How Republican are you?
 

A GOP purity test? - First Read - msnbc.com

A month or two ago, the RNC is trying to come up with a test to determine how Republican their candidates are so they don't have two Republicans on the ballot like they did in the last New York election.

So, which one of these beliefs do you think work? Which ones do you disagree with? And do you think if the Republicans were able to be the majority in the house next year, they would actually do anything good or get any of these values passed?



(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I will say that it is propaganda calling #1, "Obama's" stimulus bill. And since more Republicans were helped by it than Democrats, I question why it is #1. Plenty of people would be hurt by unregulated market contractions when lots of companies would fail for no fault of their own.

#3 is why I won't vote for the Republicans in the next election. They had 8 years to come up with 'Market based' energy reforms, and could have been a worldwide leader in renewable energy production and research. I'm afraid their reforms are to eliminate the EPA regulations and allow cheap energy that will increase pollution and lower my quality of life.

#5 is a joke, it must be. They need to secure our border and suffer the loss of some wealthy southwestern farmers and construction companies, and force them to pay legal taxable wages.


I only agree partly with 6, 7 and 10. Although using the military in 6 & 7 in the first place was a mistake. The whole thing should have been handled differently. As for gun ownership, there are certain guns that some groups of people shouldn't have. And their fiscal policy is ok, if they would actually practice it when they are in power. They should strive for a balanced budget with cuts to plenty of groups that expect to get as much money as they want.

It is stuff like this why the republican party is not a serious party. Unfortunately most self identified republicans don't see this. They talk about smaller government even as they talk about troop surges and don't say a thing about cutting medicare and social security. In fact, they even talk about being against "health care rationing," which is their way of speaking out against medicare cuts...

Troop surges in Afghanistan does not equal bigger government. It may equal a more expensive war, but yet, could also be argues, that it could be a shorter war if we did surge and had defined missions.

I am not a GOP, but my guess is that as the boomers are retiring, it would be political suicide for anyone let alone a party, to even joke about Medicare/Social Security cut. Yet, in a way the Dems and Obama did just that by not giving a cost of living increase.

I am a very firm believer that the 3 people government should take care of and make sure life is as comfortable as possible for are the elderly (70+ yrs), vets and the disabled.

In regards to the OP, this is nothing new. It sounds like a building block for a "new" Contract with America, the basis for their congressional wins in '94. The candidates are going to say and do whatever it takes to get elected in their district/state, same with the Dems. Once elected how they vote should tell you how honest they were with their constituents and the less honest should not be re-elected.

So a surge, that necessarily involves more people working for the government, and therefore higher expenditures, is not a bigger government? Regardless, the point still stands that the current level of revenue is not enough to pay for medicare, social security, and military spending at current levels. So anyone promising lower taxes without saying which of the three they will cut is simply not serious.

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

I support, however I also view the Republican Reps with distrust as they conveniently ignored it once in power.

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

Seeing as I got laid off to reasons completely out of my control and refused the $600/mo COBRA... I'm not really that opposed to government healthcare as a safety net. What if I get cancer before I find a new job?

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

I oppose cap & trade legislation, but am 100% for government support of renewable energy. It's a Geo-Political issue for me, not an Al Gore issue.

(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

I was neutral towards Unions until I had to work alongside them. IMO they simply allow crappy workers to continue working where they'd otherwise be canned.

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Relatively moot issue for me. Increase legal immigration.

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

I'm there to win.

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

Yes, I believe Iran won't last another 10 years... and we can (hopefully) out-wait Kim Jong Il and hope for an internal collapse.

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Always been a "Slap Forehead" issue for me. 100% for Same-Sex Marriage... hell give them Civil Unions to keep the bible out of it.

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

I'm against Abortions, but I'm not looking to make it Illegal.

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

I'm a Texan... you figure it out.

I'll give it a shot.

Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
I agree with this for the most part. I've always believed in a smaller govt (states rights all the way!) and I can't imagine why anybody would want a higher national debt. If only the Republican party upheld these beliefs while in power I might be inclined to believe the "smaller govt" rederick they always speak of.

Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare
Agree to an extent, I'm not much of a fan of Obamas plan but since the market has done such a piss poor job with health care I'm not much of a fan of it either. I guess I would favor some kind of happy medium.

Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
Not well versed on this topic so I don't have much of an opinion.

Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
Absolutely. I can't think of any reason to oppose it other then wanting to strong arm and intimidate people you disagree with unless I'm completely missing the point on this one.

Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
Agree although I don't understand the need for assimilation. If an American citizen chooses to live his life by the customs or cultures of his old country then more power to him. Unless he's breaking the law I don't see how its any of govts concern.

Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
Well if somebody would outline what victory really means then sure I support it.

Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
I agree to an extent but the sovereignty of other nations needs to respected and we must tread lightly when it comes to dictating what other nations can and can't do. We are getting dangerously close to becomeing a world police force which in my opinion is something we can neither afford nor realistically do.

Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
Absolutely not. In fact I find it wildly hypocritical and incredibly damaging to the parties image. If they GOPs philosophy is running a small govt that stays out of peoples private lives how can they possibly reconcile that with a stance that seeks to legislate how an American chooses to build their own family? The fundamentalist aspect of the GOP has completely alienated me as voter who would potentially support them otherwise.

Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
Agree to an extent. Health care shouldn't be rationed but I also understand the need for govt funded abortions. I would argue that if somebody wants an abortion they should be responsible for the cost, however I can see many valid reasons why a person might need one but can't afford it...I guess I'm for selective and controlled funding of abortions.

The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
I wholeheartedly agree. I can understand the opposing view point on this but I've never been convinced that prohibition works. I think some restrictions are reasonable but there should be a VERY good reason for them.

Meh...Reading this list made me hate political parties even more then I already did. It reads like a bunch of empty talking points thrown out to rile up voters. I doubt the GOP once in power has any intention of following through on even half of this.

I'd vote for you, Seaver.

See I seriously disagree with this. MANY politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to recognize or if they do, mention the fact that it is the TAX BASE hurting not the TAX RATE.

If you, are able to find ways to bring back good paying jobs (say rebuild the infrastructure, bring back manufacturing jobs, make education affordable to all and bring in tech jobs, etc), this builds up the TAX BASE and allows for the TAX RATE to decrease. This is the only way to sustain a government that provides needed social programs.

What we have now is a TAX BASE being depleted thus the TAX RATE must increase and thus the government either goes seriously in debt trying to maintain social programs and eventually goes either broke or has to totally cut the social programs.

In order to rebuild the TAX BASE you have to spend wisely and make some cuts but put that money into better more efficient programs (education, construction on the outdated electrical grids, roads, bridges, the major cities).

You can do this by raising our very low tariffs on imports and thus even the playing field for domestic products, which brings back jobs, which rebuilds the TAX BASE and not touch the TAX RATES, until that base is solid again at which time you'd be able to lower the rates.

The biggest thing needed is not cutting programs but making them more streamlined and effective. Stop allowing abuses, get rid of pork and cut overseas aid.

It's not too late to get to there, but I don't see the Dems currently in power even attempting to do it and the GOP doesn't show that they have a feasible plan to accomplish this, they rely more on selling a lower tax but no plan to rebuild a base.

I've had many friends and family strongly suggest me take a political career. I dabbled in it, but the only thing truly holding me back is the fact I have a "speak the truth and damn the torpedoes" mentality... which wouldn't keep me elected long.

I disagree that any of the points are Republican in fact, even though the GOP says they are. There's not a viable American Political party that will actually stand up for these points.
I have problems with government interference in abortion and marriage. All the rest I'm okay with.

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

Why is smaller government a goal? Better government, whatever form it may take, should be the goal. I've never understood that about conservatives - it isn't like liberals go around demanding bigger government. It's one reason republicans are so bad at governance - they can't even wrap their heads around the ideas that different situations call for different types of responses. Lower deficits are nice, but basic economics tells us not to lower our deficit in a recession. Once again, an obsession with lower taxes is one of those things that make it impossible for conservatives to think intelligently about governing. Sometimes you need more taxes!

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

Well, since the only government run health-care in the U.S. is the VA, I'm just gonna assume that the GOP has no idea what it is talking about again. The health care bill about to pass IS market-based health care - it's just based around a government implemented structure and regulatory system.

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Gas tax works well, too, but I don't think that's what the GOP meant. 100 years from now, if anybody is still alive, historians are going to marvel at the degree to which GOP policy was aimed at destroying the earth.

(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

Seriously? Card check? That's what has the GOP's panties all bunched up? What is wrong with these people? And am I supposed to start believing that for the first time in history the GOP is taking a stand to support unions, as opposed to taking this position because they actually want to destroy them?

