And once again, Republicans decide to eat their young:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(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 be further
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN
Sponsors:
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR
It simply astounds me that Republicans have allowed the ideologues to take over their party.
It utterly appalls me that those selfsame hypocritical parasites, the fanatical rightwing ideologues just in case I’m not being clear here, continue to refer to themselves as “the party of Lincoln.”
I strongly suspect that Abraham Lincoln would have spit in Jim Bopp’s face – or more likely given him a good old fashioned thrashing, something the 16th President was fully capable of doing. I strongly suspect that any group of people who could pen and approve and seriously consider the kind of fanatical, almost religiously, exclusionary ideology embodied in the above resolution wouldn’t have been on the same side of the fence as Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt would have walloped the tar and feathers out of these fanatics, mostly likely without working up a sweat – but then again the hard line rightwing RNC considered old TR a heretical Progressive and a party traitor - a designation Teedee* was proud of – and they probably would consider Lincoln the same, if they actually bothered to learn anything about him.
The resolution above is being circulated within the Republican National Committee. Sponsored by ten senior members of the committee and penned by committeeman Jim Bopp, the resolution will be submitted for discussion and vote at the Republican Party’s Winter Meeting in Hawaii.
This proposed resolution was supposed to be a secret, but somebody leaked it to the media. There’s a certain amount of chagrin going on over that – even these loons are a little embarrassed to have their secret fanaticism exposed, they still retain just enough shreds of sanity to know how it sounds and they’d prefer to have a fait accompli before the majority of conservatives find out that their party has been turned into a fundamentalist religion.
This really isn’t a new concept for the fanatical far right conservatives who have hijacked the Grand Old Party, they’re big on loyalty tests and solemn oaths of fealty to their ideology. These are the same folks who wanted republican voters to sign a loyalty pledge during presidential primaries and they are the same batch of jackasses who make up moronic groups like the Oath Keepers and who like to elicit celibacy and virginity pledges from their kids – how’s that working out for you by the way?
The ten items listed above are being called the GOP’s core principles for the 2010 election cycle by party fanatics such as Bopp, who feels that such a resolution is necessary to codify who is and who is not a true Conservative, and who will and who will not be considered an enemy of the Party and America. One assumes that he is angling to head up the Politburo when the Neocons finally do manage to take back the country for real American Jesuspeople.
I don’t know about you, when I hear hacks speak about Party Purity and a litmus test to determine who and who is not a true believer and an American, I get a cold chill right down my spine and the small hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I find myself dangerously close to invoking the ire of Godwin’s Law. The similarities to historical examples of other fanatical and uncompromising political ideologies is striking: a small group of extreme hardliners moving further and further from the middle, defining themselves by rigid core principles that only they control, an abiding hatred for the current administration and a consuming passion to bring it down by any means including lies and deception and a firm belief that the ends justify the means, representing only a small fraction of the population but telling themselves that they are the only true [insert appropriate national identity here], telling themselves that only purity will save their party, belief in the righteousness of their actions and a sense of destiny, listing those that they hate, and vilification of everyone who does not share their ideology. The first step is always purging themselves of moderate and dissenting voices. They turn on themselves ridding their party of perceived weakness and the faithless, then when they seize power they turn on the rest of their population rooting out the undesirables and those designated as scapegoats for whatever perceived ills the country is suffering, then they turn on the world – They may not start out that way, but they almost always end up that way. Those other movements all eventually self destructed, but not before they did tremendous and horrifying damage.
But it always begins with a small group of fanatics, secretly scheming in the beerhalls and the darkened backrooms of power.
RNC leaders feel that something like this “Purity Test” is necessary after NY23, the special election in New York where the RNC stabbed its own party candidate right in the eye, called her a traitor, backed the independent frothy lunatic candidate instead, and got its ass handed to it by the Democrats when the voters told the GOP to fuck right off. Rather than learn a lesson from this, or from their resounding defeat on the national stage during last year’s presidential elections or their defeat during the previous Congressional election cycle, the RNC has decided to double down on its ideology and pull even further to the hard right – this is yet another primary indicator of fanaticism. These people have no intention of sharing power with anybody, they have no intention of compromising their ideology – most especially they have no intention of seeking a middle ground within their own party. They don’t represent traditional conservatives, as NY23 demonstrated, and this enrages fanatics like Bopp who cannot think beyond his utter hatred for Barack Obama and the reviled Liberals who he sees as traitors and enemies – and this is also typical of fanatics, they must always have something or someone to hate – and he intends to get rid of anyone not as fanatical as he is. This group of ten intends to impose their ideology on the entire party. They intend to purge the Republican Party of moderates and those they see as weaklings, like Dede Scozzafava, and then they intend to turn traditional conservative values and guidelines into a fanatical ideological belief system.
