RSS Feed MenuYesterday, it emerged that James Bopp, Jr., a Republican National Committeeman from Indiana, was circulating a resolution to be discussed at the RNC’s annual meeting next January in Hawaii.
The resolution, titled Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates, outlines ten principles that the sponsors want Republican candidates to adhere to (see below or click on link above for the list). Candidates who did not agree with at least eight of the ten points would be denied RNC funding and the Republican nomination.
In a remarkable perversion of a casual comment, Reagan is invoked to set the limit of conservative tolerance. If there was ever a case of a political hero being taken too literally, this would be it. The resolution reads:
Whereas, President Ronald Reagan believed… that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent…
Resolved, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee…shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.
FrumForum will be reporting on any new developments surrounding this resolution, but first, a few quick thoughts.
Among the many problems in the resolution is the reinforcement of the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ The list focuses mainly on what the Republican Party finds intolerable, rather than what it would seek to achieve.
Seven of the ten policy points are statements of opposition: candidates must oppose future stimulus bills, government-run health care, cap and trade, card check, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and government funding of abortion. That’s fine – but by God, what do you support?
Further, although the resolution is aimed at moderates, other camps in the broader American conservative movement would likely fail the test. Many libertarians, for example, would fail to reach eight points – the two foreign policy points being likely points of disagreement, and the point on the Defense of Marriage Act being the third.
Indeed, one is left wondering just how many Republicans would pass the test. Would Senators Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham manage to scrape by? How about George W. Bush? Or John McCain?
Ironically, it is possible to question whether Reagan himself would have made eight points. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly notes that Reagan had run deficits, approved an immigration measure that much of the right resented, and withdrew Marines from Lebanon in 1983 after the barracks bombing in Beirut. There you go – three points and you’re out.
However, by far the greatest irony is that Reagan’s tolerance for diversity within the GOP is being ignored in a resolution that invokes his name over and over again. Goodbye to Reagan’s big tent, hello to Bopp’s short list.
The ten policy points outlined in the resolution:
1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
2. Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare
3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
4. Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
5. Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
6. Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
7. Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
8. Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
9. Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
10. The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
ottovbvs // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:33 pm
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“In the 19th century, this was made possible by the actions of the British and American navies, which swept piracy off the high seas (and also did away with their state sponsors like Tripoli).’
……Actually Sinz the British and French govts made a deal with the Tripoli pirates which is why they turned their attention to American merchant ships……The British had an immense navy and the tripoli pirates weren’t going to go head to head with them……by 1805 the only navy in the world that mattered was the Royal Navy……after 1815 they could have snuffed out the US if they’d wanted to but London had too many financial interests here to make it worthwhile…..in fact the Monroe doctrine rested on British seapower
Reason60 // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I haven’t made it through all the comments yet: I am still in the thick of the “so’s yer mama” parts…
But the list is why I left the party in the 90’s. Namely, Items #1 and 6 are at war with each other.
#1 calls for a limited government.
Great.
#6 calls for additional troops in Afghanistan. I will go out on a limb and assume it also means continuation of Iraq, and Pakistan as well. Meaning a very large, nay, massive defense appropriations. This year alone, Defnse/ Homeland Security sucks up 1/3 of our entire budget; 2/3 of the discretionary budget.
So how do we get a “limited” government that has a massive military and nearly unlimited Security State?
And why has a balanced budget disappeared from the GOP platform?
WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:47 am
sinz says
“Free trade is great in principle. But in practice, it requires the use of government force to keep the sea lanes open.”
When did I ever say something against America maintaining strong armed forces? This is kind of out of left field to me.
WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:53 am
said otto,
“Willy was unfortunately born yesterday”
Born yesterday or not, I’m old enough to know when I’m dealing with a dishonest troll; a consummate liberal masquerading on an allegedly conservative website.
CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:48 am
sinz54 // Nov 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
” I don’t know where they got that idea from. It certainly didn’t come from Reagan, or Gingrich, or any of the Bush family.”
I think your point about Gore as the global warming “spokesperson” and why that’s the reason Republicans resist the idea is an interesting one. I’m certain that any cause Cheney got behind — no matter how benign — would be dismissed as unworthy by most Democrats.
Still, I think your statement about how the Bushes didn’t encourage skepticism of climate change is disingenuous. Bush II dragged his feet on any exploration of the topic and — as he did with creation “science” — only spoke of teaching the “debate,” lending credibility to the lie that there was rampant doubt within the scientific community.
MI-GOPer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:19 am
BarryS, the newest troll from the TrollTribe writes: “Thank you WilleyP. I am genuinely interested in your view. It’s a pity that you can’t list just a very few real freedoms that have been lost. I am sure that you know because yo are so certain in placing the idea out there. My intent is not to “bother you” I am sure me asking you to give me a few examples of these lost freedoms is not a bother. You have obviously thought and read deeply on the subject. So , please give me some of the lost freedoms. Real things not just generalizations. I have a genuine reason for asking.”
Wow, the grammar and syntax sound remarkedly like our old trolling friend balconesfault or BlankHead… any chance we can pull the white hood off the new BarryS?
Of course not; the first rule of trolling on a conservative/GOP blog for the trolls is to lie, distract, dissuade, disrupt, annoy, irritate and inflame. We can’t get “truth” from the trolls –it’s not in their rule book.
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35 am
Reason60: So how do we get a “limited” government that has a massive military and nearly unlimited Security State?
