RNC adopts watered-down “purity test” for Republican candidates

posted at 9:50 pm on January 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

How watered down? Well, it’s even weaker than that 10-point litmus test of principles that was proposed back in November. Which even Meghan McCain claimed she could pass.

So, pretty weak.

The alternative, offered by RNC member Bill Crocker of Texas, does not contain a specific litmus test and thus grants party officials more flexibility in how to vet GOP candidates seeking party support.

It urges leaders of local, state and national Republican parties to “carefully screen” the voting record and positions of Republican candidates that want party backing, and determine whether they “wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions” of the party as laid out in its platform…

The new rule will not prevent support for moderate Republican candidates but will bar funding for those judged to be too far to the left, Crocker said.

“No more Scozzafavas, please. No mid Country Crossing spokesman Jay Walker.

Politico has the text of the actual resolution. Here’s the long, long, looong 2008 Republican platform, which includes support for a human life amendment to the Constitution and staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does that mean that Scott Brown and, say, Rand Paul will be ineligible for national funding in the future? Or does “wholehearted support” for the platform really mean wholehearted support for most of the platform, with the actual percentages of how much support is required punted to local Republican leaders to decide? I’m guessing the latter.

But if it is the latter, then how exactly does this solve the Scozzafava problem? The whole issue there, supposedly, was that local party bosses deemed her “Republican enough” to be worth nominating because they thought she could win, never mind whether she agreed with core planks of the platform or not. This seems to give those same bosses the same discretion in picking and choosing candidates. Or am I missing something?


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

I kinda miss Scuzzy.

Lanceman on January 29, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Why is the RNC wasting their time on stupid things like purity tests?

mizflame98 on January 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Non-issue at the moment.

Stop being an Eeyore in the shadow of the Massachusetts Miracle, AP. It’s as if your beta-male status compels you to continually want to be an underdog.

lansing quaker on January 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM

First thing, they cannot be supporting some douche like Crist. Any candidate hugging up to Obama is out!!!

TXMomof3 on January 29, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Is this the reason why Meghan McCain said she passed the “purity” test?

RedRobin145 on January 29, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Allahpundit is right. This is weak and pointless.

People will respect and elect the real thing. Trying to push wannabe democrats under the Republican label is part of why Obama won.

sharrukin on January 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Silly me…I thought the test was the GOP primary.

The Ugly American on January 29, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Too early to worry about this. They should imitate the Dems and lie about everything to get elected. After The One, that is what the electorate expects.

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Hey the tea party people will do their own … and get their own canidates.

tarpon on January 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Stop being an Eeyore in the shadow of the Massachusetts Miracle, AP. It’s as if your beta-male status compels you to continually want to be an underdog.

Translation: You’re either with us or against you intellectual elitist snob.

They must be paying you good money to put up with these yahoos, AP.

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Speaking of lying, in The One’s dark view of his predecessors, they were as dishonest as he. And His goals are loftier.

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM

How about the voters in the primary decide on the “purity” of the candidate? It looks like that’s gonna work out just fine in Florida.

Doughboy on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Hey the tea party people will do their own … and get their own canidates.

How about you get your own country while you’re at it, and leave the rest of us alone?

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I liked the Democrat standing ovation for ending earmarks. Someone on Fox mentioned Pelosi doing her ‘gas filled log bob’, just after she sent out for a list from her members.

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 10:06 PM

The gas filled log bob was mine..don’t blame Fox, Media Matters.

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I think the RNC and especially Stepin Fetchit Steele should get out of the way and let We The People choose our own candidates.

Screw the “purity” test!

Purity tests are for liberals and wuzzies!

pilamaye on January 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I kinda like the Massachusetts purity test. And the Virginia purity test. And the New Jersey purity test.

But the best purity test this year will be Nevada purity test.

The One-Size-Fits-All purity test has a downside. Why make good an enemy of best?

SlaveDog on January 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

How about the voters in the primary decide on the “purity” of the candidate? It looks like that’s gonna work out just fine in Florida.

Doughboy on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Word.

But if you are going to send your coin to a national organization, you might want some understanding on the candidates it will be used to support.

Spirit of 1776 on January 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM

As pure as the driven Washington snow..

Caper29 on January 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Purity tests. Shoot. I’d rather have 5 fiscal conservatives than 30 RINO’s any day. We can decide on abortion and the death penalty later. Curb that govt. spending!

