Right-wing political correctness is as bad as the leftist variety.

I guess I'll repeat myself:

Fiscal conservatives were shown the door when Newt was given the boot. Our time has finally come again, and the party wants to pass out purity piss tests to appease the theo-cons. Madness.

reposted from the previous page:

You know, there's a thing in the advertising world that says when you have to define what you are by showing how you're different than your competitor then you haven't got a message. I'm surprised that Obama's name appears at all in this document, let alone more than once. As I recall, the contract with America set out a positive list of proposals - this is just a list of things they won't do. It really underlines the "party of no" idea. They use the word 'support' a bunch but in fact, the word 'oppose' appears a half-dozen times.

The GOP is determined to lose this election. Anyone with a brain knows we need the independents to win, and the GOP is refusing to be centrist.

I guess it's four more years of Obama, thanks to the Repubs.

For comparison here's a direct Wiki link for:

Contract with America

The NM state party won't even agree to withhold support from an Iraq Vet Against the War Paulian kook. I guess that's ok, though, because he could go along with seven of those points.

Bah.

Hmm- I wonder if this puts ron paul in danger since he doesn't support Iraq and Afghanistan.

In principle, it doesn't sound that bad, but when you start looking at who is behind it, their agenda, backers and beliefs, well, then I just have to back the hell off and say, "Sorry, GOP, you lost me."

The weasel-language and hypocrisy of (9) alone is shameful.

re: #5 Gus 802

That went quite well for the Republicans.

If this is what the donors want, then it is their money after all.

re: #2 Sharmuta

I think that (3) is self contradictory. Cap and trade is market-based. Trading of emission caps occurs at the market price and will be driven by market based supply and demand. This is exactly why the first series of European Union Allowances collapsed to near zero in price, as there was a substantial oversupply in the market.

re: #9 Obdicut

The weasel-language and hypocrisy of (9) alone is shameful.

They made it too personal by mentioning Obama. Anytime you run with the idea of just being against the other guy, you've lost in my book. A polticial movement needs to be focused on what you're about and trying to achieve, not simply nay say and bring down the other guy.

Quote: "Look in the cookbook under “failure.” That’s where you’ll find this recipe."

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the 2006-2008 series of state and national elections.

Well, at least it all fits on (1) one page.

AAHDD

To repeat this is the part that reeks the most:

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

A candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position...

Shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee...

I hate things like this:

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

We have a kick-ass military and they are trained to win. However, it is the job of the civilian leadership to decide how & when we exercise that power. The military should always tell you what they need to win, the leaders should decide if it's worth it. Example: if we had to fight a massive ground war against a major country they would tell us they could win but it will cost 100,000 troops. It's the civilian leaders who tell them whether that is in the best interest of the country.

re: #15 GotFrags?

Quote: "Look in the cookbook under “failure.” That’s where you’ll find this recipe."

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the 2006-2008 series of state and national elections.

What does that mean?

re: #18 Cineaste

I hate things like this:

We have a kick-ass military and they are trained to win. However, it is the job of the civilian leadership to decide how & when we exercise that power. The military should always tell you what they need to win, the leaders should decide if it's worth it. Example: if we had to fight a massive ground war against a major country they would tell us they could win but it will cost 100,000 troops. It's the civilian leaders who tell them whether that is in the best interest of the country.

Would you say then that that line is unconstitutional?

(1) needs rewording (omit Obama and oppose)
(8) needs a flushing
(9) is all over the board, doesn't make a point and should be omitted (government interference of personal life choices)
(5) get rid of opposing, the first part of it states the point

Someone, please enlighten me on why this is an automatic loser.

I agree with about 5...the rest are a bit too much for me.

re: #19 Dark_Falcon

What does that mean?

Do you define those as successes?

re: #18 Cineaste

I hate things like this:

We have a kick-ass military and they are trained to win. However, it is the job of the civilian leadership to decide how & when we exercise that power. The military should always tell you what they need to win, the leaders should decide if it's worth it. Example: if we had to fight a massive ground war against a major country they would tell us they could win but it will cost 100,000 troops. It's the civilian leaders who tell them whether that is in the best interest of the country.

You can also have a great military, but when you strangle them with suicidal RoE, you're going to lose, no matter how many men you put in the field. If you are going to fight, then fight, or pull out and come home.

re: #20 Gus 802

Would you say then that that line is unconstitutional?

That probably overstates it since they are saying they will authorize anything the military tells them to do. It is technically retaining civilian leadership but it just feels like saying "we let the military dictate policy" which is definitely not how we're supposed to run things according to the constitution.

re: #2 Sharmuta

I guess I'll repeat myself:

Fiscal conservatives were shown the door when Newt was given the boot. Our time has finally come again, and the party wants to pass out purity piss tests to appease the theo-cons. Madness.

Actually, I took away a different conclusion. There are certainly social "conservative" position here, and as I've said before I'd prefer to see them removed. But the "seven out of ten" rule being proposed allows anyone in the GOP to wiggle out of such litmus tests.

To repeat myself from downstairs, I think this "requirement," a sort of loyalty oath, is a bad plan, and the rest of the document needs heavy polishing and editing. Overall, though, it's more moderate than what I might have expected from such a screed. As a first, rough draft at a policy statement, it's not a bad start, although it's far from what I'd want to see in final form.

I guess Rudy's out.

And, I'm hoping this in some sort of effing stunt, because the actual headline says, "May consider test of purity..."

It will be impossible to uphold AND IS VERY BAD IDEA.

re: #24 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You can also have a great military, but when you strangle them with suicidal RoE, you're going to lose, no matter how many men you put in the field. If you are going to fight, then fight, or pull out and come home.

Definitely - it's just a simple-minded turn of phrase designed to sound like there is meat on the bone for the base.

re: #20 Gus 802

Would you say then that that line is unconstitutional?

No, not at all. They are saying that when the generals recommend a surge, they should be heeded, since they know what they doing. Moreover, the resolution applied to Afghanistan and Iraq specifically. It's intended as a counterstatement to the Democrats nay-saying and defeatism. I've got no problem with point #6.

I'm wondering if this will finally put to rest the "it's just the FRINGE" of the Republican party" that is advocating such nuttery.

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

What about restricting violent felons and certified nuts from owning guns?

This little screed looks and reads like about twenty minutes of thought went into it. Maybe it was directly transcribed from Sean Hannity's lunch napkin or something.

re: #17 Gus 802

A candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position...

Shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee...

The national committee is trying to flex its muscles outside of it's scope. It is up to the local parties to nominate and endorse the candidates they feel are qualified and can win in their areas. It's not up to the national party to decide who the locals can nominate. I guess now it is though. No reason for me to participate in the process, the RNC in DC will decide for me!

re: #27 Ben Hur

I hate the wording of "purity". Too cultist IMHO.

This is kind of a wopper:

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

We support and defend the 2nd Amendment is more apt. The problem with this line is that it says they oppose government restriction on gun ownership. There should always be government restrictions on gun ownership regardless. Otherwise it would lead to criminal anarchy.

Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act item, this list doesn't seem that bad. A party has to have some principles, after all. How vigorously they enforce the restrictions WRT party funds, IMO, is what would make the difference between a purge and reasonable platform coherence.

Luckily, there is nothing preventing meeting strangers in public bathrooms, flying to South America to meet lovers, or shamelessy pandering to racists mentioned in their purity rules.

///

Number (7) is good.

re: #34 Gus 802

This is kind of a wopper:

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

We support and defend the 2nd Amendment is more apt. The problem with this line is that it says they oppose government restriction on gun ownership. There should always be government restrictions on gun ownership regardless. Otherwise it would lead to criminal anarchy.

Totally! So, according to this, the Republicans now believe that felons should be allowed to bring guns into schools! [RUN AROUND SCREAMING!]

re: #33 badger1970

I hate the wording of "purity". Too cultist IMHO.

It's secondhand, I think it originated with a NYT pundit.

re: #23 GotFrags?

Do you define those as successes?

Heck no. But I don't understand your point, and I didn't like your tone.

While I agree with many (not all) of the points in this "agenda", the whole idea of a systematized ideology that you must swear allegiance to to be "party loyal" smacks of fascism. That's a strong word, but it is creeping in that direction.

re: #34 Gus 802

Upon further review, you are correct.

re: #13 John Neverbend

I think that (3) is self contradictory. Cap and trade is market-based. Trading of emission caps occurs at the market price and will be driven by market based supply and demand. This is exactly why the first series of European Union Allowances collapsed to near zero in price, as there was a substantial oversupply in the market.

