GOP plans suicide pact
WASHINGTON — Some people can’t stand prosperity, my father used to say. Today, he might be talking about Republicans, who, in the midst of declining support for President Barack Obama’s hope-and-change agenda, are considering a “purity” pledge to weed out undesirables from their ever-shrinking party.
Just when independents and moderates were considering revisiting the GOP tent.
Just when a near-perfect storm of unpopular Democratic ideas—from massive health care reform to terrorist show trials, not to mention global warming hype—is coagulating over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Just when the GOP was gaining traction after gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey … Republicans perform a rain dance at their own garden party.
Things were just going too well.
Thus, some conservative members of the party have come up with a list of principles they want future candidates to agree to or forfeit backing by the Republican National Committee.
The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist—a suicide pact, really—of alleged Republican positions. Anyone hoping to play on Team GOP would have to sign off on eight of the 10—through their voting records, public statements or a questionnaire. The test will be put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee when it meets early next year in Hawaii.
The list apparently evolved in response to the Republican loss in the recent congressional race in upstate New York, when liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava withdrew from the race under pressure from conservatives, and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, who won. Republicans had held that seat for more than a century.
James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that “the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party.”
Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren’t so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpee check in a little square.
It’s too bad that “elite” and “nuance” have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as “those people” who are out of touch with “real Americans.” And, “nuance,” the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to “Because I said so, case closed”) has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, aka lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.
It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America’s inner simpleton. Not to defend Kerry, specifically, but heaven forbid anyone should ever consider shades of meaning or new developments and change his mind.’ As Kerry said during a 2008 AP interview, ‘Decisiveness wrongly applied can create a lot of pain.”
This nation was, after all, for slavery before it was against it.
Most of us know that decisiveness isn’t always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?
In fact, the 10-point checklist proffered by Bopp and others is the antithesis of conservatism. As Kirk wrote in his own “Ten Conservative Principles,” conservatism “possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata … conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.”
Each of Bopp’s bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse them in good conscience. Others are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: “We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.”
What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn’t support victory?
Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.
Otherwise, might we bother Mr. Kirk to beam us up?
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Dec 2, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The less these morons pass, the better for the citizens who enjoy freedom and liberty!"
The proliferation of big governemnt has to stop with these statists who aim to control all aspects of our lives. You know, think whatever of W Bush but at least he was not running around trying to save society by trying to control everything. Many people here argue where was Bush on this, where was Bush on that? I dont understand why the government has to be our savior for everything. To me , that just shows that some people are not capable of pursuing thier own liberty and freedom without the long arm of the government. They have to have a government that makes their decisions because they are ill equipped to make their own.
Government does not know what's best for us, we do.
Dec 2, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great link Pastafarian, leave it to the Onion to give us the "real" news story! Sometimes they are closer to the truth than they realize.
Dec 2, 2009 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
All is well with the GOP. A new strategy is unfolding!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/zo...
RAmen
Dec 2, 2009 at 1:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
I personally hope the republicans win control of the house and Senate in 2010, by a SMALL majority. That way it will guarantee gridlock. I LOVE, and I mean LOVE GRIDLOCK!! The best congresses are the ones that DO NOTHING!
And NO, I am not being cynical, or joking.
The less these morons pass, the better for the citizens who enjoy freedom and liberty! Everything these clowns pass is just a disaster waiting to happen; intrudes upon individual liberty, and empowers their own tyranny even further!
Give me TOTAL GRIDLOCK, a do nothing congress!
That's all I ask for.
Dec 1, 2009 at 1:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
A lot of the Gazette blogs on political articles mention that we are headed toward SOCIALISM. Face it people - our current form of government needs to change. Socialism is one of many forms of government that would be an 'upgrade' to what we got now - the Republicans serving only the Republican party and the Democrats serving only the Democratic party. So don't fear new (and better) ideas like a democracy/socialism hybrid.
Dec 1, 2009 at 1:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Republican party will win an overwhelming number of seats in both the house/senate/and governorships in 2010. It really won't have anything to do with the message, platform, or who they even put up. It will simply be because they are not the party in charge of things, as the country continues to deteriorate in mass unemployment and debt.
.
Just as it was the economy (stupid), and a idiotic war, that cost Bush and the Republicans in 2006 and 08, it will be the SAME issues that cost the Democrats in 2010; mark my words on that.
