1 How about:
7 for any state in the 'ultraviolet' part of the spectrum
8 for blue states
9 for purple states
10 for red states.
15 for Texas.

2 How about sticking to Fiscal conservatism, federalism and national security. Ferderalism itself removes the need for knowledge of their social issues.

3 Track records are important too, and harder to fudge. Dede Scozzafava claimed she would pass the "purity test", but anybody with a working brain and knowledge of her track record in Albany knew better.

4

Are you sure about;?  gun rights, check.  Seems I heard the other day he was for regestering everyones guns.  If that's the case, and I'm not saying for sure it is, great.  big.  black.  mark.

Oh.  Oh my.  Was that racist?

5 Purity tests are what can keep us a minority party. Mostly because different people place different emphasis on these topics. I'm a pro-amnesty conservative and that would probably be enough for 75% of conservatives to deny me entrance into the club. And I'd add universal school vouchers, right to purchase health insurance across state lines and a huge expansion of HSAs to the platform.

6 2 How about sticking to Fiscal conservatism, federalism and national security. Ferderalism itself removes the need for knowledge of their social issues.

Posted by: Kerncon at January 26, 2010 01:08 PM (S4d07)

There is only one strictly "social issue" on that list...Defense of Marriage, unless perhaps you think that Government funding of abortion is not a question for fiscal conservatives to consider.

7 I just want to get rid of Witholding, the lack of federal funds to pay bureaucrats to meddle in social issues after the tax revolt will solve most of the problems.

8

I'm a pro-amnesty conservative and that would probably be enough for 75% of conservatives to deny me entrance into the club. -

The term oxy-moron does come to mind.

9 There's some advantage to keeping this sub-rosa and leaving the candidate to define his own position.

A formal scorecard grade from the national GOP might well have hurt someone like Brown, who picked and chose pretty carefully what national issues he wanted to embrace on the campaign trail.

On the other hand, if you can keep the barriers to entry modest, particularly on abortion where you simply will not put a formally anti-abortion candidate over the top in a state like California, maybe the GOP candidates won't feel a need to run to the right of each other on issues such as that, thereby handing their Dem adversary a bludgeon to use against the winner in the general election.

10

It's not a terrible idea.  Except to me, it's not a way to filter out unacceptable candidates, it's a way to keep the idiots in the RNC from supporting unacceptable candidates.  If you don't pass the test, you can still run, but the RNC can't waste any money on your Dede-Scozzafava-ass.

11 I got 12 out of 10.

12 The politician that can articulate a viable solution to the immigration problem would be a front runner for the 2012 presidential race in either party.

13 I'm not sure how this is a "purity" test.  Any organization has the right to set standards for support, particularly financial support.  There's nothing per se inappropriate about that. 

I don't particularly like this list because it's focused on current hot button issues as opposed to a broader set of principles.  Having said that, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I like the idea of Texas having to meet 15 out of 10 though.

14

Conservatives are, by nature, distrusting of Government.  Any Government.  Even their own.

 

We don't like politics and we don't trust politicians.

 

OTOH, democrats are the exact opposite, they think Government is a good thing -- As long as it's in the right hands......  Theirs.

 

Just getting Conservatives off their collective fannies to vote is a struggle.  And finding a decent Conservative willing to run for office is an even bigger struggle.  Conservatives don't like Government and yet we expect our best and brightest to run for office?

 

This is what some might call a 'conundrum.'  I have no clue what the answer is.  None.  Just get off your butts and vote.  That's about all I can come up with.

15 Posted by: Patrick H at January 26, 2010 01:11 PM (o5cb9)

Yeah, because Amnesty is so wildly popular.  We better amnesty all those illegals.  They won't mostly vote for the Democrats, and the folks that are against amnesty will just keep supporting and voting Republican.  Right.  Yeah, let's go with that.

16

12

Ship 'em home.  Call me President FUBAR.

17 Its a distraction and will only lead to infighting.  I would not promote these kinds of gimmicks. It will only provide fodder for Democrats to attack. Let's keep our eyes on the enemy and not on each other.

18

From today's WH presser via Major Garrett:

"If Congress can put the coalition together on way forward" Gibbs says WH will pursue immigration reform and cap & trade.

Hell, we might be able to pick up 150 seats this fall if they are actually this stupid.

19 Hell, we might be able to pick up 150 seats this fall if they are actually this stupid.

I have every confidence that the RNC will be stupider. 

20 I realize this sort of thing is hard to quantify or pin down, but I've got another test:

Character. Sincerity. Principles.

That's why I'll give money to Rubio and vote for Palin even though I'm a well-vilified religious agnostic and solib in these here parts.

21 >>12 The politician that can articulate a viable solution to the immigration problem would be a front runner for the 2012 presidential race in either party.

I think catapults are the answer.

22 I still can't fucking believe the GOP spend a million dollars on Scozzafava. Damn that chaps my ass. Fucking insane. Fuck fuck fuck. I'm skeptical of any purity test. Support the most conservative person who can win. Anyone remember when they said Reagan couldn't win, cause he was too conservative. Bah. Republican replacing kennedy is my fantasy. Yeah he doesn't fit the mold for republican but that's the best we could do. Great job.

23 Posted by: Somesay the Strawmarian's cousin, Logic L. Fallacy at January 26, 2010 01:11 PM (wgLRl) ________________- Ya, I apparently can't read the list ~_~ I was thinking of some other list that I think came out of the campaign, or maybe I'm just halluecinating. Anywho, revise my statement to be: 1) Follow the constitution 2) See 1 3) Repeat steps 1 & 2

24

OT: Drinking with Bob: People are sick of change

I think this is one of his best yet. Here are a couple of tidbits:

"Republicans don't win in MA, this is the equivalent of Jesus being elected Emperor of Rome."

"MA is bluer than Papa Smirf's balls"

"Snookie from the Jersey Shore has a better chance of winning in 2012 than Barack Obama"

25

Brown's stand on social issues didn't win him a seat in Massachusetts. It was his plain opposition to Obama's Marxist takeover of  Health Care and Cap-and-Trade.

Brown's main topic seems to be fiscal restraint. This one issue resonates with people far more that his stance on abortion or gay rights. Most of us don't give a shit what anyone else does in private, as long as it stays behind closed doors and isn't paraded down the street in full view of the grandkids.

Maybe the GOP will have enough brains to figure this out.

26 Yeah, because everyone knows that setting and upholding some sort of standard drives people away in droves.

27 What alexthechick said: it's a list of issues, not principles.  Watch it, alexthechick.  I'm not too partial to intelligence in my womyn.

28 You who would do fantastic on this test?

29

I'm a pro-amnesty conservative and that would probably be enough for 75% of conservatives to deny me entrance into the club. -

The term oxy-moron does come to mind.

See Wall Street Journal editorial board, the. I'm sure they consider themselves pretty conservative (and would pass most of the tests on the list) but pretty much define the open borders crowd. I've found I can't rely on their coverage of anything to do with any kind of immigration, legal, illegal, or space alien.

30

12 The politician that can articulate a viable solution to the immigration problem would be a front runner for the 2012 presidential race in either party. -

My fellow Americans, we have an immigration problem in this country.  We have people in this country that are here illegally. They need to be booted the hell back to where they came from.

Also, we need to secure our borders so we can halt the in flow of illegal immigrants.

Thank you for your support.

^{Paid for by teej for president - runningrn  treasurer}

 

31 It's not a terrible idea.  Except to me, it's not a way to filter out unacceptable candidates, it's a way to keep the idiots in the RNC from supporting unacceptable candidates.


That gets at the root of the problem; any set of "purity test" rules is only a band-aid solution to the current band of idiots staffing the RNC.  It would appear that most of them wouldn't recognize a solid conservative if you dropped one on their head.

32 I like the idea of the checklist. It's simply a clarification of what "Republican" means, so that voters can know sort of what to expect.

Here in Texas there have been very liberal judges who run as Republicans because it's the R that gets elected. That's deceptive advertising.

If it's in an R package, I'd like some certainty that it will be an R.

A can of peas should always have peas inside. Delicious peas, or food stamp value brand crappy peas, at least they are peas.

To me, the checklist is just a DEFINITION not a test. Good lord, if we can't even agree that Republicans should have a certain list of priniciples to which they all agree, then it's just a blatant game of power not principle.

(That's why the power/elite don't like the list, while the little people do)

33 Scott Brown was perfect for his state. However, we should never run a Scott Brown in Wyoming because we can get a true conservative there on virtualy all the issues. Where we can get them, we need real conservatives. Where we can't, we run the closest thing to it so we can win like Scott Brown who is great on many issues, but not all. That is how you build a party. Couple that with a conservative POTUS and we are good to go!

34

It's the Wall Street Journal cheap labor greedheads at their best again. In their endless quest for cheaper gardeners and maids, they just don't get it.

35 I'm against purity tests in the GOP.  Totally.

36 I' not sure why anybody would have a problem with a "purity" test, or whatever you want to call it, if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.  All the talk of "big tent" is bullshit anyway, it's really just code that the Frum's and Megan McCains use so they don't have to come right out and say they want to push out social conservatives. 

37 This isn't a purity test or a "first principles" test. This is not something to build the party on.  This is nothing like the Contract with America.  This is all about opposing Obama.      Obama is mentioned by name twice.  Two other Obama initiatives ("cap and trade" and "card check") are singled out.  Supporting "military-recommended surges" was added when Obama was still screwing around on whether he'd support McCrystal with the troops he asked for.

You can run against the President.  It worked wonders for the Republicans in '46 and the Dems in '06.  This "test" is just stupid though.  It's asinine to sell this list as the Rosetta Stone for decephering is someone is or is not a "Real Republican."

38 Yeah, because everyone knows that setting and upholding some sort of standard drives people away in droves.

Posted by: The Empty Pew at Your Local Mainline Christianity-Lite Church at January 26, 2010 01:18 PM (wgLRl)

Bingo! But the WSJ Church Of The Open Border can't grasp the simple truth of what open borders are doing to America.

39 I'm not seeing snappy pants creases on this list, so I pronounce EPIC FAIL, as the kids say.

40 cheaper gardeners and maids
---------------

Also cheaper meat packers and garment piece-workers. Remember, they're business-friendly as well as fastidious about their rosebushes.

41 1.  Please stop using the term purity test even in quotes.  Its how the left is portraying it.  Call them republican principles.

2. I am 95% sure Brown said he was against govt. funding of abortion, so probably a check.

3. Slightly OT - Raz DE - Castle (R) leads 56 - 27 over (D).  Down goes Kennedy seat, Down goes Biden seat, Down goes Obama seat(?)  Teh crowd goes wild.

42

@34 - Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 26, 2010 01:23 PM (ujg0T)

Yup.  The same kind of folks who are all for shutting down factories here and moving them over seas, or to Mexico.

43 I put the list on my own site and got a bunch of busybody liberal commenters telling me it would never work...hmm.

44 I'm against purity tests in the GOP.  Totally.

Posted by: Dede Scozzafava at January 26, 2010 01:24 PM

Say it, sister!

45 To me the relevant thing is the percentage time that Rs vote with Congressional party leaders, not what they say they are for (or against) while campaigning. 

People who consistently break ranks on major/key votes should not receive GOP money or support for re-election... unless they can really demonstrate that their constituents overwhelmingly demand that they vote a particular way on a give vote (even that caveat would really only apply to representatives, not senators who, let's face it, don't really operate like representatives). 

People who consistently embarrass the party should be taken to the woodshed and spanked... then kicked out of the party.  (I'm looking at you, Dr. Paul.)

Now, this assumes our party leaders are operating within the basic boundaries of the party platform.

In terms of elections where there is no incumbent (in the primaries), I think we need to let the electorate decide.  Short of their being an obvious bad candidate (like Scozzywuzzy, who clearly was someone with mixed, at best, allegiances), I think the GOP should stay out and not back a particular candidate.

46

All the talk of "big tent" is bullshit anyway, it's really just code that the Frum's and Megan McCains use so they don't have to come right out and say they want to push out social conservatives.

Threadwinner. Someone needs to give Meg(h?)an McCain a strap-on and tell her to find her dominant partner already. Just come out already and save us all the pseudo-suspense, Meg(h?)an.

