(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Unless they are in control of the government apparently. Both parties suck at this because cutting the budget in any significant way is really, really hard. Does anyone want to cut back on social security, weaken medicare, or make big cuts to the defense budget?
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
Unless it's Medicare or the VA. Not to mention government run healthcare isn't in the bill. The public option and exchanges are government run insurance and aren't mandatory.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
What energy reforms? Cap and trade is to some extent market-based. This should be do they support carbon emission controls or not.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
I don't know enough about this issue to have a good opinion
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
A reasonable stand
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
Do they want to increase troop levels in Iraq and violate the agreement with the Iraq government negotiated by the Bush administration? What does victory mean in Afghanistan? Russians can tell you that increasing troops isn't the only factor.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Whatever that means.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
Reasonable stand. I disagree, but at least it's specific.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion;
The purpose of health care reform is to expand coverage, the current system already is effective at denying and rationing care. Perfectly reasonable to oppose government funding of abortion though, though I think the current house legislation goes beyond that to blocking private funding too.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
Perfectly fine. I agree that the second amendment cannot be ignored, though I might quibble with a few points where I don't think there is a violation.
A couple of actual specific stands and a bunch of hot air. Meh.
It's kind of sweet that they take the 8 out of 10 thing so literally. Almost like it was a verse out of revelation.
You gotta love that "WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views;" is in the same document.
I imagine the Democratic purity test would be.
(1) We agree to call ourselves Democrats.
I think that's about the extent of what you could do.
We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat; Whatever that means.
We're going to turn a big glass jar upside down over Iran and North Korea and then slide a piece of cardboard underneath to make sure they're contained.
Perfectly reasonable to oppose government funding of abortion
Not wanting to open a can of worms, but I disagree. It's a legal medical procedure. Are other legal medical procedures specifically blocked from coverage under the public option? As others have noted, we as Americans don't generally get to choose where our tax dollars go, or mine wouldn't be going to fund industrial farming, etc.
though I think the current house legislation goes beyond that to blocking private funding too.
My understanding is that the amendment states that if you get any public subsidy, your private insurance may not cover your abortion using public funds. Or something. Which enrages me b/c the whole point is equal access to medical care. But whatever.
Not wanting to open a can of worms, but I disagree. It's a legal medical procedure.
I think the stand is reasonable, it's specific and not hypocritical. Whether a legal procedure should be specifically excluded is another matter.
I think the amendment says that if you get any public subsidy that you cannot purchase a private insurance plan that covers abortion.
My understanding is that the amendment states that if you get any public subsidy, your private insurance may not cover your abortion using public funds.
Under Stupak, if the plan covers abortion, then it cannot accept
any
participants using government subsidies. Which means that plans have a choice - say bye bye to a huge chunk of the initial market for the exchange, or bye bye to abortion services. In effect, no plans will offer abortion coverage even though they're not specifically barred.
As others have noted, we as Americans don't generally get to choose where our tax dollars go, or mine wouldn't be going to fund industrial farming, etc.
I don't really think that's true. We don't get to choose as individuals, but we can elect people who will enact legislation to change where our tax dollars go. If there was enough support to prevent subsidies for certain types of farming, it could be done.
I think the stand is reasonable
What are your criteria for "reasonable" (serious question)? My personal criteria include logical and fair.
We don't get to choose as individuals, but we can elect people who will enact legislation to change where our tax dollars go. If there was enough support to prevent subsidies for certain types of farming, it could be done.
Right, but the chances of finding a candidate that agrees with every one of any given individual's stances is pretty small, if not infinitesimally so.
In effect, no plans will offer abortion coverage even though they're not specifically barred.
Excuse me while I go have a rage blackout (/Summer Roberts). Talk about government interference in the private market. And Stupak's a Dem, right? I wonder if there was a pro-abortion Dem candidate in his district. See above re: having to vote for candidates who don't support all your views.
