TPMDC

Steele Opposes 'Purity' Resolution, Says 'Ronald Reagan Would Be Ashamed'

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

RNC chairman Michael Steele

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has formally come out against a proposed resolution at this week's RNC winter meeting, commonly known as the "purity" resolution, which would require Republican candidates to show they support at least eight out of ten selected conservative positions in order to receive RNC funding.

"Litmus tests don't work. They don't build parties, they don't build relationships, they can be divisive," Steele told reporters yesterday, after a committee of state party chairmen voted to oppose it. He also added: "This is not the business of the RNC. Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction."

Steele's invocation of Reagan's name here was probably not random. This was likely done because the resolution's main author, RNC committee member James Bopp of Indiana, named it the "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates." The inferred "Reagan's Unity Principle" here comes from a line from Reagan about the need for Republicans to stop fighting each other, saying that someone who agrees with him 80% of the time was his friend and not his 20% enemy -- which is taken literally here, as a solid floor for support.

Comments (7) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 28, 2010 10:53 AM   

the idea of demanding ideological purity is straight from the conservative christian handbook. The Southern Baptists has started forcing workers and professors at Baptist colleges to fill out similar surveys, or sign statements that "I believe X." Why should it be any different in politics? Taking Reagan's off the cuff statement as a literal test for whether or not they can get along is exactly what I expect from fundamentalists. All they can do is put blind trust in something, then deal ruthlessly with anyone who presents a challenge to their understanding of it.

I am not a fan of Michael Steele, but good for him for having the balls to oppose this. Though, the bastard in me hopes it goes through just because it would cause more internal tensions in the GOP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 11:02 AM    in reply to ChrisB

Didn't Reagan also espouse that "11th Commandment" thingy regarding other Republicans? Yeah I thought so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 11:16 AM    in reply to ChrisB

I'm actually a big fan of Michael Steele. I want him to retain his position as long as possible.

But in all seriousness, for all his buffoonery and for all his appalling kiss-up behavior, there is evidence that Michael Steele recognizes the problem with his party on some level and knows something needs to be done about it. That's much more than you could say for Michelle Bachmann or Jim DeMint or Eric Cantor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:42 PM    in reply to Xantar

My prediction...Michael Steele will defect to the Democrats within 2 years and will be the Democrats most vocal opponent of the Republicans. We'll let him have all the freedom to make an ass out of himself as he wants because it will be complete joy to watch their rogue puppet stick pins in them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 11:37 AM   

This is symptomatic of a pattern on the right of turning all councils of leniency on their head, taking legal (and in this case rhetorical) standards meant to show minimum degrees of compassion and claiming that they are rigid ceilings instead.

It also reflects the strange Cult of Reagan on the right, where he is taken to be a true secular saint - incapable of error - and the justification of all policies from the extreme right; but the actual actions and views of Reagan himself are virtually ignored. From liberalizing abortion in California, to normalizing the status of million of illegal immigrants, to raising taxes as President when circumstances demanded, to negotiating with the Soviets and even offering to abolish nuclear weapons, if Reagan himself reappeared today (but in the guise of another man or a woman) he would be denounced as a RINO.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 12:26 PM   

Michael Steele is correct in saying that a purity rule is unhelpful... But wasn't he one of the people who proposed it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 3:07 PM   

That's because Reagan himself could not have passed the test.

-- Reagan never once shrunk government
-- Reagan never controlled spending
-- Reagan never cut taxes
-- Reagan never lowered or much less controlled the deficit
-- Reagan supported and helped pass the Brady Bill

None of 'em could pass it. Just check out the list.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on