1 I thought they were gonna leave Obama out of it.

2 I don't see anything about killing hippies. I'm sure that was just an oversight.

3 More importantly, it's quite a good list. Abortion is handled particularly well (public financing is a good place to draw the line, while not casting out pro-choice Republicans as heretics).

Why? If someone only has to support 7-8/10, why can't we have a solid pro-life position in there?

4 I hope Newt stays away from this so it doesn't get tainted.

5 Where is the constitutional amendment about throwing out all the libtards?

6 Sounds good to me.

7 Eight out of ten for me. I wish the RNC would hire people to hand out little cards with this printed on it to voters in swing districts. Put a header like "If you agree with seven of these principles, you should vote Republican." It might even give the RNC something useful to do for a change.

8 Oh, and we need something about mandating nationwide open carry for all citizens 18 and older. Because there's no way we're going to win in Massachusetts.

9 The party needs principles.  But I am going to concentrate on individual candidates from now on anyway.  Dede Scozzfava put an end to any contributions I would ever give to the GOP in the future.

10 I like it.. mostly..

I don't like the Defense of Marriage bit (I think that is a state issue and the federal government has no business going there)  and I also am not sold on big troop surges in Afghanistan.. but otherwise I think it's a good list.

11 (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

There *has* to be something about opposing the judicial usurpation of legislative powers, most notably like in Roe v Wade...

12 Why? If someone only has to support 7-8/10, why can't we have a solid pro-life position in there?
Posted by: Johnny

Um, because it would be 7, 8 out of 11 points then.

13 Most of the elected republicans can't even agree with this list. That's the problem.

14 Do I get any love out of this?

15 There is nothing in here about Hobos, Trannys or Val-U-Rite.

I can't get behind that.

16 Do I get any love out of this? 2nd and 10th amendments, baby.

17 (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; (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; (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;

Well .... these would be more succinctly covered by stating that we honor the Constitution and its clear restrictions on the federal government.

(4) We support workersÂ’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

This doesn't go far enough. Closed shops are disgustingly un-American and need to be stopped. Unions are destructive and criminal elements in our midst. Further, there needs to be a real push to stop union representation on the Federal Reserve boards, which is one of the most repulsive facts of our monetary system that I have ever come across.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

This is worded by squishes who don't have the guts to state the obvious and the necessary. There is no need to temper an opposition to the treasonous idea of amnesty (and the much worse notion of offering the slime paths to citizenship). A good start would be to not write "illegal immigration" in this, but state "illegal aliens, which is exactly what they are. They are not immigrants, since a guy who busts through our border today in no way falls into the idea of being an "immigrant" of any kind, though he would be termed such by this sort of linguistic idiocy.

If they want to show some difference in opinion between immigration policy and illegal alien policy, then properly wording both would be a good start.

Does anyone else find it odd that The Constitution is not mentioned in any of these bullets?

18

Bad list.  Too much emphasis on what the GOP opposes.  Like it or not, they're already painted as the party of 'no'.

With a little work it could be pretty good.

19 So "platform" == "purity test" now eh?  That sword cuts both ways.

20
Why? If someone only has to support 7-8/10, why can't we have a solid pro-life position in there?

Posted by: Johnny at November 23, 2009 02:45 PM (xVKXy)

Especially when a solid majority, by any standard measured, want more restrictions on abortion then currently exist in the current Casey framework.

21

I think this needs to have spokespeople behind it to give it a face.  It would be interesting to see videos promoting this pairing Republicans of different factions, like the videos of Pelosi and Gingrich promoting global warmerism or G.H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton promoting charitable causes.  That kind of marketing would go a long way to demonstrating that these principles are meant to be unifying;  besides, without recognizable faces associated with it, it's not going to be read outside the inner circle of political wonks.

22 Works for me--with this change to no. 1:

We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing  repealing bills like ObamaÂ’s “stimulus” bill.

Smaller means what, a $600 billion porkulus instead of a $787 billion porkulus?

Small government, GOP. Step up to it!

23 Need to add absolute support of the Constitution as written and amended then they can not even mention abortion.

Then it needs to go to 9 of 11 with the Constitution being a litmus test since they are supposed to take an oath saying the same thing.

24 Not a big fan of saying we oppose, we oppose, we oppose.  While I do oppose all of those things, it comes off to me as not having better ideas. 

25 Um, because it would be 7, 8 out of 11 points then.

Posted by: Iskandar at November 23, 2009 02:48 PM (u1pln)

No. Replace the federal funding intem with an outright ban on it apart from extraordinary circumstances (IE: life of the mother is in danger).

26 What about starting up the F-22 Raptor fight again?

27
So "platform" == "purity test" now eh?  That sword cuts both ways.

That was the first thing I thought when I read the purity "response".  Isn't this nothing more than a Party platform from the days of yore?

28 (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

How about tightening this up a bit:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill. Specifically, we propose legislation that the federal budget cannot be increased above the rate of inflation until the federal debt has been paid off.

29
11) We don't apologize to Democrats

12) We will not be held at gunpoint by political correctness.

30
13) No special rights or extra-rights for any group.

31 These aren't principles. This is a list of "where we say we stand today on ten issues".

32 I think it would be stronger as a "set of principles" if they left out Obama's name.  Mentioning him, especially up-front, sounds like they're reacting to public opinion shifting.

Put "We believe X, Y, and Z" first, then include "for example, we oppose Obama's 'stimulus' bill" later.  The first section should remain constant for several election cycles, the second section gets updated as events warrant.

33 We need something about having railguns mounted on dinosaurs.  Frank J.'s been a leading advocate on this important issue.

34 It's a good start, but the RNC peeps need to call Glenn Beck's 9/12 peeps for a final draft.

35 I like the abortion treatment.  Please don't ruin our chances of victory with an abortion plank that alienates 35% of potential voters. 

d'après Prager, most abortions (statistically) are immoral; some are not.  Keep abortion legal; sensitize more people to the moral dimension of abortion, and when that happens, we can move forward.

36 Translations:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

--just like the good old Bush days. Also, as anyone knows, you don't reduce government spending during a recession. Unless you';re a fucking knucklehead.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

--insurance oligopoly subsidies forever!

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

--cap 'n trade is "market-based" you fucking idiots

(4) We support workersÂ’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

--we prefer employers to bully employees with termination if employees vote for union rep[resentation (read: we hate workers; we hate ourselves)

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

--Mexicans!!

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

--even if achieving "victory" (which we could never define, anyway) means bankrupting the country

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

--you mean, like Bush did, invading Iraq to give Iraq to Iran? Non-pereil strategy, there.

( We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

--Fags!!

(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

--I oppose abortion, unless I knock-up the neighbor's wife

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

--don't worry, knuckleheads. Nobody's gonna take you gun away.

37 I would like to propose a principle, "We believe that the Juicebox Media needs a nap." Say Goodnight Keithy! lol

38 11) We support smoking hot babes
12) We eat bacon and hobo stew
13) We support any new items added by ace

39
14) We do not seek the approval of Democrats for any of the items on this list of principles; we are done trying to please our political enemies; and we are done allowing our political enemies write the rules.

40 Wow... The RNC proposes a sensible platform that can entice swing voters, and people here start bitching that their pet cause isn't addressed, or, they try to impose what the media is already calling it- a purity test.

Look, this is good guidance, and potentially a good marketing tool to improve electoral chances in 2010. Don't spoil it by internal division.

41

More importantly, it's quite a good list. Abortion is handled particularly well (public financing is a good place to draw the line, while not casting out pro-choice Republicans as heretics). -

So you can throw out one of the three most basic rights; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and still not be a heritic?

42 I agree with some of the commenters above. I especially have concerns that all these issues may be important, but they are not equally important. For example, if the candidate is 9/10 but the one he/she disagrees with is the one about low taxes and small government, well that's a dealbreaker for me and I won't be sold just because the candidate is pro-life. This is my big beef with guys like Huckabee.

43 Wow... The RNC proposes a sensible platform that can entice swing voters, and people here start bitching that their pet cause isn't addressed, or, they try to impose what the media is already calling it- a purity test.

