The Republican National Committee could be on the verge of imposing a strict purity test on GOP candidates and officeholders, if a proposed resolution passes at their upcoming meeting in January: If you disagree with the party line on three or more out of a list of ten key issues, no money or official party support for you.
The resolution, officially called "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" draws its standard through a literal interpretation of an old saying of the Gipper's -- that someone who agreed with him 80% of the time is his friend, not his 20% enemy. Thus, this resolution sets 80% as a floor for support of GOP issues.
The resolution could set up a new problem for chairman Michael Steele. Earlier this year, he successfully turned back a symbolic measure that called upon the Democratic Party to rename itself the "Democrat Socialist Party." This latest resolution -- coming after the NY-23 special election, in which moderate GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava was forced out in favor of a third-party Conservative, who then lost to the Democrat -- could have real material impacts.
The resolution list is 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;
And the resolution concludes that any candidates who disagrees with three out of ten of these, "as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate," shall be ineligible for the national party's endorsement or financial support.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

johnmccsf
November 23, 2009 2:59 PM
Oh can we democrats have one too!
If I didn't know better, I'd say the GOP's gone Pink
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 23, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to johnmccsf
It's so heartening to see the party of patriotism defend freedom of conscience, thought, and belief.
Where would the First Amendment be without their unyielding defense of it?
Mark Twain was a Republican until he publicly resigned from the party in his 70s. He did so because the Republican requirement was that, in order to think freely, one must suspend free will and unquestioningly adopt the Republican party line.
I think it's also becasue Twain loved cats, and the Republican Party hates anything it can't herd into sheepledom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JeffB
November 23, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to JNagarya
.
Are you for or against a purity test for the GOP? Vote
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6534
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 23, 2009 10:34 PM in reply to JeffB
Will this test include a urine sample?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
November 23, 2009 3:00 PM
Here's your GOP-to-English translation
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
Unless we're in control
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
What Obama-style government run healthcare means is irrelevant- we haven't bothered to check
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
We opposed all environmental reforms that could actually work
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
We will continue to misrepresent what card-check actually means
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Fuck all those brown people
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Damn the constitution, the generals outrank the commander-in-chief
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
We support starting as many more wars as we can't afford
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Screw the fags
(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
We will continue to make policy based on a certain yokel's facebook page
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
Guns don't kill people, the GOP's policies do
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 23, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
I wish we were headed for "Obama-style government run health care." As it stands now, even the current watered down, compromise, opt-out public option is going to be filibustered. By Democrats.
And I can't wait to see their concrete proposals for "opposing health care rationing and denial of health care." Sounds like a recipe for big-government intervention to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 23, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
Sweet - let's see if we can get them to use #1 to defame St Ronnie, using numbers and graphs and pie charts, especially, to demonstrate that he only gave lip service to that particular principle.
Then we can get into "deficit spending", "national debt", and "fiscal responsibility" with a vengeance.
It's fun to find out!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 24, 2009 1:40 PM in reply to kenga
Keith Olbermann pointed out on "Countdown" last night that Ronald Reagan himself would have failed on 6 of those 10 "key issues". Ronald Reagan would have failed the GOP's Ronald Reagan test! If that's not a measure of how far the GOP has parted company from reality, I don't know what is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 23, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
"(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;"
US Con. Art I., s. 8, c. 15 [Congress shall have the Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . suppress Insurrections . . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 8:07 AM in reply to JNagarya
And, who are the militia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to Silence
The militia, law-illiterate, is defined in, first and foremost, the Militia Act of 1792, by means of which US Con Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 and 16, and the Second Amendment are implement.
There is concomitant structure, conformed to the US structure, in your state constitution militia clauses and implementing militia act.
A tid-bit of on point history:
There was never an absence of gov't, either in the colonies or in London, during the so-called "revolution". And neither the colonists nor the British shot at any gov'ts -- either colonial or that in London. And the Founders/Framers were opposed, as should be obvious, to anyone shooting at their gov'ts, which were, obviously, the gov'ts in the colonies.
Got that?
Further, the Founders/Framers were opposed to military rule, and military overthrow of their gov't, so they ensured that the militia would serve in its traditional role, and UNDER LAW as was always the reality: protecting the community as a whole, and the gov't and rule of law in particular. In other words, the Founders/Framers were opposed to armed gangs running around OUTSIDE the law and shooting at their gov'ts. See precedent examples of their responses to such treasonous temerities "Shays' Rebellion" and "Whiskey Rebellion".