Cap and Trade is market based? That is one of the most ridiculously Orwellian statements I've heard in some time.

re: #29 Dark_Falcon

No, not at all. They are saying that when the generals recommend a surge, they should be heeded, since they know what they doing. Moreover, the resolution applied to Afghanistan and Iraq specifically. It's intended as a counterstatement to the Democrats nay-saying and defeatism. I've got no problem with point #6.

True enough. I don't oppose it either in theory since it is best to default to the knowledge of the military when engaged in military operations.

re: #33 badger1970

I hate the wording of "purity". Too cultist IMHO.

Hey! We get theses cool snuggies, the bowl cuts and these wicked cool knives. Dont knock it till you try it!

re: #35 hicsuget

Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act item, this list doesn't seem that bad. A party has to have some principles, after all. How vigorously they enforce the restrictions WRT party funds, IMO, is what would make the difference between a purge and reasonable platform coherence.

Quite Concur.

re: #37 John Neverbend

Number (7) is good.

It's a nice idea but it's not a policy. Is there any major political figure who has stated they are opposed to (7)? It's like when Palin said she would convince Russia to support sanctions on Iran - as though noone else has tried. Just saying you are going to do something doesn't make it so.

I can say I'll hold my breath underwater for eleven minutes but I doubt it'll work...

re: #35 hicsuget

Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act item, this list doesn't seem that bad. A party has to have some principles, after all. How vigorously they enforce the restrictions WRT party funds, IMO, is what would make the difference between a purge and reasonable platform coherence.

The Devil is always in the details.

re: #35 hicsuget

Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act item, this list doesn't seem that bad. A party has to have some principles, after all. How vigorously they enforce the restrictions WRT party funds, IMO, is what would make the difference between a purge and reasonable platform coherence.

well since you put it like that I gotta agree with the platform coherence part.

I don't see how 1 jives with 8 or 9- they sort of contradict each other.

re: #14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

They made it too personal by mentioning Obama. Anytime you run with the idea of just being against the other guy, you've lost in my book. A polticial movement needs to be focused on what you're about and trying to achieve, not simply nay say and bring down the other guy.

Yep. All this does is provide more ammo for those who say they're the party of No (they are). Also, defining your strategy simply along the lines of "whatever those people are fer, we're ag'in" implicitly allows the other side to dictate your party philosophy-- a very unwise move.

Finally, Obama won in part because the message of hope (while derided) was one people wanted to hear. Pessimism and fear work sometimes, but Reagan understood you had to give people optimism, especially in hard times. People want to be hopeful right now. The GOP is still running on the old playbook of the 90's and early 2000's-- go negative, go often, tear the other side down. It's been driving people away. It drove voters away in 2008, and instead of drawing the right conclusion about messaging and strategy, the GOP seems determined to just do the same thing twice as hard.

Some time ago I wrote a post detailing maybe ten common talking points of right-wing political correctness.

Now I'm thinking of one comparing wingnut to moonbat PC myths.

Here's a start.

The left says "it's always all America's fault".

The right says "everything we do is for the good of the world, because we're nice that way, and there is no such thing as the American Empire".

Feel free to make suggestions for the list while I go take care of some real-world stuff.

re: #33 badger1970

I hate the wording of "purity". Too cultist IMHO.

Agreed.

But I'm not seeing it in the document or Steele (or anyone else) calling it that.

Just when being used to describe it by the opposition media.

I could've missed it.

re: #37 John Neverbend

Number (7) is good.

Who wouldn't agree with that? Even every Democrat in congress would agree wholeheartedly.

Without any definition whatsoever as to what "effective action" might "eliminate their nuclear weapons threat," it means nothing.

The far left would say "effective action" means shaking hands and talking face-to-face. The far right would say "effective action" means obliterating those nations with our own nuclear weapons.

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

I hunt. I own several firearms.

I oppose civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

Damn, there's one I thought I'd pass with with flying colors.

Hmm, this originated from a NYT blog? I question whether the blog is trying to create a controversy. Snippet:

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.

Which leaders? Signed by 10 committee members.. which ones? Out of how many?

BREAKING NEWS: Census worker found hanging killed himself, Kentucky state police say

I'm sure some will say that Glenn Beck drove him to it.

re: #1 Cato the Elder

Right-wing political correctness is as bad as the leftist variety.

Not even close. The conservatives are kings of PC.

re: #43 Bagua

Cap and Trade is market based? That is one of the most ridiculously Orwellian statements I've heard in some time.

Perhaps you and I are using "market-based" to mean different things. I'm basing this on the established European cap and trade program. The whole point is that the emission cap price level is determined by the market. For example, the December 10 EUA closed today at EUR 12.81, its lowest since 3/31/09, and its high on 5/27 was EUR 15.92. To me, this is market-based.

re: #47 Cineaste

It's a nice idea but it's not a policy.

Of course, you're right, but it's nice to dream about it.

re: #55 Girth

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

I hunt. I own several firearms.

I oppose civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

Damn, there's one I thought I'd pass with with flying colors.

I mean they don't even specify "small arms" - so stinger missiles are cool?

//

The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, “that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items.

At least it's not 10 out of 10 (as it was presented) and it still needs to be voted for, etc.

Whatever happened to the word "Platform"?

re: #59 John Neverbend

For example, the December 10 EUA closed today at EUR 12.81, its lowest since 3/31/09, and its high on 5/27 was EUR 15.92. To me, this is market-based.

Remind me to switch off italics.

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

Heck no. I didn't like your tone.

What does my tone have to do with your feelings? My comment wasn't directed towards you. You chose to reply.

re: #26 SixDegrees

Actually, I took away a different conclusion. There are certainly social "conservative" position here, and as I've said before I'd prefer to see them removed. But the "seven out of ten" rule being proposed allows anyone in the GOP to wiggle out of such litmus tests.

To repeat myself from downstairs, I think this "requirement," a sort of loyalty oath, is a bad plan, and the rest of the document needs heavy polishing and editing. Overall, though, it's more moderate than what I might have expected from such a screed. As a first, rough draft at a policy statement, it's not a bad start, although it's far from what I'd want to see in final form.

You have a point. This is fairly moderate overall, and a moderate could still pass muster and get national funding.

re: #59 John Neverbend

Perhaps you and I are using "market-based" to mean different things. I'm basing this on the established European cap and trade program. The whole point is that the emission cap price level is determined by the market. For example, the December 10 EUA closed today at EUR 12.81, its lowest since 3/31/09, and its high on 5/27 was EUR 15.92. To me, this is market-based.

"Cap" is not market-based. "Trade" is market-based.

Can someone point to where it's called a "Purity" test by anyone?

re: #43 Bagua

Cap and Trade is market based? That is one of the most ridiculously Orwellian statements I've heard in some time.

Cap and Trade actually is market based. It basically takes concepts like "pollution" and makes them into cost drivers. So, just like a company will try to create their product using less, say, steel (which is a cost driver), it encourages them to create their product using less, say, CO2 output.

Allan Greenspan did a great writeup on this concept in the early '90s (he didn't call it Cap and Trade); it'd be worth googling.

I don't agree with a purity test but here's my revisions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Replace with: (8) We oppose cap and trade legislation.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

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

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

re: #59 John Neverbend

Perhaps you and I are using "market-based" to mean different things. I'm basing this on the established European cap and trade program. The whole point is that the emission cap price level is determined by the market. For example, the December 10 EUA closed today at EUR 12.81, its lowest since 3/31/09, and its high on 5/27 was EUR 15.92. To me, this is market-based.

Making an artificial market to trade tax levies does not alter the fact that the underlying is a government imposed tax. Just as paying a fine with a credit card is not "shopping".

re: #67 Ben Hur

Can someone point to where it's called a "Purity" test by anyone?

Ok - it's a test of adherence to core values. How ideologically consistent you are with a stated set of positions.

Purity is a clear euphemism for that.

re: #50 Sharmuta

I don't see how 1 jives with 8 or 9- they sort of contradict each other.

8 and 9 are fundamentally anti-Conservative, and ought to be removed in my opinion. They're there to keep the Bible-thumpers happy, and the three freebies allow party members to ignore them without crossing over into the realm of the unpure. But a party that believes in upholding a small, non-intrusive government will only tie itself into knots trying to justify their presence.