Rightwingguy on January 29, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Allahpundit is right.

sharrukin on January 29, 2010 at 10:00 PM

No, he isn’t.

He links together Scott Brown, Ron Paul, and Dede Scozzafava in this entry like the circumstances/realities/candidacies of all three even have anything that links them outside of his own fantasies.

This is just a simple procedural rule by the RNC taking a “wait-and-see” approach. Under any “purity” test Scott Brown would never have received RNC funding from the outset; only until the race became “competitive” did it even register. The RNC wasn’t interested in NY-23 until Scozzafava started to implode. They were wholly reactionary: on one level, “Brown is unexpectedly gaining traction! Here’s our support!” while earlier it was “Scozzafava is being besieged by those tea partiers — double down and send in the big guns!”

This is essentially just saying the RNC is having its own “50 State Strategy” and not creating some bureaucratic national litmus. It’s nothing set in stone. And for AP to link it to Scozzafava (someone “crowned” by the local establishment and then buttressed by the National Party), to Ron Paul (lol), to Scott Brown (someone basically ignored by the local establishment, then only supported by them and the National Party once the race became winnable) is completely disingenuous and an attempt to create “links” that aren’t there.

Not to mention Megan McCain (R-AS.IF) being a part of this at all.

I don’t care what the party states in a toothless matter of procedure. I care about the candidates themselves. Once we see them, we can continue this debate.

lansing quaker on January 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM

SlaveDog on January 29, 2010 at 10:09 PM

You mean where the actual voters got to decide who their conservative candidate would be? Has anyone noticed that the RNC picked Scozafava (sp?) and the people chose the other guys (Chris Christy, Scott Brown, et al.)?

Rightwingguy on January 29, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Who grades the test?
How are the scores evaluated?

Do we really need this?

Kini on January 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Why aren’t Michael Steele and the “bosses” demanding that Scotty B. be sworn and seated…?

… Why?

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Not going to take any steenking tests!

jeanie on January 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

This purity test crap is so… GOP. Don’t they get it? We want authenticity, common sense, fiscal conservatism, and decency.

No blanket litmus test is possible in a federation of diverse states with regional idiosyncrasies. Steele and the GOP leadership need to be taken to the woodshed, and just let the people tell them what to do.

BTW, you can join interesting conservative discussion in an open forum at “It’s About Freedom”, by clicking on my signature.

IronDioPriest on January 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

First thing, they cannot be supporting some douche like Crist. Any candidate hugging up to Obama is out!!!

TXMomof3 on January 29, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Damn straight, TxMomof3.

Hey! I see Grow_Brains is back!

Lanceman on January 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

lansing quaker on January 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM

At the end of the day, despite us ideologically agreeing more with the RNC than the DNC, both are political organizations and are more interested in racking up people with “R’s” and “D’s” next to their name with little regard for actual ideology and principles.

Rightwingguy on January 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

jeanie on January 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Purity test? We don’t need no stinking purity test!

Rightwingguy on January 29, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Send your money, if your are so inclined, to the candidates you support directly…

The National GOP is a joke and filled with career bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians who are not feeling our pain.

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Why would Rand Paul be excluded? He supports the war and is for trying terrorists in Gitmo, plus he’s pro-life.

cubachi on January 29, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I see the genital wart outbreak has cleared up a little and you are able to post again…

Cool. How is fornicating with your professors and goat coming along, still working on that thesis?

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Dang, somebody left the door open and that “Fins” thing crawled back in.

Buford Gooch on January 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

This week I received 2 pieces of literature (yes, I’m being nice) from the RNC requesting my survey info and of course money. On both I wrote that I was NOT giving them money but instead I was sending it directly to the candidate with the conservative priniciples that I believe in. They still don’t get it….

sicoit on January 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Why is the RNC wasting their time on stupid things like purity tests?

mizflame98 on January 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Because they don’t want Barney Frank running as a Republican? All of the most radical leftists would run as Republicans if we allowed them to. Why wouldn’t they?

Buddahpundit on January 29, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Grow Fins…

in all “it’s” glory. You decide if you would ‘hit it’ or not.

Seven Percent Solution on January 29, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Suppressed individuals tired of their rule under a totalitarian King sparked the movement to this country and the tea party was a demonstration of their will to be free from this rule and govern themselves. The tea party represents the Power of the People and not this new idea of misdirection of power.
“I will pledge to be a servant to my President”. This is the direction this country is going and why the tea-party is the response. Your ideas are the very reason this country was founded.