It can already entice swing voters by allowing people to not match up with the list 100%. There's no need to water down the issues themselves.

44 You know what? That's a real nice list. Reminiscent of Contract With America. So whats to keep the bastards from wiping their RINO asses with it once they are back in power, just like they did with the CWA? Humm?

45

Lose Nos. 8 and 9 and you have a grand slam

This is not the electoral cycle to fight cultural wars again, and those 2 points are huge red flags waving in front of the bull

46 So close to a pro-freedom platform, then we have to get involved in voluntary inter-person agreements with DOMA. Dumb. We abdicated the sanctity of marriage when we handed it to the state in the first place. And a million gay marriages in the county records will never alter the vows taken as a covenant between a man, a woman, and their god. So unless you think salvation is a communal deal and you can't make it to eternity unless your neighbors are all saved, I just don't get the religious angle. And no, I don't care if it's a winner in the polls right now. Historically it will be the loser, and will look stupid. I will never understand how others people's choices, and my nose getting in between them, is important enough for a plank of a platform. Idiocy.

47 It's good enough. It's not perfect.

 Personally, I'm not keen on the Defense of Marriage Act thing - I just don't think it's a federal issue.  The abortion compromise probably works - it's one thing to not use public resources for abortion, and quite another thing to ban abortion.  I'm personally against it, but at least in early stages, it should probably be up to the parents.

I wish we could add "Support efficient government by opposing all unionization of federal, state, or local government employees, or any persons who hold any form of professional license (e.g. teachers)."

48 A position list that takes its form from the current litany of Democrats' priorities? In random order? How very RNC.

The hammering on "we support [...] by" is a stupid Mission Statement tic; the "we support by opposing" construction it forces on half the thing, just to make it look like Republicans are keen to "do something," is a fucking mess.

A plain list of what Republican voters want legislators to do, based on how polls rank voter priorities, would do the job perfectly. I guess that's why the RNC won't make one.

For one, DoMA wouldn't be on it, so the Beltway-fantasy "Republican base" wouldn't be satisfied.

49 I like the abortion treatment.  Please don't ruin our chances of victory with an abortion plank that alienates 35% of potential voters. 

Except the near fiscal anarchy most of you libertarian turds propose is a lot more likely to alienate potential voters. It's strange how the issues we must compromise on are always the issues you fuckers match up with the liberals on. It's almost as if you expect everybody else to compromise except you.

50
Yeah, Trump's right.

We need to keep being pussies and shy away from the third-rail issues such as killing unborn babies and granting special right to a fringe group.

51 So you can throw out one of the three most basic rights; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and still not be a heritic?

Posted by: teej at November 23, 2009 03:03 PM (QdUKm)

I prefer the Constitutional formulation:

Life, Liberty, and Property.

Not that our courts, or governments, have any respect for these ...

52
...and here come the hand-wringers.

These are the same bed-wetters who get their panties in a bunch over Ann Coulter and whine about her driving away moderates.

53

This list is so flaccid, just the lamest reaction to Donk initiatives.

Where is  Reform of Government?  No new legislation until unwinding 50 years of clusterflocking us has begun.

Government adminstration staffs, at every level, in every corner, slashed 50%, just because we say so.

GOP needs to be refounded, call 'em WhigsDevolved.

54 (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges following through on US commitments

55

Drew, I suspect some of our so-cons will call you out for cherry-picking your list in that only 3 issues (abortion, marriage, immigration) are arguably from that side of the fence.  For me personally, it's pretty spot-on.

2 and 10 seem to overlap a bit.  I'd make "oppose government funding for abortion" a stand-alone and throw the overlapping parts of 10 into 2.

Abortion:  I'm personally against it*, but I can live with pro-choice Republicans like Rudy.  There are other issues on the table such as limited government and national security that impact the whole society, not just the unborn, and the latest abortion-funding-amendment fiasco shows that many pro-lifers prefer a 100% pro-life rating over defeating a healthcare bill that runs counter to (at least) points 1, 2, 5 and 9.

Defense of Marriage Act:  I support it, but don't think it's important enough to be part of a litmus test for candidates.

* As an adoptee who knows my birth family, I know that if Roe had come down in 1968 I wouldn't be here.  I have some skin in that game.  So if anyone would like to take issue with my ability to live with Rudy on this, you need to tell me what personally important issues you'd compromise for the good of the party.

56

Personally, I'd support a platform that promises to vote no on everything for 3-7 years, but I guess that doesn't sell well.

 

Re: DOMA, isn't supporting that, in fact, leaving marriage up to the states, in that it says one state doesn't have to recognize another state's marriages if the break that states rules? Maybe it should be phrased as a defense of federalism, but it isn't a federal gov't power grab, to my knowledge.

57 What about the solving the problem of $50+ trillion in unfunded Medicare, Medicaid and SS liabilities?  Funny how there's no mention of this.

58

(4) needs to be expanded to a general principle of privacy in elections. For instance, the West Coast GOP needs to support signature hashing for public petitions - to protect signatories from harassment.

And it's a bit heavy on opposition; not enough specifics on what the GOP should do. (3) can name-check modern nuclear-fission reactors. For instance.

I'm not getting into Iraq or Afghanistan... I don't know enough.

One of them overreached: (9). (9) should read "we oppose government rationing". Because every agency which pays the bills has to have a Death Panel - to make the call to ration care for moribund patient X, or else they fail to help viable patients A, B, and C. Our argument is that this call should be made between the doctors, families, and the entity paying the freight. Our objection is to the government being that Single Payer. This list of principles would inject the government into there and concedes the Democrats' point for a cheap political gain, a gain that will evaporate in days.

Otherwise it's a good list. It's to the Left of me, and I'm not even Conservative.

59

I prefer the Constitutional formulation:

Life, Liberty, and Property.

Not that our courts, or governments, have any respect for these ... -

Yessir, I just always took pursuit of happiness to mean pursuit of property, possibly due to how it was phrased in the constitution. Thanks for the clarification.

60

 Jacob Javitz at November 23, 2009 03:00 PM (RdKK

 

Don't you have work to do, erg???

61 The purpose of this is to de-demonize Republicans.  And yes, anyone living in a blue state knows how necessary that is.

(G-d, how I am not looking forward to Thanksgiving in this respect...)

62
I will never understand how others people's choices, and my nose getting in between them, is important enough for a plank of a platform. Idiocy.

Umm, you gay marriage fucktards are the ones grabbing me by the nose and pulling me in between you by demanding government (which represents the people) endorsement of your perversion. By all means find some quack church to marry you. I don't want marriage in the government at all. But I find it interesting that libertarians want smaller government, except when a pet issue like gay marriage shows up, and then they suddenly want yet another government entitlement EXPANDED.

63

just don't call it a contract

GOP broke the last one, and are reaping the whirlwind today

64

58 correction:

Not "Drew's List", but his positions in agreement therewith.

65

And if you read between the lines you'll see written plainly, "And setting up death camps for dissenters, boy."

66

Naturally MSNBC is calling this a "Purity Test"

 

pure, like their all-caucasian line-up of talking heads?

 

67
 Personally, I'm not keen on the Defense of Marriage Act thing - I just don't think it's a federal issue.

Then you should be all for DOMA, since, IIRC, it's purpose is to prevent states from having to recognize gay marriages performed in another state.

68 DOMA is a slam-dunk. We need a few of those.

69

 you need to tell me what personally important issues you'd compromise for the good of the party. -

None, absolutly zero. Not the type of person to put "the good of the party", any party, above my principles. Compromising, a little further to the left, a little further away from the constitution, each go 'round, is how we got into this freaking mess in the first place.

70 Why, it's almost like a Contract With America... how'd that work out for us? The problem with the GOP ain't the principles, it's the principals...

71

MSNBC

"Where Obama's record isn't the only thing that gets our White Out"

72 The problem with the GOP ain't the principles, it's the principals...

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at November 23, 2009 03:19 PM (JJpmw)

 

_{ah dude- I saw what ya did there}

73

Hmmm, part of me likes this list, part of me, the one with the cojones, thinks this is rather weak. Too much "opposition", not enough direction.