They could be replaced with something more along the lines of, "We believe the government should ensure that individual United States citizens are free to live their lives in the best way that seems fit to them, with as little interference from the state or other forces as is reasonably possible," and the message would be clear and appealing.

re: #69 Gus 802

I don't agree with a purity test but here's my revisions:

1000% better.

re: #67 Ben Hur

Can someone point to where it's called a "Purity" test by anyone?

The news links are calling it that.

re: #69 Gus 802

You Sir, win this thread. Well revised and well done.

re: #75 bloodstar

You Sir, win this thread. Well revised and well done.

Really? Thanks, I was kind of worried when I hit post. ;)

The words 'self inflicted wounds' come to mind.

So much for the GOP's 'big tent'.

re: #55 Girth

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

I hunt. I own several firearms.

I oppose civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons.

Damn, there's one I thought I'd pass with with flying colors.

Why? You have to jump through hoops to get the license, and when was the last time you heard of a loony killer who used a full auto weapon?

The stupid gun-ignorant media are always breathlessly telling us that "the killer use a [gasp!] semi-automatic handgun to commit the crime" - as though there were something so scaree about even a semi-auto gun that - well just imagine if it had been full auto!!1!!!

But it wasn't.

The non-gun-owning public is generally pig-ignorant about the whole thing. I do believe I've even heard someone talk about "semi-auto revolvers" before, LOL.

re: #69 Gus 802

How about replacing 8 with:

We believe in a balanced budget.

re: #78 Cato the Elder

I once heard the term "AK-47 recoiless rifle"

re: #66 Soundboard Fez

"Cap" is not market-based. "Trade" is market-based.

Yes, I know that. But the point of "cap and trade" is to allow market forces to determine the price of carbon.

re: #68 cliffster

Cap and Trade actually is market based. It basically takes concepts like "pollution" and makes them into cost drivers. So, just like a company will try to create their product using less, say, steel (which is a cost driver), it encourages them to create their product using less, say, CO2 output.

Allan Greenspan did a great writeup on this concept in the early '90s (he didn't call it Cap and Trade); it'd be worth googling.

My point being that this represents creating an artificial market for something that is regulatory and punitive in its fundamental nature. Buying and selling slaves may fit some definitions of "trade" and "free enterprise" bit it is still a highly coercive and morally distorting act.

re: #78 Cato the Elder

Why? You have to jump through hoops to get the license, and when was the last time you heard of a loony killer who used a full auto weapon?

The stupid gun-ignorant media are always breathlessly telling us that "the killer use a [gasp!] semi-automatic handgun to commit the crime" - as though there were something so scaree about even a semi-auto gun that - well just imagine if it had been full auto!!1!!!

But it wasn't.

The non-gun-owning public is generally pig-ignorant about the whole thing. I do believe I've even heard someone talk about "semi-auto revolvers" before, LOL.

FWIW I doubt Hassan would have been as deadly if he had been restricted to manual six-shooters.

re: #69 Gus 802

I don't agree with a purity test but here's my revisions:

Much better.

re: #79 Sharmuta

How about replacing 8 with:

We believe in a balanced budget.

But...but...where is the fun in that!?
///

re: #79 Sharmuta

How about replacing 8 with:

We believe in a balanced budget.

And a Line Item Veto

re: #78 Cato the Elder

Why? You have to jump through hoops to get the license, and when was the last time you heard of a loony killer who used a full auto weapon?

The stupid gun-ignorant media are always breathlessly telling us that "the killer use a [gasp!] semi-automatic handgun to commit the crime" - as though there were something so scaree about even a semi-auto gun that - well just imagine if it had been full auto!!1!!!

But it wasn't.

The non-gun-owning public is generally pig-ignorant about the whole thing. I do believe I've even heard someone talk about "semi-auto revolvers" before, LOL.

I agree with everything you just said, I just don't see any need for a civilian to own a fully-automatic weapon.

re: #67 Ben Hur

Can someone point to where it's called a "Purity" test by anyone?

In the headlines of the NYT opinion blogs reporting on it.

How's this for a headline using the same looseness: "Democrats call for socialism in reform of Health and Banking industries"

re: #86 Gus 802

And a Line Item Veto

It was ruled unconstitutional. I'll settle for a balanced budget.

re: #79 Sharmuta

How about replacing 8 with:

We believe in a balanced budget.

Unfortunately, the GOP stopped believing in a balanced budget the day that Clinton left office.

re: #79 Sharmuta

How about replacing 8 with:

We believe in a balanced budget.

The problem with that (and by extension the old idea of a balanced budget amendment) is that it ties your hands in ways that the government shouldn't be tied. Sometimes we can run surpluses and pay down debt. sometime, like when we're at war, we may need to run in the red - that's called managing the budget. Declaring that it must always be balanced is unrealistic.

re: #78 Cato the Elder

when was the last time you heard of a loony killer who used a full auto weapon?

Gangs love 'em and use them all the time.

re: #78 Cato the Elder

Why? You have to jump through hoops to get the license, and when was the last time you heard of a loony killer who used a full auto weapon?

The stupid gun-ignorant media are always breathlessly telling us that "the killer use a [gasp!] semi-automatic handgun to commit the crime" - as though there were something so scaree about even a semi-auto gun that - well just imagine if it had been full auto!!1!!!

But it wasn't.

The non-gun-owning public is generally pig-ignorant about the whole thing. I do believe I've even heard someone talk about "semi-auto revolvers" before, LOL.

Legally owned full auto weapons have only been used in unlawful shootings twice, and one of those times was a cop who killed his wife. I've got no problem with full-auto in principle, though it should remain tightly regulated.

re: #67 Ben Hur

There's a website called "ChattaBox.com" and it also calls itself a 'news blog." And on that website, it's described as "Republicans Move Towards Right-Wing Loyalty Oath."

re: #90 Soundboard Fez

Unfortunately, the GOP stopped believing in a balanced budget the day that Clinton Gingrich left office.

Fixed for accuracy.

They need to address the unemployment numbers and focus on the economy. If they don't have a plan for that--they have to rely on the economy getting worse in order to claim their talking points were a smashing success.

//

re: #82 Bagua

My point being that this represents creating an artificial market for something that is regulatory and punitive in its fundamental nature. Buying and selling slaves may fit some definitions of "trade" and "free enterprise" bit it is still a highly coercive and morally distorting act.

Good points. I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it wasn't absurd to say it used free market mechanisms.

re: #83 Cineaste

There's more to the deadly force of an individual firearm than whether it is a semi-auto weapon. Caliber comes into play - the pure stopping power. Type of ammo used; whether it is more or less likely to tumble inside the person hit or go straight through (severity of injuries).

It's a whole bunch of factors, but "semi-auto" seems to be one the one fixated upon by a media and the talking heads.

re: #62 Ben Hur

Whatever happened to the word "Platform"?

They're getting harder to find on the GOP websites.

Starting earlier this year, when I was looking through each of the state GOP platforms, a funny thing started to happen: as the state level GOP organizations were reorganizing their websites after the election the newly designed sites no longer included links to platforms.

I don't know why. Perhaps there was too much diversity from state to state.

re: #71 Cineaste

re: #74 Sharmuta

re: #88 cliffster

re: #94 J.S.

Thank you.

re: #91 Cineaste

The problem with that (and by extension the old idea of a balanced budget amendment) is that it ties your hands in ways that the government shouldn't be tied. Sometimes we can run surpluses and pay down debt. sometime, like when we're at war, we may need to run in the red - that's called managing the budget. Declaring that it must always be balanced is unrealistic.

And the balanced budget amendment allowed for such spending needs, but at this point, there is nothing to force Congress to manage their spending in any way. Tying their hands a little is a better idea than allowing them to carry on as drunken sailors forever.

Looks like the guy who was lynched supposedly because he worked for the government actually committed suicide.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

re: #86 Gus 802

And a Line Item Veto

I don't really think a line item veto per se should be allowed, but I think the challenges it tries to fight are worth fighting..

re: #81 John Neverbend

Yes, I know that. But the point of "cap and trade" is to allow market forces to determine the price of carbon.

Of course it is dressed up this way to give the illusion of a free market. It is Gramscian in its subversion of capitalism. A punitive tax that is traded like a commodity.

It's not a controversial list. It's mostly what is already in the Republican platform.

re: #69 Gus 802

Well done. Your changes would reflect an open/big tent concept that could lead to a winning combination in 2010 and beyond. Instead, by focusing on the parts you struck from the plank, the GOP wants to limit its influence because people will find all too many of those positions at odds with their own views.

re: #103 cliffster

I don't really think a line item veto per se should be allowed, but I think the challenges it tries to fight are worth fighting..

