RNC members circulating 10-point “purity test” for candidates

posted at 4:55 pm on November 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

At first blush I thought this was the new “Contract With America” that Gingrich claimed Steele was preparing a few weeks ago, but no. Apparently, Steele has nothing to do with it. It comes from a bunch of members working on their own, who want the full list put before the RNC for adoption at the next convention.

Conservative Indiana Republican James Bopp Jr. on Monday began circulating a draft resolution calling on the Republican National Committee to end funding and endorsements for any candidate who deviates from three or more of its ten planks…

Bopp said he has not talked to party chairman Michael Steele about the resolution, which Bopp said could come up for a vote at the RNC’s winter meeting in January in Hawaii. He also said he hadn’t checked to see if any candidates currently seeking RNC funds violate more than two of the document’s principles.

The full resolution’s at the link but here are the 10 bullet points. You need to say yes to eight if you want to get paid, per Reagan’s saying that anyone who agrees with him 80 percent of the time is his friend, not his opponent:

(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

For a “purity test,” they’re not demanding much purity. The only points on which there’s any serious intraparty dispute are five and eight (and not much on the latter). From what I know of McCain’s current policy positions, even the maverickiest Maverick of them all would hit nine out of 10; Grahamnesty, who’s squishy on cap-and-trade, would score eight out of 10 if I’m not mistaken. Note also that there’s no pro-life requirement here. Point nine refers to abortion only in the context of ObamaCare. Why they didn’t draft that more broadly, I don’t know.

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test. I’d vote no on numbers eight and six — the latter not because I don’t support victory but because the condition at the end would reduce the president to a rubber stamp on military recommendations. Feel free to score yourselves below. (Just kidding; you’re all tens, I know.) Exit quotation: “The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The lesson of Obama is discipline. The R party is totally undisciplined (i.e. losers)

This goes out to WaPo…Why? Bunch of unserious renegades trying to one-up one another.

What is the main thing that leaps out from this…the Party of NO…opposed to Obama this and that. The Party of No is exactly what the Left/WaPo wants.

Allah is correct about 6. The conservative position is that civilian leadership should not be a rubber stamp of the Pentagon

This is a list of grievances, not principles. Shoddy work guys. Our country is facing a Leftist future if these people don’t grow up.

r keller on November 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Conservatives would do well to concentrate less on politicians and more on policies. It’s not anywhere near enough to elect ‘good’ Republicans – even if you could find more than one or two.

It’s vital to display zero tolerance for all Progressive ideas and anyone who espouses them in every walk of life.

It’s critical to oppose them intellectually and with every possible legal and practical option. If you run a restaurant, don’t serve them. If you own a gas station, don’t sell them gasoline. If you have influence over a bank, don’t lend them money. In the long run it will be essential to drive them out of the educational system and the media. But those are not yet possible. Do what you can in the meantime.

Shun them and shun anyone willing to trade with them, to the extent practical. (Not any easy judgment call, to be sure; but it’s a start.) You wouldn’t trade with a Nazi; don’t trade with Progressives when you can avoid it without injuring your family.

Don’t limit your activity to starving the Federal government. Starve its sources of fuel – in every way possible.

The goal is to make it as risky to be an open Progressive today as it was to be an open Communist in the 1950s. The only way we’re going to rid America of this century and a half year old virus is to bring the consequences home, up close and personal.

JDPerren on November 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Ethics For the duration of our service, we swear that we will put our country and our constituents ahead of everything but our family and our faith.

motionview on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

What if one’s faith is Islam?

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM

nor as conservative as John Cornyn

cornyn supports charlie’the flaming liberal”crist. guys like cornyn are part of the problem, professional politicians who won’t fight for conservative ideals. They are elected by spouting conservative values and then appease their good buddy liberals in washington.

peacenprosperity on November 23, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Ethics For the duration of our service, we swear that we will put our country and our constituents ahead of everything but our family and our faith.

motionview on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

What if one’s faith is Islam?

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM

And what if one’s family is a Chicago gang?

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM

r keller on November 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Exactly. Who thought it was a good idea to come out with a litmus test for conservatives, and have a majority of the points be things you must not support from Obama? The only purpose it serves is to make conservatives look juvenile. We need a 10 point list of basic generic points that every conservative should support. Fiscal and foreign policy and the family. Leave social issues and contentious issues off of it. I am a conservative by any measure of the word, but I also support a lot of libertarian issues which other conservatives would scoff at. So don’t make a list that alienates us because of our disagreements, but rather unite on what we agree on. Fiscal policy, foreign policy, reducing the deficit, reducing federal government size, etc.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM

She could if she lied.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

That’s how most Blue Dogs get elected. It’s genius.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Ethics For the duration of our service, we swear that we will put our country and our constituents ahead of everything but our family and our faith.

motionview on November 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM

What if one’s family is very “high maintenance”? Can a congress person take bribes to support his wife’s shopping habits?

