GOP Adopts Platform Test for Candidates

(AP)  The Republican National Committee, pressed to find a way to more clearly distinguish itself from Democrats, on Friday adopted a rule that will prod GOP leaders to provide financial support to only those candidates who support the party's platform.

The resolution, enacted by voice vote with no opposition at the party's winter meeting here, is an alternative to a more stringent proposal that would have required GOP candidates to support 10 policy positions if they wanted party help.

That proposal, sponsored by Indiana RNC member James Bopp and backed by the RNC's more conservative members, was strongly opposed by party Chairman Michael Steele and a group of state party chairs.

The alternative, offered by RNC member Bill Crocker of Texas, does not contain a specific litmus test and thus grants party officials more flexibility in how to vet GOP candidates seeking party support.

It urges leaders of local, state and national Republican parties to "carefully screen" the voting record and positions of Republican candidates that want party backing, and determine whether they "wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions" of the party as laid out in its platform.

The platform is adopted every four years at the party's presidential nomination convention.

The new rule will not prevent support for moderate Republican candidates but will bar funding for those judged to be too far to the left, Crocker said.

"No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please," Crocker said, referring to Dede Scozzafava, a GOP candidate for a U.S. House seat in New York whom conservatives opposed; U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat last year, and former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a liberal Republican.

Crocker urged the party to "present candidates who will be attractive" to the people who, like those in the Tea Party movement, "are really dissatisfied with our political conduct over the past several years."

Bopp withdrew his proposal and supported the alternative, contending it will be more effective because party leaders will have to consider a broader range of issues than just those cited in his resolution.

His proposal would have barred financial help for GOP candidates who disagreed with three or more of 10 policy positions, including support for "market-based" health care reform and climate change policies, and opposition to gun control, government abortion funding and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

There appeared to be some disagreement over the practical effect of Crocker's resolution. Bopp said it requires party leaders to compare GOP candidate positions to the party platform. But Bob Tiernan, the GOP state chairman in Oregon, insisted it is not binding.

"There's nothing mandatory in it," Tiernan said.

[P0ST1ING_AWAY]

by RobAla January 30, 2010 8:31 AM EST
I'm not a member of either party, but over the last few years I have voted increasingly Republican. I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, but I am tempted to do so this year because of the recent extremism to the left in the Democrat party. There is nothing wrong with placing a few stipulations on membership or on those running for office. All parties form platforms prior to election. I don't think it would be to their benefit to place extreme constrictions on candidates.
===========================================================
Rob - I want to PERSONALLY thank you for sleeping through all
eight years of the last Bush administration. Please do NOT research
what went on ..... I cannot be sure that you are healthy and
that your heart could take the shock.

[flsunjnky]

Maybe the first "test" would be to see if they have a brain!

[stratus666]

Ah, here comes the republicans. They will regain power, no doubt. But it may not take long for most reasonable people to see just how crazy they are.

The dems have no one to blame but themselves. Thanks dems for letting the party of ideological lunatics take over again.

[Westy2100]

It appears to me that the Party Line is more important than it is to look at what is best for the country or what the founding fathers actually meant when writing the constitution. What we should be asking candidates is what the constitution means to them. Look at how they viewed religeon in government. They were deists but most did not go to church and did not bring religeon into the laws they made. We are a truly spoiled nation and we continue to spoil it by how we are selfish about what we want and how each person/party wants it their way. What is democracy and what does it mean? Where is compromise and fairness in our country? Yes in the past there was disagreement,
but to say to someone that if you do not agree lock step woth what the Party platform is we don't want to help you get elected. I thought the country was made up of people with differing opions and that is what made a democracy.

[A_Moderate]

When you have one party, or the other act like this, you end up with 'extremist'. A moderate is considered to be a bad guy and the word 'consensus' becomes a dirty word. This is really too bad because the country as a whole suffers and our political system is viewed to be corrupt and downright negative to those left in the middle. This is why parliamentary systems have advantages.

[formrusmcsgt]

Keep purging and purging and purging.....

[trillion1]

Have to keep the sheep in line.

[RobAla]

I'm not a member of either party, but over the last few years I have voted increasingly Republican. I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, but I am tempted to do so this year because of the recent extremism to the left in the Democrat party. There is nothing wrong with placing a few stipulations on membership or on those running for office. All parties form platforms prior to election. I don't think it would be to their benefit to place extreme constrictions on candidates.

[earlysaid]

The only extremists are republicans who have given up their common sense, integrity and conscience. Liars are not the least bit attractive. When a party expects lies, tells lies and demonizes anyone when they tell the truth that is what the republican party is now.

[longtree-2009]

wonder what specifically are the 10 policy positions? anytime one takes money from anyone in life, there are strings attached. don't see anything awful about this unless the 10 policy positions are against federal, state laws.

[hakori]

Purity test? That sounds very familiar; now where have I heard something like that before? Oh, yes...oh, NO! I don't think the gop realizes what has happened. They don't realize that the "we won't play with you because you're a communist" rug has just been pulled out from under them. I know FNC and GOP pundits will spin this fiasco for them as something other that what it was, but Obama has turned the tables on them from this point forward. Obama made the republicans look like spoiled children in his question and answer time behind enemy lines. I wonder if they know it yet? I wonder if they are aware yet that they have been set up for an arse whooping? All they have to do is just what they've done for the last year. That's right righties. Show the American people where you stand! Sho the American people you are in this for your own gain and not that of the country. I guess we can lay that "country first" mantra to rest, because it's a LIE!!!!