Huh?  What market-based healthcare reforms?  What market-based energy reforms? No really, I’m not joking, what the hell are they talking about here?  It’s like some kind of mystical belief system with these people – the ancient godlike invisible power of unregulated capitalism will cure all if we only perform the proper rituals and sacrifices. It’s like a belief in the superiority of the Aryan ideal or that Communism will bring about a universal middle class or that the sky gods will make it rain if we only slaughter enough sheep on the alter. It’s the market that currently leaves 47,000,000 Americans without healthcare and is charging them over $3 at the pump. I’m curious, where can I download a copy of the Exxon and Blue Cross/Blue Shield Health and Energy Reform Bill? 

Does the RNC support market-based equal rights and freedom like Lincoln did? Oh wait, that’s not right.

Does the RNC support market based reform for Wall Street?

Here’s a question, how about market-based marriage reform? How about market-based abortion reform? No?

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

So, the RNC supports workers’ rights to choose and opposes a “card check” BUT requires a purity test and oath of loyalty from its own people and requires them to vote the way it says or it excommunicates them from the Church of Republicanism?  Will the GOP order States to change National election ballots so that registered Republicans here in Alaska can vote for whoever they want no matter what the party? No?

Excuse me, Mr Bopp, could you please pass me that big bowl of utter fucking hypocrisy right there? Thanks.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society…

Just as long as they don’t run for President, eh?

…by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

So, what is the plan then? Shoot ‘em? Or keep hiring them as your nannies and sex slaves and cheap labor? I don’t care, I just like to know what we’re doing is all. Here’s an idea, how about market-based immigration reform? Really, think about it.

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

So, anybody who doesn’t support a troop surge, including the troops, doesn’t support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Or should I read that as you only support victory if it is achieved through a troop surge? If victory is achieved via another strategy do you oppose it?  May I assume that defeat is totally out of the question? Is the key point ‘military recommended’ because I’m military and I’d like to recommend we get the fuck out.  Really, please explain the purpose of this policy position, is it victory? Is it a troop surge? (which will have been long resolved one way or the other by 2010 you idiots. In fact Obama is announcing his plan Friday) Or is it the fact that you will only support recommendations for victory if they originate in the military? And will you support any recommendations from the military? Because I’d like to recommend a pay raise, better benefits, and you let us decide what we need equipment-wise instead of voting for more useless shit simply because it’s built in your district.  Hello? Is this thing on?

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Please explain “effective action” and please contrast it against the ineffective actions of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush The Lesser.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Yes, of course you do.

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

Please explain how denying 47,000,000 Americans access to health insurance protects the lives of “vulnerable persons.” Please explain how taking campaign contributions from the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry supports those same vulnerable persons.  Please explain how excommunicating moderate republicans who advocate universal access to healthcare supports vulnerable persons. Please explain how consistently fighting against healthcare reform since the fucking Clinton administration opposes denial of healthcare.  Also, you have abortion on the brain, please explain how allowing hundreds of thousands of pregnant women and children to go without healthcare, a significant number of which will sicken and die from preventable conditions, solely in order to make sure a handful of women don’t get an abortion is moral, ethical, or in keeping with your stated policy position of supporting vulnerable persons, i.e. please explain how one aborted fetus equals one hundred living babies – I assume that’s creation science math.

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

What about the other nine rights defined in the Bill of Rights? Do you support those too? No, I suppose not, you’d have a hard time squaring those with the rest of your policy positions, wouldn’t you?  As to the 2nd Amendment, do you support all of it, or only the part after the second comma?  See the whole thing reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That part about “well regulated” do you support that?  Or just the part where you get to buy guns and carry them to the President’s speeches? What about American citizens like US Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan? Did you support his right to keep and bear arms? Did you oppose government restrictions on his right to buy arms? Would you defend his right to the death? No, I guess not. Please explain exactly whose unrestricted right to keep and bear arms you are referring to.  Also, please explain why you support a litmus test to join your party, but none for buying a fucking gun. Truly, I look forward to your reply.

