I think you’ve both fallen into the terminology trap that progressives (the leadership, not rank and file) are using to sow discord between conservatives (what ever the label) and control the debate to their advantage. By defining the terms of the debate (“litmis test”, “no room for liberals”) they move the debate from conservative vs. progressive/liberal principles (which are much easier to discuss rationally) to a finger pointing/emotional shouting match (“you’re mean and narrow minded!”, “you’re just a RINO!”).

Independents want to be open minded and progressive ideas often sound reasonable. Unfortunately, they are invariabley based on a false premise or bad prinicples and always come with a slew of unintended consequences that make the solution worse than doing nothing at all. Please name me one (just one) government program that 1) met its **stated goals**; 2) cost anywhere near what the estimated budget would be; 3) was completed anywhere near the scheduled date (I’m much more forgiving on this point); 4) went away if that was part of the sales pitch. I worked as a federal employee for 10 years and never saw one. Defense and aerospace do a slightly better job of this simply because they know to adjust things for the ridiculous levels of padding contractors are allowed to do. And even they have a lousy record of meeting schedule.

The “you’re just a RINO” crowd is fed up with republicans talking about conservative ideals and then voting like progressives on too many issues. They want to get rid of such hypocritical politicians. They rightly feel that these republicans have at least acquiesed to, and too often participated in, the slide to the left, away from constitutional boundaries, that our country has been in for so long.

Unfortunately, both camps seem to have forgotten that “we elected” these folks and have largely ignored what they do in Washington. Thus allowing them to politically “screw the pooch”. Also, in order to stay elected, they have to conform to what is politically acceptable by their constituents. They may (or at least say they do to the right audience) prefer to vote differently, but will take a pragmatic path rather than an idealistic one to keep from sharing a political version of Rasputin’s fate (poisoned, shot, beaten, drowned and sexually mutilated [first 4 are definate, the last just a rumor]).

Like you Josh I am a registered republican so that I can vote in primaries. I don’t feel a strong affiliation with either party, although I find myself voting for republicans because they come closer to what I believe than democrats. I am disgusted with voters who have abdicated their responsibility to send good people to DC and monitor them enough to know if they deserve a return trip. In the age of the internet, it isn’t that hard to do.

We need to add a good measure of rational analysis of the facts and the principles involved to the debate so that “We the people” not government programs can get us out of the pit we’re in.

We as a people have been so caught up in our own little worlds that we have allowed our elected representatives to virtually trash our constitution. I think that about 70-80% of what the government does is unconstitutional. I’ve heard all of the arguments, “we have to do something for “. I really have no problem with taking a proactive approach to many of our problems, but let’s do them within the constitutional framework or amend it to allow such things if we feel it is really necessary.

You cannot apply 20th or 21st century definitions to 18th century terminology and maintain the integrity of the contract between the people and their goverment. That is really what the constitution is, a contract between the people, the states and the federal government. The “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses have had modern definitions applied to their words and syntax to justify programs that the founders never intended. If you want the constitution to evolve, then amend it. The “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses were extensively debated and their meanings well established prior to ratification of the constitution.

I doubt that anyone would fail to see the illegality of a bank adding a balloon payment to a mortgage by re-interpreting the contract using changed word definitions. Yet people turn a blind eye to equivalent behavior by our govenment when a currently popular idea is conceived and implemented as yet another government program that will never die. By allowing judicial re-interpretation of the constitution to modify what is and isn’t constitutional for the last 78 years, we’ve damaged our country’s basic underpinnings.

I hope that we can recover from our own folly.

But your last sentence pretty much sums up the whole point of my post – that litmus tests and purity arguments will only thin out, fracture, and ultimately destroy the party.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by josheinstein: Blog: Yes we can! Scott Brown wins MA special election! http://bit.ly/6JwT8D...