And low brain power idiots scream at us that we want to apply a “purity test” whenever we say we don’t want radical leftists idiots or RINOs [I know, redundant] as our candidates.
My understanding of “purity tests” isn’t what you described. A Scott Brown gets a slight pass ONLY bc he was taking Ted Kennedy’s seat in MA and promised to vote against Obamacare (which he did, but Reid’s trickery made that irrelevant). Scott Brown actually RAN as more conservative than he voted once he got in.
In general, your description would make us all big fans of Olympia Snowe, Colin Powell, Mike Bloomberg and every lily-livered liberal Republican you can name. Lisa Murkowski and ALL the routine backstabbers...
THAT’s not it.
Purity tests objected to revolve around someone who is mostly right on their issues and votes but has gone a little, or even more, astray on a particular issue, or had a judgement lapse and said or did something that was mistaken when looked upon in hindsight. Something in their public or private record that is amiss from perfection.
By the time Conservatives get through throwing all such imperfects under the bus, there aren’t enough supporters left of any one of the candidates to get them anywhere. And disgusted, disgruntled Conservatives have split off in all directions like scattering jackrabbits to a pickup truck filled with hunters firing away at them. Why? Because there was something wrong with all of those who ran, in their minds, or the one they supported, they overlooked the foibles of only that one person, and that one person couldn’t get anywhere, either.
That’s the purity test I’m aware of. Yours would indict Conservatives who object to purity tests as being supportive of overwhelmingly obvious, self-admitted, across-the-board liberal Republicans.