How about something along these lines: "We reject the notion of man-made global warming. It should not become the basis for any law or regulation until it has been proven to exist."

"We support a balanced federal budget. We will propose no new laws that increase spending. Period."

"We support the traditional familial unit of one father and one mother as the best environment in which to raise children. The parents are the ultimate arbiters and instructors, not schools."

74 A good list- tax cuts for everyone needs to be added, but otherwise great. Although by next fall it may be so bad that an agenda that calls for smallpox-infested blankets for children would do well vs. the Democrats.

75 Ergie's on board with all those fabulous programs. Douchenozzle?

76 This is a nice list, but I hope they massage the format a bit for marketing purposes. It would really be better to see it stated as a positive affirmation of principles, followed by an action item. Example:

Principle: We support market-based energy reforms.
Action: We support the raising of some governmental restrictions on the construction of new safe nuclear plants, and on drilling for oil within certain U.S. lands. We also oppose "top down" styles of federal programs like Cap and Trade.

They shouldn't be saying that they "support" X by "opposing" Y all the time. Positive statements.

77 If we used my 11 we could get rid of 8 and 9.

78

I can support all ten of these. As far as abortion goes, I realize it's the law of the land but that doesn't mean the taxpayers have to pay for it. DoMA: only reason for asking it to be shot down is for bennies. Both parties should get a job, marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. There is no such thing as gay marriage. AfPak: only way to win is by a surge tailored for that theater. Losing is not really an option. I support healthcare reform but not in the form the dems are trying to shove down our throats. The immigration issue should be a common sense thing, I'll never understand how people can be for illegal immigration and all the problems that come with it. Not to mention that many friends I have had to do it legally, why should someone get a pass because of geography? 

The question is, how many RINOs  who are already in office will buy into that?  And do we have a feasible alternative without electing a straight out lib in their place? 

79 school choice

80 I don't like the Defense of Marriage bit (I think that is a state issue and the federal government has no business going there) 

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 23, 2009 02:47 PM (f9c2L)

The main reason for the DoMA is because it would cost taxpayers millions every year to pay benefits to these people if they hold a federal job. The feds do not get involved in marriage other than that.

81

There's a difference between platform and policy.

What would get votes, IMO, is if we mention the Constitution, that we don't mention any politician by name (like Obama), and that we get rid of the comparative adjectives. "Small-er" government is Red Toryism; it's weak, and it concedes the field to the Left. We need more Thatchers in 2010, not Heaths. A clear statement of principles, and not mush, is for the platform.

But that means you have to keep the expression of those principles to tangible policy; and these policies should be appealing to the maximum number of voters.

progressoverpeace #17, I'd like employee unions banned from any organisation which the government pays for. 18-1 #28, I agree with not overspending until we have at least the deficit under control (because other countries would like to have confidence in our fisc again). But for these we might not be able to get votes.

(Of course SEIU could always mount a series of crippling strikes over the next year, and if that happens then progressoverpeace #17 becomes electable. America doesn't remember what it's like to live under union rule. I was born in the UK in the 1970s. I remember.)

82 We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits...

FAIL. We need to work toward NO debt and NO deficits. You can't continue to spend more money than you take in FOREVER.

We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society...

FAIL. Immigrants are NOT assimilating because there is no incentive for them to do so and because there are so many of them that they form self sustaining communities. We need to halt immigration for 25 years or more, except for special cases, in order to allow the current immigrants to be absorbed and assimilated.

83

BackwardsBoy 76 "We reject the notion of man-made global warming. It should not become the basis for any law or regulation until it has been proven to exist."

Do that and you're "politicising science". Even though you're right, remember: you want ammunition for your side, not for theirs.

The platform is right to talk up energy and the market, and not to mention carbon.

84 The main reason for the DoMA is because it would cost taxpayers millions every year to pay benefits to these people if they hold a federal job. The feds do not get involved in marriage other than that.

Posted by: Bill R. at November 23, 2009 03:33 PM (EhlQq)

The feds also use marriage as one of the bases for our immigration policy - as it is family-oriented. This is why marriage is extremely important at the federal level, even though it is a state issue. Could you imagine the insanity that would follow if polygamy were recognized (as it is more traditional and rational than gay marriage, it would necessarily have to follow any "Equal Protection" arguments for gay marriage)? The impact on our society would be absolutely unbelievable, and detrimental in the extreme.

85 I'm hardly a good Republican....  but my most compelling reason to support the GOP is the pro-life issue.

This list is lame if it doesn't even include the pro-life position.  I mean, come on, at least let people opt out of opposition to infanticide....  but to just leave it off the list altogether?!?!  At least offer some guidance as to what the correct position is.

And then you look at what they DO include....  "card check" and "defense of marriage"...  which matter, sure, but seem remarkably less urgent than protecting infants from being ripped apart in the womb and tossed in a dumpster. 

86 What does McCain score? A three?

87 I don't think Ron Paul could sign to more than 7 of them.

88 NO welfare for immigrants. If you can't make it on your own, sorry, but you'll have to go home and make room for someone more capable - maybe even an American.

89 My platform:

1)  Ordered Liberty







That is all.

90

TERM LIMITS!

2 SENATE

4 HOUSE

10 YRS FEDERAL BENCH UP TO AND INCL SCOTUS

91 1 and 7 really shouldn't be negotiable, and the only reason not to make the no to amnesty mandatory is the same thinking that got us the tuck rule.  Generally this is not strong enough and I don't see how it requires better behavior from the squishes we currently have issues with.

And if it's just talk, it's worthless anyway.

92 So, national security isn't that important any more. Huh. Except for Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea, anti-terrorism and projecting military power around the world is no longer an election issue. Maybe I'm living in the past (and by "the past" I mean 2004) but I thought the Republicans owned this issue. OK, fine. Count me in, GOP, but know that we agree on only 4 out of 10 points.

93

They shouldn't be saying that they "support" X by "opposing" Y all the time. Positive statements.

I totally agree.  2010 can be won...BIG...with three positive statements.

1.  Victory in Afghanistan.

2.  Energy independence.

3.  Fiscal discipline.

94 There's definitely some items missing from that list of principles.

(11) We support decriminalizing of Valu-Rite Vodka, cigars, and recreational hobo-strangling;
(12) We oppose ALL portrayals of lesbians on film and video unless they're smokin' hot;
(13) We want all government jobs to be made salary-less (if it's such a goddamned noble cause, why do you want to be paid for it?)
(14) We want a giant space-based laser system to protect Earth from asteroids, and also to use to fry uppity foreign creeps and scare the pants off the Chinese;
(15) Supreme Court justices have to wear CLOTHES under their robes!  No more judicial "tentpole" incidents!

95 That list of principles would need to include something about judges, and something about jobs.

96 New and improved list. 1. We will kill terrorists and anyone near said terrorists, can't be to safe, recent scientificy studies have reported mice can transfer terroristic tendencies though close contact with andrew sullivan. B. We won't piss on you and tell you that its raining, unless you're an attractive female and into that kind of thing, then please send me an email. 4. There is only one rule in fight...er our america, leave us, our wallets, our heath care, and our neighbors kids lunch bag with however many cookies his fat ass wants to eat alone. Kill hippies and prosper.

97 The main reason for the DoMA is that if fractures the Democratic coalition (Rich White Lib vs Poor Blacks).

98

Pick a hard number, re how many points a GOP candidate or representative must support.  Then add an 11th point - any incumbent (that doesn't continue to adhere to) or candidate that does not meet the minimum requirements will get zero support, of any type from the GOP, and may face open opposition from the GOP & its coffers.

Don't want any more Arlen Specters.

99 This is why marriage is extremely important at the federal level, even though it is a state issue. Could you imagine the insanity that would follow if polygamy were recognized (as it is more traditional and rational than gay marriage, it would necessarily have to follow any "Equal Protection" arguments for gay marriage)? The impact on our society would be absolutely unbelievable, and detrimental in the extreme.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 23, 2009 03:40 PM (A46hP)

Didn't think about that when I posted but, yeah, that's true. Still trying to figure out the "equal protection" part when they already have the same rights to marry as anyone else. Marriage is between a man and a woman and they can get married same as straight people, just not to someone of the same gender, as that would not fall under the definition of marriage

100

51 and 65:  Reagan Rule, please.  Someone who might agree with you on 70-80% of what you say should not be referred to as a turd, fucktard, etc...

