RSS Feed MenuFrumForum has learned that despite losing the sponsorship of a National Committeewoman from Illinois, the GOP purity test resolution has obtained the necessary co-sponsors to bypass the RNC’s resolutions committee and bring the proposal forward for an eventual vote.
James Bopp Jr., the Indiana National Committeeman who proposed the resolution, told FrumForum in an interview that the newest version of the resolution now has sponsors from ten states – the minimum necessary to bypass the resolution committee and bring it directly to the floor for a vote before the RNC’s 168 members at their annual gathering in January.
The initially leaked version of the resolution had ten sponsors from nine states, which would have meant that the resolution would first have had to go to the resolution committee – a committee which, given the Republican establishment’s opposition to the resolution, looked likely to either amend the purity test beyond recognition or recommend it be scrapped.
Bopp managed to bring the resolution to the floor for an eventual vote despite what appears to be a change of heart by Illinois National Committeewoman Demetra Demonte.
In an earlier version of the resolution, Demonte is listed as one of the sponsors. However, a more recent list obtained by FrumForum indicates that she is no longer a sponsor (see below for an updated list of sponsors).
When reached for comment by FrumForum, Demonte said that the resolution “was still in the process of being completed [when it was] leaked in its draft form.”
After being pressed as to whether she still supported the resolution, she declined to comment, saying only: “I’m a member of the Committee… that’s really all I want to say.”
FrumForum contacted James Bopp Jr., the chief sponsor and driving force behind the resolution, to see whether Demonte had asked to be removed from the list of sponsors. Bopp was similarly unwilling to comment on the matter, responding: “I’m not going to speak for her.”
While the most recent version of the resolution doesn’t include Demonte, Bopp appears to have made up for the loss of her sponsorship by convincing two other RNC members to back the resolution: Avie Axdahl of Minnesota and Debbie Joslin of Alaska.
At this point, if those opposed to the resolution want to prevent it from being brought to the floor, they will have to convince at least two of the eleven sponsors to drop their support for the resolution.
Here is the most recent list of sponsors:
Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp Jr., Indiana
Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl, Minnesota; Donna Cain, Oregon; Cindy Costa, South Carolina; Debbie Joslin, Alaska; Peggy Lambert, Tennessee; Carolyn McLarty, Oklahoma; Pete Rickets, Nebraska; Steve Scheffler, Iowa; Helen Van Etten, Kansas; Solomon Yue, Oregon
CentristNYer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm
How do you spell P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L S-U-I-C-I-D-E ?
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Well, like David has proven with Sarah Palin, it seems that there’s a new fetish for the site. This time it’s meaningless, inside baseball party politics (with a small “p”) and what Tim would like us all to believe is a ground-threatening, far Right radical purge of all moderates from the GOP. Ummm, yeah… don’t wait for the cannon to fire announcing the war is on, ok?
It isn’t a war, of course. The only ones here finding joy in the ridiculously arcane “newstory” are the far Left democrat activist trolls who make a life inflaming the civil confines of the conservative movement, the GOP and those interested in rebuilding either. They will here just like they did with the other article… and articles to come. (sigh)
It seems to me, Tim, there’s another course for the RNC you failed to outline. Of course, that would nix the uber hot “newsworthiness” of this belly button lint fluff piece… the more likely course is that it will be voted down in General Session by the majority of reasonable, more moderate RNC members.
That wouldn’t make it news for this blog, though, would it?
I encouraged you the last time you brought this non-issue up to go back and actually learn something constructive about the RNC General Session rules and practices. I see you didn’t. You could have explained, maybe, that Bopp and his pals are part of the die-hard, entrenched Conservative Republican National Committee Caucus that wanted Mike Duncan as RNC Chair, not outsider Mike Steele, to win. They lost then. They lost on the appointment of key RNC staff in the last 6 months. They lost on Steele’s proposal to revamp the GOP Natl HdQtrs. They’ll lose on this resolution, too.
Like I said before, this is headed for the waste paper recycling bin at the hotel faster than the recording sec’y can note the voice vote and the chair rules to defeat the resolution. I’m making that judgment based on my attendance at countless RNC meetings going back to Reagan days as a College Republican intern working for the Party.
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:40 pm
How do you spell political suicide?
Easy.
B-a-r-a-c-k–O-b-a-m-a
D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t–H-e-a-l-t-h–C-a-r-e–P-l-a-n
C-a-p–&–T-r-a-d-e
M-o-r-e–B-a-i-l-o-u-t-s
M-a-s-s-i-v-e–D-e-f-i-c-i-t-s
But then, spelling and rhetorical questioning aren’t your strong suits are they, troll?
ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
” Like I said before, this is headed for the waste paper recycling bin at the hotel faster than the recording sec’y can note the voice vote and the chair rules to defeat the resolution.”
……Given that motor mouth daily demonstrates at inordinate length the extremism that afflicts much of the American right(almost to the point of dementia in his case) you have to smile at his pathetic little attempts to “prove” that this little bit of extremism is all a misunderstanding that doesn’t reflect the true state of affairs in the Republican party
stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Heaven forfend that being a Republican actually stand for sharing a common set of values with other Republicans!
It’s easy to see why David Frum has such an affinity for Charles Johnson: both seem to be of the temperament that says, “If you don’t let ME make the rules, I don’t want to play with you!”
Reality check: if you want a movement to form, then you have to provide it with a “seed crystal” around which to coalesce. “We will pander to anyone to get their vote, if that means winning” is not a viable starting point for a stable coalition structure.
ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:26 pm
5 stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:22 pm
“Heaven forfend that being a Republican actually stand for sharing a common set of values with other Republicans!”
…….I don’t think Johnson is leaving because most Republicans don’t share a common set of values……he’s leaving because they do!……the problem is that they are almost totally wrongheaded
Tim Mak // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm
MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“It seems to me, Tim, there’s another course for the RNC you failed to outline. Of course, that would nix the uber hot “newsworthiness” of this belly button lint fluff piece… the more likely course is that it will be voted down in General Session by the majority of reasonable, more moderate RNC members.”
I don’t discount this, and indeed, I hope for it!
stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“…….I don’t think Johnson is leaving because most Republicans don’t share a common set of values……he’s leaving because they do!……the problem is that they are almost totally wrongheaded”
I observed LGF melt down. Johnson’s problem is that the GOP didn’t treat his blog as the Oracle of the Republican Party Platform, reshaping the party into Johnson’s fantasy image. And since they weren’t obeying his pronouncements, he took to labeling anyone with whom he disagreed as “racist,” “Creationist,” “fascist,” “White supremacist,” “denialist,” “fundamentalist,” and “bad crazy.” Not a viable strategy for building a coalition to accomplish real-world political goals, no matter how satisfied and self-superior it made him feel.
Until the United States spawns viable splinter parties that can demand their members to agree in ALL particulars ALL of the time, the only way to achieve practical political results is to form a coalition around a set of principles with which a majority of Americans can agree in MOST particulars MOST of the time. That’s not a purity test or a purge, that’s simply creating a coalition.
steelyblades // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:56 pm
This particular purity test is hysterical: seven of the ten points contain some form of the word “oppose” and the entire list is calibrated to measure not ideas, or even ideals, but merely how staunchly Republicans are committed to obstructionist politics. The GOP can’t even say what it stands for–it can only define itself in the context of anti-Obama obstructionism.
ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:10 pm
8 stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“That’s not a purity test or a purge, that’s simply creating a coalition.”
……of course that’s how politics works……the GOP’s problem is it’s building it’s coalition around a set of policy positions that only have minority support whatever contortions it’s various promoters and apologists go through to prove otherwise……this can only be proved over a series of elections
stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“This particular purity test is hysterical: seven of the ten points contain some form of the word “oppose” and the entire list is calibrated to measure not ideas, or even ideals, but merely how staunchly Republicans are committed to obstructionist politics. The GOP can’t even say what it stands for–it can only define itself in the context of anti-Obama obstructionism.”
Hmm… each point begins “we support” and states what the point favors. Would you not then use “oppose” to draw a contrast with what the opposition believes and does? I’d say yours is a very bad straw man.
stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“……of course that’s how politics works……the GOP’s problem is it’s building it’s coalition around a set of policy positions that only have minority support whatever contortions it’s various promoters and apologists go through to prove otherwise……this can only be proved over a series of elections”
Which of the ten points specifically do you feel are bad positions? Which do you feel are clearly unsupported by a majority of Americans?
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Let’s take the other side of each:
(1) Larger government, more national debt, bigger deficits, and higher taxes.
(2) Government-run health care that obliterates the current market-based system.
(3) Elimination of energy markets in favor of a cap-and-trade system of carbon limits.
(4) Card check, eliminating the right of workers to a secret ballot in union elections.
