On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Stupid Republicans and Their Friggin Lists
by: T Christopher posted: 2009-11-25 12:44:39
Viewed 110 times. 2 Comments.
A Conservative Checklist for Republican Candidates: The Dumbest Idea I Have Ever Heard
I am rarely surprised when the group of conservatives that the mainstream media calls the “Far Right” decide to grab something and run with it, but this one really has my head shaking. This group of “Right Wingers,” that clearly lacks the ability to set down their Going Rogue textbooks long enough to recognize that conservatism is not about a checklist of talking points and issues, has decided to draft a resolution to submit to the RNC that would force Republican candidates to adhere to a 10-point checklist of key issues / principles. To be as kind as I can about the matter, and to avoid using the expletives I screamed out loud as I read about this (I am trying to clean up my potty mouth a bit), I will simply state that this is the dumbest Republican idea I have heard in my lifetime. I understand that I may not be as old as some who may read this, but nearly three decades of stupid ideas and gimicks all pale in comparison to this one. My only hope is that the idiots who drafted this resolution, and those who allowed it to leak to the press, are so fringe, so far out in “lala land”, that no one in the Party gives them even a moment of their time. These people are not the “right wing” of the Party and they are not conservatives. They think they are because they purport to stand for “conservative” issues and principles, but they lack any understanding of the fundamentals of True Conservatism.
When the mainstream media catches wind of this, and they will, it will undoubtedly be characterized as a “right wing” document, so I just want to add some clarity to that issue before we have to defend ourselves from being grouped with these morons. True conservatism is about a principled and virtuous adherence to the fundamental intentions of our Founding Fathers expressed through our Founding Documents. The principle and the virtue are individual in nature and are not derivative of any one religion or culture. The intentions are strictly interpreted and rely primarily upon the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Conservatism is NOT about a laundry list of issues. This is why many on the “far right” lose me. They get so caught up in defending issues they deem to be “conservative” that they lose sight of the explanation and justification for their arguments. This is where religion gets infused with conservatism on a compulsory level and discredits the message altogether. The religion, or more accurately the principle or virtue, are supposed to be individual in nature. Our Founding Documents which we as conservatives purport to protect make it so. That is the very idea behind the 1st Amendment.
That being said, I will save that rant for another day, but I will simply add that lists such as these are counter productive as well as counter intuitive. While this list may not be offensive or completely misguided in its content, what will the next one look like? Will it take free will, free expression, and the freedom of religion out of the Republican Party platform altogether? On a more practical level, does a national party really want a list of issues determining its candidates at every level of government? What idiot with only a nominal understanding of political science cannot understand that such a list would stifle the party’s efforts across the 50 states and make the party appear rigid and closed minded to everyone not in strict adherence with these arbitrary lists?
There will be some that call me a moderate for taking this position, because that’s what these “right wing” nutbags do when other conservatives tell them that they’re actions border on lunacy and wreak of ignorance as to the true principles of conservatism. To those people… I will say… enjoy your life in Palinville and let me know how it feels when you finally realize what an idiot you and everyone standing around you truly are. For those that will call me a moderate, I will ask one question of you “super-conservatives” and “protectors of the true right.” Where in the Constitution is that section that discusses compulsory inclusion or exclusion of candidates for political office; and where exactly did Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and Adams lay out the framework for stifling the Bill of Rights even before they had ratified it? If such a section or group of sections cannot be found; then might I suggest that your simple little lists are absolutely, undeniably, and Fundamentally Misguided….?
read more...
Related Articles
- Contest: Win a pre-release copy of John Yoo's 'Crisis and Command' in time for Christmas delivery!
- Dems Said The Class Act “Ponzi Scheme” Strip It, But It Is Included In Final Health Care Bill
- Novel idea: It is Time for Republican Leaders to Step Down - on Principle
- Excellent one-click tweet and contact page for important Senators - Please RT
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/stupid-republicans-and-their-friggin-lists/trackback
Comments 2
I will start by addressing your last point first and then move forward from there. As to the policy positions that you stated at the end of your comment, I appreciate your points, but I must say that I think you are unfortunately getting lost in the same mentality that led to the creation of the list in question to begin with. While I certainly respect your positions, I would prefer to choose my candidates for public office based on the manner in which they move toward taking positions on matters of policy rather than simply hearing that they support the stereotypical conservative talking points.
Of course I want a candidate who believes in states' rights, but I would much prefer that said candidate can explain that his rationale for supporting that position is based in a firm belief in the 10th Amendment. I would prefer that when he or she speaks to "small government" he understands that the very idea is derivative of the notion strict adherence to the final amendment to the Bill of Rights. Simply hearing that a candidate supports those issues does nothing for me in he area of enlightening me as to potential positions that candidate will take once they are elected. Unless I am way off the grid here, I can't remember the last time a bill came before either House that enumerated "states rights" as the fundamental issue in question. The reality is that those are talking points and show very little about what a candidate will eventually do when they take office. From a purely antecdotal perspective, how many Republicans on the Hill voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" bill? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government was meant to be in the business of playing the role of provost to each of the 50 states? The truth is, you won't find it anywhere. You will find ancillary support for the legality of said actions through bastardizations of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but there is no legitimate constitutional basis for any action in that area, but a group of "small government" Republicans voted for it.
