I can't see why they would have a problem with it. I speak at least three languages and am 1/4 Quebequer.
What a slap in the face to the original platform committee. This is truly the revenge of the Ron Paul brigade.
Maybe the average Republican won't pay much attention to the platform, but the opposition certainly will.
Here's one analysis from the Press Herald.
I refer back to the original question in this thread:
"Has anyone heard about the status of the patform for the Maine Republican Party? I heard a rumor that there was a big battle between moderates and conservatives about the social issue planks. Is there any truth to this and if so what were the results?"
Members of the platform committee did have a big battle. They decided to go with the 2008 platform, adding only a short note the we do support family values.
In 1998 we replaced the vanilla platform designed to be as much like the Democrat Platform as possible with a platform that actually complemented the National Republican Platform. That year we elected 27 freshman Republican representatives. The Democrats elected 18. Platforms do matter. Our nation and Maine are in a huge mess. Bureaucrats and Democrats are in a panic because they don't know what to do. Fortunately we have a set of instructions as to how to get out of this situation. It is called the Constitution. This year's Republican Platform reflects this.
FROM THE ANALYSIS: "It remains to be seen if the support that was seen for the new platform will translate over to votes in June. "
Quick, name me a platform that translated into votes. Any platform.
The real issue is whether a platform victory translates into commitment and energy behind the candidates (or some key candidates) in the general election. That remains to be determined.
The problem is that Charlie Webster is emphasizing the need to get blue-collar votes in order to pick up seats in the Legislature. This platform doesn't cut it.
And if a platform is not important to a political party, why go through the trouble to create one?
For the sake of perspective it's well to remember that simple name recognition counts more heavily than any platform. A set of persuasive principles may, however, deliver the actual margin of victory (2%, 3%, 5%? nobody can really say for sure).
When it comes to actual campaigning few candidates, probably none, will be spending any time on one-world government.
So Flamm - as a member of the original platform committee, you're not upset that it was junked in favor of the revised document?
There is a whole lot of stuff in the new platform that I really like and really dislike. It would have been better if the Platform Committee had done its job and taken the proposals for changes to the platform seriously. The end result would have been better written and more presentable. That said I think that it is a very positive development that activists who are new to the party have been able to succeed where earlier they were simply ignored and dismissed.
If you want to have some real fun, then check out the Democratic Party of Maine's platform. Now that's a hoot!
You know I was looking at the old one that was proposed and the new one that was approved. To say the old one was junked is more than a little over the top wouldn't you say? I, personally, would call it "modified" because a lot of the same stuff is still there and now there is some new stuff in there that will please not only the Republican base...I think it might actually reach to those that are sitting on the other side of some of those fences that do not like what they see going on in their own parties. This could give those looking at the Republican Party in Maine a refreshing prespective, but time will tell. It is to soon, I think we need to go through an election cycle or two and lets see if what we have done will work in our favor or have we hung ourselves.
Notice...I did not say it would work or anything similar to that. I said, "I think it might" that means it could back fire on us as well. So before you go putting words in my mouth...which a couple of you are good at. Read what I said carefully.
I agree with Lindell on the process. From talking to people involved, this mess could have been avoided. Much of what the Knox County group wanted could have been incorporated into the platform without a problem. Instead, the 2008 platform was endorsed and we ended up with a floor fight and a platform that includes nutso stiff that will be used against us in the fall.
Never fear Dan. The Democrat platform is packed with enough gonzo stuff to satisfy anybody looking for radical material to use against them. It's like some of the legal practices in vogue today established by progressive attorneys and judges. We have strayed too far from the Constitution, but not all of us have lost our way. The way back is clear. We took a significant step yesterday.
The people who wrote the nutso document have never read the Constitution. See the post above about the education plank.
The "one world government" line probably should have been left off. There are a few bits that would be better off left out, but it is better than the past ones for sure.
For those of you who think this is an improvement, would you suggest that this is what our candidates should run on?
Will Dean and Jason get elected in the fall by campaigning for Austrian economics, pulling out of the UN, and investigating global warming advocates?
Getting past the wack job stuff, the thing that really irritates me is the document claims fidelity with the Constitution and later both misrepresents the Constitution and advocates for laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
Dan please elaborate on your second paragraph.
It is a simple question. Will our candidates win by running on this platform? I don't think so.
Do they ever? Its not like a British parties "manifesto." Its a shame that some of the Ronulans were allowed to sully the thing with their obsessions and paranoias.
I agree with Ken, if the platform committee met more than two times and the majority of members were willing to have the debate there, we may have ended up with a better platform. Is this one perfect, no....is it better then the one we had, I believe so. I was for limiting the platform to a few things that the majority agreed on. That did not happen so we might as well open the thing up to include stuff that a lot of us agree with.
Dan have you ever read about Austrian economics? Will people that don't support Austrian economics now be labeled RINO's:)
You suggested it was an improvement. There was nothing in the old platform that would cause our candidates problems, even if they did not agree with it 100%. The same is not true with this document.
Larry: I have read about the Austian School of Economics, though I do not claim to be an expert. I will note that Milton Friedman, who was Ronald Reagan's chief economic advisor, was a critic of Austian economics. So apparently Ronald Reagan is now a RINO.