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

This is a touchy one, but some sort of earned amnesty program is essential. We really need immigration reform, although I'm not opposed to some conservative goals here (strengthening border defense, etc.)

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

Where to start? A) Victory? What does that even mean? B) Once again, it seems that "more war" is the GOP answer to everything C) The military shouldn't dictate war policy, and it is disturbing that the GOP thinks the President should abandon policy-making to the military D) What if the military recommends something else besides troop surges? Will the GOP support those recommendations unequivocally?

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

No doubt that these are important issues. Is there anyone who can disagree with the goal of preventing Iran and North Korea from engaging in bad acts or threatening others with nukes? Is this really a conservative-only belief?

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

It's good to see that rank, bilious bigotry and hatred still has a place in the GOP.

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Obviously I disagree on abortion. And of course, I'm not sure that having 30 million uninsured people isn't de facto health care rationing AND denial of health care. How can HCR possibly make this rationing worse?

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Nope. I'm a huge, huge gun control advocate.

Except that none of this is actually true. If by increasing the "tax base" you mean getting more jobs, even if every single unemployed person got a job that still would not raise enough taxes to pay for just the basic stuff you seem to be against cutting. And if you think that increasing tariffs will make the difference (and let's set aside for a minute that increased tariffs increase prices and thus reduce purchasing power, and let's set aside for a minute that a tariff is a tax which the consumer will pay), again you are sorely mistaken. Imports as percent of GDP are 17%. If you increase the "tax base" by miraculously raising incomes, you'd have to raise pensions, military salaries and medicare spending as well.


This is not even a matter of economics or theory, but basic math.

Total revenue is 2009: 2.1 trillion
SS pensions: 736 billion
Defense 821 billion
Medicare: 430 billion
interest on current debt: 142 billion
Protection (police+firefighters+courts): 53 billion

Now let's see what you want to cut:
Foreign aid: 21 billion
earmarks: 15 billion

In other words, even if you cut all spending on everything else, including roads, elections, the administration of the federal government, medicaid and so on, current tax revenues still don't make up for that. Unemployment is 10%, so even if you employed every single one of them, you'd still come up short, given that the majority of them would probably still be between poor and middle class. Increasing incomes through whatever magic governmental program also isn't enough, unless you increase the income of everyone else except the military, retirees, and doctors who attend patients through medicare.

A budget is not a magical thing, but actual numbers and figures. And that is specially true when you are talking about not raising tax rates but somehow paying for entitlements, which, guess what, also go up as income goes up.


It really is that simple, and the only way anyone can talk about paying for medicare, social security and the military without raising taxes is if you found jobs for all the 10 % who are unemployed that paid over half a million dollars a year.


And this is all talking about current figures. As the population gets older medicare and social security will continue to grow.

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
The idea that someone should believe in "bigger" or "smaller" government is truly and utterly absurd. It's a perfect example of the absolutism that comes from people unable to accept that reality is nuanced. I'm afraid you'll never catch me saying "I believe in small government" because there are some areas in which government should be bigger and some where government should be smaller. So that'd be a no.

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
What constitutes "Obama-style government run heathcare"? It seems clear that President Obama at most wants a public option, which is a bit of a joke. I fully support single-payer healthcare, similar to the system currently being used by Canada and very similar to Medicare. That's another no.

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
I'm going to say yes and no to this one. Cap and Trade is a complete joke because it cannot be realistically enforced. Still, the market doesn't have mechanisms in place for things like pollution, so the job ultimately has to fall to the consumers and the government.

(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
If only the GOP hated worker exploitation as much as they hated unions. I'm afraid this is going to be another no. Unions work best when workers collectively stand together and proudly demand fair treatment. It's incredibly difficult to intimidate a vocal and large group of workers looking to unionize. Secret ballots, on the other hand, take away that sense of community and unity, and have been demonstrated to undermine the formation of unions. So that's a no, too.

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Bullshit. The GOP has been quite good at making legal immigration a complete mess and because of that, people (people as in fellow human beings) are forced to try and enter this country illegally. It's xenophobia, and I for one am anything but xenophobic. Until the process by which one can come into our country is made straightforward and fair, I will support amnesty. So no.

