Democrats are up in arms that Republicans have the gall to want to actually nominate, fund and elect Republicans to public office.
Ten Republican National Committee members are submitting a plan to impose what’s being called a purity test on future Republican candidates. According to the proposal, anyone who doesn’t agree with at least 7 of the 10 statements could be denied campaign funding.
The idea borrows an idea from Conservative icon Ronald Reagan, who once said that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.
Here’s the list:
(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, 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; and be further.
Liberals are jumping all over this, proclaiming Reagan wouldn’t pass his own test, that the GOP is excluding those with diverse points of view, that the Republicans are crazy, that all we love are guns and pollution, etc. etc.
So before the Democrats have a collective heart attack, which could raise the cost of Obamacare by another $100 billion, let’s look at five key points about the GOP Purity Test.
1. It’s not going to pass. Just because something is proposed to the RNC, doesn’t make it gospel. Not even considering its merits, party leaders know this proposal would be received badly by the public. When asked if party chairman Michael Steele would support it, spokeswoman Gail Gitcho responded, "The deadline for submitting Resolutions for the RNC Winter Meeting is more than 30 days away. At this point, we do not know what resolutions will be submitted nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be." In other words, no comment. Eric Mangini would be proud.
2. It’s not exactly difficult for a real Republican to pass the purity test. All 10 questions follow party orthodoxy pretty closely. Maybe the most controversial statement is opposition of illegal immigrant amnesty. It’s not much different than the party’s traditional platform. One report looking at the test said Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine), and used it as an example of how limiting it is. But most conservatives who follow politics would probably be surprised that Snowe scored that high. She’s the kind of RINO (Republican in name only) that conservatives are tired of footing the bill for, and then watching them vote for liberal policies.
3. The proposal doesn’t, in fact, kick those who score lower than 8 out of 10 out of the party. It just limits campaign funding to them. Regular people on the street who are not running for office don’t have to worry about being rounded up and banned from the party forever because they support gay rights.
4. Just because their litmus test isn’t made public doesn’t mean Democrats don’t have one. Yes, Democrats are the party of diversity. They will accept anyone and everyone no matter race, color or creed. As long as you think exactly like every other Democrat. When one of their members went against the grain and supported the war on terror, he lost support from the party and had to win back his seat in the Senate as a third-party independent. That was Joe Lieberman, who only two years earlier had been the party’s vice presidential candidate. Meanwhile, the GOP has had to deal with the defections of Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter, again two RINO candidates the GOP paid for and supported through the years, only to have them turn against the party when it became politically expedient to do so.
5. If we suspend disbelief and say the Republicans did adopt the purity test, there’s no way to enforce it. Anyone running as a Republican would lie if he/she had to get those 8 of 10 questions right, and therefore receive funding. But once elected, the GOP couldn’t go back and rescind that money should the candidate vote against one of the key provisions. Look at it like this: A lot of Republicans supported the Contract with America in 1994, which contained, among other things, a provision for term limits. Some of those Republicans are still in office now. Until time travel is invented and makes more sense than it does on Heroes, we can’t go back in time and withdraw our support from those candidates. The same goes for this plan. It just wouldn’t work.
Really, I don't see what the Democrats are getting so worked up about. If they were confident about their own party, they shouldn't have a problem beating a GOP united under such a narrow banner, as they claim. Unless, the real problem is that they are afraid of losing out on those Republicans that have done so much good work for them over the years.
For more on the purity test, The Wall Street Journal lays out the complete details of the plan and talks to the plan’s organizers.
Comments
I guess this has a lot to with that Suzzofone or whatever her name was up in NY-23, who was more liberal than the Democrat. I'm not sure the Republicans need a quiz like this to be successful (and success, not funding, is the bottom line) but some common sense might help. But it's interesting that even here, the Republicans get wobbly on abortion -- opposing only government funding, but having no fundamental opposition to the murder of unborn children. You also support intrusion of the federal government into my health insurance, despite it's unconstitutionality. I left the Republican Party under Bush 41, and even if this is adopted, I see no reason to return. Get real about conservatism, ladies and gentlemen, or you may be plowed under.
George Bush would have failed #1 (medicare prescription drug, large annual deficits when even Iraq and afghanistan were not included in the "official' deficit),#2 (prescription drug benefit),#3 (cap and trade was formerly favored by the republicans until they stopped believing in science), #5 (Bush was pro-immigration reform),#6 (Bush fired Gen. Shinseki after he said Iraq would need at least 300,000 troops at the onset),#7 (N. Korea was contained until bush pushed them to test an a-bomb), and #9 (harvard study said 45,000 people a year die due to lack of healthcare - seems like there is a lot of rationing going on by the insurance companies).
The repubs are a joke.....
The writer is an obvious apologist for the Republican Party; as is clearly evident by his rhetoric. Announcing the Republican plan to limit funds and then downplaying the plan’s goals and limits as untenable. Just as the Republican Party has done in the past, telling us how they’ll cut taxes, and only cutting taxes for the rich; telling us they’ll control expenditures, and then giving us the highest deficit figure we’ve ever had; telling us they support the family, but then rallying against gays and lesbians as if their families mean nothing; telling us they’ll give us a smaller national debt, then giving us the second greatest crash in our economy due to lack of regulation.
