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

[SezMe]

Edit: ffs, that's the ONLY way for a party to remove an incumbent.

Yes, from his OFFICE. Not from the party. The two are not synonymous.

Joe could well have chosen to remain in the party and support whatshisname or he could have sat out the election and run for another office as a Dem or he could have run in the next primary. All options which allowed him to stay in the party.

He CHOSE not to exercise those options. He left the party and chose to run on a new ticket.

 

[Tricky]

1/3rd of the state committee voted against him (a senior incumbent!) during the nominations process forcing a primary run off. The democrats voted him out in the primary. He didn't leave voluntarily, they forced him out. That's not leaving. That's being told "you're not wanted". If that's not kicking him off the ticket, what is?

It's called "losing a primary". Lots of people lose primaries without quitting the party. Some even run again on the same ticket.

Note, by the way, that when Lieberman got elected anyway, the Dems let him keep his powerful committee chairmanship. Those vindictive SOBs.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's called "losing a primary". Lots of people lose primaries without quitting the party. Some even run again on the same ticket.

Note, by the way, that when Lieberman got elected anyway, the Dems let him keep his powerful committee chairmanship. Those vindictive SOBs.

They gave him his chairmanship because they needed him to get 51 members in their caucus. Without him, the Republicans would have held the majority in the Senate.

 

[Cain]

Absolutely.

But if the set of unifying principles includes anything other than "we want to win elections," then it detracts from the primary purpose of a political party, which is to win elections.

I hope not. Elections are a means to an end. Republicans could adopt centrist/Democratic ideas and win elections, but for what? ****, that's what Democrats do, and so now we have Obama: gays still can't serve in the military (nor can prominent Dems openly support discrimination-free marriage), warrantless wiretapping shall continue, the climate bill is a mess, Gitmo has not been closed down, we'll surge in Afghanistan, oh, and he's not even trying for universal health care.

But not to the idiots in the RNC who value ideological purity over the ability to win elections. If you want a group of unelectable wing-nuts, the Libertarian party is over there
... unless you want to win elections, in which case I'm afraid it does.

Barry Goldwater's campaign failed, but his ideas proved more successful in the longer, ideological struggle. Just the other day I saw a poll that said less than half respondents think we should ban assault weapons. In the mid-90s more than 3/4 said we should ban such weapons. Public opinion is not static. Moreover, conservatives don't need to be popular to win as they enjoy so many institutional advantages: the undemocratic Senate is like affirmative action for small states; the Electoral College inflates their influence as well. Also, the classic thinking is that a higher voter turnout helps Democrats; Republicans are more tribal, more unified, and more committed. We have almost never had more Republicans than Democrats (I think I heard it reported that the GOP claimed more registrants shortly after 9/11, but that's since gone away).

Yes, Republicans are in danger of becoming a southern party. As Tricky says, it's in everyone's interests to have competitive elections (otherwise you get the kind of Democrats we have in Sacramento), but it's not like these ten points will put Republicans out. If unemployment continues to rise, Afghanistan continues to worsen, Republicans can continue denying evolution, global warming, and everything else, it won't matter. The advice Democrats in this thread are giving Republicans is not unlike the advice Republicans were giving Democrats six years ago.

DR writes:

The party purity test that you addressed in your first response does indeed make sense, particularly if there are multiple parties to choose from. While there are more than the two majors, the numbers three to n are so small as to be nearly irrelevant. This condition forces the two majors to grasp for the "sorta excluded middle," a voter pool who need some courting to choose one way or the other. That courting might also result in repulsion, but that's the risk one takes when one asks the girl to the dance.

In keeping with my above post, the Republican strategy has long been to use wedge issues to appeal to single-minded voters: abortion, teh gays, affirmative action, illegal immigration, gun control.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Yeah, there's a helluva lot wrong with it.

This "test" is nothing more or less than a power-grab by the wingnuts.

In the USA -- a country of some 300 million people, spanning a continent -- you cannot be a viable party unless you form coalitions.

This "test" effectively blocks any potential coalition-building efforts within the party. Which means it's a death sentence for the GOP.

This is NOT the platform. This is an attempt to hijack the platform.

 

[Sporanox]

In the USA -- a country of some 300 million people, spanning a continent -- you cannot be a viable party unless you form coalitions.

Why would you want to form coalitions if they can't get anything done?

 

[Piggy]

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

No, that is not their job. Their job should be -- in part, as it relates to this sector of activity -- to coordinate the disparate local efforts in such a way as to maximize representation nationwide.

