RNC: NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH BLAAARGH!
RNC: YES, YOU MUST IMPLEMENT MY THING!
GOP: Oh, ok.
[a number of years later]
GOP: (falls over dead)
Okay, maybe not that extreme, but read this from the New York Times:
The battle among Republicans over what the party should stand for - and how much it should accommodate dissenting views on important issues - is probably going to move from the states to the Republican National Committee when it holds its winter meeting this January in Honolulu.
Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to "Obama's socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire - would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.
The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
Here is the resolution’s 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.
Now, even putting aside the metric fuck-ton of loaded language going on there, you've still got a resolution that appeals to the absolute most extreme fringe of the electorate. Now, I'll grant you, that's pretty much how parties have tended to operate, but they've never taken the, "This is our treehouse, no-one else allowed." approach.
I mean, seriously guys, think blue dog democrats. They exist, and the DNC is not trying to force them into the other party. That would be flat stupid in many ways. Some individuals might rather they be gone, but overall, it's easier for your party to have political success when your candidates can be, well, individuals instead of clones of each other and thereby appeal to the people where they're running. THEN you beat them into submission once they're in office. This is basic stuff here, guys.
The big tent is now the little treehouse. (Picture the following in a child-like scrawl.) ALSO: NO GURLS ALOWED!
Via: Pam's House Blend:: GOP's 'Purity Resolution' for its candidates