.
Unless a viable 3rd party is formed (which will peel off the independents who will bring the Republicans to landslide wins), you will go back to a Republican controlled congress once again. Which, of course, means nothing much changes from what you have now. You will still have out of control spending , clueless leaders, mass corruption, reckless economic policy, ext ext.
Nov 30, 2009 at 11:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Republican Party is coming back and the "Old Angry White Guys" are being shut up and pushed out. Their is a waive of younger people that are starting to be more outspoken and actually standing on the principles of the party that this last generation seemed to have forgotten. As far as the talk about moderates and independants, most are faced with liberals trying to be Republicans or liberals openly being Democrats. Who goes for fake when they can have genuine? The R's and D's have been going the same direction just the D's take us their faster. Once the R's actually return to smaller government, less sepnding, and overall smarter decisions, the democrats wouldn't know what to do.
Nov 30, 2009 at 11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not sure term limits would still do us much good two or three terms would still be enough for any politician to some damage. It's the fact that they need to quit competing to c who can win their districts the most money in pet projects. They need to quit thinking short term and think long term. Both parties. And again laws regarding congress just need to be enforced, but when the people put in the accountability positions are the friends of congress, it means nothing does nothing.
Nov 30, 2009 at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
A quicker way to get congressional term limits is to actually get people to get off their butts and vote! Look at the other article today where the clerk of courts is hoping to get 18% turnout instead of 16%. Less than 1 out of 5 eligible voters actually voting is considered a success!
And this is for an election where the people who actually set the property tax rate and determine what services you actually get for that money are elected. The election that probably makes the most direct impact on your daily life and pocketbook has the least voter turnout.
If enough voters actually came to the polls, the advantage of incumbency would be eliminated and might even be a liability instead.
Nov 30, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
I wonder why Kathleen Parker's national column keeps showwing-up in the Gazette. Can't we find our own news?
Nov 30, 2009 at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Nobody forgot presidential term limits, if that is what you are asking for it would be redundant, wouldn`t it? Pass a Constitutional amendment, that is the only way to get Congressional term limits.
Nov 30, 2009 at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I guess people forget our country already has term limits...on the Presidency.
Nov 30, 2009 at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Optional? Are you on drugs???
The "dinosaurs" are looking like they're going to get a big win in 2010.
Nov 30, 2009 at 8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm gonna get me one of those new phone for Christmas- the BarakBerry. It runs entirely on hope!
Nov 30, 2009 at 8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mexico has had term limits since 1932, a great example of a government that works! Right?
Nov 30, 2009 at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
"dinosaur party on the road to extinction."
-
If this were only true. Problem is the way our government works, run by the current two party system, ensures neither party will go away. The best thing that could happen is a party falters and 3-6 others rise up...maybe with term limits too.
Nov 29, 2009 at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
That right Crafty, it's a left wing conspiracy, the media is out to get you, and its good honest Americans like Joe and Sarah are your only hope. You and your party are marginalized. Get pissed and rant some more. Scare away any moderate, intelligent and pragmatic types from your ranks. Too bad a young guy like you sided-up with the dinosaur party on the road to extinction.
Nov 29, 2009 at 7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty,
IMO if you call a government option with a trigger socialism you are not independent. Socialism is a republican talking point and has been since President Obama won the nomination.
.
You may still disagree with the health care proposal but it is not socialism if it is optional.
.
At least that is how I see it.
Nov 29, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
I admit "hardly" is relative
Vetoes--(overridden)
Jimmy Carter-------31--(2)
Ronald Reagan------78--(9)
George H. W. Bush--44--(1)
Bill Clinton-------37--(2)
George W. Bush-----12--(4)
Nov 29, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bush issued 12 vetoes in his administrations, 11 after the Democrats controlled Congress in January 2007. None in his first term. Congress overrode 4 of those vetoes with large bi-partisan votes.
Nov 29, 2009 at 3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is always good for a laugh when those who don't wish republicans to win any elections pontificate on what republicans should be doing. The "nuanced" party elites (Rockefeller types) have been responsible for voters not having a choice during elections. If you think that there is no difference between parties then thank those that are so enamored of power that they have no principles (a McCain type). If you love the dem party line, feel free to vote that way but stop pretending you care if others choose something different.
Nov 29, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
still waiting for that hope and change huh? that's what others are saying too. hope the lack of it tastes good.
I love how people will label you as a republican just for opposing obama. I may be an independant, am I still the enemy? I may be a libertarian. I may be a former Liberal with too much common sense to watch his countrymen enlist in the services that will one day take away their freedoms. Liberalism doesn't have to mean socialism. socialism and freedom cannot go hand in hand.
Nov 29, 2009 at 3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Republican president and his ability to veto?"
.
you mean the guy who vetoed hardly anything?
Nov 29, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Someday ... possibly... "Americans" will *get smart* and stop just "voting-out" the latest political party that did the latest damage...The R's get in and do their damage and fill the pockets of their cronies, then the D's get in, do their damage and fill the pockets of their cronies and the idiot voters do nothing but seesaw back and forth between those two, believing things somehow are going to "change"..........*THINK*!!!!!
Nov 29, 2009 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
old white guy? well you got one right. I'm a guy. if you consider 30 old, then you got me there. what percentage of caucasian would I have to be to be considered white?
meaner and meaner WE get? what happened to joe the plumber, sarah palin, miss california? they all opposed obama and the left wing media deliberately tried to destroy them. not mean at all. neither is being racist and assuming all republicans are white old guys. I can see I have nothing to worry about with liberals like you, you have no idea what you're up against. lmfao!
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Crafty, what is this nonsense about playing the slave card? You need to open up the tent flap and take a look at who comprises your Republican Rainbow Coalition. It is all a bunch of angry old white guys like yourself. The meaner and mouthier you get, the smaller the group. It is those not so subtle nuances you republicans keeping giving off that will kill your party.
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
would you admit that by 2006 the economic damage had been done?
.
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Would you admit that from 2006-2008 the republicans had no real power because of a democratic controlled house and senate?
what about the change and hope?
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty,
Would you admit that from 2006-2008 the liberals had no real power because of a Republican president and his ability to veto?
.
Good try but I don't think this mess can be blamed on the liberals, at least not yet.
Nov 29, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
brilliant playing of the slavery card! bravo.
how racist of you both Mooshoo and Don diego, to suggest such nonsense. you are all officially out of your rockers.
the hatred just flies out of your pie-holes so fast you don't even stop to realize how stupid you sound.
WHAT "CHANGE" HAVE YOU SEEN>? HOPE>? WHERE? with the liberals in power since 2006 i have seen NO ONE get richer! oh except the government!
that's much better!
Nov 29, 2009 at 10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
www.americancentristparty.net
Nov 29, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
It probably doesn't matter what the Republicans do. Most of us fed-up with the antics of both parties - they represent their party NOT their constituents. I bet the Independents start doing better in all elections.
Nov 29, 2009 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
I could not have said it better. The Comments come from the conservative website, Playgroung Politics.
"Those in the Tea Party movement beat their chests and caterwaul a whole lot, but in their first major test of credibility and relevance, they lost a seat that a rational person would've thought near-impossible for the GOP to lose.
Last night will be a huge victory for Republicans if the GOP is smart enough to learn the correct lessons from it. The successes of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia tell us that there is still a place in politics for intelligent, pragmatic, reasonable Republicans. And the defeat of Doug Hoffman in a solidly Republican district provides a clear road map of how not to get back to the majority."
Naw...it won't happen. The Republican party is now the party of the white male victims.
Nov 29, 2009 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
REPUBLICANS- Please continue to do this. I beg you! Now if you would just add WHITE to the test, it would make it even better (if not more truthful).
Nov 29, 2009 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
The best point in the article is the last point. The questions about what each principle will mean.
.
Hannity has been preaching this message since President Obama won.
.
For example, one of his conservative principles is a strong national defense. What the heck does that mean? Does strong = money? Or, Mr. Hannity, should it mean only going to war when necessary and not having a foreign policy that results in hatred of America?
.
Obviously a couple principles are easier to define, small government, lower taxes, help the rich get richer and make sure everyone knows you are a Christian/pro-life.
.
As a moderate, this type of list is exactly why I will likely continue to find it difficult to support a republican.
.
Nov 29, 2009 at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
wavering independents...yes that speaks to belonging to a party.
Nov 29, 2009 at 12:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Better listen. KParker is one of those wavering independents the party needs. Actually, no. Please don't listen to her. We want you to lose.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.