Comments on: Put Me in the No Camp on the Purity Test

By: martyinaz

martyinaz — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:04:10 +0000

I worry so about the 2010 elections. There are a minority of Democrats in America, but with the Independent vote, we lost in 2004. It happened again in 2008. Now, the Democrats are losing ground because of the Liberal attempt to hoodwink the voters who put them in power. But voters have short memories, and tend to be forgiving if given a few months to cool off. Will a conservative agenda sell this coming November? I’m not sure. I have been a Libertarian for over 40 years. But alas we live in a two party society. So I have had to move to the left of my beliefs and vote Republican. So just how much hardball do we want to play? We could win the battle but lose the war.

By: asafsb

asafsb — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:05:02 +0000

First don’t use the word “purity”, too much baggage. Honest people live by the Rules, democrats don’t have “Rules” only situational ethics, which means Lie, Cheat and Steal. They plant their operatives wherever they need them to do their dirty work ie Arlen Specter, Hagel, Olyimpia Snow, Graham etc.etc. These examples are not independant thought or individualism but the Enemy Within. If you doubt this show me examples (more than one) of this in the Democrat Party. YOU CAN’T. ALL 60 Democrats voted to move ‘health care” forward. They vote as a block almost always. If they have more than enough votes to pass a bill they give their members in vulnerable districts the ok to “cya” vote. Democrats know EXACTLY who they run for office. How do the Democrats keep their members in line—–the same way Communists keep their members in line. Their is a very heavy price to pay for democrats who don’t tow the LINE. The Republican Party is no longer viable, there are to many enemy within, within the Party. There is absolutly nothing wrong with having a minimum standard to belong to any organization but they need to weed out the traitors, NOW. Sooner or later you have to use the same tactics as the enemy, THEY SET THE TONE!

By: olddog

olddog — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:27:01 +0000

is the key to ferreting out the moles, “democrats”, who call themselves Republican, no one can, by our vast diversity of states satisfy every one, but investigation of prior voting records, if available, or who they supported themselves, previously, there are a multitude of ways but the true standard should be the Constitution, including the bill of rights.
By their actions, you will know them, not their words.
Vigilence is the key ,by all, to save our great Country, and our Freedoms.
One Old Dog

By: iluvit

iluvit — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:13:49 +0000

I am so tired of hearing about Republicans being Democrat-lite. If you cannot tell real Republicans from the Democrats that have power, then there is no help for you. The RINOS are a problem, and they must be dealt with, but do not hurt the whole party by blaming the party for everything. The Party did make a big mistake by endorsing in a primary and now seem to have learned a lesson. You would have to be crazy to compare Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions with the likes of Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Not close, not Republican Lite. So stop with the broad brush and tackle the problem children RINOs and get them out of offfice: SNOW, COLLINS; LUGAR; BENNETT; ALEXANDER; GRAHAM; AND YES ORIN HATCH TOO. Snowe, Collins, and Lugar are the worst offenders and should find now home or comfort with the conservatives. Maybe we should all obtain Maine residency and help vote them out next time. (snowe and collins).

As far as signing a committment, I need to see what exactly is in it. I am not opposed to it from what I do know about it. It would not guarantee Republican Party support as I see it, but might help in the initial screening.

By: iluvit

iluvit — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:03:32 +0000

Why do we have to have such outrageous passwords assigned for this instead or making one of out own. Once we clear the casche we have to go looking for it. I just lost a long post because of this crap because I wrote it before signing in, then it was gone.

By: azred

azred — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:39:27 +0000

Don’t accept words as anything. They must be vetted for doing what they say. If the proof ain’t in the pudding, the quick boot. Otherwise they can be trusted for one core value, honesty (rare find in DC today).
Next two questions:
Watch how I do it (integrity)
Watch who I associate with (moral character) (BHO actually warned us on this one – but I digress).

May be simple minded, but then and only then, go down the path of a simple Articles of Conservatism, or better yet, Constitutional questionnaire. Signing on is only the first part. Vetting the answers comparable to the actuals will either confirm or out them. The funny thing is they can’t hide from their past.

By: jgault

jgault — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:55:18 +0000

to be led around by the nose, since the party itself is more like Democrat-light anyway.

I truley belive that if we become a part of the solution and stop being a part of the problem that things will change. Not only in the party but in the country as well.

Once you start to administer the “Purity Test” you might as well kiss off any form of honesty in the system, or being compared to the Nazis.(This is what they did.) I mean really don’t the troll libbys have enough non-facts to complaine about as is.

Unless you are willing to read EVERY canidates record of voting, the system will be ripe for abuse and putting the fix in.

It will allow coruption at every level and allow those that are in charge of adminstering it, to be as courrupt as those we seek to screen out. It will allow them to have more power than any person should have in this party or goverment.

Be a part of the solution, not the problem. Go here http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/category/becoming-a-precinct-committeeman-step-by-step to find out how.

If all goes well I shall shortly become a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. Thank you to the person who posted this link several weeks ago.

By: seaheather

seaheather — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:39:51 +0000

I stopped donating to the RNC several years ago. I feel much better donating to individual candidates I can feel good about, rather than to the RNC to dole out as they see fit. Why can’t I decide who is “deserving” of my money? I can listen to the candidates and make a decision about which ones I would like to see elected. The RNC continues to send me solicitations. I use their postage-paid envelopes to tell them I have no intention of donating to them, but will support candidates who support my values, without regard to their party.