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM

And what if one’s family is a Chicago gang?

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Well I never heard of such a thing! Oh, wait.

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Cap and trade is a market-based energy reform plan (maybe a stupid one, but still).

Proud Rino on November 23, 2009 at 5:06 PM

You’ve said a lot of very stupid things on this blog, but this is probably the stupid-est yet

Janos Hunyadi on November 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Who thought it was a good idea to come out with a litmus test for conservatives, and have a majority of the points be things you must not support from Obama?

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM

I think (hope) this lists’ focus is short term – funding priorities for the 2010 elections. My main issue with it as a long term plan, or the starting point for a new contract with America, is also the heavy emphasis on what the RNC opposes.

The base is already pissed off at all those things and will be waiting in line to vote. You need some positive focal points to get the independents off the couch.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:26 PM

That’s how most Blue Dogs get elected. It’s genius.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM

The American Conservative Union ratings for the most liberal house members averages 4.7. For the Blue Dogs, it’s 12.9. For RINO’s it’s 55.9, for those members identified as conservatives, it’s 89.0. There same pattern holds for Club for Growth ratings, ACLU ratings (except it goes from high for liberals to low for Conservatives), etc. Among Democrats, there is very little diversity. But Republicans are hard to herd.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Defense of marriage act? Bleh. Even if you are against gay marriage you have to concede that issue should be decided at the state level if you want the same to be said of abortion.

jhffmn on November 23, 2009 at 6:31 PM

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:05 PM

This is a much better list to require adherence to. I have said this for years, if a candidate can’t stand up and defend the party platform, how can they claim to be a representative of the party.

Sporty1946 on November 23, 2009 at 6:34 PM

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:26 PM

I want to be excited to vote for one of these chumps, because I really believe that he or she really believes in the things they are saying. I want someone to tell me that we need to reduce spending, and then GASP . . throw out an idea on how to do it.

One of the biggest problems in the republican party is the RNC itself. The reason the RNC sucks so badly is that they are run by absolute morons who are completely out of touch. In fact, the stereotypes of Republicans, as old white out of touch men, ABSOLUTELY apply to the RNC. They are so out of touch that their solution to a black president being elected was to throw the closest black man out in front of the RNC to shield it from racial nonsense. Its a truly broken organization run by inept people.

One last example, is it smart to hold the next RNC meeting in HAWAII, when the rest of the country is hurting for cash and one of your biggest complaints of the Obama administration is waste???? Its this kind of absolute incompetence that is the hallmark of the RNC. They should be holding their convention in a VERY modest place in the middle of a purple state.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM

The RNC has flat lined for too too long. They just about did theirselves in with John McCain. They will do and say anything to get folks mailing those contributions again.

bluegrass on November 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM

“My preference is that we get more conservatives in the Senate,” Cornyn said. “The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”

I don’t know what Cornyn is talking about. As the head of the NRSC he has consistently endorsed more liberal candidates and funded them, leading to the reasonable conclusion that he favors more liberal candidates. So where does his “conservative as John Cornyn” self-reference come from?

You’re clueless, Cornyn. And Jim DeMint doesn’t seem to have much trouble getting elected, either. WTF?

Jaibones on November 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM

Gee, I’m 9 out of 10, only going against #8 on federalism grounds (plus I’m libertarian enough to say if gays want marriage, they can have it. But they have to convince a state to enlarge marriage to include them. Not by suing.)

rbj on November 23, 2009 at 6:38 PM

I wouldn’t support one thing a democrat supports, because they would be lying if they said they agreed with any of this. They will cave to there leaders each and every time, unless they were given permission to do otherwise.

rlwo2008 on November 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM

One last example, is it smart to hold the next RNC meeting in HAWAII, when the rest of the country is hurting for cash and one of your biggest complaints of the Obama administration is waste???? Its this kind of absolute incompetence that is the hallmark of the RNC. They should be holding their convention in a VERY modest place in the middle of a purple state.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM

That is particularly maddening, isn’t it? And it is symbolic of the disconnect between the Republican insiders and outsiders.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Among Democrats, there is very little diversity. But Republicans are hard to herd.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM

I’ve noticed, and your statistics back it up, that the key to being a Blue Dog is to pick one or two ‘wedge issues’ and go conservative on them. You vote pro-gun or pro-life and it gives you a shield to vote for every single other progressive bill that comes up.

Republicans need to target left leaning districts in a similar fashion. I’ve always been curious to see how many (R)s could get elected in Dem strongholds by flat out saying ‘I’m pro-choice and fully support gay marriage’. Then vote for smaller government and a strong national defense when in office. The exact formula would vary depending on the district, but I think it would be worth the dollars next year just to find out.

