No one seems to think it these days with how the media portrays debates, and the issues being brought forward, but I like to think the Republican party is quite diverse.

Republicans started as a party with a belief system combination that would seem odd in a party now-a-days, they supported national unity, ending slavery, the middle class businesses, protectionism, prohibition, and other issues according to popular encyclopedias, and some of these beliefs caused factions within the party as far back as the late 1800's.

It is no wonder they are now, according to many sources the party that boasts variety such as:

Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, who were generally isolationist on diplomacy and trade, extremely socially conservative and are generally anti immigration. However they may support animal welfare and environmental protection.

Libertarian types like Ron Paul, who agree with paleoconservatives in opposing empire building and militarism, but may vary on social issues and immigration and are strongly supportive of free trade.

Neoconservatives like George Bush, who according to definitions support the use of militarism for spreading human rights and democracy, are generally more comfortable with a welfare state, and have free market positions that tend to vary issue to issue. They tend to align with Paleocons on social issues, and libertarians on immigration

Rockefeller Republicans like Olympia Snowe who like neo cons support militarism, are comfortable with social programs, and support immigration, but are also socially progressive.

There have always been battles between these factions, and people seem to see the GOP as becoming narrower in recent years, with the neocon resurgence of the late 90s and the grassroots paleo-libertarian resurgence we see now. I am a strong proponent of a focused message, and agree that such a variety of political ideologies within one party may not bring about the best results when attempting to solve problems or oppose steam roller style politics of the opposing party. I also believe that issue solves itself when primaries between members of the party show checks on candidates' positions.

Recently I saw in multiple blog postings and news sources a new "Resolution" being passed around within the RNC that outlines 10 ideological points (at the end of this post) that Republican candidates must follow in order to gain RNC endorsement or funding. Violation of 3 or more of these tenants result in punishment of: YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE GOP.

Aside from the initial list being so badly written that the interpretation could be seen as super broad or super narrow, there are some blatant negative issues with this list, as well as just the idea of creating such a resolution.

Resolutions 1+2+3, depending on how interpreted, could guarantee we see democrats add two senate seats to their list from Maine, and possibly eliminate any chance the GOP has of picking up senate seats in Illinois, Delaware and Connecticut in 2010, effectively killing off the Rockefeller movement. Resolution 9 is a repeat of resolution 2 plus a very weak abortion message which I don't foresee remaining weak if passed. With that, 8+9+5 could eliminate any social liberals. Possible combinations of 5,6,7,8,9 could eliminate libertarians, and 3+6+7 could eliminate Paleocons.

So what does that leave us? The Neo conservatives? George Bush? Is that really the message the RNC wants to send to voters next fall?

This could be a dangerous move which might alienate voters, candidates, activists, and just about anyone, and guarantee that the Democrats stay in power for a long time(YIKES!)

Resolutions

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

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

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

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

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.