Yeah, the plans a joke…as are the makers of the plan.
This is how much the GOP today is out of touch with reality. This article crystallizes it.
"Democrats are up in arms that Republicans have the gall to want to actually nominate, fund and elect Republicans to public office."
Uh? I do not think Democrats have said anything about that, and if they did, it certainly would be in support. The more the GOP self destructs, the netter off they are.
All you have to do is remember NY-23. A Republican stronghold that went for a Democrat. The first one since...almost the Civil War.
"We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;"
Which explains why spending went rocketing under W and the Republicans. The TARP bailout seems OK, and is excluded from the above "resolution". Why? Because a Republican President asked for it, and got it.
Never mind that the escalating national debt started with the senile Reagan, when it went from 780 billion t
"But it's interesting that even here, the Republicans get wobbly on abortion -- opposing only government funding, but having no fundamental opposition to the murder of unborn children." - JSmith
Indeed, and what about the born humans? You want to send them to war over specious reasons, and have them killed for ... actually whose benefit?
Conservatism would be good, if it was fiscal conservatism. That, the GOP cannot get back to. The national debts starting from 1980 have escalated the most under GOP administrations.
Obama might beat that, but GOP has been worse.
Wow - I can only see 3, maybe 4 of them as traditional republican platforms(ala Reagan) the rest are social conservative agenda items. This ain't your father's buick. They used to stand for small gov't, isolationist foreign policy, and keeping out of people's bedrooms. I wonder if there is enough room for a 3rd party in US politics? Likely not because of winner-takes-all, but if we ever go to proportional representation, there might be.
Wait a minute - since when is The Onion considered news?
What are you talking about? I'm not up in arms. I couldn't be happier with the news. In fact, I think the Republicans should install that list right now, in time for the 2010 elections. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but they may actually help the Democrats increase their 60 seat majority.
Okay, how is this even newsworth? Like any of the above "10 questions" are even new or worthy of discussion. It's question lists like these and the view that anything Democrat is anti-Republican and anything Republican is anti-Democrat is exactly why only about 20% of the nation considers itself "Republican". The reality is, that the Republican party currently is leaderless and is making up for their leadership vacuum with noise, which right now has "gone to 11" on the dial. The Democrats went though their time in the wilderness in 1994, realizing that they can't be so narrow focused, which is why there are "Blue Dog" Democrats who hold office.
I wonder how Barry Goldwater would fair with this kind of test?
Also, notice how even this list soft pedels abortion by not calling for an outright ban of all abortions, but only of government funding.
LoL, as a Democrat, I would love to see this enacted. I bet Democrats are pretending to be "up in arms" over this so that the Republicans think they are on to something good. This plan basically shuts Republicans out of the West and NE. By the way, the Lieberman bit should say "Iraq War" not "War on Terror."
Name a single democrat up in arms about this stupid list that even W and Ronny couldn't pass...
You clowns keep making the case why you're so irrelevant. We dems keep laughing it up at your expense.
You're like Palin supporters and teabaggers....too dumb to know when the jokes on you.
Didn't Nazi Germany have stuff like this? Hmmm.
Once again no room for compromise or any attempt at working with anyone else. Just more hollow rhetoric.
Why would Democrats care about this? (I'm a Democrat.) It's almost laughable. Maybe the Repubs can print out little cards which say, "I got an 8, out of 10," or "I got a 4, bad me, I'll try to do better." Or what about matching (brown) shirts? Talk about trying to make a group march lock-step together.
Are they going to have Purity Balls where the candidates dance with and pledge their virginity to their conservative daddies?
Wow - I can only see 3, maybe 4 of them as traditional republican platforms(ala Reagan) the rest are social conservative agenda items. This ain't your father's buick. They used to stand for small gov't, isolationist foreign policy, and keeping out of people's bedrooms. I wonder if there is enough room for a 3rd party in US politics? Likely not because of winner-takes-all, but if we ever go to proportional representation, there might be.
I don't believe in any of this crap and don't buy into the Dems deal either. I consider myself fiscally conservative socially moderate. What the heck does that mean for me? I guess I no longer have a political home.
This sounds like a re-hash of the Bush 2001-2009 years. They supported all that stuff but exploded the deficit, left the economy in shambles from their 'magic of the markets' deregulation....and you can't be a war supporter and a small gov't defict reducer at the sme time...it's an oxymoron
From the plan: "RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee;"
"Disagrees with three or more" equals "Agrees with seven or less." Ergo, the statement: "According to the proposal, anyone who doesn’t agree with at least 7 of the 10 statements could be denied campaign funding" is wrong. Somebody who agrees with only seven of them doesn't make the cut.
Of course, the ability to justify such staggering greed can't really coexist with keen mathematical ability, can it. :P
I like the part where Seuffert gets one key Republican characteristic right: "Anyone running as a Republican would lie if he/she had to get those 8 of 10 questions right, and therefore receive funding."