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM

They brush up against it with some of their “points” but they don’t even directly mention liberty and the constitution.

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM

BINGO! Which means they’re pissing in the wind; they don’t get it. The commenters here have suggested far more useful points in just the last 10 minutes.

Firefly_76 on November 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Hey how about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? You remember your oath of office, don’t you?

tarpon on November 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM

They should be holding their convention in a VERY modest place in the middle of a purple state.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Very good point, thank you.

fourdeucer on November 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM

That is exactly why the litmus test for conservatives should be completely on fiscal and foreign policy grounds. When you include a wedge issue as a tenet of what it means to be a conservative, you alienate a large percentage of voters who may be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

If I had my dream candidate, he would support things like the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Now you include that in any litmus test, and you are alienating a BUNCH of people, which is why it cannot be included as a requirement.

thphilli on November 23, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Hey, I’m ten for ten!

ScottMcC on November 23, 2009 at 7:05 PM

Idiots.

Did none of these people get past the 5th grade?
Or do they think that nobody else has done so?
Freakin’ idiots.

bridgetown on November 23, 2009 at 7:06 PM

BadgerHawk on November 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM

I loved W for many things, but was he “conservative” when it came to spending? No.

I tend to agree with social conservatives on cultural values, but don’t like their spending habits and desire at times to impose such values on all of us with laws. I greatly enjoy and respect libertarians, but often cringe at their cultural interests and value systems. How do we pull this together?

I like Reagan’s 80% formula, but if I apply that standard to the House Republican Caucus on ACLU, ACU and CFG rankings, and Voting w/Republicans, I can identify 113 “RINO’s” out of 177. That’s 64% of the GOP House caucus!

So, we have a small body (conservatives), two very large wings (from leaning to very libertarian or social conservative), and a short tail of moderates. Can we make this thing fly?

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 7:09 PM

The only points on which there’s any serious intraparty dispute are five and eight (and not much on the latter).

So, opposing illegal (note the illegal part) immigration is a problem?
Ya, I guess it is for the bunch of law breakers in congress. Hot check writers, spousal obusers, tax cheats, racketeering, DWI, bribery and ect., ect., ect…..

Johan Klaus on November 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Hey how about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? You remember your oath of office, don’t you?

tarpon on November 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM

That should be number one and go without saying.

Johan Klaus on November 23, 2009 at 7:14 PM

No, you only get to disagree with two. If you disagree with three or more, no money.

Allahpundit on November 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Ohhhh! No wonder I failed word problems in math!

SouthernGent on November 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

What if one’s faith is Islam?

MB4 on November 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan redux, maybe?

Johan Klaus on November 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

That’s a pretty weak purity test.

therightwinger on November 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM

They should split up item 8. I’m against government health care, but I’m pro-choice on abortion. Maybe put the government health care into a re-worded item 3 – market based solutions to energy reform and health reform.

Jill1066 on November 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM

If you don’t score 10 out of 10 on this simple little list of questions don’t even bother asking for my vote!

Browncoatone on November 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care

All of the Republican ads on health care these days seem to argue that Republicans will do a better job than Democrats at doling out free health care to those who like government dependency.

On immigration, The Republicans should do something serious like promise to suspend all poverty immigration, legal and illegal, for 20 years, or until real unemployment is lower than 5% and workers wages rise to the level that starts closing the gap between rich and poor.

Buddahpundit on November 23, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Then the answer is to sell conservatism to those parts of the country. The alternative is to elect liberals and call them Republicans, and that accomplishes nothing.

Ronnie

The problem in all this seems to be selling conservatism to the Republican Party itself.

Ozwitch on November 23, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Ohhhh! No wonder I failed word problems in math!

SouthernGent on November 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

And multiplication in English.

Loxodonta on November 23, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Wow, nice “scare quotes” in the title. Most normal conservatives would have called it a platform. Nice to know you consider it a “purity test.”

rmgraha on November 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM

“(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;…”

I’m sorry, but this is stupid, stupid wording. All you need or want here is: We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes.

Same for all the other stupid negative wording instances also. Gaahhh.

Meremortal on November 23, 2009 at 8:12 PM

I only got 8. Only 7 if you consider the McCain approach to illegals to be “amnesty”. Can I still vote Republican?

DarkKnight3565 on November 23, 2009 at 9:45 PM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test.

OK, I understand – it’s a pointless test.

disa on November 23, 2009 at 11:13 PM

A good 95% of the GOP could audition for the remake of “The Invisible Man.” Only instead of the cigarette smoking scene, they can update the gag to playing “Hide the Salami” with a 2-pounder. The GOP doing what they do best: bending over and taking it in the rear.