101 Real Energy Jobs in America, Today (Rephrase Drill here/Drill Now)

102

Zimriel #87

The platform is right to talk up energy and the market, and not to mention carbon.

I would say rather we should talk up energy as a security issue and as a balance of trade issue.  Remind people every chance we get that we are sending $700 Billion a year overseas (to some countries that actively support our enemies).  Building clean energy here makes sense as long as a free market can support it. 

The last time I saw Boehner talk about global warming he looked like an idiot.  We can simply say promoting American produced energy that is cleaner is good for our country even though the jury is still out on whether man affects the climate or not.  (or some such bullshit like that.. (8 )

103 Still trying to figure out the "equal protection" part when they already have the same rights to marry as anyone else. Marriage is between a man and a woman and they can get married same as straight people, just not to someone of the same gender, as that would not fall under the definition of marriage

Posted by: Bill R. at November 23, 2009 03:59 PM (EhlQq)

I agree with you. I'm not saying that the "Equal Protection" arguments for gay marriage make any sense, but that is what many are pushing and that is what many state courts have been ruling on - either explicitly or with it in the background - and what many legislatures have been basing their arguments on.

104 Reducing Taxes Creates Jobs (It is the Economy, stupid)

105

If the Republican Party sticks to these principles, then sign me up as a Republican!

 

106 The problem I have with a set of stated principles like these is that I don't trust anyone running on them to follow through with them once in office.  For instance, every time Texas is about to elect a governor, all the candidates (the serious ones, anyway) swear up and down that border security is by gosh the most important thing to them and if they're elected, we may have to physically restrain them from marching down to the border themselves to stem the flood of illegals.  And once they're elected, the issue is dropped until the next election season.  Same with most of these crap-weasels.  Just because they've figured out what lines to parrot to get people to vote for them doesn't mean squat to me.

107 Zim, good point on the ammunition thing. The thing that bugs me is that science has already been politicized by the numerous laws and regulations that are based on the theory of global warming.

108 Unconditional Victory and Eternal Vigilance (get your historic national security and messianic messages all-in-one)

109 Incomplete but at least its a decent start. Number 8 bothers me, but for a different reason than the usual hip modern squishy conservative holds. The Defense of Marriage Act puts marriage in the hands of the federal government even slightly, and the founding fathers rejected that for good reason.

110

Its a good start.  But like I told my 16 year old high school sweetheart, "You have to show me that you mean it if you want me to believe it." 

 

111 Re: DOMA, isn't supporting that, in fact, leaving marriage up to the states, in that it says one state doesn't have to recognize another state's marriages if the break that states rules?

No, DOMA section 3 contains a federal definition of marriage which says "the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

This takes what was a state issue--who is lawfully married--and makes it a federal issue.  For example, in places where gay marriage is lawful like Massachusetts and Iowa, the married couple is treated as individuals for the purposes of filing federal taxes, receiving federal benefits, etc.

So, if I (a federal employee) were to marry a guy where it is lawful to do so, I couldn't put my husband on my employer-provided health insurance, he wouldn't get automatic access to my pension if something were to happen to me, etc. Even though the state recognizes my (hypothetical) lawful marriage, my employer--because of DOMA--cannot.

DOMA is an abrogation of federalism. You can say it's a conservative principle, sure. But it sure as hell doesn't comport with federalism.

112 I'm disappointed because it didn't say anything about being rid of fuckwits like Michael Steele.

113  The main reason for the DoMA is because it would cost taxpayers millions every year to pay benefits to these people if they hold a federal job. The feds do not get involved in marriage other than that.

That is one of the fuckin' lousiest excuses for discrimination ever. Hey, we should discriminate against lawfully married gays because it saves money! (Incidentally, we could also save money by discriminating against lawfully married mix-raced couples too. Or lawfully married white couples. Or lawfully married couples with kids. The savings are endless!!!)

114

typical politicians use a page of words when all they needed to say was we support life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

 

 

115 I agree with some of the others here that say this list needs to be re-ordered a bit. And with some wording changes. Mainly dropping out a lot of the "we oppose" stuff. The "party of no" meme is pretty prevalent with the uninformed, so we need to get away from leaving that impression. Here's my take on the list (trying to remember the K.I.S.S. rule as much as possible):

1. We support the original role of the federal government as imagined and detailed by our founders in the Constitution. We support small government, no national debt, no deficits and low taxes. In order to work towards those goals, we propose to cut all unnecessary and/or wasteful federal programs and scale back entitlements, looking to phase them out at the federal level in the future.

2. We believe our national security is extremely important. Therefore, we support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by granting our military and commanders on the ground our full confidence as well as all of the resources they need to ensure victory.

3. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat. We will not shrink from taking strong action in order to ensure our safety, nor will we take any options off the table.

4. We believe that the American people are smart enough to make the right choices for their families. Therefore, we support market-based health insurance reforms that keep insurance purchases private and keep your health decisions between yourself and your doctor. We also support measures to negate the unfair tax advantages large corporations receive in order to provide health insurance by offering to extend those same tax benefits to those who purchase insurance on their own.

5.  As with health insurance, we trust the American people to make the best decisions for their communities; therefore, we support market-driven energy reforms that happen naturally over time. We also support state efforts to tap into their natural resources in order to supply the nation with domestic energy sources. We also support efforts to explore safe and efficient alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power.

6. We support workers' rights to a secret ballot as well as state efforts to reform local voting regulations in order to protect against fraudulent voting in elections.

7. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons; therefore we cannot support any form of government imposed health care rationing or government imposed denial of health care. We also cannot support government funding of abortion.

8. We support the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, and subsequently, the right of the people of each state to decide issues not specifically delegated to the Congress for themselves. Therefore, we support the right of each state to determine appropriate laws in regards to abortion and same-sex unions, as well as any other "social" issues that may arise in the future. We support the Defense of Marriage Act, as it provides additional protection to the individual states against judicial activism.

9. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society. We welcome all who desire to come into our country via the appropriate legal processes and are willing and able to contribute to the betterment of our society. We also support strengthening the security of our borders as well as enforcing current immigration laws by enforcing status checks for employment and heavily penalizing businesses and other organizations who do not comply with the law.

10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership as listed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution


I re-ordered them to present the biggies first (fiscal responsibility followed by national security) then put in general domestic issues followed by the social ones. I think it's important to stress to people that the party wants to let people make the best decisions for themselves and their communities, so I put in some "shout-outs" to the 10th Amendment. If the bottom line is that we're looking for a general list of things that most reasonable people can agree with (and not get too into specific policy, as the average person doesn't follow politics like we AOSHQ morons do), then I think these are good starting points that clarify each position as far as we can without getting into purity tests.

116 It's a good start and quite tame. Chop out the silly "support by opposing" language and just identify what to support. It's obvious that the opposite of what is supported will be opposed. I'm in the fold easily, 9 of 10. 

117

FWIW, I only disagree with 3 of those, and I still consider myself a centrist Democrat.

 

The abortion statement is one of the ones that bother me, and, honestly, you're not going to fool me into thinking the Republican party is suddenly kind of pro-choice because of the careful wording there. I think agree with those who have said it might as well be a stronger pro-life statement. Why alienate your pro-life base when you really, really can't win over people like me anyway on that issue?

118

72:

If your position is "I won't compromise on anything" you need to find a country where everyone agrees with everything you say.

The problem with the "no compromise" mentality in a democracy is that, unlike your Country of One, compromise will be forced on you by people who disagree with you, whether you like it or not.  You can either participate in the process to make the product better, grant yourself the moral authority to disobey because you won't compromise your principles, or simply sulk in your philosophical purity while doing the things you don't want to do.

The whole idea of "re-founding" sounds great, but how does anyone propose to accomplish this ?

 

 

119 how about we will pass no bill that does not have 80% approval.