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
When viewed objectively (in other words, when forming your own opinion based on facts and not adopting the majority opinion of mainstream news media), the surge wasn't as much as success as it was simply a slowing of deterioration. Iraq is a smoldering wasteland. We have some pretty damned talented and well-trained troops, but there was never going to be a true military victory in Iraq or A-stan in the way people seem to want. You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy. Worse still, several insubordinate generals tried to pressure the President into his recent Afghanistan surge. That's a good indication it's time to leave. So, again, no.

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
Iran is run by a totalitarian leader, and it's on the verge of revolution because of their government's atrocious behavior, but they've still not violated IAEA rules for the NPT. Anyone that says otherwise is uninformed. So that'd be a no. As for North Korea, we need to actually start taking them seriously... but is "containment" the way to go? I really don't think so. What we need to be doing is to get China and Russia on board for multilateral talks. We need North Korea to understand in no uncertain terms that there are three superpowers that have their attention squarely on North Korea and it's time to shape up or face real consequences (more than just sanctions). So no again.

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
I cannot support bigotry. LGBT individuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. So that's a huge no.

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
We already ration healthcare, and I'm against healthcare being rationed for nothing but profit. Healthcare is less rationed in countries with universal or mixed healthcare, therefore, anyone against rationing should be in support of a government run or partially government run healthcare program. So no.

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
Depends on what's meant by "restrictions". Does the GOP wish to arm people in prison? Or people with severe mental disabilities? Or people with severe mental illness? Or people that have committed multiple murders? These are all restrictions.

It would seem I fail the test.

And as an aside, I am surprised at how the republicans are misleading regarding so called "card check," and how people seem to be buying that crap.

To form a union, employees must sign a petition. If 30% of a place's employees sign it, a secret ballot election is organized. If 50% of the employees sign it, the employer, at their discretion, can waive the election requirement. The new law would simply take away the employer's discretion and establish the union if 50% sign it. So it does not eliminate the secret ballot election, simply take away the employer's choice over it. So it doesn't "force" anyone to sign a card, it doesn't eliminate secret ballots, it doesn't make pressures to sign or not sign the card any more severe than it was before. It simply removes the employer's discretion over recognition, and I really don't get why the employer should get a say on worker unionization anyways.

But what that does is force the employees to JOIN the Union. The first thing Unions do is a land-grab of "These duties belong to us, or else".

When the Union that worked our warehouse failed to accurately pick orders, then hold their breaks until we arrived/counted and returned to them to have the correct orders pulled, we would be threatened with a strike if we simply walked the 10 feet and picked up the product off the shelf. They were 100% negligent in their job, but no non-unionized person could so much as touch the items until they handed it to us.

I've never belonged to a union so I'm fairly ignorant about the inner workings. What do they mean by secret ballots? Are we talking about voting on issues brought forth by the union (so long dental plan! Lisa needs braces!) or voting on weather or not to join a union? Or does ballot hold some different meaning here that I'm missing?

It would seem to me that secret ballots would eliminate any kind of coercion on the part of the majority and allow everyone's voice to be heard. When I picture a union having open ballots I visualize intimidation and peer pressure being a tool for a certain faction to get its way. How is it a good thing to open those opposed to an idea to ridicule or worse for being the voice of descent?

I don't know, these questions probably sounds pretty dumb to those schooled on the topic. I guess the whole thing is just whooshing right over my head.

Seaver and Wes,
The proposed law does nothing of the sort. It doesn't force people to join a union anymore than current legislation does.

The secret ballots are a one time thing asking about unionizing. Currently, 30% of the work force signing a petition brings forth a secret ballot election asking whether employees want to unionize. 50% and the employer can waive the secret ballot election asking members to unionize, or the NLRB can establish the union if the employer unfairly influences the election. "Card check" would remove the employer's ability to make that decision, and make that automatic if 50% is reached. Whatever pressures would be there to sign the petition are already there, as the 50% threshold already matters.

I know unions are often unpopular, but then the republican party should come out and openly opposed them, instead of doing this incredibly misleading thing where keeping the employer's choice over accepting the union something that helps workers.

Thanks dippin that clears it up quite a bit. So the real issue here is weather or not the employer can have a say in the casting of a secret ballot? One of those topics I'm going to have to read up on should it ever come up on a balllot, thanks again for the info.

Again, I disagree. By raising employment and wages, we'll see serious growth. You can't ignore the debt we now have but if you rebuild the tax base, restructure programs to be streamlined, effective and cut pork and foreign aid, we may get a better handle on it.

