G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates
John Manning
They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
the Chinese Communist Party would make.
- - Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they �espouse
conservative principles and public policies� that are in opposition to
�Obama�s socialist agenda.�
According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the
party on three or more of these issues� in votes cast, public statements
made or answering a questionnaire � would be penalized by being denied
party funds or the party endorsement.
The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
members and was distributed Monday morning. They are asking for the
resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Reagan had said the
Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also
be open to diverse views. Reagan believed, the resolution notes, �that
someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
opponent.�
Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
support �smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,�
denial of government funding for abortion, and �victory in Iraq and
Afghanistan.� It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal
immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/
duke
>
>
>They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
>who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
>the Chinese Communist Party would make.
No, they just want to see the 'rats scurry around refusing.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
jcon
> They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
> who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
I thought you meant the other kind of "purity". I'd
like to see the Republicans try to back up their
"family values" and "traditional marriage"
bullshit by refusing to back any candidate,
who had had a divorce, affair, been convicted
of a crime, etc.
I certainly won't hold my breath for *that*, though.
-jc
> - - Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
> Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse
> conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to
> “Obama’s socialist agenda.”
>
> According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the
> party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements
> made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied
> party funds or the party endorsement.
>
> The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
> members and was distributed Monday morning. They are asking for the
> resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
>
> The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Reagan had said the
> Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also
> be open to diverse views. Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that
> someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
> opponent.”
>
> Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
> the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
> support “smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,”
> denial of government funding for abortion, and “victory in Iraq and
> Afghanistan.” It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal
> immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
>
> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-re...
Lord Calvert
> Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
> the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
> support “smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,”
Will they be explaining why they didn't support these things when they
had control of the White House, and a majority in Congress and Supreme
Court from 2001-2006? Perhaps if they had actually stood for smaller
government and smaller national deficits when they were in control,
they would still be there.
Today's Republicans only support limited-government conservatism when
the Dems are in power. When they're unopposed they spend more
frivolously than New York crack whore with a stolen credit card.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phychology
"The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the
liberals' abiding faith in government. 'Power corrupts, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.' Today it is liberals, not conservatives,
who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives
have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as
government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or
to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to
suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or
without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to
invade other countries based on unverified assertions. There is
nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative
is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts
conservative." - Paul Craig Roberts, Asst. Secy. of the Treasury under
Reagan, November 2004
coaste...@yahoo.com
> who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
> - - Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
> conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to
> “Obama’s socialist agenda.”
>
> According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the
> made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied
> party funds or the party endorsement.
>
> The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
> members and was distributed Monday morning. They are asking for the
> resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
>
> The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Reagan had said the
> Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also
> someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
>
> Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
> the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
> denial of government funding for abortion, and “victory in Iraq and
> immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
>
We Democrats welcome the Republican initiative. It will keep the GOP
out of power for at least a generation. Obama will be seen as the
political FDR of our times. Too bad he can't run for four terms.
Joe Bruno
> On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
> > who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> > the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
> I thought you meant the other kind of "purity". I'd
> like to see the Republicans try to back up their
> "family values" and "traditional marriage"
> bullshit by refusing to back any candidate,
> who had had a divorce, affair, been convicted
> of a crime, etc.
>
> I certainly won't hold my breath for *that*, though.
>
> -jc
You're too stupid to know how to hold your breath.
>
>
>
> > - - Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
> > Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse
> > conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to
> > “Obama’s socialist agenda.”
>
> > According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the
> > party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements
> > made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied
> > party funds or the party endorsement.
>
> > The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
> > members and was distributed Monday morning. They are asking for the
> > resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
>
> > The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Reagan had said the
> > Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also
> > be open to diverse views. Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that
> > someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
> > opponent.”
>
> > Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
> > the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
> > support “smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,”
> > denial of government funding for abortion, and “victory in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan.” It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal
> > immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
>
> >http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-re...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
coaste...@yahoo.com
> The Dukester, American-American
.