People like Snowe are exactly your problem, republicans, but not for the reasons you think. She's pretty popular with her actual constituents, and would've fit into the GOP just fine back in, say, the Reagan era, but you're going to name her a 'RINO' (that's cheesy, btw). You're going to end up losing people like that, and you're deluded enough to think that's a good thing.
I hope the GOP enacts this and sticks to it. 40 more years of Democratic rule would be nice. That may actually undo the damage that Republicans have done to this country in the past 8 years. The Republican party needs to crawl into a hole and die, leaving the rest of the sane people in this country alone.
I hope it does pass.
The more extreme the GOP gets, the fewer people that will vote for them!
I don't know what the Dems are getting so upset about either. The more resistant an organism is to change, the quicker it is to die.
You are deluding yourself if you think the Democrats are angry about this puberty test. On the contrary it only shows how immature and juvenile the rethugs are, and how beholden they are to the American Taliban.
I agree with the article. It's pretty much a non-story. Anyone who didn't think Republicans believed the stuff on the list doesn't know much about politics.
I don't think Reagan would have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan without a declaration of war from Congress but the others look pretty good. Republicans could take the election in 2010. Let's just hope they keep their promise and immediately start working to repeal all the bureaucracies created in the last few decades. I bet they wont. You see, to be a true conservative would mean doing just that. Let's see just how real they are. Will they get rid of the bureaucracies?
Seuffert made up this story. Even Republicans aren't this stupid.
Ray says:
"You are deluding yourself if you think the Democrats are angry about this puberty test. On the contrary it only shows how immature and juvenile the rethugs are, and how beholden they are to the American Taliban. "
yup, democrats are thanking the RNC for this early christmas present....we don't want you to change one itty bitty word on this litmus test...it is perfect just as it is.
"Anyone running as a Republican would lie if he/she had to get those 8 of 10 questions right, and therefore receive funding."
yup- the party of integrity...
I'm not sure what it means, but 7 of the 10 articles require "opposing" some thing or the other. Is the Republican party basing its future simply on being negative?
wow, I had to re-read the purity test again...for some reason, I could have sworn one of the "points" was "blacks and minorities need not apply", but it wasn't in there...I guess I was wrong...I was so sure though.
As a current Republican State Legislator who is considered to be very conservative, even bordering on Libertarian, not even I can possibly get to more than 6. And why the name "Obama" has to appear in something that should be a principle is just plain ridiculous! The wording of these is incredible "We support A by opposing B". Why not just stop before the words "by opposing" in the majority of those? No wonder, at the National Level, we have the reputation of being the party of NO.
I have no problem with being the party of NO. NO more big spending increases. NO more intrusion into our privacy and erosion of our freedoms and liberty. NO more increasing the deficit. NO more unaffordable entitlement programs. NO more bailouts of private companies. And the list goes on... and on... and on.
Misreading liberals - as usual. Though I still cannot fathom why, since we make ourselves clear as crystal whenever we open our mouths. (But then again, facts mean little to nothing when it comes to conservative pundits.)
Our dark side would love nothing more than for the GOP to pass this. It would be such great melodrama and would hand us lots of otherwise difficult elections.
But our better selves will be relieved when they don't. Even The Young Turks have said over and over that the health of our democracy depends upon real debate between two viable parties.
Which side has ascendancy? Well, when an individual liberal speaks on the issue, it probably depends on his/her blood-caffeine level at the moment. But truth be told, none of my liberal friends really want to see the Palins & Limbaughs of the world ruin the GOP. We have genuine respect for the great conservatives of old, like Goldwater & Ike and we're sincerely sorry to see what has become of their party.
I think this is a great idea! Anything that will decrease the number of the crazy GOP is great in my book. The moderates and others who can't be 'pure' will come to the democrats side or become independent. Either way making the GOP more insignificant. GO GOP!!
If the very idea of "purity tests" - or any other sort of "political correctness" - is abhorrent to you, please join our brand-new Centrists Group at Linked In.
We believe that as extremists at both ends of the political spectrum become more vociferous and divisive, many more Americans will move towards the Center. And
we welcome all who believe consensus is not only desirable, but possible, whatever their party affiliation or lack thereof.
Provocative, but cordial and respectful, discussions and debate on national and international issues. No Flamers, ranters and ravers, script bots, or clandestine political operatives allowed!
Please contact me at Linked In for an invitation.
Thank you so much.
Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.
I think its great the way they are eliminating their chances by alienating their voters. I'm actually against war, greed based heath care, etc, and wouldn't mind see the GOP collapsing the rest of the way. As the GOP scrambles for a message, for anything they can present and call a platform, we should all step back for a second and consider the situation. If they don't already have an platform, a message, or any real ideas, why are they trying to gain control of the nation? Look at the way they oppose something in order to claim that they support something else when they don't actually have anything to show except their opposition. How long do they plan to keep pretending to be a legitimate party?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!