The purity problem

All of this discussion of purity is kind of odd.

On one level there can be no purity "test" because there is no place in which to enforce it. First of all states run these things, not the national party. And really, anyone can register and vote as a democrat. Anyone can register and RUN as a democrat and there really is no place to execute a test.

Now, on another level, an organization such as Move On, or the DSCC/CCC can and do have their "purity tests" in choosing whom they will back fiscally. Always have. Rahm infamously used his time in the DCCC to exclude candidates he considered "too liberal". He even went so far as to influence other people and organizations not to fund candidates that failed his purity test. Presidents have had theirs as well in deciding who to campaign for. Most use it to "enforce" adherence to a particular legislative agenda or even a particular piece of legislation. Congressional leadership has their tests as well, and committee assignments can hang upon them.

So the question isn't so much about having purity tests, it is about who gets to have them. At the end of the day, every voter has them. Every organization has them. It mostly boils down to the kinds of consequences that "failing" the test should generate. Oh, and apparently, who gets to openly discuss these tests. Because like so many things associated with purity, apparently we generally don't discuss them "in public".