47 1 How about:
7 for any state in the 'ultraviolet' part of the spectrum
8 for blue states
9 for purple states
10 for red states.
15 for Texas.

Posted by: Al at January 26, 2010 01:06 PM (0lyUI)

This is a good point. We have two issues we are trying to resolve with some sort of 'purity' test;

1) Moederates in conservative areas: L Graham being the most obvious culprit. The Left is pretty good about screening out moderates from solidly leftist areas, but the Republicans regularly nominate moderates in conservative areas. 

2) Self serving RINOs in moderate/left leaning areas: Specter being the most obvious culprit. We have to demand some level of respect for conservatism as a whole by moderates. We've been crippled by "social moderates", "RINOs", and "squishes" who have damaged the conservative brand with an R by their name. Guiliani is a pretty good example of a moderate who has NOT done this.

So how do you best make sure we only nominate conservatives in conservative areas and make sure that moderates we work with in other areas won't stab us in the back when it might be advantageous for them to do so?

48
KISS.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Lower Taxes, BE fiscally conservative, BE moderate on social issues, Adhere to market based solutions, and end government corruption.

BIG GOVERNMENT = CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. Just say no.

49 Sorry that was long. 

As for the list of issues, I didn't think they were very well-phrased -- to open to interpretation. 

50 A GOP purity test would smack of totalitarianism or something.

51 I think another important thing is for a candidate to have held these ideals for some time.  Anyone who "moderates" their past positions to fit this template should be suspect.  We don't need RIHO's in conservative clothing. 

52 For.

I'm pretty far to the right of this checklist but it does a pretty good job of asking the question, why the hell are you a Republican anyway?  If you're against winning wars and keeping a rein on spending and taxes and traditional family and sexual morality then, uh, maybe this isn't the coalition for you.  Pick at least one of them.

53

Yup.  The same kind of folks who are all for shutting down factories here and moving them over seas, or to Mexico.

Actually, I blame the Commiecrats' business taxing and bashing for that. The Euros, for all their outrageous individual tax rates, actually have lower corporation taxes.

54 Please stop using the term purity test even in quotes.  Its how the left is portraying it.
--------------

Hmm, I really haven't seen much of that in the left, but for sure they're setting purity tests like mad as they enter panic mode over the mysterious death of Candidate Obama.

55 I agree with number 13. I always have distrusted government. Why? Because they have earned it. And I absolutely detest these servile punks who look for the nanny state to provide them with every thing they want in life. I have no idea how the birkenstock wearing hippy/freedom movement morphed in to a bunch of authoritarian and intrusive statists, but it did.

56 Don't like illegal immigration -- have more babies or severely contract the economy. A positive GNP and flat demographics are macro pressures no wall can stop.

57 If anyone asked me to sign on to anything called a "purity test", I'd tell them to screw. But apart from the name, I think it's a good idea to have a sort of permanent platform that the bulk of the Party agrees with. Personally, I'd take a guy with a "6" or so if I thought he'd be amenable to persuasion on a point or two. Politicians often change their views over time, and their views vary in relevance depending on the issues of the day.

58

We're not sure Mr. Brown would have made this cut.

Listen to us, we're guessing wildly!

59

Don't like illegal immigration -- have more babies or severely contract the economy. A positive GNP and flat demographics are macro pressures no wall can stop.

Ending the welfare state entitlements and emptying out the ghettoes of the native born would suffice. Honestly, I can't blame a good many inner city youth who turn to crime and dealing, since wages in gruntwork have effectively stagnated and/or fallen in real terms.

60

Support for the surge in Iraq runs Hostettler off the field in Indiana. We just found out today (link on my name) that Pence isn't running. Hostettler of course was one of the six who did not vote for war in Iraq. So if you go with this list, then say "hello again" to Senator Evan Bayh and his certain Dem majority 2011-12.

This list also eliminates Rand Paul and (I think) Michelle Bachmann, and the other Dick Armey-supported candidates.

61

Don't like illegal immigration -- have more babies or severely contract the economy. A positive GNP and flat demographics are macro pressures no wall can stop.

Uh huh.

62 Actually, I blame the Commiecrats' business taxing and bashing for that. The Euros, for all their outrageous individual tax rates, actually have lower corporation taxes.
---------------

True, but the WSJ editorial board could figure this out. Instead, it's open borders for immigrants to do jobs that high school kids and dumb Americans could do.

63

@53 - I don't remember for sure but I would be willing to bet these folks were pushing hard for NAFTA and GATT. 

And no, I'm not a big pro-union guy.  Unions have their place but you start pushing for crazy wages like $35 per/hr for pushing a broom, etc., don't be bitchin' when the place folds.

64 Separate from the issue of whether those ten things are more than a kind of static "snap shot test" for the GOP (as opposed to something more fundamental, and permanent), which of those ten do you object to?

65 "I can't blame a good many inner city youth who turn to crime and dealing, since wages in gruntwork have effectively stagnated and/or fallen in real terms." Yet a 15 year old will walk here from Bolivia to do it.

66 @5: "I'm a pro-amnesty conservative" as long as you're a concerned Christian who voted for Reagan as well. if you're pro-amnesty you're a liberal, end of discussion. big tent, my ass. get out, beat it, shoo.

67

The biggest difference between Republicans and Libtards is that both have purity tests, but ours is public. The leftist purity list goes something like this:

US = bad

Capitalism = bad

Military = bad

Socialism = good

Communism = even better

Deceiving populace about our true intentions = what we do best

68 @57
I think it's a good idea to have a sort of permanent platform that the bulk of the Party agrees with.

I'm on basically the same page as you.  Not into a "purity" test, but basic principles are fine.  Part of the problem with this particular list is that things like "Cap and Trade" are too specific to current circumstances (it would be better to boil it down to first principles), whereas things like "gun rights" are too general. 

Thinking about the "gun rights" thing for a moment.  Kirk (Chicago pol running for senate) was criticized here a few days ago for voting for gun control, but his district was the site of a terrible school shooting several years ago.  I can't (and won't) fault the guy for being for some measure of gun control. 

69 Creating such a list is anti-individual and pro-authoritarian.  It's fine to have ideological principles, as any political party should, but when that devolves into a list of binary position statements that MUST be adhered to for acceptance then, well, the enemy of conservatism has won.

70

"I can't blame a good many inner city youth who turn to crime and dealing, since wages in gruntwork have effectively stagnated and/or fallen in real terms." Yet a 15 year old will walk here from Bolivia to do it.

Give that Bolivan 15 year old a couple of years of "multicultural" leftist victim Commeicrat brainwashing, and he will *join* the inner city youth.

Until we can have a revived Un-American Activities Committee hound the Communist leftovers out of our schools, the solution is to bribe the inner city youth. It is really that simple.

When the time comes to hang Patrick H, Jean and the WSJ, to paraphrase Lenin, Patrick H, Jean and the WSJ will have imported the underclass with which to do it.

71 Don't like illegal immigration -- have more babies or severely contract the economy.
---------------

Jean. Hello. Jean? There's an alternative: legal immigration.

72 56 Don't like illegal immigration -- have more babies or severely contract the economy. A positive GNP and flat demographics are macro pressures no wall can stop.

Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 01:32 PM (6Njk9)

Or you could try...legal immigration. 

73 11. 30 minutes on the rack for the purpose of sounding the depths of their commitment to conservative values.

74 This is "statement of principles" shit is retarded.

It puts all issues at equal weight when that is definitely not so. Adherence to the first three on the list should be enough to almost trump the remaining 7.

75 I can't (and won't) fault the guy for being for some measure of gun control.

No measure of "gun control", no matter how well-intentioned, is a good thing. Period. It eventually becomes an all-or-nothing proposition. 

76 All forms of "gun control" are strictly the camel nose under the tent with the final goal ALWAYS  confiscation.

77 hahhah Mark Steyn just called Boney Frunk an "amir" and says he is not accountable to anyone.

78 See what I mean? There is a conservative case to be made for more open borders, but many on the right do not care. If I were in Congress I'd vote along with Republicans 95% of the time, but by being pro amnesty a significant portion of the right would rather see a democrat win that give me their vote.

Brilliant!

And most of these Republicans probably love Reagan, another fan of amnesty.

79 Heard someone else call him the new "teflon don".

80 This idea is fine both in principle and practice, IMHO.

But we need an '11th Commandment', and it's one that Reagan would very likely have endorsed, if he didn't do so outright. This idea is the natural response to the following: "...Republicans can't win with their base alone. They need independent voters."

Duh. Same goes for any party.

But here's the thing: rather than trying to divine and then appease what the party THINKS independent voters want (which, of course, is a process that is endlessly abused to push through self-aggrandizing pork), a pro-active goal of any conservative program should be to "educate, as well as campaign". In short: MAKE MORE CONSERVATIVES.

The nation is already fundamentally predisposed to essentially conservative principles. The GOP's mission should not only be to field conservative candidates - as defined by lists like this - but to also educate the People regarding WHY those principles are vital to the Republican Form of Government guaranteed by our Constitution.

If constitutionally conservative leaders and representatives spent 1/10th the energy and resources they spend getting re-elected on educating the folks voting for them, they'd have perpetual support.

81

And most of these Republicans probably love Reagan, another fan of amnesty.

Fool Reagan once, shame on the Demunists. Fool Patrick H again and again and again, shame on Patrick H.

82

I'm a pro-amnesty conservative and that would probably be enough for 75% of conservatives to deny me entrance into the club.

Posted by: Patrick H at January 26, 2010 01:11 PM (o5cb9)

Which, ironically, is why this so-called "purity test" is actually good for EXPANDING the party.  If the policy is that anyone who agrees with 8 of 10 of the items is a bona fide Republican, then no one can say, "Well, your support of amnesty is in itself a bar to admitting you to the Party."  A true purity test demands true purity and brooks no disagreement: this ten-point manifesto creates a framework by which disagreements can be tolerated and moderated so that more people with divergent views on particular issues can be subsumed into a broader GOP.

83 OK, we have legal immigration - it isn't working. We need them to come work, make a decent amount of money (hopefully get car insurance), then go home. Every first generation illegal I have ever met is a hard worker. Can't say the same about every public school graduate I have met.

84 No measure of "gun control", no matter how well-intentioned, is a good thing.

This is probably not the thread to debate it, but I don't understand how the right to bear arms is any different than the freedom to assemble.  Assembly is regulated by the government -- why not guns? 

85 All the talk of "big tent" is bullshit anyway, it's really just code that the Frum's and Megan McCains use so they don't have to come right out and say they want to push out social conservatives.

I'm kinda liking the NoH8 ads featuring Megaton with duct tape on her mouth. But not for the reasons that they intended.

86 Right, I was a total fanboi of unlimited illegal immigration.

87

Republicans can't win with their base alone. They need independent voters

Very true. And yet certain elements in the GOP can't embrace the one issue that is political dynamite among independents and a whole lot of otherwise Democrats (namely, African Americans) *right now*, because of their insatiable need for cheap labor.

88 Amnesty? Fuck that.

89

This is the shit that must be defeated.....the continual drumbeat of lies and the outright theft of the people's money.  Pelosi should be tarred/feathered and thrown into the Pacific.

House Democratic leaders said a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showing a $1.35 trillion deficit in 2010 was the result of policies put in place by President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress, who controlled the House and Senate until the 2006 elections.

“Today’s CBO report is a clear reminder of the Bush and Republican Congress-era policies that have resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, and turned record surpluses under the Clinton Administration into record deficits,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

90 Creating such a list is anti-individual and pro-authoritarian.  It's fine to have ideological principles
----------------

Well, we're getting there. As was pointed out somewhere above, that test is not a list of principles; it's a list of issues. The thing is, people can agree on principles but interpret them differently. That's actually okay with me. It leaves room for persuasion, healthy argument, unavoidable differences, but agreement on the most important things.

91 Posted by: Patrick H at January 26, 2010 01:47 PM (o5cb9)

Really?  Well when there is no person going to bed hungry in America, or homeless who is a native born American citizen, then you can expand immigration.  Right now we can't take care of the people who are in this country.  Not saying "take care" in a liberal way saying "take care" in the way of creating opportunities so people will have jobs and won't be homeless and hungry.   The new homeless are people who lost their jobs and then lost their homes, they didn't have alt A loans or no money down loans, they had regular loans but when you lose your job, you lose your ability to pay for things.

