TPM LiveWire
Dick Armey: GOP Purity Test Is Not A Purity Test!
Ben Frumin | November 29, 2009, 1:04PM
Dick Armey, chair of FreedomWorks
Share
Send to a friend!
Former House Majority Leader and tea party promoter Dick Armey said on Face the Nation this morning that a proposed GOP purity test isn't a purity test at all -- but simply a reasonable way to measure whether a candidate fits with the Republican Party.
The Republican National Committee will consider a resolution in January that would require that if a candidate disagrees with the party line on three or more out of a list of ten key issues, they won't receive money or official party support.
"It's not a litmus test," Armey said.
It's a very reasonable thing to say if you want the support of the Republican Party, demonstrate some allegiance to the primary positions taken by the party. That's not a litmus test. That's just saying if you want us to give you our money, our support, our troops in the field, our endorsements, then demonstrate that you're someone like us.
Ironically, Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican who dropped out of the NY-23 congressional election and backed a Democrat (who won) after national Republicans, including Armey, defected from her camp in favor of a Conservative Party candidate, was also a guest on Face the Nation. She said she would have only met 7 of the 10 criteria on the purity test -- meaning no money or party support for a moderate candidate like her.
Late Update: Here's the video.
Comments (37) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
AnnieW
November 29, 2009 1:21 PM
I hope Armey is successful with the purity test. The only way for the Dems to not lose some seats (because of their disappointing performance so far) is for the Repubs to keep going crazy and not support their candidates that could clean house.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
November 29, 2009 1:28 PM
Of course it's a litmus test. It's no different from the litmus tests used for prospective Federal court appointees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
November 29, 2009 3:56 PM in reply to Signalman
Denial is everything though. It is like saying, "oh no, she is not pregnant, she is just 'with child'"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill E Pilgrim
November 29, 2009 1:35 PM
It's not a "litmus test", good heavens no. It's a "purity" test.
Look, it's very simple. What do you do with the unpure? That's right, you burn them. Politically, of course. Now, what are the unpure made of? That's right, wood. Which floats on water. Now, what else floats on water? Rocks? Gravy? No, ducks. Ducks float on water. So you weigh each candidate, and if they weigh as much as a duck, then they're unpure!
If you think that sounds insane then you haven't read the real GOP purity sketch. Er, I mean test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bondwooley
November 29, 2009 2:13 PM
Over at Lester & Charlie's blog, there's a poll asking what items were left off of the GOP's purity test. Things they all believe in but didn't write down, like "God put the hole in the ozone so he can watch you."
Check it out here:
http://bit.ly/llPZg
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 29, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to bondwooley
They left off an important one - believing that the moon shines with its own light, just like it says in the Bible, rather than reflected light from the sun. There really are people who believe this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 30, 2009 4:03 AM in reply to bondwooley
"God" erred: "He" made it possible to look back at "Him".
As for the purity test not being a purity test:
That's true. The Republican party is so corrupted with hypocrisy -- it smells at least of Vitter's used diapers -- it is an impurity test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
November 29, 2009 2:14 PM
There's probably 20 current Republican senators that can't meet the purity test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
November 29, 2009 2:31 PM
When you come down to it, how is the Republican purity test any different from liberal Democrats wanting to purge the likes of Sens Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu from the Senate for their efforts in sidetracking the health reform bill? My reaction to them and the likes of Joe Lieberman is to work to get them the hell out of the Senate for their part in sidetracking not only the health reform bill, but many other progressive initiatives of the majority and our president, but then I look at the Republicans' behavior, and wonder if I want to behave like them. I don't know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
red cabbage
November 29, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to acf_ma
I'm not certain it's the same thing. Republicans are trying to purge their party of moderate voices and going so far as to draw up a vow of chastity that must be adhered to.
