Republicans on Capitol Hill are notorious for voting their party line, and since Obama's election, they have made no bones about it -- they simply w
Republicans on Capitol Hill are notorious for voting their party line, and since Obama's election, they have made no bones about it -- they simply want to destroy his presidency no matter the cost to the country. There is, however, a glitch in the borg. After the disaster that was NY-23 earlier this month, when the Palin/Limbaugh/Beck wing of the party took over, the GOP is once again reaching back in time and dragging Ronald Reagan out of his grave to bring the party back together:
First Read has obtained a resoultion being e-mailed around to Republican National Committee members for comments that proposes a conservative litmus test of sorts.
This comes on the heels of a rift in the party that was exposed in the once-obscure special election in Upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, in which national conservative leaders, including Sarah Palin, clashed with national establishment Republicans. The so-called GOP civil war threatens to derail moderate Republican candidacies in heated 2010 Republican primaries already underway. Florida's Senate race is perhaps the best and most prominent example.
"President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent," the resolution states.
But if a candidate disagrees with three of the above, then the group wants the RNC to withhold financial assistance and an endorsement from that candidate. Read on...
The GOP has a huge problem to face. The rabid right has taken over the party and there is virtually no wiggle room left for reasonable moderates. (You can read the full resolution (PDF) here courtesy of MSNBC) This resolution calls for the status quo on health care as well as standing against cap and trade, just to name a few. Any candidate who doesn't bow to the Palin/Beck ticket is going to be tarred, feathered and run out of town.
The resolution also calls for lower deficits, but as Jon Perr adds, smaller deficits are hardly "Reaganesque."