Especially with the number and types of amendments that are snuck in in the dark of night. I had forgotten that it was declared unconstitutional.

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

GWB gets kicked to the curb!

OT(kinda):

The KY census worker that was killed by right wing extremists: wasn't.

[Link: www.chron.com...]

re: #97 cliffster

Good points. I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it wasn't absurd to say it used free market mechanisms.

Of course it's not absurd. It's as market-based as any other commodity with futures prices on an established exchange. The collapse of the EUA phase 1 prices amply demonstrated that.

re: #94 J.S.

There's a website called "ChattaBox.com" and it also calls itself a 'news blog." And on that website, it's described as "Republicans Move Towards Right-Wing Loyalty Oath."

Well, "Loyalty Oath" doesn't have the same, well, effect as "Purity", does it?

re: #108 Mich-again

GWB gets kicked to the curb!

You noticed that too, huh?

OT
Ky. census worker committed suicide

re: #92 charles_martel

Gangs love 'em and use them all the time.

That I do know, though I must point out that those are illegal weapons and Cato was talking about registered, lawfully owned weapons. An ATF agent came into my store last week who had been on the receiving end of some illegal AKs during a drug bust. A federal task force broke down a door in Chicago and was met by six hoods armed with AKs. He got shot in the leg. He was still quite gung ho however; he came back a couple days later to show off the bullet after it has been extracted. I'm proud to have met a brave man like that.

re: #108 Mich-again

So much for compassionate conservatism, which was really big government headed by a freer-spending GOP.

re: #106 lawhawk

Well done. Your changes would reflect an open/big tent concept that could lead to a winning combination in 2010 and beyond. Instead, by focusing on the parts you struck from the plank, the GOP wants to limit its influence because people will find all too many of those positions at odds with their own views.

Thank you Lawhawk. I appreciate it.

re: #109 rsquare

OT(kinda):

The KY census worker that was killed by right wing extremists: wasn't.

[Link: www.chron.com...]

So, they got to the investigators. Sneaky bastards.

///

re: #109 rsquare

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

ladies and gentleman - the next senator for Florida will be a Democrat. Crist gets eliminated on point 1.

re: #93 Dark_Falcon

Legally owned full auto weapons have only been used in unlawful shootings twice, and one of those times was a cop who killed his wife. I've got no problem with full-auto in principle, though it should remain tightly regulated.

Quite concur.

I feel absolutely no need of one myself, but I know people who have gotten the license.

re: #98 lawhawk

There's more to the deadly force of an individual firearm than whether it is a semi-auto weapon. Caliber comes into play - the pure stopping power. Type of ammo used; whether it is more or less likely to tumble inside the person hit or go straight through (severity of injuries).

It's a whole bunch of factors, but "semi-auto" seems to be one the one fixated upon by a media and the talking heads.

I get that. I was just making a slightly-dickish point that speed with which you can fire bullets can make a difference. Of course there are enormous variables at play. But all this goes to the point that it's a silly thing to state in the pledge. I mean, do they approve of depleted uranium shells for civilian ownership? Of course not... (now I just have to figure out what to do with that bucket of depleted uranium I picked up at Home Depot...)

What's conservative about a "loyalty" oath that binds a leader to a artificial paper contract over their free will to follow their conscience ?
It's also interesting that many of the pledges are pretty much a warning to disagree with Obama or else. Sad state of politics IMHO.

re: #99 freetoken

They're getting harder to find on the GOP websites.

Starting earlier this year, when I was looking through each of the state GOP platforms, a funny thing started to happen: as the state level GOP organizations were reorganizing their websites after the election the newly designed sites no longer included links to platforms.

I don't know why. Perhaps there was too much diversity from state to state.

I discovered that too while researching the state party platforms and intelligent design. I think the various levels of social issues I saw in some state platforms might have made others in the RNC nervous. Some state platforms state outright they want prayer back in public schools. It's as if these "proud conservative" principles are an embarrassment or not worth displaying proudly... Very interesting.

I see nothing wrong with this. The party has clearly defined its position on issues and is asking that anyone who claims to be a Republican must also support most of those stands. What's wrong with that?

re: #119 wozzablog

ladies and gentleman - the next senator for Florida will be a Democrat. Crist gets eliminated on point 1.

The proposed requirement is 7 out of 10. Missing one doesn't get you cut.

They've included the social conservatives' gay issue: "(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act," and also the abortion issue: "(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion," but in that context it's not objectionable. It shouldn't be federally funded (along with a million other things).

The good news is that they've left out the creationism issue, so it's not too bad.

re: #92 charles_martel

Gangs love 'em and use them all the time.

I'm talking about legally owned, federally licensed full-auto guns.

Of course criminals have illegal weapons. They're criminals.

70% pure?

re: #122 avanti

What's conservative about a "loyalty" oath that binds a leader to a artificial paper contract over their free will to follow their conscience ?
It's also interesting that many of the pledges are pretty much a warning to disagree with Obama or else. Sad state of politics IMHO.

You're completely correct. It's demanding that the collective act in unison and think as one to support a common agenda.

Oh my, sounds like socialism to me...

re: #97 cliffster

Good points. I didn't say I agreed with it, just that it wasn't absurd to say it used free market mechanisms.

I agree, and certainly a "market" is in place and it is part of the whole Orwellian scheme to legitimise this tax burden.

Murdering transients and cutting out their kidneys is not surgery, though it may resemble and use surgical procedures. To then sell the kidney to the highest bidder is not "free market" it is a horrendous crime, though it does resemble commerce and involve a form of trade.

Cap and Trade is a punitive tax, the attempts to dress it up as "market based" are obscenities.

re: #126 The Curmudgeon

The good news is that they've left out the creationism issue, so it's not too bad.

It's there in invisible ink.

re: #123 Sharmuta

I discovered that too while researching the state party platforms and intelligent design. I think the various levels of social issues I saw in some state platforms might have made others in the RNC nervous. Some state platforms state outright they want prayer back in public schools. It's as if these "proud conservative" principles are an embarrassment or not worth displaying proudly... Very interesting.

Oklahoma GOP Platform Requires Teaching Creationism
Science %P% Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:03:57 pm PDT

LGF article.

Remember the crazy on the right when Obama was "indoctrinating our children" to control their minds?

Pot, meet kettle.

re: #126 The Curmudgeon

They've included the social conservatives' gay issue: "(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act," and also the abortion issue: "(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion," but in that context it's not objectionable. It shouldn't be federally funded (along with a million other things).

The good news is that they've left out the creationism issue, so it's not too bad.

Gay men don't have abortions.

Shouldn't that change their position?

///

re: #128 Ben Hur

70% pure?

There isn't a single wizarding family that's 100% pure blood anymore.

re: #126 The Curmudgeon

You see, this is an evolving document so there's no creationist bent here in the GOP. ///

re: #133 Cineaste

Remember the crazy on the right when Obama was "indoctrinating our children" to control their minds?

Pot, meet kettle.

mmm mmm mmm

re: #125 Dark_Falcon

Codified - it's just another stick to beat him with.

Rubio probably meets all 10 - Crist misses the first 1.

It'll be any excuse.

re: #132 Gus 802

Hi Gus.

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

Well enough in theory, The main problem being that the government and our legal system have their tentacles so deep into the inner workings of the health care industry that it can hardly be referred to as a free market. I do think that the one good way to reduce health care expenses is to reward people who live healthy and as a result don't incur many costs to their health care providers. And further any attempt to reduce costs will have to increase the supply of the services. Fewer doctors plus more patients is not a recipe for lower costs by any stretch of the imagination.

re: #111 Ben Hur

Yes..(although in the articles, the first sentence reads: "David Weigel of the Washington Independent brings us a look at a possible Republican purity test that future candidates would be required to pledge to..." and a few sentences further on, the details of the "loyalty oath" are given. Presumably, the "loyalty oath" will result (or lead to) "purer" ranks within the GOP...)

re: #130 Bagua

Cap and Trade is a punitive tax, the attempts to dress it up as "market based" are obscenities.

I have a sense of deja vu. Did this discussion take place some time ago? Anyway, it's not dressed-up, it just is market-based, at least the trade part is. I can calculate the mark to market value of long and short position in EUAs in precisely the same way that I value long and short positions in crude oil or natural gas. Even option theory applies in the same way.

re: #139 Bagua

Hi Gus.