92

as everyone that's a regul;ar might already know i'm not politically savvy, (but trying to catch up)

why get involved in the social aspects, why not leave it up to the states, and those states that advocate for social programs are made to pay their own way?

93 The problem with Kirk re:guns isn't any school shooting; its that his constituents, by and large, are country-club elitists who view gun ownership by the unwashed with horror.  And have for decades.  One of the reasons I so enjoyed Blago's downfall was his career-long habit of using gun owners and the NRA as his favorite whipping boys anytime he wanted to get his name in the papers.

94 IMHO the problem with the GOP isn't some lack of an ideological litmus test.  The problem is open primaries where Dems and independents can vote in the Republican primary and swing the vote to a liberal Republican or RINO unacceptable to the party's conservative base.  Close the primaries so only registered Republicans can select nominees and let the voters sort it out.

95 Instead of calling it a "purity test", how bout we call it an "At least affirm that you are not a totally down-the-line fucking RINO, OK?" test.

96

Every first generation illegal I have ever met is a hard worker. Can't say the same about every public school graduate I have met.

And where do the 2nd generation kids go? To public schools to be indoctrinated in minority victimization. Do you really not get this?

97 That list can be scaled down to a basic three-point checklist that any conservative can work with:

1.  Fiscal discipline.
2.  Federalism
3.  Strong national defence/security

Everything else flows from that.

98

I'm kinda liking the NoH8 ads featuring Megaton with duct tape on her mouth. But not for the reasons that they intended.

I thought that was Bimbo Mommy rather than Bimbo Offspring. Either way, the McCainiac sellouts need to be ignored. Warhorse Papa deserves respect for what he did and went through, but otherwise should be put out to the golf course pasture.

99 My concept, a privately run guest worker program - in which the company(s) employing the foreign nationals is bonded to provide for background checks and a return home, they then contract with employers to meet labor needs. The government's role is to facilitate international background checks (flaky at best) and oversight to ensure the return of workers for the refund of the bond. Don't know how it would scale up.

100

If Republican Voters make the mistake of letting soft-sculled Liberals in office under the Republican Title as happend in the past....Then Obama wins a second term, and the massive shift to a full blown European Socialism will be finalized.

If Republicans stay patient and stick with people who are truly the opposite of the Commie Left, even if it means that they will not sieze as much power as they could if it was an all-out push for seat totals......Then Obama is a one term President, Republicans will have big majorities in 2012, and the Commies won't regain strength till 2016.

The DemonRats are experts in using the Media to lie about Conservatism, and if we get too much power too quick (i.e. a Ball Dipping Blow your Wad moment in 2010), then they will just turn around and do what they did to Bush late in his second term, and they will end up being just as strong in 2012 as they were in Fall 2008. 

Let us Pray..........

God?........Please Kill all Commies....Thank You Lord!

101 Litmus test. "I do not think that means what you think it means."

Apparently I am the only science geek online today.

Litmus paper is used to test the pH of a substance, and produces a range of colors linked to particular pHs.

102 Every first generation illegal I have ever met is a hard worker.
----
I don't think the crime stats bear that out.  At least, not here in California.

(No: I am not suggesting all immigrants - illegal or otherwise - are criminals.  I just think that to gauge first generation illegals by your own personal experience is naive.  Unless you're working in the criminal justice system, you probably don't interact with a full cross-section of that population.  And, if you're employing illegals, shame on you.)

103 we have legal immigration - it isn't working.
------------------

We have lousy legal immigration, courtesy of our leftist State department.

We refuse to screen out Nigerians and Russians on the basis of their massive criminal presence here. We don't have a sane guest-worker program so the Mexicans could come over and work in the real economy instead of the black labor market.

You've never met an illegal immigrant who wasn't a hard worker? Holy shit, read the papers. Here in Southern California we've got murderers, gangsters, drunk drivers, and welfare recips who are living exactly the lives they intended to when they first strolled across the border.

104 Assembly is regulated by the government -- why not guns?


Assembly is regulated in the "time, place and manner" sense of the term.  In other words, you don't hold your noisy protest march at midnight in a residential neighborhood.  The comparable gun regulation would be the laws prohibiting target shooting in the middle of the city.  The crap the left proposes aims at confiscation of all firearms, because some of them understand that you aren't going to control an armed populace.  The ones that didn't understand that, are about to learn it.

105

Instead of calling it a "purity test", how bout we call it an "At least affirm that you are not a totally down-the-line fucking RINO, OK?" test.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 26, 2010 01:52 PM (wgLRl)

Correct.  Because without an idea of a set of principles and policies we can generally agree on, our opponents can claim the mantle of Reagan and make a lot of people believe it (people who definitely ought to know better, like David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan and Christopher Buckley).  From a Jan. 2008 Obama interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

106 Curmudgeon - how are the second generation kids any different then the tenth generation kids going to the same schools? Hopefully they will go to Catholic school and make their parents proud -- another thing I have noticed immigrant kids doing. Your projecting one problem on top of another. Fixing education is a whole revolution on it's own.

107 opposition to socailized healthcare in MA ummm no he supported Mitt's healthcare plan which is very close to what is the dems plan

108 If it were a hard test to pass, I'd be against it.  But these really are sensible guidelines.  Part of the GOP problem is that it has wavered and is hard to define.  It's a specific issue we have to address.

If Scott Brown can pass it, then what's the problem?  It's not like every Republican who passes it should be our best friend, but we need to be ABOUT something.

Letting the democrats and their propaganda arm in the media call this a purity test is typical.  We should ask them to print the test for their readers, instead of making grandiose claims about it. 

I bet a lot of people who voted for Obama would pass the "purity" test.

109

Close the primaries so only registered Republicans can select nominees and let the voters sort it out.

Just like here in FL, where, it just so happens, Marco Rubio has overcome a 30 point lead by Crist.

110 1.  Fiscal discipline.
2.  Federalism
3.  Strong national defence/security

Everything else flows from that.
-------------------

YES. As I said above, principles first, issues after.

111 How about in 100 words or less, where do you stand on Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny". Amnesty means suicide to the Right and is the same as voting to expand government entitlement programs.

112 Purity test: do their balls smell like butterscotch? (HeatherRadish came up with this in another thread but i think it works even better here.) OT, i just realized the empty suit IS creating jobs: for the folks who make jell-o pudding.

113 110 If it were a hard test to pass, I'd be against it.

Is there going to be math on this test?  I'm glad I'm a Democrat!

114 I thought that was Bimbo Mommy rather than Bimbo Offspring. Either way, the McCainiac sellouts need to be ignored. Warhorse Papa deserves respect for what he did and went through, but otherwise should be put out to the golf course pasture.

Oh, they both did the ads.  But the one featuring Megan is much more satisfying. Especially with the elephant on her hands. <spit> Someone tell her she doesn't *have* to be a Republican, even though daddy is. In fact, the parting might benefit both parties involved.

Cindy's ad really features her eyes, which are her best feature, IMHO. Still can't figure out why she would do that ad. Surely it will hurt her business in some way. But I suppose the Budweiser business is pretty good on all sides anyway.

115

Apparently I am the only science geek online today.

Litmus paper is used to test the pH of a substance, and produces a range of colors linked to particular pHs.

Posted by: NJConservative at January 26, 2010 01:56 PM (/Ywwg)

You're thinking of pH paper.  Litmus paper only tells you red, blue or squishy undecided middle.

116 "If Congress can put the coalition together on way forward" Gibbs says WH will pursue immigration reform and cap & trade."

Well, I'm sure lil' Lindsey Graham is onboard with both -- in spite of the fact that the IPCC report is imploding as we speak.

http://tinyurl.com/yb5kjy8

Purity test? OK, perhaps, for unknowns, but the record speaks louder than any promise, especially when that record flies in the face of overwhelming public rejection of a politician's pet issues.

117 arhooley, California made that nest all on their own and need to change numerous policies to fix it. The criminal stats from California do not mirror the rest of the country.

118 Once you formalize things into a list, you've also created two things you do not want: loopholes and inconsistency. Anyone who's worked in law, computing, engineering, or any discipline where "standards" come in to play has seen this many times.

Rigid rules break the easiest.

General guidelines work better for most things.

Having said that, one thing that can work is a small number (say 3 to 5), of well articulated statements of non-qualification. For example, "no candidate will be recognized as conservative if he or she approves of government funding of abortion, except in extreme circumstances where the mother will die if her pregnancy was terminated."

Yeah, it's "wordy", but a small number of such statements is exactly what comprises the Bill Of Rights.

I'm not a conservative, but I do study these things, and I see how the framers of the Constitution and Amendments were very careful.

119 97 That list can be scaled down to a basic three-point checklist that any conservative can work with:

1.  Fiscal discipline.
2.  Federalism
3.  Strong national defence/security

That's a good list... but... I think the Paulbots and Pat Buchanans out there would say that they are for a "strong national defense," but I strongly disagree with that assertion. 

I prefer using voting records. 

120 Cindy's ad really features her eyes, which are her best feature, IMHO. Still can't figure out why she would do that ad. Surely it will hurt her business in some way. But I suppose the Budweiser business is pretty good on all sides anyway.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at January 26, 2010 02:01 PM (UEEex)

Yes, I cannot count how many times I've been asked, "Wait - does this beer support gay marriage?"

121 The criminal stats from California do not mirror the rest of the country. Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 02:02 PM

Link please.

122 shit. bad edit.  That should read "will die unless her pregnancy is not terminated."

123

Sorry, O/T but yet another big, delicious "F-You" to teh Bamster (who is desparately treading water).  From Hotair:

"The Senate has rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the deficit this year.

The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs that would have been voted on after the midterm elections. But the plan garnered just 53 votes in the 100-member Senate, not enough because 60 votes were required. Anti-tax Republicans joined with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare to reject the idea."

124 Begone, B. Obama!

125 I don't see nothing wrong with purty Republicans. Beats havin' ugly ones.

126 Judicial Watch:
Last Updated: Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:23pm

Criminal street gangs—mostly comprised of illegal immigrants—are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the United States and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs.

The alarming, but not surprising, information is revealed in a new report published by the Justice DepartmentÂ’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC), an FBI task force created in 2005 to curb the growing threat of violent gangs in the U.S. The NGIC teams up with state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the nation to enforce, study and intercept gangs and has published several reports documenting their activities.

127 Yes, I cannot count how many times I've been asked, "Wait - does this beer support gay marriage?"

Michelle Malkin did something similar early last year, when Miller sponsored the immigration rallies. So it does happen.

128 shit. bad edit.  That should read "will die unless her pregnancy is not terminated."

Posted by: K~Bob at January 26, 2010 02:04 PM (9b6FB)

You mean like because giving birth will cause her permanent psychological damage that will eventually lead to an early demise by causing her to make bad life choices subsequent to giving birth?  (Loopholes are really easy to make from ANY rule, inclusive or exclusive.)

129 @stuiec

I am thinking of modern litmus paper. The old stuff used to turn just blue or red, but the modern stuff (wow, you must be old!) turns a range of colors. 

130 Reiver - I'm not a fan of open primaries, but sometimes a state GOP seems to have a death wish. 

Barbara Boxer was always regarded as easy to knock off, but it's been impossible to get a candidate through the GOP nomination process who didn't kowtow to the pro-life faction by saying or doing things that made that candidate unacceptable to the broader electorate.

A candidate like a Scott Brown could never have gotten through the primaries.

131

Divide and Conquer - have any of you ever heard of that?  If the Republicans and the TP activists don't learn how to get a long then guess what?  2010 won't be as big of a rout of the liberal scum as we all want it to be.

 

132 First, a candidate has to be able to support 8 of the 10 points. ThatÂ’s not a litmus or purity test. Those things require 100% allegiance, you are either in or out. This list allows for some diversity of opinions.

EEEEEEK!

133 Rove on Obama

134

Left's purity discussion only slightly less heated than ours - f--king retards!

http://tinyurl.com/ygqqsez

Go Rahm!

135

The politician that can articulate a viable solution to the immigration problem would be a front runner for the 2012 presidential race in either party.

Easy.

