So much for the big tent of the Republican party.

Republicans have strict moral guide posts to steer them towards moral legislation and they stick to them very strongly unless a REpublican defeats a Democrat in Massachussetts, then whatever he believes, it's cool.
It's party above conviction.
You're totally pro=life but if a pro-choice candidate can give you a senatorship in MA then what the hell.

Christ Danni. Cry us a fucking river will you?

If a republican votes prolife......he is an idiot.
If a republican votes regardless of that stupid issue....he is an idiot.

Either way you will cry.

your faux outrage is noted.

S'matter eb?
Panties getting wet?

Go for it, Repubs.

Exclusion has always been the best way to build a political party.

Getting the progressives out of the party is the only way to save it.

Keep making the tent smaller until you become a pup tent.

Pup tent? They are gonna be one of them instant set canopies soon.

Getting the progressives out of the party is the only way to save it.

Hilarious how one day the wingaloons tell us the Dems and Obama must move to the center to align with the country and the next day tell us that the GOP has to move to the far right to survive.

Keep it up.

Why would anyone want you to move to the center? What you were doing was working so well.

GOP offers plan to help reduce the size of the party...

Funniest headline in forever.

They are calling the plan, "The Tea Party".

David Dreier wanted to call it the "Teal Party", but he was voted down.

They are making the same mistake the dems made: trying to enforce a national morality.

In case you missed it the article is from the New York Times. What they are actually talking about is putting together a definition for the GOP not trying to down size the party.

This is a Great Idea.

It can be the Campbell Soup Version of the GOP

The New GOP, Condensed Stupid in a Can!

In a way, I understand the motivation for this suggestion however, if the Republican Purists truly seek purity, they're gonna have to bolt the marshmallow soft GOP and form a new party from scratch.

Will they do that?

Hell no. They're too marshmallow soft. Such action requires bold, committed individuals willing to stand for what they believe in at the risk of losing it all. Your average Republicrat politician is a megalomaniac, not a Statesman.

Hanging onto rusty canards like same-sex marriage and abortion will doom the Republican party to obscurity.

Wonder how a gun-toting anti-abortion protester wearing fur and driving an SUV would be welcomed by the Democratic party. How about as a Democratic candidate?

"How about as a Democratic candidate?"

The Democratic Party has elected officials all over the country who fit most or even all of that description.

Democrats For Life of America

These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love...but they had the strength...the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment! Because it's judgment that defeats us....We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig... cow after cow... village after village... army after army...I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream; that's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight razor... and surviving.

But I digress from the central message: We have to kill the GOP in order to save the GOP.

A purity test?

As in "purely ignorant"?

The rethugs are talking about imposing a test on all candidates that will no doubt shrink their already tiny base even further.

A test that woulda disqualified Scott Brown from running in MA.

Gotta luff the rethugs luff fer their singlemindedness.

Goose-stepping their way into the hearts of millions!

GL with that.

Be Well.

The only ones left will be the twin icons of the GOP. An elephant and an old, fat, white guy who is afraid of change... I say do it! The quicker the better!

The "Reagan Test"

How about a "Goldwater" test since Reagan is the reason the GOP is such a joke today?

"Purity Test" kind of has a nice ring to it. Dredges up images of an inquisition and a looming Republican holy war.

Just proves it is a time for some new parties. It's happened before in our history. Time to happen again. Honestly, we need 4 or 5 parties so there is bipartisanship and not this quagmire we have today.

More power to the Ultra Conservative Repubs. Makes them look like douche bags to moderates. They already do to Liberals (and vice versa I am sure.)

funny how the demoRATS chime in with their views of republican party.

While you are at it, tell us how you feel about those tea party participants too!

Can you offer any reasons why Mass voted republican?

Yeah, a "purity test". Reminds of the purity of Shrub, Paulson, Cheney, Delay, Cunningham, Feeney, Foley, Craig, Rove, Sanford.....

what is more viciously hypocritical than anti-gay legislation promoted by gay Rethuglicans...there is a boatload of these fuckwads in Washington...so many it warranted an HBO Special.

I guess this story will get a new thread every three weeks forever -- or at least every time another player in the MSM pretends it is breaking news.

""purity" resolution being put forth by some conservatives"

Resolutions are put forward (in all parties) all the time. Sometimes they are benign and sometimes ridiculous.

The fact that the GOP is willing to discuss an idea shows how they are more tolerant than the Democrats.

"GOP Offers Plan to Reduce Size of Party"

Pestilence would work well as far as I'm concerned.

Funny how the libs are firing away at this. I recommend that you libs don't start sucking eachother off just yet. This isn't going to happen becauses they know they need a bigger tent to win in November.

The fact that the GOP is willing to discuss an idea shows how they are more tolerant than the Democrats.

If they are more tolerant then why do they want to weed out the yellow dog republicans? Did I miss something here or is vernon the one who dropped the ball?

and candidate for the Republican nomination for Senate against Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, made a striking pronouncement at a meeting late last year of the "Evansville 2nd Amendment Patriots": That if new people don't get elected to Congress in 2010, he'll be getting out his guns to face down the American government.

"That's the beauty of this, folks. We can do it before it gets to guns," said Behney, in praise of the electoral process. "All right, our founders brought out the guns. When they showed up at Lexington and Concord, regular folks, farm boys, doctors, merchant men, and they said you ain't taking our stuff. They stood up to the most powerful army in the world, and they bought our freedom, literally with their blood. And we don't have to do that yet.

"I believe personally, we're at a crossroads. We have one last opportunity. And I believe 2010 is it. All right? And we can do it with our vote. And we can get new faces in, whether it's my face or not, I pray to God that I see new faces. And if we don't see new faces, I'm cleaning my guns and getting ready for the big show. And I'm serious about that, and I bet you are, too. But I know none of us want to go that far yet, and we can do it with our vote."