Oh, you're a "ster", are you, self-decorated? That means you're really
unique, right? As in not only "Duke" but Duke plus "ster".
You're more American than the rest of us, eh? Where did you get that
idea, idiot? From the people who asked you to give up whatever
independent thought processes you might ever have had? From people who
encourage you to pose as a patriot so long as you equate it with THEIR
politics? Look, jerk, there is nothing right wing about love of
country.
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
This stupid, sectarian attitude (Yes, Pope Paul, both stupid and
sectarian) leaves people with even minimal comprehension in a no-
prayer position. Indulging it alongside you as a co-religionist would
be just too disgusting. It also leaves the readership with an even
greater understanding of the deceit inherent in wrapping oneself in
the flag, perhaps especially one of a foreign country. People who brag
about their patriotism are almost never the real thing. Those who pay
the price inherent in it never brag about it.
Logan Sacket
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
>who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
>the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
>
>- - Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
>Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they �espouse
>conservative principles and public policies� that are in opposition to
>�Obama�s socialist agenda.�
>
>According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the
>party on three or more of these issues� in votes cast, public statements
>made or answering a questionnaire � would be penalized by being denied
>party funds or the party endorsement.
>
>The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
>members and was distributed Monday morning. They are asking for the
>resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
>
>The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Reagan had said the
>Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also
>be open to diverse views. Reagan believed, the resolution notes, �that
>someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his
>opponent.�
>
>Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
>the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
>support �smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,�
>denial of government funding for abortion, and �victory in Iraq and
>Afghanistan.� It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal
>immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.
>
>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/
>
>
It makes it less likely to have RINO's leading the country.
SkyEyes
> On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
> > who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> > the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
> I thought you meant the other kind of "purity". I'd
> like to see the Republicans try to back up their
> "family values" and "traditional marriage"
> bullshit by refusing to back any candidate,
> who had had a divorce, affair, been convicted
> of a crime, etc.
I had the same though, but was wondering where they'd find anyone who
was "pure" enough.
Then I read John's article, and found it was about *ideological*
purity.
What a let-down.
> I certainly won't hold my breath for *that*, though.
Me neither.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Lord Calvert
> On Nov 23, 3:15 pm, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
> > > who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> > > the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>
> > I thought you meant the other kind of "purity". I'd
> > like to see the Republicans try to back up their
> > "family values" and "traditional marriage"
> > bullshit by refusing to back any candidate,
> > who had had a divorce, affair, been convicted
> > of a crime, etc.
>
> I had the same though, but was wondering where they'd find anyone who
> was "pure" enough.
>
> Then I read John's article, and found it was about *ideological*
> purity.
>
> What a let-down.
Their "ideological purity" is: "Laws are for other people. We make the
law. We're not expected to have it apply to us."
Just aristocracy by another name.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:yPidndX_0dyznpbW...@giganews.com:
>
>
> They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
> who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
> the Chinese Communist Party would make.
There's a reason for "red" being the republican color.
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Hey, GOPpers: Grab a Mop!
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:0ad1d1d6-a2cf-4e03...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 23, 2:15�pm, jcon <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 3:48�pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>
>> > They're seriously considering a 'purity' test to decide
>> > who gets money and endorsements. Sounds like a requirement
>> > the Chinese Communist Party would make.
>>
>> I thought you meant the other kind of "purity". �I'd
>> like to see the Republicans try to back up their
>> "family values" and "traditional marriage"
>> bullshit by refusing to back any candidate,
>> who had had a divorce, affair, been convicted
>> of a crime, etc.
>>
>> I certainly won't hold my breath for *that*, though.
>
> You're too stupid to know how to hold your breath.
Coming from you, Cap'n Shortbus, that's rich. You need to loosen the
chin-strap on your helmet, son.
Teresita
wrote:
> There's a reason for "red" being the republican color.
As in "red ink", $4.33 trillion under W. alone.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/