"Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
news:19465$MATZDOBRE{at}JamNNTPd:

 RS>> I've just read about a test for republicans, being put forward
 EH>   by the RNC RS> leadership.

 EH> You "just read" it where? Who in the RNC leadership
proposed this? Do
 EH> you even know who is in the RNC leadership?

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions
Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse
conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to
"Obama's socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican
candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in
votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire - would
be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee
members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the
resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter
meeting.

The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said
the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but
also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution
notes, "that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his
friend, not his opponent."

Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with
the party on seven of 10 items. The resolution demands that Republicans
support "smaller government, smaller national deficits and lower taxes,"
denial of government funding for abortion, and "victory in Iraq and
Afghanistan." It calls on candidates to oppose amnesty for illegal
immigrants and repealing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-
resolution-for-candidates/?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema3

 RS>> It says if a republican fails more than 3 of these test
 EH>   questions, they RS> should be drummed out of the republicans ranks.

 EH> Is that so? Of course, you are silent when a black congressman is
 EH> called "not black" because he dared vote against PelosiCare.

If you mean when Jesse Jackson shot his mouth off again, screw him. He's
a has-been, irrelevant.

 RS>> One little problem, this test is based partly on a mythological
 EH>   version of RS> Ronald Reagan, and in fact the real Reagan would have
 EH>   failed this test.

 EH> And here we have the words of an expert on Ronald Reagan. He voted for
 EH> him twice.

I never claimed to be an "expert," dummy. But many in the republican
party are mythologizing Reagan, practically making him a Saint.

 RS>> I've never heard of a political party so bent on
 EH>   self-destructing.

 EH> Until you provide some evidence that backs up your claim, excuse us
 EH> all for not believing you. On second thought, anything you come up
 EH> with will likely prove your claims wrong anyway.

I just did. If you don't like it, take it up with your party bosses.
On whatever radio station their show is.

--- Xnews/5.04.25