Adam Nagourney at the NYT brings up this possibility in their political blog today:
Mr. Castle in many ways is a textbook example of why some Republicans think the party should avoid such purity tests. He appears to be, without dispute, the strongest candidate that the party could choose to take back the seat.
But in the course of his career, he has taken positions on abortion, energy and gun control that could, at least in theory, lead Republicans to argue that he has failed the test laid out in the resolution. If that were the case, the Republican National Committee might have to sit out a Castle-Biden race.
This is a way to back into a definition of “moderate” that makes Castle look good and reinforces his own press on the business of “moderation”. And NOT passing the GOP Purity test would likely be an advantage to Castle here — because the teabaggers and the wingnuts are not particularly many here. A purity test would help O’Donnell, though — who could really use the boost of national party support.
Castle could likely get his handwaving on to make the case for passing this test just to make the teabaggers and wingnuts happy — but that doesn’t seem especially smart. So what do you think? Will the GOP implement this purity test and shoot down their best chance at a Senatorial seat pickup?