The RNC Purity Test Is To Prevent A GOP Split
Despite all the stories of the GOP resurgence, the possible implementation of an RNC purity test has bigger implications for the Republican Party.
Members of the conservative group within the RNC tell The Washington Times that, besides aiming to make the GOP more consistently and reliably conservative by promoting lower taxes, keeping spending levels in check and focusing on national security, they want to head off an already emerging third party inspired by the anti-spending tea-party movement.
The third-party movement picked up steam during the recent special congressional election in upstate New York.
This is true. Doug Hoffman in NY-23 was a Conservative Party candidate. In Florida, a new political party called the Tea Party is registered. In Florida and elsewhere Republican establishment candidates are being pushed aside for candidates from the activist base. The tea party protests actually arose from Ron Paul’s followers, who raised significant amounts of money and were completely ignored by the GOP establishment. What a difference a year makes!
Apparently, the GOP has rejected attempts in the past to impose purity tests:
The strategist said a litmus test would send the wrong message to independents whom the party is looking to attract, and said primaries are the best tests of who represents Republicans in each state or district.
[…]
The last time a resolution to bar funding to Republican candidates was attempted was in 1991, when social conservative Tim Lambert, an RNC member from Texas, narrowly lost a floor vote on his proposal not to help pro-choice Republican candidates.
Some of the party’s most prominent figures, including former Chairman Haley Barbour, now Mississippi governor, were flown into the meeting to speak against the Lambert resolution, arguing that it was a litmus test and thus did not comport with the GOP’s “big tent”
It sounds like Republicans have quite a dilemma. It’s either purge to prevent a third party (which they may not be able to prevent anyway) or ignore the base. It will be interesting to watch what happens. Will Republicans be able to keep it together long enough to make it to the next election?
Tags: Purgers, Republican Party, RNC
Republicans are doing just fine. It is a question of whether or not Democrats can hold it together.
Yep, they’re doing great! That’s why they lost a seat that they’ve held from more than 100 years.
Do you want to explain why the dems lost every statewide office in PA, VA, and NJ in 2009? Two republicans and one dem running for one seat–and we still almost won it with one of the Republicans backing the dem while drawing votes from absentees and being on the ballot. This resolution will prevent that. We are fixing the one glitch in the operation. Your entire operation is a falling apart.
Do you want to explain why repubs didn’t make any gains in Congress in 2009?
We don’t have an “operation,” because we are not in the business — as you are — of engineering a hostile takeover of the nation. Your guy in Virginia won by denying his religious background. The guy in New Jersey barely hung on against a guy whose approval rating at the start of the race was 37% — not as miserable as the last Republican president, but still.
UI, it’s a fun talking point for your side, but only half the district was “republican for 100 years? the other half was represented by a Dem in the early 90’s.
I think the issues were local issues and the economy. Incumbents are suffering, no doubt about that. Christie and O’Donnell ran on the economy against either an unpopular incumbent or a terrible candidate.
You think I wanted Scozzafava? LOL! As far as I’m concerned she was just another GOP party of no backbencher. Do you truly think she would have got into Congress and started making brave stands against her own party? If so, I’d like what you’re smoking. The only “yes” Republican vote on hcr was Cao who is in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.
We want more candidates like Hoffman (loser) than candidates like Scozzafava (who could have won).
We say it was a Republican district because it was a Republican district. I’m sure it makes you feel better if part of the district was represented by a Democrat briefly but that doesn’t change the overlying issue. The only Republican candidate who ran on national issues LOST.
but only half the district was “republican for 100 years? the other half was represented by a Dem in the early 90’s.
What is going on this morning with these idiots? There is just one district in NY-23 (that is why it is NY-23) and they’ve sent repubs to Congress since the Civil War damn near.
every ten years the federal government counts all the people in the country, this is call the Census.
Based on the results of the Census, political representation maps are redrawn. This is called redistricting. When this happens the boundries of districts move.
On a federal level, there is no change in delaware as we have one congressional district that encompasses the entire state. On a local level you will remember that NewCastle County “lost” a district and sussex gained. although the numbering was adjusted, it’s as if district X moved south nearly 100 miles.
this is how voters who were in the 22nd district in 1990’s find themselves in the 23rd district in the 2000’s. They didn’t move, the district boundries did.
Not quite clever enough, I’m afraid. There has been redistricting from the 22nd to the 23rd AND vice versa. The 22nd became reliably Democratic after 1993. But no matter the redistricting, we are still talking about NY-23 — a district that hadn’t elected a Dem for more than 100 years and had elected local repubs for state representation. Throughout multiple redistrictings, this district was reliably repub until your Palin and Beck wingnuts saw fit to interfere in this race and hand it to the Dem.
try and use Beckian rationalization all you want, geico. the fact is the lunatic right proved not only would they rather lose a long time republican seat than have a republican they don’t really like… but they proved they have the power and numbers to lose that seat.
I know it’s painful when your talking point is undermined by facts. sorry.
Cheer up, the race will be run again in 2010. We will have a new result to pontificate about then.
astounding. its like a coked up glen beck naked on the bathroom floor with a needle sticking out from his arm yelling at the neighbors that their lifestyle is abhorrent. Gecko, do you really consider NY23 a win for your cause? cause if so i must say… many more fruitful victories to you and yours, pal.
It’s pretty typical for our wingnuts to not even notice when they have their ass handed to them in an argument.
it isnt even like he fails to notice. they actually think they won. Gotta hand it to them it takes heart… like the nerd getting beaten up on the ground saying “had enough?” its almost cute
When RICO is reduced to a version of the “I know I am, but what does that make you” rhetoric, you know he’s just conceded that he was dead wrong.