Electrongod on January 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM

How about you get your own country while you’re at it, and leave the rest of us alone?

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

The day you clowns let Americans wave a magic Get-Out-Of-Loot card and escape your mandatory Utopia with all its mandates and fees and taxes and caps, is the day the Grand Old Party dies of uselessness.* Sadly you won’t leave us alone, so we’re mobilized.

* Well you do respect the Documento de Matricular cards, but Mexico hasn’t forgotten how to be unilateral, so I can’t get one.

Chris_Balsz on January 29, 2010 at 10:37 PM

This whole idea of a “purity test” is just nuts. Instead, how about having a vote of all the Republicans, registered Republicans, in the district or state to choose who the nominee should be? Then the RNC could back the winner in the general election.
We could call it a primary or something.

billy on January 29, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Not nearly enough to get ‘TeaApproved’ in our neck of the woods. The fact we’re doing this has candidates beating our doors down (and the RINOs ticked).

michaelo on January 29, 2010 at 10:47 PM

and staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A one-day international conference on Afghanistan on Thursday rejected India’s argument that there were no degrees of Talibanism. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hosting the conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, announced in his opening address the establishment of a $500 million ‘trust fund’ to buy “peace and integration” with warriors who are engaged in violence for economic rather than ideological reasons. A whopping $140 million has been pledged already for this year.

During his pre-conference discussion with the British foreign secretary David Miliband, external affairs minister S M Krishna had specifically said, “There should be no distinction between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.” But this clearly fell on deaf ears. It was also unclear whether remnants of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, once cultivated by India, would be accommodated in any way. There was also no reference to the erstwhile foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, who put up a spirited fight in the first round of the recent controversial presidential election and exposed fraud before withdrawing from the contest.

The London conference on Afghanistan set in motion a set of events whose outcome is not yet clear. It’s driven by Afghan president Hamid Karzai, who has been pushing the reconciliation drive. India’s unenthusiastic acceptance is largely in support of Karzai. But much more than that is the hard fact that on Afghanistan, despite India’s huge presence, India’s “influence” is negligible.

Know why? Same reason Israelis aren’t officially involved in our “global” coalitions. Because it upsets Muslims. It’s an Islamic thing; you wouldn’t understand (unless you read the Koran). Frontline opponents of jihad are blackballed by other putative frontline opponents of jihad — our Islamic “allies” in the “war on terror.” It’s a joke — on us.

From McChrystal’s infamous strategy: “While India’s activities [devlopment] largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.” In other words, if friendly India builds roads or water systems in Afghanistan, our allies in Pakistan will get violent. Back to the Times of India story:

India’s objections may be valid, and will probably be borne out in the coming months and years, but for the time being, India does not count.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is calling the shots, despite the fact that majority of Afghans prefer India to Pakistan. But Pakistan is leveraging its continuing and close contacts with the Taliban and Al Qaida leadership to help work out a political deal that can get the US out of Afghanistan. In this, Pakistan’s ISI, which has been pilloried for its terror links, is keen to find a way of worming its way back.

Tangled web time.

Pakistan successfully kept India out of a regional meeting on Afghanistan in Istanbul, but Turkey was acting because both the US and UK subscribe to Pakistan having a much greater role in deciding the future of Afghanistan.

Dhimmis out.

There remains great scepticism in India about Taliban leaders like Mullah Omar, Sirajuddin Haqqani and the Quetta Shura coming into the Afghan mainstream. However, UN officials went on record to say that the UN representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, had recently met “active” members of the Taliban leadership and a future meeting is due to be held in Dubai.

Can’t wait.

MB4 on January 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

This week I received 2 pieces of literature (yes, I’m being nice) from the RNC requesting my survey info and of course money. On both I wrote that I was NOT giving them money but instead I was sending it directly to the candidate with the conservative priniciples that I believe in. They still don’t get it….

sicoit on January 29, 2010 at 10:27 PM

They (RNC) texted me at least 5-6 times during & after the SOTU, I stopped reading them, but two were after donations. Typical-”Hit reply to donate $25″-I have no idea how I got on their text list. My guess would be one of those petition drives I am always getting hammered with. I’ve no problem signing petitions, someone sharing my data(invariably for $) pisses me off!

