Yep, it’s RNC survey time again!!
Received it in the mail four days ago. It has taken this long to not only compose this post, but to calm down enough to think clearly. In light of the sterling effort by the RNC, at all levels, to provide us with candidates which make one proud and honored to “vote Republican”, along with their amazing ability to kept their fingers on the pulse of the (conservative) American voting public, let’s get down to brass tacks and go through the list of survey questions.
1. Do you believe Barack Obams’s economic polices have:
a) Helped make the economy better.
b) Had no impact on the economy.
c) Made the economy worse.
Love those softball questions, right from the start, don’t you? Had this “survey” gone out to all households with voting age residents, I could see it being of interest. That it supposedly is going to “Republican Households”, should ensure “c” is the only obvious answer. (And yes, I chose “c”.)
2. Do you believe that Barack Obama deserves a second term as President?
This is going to only GOP households, correct?? Ya know, folks who want small(er) government, less intrusion into business/bedrooms/private affairs, a return to a stronger adherence to the Constitution … just checking.
3. Do you agree with Barack Obama and the Democrats that taxes should be raised for the sake of “fairness”, regardless of the negative effect it has on the economy?
At the risk of being redundant, I won’t address this one as I did the first two. Although it seems to follow the same clueless trend. Of bloody well course I don’t agree with Obama, and I don’t want my taxes raised, certainly not for the nebulous “reason” of “fairness”! “Especially” if it is going to have a negative effect on the economy!! Is the RNC trying to ferret out GOP impostures? Do they expect to find something higher than perhaps a half of a percent who would actually consider this a good idea? (More on this at the end of the survey.)
4. Do you support passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
At last!!! A legitimate question!!!! In all honesty, if I thought the House and Senate, with in six months of having said amendment placed into the Constitution, wouldn’t have figured out at least one “end run” around same, than yes I would be for it.
5. Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Short answer: Build the wall, fill the moat, man the watch towers, along the border, and then we can address the issue of illegals in this country. Priorities gentlemen, priorities!
6. Should improving border security be a national security priority?
First off, I don’t want it “improved”… I want the damn border secured!!! Yes, I know you can not reasonably expect the whole border to be “closed off”. But you can put any number of plans in action which will cause such a radical drop off in illegals being able to enter the country as to make that no longer an issue. Over and above the “securing” of the border(s), proper screening of all who enter, and of all major avenues of entry would be the most effective way to deal with “border security”. Not so much worried about the poor schmuck who comes from any where in the world, seeking to make a better life for himself, or trying to provide for his family back where ever home is. (We do this right, and they will be allowed in on workers visas anyhow) What I am worried about is the folks who cross the border for less than honorable reasons. Be it drug running, gun running, various other organized crime activities/interests, and of course those rascally terrorists, who right now, stand a pretty good chance of crossing our border unscathed. Oh, and if by “national security priority” you are talking about Homeland Security being in charge of this, than thanks but no thanks, I’ll pass.
7. Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program?
Nope. Unless they want to pay retro-actively (with applicable penalties) to “buy into” the program, than we could discuss this further. And my, aren’t we hot to trot on this amnesty thing. Didn’t that little item pose a bit of a problem for the last Republican to hold office?
8. Should Congress act to preserve the fiscal soundness of Social Security, even if it means raising the age of eligibility, setting income limits and providing opt-out, private account options for younger individuals?
Might not be a bad idea…seems like this was something the last Republican President suggested years ago. Wonder why his fellow GOP folks didn’t push harder to get this in place? I expect this will happen about the same time the Cubs reach the World Series. And will have about the same chance of passing as the Cubs have of winning same.
9. Do you believe that measures should be put in place to make it easier to impeach federal judges who legislate from the bench in direct conflict with the original intent of the Constitution?
Wow!! Another legit question!! Would have to brush up on my Constitution, but wouldn’t something like this have to arrive in the form of an amendment? Especially if we are talking about federal judges? Something along the lines of clearly defining their responsibilities (I assume they have to take something akin to the Oath I took many times in the service….about protecting and defending the Constitution…but I could be wrong.), and duties as a federal judge. And specifically add what the penalties are for willfully falling short of this. IF the bar is set at “original intent of the Constitution, or as currently amended” and there is some definition in place, so as to make the “intent” perfectly clear, than I could go along with this. My problem is the folks who are the grossest violators are the ones who either view the Constitution as a non-entity, or as it being suborned to a “higher” (read UN or EU) law, or as something which is “living breathing” (ie: constantly changing in interpretation). If you can pin the bastards down to specific parameters, than we might have something here.
10. Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability?
If this is referring back to the old “No Child Left Behind” debacle, you have got to be kidding. Since when have teachers, and any others in the school systems (yeah there are exceptions, sadly they are not the rule) been judged on performance and or accountability? The best way is to get rid of the Department of Education, and return the setting of standards to as local a level as possible. If little Johnny is not recieving a quality education, perhaps a more direct involvement by his parents in the local school would lead to a change in same. Then again, there is always home schooling.
11. Do you believe that President Obama and Democrats intend for their “Obama Care” national health insurance plan to lead to a federal takeover of all health insurance administration with “”single-payer” coverage?
Is the Pope Catholic…. Sheesh! Of course this is (at least part of) the plan! With the current administration already seeking to control any number of (formerly) privately owned companies/institutions (“Government Motors” anyone?), along with the continued advancement of their socialist/communist/statist agenda, the answer to this question should not only be obvious to anyone with five active brain cells operating in tandem, but should not be surprising.
12. Do you believe that the quality and availability of healthcare will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals?
Sure it will! The same way government intervention and oversite brought about a higher standard and overall improvement in the quality of education when they “invented” the Department of Education, making us the envy of the rest of the world when they looked at the intellectual achievements of our high school seniors. (And again, the RNC is sending this to “the supposed party faithful”, expecting what kind of response?)
13. Are you in favor of repealing ObamaCare?
No … I am in favor of bringing impeachment proceedings against any and all elected officials who supported, sponsored, and voted for this unconstitutional piece of trash! (Sigh! Perhaps there is a Democrat “mole” on the RNC payroll who wrote these questions.)
14. Are you in favor of creating a national energy tax to force citizens and businesses to adopt costly “green” technology?
Hey!!! RNC!!! What part of the party platform … specifically relating to “smaller and unobtrusive government” is beyond your understanding? OF COURSE I AM AGINST THIS!!!
15. Do you believe President Obama has made job creation a top priority of his Administration?
If by “job creation”, you mean “insuring ol Barack has a job “created for him, for as long as he wants it”; then yes, Obama has made job creation a top priority. Oh for fuck sake!!! If there is anyone out there who has an IQ north of two digits who buys into the myth Obama is hard at work making “job creation” his top priority, and is a member of the GOP … would someone go and take their voters registration card away from them now!! And take their drivers license too, cause someone whose reality is that far out from the norm, should not be operating a motor vehicle.
16. Do you support the Obama Administrations’s efforts to bring foreign terrorist detainees into U.S. federal courts rather than using military tribunals for their trials?
I thought this was a dead issue, that the detainees were, in fact, going to be tried by military tribunals. If this is the case, than this question is rather moot. (Kinda like the survey) However, if they are still trying to get the followers of the Pedophile Prophet of Peace and his moon god, to have their day in court in a civilian venue … funny that … I thought most cases of non-uniformed combatants fell under the heading of spies, saboteurs, and other nere-do-wells. And as such, they, by the Geneva Convention, should be accorded no such amenities. In fact they should be tried by a military court, and if found guilty; fried, shot, or hanged. Short answer; of course I don’t support this!
Oh, and for future reference RNC, if any future questions have the words “support”, “approve”, or “condone” immediately preceding “Obama”, his “administration”, or “Democratic Party supported legislation”, you can pretty much bank on me being against it. Just saving you some time and effort.
17. Do you support Democrats’ drive to eliminate workers’ rights to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment?
No, of course not. (Tired of beating non-responsive equine creature.)
And there you have it…and you can keep it…as far away from me as possible.
If this upcoming primary, and by extension, the upcoming national election, were not of such great importance, this whole survey would be laughable. It is anything but a joke.
So let’s take it from the top.
