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?