RNC Purity Testing Proposal
 

Denies Campaign Funding Support Unless They Pass


Among the principles on the test are support of limited government, market-based health care reform, legal immigration, gun rights and military-recommended troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan. The list also requires opposing Obama's domestic policies, including his $787 billion stimulus bill, climate change legislation and his signature health care reform plan.

Its a Fox News story. According to many of you, that means it must be untrue.

I would like to see it reported elsewhere.

I do not want to see the RNC shoot themselves in the foot, two parties are better than one. I assume this is just political posturing by one wing of the party, they need moderate candidates to win in many congressional districts.

Looks like some others have picked up on it.

MSNBC

Wash Ind.


Maybe it is true.

That limited government clause would exclude 90+% of congress I think.

ONLY 90%???????:rolleyes:

The Republican party as it is today needs to die
 

Please let this proposal happen to those caterwauling "conservatives" !!

Along with a Palin/Prejean 2012 ticket!!:P

Nothing further would be necessary.

If the republicans have a future, they need to define themselves. Being " like the dems, but better, smarter, cheaper, etc" doesn't work.
Every political party needs a list of its core principles. The dems certainly do---anyone who does not support abortion anytime need not apply as the national leaders will not allow them to have any influence.
The repubs need a set of guiding principles. They used to have such a common set. Then, in order to gain support in some quarters, some republicans began to become very much like democrats. The public, in this last election, decided that if it wanted liberals, it wanted real liberals, and voted for the dems. Why vote for "liberal-lite" if you really want liberals?
The repubs NEED to develop a list. The content of that list will be very telling as to whether or not the republicans remain a major party, or if a third party emerges. Politically, a third party benefits the dems, at least for the short term, as non democrat voters will be split. However, if the potential third party generates a solid base, the repubs may go the way of the Whigs.

Agreed, as some one said:

There are two political parties; one with bad ideas and one with no ideas.

Local Baltimore talkshow host says it this way, ( You could reverse the terms if you chose, and it would still be accurate.)

The republicans are the Stupid Party.
The democrats are the Evil Party.

Bi-Partisan means that the proposed legislation is both EVIL and STUPID.

I would love to see Palin and Prejean together (not in the White house though!):D

BIG dog, LITTLE pony !!!:D

This has somewhat of a 1930's Germanic whiff to it. If the RNC is so concerned about its future, it should dump that plodding dud of a chairman.

As long as I don't have to hear them speak, I'm with you.

You never HAVE to listen to anyone speak. The choice is always ( at least for now) yours.
The President is on TV? Listen, or tune to another channel, or work on your car, or spend time with your wife and children, or read a good book....

Michael Steele & Co are here in Honolulu for the GOP Winter Meeting starting tomorrow at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Yes, on the agenda is the Purity Test:


(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
(2) Market-based health care reform and opposing Obama-style government run health care;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

oddly, hawaii has some kind of health care system in which just about everyone is covered, mostly by employers? (though you can obviously tell us more)

Why are conservatives so hell bent on bringing this 'smaller government' into a persons private life? They need to kick the religious wack jobs out of the party.

Also, nice words but what's theirp plan? Exactly how do they plan on containing the little midget in SE Asia and the mental midget in the ME? Do they have a plan that they have not shared with the rest of the world?

added to this irony... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

Think that's odd . . . consider the healtcare plan in MA.

Hawaii's healthcare system, recently lauded by Rush himself, is a combination of employer subsidized (some 100%, others have an employee contribution) benefit for full time employees and their dependents and a state medicare/medicaid system for welfare recipients. Briefly, it does increase business costs, however it has resulted in uncrowded ERs and significant advances in wellness and longevity in the state. Tradeoffs galore.

It's a club. You get benefits and you have rules. Can anybody join your club if they don't want to abide by certain guiding principles? Can you join NAMBLA if you are trying to shut them down? Can I join the Black Lawyers groups if I am neither black or a lawyer? Can I believe in all of those things above and join the DNC? Can I believe in equal rights for all and join the White Aryan Nation?

As opposed to the liberals wanting to stay out of our private lives? It is we who are asking them in when you ask them to manage this, that or the other for you. If you want to live in Dad & Mom's house, you don't argue that their curfew is unreasonable if they choose to dig their heels in. When I went to live with the folks for a month because I was on vacation visiting, I lived under their rules. If I didn't want to, I could go live in a motel. IT was that simple.

But at what price do those tradeoffs come? You know when I don't believe someone? When they tell me all the good stuff but none of the bad. That is the hallmark of a used car salesman. Car gets excellent mileage, great shape, good engine, gently used, easy payments, etc, etc. A good thing you have going is that you don't have too many illegals sucking up resources, do you? The rest of the states have that issue because we are too stupid to turn away those that cannot afford it which leads them to the ER and it gets clogged up. Sorry, if you insist on throwing stuff down the toilet that wasn't meant to be there, you have to accept that it clogs up here and there.

