The effort by ten Conservative members of the Republican National Committee (led by Jim Bopp Jnr. of Indiana) to introduce a resolution at the RNC’s Winter Meeting this month that would have forced all Republican candidates for Federal office to sign off on at least eight (or seven) out of the ten issue positions in the resolution or face having the RNC withhold its funds from his or her campaign generated quite a bit of ink/pixels when it came out back in late November last year.

As expected, much of the media (and many obstensibly on the Right) ominously referred to the proposed scheme as a “Purity Test “, with the Left touting it as yet more evidence that the GOP has become a party with no room for anyone except the so-called “Far Right. ”

Erick came out against it; with the very reasonable argument that this would be used to allow the bland content-free so-called “moderates ” the Beltway Republican Establishment tends to favor a shortcut past the vetting process by simply signing off as supporting positions on the issues when their previous records and statements show otherwise. Afterwards, when elected, there is no guarantee that they would hold to these new positions, especially when threatened with being left off a cocktail guest list. As Erick pointed out, despite a record of votes in the NY State Legislature and declared issue positions on taxes (and other issues) that would usually describe the philosophical profile of a middle-of-the-road member of the House Progressive Caucus, DeDe Scozzafava signed the ATR’s tax pledge … after mocking Doug Hoffman for signing it.

Mark, on the other hand, came out in favor of the resolution , or something like it; with his own very reasonable argument that notwithstanding the Left and some of the DC Republican establishments’ shrieks of the list being an exclusionary and “Far Right ” “Purity Test “, all ten positions stem from mainstream conservative principles shared by majorities and near majorities of the American people, and what’s more, the scheme would also serve to show disillusioned Republicans that their party has finally begun the long-overdue return to its principles.

Read More →

I have been wanting to write a couple of posts congratulating Scott Brown for his victory, but I think I’ll put them on hold for now until my concerns explained here are allayed.

I must admit, as a committed conservative, I have my problems with supporting most New England Republicans (there are some Republicans, mainly in New Hampshire, who are exceptions to this, but not many). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine’s two senators, highlight why I am hesitant to support most New England Republicans. Usually, I end up supporting the Republican in a New England race because a) they less Liberal than their Democratic opponents and b) they are usually the best said state or district can offer.

Scott Brown is another example of my hesitance. I knew before I became a supporter that he was pro-choice and that he had several other conservative heresies. I reconciled myself with these facts because I knew that Massachusetts likely didn’t have anyone better to offer. However, what really made me a fan of his was what he campaigned on. He called for fiscal restraint nda strong stance in the War on Terror (particularly his quote, “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.“). However, my personal favorite moment was he said that he would be the 41st vote to block and defeat the current healthcare legislation.

And when election day rolled around and the time can for his victory speech, I listened to his victory speech with great interest. I wanted to see what this man who I had come to like increasingly more with each passing day before the special election. Listening to his victory speech, I was very impressed that a man like this could win in Massachusetts.

Read More →