Monday, August 27, 2012

The Republican Platform: Fringey Stupid

Oh boy. I’ve gotten a look at the Republican platform and let me tell you, while the common sense folks of the Tea Party are making progress all over the country, the fringers who make up the inner sanctum of the Republican cult remain safely ensconced in their bunker. . . untouched by reality. Check this out.

Priority Number One: The Economy! Well, no. Of the 18 “ideas” listed, not one of them involves improving the economy. Why? Because the retarded chimps who put this platform together don’t care about the economy. What do they care about? Read on.

Priority Number One: Repealing Obamacare! Well, no. That’s number six on the list, after such high priority issues like “making the internet family friendly.” Yes, you read that right. These dipsh*ts think it is more important to let people know that the Republican Party wants to censor the internet than it is to repeal Obamacare.

The Homosexual Menace: So what is the first priority listed? This year’s most important priority, apparently, will be stopping gays from marrying. Why? Because “studies” show that children from married couples stay off drugs, get married and don’t commit crimes. Ergo, gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Don’t worry if that makes no sense, just accept the idea that Jesus hates gays. By the way, this same group of the self-righteous is opposed to civil unions too because gays are yucky.

Fix Welfare. . . Somehow: Next our slow friends have decided that welfare doesn’t work, especially because Obama wants to discourage people on welfare from working. So they want someone, somewhere to fix the current system somehow to encourage people to work. . . which it already does.

Internet “Freedom”: Apparently, the platform will include some highly technical sounding, yet utter nebulous plan to support internet freedom. Reading the definition will make your head spin, but the lawyer in me had to laugh at all the caveats and interest group sops already obvious in the definition. It sounds like the Republican “internet freedom” platform will be about protecting ISPs (who support Republicans) over net companies (who support Democrats). Any freedom resulting from this will be purely coincidental.

And just in case some freedom should accidentally result, the platform makes sure you can't misuse your freedom because it includes a nifty little section on censoring the internet to make it “family friendly.” See, the internet is EVIL. Apparently, “millions of Americans suffer from . . . pathological gambling” and “the Internet must be made safe for children.” So it’s time to shut down gambling sites, ban sex offenders from the internet, and force ISPs to save the children. . . all “while respecting First Amendment rights.” No, I’m not making this sh*t up.

Americans with Disabilities: Forget the economy, it’s more important that we make sure Americans with disabilities are included in all aspects of our national life. Well, not all aspects. In fact, all we really care about is two things: (1) we need to force insurers and doctors to treat people with disabilities (I’m told doctors in particular like to tease the disabled with fake cures), and (2) when will somebody finally stop the government from taking children away from people with disabilities? Seriously! This national crisis just dominates the news and it's time someone had the courage to address this! Be brave Platform monkeys, be brave.

Oh, we should also support some nebulous sounding employment programs which we didn’t have the time to examine, but their titles sound nice.

Repealing Obamacare/Abortion: Finally, we come to repealing Obamacare. Why repeal it? Well, because it’s not right. Also, “Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.” Yep, they talk about repealing Obamacare because it promotes abortion.

Fixing Our Healthcare/Abortion: So how do we fix the nation’s healthcare? Simple: “health is an individual responsibility” and people need to take better care of themselves. That means you fatboy! “Chronic diseases [are] related to lifestyle [and] drive healthcare costs.” So we need to “promote healthy lifestyles.” No doubt, these will be based on being abortion-free and internet porn free. And lest you think I’m joking, two paragraphs into this one, they call upon states to stop “subsidies for abortion.” I guess abortion makes you fat.

Then they give the usual sop to insurance companies (big Republican contributors), which is the worst thing we could do other than what Obama did, and they want science to save us by making record keeping cheaper. Maybe we should ban 16 oz. drinks?

More Abortion: Then we do two more “healthcare” related points – “supporting” research and protecting individual conscience in healthcare. The first involves banning stem cell treatments and stopping abortion, and the second involves stopping abortion. Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Reforming the EPA: Oops, sorry, the EPA is cool. . . everybody likes the EPA. We need to reform the FDA. Why? Because drug companies are Republican contributors and they are having a hard time with the current EPA.