Their strategy can be summed up in the ominous words of one of their spiritual leaders, i.e. you’re either with us, or you’re against us.
These people are making their political beliefs a fundamentalist religion.
And like any extremist religion, they demand blindly obedient adherents that are utterly incapable of compromise and of seeing the hypocrisy inherent in their belief system – and, in point of fact, will deny that there is any flaw in their beliefs. They demand loyalty, but give none in return – as Scozzafava found out when she was branded a heretic and promptly excommunicated. They demand compromise and submission from all but yield nothing in return, theirs is the ultimate arrogance. There is no room within the party’s fundamental ideology for those who would compromise with non-believers, with moderates, or progressives.
It’s hard to understand how a rational educated adult could write something like this resolution, even as a rough draft. Read it through again, dispassionately, as if you were grading a high school English paper and you’ll see what I mean. It appears to be a random and incomplete assemblage of ideas culled from rightwing militia websites – and it’s obvious that it is driven by a number of inherent obsessions, rather than a logical and comprehensive structuring of ideals.
1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes…
OK. It starts out by stating a well established conservative plank. And if the sentence contained a metric to provide values for the concepts of “smaller” and “lower” it would be ok, but it doesn’t. Rather the stated core value is really “by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.” Not expensive bills per se. Not government spending. Not even stimulus bills, but rather Obama’s “stimulus bill.” The resolution mentions Obama by name twice, not liberals or liberal or moderate or progressive ideas, but President Obama specifically – rather an odd thing for a policy position, isn’t it? We only want folks who hate Barack Obama the man and will oppose him at every step, we don’t want people in Congress who represent the will of their constituents, or who decide the issues based on the merits of each – no, we will only support candidates for office who absolutely hate Obama and will oppose anything and everything proposed by the opposition based solely on ideology and nothing else, no matter what.
In fact, there are a number of very odd words and turns of phrase in this list (see? Feel that cold chill on your neck?)
Now, Bopp led off with this and it’s obviously very, very important to him and the other fanatics whose names appear on the resolution. Small government, small national debt, low deficit, low taxes – these are traditional planks of the Republican Party and goals I can heartily agree with – except, how does that square with
(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;
How do we get to smaller government with smaller debt and deficit and lower taxes by massively increasing the size of the border patrol and the INS and those agencies that inspect workplaces and enforce the laws and detain and process the illegals and return them to the border? How do we get smaller, cheaper government by increasing the administrative and legal functions? How do we get smaller government and lower taxes by increasing the size of the Army and sending 40,000 more troops overseas? Those guys don’t just pick up and go, you know, they need administrative support and in-country facilities and support contracts and equipment and food and supplies and transport and hundreds of other things, all of which require contractors and bureaucrats and administrators and communications and systems and money, gobs and gobs of money. How do we get lower taxes by continuing to fight on multiple fronts? (Pillaging? The army is required to support itself the way Roman Legions did maybe? Foraging? Farming perhaps?). How much money is the RNC willing to spend on “effective action” in North Korea and Iran and how will that “effective action” reduce the size and expense of government? How do we get less government interference in our lives by letting it decide who can get married and who can’t and by having two “separate but equal” systems for domestic or married partnerships? I guess it’s in the wording “we support,” we didn’t say we were going to do it, just that we support the idea – during election years especially.
(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;
Huh? What market-based healthcare reforms? What market-based energy reforms? No really, I’m not joking, what the hell are they talking about here? It’s like some kind of mystical belief system with these people – the ancient godlike invisible power of unregulated capitalism will cure all if we only perform the proper rituals and sacrifices. It’s like a belief in the superiority of the Aryan ideal or that Communism will bring about a universal middle class or that the sky gods will make it rain if we only slaughter enough sheep on the alter. It’s the market that currently leaves 47,000,000 Americans without healthcare and is charging them over $3 at the pump. I’m curious, where can I download a copy of the Exxon and Blue Cross/Blue Shield Health and Energy Reform Bill?
Does the RNC support market-based equal rights and freedom like Lincoln did? Oh wait, that’s not right.
Does the RNC support market based reform for Wall Street?
Here’s a question, how about market-based marriage reform? How about market-based abortion reform? No?