Archimedes on January 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM

It,s plain that the members of congress don,t get it and really don,t know what it means to be a real conservative .Maybe when they get there Butts kicked in a primary challenge then they may get it in there retirement .

thmcbb on January 29, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Forget the purity test crap. It is about leadership and charisma and there is no litmus test for that. We know it when we see it.

crosspatch on January 29, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Litmus test? Like acid or alkaline? And just what does the usual pol know about chemistry except to misuse the word? Goes double for LSM.

Hey the tea party people will do their own … and get their own canidates.

tarpon on January 29, 2010 at 10:02 PM

For me it’s that simple. Constitution, small government and low taxes. We can argue the fine points after we fix the stinking pile that four years of Obama & co. will have left.

That might take a little nitrogen chemistry to fix.

Caststeel on January 29, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Here’s my response to the so-called, “Purity test.”

I am a staunch conservative, but I’m also a pragmatist.

The primaries are like being at an amusement park. You are told you have 30 minutes to choose your ride, so, you pick your favorite (The CONSERVATIVE roller coaster, not that wimpy one they call , “THE RINO”).

The next week, they bring you back and your choices have been limited to two rides. The CONSERVATIVE roller coaster you chose last week has been sidelined because not enough patrons rode it. They replaced it with the RINO roller coaster, so you can either pick that or the demon ride from hell from your childhood…the one that will make you throw up all over yourself and give you nightmares for two weeks.
You say, “Um, no thanks, I’ll take the exit”.
You are told, “Sorry, that’s not an option, PICK ONE.”
What are you going to do??
My point is, those that stayed home because they didn’t like either candidate in ’08 elected Obama. Congratulations!
So, for you “Purists”, in the primaries, vote for the person you think is the most conservative. If they win, great, work like a dog for them in the general. If the RINO wins, suck it up! Work like a dog for them in the general. This is bigger than your sensibilities…this is about our nation, and I’m sorry, a third party is going to do nothing but “smote” ya’ll!
2010-2012 is a time to elect ANYBODY with an R after his name (again, think general…primaries, go for the jugular!). When that dust settles, and we have a majority in Congress, we can serve that giant can o’whoopass to the RINOs. Maybe, in 2012, a third party will be an option. But right now, you are deluding yourselves if you think it is going to do anything but water down our chances of getting this country back on track.
I’m sorry if you think that’s a cop out, but it’s the way I feel.
As far as the platform, I agree, it is pabulum. I do think a few minor changes might help.
Here are my suggestions:
1)Move #10 WAY up in the order. I don’t mean to #1, but maybe somewhere between #s 3 and 5.
2)Combine #s 2 and 9, and eliminate the words, “Federal funding for” before the word, “abortion.”
3)Since we’ve combined 2 and 9, we have room for one more. I propose, “We support kicking the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader’s keester to the curb, and figuratively gelding the man who currently holds the office of POTUS.

Chewy the Lab on January 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Mispoke: not a platform: basically a litmus test for candidates…what I said still stands…long day.

Chewy the Lab on January 29, 2010 at 11:44 PM

MB4 on January 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Thanks. That part of the world has long been SNAFU and OBL did nothing to improve it. It is indeed a long war. The positive is India building a real military. Mixed is US surveillance (when it comes home). The Pakis handling their civil/military situation with slightly less than the usual corruption won’t last. Then there is poppy.

Keep it coming.

Caststeel on January 29, 2010 at 11:52 PM

The RNC leadership is doing their best to start a third party. They better get their heads out of their asses or November may not be the turn back they are looking forward to.

sheriff246 on January 30, 2010 at 12:12 AM

How about you get your own country while you’re at it, and leave the rest of us alone?

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

We used to have our own country… it had a Constitution and everything… it was called the United States of America…

Some of us want that country of limited federal Governmental Power, and personal Freedom, back.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Question????

Is the problem that the GOP Platform is TOO SPECIFIC and LARGE?

Instead of broad principals, like limited Government, its become a boilerplate where EVERY Social issue is written in Stone…

So… it essentialy… instead of Prioritizing a few IMPORTANT issues… it becomes a document which drives Moderates and Libertarians running screaming into the night… or at least holding their nose as they vote for the GOP guy.

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM

So, do they have promise rings too?

Jimbo3 on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Constitution.

Small Government.

Strong Defense.

Fiscal Responsibility.