1. Close the borders, increase requirements on employers. Punishments to include heavy fines and federal prison time on business owners, CEOs, corporate board members; businesses will be barred from receiving federal contracts. This would probably do the most to curb the problem.

2. Streamline the legal immigration process, convert from a quota system to a points-based system, end chain migration, make it easier to retain US university graduates in desired fields, implement step plan for citizenship (work visa for at least seven years, permanent residency for at least seven years, then citizenship)

3. Offer a limited-time Z-visa program for current illegals with the following limitations: (a) pay a fine, (b) must renew every five years, (c) criminal background check to include fingerprint and DNA database searches, (d) not eligible for welfare programs, (e) maximum of two exemptions on federal withholding, only eligible for standard deduction and child tax credit on income tax, (f) not eligible for EITC, (g) felony convictions result in withdrawal of visa and deportation following incarceration, (h) no shortcut to citizenship; if you want citizenship you must follow the same path as legal immigrants by returning to your home country and applying for a work visa.

4. After the Z-visa program closes, any illegals caught will be deported upon first offense, imprisoned on subsequent offenses, and barred from any legal entry in the future.

This allows you to end the incentives for coming here while also allowing those who are here illegally to make a choice: come clean and be allowed to stay, or stay illegal and face the consequences.

136
Nobody likes my idea of taxing Congressman 0.001% of every dollar they spend?

137 Brown on Gun Control

Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns. Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.Require a license for gun possession.

138 California made that nest all on their own
----------------

Jean, California is

1 - a border state
2 - with nice weather
3 - and lots of rich people to loot.

Without even looking, I'll wager any state in the union with a similar combo will have our problems with illegals.

139 Willow, don't see yourself short, you are on target.  Federalism is the only way to go.  Conservative states can go their way, libs the other, and we will see which states are the most successful.  I have a feeling a lot of people would end up moving to the Conserv states.

140 This thread is full of inferior ideas for a list.  An essay on Levin's immigration ideas? 

A 5 rule set of principles?

A vague statement on fiscal discipline, security (which is banal)?

No... the whole point of this list is that you are NOT expected to agree with all of them.  8/10 = good to go.  9/10 doesn't mean better.  10/10 is not perfect.

We are saying that we are a party that is federalist, where members in different regions are respected to vary on issues.  That's the point.  EVERYONE claims to be about security and cutting the defecit.  John Kerry and Obama claim that.  It's meaningless.

What we need is a party that has guild lines and meaning without 100% compliance (which is where all the loophole talk comes in).  We don't need loopholes or legal analysis.  People can say no to a couple of these because it's a big damn country with a lot of damn opinions.

Reagan was right about this issue.  Our 80% friend is our friend.  Some issues really are absolutely critical.  Cutting the deficit and securing our country are critical.  But I like this list... it's not meant to be the end all, or make every rule equal.

141

The problem I have with this program is what is missing.  More than anything else, people are sick of corrupt, lying, cheating politicians;  because they write and interpret the laws, there is no way to legislate a solution.  The #1 plank of any platform, statement of pronciples, etc.  has to be a mutual pledge of personal ethical behaviour by the politician, and a vow to pay attention and fire corruptocraticans by voters.

 

142

how are the second generation kids any different then the tenth generation kids going to the same schools?

Because they are not white. The Left's demogogue, cultural marxist, divide and rule strategy has shifted from pitting classes against each other to pitting ethnics races against each other. That's how "multiculturalism" works. Unless and until that changes, we really need to re-think immigration.

Hopefully they will go to Catholic school and make their parents proud -- another thing I have noticed immigrant kids doing.

Other than Asian Americans (and even for a good many of them, like the Hmong, that is dubious) sorry, but NO.

Your projecting one problem on top of another.

So what?

Fixing education is a whole revolution on it's own.

Correct, but unless and until it is, the consequences for immigration, given the Left's race-baiting, will be disastrous.

Do you REALLY not get this?

143

Michelle Malkin did something similar early last year, when Miller sponsored the immigration rallies. So it does happen.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at January 26, 2010 02:07 PM (UEEex)

Sure it does.  Like the boycotts by Prop 8 opponents on businesses whose owners donated to the Yes on 8 campaign.  Except I haven't heard that any of those businesses actually suffered from that boycott.  A sustained boycott requires a vast number of people to have a truly visceral reaction that makes them stop and remember their commitment to boycott time and time again: gay marriage just doesn't do that for a high enough percentage of beer drinkers to make a difference to Anheuser-Busch or Miller-Coors.

144 Left's purity discussion only slightly less heated than ours
-----------------

H the P, and what's going on in the lefty blogosphere makes the hottest arguments here look like a garden party.

145 Nobody likes my idea of taxing Congressman 0.001% of every dollar they spend?

Sure we like it, but there is this thing called the Constitution which we like more.

146 corrupt, lying, cheating politicians; 
-----------------

Hence my #20.

147

There should be a pledge to spend less money next year than this year, and to not spend a penny more until we go into surplus and start paying down our debt.

Obama's discretionary, 3 year spending freeze is a pale imitation.

 

148
and ya know, I  think abortion is just about the worst thing ever devised.

but Scott Brown doesn't.  Sadly, a lot of Republicans don't.  It's one of those ugly and sickening problems that have made the GOP a total mess.  We really ought to say "you aren't even really a normal person, let alone a member of our political party, if you are cool with Abortions".  But we can't, because if we do, the democrats will dominate the country, leading to much more abortion, leading to much more spending and government power in our lives.

So we compromise.  The 80% friend rule is a request to show a lot of strength.  That's why it's so hard for people to stomach John Mccain or other 80% friends like that.  Forcing yourself to get together with people who disagree with you on 2 of these issues can be difficult, but that's what we have to do to be a strong enough party to beat democrats, cut the deficit (we need a balanced budget amendment, and OH man how better life would be if we had passed on years ago), fight the war.

It takes some strength to make that calculation for your country.  That's the point of the 80% test.

Everyone trying to show how we need some smaller 100% test is missing the point. 

149 123 runningrn

delish.

150

A candidate who supports fiscal conservatism and gun rights will get my vote. 

Scott Brown got the whole hearted support of the Tea Party movement which destroys the litmus test argument being put forward by some republicans.  The Tea Party Patriots simply want to see fiscal sanity returned to our government.  If the Republicans screw them in 2010 I am afraid they will begin putting forward independent candidates in 2012. 

The heart of the Republican Party used to be fiscal conservatism.  Over the past decade they threw it on the trash heap.  They must return to the core value of fiscal conservatism if they wish to become the majority in the future. 

151 I am thinking of modern litmus paper. The old stuff used to turn just blue or red, but the modern stuff (wow, you must be old!) turns a range of colors. 

Posted by: NJConservative at January 26, 2010 02:07 PM (/Ywwg)

Yes, but the stuff you're describing is called pH paper (because it gives a rough pH measurement).  Litmus paper really is litmus paper: you can buy it red (to detect bases), blue (to detect acids), or neutral (to detect whether an unknown is acidic or basic).

152

Sure it does.  Like the boycotts by Prop 8 opponents on businesses whose owners donated to the Yes on 8 campaign.  Except I haven't heard that any of those businesses actually suffered from that boycott.

The Bolshevik Buttpirates tried that with a local ice cream parlor in my town. To their credit, local churches now bring their Sunday School kids there, a local talk show host does his noon time program from there, and I would buy more if I wasn't trying to improve my midsection. Le'ts all go out of our way to patronize those shops who donated. Even in Commiecrat infested Caliphony, the patriots still outnumber.

153 Issues like abortion and gay marriage are red herrings.  It is important to people, but it's not a key governance issue.  They are gimmicks so Congressman can take long vacations. 

Much better would be a commitment to:
-A war against the deficit.
- Laws and regulations must be written in clear English, at the 9th grade level or lower.
- No exemptions for Congress from the laws they pass
- Taking power from judges and returning it to the juries, where it belongs (saying evidence or a theory is too prejudicial is essentially saying the jury is too stupid and bigoted to provide justice).
- Punishing only recipients of improper campaign contributions.

I think one could get elected by running on a single issue: Each state-wide ballot will let the people vote on whether or not to hang each incumbent from a rope until dead.

154 Immigration and Crime, via a Heritage analyst: http://tinyurl.com/y95cwy5

155 Any test that a guy like Scott Brown could only 'likely' pass is beyond foolish.

It's F****** RETARDED.

I am growing increasingly fond of sending every purist of every stripe to one location (sort of like 'Escape From New York'), and then sealing it up and allowing nature to take its course. Like the Calico Dog and the Gingham Cat the fanatics could well and truly get it on and the rest of us could only benefit from the end results.

156

So why not have some basic statement of principles?

Because our most basic principle is that I have my principles and you have your principles and that's as it ought to be. Rank-and-file Republicans don't march in ranks and files; we're independent of each other, as are our principles. That we share certain values is more or less coincidence driven by the basic principle and by what happens to be the driving issues of the day.

For example, we are against this health-care agenda because I think it sucks and you think it sucks and so many other individual people also think it sucks -- not because there's a unified we that have been told by the leaders of our side to oppose it because it's a Democrat thing.

That's the one thing the Left can't seem to understand about us: Our values aren't imposed or even adopted; they're truly shared. I'd really like not to change that.

157 Hmmmm.

As a conservative I have certain standards.  If the candidate doesn't meet those standards then I go elsewhere.

158 Playing into the Dem hands by calling it a "purity" test. I think rather than the Rs using it as some test, it allows a candidate to self-identify and distance themselves or fully embrace R positions. Plus by raising the issues, it gives candidates a platform to bang the Ds over the head with. "So then, are you suggesting that an unlimited federal government is a good thing? That's what the Country was founded on?" "Jeez Dave, how are we going to register all those guns? We can't even register illegals, unless its to vote."

159 Curmudgeon,

I think we should enforce our immigration laws too, but nonwhites can be awesome Americans, and there's going to be changes in racial politics.

It's just assumed that non-whites will be democrats.  It certainly didn't used to be that, a mere couple of generations ago, and it probably won't be that, in a couple generations in the future.  Race baiting, playing us off eachother, is their game, not ours.  The ideals of individual responsibility and family values play well with any person who is well informed, and in this era, that's going to be more and more people.

Don't be surprised if, in 20 years, hispanics don't tend towards the left.  Look at what the democrat party wants to do in 20 years.  Is that really catholic friendly?  Their problem is that what they really want is unpopular with almost everyone, so they have to be in this state of "we will get you to utopia" forever... never actually daring to get there.

What we need are reforms to education and information... better media, and smarter citizens.  That's the key.  If that doesn't work, we actually didn't deserve to win. 

The GOP has fucked up many times, and that's our real key problem.  That's part of why we lost racial minorities.  Yeah, the democrats promise free ponies, but the GOP did fuck up some basic issues before getting back on track to its 'content of character' approach.

It's fucked up in other areas too.  I think attempting to stem immigration is simply going to fail.  It's easy to characterize it as a disaster, but stopping immigration may simply not be possible.

160 Immigration issue is a lost cause. If the masses are not screaming for closing the border in a recession, they never will.

161 (Again, I should've just waited two minutes. Memomachine at #157 said it so much better than I did.)

162 That study admits the evidence is against there being an immigrant crime wave - but claims it is under-reported because of immigrant on immigrant crime. There are lots of media links that say the same thing, no immigrant link to criminal activity, but why not get it filtered by someone potentially trust worthy.

163 I have no idea how the birkenstock wearing hippy/freedom movement morphed in to a bunch of authoritarian and intrusive statists, but it did.


 Read "Liberal Facism" by Jonah Goldberg. 

164 Another fudge factor that could be figured into the hypothetical "purity test" equation is proportionality. Does Scott Brown get extra "National Defense purity" points for a 30-year real life military job? Any Republican can say that Nat'l defense is their number one priority, but how many can prove it?

I can see it now, people trading on their beliefs or record in one area for "indulgences" from the populist rabble in a different area..

165 Jean @154

It's a 36-page report. I did a search, and there are two instances of the word "illegal." One is in a sidebar about slavery, the other is a heading.

We, here, are talking -- or trying to keep the discussion on -- illegal immigrants. They are here because we lack sane immigration policies and border enforcement. KEEP THEM OUT.

