1 edit
I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing. If one of the core issues within the Republican party is not to do these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing.
I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
a) How would you define "large"?
b) It's one thing if the GOP were one of 10 parties. Then it could afford to be parochial in that way. As one of the 2 major parties in a system, you cannot enforce that kind of litmus test... well, not if you want to win back majority of the government anyway...
Originally posted by whodeyIt kind of confirms what I've always perceived. That the Democratic Party is the "large tent" that welcomes diverse ideas an opinions, and the Republican party is the small but militant tent.
I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The Democratic Party is more welcoming and appealing to the masses, while the Republican Party gets its power from uniformity. If the Repubs only have 40 Senators you can bet your behind all 40 will be in lock-step with tactical votes and manouvers.
Originally posted by whodeyI think republicans should be screened.
I was listening on the radio today that someone suggested within the Republican party that politicians within the party should support core key issues in order for the party to fund their future elections. Has anyone heard of this? To be in the party you would agree to a core set of issues. So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or ...[text shortened]... these things, the next time you run for election you can rely on your own pocket change to run.
Line them up against a wall, screen them and shoot em'.
But, why stop at just republicans?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI thought that the whole point of a party system was to get people with common core issues together. In my opinion, the lumping of core issues into two large groups is one of the failings of the party system. It is not easy to support one issue from one party and another issue from the other party.
Has anyone heard of this?
It may even be a barrier to parties changing their policies. Once a policy is labelled republican, can the democrats never support it?
I have also met Americans who say they can never switch parties whether they support the policies or not. Once republican always republican.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIndeed. In fact, most Republicans I know could just as easlity be a democrat.
[b]It kind of confirms what I've always perceived. That the Democratic Party is the "large tent" that welcomes diverse ideas an opinions, and the Republican party is the small but militant tent.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe Dems are more welcoming? Try telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine. And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care. Now I forget, will they be imprisoned or simply have their houses taken away? Details, details.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The Democratic Party is more welcoming and appealing to the masses, while the Republican Party gets its power from uniformity. If the Repubs only have 40 Senators you can bet your behind all 40 will be in lock-step with tactical votes and manouvers.[/b]
Originally posted by sh76You could say that they need to balance their budget, otherwise, not campaign money next go round.
[b]So the way it works is, lets say you support large spending and/or taxing.
a) How would you define "large"?
b) It's one thing if the GOP were one of 10 parties. Then it could afford to be parochial in that way. As one of the 2 major parties in a system, you cannot enforce that kind of litmus test... well, not if you want to win back majority of the government anyway...[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe whole problem is that for a very long time now, there has been very little difference between the two parties. Just look at "W" and his twin Obama. Both are headed in the same direction on a great many issues.
[b]I thought that the whole point of a party system was to get people with common core issues together.
Originally posted by whodeyTry telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine.
The Dems are more welcoming? Try telling that to Fox news and those threatened by such things as the Fairness Doctrine. And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care. Now I forget, will they be imprisoned or simply have their houses taken away? Details, details.
The overwhelming majority of Democrats, including President Obama (who has veto powers) opposes the fairness doctrine. It's a non-issue right wing pundits push down your throat becuase they know you will close your eyes and swallow.
And while your at it, try telling that to the future violators who fail to sign up for health care.
While I also disagree with a mandate - your statement is dishonest. The proposed penalty is a tax. Fines and (in extreme cases) jail time are what could happen to anyone who doesn't pay their taxes.
And BTW, great job at parroting the right-wing sensationalist talking points.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBut support of it comes from the left. In fact, I saw a Dem from the Senate the other day compare talk radio to obscenity and therefore should be banned from the air waves. Personally, I think the majority favor it but publically deny it due to the fact the issue is such a hot potato. Instead, Obama simply bans Fox news from the White House in addition to censoring questions that are asked before they are asked. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
The overwhelming majority of Democrats, including President Obama (who has veto powers) opposes the fairness doctrine. It's a non-issue right wing pundits push down your throat becuase they know you will close your eyes and swallow.