A group of conservative Republicans is set to offer a resolution be considered at next month’s Republican National Committee meeting in Hawai’i, calling on party candidates to embrace a majority of a group of ten positions based on core conservative principles to gain and retain RNC endorsements and funding. I think it’s a brilliant idea that is right for the times. I acknowledge that there are those who disagree and are concerned that such a resolution may end up bringing about more problems than it will solve. But I hold that the resolution will help demonstrate to Republican base voters that the party is serious about a return to conservative principles.
Erick spoke for many conservatives in his reasoned and sincere criticism of the pledge resolution. They are primarily concerned that requiring candidates to take a pledge of this kind will give liberal Republicans cover to proclaim themselves conservative. They worry the pledge will result in more, not less, fiascoes like the DeDe Scozzafava candidacy in New York’s 23rd congressional district.
But the ten positions are written in a way that is broad enough that any Republican should be able to easily clear the bar of 8 out of 10 that the resolution requires. Yet, the positions are specific enough to demonstrate both to base voters and disillusioned independents just what Republicanism entails. And, the positions talk about what we as Republicans stand for, rather than simply what we stand against.
First of all, I know it looks impossible to even say, so let’s clear up that last name. It’s pronounced An-gee-ef-ski. I know, I know, that means here in Illinois we could possibly go from a Governor Blagojevich to an Andrzejewski. But the difficult last name should stand as the only similarity between the two men, for Adam seems to have some ideas on how Illinois might get out of its fiscal nightmare. I interviewed him not long ago and he had some very interesting thoughts on how to fix Illinois. (
A few of our newly minted spokesmen for all those seemingly ubiquitous new Republican moderates out there are starting to say that if we oppose Sotomayor, we do so at our own risk. By this they mean that if we are seen to oppose a strong Hispanic woman we will be hurting our chances further with Hispanic voters. To this one can only say poppycock. Sotomayor should be opposed and vigorously but not because of anything other than her rather un-judicial judicial philosophy.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=78f7f031-dd9b-4b04-8be3-d0e582b863f2)
