ankhara99 wrote: 

You know I could say something about these . . . and I probably will . . . but just posting to say sorry I missed you popping in here! 

 Ok. Just one.  Does No. 6 involve the elimination of the position of Commander in Chief?  

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates

< type="text/javascript"><>

Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party.

Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP's recent loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens.

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney, initiated the resolution, saying that "conservatives have lost trust in the Republican party." Bopp Jr., who floated a failed proposal earlier this year demanding that Democrats rename their party the "Democrat Socialist Party," was joined by 10 RNC co-sponsors. The group says they cited Ronald Reagan in naming the resolution because the former president said that "someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent." The ten guidelines, distributed to RNC members in recent weeks, are as follows:

(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;

Predictably, the proposed resolution has elicited derision from all corners of the political spectrum, including the right wing. In criticizing the proposal, conservative blogger Erick Erickson says that Republicans "risk giving liberal candidates easy opportunities to get conservative endorsements simply by checking the box without ever meaning it," adding that the measure is essentially hollow because the "GOP cannot live up to its own platform adopted at a national convention, it sure as heck won't live up to any pledge put forward by a group of RNC committeemen."

Meanwhile, liberal blogger Steve Benen wonders if Reagan himself would even pass the 80% threshold mandated by the resolution bearing his name, noting that Reagan "voted for several tax increases, began the modern era of massive federal debt, ran huge deficits, and approved an immigration measure the far-right still resents."

However, not everyone finds fault with it. A Republican strategist and former Bush White House official, who asked to remain anonymous, told Yahoo! News that the resolution "bodes well" because "Republicans are continuing to discuss policy positions and principles," adding "this should not be treated as a purge document - as the media is portraying it - but more of a document for discussion as Republicans attempt to rebuild the party in 2010."

Despite the debate that it's already inspired, whether or not the resolution even gets voted on by the RNC's membership remains up in the air. A spokeswoman for RNC Chairman Michael Steele told The Wall Street Journal that until the deadline for submitting resolutions for the party's winter meeting is reached, "we do not know what resolutions will be submitted, nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be."

— Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog

 

 hippiechick wrote: 

Ok, D,

Serious question,

What is wrong in calling Obama a Socialist ?  Forget the other two, they are not valid.  But what is wrong with being a Socialist ? 

I have long called Bush the most Socialist President in the history of this country.  He implemented more socialist actions into government than any before him put together.  Or is it unfair to Bush to call him a Socialist ?  Bush was never a conservative, at least in my opinion.  And to blame him on conservatives is a tremendous disservice to conservatives, again in my opinion.  Bush was straight out of the Woodrow Wilson school, but no one saw it coming.  Anyway, eh ?

 hippiechick wrote: 

Nice to see you too, Mz. D!
You've gotten me all confused. I thought we were commenting on tasteless bumper stickers, internet slogans, and anger...but now we're on to tv personalities encouraging violence, name calling, and getting reelected(?).
I sit around and watch news all night, well,...at least until the Monkey's homework is done and he's off to bed. I watch Fox, CNN, CNNi, BBC, CCTV and listen to NPR while on the road. I've never been under the impression that someone was stoking me towards violence by virtue of any of them reporting the news or even expressing their opinion on world or political matters,...ever!  So I'm not too sure what you mean when you say "Gang mentality to encourage violence whould never be acceptable", it just doesn't happen on my TV. I do see lots of angst, finger-pointing, sniping, and ill will from various pundits, hosts, guests, etc. from both sides of any issue that certainly may get some viewers dander up but again....that can come from either Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann. And just for the record...I personally believe that both Glenn and Keith believe everything they say and that they believe that they're legit, heroic, and patriotic.

 phineas wrote: 
That scene still brings a tear to my eye.



I stole it.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
Hi MD, nice to see you!

It's one thing to criticize the pres and his policies, it's another thing to accuse him of being a Socialist, Communist, or Hitler. It is irresponsible for tv personalities to spew this kind of hatred. For as much as we libs hated the actions of the Bush Admin (and not to say that there weren't nuts out there) I can't say that I ever heard anyone on tv use this kind of hateful rhetoric.

Gang mentality to encourage violence should never be acceptable. I doubt these guys like Glenn Beck even believe what they say. Limbaugh has admitted that his one and only belief is the Almighty Dollar. They don't seem to recognize the damage they are doing.

If angry people are encouraged by the mainstream media (and, with their viewership, Fox is definitely mainstream) to act out, these angry delusional people think that their feelings are legit and even heroic.

So, for one thing, I think that these personalities need to stop thinking about their ratings and getting reelected, and the money, and be responsible for what they say.

 Coaxial wrote: 

 Monkeysdad wrote: 

Dueling would be nice...Pay per view...You are talking money maker.

 MsJudi wrote: 
So what do you suggest we do?

 Beaker wrote: 



pragma

 MsJudi wrote: 
I agree Judi.....what's most upsetting to me are the talking heads who are actively, purposely inflaming people, without a clear agenda other than "they're bad, we're good....now go get 'em!"  There are enough REAL problems in our country right now, and inciting people to violence (carrying guns into town meetings for crying out loud ?!?!!  ) is NOT the answer.   Anger is OK, violence is NOT.

 phineas wrote: 
Bring me that icepick & have Beaker sit in this chair, and I'll show you how it works.

 Monkeysdad wrote: 
Let's not confuse anger with violence. I'm angry at the lies, wars and financial ruin forced onto us by a puppet administration. I'm not, however, violent. The fact is, some angry people are violent, too, and if we don't take any of them seriously, we're buying trouble.

 OlderThanDirt wrote: 
      

 hippiechick wrote: 
There are a lot of very very angry people out there HC, there always have been, there always will be. But I'm pretty sure you know that, it's nothing new.
There have been folks right here on these very forums who've wished Bush and Cheney(and others) dead too, I've seen it with my own eyes; my guess is that that didn't bother you as much as the Obama haters though. I see no difference between them. Anger is anger no matter which side of the aisle you're on, right?!

 OCDHG wrote: 
That's what I was thinking...

 phineas wrote: 
Its kinda like a suppository for your brain, I think

 OCDHG wrote: 
Is that where the idiot puts its head up its... oh, wait...

 phineas wrote: 
or a lobotomy...

 OCDHG wrote: 
Something tells me it will be in the form of a suppository...