Hey Bagua. Just wanted to say, I had to use the iron fist rule on myself last night if you know what I mean. Too much vino.

Meanwhile, a top aide to RNC Chairman Michael Steele has resigned.

RNC Communications Director Trevor Francis is leaving his job, Steele confirmed in statement to CNN, but offered no reason for the departure. Francis joined the RNC after Steele was elected chairman at the beginning of the year.

"Trevor took a hiatus from a very successful private sector career to give service to the Republican Party this year," Steele said in the statement. "Trevor's talents will be missed at the RNC. We have accomplished a great deal in the year he was here. He worked tirelessly, as did the whole team, on the victories in Virginia and his home state of New Jersey."

re: #124 KipAllen

I see nothing wrong with this. The party has clearly defined its position on issues and is asking that anyone who claims to be a Republican must also support most of those stands. What's wrong with that?

Point 1 didn't seem to matter when they had control of Congress or GWB was in office.

The majority of principles are a game of buzzword bingo.

re: #144 lawhawk

Meanwhile, a top aide to RNC Chairman Michael Steele has resigned.

Because of which number?

re: #129 Cineaste

You're completely correct. It's demanding that the collective act in unison and think as one to support a common agenda.

Oh my, sounds like socialism to me...

Glad you said that, it was a thought that occurred to me. No room for "mavericks", vote my way, or hit the highway, you're a RHINO if you think for yourself.

re: #144 lawhawk

The communications director? How involved was he with the new website?

re: #143 Gus 802

Hey Bagua. Just wanted to say, I had to use the iron fist rule on myself last night if you know what I mean. Too much vino.

Cheers, and sorry if my point making was too emphatic.

re: #145 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"Compassionate Conservatism (pork in another name)"- the stick that the Dems can use over the heads of GOP for years to come.

re: #101 Sharmuta

And the balanced budget amendment allowed for such spending needs, but at this point, there is nothing to force Congress to manage their spending in any way. Tying their hands a little is a better idea than allowing them to carry on as drunken sailors forever.

The execution of this idea has always puzzled me. If you pass the amendment to the constitution and then they don't balance it, what happens? Do you get to try any member who voted for the unbalanced budget on charges of treason?

re: #149 Bagua

Cheers, and sorry if my point making was too emphatic.

No problem. I was getting a little too worked up.

re: #140 Mich-again

Well enough in theory, The main problem being that the government and our legal system have their tentacles so deep into the inner workings of the health care industry that it can hardly be referred to as a free market.

Similarly with energy. Another of the myths being implied in this purity test is that the "free market" is "free". In the US there is extensive use of the tax code to directly influence energy consumption. I wonder, if the GOP wants a truly free market, are they willing to give up tax incentives?

Are they willing to dump nuclear energy, and wholly created and substantially supported energy source?

Are they will to give up all the ethanol subsidies?

re: #132 Gus 802

Oklahoma GOP Platform Requires Teaching Creationism
Science %P% Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:03:57 pm PDT

LGF article.

I know- I looked up every state party to read their platform. Of the ones I could find, 7 called for teaching the controversy at minimum, and outright creationism in the extreme. I was stunned to learn the number of states that don't allow their platforms to be publicly available.

party above self definitely sounds like something from Mother Russia...

re: #155 Cineaste

party above self definitely sounds like something from Mother Russia...

LIES! Keep it up and we send you to gulag!

re: #155 Cineaste

in Mother Russia the GOP votes for You...

re: #142 John Neverbend

I have a sense of deja vu. Did this discussion take place some time ago? Anyway, it's not dressed-up, it just is market-based, at least the trade part is. I can calculate the mark to market value of long and short position in EUAs in precisely the same way that I value long and short positions in crude oil or natural gas. Even option theory applies in the same way.

Yes of course the actual trade part is a market, I'm fully aware of its mechanics.

My point being that this is part of the con, like offering a prisoner arsenic or strychnine, and then calling that a menu for snacks. The trade part is to create the illusion and to win approval. It is still fundamental punitive taxes that are being traded in an effort to distort and limit the energy market.

Again, technically buying and selling slaves is commerce, however stronger language is more appropriate.

re: #154 Sharmuta

I know- I looked up every state party to read their platform. Of the ones I could find, 7 called for teaching the controversy at minimum, and outright creationism in the extreme. I was stunned to learn the number of states that don't allow their platforms to be publicly available.

Plus there are some anti-vax provisions in a few of the platforms. Typically those are written as an "opt-out" provision.

re: #155 Cineaste

party above self definitely sounds like something from Mother Russia...

That's North Korea. Come on!

re: #157 wozzablog

In Mother Russia, party makes you feel its oats.

re: #157 wozzablog

in Mother Russia the GOP votes for You...

Wow ,, in Chicago (and elsewhere) the Dems do the same thing for you, dead OR alive!

FBI nabs alleged arms trader, 12 others

Federal authorities in Philadelphia today unveiled the two-year undercover terrorism investigation, charging five men--three with dual residency in Slovakia and Lebanon, one from Lebanon and one from Centerville, Ga.--with participating in a ring that shipped stolen goods to ports in Beirut, Casablanca, Dubai and Hong Kong.

Only one man was charged with a crime related to terrorism - and the U.S. government alleges that he planned to use the Stinger missiles and machine guns against enemies in the Middle East, not the United States.

Congrats to the FBI for a fine job. Now, I wonder if Eric Holder will stay true to his reasoning and send the perps to Israel for a civil trial.

re: #160 Sharmuta

That's North Korea. Come on!

Heh, that one's still going strong. Ludwig's bit of hostility certainly boomeranged on him that time.

re: #150 badger1970

"Compassionate Conservatism (pork in another name)"- the stick that the Dems can use over the heads of GOP for years to come.

Indeed. Because with true conservatism, you're on your own, sucker!

re: #161 jaunte

In Mother Russia, party makes you feel its oats.

Chuck Norris isn't a Republican, the Republicans are Chuck Norris!

re: #153 freetoken

Yes if the GOP is so enamored by free markets, I wonder where is the pledge to dump farm subsidies?

crickets...

re: #153 freetoken

[...]

Are they will to give up all the ethanol subsidies?

I strongly advocate eliminating ethanol subsidies, though I approve of tariffs on its importation. In both cases my motivation is environmental protection, not free trade. Trade must also be ethical and regulated appropriately.

re: #153 freetoken

They're also missing the lessons from the financial crisis. The meltdown was a free market creation. Government failed to regulate the market place correctly.

re: #13 John Neverbend

I think that (3) is self contradictory. Cap and trade is market-based.

Of course cap-and-trade is market based. This clause is the sop to corporate-welfare conservatism, to pretend pollution doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have to be regulated (at a cost to the manufacturers who create it). In the extreme off-chance that this platform carries the day, invest in gas-mask makers, the next hot industry of the GOP.

re: #169 Killgore Trout

They're also missing the lessons from the financial crisis. The meltdown was a free market creation. Government failed to regulate the market place correctly.

That is utter bull, a one sided partisan minimisation. The Government created the crisis through bad regulation, not a failure of regulation.

re: #166 Cineaste

I thought Chuck was a Constitutionist wacko (apologies for fans of his Golum/Globus productions).

re: #167 Mich-again

Yes if the GOP is so enamored by free markets, I wonder where is the pledge to dump farm subsidies?

crickets...

I've long thought that we should move Iowa back in the primary process for just this reason.

re: #165 Cato the Elder

Indeed. Because with true conservatism, you're on your own, sucker!

As Ben Franklin said

If you want to eliminate poverty, make it uncomfortabe!

re: #169 Killgore Trout

They're also missing the lessons from the financial crisis. The meltdown was a free market creation. Government failed to regulate the market place correctly.

No . . . Government failed to let business failures fail.

re: #169 Killgore Trout

They're also missing the lessons from the financial crisis. The meltdown was a free market creation. Government failed to regulate the market place correctly.

Thank you, Congresman Barney Frank !!

re: #170 Andrew Lazarus

Of course cap-and-trade is market based. This clause is the sop to corporate-welfare conservatism, to pretend pollution doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have to be regulated (at a cost to the manufacturers who create it). In the extreme off-chance that this platform carries the day, invest in gas-mask makers, the next hot industry of the GOP.

Yes, I think that point was mentioned in the UEA emails. Good advice.

re: #167 Mich-again

Yes if the GOP is so enamored by free markets, I wonder where is the pledge to dump farm subsidies?

crickets...