120 Posted by: Dora Suarez at November 23, 2009 04:21 PM (0/Svj)

Just curious as to why the abortion statement bothers you? If you believe in small government, then it's only logical to allow the states to decide the issues for themselves. It's also only logical to deny federal funding of what is an elective medical procedure. We're not in the business of funding rhinoplasty or breast implants. Why should we be forced to fund a procedure to eliminate a condition (I hate that language, but that's unfortunately part of politics) that is entirely preventable?

121 This takes what was a state issue--who is lawfully married--and makes it a federal issue. For example, in places where gay marriage is lawful like Massachusetts and Iowa, the married couple is treated as individuals for the purposes of filing federal taxes, receiving federal benefits, etc.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:13 PM (Mi2wf)

There is a federal definition of "immediate family" (which obviously includes marriage in it - though the Immigration and Nationality Act does not specify marriage, since its basic definition was so obvious to everyone at the time that it didn't warrant any explanation) and it is used for our immigration policy.

For example, from the INA:

(A) (i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien's immediate family;

(i) is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United States 3bb/ (other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) ) and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission;

I think we can all agree that "fiance" requires a definition of marriage - again, something that was universally accepted at the time of this writing and needed no explanation.

(G) (i) a designated principal resident representative of a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, which foreign government is a member of an international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669) 22 U.S.C. 288, note, accredited resident members of the staff of such representatives, and members of his or their immediate family;

Why do you ignore this impact of "marriage" and "family" at the federal level, and in one of the most contentious issues of our time?

122 This takes what was a state issue--who is lawfully married--and makes it a federal issue.

Gabe,

It was a state issue when marriage meant one specific thing for the entire country since its founding.

Start playing with that definition, then you inevitably start playing with what is and isn't 'a state issue'.

It wasn't federalists who opened this box up.

123 Good start, but lots of things need fixing.

We need to build a big coalition that emphasizes the primacy of personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, or national security.  If HillBuzz.org is reflective of how libs are currently thinking we have an excellent chance of building a coalition of with a strong libertarian agenda.  So I'd scrap 8 and anything that looks like a social conservative agenda.

A national energy policy that focuses on state-of-the-art nuclear energy.

Something explicit about enforcing the borders is badly needed.

Reducing the deficit and debt is a weak and tepid response.  We need to fix the damn thing and pass a constitutional amendment that will never allow this kind of stuff to happen again.

124 progressoverpeace, don't even attempt to go down that road with me. The portions of the INA you just quoted are from INA Ss 101(a)(15) defining those who are  NOT immigrants within the meaning of the Act.

125 I just listened to Mitch McConell on Hannity. He thought it was pretty shrewd that the LA whore held out for $300M. He refused to call it a bribe. Principled meh. He can fuck himself with Pelosi's cock as far as I'm concerned.

126 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:13 PM (Mi2wf)

Your attempt to dismiss the federal impact of the definition of marriage in various states sounds suspiciously similar to your denial of the obvious meaning of 'natural born citizen', written at a time when American dual-citizenship was totally rejected, only to have you (and those who argue law as you) claiming that dual citizens are automatically included in the class of 'natural born citizens' even though they were specifically excluded at the time of the writing.

By your own arguments with the 'natural born citizen' clause, you would be the first in line to claim that because Massachusetts extends marriage to polygamists (as that will happen, eventually) that their "immediate family" are welcome as immigrants under the existing INA - which is, of course, insane.

127 129 progressoverpeace, don't even attempt to go down that road with me. The portions of the INA you just quoted are from INA Ss 101(a)(15) defining those who are NOT immigrants within the meaning of the Act.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:33 PM (Mi2wf)

Those were just random examples pulled to prove that "marriage" has a very important federal meaning. Do you deny that "marriage" has a federal meaning?

128  Gabe,

It was a state issue when marriage meant one specific thing for the entire country since its founding.

Start playing with that definition, then you inevitably start playing with what is and isn't 'a state issue'.

It wasn't federalists who opened this box up.

Drew, the states had different definitions of marriage from the very beginning. The most obvious (and slightly squicktastic) is that in some states (*cough*California*cough*) it is lawful to marry a first cousin and in other states (*cough*Arkansas*cough*) it is not.

Just because the definition of marriage is different in the states, there isn't a reason for the national government to iron it out. As far as the national government was concerned, a lawful marriage is a lawful marriage. If you couldn't marry your cousin in your home state, you could go do it somewhere else. It was all the same to the national government.

That changed with gay marriage. Suddenly, it was decided that this decision--what is or is not a lawful marriage--was too important to let the states decide. So the national government overrode what was traditionally a state decision.

Squirm all you want. That's an abrogation of federalism. Own it.

129 Drew, the states had different definitions of marriage from the very beginning. The most obvious (and slightly squicktastic) is that in some states (*cough*California*cough*) it is lawful to marry a first cousin and in other states (*cough*Arkansas*cough*) it is not.

Really? That's the line you're going with?

Ok, I will resubmit my comment with a clarification...

It was a state issue when marriage meant one specific thing (one man and one woman) for the entire country since its founding.

Start playing with that definition, then you inevitably start playing with what is and isn't 'a state issue'.

It wasn't federalists who opened this box up.

Want to try again?

130 Gabe,

It was a state issue when marriage meant one specific thing for the entire country since its founding.

Start playing with that definition, then you inevitably start playing with what is and isn't 'a state issue'.

It wasn't federalists who opened this box up.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 23, 2009 04:33 PM (FCWQb)

No shit. DOMA doesn't define federal marriage, it reiterates it. It prevents any state from attempting, solely, to force a change in that definition. Is every word supposed to be up for grabs because the Founders didn't write a dictionary too?

131 Mandy P., partly it bothers me because I know the actual position of most Republicans is much stronger than that, so I read it as the one where the Republicans re-affirm that they are pro-life while trying to pretend not to. So on that level I disagree with what I think it means rather than what it says. But also, since I am 100% pro-choice, and see all these little bobbles and restrictions as part of the ongoing effort to chip away at abortion rights by whatever means possible, the individual merits of each little restriction frankly don't matter to me. Besides, I don't think abortion is purely elective the way, say, plastic surgery is. If a person is pregnant, she either has to have medical care for pregnancy and childbirth, or for an abortion. Withdrawing federal money for the latter is meant to express disapproval for it, which I don't share.

132 Gabriel Malor, like a lot of people tending left, needs to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "discrimination." See, discriminating is not in and of its self bad. I discriminate against murderers and rapists, and their acts. So do most people, I expect. That's proper because they are horrible people who've done horrible things.

But there's another level: I discriminate against yams because I think they taste lousy. I discriminate in favor of redheaded girls because I think they are prettier. Those aren't bad forms of discrimination either. Having a "discriminating palate" for example, used to be considered a virtue.

Discrimination is simply favoring one thing over another, for whatever reason. It only because bad if your reasons are unethical. It only is illegal if your reasons for discriminating are illegal.

Thus, picking "slugger" Bob to play on your baseball team ahead of geeky Joe is discrimination, but not somehow a horrible act.

The argument never given by the gay "marriage" advocates is why we should have this. It's always "well what could it hurt?" in the end, and that's not enough.

133 There's an awful lot of the "smaller government" rhetoric that always gets brushed aside with "Well, but this is crucial!!!"

The only question I need my representatives to wrestle with is: Is this the approach that is the smallest possible government intervention to provide the desired outcomes? Or does it at least set the stage for the same?

Or, hell. In today's politics, does it at least avoid making it illegal to be responsible for oneself.

134 I support all but 8 and 9.  I must be a liberal.

135 FTR- I find the argument Gabe makes in 134 to be one of the most disingenuous out there and I say that as someone who would vote for same-sex marriage.

To pretend that redefining marriage in this way is really just a tweak, something that happens all the time is really annoying.

If people want to argue for same-sex marriage they really should be upfront about what they are trying to do.

136

The GOP could forego specific platform items for now. Republicans could just say, "The Democrats got their way. Here we are."

