Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates

Yahoo ^

[Dallas]

(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 healthcare;

(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;

[a fool in paradise]

Obama is planning the same “adopt my agenda or get out” approach for those living in this country.

[gwilhelm56]

MORONS ... the only TEST for REPUBLICANS is .. that THEY DON’T VOTE LIKE EFFING LIBERALS.

what’s so wrong with THAT???

[Yorktownpatriot]

The more important question remains..will they resign their office for voting to the contrary?

[Jeff Head]

We've already had one for well over 200 years. it's called the Constitution.

AMERICA NEEDS EACH OF US TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION

[bassmaner]

So what's the 'ideological purity' test for the 'Rats? It must be fairly effective, considering their recent herd mentality on votes for socialist programs.

So much for the so called 'blue dogs'.

[Grunthor]

I don’t see anything wrong with this. Support eight of the ten planks in this platform or you are not welcome in the GOP? Not a damned thing wrong with that.

[colorado tanker]

Only the MSM could twist a political platform into a “purity test.” No, it's not. It's a platform and the question is would I support a candidate who doesn't agree with most of what I believe? Of course not, why would I?

[Kimberly GG]

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

Define amnesty? Because to-date, I’ve seen VERY FEW leaders from the Republican party, including so-called “conservatives” who WILL NOT settle for amnesty.

[FrankR]

(11) We require and official, long-form, notarized certificate of birth for all candidates placed on the ballot for the office of President of the United States. This includes incumbents.

[Dallas]

This came out just a few minutes ago

" Are Blue Dogs the "True Democrats"?

[a fool in paradise]

I don’t have a problem with it. Membership in the party is not guaranteed.

Wouldn’t want the former Democrat, former Independent, only ran one time as a Republican David Duke in the party either.

However, the Democrats act as if this is “unAmerican” to ask that members of the GOP look at the planks.

And the Democrats are howling that they can’t get all of the senators in line to pass Obamacare.

And dissent was patriotic only when Bush was president. You are a “traitor” and a “racist” and a “conspiracy kook” if you oppose the policies of the Obama administration. Those people want to see women and children and minorities die for lack of healthcare, don’t you know? And they spin wild rumors of death panels and actuary tables and rationing of healthcare. They also deny the realities of the consensus of scientists that man is killing the planet...

[Cheetahcat]

How about running Steele through it first.

[Kimberly GG]

“Support eight of the ten planks in this platform or you are not welcome in the GOP? Not a damned thing wrong with that.”

Really...and suppose those they DON’T support are 8 & 9, or 9 & 10? Everyone has their “issues”. Mine is national security because without it, there are no other issues. The GOP has no problem pushing, to the exclusion of all others, an openborders/amnesty candidate like McShamnesty. If they do it again, I still won’t vote for a GOP candidate! Matter of fact, I won’t vote for another member of Council on Foreign Relations, period. This bipartisan agenda to destroy this country stems from somewhere!!

[Dallas]

I agree...it's a start.

There is a lot of pessimism on here...rightly so.

[AnglePark]

I have a novel idea... why don’t we just vote for the Republican candidates who actually LIVE their principles, not for those who simply SAY they have those principles.

[Dallas]

and no sex scandals...

[patriot preacher]

An “ideological purity” test is missing the point. Republicans will almost universally sign this thing, with the ocassional exception like McCain, or Grahamnesty on one or two issues. The problem is that when they acutally get into power they will disregard their pledge to “ideological purity” and be swayed by the siren song of Washington power, political corruption and philosophical compromise. At least, most of them will, as has been proven before.

I don’t care so much about ideological purity tests as I do about a different kind of PEOPLE who run for office. Even then, one or two (or 3 or 4..?) of those tenants are non-negotiables with me, so in some cased a 90% grade wouldn’t make it with me.

I will support the right person, the Conservative, Principled man or woman. The party tag no longer matters much to me — well, unless it’s a tea party tag :-)

[AnglePark]

Amen! And, of course, each time they’re caught they say the same stupid things... “I’m so ashamed”... “It’s the worst thing I’ve ever done”... “I made a terrible mistake”... yada, yada, yada.

[Huck]

7 out of 10 are “we support by opposing.” WHat a dumb list.