In an effort to rid the GOP of what some of its members derisively call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), self-styled conservative party leaders have developed a 10-point loyalty scorecard by which it intends to measure every Republican seeking elective office in the upcoming 2010 election cycle.

Many observers detect the influence of the “Tea Party” movement in the proposal as they reckon that the Republican Party is hemorrhaging right-wing adherents, as many of them perceive that the national party has drifted toward the center of the political spectrum in order to be more attractive to the moderate bloc of voters and thereby expand the vaunted “big tent” of Republican tolerance.

Regardless of motivation, authors of the petition are circulating it among Republican National Committee (RNC) members to gain their support in advance of the organization’s annual confab being held in January in Hawaii. Promoters of the resolution assert that while heading off any centrifugal splintering of their party caused by the exponential acceleration of the momentum of tea-party activists is certainly one of the reasons for the planned purge, the greater long-term purpose is to “make the party more consistently and reliably conservative by promoting lower taxes, keeping spending levels in check and focusing on national security.”

The practical application of such an agenda-based winnowing is to obviate electoral mishaps like that the GOP recently suffered in the special election held in New York’s 23rd Congressional District last month. In that contest, the moderate Republican candidate, Deirdre “Dede” Scozzafava, eventually bowed out and instead of endorsing the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, she threw her support behind the Democratic choice, Bill Owens, the man ultimately elected to represent the district.

The most irritating aspect of the electoral debacle in New York was not Scozzafava’s apparent defection, rather it was the fact that Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, authorized the contribution of large sums of money to her campaign, and then upon learning of her intent to exit the contest, he made no attempt to convince her to withhold her support altogether or, as many in his party would have liked, to openly back the Conservative Party candidate. Steele’s stutter step and his history of often backing the wrong horse in intraparty races has repeatedly rankled the so-called conservative wing of the GOP. “The problem is that many conservatives have trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party. So the task is to restore our conservative bona fides,” declares James Bopp, Jr., RNC committee member from Indiana and chief architect of the checklist.

Specifically, the proposal being offered for ratification by the whole of the RNC requires that in order for a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives or the Senate to receive financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee or the Republican Senatorial Committee (the two arms of the Party tasked with distributing RNC funds) he or she must not “disagree with 3 or more of the above stated public policy positions.” This threshold level of fidelity to these 10 Republican articles of faith is inspired by an aphorism attributed to Ronald Reagan that held that someone who agreed with him 80 percent of the time was his friend, not his enemy. Authors of the measure are such dyed-in-the-wool acolytes of the late President that they have styled their proposal the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and they invoke his mighty name in the first clause.

The exact text of the resolution follows:

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan's belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(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 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; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position 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; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

While the movement’s promoters, supporters, and allies attest that the resolution is not a litmus test, other Republicans oppose the erection of a few narrow planks of the Republican platform as a gate through which all Party hopefuls must pass before receiving the imprimatur of Party potentates. One Party strategist, for example, defended his resistance to adoption of the test by explaining, “We already have screen tests in place, and they are called Republican voters. If a candidate doesn’t support the principles of the party, Republican voters aren’t going to choose them as a candidate, which renders the whole coordinated-funds issue completely moot.” Notably, the strategist spoke only on condition of anonymity, perhaps an indication of the powerful sway already held by those seeking enshrinement of the proposal in the RNC’s operating by-laws.

Finally, while the strategist’s assessment of the situation is accurate, there are other tests already in place  —– the Constitution of the United States, specifically Articles I and II, enumerating the limited powers granted to Congress and the President respectively. And, curiously, were the proposed standard in place in 2000, then it is unlikely that George W. Bush would have merited RNC sanction.

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

NYer said:

Where do you stand? OK, I asked myself these questions and INMO, (keep in the bsck of your mind I'm a registered democrat ), their (10) key public policy positions ought to be strengthened. Two of the ten above are questionable (6) and (7), the others are a must agree to, not up for debate. In addition, you must agree with the Constitution of the United States.

November 24, 2009

mozwolf said:

... right, because politics is as simple as a collection of political catchphrases and we reject anyone that disagrees with us without discussion? This will go well

November 24, 2009

Eddington said:

Lame, worthless, a waste of time Smaller government compared to what? And yes, as NYer noted, what about the Constitution? Final note to the Republican faithful: You can't have empire abroad (perpetual war e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) and small government at home. Doesn't work that way. Never has.

November 24, 2009

S.L. said:

How pure is this purity? Re1) --- I assume that purity does not require oppsoition to Bush's Bank Bailout funding. Re2) Therefore purity mandates opposition to Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP. Re3) Cap and trade is market-based. So what is No. 3 saying? Re5) "We support [A] legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants. How does [A] follow from ? Re9) I takes it that "vulnerable" means the poor, the homeless and the illegals. If a woman were denied a government funded of abortion that would prevent her from dying during childbirth, wouldn't that be denial of healthcare?