I haven't seen anything quite as dogmatic from the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
November 29, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to acf_ma
I think it's less about the notion of absolute values held by a party's lawmakers than it is about the contradictory and self-injurious nature of the values espoused by this purity test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
November 29, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to acf_ma
You're kidding right? There is a very basic difference. Republicans are 80% nuts and THEY want to purge the other 20%. Liberals (We are Liberals. Progessive is a wing nut construct.) are 90% sane and would like to purge the other 10%.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
November 29, 2009 4:54 PM in reply to henk
Because we're always right and they're always wrong?
Because we're the majority position, and even if we're not getting 50.1%+ of the public to support our idea, we're correctly sensing the majority position before the majority itself knows it?
This is dangerous thinking. These four Senators seem fairly transparent in their aims (Landrieu's named her price, and I expect the other three to do so in short order), but are we really doing the best thing with this legislation? Do we really know for sure, that behind the screaming nutcases waving copies of the Constitution they can't read, there aren't some thoughtful people with real objections that go to the heart of our stated purpose?
The Republicans spent the better part of twenty years smoking their own dope, and it cost them dearly. Let's not make the same mistake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill E Pilgrim
November 29, 2009 5:52 PM in reply to Former Federal Employee
We are getting 50.1%, and then some.
That's where you're wrong.
Wanting to rid the party of people who would vote for a filibuster that doesn't allow the majority (the 51% or 58% or whatever it would be) to have its say is different from wanting to rid the party of anyone who disagrees with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bill E Pilgrim
November 29, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to acf_ma
The Republicans want to purge the party of anyone except a minority of extremists, who want to hold the entire country hostage to their agenda, despite what the majority wants.
Progressives want to rid the Democratic party of people who would join the Republicans in filibustering and holding the country hostage to the Republicans' minority agenda.
That's the difference.
We don't actually need Lieberman, Nelson, or Lincoln to have a majority, Democrats have a majority without their votes. Easily. What we want is that they don't derail the entire Democratic process by agreeing to a filibuster to stop the majority from even being allowed to vote.
The Republicans want an extremist minority to run Congress, and if Lieberman and Nelson join them in stopping a vote from being called, then so do they.
That's why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stiggs
November 29, 2009 9:16 PM in reply to Bill E Pilgrim
Hear, hear.
The only thing we need Leiberman and the other recalcitrants for is to break the occasional filibuster. It's not a questions of "ooh are you a perfect Dem?" but rather "are you of any value to our party?".
Republicans are purging all "imperfect" members of their party and Democrats can't seem to purge the useless members of theirs. The result is that a fringe (and heavily backed by corporate overlords) element has managed to grab control and move the goal posts much further than I imagined possible in their favor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
November 29, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to acf_ma
As a retired RN, who is a Republican and who is for the new health care bill, I say, run off any Senator or Representative who refuses to vote for the new health care bill. I guess the target would be for a few Democrats and a whole bunch of Republicans. But lets see who will vote for the bill before we have to act on the 'running off' phase. I have taken care of patients with far advanced illnesses that a hospital HAD to treat because they got Hill-Burton Feds money for hospital construction. Often these patient's terminal care cost thousands of dollars. In my own case, shortly after the depression I had rheumatic fever and my single mom had to chose food for the family or antibiotic for me. No contest. As a result I have rheumatic disease. I have had three heart surgeries, always with insurance because i somehow got through Nursing School and so I had great insurance. Still with my medical care over my lifetime, insurance has paid for nearly a quarter of a million in health care costs. All for want of $3.00 of antibiotics. False savings to be sure. No insurance, then huge health care bills. SILLY! Pass health care NOW!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
November 29, 2009 10:45 PM in reply to acf_ma
You're right I was thinking the same thing, is health reform my purity test?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotaGOP
November 30, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to acf_ma
The difference is that *some* Democrats want to purge these congressmen, while most (wisely, IMHO) realize that having a majority & settling for compromises is the best course in the long term.
