Litmus Tests

Brent Oleson over at his well-written and insightful The Marion Contrarian blog recently wrote on the proposed litmus test (or purity test) that will be presented at the Winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in Hawaii. The proposal lists 10 points with the intent that any 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 ...

The 10 points are:

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

According to the Wall Street Journal, the proposal is sponsored by RNC Vice-Chairman, James Bopp Jr. of Indiana and co-sponsored by Iowa's National Committeeman, Steve Scheffler. The proposal is also supported by our National Committeewoman, Kim Lehman.

I got a chance to work with Jim Bopp on the National Platform Committee and I have made no secret of the fact that I am a social conservative. It may therefore surprise readers that I agree with Brent on this one.

In my recent post on NY 23, I said two things:

1. I believe that party leaders should support our candidates
2. I believe that grassroots Republicans need to work to see that the name Republican means something

I said that I was thrilled when I heard that Scozzafava was dropping out of the NY 23 house race. The real issue was that the county chairs in the district, selected a candidate who was out of step with the grassroots Republicans in the district. I don't know the details but is certainly sounded like the RNC was a part of the choice.

The attempt to implement an RNC litmus test is a symptom of the same problem. Rather than letting the grassroots select our candidates, it is once again the national party dictating their will on us. Even if the party is trying to dictate values that I largely believe in — it is still a bad idea.

There has been a lot of talk about the platform as litmus test. In the the Second Congressional District I am known as a platform geek (perhaps the platform geek). I have served on county, district, state and national Platform Committees. While I wish that all our candidates believed in the major principles in the platform — I know that is not realistic.

Ultimately, I support the one litmus test that matters — the primary. So, I will do my best to work for candidates in the primary who believe as I do.

So Kim, Steve (and Jim Bopp) if you're reading this, we here in Iowa are perfectly capable of vetting our own candidates. I don't want a conservative RNC meddling in our local races any more than I appreciated a moderate RNC doing the same.

Comments

[desmoinesdem]

Good post. Linked at Bleeding Heartland.

[Matt Green]

My litmus test has always been the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Guess I'm a little funny that way.

[hawkeyegop]

Good point Matt ;-)

[Shane Vander Hart]

I disagree with you that Republican leaders should always support Republican candidates. There are times you have to put principles above party.

That said, the brouhaha in NY 23 would never have happened had they been allowed to primary. And if Scozzafava wasn't even more liberal than her Democrat opponent Palin, Pawlenty, Armey, Thompson and many others likely wouldn't have weighed in.

We simply can't run candidates that are endorsed by Daily Kos.

I see what you are saying. Think of it this way. The RNC isn't telling local Republicans what to do, but its about funding candidates who are truly Republican. If grassroots wants to nominate somebody out of step with the party... fine, they can fund him or her. Looking at this litmus test I would say that even most "moderates" would be able to agree with at least seven of the items.

[Todd Versteegh]

Shane..

The problem with what your position is this:

When a candidate wins a primary...that settles the issue. Our party leadership has the responsibility to provide all the support possible for our candidates on the ballot.

The only circumstance I can see where we have a duty to not provide support is the rare, extreme situation where you have someone who quite frankly is morally repugnant. Perfect example is when Klu Klux Klan member David Duke ran as a Republican in Louisiana.

However..when the grassroots speaks at the ballot box as to who they want representing the party on the ballot...that's a pretty sacrosanct decision.

To NOT give all possible support to a primary elected, duly nominated candidate on the ballot is a slap in the face in my mind, to the grassroots of our party.

[Michael Ryan]

As a county chair I feel I need to only support and elect those in line with the platform. In my county (Pocahontas) we are voting on a constitution that allows for the committee to reject a nominee we find to liberal. And it will pass overwhelmingly to. The best part about that provision is that it's not against RNC rules so it passes and RPI cannot kill it until the RNC changes the rules.
But the whole issue goes to down to what makes a Republican a Republican, if it's just someone who has a (R) next to their name then it can easily turn into just elect someone and screw the platform if we have to. If it's what the candidate stands for then it's principle first and then the party. How one lines up on the debate is how you are going to respond.
Michael Ryan

[hawkeyegop]

Michael,

I am curious — what does: "reject a nominee" mean?

[Michael Ryan]

Simply means we won't knock doors, call or help the candidate and make theme do it themselves without our help.

[Brent Oleson]

"Simply means we won't knock doors, call or help the candidate and make theme do it themselves without our help." Michael Ryan

Hey Michael, that sounds eerily like my campaign for County Supervisor. In fact, it sounds like a lot of legislative and other GOP candidates campaigns in this area. Hmmmmm.

[Michael Ryan]

I am waiting for it pass, and then it will be implemented in our Northwest corner county, but I can't speak for your area because I don't live there, that's probably something you need to take up with them.

[Todd Versteegh]

So Mr. Ryan..

What you're saying..is that you and your Central Committee would basically ignore the will of the Republican voters who vote in a primary?

That's not only foolish its also a recipe for disaster.

If Republican voters choose a nominee in your county or legislative district or whatever...as an elected leaders within the Republican Party..it becomes YOUR DUTY to support those candidates.

Mr. Ryan, I've served as a County Co-Chair and Chairman. I've dealt with candidates for office that I may not have personally supported. I may have felt their positions on issues did not match mine.

However, if that candidate was elected the Party's nominee in a primary..Then it becomes my job as a Republican Party official to work to elect them.

As a elected Republican Party official, we represent ALL Republicans in our counties-- Conservative and moderate alike.

Its is not our job as party leaders to sit in judgment as to who's good enough for our party. That's what primaries are for.

The will of our voters is sacrosanct. It is not up to you or your Central Committee to deem a duly nominated candidate unworthy.

One of, if not the most important duties of a County Chair and a Central Committee is to elect Republicans to office.

If you feel that you can not do so because you feel a duly nominated candidate does not represent your values or your beliefs...then the only choice you have is to resign your position.

[MillerMeeks]

Does it not come down to whether we grow the party or act as an exclusionary body? Once the primary is over, we all need to unite and work for candidates. Not doing so, de facto endorses the democrat. In NY 23, Owens in 4 days voted for HR 3962, and then Cao (R, LA) did so because it was going to pass anyway. As egregious as Scozzafava was, would she have voted yes on the health care reform bill which socializes our health care system and will cost us 2.4 trillion and likely more? I concur with David and the comments of others above. Candidates must try to earn the support of voters in the primary and work hard for the nomination. Negativity and condescension of our own candidates only hurts us after the primary and prevents us from coming together as a party. With so little registered Republicans, we have to be united. The fundamental principles of conservatism as reflected in the republican party are right for America, so let's figure out how best to relate these principles to the average working person to bring them into the fold. Thank you for an insightful post again.

[Michael Ryan]

Todd,
To get back to your remarks now that I am back from work. Think about it this way every year we seem to say principles over party. But when push comes to shove we abandon it for the most part when pragmatism takes over. I myself have fallen into this trap.
We need to be as county leaders and State and Federal leaders be willing to put principles first.
Think about this for a second, if we let county committees decide who they support then aren't we allowing the people to decide ultimately regardless? My committee knows where I stand and wouldn't have it any other way. I got re-elected unamiously as a result of being willing to stand for something. There are alot of people in the committee who are looking forward to passing that provision. But thank you for posting your thoughts. And also for not being a gutless anonymous blogger and posting your real name also, I very much respect that.