The RNC, as evidenced by the quality and type of questions asked, either doesn’t have a clue about the electorate they claim to represent, is willfully ignoring the vast majority of it’s actual (and potential) members, has forgotten the platform (or primary planks) of their party, or all the above. And I get there is (and almost always has been) a Northeastern faction of the party which felt it was much better to “go along, to get along”…as long as their business interests were met (or at least compensated for). That there has been a faction of the party who, for lack of a better description, were little more than SKUNCs (Statists Knowingly Undermining National Charters) and or RINO’s, also has not escaped me.
And yet, even when you subtract these two groups of individuals from GOP party members, there should be enough folks left over who would be able to act as the legitimate representative for the majority of the party, the “real base of the Republican Party”, as to keep the other factions in check. Is the GOP so splintered, so factionalized, as to be little more then a shell of its former self.
When was the last time a real conservative was at the helm? Either Bush? Not hardly. Though at least they understood, when push came to shove, American interests came first, and threats to America would be answered by force (Perhaps not as much as some would like, but force none the less.) Reagan? Probably as close to a “real conservative” as anyone has seen since Barry Goldwater, he (Reagan) tended to remind me more of an affable Uncle, who after experiencing much of what life had to offer, was singularly able to impart his wisdom and common sense to the American public at large. But Reagan was not the darling of the GOP establishment…and therein lies the crux of the matter.
As oft-time stated, by Limbaugh and others, the RNC and or other Republican “elites” are far more interested in being liked, accepted (into the “in crowd”), or at the very least of portraying themselves as being the “button-down, more straight-laced brother” to the (formerly) long haired hippie across the political aisle; then they are in espousing and implementing the basic conservative principles of the Republican Party.
“Compassionate Conservatism”, “Reaching across the aisle”, “Bi-partisanship”, became GOP phrases of the day. Whatever political courage may have once been present, in the legislative, and executive branches, while under Republican control, if not comatose already, died very shortly after Bush (the younger) became President. As much as progressives openly pushed their agendas, the GOP caved, backtracked, all the while talking loudly but carrying a little (if any) stick.
And still the GOP coffers continued to receive funding. It appeared not to matter that any given candidate was a RINO or SKUNC, with very few giving little more than lip service to conservative ideas and ideals. Many of us refused to send monies, when asked. In fact right around the time of the ’08 elections, I was solicited (by phone) to help in the election of John McCain. The unfortunate caller, got an ear full. I imagine I was not the only one expressing my displeasure. And of course we lost.
Fast forward to the events leading up to the mid-term elections in 2010. The Tea Party had made its presence known and the resulting fall out was a number of new candidates running for office, who up until then, might not have done so. But even here, especially during the primaries, the establishment Republicans took a very dim view, toward these political upstarts. The message was still not getting through.
Which brings us to the present. And yet another “survey” supposedly sent out to gauge where the “rank and file” Republicans “stand on the important issues”.
They still don’t have a clue!!
Most of the questions are so obvious in their answers as to be down right demeaning to anyone professing to be conservative. Even more telling is this is coming from the RNC, the folks who should have their political fingers on the pulse of their “body politic”. Out of the seventeen questions asked. I can honestly say only a handful merited any serious response. Given the chance perhaps some conversation over the issue behind the question. The rest … if this was the “Democratic Lite Party”, or perhaps “Socialists Sauntering Toward a Collective Tomorrow” such idiotic questions would be acceptable. However, this is supposed to be the Republican Party.
The “leadership” (obvious scorn quotes … need you ask?) doesn’t care. They haven’t cared in quite some time.
It is time for one of two things to happen.
1. We the rank and file rise up and re-take the party. Return the GOP to its roots. Smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, more accountability. A strong defense, a return to adherence to the Constitution and rule of law, and reacquainting ourselves with that “shining city on the hill” Ronald Reagan was so fond of.
2. If the Tea Party can become such a resounding success in such a short length of time, who’s to say another party could not rise up to meet the needs, wants, and desires of the American conservative and Constitution loving public. The original Republican platform was not all that complicated, if we ran with the same one (heaven knows they aren’t using it any more) with a strong accent on adherence to the Constitution, there may be more folks out there than we realize. If for no other reason than to promote candidates who are up front from the get go with their potential constituents. Who are legitimately on board with the party platform, and not some one picked solely for their “chances of winning any given election”. (Solved by proper vetting up front, and not based on it being “their turn to run/win”.)
*Goes off to shred the survey, might at least make for some good fire starting material.*
What say you all?