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

[MattusMaximus]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates

Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party.

Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP’s recent loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. ...

Oh man, I see this as a really bad idea. It basically screams "moderates need not apply" and I think it will do nothing to really satisfy the Tea Party wingnuts. I see it as bad for the GOP and bad for the country as well. I would love to see moderates have more of a voice within Republican ranks, yet moves like this don't fill me with confidence in that regard.

 

[korenyx]

According to the book Idiot America that's how McCain ended up with Palin. She passed those tests with flying colors.

 

[tyr_13]

Is it too early to Godwin the thread?

 

[gtc]

Is it too early to Godwin the thread?

You know who else insisted on ideological purity tests?

Nazis.

That's who.


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.

 

[leftysergeant]

Given that the most far-right Republicans have had their heads handed to them when they run against a rational Democrat, I don't think hard right turns are a good idearight now, so I do encourage them to crank that sucker right and over the curb.

 

[hgc]

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

(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 healthcare;

(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;

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

 

[Skeptic]

Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.

Said political organization's politics do not actually fit the other side's political organization's politics.

Other side's politicians are shocked, SHOCKED.

 

[Tricky]

This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.

 

[tyr_13]

This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.

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.

 

[hgc]

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?

 

[sugarb]

There goes my shot at the Presidency...

What is interesting is that some Democrats would pass this test.

 

[SezMe]

Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.

Newsflash.

Some newesflashes are wrong. Like the one above.

Both Dems and Reps have loyal members in good standing who have received their party's political backing and, at the same time, do NOT support its platform. Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.

 

[Pvt. Stash]

yes but...

Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.

those aren't "real" republicans... (ie. RINO's, rep. in name only)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let joy be unconfined.

 

[Leif Roar]

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

Are any of those a principle rather than a current issue, except no. 4? A couple of them strikes me as somewhat non sequitor too -- what's the link between "containment" and "action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat" and how does "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" help "support legal immigration and assimilation"?

On a general note, ideological "purity tests" are stupid. The world keeps changing, after all.

 

[Cain]

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. If anything this makes their process more transparent because the party label will actually mean something. The genuine fraud comes arises when we discuss what "true" conservatives actually end up doing -- growing government, beginning wars they cannot finance, running up the deficit (see hgc's post).

Republican politics are more ideological whereas Democrats are more transactional (look at the astonishing goodies demanded by your precious "moderates" for the health care bill). If anything the Democrats should be more like the Republicans rather than vice versa (not terms of policy positions, obviously, but when it comes party discipline). Force Democrats to get a political theory. Assign Theory of Justice and conduct seminars.

 

[Leif Roar]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test?

Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.

 

[Corsair 115]

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?

At the exact moment they were no longer the party in power. Or so it seems at least.

 

[Cain]

Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.

Why do you make a distinction for a "modern" political party? Is this to guard against a historical argument for a party that has one core issue, such as ending slavery? Political parties should not welcome everyone with open arms. As for these ten points -- well, they're shoddy at best. The first one is arguably inconsistent (and unarguably poorly worded, not unlike this parenthetical note). The third one is amusing: they "support market-based reforms by opposing cap and trade..." That just doesn't follow; indeed, it could arguably make more sense if it read "We encourage market-based reforms by supporting cap and trade legislation." But whatever; these things are usually written by idiots, and the people behind this list of ten are Republicans, and its done via committee, so that's three marks against their intelligence.

 

[fishbob]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates

From: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - just after General Ripper launches a nuclear strike.

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.

General Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.

General Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.

So - the Republicans are concerned about Loss of Essence?
Hmmm.

PS: Purity of Essence - POE - was the recall code. It didn't work.