RSS Feed MenuClick here for all of Tim Mak’s reports from the RNC Summit in Hawaii.
Instead, the RNC passed a resolution by Texas member Bill Crocker that was even more watered-down than the accountability resolution, which had been amended from the purity test to be more palatable. The Crocker resolution merely tells the RNC to do what it’s supposedly been doing all along, that they:
…carefully screen the record and statements of all candidates who profess to be Republicans and who desire the support of Republican leaders and Republicans organizations, and determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party.
FrumForum had exclusive post-conference interviews with Jim Bopp and Solomon Yue, both sponsors of the two resolutions, as well as Bill Crocker.
“The 80% [Purity Test] was clearly drawing lots of fire. So we amended that into the so-called ‘accountability resolution,” said Solomon Yue, a National Committeeman from Oregon. “We knew that [Crocker’s resolution] would more likely pass… we knew that after his passed we would withdraw our [two resolutions].”
“I’m here to accomplish a goal, not pass MY resolution,” Bopp told FrumForum. “That goal was to make a statement that… we’re going to consider whether [candidates] are faithful in upholding conservative values when funding or supporting candidates.”
“I’m very satisfied with the outcome,” Bopp added. That said, Bopp appeared to be more than a little irritated on the floor when Oregon chairman Bob Tiernan interrupted his press briefing to call the purity test “nuts”, prompting Bopp to tell Tiernan to “shut up”.
The chief sponsor of the bill that eventually passed defended his resolution, saying that it was more appealing, and more inclusive.
“[My resolution] was a much more desirable alternative, to be able to take this back to any jurisdiction, and to apply our broader standards to Republican candidates,” said Bill Crocker, an RNC member from Texas and the chief sponsor of the resolution that eventually passed.
“You could have gone further [by passing the litmus test], but I didn’t want to go any further. You need to leave room in the party for local context,” Crocker told FrumForum.
franco 2 // Jan 31, 2010 at 8:55 am
As long as the GOP isn’t afraid to run conservatives and knows that nearly every district is far more conservative than they reckoned, this isn’t really a problem.
The problem was the GOP was running scared, putting up quasi-Democrats like Dede Scozzaflava in districts that almost elected a hard-core conservative. If the national GOP had been Scott Brown’s advisers, they would have watered down his message so much he would not have gotten any traction with independents – who are NOT the same thing as “moderates” by the way -and Coakely would have won Massachusetts.
As it stands Toomey has Specter on the ropes in PA. I’m gloating and Frum is mum.
I’m waiting for some here to admit they were wrong. About McCain, about Specter about Massachusetts and about the entire strategy of running statist Republicans, who either lose outright or when they are seated, vote with Democrats on important issues and trash their colleagues publicly to gain face-time on the corporate media.
Carney // Jan 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Right. Nobody argues that you should run a candidate that is too far right to be elected. The issue at hand is, is the candidate in question as conservative as he can get away with being, and have a decent chance at winning? Is he trying?
Scott Brown clearly is about as conservative as a candidate in MA can be. Specter is not, for PA. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had 12 years of Santorum, or Toomey leading in the polls.