Ideological ...Purity?

Consider that in the Republican Party there has been a sometimes rancorous, sometimes healthy, sometimes divisive debate between conservatives, moderates, progressives, libertarians, evangelicals, social conservatives / fiscal liberals, social liberals / fiscal conservatives, "me too but slower" socialists, big-government competent managers of the welfare state, the TEA Party, Ron Paul supporters, limited-government constitutionalists, etc. , at least since the Goldwater-Rockefeller showdown in 1964.

Consider that the national Republican Party and especially the Republican caucus in Congress seems to be making war on the grassroots of the Party, the same grassroots that gave them back the House in 2010.

Consider that a few rather poor candidates have managed to embarrass the grassroots movement that they hoped the champion.

FInally consider that once in office, politicians tend to very conveniently forget the promises they made to get elected. We the people are stuck in a game of two-card monty, victims of a government by Demicans and Republicrats, repeatedly duped and hoodwinked by politicians of the "go along to get along" mentality.

It was against this background that the Carson City Republicans decided to do a better job of selecting candidates for elected office, by vetting those who come forward as candidates.

What is vetting, you might and should ask? 

Vetting is a voluntary process. Candidates do not have to "submit" to it. And yes it is necessarily a confidential process, because the candidate is indeed asked if there is anything in their past that will embarrass them, and us, if it comes out during the campaign. After all, in today's political and media climate, Republicans are specific targets of the politics of personal destruction.

In the vetting procedure the candidate is indeed asked, if you claim to be a Republican, do you and can you support the Party's platform? Remember, the platform is the statement of the views, beliefs, aspirations and goals of the Party's rank and file. So we ask the candidate, are there any planks you cannot agree with, and if so, why? If elected, can you and will you act in accordance with your declared principles? This is not a litmus test or a test of ideological purity, it is common sense. Why would candidates claim a label if they don't agree with what that label represents, and why should we support them if they don't agree with us? 

The vetting committee of the Carson City Republican Central Committee necessarily consists of individuals of integrity and trustworthiness. Their identity is not a secret; come join the central committee, get involved, get to know who we are and what we do. Our meetings are open. Our website, ccrccgop.org, does not require a password.

If the vetting committee can come to a consensus, it can only recommend that the Central Committee should support a particular candidate in the primary. The Central Committee still has to meet and vote to accept or reject their recommendations. Candidates can still run in the primary with or without the Central Committee's support. Republican voters can still make their choices in the primary, in accordance with or in spite of the Central Committee's recommendation. And the party will still support in the general election the candidate that the voters chose in the primaries.

Will this procedure yield a better crop of candidates? Only time will tell. And even then, if we find that an elected official whom we supported violates his promise, the only thing that we in the Central Committee and we the Republican voters can do, even after all this, is to ask him WHY. Nothing more; just ask him to his face, WHY?

What is wrong with telling candidates in this way, that we don't want self-serving, self-promoting politicians, we want public servants, we want statesmen who truly have the people's and the country's interests at heart. As an individual voter speaking only for myself, I don't see anything wrong with that.