166

I am growing increasingly fond of sending every purist of every stripe to one location (sort of like 'Escape From New York'), and then sealing it up and allowing nature to take its course.

You seem rather........fanatical about this, Dougf. But good to hear from you, I heard you were dead!

167

imio - this is a discussion that is important for conservatives to have and now is a good time to be having it.  I hope we get it sorted out and that the party is strengthened by our having had it.

 

168

Go Rahm!

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 26, 2010 02:10 PM (r1h5M)

The Democrat Party has for over a century absorbed many very disparate political strands -- once upon a time it was home both to northeastern Reformers and Southern segregationists, and now it's home to a spectrum of ideologies and interest groups, some of which exhibit outright mutual hostility.  Churchgoing African-Americans and Hispanics vote against gay marriage;  crafts and trade unions resent illegal non-union laborers driving down wages (while service unions love those laborers as potential new recruits);  Code Pinkos and regular Joes both feel revulsion against Islamic jihadism -- the latter because they're patriots who perceive a physical threat to American security, and the former because jihadism represents a failure of the USA to present our true face of peace and tolerance to the Islamic world and because jihadist attacks provoke our worst jingoist, militarist, bloodthirsty instincts.  And yet the media narative is that the GOP is the fractured Party in the midst of a civil war.  Go figure.

169 Another fudge factor that could be figured into the hypothetical "purity test" equation is proportionality.
-----------------

I was just going to point out, some of those test questions should probably be weighted. Anyone who's in for AGW and shamnesty is off my list no matter what. Uh, although I did, uh, vote for McCain, but I thought Palin would yank him into line.

170 "The Tea Party Patriots simply want to see fiscal sanity returned to our government."

Really, that one shouldn't be negotiable.  but my point is that every politican claims this.

Fucking Obama pretended, and the media parroted, that he would be more fiscally conservative than Mccain or W.  It was a lie... he's increased the deficit to a totally new height that was beyond our wildest predictions.

But anyway, if you have a core rule that candidates should promise to spend wisely, 100% of candidates will pass the test, while only 5% really mean it.  The 10 rules are actually pretty informative, though. 

I hope to hell we can see a serious reform on spending.  It's drastically urgent, and when inflation hits, it will be really hard to pass such a reform.  We should have passed such a measure in the 1980s.  Again, the GOP failed.

It's easy to blame the democrats, but the GOP has had its problems.

171 Maybe they should start with asking a person if they have a moral compass, some good old fashioned common sense and the ability to think of someone else's needs above your own needs and benefits.  Maybe they should look for life long eveidence of character in the same way they look for life long evidence of drug dependence, alcoholism, sex addiction and criminal activity.  Maybe they should make sure that only registered republicans pick the republican candidates.  Maybe they should ignore the efforts of their "enemies" to try and change their message and shape their persona to the public, maybe they should ignore anyone but other republicans while they are selecting candidates.  Maybe they ought to look for sincere, genuine, honest, trustworthy people, like grown up boy and girl scouts who have the backbone to truly speak for the people they represent.  Maybe they ought to vote in term limits so that no one person has too much power in the congress and special interests can't cultivate you like they are growing their own agenda.  Maybe they ought to look for people who know how to get things done and cut through the bull dinky.  Maybe they ought to prevent the party in power from "fixing" the districts to be advantageous to them.  Maybe this isn't "the American way".  Maybe we should start showing that we dislike people who win because they cheated, not make them heroes and say "how about that, look he/she pulled it off".  Instead these people should be villified, shunned and wear the letter "C".  It is very easy to cheat, difficult to mount an honest campaign and win.  Maybe as a people we ought to hang our heads in shame for allowing ourselves to go so far off the deep end we are in this condition, for allowing them to insist on everyone being "PC", for allowing them to control the message and try and make us think they are right.  Maybe we ought to point out that "character is crucial" is not just something you say to be elected, but a way of living.

172 140 Though I could guess Levin's views on amnesty, my point was simply the candidate's choice between a Republic formed from The Constitution with Federalism as a principle, and Statism and the living document bullshit that goes with it. The amnesty comment was an aside that probably confused the issue of tests.

173 I have no idea how the birkenstock wearing hippy/freedom movement morphed in to a bunch of authoritarian and intrusive statists, but it did.


 Read "Liberal Facism" by Jonah Goldberg. 

Posted by: Derak at January 26, 2010 02:28 PM (sPWq2)

Also read The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America by Richard Ellis.  He convincingly illustrates how every movement motivated by egalitarianism and equal rights devolves at some point into a rigid authoritarian structure that can tolerate no dissent whatsoever, and quite often turns to violence when it finds that political persuasion doesn't effect the change it desires quickly or broadly enough.

174 I am growing increasingly fond of sending every purist of every stripe to one location (sort of like 'Escape From New York'), and then sealing it up and allowing nature to take its course.
-----------------


Heh, me likee. (What's really funny is how much they'd discover they have in common.)

175 I actually think we should move immigration reform to a new thread and hash this out about once a week until we turn up something we can collectively live with.

I'll throw my opinion against the wall here. It is practically guaranteed to piss someone off - but it meets the long-term goals and deals with a nasty situation. It deflates several of the worst opposition talking points "What, deport 12 million? You and what army?" or "We need the workers."

Part A: Deal with the freaking security aspects first.
1) Border security. Think 'all of the above' including real patrols. Step all the way up to regular flights of Apaches if you have to. Hell, new training mission for the army: hike from the Pacific to the Gulf.
2) Deport foreign felons - after they've served their time. (The sentence would be '6 months and deportation.')
3) Harass (fine) sanctuary cities for failing to assist in deportation of dangerous felons. (Start there anyway. Keep ramping up.)

Part B: Get a grip on the "needed" workers and the non-felonious under-society.
4) Offer "Red Card" work visas at all border crossings. These are lower on the totem pole than Green Cards. They require $1000, fingerprints and a hair sample. (Which are sent directly to the FBI and CIA.) If the freaking agribusiness needs the workers that bad, they can pay the $1000. Still much cheaper than the coyotes. This can't be "by mail" or "let the foreign power fill the application" because we want to verify the fingerprints, etc.

Think of a Red Card as probationary.  A single felony or violent misdemeanor is a revocation. Make a (long) list of things that are 'Strikes' - like non-violent misdemeanors, moving violations, failure to pay a fine, whatever. Three strikes -> revocation and deportation.

5) Finish the verification plans for employers to check on employees. The tools have sucked for awhile.
6) Red cards should not be paying into SS - they're aliens. So a tax with the same size is imposed with revenues going towards border cities that are playing ball.

Up to this point, nothing has particularly shifted as far as dealing with the current 'shadow society' is concerned. I have a hard time picturing anything vaguely this substantial actually being implemented by our political weasels - so the next steps wouldn't be applied until there's a solid lock on current border crossings. But assume solid quantifiable results from 1-6 before proceeding.

Part C: Shine light into the shadows
7) As #5 is finished, start enforcing it wildly. Don't start with Joe's apple picking - start with Tyson Chicken et al.

Here's exactly where we run into the *&(*& wall of "You aren't going to deport 12 million!" crowd. Fine: But I can (1) take their fingerprints, (2) sample DNA, (3) fine $1000, (4) criminal check, (5) IF they get through that Give them a Red Card... with a strike on it.

The other scream is about 'route to citizenship!'

I can handle that - for someone that can prove they can work and keep their nose clean.
Five years of holding a Red Card without striking out or getting deported means it directly converts to a Green Card.

We can quibble over how many Red Cards to hand out at the border - but if we're billing the people who insist they need the worker $1000, I really don't much care. The criminal checks shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks. But the key word there is "shoudn't", the underpants Jihadi sort of highlights that. The fight to speed up the criminal checks for granting a Red Card should actually simultaneously be providing efficiency boosts on all the mechanisms for finding the freaking red flagged guys.

176 Y-not at 126, the original article, http://tinyurl.com/bn8e93, which paraphrases an unpublished report does not include the statement " mostly comprised of illegal immigrants" added by Judicial Watch. One example gang, MS13, is but that is not to say 80% of US street crime is done by immigrant gangs. If that were the case, we would have a wall.

177

I think we should enforce our immigration laws too, but nonwhites can be awesome Americans, and there's going to be changes in racial politics.

I never said they couldn't be, in fact countless ones are now. But if you don't get what the Left is doing, then you are whistling past the national graveyard.

It's just assumed that non-whites will be democrats.  It certainly didn't used to be that, a mere couple of generations ago, and it probably won't be that, in a couple generations in the future.  Race baiting, playing us off eachother, is their game, not ours.

But they are *still* playing it, and playing it sadly very well. Your platitudes will not change that.

The ideals of individual responsibility and family values play well with any person who is well informed, and in this era, that's going to be more and more people.

You have more confidence in our school system and lamestream media and entertainment industries than I.

Don't be surprised if, in 20 years, hispanics don't tend towards the left.  Look at what the democrat party wants to do in 20 years.  Is that really catholic friendly? 

(cough) African Americans (cough). Religion alone won't stop leftist identity politics, indeed, as Sharpton and Jackson prove, it can be put into the service of leftist identity politics. I do see signs of hope in commentators who understand that too much immigration has been downright detrimental to African Americans.

What we need are reforms to education and information... better media, and smarter citizens.  That's the key.  If that doesn't work, we actually didn't deserve to win. 

In the meantime, you had better clamp down on the borders, because right now, more and more young skulls full of mush are being taught to hate this nation. There is even a 3-D blockbuster movie with just this message, right now. What you are advocating is correct, but will take years. In the meantime, America is being denigrated and smeared and lost, right before your eyes.

It's fucked up in other areas too.  I think attempting to stem immigration is simply going to fail.  It's easy to characterize it as a disaster, but stopping immigration may simply not be possible.

The issue commands overwhelming support, among people who otherwise don't ever vote Republican. Good lord, if this issue isn't a winner, what is? Wonky chatter about allowing health insurance plans to cross state lines?

178 Why don't you just kill 'em instead?

179 Everyone here illegally makes cash, pays no taxes and is dressing better, eating better, living better than the middle class.  The middle class is finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet and they are the ones who will finally effect change in immigration.  They are getting to the point that when these politicians say "we can't just throw out twelve million people" there will be a very loud and resounding "why not?".

180 I am a Chicagoan who is supporting Mark Kirk. I see the big banks of NYC are supporting Alexi Giannoulis and David Hoffman. That is reason enough there to support Kirk. Obama is in the big banks back pocket. Don't listen to what he says regarding this prop trading. Follow the money. They say "JUMP", the one says "How High?" Obama just wants power and control. Goldman will hand him NYC.

181 Why don't you just kill 'em instead?

Posted by: JEA at January 26, 2010 02:39 PM (tA7uC)

OK, betting pool about when first leftist troll would show up to bait. Who is closest to #178? We should make this an AOSHQ lottery of sorts

182 BTW, a lib there other day was saying that he is fifth generation American and he feels like his "birthright" has been squandered by the politicians.  When I said to him "if you feel that way, you can do something about it and btw, you dont' sound like the liberal you profess to be but one of those "gun toting conservatives" he got really angry and said "I'm so sick of the labels, so sick, this country is more divided than ever because we insist on labeling everything."  Sure it was in a bar at happy hour but the guy was really in pain.  Makes you realize that no one is happy with the way things are going, no one.

183 I don't have a problem with a list of principals - every presidential election year, both major parties write and proclaim party platforms and every presidential nominee then picks and chooses which article of the platform he/she endorses.  And pretty much ignores the rest.

The "test" would have its greatest effect during the primaries, when party activists have the greatest influence on the selection of candidates.

The question I have is what effect does a GOP basic principal test have on open primaries, where independents, and even in some cases, Dems, can vote in the GOP primary?

184 There are lots of parallels with splits and denominations in a church.

One of the things we were taught in the ministry is that legalism enters in where people fail to walk in love.  In practice, if I go to a church and they hand out a statement of beliefs it can be a real deal killer.

After 35 years I know enough not to walk into a Catholic church and talk about Mary, or a Baptist church and debate the Greek words for baptize.  Even if some JW's knock on the front door I can have a good conversation --this does not mean I am without an opinion, but I can also read the opening of 1st Corinthians and sections of Romans (about stumblingblocks) on what it takes to have unity, and how easy it is to splinter into factions. 