Never gonna happen. The farm lobby is well organized enough that neither party wants to cross them. It does not matter what the majority wants, because the majority will not punish Congress for crossing them on the issue.

Off to work. BBT

re: #176 sattv4u2

Thank you, Congresman Barney Frank !!

I think I would substitute another word for "Thank".

I leave it to your imagination.

re: #176 sattv4u2

Thank you, Congresman Barney Frank !!

That explains everything I've been wondering for years.

re: #172 badger1970

A friend used to design posters for Golan/Globus films.
The Golan brothers always wanted him to
"Put helicopter, mek explosion beegah!"
"But there isn't a helicopter in the movie," he'd say.
"Dun't matter, put helicopter!"

re: #167 Mich-again

and that crackdown on the exploitation of tax loopholes to help close the deficit...

Supporting free trade as a principle and opposing the buying and selling of children as sex slaves is not hypocrisy.

Giving a prisoner the option of sitting on his bunk or his commode is a 6x9 cell is not "freedom of movement".

re: #171 Bagua

The repeal of Glass Steagall and restrictions Naked Short selling were very much involved in the crisis. Also it's important to understand that we would have had to bail out the banks if he had broken them up with anti-trust regulations. If we didn't have banks that were too big to fail we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble and money.

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

That explains everything I've been wondering for years.

hehehehehe

re: #171 Bagua

That is utter bull, a one sided partisan minimisation. The Government created the crisis through bad regulation, not a failure of regulation.

And I should modify that as "The governments (plural) and tranzies created the crises through bad regulation" with the US Government (both parties) being only a bit player signing on to international regulation.

The statement of principles needs some polishing and editing, e,g. the gun ownership stricture doesn't leave any room for reasonable regulation.

But look at what isn't in there - e.g., a litmus test on legal restrictions on abortion(as opposed to funding it), selection of judges, school prayer, flag burning amendments, position on election financing, school vouchers, earmarks, enhanced interrogation techniques, creationism, affirmative action, stem cell research, any view on the science of global warming, a whole host of potentially divisive issues are not addressed. Add up the number of contentious and in many respects important issues not even addressed by the 10 point platform, and it takes on a different character.

Given the 7/10 is good enough, how many current Republican members of Congress would be outside the pale? (I ask the question seriously, I don't know the complete answer but I'm guessing very few.
I think John McCain, the frequent maverick, for example, would not be jeopardized).

If a platform is reasonably moderate in scope and content to begin - (not that I agree with all of it) and leaves room for dissent on three major issues of its ten, I don't think it is unreasonable to to expect candidates endorsed by the party to adopt it. The GOP isn't saying the platform is a litmus test for belonging to the party, it's just saying that this is our current official platform as a party, and if you're going to run for a senior public position, you have to be reasonably in tune. The platform is not a litmus test for anythnig else - being a noble citizen of the United States, holding appointed office, serving as an elected official for another party and so on.

So before people charge the GOP with emotive language like "purity test" or "political correctness", I urge them to consider the limited scope of issues addressed by the platform, the room for dissent within it, the vast number of impotant issues left outside of it, and its limited role as an official platform for GOP party official candidate for the present time.

re: #172 badger1970

Chuck Norris is so tough that ...

re: #184 Killgore Trout

Yeah ,, because forcing lending institutions to make loans to people that couldn't even qualify for SECURED credit cards made lots of (business)sense!

Forcing mortgage lenders to be 'creative" for those people with no down payment, interest only, adjustable mortgage loans was SO the right thing to do!

/

re: #158 Bagua

Yes of course the actual trade part is a market, I'm fully aware of its mechanics.

My point being that this is part of the con, like offering a prisoner arsenic or strychnine, and then calling that a menu for snacks. The trade part is to create the illusion and to win approval. It is still fundamental punitive taxes that are being traded in an effort to distort and limit the energy market.

Again, technically buying and selling slaves is commerce, however stronger language is more appropriate.

My only point is that if you accept that cap and trade falls under the definition of "market-based", then point (3) in the purity test doesn't make sense without first providing a more restricted definition of "market-based". It is as though I said that I supported personal hygiene by opposing the use of soap and water.

re: #169 Killgore Trout

They're also missing the lessons from the financial crisis. The meltdown was a free market creation. Government failed to regulate the market place correctly.

As a result, they may be heading in the direction of seriously over-regulating it.

re: #184 Killgore Trout

The repeal of Glass Steagall and restrictions Naked Short selling were very much involved in the crisis. Also it's important to understand that we would have had to bail out the banks if he had broken them up with anti-trust regulations. If we didn't have banks that were too big to fail we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble and money.

You are focusing on minor factors to advance your partisan position, those were mino. Basell II and international accountancy rules were a far larger factor.

re: #82 Bagua

My point being that this represents creating an artificial market for something that is regulatory and punitive in its fundamental nature. Buying and selling slaves may fit some definitions of "trade" and "free enterprise" bit it is still a highly coercive and morally distorting act.

In what sense is the market for carbon emissions different from the market for land? One could have a scheme where emissions were taxed but not capped, but that involves just as much government regulation and may be less efficient economically. (Our current system is resembles this, but the taxes are called "fines".)

Why do I always suspect that underneath these complaints is an anti-scientific theory that air pollution is good for you and we shouldn't have mean old government regulating it in any way?

re: #184 Killgore Trout

The repeal of Glass Steagall and restrictions Naked Short selling were very much involved in the crisis.

One significant factor which has been overlooked by some was the unfortunate practice of lending money where there was no chance of ever being repaid and without requesting sufficient collateral.

I don't think it's that bad. I didn't see anything about intelligent design or mandatory opposition to abortion. No "We support a president with a clear Ameican pedigree who can prove it with standard birth documentation". Or are we calling opposition to illegal immigration or mandatory tax-payer funding of non-emergency abortions right-wing bark-at-the-moon koo-koo?

And they can not support up to 2 things on the list. So someone could be flat out pro-choice and still be backed. I agree calling it a purity list is kind of stupid.

I don't think it's crazy to say you're for free markets or for smaller gov't and disingenuous "stimulus" plans that don't create jobs. The problem with Repubs is they talk this game all the time and then do not follow thru when they actually have power. They end up spending too much and trying to direct pork and favors for political gain.

re: #102 borgcube

Looks like the guy who was lynched supposedly because he worked for the government actually committed suicide.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

What a strange, strange story.

re: #184 Killgore Trout

the none regulation of derivatives and Mortgage Backed Securities... the naked whoring of the credit ating agencies.

there was massive regulatory failure where there was regulation - and complete lack of regulation in some areas of newer derivatives.

It was upto the fed and the scuccessive treasury secretaries to ralise what was going on.

re: #43 Bagua

Cap and Trade is market based? That is one of the most ridiculously Orwellian statements I've heard in some time.

The Cap is political (or science if you want) based. The Trade is market based.

re: #196 SanFranciscoZionist

Sad story on so many fronts. Personally for him and his family. And look at us in here, it turned into a political tit for tat in some cases. Just peeked over at KOS, half of them don't believe the official story. We're so messed up collectively as a whole. I want to come back as an Ostrich in my next life.

re: #174 sattv4u2

As Ben Franklin said

If you want to eliminate poverty, make it uncomfortabe!

Did Ben Franklin say that? I can't imagine that poverty in the eighteenth century was anything but uncomfortable, and in France, where he spent a fair amount of time, it was agonizing.

re: #198 Naso Tang

To put it in more economic terms, Cap and Trade is an attempt to collect rents on a scarce item - the Pleistocene-Holocene-normal atmospheric composition.

Proof Positive the far right is purely insane.

re: #194 John Neverbend

gmta (189)

re: #202 AJStrata

Proof Positive the far right is purely insane.

They figured the far left needed company!

re: #193 Andrew Lazarus

[...]

Why do I always suspect that underneath these complaints is an anti-scientific theory that air pollution is good for you and we shouldn't have mean old government regulating it in any way?

It's called transference, because underneath your advocacy for "free markets" is an agenda based manipulation.

re: #198 Naso Tang

The Cap is political (or science if you want) based. The Trade is market based.

Right, so if I buy and sell child sex slaves the sell bit is "trade". Just another day in the market.

re: #206 Bagua

because nothing says high minded economics like invoking the child sex trade...

Wow, they don't even question people like me under the hot lights anymore. I just have to take an oath.

I'll save them the trouble, and out myself as impure; cloudy, smelly, a ship jumper of epic magnitude.