November 24, 2009

Sparoons said:

They are Brilliant!!!! Let's shrink our already shrinking party a little faster shall we? what morons. Bye Bye GOP and good riddens!

November 24, 2009 | url

Anonymous said:

... I'm a Republican because I believe in the US Constitution and I don't see anything in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to regulate marriage. The inclusion of this item calls the entire list and party into question in my mind. Does a belief in the US Constitution make me a RINO? If so, my party has more problems than I thought.

November 24, 2009

Thomas Paine said:

Neo Con infiltration The Republican's can talk all they want, but unless they let Ron Paul lead the party, they are just acting. The Neo-con Military Industrial Establishment wing will never let the freedom loving conservatives take back the party. There is too much money and power to be made by controlling it.

November 24, 2009

Bonnie said:

A better test RECOGNIZING that Ronald Reagan was a neo-con and not a true constitutional conservative, we believe that candidates for public office should conform to the following points: (1) We support constitutional government, elimination of the Federal Reserve, abolition of the income tax, and withdrawal from the United Nations; (2) We support government non-interference in health care and support abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP; (3) We reject the fraud called "climate change" and oppose any attempt to impose controls; (4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check and supporting the right to work; (5) We oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and support real security of both borders; (6) We oppose unconstitutional wars and the use of the American military as global police; (7) We support non-intervention in the affairs of other nations; ( We support the right of the States to recognize or deny marriage and support the Biblical proposition that marriage is the joining together of one man and one woman; (9) We oppose government funding of abortion and the right of the States to restrict access to abortion; and (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by fully supporting second amendment protection of those rights.

November 24, 2009

Steve Blake said:

... Nice litmus test. Newt and Sarah in 2012.

November 24, 2009 | url

Jim said:

On the right track I think they are on the right track in general, but I sure like Bonnie's check list better. Her's seems to be more constitutional. My understanding is that Newt has been parading around w Al Sharpton(sp?). Newt says the right things, but doesn't always do the right thing. I think Palin's heart is in the right place but I don't think she will be it either. Who knows.... I think a constitutional candidate could win hands down. People are beginning to fear the government.

November 24, 2009

Bonnie said:

The REAL Newt Steve Blake - check out this video concerning Newt: http://www.vimeo.com/6445068 After watching, you may want to reconsider your picks for 2012.

November 24, 2009

supra shoes said:

... Thank you very much. I am wonderring if I can share your article in the bookmarks of society,Then more friends can talk about this problem.

November 27, 2009 | url

Nick, a Republican -- for now said:

Arbitray, Insultingly Dogmatic, and Self-Defeating If there must be a entrance exam, it should be that the candidate associate himself with the party, thereby declaring that he believes the GOP is the vehicle that best furthers his interests. If voters in a primary don't think the candidate is conservative enough for them, fine. But I find the "10 principles" exam arbitrary, insultingly dogmatic, and highly self-defeating. Furthermore, many of these "principles" are circular and others are inconsistent with each other. Always supporting lower taxes and always supporting a lower deficit or national debt are not necessarily consistent with each other -- depending on the type and circumstances, raising taxes likely lowers national debt/deficit? "Cap-and-trade" legislation technically is a market based energy reform. Amnesty is a form of "legal immigration," so long as Congress says so; so opposing amnesty would oppose legal immigration. What if one military commander recommended that 300 million Americans go fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Would a Republican who opposed that "military-recommended troop surge" be ostracized? I'm a Republican and I could not in good conscience sign this arbitrary, overly broad pandering to the mindless wing of the party. If this resolution is passed I will become an independent. This is insulting and disgusting.

November 28, 2009

toussaint jackson said:

... I don't know why the rnc calls this the Ronald Regan test, because he could not pass it. 1) Gov't grew under Ronald Reagan not shrank. 2)After he and Brady were shot he backed the the Brady Bill which limits second amendment rights. 3)Remember Iran contra, we were friends with Iran or have we forgotten. I guess Ron could be a rino. Keep it up teabaggers you are just insuring more dems get elected in 2010.

November 29, 2009

Supra Skytop said:

... Nice work guys! this is just Amazing! Thanks

November 29, 2009 | url

Dee said:

... How about requiring ALL candidates for public office to read and PASS A TEST on the U. S. Constitution before filing for candidacy. If elected, they must swear to support and defend the Constitution. Many in office today display total ignorance or contempt for that precious document.

November 30, 2009