Whether this is big tent / small tent / pup tent  I think is not the point.  I think the tide is turning and people are waking up.

The word "persecution" in the Greek is "mental pressure."  Major persecutions take time to form.  Whether this was reaction to the first century church, the holocaust, or even delayed reaction to Brown catching the Dems flat-footed, it will happen.  As has been pointed out on Beck's program, BILLIONS of dollars are at stake, not to mention the fervent religion of progressives.

People (such as those in MA) are losing their fear of being called racist, sexist conservatives.  They have looked inside and figured out that those labels don't apply, and oh while you are at it, don't insult my truck either.  Let the education keep building and don't turn people away at the door.

185

135, you're a damned amnesty-er! Where's immediate deportation in trains bult specifically for this purpose in your immigration reform "plan"? Where's mining the borders with Claymores?

Do you REALLY REALLY REALLY not get this?

186 We have become a society that capitalizes on "loopholes".   The dems realize they can vote in the republican primary cause the republicans are idiots and they do it and then the republicans complain that the process is skewed.  Well, idiots then why do you allow anyone but registered republicans to vote in your primary?  This is basic stuff people, basic stuff.

187

I don't consider myself a Republican or a conservative in the strictest meaning of those words, but more of a guideline or outline of guiding principles might be better.  The whole "purity test" notion seems a bit too unwieldly.  I think most of the popular Republican/conservative canidates (popular with the public, not the ivy tower crowd) would probably pass a guiding priniciples test, where they may fall short on a "purity" one.

As for amnesty, it's a slap in the face to every legal immigrant (and some illegals) who entered this country and honestly tried to make America.  There are some illegals who could probably integrate well into this country, but there are many who cannot.  I'm liking the idea of a one time 5 year visa offer -- no entitlement programs, must have gainful employment (or proof of seeking gainful employment), and I'd like to see a citizenship test and a basic English proficiency test (or proof that the individual is seeking ESL education, in which case they can retest at a later date).  Immediate deportation for criminal activity (with possible incarceration here or deportation and incarceration in their home country depending upon the severity of the crime) and citizenship granted on a points rather than quota system (the quota system is completely bogus imho).

As for the abortion issue, I wish the GOP would merely go on record stating that this is the choice of the individual person and the state has no business supporting the practice anymore than Roe v. Wade made it impossible to condemn it.  There is no easy answer to abortion other than to throw it solely back into the hands of the individual person and what they want to do with themselves. I'm not even sure the states have much business with that one anymore, other than to get the hell out of the issue -- it's probably best left to the person thinking about getting one and their conscience. 

188

You mean like because giving birth will cause her permanent psychological damage that will eventually lead to an early demise by causing her to make bad life choices subsequent to giving birth?  (Loopholes are really easy to make from ANY rule, inclusive or exclusive.)

Posted by: stuiec at January 26, 2010 02:07 PM (7AOgy)

No, like the phrase "shall make no law" it means what it says.  If she will die if the pregnancy is not terminated means no termination causes immediate death.

But your riposte proves my point about loopholes and inconsistency.  It's pathetic how very many judges, for example, would take the position you underscore there.  Fortunately this wouldn't be for "law of the land" but for the right to be considered part of the conservative movement.  At some point, you actually enconuter the edge of the tent.  I live close to it, so I'm familiar with that edge.

189 185 Sorry, you are sloppy seconds to the first leftist troll. Saying "no mas" and enforcing the border is infinitely easier than rounding up and throwing out.

190 178 Why don't you just kill 'em instead?

Posted by: JEA at January 26, 2010 02:39 PM (tA7uC)

JEA, those out of state gun dealers still selling the local hoods guns 'n' ammo outside your window while you eat dust bunnies under your bed?

191 178 Why don't you just kill 'em instead?

Posted by: JEA at January 26, 2010 02:39 PM (tA7uC)

for g-ds sake, quit being a dope.

what a horrid comment.

192 The only way this list can be construed as a "purity test" is in the sense that anyone demanding the purity of 100 percent agreement is working against the goal of building a winning Republican coalition and is willfully abusing the list as it is intended.  And of course, it fits the agenda of the Wall Street Journal editorial board to twist this by calling it a "purity test" because they are uncomfortable with the disapproval they get from the Right for their support of immigration amnesty.  They'd rather nobody bring up any disagreements for discussion and instead sweep them under the carpet.

193 The problem is if you are anti abortion in this country, you can't run.  That is not right.  You should be able to run for office if you are against abortion, abortion should not be the only issue on which candidates are judged and, if we are hones, the dems/libs have succeeded in making this so.

194 arhooley, at 165 -- i used that one because all of the other links are tainted by Time, Reuters, NYT, etc. The study is phrased that way because that is how the data is reported. California has allowed a huge, stagnant population of illegals to squat longterm in urban areas, Despite that, there are plenty of links (of unknown provenance or bias, google: California immigrant crime ) that state illegals do not represent a significant portion of CA criminal population. California needs to fix the policies that allowed those "ghettos" to develop.

195 Stupid idea in my opinion.  What was appealing about Brown to independents was his stated willingness to use his vote to express the will of his constituents instead of party leadership, i.e. independently.  Sure, that may mean that he, and the the independents, would "pass" this sort of test, but the test, by its very existence is meant to exclude.  Worse, it seems to prescribe a series of litmus tests for how a candidate must vote, which may alienate the increasing numbers of voters who identify as independents -- the same voters who determine the outcome of nearly every election.  Not to mention, I am pretty sure most of us would have supported Brown in blue Massachusetts if he had only passed on opposing Obama-care and nothing else. 

196

I just want to stir the pot with my dirty ladle:

I personnal think that abortion - pretty much any abortion - is inhuman and uncivilized.  But I do not think it should be a perennial plank on the Republican platform because, in the end, it should be an individual's decision, imo.

Same thing pretty much with anything gay although with respect to gay marriage, I think they should exercise their perverted little brains and come up with their own institutions and not have to out of some esoteric necessity, co-opt traditional marriage.  But that argument doesn't warrant a plank either.

JMIO

197

Saying "no mas" and enforcing the border is infinitely easier than rounding up and throwing out.

No kidding. But I've seen the very things I mentioned advocated on this board. With a straight face.

Truth is, I don't think a single conservative disagrees with "no mas". I sure don't.

Take a look at Post 135, a sensible reform plan. Would you support it?

not a "leftist troll"

198

This is the perfect device for determining who the RNC will send cash to in the general election.

A liberal Republican that happens to make it to the general election and doesn't get RNC support because they only meet 7 of the 10 can easily run as an "against the establishment" or "not your ordinary Republican" type and that they aren't kowtowing to the leadership, but support fiscal discipline, etc.

Again, AFAIK, this is not saying that if you don't support the 10 items you can't be a Republican, its if you don't support 8 of the 10 items you don't get any money from the RNC.

I also reject the term "purity test".

199 When I came to this blog I told you guys I was an independent.  Not everyone was happy about that.  But I kept saying that we are growing as more and more people don't want to be labeled by party.  People are starting to think again.  They are starting to feel as though there is no difference between republicans and democrats and that something happens when these people get to Washington and it isn't pretty.  Maybe having a "purity test" or "party plank" is sort of passe.  Maybe they need to find a way to figure out who will serve the needs of the people and do it in an honest way.   Hey, maybe a lie detector test before you can run?   Now that is truly sad, isn't it, but if you look at the problem honestly, it would weed out a lot of disingenuous people.

200 curmudgeon isn't our enemy.  He's right that we're losing the information war right now (that's not a reference to the WND idiots). 

immigration law... just enforcing the law, ought to be a no brainer, and if it's a winning issue, I would hope we do that.

I don't think that's enough to change the fact that millions and millions of hispanics are going to walk here and have kids.  If I were Mexican, that is what I would do.  The USA is exactly where I'd want to be, even in this climate of dumbness.

We are making some progress with our media, and I hope we can make some progress in education.  That's what I see as a realistic way to get away from the entitlement culture.  It's not that I don't want immigration reform to occur, it's that I don't think that's a realistic way to change the demographic predictions of America.

Either the GOP finds a way to convince minorities that we're totally their best ticket to happiness and a great country (which we are), or we lose.

201 184 There are lots of parallels with splits and denominations in a church.

Exactly.  The stuff from which schisms are made.

It's also a lot like the age old discussions in high school over which musicians/artists/whatever are the best.

"Dood, Dokken is like, the real metal!"
"No way dood, Pantera is real.  Dokken is such a sellout!"

Or in my time, Yes vs. King Crimson.  Or in the thirties, Paul Whiteman vs. Duke Ellington.

The guy desperately trying to be cool shows his disdain for what everyone else in his clique is listening to. It's a variant on the old concept of "insulting upward."

I think this is exactly what's driving the tiny fringe of "reeeely reeel conservatives" who are bashing Palin over her agreement to campaign for McCain.  "Look at how hard-ass I am.  You should listen to me!"

202

Take a look at Post 135, a sensible reform plan. Would you support it?

It's a good start. But yes, a physical barrier is still necessary, as is a re-thinking of legal immigration. Abuse of the Refugee category and "Diversity Lotteries" that treat US Citizenship as a booby prize to be won are two examples of egregious immigration.

203 Here is something we can all enjoy, DKos tossing in the towel on FL unless Crist flips and runs as a Dem: http://tinyurl.com/y88khvc

204 Posted by: Jean at January 26, 2010 02:38 PM

I am still waiting for you to provide some sort of evidence aside from your personal experience (based on what factors, I do not know) pertaining to the admirable work-ethic of first generation illegal immigrants.

Of course, if you are employing illegal immigrants, I think I have my answer.

205 A lot of regular Americans are sick of the "illegal aliens"  being the most important to the parties, "getting the illegal aliens".   People are saying, "hey, what about me and my family, we've been here for generations, we helped make this country great and you want to discount us and make it all about a bunch of sneaks who can't be trusted because they didn't even follow the rules to come here".   So the major issues are abortion and illegal immigration and both are really getting regular Americans angry since they are losing their homes and worrying about their retirements and their college educated kids can't find jobs except in starbucks, after they take the laid off lawyers.

You almost have to clear the country of anyone illegal and seal the borders if you want to fix immigration.   BTW, have a neighbor from guatamala, she is furious that someone can come here illegally and is always writing letters and complaining about immigration.   She wants people to have to wait on the list to come here like she did.  She is worse than a reformed smoker about this and always asks me "why don't they enforce the laws in this country".

206 The scary part about the Brown win in MA is not that the GOP won an election BUT THAT DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS BROKE RANKS WITH THEIR PARTY, THEIR UNIONS AND OBAMA to help him win. The GOP resolution would have impeded that. Of course, the GOP resolution would also have blocked the RNC/NRSC/NRCC from supporting Scozzafava, Crist, Kirk, Fiorina, etc... So it still makes a useful checklist.

207 160 Immigration issue is a lost cause. If the masses are not screaming for closing the border in a recession, they never will.

Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 26, 2010 02:26 PM

I think it's fair to say that the support for clamping down on illegal immigration is vast - widespread.  I can't quote the poll, but the last data I saw suggested that 60%+ of the general population favors immigration control.  The primary obstacle is that there are so few politicians willing to take a stand on that.  The Dems want more socialists in the US to vote for them illegally, and teh Reps see a wealth of cheap labor and "Catholic" votes.  It's not that they fear not getting elected - they fear having to follow through on their promises.

208 "The Admirable Work Ethic of 1st Generation Illegal Immigrants" = They'll Do Whatever the Fuck I Tell Them for Whatever the Fuck I Want to Pay Them or It's Back They Go...

209

Abortion kills a million future tax payers each year.

Socialism requires new taxpayers.

Workers must be imported to fill those tax holes.

Nations with abortion cannot close their borders.

Rinse, repeat.

There is no real division between social and fiscal issues.

210 The Catholic church is the biggest meddler in immigration and why is that?  Well the immigrants are Catholic and they need them to keep their churches open.   Yet all the diocese are laying off people and begging the Catholics they do have going to church for more money.   A lot of people when it came out that the Catholic Church has given over ten million to ACORN and the SEIU have just stopped contributing. 