The short of it is this, a candidate like Rudy Guiliani can run as a Republican and pay homage to pro-life policies, when in reality, he is only doing so because the door to the Party would be closed if he is not. I simply put no stock in strict adherence to talking points and issues. They produce puppet candidates and remove the Constitutional dialog from the debate handing the day to Democrats who dont even feign an attempt to find justification for their positions. If the Republican Party is truly the ultimate protector of the US Constitution, it must be able to rely on it to justify its positions rather than simply hoping that the American people know how candidates get from A to Z in the formulation of their policies.
In regards to your reference to the Ten Commandments. I have to say that I cannot even begin to follow the comparison. First of all, the Ten Commandments were not intended to be a "Christian" list in the first place as Christianity wasn't in existed at the time of their creation. They were incorporated into Christianity as it came to fruition. That being said, I would say that if you really want to go down that road, I will humor your comparison and see how it would play out.
Lets see... Taking a look at the Commandments, I am pretty sure that they were not intended to be an exhaustive list of all behavior prohibited. I don't see "though shall not file for divorce" or "though shall not put your mother or father in an old folks home." Those would be comparable to the list suggested by Republicans. The Commandments are a broad list of principles and virtue, they don't micromanage moral behavior. They are akin to the fundamentals of genuine conservatism. Lets leave the smaller talking points for personal interpretation and make sure that our candidates are focused on "though shall not steal" rather than the specifics of "though shall not commit interstate bank fraud." I would much rather vote for a candidate that has the more broad principle in mind rather than the specific issue which happens to coincide with the topic dejure.
To take your example a step further, I do believe that the Bill of Rights and those who defend it have become a isolated group of individuals misunderstood and often ridiculed for their reliance on that document. Rather than telling us what we cannot do like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights tells us what we can do as Americans and what our government cannot take away from us. It has its eye on liberty rather than control. In my humble opinion, generating arbitrary obstacles to government participation as these "lists" would do, flies counter to the ideas enumerated in the Bill of Rights which we as conservatives purport to protect. I want candidates that will pledge allegiance to that noble list rather than a token group of issues generated by the likes of Michael Steele.
Have an opinion?
Publius' Newsstand
-
NYT: Why Don't you People Just Believe Everythi...
The Times acknowledges, barely, that all is not sunny in global warming-alarmist land.But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri’s resignation last week. Critics, writing in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph and elsewhere, have accused Dr. Pachauri of profiting from his work as an adviser to businesses, including Deutsche Bank and Pegasus Capital Advisors, a New York investment firm — a claim he denies. They have also unearthed and publicized problems with the intergovernmental panel’s landmark 2007 report on climate change, which concluded that the planet was warming and that humans were likely to blame.
Views: 29 Comments: 0
-
Congressional Democrats point finger of blame a...
Poor guy. One of the problems with yelling at people, berating people, and generally thuggish behavior towards people is that it doesn't exactly engender loyalty. Eventually they turn, even if it's not your fault.The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor... on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate... Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan. While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.
Views: 27 Comments: 0
-
Michelle O: Barry has done a "phenomenol job"
A solid B-plus:Michelle Obama defended her husband against some of his most vocal critics, saying President Obama did a "phenomenal" job this year and that change is a long-term process. The first lady talks about her nationwide campaign called "Let's Move." "I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America." "That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States."
Let me finish that last thought for you, Michelle. I see you rubbing your hands together and thinking, "Yes, for now people have the right to criticize him, but we're working on changing that."Views: 37 Comments: 0
-
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to ...
Following on the last story, this certainly will help.In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.
Views: 52 Comments: 0
-
From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...
Not buying it, Senator McCain.McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 33 Comments: 0
-
Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 33 Comments: 0
-
Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 61 Comments: 0
-
Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...
Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 124 Comments: 1
-
Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...
A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 79 Comments: 3
-
Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...
Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 79 Comments: 2
Sorry but I do not see a move to insure that the resources of the national party are not expended on candidates who are working towards goals that are antithetical to the principles and goals of the national Republican Party.
No one is eliminating freewill, nor are they suggesting that 11 establishment Republican county chairmen from New York can't get together and nominate Bill Clinton to run as Republican in a special election for Congress if they want. If they so choose, they can, as they did with Dede Scozzafava. However; that decision should not drain the resources of the national party when those resources could be going to candidates whom reflect the views and goals of our Party, not the Liberal Party.
One can trivialize this attempt as a “list” but those who do, also run the risk of having that applied to any documentation of what one believes in. The Ten Commandments can also be described as a "checklist of talking points and issues" and deemed as "the dumbest" Christian idea they "have heard in (their) lifetime". One could also call those who believe in abiding by the Ten Commandments as part of a "fringe" group but such interpretations would be, well, they would be ignorant and inappropriate.
Now to be sure I have issues with religious zealots in the Republican Party who do not understand where the separation of church state begins and end. I have a problem with those who do not understand how the Constitution is suppose to be applied to our laws and governance. But at the same time, I do not have a problem with attempts to insure that the Republican Party remains a party that is suppose to be working toward a strong national defense, a robust, growing economy, job creation, lower and limited taxation, limited spending, states rights, small government and the policies that help create an independent, self sufficient society that weans the coming generations off of the welfare state mentality and cycle of dependency which Democrats advance in an attempt to keep their own hold on power.