jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (8 posts)

What do you think of the conservative 'purity' scheme put forth by the republica

  1. ForexCashBack profile image40
    ForexCashBackposted 8 years ago

    What do you think of the conservative 'purity' scheme put forth by the republican party?

    Do you think this will help or hurt the republican party in 2010 elections?  Considering that the independent/moderate  voter are the ones who help sway elections.

  2. profile image0
    Jawa Lunkposted 8 years ago

    I think it's a little late int he game for any party to try the purity angle.

    They have all demonstrated where their morals are, and although there are a few moral leaders in government...there are too few to make any real difference.

    Selfish motivation drives most politicians, and I think every knows it.

    The only ones they are fooling are themselves.

  3. LetusPonder profile image78
    LetusPonderposted 8 years ago

    The Dems also have a "scheme" to withhold and withdraw various cabinet positions based upon if they agree to abide by Pelosi and Reid's plans,so this would essentially be the same thing.  The difference is that the Reps actually put it in writing.

    I wanted to see what the purity actually was before commenting. They have to agree with at least 8 of the 10. Here is the resolution’s list:

        (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 health care;

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

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

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

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

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

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

        (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing 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.

    Other than #8, this is basically a "less govt, better for economic strength" list.  While I'm uncomfortable with "Do it my way or leave" ultimatums, this list seems to be mostly an insult to Obama's policies and a junior high school attempt to gain media attention while publicly stating their opinion.

    And while I happen to agree with most things on this list, I think it should've removed Obama's name and focused on the principles only. 

    So, the Reps are doing a good thing, actually, but continuing on with their long history of doing it in an idiotic laughable manner.

  4. ForexCashBack profile image40
    ForexCashBackposted 8 years ago

    I'm a registered Republican but voted for Obama. I know I'm not the only one! I voted for Obama because I have grown so disenfranchised with the GOP over the last 3 years. I registered as a Republican because I want less govt, lower taxes and a good military. However, George Bush left a mess for his predecessor. From the lies about Iraq to neglecting the US economy. Case in point, when we first went to war after 9/11 we heard  'Justice will be served swiftly and quickly". But why is it that 6 years after capturing the criminals/mastermind of 9/11 they are just now being tried? Bush had 6 years to serve 'justice' to these criminals, but left it to his predecessor to handle instead. And lets not forget who actually started the bailouts - George Bush! It was Henry Paulson as well! What kind of conservatism is that?- the very party that espouses 'free markets' and bails them out with tax payer money, give me a break. I think this "Purity" scheme will just push even more moderates away from the GOP, the very people they should be trying to win over. Moderates won't agree with 8 of those 10 things on the list. Moderates may be inclined to think "well if a republican has to agree with 8 of those 10 things and I don't, then I must be a democrat". I think this scheme will backfire in the GOP face. This 'purity' scheme will turn out similar to communism - looks great on paper, but in practice doesn't work.

  5. Hi-Jinks profile image61
    Hi-Jinksposted 8 years ago

    I think its great. Republicans, the party on none.

  6. Storytellersrus profile image78
    Storytellersrusposted 8 years ago

    Upon learning that Mike Sanford, Republican Governor from North Carolina had "Hiked the Appalachian Trail" my best buddy who happened to be Republican exclaimed, "I cannot believe it!  I would expect this from a Democrat, but not a Republican!"

    What is that about?  Certainly the lessons of Ted Haggert and others have made it clear that ALL people are flawed.  Character issues are not confined to one party or one religion.

    Until that moment, I considered this friend one of the most intelligent women on the planet.  My bad...

  7. shazz01109 profile image77
    shazz01109posted 8 years ago

    Well, why isn't this question ever asked about the Democrats?  Independents seem to like fiscal conservatism.  As long as Republicans follow fiscal discipline, they might have more favor with Independents.

  8. peanutroaster profile image71
    peanutroasterposted 6 years ago

    I vote for people I think are smart and can adapt to changing situations and who I believe honestly want what's best for the country and for all of its citizens not special interests.

    I don't vote for people who sign silly pledges for the sake of getting elected.