211

"The Admirable Work Ethic of 1st Generation Illegal Immigrants" = They'll Do Whatever the Fuck I Tell Them for Whatever the Fuck I Want to Pay Them or It's Back They Go...

Bingo!

Which breeds "The Work Ethic Of 2nd, 3rd...n Generation Children Of Illegal Immigrants" = "Whitey Fucked Me Over, So I'm Going To Be A Gang-Banger"

212 @204:
"pertaining to the admirable work-ethic of first generation illegal immigrants."

This is from Seattle.
1) There are ten people who appear to be illegals hanging out at both the Home Depots I drove past today. (The 'Hi, I'd like day labor' folk.)
2) The five people I see on street corners with signs claiming they are veterans of the Spanish-American War and deserving of something-for-absolutely-nothing are not visibly descended from anywhere in Latin America.

It is anecdote, not solid data. But I'd rather help any of the guys in the parking lot over the guys panhandling for their meth. (Seattle is pretty good on providing housing and food, and it isn't just a knee-jerk assumption that meth is involved.)

213 141

The problem I have with this program is what is missing.  More than anything else, people are sick of corrupt, lying, cheating politicians;  because they write and interpret the laws, there is no way to legislate a solution.  The #1 plank of any platform, statement of pronciples, etc.  has to be a mutual pledge of personal ethical behaviour by the politician, and a vow to pay attention and fire corruptocraticans by voters.

 I will second that, but just as importantly I think we need to have the ability to re-call the bastards as soon as they start exhibiting their stupidity. Like within a matter of weeks before the lunacy starts compounding interest. "Oh you want to vote for gay marriage? I'm sorry!!! 73% of your constituancy don't think so and you knew that when you ran for office....buh bye!!!"

Seriously, right now, even after they've screwed the pooch and know it, they can continue to do anything they want UNTIL THE END OF THEIR TERM! Right now only some of the dems see the writing on the wall for the next election and those that do are still in "Fuck 'em! What can I do while I still can?" mode.

If a Republican or a Tea Party member gets elected and they start leaning towards something their party doesn't support like federal subsidies for abortions, the party needs to be able to yank their leash and bring them back home!

214

No litmus tests.  No purity pledges.

Idealogical purity is a huge problem, but not for conservatives.

The problem is that the Marxists lied their way to victory.

THAT is the problem.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It is INSANITY to withhold support from anybody who can beat them and isn't one of them.

 

215 Hannity has lost it.  He actually believes that BO is admitting defeat in the conversation he had where he said he would rather have one good term than two bad ones.  So Hannity fell for the act.  the act is there so he can surprise everyone and ram his agenda through even though they are left wondering "what happened".  that is the problem with the republicans, they never think ahead, they have trouble realizing that someone could lie.

216 Y-not: There are no statistics on "hard working" other then the fact that they keep coming, and we keep hiring them. I don't employ any illegals in any direct manner, I even mow my own lawn. However, my father was a construction site supervisor and would always hire illegals. In fact, he would pay them the local union wage -- they slept on the job site to keep the union thugs from breaking equipment and worked from dawn to dusk - hard. (I think they may have dedicated a statue to him in some small Mexican church.) I will not back down from the position that anyone who walks a thousand miles to get a job is going to be a better worker then someone who thinks he or she is entitled to one and that I should pay their bills when they are not employed.

217

At the same time the Republicans need to have a positive platform such as:

1) Reset the AMT to a level it should be if it had been indexed to inflation from the beginning and then index to inflation for good.

2) Make permanent the Bush tax cuts.

3) Eliminate capital gain taxes

4) Increase domestic production of oil and natural gas (i.e. lower the cost of energy)

5) Cut wasteful government spending

For good or ill this election is going to be won on one issue:  the economy.

Other planks:

6) Take the fight to the terrorists (we're not going to wait for the terrorists to attack us here like Obama does)

7) Medical tort reform, expand Medicare advantage. (Obama wants to cut Medicare we want to make it more efficient)

Only approve judges that believe in limited government.

218 Do you guys realize that the lawyers get paid no matter what but in medical tort reform, it is the person who was harmed whose gain is limited and that just isn't right.

219 Well Curmudgeon, Obama may have solved your anchor baby problem. He had George Mitchell disavowal the de-facto rule of citizenship bestowed by place of birth in the Middle East last week. So maybe he is going apply it to the immigration issue - kinda touchy given his birther issue - I think.

220 212 -- a lot of those guys standing in front of the Home Depot are not "honest workers"; for quite a few it's a scam: get a job with some good samaritan type who thinks they're helping out an "honest worker", case their crib over really well and earn their trust, next time they go out of town bring over your buds and strip the place bare.  Rinse, repeat.

221 Oh, we should let people immigrate legally.  They aren't the problem.  It's so annoying when people assume being opposed to illegal immigration is somehow related to immigration in general.

If you can pass the requirements in law to immigrate here, and you are loyal to this country, come on in.  It would be damn convenient if we had a national language.  Not just for those already here, either.

Anyway, the 80% test is not a purity test.  It just isn't.  Stop calling it that.  That is a trick by the left.  We can mean something.  It's a pretty general definition anyway.  

222

1) Reset the AMT to a level it should be if it had been indexed to inflation from the beginning and then index to inflation for good.

How about eliminating the AMT, period? If some super rich people pay no taxes because they take low rates of return by investing in government bonds, we should give them medals. Better owing the USA debt to them than to Red China.

223

218 Do you guys realize that the lawyers get paid no matter what but in medical tort reform, it is the person who was harmed whose gain is limited and that just isn't right.

If that's the way it was, you're right, it wouldn't be right.

But the way it really is, goes like this: 97 out of 100 medical malpractice claims have no credible basis and are filed simply to create billable hours by an attorney who hopes some malpractice ins. co. will settle out of court rather than litigate the nuiscense. 60% of the worlds lawyers practice here in the US and the US medical education system is the best in the world. Less than .5% of licensed US Physicans account for 99% of all actual malpractice in this country. The cost of all those OTHER claims (97 out of 100)? Are eventually added onto the cost of practicing medicine.

224

Oh, we should let people immigrate legally.  They aren't the problem.  It's so annoying when people assume being opposed to illegal immigration is somehow related to immigration in general.

Sorry, but certain categories of *legal* immigration are very much abused. The asinine "diversity lottery" and abuses of refugee status are just two off the top of my head.

Even H-1 indentured servants for the medical and tech industries have their problems. We wonder why US middle class students all seem to want to go to MBA or Law School instead of med or engineering school? Well, drive the relative wage rewards down for Med or Engineering school and why is that such a surprise???

I most certainly am for being choosier about who we let in, period.

Moreover, importing an uneducated and illiterate underclass *legally* is actually in some ways worse than having them sneak across the border. At least the illegals are often afraid to take handouts for fear of getting apprehended (at least they were until there were so many amnestied illegal immigrants among whom to hide out.)

Besides, if you *really* meant that only illegal aliens are a problem, well, then just amnesty the illegals. Right? Right? Oh wait....

225 It is anecdote, not solid data. But I'd rather help any of the guys in the parking lot over the guys panhandling for their meth. (Seattle is pretty good on providing housing and food, and it isn't just a knee-jerk assumption that meth is involved.)

Posted by: Al at January 26, 2010 03:14 PM (0lyUI)

I'd rather have a program that lets the parking lot day laborers come here legally, with a record of their entry, and rigidly excludes anyone coming here illegally, with no record of their entry.  Because some of the people coming here illegally are MS-13 types, and in a time where terrorism is such a high threat, the existence of an undetected illegal entry pathway is a national security threat of a high order.

226 Hannity has lost it

Hannity thinks Romney is a conservative...at least he did during the primaries.  Dork.

227 I agree completely Stuiec.

There's a plan @135 and my plan @175. Any thoughts on that?

228

From the article...

If the elections in Massachusetts and 2006 and 2008 showed anything, it's that Republicans can't win with their base alone.

And if every other election showed anything, it's that Republicans can't win without their base, period.  This list has more to do with getting back the support of the base than anything else and I don't think it succeeds on that score.  The RNC wants to be able to dismiss the "purists" by being able to say, "What, we have a purity test and you're still not satisfied?" thus shaming them into a trip to the polls.

Well, screw you, RNC.  If a candidate passed with a 90 percent I still may not vote for him, provided, for example, he lost his point on the Amnesty issue.  And, any candidate who supports an amendment to remove the definition of marriage from the states doesn't have a clue about the nature, intent, and spirit of the Constitution.  So, no support from me again, since that goes against the most basic idea of conservatism: limiting the power and scope of the federal government.

No, I don't have to agree with "everything" a candidate has done, but I have my own purity list; it's far shorter and you fail with one wrong answer.

With that said, I understand the RNC can't be as strict, and if it wants to donate money to such candidates I don't have a problem with it.  I don't give money to them anyway.

I also don't have a problem with requiring every R candidate to at least be on record regarding their positions on these principles, but if they don't get an 80 percent then I wouldn't suggest shunning them.  Instead, the higher the score, the more money the RNC will supply, and the voters can make up the difference if they so choose.

If you keep it Pass/Fail you're just handing the DNC an issue, and the accusations regarding purity and lock-step will not cease.

229

There's a plan @135 and my plan @175. Any thoughts on that?

Walls with periodic garrison posts worked for ancient China and they work for modern Israel. And heck, the Keynesian "fiscal stimulus" Democrats will like the public works project.

230 218, 223...you two do understand what "contingency" means, yes?  That means the plaintiff's attorney takes a percentage of whatever the plaintiff wins when the case is decided.  Any percentage of zero is zero, and that's exactly what the lawyer walks away with if he or she does not win the case.

Tort reform that limits the size of the award also limits the amount of money a plaintiff's attorney can make from any given lawsuit.

I don't think the term "billable hour" really applies to your average trial lawyer.  That is more a defense lawyer or corporate lawyer sort of thing.

P.S.  Total non-lawyer here, but that is my understanding of the system, FWIW.

231

222  - Eliminate the AMT

Sounds good to me

232

From WSJ

May 19, 2008, 7:44 AM ET By Scott Hensley

In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas. So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble keeping up with the requests for licenses.

How come the flood? A clampdown on damages in malpractice suits has made Texas a very attractive place to practice medicine, says an opinion piece in the WSJ.

233

And if every other election showed anything, it's that Republicans can't win without their base, period.

Scott Brown's victory also shows that a good many issues said to only appeal to the base actually appeal to a lot more people than we realize.

234

Scott Brown's victory also shows that a good many issues said to only appeal to the base actually appeal to a lot more people than we realize.

Absolutely true and then some.

235

Scott Brown's victory also shows that a good many issues said to only appeal to the base actually appeal to a lot more people than we realize.

Absolutely true and then some.

Posted by: barbelle

Yep, an 80% friend will appeal in most places.  Strong on defense, honorable about transparency and governing, and fiscally sustainable... that shit makes sense to all but the craziest.

This 8/10 plan is not a purity test.  It's actually a massive tent.

236

5  I'm a pro-amnesty conservative and that would probably be enough for 75% of conservatives to deny me entrance into the club.

Um... how can you be conservative if you're for the liberal idea of letting the law of the land be trampled on like it doesn't exist? A country that can't keep its fundamental laws straight is a joke.

237

230 218, 223...you two do understand what "contingency" means, yes?  That means the plaintiff's attorney takes a percentage of whatever the plaintiff wins when the case is decided.  Any percentage of zero is zero, and that's exactly what the lawyer walks away with if he or she does not win the case.

Tort reform that limits the size of the award also limits the amount of money a plaintiff's attorney can make from any given lawsuit.

I don't think the term "billable hour" really applies to your average trial lawyer.  That is more a defense lawyer or corporate lawyer sort of thing.

P.S.  Total non-lawyer here, but that is my understanding of the system, FWIW.

 Most lawyers start with a retainer and only involk "contingency" if the payoff exceeds their billable hours put into the case. What you're talking about is true *IF* the case makes it to trial. Most don't.

THE MAJORITYof  cases involving actual malpractice cases get settled out of court.

