January 27th, 2010
03:45 PM ET
5 years ago

Two 'purity' resolutions submitted at RNC meeting

Two 'purity' resolutions submitted at RNC meeting.
Two 'purity' resolutions submitted at RNC meeting.

Honolulu, Hawaii (CNN) - Conservative members of the Republican National Committee have submitted two different proposals at their Winter Meeting this week that would prevent party money from being given to GOP candidates who are deemed too moderate.

One of the measures – the so-called "purity resolution" that was first circulated in November and drew criticism from Republicans who want to broaden the party's appeal – would deny RNC support to candidates who fail to adhere to at least eight of 10 conservative principles.

A second, less-stringent proposal has also been submitted for consideration at the meeting, which began Wednesday at a beachfront resort in Honolulu.

The "accountability resolution," as its called, would allow RNC Chairman Michael Steele to "take into account the conservative bon fides of a candidate" before deciding whether to offer party support, said Jim Bopp, Jr., the Indiana committeeman and chief sponsor of both resolutions. Unlike the "purity" resolution, it does not include a strict ten-plank platform for candidates to abide by.

The newer measure would also require any Republican who switches parties or endorses a Democrat to return any money provided to them by the RNC.


The accountability resolution - without the stricter language and the demand on Steele to relinquish some measure of authority over party money - could be more palatable to the nearly 168 RNC members who will vote Friday on the language.

"The chairman thinks that he has to support all Republicans regardless of their views, and so we want to change that one way or another," Bopp told CNN. "We just want to come up with as many options as possible to accomplish our goal."

Bopp, one of 10 co-signers to each of the resolutions, said he is confident that one or both of the proposals will pass during Friday's general session.

"I think the situation is really fluid and a lot of people are taking about the need for accountability, and I am open to whatever will get the job done," Bopp said.

After a day of strategy meetings, RNC members will gather Wednesday to watch President Obama's first State of the Union address.

UPDATE: The purity resolution was dealt a serious blow on Wednesday when state party chairs voted to oppose the measure.


Filed under: RNC
soundoff (89 Responses)
  1. johnrj08

    The GOP is in a contest right now to see how small it can make its own tent. What we're seeing here is the kind of runaway extremism which cannot tolerate any opposing view.

    January 27, 2010 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  2. Mike in Dallas

    The first part of their "purity test" (which was not mentioned in this article) is the requirement that the candidate be in the lower 40% of the population concerning IQ. Of course candidates who fulfill part one almost certainly will be hard-core conservatives and will have no problem with the remainder of the "purity test".

    January 27, 2010 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  3. Americansnotparties

    "A second, less-stringent proposal has also been submitted for consideration at the meeting, which began Wednesday at a beachfront resort in Honolulu.

    The "accountability resolution," "

    Should be accountable for where they hold their meetings....

    I am glad I do not support such a closed minded goup of people... and how high up on there horse are they to call it the "Purity Resolution"...

    ugh..

    January 27, 2010 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  4. Viralam

    How can the RNC portray themselves as bipartisan lawmakers and the President as a 'hard left' radical, and yet approve these measures?

    January 27, 2010 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  5. Fred Riek

    I strongly believe that they should adopt the more stringent test for being appropriately conservative. It is time for those with any moderate or, God forbid, and liberal (or progressive) viewpoints on any subject, be tossed out on their ear. Isn't it time for a moderate third party that can make the decision as to which policies are best for our Country and our people rather than people who think that you have to of a certain mindset to be a true, ppatriotic American. I am sure that such narrow-minded politicians will govern only in the best interest of their own small minority of like-minded extremely biased anti-Americans.

    January 27, 2010 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  6. Dave C - NJ

    I believe that the Earth is round....can I still get campaign funding from the RNC???

    January 27, 2010 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  7. annie s

    Jeez, you guys would leave it up to Mikey? Maybe the Dems don't have to worry as much as they thought.

    January 27, 2010 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  8. Steve From NH

    Funny thing is, Scott Brown wouldn't have met the purity standards.

    January 27, 2010 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  9. Jackalope

    I guess the Taliban probably has a "purity resolution" too.

    January 27, 2010 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  10. Maddy

    RNC= AMERICAN TALIBAN.

    January 27, 2010 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  11. j

    Why not require blue eyes and blonde hair, and other Aryan features of the "master" race?.. don't guess Steele would qualify. What a bunch of boneheads.

    January 27, 2010 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  12. David Bruce

    Cool! I think they should have loyalty oaths too! Let's rehabilitate McCarthy, he was great for the party!