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

Three? Any three? Can I support Cap and Trade, be Pro-Choice, and profess my love for Obama and still get your support? What if I’m a flaming homosexual atheist, but I support all ten, will you throw your weight behind me then (pun most certainly intended) and give me money? (Or will you only do that in airport restrooms?) You didn’t mention global climate change specifically, can I expect your support if I champion Al Gore but oppose Cap and Trade?

RESOLVED that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

So, the RNC is issuing ultimatums now?  No vote? No voice of the people? No majority rule? The RNC simply dictates policy, and the people fall in line, eh? Say, Mr Bopp, any of that hypocrisy left? Or did you eat it all up? Please take some and pass it on around the table to rest of your friends.

Seriously, even as a draft, this resolution looks like it was penned by ten year olds – or insane religious fanatics.

Here’s the thing, the vast majority of conservatives are not insane, not fanatics, and won’t support this nonsense if they truly knew what was going on. Conservatives don’t need to take back the country, they need to take back their party. They need to toss these idiots out of office sooner, rather than later, before they destroy themselves and this country. Conservatives need to return to their party’s traditional pre-Reagan ideals and salvage what’s left of the once great party of Lincoln. 

They need moderation. They need to ease away from the edge and move towards the center.  They need to build bridges and seek common ground.

They need better leaders.

May I suggest they start with Dede Scozzafava?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Roosevelt hated the nickname “Teddy” and preferred either “TR” or his boyhood family nickname of “Teedee.”  History however, has indelibly labeled him as Teddy.

17 comments:

  1. Look, I'm as pro-free market as it gets while still staying within the bounds of rationality. You know what I do for a living, and you know I know what I'm talking about when I say that there is no totally "market based" solution for healthcare of the poor.

    Markets can only work when substitutions can be made and people can do without. When you get sick, you can either use medicine or medicine. There is no alternative.

    Insurance markets only work when some people wind up not using the insurance - and the premiums from those people make up for those who do need it. This works with auto accidents, it works with fires. But everyone, I mean everyone, gets sick. That's the whole reason that health insurers are so draconian about pre-existing conditions. Their actuaries have the balance of income versus disbursements down to an art, and adding mroe sick people can wreck the balance in short order. The average policy cost, assuming that the current number of really sick individuals stays the same, is around $30K. Most people can't afford that. There has to be some subsidy.

    That being said, costs are going to rise. I'm in favor of pretty aggressive cost containment. My company reduces my premiums if I engage in certain behaviors that are verified - if I exercise, keep my weight down and don't smoke. I'd like to see that actually become mandatory.

    Some of these other planks I can agree with, some not. But I have a real problem with the ideological purity aspect. I'm in the party really only to vote in the primaries, as they don't hold to my libertarian principles much anymore (I held my nose and voted for a liberal Democrat in the last Rep race because the GOP incumbent was handing out pork like Hormel and the GOP in the area needed a wakeup call).

    The GOP is a good example of how when you get a bunch of people in a room who generally agree with one another, it's the fanatics who drive the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can either use medicine or medicine

    I love that line, John.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nick from the O.C. - Founder of the Wine and Cheese PartyNovember 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM

    (1) We support smarter government, paying down the national debt,and eliminating the Anti-Deficiency Act in favor of multi-year budgeting based on actual dollars spent, not headcount;

    (2) We support immediate reforms to Medicare and Medicaid programs, including means-testing and health insurance reform, so that all citizens have an opportunity to be covered by health insurance for catastrophic illness and disease prevention;

    (3) We support a national energy policy that aims to move the country off its addiction to foreign oil and invests in the technology to do so;

    (4) We support putting citizens to work and giving them the right to bargain collectively if it is their choice to do so;

    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by funding "welcome centers" and other means of making those people already here productive and taxpaying citizens of this melting pot of a country;

    (6) We support victory in the war against para-statial entities that want to harm us, preferably by diplomacy or economic sanctions, acting in collaboration with the UN, but ultimately by whatever means the Commander-in-Chief deems necessary, as approved by Congress;

    (7) We support progress in the containment of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, preferably by diplomacy or economic sanctions, acting in collaboration with the UN;

    (8) We support the right of adult citizens to enter into marriage contracts, preferably as a couple;

    (9) We support the right of adult citizens to choose whether or not to have an abortion from a licensed medical doctor, and to choose whether or not to ask for assistance from a licensed medical doctor to their lives; and

    (10) We support the Bill of Rights as they have heretofore been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States; ...

