PDA

View Full Version : Some Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test’ for GOP Candidates




bobbyw24
11-24-2009, 07:07 AM
By Peter Wallsten

Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.

Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test – calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

Among the required stances: oppose President Barack Obama’s health care and cap-and-trade proposals as well as his stimulus plan; reject government funding for abortion; vote “no” on legislation to help unions organize; and support keeping the Defense of Marriage Act.

“The problem is that conservatives have lost trust in the Republican Party that we will govern as conservatives,” said James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer and one of 168 RNC members who will debate the idea during the party’s winter meeting in January. “And I think that loss of trust is warranted to a certain extent because of the fact that we in the final several years of the Bush administration were supporting increased government, earmarks and, ultimately, bailouts.”

Bopp and other conservatives have tried in the past to convince RNC Chairman Michael Steele to label Obama a “socialist.” The new resolution brings back the ‘s’ word, arguing that, “Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life.”

The resolution underscores a simmering tension within the party about how to remake the GOP and regain power in Washington, coming as conservative candidates such as Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, are challenging establishment Republicans viewed as too accommodating to the left.

Many core conservatives argue that the party has lost elections because it strayed from its ideological foundations, running up deficits during the George W. Bush administration and supporting candidates such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who often sided with Democrats and wound up switching parties. Others, such as Steele, have argued that the party can gain ground by welcoming a wider diversity of viewpoints.

A spokeswoman for Steele, Gail Gitcho, said it was unclear what the chairman would do about the proposal, but she left the door open to negotiations once the deadline for submissions passes in about a month.

“At this point, we do not know what resolutions will be submitted, nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be,” Gitcho said.

RNC meetings, traditionally fairly staid affairs focused on mundane rules and convention planning, have become lively in recent years as the party has slipped into minority status. Many committee members are elected by conservative party activists in their home states, and somepushed resolutions in the waning years of the George W. Bush presidency challenging his support for more open immigration laws.

Organizers of the new purity test said they decided to allow deviation on no more than two issues in deference to the mantra of the late President Ronald Reagan, who, as the resolution states, believed “that someone who agreed with him eight out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.”

Democrats, who have watched their own support from independent voters slip in recent months as public anxiety has grown over Obama’s push for a health-care overhaul, are likely to use the RNC’s debate to paint the Republicans as inhospitable to centrists. Polls, after all, show that those independents losing faith in Democrats are not necessarily gaining faith in the GOP.

A Democratic Party spokesman, Hari Sevugan, predicted the resolution would “further marginalize” the GOP, and added jokingly: “Do you think they have rules that will allow me to cast a ballot in favor of it?”

The proposal was distributed to a handful of committee members several weeks ago, but surfaced in the blogosphere on Monday. It appears below:

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29&utm_content=Twitter

specsaregood
11-24-2009, 07:15 AM
What I find telling/sad about this "resolution" is that it specifically names "obama" and countering "his" legislation.

Such as:
"like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;"
and
"and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;"

Is this meant as a loophole? Demagoguery? OR just lack of vision.. Either way, I would think that one could put their philosophy down in a resolution without specifically making out as opposition to obama.

Todd
11-24-2009, 07:18 AM
Liberty activists want to withhold money from Liberty candidates who stray too far from Liberty orthodoxy.


Slight changes.

Hmm...

Sounds like what's going on with Rand here.

Krugerrand
11-24-2009, 07:21 AM
What I find telling/sad about this "resolution" is that it specifically names "obama" and countering "his" legislation.

Such as:
"like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;"
and
"and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;"

Is this meant as a loophole? Demagoguery? OR just lack of vision.. Either way, I would think that one could put their philosophy down in a resolution without specifically making out as opposition to obama.

Good point. I guess that is to distinguish from those 'good' republicans that supported the Bush stimulus or Bush Rx drugs for seniors or the like.

On one hand I don't like the concept. On the other hand, I think it could have forced people like Spector to reveal their true colors sooner.

HOLLYWOOD
11-24-2009, 07:34 AM
Covered on C-Span this morning... of course the left right paradigm of phone calls of American Ignorance chimes in.

It doesn't matter anyway... even that clown from NY 23rd district stated against HC support, then changed his mind in the 11th hour. Look at the 2 clown US Senators from Maine (Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins) turned into after getting into office.

With all these politicians... it's Fascist with Socialism Lite or Socialism with Fascist Lite. They can do anything they wish once in office.

RM918
11-24-2009, 07:35 AM
Slight changes.

Hmm...

Sounds like what's going on with Rand here.

They're quite free to do whatever they like with their own money.

jmdrake
11-24-2009, 07:45 AM
Good point. I guess that is to distinguish from those 'good' republicans that supported the Bush stimulus or Bush Rx drugs for seniors or the like.

On one hand I don't like the concept. On the other hand, I think it could have forced people like Spector to reveal their true colors sooner.

They could simplify their resolution by saying anyone who voted against the platform should have money withheld. Of course that would have meant withholding money from McCain since he voted for the bailout. Also let's not forget that the Bush stimulus helped accelerate the collapse of the housing market.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/02/IN8LUO095.DTL

Todd
11-24-2009, 08:09 AM
They're quite free to do whatever they like with their own money.

So...why is this a surprise that the GOP would do the same thing?

Cowlesy
11-24-2009, 08:17 AM
"If you don't support Wars that have lasted longer than World War II and enjoy chest-bumping and patriotism when our soldiers come home in bodybags and we can scream at liberals they fought for FREEDOM, then you're not a REPUBLICAN yaaarrrrgh!"

RM918
11-24-2009, 10:50 AM
So...why is this a surprise that the GOP would do the same thing?

One is an entire party, the latter are individuals.

stu2002
11-24-2009, 12:04 PM
This is why I left the GOP