Comments | gsa_lj: The Republican Purity Test

macabremadness in gsa_lj

The Republican Purity Test

Jan 27, 2010 12:48

( To purify or not to purify? That is the question facing members of the Republican Party, who are debating this week whether to establish a purity test that Republican candidates running for office must pass in order to get official support from the party. Among the principles a GOP candidate has to support? As a former Miss USA contestant might put it, opposite marriage only. )

faulty logic, political news, gay rights, "family values", conservative

Comments 10

phillipalden January 27 2010, 17:56:35 UTC

It's too bad they don't have to take a Stupidity Test as well.

a_tergo_lupi January 27 2010, 18:00:00 UTC

*snort*

fabfemmeboy January 27 2010, 18:03:04 UTC

Yeah...though it is a little-known fact that before they can take the purity test, they must have an elaborate wedding-like ball in which they make promises to their fathers that they won't vote for any other parties.

a_tergo_lupi January 27 2010, 18:49:24 UTC

Yeah. Imagine what would happen if they published pics of them in those gowns...

fabfemmeboy January 27 2010, 18:01:48 UTC

The thing is, this is the same identity crisis Republicans went through in the 60s. And to some extent in the 80s. And definitely in 1994. Each time they get smaller, and it pays off for them pretty well. While there have been a lot of high-profile Republicans getting more liberal, the money and power are still in the base. To be fair, it's not that different from what the Democrats did in 2006: return to your core, base values and come out swinging. When you're completely out of power, there's very little left to lose.

entropius January 27 2010, 18:05:07 UTC

It seems like the GOP gets money from crazy rabid Christians and votes from everyone else. Perhaps the natural cycle for parties like this is to oscillate between rhetoric designed to get money and rhetoric designed to get votes?

fabfemmeboy January 27 2010, 18:08:03 UTC

Most of their votes come from the rabid Christians, too. Keep in mind that something like 55% of all Christians in the US self-identify as "born again".

particle_mann January 27 2010, 20:16:13 UTC

This is something that all political parties, and indeed all organizations go through. In any group of 2 or more people there are going to be disagreements, but how far can you go before you don't fit in that group anymore? The Libertarian Party went through something similar around the time of the Iraq War, and the eventual consensus seemed to be that you can be a libertarian and disagree on abortion, on immigration, on how fast to take apart government, and so on, but ultimately if you favor aggressive, undeclared war, you're not a libertarian, and probably shouldn't be a member of the party. The difference is that the LP is that love us or hate us, it's founded on a very clear, direct, relatively logically consistent political philosophy. The Republicans and the Democrats on the other hand...not so much. What is "Democratism", really? Republicans trying to figure out what they stand for is not inherently a bad thing, and in fact after 8 years of standing for nothing except the latest fear mongering and handouts (and a year of ( ... )

candiedheart January 27 2010, 20:42:26 UTC

Meghan actually wrote an article about this for The Daily Beast. It was really interesting.

I don't know if it was posted but here it is for those that are interested.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-24/yes-im-a-pure-republican/

tko_ak January 28 2010, 06:39:15 UTC

I don't see it going anywhere. It hasn't gained a ton of traction, and there would be no real way of enforcing it. I think most Republicans are pragmatic enough to realize what a disaster something like this would be.