JP: The "litmus test" emerged because Republican leaders have apparently begun to understand that they have to win back the confidence of conservative Americans in the wake of the 2008 election, the NY-23 debacle, and defections on key House and Senate votes. In its origins, the "litmus test" is not a purge by the right, but a commitment from the top--an attempt by GOP institutions to reassure the grass roots that the party will stay true to its values.

That said, there are two questions that remain. One is strategic: is it better to give people credit for the Republican values they share, or to punish them for the points on which they disagree? In other words, is a "litmus test" really better than a new "Contract With America"? I support the latter, which I feel is positive and inclusive. That way, we can focus on our common agenda rather than our differences.

The second question is the substance of the test itself. Most Republicans I know, myself included, could sign on to all ten principles. The minimum score of eight would also allow pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Republicans to wave the GOP banner proudly. I do wonder, however, whether we actually need ten points to articulate the simple principles Republicans have always believed in: freedom, strength, and tradition. What we really need most is the courage to fight for them.