PDA

View Full Version : GOP leaders split over proposed conservative litmus test


finnbow
01-27-2010, 03:11 PM
From today's WashPost, the GOP is in Hawaii arguing about whether to impose a "purity test" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702787.html?hpid=topnews) requirement for candidates. This is the one thing they could do to ensure that I would never vote for one of their candidates.

The argument boils down to whether they would win more votes (TeaBaggers) or lose more votes (Independents). I think they'd unquestionably lose more net voters as the TeaBaggers have nowhere else to go. What say you?

Fast_Eddie
01-27-2010, 03:17 PM
Dunno. As a Democrat, I hope they do it, so I guess my gut says they lose votes. I think it signals to people that they're more about idology than solving problems.

Intersting question- well, just took look at the article and they ask the same - looks like their man "42" wouldn't pass their test. I'd guess that puts a damper on the idea. They lust for power more than anything and to shun the man who gave it to them probably doesn't go over well.

noonereal
01-27-2010, 03:35 PM
From today's WashPost, the GOP is in Hawaii arguing about whether to impose a "purity test" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012702787.html?hpid=topnews) requirement for candidates.

Even considering this shows that they are marketing themselves to folks who should not be voting in the first place.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 03:36 PM
I think they're likely to do it. Their base will demand it. Their darlings now are Palin, Bachman, Wilson, and King (to say nothing of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh). Moderates like McCain and the Maine duo are not well thought of these days.

At a gut level I hope they do it but it'll leave a huge ideological void in the center and I don't know what will fill it.

[EDIT] I should add that this proposal has been floating around the Republican Party for months now. The fact that it hasn't been killed off yet is a strong indication of its support.

John

Boreas
01-27-2010, 03:37 PM
Even considering this shows that they are marketing themselves to folks who should not be voting in the first place.

No, everyone legally entitled should be able to - and do it. That's the only way to sort this mess out.

John

noonereal
01-27-2010, 03:43 PM
No, everyone legally entitled should be able to - and do it. That's the only way to sort this mess out.

John

I did not mean it literally but I do have serious concerns about everyone being allowed to vote.

I mean look at the McCain Palin offering. Something is wrong.

Boreas
01-27-2010, 03:48 PM
I did not mean it literally but I do have serious concerns about everyone being allowed to vote.

I mean look at the McCain Palin offering. Something is wrong.

And look at Coakley, Corzine and Deeds. Neither party has a monopoly on terrible candidates.

We need Howard Dean back. These Democratric candidates we're seeing since Obama took office are really, really awful! Thanks, Rahm!

John

finnbow
01-27-2010, 03:51 PM
I did not mean it literally but I do have serious concerns about everyone being allowed to vote.

I mean look at the McCain Palin offering. Something is wrong.

Yeh, but if we went back to only the "landed gentry" voting, the GOP would win without breaking a sweat (not to mention they wouldn't have to appeal to TeaBagger types for votes).

Grumpy
01-27-2010, 05:21 PM
Anyone who campaigns on a religious platform will not get my vote. End of story

noonereal
01-27-2010, 05:45 PM
Yeh, but if we went back to only the "landed gentry" voting, the GOP would win without breaking a sweat (not to mention they wouldn't have to appeal to TeaBagger types for votes).

that is exactly why I offer no solution, just complain:p

noonereal
01-27-2010, 05:46 PM
And look at Coakley, Corzine and Deeds. Neither party has a monopoly on terrible candidates.

We need Howard Dean back. These Democratric candidates we're seeing since Obama took office are really, really awful! Thanks, Rahm!

John

I agree

dean is the real deal

Boreas
01-27-2010, 06:53 PM
I agree

dean is the real deal

He knows how to get Democrats elected and real ones, not these Blue Dog DINOs that are screwing things up.

Harry Truman once said words to the effect that you can run real Democrats and they'll win but if you run a faux Democrats against a real Republican the Republican will win every time.

John

d-ray657
01-27-2010, 09:08 PM
Moderates like McCain

John

What is scary is what the definition of a moderate has become.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
01-27-2010, 10:28 PM
What is scary is what the definition of a moderate has become.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ain't it the truth!

John

d-ray657
01-28-2010, 04:51 AM
Before too long, those controlling the GOP will use moderate as a pejorative in the same way that uncle Ronnie used liberal. Each Republican gathering will have a mandatory vat of Koolaid. :eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
01-28-2010, 07:15 AM
Hope they get the Koolaid from the same place that religious freak bought his.

finnbow
01-29-2010, 09:44 PM
FYI, here's the text of the resolution (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/RNCReaganresolution.pdf).

The internal irony of a few items are obviously lost on the erudite authors.

To wit:

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views (on a friggin' litmus test document, go figure)

We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation (whether one supports it or not, Cap and Trade is market-based. That's the whole idea.)

We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military recommended troop surges (i.e., the Commander-in-Chief must always accept military recommendations, even if they conflict with recommendations of other members of the National Security Council or other Cabinet Departments - Military Intelligence trumps all)

We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat. (but we will only support effective action, retroactively of course)

Any moron who signs this needs to retake his 8th grade civics class and limit his political ambitions to Middle School student government.:p

d-ray657
01-29-2010, 11:01 PM
FYI, here's the text of the resolution (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/RNCReaganresolution.pdf).

The internal irony of a few items are obviously lost on the erudite authors.

To wit:

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views (on a friggin' litmus test document, go figure)

We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation (whether one supports it or not, Cap and Trade is market-based. That's the whole idea.)

We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military recommended troop surges (i.e., the Commander-in-Chief must always accept military recommendations, even if they conflict with recommendations of other members of the National Security Council or other Cabinet Departments - Military Intelligence trumps all)

We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat. (but we will only support effective action, retroactively of course)

Any moron who signs this needs to retake his 8th grade civics class and limit his political ambitions to Middle School student government.:p

I'm afraid that ilk relies upon the fact that far too few are capable of applying logic to any evaluation of politics. Moreover, a movement based on anger is unlikely to take the time to contemplate irony.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
01-29-2010, 11:57 PM
Right-Wing version of "Political Correctness". Nothing more, nothing less.

Dave

BlueStreak
01-30-2010, 12:25 AM
"WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views" - And if he did they obviously weren't listening.

Oh and I almost forgot, HEIL REAGAN!

These people are unbelieveable. A "Purity Test"? That alone should scare the living piss out of any sensible human being headed into a voting booth. What kind of brainwashed goofiness is this? I want leaders who are independent thinkers, but instead they are planning to give new party members a "Purity Test"? What sort of Orwellian nightmarish things must go on in their minds, I wonder? I suppose next, Republicans will have to submit to DNA testing before being nominated?

"Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? Get them up against the wall. That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me. Get him up against the wall. That one looks Jewish, and that ones a coon! Uproarious riff raff, into the room! There's one smoking a joint and another with spots! If I had my way, I'd have all them SHOT!"

Hmmmmm?

Dave

Boreas
01-30-2010, 12:30 AM
"Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? Get them up against the wall. That one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me. Get him up against the wall. That one looks Jewish, and that ones a coon! Uproarious riff raff, into the room! There's one smoking a joint and another with spots! If I had my way, I'd have all them SHOT!"

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall (of stupidity).

John

merrylander
01-30-2010, 07:17 AM
So what did you expect from these bozos? Did you honestly believe that there is one in the bunch capable of locating his/her arse with both hands? You really are asking a lot from a Republican.:rolleyes:

noonereal
01-30-2010, 07:44 AM
the entire thing is a joke