Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[KoihimeNakamura]

Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.

 

[quadraginta]

Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.

So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.

Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:




This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

Nice to see that they have things that are incompatable on there. I think 2 and 9 don't really go together. If they want a truely free market for health care then you can't go arround forcing people to treat the indigent for no pay as they want in 9.

But I am not really suprised. America should sue the party for contract violation from the last time.

 

[Oliver]

Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.

Oh, I see. Two individuals to choose from, so to speak.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. Once your party gives you a test, and tells you that your score means that you're not a real Republican, you might realize that you're not a Republican and leave.

Sure, see Micheal Bloomberg.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?

Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.

 

[quadraginta]

Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.

So it would seem.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this one?

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

 

[Alferd_Packer]

[quote}(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; [/quote]

Yeah, Let's repeal restricitons on automatic weapons.

I really want to go out and buy a 1921 model Thompson Sub Machine Gun.

with a 50 round drum magazine.

 

[Mumbles]

Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?

For that matter, would any of them call for entitlement and military cuts needed to simultaneously lower taxes, lower debt, and shrink government? That's not something you can do by simply opposing the stimulus bill, especially since the stimulus included tax cuts. And of course, how do you manage that while sending more troops overseas and doing nothing to change medical entitlements?

Frankly, the list is just a collection of talking points. "Stop taking my money!", "Victory in Iraq!", "Hands off my Medicare!", "Guns! Guns!", "What about the babies!?" "Send the illegals back where they came from!", "Gays want to ruin marriage!" No wonder they end up messing things up, they have no actual plan in the first place.

 

[drkitten]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign.

But this is simply wrong.

"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them.

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.

 

[Sporanox]

I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans, instead of forcing people like Doug Hoffman to run an underfunded third party campaign in lieu of pouring 900,000 dollars into uber-RINO Scozzafava's pockets.

Seriously, people like Scozzafava should be independents. Full stop.

 

[Cleon]

Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.

The difference is that in most democracies there is at least a semblance of a multi-party system. There are at least four parties represented in the Australian parliament, IIRC. The United States has a two-party system, almost by law; ballot access laws and bureacratic state structural requirements make it prohibitively difficult for a third party to make any sort of national showing.

The result of this is that the two main parties are much more ideologically broad than those in multi-party systems; the Democrats have everything from conservatives (Zell Miller) to socialists (DSA), and the Republicans run the gamut from libertarians (Ron Paul) to virtual theocrats (Focus-on-the-Family types).

If one party starts applying a purity test, those who don't agree with every bullet point will start defecting to the one that doesn't. If both parties start applying a litmus test, it effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't toe one party line or the other.

 

[Thunder]

so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!

 

[Newtons Bit]

so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!

Are you really this upset that 5% of the RNC National Committee is proposing to restrict funding to members of their party who support less than 80% of the national platform?

Please excuse the Tu Quoque, but what's your stance on Joe Lieberman again? Didn't you call him a traitor and evil for stating that he would try to block the public-health-insurance-company option?

 

[Sporanox]

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Since when was the Republican Party a nation capable of denying freedom? :/

 

[Travis]

How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

There is still homophobic and anti-abortion BS, and we all know where that usually comes from.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.

Look we can borrow the million dollars it takes to send a soldier to afganistan from the chinese so financial responcibility isn't an issue.