Some conservatives want the Republican Party to strive for ideological purity in its platform and choice of candidates. Others want to make it official policy.
10 members of the Republican National Committee have put together a resolution that would keep the RNC from endorsing or supporting any candidates who don't agree with at least eight out of 10 principles described in it. (The math is based, natch, on a philosophy straight from former President Reagan, who said, as mentioned in the resolution, "that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.")
National Committeeman James Bopp is leading the charge on the measure; he gained fame earlier this year when he sponsored another resolution, one that would have officially declared President Obama's agenda socialist. That resolution was watered down before it was passed, but Bopp has inserted similar language in this one; it, too, is likely to be toned down somewhat.
Here, via the New York Times' Caucus blog, is the list of principles candidates would have to abide by in order to get the RNC's endorsement and/or money:
- We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
- We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
- We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
- We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
- We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
- We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
- We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
- We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
- We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
- We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
James Perry wants to be the next mayor of New Orleans, but right now, he's an underdog. And because of the city's unique election schedule -- the primary's being held next February -- he doesn't have much time to introduce himself to voters.
So Perry and his campaign have come up with an interesting solution -- an ad that doesn't hold back in expressing what it says are the views of city residents. When a narrator, describing other candidates, says, "Political insiders and career politicians," a woman's face appears onscreen and she says, "What? Are you shitting me?" (The word "shitting" is bleeped out, as are all the other curse words in the add.) Then, a man comes on and asks, "Are you fucking kidding me?" He's followed by another man who simply says, "What the fuck?"
The spot is certainly an attention-grabber, even without the promse Perry makes at its conclusion -- he says he'll cut the city's murder rate by 40 percent or he won't run for re-election. In some cases, a campaign might put an ad like this out solely for the media attention; while that certainly seems to be a factor here, Perry's reportedly spending $60,000 for airtime as well.
Video is below, with a tip of the hat to my former colleague Vincent Rossmeier.
Say this for Glenn Beck: When the guy goes on the road, he doesn’t hold out on his fans. The Fox News host put on a show this weekend in the Villages, Fla., and he played all his classics:
You get the drift. There are vast, sinister and -- most important -- vaguely specified forces out there, about which you should feel massive unease. But don’t fear, America. Beck has a plan. In fact, he has The Plan. He’s assembling a team of advisors (not to run for president, he makes clear), and he’s reading up. Explains Beck:
Here’s how it’s going to work: I’ve done a lot of reading on history in the last few years. And I was amazed to find that what we’re experiencing now is really a ticking time bomb that they designed about a hundred years ago, at the beginning of the Progressive Movement. And they thought, if we just do this, and this, and this and this, over time, if we do it in both the Republican and Democratic parties, we will have our socialist utopia. Well, I say again, two can play at that game. I am drafting plans now to bring us back to an America that our founders would understand … We need to start thinking like the Chinese. I am developing a 100-year plan for America. We will plant this idea and it will sprout roots.
Apparently, Beck is going to hold seven rallies around the country, where he’ll impart the lessons he’s learned about history and policy. “You’re going to learn about history, you’re going to learn about finance, you’re going to learn about community organizing … And then, come August 28 -- I would like you to make your plans now, to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln in Washington, DC… We’re going to Washington together, where I will outline the steps that we need to take.”
OK, so it seems like Beck did hold out on his fans in one big way. I’ve now watched the speech all the way through, and it’s not at all clear what The Plan is. Keep listening to Beck until next summer apparently, and then there’s a new Plan.
This is pretty basic out-of-power movement stuff. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America spent the Bush years holding activist training meetings and rallies also. What’s interesting here is how badly Beck wants to think in continents and feel in centuries, rather than the grubby, day-to-day, unexciting facts of real-world politics. He’s identified a purely imaginary, epic-scale villain, and is pitching his otherwise kind of run-of-the-mill activist exercise as correspondingly high drama. Beck sees a dictator and his unthinking followers on the left, and wants to respond with an instructional national meeting where he can “outline the steps that we need to take.”
Also, just to be clear: If you're the person who told Beck about the 100-year socialist takeover plan, President Obama is very upset with you. Way to ruin it for everyone.
The Senate vote on Democrats' healthcare reform bill Saturday night was close -- maybe too close. Majority Leader Harry Reid won an important victory, no doubt, but he had only the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and move the legislation to the floor, no more. He may not have all 60 when the next cloture motion, the one to break a Republican filibuster and force an up-or-down vote, comes around.
One member of the Senate's Democratic caucus, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has already said he intends to support a filibuster if the bill includes a public option. And he's not the only one saying something like that -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are also talking defection.
That means that unless Reid can work out some sort of deal, he'll need to look for votes elsewhere: specifically, across the aisle. The New York Times reported Monday that he's already done that; along with the White House, he's courting Maine's two senators, Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Both voted with their party on Saturday, but both have also shown signs that they're willing to defect for the right bill. Snowe, for instance, became the only Republican to have voted for any of the Democrats' proposals when she supported the Finance Committee's version of reform legislation.
And Collins is quoted in the Times as saying, "“I have ruled out voting for this bill, but I still very much want to vote for a bill and that is why I am continuing to have discussions. I still cling to the belief that it is possible for a group of us to come together and rewrite the bill in a way that would cause it to have greater support.”
It's done: Senate Democrats gathered 60 votes and got their healthcare reform bill through the first test it will face.
All 60 members of the Senate's Democratic caucus stuck together for this vote, a cloture motion that opens debate on the legislation. Similarly, all 39 of the Republicans who voted opposed the motion. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was the lone senator not voting.
Actual debate on the bill won't begin until after Thanksgiving, and it won't be easy. Already, two members of the Democratic caucus -- Sens. Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln -- have threatened to support a Republican filibuster if it includes a public option, and more could follow.
Later Saturday night, the Senate Democrats' healthcare reform bill will pass its first test. Majority Leader Harry Reid officially has the 60 votes needed to win on a cloture motion that will open debate on the legislation. The last two members of the Democratic caucus to announce their intentions, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, both said Saturday that they'll be voting with their party.
But this is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider -- the public option -- remains in it.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.
Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election -- and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
After 40 years, the Washington Blade closes down
Destroying the So-Called "Unit Cohesion" Argument
On Finding the Source Code of Republican Talking Points