You'd know at least some of that if you'd read the Constitution a first time -- viz:
US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15 [Congress* shall have the Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the laws of the Union . . . .
_____
*The Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws. Ergo, the militia is UNDER the rule of law, NOT in spite of it.
_____
And:
US Con Art. I., s. 8, c. 16 [Congress** shall have the Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress***.
_____
**The Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws. Ergo, the militia is UNDER the rule of law, NOT in spite of it.
***The Constitution stipulates that Congress shall make the laws. Ergo, the militia is UNDER the rule of law, NOT in spite of it.
_____
And a very famous Founder shows how the Founders/Framers intended that the system work:
_____
SPEECHES of His Excellency the Governor and
Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year
[May Session, 1792.]
Wednesday, June 6.
. . . .
GENTLEMEN,
I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act[****] for regulating the Militia of the States. That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .
JOHN HANCOCK.
Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792.
_____
****The "Act" to which he refers is the Militia Act of 1792, which was enacted by Congress on May 8 of that year. His fuller statement concerns the state's legislature conforming the state militia act to that Act, in keeping with the supremacy clause which appears at US Con Art. VI., c. 2.
Any questions, law-illiterate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 23, 2009 5:19 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
Brilliant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 23, 2009 5:52 PM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
I love they way they "support" reform by opposing actual reform measures.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
November 23, 2009 3:00 PM
I love number 3. "We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;" Do they understand what cap and trade is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 23, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to calchala
Do they care? Half the party believes that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that the Rapture is just around the corner, and most of the other half won't be alive long enough to be held accountable (in 2050 or so) when their disastrous idiocy is really making a mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
November 23, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Matt, I stopped speaking to a Repub 8 years ago when she told God wanted her to vote for George Bush Jr. and the Iraq war was great because it would speed up the Rapture. Unfortunately, there are millions like her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
November 23, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to calchala
My head nearly exploded when I read that.
But then again I'm just some overeducated egghead, obviously out of touch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 8:06 AM in reply to dal20402
Piled high and deep?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
November 23, 2009 3:03 PM
POE Baby!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
November 23, 2009 3:04 PM
If you shrink a Big Tent by 20%, what do you have left? Is it still a big tent, or is it a Slightly Smaller Tent?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zipperupus
November 23, 2009 3:04 PM
This is a Reagan promotion stunt. This purity test already exists. Follow the money.
Reagan is the GOP's safe word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goethean
November 23, 2009 3:10 PM
I guess Dubya was a democrat. Yuh learn sumthin everyday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
November 23, 2009 3:13 PM
Re: #9:
I note they left the word "government" out of this part. When can we expect the legislation making recission except in cases of deliberate fraud illegal? Or perhaps the legislation to prohibit lifetime coverage limits?
Oh wait, they mean "rationing and denial of HC" that doesn't increase profits. My bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
November 23, 2009 3:30 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Well, in order to do those things, they would have to propose government intervention on a massive scale, which, of course, directly contradicts #2. And of course "supporting military-recommended troop surges" makes achieving #1 just a wee bit harder (military spending, of course, never adds to the deficit or requires taxes to pay for). These are the kind of conundrums that makes me love Republicans for their entertainment value.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
November 23, 2009 3:27 PM
this is a hoot
they should have put Obama's name in there on every article of faith
also, apparently they miss the irony of supporting market-based health care and opposing rationing, but then they were just trying to stretch their anti-choice agenda to make it seem like they care about non-fetuses too
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neil
November 23, 2009 3:40 PM
wait... only 7 of ten bedrock principles? Gotta love Republicans.
It's just like when Moses came down from Mt Sinai with his multiple choice, seven-outta-ten commandments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikedrevguy
November 24, 2009 1:41 AM in reply to Neil
"It's just like when moses came down with 7 of 10 . . ."
Oh, that's rich!!! LOL. thanks for that perspective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 23, 2009 3:48 PM
Pardon a link to something I wrote, but this is on topic. To purge or not to purge?
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/4562/to-purge-or-not-to-purge
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Informis
November 23, 2009 4:32 PM
New drinking game:
1) Read the new Republican purity test.
2) Drink a shot every time you see the words "oppose" or "opposing."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
November 23, 2009 8:42 PM in reply to Informis
Bottoms up !
*hic*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 8:18 AM in reply to Informis
Even better. Down a shot for each "shall not" in the United States constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to Silence
Like this one? --
US Con Art. I., s. 10, c. 1 No State shall enter into any . . . . Confederation . . . .
