From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Finally, A GOP Litmus Test

with 17 comments


A prominent attorney, Jim Bopp, Jr., has come up with a plan called the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and it’s being circulated among RNC members in the hopes of generating party support. Mr. Bopp is in the perfect position to advance this idea. You see, James Bopp is the Vice Chairman of Republican National Committee, a position he has held since 2008.

What does this have to do with Reagan? The resolution states,

“President Ronald Reagan believed … that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

With that in mind, the resolution establishes a list of party policies which the party member must support to receive party support. If a candidate strays from the list on three or more issues, the RNC resolution, if approved, would block him/her from receiving financial support and/or official endorsements.

The test for Republican candidates includes the following points:

  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 oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
  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
  10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

The resolution also says that the RNC will decide whether a candidate actually agrees with eight out of 10 — merely promising to go along isn’t enough if the party doesn’t like your voting record.

The Republican Party needs teeth in their party oath.


Proving my point that George W. Bush was not a Republican but actually a Democrat, the list indicates Bush would have been deemed ineligible for support from the Republican National Committee. He did, after all, increase the size of government, run enormous deficits, endorsed cap and trade, allowed North Korea and Iran to become more serious security threats, and rejected the right’s line on immigration.

I’ve been a strong advocate for a test to show proof that a Republican office holder was not a R.I.N.O. as some in the party are today. In light of the recent experience in New York’s 23rd, it’s time to root out “Republicans in Name Only” such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine who would easily fail this test, and be made ineligible for support from the GOP.

In fact, on November 2, 2009, after Dede Scozzafava endorsed a Democrat for a vacant congressional seat over a Conservative backed by Republican leaders, I was motivated to write to the GOP to let off some steam. I figured it was a fruitless endeavor but it would let me vent.

By pointing to Scozzafava, I wanted to tell the GOP leadership she represented exactly what is wrong with the GOP. I wrote,

“The GOP is rife with R.I.N.O.s and takes on the characteristics of a box of chocolates…. you never know what you’re going to get.” I continued:

It makes it difficult to vote for GOP candidates when they turn out to be frauds in that they don’t represent party values.

Get serious about yourselves or you will be irrelevant … if not already.

Remember, recent polls show conservatives outnumber liberals by 2 to 1. It would appear the party has miscalculated by trying to align itself with left to moderate leaning party planks.

Poking some fun at myself, as if it would matter, I also decided to tell them about the planks I thought they should adopt. I opened up all the doors for this one. (Yes, I’m certifiable.)

This was the first item on my list:

Loyalty to party values

Ensure members of the party pledge their allegiance to the party’s values. G.W. Bush was a R.I.N.O.; Republican In Name Only. Purge the party of those with left-wing and liberal ideas and who do not support with actions and voting history the core values of the Republican Party. Arlen Specter is another example … good riddance.

We cannot follow a party that is filled with members who are not aligned with the party’s core values. The core values should revolve around these basic concepts; border, language, culture, national defense, support of the Constitution.

I also included these;

    Secure our borders
    Deport all illegal aliens immediately
    Religion and abortion
    Clean up our rotted universities (yes, I know. Not likely)
    Overhaul America’s education system
    Fix America’s media (Again, not likely)
    Provide for the common defense
    Reduce the size of government
    Energy policy
    Overhaul Immigration Policies
    Amend the U.S. Constitution to include an immigration policy

The details for these are here:

Now, I’m not going to suggest that my email rant to the GOP caused them to adopt the idea for party loyalty, but I will suggest that I am thinking what they are already thinking.

I will also suggest I am not alone. Here, you can read a recent Rasmussen poll which reveals 73 percent of the respondents believe GOP leaders have lost touch with the Republican base.

The full text of the resolution

RNC RESOLUTION ON FINANCIAL
SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefit all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

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

Advertisements

Written by Ben

November 27, 2009 at 2:08 pm

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I agree wholeheartedly with the litmus test. You should agree with the party platform if you are going to run on the party’s dime. I’ve said before that I am a conservative first and a Republican second. It looks like the party might be getting back to their conservative roots. If they are, THREE CHEERS! People want an opposition party, not Democrat-lites.

    An Informed Mind

    November 27, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  2. I doubt if yoyu can jkeep people from running who don’t ‘pass the test. However, the Party can refuse to FUND them. And that should do the trick; the local parties will knock them off of get their own funding.

    Mike O

    November 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm

  3. For a long time, I have wanted teeth attached to the GOP oath. This is a step toward that goal. De-funding sends a message they understand.

