After the NY 23rd disaster, where the RNC backed candidate withdrew and then supposed the democrat, I suppose we need to make it a little clearer who is a Republican and who is not. The RNC has offered this: My comments are in italics.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
Good.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
Good.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
Awkward wording, but OK
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
Good
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
I am uncomfortable with this one. Immigrants become intensely loyal citizens. I’m for cutting them as much slack as possible. Current US immigration law is a tangled mess and decent hardworking people who apply for admission wind up waiting for decades. We are a country of 300 million, we ought to be able to assimilate a million immigrants as year.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Good, but it could be shorter and sweeter, just a plain “We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Period.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Weak. Are we willing to use force to deny either country nuclear weapons? If not, then giving them a diplomatic cold shoulder after they test their first nuke seems irrelevant.
And speaking for myself, the use of force seems awfully drastic.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
I’m against this one. It’s a divisive issue that offends as many voters as it gains. If two guys or two girls what to shack up and call it marriage, I don’t approve, but I don’t need to make it illegal.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and....
Seems redundant. We are against Obamacare, and if we can defeat Obamacare then this becomes irrelevant.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms.
Good.
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.....
2 comments:
Point 9 is ve-ry interesting. "Denial of Health Care" is one of the things it opposes. How can you oppose that, *and* oppose a government plan at the same time? Someone with no insurance is guaranteed to be denied health care. How do the Republicans recommend those people get insured? Expand Medicaid? Oh wait, isn't that Government Healthcare? Shit.
I read that as opposing potential problems in Obamacare, such as no mammograms for women under fifty, no organ transplants for patients over 60, or who smoke, or whatever. If we don't have Obamacare then we don't need to oppose problems with Obamacare.
Nobody is denied healthcare right now, whether they have insurance or not. Drag yourself into a hospital emergency room and they have to treat you, it looks really bad to pitch the sick and injured out in the street. The hospital plays catchup by charging insured patients a little bit more. Actually quite a bit more, and they charge the patient's insurance companies, rather than the patients.
The way to expand availability of health care is to reduce the cost, not to insure everyone. We can start with tort reform and move on to selling health insurance across state lines.
Post a Comment