Talking Points Memo is talking about "A Purity Test for the GOP?" Will the GOP beat the Tea Parties to the punch?

The Republican National Committee could be on the verge of imposing a strict purity test on GOP candidates and officeholders, if a proposed resolution passes at their upcoming meeting in January: If you disagree with the party line on three or more out of a list of ten key issues, no money or official party support for you.

Check out the ten points at

More at http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/rnc-to-take-up-purity-re...

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Land Shark aka Bob E on January 28, 2010 at 7:36pm

Allen, I would like to add one more attribute to your description of the best candidate and that is, regardless of his bent, he should be aware of the importance of being absolutley failthful to the original intent of the Constitution. In that case, his personal feelings will have nothing to do with his vote. Sorry to say I have not vetted the conservative candidates running in Illinois, but my choice would be the one that adheres strictly to the Constitution as it was intended if I were a resident of that state.. At least that may show that he or she has at least read and understood it and the Federalist Papers.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on January 28, 2010 at 9:50pm

Linda,

I know my links are unreliable, but this WSJ article has the text of the proposal for a RNC "Purity Test" as well as the names of the signers: (and I just checked and this link does work!)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-...

From what I've read of the commentaries, the advantage is that it's an attempt at forcing RINOs out of elected positions.
The criticism is that it could prevent electable Republicans, like Scott Brown, from running in blue districts.

I can see both sides of the argument. I think part of the problem is that it's so difficult to assess the risk. However, at this point it seems obvious that the RNC has been trying to play TOO safe. The near-unanimous complaint is that it has been promoting, well, RINOs who are more interested in winning over fickle independents than in energizing their base.

I myself thought that the only way for the Republican party to win elections was to woo the "center," no matter how far left the "center" moves. The problem with ignoring the conservative base is the need for committed volunteers and voters! Currently, more Americans would vote for a theoretical "tea party" candidate than a republican or democrat counterpart. Doesn't that seem to counter the conventional wisdom that the strength of a candidate is measured in funding, backing, ...and compromises?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda W on January 29, 2010 at 8:05am

Liz, that's a great find! The WSJ article is dated November 24, 2009 - so when the lefty Talking Points Memo picked it up, it was OLD news. Wonder what their motive was in reporting on it so later?

Anyhow, as my Daddy used to say, the political pendulum has swung sharply in the opposite direction. One year of the whiner-in-Chief who holds that office and the public has had enough - and is now supporting a return to conservative values. I truly think Scott Brown was providential for the occasion. And, now that many more citizens are engaged in what's going on at the local, state and national levels, it is time for us to take advantage of the theoretical "tea party candidate" by propelling conservatives into office on the Republican ticket.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on January 31, 2010 at 6:17pm

I maintain that, while the "Strict Purity Test" is actually rather wimpy, it also is a great step forward!

One must remember that the National GOP has, historically, almost no control of candidate control at the local and even state level!

We see the GOP as a monolithic entity. In reality, they are something of a confederation of many, many smaller groups organized at a more local level. The National party does swing a rather large stick in the form of financial aid, but they can ill afford to splinter their party, or face significant defections! They are between a rock and a hard spot, between us and the local party people!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Oines on January 31, 2010 at 7:52pm

Great - the Tea Party is effective. It is beginning to cause our broken system to correct itself.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Land Shark aka Bob E on February 1, 2010 at 2:39pm

Idea!!!! What if..................the oath of office was amended to read, "uphold the Constitution within it's original intent" ? Would that require an amendment to the Constitution? Or what? The oath as it is now is open to intrepretation and is not according to the intent at the time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa smith on February 2, 2010 at 9:54am

Vey good idea,
since it's obvious our elected officals seem to have problems w/ reading it
oh that's right they read nothing they slap a price tag on it and sail it thru!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa smith on February 2, 2010 at 9:56am

I think this where our supreme court justice's need to step in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and push back.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Land Shark aka Bob E on February 2, 2010 at 10:20am

Lisa, the shame of this is that we cannot rely on the supreme court. They are part of the problem.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lisa smith on February 2, 2010 at 9:50am

Purity test??????
we don;t need a purity test we need what we need is peoples with america's best interest at heart, and like minded in running our congress and senate. we need politicians that are not looking to take america down from the inside.
so i suggest we pay close attention, And it is extremly urgent no-more bill's come out of this debacle.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Land Shark aka Bob E on February 2, 2010 at 10:34am

The constitution is purity enough. In its original intent. All three branches disregard that though.