    FTFY

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only thing I would add, Nick, is a modification to #4, ...and we fully support the right of a worker to NOT be part of organized labor if he or she so chooses.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim - well done. (And too funny - I was actually looking over on Eric's blog for this one after I left my RSS feed - are you channeling him, or him you?)

    I have a silly and naive question about life in a representative democracy (i.e. republic). Aren't our elected representatives supposed to support the will of their constituents with their voite, rather than their cult/political party?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jeri: I refer you to a comment I made earlier on Jim's most recent post regarding the health care insanity:

    When this particular bunch of fundie neocons says 'the people' or anything similar they mean 'People who are like us', i.e. straight white upper-class neoconservative fundamentalist christians. Anyone else is misguided at best, or a commie liberal subversive out to destroy everything America stands for at worst... And either way, they don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Am I the only one who thinks that these nutjubs are cutting their own throats with this nonsense?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I may have to think about this a little because my first reaction is "Yay Republicans!" I hope they take a hard line like this and then start tossing out anyone who doesn't line up in lock-step with them. I like that they define themselves, not by what they support, but by what (and who) they oppose.

    Eventually (hopefully sooner than later), I'm confident this will all result in the Republican Party completely fracturing. And then we might actually get a viable third party.

    Who knows? Maybe the Dems will follow suit and give us a fourth or even fifth party.

    Note: I'm really tired of having only two choices in every election (who define themselves solely by their opposition to each other). OTOH, I'd hate to see things so fractured that we start to need coalition governments to get anything done. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well where it's SOP.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, Janiece, you're not. I generally think the problem with the two-party system is that each party gets in power by sucking up to the middle -- and then, once it is in power, it panders to its base, with the ultimate result that it gets kicked out when the other party seems more reasonable. The Republicans could gain substantial ground in 2010 if they moved more toward the center. Staking out a position on the far right fringe is going to force voters to vote democratic ... or (even more likely) not vote at all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jeri, no actually, I like the fact that reps can use their judgment and not go lock-step with the majority of people who voted them in if, because they are privy to better information, they decide to change their minds or go with their conscience. Otherwise we'd to everything by plebiscite, and you know how well that worked for Poland - they got beat by the Czar, the Austrians and the French :D

    Seriously that is the whole point of a representative deomcracy with defined terms - they can do what they want for a while, then we get to decide on their merits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I tend to believe that if a group exists as a group, there has to be a reason for their group existence, ie. common platform. Otherwise what is purpose of being a group. If there is not a base of similar beliefs there is no sense in them being a group, they're just a gaggle of folks who wear the same t-shirt slogans.

    I believe that both Republicans and Democrats should definitively outline their belief systems and require members to adhere to their by-laws for the sake of the public knowing what they are getting when they vote someone in.

    If they voted Obama in thinking they were getting an FDR folks may feel duped, likewise if McCain had won because they thought he was a Reagan they certainly would have been duped.

    So I say go for it politicos. State your goals and perspective clearly. Those who want to be in a group but don't like what those two groups espouse, start your own group. If the public likes your values you will get elected. If not, obscurity remains your bedfellow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Basil, there has been a common platform. What's happening here is the continuing hijacking of the party by the social conservatives that was initiated by Reagan's deal with them. It's now that they feel they're entitled to the party.

    As to the whole "just set up your own party," it's a red herring. For a party to be successful it needs to grow from the bottom up. First you need to win local elections, then statewide, the national. If people believe the two parties have a lock on national offices through the election laws, they haven't seen anything when it comes to local and statewide control by those parties. And then there's the matter of finances and coordination. The two parties also hold a lock on that as well.

