Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about the conclusion that a "purity" pledge in a political system that is dominated by two parties is a self-limiting form of elitism that dooms the political party requiring it to lower and lower numbers of members, and the members it does retain tend to be increasingly extremist in their positions. Political parties shouldn't aspire to purity, they should aspire to reflecting the goals and opinions of the majority of people in the general population. The agenda in a political party shouldn't come from the top down, or from a small but vocal part of its membership. The agenda should be driven by the bulk of its membership.
I think we should be encouraging this action by the GOP. I wish them well in this endeavor, hopefully to get to their desired "purity" so that they can represent the 10-13% of our population in which they have any interest.
Unfortunately an accurate GOP Pledge would sound something like:
We are the party of Big Money, Bigger Oil, Big Military, Big Debt and Big (Christian only) Churches.
I doubt if this would get them elected. Unfortunately for the COP/RNC too many American voters have figured out the real Republican agenda and have, realizing that there is nothing in it for them, summarily rejected the policies that fatten the rich and put everyone else on a starvation diet.
Keep up your delusions RNC. We can only cheer you on to inevitable defeat.
I hear it when people say they like it, but the truth is it's just window dressing, more empty promises, but no real substance.
Well, if you take a look at the 10 items, they basically state:
- Smaller debt and less government intrusion in everyday life
- Market based healthcare reform, not a government program
- Market based energy reform, not Cap & Trade
- Secret union ballots
- Support legal immigration, opposed conversion of illegals to legal status
- Support the recommendation from General Officers in charge of combat areas
- Contain the military threat of Iran and North Korea
- Support traditional marriage, oppose national recognition of gay marriage
- Support vulnerable and elderly by opposing health care rationing or denial of health care, also opposed government abortion funding
- Oppose government restrictions on gun ownership
The RNC draft document proposes to support candidates who can agree to 8 of these 10 issues. Seems to be the type of issues that their candidates would generally support, so I don't see a big issue here. Also, I think most folks who would support Republican Party candidates would agree with most of these items.
Frankly, opposing them also helps define the opponent, which is also useful in elections.
Actually, I don't believe this is true. Bush's terms were over regardless - the Democrats ran on ending the war in Iraq, deploying troops in areas where there are terrorists who attacked us, healthcare reform, decreasing tax loopholes for the ultra-wealthy, renewable energy/responsible use of resources, etc.
I don't think this pledge is a good idea for the RNC, mainly because I believe it will further alienate them from moderates. But if the RNC is going to pander to its more extreme constituents, I think they can do better than naming a specific president (e.g., "not Obama") in 2/10 tenets. To be fair, I don't think either party should base its platform on "I'm not the other guy" - it smacks of wanting to be in office, rather than standing for something, IMO.
Well, if you take a look at the 10 items, they basically state:
- Smaller debt and less government intrusion in everyday life
- Market based healthcare reform, not a government program
- Market based energy reform, not Cap & Trade
- Secret union ballots
- Support legal immigration, opposed conversion of illegals to legal status
- Support the recommendation from General Officers in charge of combat areas
- Contain the military threat of Iran and North Korea
- Support traditional marriage, oppose national recognition of gay marriage
- Support vulnerable and elderly by opposing health care rationing or denial of health care, also opposed government abortion funding
- Oppose government restrictions on gun ownership
The RNC draft document proposes to support candidates who can agree to 8 of these 10 issues. Seems to be the type of issues that their candidates would generally support, so I don't see a big issue here. Also, I think most folks who would support Republican Party candidates would agree with most of these items.
Frankly, opposing them also helps define the opponent, which is also useful in elections.
I'm sorry, but requiring a loyalty test to a political party can only be considered a good thing by people who advocate totalitarian government. Republicans in Minnesota aren't exactly the same to Republicans in Florida or Republicans in California or Republicans in Michigan. People in those states or districts elect a candidate because he reflects the people's goals, opinions, desires. The party has a multitude of strategies to enforce an agenda, but this purity pledge is a form a coercion, to what purpose? Do you think a Republican elected official is going to stray far from his party and from his constituents, or is a Republican elected official going to have to make a choice sometimes between what his constituents want, and what the party wants? Should that elected official betray the people who elected him? Because that's what this purity pledge requires. That's no way to support the Constitution and the representative government that elected officials also have to take an oath to uphold and defend.
Actually, I don't believe this is true. Bush's terms were over regardless - the Democrats ran on ending the war in Iraq, deploying troops in areas where there are terrorists who attacked us, healthcare reform, decreasing tax loopholes for the ultra-wealthy, renewable energy/responsible use of resources, etc.
I don't think this pledge is a good idea for the RNC, mainly because I believe it will further alienate them from moderates. But if the RNC is going to pander to its more extreme constituents, I think they can do better than naming a specific president (e.g., "not Obama") in 2/10 tenets. To be fair, I don't think either party should base its platform on "I'm not the other guy" - it smacks of wanting to be in office, rather than standing for something, IMO.
It very much is true. Obama ran against Bush, What Bush did , What Bush didnt do Change , Change from Bush. Change you can believe in.
You still hear Obama talking about Bush or what he inheritied as in hey you all you keep blaming Bush not me
It very much is true. Obama ran against Bush, What Bush did , What Bush didnt do Change , Change from Bush. Change you can believe in.
You still hear Obama talking about Bush or what he inheritied as in hey you all you keep blaming Bush not me
I think its a great idea
Good, go for it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