It's stuff like this that has made me drop the GOP like a bad habit. Thankfully, I have other bad habits to fall back on.

re: #200 SanFranciscoZionist

Did Ben Franklin say that? I can't imagine that poverty in the eighteenth century was anything but uncomfortable, and in France, where he spent a fair amount of time, it was agonizing.

No, Franklin never said that quote verbatim, it reads like a simplistic modern invention. The closest I can find on the web is this unsourced assertion by "Earl" in the comments of this Fox News story from yesterday in this modified form:

"if you want people off welfare, make it uncomfortable for them"

Seems like freshly minted false attribution based on sentiments expressed much more eloquently in two real quotes:

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

re: #206 Bagua

Right, so if I buy and sell child sex slaves the sell bit is "trade". Just another day in the market.

I guess so; although your analogy suggests more about your emotive state of mind than your logic in this case.

re: #207 wozzablog

because nothing says high minded economics like invoking the child sex trade...

Perfectly legitimate when discussing Orwellian Inversions of reality.

re: #3 Cineaste

reposted from the previous page:

You know, there's a thing in the advertising world that says when you have to define what you are by showing how you're different than your competitor then you haven't got a message. I'm surprised that Obama's name appears at all in this document, let alone more than once. As I recall, the contract with America set out a positive list of proposals - this is just a list of things they won't do. It really underlines the "party of no" idea. They use the word 'support' a bunch but in fact, the word 'oppose' appears a half-dozen times.

Hear, hear. This is my major disagreement with the text.

re: #210 Naso Tang

I guess so; although your analogy suggests more about your emotive state of mind than your logic in this case.

Yes, I am making a point with a colourful analogy. Let's understand the true nature and intention of things, in this case the Cap and Tax on carbon and not be misled by the propaganda dress up that is meant to sell it.

Sugar coated medicine is not candy, it is medicine coated to trick the child into thinking it is candy.

In a White House near you, a democrat president is very happy. Very happy indeed. He just got reelected... and didn't had to make a single move...

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

oppose...oppose...oppose

It's not exactly a positive, uplifting document, is it?

re: #213 Bagua

Yes, I am making a point with a colourful analogy. Let's understand the true nature and intention of things, in this case the Cap and Tax on carbon and not be misled by the propaganda dress up that is meant to sell it.

Sugar coated medicine is not candy, it is medicine coated to trick the child into thinking it is candy.

You mean the politicians are all scheming adults, far more intelligent than everyone else?

If you want to argue why it can't or won't work to reduce emissions overall, make your case; but when you call it all just propaganda you, shall we say, sound like many we routinely lambaste here.

Looks like a suicide note.

re: #215 marsl

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

Just look into a mirror and say his name three times. Careful though, he might want to put a cap in your ass...

re: #217 Naso Tang

You mean the politicians are all scheming adults, far more intelligent than everyone else?

If you want to argue why it can't or won't work to reduce emissions overall, make your case; but when you call it all just propaganda you, shall we say, sound like many we routinely lambaste here.

I'm arguing that it is being presented in a fundamentally manipulative manner. It is a Tax and a Limit/Cap on Carbon, to dress it up as some sort of free market capitalism is in fact propaganda.

And yes, politicians are scheming bastards, I thought we all agreed on that.

re: #4 charles_martel

The GOP is determined to lose this election. Anyone with a brain knows we need the independents to win, and the GOP is refusing to be centrist.

What does "centrist" mean? Borrowing five trillion instead of ten? Please get down to specifics.

What specific set of policies will attract moderates? IMO, cutting taxes and spending are tops. Most Americans (and thus lots if not most moderates) oppose illegal immigrant amnesty, so I have no problem with #5.

Card check is a truly despicable antidemocratic issue du jour. I can't tell you how much card check angers me. It should be a no-brainer that the secret ballot is crucial to protect voters from coercion. You'd think moderates could see how dangerous it is for workers when union organizers know exactly who voted against them.

re: #43 Bagua

Cap and Trade is market based? That is one of the most ridiculously Orwellian statements I've heard in some time.

So true. A carbon tax is not private markets.

Sorry about the ding - I was aiming for the number, not the minus. I was curious about to see what response the "Orwellian" remark drew. A 1 either means one agreement, or 15 yays and 14 nays. I'm still trying to figure out the Lizardoids' general political tendencies, which dovetails with my above remarks.

Gotta get my vehicle registry updated. Later.

re: #31 Soundboard Fez

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

What about restricting violent felons and certified nuts from owning guns?

We already do. 18 U.S. Code 922(g), and that's just the federal law.

I guess the Dems didn't do anything like this when
they were out of power. Lieberman was a target of the DNC back in 2006 since he didn't fit the progressive mold.

re: #69 Gus 802

Isn't cap and trade the Republican supported market reform of the energy sector pre-Obama?

re: #215 marsl

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

He wouldn't have passed the test, and wouldn't have been funded by this RNC!!!

re: #224 dugmartsch

Isn't cap and trade the Republican supported market reform of the energy sector pre-Obama?

I'm not sure but I think at one point McCain supported it. Apparently Milton Friedman supported it under a different name. This was one of GWB's many speeches on the topic:

Today we have different incentives for different technologies—from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy. What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features.

First, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources—and it should take into account our nation's energy security needs.

Second, the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market.

Third, the incentive should be long-lasting. It should provide a positive and reliable market signal not only for the investment in a technology, but also for the investments in domestic manufacturing capacity and infrastructure that will help lower costs and scale up availability.

re: #206 Bagua

Right, so if I buy and sell child sex slaves the sell bit is "trade". Just another day in the market.

Indeed, one could argue that. And while child slavery has some problem with consent to participate in the market, in those places where adult prostitution is legal I can't see what we could call it other than a market in sexual services. I really don't see your point here. Just granting (arguendo) that Global Warming is a fraud, there are forms of toxic air and water pollution that must be prohibited or capped. Does this statement seem extreme to you? And if we can't allow unlimited pollution, how will the limits be enforced? Cap-and-trade was devised as a more market-oriented and libertarian alternative to a bureaucratic regulatory scheme, under the theory that the acceptable levels of pollution be be rationed more efficiently.

As far as I can tell, and it's mostly a guess, you are treating the free market not as a mechanism but as some form of Deity, which can not be sullied by an association with traffic in sex (child or otherwise), nor the fraudulent-to-you carbon emissions limiting schemes. Whatever, your objection is incoherent, just like the third clause of the GOP's Dunderhead Manifesto.

re: #221 Alan K. Henderson

So true. A carbon tax is not private markets.

Sorry about the ding - I was aiming for the number, not the minus. I was curious about to see what response the "Orwellian" remark drew. A 1 either means one agreement, or 15 yays and 14 nays. I'm still trying to figure out the Lizardoids' general political tendencies, which dovetails with my above remarks.

Gotta get my vehicle registry updated. Later.

Cheers! Thank you for your input.

re: #227 Andrew Lazarus

Cap-and-trade was devised as a more market-oriented and libertarian alternative to a bureaucratic regulatory scheme, under the theory that the acceptable levels of pollution be be rationed more efficiently.

Exactly, it is being dressed up in a pseudo-market shell game that helps sell it as something other than what it is, a bureaucratic regulatory scheme.

I'm not saying the actual trade part is not a market, just that it is a deception.

Way late to the party, but here goes:

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee...

That makes the loyalty oath an "eight out of ten" proposition, not a "seven out of ten" one.

70% purity isn't good enough, eligible candidates must be 80% or better.

re: #229 Bagua

Exactly, it is being dressed up in a pseudo-market shell game that helps sell it as something other than what it is, a bureaucratic regulatory scheme.

I'm not saying the actual trade part is not a market, just that it is a deception.

Carbon emission is an unpriced externality. There's no cost to the manufacturer or producer of emitting as much carbon into the atmosphere as they want. There is however a cost to society. I'm in favor of figuring out a way to price the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere and getting everyone to pay a fair price for doing so. I'd like to create a market mechanism that creates a price for carbon emissions and gets everyone who has a hand in their production to pay up. That, in a nutshell, is cap and trade. I don't understand what's anti-free market about that?

That seems to me the proper involvement of government in a market. I'd like to see more problems solved that way. Don't forbid negative though non-criminal behavior, just attach a cost to it that pays to remediate the negative behavior. I could probably even be talked into keeping it all private, and having the government neither set the caps, nor determine the process of remediation.

