The GOP's suicide pact

The Washington Post ^ | Sunday, November 29, 2009 | Kathleen Parker

[Servant of the Cross]

The very basicness of these ten renders Kathleen’s “unthinking” argument silly.

Exactly. Nothing controversial in this list (it could go farther). A party must stand for something or it stands for nothing (like Dem-lite KP who must want to ditch 8&9).

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers. ... Ronald Reagan

This list exposes KP and her ilk to be even worse than the old Rockefeller Republicans.

[cranked]

A typical WaPo diverting/deflecting from the Dems own suicide pact...

[Pontiac]

Each of Bopp's bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some 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?

Principles must be broad.

In my view this principle may be too narrow.

In my view this principle should read more like

"We support victory in all military engagements once troops are committed to the fight by supporting military-recommended troop surges and material logistical support."

Once troops have been committed to the fight the country owes it to the troops to give them every opportunity to succeed. This applies to every engagement not just Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is also absolutely necessary for the prestige and security of this country.

But as a general rule when one is writing down the principles by which one will judge ones comrades by they must be necessarily broad because the future holds unknown trials and one must have the freedom to act with in those principles.

To me this shows that Ms. Parker has a very poor grasp of logic. She states that Bopp’s principles are overly broad and then gives as an example a principle that is very specific.

[Lancey Howard]

Kathleen Parker is a Colin Powell/Lincoln Chafee Republican.
...NOT to be taken seriously at all.

[mono]

....Obama supporter....

I think actually she was a Rommney supporter....same difference.

[William Tell 2]

People need to be educated that there are liberal newspaper columnists who give Republicans erroneous advice?

Why are you so reluctant to patronize conservative newspapers and writers?

[marsh2]

President Reagan was also a staunch defender of protecting the integrity of private property rights from government regulation. See March 22, 1988 Presidential Executive Order 12630 (E.O. 12630), and June 30, 1988 “Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings”

Regulation should be founded on protecting the general public health, safety and morals from substantial injury. The Constitution of the United States defers the vast majority of the power to regulate to the states, not the federal government. Eminent domain should be anchored in serving a legitimate public purpose.

Advancement of a public benefit through regulation constitutes a fifth amendment takings that is subject to the payment of just compensation. Property rights were a significant political issue in President Reagan’s administration. It deserves to be included in the ten.

[Spok]

The liberals never seem to tire of giving advice to conservatives. It’s like having the Big Bad Wolf at the door as he explains why you should let him come inside. And I love how they abuse the word ‘nuance’, which now is code speech for why you shoud not believe what you see. It’s absolutely Orwellian and as big a lie as ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’.

[Crapgame]

Nailed it...8 and 9 just stick in Parker’s craw...the party would be much better off without her...and some others I know..

[safeasthebanks]

I think Ms Parker is exactly right, and the recent GOP losses in Virginia and NJ clearly demonstrate this.

Or not...

[stop_fascism]

(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, 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

Those seem like bedrock Republican principles to me. I’m not sure what got KP’s panties in a wad, but that seems to be their permanent state.

[drellberg]

“I was startled when I read another article attacking them at how UNcontroversial they were.”

The proof is in their application. Which RINOs would these ten principles ensnare, based upon their voting records? Which would get through? Which Democrats could meet these criteria?

My sense is that these are too broad to have much empirical import; but I pose this more as a question than a criticism.

My sense is that litmus tests such as this are counterproductive because to have any bite they must make be much more narrowly and emphatically posed — and then you weed out allies along with adversaries even as you give ammunition to the Left who can then make us out to appear inflexible and close-minded.

I know I’m going to get flamed, as always. But I think I ask a reasonable question about TACTICS. I am with the majority here on the PRINCIPLES.

[Diogenesis]

Why do you post this from Obama's and Romney's supporter?

Kathleen Parker: "Romney would bring more than squeaky clean qualifications
and youthful good looks to the ticket.
Romney would seem a logical choice."

---

"Parker: Romney raised bar on freedoms"
Kathleen Parker: "If Kennedy's speech was an important landmark in American political history,
Romney's was surpassing. With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence,
he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom."

---

"Kathleen Parker: After Interviews, Palin Should Bow Out"

---

Kathleen Parker: "[I]t is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem." "Parker ... says something publicly that many of us have thought privately
but lacked the courage to say out loud - Palin should step down:"

---

Staggering bigotry of Kathleen Parker - UPDATED"

[publius1]

You ask why I posted this. Fair question.

I am shocked, actually — shocked — that this far into the reign of Obama, post Scozzafava, post NJ and Va., and with the crowds swelling for Palin’s book tour, that anyone could be so dense as to object to the ten principles, and cite Buckley and Kirk in defense of that position. Kirk’s “Conscience of a Conservative” and Buckley’s “Up from Liberalism” should be enough to make anyone understand that using them that way is historically libelous.

Parker at one time considered herself a conservative. Somehow she jumped the tracks and went off the rails, as did David Brooks. I was curious as to how others would react to this latest of hers. I keep thinking—maybe I’m wrong about this—but I keep thinking that somehow it all comes down to abortion. I note that none of the FR commentators raised it as an issue, so maybe I’m off base, but increasingly I think that the real dividing line between political philosophies and parties and people in this country is abortion, and that most of the rest is so many cars being pulled behind that train. I mean that in the sense that many things can be compromised or agreed by reasonable people, but abortion cannot be, and that its non-negotiable nature affects the willingness of people to come to agreement on other issues and their ability to judge the other side.

If you think I’m a trog because I’m pro-life, then why would you even try to agree with me or find common ground on immigration, or the war on terror, etc. To do so would taint you, because you’d be agreeing with an idiot, and what would that make you?

I have thought that that’s a large part of whgat’;s behind the attack on Palin. She’s demonstrably, not just rhetorically, pro-life, therefore must be an idiot, about whom to say anything nice is to contaminate oneself. It’s an idiotic position, and I’m not even sure it’s a conscious one for the other side, but I believe that it’s there.

Anyway, I posted to see what others would say, and I posted not cynically but in innocence (& frustration). I hope that answers your question.

[Josh Painter]

Conservative Lite worked so well for us in the last two elections.

- JP