Or this? --
US Con Art. I., s. 10, c. 3 No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . keep Troops . . . or engage in War . . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillWrite4Food
November 23, 2009 4:36 PM
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
A chicken in every pot and machine gun over every shoulder!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yippee
November 23, 2009 5:06 PM
"We support market-based energy reforms" -- by opposing market-based energy reforms.
Ouch! My brain!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yippee
November 23, 2009 5:12 PM
Hmmm. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" reads suspiciously like the "Proposed DNC Resolution on the Reality Principle for the Self-Immolation of Republican Candidates."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
November 23, 2009 5:14 PM
It'll only reduce the size and the strength of the party. Nice. Just think by 2012 there'll be no GOP party left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
James D
November 23, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to hologram5
I can see the new GOP recruitment ads.
GOP. Party of one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 23, 2009 10:36 PM in reply to James D
LOL!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Iamtheocean
November 23, 2009 5:22 PM
The Majority of people under 40 disagree with this resolution on every issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to Iamtheocean
And the majority over 40 disagree with the whole of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uncle toby
November 23, 2009 5:24 PM
Looks like Senator Snowe won't make the cut. Might as well come over to the Dem side now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SilvestriWoman
November 23, 2009 5:28 PM
I'm not surprised at all. For some reason, bloggers - as well as MSM - continue to ignore Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum. She was responsible for the 2008 GOP convention platform and this appears to be cut from the same cloth. She was also instrumental in the elevation of Sarah Palin last year.
On NPR-Boston, she continually stated that Palin - not McCain - is leading the party, and this was recorded during the convention. In this interview, she made my blood freeze, but I certainly felt educated about what's really going on behind the scenes of the modern GOP. Ignore it your peril...
http://www.onpointradio.org/2008/09/the-soul-of-the-gop
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
November 23, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to SilvestriWoman
"soul" and "GOP" should never be used in the same sentence. Unless its irony...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
November 23, 2009 5:47 PM
The more I think about this, the more I like it! In fact, we ought to push the "GOP Purity Test" meme as far a possible. I think in the 21st Century where interracial marriage is no big deal (well, except in certain Parishes in La.) .)and multi-culturalism is so mainstream they teach it in grade school, what better way to offend human sensibilies than to use the term "purity"?
Once again, the GOP's great attempts at "inclusion" hit another roadblock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
November 23, 2009 8:13 PM in reply to LBJs Brain
You are on to something there, Brainy. I like pushing that "purity" meme too. Just about says it all doesn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:19 PM in reply to bluesplashy
So long as Vitter's diaper is clean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prof Wagstaff
November 23, 2009 5:51 PM
And the GOP's Big Tent screams; "Shrinkage! We can't help it. The political waters are soooo cold!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 23, 2009 5:52 PM
"Support by opposing" - lol
I want to try a few...
I support the rights of insurance companies to make huge profits by opposing their customers right to stand up for themselves.
I support women by opposing their right to choose what's best for themselves.
I support minorities by opposing other minorities.
I support Conservatism by opposing 'socialism'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sandi
November 23, 2009 5:58 PM
That is really an astounding list. It does not even pretend to be a set of principles, only opposition to Obama and particular legislation.
And in opposing Obama, they are also willing to alienate Libertarians who want to withdraw US troops throughout the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 23, 2009 6:28 PM in reply to sandi
You are right, and how can you hate big government and want all these crazy budget-busting wars?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sandi
November 23, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
I doubt they really meant to include Muslim Americans or African Americans in the unfettered right to bear arms. These are the same folks who are calling for 'profiling' to keep **us** safe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 23, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to sandi
Very good comment. Let alone blacks, how many of them really want Muslims generally to have a right to bear arms? 5%? 10?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nowukkers
November 23, 2009 6:26 PM
Please. Yes. Let them have their "unity" test. If you didn't laugh, you'd cry. God help us if they ever get back in power. Their Herrenvolkist tendencies will disenfranchise everybody except those who stuck with them in their "wilderness years". With luck they'll get lost in the wilderness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scales of Justice
November 23, 2009 7:55 PM
The Republican National Committee's resolution list is amazing.
If America's voters decide to take this purification test and disagree with three or more of these resolutions then it will be very clear to them that they need not vote for any Republicans running for office.
The RNC has done the nation a great service in creating this resolution list for all to see. It will guarantee the Republican party will lose even more congressional seats in our next election cycle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 23, 2009 7:56 PM
An observation on my part: Probably at least a third of the GOP's elected officials in the federal government can't pass this test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:26 PM in reply to Icon
Shit, the Republican party is so opposed to gov't that any Republican whose is in gov't is automatically anti-Republican.
