New GOP 'Purity test' rankles Michael Steele

Well,  I tend to be a bit of a purist myself,  in many things,  so I can almost understand their position. 

Old guard Republicans are not about diveristy; they are about retrenchment and harkening back to the looks of a post Civil War Democratic Party.

Divisions in ideology that result in the creation of single agenda third parties or sways to far to the left or right for the Democrats and Republicans have historically not been successful. 

Strom Thurmond couldnt do it with the States Rights Party, know as the Dixiecrats, in 1948.

Goldwater couldn't do it against Lyndon Johnson in 1964

George Wallace couldn't do it in 1968 on the American Independent party.

Michael Steele's political strategy is correct on this issue.

Haha he is done for it

Yes,  A,  it does not work, and Steele knows it.  Thanks for all the excellent historical info!  

You are welcome smk : )

how amazing it is that libs care so much for the well-being of the Republican party.

I wouldn't call it "care," but interest in the loyal opposition, which is entirely appropriate. 

If Republican women support the right to chose, then they need to get message to mostly male Republican legislators who are making the decisions for them. 

I agree, it will be only through compromise on both sides that the health care reform bill will pass.  Also, health care reform when it becomes law is not set in stone, and there are provisions for implementation and utilization review.  Some systems will work better than others and over the next ten years there will be revisions and changes to support the needs of the people in terms of health care delivery and cost effectiveness.

This is off topic, but I think the new guidelines by the U.S. government for mammograms is way off the mark, and I don't know whose idea it was to come out with this now, but it is a big mistake both for women and politcally for health care reform.

Another highly interesting SMK post! JEEZ! What happened to the "big tent" philosophy? Ideologues are ideologues no matter what their political persuasion. Niether the Dems nor the Repubs have a monopoly on that.

In regard to third parties:Just because they haven't been successful in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be successful in the future. And the way that things have been going within the American political world lately lends itself to the emergence of a viable third party.

I plan on starting that party and I'm accepting donations as of today. The name of the party is  The Kool Aid party.

We already have third parties, and to date they have not been able to garner the votes to over shadow either the Democrats or Republicans.

Libertarian

Independent

Green Party

Constitution Party

Right Wing Party Ideology Parties:  America First Party; American Independent Party; The American Party; The American Patriotic Party; Independent American Party; Prohibition Party

Centrist Parties:  The American Centrist Party; Independence Party of America; Modern Whig Party; Reform Party of the U.S.A.;

Left Wing Parties:  Working Families Party; The New Majority; The New Party; Labor Party; The Socialist Party; Democratic Socialists of America

Nine separate Communist Parties

Libertarian:  Boston Tea Party; Jefferson Republican Party

Take your pick! You don't have to create a new one.

Rory

We can't say "never," but the likelyhood of it happening is remote. : )

Roy

Thanks

I didnt list the names of all of the Communist parties: (  Too long, but they do exist.

And this shows the tolerance of Democracy. : )

The problem with third parties is that if they don't have a totally new platform that differentiates them from the Repubs and Dems, all they do is split the opposition.  This is particularly true in a parliamentary democracy as Canada.  40% of the vote in our system can land you a majority government, rendering 60% of the vote with very little voice.