How Big of a Problem Is the Ron Paul-Inspired Maine GOP Platform?
Others are less diplomatic and refer to it as “political suicide”:
I believe that there are provisions in there that will scare off many independents who you need to win elections. … It will make it very difficult for the majority of Republicans to win.
The authors of the document do not claim membership in the tea party movement, but attended tea party events:
Mr. Dyer says he and his co-authors aren’t members of the tea party, although some have attended such events. They were motivated by disappointment with the party’s “progressive” wing, which had “forgotten what it means to be a Republican,” he says.
There were claims of “thuggery” and undemocratic behavior at the convention. Many attendees did not get to read the platform before it was passed due to insufficient copies and a hurried discussion.
Though the document was not in line with general tea party concerns, it could sully the movement should Republican candidates suffer from it. We shall see if this revolutionary document is an albatross around the neck of Maine Republicans, or just a misstep in a long campaign with little relevance to the final tally.
I have read the new GOP platform, and I can find nothing in it with which I, or any conservative, should disagree.
Since the author of this post did not include a URL to the actual document, I have included it with mu comment.
http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx
Respects,
Thanks for posting the link. Except for the abortion stance, I wouldn’t agree to give the Federals that much authority, yay or nay, after all, there is no Federal statue of Murder. That question needs to be left up to the Several States and the Federals forbidden to interfer.
Other than that, it appears to be a fine document. Personally, I would add protections for private property and have Congress specifically overturn Kelo v. City of New London, but otherwise, fine.
A Constitutional Amendment forbidding transfer payments by the Federal Government wouldn’t be bad either. Just sayin’.
I agree – leave abortion to the states.
The Congressional Reform Act would have to be an Amendment but it sure sounds like a good one. The rest of the platform seems pretty mainstream to me.
Not sure why it bunched up Mr. Dodge’s panties.
Slavery was banned by the Federal government by passing a Constitutional Amendment. I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a similar prohibition on abortion.
Link to the platform? And in what way is is Ron Paul inspired? This reads like a lamestream media hit piece written influenced by power structure party hacks. Perhaps not but there is little actual information in the article other than various groups saying they don’t like it.
This article reminds me of the time I saw a Toronto newspaper called the Star.
I read a front page article on Canadian politics. Not one thing could even be understood about the subject matter, Canadian politics, from the article: the Torres are: adjective adjective adjective…the Liberal Democrats are: adjective adjective adjective…
Funny here. It would have been nice if you bashed specific platform positions instead of, in general, approaching it like a politician that doesn’t like it and therefore isn’t going to repeat any part of it lest a sound bit seem to give it credibility. From your discussion I gather it is light on policy and spouts general principles. I’ve always hated that. Discussing principles in relation to politicians just seems so…I don’t know…I can’t get excited about shrill arguments revolving around professional wrestlers either. Term limits…unconstitutional? Really? Free speech…FTC control? Which stirs you the most?
A better question, given the past results produced by Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would be “how big of a problem is the liberal Republican office holder behavior to the future of the Maine Republican Party, and the country as it was founded. I have not read the new platform, but given the wierd hit and run approach of this article, I conclude there is no threat at all from this platform, but a huge immediate threat from those who would dissuade conservatives from fighting hard to actually roll back Leftist policy. We don’ win unless we aggressively fight to restore the Constitution, a hard fight, in which I would rather be on the side of Rand Paul than Olympia Snowe. Or Andrew Ian Dodge.
Uh… the Republican Liberty Caucus is your claim to legitimacy?
Twenty years ago, Eric Ritberg was making the argument that I should support the RLC because that was the only way to get libertarian ideas from principle into practice. How’s that been working out for ya?
Twenty years later, the republicans have been singing the same old song. Why just the other day, Newt Gingrich was on the radio talking about what a great job he did by creating the period with the slowest growth in government. Dying at a rate of 2% per year instead of 10% a year is still dying. I’ll give Newt Gingrich and other career politicians an “atta boy” when they start reducing government by 2% a year instead of growing it.
Now that the Tea Party folks are starting to hold the republican’s feet to the fire, they react in one of two entirely predictable ways: either they attempt to co-opt the Tea Party sentiment for their own crass career building purposes like Gingrich, or they attack the grass roots like Bob Bennett.
This time, its different. Enough people are pissed off at what’s been going on, and not just lately but for a long time now, that the same old song isn’t going to mollify them. Had the republicans in Maine grown a pair and been actually fighting for smaller governement instead of at best compromising to 2% growth, then maybe people wouldn’t be so pissed off that they voted for a platform that has a pair instead.
WTF??? Is half your article missing? No offense dude but “[t]he biggest problem is that it is poorly presented and uncleanly written” describes this piece perfectly. Fire your editor, if you have one.