I voted against it but support the will of the convention. We have a new platform going forward for the next two years. It was disappointing that there weren't enough copies for everyone but as I understand it there were 32 or 35 different amendments to the draft platform that was proposed. This one alone was 5 pages long. Ten thousand pages just for that that one amendment. Ann Robinson should be given credit for running a very fair process. She followed the rules completely.
You think the "Family Values" stuff has NEVER caused them a problem???????
Indeed. She is an outstanding parliamentarian. I complemented her on how she managed the process.
Ann Robinson did an outstanding job..........
Its good to hear that it was done in a professional way. To put it bluntly the Knox County group were organised and got it done.
I think this new language is foolish and unnecessary. What was wrong with the old platform?
Larry: Social issues were handled in the committee proposal in a very careful manner. I don't see anything there that could used effstively against our candidates in a commercial or mailer. There is lots in the new platform that can be used against us.
Its sad some of the paranoid Ronulan stuff ended up in it. But I am sure those crafting that document didn't believe it would be adopted almost in its totality.
Updated: 1:10 AMActivists redefine GOP platformOne delegate warns that platform provisions may scare off independents needed to win elections.
By ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD Kennebec Journal
In a move that seemed to surprise many members of Maine's Republican Party, a group of tea party-style activists redefined the party platform at the convention Saturday.
... a string of delegates congratulated Horatio "Ted" Cowan III... who wrote the adopted amendment.
Senate Minority Leader Kevin Raye, R-Perry, who was at the January meeting, said... he did not recall the draft being presented to the committee, and said he first learned about it at the convention.
In reply to Dan Billings #137:
"It has a whole section on the UN and talks about one-world government. Nutcase stuff.
Yeah; you must be right Dan; all of us Teapers are certifiably insane.
Perhaps we should have kept following you more rational, sensible and moderate republicans....
Who for the past 30 years or so have been "leading" this party into ever sinking MINORITY, contempt, and irrelevance. You now seem to be "leading" your constituencies to the edge of the abyss.
Lead on, MacDuff; just don't expect any yellow Gadsden flags behind you.
You know; the ones with the coiled snake and "Don't Tread on Me" motto that flew over nearly (some estimate over) 2 million Patriots in Washington DC last September?
If the party is shooting itself in the foot with this no less than revolutionary (although essentially irrelevant) platform, it can't be much worse than the multiple self inflicted wounds in the elephant's rump, can it?
"Moderates" and republicans who have willingly and repeatedly compromised their sacred integrity have been bleeding the Party to death for so long now that I'm frankly surprised that it's still breathing.
In case you haven't been paying attention, the current "administration" (which I prefer to call an organized criminal syndicate) is continually advancing towards a globalist agenda modeled after the EU. We can all see what a roaring success that has been, now can't we?
The Bible predicts a global dictatorship towards the "end" (but who in their right mind believes that thing any more? /s ) and the Quoran commands Islam to establish, through universal Jihad, a global Caliphate, or theocratic kingdom under strict Sharia Law.
But yeah; you're right; we must be crazy to suspect that such a thing could actually ever happen.
FYI: The common riff-faff which you and most of the party elite seem to hold in such arrogant contempt (if anyone disbelieves my assessment then they weren't at the 2008 Convention to see what happened to the RonPaulians) is finally coming out of the margins where you've effectively stuffed us for at least a generation, and we're coming out in numbers. We're coming out impassioned, motivated, increasingly educated about our History and Constitution, and as we recognize what BOTH political parties have been doing to this blessed Nation of ours, we are not a little bit angry about it.
We want our Country back; we demand our State back; we want our Children's future back...
...and if you don't mind terribly, we'd like our PARTY back, too.
Optimum outcome (as far as I'm concerned anyway, and I know a lot of Teapers concur ): No one "takes" any other group or party "over", but we somehow set our differences aside at least for a while while we thrash out a working coalition in order to achieve the majority of our common goals.
Other States have been proclaiming that the Tea Party has "Taken the GOP over"; perhaps they have, I really don't know - but IMHO WE NEED the experience, knowledge, connections and resources of the party Old Guard establishment every bit as much as THEY need our energy, motivation, passion and votes. See what just such an alliance did for Scott Brown in Mass.?
Now Brown isn't a hard core social Conservative, is he? I didn't presume that he was going in, yet I and thousands of other Teapers supported him, and as a result, against all odds, we at least got a critical 41st vote in the US Senate to resist Obamacare, forcing the commucrats to resort to third world dictatorship class disingenuous parliamentary machinations in order to impose their atrocity upon a population which in the main opposed it.
The GOP can now choose to jump aboard the Tea Party Express and we can charge on to mutual victory together as Massachusetts did, or they can stand in the way and cause a political train wreck - in which case America probably completes its descent into social AND fiscal disaster, tyranny, poverty and oblivion under the American Communist Party (currently masquerading as the "Democrat" Party).
This may be the last train on the line, folks. Please choose wisely.
Our progeny (if any remain long after us) and the Supreme Architect will surely hold us accountable.
Who were the ten delegates from 3 counties who signed it? All I read about in the paper is that it was a Knox County document authored by Ted Cowan and Steve Dyer.