    This is why those few Representatives and Senators who break with the standard parties choose "Independent" than some other affiliation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't agree with the idea that conservatives are hijacking the Republican party. Anymore than the idea that social liberals have hijacked the Democrats. If a majority of members choose to define the party in a particular fashion that is what party will be seen as.

    If, on the other hand, social conservatives actually represent only a minority of the party then their definition of the party is based primarily on public perception as created and fed by the media through which the public is informed. It is not only the party that defines itself in public perception, but their opponents who seek to force a definition on them for their own ends.

    Is it right to assume that all Democrats are social liberals because that is the way they go on the votes, in spite of the fact that social conservatives like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman had been among their number until recently? Or could it be said that social liberals hijacked the Democrat part and forced out men like Lieberman who wouldn't tow their line.

    Political parties are fluid creatures based upon the belief systems of the majority of members within their group. The parties accepted beliefs change based on their membership, and the general popularity of their views among the population.

    The Republican party itself was a grassroots offshoot of the Whig party. They came into being because the Whigs weren't firm enough on slavery. Throughout their history Republicans have been supporters of social conservatism (emancipation, prohibition, entreprenuership). Certain individuals through the history of the party have not held to such views, Coolidge, Nixon and recently Bush II for instance, but as in all of those cases they failed. I believe that failure was due to their lack of maintaining a grasp of the core values of the Republican ideal that had lead voters to put them into office.

    Anyway, that's a lot to say. This is Jim's blog not mine, so I'll try not to be so long winded.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You're welcome to be as long winded as you like. I'm always happy when a post leads to thoughtful and interesting conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seriously, even as a draft, this resolution looks like it was penned by ten year olds – or insane religious fanatics.

    There's a difference?

    /rimshot

    On a slightly more serious note, I'm glad this leaked to the public, and I also hope like hell it gets accepted verbatim. It's about time the Republicans purged themselves of these insane 10 year old religious fanatics, once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Basil, I'm singing "One of these things is not like the other." You've made facile logic comparisons. The Democratic party has had Blue Dogs and Yellow Dogs for quite some time now. Republicans have been holding RINO hunts since the mid 90s. At one point the conservative media tried to instill the specter of DINOs, but you can see how far that philosophy went (flew like a lead balloon).

    I only need to point to the current legislative schedules and votes in the current federal congress and senate to demonstrate the difference in ideological sway between the parties. That one republican crossed the aisle to vote for health care reform (or any democratic sponsored initiative of any substance) he became the subject of nation news stories. However, quite often, Democratic members cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans.

    So, uh, which party again has been side lined by their fringe?

    And just as a personal history lesson, I was a registered republican until I saw how Bush Sr. behaved in office. It was then I realized that the social conservatives had hijacked the party. If Nixon were to run now, he wouldn't be accepted by the Republican Party. That some of the current initiatives are labeled "socialist" show just how far to the right the Republican Party has drug our country since Reagan's presidency. Back in the 70s much of these policies would be considered centrist.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well Steve, one thing is for certain: regardless of what we see today, it will not be the same after a few tomorrows. Everything changes, good or bad, better or worse. Whether we like it or not. We just have to tighten abs and get ready for the gut punch, no way out of it.

    I am pretty certain that by the time my youngest graduates from college in fifteen years he will be voting in a totally different atmosphere than I am, probably even an extra party or two as well.

    Heck, I'd be surprised if the Soviets weren't back on the scene by then and the focus of our government was right back to where it was under Reagan.

    In the meantime, I'm just going to be chatting away and trying to figure it all out. Which reminds me...I'm going on the air at Blogtalkradio.com in about an hour (2pm EST) with my new talkshow Basil's Weekly News Review. We probably won't talk party politics too much, but it will be fun anyway. And I am doing Jim's Turkey Day at the Palin's skit as a segment. Give a listen if you like that sort'a thing.

    ReplyDelete

Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.