No candidate for governor in Maine has backed it and much of the party are busy distancing themselves from it. “Hit piece” hardly, its a poorly written rant that barely speaks about Maine politics and speaks to things that no Maine politician has any control over.
I see nothing wrong with the platform. The big spending Goerge Bush social nazi type republicans and the gotcha liberals are salivating because the platform calls for opposing “Diversity”. Horay Maine GOP. A great platform!
Well, Andrew, after actually reading the Maine GOP Platform (and just why did you fail to provide a link to it?), I don’t understand why any Republican candidate would “distance” him/herself from what appears to me to be bedrock conservatism. If I were a Maine GOP primary voter and one of my Republican candidates said this document is too “radical”, that would be one candidate who would not get my vote. I just wish California’s GOP had the courage to create a similar document.
Each candidate ought to issue his/her personal platform, drawing on some party document only when desired.
The problem with the Republican Party for some time has
been that it has become a me-too answer the leftist Democrats.
When the Republican Party gives voters a real conservative choice
in candidates and platform it will win elections and it will be serving
the nation as it should.
Well, it’s poorly written and needs professional editing, but it’s hardly radical.
Every Democratic platform I’ve read over the years has been downright loony by comparison.
Here’s an idea: Why not pass a platform simply calling for a return to strict Constitutional law, period? This would cover all bases, and would be far less likely to ruffle selfish interest groups, whose obsession with identity politics (translation: victim politics) makes them uniquely prone to paranoia.
Incidentally, I am not religious, I am not a Republican, and I happen to be gay.
I just read the platform. What is objectionable?
Is it this from the preamble?
“In the course of a nation’s history, it is natural that political philosophies will evolve which run contrary to the original principles evident at the time of that nation’s founding. A nation founded in tyranny will by its nature spawn sentiment in direct opposition to that tyranny. Conversely, a nation which is dedicated to protecting the rights of its people, and seeks to bind the excesses of power which naturally accrue to governments, is subject to the evolution of factions which strive to throw off those shackles of restraint and gather power and influence over the people.”
As a political journalist myself, I know this truth to be self-evident. For more information, read Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law.”
There’s nothing new under the sun.
How about this “seditious” rhetoric?
“It is the responsibility and duty, of “We the People”, to educate both ourselves and others…”
Or maybe it’s these pieces of “drivel” that has Maine GOP elected officials upset:
• “All legislation must adhere to the restrictions outlined in the Constitution to protect the individual from intrusive government.”
• Asserts 10th Amendment state sovereignty.
• Insists on strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment.
Regarding the alleged “unconstitutional” planks discussing term limits and pay raises, the platform recommends passing a “Congressional reform act.” This seems Constitutional if it follows the rules laid out by the Constitution. It also recommends that congress-critters participate in Social Security and health care under the same rules as “the general public,” and removes their pension.
How seditious! How terrible! This article only reinforces the Maine GOP’s point that we must educate ourselves prior to commanding the public stage to pontificate.
Again that is a specific platform for the state of Maine, and their are some sections that would not apply generally for all states such as dirgo. Some departments such as education could be radically reduced and restructured so as to only set standards that all schools should work toward. Keeping in mind that not all students will be capable of attaining these standards in academics as abilities differ. This should prevent them from teaching down to the lowest common denominator.
Overall a good plan that needs to be reworked a bit to eliminate some ambiguous points as well as some that are absolute and will then be the wrong choice in some instances if some flexibility is not built in. In a general sense it would be a welcome breath of fresh air. As to term limits and pay raises being removed from the hands of the elected officials as well as their pensions I think that would require a constitutional amendment that would have to be ratified by the states, and it would also need to have a provision for establishing how pay raises will be awarded for officials and their staff. On the subject of staffers what would stop politicians from circumventing the requirements of term limits by becoming part of their replacements staff and drawing a salary that is nearly the same as the elected official and contains nearly the same benefits and privileges?
Just a minor quibble: where in the Constitution does it define a federal power over education? It doesn’t. The Department of Education is a usurpation of rights belonging to the states or the people.
Mr. Dodge:
“Though the document was not in line with general tea party concerns, it could sully the movement should Republican candidates suffer from it. We shall see if this revolutionary document is an albatross around the neck of Maine Republicans, or just a misstep in a long campaign with little relevance to the final tally.”
Seems to me that currently serving Maine Republicans already have an “Albatross” around their necks and like it. They are seen as one of the weakest links in the Republican party and seem to enjoy the status of the changlings they are, they don’t stand up for much and cave in regularly. The Tea party will be sullied of it does not replace these Rhino’s with true conservatives.
The bottom line is that you have it exactly backwards. Can’t see the vast Maine forest for the trees? Nice job. I hear that if you beat your head against the trees long enough the world will finally appear as you wish it would, is this true?