The ‘Reagan Test – aka Purity Test’ is again being proposed for the Republican Party to implement. The logic behind this is because Scott Brown won in a Democratic state, now is the time to ensure only ‘pure’ Republicans are the candidates who will receive GOP money and support.
But it looks like there are cracks in this teapot, as well. Seems there is a group of Republicans who see Scott Brown as a person who would fail the proposed Reagan Test.
Who is correct in their assessment? Is Scott Brown the future Reagan of the Republican Party or did he just benefit from the backlash of the majority of Independents who were sending a message to the Democrats and the Establishment? I guess time will tell, won’t it?
Lilac
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/after-browns-win-gop-officials-weigh-purity-test/
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
Didn’t Cheney brag that Reagan proved deficits don’t matter?
Isn’t fiscal responsibility on that purity test or does that only apply to the ‘other guy’?
I could have sworn I heard on the news last night that Scott Brown said that he wants to work with Obama, which would be an instant failure of the purity test, but I can’t find a quote like that on the internet anywhere this morning.
Anyone hear that or was I just hearing things?
I heard his victory speech and he did say that he was going to be the Independent vote in Washington DC. He did say that he wanted to work with Democrats to solve the problems
I don’t remember if he actually said Obama’s name or not – but he did say the Democrats. But I assume he meant Obama – since he would be the top Democrat currently in the White House.
These Conservative Republicans are a funny bunch – they are so delirious with their victory that they are treating Brown like the Messiah that they were just denouncing Democrats treating Obama as being?
And, I do not think that these Republicans actually listened to Brown or paid enough attention to the details of Brown’s past voting record.
I wonder what Republicans would say if they knew Brown voted for the MA state health care bill which required mandatory purchasing of health care? I’ve heard that Brown is pro-choice, but I’ve not actually read anything about that yet.
There are many things about Brown that – if he actually does stay independent – will anger alot of partisan Republicans.
But the proof will be in the pudding – won’t it?
That is why I am withholding my judgment of Scrott Brown until he’s been in that Senate seat for a few months.
BTW – Brown is an basketball player and so is his daughter.
Brown has stated that if he won the Senate seat, he would like to play basketball with Obama and his daughter.
I wrote on WE Blog the Massachusetts results were the work of a complacent party, dominant for many years, not aware of how to win a close election.
Scott Brown gets a lot of media attention because he’s the flavor of the day. He’s the male Sarah Palin.
We probably won’t see it in Kansas races, but but nationwide the Tea-Baggers and the Repubic Party hierarchy are at serious odds and will split. All the better Brown and Palin split the Tea-Baggers.
Don’t stop your enemy if he’s intent on shooting himself in the head.
Did anyone see Frontline on PBS last night? It was extremely informative, as always. It was all about credit cards and needed reform and the new law that was just passed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/etc/synopsis.html
You can watch it online here:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/view/
I only watched the second half of it, but I heard three different Senators say that the reason the reforms did not go far enough was because of lobbyist pressure. I want to know PRECISELY what they mean when they say that. I think they mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And that is admitted bribery.
Unfortunately, with the help of the Supreme Court, corporations can pretty much do whatever they want with their money.
And all these credit card companies are the big boys on Wall Street that just got their butts bailed out by the taxpayers and have yet to even thank us for that.
Add to that fact the politicians who are only too eager to take lobbyists money and we have a formula for disaster.
But, hey, at least all these politicians and Wall Street banks are doing well and doesn’t that just warm your heart?
sacasm off/
The increased corporate $$ will not only help Republicans, but will increasing corrupt the Democrats.
On the plus side, if you look at the poll numbers, tea-party types aside, the public isn’t largely flocking to the Republicans. They’re just pissed.
But, that, naturally, has a tendency to hurt incumbents.
And, on a related subject, while he’d been making sense lately, Tom Friedman, once again, gets it spectacularly wrong:
But the way the president unveiled his proposals — “if those folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have” — left me feeling as though he was looking for a way to bash the banks right after the Democrats’ loss in Massachusetts, in order to score a few cheap political points more than to initiate a serious national discussion about an incredibly complex issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27friedman.html
News flash, Tom: adults know that it would a huge fight, and will require the engaged support of the public.
And, while we’re talking about a “Reagan tests”, here’s a more appropriate one–Reagan succeeded (in what they {sic} wanted to do)–by rallying both money and public support behind him. Obama showed during the election that public support–even in this climate–can go a long way, if he will only give the “troops” something really worth cheering for.
Of course, on one level, Friedman is correct–banking regulation is a complex thing, and anything done will have to be scanned for numerous loopholes.
But his condensending bullshit which equates passionate advocacy with childish behavior is about as indisputably “elitist” as it gets. I regard the Tea Party crowd as idiots because they are ill-informed, won’t listen, and shout people down–not because they passionately (if vaguely) believe in something.
But coming from the same man who thought outsourcing was a good thing and endorsed the excesses of the War on Terra it’s unsurprising. I must acknowledge that he’s kinda-sorta apologized for the latter and, again, sometimes makes sense.
But I don’t trust his views on Corporate America. At All.
I think some Democrats, probably more than we care to know, are already corrupted by corporate money.
Dare I say to even look at those that fought health care reform and which ones were the largest recipients of health care companies’ money?
I think we should make politicians wear uniforms as to which corporations own them – you know, kinda like the NASCAR drivers wears.
At least with that system, we all know upfront who is feeding the dummy his/her lines.