The Republican National Committee is backing away from a controversial “litmus test” for GOP candidates and will offer members a significantly watered-down version to vote upon at its annual conference next week, FrumForum has learned.
Jim Bopp, the RNC member from Indiana who originally proposed the so-called “purity test” has submitted a milder version, dubbed the “accountability resolution.” The latter makes no reference to the first “10 points” that all GOP candidates would be questioned on, including supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, opposing cap and trade, and denying federal funds from use in abortions. Instead, the new resolution requires that all candidates sign a pledge obliging them to return any funds donated by the RNC if they decide to switch parties.
Bopp denies he’s shelving the more extremist “purity test” after outcry from party moderates, and instead plans to table both the new proposal and the original purity test resolution at the conference for members to vote between. “It’s a very fluid situation and we want to present as many options as possible in order to gain support for one or both to accomplish our goals,” Bopp told FrumForum. “[The Purity and Accountability resolutions] are both very much in play.”
In a nod to the members of the RNC more geared towards a big tent philosophy, the new resolution notes that Republicans should embrace all who “espouse conservative principles” and states that the party should “welcome persons of diverse views.”
Moderating the language in the purity test resolution will go a long way in gathering broad support from the RNC. One FrumForum survey of RNC members found significant opposition to the original proposal. The new language may also appeal to an RNC that is looking to apply Scott Brown’s upset senate win in Massachusetts to other liberal states.
Bopp insists he did not introduce the new resolution out of fear the purity test lacked the votes to pass. But he said simply, “I don’t know what’s going to pass”–a marked change from the confidence on display just a few months ago, when numerous co-sponsors of the purity test told FrumForum that they expected some version of the litmus test to pass.
Bopp also denied that the accountability resolution was weaker than the original purity test proposal, characterizing the new resolution as simply being more “flexible:”
It allows [RNC Chairman Michael Steele] to consider… the circumstances of a given race, plus all the other factors, and do what’s best for the party.
In the new resolution, the purity tests’ ten policy points are replaced with a more general statement which declares that “opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life.”
Click here for the text of the Purity Test and Accountability resolutions.
TAZ // Jan 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Out with the “purity test” and in with “big tent”, there may be hope for my Republican party after all.
MR FACE // Jan 21, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Great move by republicans. I think they are learning.
WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:26 am
From the story:
“Jim Bopp, the RNC member from Indiana who originally proposed the so-called “purity test” has submitted a milder version, dubbed the “accountability resolution.” The latter makes no reference to the first “10 points” that all GOP candidates would be questioned on, including supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, opposing cap and trade, and denying federal funds from use in abortions…. Bopp denies he’s shelving the more extremist “purity test” after outcry from party moderates, and instead plans to table both the new proposal and the original purity test resolution at the conference for members to vote between.”
Since when is a “moderate” defined as one who:
1) Does not respect the traditional definition of marriage
2) Wants to tax and cap energy consumption, which would completely destroy the economy and set the stage for unlimited regulations of CO2
3) Defends using Federal funds for abortions
This may define a David Frum Republican, but it doesn’t strike me as even remotely “moderate.”
No, this shifty use terms, designed apparently to allay political fears among both traditional and libertarian Republicans, is abuse of the English language.
michaelstafford // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:40 am
Now is the time for moral strategy- for an intellectually serious, pragmatic, tactically savvy, conservatism devoid of demagoguery and utopian dreams of unattainable ideological purity -one capable of building and sustaining a winning center-right electoral coalition…
http://resolutedetermination.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/moral-strategy-the-case-for-pragmatic-conservatism-2/
sinz54 // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:41 am
WillyP:
Tell us your definition of “moderate.”
GOP spokesmen always remind us that America is a “center-right” nation.
OK, so what are the political positions of that “center”?
WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 9:56 am
First I’d take a federated stance on abortion and marriage. If I were head of the RNC, I’d make it a point to declare that I don’t consider marriage an issue that concerns our Federal government.
I certainly don’t like abortion, and I favor insisting that Federal tax dollars not be used to fund any of these procedures. On this, I’d make no compromise, as I view it (like many others) as a grave moral issue, not unlike slavery. But I would also not il-legalize abortion Federally. I don’t think this would be considered too extreme by any Republicans, and would probably be popular nationally.
Cap and trade is completely bogus and should not be given any respect by Republicans. If there was such overwhelming evidence and the planet was really on the verge of collapse, something would have been done years ago, and it would not be a political circus issue.
TAZ // Jan 22, 2010 at 11:30 am
“First I’d take a federated stance on abortion and marriage.”
So, you are against states rights?
The concept of just overturning Roe v Wade and handing the issue back to the states is not good enough for you, you require a constitutional amendment perhaps (?).
That would also make you a federal government power expansion fan wouldn’t it?
Would also make you against the concept of individual responsibilities and freedoms too no?
“If I were head of the RNC, I’d make it a point to declare that I don’t consider marriage an issue that concerns our Federal government.”
Same as abortion and so many other social issues……………..
“Cap and trade is completely bogus and should not be given any respect by Republicans”.
Palin, McCain, as well as Obama seem to think it is a good idea. Maybe we should look into it more?
WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 pm
taz, you completely misunderstand the word federated, and actually have the concept backwards.
WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 12:37 pm
at least as i understand it, federated would imply federalism, which would imply decentralization.
dictionary.com gives this defintion:
–adjective
3. federated; allied.
certainly i don’t favor an “allied” stance on these issues, and I thought that:
“If I were head of the RNC, I’d make it a point to declare that I don’t consider marriage an issue that concerns our Federal government.”
would have made it clear.
I would be satisfied with overturning roe v. wade. I do not favor a constitutional amendment.
TAZ // Jan 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm
“certainly i don’t favor an “allied” stance on these issues, and I thought that:
“If I were head of the RNC, I’d make it a point to declare that I don’t consider marriage an issue that concerns our Federal government.” would have made it clear”
Why didnt you just add abortion to that statement?
Gave me the wrong impression.
WillyP // Jan 22, 2010 at 2:35 pm
What can I say. I messed up. It happens… especially when political sparring is one of 40 things you find yourself trying to do at once!
Apologies to my legions of fans and supporters… I know I’ve let you down, and promise to do my best in the future to work my hardest for the good people of my state.
TAZ // Jan 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
O.K., o.k., now your starting to sound like Edwards……..
Daily Left 1-22-10 « The Quantum Conservative // Jan 22, 2010 at 7:13 pm
[...] should be an interesting week for Republicans. First, you have “purity tests”. Second, while the Democrats will be dealing with Arlen Specter all week, at least we don’t [...]