Now, since we live in a two-party system, theoretically I could consider supporting the other party if it seemed they were willing to change their stance on issues of concern to me. (As an aside, I should note that I oppose the GOP platform pretty universally, not merely from the perspective of gay rights.) Well, it seems the chances of the GOP being a happy home for gays and lesbians is roughly on par with the possibility of winged pork.
Behold:
From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
First Read has obtained a resoultion being e-mailed around to Republican National Committee members for comments that proposes a conservative litmus test of sorts.
[snip]The "Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" outlines 10 conservative principles the group of signees wants potential candidates to abide by. The principles include support for:
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; [emphasis added]
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
In the interest of fairness, this is only a resolution (albeit a real one) being suggested by one member of the RNC. It hasn't been made official party doctrine. But it's certainly in keeping with their platform in 2008. And let's not kid ourselves that the GOP is anything but openly hostile to gays and lesbians.
Frankly, I think any party that needs a "purity test" for its candidates is in the serious weeds. But, whatever its fortunes, it's pretty damn obvious that the GOP is happy to do without my support, for the indefinite future.
Posts
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill (except when Republicans are in power, because, as Dick Cheney observed, Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
ReplyDelete(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare; (in other words, do nothing)
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (in other words, do nothing again, and pretend our buying Arab oil doesn't go in jihadists pockets)
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check (in other words, break every union, because we all know how successful unionism is in the South)
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants; (in other words, exploit illegal immigrant labor while depriving them of all rights)
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(in other words, when Republicans are President the President is Commander in Chief, but when Democrats are they have to surrender that right, remember it was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and all Republicans who laughed at Gen. Shinseki when he said occupying Iraq would require many more troops)
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat (yes, because just saying it will make it happen)
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act; [emphasis added] (in other words, screw gays, just not sexually)
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and (in other words, call not providing insurance for the uninsured somehow protects them, magic I guess)
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership (in other words, we are gun nuts, completely ignoring the fact that even on a heavily armed military station a lone deranged gunmen can wreak havoc)
Wow, sounds entirely feasible to me, where do I sign up (and check my brain in at the same time?)
charo
Hey, at least they are upfront and honest about #8. That is the de facto policy of the current administration, so I can't see you'd change anything by voting Repub.
ReplyDeleteAnd the military area in Texas was, wait for it... a gun-free zone. Seriously. Gun-free zones get people killed, because Bad Actors don't follow the rules.
Seems to me "Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and ... government funding of abortion" is at odds with itself. Which is it? No rationing or no abortion? Can't have it both ways. Reword as "protecting fetuses by denying medical services to women."
ReplyDelete"Gun-free zones get people killed" um...noooo. Funny how in true gun free zones, ie. guns are difficult to buy and obtain there are no people getting killed. And because the hospital wing of a military base doesn't have soldiers practicing target shooting doesn't mean there is an invisible wall stopping the MP's from going into this area. Even if everyone was armed the semi-automatic he used mowed most people down before they could have even have gotten their own guns out of their holsters. Oh, the eternal delusions of the gun nuts, somehow wearing a gun makes them bulletproof.
ReplyDeleteas to number #8, the price of having a legislative majority is taking in moral conservatives from hicksville, they will back the Dems on economic policy, but not social. Such is the price of power. But fine, I hope the Republicans become even purer, people will have to pledge an oath to Ronald Reagan, who shit freedom, belched prosperity, and whose ghost kicks taliban ass.
charo
charo... one word, two letters; Washington, D.C.
ReplyDeleteAlso, wearing a gun makes no one bulletproof, and no one remotely sane claims otherwise. Only anti-gun loonies looking to burn strawmen make that kind of a claim.