(5) Amnesty for illegal immigrants without regard to assimilation, rather than a reformed and workable system of legal immigration and assimilation.
(6) Defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, if that’s the price of avoiding sending more troops.
(7) No effective action to contain the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea.
(8) Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, so that decisions by any state on gay marriage become binding on all states.
(9) Unconcern with Federal funding of abortions or Federal regulations leading to rationing of health care to the elderly and infirm.
(10) Ever-increasing restrictions on gun ownership, without concern for the Second Amendment.
Which of those last ten items is a real crowd-pleasing winner, much less something Conservatives SHOULD stand for?
Independent // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“The only ones here finding joy in the ridiculously arcane “newstory” are the far Left democrat activist trolls who make a life inflaming the civil confines of the conservative movement, the GOP and those interested in rebuilding either. They will here just like they did with the other article… and articles to come. (sigh)” –mi gop
well, that certainly came true –thank you for proving his point, otto.
i’ll say upfront that i know nothing about how a political party operates behind the screens and i didn’t even know the rnc has a group of people responsible for directing the party’s philosophy… i thought that was the job of the chairperson and, once picked or selected or elected or crowned, was subject to the restraints imposed by other elected party leaders when the chair got out of hand or a bit astray… like dr howard dean did famously and publicly when courting the religious right vote and mr reid and mr pelosi took him to the woodshed for a’whooping… “democrats don’t do religion or God, mr dean”.
it really does not matter in this case. the republican chairperson is going to do what they want to do until they get pulled from office (resigned?)… til then, the course of the party rests with the chair and not, as many of the democrats here like to think, with mrs palin, mr limbaugh, mr hannity, mr beck or any other “demon” the left can muster and put forth. otto and steelblades can take note of that?
Chekote // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:56 pm
#12
Good question. I see that list and would say that most Republicans would have no problem with it.
Independent // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm
i know you’re trying to make a valid point, stuiec, but the people who mostly control and dominate these threads don’t find anything wrong with bizzare positions like your #6 in the second set… they want obama to run and drop our obligations in iraq and afghanistan as quickly as possible without losing middle america or independents… if obama could end afghanistan in 18 months, he would… and he’d leave our allies there to defend NATO “peacekeepers” while retasking american troops to rebuild and redevelop his ancestral africa.
and items #1-5 of your second set are what the democrats truly want to occur. honest, i think they do.
when it comes to confronting iran or north korea, item #7, more endless talking and trainloads of pallets of carrot-like inducements are the preferred course of action, not strong words and stiff action. the latter was the failed way of mr bush and his crowd; democrats don’t want a cowboy-strong president, they want a placater who makes other countries feel good about america.
on your last item, mr dean has said that america needs to become a “communitarian” society –and obama is the man to see it happen, in his eyes. the possession of guns –rifles or pistols– becomes unnecessary because we’ll all be watching out for each other… and i don’t mean like obama meant earlier: snitching on your neighbor when he criticizes obamacare or obamastimuli or obamabailouts… watching out as in protecting your neighbor’s back when the bullies come to town. i know, it’s naive and simplistic. but it’s pure dr dean. gosh it must be nice to live in vermont where the biggest threat is from a rogue cow that hasn’t been milked.
i think it’s why i see some sanity in these lists of central republican values to republicans interested in republican party politics and bottle washing. but to most americans, it isn’t even on the radar screen. honest. and to the democrats here, taking the bizzare position on each is what they’d like to do if the constitution and treaties and voters and impeachment didn’t constrain their “communitarian” impulse.
steelyblades // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Here’s the list:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I see no mention in #1 of “supporting a payroll tax reduction,” nor of “supporting the reduction of wasteful defense spending on obsolete weapons systems.”
#2 has no language such as “we support the empowerment of consumers in the health insurance market to be able to purchase coverage across state lines.”
#3 makes no mention of “supporting incentive-driven plans to promote innovation in private-sector reduction of carbon emissions.”
I could go on, but I think most people get the picture. This entire list is scripted in the language of opposition and obstruction. “Support by opposing” is nonsense. If you can’t say what you are FOR, then your message will only resonate with people who already have an axe to grind (real or perceived).