Certainly, distributing RNC funds and RNC support is their job, and they're supposed to ride herd on the local republican party organizations.

Ride herd? No. Not in that way, at least.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican.

Obviously, you've never heard of Louisiana's David Duke. As far as I know, there was never any effort (or at least any successful effort) to block his candidacy for national office as a Republican, even though he's an unapologetic Klansman.

Thankfully, he hasn't managed to make the jump from state to national politics, but I'm not aware of any effort to kick him out of the party.

I don't think he's a Republican now, but that seems to be the result of his unsuccessful bids as a national Republican candidate. In other words, it was his choice.

And hey, the man who just marked a milestone as the longest serving member of the US Senate -- a Democrat, and a Klansman.

 

[Piggy]

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable.

Wrong again.

I invite you to go read the party platforms. You'll find they're a list of platitudes.

In the USA, the last thing you want is unifying principles, because that's limiting.

What you want are vague talking points, emotion-based slogans, and a platform that's loose enough to allow disparate (even opposed) factions to get under the tent.

The movement toward a genuine set of unifying principles is a serious threat to the Republican party.

 

[Piggy]

Why would you want to form coalitions if they can't get anything done?

I don't understand you.

The purpose of a party is not to get anything done. It's to get people elected.

 

[Piggy]

I am sick and tired of this repeated false assertion. It is NOT true. Lieberman ran in a primary as a Democrat against another Democrat. He lost. Subsequently, he CHOSE of his own accord to leave the Democratic Party and run on a third party ticket. You can have all the opinions you want but you cannot rewrite reality.

The Dems haven't even kicked out Zell Miller. And he's openly affiliated with the GOP. For the life of me, I can't understand why they don't boot him.

 

[Sporanox]

I don't understand you.

The purpose of a party is not to get anything done. It's to get people elected.

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else.

I really don't think you've thought this one through ...

 

[Sporanox]

I really don't think you've thought this one through ...

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

Of course I know the term "RINO" can easily fall into a No True Scotsman pit. But I know Snowe and Scozzafava are both its representatives. Thank goodness the latter didn't get voted in. I'd prefer a Democrat to a squishy Republican.

 

[cwalner]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

Of course I know the term "RINO" can easily fall into a No True Scotsman pit. But I know Snowe and Scozzafava are both its representatives. Thank goodness the latter didn't get voted in. I'd prefer a Democrat to a squishy Republican.

That's all well and good, but the registered Republicans in her district don't seem to agree with you, as evidenced by the fact that she won the primary, and was running as the Republican in the general election.

Because the CP fielded a candidate against her, they split the conservative vote, giving the Democrats a win in a district they have not held for over 100 years.

How can this be explained away as something positive for the Republican party or conservatism. Regardless of political ideology, this instance is an example of the harm being caused to the Republican party due to this infighting.

 

[hgc]

They gave him his chairmanship because they needed him to get 51 members in their caucus. Without him, the Republicans would have held the majority in the Senate.

That was after the 2006 election. After the 2008 election, where he campaigned for McCain and Palin, after he spoke at the Rep convention and repeatedly attacked Obama and the agenda of the Democratic party, they gave him his chairmanship AGAIN.

A chairmanship is a leadership position in the caucus. I know of no Republican Congressional leader, or member for that matter, who supported Obama in the 2008 election.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

No, I'd prefer a party of unelectable ideologues. The puzzling thing is that you apparently agree with me.

 

[Piggy]

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else.

You're missing the point.

"Vote with them"?

As I've said, you can only maintain power in a country this large by forming coalitions, and there are always contradictions in those coalitions.

The far right wing of the GOP is attempting to define what it means to "vote with" the GOP along their particular ideological framework.

That's a death sentence for the party b/c it must necessarily result in permanent minority status.

If the GOP wants to regain lost ground, they will have to give up on any strict definition of what it means to "vote with" the party.

 

[Thunder]

If the GOP wants to regain lost ground, they will have to give up on any strict definition of what it means to "vote with" the party.

indeed. Republicans, if they want to win anything in the next 20 years, will have to learn to accept that some Republicans may want to be social moderates or even liberals, or some Republicans may want to be fiscal moderates.

if they can't accept this, then..well...they will have to be satisfied with being a smaller, more unified, and powerless group for a long time.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

they need to add the ultimate test...

Must be Orange!11111!11

 

[Corsair 115]

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.

A cynic will argue the pupose of getting elected is to get the things the lobbyists want done.