Karen

By: larrymiller

larrymiller — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:20:37 +0000

In some ways I have to agree with you on this one as you are subtley making the point I and many others have been making for quite some time. Liberals / progressives (and even sometimes “moderates”, whatever they are) are liars. By their nature, they have to tell us something other than what they have in mind, or we would never see them in office.

Yes, I said liars instead of the politically corrupt speak of saying their statements are not true. We need to drop the PC approach that defangs our evaluations of our opponents.

By: steve53

steve53 — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:20:37 +0000

Erick, which issues on RNC Committeeman Jim Bopp’s list concern you?

By: JHancock

JHancock — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:07:08 +0000

And yes I know no candidate will ever be 100% on all issues that are important to me and other “Pure Conservative Advocates”. However for many of us there are some issues that a candidate must be close to 100% on to vote. For example

1)Abortion: While there is some room for disagreement on abortions for medical reasons, any candidate that is OK with elective abortion won’t get our votes even if it means the death of a political party. Better the death of a party than of our National Conscience. It may take a while, but a second party will always resurface-the second party doesn’t matter however, unless it is the party of Life.

Other matters a candidate need not be 100%, just enough on our side of the isle that no one would ever mistake them for a liberal. For example-entitlements and property rights. I am against socialism in almost all its forms, but also realize that without some tax based spending on things like roads and bridges our society would be difficult to run. Also some “entitlements” like a K-12 education are probably necessary to keep our capitalist “meritocracy” from becoming a caste-system aristocracy. Still someone who is OK with entitlements for the “over 18 and not disabled crowd” with limited exceptions could probably run as a Dem in most areas of the country. My litmus test “If you have to tell someone you are a conservative because they can’t tell you are by your voting record, endorsements, or the company you keep….you are probably not a conservative.”

Scozafava failed on both these counts and thus we couldn’t vote for her even if it resulted in a loss. Why?? Because the point of having two parties is to have a choice on policies. If both sides endorse the same things with only minimal differences then we have no real choice and it would be better for a new party that is actually different to emerge.

Now, I’m not advocating a 3rd party, just some “tough love” to the Republican Party, so they will choose to keep us conservatives and our ideals on the bus instead of under it. However, if our leadership doesn’t fear that we will sacrifice them for our ideology, then they will only tow the conservative line for a few months during election season. If they fear us throwing THEM under the bus, they will likely represent us and our ideals better – lest they lose and represent no-one at all.

By: clarioncaller

clarioncaller — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:44:42 +0000

It’s called Core Principals,Those fundiamental principals that members should have if the want the main bodys support.Of course the Republican Party should have them.Would you join a church that didn’t have core principals….would you marry a woman who had no fundiamantals she lived by…would you want you son or daughter to not have principals that guided their life.OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD CORE PRINCIPALS THAT WERE EXPRESSED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION.THOSE ARE THE CORE PRINCIPALS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD STAND FOR……PERIOD.

By: conservativemountaineer

conservativemountaineer — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:34:40 +0000

wrong. Pure and simple. A candidate will never be 100% of what we want the candidate to be.. unless the candidate is me (you). Here in PA we have Conservatives saying they will NEVER vote for Pat Toomey becuase of (a) his [stupid] statement re; Sotomayor, (b) anything else. (See grassrootspa.com, screen name Dolley_Madison, etc.).

Geez, I understand we need to get on the right track, but…

Some of the purists are threatening 3rd Party… Wow, that’ll really work, won’t it?

By: jyalai

jyalai — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:40 +0000

Congress is. Congress gave the president and his government too much control over our society, and presidents get tired just keeping up with it.

If congress stayed within the constitution, presidents would not get burned out so fast.

By: bs

bs — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:22:51 +0000

By: Achance

Achance — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:51:18 +0000

The CSA President was elected to a six year term and could not succeed himself. At or near the top of a large government, four years is an eternity; government is about a 98-2% operation, two percent of the people do 98% of the work at the policy and decision maker level. It just grinds you down. The wheels come off even skilled administrations at the tail end of a second term. FDR’s marathon literally killed people and not just him.

By: Rod_Patrick

Rod_Patrick — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:49:41 +0000

I take your side, EE.

Papers and agreements are nothing. And besides,

PROMISES ARE ALWAYS MEANT TO BROKEN DUE TO OPPORTUNISM.

It always boils down to the INTEGRITY AND HONESTY of the politician.

______

To RNC:

Stop this kind of grandstanding.

People can smell whether Mr. X is faithful or infidel to the party principles and to the American people.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:33:58 +0000

But you’re quite right. Good judgement involves seeing things for what they are.

And then again, in the case of political malfeasance, we get right back to cynicism.

By: realskinny

realskinny — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:32:58 +0000

Erick. It isn’t that hard to tell who believes in self-government and constitutional limits. A candidate’s past actions and statements are revealing. I do have a problem with your saying the GOP pushed the bailouts through Congress in 2008. The Dems were running things at the time and I believe a smaller proportion of Reps voted for TARP than Dems. Bush went with the stampede but then he kind of phoned things in the second term anyway.

By: harlan

harlan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:28:29 +0000

Really now. A very large percentage of politicians of all stripes have demonstrated over the years that they cannot be trusted. Period.
.
We are only showing good judgment, not cynicism, in recognizing that fact.