PD Quig on November 24, 2009 at 12:13 AM

Send those interns back to the drawing board. It’s not about Obambi, i.e “by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill”. It’s about the everlasting founding principles. To wit: (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill that all powers invested in us is at the will of the people. In the House, we are not leaders, rather representatives of the People that sent us. In the Senate, we are not the leaders, rather the representatives of the State that sent us;

2) We will ensure that the government limits itself to providing for the common defense and general welfare and not to rationalize growing the government;

blah, blah

Ya get the drift, but I’m not seeing any love, nor fealty to the Constitution here.

AH_C on November 24, 2009 at 12:15 AM

How about this:
1. We support and defend the CONSTITUTION and refuse to let ANY legislation pass that REMOTELY violates the Constitution.
That’s all they need…PERIOD!
And no Allahpundit, you COULDN’T pass this test.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:28 AM

In fact, even a Chamberlain-esque RINO candy ass like me would pass this test.

No Allahpundit, a RINO candyass like you COULDN’T pass the test.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM

Ok, smaller government… which parts are you willing to get rid of? I can think of a few, right off the top of my head:
-Dept. of Education – Poor Johnny hasn’t upped his reading level since the late 1950′s and this Dept. has done nada to that. End it.

-Dept. of Agriculture – A massive political pay-off and subsidy system that raises the cost of food in America and is often refered to as ‘Welfare for Big Business’. Big Agribusiness doesn’t need government help, nor do we need to pay people not to farm. Siphoning money through Ag. to Iran under Reagan should tip us off that this is a massively corrupt institution. End it.

-Dept. of Energy – Since its formation we have had two energy crises, no real advances on power generation or distribution from Dept. of Energy, and lots of research grants. That is why we have NSF. Fund NSF better for energy and end the Dept of Energy. DoD should pick up the nuclear bits for weapons testing and safety.

There, hundreds of billions of dollars of pork infested budgets that I can think of that are not the responsibility of the federal government, have been used to corrupt ends, and are generally not showing any output for lots of input, beyond getting money into districts for partisan sycophants.

Target those babies, vote against funding for them, zero out the lines for them, vote against any pork for them, and generally fight to get those taken down… and put the money into one-time rebates to the US Taxpayer and then lower taxes. Do that week after week, month after month, fight for that and make sure it is on the agenda each and every day on the Hill…if you want to end ‘business as usual’ on the Hill, it starts with BACKING those points NOW and showing you are SERIOUS about them.

Become a phenomenal pain in the ass until you get your agenda voted on and then re-work and re-submit it when its voted down.

That worked for Progressives and Liberals… feed them their own medicine and see how they like it. And it would have the great benefit of tying up the schedule so that ‘critical’ bills get stalled out. Then you can ask for a streamlining of the THOSE bills to get rid of the extraneous stuff, and everyone knows you are serious by continually using the system to clog it up. That takes guts, fortitude and commitment to ending Big Government.

I have yet to see it in action… two words not one like it currently is.

ajacksonian on November 24, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Guess what: A whole hell of a lot of us are sick to death of the abortion NON-ISSUE and the SocialCons culture wars. The Religious Right has driven this party straight into “hated and reviled” status and we’re tired of explaining to our friends and co-workers that, yes, we’re Republicans but no, we’re not religious freaks.

voxpopuli on November 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM

That is exactly why the litmus test for conservatives should be completely on fiscal and foreign policy grounds. When you include a wedge issue as a tenet of what it means to be a conservative, you alienate a large percentage of voters who may be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I can definitely agree with that. We should all be able to get behind small government true conservatism that still trusts in the individual and the family to make their own decisions about their life and values. Thats my frustration with Social Conservatives who want to label anyone who is not one of them, as a fake Republican/RINO, regardless of how much small government and lower spending we want.

Its like if we don not want their evangelical values codified into law, we are damned “Liberals”. Last I checked, its both social liberals and social conservatives who both believe in using government to push values onto people. Its small government Republicans and libertarians who believe its just not the governments business to do that, that is is a personal matter for at home.

Guess what: A whole hell of a lot of us are sick to death of the abortion NON-ISSUE and the SocialCons culture wars. The Religious Right has driven this party straight into “hated and reviled” status and we’re tired of explaining to our friends and co-workers that, yes, we’re Republicans but no, we’re not religious freaks.

Same here. I know plenty of people who do not identify at all with leftist big government ideals, but are rather frighted at the Social Conservatives that seem to want to turn to GOP into a religious organization.

firepilot on November 24, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Guess what: A whole hell of a lot of us are sick to death of the abortion NON-ISSUE and the SocialCons culture wars. The Religious Right has driven this party straight into “hated and reviled” status and we’re tired of explaining to our friends and co-workers that, yes, we’re Republicans but no, we’re not religious freaks.

voxpopuli on November 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Get a clue troll, more people oppose murdering unborn babies than EVER.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2