Independent // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:42 pm
steelblades, you are hardly an unbiased advocate or fair estimator on what constitutes republican values… i doubt you’ve ever met a republican given the hatred you reek on this site regularly… there is little that is obstructionistic or oppositional in the 10 policy positions as stated by the conservatives inside the republican’s group… it’s what they believe and want other republicans to believe and support… it’s their business, not yours.
you are free to demand that all socialists adhere to the obamacare plank.
you are free to instruct all americans on why wearing a flag pin or saluting the flag is politically incorrect as it damages the self-esteem of all terror cell members living inside the us.
you are free to free to mortgage our children’s futures for spending that has little value today, tomorrow or next year.
and you’re free to force neighbors to give up their guns, confiscate their earnings through taxes, push them off the streets if they don’t conform to mr obama’s vision for the new america and defraud the ballot box.
it’s what you think passes for democrat policy. it sounds more soviet to me, but then i’m pissed off that i voted for mr obama and all i got was a cheap t-shirt.
ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:49 pm
12 stuiec // Dec 1, 2009 at 6:30 pm
“Which of the ten points specifically do you feel are bad positions? Which do you feel are clearly unsupported by a majority of Americans?’
……Quite a lot of them when it comes down to it……..most of these are generalized motherhood…..Americans are in favor of small govt until it involves cutting their medicare or closing the local firehouse…….and then as many have pointed out they are mainly worded in the obstructionist mode…..if they are conceptually so wonderful why are confirmed Republican extremists like mi-goper running a mile from them……personally I hope they are adopted so that should make you and Chek happy….go for it
ottovbvs // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Independent // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“it’s what you think passes for democrat policy. it sounds more soviet to me, but then i’m pissed off that i voted for mr obama and all i got was a cheap t-shirt.”
…….you voted for Obama doesn’t sound the most believeable proposition I’ve ever heard……and if it’s true you couldn’t have read any of his campaign speeches because he’s pretty well doing what he said he would….maybe you were hibernating?
BarryS // Dec 1, 2009 at 8:50 pm
but then i’m pissed off that i voted for mr obama and all i got was a cheap t-shirt.
That’s one of the funniest things I have read on this site. Ha, you crack me up.
nwahs // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Purity tests. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the hatred as I’ve found in the the fringe of the GOP. Well good luck with that, I don’t want any part of the GOP any more. My hope is in blue dog Democrats. I’m done with the NewBusters, Brent Bozell type hate welling in the GOP. I’m done with the Dixiecrats posing as conservatives.
dabouv // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:37 am
I see some on this site like to talk about the defecits. I would love to have it explained to me why we have such big defecits. You would think that it was because of massive spending by Obama to read this. The big issues are the recession (not Obama’s fault), TARP ( when was that passed……..hmmm, I seem to remember a VP Cheney pushing it), and the continuation of the wars. A small percentage is due to Obama policies. He gets partial credit for TARP defecits an for continuation of Bush policies.
Healthcare. Weren’t we told back in the 90’s that the market would take care of this? Well, newsflash, it hasn’t. I don’t know the answer but i know private insurance isn’t it.
Cap and Trade. Don’t know the answer here but we are polluting the enviroment and I think the likelihoo is that there is global warming. Very probable and very probable that a portion is man made. Pretend that this is a hoax (kind of like tobacco and cancer IMO), still isn’t it smart to quit spening 2 billion/day on oil imports? Then how many 10’s of billions of our national defense is to protect our oil?
This party is toast. You cannot have Rush, Sarah, and Glen Beck as the faces of a serious party. I am a Chuck Hagel Republican but of course, Chuck isn’t welcome in this party anymore. I used to think that my Rep. party was the smart party but it really is a gathering of know nothings. I am with Bartlett, anti Republican. I hate the Dems but I really, really, really hate the Reps. Sarah Palin, Death Panels, Birthers, tea party…all bullshit.
MI-GOPer // Dec 2, 2009 at 7:29 am
AutomaticBS’er inquires: “you (Indy) voted for Obama doesn’t sound the most believeable (sic)proposition I’ve ever heard”.
Yeah, why did you vote for Obama Messiah? He’s making Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar, IronMan triathelete champ and Parent of the Year by comparison and all at once.
Carney // Dec 2, 2009 at 10:32 am
The term “purity” is misleading, because to qualify for financial support from the party does not require purity or perfection, but rather a reasonable proportion of agreement with basic ideas of the party. You’re given the chance to bail out on any two of your choice, according to the standard the Reagan himself set.
Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable, but please stop calling it a “purity” test.
stuiec // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable, but please stop calling it a ‘purity’ test.”
But if one doesn’t call it a “purity” test nor claim it’s a “purge,” then who’d pay attention to a story whining about these mainly uncontroversial and unobjectionable position points?