Should Republicans Have a Purity Test for Candidates?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

November 24, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Some members of the Republican National Committee want to implement a purity test to make sure their candidates live up to the party's platform. They are considering a 10-point test—which includes affirmations like, "We support the retention of the Defense of Marriage Act" or "We support market-based healthcare reform and oppose Obama-style government-run healthcare"—with candidates who do fail on more than two issues getting denied party funds. Critics wonder whether any successful Republicans, including Ronald Reagan himself, would even pass the test. What do you think? Should the RNC have a litmus test for their candidates? Take our poll and post your thoughts below.

Should the Republican National Committee Have a Purity Test for Candidates?



  View Results

 

Previously: Should the FCC Regulate Web Fair Play?

Tags:
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The RNC (and the DNC) are drunk on politics - in the worst sense of the word. They have no perspective. When they impose litmus tests, their parties lose.

But the rank & file SHOULD impose litmus tests. They're called PRIMARIES and CAUCUSES.

Tim Deaton of GA 10:22PM November 30, 2009

As a member of the GOP myself, I'd like to see a test - a test to make sure our candidates are not morons. At least that would give us a good starting point, and a leg up on a number of Dems.

Brad of TX 2:45PM November 30, 2009

When we moved to Colorado in 1995, the GOP was riding high, holding the governorship, both U.S. Senate seats and a majority of the State Senate seats. The situation in 2009 is the exact opposite.

While Republicans at the national level have certainly done their part to repel and sicken Colorado voters, folks like State Sen. David Schultheis (R) of Colorado Springs have helped tremendously. This is the guy who recently compared President Obama to the 9/11 hijackers. Earlier this year he voted against mandatory HIV testing for pregnant women, not for any defensible reason like privacy concerns or even cost-benefit questions.

No, he fretted this would encourage sexual promiscuity and didn't want the Legislature to "remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior." Or to paraphrase: "Better dead babies than live hussies."

Mandy Cat of CO 11:04AM November 30, 2009

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

It’s Washington’s Birthday—Not Presidents' Day

It's time for Obama and Congress to give Presidents’ Day back to George Washington.

Cuba Is Reforming, But Not Nearly Enough

Cuban officials exaggerate the extent of reforms being enacted in the Castro brothers' Cuba.

Rick Santorum Will Spell Doom for Republicans in November

If it nominates Rick Santorum over MItt Romney, the GOP will lose the White House and elections at all other levels.

Obama's Energy Policy Isn't 'Crony Capitalism'

A majority of the energy companies who have received funds under Obama are thriving

Michigan Is a Must-Win ... For Rick Santorum

Winning in Michigan is at least as important to Santorum's campaign as it is to Romney's.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is So American

Politically speaking, the contraception controversy is a quirk of the way we pay for healthcare.

The Upside of the Racist Hoekstra Ad

In this era of nasty political rhetoric and advertising, the public will draw the line at something brazenly racist.

Barack Obama's Budget Is Even Worse Than It Looks

If Obama's budget for FY 2013 is adopted as written, the federal budget would never balance again.

advertisement