I like checks-and-balances, but that one doesn't quite get the football into the end zone that is compehendable reason.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 24, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to JNagarya
To give an idea on why several GOPs in office fail, many lose a point for (1) because they either:
A. Voted for the stimulus bill. (Raises spending and deficit.)
B. Voted for the economic stabilization bill last fall. (Raises spending and deficit)
C. Voted for the bush tax cuts. (Cuts revenue, raises deficit.)
Many also lose points on (5) by not supporting making English the national language, even for government purposes.
Anyone who is endorsed by Republicans for Choice, the Republican Majority for Choice or The Wish List or voted against the partial-birth abortion ban bill fails (9).
On those three points alone, 17 of the 40 current Republican senators could not get party funding under this proposal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to Icon
Your final point: that's a deal I like.
Go for it Republicans -- and let me know if there's any way I can support your effort to continue failing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
November 23, 2009 8:15 PM
It sounds like a circus tent that houses only sideshow acts and as P.T. Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute (or maybe we should say conceived).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sangsue
November 23, 2009 9:31 PM
You forget the implied and secret rules:
We need to overturn the Civil Rights Act so little brown people can't vote.
The only reason we lost in 2008 was because we didn't steal the election. We'll never let that happen again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
a SC mom
November 23, 2009 9:33 PM
i wanna now how the GOP can do #6 while supporting #1.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
November 23, 2009 10:05 PM
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt when Democrats are in charge, lower deficits when Democrats are in charge and lower taxes on those with the most money while taxing the poor and middle class by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
Fixed that for ya.
One of the hallmarks of the GOP is their ability to ignore history. Completely. And somehow they get away with it. They've never heard of Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney, or George W. "I took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in the history of this country so I could put two wars on the national credit card and cut taxes on my rich corporate friends" Bush.
Amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Doesn't this come off as a huge middle finger to the independents? Yes, tell independents their views don't matter. Good idea. If you don't agree with their ideas then they refuse to represent your voice. Democrats should take this opportunity to appeal to the non brainwashed. I think a day should not go by without a democrat reminding everyone that the national debt DOUBLED under the republican regime.
They are also saying that if you don't agree with 7 or more of their commandments, then you are not a Republican either. They should make you sign their pledge sheet before you can even register as or vote Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 23, 2009 10:27 PM
"a literal interpretation of an old saying of the Gipper's -- that someone who agreed with him 80% of the time is his friend, not his 20% enemy. Thus, this resolution sets 80% as a floor for support of GOP issues."
"that any candidates who disagrees with three out of ten of these shall be ineligible"
Boy math just isn't Repubs strong point. Isn't 80% 8 out of 10?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarinCoUSA
November 23, 2009 11:01 PM
Wow, I think Michale Steele's dog whistle thing going on here is going after the Klan vote. Really! This this guy sure is a credit to his party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
November 23, 2009 11:34 PM
The conservative base of the GOP has been disassociating itself from its more moderate membership for a while now. Every time someone from their inner circle opens his/her mouth, their appeal to the majority of Americans further plummets.
At the current rate at which these Limbaugh-lovers are burning their bridges, the only way they will be able to return to the White House is by a coup.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Soldier
November 23, 2009 11:44 PM
The saddest thing about this is that it's proof positive that there are no adults in the GOP anymore.
God help us all if these Fools ever return to power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beagle
November 23, 2009 11:53 PM
I still don't know what "Obama-style" health care is; I'm familiar with the the House and Senate version but not Obama-style.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 24, 2009 9:02 AM
I think you're all racist. You oppose Steele because he's a black man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 24, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to Silence
We oppose the Republican party, of which Steele happens to be "leader".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
November 25, 2009 10:53 AM in reply to JNagarya
I see, but if one opposes Obama, who happens to lead the Dems, one is a racist.
You guys are too much. lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 25, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Silence
Did you read what I said?
I said we oppose the Republican party -- not that we oppose Steele. We do enjoy Steele as the face of that party becaseu of the stupid shit he says.
It isn't about race, jackass: it's about a political party that is the party of racism and overtly anti-American.
So you go directly to whining that you racists who attack Obama for being all sorts of things that are impossible are called racist for doing so because that is what is behind all the hate-speech and bizarre false smears against him.
Thanks for your misstep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
November 24, 2009 12:10 PM
Actual headline over at Gawker: "You Must Be This Much of a Dick to Receive RNC Support"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?