    January 27, 2010 04:29 pm at 4:29 pm |
  13. john

    Next as a party member you'll have to prove your purity of race and don a party uniform along with swearing undying alligiance to your party president. Sounds about right for the Republican way of thinking. Better read up on "my Struggles". Gads, I'm glad I'm an independant. I'm free to think for myself.

    January 27, 2010 04:29 pm at 4:29 pm |
  14. Lori STL

    "Conservative members of the Republican National Committee have submitted two different proposals at their Winter Meeting this week that would prevent party money from being given to GOP candidates who are deemed too moderate."

    Too moderate? So it's finally official, the party who claims to want smaller gov't and let people make their own decisions (unless it's a woman's freedom of choice) is saying that you can act any way you want as long as you play by THEIR rules (shout at the Pres all you want but you better not support any kind of recovery plan for america)? This is proof that they could care less about the success or failure of America. What they care about and ONLY care about is their ideological goals, the defeat of Democratic values (by the people for the people, not by the corporate world for the rich) and the success of the RNC. They have historically exploded our deficits & blamed others, just as they are doing today. They don't have the first clue about what's good for this country; they think W was a fabulous president for god's sake!

    Representatives of the people my ass. If they wanted small government so bad, why didn't they do anything while they had total rule of Washington? Get the hell out of the way you obstructionist misinformed bought and paid for group of posers!

    January 27, 2010 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  15. Lee

    Typical Republican exclusionism. Think as we do or you can't be in the club. And they complain when people compare their tactics to those of authoritarian regimes. The word "purity" is particularly troubling, especially if you're jewish.

    January 27, 2010 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  16. Justin

    Reagan (who was a moderate and believed in growing the party base) blew it on 3 of the ten planks.. he raised taxes, signed the Brady bill (gun control), and gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.... would todays "conservatives" that tout him as the best thing to happen to the party accept him if he were an up and comer today? If either or both of these resolutions pass the Republican party will become more oure as it shrinks and shrinks until it implodes... after all, there is always someone more conservative than thou.....

    January 27, 2010 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  17. Lynne

    How very bipartisan of them.

    January 27, 2010 04:31 pm at 4:31 pm |
  18. RK

    Stupid! Republicans have a real chance to re-balance the Senate and the House, by taking conservative positions on the fiscal issues of the day (jobs, taxes, free market, immigration, and healthcare) with which more than 65% of Americans agree. But they have to let go of the socially conservative litmus tests for candidates, such as religion in schools, abortion, gay marriage, and the like, or they will lose the bulk of the independents in this Country. Remember, the Massachusetts massacre was won by a pro-choice, pro-civil union Republican.

    It is time for the new Republicans to take the reins of the conservative party in this Country.

    January 27, 2010 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  19. DP

    So, what's in the list of 10 "conservative" points? That's extremely important.

    January 27, 2010 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  20. Bertina

    Let them do this and that way there will be more democrats that will win in states dividing the republicans.

    January 27, 2010 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  21. IKHAN

    Fabulous.
    And we sit on our high horses & curse extremism in other countries.

    Where is this country heading? Are we the ordinary Americans who love their country even aware??

    January 27, 2010 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  22. Dominican mama 4 Obama

    The newer measure would also require any Republican who switches parties or endorses a Democrat to return any money provided to them by the RNC.

    AND

    Two 'purity' resolutions submitted at RNC meeting
    -------------------------------–

    What was all that malarky about COUNTRY FIRST?

    Welcome to Nazi Germany.

    January 27, 2010 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  23. J.P.

    "Broaden the party???"

    Reagan said it best in 1975: "I don't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, 'We must broaden the base of our party'—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."

    "It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient (enough) difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls...

    "Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

    "...A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers."

    "...And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."

    You either believe government is the solution to our problems, or that government *IS* the problem. There is no middle ground here.

    As for this talk about needing "as many options as possible" to solve our problems... we need only ONE solution to solve our problems: Get the government out of the way.

    2010 will an electoral bloodbath of historical proportions and Democrats can start enjoying their 30 year trek through the political wilderness now. RINO Republicans, I wouldn't sit there feeling smug either, because you're next.

    January 27, 2010 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  24. Vince

    The term Republican no longer has anything to do with a political point of view – – it now defines a type of mental illness.

    January 27, 2010 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
  25. richard macquiston

    ...well, that would let the pro-purity members of the GOP further isolate the party from gaining a populist movement which would be the main hope of re-capturing control of Congress...also on achiveing
    those demands could go a step farther in demanding other restrictions on membership and election assistance...sorta how the Nationalist Social Party in 1930-40 in Germany rose to ascendancy ..purification

    January 27, 2010 04:36 pm at 4:36 pm |
1 2 3 4