Republican National Committee Contemplates A Litmus Test For Their Nominees

Bookmark and Share    Indiana Congressman James Bopp , Jr. recently circulated a draft resolution for the Republican National Committee to implement a practicew that would essentially vet the candidates that the party fields for elected office as nominees whom they fund and endorse. The resolution would prohibit the RNC from endorsing or contributing financial resources to the campaigns of any candidate who oppose three or more of ten planks in the party platform.

The premise behind the draft resolution is one that I tend to support. But such a practice as that which is promoted by the effort would undoubtedly be followed by attempts from the left to paint the GOP as exclusive and intolerant, a party without a “big tent” and that shuns those who they do not agree with.

The problem is that the opposition will make this accusation no matter what and it is my opinion that the propaganda of the loyal opposition should not play a role in our commitment to the conservative principles which are the backbone of our Party and the source of security and prosperity for our nation. The attempt to create, what may be a litmus test, is something that, in the case of a political organization, could actually be quite useful when it comes to insuring that all its participants are working towards the same goals.

Many of us lay claim to one party or the other, not for the sake of the party name, but because, for us, it represents a set of core  values that amount to an ideological approach to all matters. We are Republicans or Democrats, not because of its organizational membership but rather for the principles it represents and our belief that those principles need to be applied to the practical application of government.

Congressman Bopp puts it this way;

“All we’re requiring is that somebody agree with us most of the time,”

The point is legitimate. Especially from the standpoint of the RepublicanParty  as a national entity which expends its resources on candidates at all levels, from Governor’s, to congressmen and senators.   From a  national point, does it make sense to endorse and finance the candidacy of an individual who claims to be a Republican but actually maintains an agenda that opposes the approach to governance and policies that the Republican National Committee is working toward?

The Bopp resolution has merit. It does not prohibit state or local Republican parties from endorsing and financing the candidacy of any Republican that they choose. But it does restrict the national party from aiding candidates who are counterproductive to our goals.  This type of party policy would have come in quite handy in a case like New Yorks 23rd Congeressional District, where a group of Republican County chairmen tapped Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava to be the Republican nominee for Congress.  This local level decision committed the Nationa Party to dedicate a hefty sum of money and resources to her campaign.  But as it turned it, Scozzafava shared very little in common with the national Republican agenda.  As the differences between her and the Party she claims to a member of beacame more and more clear, Republican voters began to flee from Scozzafava’s candidacy.  many felt that there was no need to support a liberal oriented candidate when another one was honest enough to run under the banner of the more liberal oriented Party.

Before all was said and done, Scozzafava withdrew from the race only three day before Election Day.  In the meantime, the RNC spent a few hundred thousand dollars on the failed candidacy of someone who mine as well have been a Democrat.

Some argue that such “lists” as the one which outlines 10 specific general principles that we as Republicans hold true is trivial.  They feel it is ridiculous and stands in the way of freewill and freethinking.  Some have stated that such a “list” this is the “dumbest idea they ever heard” .

I contend that one can try to trivialize this attempt as a “ stupid llist” but those who do, also run the risk of having that same flippant attitude applied to any documentation of what one believes in.  One can try describe The Ten Commandments as a mere  “checklist of talking points and issues” and deemed as “the dumbest” Christian idea they “have heard in (their) lifetime“. One could also call those who believe in abiding by the Ten Commandments as part of a “fringe” group” but such interpretations would be would be ignorant and inappropriate.

Furthermore; why can an individual organization not establish its own operational guidelines and stipulate its stated goals and beliefs, especially of the governing rules of that organization allows a democratic vote to adopt such guidelines and reiterate what it stands for?  Who is anyone to say that such actions are inappropriate?  As for freewill, one is free to not particpaqte in any group or organization that does not share their views.

So I have no problem with the intent of the resolution.  If there is enough support and if it is not somehow blocked by RNC Chairman Michael Steele, it could be voted on at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in January.  My only suggestion would be to change some of the language.  As much a devoted fan of one of the greatest contemporary Presidents , I would not base this resolution on one man only. As it existsnow  the resolution is called the “RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates“.    I am not sure if that is the wisest way to go to about this.  But I will also admit this.  I would not want to be the one who goes on record as refusing to use the name of Ronald Reagan. 

How far this resolution will go is not yet known.  A spokesperson fot the RNC stated  

 “The deadline for submitting Resolutions for the RNC Winter Meeting is more than 30 days away. At this point, we do not know what resolutions will be submitted nor what the final language of any resolution ultimately submitted may be,”.

Below, you will find a poll asking your opinion on the issue and below that is the actual resolution and a likst of the National Committee Members who have so far sihnmed on to it.  Review it and record your support or opposition to the reolution in our poll

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

The “Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” follows:

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in 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; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(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 healthcare;

(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, 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; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under politics

One response to “Republican National Committee Contemplates A Litmus Test For Their Nominees

  1. W. Crandall

    I would go further to suggest the RNC put together a legislative plan outlining how the party will work in terms of legislative proposals to fix the many ills our country is currently facing and expected to face over the next decade or longer addressing all the major current issues. Along the same vein, I recommend Republican Party members and supporters be invited to contribute to a plan outilining how the party will vet and attract electable candidates for federal office at both state and national level. The current process of finding electable candidates is a poor procedure with similarities to a lottery that seems to result in the selection of a presidential slate that leave the voters with a choice of the lesser of two undesireable choices. Why can we not plan ahead grooming individuals as a party who will be attractive presidential candidates? I believe we need to stand firmly against abortion; and stand for dual gender marriages; teaching of traditional American history in our schools; the abolishment of political correctness; the clarification of the absence of an individual’s right not to be offended in our Bill of Rights; the repealing of “hate crime” legislation of stringent immigration policies that do not bar legitimate, educated, financially independent, and usually retired US property owners who want to spend their autumn years in the comfort and security of this country. Let’s try these as a start, and then add to the legislative plan realistic long-term energy policy legislation that encourages the use of our own stocks of energy resources and the draw down of same while we promote research for new, long term renewable engergy resources. Let’s stop chasing elusive and unattainable military goals around the world and concentrate on protecting our country. There are better ways to discourage the Taliban and Al-Quida than facing them in outright military confrontation. The oil rich countries can easily afford to create an independent fully modern country (much less showy than Dubai and at a much lower cost) that could rival Israel in peaceful agricultural and industrial production, have more land area, its own desalinazation and and engery production capabilites, modern housing and infra-structure, etc. There is no need for Israel to give up land–Egypt has plenty of desert that it can donate and Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich states have plenty of money to foot the bill, US and EU can aid in technology, etc. Come on, these are not impossible tasks if we insist on standing up and uniting behind these policies instead of doing little more than bashing the opposition who have no idea better than emulating the failed “progressive” socialistic policies of Europe.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s