Two points. First, this is so poorly worded that it is unlikely to ever see light in its present form as a formal policy statement of the RNC. It needs correction for grammar, at the VERY least. I also can't see the spineless "leadership" of the GOP alienating all the moderates McCain and the other moderate Republicans have been courting for years. Second- this link directs back to cbsnews.com. Since I don't watch cbs, can someone explain to me when, exactly, cbs news regained their credibility? I find this "purity test" nowhere on the GOP's site.
Oh, and I'm sorry if I'm rehashing things said earlier- this is one fast-moving thread.

re: #225 Thinking Mans Republican

For this RNC, Ronald Reagan is... a Democrat.

I think I have a different read on this. I do not think they are trying to cave to the fringe, but rather, trying to get them from pulling what they did in NY23. The word "support" is really very nondescript. As are many of the positions. What this will allow the RNC to say is, see this person is really a Republican, they passed the conservative test. Now, that being said, I am not saying such a concept is a good one or effective, though in some form, it may be.

re: #220 Bagua

I'm arguing that it is being presented in a fundamentally manipulative manner. It is a Tax and a Limit/Cap on Carbon, to dress it up as some sort of free market capitalism is in fact propaganda.

And yes, politicians are scheming bastards, I thought we all agreed on that.

We sometimes agree on the latter. If we always did, we would have to ask why we don't just vote for a king and get rid of them all.

As to the Cap & Trade. If you believe in setting limits on carbon emissions at all, then there has to be a market mechanism for doing so, if you also believe in free markets as opposed to letting the government dictate the details to everyone, which is impossible.

So the idea, as I understand it, is to set a carbon output limit and then allocate it out in some way, but allow those who have clean systems to sell their excess allocation to those who have dirtier systems, so that the dirtier systems don't have to suddenly replace all their equipment for cleaner stuff or risk heavy fines. Then as they modernize, they can use their credits to help pay for it, by selling to others who need them. That's simplified and I'm no expert.

It is good old capitalism, but as always the devil is in the details and I make no apologies for whatever loopholes there are for natural born capitalists to exploit.

I don't know why you have your knickers in such a knot.

This isn't a bad idea but needs some work. The positions are core beliefs of most rank and file Republicans anyway - not a fringe group. Anyway, this is essentially what a"platform" for a political party is all about - an understanding that if you run with an R or D next to your name, your positions on various issues are aligned with those of the R or D platform. I see nothing wrong with this except that the wording needs revision and the number of items should be reduced as they tend to overlap. As for abortion, this position is neither pro nor con on abortion but simply that the government shouldn't pay for it.

re: #6 wrenchwench

The NM state party won't even agree to withhold support from an Iraq Vet Against the War Paulian kook. I guess that's ok, though, because he could go along with seven of those points.

Bah.

To quote from the story, "a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee". If you only agree with seven out of the ten, that means you disagree with three or more and hence are out of the running.

re: #7 Sharmuta

Hmm- I wonder if this puts ron paul in danger since he doesn't support Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's also #7 (anti-Iran / North Korea), #8 (anti-gay-marriage) and #9 (anti-abortion). To quote from wikipedia.org's entry on the political positions of Ron Paul [1] [2]:

Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[177] and "an unshakable foe of abortion."[178] He believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."

He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".

Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle."[29] He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began,[30] and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran.

Ron Paul's domestic policy is basically one of deferment. If you don't like how abortion would be handled under him, don't blame him - blame the state you're in! He could, personally, be pro-abortion, and it still wouldn't make much impact on his political position.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is basically one of complete and total non-interventionism. Although I can't find a source for it at the moment, Ron Paul once explained that the only war he thought we were justified in fighting was World War II, because Japan attacked us. But even then, in his view, we shouldn't have been blockading Japan as we were and that that's the only reason we were attacked.

When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul is such a pacifist that he makes even the most liberal of Democrats look like warmongers.

In other words, the Bachmann/Paul nightmare ticket is dead in the water if the Republicans do this (and that's assuming it ever had any traction in the first place).

re: #236 acacia

yes - but most rank and file republicans are in states where the majority of people would agree with most of those statements - states where the majority of people do not support the statements - or who do not care... are now even more out of reach.

Evening Lizards, jumping in blind, (asbestos suit, please hold out!).

I support pretty/much agree to everything posted in the lead, except #8.

But which one of you is willing to define what is a marriage?

My wife and I were first "married" (25 years ago) by a JP in Elko,NV. We were then three days later "married" by a ordained minister (at family insistence) in the basement chapel of his church because we were not members of his congregation. So, which one is valid? The States or the Religious?

BTW, She has been divorced 3 times previously with 2 children

See, there's a little nagging thought about this Oh-So-Reasonable Purity List. I'd just bet that, were I to try to run as a Republican, and follow EVERY point on the List to a "T", with the exception of #'s 8 and 9, even though I would be technically satisfying their Purity Scan, I'd still be locked out, and attacked without mercy as a "RINO".
Those who now yank the GOP's leash are wholly concerned with those two issues (as well as some not spelled out, like school prayer and creationism) above all else. The rest, the economic and energy stuff, is window-dressing.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd need a solid proof, say, a successful run for office by such a candidate before I'd believe it.

re: #78 Cato the Elder

To the media, and lots of non-gun-savvy folks, the words "Semi-automatic" just sound meaner than "automatic". Just an observation. Many people I've talked to don't know the difference.

Many are also under the impression that semi-auto guns can be converted to auto by "filing down the firing pin".

re: #240 Ivy Mike

Evening, Welcome to the Jungle

re: #83 Cineaste

FWIW I doubt Hassan would have been as deadly if he had been restricted to manual six-shooters.

Revolvers fire one shot for each trigger pull, just like semi-auto pistols. Only the mechanism is different. Revolvers can also be reloaded quite quickly, although not as fast as semi-autos. Plus, revolvers can be made in much larger, more powerful calibers than semi-auto pistols, and use far more lethal ammo, like hollow-points and shotshells.

re: #87 Girth

I agree with everything you just said, I just don't see any need for a civilian to own a fully-automatic weapon.

It's not "need", it's really an advanced, expensive hobby. And, since civilian legal FA owners are the best-behaved gun owners in the country, why should they be subjected to the loss of their hobby? They are not doing anything wrong.

Full-auto civilian weapons have been regulated out the wazoo since 1934 at the fed level, and many states don't allow them at all. In all that time, only two crimes have been committed with them. There are about 750,000 such weapons in circulation, and that's all there will be, since that supply was "fixed" with the passage of the Volkmer-McClure bill in 1986, which banned any further manufacture of civilian full-autos. The law also skyrocketed the price of such weapons. A shot-out 60's-era M16 will set you back a few thousand dollars at least, not counting the fees and paperwork.

I will continue to vote mostly for Republicans...especially if they don't sign the pledge. However, I'm changing my affiliation to Independent. I'm afraid some far righter will decide that belief in creationism is essential. I think Republicans are going to shoot themselves in the foot once again. Although I can't support Obamacare or the tax and cap strategy, I can't support the far right wing either.

re: #245 donna quixote

So; where have you been for the past 5 years, or close enough?

re: #244 Ivy Mike

I agree with you, although the only reason FA owners are responsible is because there are regulations that try to make sure they are. The NRA seems to think that this can be taken on trust (whereas the government can never be trusted).

re: #245 donna quixote

Where in the world do you see creationism in the pledge? Aren't you jumping to an unwarranted conclusion and an overreaction to pledging basic principles? Since the Republicans are also against Obama care and cap and trade, then what's wrong with supporting the Republicans?

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

Does anybody actually believe the republican party actually has any interest in reducing the federal govt?

In the name of the most oblivious people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of "tyranny", and I say laughing-stock permanent minority now, laughing-stock permanent minority tomorrow, laughing-stock permanent minority forever.

re: #250 negativ

Cool. Is that from the Simpsons?

Can anyone say "multi-party system" ? It would appear that there is a growing number of people for whom two tents are not enough.

Why is this surprising? The democrats had to nearly self-destruct before rebounding for 06 and 08. The republicans are simply following the same trajectory, except instead of loony lefties gaining sway it's regressive righties.

Mt plans on participating in this thread have been abruptly derailed. My father Charles Kenneth Henderson passed away yesterday at the age of 77. I'm taking a blogging break for a few days.

I'll bookmark the thread and eventually get around to seeing what I missed. Some time soon I plan to mosey into an LGF open thread and raise the topic of what the GOP platform should be and which parts should and should not be negotiable.

Be seeing you.