Many assume that the Republicans can't win with this platform, but I think they can ["Republicans Push European-Style Political System," usnews.com]. While it may frustrate the politicos of the media and Washington elites, it will not frustrate the electorate. As for this eliminating Reagan and others, I think not. Reagan believed in these principles. His policies increased government revenue. However, he had a Congress led by the opposing party. Bush, however, did fail because he had a Republican Congress and still increased the debt. There seems to be madness in Washington. Our leaders have spent until we are beyond broke, and they will not recognize it. The only legislation they should be considering is that which would eliminate programs, that which would reduce our burden. Taxing rich people can only go so far. Adding taxes to medical suppliers, drug companies, corporations or insurance companies will only increase our burden because all those taxes will be passed to the consumer in cost. Unless they can think of ways to reduce government expenditures our Congress should take a long recess.
Comment by Frederick Stone of NC
There might be ideologically pure candidates who could win primaries, but they will lose elections. Until the Republicans learn how to get broader support and re-take the middle of the political spectrum, they will continue to be a minority party. The gun issue made it on the list. I'm surprised a flat out anti-choice position wasn't taken as well to narrow our candidates (and supporters). When will we tire of losing?
Comment by Sheldon Rabinowitz of IA
If I disagree with a candidate more than 20 percent of the time, I will not vote for them. Why do I want money I donate to the party to elect someone I disagree with more than 20 percent of the time? I think the Republican Party needs to differentiate itself from the opposition. If there is no choice on the ballot, voters will not turn out. This is the wisest thing the Republicans have done in 20 years. It might have saved us from Arlen Specter's treachery. The Dems have litmus tests for political correctness and openly strive to stifle discussions that vary from the party line. Do I need to remind you of Gov. [Robert] Casey not being permitted to speak at the Democratic Convention in 1992? We really don't need the left's advice about how we should run our party.
Comment by B. Ritchis of PA
I'm glad somebody explicitly spelled out why the path of ideological purity tends to be destructive to American political parties. Among many things Tea Partiers don't understand is that they need to radically change the American political system to get the kind of politics they want. As long as the American political system is what it is, no party consisting entirely of hardcore ideologues will be able to sustain consistent majorities.
Comment by Kevin S. of OH
One thing that strikes me about this list is how many state "We support...by opposing..." This goes to an ongoing criticism of the Republicans that they are very good at fighting policy, while being very poor at proposing and marketing their own to counter it. But then again, they aren't called the "opposition" for nothing.
Comment by John of VA