If we rebuild and increase factories by 50%, that's a 50% increase in taxes, without raising the rate. Those factories will need supplies thus, more businesses will pop up around them, thus more tax money is raised, not just nationally, but state and local.

As more jobs are created, the market becomes a worker's market meaning wages go up. Thus, people have more to spend, more to save. That means we see taxes rise in sales, parents are more able to help their kids pay for college, IRA's and other retirement funds can be afforded and government's burden decreases. With that we see, tax rates not increased and government not having to spend as much money on those programs.

Same goes for rebuilding the infrastructure. Jobs are created, wages are pushed higher, more small businesses grow, more real estate is sold, etc. thus in those areas where there will be rebuilding we'll see a tax base build to where it could feasibly pay for the work being done. Again, not a SINGLE tax rate has to go up.

Once you get an increasing tax base, streamline programs to control spending, you should see growth in income for the government and they will not have to work on deficits and may be able to start paying the debt down.

With the boomers aging, we are going to see the tax base continue to decrease and thus the rates are going to have to increase. In doing so more manufacturing, more labor will be moved overseas. The market becomes employer driven meaning wages are kept lower, which depletes the tax base even more, which is going to have to increase the rates, which means more businesses go overseas.... etc etc etc.

The only way to stop the bleeding is to rebuild a tax base as stated above. If we do not rebuild a tax base soon, the spiraling will get totally out of control.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, EXCEPT THE TOTAL BANKRUPTCY AND DISSOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT.

You are still not getting it. Unemployment rate is 10%. Unless you employ every one of those in a job that pays over half a million at least, that is not enough to make up the difference.

And if you increase income through some other magical way, guess what: that is the nature of entitlements, they go up with income as well. You increase income through some magic policy, pensions go up, military salaries have to go up to keep up, doctor compensation has to go up.

And that is all not considering the fact that social security and medicare costs will go up significantly over the next two decades.

So it is not a matter of opinion, it is a mathematical fact that you cannot keep those programs as they are without tax increases.

Yes, I am getting it. The reported rate maybe 10% but what about those that can't file unemployment, can only find part time jobs and work where wages are barely liveable? I'd say you combine all those the rate reaches 20-25%

And no the job doesn't have to pay half a million.

Increasing factories, businesses, employment and streamlining programs will make a difference.

Did you even read the above where I said if people make more they save more thus lessening the need for financial aid, welfare, social security?

I will say this executive salaries must in some way be kept in check and the profits more evenly distributed.


I never said you did, I said you streamlined them and made them more effective cutting the pork.

The unemployment rate has nothing to do with how many people can claim unemployment, as it is measured in a completely different way. Still, even if you increase the labor force by 25%, that still wouldn't be enough to make up the gap.
Social security is not related to need, and actually if you increase people's income you also increase the pay out. Similarly, as you increase the number of people working and contributing to it, you also increase the pay out.
Cutting the "pork" is amounts to less than 1% of the budget.

Fact remains that you either have to have deep cuts into medicare, social security and defense spending, or you have to raise taxes. There are no two ways about it.

1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 I support, or am close enough to supporting. Not sure about 6 or 7 anymore, and I don't know what 3 means. Against 8.

I certainly am for the government interfering in abortion, but you guys realize that's not what 9 is talking about, right? Denial of funding isn't interference, at least not in this english language.

i will support for all the points there

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
What size is our current government?

(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
Single payer system.

(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
Funny that this is all about opposition. I guess that is the key to conservatism. Something needs to be done regarding energy, but it would be nice to collaborate several ideas instead of picking the one that the most people can rally behind or against.

(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
Trivial.

(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Nope. I support amnesty followed by better border regulation.

(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
If I were made president today, they'd be on chalk 1 outbound starting tonight. I'd be happy to provide aid for building infrastructure.

(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
Step one, the US should dismantle and decommission all mass destruction capable weapons, today. I know I know, but tons of countries will see our weakness and attack. Bullshit.

(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
I'm in favor of the Abolition of Marriage Act.

(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
That is a paradox. If you care about the lives of vulnerable people you damn sure better let their doctor help them through the means they see fit.

(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Absolutely not. I don't want my daughter to have a shoulder launched tactical nuke, the rest is just a curve from extreme to extreme. Perhaps we should discuss the appropriate place for government to land on that curve.

Whew, I scored a zero.