    Ben

    November 28, 2009 at 12:30 am

  4. To be honest, some of these are so important that if you dont agree with it, you have no right being a Republican.

    Luger failed 4 out of 10, even worse than the witches in Maine.

    Elric66

    November 28, 2009 at 8:15 am

  5. Agreed, but I wish they hadn’t included time-oriented items like 2, 3 and 7. These are items we can expect to see disappear from the political landscape. It means the list has to be amended periodically to match the current state of politics.

    Ben

    November 28, 2009 at 10:25 am

  6. Mike O,

    Yep. It also places the burden upon the voters to keep the RINO in office. Without funding, prominence is diminished.

    To your point a new-comer to the office cannot be vetted by the list. Only voting history can do that.

    Ben

    November 28, 2009 at 10:28 am

  7. Except for 8, how can you not support it and still call yourself a Republican?

    And it really should have been about core principles, not just opposing al-Thuggy. You are correct

    Elric66

    November 28, 2009 at 12:06 pm

  8. Although I can agree with the majority of these provisions (numbers 1-5 and 9-10) which makes me 7/10 Republican under the above guidelines. I think it misguided to call for “Litmus” tests, and I believe that to do so has the distinct possibility of alienating many Republicans that sit nearer the center. I am deeply offended by the name RINO, as to me, it seems to imply that there is only one way of thinking about conservative issues within the Republican party. At the very least it is exclusionary. I would think long and hard about such a move.

    I personally am quite conservative, and deplore the social tinkering so common with democrats. I do not believe that government is my friend, nor do I believe that more intrusive government is the answer to our problems. This being said, I believe that both the Republicans and Democrats in D.C. have a higher degree of self-interest than they do national-interest.

    vtfarmer

    November 29, 2009 at 10:21 am

  9. You should actually be offended by the fact Democrats/Liberals, in the guise of a Republican a.k.a. a RINO, have infiltrated the party, author and sponsor bills which advance the DNC’s agenda and alienate Republicans/Conservatives who unwittingly voted for a Democrat in Republican clothing.

    Furthermore, there is nothing offensive about the label as it describes the situation above.

    There are of course, a few within the Democrat Party who some call Democrats In Name Only. This too, is not a term designed to be offensive as it is a reflection of fact; a reality.

    Your sense of what is offensive is very strange and in this case, the term RINO is light years away from the baseless name-calling you engaged in with your “Goose stepping” remark against Republicans/Conservatives. It conjures up images of fascist regimes such as Nazi-Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and the associated holocaust. I find that to be the ultimate insult to any civil sensibilities.

    The fact that the GOP is entertaining this policy which will compare voting records against party principles is testimony to the fact the party has renegades within who do not exhibit nor adhere to the values of conservative thinking. These are candidates who will likely support big spending programs, large government, government sponsored health care insurance and cap and trade. These are candidates which confuse the voting base and divide. Having them in the party is destructive to the party.

    Every organization has bylaws or charters. We have our Constitution as one example. Bylaws and charters serve to define, to establish a purpose, to outline principles and vision. Why, even the Boy Scouts of America has and oath and laws which guide its members.

    Having party planks and principles is meaningless if there is no gauge by which to measure loyalty to those planks – to party beliefs. It is far better to not having them at all. To have planks – principles and vision – and not stick to them does more damage to the party than anything else. It says to the observer that the party is actually hypocritical in that it doesn’t even believe in itself.

    You should be sticking to sound principles and be applauding the fact that there is a party out there which believes in and values conservative philosophies to the point where they are willing to purge themselves of those who don’t.

    With this in place, the next time I vote, I won’t feel like I was fleeced after discovering I actually voted for a Democrat, like G.W. Bush.

    Not only would that be a rude slap in the face, it would be yet another insult as well. It would certainly alienate me and I would then render the party as irrelevant.

    Ben

    November 29, 2009 at 11:20 am

  10. Kinda funny he doesnt mind nutjobs in NK and Iran getting nukes.I guess its none of our business even if they will be aimed at us.

    Elric66

    November 29, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  11. Yes, pacifists and isolationists always baffle me. It says to me they hold to the idea there are limits to defending America and that she is worthy of losing; that there are countries which should destroy us on their principles.

    NK is another renegade nation. There are several congressmen who understand what it will mean if Iran develops a nuke. They say it will take everything off the table in the Senate – our government – and a Nuclear Iran will be the focus. In effect our freedom is being threatened right now over this.

