Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[ponderingturtle]

The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).

Not going to happen. It could be that a party will die and be replaced but no political group is going to rewrite the constitution to limit their own power. With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This doesn't follow from what I said. We could be living in the early 19th century and I'd point out how insane it is that blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person. You could dig out your Constitution and point but it's rather meaningless in the context of my moral outrage.

And moral outrage is pointless here. Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.

It seems that at least two cities have adopted preferential voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

And it means squat nationally.

It's a rotten system. Our elections are ****ed up all the way down the line. The Patrician anti-democratic Senate, the gerrymandered House (where politicians choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians), and the antiquated Electoral College. It's all crap.

Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.

Or George Bush and Ross Perot, Or Teddy Roosevelt and Taft.

And then there are all the local elections.

Two parties is the stable solution to American voting procedures.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's been, what, 150 years since we've had a viable 3rd party? I wish there were one.

Better than two. None would be best of all.

The US never really had a viable 3rd party. Three parties are unstable, hence why they do show up on occasion they don't last. They can supplant a major party but three parties is not tenable in the long term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.

 

[Cain]

Re: unifying principles:

Wrong again.

I invite you to go read the party platforms. You'll find they're a list of platitudes.

This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.

In the USA, the last thing you want is unifying principles, because that's limiting.

What you want are vague talking points, emotion-based slogans, and a platform that's loose enough to allow disparate (even opposed) factions to get under the tent.

The movement toward a genuine set of unifying principles is a serious threat to the Republican party.

It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.

In any event, the greater concern, what's in far more need of reform, are the anti-representative, anti-democratic institutions by which the public (supposedly) expresses its will.

 

[Sporanox]

Fact is, the failed strategies of the extreme right have managed to decimate our party when their anti-reality stance got its ass kicked by reality (e.g., military quagmires, financial collapse, and denial of environmental truths which even "big business" now generally accepts) and as a result the large majority of those who are still left happen to be from dead-ender districts and therefore are beholden to folks who persist in their fantasies of a workable unregulated market and other such pipe dreams.

I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.

Where did you get that idea?

(I suspect datum ex rectum.)

There are many reasons for shifts in party power, but losing ideological purity ain't one of them.

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

 

[SezMe]

With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.

 

[SezMe]

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

Yep, I do. According to Wiki:

On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:

* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
* select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.

Did that happen. Nope. Newt's contract was electioneering pablum, nothing more. Just like this latest litmus test.

BTW, looking at the other side, I heard a funny comment about Dems the other day. Paraphrasing: "The Dems have one major accomplishment. They've learned to walk upright without a spine."

 

[Whiplash]

Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.

This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.

I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.

There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********.

If some of you would expand your horizons a bit you'd see that was the case.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********. .

This is sorta the problem: If you adopt this, you WILL be one big block. Incidentally, good No True Scotsman.

 

[ponderingturtle]

An argument could be made to ban abortion on nonreligious terms. For example, murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. You don't have to crab about the soul to realize that. (I don't believe in the discrete, personalized existence of a soul.) Second, you can refuse gay marriage and still pass the test.

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

Don't forget Regan as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.

Not enough to actually say do anything about it or not tow the party line. Just enough to make quips now and then to make it seem like they have the balls to do anything.

I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.

Nice godwin there.

 

[Piggy]

This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.

So you still haven't read the platforms, eh? Well, ok.

 

[Piggy]

It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.

So you're saying that people don't actually think this, they don't even seem to think it, but they almost seem to think it?

Actually, I agree that the GOP needs to broaden its base of support for the good of the country (because if they don't, we'll have single-party rule by the Democrats, which will invite groupthink and corruption) but the topic at hand is what the party needs to do for its own good, and if it continues down the path of ideological purity it will find itself at a dead end.

 

[Piggy]

I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.

And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

Oh, yeah. Nice piece of marketing thought up by Frank Luntz.

It wasn't backbone, it was public relations.

Let's not confuse campaign rhetoric with the process of governing.

 

[Piggy]

There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only).

Well, the primary reason for the term RINO is that it helped radio personalities whip up their audiences, and therefore sell more advertisements, which makes them rich.