Constitution.

hillbillyjim on January 30, 2010 at 1:11 AM

I am embarrassed because I think it may be complaints from people like me (“No more Scuzzafuzzas!”) that prompted these idiots to propose a “purity test” solution. It was guaranteed to either be too weak to weed out the likes of Scozzafozza, or so strong it’d exclude Scott Brown.

The problem with Scuzzywuzza wasn’t that she was a liberal, it was that the national GOP maneuvered itself into funding a guaranteed loser who was spoiling the election for a viable conservative. The great thing about Scott Brown isn’t his positions on the issues, but the symbolic and political blow against the Obama agenda. No one-size-fits-all rule like a purity test could make those calls. What is needed is good judgment by individual humans at the party level. Is that so much to ask for?

joe_doufu on January 30, 2010 at 1:26 AM

It doesn’t much matter what policy the RNC adopts. They’re so far out of touch with the average Joe that they get no money from me.

I will give my dollars to the candidates who represent most closely my views.

Tennman on January 30, 2010 at 1:45 AM

The RNC hasn’t said a peep about Kirk voting for all kinds of bills after Brown was elected. The RNC are cowardly scum more interested political gain and money than in the life and liberty of America and its peoples. They don’t need any checklist because the keep failing real tests when they count. They can all go to hell.

chicagojedi on January 30, 2010 at 1:47 AM

So, do they have promise rings too?

Jimbo3 on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM

*Gasp–I can’t freaking believe you made me laff–and then I choked because I realized I finally agree with you on something…
Good one–all the same.

lovingmyUSA on January 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

The RNC hasn’t said a peep about Kirk voting…
chicagojedi on January 30, 2010 at 1:47 AM

Easy guy. Kirk should not be voting. FU by D’rats. Should advantage be found, Kirk’s vote will be subject of a winning suit to overturn.

Dems have 10 days from election to seat Brown. Sigh.

Your point is made and valid. Problem it is not me nor you that is playing this hand.

Caststeel on January 30, 2010 at 2:01 AM

Constitution.

Small Government.

Strong Defense.

Fiscal Responsibility.

Constitution.

hillbillyjim on January 30, 2010 at 1:11 AM

+111

Caststeel on January 30, 2010 at 2:05 AM

A watered down test is no test at all.
Just as Steele’s ‘leadership’ isn’t.

rayra on January 30, 2010 at 2:51 AM

My point is, those that stayed home because they didn’t like either candidate in ‘08 elected Obama. Congratulations!

Chewy the Lab on January 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM

This accusation cracks me up every time. How many times did I sit for hours and argue on this blog that those who insist on choosing McCain “because he’s electable” were going to destroy the country? Yeah, and every time they shot back that those who refuse to vote for McCain would be responsible, because he’s our only hope to beat Obama, the Messiah.

Well, how did that work out for all you pathetic losers? And yet, here we are one year later, and all the same clowns are still here pushing the same warped ideas that FAILED miserably last time around.

BIG TENT they scream! We must have a big tent!
McCAIN’s ELECTABLE they scream! We must nominate the RINO so we can get all those independent voters!

Yeah, bloody brilliant. That worked out just dandy, and here we are.

So, you’re incapable of learning? You haven’t learned yet that you don’t gain anything by moving to the left? You’re still going to lose, and even IF you win … you still lose, because the candidate you elect is a FRIGGIN LIBERAL.

So what are you going to do this time around? Are you going to learn, or are you going to be just like Obama and double down? Hey! How about Olympia Snowe for the Republican nomination? How about Lindsey Graham? Susan Collins? Or maybe we should just nominate McCain again, as all of you bashing JD Hayworth would be happy to see?

We see the same exact people in here bashing Sarah Palin, bashing JD Hayworth, and bashing Glenn Beck. The same people, pushing the same nonsense, making the same arguments for the same losers such as Romney, Huckabee, and McCain. You know, it’s because … THEY CAN WIN! DOH!

We spent a year warning you all. You didn’t listen. Now you’re actually starting to see what happens when conservative candidates come right out and act conservative. They win.

So all you “Big Tent” morons can leave now. We’re taking over this show and we’ll show you how it’s done. RINOS are going bye-bye.

Gregor on January 30, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Gregor on January 30, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Long time, no see post. How ’bout next time you quit sugarcoating it and tell us how you really feel!

hillbillyjim on January 30, 2010 at 4:20 AM

Why is the RNC wasting their time on stupid things like purity tests?

mizflame98 on January 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

So that you stop complaining about Rino’s.

