Hot Issues From Linn County Iowa

Monday, 30 November 2009

The Political Purity Test

I just read an interesting article on the Campaign for Liberty Website

Which I will post below. But before that I will expound on my views.

It does not matter what I think of the 10 point issue list,

It does not matter if I support all 10, oppose all 10 or chose 1 from column A and 2 from column B I object to Purity Tests period.

In my opinion, the Party and it's Officials should be strictly neutral during the Primary and fiercely partisan during the General Election.

And who emerges from the Primaries is the decision of the VOTERS, and NOT someone far off who thinks they know better than we do and should therefore withhold funds from a candidate that the ignorant unwashed masses elected.

I don't know about anyone else but I am sorely tired of other people deciding that THEY have the right and obligation for making my (our) decisions for us.

There are different reads on the results recently of the NY District 23 Election.

Mine is that Conservative Voters soundly rejected the candidate that Republican Leaders chose for them.

It is really bizarre to have a Democrat running a campaign based on the Republican's record of raising taxes, supporting government growth and intrusion into our private lives,

It was on Economic, Fiscal Responsibility, Government Growth and Intrusion issues that Owens won, issues that the Republican Candidate fell flat on.

Now that the Democratic Congressman upheld his stand on those issues which won the election for a whole hour before reneging on the major 4, I feel sure that the only Candidate that was truly Conservative will win next year in the General Election, but the VOTERS will determine that and it is sadly obvious that the Republican Party officials fell flat on their faces.

And now we have those who are on the other side of the Political Spectrum deciding that they can do the same thing.

That is decide for us who should represent us, rather than leaving that decision to US.

The Conservative Kool-Aid Acid Test

Posted by GoSlash27 on 11/28/09 10:16 AM
Last updated 11/28/09 10:18 AM

It might seem at first glance that the Democrats are in serious jeopardy of losing their hold on Washington. President Obama's approval ratings are tanking. People are out in the streets protesting against out-of-control spending, government takeovers of health care, the auto industry, and the banking industry.

With all the public fervor being displayed at the town hall meetings, TEA party rallies, anti-amnesty protests, and the massive groundswell of grassroots support for uniquely conservative policies, the Democrats should be understandably nervous about their prospects next year.

But they have a powerful ally in the Republican party's unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their mind-boggling ability to alienate their own base, as well as the vast majority of independents remains unchallenged.The moment they get the Democrats in their sights, they take a deep breath, slowly exhale, turn the gun around so it's pointed at their own face, and squeeze....

We have seen an example of this phenomenon right here in the Cedar Rapids District 33 debacle; a race that the Iowa Republican party seemed determined to lose (and succeeded spectacularly), but the truly telling example of Republican political self-immolation is documented at the Republic of Dave blog.

In the wake of their loss in the NY-23 special election (in which they hand-picked the liberal candidate over the conservative one and split the base, thus ensuring their own defeat), the official response from the national RNC Vice Chairman is to subject all future candidates to a 10 point litmus test.

The 10 points:

We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Any potential candidate who disagrees with 3 or more of these points would not receive support or funding from the Republican party.

Now... setting aside the fact that this list is outrageously specific and undermines philosophy in favor of policy positions, let's begin by focusing on what kind of candidates it would exclude.

Aside from myself, (not sure about #4, adamantly opposed to #6 and #7, and personally offended by #8), this handy new definition would disqualify a few other well-known figures that the Republican party has always feigned admiration for, such as Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. Locally, it would almost certainly exclude every candidate that could ever hope to harness grassroots support.

What the Republican Party has failed to grasp at every level is the simple fact that Conservatism is a philosophy, not a list. The philosophy is popular, but their list is not. The philosophy would demand a litmus test composed of exactly one item:

#1: I swear (or affirm) to faithfully execute my desired office and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Iowa.

This (essentially the oath of office that every elected representative takes) *is* what conservatism is all about, and anybody seeking office under the Republican label should be absolutely passionate about it. Senator Barry Goldwater defined the role of a truly conservative public servant when he said:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution ... or have failed their purpose ... or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

This is what the American people are desperately seeking, and (not coincidentally) is exactly what the Republican party is supposed to be representing. Until such time as they begin promoting candidates and philosophies that reflect this sentiment, they will be doomed to the only role they've shown any aptitude for; helping Democrats win elections they should be losing.

Posted by ky/kentuckydan at 6:37 AM CST
Updated: Monday, 30 November 2009 7:00 AM CST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Comments Page

View Latest Entries

«	November 2009					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30