And then there's the fact that Lieberman's not even a Democrat. He hasn't been one since he lost the Connecticut primary back in 2006. He should have been told at the beginning of the current session that either he became the Democrat's bitch or could kiss his seniority & committee assignments good-bye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
November 29, 2009 4:51 PM
Someone should remind His Royal DIckness that a test by any other name is STILL a test!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
saguaro
November 29, 2009 4:59 PM
Any Republican who still refers to dems as 'Democrat Party' need not be taken seriously. Dick Armey should known better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
November 29, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to saguaro
He meant it. It's a dogwhistle that goes back to Joe McCarthy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
November 29, 2009 11:53 PM in reply to saguaro
That's every repub talking head. Why in the world dems don't correct them, I don't know. It drives me nuts! If they continue, why don't dems refer to them as repub party?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluesplashy
November 29, 2009 5:02 PM
I had to laugh when I read about Lindsey Graham this morning. There was a time when we thought he was sooo conservative!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/politics/29senators.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PJEvans
November 29, 2009 5:13 PM
It reminds me so much of the econ teacher I had who said he didn't grade on a curve, and went through a long explanation of how he did grade - which amounted to creating a grading curve.
Didn't fool me that time, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
November 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Ok Dick put it back in your pants and sit down. Nobody cares what you think or say. How crazy do you have to be to put the word "purity" in the same sentence as "GOP". Who are you kidding Bub? Ok maybe "Purity of GOP Bullshit", maybe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Solomon Drek
November 29, 2009 10:58 PM in reply to fitley
"Ok maybe "Purity of GOP Bullshit", maybe."
How about "Purity of Essence"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hidden Oak
November 29, 2009 9:27 PM
Not a purity test. OK, how about demagogue vetting?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Solomon Drek
November 29, 2009 10:56 PM
"Former House Majority Leader and tea party promoter Dick Armey"
That should read, "Former House Majority Leader for four years until he totally blew away his party's chances in 1998 . . ."
"That's not a litmus test. That's just saying if you want us to give you our money, our support, our troops in the field, our endorsements, then demonstrate that you're someone like us."
A certification of insanity should be sufficient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fitley
November 29, 2009 11:15 PM
Dick"Leader of the TeaScrotums" Army. Speak up Dick I Cunt Hear You. He gives marching orders to all his Sad Sacks.
Hey Dick Terry Shiavo's on the line, do you want to talk to her or should we put her on hold?
Hey Dick, Larry Craig's on the line, he wants to know what your definition of marriage is. He's on his knees in an airport bathroom he just wants to be sure.
Famous Dick quote: Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody.
That's right DICK!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BearCreekMan
November 30, 2009 5:00 AM
El Fascismo ... nothing else ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
November 30, 2009 6:29 AM
It's a test to see how pure a republican is. That's called a "purity test". Now someone tell Dick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AZskeptic
November 30, 2009 8:26 AM
I just read the purity test, what the hell is number 4?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AZskeptic
November 30, 2009 8:29 AM
I just read the purity test, what the hell is number 4?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AZskeptic
November 30, 2009 8:41 AM
That would be, "(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;"...huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
November 30, 2009 10:32 AM
Cannot be a purity test if you have to promise not to have affairs and pay off the husband, if you want to have homosexual sex in airport men's rooms, if you want to divorce your hospitalized, cancer-ridden wife to marry an intern, if you take bribes from insurance companies for your votes against health care reform, if you campaign against abortion, but choose it for your family members, if you want a balanced budget but want to have unfunded wars of choice...
Get the idea of GOP hypocrisy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 1, 2010 9:08 PM
The difference is that *some* Democrats want to purge these congressmen, while most (wisely, IMHO) realize that having a majority & settling for compromises is the best course in the long term.
And then there's the fact that Lieberman's not even a Democrat. He hasn't been one since he lost the Connecticut primary back in 2006. He should have been told at the beginning of the current session that either he became the Democrat's bitch or could kiss his seniority & committee assignments good-bye.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?