Oops, forgot, more Healthcare: Yes, we’ve mentioned healthcare several times, but we forgot to mention that we want to reduce costs through tort reform. That should fix everything, even though Andrew pointed out that tort reform will only cut a couple billion dollars in a multi-trillion dollar system. Yep. . . problem solved! (Especially once we stop fat people from getting abortions.)

Education: We’re opposed to “the crippling bigotry of low expectations.” Hell, who isn't?! So how do we fix that? We want reform! But we don’t believe in one-size-fits all, so we can’t really tell you what we want, but it must involve traditional values.

“Fixing” College Costs: College costs suck. They are “unsustainable.” We should get private companies to issue student loans (fyi: they already do) and we should tell people more about what they are paying (fyi: they already know). Also, maybe not everyone should go to college? Problem solved!

Prison Reform: Yes, this issue which just dominates the nation’s headlines day after day after day finishes this amazing platform. Basically, we support what we’ve been doing because liberals oppose it and that makes it reform. Yay reform!

Other Points: Also, while we're at it, let's keep them dirty Mexicans out and let's think about the gold standard because the 500% inflation in the price of gold in the past decade sure makes gold seem awfully stable!


There you have it. A declaration of idiocy. This is the kind of document I would have written if I wanted to lampoon the Republican Party as being dominated by cultists. Gays, abortion, abortion, abortion, some stuff nobody cares about, abortion, stupidity and the status quo described as reform. Not only has this gang of fornicating monkeys completely missed the issues of the day, they’ve proven that (1) they remain obsessed with gays and abortion, (2) they are obsessed with controlling everyone’s private lives, and (3) they know NOTHING. At least they didn’t include Islamophobia or suggest that women get pregnant and stop taking jobs that belong to men. I guess that's something.

It’s time to purge the party of its moronic fringe and force the party hierarchy to at least join the 20th Century, if not the 21st. Fortunately, Romney doesn’t believe any of this crap and is more likely to wipe his butt with this document than he is to read it.

As an aside, if you want to know what the platform should have looked like, how about this:
1. Replace Obamacare with free market healthcare.
2. 10% across the board cut in federal spending and federal wages.
3. Flat tax.
4. Strict anti-lobbying/graft laws.
5. Repeal of all regulations not necessary for public safety.
6. Comprehensive immigration reform.
7. School choice using vouchers.
8. Internet Anti-Censorship Law plus Privacy Rights.
9. Banning government funding for abortion, imposing reasonable restrictions and otherwise leaving this decision to the individual.

200 comments:

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Damn! This must've been written by democratic operatives.
This plays right into the DNC strategy to scare voters into believing the republicans wanna ban all abortions, including those for rape, and imprison the women that get them done.

I thought the DNC plan would backfire, because the majority of voters simply don't wanna talk about abortion, particularly when many are just trying to get a freakin' job or make ends meet.

But this just gives the dems ammo. See, most voters don't wanna hear about abortion from republicans either. Particularly right now.
Republicans should be vague on this issue, like Romney has been, and say no more than "we don't support spending taxpayer dollars to fund abortions for convenience or free contraceptives for college students."

That's it. Then shut up! Between this idiotic platform and Akin's stupendous stupidity, the republicans have given the donks (and media, but I repeat myself) something they can attack us with.

Before all this crap, the donks had, literally, nothing! Everything was backfiring and they looked hysterical (they are hysterical, but why give them an issue that will worry swing voters?).

And the rest of the platform is the crappiest and most poorly written GOP platform I can ever recall reading.

Even the "compassionate" conservative GOP platform of 2000 made more sense than this dreck.

I sincerely hope they fire whoever wrote this or contributed to it with extreme prejudice!

You know, come to think of it, this sounds like something Huckabee would put write.