137 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:38 PM (Mi2wf)

States didn't have different definitions of marriage. It was the union of  one man and one woman, everywhere. They had different restrictions added to that definition, but the same definition. Things weren't suddenly changed with the advent of "gay marriage", which is exactly why there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth over this. It was just supposed to suddenly change and everyone was to just roll over. Allowing the redefinition of a word as basic as marriage with the fall of a gavel.

138
Not sure how to word this, but I'd add a statement that requires Congress and the Senate need to live with the same mandates and laws that they impose on their constituencies. 

139 Christopher, read what I wrote again and try not to let your prejudices carry you off. I didn't write anything about why gay marriage should be lawful because that's not the point of this discussion. We're talking about whether and why some lawful marriages should be given federal credit and others not.

Now, one commenter suggested that we should discriminate between lawful marriages because it saves money. I suggested that was reprehensible and leads to absurd results.  And the truth is, that's not the real reason people are interested in discriminating against lawful gay marriages.  That may be a nice little side benefit, but we all know that's not the real reason they're trying to keep the federal benefits of all other lawful marriages in this country away from gays.

140 C Taylor, exactly. What is the argument for government regulation of same sex relationships? Marriage as a heterosexual relationship has economic (replacement ratio) and public health (genetic diversity) roles for government regulation, what are those roles for government on the gay side. And then, are they essential.

141 You can have every other benefit America has to offfer.Marriage is between a man and a woman.

142 To pretend that redefining marriage in this way is really just a tweak, something that happens all the time is really annoying.

If people want to argue for same-sex marriage they really should be upfront about what they are trying to do.

You give the game away, Drew. You're fine with states making "just tweaks." But if a state were to do something drastic, well, we can't have that. Must impose a federal definition. Byebye federalism.

143 Withdrawing federal money for the latter is meant to express disapproval for it, which I don't share.

Posted by: Dora Suarez at November 23, 2009 04:41 PM (0/Svj)

I'm opposed to abortion; however the reasons I don't want federal money given for it have less to do with my personal disapproval than my promotion and support of limited federal government. That includes what we spend our money on. The vast majority of what our federal dollars are spent on is completely inappropriate. In keeping with those principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility, something like abortion should be left to the states to decide if they want to fund it. The rest of the country should be left out of it altogether. 

And again, if you believe in the Constitution and limited government, you should be all for letting the states decide these issues. If you are 100% pro-choice, as you say, then you are free to either lobby your state to change its laws to reflect your values, or you are free to vote with your feet and move to a state that is more reflective of those values. That's the point behind limiting the federal government. You don't like things here, there's always somewhere else you can go. As it stands now, if you don't like things in one state, there's not really anywhere you can go to escape it because the feds are so involved that they've done their best to make each state into carbon copies.

And of course, there's the question of why one would vote for a party or candidate who's 80-90% against most of what they are personally for versus voting for a party where you may not agree with one or two things, but you're getting the vast majority of what you want. Personally, fiscal responsibility and national security are the biggies. The social issues are a whole heck of a lot less important when we've got a collapsing economy and our people and homeland are being threatened.

144 Gabe, if you want government to regulate same sex relationships then give it a reason to do so: public health (don't think you want to go there), economic (ok, gay marriages pay more Social Security taxes, that what is fair, unless the adopt and raise three kids), any others?

145 But if a state were to do something drastic, well, we can't have that. Must impose a federal definition. Byebye federalism.

You are arguing for this kind reverse federalism that I'm not familiar with. Just because a state says something has a definition, I'm not sure where the idea the federal government has to live with that definition comes from. Again, it never needed to be addressed at the federal level because the definition was esentially the same everywhere.

I've never said the federal government "must impose" a definition of any sort. My point is they are empowered to.

I'm not sure how saying the states can have one definition but the federal government has another violates the principle of federalism. It strikes me as well within the concept.

BTW-Without DoMA people in a state like Texas or Maine would be forced to subsidized 'marriages' of federal workers (or others covered by the cases we are talking about) married in other states. What federalist principle mandates that?

146 Now, one commenter suggested that we should discriminate between lawful marriages because it saves money.

And you condemned it for being discrimination. Which means you aren't quite square on the concept yet. Discrimination for monetary reasons is perfectly reasonable if it isn't unethcial. That's why I buy cheaper products when they aren't of lower quality.

Your problem is you presume - without probably even considering it - that discrimination against gay marriages is unethical. Certainly you do so without bothering to make the argument.

147 Gabe, if you want government to regulate same sex relationships then

In America the national government is supposed to have a reason for forbidding us from doing stuff.  We're not supposed to have to beg the government for permission.

I'm actually interested to know what the reason is for discriminating between lawful marriages. I'm talking about Lawful Iowa Marriage A (a guy and a girl) and Lawful Iowa Marriage B (girl and a girl). They're both lawful marriages. So why should the federal government discriminate between them? In law-speak, I'm looking for the rational basis here.

148

Mandy P., in retrospect it may have been a better to decide this issue state-by-state rather than at the federal level. However, if federal funds pay for childbirth but not abortion for indigent women, then to me it's not a limited goverment issue, it's about expressing disapproval. (And probably another reason I still identify as a Democrat is that I don't oppose limited welfare or healthcare benefits for the indigent, at either the federal or state level. Smaller is good, but libertarian minimalism is too little for me).

I've had no problem voting for Republicans at the national level for quite some time now, for the reasons you mention. But I would have voted for Hilary Clinton if she'd won the Dem nomination.

149 And just to clarify, I don't think we should be paying for people's pregnancies either. I'd prefer a total phasing out of all entitlement programs at the federal level. If the states would like to have safety nets for their people (like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, WIC, etc), then it is the responsibility of the people of each state to work out the details and then pay for it themselves. But these programs should never have been allowed at the federal level. It is not the responsibility of the country as a whole to make sure someone has a nice retirement or can pay for their eggs and milk. These things are personal responsibilities.

150 You give the game away, Drew. You're fine with states making "just tweaks." But if a state were to do something drastic, well, we can't have that. Must impose a federal definition. Byebye federalism.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:53 PM (Mi2wf)

So, the word marriage was undefined prior to DOMA? How could the writer's have called it the Defense of Marriage Act if marriage had no definition?

Defining marriage was never the sole purview of the state governments any more than definining the word gold is. There is probably no defintion of the word gold in any federal law. But I'll guarantee you that if Mass decides to pass a law that says gold and copper are they same things the fedral government is not going to accept equal amounts of copper or gold as payment for your taxes. And a week later the most die hard federalist gold dealer that ever lived in Mass will be pushing for a Defense of Gold Act from his Senator.

151 But if a state were to do something drastic, well, we can't have that. Must impose a federal definition. Byebye federalism.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:53 PM (Mi2wf)

What the heck are you talking about? Full Faith and Credit makes the issue of a state doing something drastic, at the state level, to a long, nationally accepted definition into a federal issue. IF one state started issuing driver's licenses to 10 year olds, you can bet your butt that it would become federal, since Full Faith and Credit would be in jeopardy - and that "tweak" would be much less than gay marriage and the consequences that would follow it.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how federal law, such as:

(i) is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United States 3bb/ (other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) ) and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission;

doesn't depend on state definitions of marriage.

152 And probably another reason I still identify as a Democrat is that I don't oppose limited welfare or healthcare benefits for the indigent, at either the federal or state level. Smaller is good, but libertarian minimalism is too little for me.

That's where we differ, Dora. And it's a big one which, as you say, is probably why you still identify as a Democrat. The problem is, if you insist on federal intervention in these areas, then there will never be small government or fiscal responsibility at that level. The best the feds can ever do is to present a cookie-cutter solution to a problem because it's absolutely impossible for them to tackle each and every concern at that level. At best, you get a band-aid over the problem. And as we've seen over the past century, at worst you get rampant fraud, unforseen increases in expense, severe mismanagement, and an ever expanding federal reach into our personal lives.

153 In America the national government is supposed to have a reason for forbidding us from doing stuff.  We're not supposed to have to beg the government for permission.