    Imagine Iran with a nuke and mull over what that means to Israel, which has long been the only Democracy in the region for decades. Imagine Iran being able to fulfill their vision of destroying her and giving terrorists the ability to detonate one in your favorite U.S. city.

    When that happens, imagine what would then be said from those who are against containment of these regimes today.

    These are the people through which Neville Chamberlain channels today.

    Ben

    November 29, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  12. “Imagine Iran with a nuke and mull over what that means to Israel.”

    These Ron Paul types dont care what happens to Israel. They could care less if it is nuked. Israel is a friend, an ally and on the front lines with this jihad.

    Another thing which I find is odd is that these isolationists dont want to have foreign entanglements but dont mind importing muslims on our shores in the name of freedom. We cant meddle but these muslim nations can export their ideology onto our shores.

    Elric66

    November 29, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  13. How about this for a litmus test….

    You endorse al-Thuggy for president or if you endorse your democrat opponent, you get tossed out on your sorry RINO ass.

    Ohhh was that tooo mean VT?

    Elric66

    November 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  14. 1. I agree.
    2. Obama et. al. are on crack, thinking that forcing people to buy insurance is a cure to people that cannot afford it. Then pocket fines on the poor that fall behind!! There are some market reforms. Only govt intervention, logically, would be to let people drop insurance, while the govt. provides actual care on income basis. Oops, I might half fail this one.
    3. Again on crack, forgetting 7th grade Science and 11th grade profit/corruption that would proliferate. However, big business will always addict the masses to streams of energy, to be used as inefficiently as they can convince us to use it. The market can never permanently orient to efficient solutions, since the providers can temporarily drop prices. The Government must always demand efficiency; which will always permanently drop prices and fetch a long term gain of jobs, industry and revenue–while reducing emissions without need to regulate on that end. : I again half fail.
    4. I fear again, a bulk entire advancement of human knowledge was during 20th century, in large part of freeing our mindset from slave and a government sponsored repressed labor force. Now huge personal investment could be made to advance techniques without fear some slave market would undercut you every time. We are entering a dark age. Now, is not the time to attack unions. Unions are a non-issue in our economy, since they are easily broke by moving the company. Time to move on; a very 70s issue. : I fail here.
    5. I agree, but again, grow up. The trade agreements are the core issue of our demise as an economy. The first obvious flaw being, never trade or buy goods made in a totalitarian nation. You simply cannot compete with a polluting, non-safety/human right concerned govt., that bars unions and tell people what wage they will work for. Businesses love this and are flocking their headquarters to these type of nations. Bye, bye, business degrees.
    6. The problem is the Military leadership has never historically recommended less troops, or less war. This is not their job. Neither, victory obtained in Afghanistan. Bush was an idiot for going into Iraq this time. I don’t think the answer is clear what we should do, either way. But this is simplistic.
    7. Agreed, but see answer 5.
    8. Absolutely. Marriage is to encourage men to do the right thing and wring them into a commitment, offering incentives. We cannot loose sight of this.
    9. Agreed. But I would add, the country is probably the first casualty of this bill. (see ensuing martial law after we default)
    10. Absolutely. I would underscore subtle abridgments that need rollback.

    So, while I might fail 8 of 10 test, I would also be turned off by the “Group think” that I would associate with lesser intellects of the other side.

    Deg

    November 30, 2009 at 12:53 am

  15. Deg,

    Since the list contains current issues to which you agree with 8 out of 10, it doesn’t necessarily make you out to be a “group thinker”. It does state you agree with a majority of the current issues important to the Republican Party. This list is a living document and will change and with it, so will your level of agreement. Over a period of time, if you were serving in Congress, your voting record could be compared to the issues to determine whether your philosophies line up with the party’s. You are still free to vote on the issues as you wish.

    In the end, while it may not serve you well to support the opposition, it does serve the public who voted for you and who put you in office to represent their views as gauged by their affiliation to the party and its values.

    As it is, it represents the best way to weed out RINOs who do not support the view of the party and by extension the people who put them there.

    Fraud is fraud. Who needs it?

    Ben

    November 30, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  16. I would also add term limits

    Elric66

    December 1, 2009 at 7:20 am

  17. In the past, I have opposed term limits on the idea that if people would get off their collective butts and go vote, the problem would take care of itself.

    Apparently, after seeing the number of “lifers” in Congress, I’ve been wrong to expect the intellectually lazy to pull themselves away from “Dancing with the Stars” and get involved with American government.

    We need term limits. But there are problems. I write about it here:

    https://rightamerican.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/term-limits-for-congress-is-it-possible/

    Ben

    December 1, 2009 at 11:01 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: