freezy h. mcquackers: blog don't shoot the messenger
the republican 'purity test'
Published November 24, 2009Views: 1523
Conservative Republican Party activists want to withhold money from GOP candidates who stray too far from party orthodoxy.
Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test – calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.
[...]
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and
WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
(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
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; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/24/some-conservatives-push-a-purity-test-for-gop-candidates/
---------------------------------
Some of these, namely #1, are great ideas. Others, I feel, will further the party's decline.
Filed under: Politics
71 Comments
(5 votes) motorcyclist dies in morrisville wreck
(4 votes) etheridge to back health care reform

































Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
November 25, 2009 8:07 a.m.
In any case, I think we've discussed this more than enough already. Neither of us is going to budge an inch, so it's probably best left to the elections to determine which of us is right.
If the Republicans can run to the right on social issues and still manage to get elected, then I'll admit you're right. Until then, it hasn't been working that well for you guys. NY23rd, for example ...
GOLO member since November 9, 2009
November 25, 2009 12:33 a.m.
No argument that they need to get serious about fiscal responsibility, but in order to do that, they have to win first.
And socially conservative issues will cost them votes. Mine for one. They can come up with the best fiscal plan in the world, but until they drop the social stuff, I'll never vote for them because I just can not support that sort of thing. Ever. I'm not alone in that determination.
As I said before, who else are the social conservative people going to vote for? It's not like any politician is ever actually going to deliver on their desired agenda, so why even make it an issue to begin with? Why not focus on something we all can agree on, fiscal discipline, instead?
GOLO member since November 9, 2009
November 25, 2009 12:09 a.m.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2009/68_say_those_who_employ_illegal_immigrants_should_be_punished
Need I continue?
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
November 24, 2009 12:57 p.m.
I guess I missed the part where anyone advocated runing "solely" on social issues. While abandoning half the population to satisfy your personal worldview may make sense to you, it doesn't to anyone who really looks at the evidence.
Take another look at the above list. As far as social issues, I count 1 or 2 out of ten. (3 if you really stretch it.)
The republicans problem is not on social issues - it is fiscal issues. They have lost all credibility on spending and smaller gov't. You can see the world as you think it is, or see the world as it really is. Either way, it will be what it really is.
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
November 24, 2009 12:46 p.m.
Uhhh - yeah really.
When the current Admin & Congress run up a deficit bigger that all the previous Administrations and Congresses before them COMBINED, that "point" to which you refer is completely meaningless - regardless of which party over saw it...
The sky is blue.
(just waiting to see what you say in disagreement to that statement...)
GOLO member since May 15, 2009
November 24, 2009 12:24 p.m.
The GOP should focus on:
National Defense
Fiscal Responsibility
Immigration Enforcement
Personal Responsibility
Pandering to the "Moral Majority" only makes the GOP irrevelant.
GOLO member since October 9, 2007
November 24, 2009 11:59 a.m.
LOL, no, not really. While I dislike the policy, Democrats have not to my knowledge ran on promises of fiscal responsibility and shrinking government. They're doing what history and policy pretty much indicate that they'd do.
Where the irony comes in is when Republicans DO preach fiscal constraint and smaller government, but do just the opposite once elected.
Short version: both sides do it. One side just lies about doing it to get elected.
GOLO member since November 9, 2009
November 24, 2009 11:41 a.m.
All rendered void and meaningless given the current Congress and Administration...so that was almost a good point - right up until the time you started typing it....
GOLO member since May 15, 2009
November 24, 2009 11:37 a.m.
I know. My comment was poorly worded. The "you" in it was directed at OS, not at you. Sorry for the confusing context.
GOLO member since November 9, 2009
November 24, 2009 11:36 a.m.
Please log in to add comment.