I'm actually interested to know what the reason is for discriminating between lawful marriages. I'm talking about Lawful Iowa Marriage A (a guy and a girl) and Lawful Iowa Marriage B (girl and a girl). They're both lawful marriages. So why should the federal government discriminate between them? In law-speak, I'm looking for the rational basis here.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 05:04 PM (Mi2wf)

So, refusing to give someone something is the same as forbidding them? Just because IOWA decides something is lawful it places no burden on the federal government. This is one odd argument you have got going here. It's a violation of federalism for the feds to reiterate the defintion of marriage because that is reserved to the states but it's just fine for states to decide what the feds must do for their citizens all on their own? Huh?

154 I'm not sure how saying the states can have one definition but the federal government has another violates the principle of federalism. It strikes me as well within the concept.

Drew, federalism modernly (oddly, what would have been the anti-federalists in founding era) is the idea that some areas of governance are properly reserved to the states and others properly reserved to the national government. Generally, the federalist position has been that the national government is supposed to be a limited government with most of the rights and responsibilities of governance kept in the hands of the states and localities and individuals.

Traditionally, marriage and family has been a state concern. Other traditional state concerns have been real property, public health, education, inheritance, professions, etc. (there are many others). Traditional national concerns have been national security, immigration, and foreign policy.

Of course, much has shifted in recent years, with state's rights being trod on by an ever-more pervasive national government.

I've never said the federal government "must impose" a definition of any sort. My point is they are empowered to.

Empowered to where? They get that power in the Constitution, do they? That is a radical departure from long-standing arrangement of power between the national government and the states. How long-standing? Very: "he whole subject of the domestic relations of husbandand wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” In re Burrus,136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890). "here is no federal law of domestic relations, which is primarily a matter of state concern.” De Sylva v. Ballentine,351 U.S. 570, 580 (1956).

BTW-Without DoMA people in a state like Texas or Maine would be forced to subsidized 'marriages' of federal workers (or others covered by the cases we are talking about) married in other states. What federalist principle mandates that?

Love the scare quotes around 'marriages.' You mean lawful marriages between federal workers? What about 'em? People in Texas and Maine must also "subsidize" the marriages of federal workers they might not like to. Like for example, the marriages of mixed-race couples. Or the super-expensive marriages of people with eight kids.

The federalist principle you're looking for is that federal taxes go to pay for federal spending whether the taxpayer personally supports it or not. How could it be otherwise? Imagine if the 52% could opt out of paying for the Iraq War. They'd love that idea.

155 I think it should be more specific re state rights AND it should be  alittle more speciifc re small govt.....it should add we want small govt in all areas [state, fed and local]

156 Full Faith and Credit makes the issue of a state doing something drastic, at the state level, to a long, nationally accepted definition into a federal issue. IF one state started issuing driver's licenses to 10 year olds, you can bet your butt that it would become federal, since Full Faith and Credit would be in jeopardy

Your law-fu is weak, progressoverpeace. The states do not recognize each others' drivers licenses because of FF&C. They recognize each others' licenses because of reciprocity. FF&C does not require them to do anything with respect to drivers licenses.

Similarly, FF&C has thus far not been implicated by marriage licenses. See the bevy of poor unfortunates in Oklahoma who cannot get divorce decrees because the state refuses to recognize their marriages as an example.

157  So, refusing to give someone something is the same as forbidding them? Just because IOWA decides something is lawful it places no burden on the federal government. This is one odd argument you have got going here.

Rocks, you're avoiding my argument. The states have traditionally had authority over family matters including what constitutes a lawful marriage. The federal imposition in that arena by DOMA trenches on that state authority and is therefore an abrogation of the principle of federalism so frequently espoused by conservatives.

That's my argument. Now, you can try and tell me that marriage isn't traditionally a state issue. (You'd be wrong.) You can try and tell me that DOMA doesn't actually impinge on state authority. (Also wrong.) But it's not an odd argument.

FWIW, I think Drew's got the best tack. He's explaining in so many words why DOMA is a justifiable exception to the normal principles of federalism.

158

Dora Suarez (#154): A different way to look at the two scenarios you contrast (indigent abortion v. childbirth) is to prioritize them. In a publicly funded system, with budget limitations, it becomes important to rank health care concerns according to medical necessity.

As long as "life begins at birth" holds, it follows that the official view is of abortion is that it is essentially a cosmetic procedure ie. not a medical necessity in most cases. Where would you rather see the money spent, on a medically unnecessary procedure, or on neo-natal care?

Sadly, once the public option has been up and running for a few years, and governments start running into financing walls as health care eats up a bigger and bigger piece of their budgets, the argument will be that abortion for the indigent is the better place to put the money, because it negates having to spend on obstetrics later.

159 Traditionally, marriage and family has been a state concern.

Yes and traditionally marriage has been a man and a woman. Keep that tradition and none of this is an issue.

As to your point about proper spheres, yes that's true but where there's a nexus between state and federal regulations, benefits, etc, the federal government can certainly have it's own input.

Your argument would be stronger if the federal government got into the business of issuing marriage licenses. That would be an out and out usurpation and violation of federalism.

Again, states do not get  to force their changes onto citizens of other states (either by privileges and immunities or forcing them to subsidize those decisions through the federal treasury).

I don't get this idea that only one half of the equation can be changed. You want the federalist tradition to be held to at all times (I say it is) but you also want to be free to change the basic definition of marriage. You simply can't change something so fundamental and then demand no one react to it.

I like the cites from 1890 and 1956...no one at those points in time would have conceived of the idea of same sex marriage. Also, perhaps if you had something post Great Society when in fact family makeup did very much become a federal issue, that would be great.

As for mixed race marriages.

First, race was not a historical element of marriage, the sex of the participants always was.

Second, you get a court to get you a version of Loving (they picked that case because of the name, right?) and you'll be set. My guess is that will be sooner than later.

This really comes down to the idea that you want to game the system. The definition of marriage can be changed, either legislatively (it might somewhere, someday) or judicially but in your mind that's where any changes have to end. All other traditions and understandings have to remain in place.

Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Also, don't pretend that the federal government has never gotten involved in marriage. The whole Utah wanting to become a state controversy turned on the Mormons definition of mariage.


Imagine if the 52% could opt out of paying for the Iraq War.

And they are welcome to try to get their representatives to cut off that funding. Just as the supporters of DoMA were able to convicnce Congress and Clinton to pass it.

160 Alright. Enjoying the discussion, but I have to run to the office. Emergency. Day off. Not supposeda mix.

161 needs to be boiled down, the "by opposing" language removed, etc.  i.e., simpler and positiv-er

162 Your law-fu is weak, progressoverpeace.

Law is not my thing. Logic is. It is a shame that logic has very little place in law.

The states do not recognize each others' drivers licenses because of FF&C. They recognize each others' licenses because of reciprocity. FF&C does not require them to do anything with respect to drivers licenses.

It was just an example, Gabe - as I'm sure you know. Pick anything that has been nationally agreed on, using FF+C, and use that. Frankly, given the insane interpretations of Commerce that people regularly accept and the importance of autos, I find it hard to believe that some court would not quickly put driver's licenses under FF+C if that issue came to a head.

Similarly, FF&C has thus far not been implicated by marriage licenses. See the bevy of poor unfortunates in Oklahoma who cannot get divorce decrees because the state refuses to recognize their marriages as an example.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 05:39 PM (Mi2wf)

"Thus far" isn't a good legal argument, so far as I am concerned. I know how our courts rule and what sorts of idiocy they are easily susceptible to. This is what happens when courts become totally untrustworthy, as they are.

And you still haven't addressed the marriage/immigration issue, which is odd, since immigration is one of the hottest topics of the day and one of the most important regarding the future of our nation.

163 That is one of the fuckin' lousiest excuses for discrimination ever. Hey, we should discriminate against lawfully married gays because it saves money! (Incidentally, we could also save money by discriminating against lawfully married mix-raced couples too. Or lawfully married white couples. Or lawfully married couples with kids. The savings are endless!!!)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 04:16 PM (Mi2wf)

I don't see it as discrimination. There is no such thing as "gay marriage", and the people have backed that principle up every time they've been allowed to do so. Everyone has the right to marry, but two people of the same gender cannot marry each other. This definition has not been questioned for thousands of years until now. Fuck em!