As I always ask, who would manage the system if the govt runs it? The same group that gives us the national debt? Or the shady accounting practices of transferring money from one pool to another? Govt is acceptable as a watcher. As a player in the game, not so good.

yes, as one of the tea party guys said: " keep the government's hands off of medicare." :D

Makes sense if you think about it. Why would I want something I benefit from to be more screwed up? If I am getting it in the end by Bubba once a day, do I want him to go at me twice a day?

???

(lovely visual image, by the way, reminds me of the movie "deliverance")

(uh, medicare is a program run by... the u.s. government since about 1965)

I know that. However, the more they mess with it, the worse it will get. Just like the Bubba example. Bad enough to have to submit to him once. I'd avoid the 2nd time if I can. So yes, while it might be a PITA today, it can be worse if they try "help" us out. Might not be apparent in that program but it will come back to bite us at some other point. So yes, leave it alone.

We do have illegal immigration here, even from Mexico, although the majority is from Asia and South Pacific, but since health insurance is essentially universal here for workers and those on welfare, you better have a pretty good excuse for showing up at an ER without coverage.

The obvious trade off is that group plan healthcare costs are business expenses, however it's a level playing field if all employers have to play by the same rules. The system isn't run by the government, it's all handled by the HMO, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc. that are licensed to do business in the state.

I wouldn't think it is as bad as the border states, is it? How do you have illegals running across the border that much when there is a lot of water around you? With universal coverage, having people not clog up the ERs is a benefit. HOWEVER, you did pay for it by giving them something they didn't earn. Kinda like me bribing my kid to mow the lawn and being happy that the grass is cut without me breaking into a sweat. We paid for it already.

Do the HMOs, BCBS, govt, etc, etc, pay for the leaches that can't afford it? IF so, that might be the not so obvious trade off. A reduction in the motivation for them to better themselves and a loss of an example of someone who cannot and/or will not better themselves.

We're a state of barely over a million residents, so in proportion, the "undocumented" population may be comparable to the rest of the nation. The service providers are the ones that "eat the bills" and they are also the ones that get squeezed by the insurance reimbursement schedules. Like I said, there are trade offs galore to get to the health benefits of having nearly universal coverage.

You don't think Hawaii is less attractive because of the greater difficulty getting there than it is to skip across the border? Just curious.

Who pass it on to others who can pay. IOW, I have to pay for some leach.

Not sure if you are trying to say that the trade off is a good thing or bad. IMO, it is a bad thing or a raw deal even if we consider it from the standpoint that we are making a new generation of people with the entitlement mentality.

Trade offs are seldom all good or all bad. To get greater insurance coverage, business foots the bill, but also benefits from having healthy workers since they have access to preventive care and diagnostic procedures.

yes, the n.y.times article of a few weeks back suprisingly? noted a link between various improved survival rates from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc., due perhaps? to all the preventative care/ early detection??? (call me dr. obvious) (for the record, emergency room visits in crisis time cost exponentially?? more than early detection/preventative etc. an ounce of .. is worth a pound of etc.)

Rush did praise the health care he rec'd in your State. However, he paid all his expenses himself, and did not take advantage of the health care SYSTEM.

Does it matter who or how it was paid? The point being that the CARE he received, in a state with near universal coverage, was to to his standards.

He should know. Especially about the pharmaceutical end of things. :D A druggie windbag's opinion doesn't impress me. OTOH, if he were a medical person, I'd be interested to know. This is like Tiger Woods endorsing Buick or Tag Heuer watches. WTF does he know about that? He is a golfer.

yes, i'd respect his opinion on prophylactics more.

back to the rnc; i do hope if they get ill they do not avail themselves of that kind of healthcare. i hope that's part of the purity test as well.

How nice!

I thought I heard that he had one oopsie. Not sure

Isn't that like either Rich or JR's argument of "If you don't support medicare, don't touch it when you are retired."?

it's meant to be a bit absurd; principles taken to ridiculous lengths.

This thread wants to draw a contrast that republicans have a "purity test" ( is that a loaded term, or what, while democrats have no similar "purity test".
PLEASE!
No democrat with a "right to life" position will ever advance to any level of power within the democrat party. They are not even allowed to address the convention.

All this hype about a purity test is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. It will have zero effct on anyone.

Ever Google "Right to Life Democrat?"

Rep Bart Stupak did, somehow, manage to get 64 other House Dems to support his anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the healthcare legislation. Seems somewhat significant.

Isn't it odd that there seems to be less of a willingness of the "right to life" movement to embrace and support those Dems?