Republicans reject candidate litmus test

By Mark Z. Barabak

Jan. 30, 2010 12 AM PT

Reporting from Honolulu — Republican Party leaders on Friday quashed an effort to impose a political litmus test on its candidates, sidestepping a fight that threatened to divide the GOP and highlighted a split between purists and pragmatists over how best to steer the party in 2010 and beyond.

The swift resolution of the matter -- when the chief sponsor abruptly withdrew his proposal in favor of a vague substitute -- provided an anticlimactic finish to a debate that roiled GOP insiders for weeks ahead of the party’s winter meeting in Hawaii.

The luxurious setting, amid swaying palms, waterfalls and pink flamingos, became something of an issue in itself, as some in the party questioned the political wisdom of meeting on the shores of Waikiki at a time when millions of Americans are out of work.

“Do I want voters to think that Republicans do nothing but go to beach resorts in January?” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said in Washington. “No.”

Still, the more pressing and politically vital question before the 168 members of the Republican National Committee was a proposal that would have required candidates to take prescribed positions on at least eight of 10 core issues, including support for smaller government and lower taxes, and opposition to same-sex marriage and gun control. Any candidate who failed to pass muster would have been denied funding and organizational support from the RNC.

Even though the policy positions were generally in line with Republican orthodoxy, many in the party were put off by the notion of imposing an ideological checklist -- especially as the GOP works to expand support by reaching out to independents and more centrist voters.

“I don’t think it is, or should be, the position of the Republican National Committee to sit on high judgment of someone’s credentials to be a candidate,” Chairman Michael Steele told reporters. “We are about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division.”

Others suggested the proposal was a needless distraction at a time when the GOP is building political momentum, evidenced by its upset victory last week in the Massachusetts special Senate election. Critics of the litmus test questioned whether winner Scott Brown would have passed.

“We’ve had unanimous opposition to the excesses of [President Obama’s] agenda,” said Dick Wadhams, Colorado’s GOP chairman, who rounded up opposition to the purity test from fellow chairs. “It’s just totally ill-conceived and misdirected.”

Meeting behind closed doors, party leaders drafted a watered-down proposal that urges the RNC to “carefully screen the record and statements” of candidates to determine their fealty to the principles embodied in the platform adopted at the party’s national convention in 2008. There is no checklist and no mandatory penalty for deviating from the platform.

Even so, the chief sponsor of the litmus test, Indiana lawyer and committee member James Bopp Jr., embraced the new language, which was adopted by unanimous voice vote.

“I see this as a broader, more effective, more comprehensive resolution than I proposed,” Bopp told reporters after withdrawing his resolution, to applause from committee members.

By avoiding a public squabble over the GOP’s identity, Steele managed a small triumph after months of controversy.

Combative and outspoken, he has often seemed to antagonize fellow Republicans as much as Democrats, through gaffes -- he recently ruled out a party takeover of the House this year -- and self-enriching actions, such as collecting lucrative appearance fees for giving private speeches.

Steele was characteristically defiant at a news conference on Thursday.

He defended the setting for the party’s retreat. “The problems here in Hawaii that the people face are no different than the problems that are faced on the mainland,” he said. (In December, Republicans felt otherwise, criticizing Obama when he vacationed in Hawaii, where he grew up.)

Steele also indicated a desire to serve another term after his tenure ends in January 2011.

“My style is not something you get used to very easily, I know that,” he said. Even so, “the members of this party -- and this is what they reinforced to me -- charged me to do two things: Raise money and win elections. On those two fronts, I think we are doing OK.”

Asked about the prospects of winning a second term, Steele said, “As of right now, I feel good about it.”

[email protected]