164

Something has to be done about voting accuracy.  Voter motor is a mess.  The computer glitches are a mess. Absentee ballots are a mess.     Here in WA state, just last year, to vote: you went to your local school, little old ladies looked you up in the registered voter book and checked your license, you signed your name to verify you were a resident. Now all voting is abentee ballot---who knows what happens to it. 

165 And probably another reason I still identify as a Democrat is that I don't oppose limited welfare or healthcare benefits for the indigent, at either the federal or state level.

I disagree with the concept of welfare in most cases, but at least at the state level, welfare isnt illegal and unconstitutional. And, since it avoids the federal middleman and bureaucracy it actually is more efficient in helping those in need (cut less out by one less step in the process).

And I agree, voting accuracy and rampant, gross, almost universal fraud is destroying our democracy one ballot at a time.

166

I have a problem with the RNC issuing a list of directives that its candidates must follow---and that 8 of 10 is the minimum they must follow.  It all seems so clinical.  And the Steele-led RNC is an inept and brain-dead operation right now---I can't imagine them making any headway with this.

Specifically, I have issues with a few of the 10---namely the DOMA requirement.  It's bad enough that conservatives need the Republican party as a vehicle to elect true conservatives into office.  Do we really need more of the Bush-era "compassionate" conservatism, where the federal government somehow can dictate conservative ideals on the citizenry?  Why can't issues like gay-marriage be left to the states where it belongs.  I don't think this is a road the Republican party wants to follow after the last eight (six) years.

Also:

We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges

Crikey!  Talk about painting yourself into a corner.  I understand the endgaame here, but this needs to be clarified a bit more.  Actually, a LOT more.   It makes it sound like that the party's policy decisions in Af-Pak and Iraq are solely at the behest of the military.  Not sure I'd want to sign up for that without all the facts, especially with regards to Afghanistan.

 

167 actually, i think that one on immigration could use some tweeking. i think we should limit immigration from the countries that have in recent years supplied an over abundance of their citizens to this country. why? because if we are supposed to be all about diversity then we should be more diverse when it comes to new immigrant demographics. instead about half of our immigrants come from one particular region of the world. i'd really like to see some icelanders leave a mark upon american culture. it would be nice to enter some estonian customs into our cultural lexicon. and what about increasing immigration from little benin? i mean, we could really use some of benin-ians over here.

168 Rocks, you're avoiding my argument. The states have traditionally had authority over family matters including what constitutes a lawful marriage. The federal imposition in that arena by DOMA trenches on that state authority and is therefore an abrogation of the principle of federalism so frequently espoused by conservatives.

That's my argument. Now, you can try and tell me that marriage isn't traditionally a state issue. (You'd be wrong.) You can try and tell me that DOMA doesn't actually impinge on state authority. (Also wrong.) But it's not an odd argument.

FWIW, I think Drew's got the best tack. He's explaining in so many words why DOMA is a justifiable exception to the normal principles of federalism.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 23, 2009 05:44 PM (Mi2wf)

No, Gabe, I'm not. The definition of marriage, that being one man and one woman, has never been the sole purview of the state governments.  The definition of marriage isn't a "family matter". The definition of marriage was and is universally accepted. The fact that some states wish to change that has no bearing on anyone else and should not force any requirements on the federal government simply because no one saw any need to carve it in stone in the Constitution. Federalism would demand that States be allowed to use bodies of water in their state as they see fit. It doesn't require that the federal government recognize a bathtub as a pond simply because IOWA says it is and make it eligible for EPA matching funds.

Anti-polygamy laws? You can say they are unconstitutional and anti-federalist but you can't deny they clearly established the federal government, and everyone else for that matter, considered marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. No one questioned the idea that the federal government would only recognize marriage as it had always been defined. DOMA didn't impose a thing. It simply reiterated what had always been accepted. 

By your criteria for federalism a state could recognize polygamy tommorrow and if the fedral government passed a law saying they would not pay benefits for more than one spouse it would be abandoning federalism.

So, no marriage is not and never has been soley a state issue and because of it DOMA does not impinge upon some non-existant state authority to define words for anyone except the state government.

169

Actually, I like Mandy's version the best -- I'd back that platform, and I'm still self identifying as a moderate independent/classical liberal.

DOMA may infringe on federalism, but right at the moment I can see where it may be the only thing standing in the way of worse problems down the road.  Sorry gay people, nothing personally against you, but I can see problems with immigration issues ala Europe (polygamy) and the Roman Polanskis that walk amongst us riding in on your coattails (without your approval of course) and causing all manner of grief.  Perhaps there is a way to recognize civil unions between adults of the same gender and still close the door on the scenarios I described?  Then I don't have a problem with gay marriage as it doesn't concern me -- it will have to be thought out; what I see now is a lot of emotional reaction from both sides of the arguement.

170 So how does Reagan stack up to the GOP Ten Commandments List?


1) Reagan left a much bigger government than he found and nearly tripled the national debt. In doing so, he doubled the payroll tax to "save" Social Security.

2) Health care did not exist when Reagan was president. Unless you count leeches.

3) Cap and Trade hadn't been invented by 1989, but the Acid Rain Treaty did.

4) Reagan was a union executive for a really long time.

5) Reagan granted amnesty to something like 6 million illegals. All at once.

6) Reagan wasn't really big on getting into wars that he couldn't get out of.

7) Reagan sold arms to Iran.

Reagan was Hollywood and a close friend of Rock Hudson's. I'm sure he'd support gay marriage if it had been invented at the time.

9) With what legislation did Reagan defend anyone from abortion? Abortion actually went up in a pretty significant way during the Reagan administration. Besides, he didn't get along with his own kids, let alone anyone else's.

10) Reagan shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

Wow. According to the GOP list, Ronald Reagan was the worst Republican ever!

171 Incidentally, I would suggest that this list is more reactive and defensive than showing leadership. It's more "here's what Democrats do, and we don't agree" rather than "here's what we'd do and believe in."

And other than number 10, your Reagan list is the dumbest thing I've seen since I watched my cat run into a window this morning chasing a bird outside.

172 It is silly to tie this to Reagan.

You can't separate him (or any leader) from his time.

Reagan's presidency would have been very different if he didn't have to deal with the Soviets. Killing that monster made any other heresies irrelevant.

173 The principles would be a good start for the Conservative Party.  The 'Big Tent' Republican Party is dead.

174 if there's not at least one in there about jesus, then this isn't the republican party i know.

175 burberry scarf | CD Keys

176

"This is from a proposed RNC resolution"

Yeah? Then it is about as serious as Geithner's claiming that the US Gov't favors a strong dollar.  The only thing the RNC can ever seriously offer is:

1. We promise to be ever so slightly less statist than the other guys.

2. Please don't call us racists or nazis, we'll give you free shit, or at least stand aside while it is given to you. 

3. Per our glorious leader Steele - we hide with pride.

177

"I might allow 7 of 10 to be the line but that's details."

Sweet - the GOP can have McCain/Someone Else Who's Against The Party's Stated Position Almost 30% Of The Time  2012: The Reckoning.

178 24 Not a big fan of saying we oppose, we oppose, we oppose.  While I do oppose all of those things, it comes off to me as not having better ideas.

Anybody want to explain to me how we can get to smaller government without opposing an awful lot of crap?  Lets face it we'll never be the "Implement the Kitchen Sink Party".  We can be the "You Can Figure Out How You Want to Spend Your Own Money Party".

179 beijing massage  slewing rings

180 200912.23c1hjh
Great everyday boot for the winter. I wear them for any outside work or just walking the dogs. Comfortable, warm and waterproof.
http://www.uggs100.com Thank you.

181 Birleþim eðitim merkezi, açýköðretim kursu, kpss kursu ve dgs kursu hizmeti vermekte olan bir eðitim kurumudur.

182 Great post.
Ganar dinero por internet
Galilea Montijo
Encuestas pagas
Como hacer dinero
Ganar dinero
Como ganar mucho dinero
Como ganar dinero ya

183 http://699618.com