Seat 6D

bennettulmer:

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 benefits 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, 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 positions 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:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
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

The above document is being considered within the RNC as a benchmark for considering support of candidates. It is being discussed as a “purity test”, primarily by those opposed to it as those words can evoke negative images like few other.

The New American has the following to add:

While the movement’s promoters, supporters, and allies attest that the resolution is not a litmus test, other Republicans oppose the erection of a few narrow planks of the Republican platform as a gate through which all Party hopefuls must pass before receiving the imprimatur of Party potentates. One Party strategist, for example, defended his resistance to adoption of the test by explaining, “We already have screen tests in place, and they are called Republican voters. If a candidate doesn’t support the principles of the party, Republican voters aren’t going to choose them as a candidate, which renders the whole coordinated-funds issue completely moot.” Notably, the strategist spoke only on condition of anonymity, perhaps an indication of the powerful sway already held by those seeking enshrinement of the proposal in the RNC’s operating by-laws.

I had to smile as I read this as I had just finished watching a video interviewing several Sarah Palin supporters who, when pressed, had no clear cut view of the issues, and were just basing their judgements on sound bites. I suspect that had a similar interview been down against an opposing party member, the results from the public would be very similar. Jay Leno’s man on the street interviews also show how poorly informed the American public is as a whole.

I admit, I’m torn on the above concept. I am a firm believer that the RNC has become a rudderless ship, and has lost site of it’s vision. To that end, having a clear cut platform on which to base candidate selection is good. On the other hand, that should be what comprise the planks of the republican platform. Perhaps rather than a new document, republicans need to take a look at their core platforms and make sure they represent what the party stands for. Then, focus on educating the man on the street about why they support those beliefs. What I don’t believe is that success can be had through moderation of principle which is all to often what I hear when people talk of “moving to the center”. I also don’t believe that we will all agree on everything. In the same way that there are pro-life democrats, there will exist pro-choice republicans. Eliminating the words “purity test”, perhaps this is merely a way to establish a benchmark saying this is what republicans believe. Is it too much to expect that any one republican candidate stands for at least 70% of those values?

I was involved in a discussion last night about Cap and Trade. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect of it was that no one seemed to be concerned about pesky items like the facts regarding what ‘cap and trade’ is. Over the course of the discussion, I heard  explanations ranging from “it saves our planet” (not sure how, but they were sure it did), to “it is our trade policy  with China” to “it’s why Al is getting rich”.

So, I set out today to find a good explanation for the common man as to just what “cap and trade” is. The best explanation comes from Planet Green. I grant they have an agenda, and are for it, but they still provide a pretty good layman’s explanation.

Cap and Trade - The Short Attention Span Version

The impact of Cap and Trade is still under heavy debate, in most cases by people who also don’t like to be confused by those pesky facts. Here is the best link I’ve found to the dangers of Cap and Trade. It comes from the Wall Street Journal.

Understanding the Dangers of Cap and Trade

So there it is. In the interests of full disclosure, I am against Cap and Trade as it is currently structured. That being said, if you have other views or interesting articles regarding the debate, leave them in the comments. Regardless of your position, if we all understand the facts, it makes the debate more interesting.