True_King on January 30, 2010 at 6:07 AM

Silly me…I thought the test was the GOP primary.

The Ugly American on January 29, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Again, doesn’t solve the Scuzzlebutt problem.

Lehosh on January 30, 2010 at 7:43 AM

Gregor on January 30, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Whoa, back off and calm down Sport(though I assume you’re sleeping it off, while I am up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed this fine midwestern morning!).

If you will note, I also said:

So, for you “Purists”, in the primaries, vote for the person you think is the most conservative. If they win, great, work like a dog for them in the general. If the RINO wins, suck it up! Work like a dog for them in the general.

Now, take your rabies medicine and go back to bed. Hangovers are a beach.

Chewy the Lab on January 30, 2010 at 8:08 AM

BTW Gregor: I have said on numerous occasions that I have a total girl crush on Sarah. I think JD Hayworth is great, and I’m kinda lukey-luke on Beck…like him a lot, but sometime I get queesy when he goes totally over the top…like the Scott Brown comment about his daughters.
So instead of foaming at the mouth and calling people names, play nice.
Now, I’m off to earn a living.

Chewy the Lab on January 30, 2010 at 8:13 AM

They’re obviously shopping for a third party to happen.

{^_-}

herself on January 30, 2010 at 8:20 AM

think the RNC and especially Stepin Fetchit Steele should get out of the way and let We The People choose our own candidates.

HEY ALLAHLIB sounds “racial” to me. You gonna threathen this guy with expulsion? Just askin one more time.

Mr. Grump on January 30, 2010 at 8:32 AM

The entire purity test argument is way lame.

Go ahead.

Lose.

AnninCA on January 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM

First thing, they cannot be supporting some douche like Crist. Any candidate hugging up to Obama is out!!!

TXMomof3 on January 29, 2010 at 9:56 PM

If they can use McCain hugging on Bush against him, I see no reason why Obama can be Christ’s kryptonite.

mizflame98 on January 30, 2010 at 9:56 AM

How about you get your own country while you’re at it, and leave the rest of us alone?

Grow Fins on January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

All I have to say as a retort is this:
This Land

mizflame98 on January 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM

ALL the RNC has done is guarantee their irrelevance.

NO MORE MONEY…….

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW???!!!!?????!!!!!?????

RealMc on January 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM

I’ll take the 1789 purity test for 1000, Alex.

Fletch54 on January 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Gregor on January 30, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Well said…

My BIG TENT would have a Large Sign above the door, saying “Progresives KEEP OUT!”

Romeo13 on January 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM

The entire purity test argument is way lame.

Go ahead.

Lose.

AnninCA on January 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Yeah, because we won SO big with McCain, right?

LOL! Yeah, I remember arguing with you specifically. You were among the worst of them and you’re most definitely one of the most obvious trolls on this blog.

Take your hackery over to DailyKos where you belong.

Gregor on January 30, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I think the RNC and especially Stepin Fetchit Steele should get out of the way and let We The People choose our own candidates.

Screw the “purity” test!

Purity tests are for liberals and wuzzies!

pilamaye on January 29, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Explain the Stepin Fetchit allusion please. I love stand up comedy! Thx

The Race Card on January 30, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Why is the RNC wasting their time on stupid things like purity tests?

mizflame98 on January 29, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Apparently Brigadier General Jack D Ripper (of Dr Strangelove fame) is on the RNC screening committee. As always, he is concerned with the preservation of Our Pure Essence.

But I have yet to see anything noteworthy or important come out of the RNC.

True conservatives and their libertarian allies in the Tea Party movement are going to have to rescue the country.

landlines on January 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Steele appears to be addressing the Tea Party issue properly.

He is not looking to assimilate the party into the GOP, nor is he shunning them. He is wooing their votes with attention to their complaints while respecting and embracing their individuality from the GOP.

As a tea party person since last Feb 16th Steele has really started to impress me. He has gotten nothing but criticism from his party, and yet his party is looking to steamroll the opposition in 2010 after picking up a couple Gov’s and a MA Senate seat.

Perhaps he inherited a perfect storm of events and has had no effect at all. Bottom line is the party looks to come storming back under the man of Steele.

Mr Purple on January 31, 2010 at 5:00 AM