G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates

NYTimes ^ | November 23, 2009

[Mike Darancette]

If the NYT is talking about it; then it is probably a really bad idea.

[Hodar]

You mean a Republican party candidate, that takes nearly a million dollars in campaign aide, then withdraws and endorses the Democrat - is somehow a bad thing? < /sarcasm>

The author gives too much credit to politicians; he seems to expect that they would tell the truth - even if the truth would be to their benefit.

[Sybeck1]

Letting the old gray hag define us again.

[digger48]

It’s not like the Democrats don’t have “purity” tests.

If you’re not willing to dismember a fetus on command, you can’t play.

[rockinqsranch]

I disagree, but then this proposal is in line with something I have proposed often since I came to FR., so I’m a bit prejudiced.

My main worry is the meeting being in Honolulu as apparently there is something in the water there besides the islands.

[EternalVigilance]

More political cover for RINOs.

The list is pathetic.

[Albion Wilde]

AT LAST! My guess is that Michael Steele won’t pass the cut.

[EternalVigilance]

According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues

Dede Scozzafava could find a way to weasel her way around this phony list of resolutions.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Setting standards and enforcing them are two different matters. To begin with, leopards really don't change their spots, and running candidates with long histories of liberalism on the premise that they have seen the light is the root of our current problem.

I will never really trust a Giuliani or a Romney, or a McCain, they seem to have no core values that will keep them on the track.

[cripplecreek]

I just want representatives to represent the voters first and party second.

[GeronL]

Right.. the same RNC from NY-23? The same RNC that gave us the Steele velveteen rabbit?

[ReneeLynn]

All I saw was ‘January in Honolulu’. How very nice for them.

[Takethathill]

Sorry this is a pretty good start. I think some of it is a little too specific. Like, I would say whenever we commit troops to any operation, Once even one soldier dies, we don't stop until that enemy is annihilated, not just rendered ineffective. It would appear this is a very specific litmus test to counter Obama. I want a more forward looking agenda pronouncement.

[PhilCollins]

That resolution is a great idea. My congressman (Mark Kirk, of IL) is a Republican who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-tax increases, pro-spending increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. Now, he’s running for the U.S. Senate.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

He just wants republican money and social status. I’ve never been able to contribute large amounts but I’ve always done all I could. I’d like to be able to trust the RNC to invest anything I send wisely but they are not trustworthy. I’ve heard all the excuses, they don’t impress me.

[Steelfish]

What is needed in your district is someone to make a strong primary challenge to him and have Sarah Palin endorse him/her. That will do it.

[marron]

You would think an oath to uphold and defend the constitution would be enough. Now they have to “pinky promise” to respect the constitution. Cross their heart and hope to slip in the back door while no one is looking.

[CaptRon]

Democrats, of course, never do this.

[PhilCollins]

The best candidate, in Illinois’ U.S. Senate race, is former Judge Don Lowery. He’s pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, pro-gun, and anti-illegal alien. Please read his site, www.judgelowery4ussenate.com.