we at least got a critical 41st vote in the US Senate to resist Obamacare
Ayup and that worked so well.
The inclusion of so much social and conspiracy language is a mistake in my opinion. However we shall see what happens. That document has provided the left in this state with oddles of stuff to bash the Republicans with. Lets hope its worth it.
IMHO the vast majority of those who stood up in support of this are guilty of the same deplorable behavior exhibited by Congress with the recent health care and stimulus bills when they voted on and passed bills they had not read.
So you think there are people who actually reading it now that are regretting it?
I wonder how many will bother. I read it this morning and find much of the language bombastic, but can understand the motivating sentiment that desperate times call for desperate measures.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2010
SCARCELLI: MAINE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
LOOKS BACKWARD, EMBRACES INTOLERANCE
PORTLAND - Democratic candidate for governor Rosa Scarcelli said today that the official platform adopted yesterday by the Maine Republican Party "lowers an iron curtain of intolerance" around Maine and moves the state backwards.
"The principles established by the Maine Republican Party reflect the beliefs of right-wing extremists instead of the hopes, dreams and values of middle-class families in Maine," Scarcelli said. "My campaign for governor is about moving Maine forward using the best ideas, Democrat or Republican. Unfortunately, the platform of the Maine Republican Party takes us backward, further back than any reasonable Mainer would expect. Not only are the proposals extreme and out of touch, buy they have little to do with improving Maine and more to do with promoting an intolerant national right-wing agenda.
"I find it curious that a party platform that claims to find its values in the Constitution doesn't mention the word 'democracy' even once," Scarcelli added.
"I invite all reasonable Mainers, regardless of party, including all the candidates running for governor, to reject these extreme ideas and have a healthy debate about issues that are actually relevant - growing our economy, educating our children, and making Maine the best place to live, work and raise a family."
About Rosa Scarcelli: Scarcelli, 40, Democratic candidate for governor, is the owner and CEO of Stanford Management that provides quality, affordable housing in more than 30 Maine communities and employs 100 people. A native of Wilton, Scarcelli said she wants to use her business skills to help create a better climate in Maine for job creation and growth. She lives in Portland with her husband Thom and their three children ages 13, 10 and 9. For more information, go to www.RosaForMaine.com
Contact: Dennis Bailey, Savvy, Inc., 207-749-4963
I wonder if Rosa even read the document. Perhaps she could enlighten us as to what parts she finds so intollerant and extreme.
I don't know who signed it, but I understand that it was submitted prior to the deadline on Friday Morning.
Most of the Delegates I was with including Kennebec County Tea Activists were not aware of it until one of the Members of the Kennebec County Committee found out about it and ran off a handfull of copies of it to rush out to us only about 5 minutes before the floor took up the platform. Even our facilitators only had time to scan it quickly before we had to run back out on the floor in time to deal with it.
We had five amendments ready to advance, 3 of which seem to have been addressed in the Knox proposal and the other two I don't think were all that significant, and IMHO would better be addressed legislatively than through a platform statement.
To say that this was a sudden and unexpected change of plans would be putting it mildly.
I was one of the lucky few who got a copy which I managed to scan as it was being debated, then I shared it with fellow Delegates and I don't think I got it back. There is a *.PDF and text copy of it over on the Maine Refounders site however.
Here is a portion of a recent e mail editorial I wrote about it FYI:
At the State Republican Conventions, you can usually depend on the platform development session to be the most bitterly contentious (and potentially entertaining) part of the whole affair.
Personally, I no longer take the Party platform all that seriously as hardly any of our elected Representatives do - it may be among the most irrelevant documents ever composed by the human hand.
A lot of people do take it quite seriously however, and there is no shortage of passion and angst over the biannual debate regarding it's modification or amendment.
In order to amend the platform, a certain number of Delegates to the Convention have to present it within the first few hours of the Convention, on Friday Morning. It is designed to be a fairly complex procedure intended to discourage trivial or overly numerous amendments.
The Knox County Republican "Tea Party" caucus has been working on an amendment to the party platform - essentially a replacement for it - for about a year and a half. It is intended to return the Republican Party, at least here in Maine, back to it's conservative ideological, Constitutional roots.
Most of the other "Tea Party" Delegates did not know about this proposal before or even after it's submission. It is widely suspected that the party establishment was keeping it under wraps intentionally so as to suppress a possibility of it's passage, as it is hardly compatible with the long standing "moderate" semi-"progressive" ideology of the GOP, of which our Senators Snowe and Collins may be prime examples.
Only minutes before the motion was made and discussion was to begin on the platform were a few copies of the proposed amendment "leaked" to us by a Tea Party sympathetic Convention Official. The few of us who got a copy hardly had time to read it before the motion was on the floor to accept or reject it, and the majority of Delegates had no clue what it was all about.
When it was brought up, the Convention Chair Lady began to read it per protocol, and as usual a motion was made to suspend the reading of the 4-page amendment and it was promptly seconded.
Immediately there was an uproar of protest from the floor, as it became obvious that the party elite did NOT want us to know what was in the amendment and were in a rush to get it voted out, swept under the rug and buried.