Yup, clearly reaching out to the moderates.

woops:
Richard Behney, an Indiana Tea Party activist and candidate for the Republican nomination for Senate against Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh,

If they are more tolerant then why do they want to weed out the yellow dog republican

Yellow Dog Democrats was a term applied to U.S. Southern voters who voted solely for Democratic candidates, with the term commencing in the late 19th century. Due to Republican president Abraham Lincoln's leading the Union against the Confederacy, these voters would allegedly "vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for any Republican". Currently, the term is now more generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight Party ticket under any circumstances.

By that token, they're not trying to weed out republicans who vote straight party ticket. They're trying to weed out the people who might sometimes vote for a Democrat.

Currently, the term is now more generally applied to refer to any Democrat who will vote a straight Party ticket under any circumstances.

I just redefined the term now, didn't I. A yellow dog Republican is someone who would rather vote for a yellow dog then tow the party line.

If there is one thing you can never accuse a republican of, it is being tolerant. You can't accuse most democrats of being like that. I actually voted for Bush before I voted against him.

I just redefined the term now, didn't I. A yellow dog Republican is someone who would rather vote for a yellow dog then tow the party line.

Maybe you redefined it in your own universe, but for everyone that lives in the real world, a Yellow Dog is someone who votes straight party ticket.

Why would the republicans want to kick someone out who votes straight republican ticket -- no matter what?

They wouldn't. So your re-definition is not only wrong, but it's stupid too.

There is already a name for the types of people that the Republicans would push out with stupid crap like this.

They're labeled RINO's. "Republicans In Name Only".

Hanging onto rusty canards like same-sex marriage

#17 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

I guess you want to marry your dog? What is marriage?

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

This acording to webster.

You guys need to quit generalizing the Tea Party movement with the Christion Conservatives. I'm sure that there are a lot of CC's attending the Tea Parties, but the Tea Parties are about taxation and small government.

This results of questionnaire like this, if one ever does get used, would likely raise some eyebrows amongst Republicans. I'd bet money that there is a growing majority of fiscal conservatives who favor small government but don't give a crap about abortion or anything else regarding religion and politics. I certainly fall into that group. It's one (there are more) reason I can't stand to listen to Sean Hannity - he's one step away from being an Evangelical Preacher half the time. His mistake is the same as yours - he's stereotyping.

They're trying to weed out the people who might sometimes vote for a Democrat.

#36 | Posted by Axiom at 2010-01-28 06:06 AM

And yet the Republicans are BLAMING Obama for being TOO PARTISAN...

OCU

but the Tea Parties are about taxation and small government.

I'm sorry, but I call bull shit.

I'd love to see a grass roots movement in favor of government, but I don't have any issue with taxation. What I have an issue with is wasteful spending, corporate influence over government and actions that the government takes in my name. Ie...blowing up brown people in the guise of securin' the homeland.

That's not the Tea Party movement. The tea party movement isn't a grass roots movement. It's a corporate sponsored political movement created and designed to manipulate people who feel disenfranchised with the system.

Now, you personally, might not give a shit about religion or abortion, and there may be thousands of people like you in the Tea Party Movement.

But you're a minority when compared to the people who, six years ago, thought our globe-trotting-war-machine should make pit stops in every Middle-Eastern country on the map. People who gladly offered up their civil liberties to daddy government when it said "you have to make small sacrifices for some security...we promise...it won't last long".

Basically, they're hypocrites. And the only thing I hate worse than a hypocrite is a hypocrite who knows he's one but refuses to acknowledge it.

First line correction : "I'd love to see a grass roots movement in favor of small government,"

#44 | Posted by Axiom

Much of this is grassroots, but it is being or has been hijacked. I'm not sure if it's because there's so much that needs fixing, no one knows where to start, or if it's because independent people don't function well in groups. Just like government, no one worth a damn wants to lead so you end up with some fool in charge. Eventually people get tired of being led by fools and they stop following. This will last until they get someone they feel comfortable with or they just give up. Nothing much changes.

It may have been begun as a grass roots campaign, but once the corporate money and main stream media personalities became more than just involved, but in control of the movement, it became nothing but a joke.

"I'd love to see a grass roots movement in favor of [small] government, but I don't have any issue with taxation. What I have an issue with is wasteful spending, corporate influence over government and actions that the government takes in my name. Ie...blowing up brown people in the guise of securin' the homeland."

Small government would, by definition, require less taxes. The problem I have with our government is that it has completely abandoned any real activity aimed at reducing it size. They don't argue about how much to spend (even though it would seem that way) - they argue about where to spend the cash (I think that was your argument, wasn't it? Funding the wars? It seemed like a fiscal concern, not a conscientious conern.).

People piss and moan about how the democrats and republicans can't get along, but most don't see the width of the gap in their philosophies. There are many: supply side versus demand side economics, labor versus management, fiscal freedom versus social freedom....so many.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Libertarian Party doesn't gain more traction. I believe if most people just quit voting the way their parents did and picked up a few books, we'd have a nation with low taxes, higher employment, better education, self reliance and more social freedoms.

Small government would, by definition, require less taxes.

That's nonsense.

Even the (comparatively) smallest governments in the history of the world required what would be considered obscene taxes.

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the Libertarian party. What do they have to do with the Corporate Sponsored Tea Party Movement?

Small government would, by definition, require less taxes.

That's nonsense.

Even the (comparatively) smallest governments in the history of the world required what would be considered obscene taxes.

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the Libertarian party. What do they have to do with the Corporate Sponsored Tea Party Movement?