But go back to those statistics: 97% don't even involve actual malpractice. The process usually get's sorted out in "peer review" where a panel of the profession rules on the case based on the profession's "standard of care". The process of filing with the State Health Board, the Attorney General, and going through the Medical Review Committee, posting "proof of malpractice insurance"...in a profession that costs hundreds of dollars of overhead per hour just to break even....that process may take a minimum of a dozen hours BEFOR both sides lawyer up. Is it no wonder insurance companies will offer to settle out of court on cases that have no merit in the first place? All they care about is minimizing their losses, which BTW, sooner or later are passed on to the physicians who pass them on to the patients.

And from a trial lawyer's point of view, so what if they file 10 cases and only 1 or 2 actually settle? From their perspective they got their consultation and retainer fee along with billable hours and filing fees. That constitutes a living for most lawyers while they wait and hope for that jackpot jury payoff that justifies their career and makes their name.

Bottom line: the average malpractice client...... looses to his own lawyer, while the cost of health care is inflated by an insurance and  legal system where even the winners pay.

238

"The Admirable Work Ethic of 1st Generation Illegal Immigrants" = They'll Do Whatever the Fuck I Tell Them for Whatever the Fuck I Want to Pay Them or It's Back They Go...

Bingo!

Pkease, guys. Like it's any different for me and you? In our case it's back to the bar or back home, but it's free people contracting, money for labor.

And once again we see that some people have trouble with illegals because they are deadbeats and then turn around a bitch about the arrangements illegals make to work.

I don't doubt that the refugee system has been abused but I sincerely doubt it is a widespread problem. Actually, any problem at all.

The lottery seems brutal and/or flippant, but once you start making preferences you step into a world of shit. Like education requirements--sounds great but you really are denying entry to those who just don't have access to proper education. (If we could determine who was here to learn and work and deny all others you could sign me right up.)

239 Here's my suggestion for just some basics that are in the interests of ALL Americans:

EXTERMINATING America's enemies abroad. We are in our 9th year & would have been done resting up our boys & gals if all of this belly aching & hand wringing by those enemies within our own borders hadn't been hamstringing the war effort.

DEFENDING America's borders, our neighbor to the South is a Narco State & nefarious characters are more than accommodating to those whom wish to smuggle possible Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons across in to our cities to cause mass casualties.

FISCAL DISCIPLINE by cutting spending with the goal of retiring the national debt. Yes sounds like a pipe dream & most Statists, Socialists & or Marxists will argue "who's gonna collect?", well it looks like China is looking to collapse our economy along with the Obamessiah, Bernake & Geitner with this profligate spending.

TRUE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Enough of this being dependent on those that wish us the most ill. Eliminate the incessantly annoying Leftist chant "No Blood For Oil". The Envirofascists on the Left are all about banning fossil fuels or making them so expensive that the average American will have to give up their mobility of their personal automobiles. We know where it all is here let's go get it, take care of our own needs then sell to India & China on the open market; then the Middle East, especially the House of Saud, will have to really deal with it's own internal problems for once; using the proceeds to pay down the debt.

240

And once again we see that some people have trouble with illegals because they are deadbeats and then turn around a bitch about the arrangements illegals make to work.

It is *no accident* that the same Commiecrats who carp about "a living wage" want amnesty. For them it is a "heads we win / tails you lose" situation. They get a larger underclass to manipulate, and we pay for it.

I don't doubt that the refugee system has been abused but I sincerely doubt it is a widespread problem. Actually, any problem at all.

Then you are not paying attention. I was all for saving the Hmong and the Montagnards (and other Vietnamese refugees) when the Commies were going to butcher them. But now, Vietnam and Laos are angling for deals and the war is "Qua Roi" (past enough). Meanwhile, we have a whole underclass of people who are barely out of the Stone Age to educate. You should see the first of the month food stamp rush at the local supermarkets.

The lottery seems brutal and/or flippant, but once you start making preferences you step into a world of shit. Like education requirements--sounds great but you really are denying entry to those who just don't have access to proper education.

Tough. The first and foremost rule of any immigration policy should be, "Is it good for the nation as a whole?" Nope, not your industry lobby alone.

And I say this as someone who married a lovely lady from overseas.

241

Then immigrant reform in the sense that any illegal who would like to obtain full legal citizenship status has a one time chance at a 5 year visa -- and they have to provide proof that they are actively working/searching for work, will actively participate in citizenship and ESL programs to be able to take a citizenship exam at the end of the 5 years (and this would be a basic exam), as well as proof of no criminal activity either prior to or during the 5 year visa (with perhaps a 5 year probationary period afterwards)?  Become a felon and its instant deportation and possible incarceration and deportation, no visa, no citizenship -- ever.  (unless you're guilty of murder or treason, and then you're subject to the death penalty, like any American citizen might be)

It isn't perfect, but it would certainly help weed out the chaff imho.  Much better than blanket amnesty or work related amnesty (just because you are working doesn't mean you are a good, patriotic citizen or even not criminal).

242

See Wall Street Journal editorial board, the. I'm sure they consider themselves pretty conservative (and would pass most of the tests on the list) but pretty much define the open borders crowd. I've found I can't rely on their coverage of anything to do with any kind of immigration, legal, illegal, or space alien.

I was really disgusted when I saw video of the Wall Street Journal editorial board sitting around a table and saying, dumb foundedly, that the conservatives who were anti-amnesty were racists. Jeebus fucking christ, they were as stupid and accusatory as the left.

243 @241 I think that lines up with my 'Red Card' idea from @175.

Fine, fingerprints, hair sample, criminal background check, 'list of strikes', and the honest chance of a Green Card at the end.
Yes?
Make "Failed to file taxes in a year" a strike.

244

I was really disgusted when I saw video of the Wall Street Journal editorial board sitting around a table and saying, dumb foundedly, that the conservatives who were anti-amnesty were racists. Jeebus fucking christ, they were as stupid and accusatory as the left.

I saw that from a couple of years back. What was truly disgusting was how those lily-elite Wall Street Journal elites, who don't send their kids to public schools or use the local hospitals, and whose only interaction with Latino people wass bossing them around as hired gardeners, maids and nannies for their children (the modern day version of once-black "Mammies") sneer condescendingly at those of us who live with the realities of immigration every day.

It made me want to learn how to make a letter bomb and send it to them, only it would unfortunately take out some poor schmuck in the WSJ mail room instead of them.

In the same video, one noted how leftist identity politics was gaining ground. Gee, could it be that the WSJ policies had something to do with that? Naw, that never occurred to them.

As Lenin said, "When the time comes to hang the capitalist plutocrats..."

245 Mona Charen was right in there with them with the RACIST b.s. I don't think that calling someone a fool retard is racist.

246

Mona Charen was right in there with them with the RACIST b.s. I don't think that calling someone a fool retard is racist.

It was sad to see someone as normally insightful as Mona Charen piling on. I could just see Ms. Charen later on at a weekend soiree: "Oh Consuela dear! We need a a refill of the hors d'oeuvres plates, quickly! Chop chop!"

They, Just. Don't. Get. It.

And sadly, it seems even a few AOSHQ morons, mush as I love you all, don't get it either.

247 "The heart of the Republican Party used to be fiscal conservatism."

I thought it was opposition to slavery.

248 How can you be a federalist but then say everyone has to believe the same thing?

249

How can you be a federalist but then say everyone has to believe the same thing?

Because these issues are national, not state, issues. Next....

250 A solid slice of "fiscal conservatism" is making the money more local whenever possible.

Federal Department of Education vs. spending the exact same money inside the originating state.
1) You're saving around 60 cents a dollar -just- by skipping the trip the feds.
2) The people doing the spending are closer to 'your' level, and can more easily be chucked if they're idiots.
3) Suddenly big business etc. needs 50x as many lobbyists. Higher costs + less useful benefits leads to at least some pressure on the usefulness of lobbying.

The only useful part would be testing standards and ranking the state's efforts. Not a endless billions-of-dollars type of project.

251

Some of the stuff like suporting a troop surge I think is already outdated and is mission specific. It shouldn't be there. For engagement in overseas action where our troops are already fighting it should be changed to "does not support cut and run".

Other than that I think most real Republicans wouold pass 8 of those 10 things. I would howver make opposition to crap and tax and obama care a real litmus test. Anyone who has read eitrher one of those bills can not support them and be called a Republican.

 

252 I think the other major problem with a list of ideals is that anyone can, and viz. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, will, lie about them to suck that vote out of you. Where lie is too strong a term, negligence (as a problem in fealty) will suffice.

Idealism itself is a form of poor reason.  However we do need some ideological "pegs" on which to form a framework of decision-making and policy. These pegs are of best utility when formulated as principles, and not as hard and fast rules.

I think any organization can and should post such a list of principles, and the members should be guided by them, but not be expected to meet each, all the time, without regard to extenuating circumstance.  For example, it takes a Romney or a Brown to get elected in Massachusetts.  Goldwater types would be foolish to try.

Does that mean you eliminate Romney or Brown from the organization?  Really?

253 In all probability, Romney, Giuliani and the WSJ would fail this test.  Do we really want a party so narrow that it excludes these 3?

McCain would fail also and as much as I dislike him, I would not want our Presidential nominee to run without funds.

Take the New York Senate race for example: polls indicate the weak Democrat Gillibrand will win unless Pataki or Giuliani decide to run.

1)  There is no doubt Giuliani would be very strong on terror.

2)  Giuliani is a fiscal hawk, saving New York from the depths.

3)  Giuliani is very strong on law and order, better than Rhenquist even.

To me there is a big difference on the importance of issues and the intensity of the candidates.  For NY Senate, I would much rather have Giuliani than Gillibrand despite differences on other issues.

254

In all probability, Romney, Giuliani and the WSJ would fail this test.  Do we really want a party so narrow that it excludes these 3?

Romney would claim he would currently pass it except he is a gun grabber. Giuliani is not only a gn grabber but would probably not meet but 1 or 2. Yes, he's out. I have no idea who WSJ is unless you are talking about the newspaper.

If they were so liberal they couldn't make most of these things I would say yeah, don't let the door hit your RINO ass.

255 I think these tests are what the Left thrive on.  Its like a button or one of those stupid ass ribbons.  They don't have any real meaning.  I do agree with whoever it was that had the three items: Fiscal Restraint; Federalism; and Strong National Defense/Security.  These are no brainers for those on the Right.  You can tell pretty quick if somebody embodies these principles or not by simply listening to most any response to most any question.





 

256 The question of party support would greatly impact the decision of Pataki or Giuliani to get in the race.  There are other candidates who might win in similar blue States still considering a run.

For myself, I will support either Pataki or Giuliani against Gillibrand.

Especially when control of the Senate might be in play.

I think we should support who we like and vote for them in primaries.  But good grief, why would we want to preclude possible winning candidates and then de-fund them if they are still crazy enough to run?

I don't like the Maine Senators much, but I would rather have them than Democrats.

257

The purity test was discussed over on Red State.  One of the bloggers over there suggested a better idea:  require televised debates before primaries.  That way, you prevent a Scozzafava by getting the support of GOP primary voters, while at the same time tailoring a candidate to the local politics.

I might add that you also wouldn't have to think up a new set of positions for each election.  We don't ask GOP candidates their positions on Kemp-Roth or Contra aid nowadays, after all.

258 100%-80%=20%=1/5

Try telling your boss he's wrong every Friday.  Better still do it on TV and side with the competition.  How many votes does Congress take in a year?

259 I'm fine with "seven of ten" candidates that are firebreathers on some of the other ten, or even haul out other issues that are on the conservative side of the divide somewhere.

It also depends on where they're going.

260

Hey guy,have a fun day,i read your article,it gave me some information.since the may is coming up,i hope you have a nice season.comment write by gucci outlet store online editorjane.

 http://www.guccisaleoutlet.com/

261

 Best new era caps, ; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"> http://www.caps-store.com

; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www.caps-store.com">new era hats wholesale</a>

, Monster Energy Hats, Dc Shoes Hats, ; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"> <a href="http://www.caps-store.com">red bull hats</a>,New Era Caps,NFL Hats ,Famous Hats ,new era 59fifty hats,jordan hats and coogi hats,etc are in stock now. Our site provide first-class service and reliable quanlity garantee,do not hesitate to shake hands with us and go with the tide as soon as possible! ;" lang="EN-US">