Somewhat reluctantly, the motion to suspend reading having been roundly defeated, the Chair read the amendment and a printed version of it was projected on to a screen at the front of the arena. The slides were not kept up with the narration however, and the crowd had to roar in objection when the chair read beyond it before they would be advanced.
After about the first half of the reading, the font on the projection became overly large and would no longer fit onto the screen, so Delegates, most of whom had not seen much less possessed a printed copy, no longer had it in sight and very few of us had a print out of it to refer to. I was one of the lucky ones.
That "typographical error" might have been accidental.... but for some reason I rather doubt it.
It was obvious that this attempt at suppression of the amendment was not lost on the Delegation, and we became increasingly angry over this act of deceptive administrative manipulation.
In stead of voting the measure down and then dealing with the seperate issues individually in stead of as a complete document as had been expected, the Delegation overwhelmingly "moved the question" after about 20 minutes of alternate pro and con testimony, and overwhelmingly PASSED the Knox County resolution not as an "amendment to" but as a REPLACEMENT FOR the pre existing ME GOP Party Platform.
I only had time to scan the document as it was being discussed, but as I did so I realized that this document is essentially a "Tea Party Manifesto"! It's adoption in my opinion is not only evidence of strong Tea Party influence on the Republican Party - which was the best I felt we could realistically hope for - but in fact represents no less than a major political COUP.
Again, hardly anyone in a position of power pays any attention to the platform and it may be for all intents and purposes a moot document. The symbolic significance of this no less than revolutionary change, however, should send a strong message to the established party leadership and our Candidates.
""Tea Party Manifesto"...
Actually it is isn't really, there is no such thing. The group I work with the TPP, would not be pleased with the social conservative and conspiracy language. It seems to be a coalition of Ronulans and social conservatives that created this document. I got to hand it to them though, they blind-sided the establishment well.
"I find it curious that a party platform that claims to find its values in the Constitution doesn't mention the word 'democracy' even once," Scarcelli added."
Rosa, we're a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives.
The socialists always forget that minor point. Its gets in the way.
Close, but No Cigar....
Although some of us detected or at least strongly suspected a similar tactic being used to PREVENT Delegates from having access to the measure in time to read it prior to a vote, this was not, or at least I don't think it was the fault of the Knox County Delegation in the least; if anything it was a lack of adequate communication with their colleagues from the other Counties.
I did get the strong impression, however, that the Party elite was not keen on having us able to scrutinize it in detail prior to the vote and thus saw to it that it was not made public prior to the platform session so that Delegates, not knowing what was in it, would defeat it out of hand.
This strategy seems to have back fired on them when conservative (about a third of the party to begin with) spies if you will found out about it and got the intel out to the troops as soon as they could. Whether this was really the intentional plan of the party leadership or not, Delegates sure took it that way and were we ever 9!$$3d off about it?!
Our initial plan was to defeat the amendment initially and then take it up plank-by-plank, like a "Line item veto" for the Delegation to sort out. I would have, for example, left out the part about the "Austrian Economy". I'll have to look that one up. Whatever it is, it can't be much worse than "Obamonomics", can it be?
The discussion promised to be a long and impassioned one, which veterans of Conventions past all too well remember. At one Convention we were still ripping each other's hair out over the bloody platform while the Civic Center staff was trying to set up tables in the hall for the evening banquet for cryin' out loud!
I didn't have much time to read it, but yes; I DID read it.
By the time some brave soul made a motion to "Move the Question" and put the poor suffering bugger out of it's misery, I was more than willing to jump up in support of the new platform and get it over with, warts and all.
There were some people waiting in line who I really would have liked to hear and I'm sorry they were deprived of their shot at it. Doug MOCK is a brilliant Constitutional Scholar IMHO and his expertise would have contributed much to the debate. I'd be interested in how he takes some of the Constitutional questions raised here, such as the one about "education". I was wondering about that one myself.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that what passes for "public education" today bears little if any relationship to what our Founders had in mind.
UncleJaque: I thought you left the GOP? When did you come back and why? Are you going to run away again if you don't get you way?
Maybe along with a residency timetable requirement for welfare, we need a registration timetable for participation in the convention.
All the angst over the platform isn't going to change anything. The Democratic strategy I'm sure was going to attack Republicans on social issues and "right-wing" ideology because they don't want to talk about the economy, deficits, taxes, spending, etc. I remember well in the Woodcock campaign that Chandler really allowed himself to be defined by the other side and not by himself. We should be prepared for that again. Democrats will make their emotional pleas and Republicans need to hammer away at the dismal Democratic record and their lockstep support of the Obama agenda. Democrats are great at making promises and we hear the same ones every election. We must ask the voters to finally reject the promises (lies) and to help move the state in a new direction.
Are Congressional Representatives provided copies of the bills greater than twenty minutes in advance? If so, are they provided individual copies? If Congress were run akin to the way the platform debate was handled yesterday the entire body would have had to share four copies, delivered just prior to the vote.
The new platform and amendments could have been made available to the Convention by noon the preceding day if the process had been taken seriously.