This is your favorite hobbyhorse,
so let me repeat my earlier arguments.
During the Cold War, the U.S. spent far more, both in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP, on national defense than we are spending now. As I recall, during the JFK administration, 12% of our GDP went for national defense. If we did that now, the Pentagon would have a budget of $1.44 trillion.
Why did we do that? After World War II, the U.S. disarmed, relying on nuclear weapons to keep the peace. That proved disastrous, as the USSR started subverting Western nations everywhere and the U.S. couldn’t just nuke them all. So we rearmed.
Today, the U.S. military budget is only about 4% of U.S. GDP. That’s an entirely sustainable percentage, only 1% more than our NATO allies spent from their budgets during the Cold War.
The decision to fight in Afghanistan after 9-11 was forced. No President could look past the mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans with just a token response like a few cruise missiles or something.
The decision to fight in Iraq was in error, a mistake due to a false strategic perception that Saddam was a major terrorist threat to America.
We had HOPED that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be temporary. But as long as you’re at war, you’re chewing up military equipment at a very high rate. Our F-15 fighters have started to crash due to stress and old age. Our combat vehicles have taken a lot of abuse in the sands of Iraq. All that equipment has to be replaced–at a high cost.
Does that answer your question already?
You can stop ranting about “security states”. Any nation that spends only 4% of its GDP on defense is not a “security state.” We spend far more than that on Social Security and Medicare. Maybe you should call America a “senior citizen state.”
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:39 am
CentristNYer: I think your statement about how the Bushes didn’t encourage skepticism of climate change is disingenuous.
But what I’ve heard from the GOP base goes much further than skepticism.
On Redstate.com and Townhall.com, the GOP base clearly regards anthropogenic global warming as a “scam” created by liberals and anti-American foreign scientists to cripple America. They don’t just regard global warming as false; they regard it as a left-wing plot against America.
Now where did THAT come from?
Bush 43 never even hinted at anything like that.
It sounds like the kind of thing you might here on a talk show, or maybe on one of the new Howard Beale wannabes on cable news.
CentristNYer // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm
sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:39 am
“But what I’ve heard from the GOP base goes much further than skepticism.”
I don’t disagree, but our former oilman/president gave the fanatics cover by opening the door to the idea that the scientific community was still widely debating the issue, which it is not. He lets the hardcore Global Warming deniers shout down the science via FauxNews, talk radio and the blogs, and then he has clean hands.
WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Does anybody else feel that if the planet were in imminent danger, and the consensus were SO convinced, we would not spend decades mired in inert debate?
It’s clearly a scam, and the data supports it. I guarantee nothing will pass, and if something does, will be ineffective at curbing emissions. Until people actually believe there is anthropogenic global warming, which they’ll do when they can sense it, feel it, pay the cost of its consequences, there will continue to be little political will.
Even the countries that passed that utterly ridiculous Kyoto Protocol could not keep to the targets, and the governments didn’t bother enforcing. It’s funny – the U.S. cut emission growth, as a percentage, more than Canada. They signed the protocol; we did not.
race42008.com » Blog Archive » What I Want For Christmas: A Moratorium on Ronald Reagan References // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:47 am
[...] Jeb Bush put it well when he said that we need to move beyond Reagan. It’s not that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a wonderful president, and it’s not that he doesn’t provide us with a lot of timeless wisdom about how to win. It’s that we’re not living in the 1980’s, we don’t face the problem of the 1980’s, and moreover, the Reagan that we all are discussing is really not the Reagan that existed. If we’re going to talk about him, let’s also talk about the man who authorized the selling of arms to the ayatollahs, ran up deficits, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and withdrew from Lebanon prematurely. He wasn’t a god, and on the wrong day he may not have passed the purity test. [...]
sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm
WillyP: Does anybody else feel that if the planet were in imminent danger, and the consensus were SO convinced, we would not spend decades mired in inert debate?
No.
The debate was over in the 1960s. When I was a kid, I read articles by Isaac Asimov that predicted global warming from CO2.
The problem is that all too often, we engineers and scientists don’t get the last word.
We lost Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Columbia, because while engineers knew there were serious engineering flaws, non-engineers had other plans.
Ever read the sci-fi novel “When Worlds Collide”? Or see the movie?
In it, a bunch of astronomers discover through their telescopes a planet that’s on a direct collision course with Earth. They announce that our world will end, and that we must build spaceships to evacuate as many people from Earth as possible.
Does anyone pay attention? No. Instead, the astronomers are ridiculed as alarmists and crackpots.
Because politicians considered it an attack on their authority.
Businessmen considered it bad for business.
Investors didn’t like how the announcement dragged down the stock market.
Folks don’t start to pay attention until the planet can be seen with the naked eye in the night sky, getting larger and larger as it races toward Earth.
That’s when the panic starts for real.
WillyP // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:12 am
sinz, for someone sounding an alarm bell without any immediate perception…
you might take a cue a wonder what inflating our money supply recklessly is going to do to our dollar. unlike this, i maintain, preposterous global warming/climate change/whatever makes for a good sounding name for the ignorant public, we have several precedents for monetary crack-ups. and we show every sign of ignorance and hubris in thinking we’re so very different!
The Hawaii GOP: Success in the 50th State provides valuable lessons for the mainland // Apr 30, 2010 at 12:04 pm
[...] saying “I was probably more moderate than most [RNC members]… I wouldn’t have passed the litmus test. But I needed your money! …We are a family, with a common goal: to make America [...]