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
So, the RNC supports workers’ rights to choose and opposes a “card check” BUT requires a purity test and oath of loyalty from its own people and requires them to vote the way it says or it excommunicates them from the Church of Republicanism? Will the GOP order States to change National election ballots so that registered Republicans here in Alaska can vote for whoever they want no matter what the party? No?
Excuse me, Mr Bopp, could you please pass me that big bowl of utter fucking hypocrisy right there? Thanks.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society…
Just as long as they don’t run for President, eh?
…by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
So, what is the plan then? Shoot ‘em? Or keep hiring them as your nannies and sex slaves and cheap labor? I don’t care, I just like to know what we’re doing is all. Here’s an idea, how about market-based immigration reform? Really, think about it.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
So, anybody who doesn’t support a troop surge, including the troops, doesn’t support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or should I read that as you only support victory if it is achieved through a troop surge? If victory is achieved via another strategy do you oppose it? May I assume that defeat is totally out of the question? Is the key point ‘military recommended’ because I’m military and I’d like to recommend we get the fuck out. Really, please explain the purpose of this policy position, is it victory? Is it a troop surge? (which will have been long resolved one way or the other by 2010 you idiots. In fact Obama is announcing his plan Friday) Or is it the fact that you will only support recommendations for victory if they originate in the military? And will you support any recommendations from the military? Because I’d like to recommend a pay raise, better benefits, and you let us decide what we need equipment-wise instead of voting for more useless shit simply because it’s built in your district. Hello? Is this thing on?
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Please explain “effective action” and please contrast it against the ineffective actions of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush The Lesser.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Yes, of course you do.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
Please explain how denying 47,000,000 Americans access to health insurance protects the lives of “vulnerable persons.” Please explain how taking campaign contributions from the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry supports those same vulnerable persons. Please explain how excommunicating moderate republicans who advocate universal access to healthcare supports vulnerable persons. Please explain how consistently fighting against healthcare reform since the fucking Clinton administration opposes denial of healthcare. Also, you have abortion on the brain, please explain how allowing hundreds of thousands of pregnant women and children to go without healthcare, a significant number of which will sicken and die from preventable conditions, solely in order to make sure a handful of women don’t get an abortion is moral, ethical, or in keeping with your stated policy position of supporting vulnerable persons, i.e. please explain how one aborted fetus equals one hundred living babies – I assume that’s creation science math.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
What about the other nine rights defined in the Bill of Rights? Do you support those too? No, I suppose not, you’d have a hard time squaring those with the rest of your policy positions, wouldn’t you? As to the 2nd Amendment, do you support all of it, or only the part after the second comma? See the whole thing reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That part about “well regulated” do you support that? Or just the part where you get to buy guns and carry them to the President’s speeches? What about American citizens like US Army Major Malik Nadal Hasan? Did you support his right to keep and bear arms? Did you oppose government restrictions on his right to buy arms? Would you defend his right to the death? No, I guess not. Please explain exactly whose unrestricted right to keep and bear arms you are referring to. Also, please explain why you support a litmus test to join your party, but none for buying a fucking gun. Truly, I look forward to your reply.
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee
Three? Any three? Can I support Cap and Trade, be Pro-Choice, and profess my love for Obama and still get your support? What if I’m a flaming homosexual atheist, but I support all ten, will you throw your weight behind me then (pun most certainly intended) and give me money? (Or will you only do that in airport restrooms?) You didn’t mention global climate change specifically, can I expect your support if I champion Al Gore but oppose Cap and Trade?
RESOLVED that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
So, the RNC is issuing ultimatums now? No vote? No voice of the people? No majority rule? The RNC simply dictates policy, and the people fall in line, eh? Say, Mr Bopp, any of that hypocrisy left? Or did you eat it all up? Please take some and pass it on around the table to rest of your friends.
Seriously, even as a draft, this resolution looks like it was penned by ten year olds – or insane religious fanatics.
Here’s the thing, the vast majority of conservatives are not insane, not fanatics, and won’t support this nonsense if they truly knew what was going on. Conservatives don’t need to take back the country, they need to take back their party. They need to toss these idiots out of office sooner, rather than later, before they destroy themselves and this country. Conservatives need to return to their party’s traditional pre-Reagan ideals and salvage what’s left of the once great party of Lincoln.
They need moderation. They need to ease away from the edge and move towards the center. They need to build bridges and seek common ground.
They need better leaders.
May I suggest they start with Dede Scozzafava?
Roosevelt hated the nickname “Teddy” and preferred either “TR” or his boyhood family nickname of “Teedee.” History however, has indelibly labeled him as Teddy.