The fact that the highly esteemed platform committee had two years of watching Tea Party protests take place and still decided to dust off a stale platform and phone it in, and then the leadership tried to stifle the presentation of a new one, shows how out of touch they are. And it hadn't been that long since the last time a coup like this happened at Convention. How quickly they forget.
Maybe with at least two of the framers of this new platform elected to the State Committee this won't happen again.
Chandler was defined early by the Democrats because they had the money to do it. He was outgunned on the financial front. Though he ended up getting over $1 million as a Clean Elections candidate, most of that money did not come until October.
So why shouldn't we expect the same thing to happen if we nominate Paul LePage?
As for the platform -- why didn't those who were pushing the alternative provide copies?
I ran into a couple of my Democrat friends this morning and they were having quite a few chuckles over the platform. Expect portions of it to appear in unflattering terms during the fall campaign. They can't believe that we crazy enough to pass something like this. The comments in the press haven't been that flattering. Between this and the intellegent design comments, we've already begun to dig ourselves a hole in November's campagn. What else is new!
If the platform were really that big of a deal, they would have allotted more than 1 hour for it, right? That was mistake number one. Hard to believe, after the way the platform amendments went down in 2008.
Mistake #2 was in doing them in the order they did. If they had addressed the 30(?) proposals first, the body would not have elected to toss the whole thing in favor of the Knox county proposal. I don't think there's really any blame to assign here though, because I doubt if anyone expected the new platform would be passed so easily.
WE could have adopted Little Bo Peep as our platform and the Dims would pick it up and smack us around the field with it.
Would that more Republicans stop wetting their breeks over what the Dimmies are going to do with us and start fighting the rascals like we meant it!
I'm going to look up the 1854 Republican platform (if they even had one back then) and see if it is more like the earlier Socialist - friendly GOP versions or the "bombastic" declaration passed Saturday.
Oh; BTW; I didn't "run away" from the GOP - it ran out from under US ( I wasn't alone by any means). Check out the CP party platform some day just for chuckles. Their ideology is spang on, but their leadership proved to be far short of capable and Chuck Baldwin ended up with about 4/10 of 1% of the vote, which is about what I expected.
I voted for him anyway because "None of the Above" was not on the ballot.
I wouldn't have come back to any party had it not been for the great American reawakening going on right now.
It seems to be the general consensus of the T.Party that a 3rd party is not politically viable so that's why were' here.
Mr. Magoo, well put. I have shown the document to several conservative friends and they are stunned that it got passed in that form. The Knox country group should have found someone who could edit for one thing. Its pretty poorly written, long winded and all over the place.
I have written a piece on the Examiner how this...expanding on my thoughts.
AID, The paranoid stuff you are talking about is now part of your tea party movement. Obviously you never listened to Ron Paul or you would know what you are talking about instead of sounding ignorant on the issue.
The platform was read in its entirety and displayed on the teleprompter. Everyone who voted on it knew what was there.
I have and he is paranoid on that and many other issues. Just because I don't believe all the tripe that Ron Paul says about foreign affairs does not make me ignorant. Some people in the tea party movement are conspiracy nuts just like some people in the tea party movement are all sorts of things.
How does mentioning the new world order going to help Republicans get elected? At least they left out birther/truther language.
Not everyone on the platform committee were happy and voted against the platform that was brought to the convention....
AID, did any tea partiers get elected to the State Committee?
It appears that the majority on the state committee are now conservatives. They are from the Liberty Caucus, the Republican Wing of the Republican Party, Maine Patriots, Constitutionalists and some may have attended a tea party. You see, there is no such thing as an organized tea party with membership lists. They are not a party. They are not incorporated as a 501C3 non-profit. They are a general term completely misunderstood by the establishment and the press. I believe the first ever tea party in 1775 was just like that.
Over-the-top rants like those offered above by Uncle Jacque and the conspiracy language inserted into the party platform scare the hell out of many voters, particularly the big blocs in the suburbs that have already been trending Democratic. The Republican Party needs to retain them and attract the independents who are now the majority in Maine.
This is a year when the GOP has plenty of solid issues to run on: jobs, the inadequacy of the Obama administration to deal with the economy, the feckless efforts of Democrats to manage the state budget, and the ineffectiveness of DirigoChoice, to name just a few.
Let's hope the eventual candidates can put this platform behind them and not allow a loud ideological minority to define the party and provide ammunition to an opposition that is itself in serious trouble.
We have the ability to control the debate and to keep it focused on issues that people are dealing with on a daily basis. No one but the Dem-Socialists in Augusta are going to be concerned about the New World Order, because they have nothing else to hold on to. We deny them the issue by turning the discussion around to the subjects they don't want to discuss. The convention is over and its time to move on!
I'm often accused of having moderate tendencies, but I read it, and really sounds pretty good. Nothing wild and wooly as far as I can see. Don't know what the "obvious reasons" to vote against it are. I disagreed with about 4 statements in it - no surprise there.
Thanks for the feedback Rosa...(not)
Republican candidates just need to assert that we're a big tent party and that, unlike Democrats, they're not required to march in lockstep. Anyone who isn't campaigning as an individual probably didn't notice all those Tea Parties. Stick to your message and don't get sidetracked.