Republicans reject purity test

[Thomas Veil]

Republicans reject 'purity test' (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32242.html)
By: Jonathan Martin
January 29, 2010 08:38 PM EST

HONOLULU — Republicans averted an ideological showdown here Friday, passing a tepid party resolution in place of a candidate “purity test.”

Rejecting a plan that would have required GOP candidates to meet at least eight of 10 policy questions to receive national support and funding, the Republican National Committee unanimously approved a rule that only “urges” party leaders to support nominees who back the party’s platform.

The author of the original proposal, Indiana National Republican Committeeman James Bopp, agreed to withdraw his resolution in the face of overwhelming opposition and backed the watered-down language.

Yet even after the compromise was reached, tempers flared between Republicans on opposing sides of the issue — vividly illustrating the lingering divide between the party’s conservative activist wing and pragmatic establishment wing.

Talking to reporters in a ballroom following the committee's general session here, where the RNC is holding its winter meeting, Bopp insisted the replacement resolution still amounted to a win for requiring candidates to toe the conservative line.

“You’ve got to determine that the candidate supports all the core principles of the Republican Party before you support them,” he said, explaining the alternate measure.

But when asked whether it was binding, Bopp was cut off by Oregon GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan, who was standing nearby the impromptu press briefing.

“That resolution passed is not binding; it’s a suggestion,” said Tiernan....

Continuing, Bopp explained that he thought the RNC’s decision to, for the first time, make it party policy to urge candidates to pledge fealty to the GOP platform represented a significant step.

But Tiernan, standing just over Bopp’s shoulder, again rebutted his committee colleague.

“I’m not going to take that back and make my candidates sign it, that’s ridiculous,” Tiernan said, gesturing toward the compromise resolution in a reporter’s hand. “We don’t have a litmus test and we rejected the litmus test today.”

As Bopp continued, Tiernan again spoke up.

“There’s nothing binding in there,” said the state chairman.

“Can I finish?” a plainly annoyed Bopp asked.

“Read the words,” replied Tiernan.

“Shut up,” Bopp finally said.For once there is something for which I can praise the RNC. This sounds like it was a naked power grab by the far right, and I'm glad it didn't work.

Given the tenor of the loudest voices in the party, however, I'm kind of surprised that this failed.

[IntheNet]

For once there is something for which I can praise the RNC. This sounds like it was a naked power grab by the far right, and I'm glad it didn't work...

As a life-long conservative I don't like the idea of a "purity" test as it is called; but there again, there is validity toward assuring that a "Dierdre Scozzafava" type does not assume the title Republican. So too, RINOs of the Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flavor should be counseled to vote their constituent representation rather than their liberal tendencies.

[jb1280]

As a life-long conservative I don't like the idea of a "purity" test as it is called; but there again, there is validity toward assuring that a "Dierdre Scozzafava" type does not assume the title Republican. So too, RINOs of the Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flavor should be counseled to vote their constituent representation rather than their liberal tendencies.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Maine Senators are actually voting to the interests of their Republican constituents in Maine? I imagine the Maine party is quite a bit different from the Alabama Party.

[rdowns]

As a life-long conservative I don't like the idea of a "purity" test as it is called; but there again, there is validity toward assuring that a "Dierdre Scozzafava" type does not assume the title Republican. So too, RINOs of the Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flavor should be counseled to vote their constituent representation rather than their liberal tendencies.

Or a Scott Brown.


WASHINGTON—Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.

Brown tells ABC's "This Week" that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned.

Brown says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.

Brown has said the GOP shouldn't take his vote for granted on every issue. He says he's fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues.

Brown recently won the Senate seat long held by liberal Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, who died last summer.

[Sydde]

Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, these people would not come close to fitting into the current definition of "Republican". Even Nixon would be kicked out of the party today for being too far to the left, and Reagan would barely make it.

[Eraserhead]

This is good news at least.

[Thomas Veil]

Snowe and Collins are Republicans. It's most of the rest of the party that's assumed the name. I don't think anyone doubts that Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were Republicans, just as I'm sure those three presidents wouldn't even recognize most of the current bunch.

Edit: Sydde beat me to almost exactly the same point. That'll teach me to fart around watching YouTube videos while I post.

[Sydde]

That'll teach me to fart around watching YouTube videos while I post.

I thought you were supposed to have your iPhone do the farting for you.

[freeny]

So now, no matter who the gop presents as a candidate, they will be exactly the same. Awesome :)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nothing more then Party 1st, then the corporations 2nd, then the people it is suppose to represent somewhere at the bottom. Republicans have almost lost their minds and their seats.:D

[FrankieTDouglas]

As a life-long conservative I don't like the idea of a "purity" test as it is called; but there again, there is validity toward assuring that a "Dierdre Scozzafava" type does not assume the title Republican. So too, RINOs of the Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins flavor should be counseled to vote their constituent representation rather than their liberal tendencies.

Maine is a liberal state, regardless of political affiliation. So it makes sense that their republican officials seem in accordance with the policies of the state. Much the same in how so many democrats from the south still seem rather conservative.

[Sydde]

Both US political parties have way too much control. When it comes down to what really matters, the difference between them can be summarized as "'Democrat' is a sneering perjorative, whereas 'Republican' is a vicious slur."

[leekohler]

Good for the Republicans. But actually, I wished they'd all signed it. It would have been their death knell. ;)

[Counterfit]

Nice ad :rolleyes:
http://grab.by/26G6

[FrankieTDouglas]

Nice ad :rolleyes:
http://grab.by/26G6

Shouldn't that be "Democrat's"?

[IntheNet]

Snowe and Collins are Republicans...

:rolleyes:

There is room here for healthy debate...

Shouldn't that be "Democrat's"?

Wouldn't it be the plural possessive Democrats' ...?

[sysiphus]

Shouldn't that be "Democrat's"?

No. It should be Democrats'

Plural of Democrat is Democrats; you make it possessive by adding the apostrophe after the s.

Not to pick on you, but I think that kids should have to pass (near ace) a test proving they can handle basic English grammar before they're allowed to graduate from high school. It's really rather sad--the rules for things like apostrophe usage just aren't that difficult. :(

[Rt&Dzine]

Not to pick on you, but I think that kids should have to pass (near ace) a test proving they can handle basic English grammar before they're allowed to graduate from high school. It's really rather sad--the rules for things like apostrophe usage just aren't that difficult. :(

I may agree with your point, but for Pete's Sake . . . his infraction was so minor compared to most of the stuff that gets posted here!

[rdowns]

I may agree with your point, but for Pete's Sake . . . his infraction was so minor compared to most of the stuff that gets posted here!

Four all intensive purposes, I agree. Lets' not loose cite of all the eras that are maid hear.

[Rt&Dzine]

For all intensive purposes, I agree. Lets' not loose cite of all the eras that are made hear.

Your knot just whiseling dixie!

[nbs2]

Wouldn't it be the plural possessive Democrats' ...?

Not necessarily. Perhaps the ad is in reference to Harry Reid, and the goal is to end his control of the Senate. In which case "Democrat's" would be correct. ;)