It's the ECONOMY you freakin' morons! Economy! Economy! Economy!
And go with Commenterama's platform of reason and logic.

I'm glad Romney at least gets it. Hopefully, he or Ryan will mention how monumentally stupid the GOP pratfallform really is, because whoever wrote it is completely out of touch with reality and what voters are most concerned about right now.

Good grief!

Outstanding post, Andrew! Well said!

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Are you sure this is from the Republican Party? It sounds more like Democrat talking points to not vote for any Republican. Talk about BULLSH. I hope that someone who is more in tune with the American People gets a chance to write a new one.

Raise taxes, dropping PRO-Life? This isn't what we signed on. Uh, please tell me that this is an oversight.

LL said...

Groan...we are our own worst enemies.

Patriot said...

As long as the Repug Party is run by careerists idiots (like those at the State Dept) then we can expect more inane tripe like this. These fools think that this is what differentiates their party from the Dems. "See...we're repudiating the Dem platform.!"

Instead of Andrew's 9 points above in the article, these DC insiders will go with what they think will "win!" I sometimes believe these ass-clowns think that the "Tea Partiers" are a bunch of know-nothing mouth breathers who don't understand the finer points of governance.

Like the old canard that "We Repubs will make these Dem policies more efficient and effective! Vote For Us for a better run government!!!" They have lost sight of what the majority of "Real" Americans want from their government at this point......get us back on track to what made us great in the first place.

This is why I have NEVER been a member of either Party, and hold my nose to vote for the lesser of two weevils.(M&C reference)

AndrewPrice said...

One quick clarification, this was a draft version. So there will be changes. In fact, after I wrote this, other ideas were floated as well.

But in any event, this an indication of what we're up against with our own side. :(

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben! I concur.

This is the kind of thing which gives a ton of ammo to the Donks because it plays right into their meme of the Republicans as obsessed with abortion and sex and wanting to imprison women who have abortions and ban gays from public life. And what is this crap about making the internet "child safe? Holy cow!!

Then making those issues worse, how can they fail to cover the most important thing (probably the only important thing in this election -- the economy) and how can they make repealing Obamacare sounds like it's a socon issue rather than a question of freedom and economic sanity??

What this tells us is that those people who control the mechanisms of the party are dramatically out of touch with reality. They are Akin all over again. They need to be purged.

By the way, this is why the Tea Party don't call themselves Republicans and why they are taking over the Republican Party rather than joining it -- because they don't care about any of this crap and the things they do care about aren't something the inner-Republican Party cares about.

Like you, I hope Romney repudiates this sucker entirely if it remains in this form.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, This is a draft document, so there will be changes and additions, but we'll see how many. The problem is that the inner committees of the party are in fact dominated by people who think like this above -- the Huckabee crowd. They moved up into these positions in the 1990s and they now hold most of these spots. And to them, the ONLY issue that matters (the one for which the party exists) is abortion... at least until the homosexual menace appeared. All the other stuff is secondary if they even think about it.

They are not conservatives. They do not mingle with or understand the public. They do not care about economics. They do not understand government. They only focus on one issue. And this document, like so much else they've produced, demonstrates that.

This is how it's been for years now. This is why the Tea Party people aren't Republicans, because this is what they found when they thought about working with the party.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, Tell me about it. Fortunately, platforms tend to be ignored these days and Romney has shown a willingness to disclaim ideas he does not like. So I'm hoping that if the platform remains in this shape that he does that.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, I gotta agree. This is crap. This is done by careerists who don't have a clue that the public doesn't want any of this. We aren't interested in an abortion jihad. We don't fear women. We don't hate gays. We don't want the internet made "safe for children." We want Obamacare gone because it's destructive and oppressive, not because Obama uses it to call abortion healthcare. We are concerned about jobs and economics and corruption, not prison reform. We don't want promises of greater spending. We've never even heard of the disability issue, not to mention that's a state issue and shouldn't be in a national party's platform.

This document was written by people who want to use the Republican Party to force the government to legislate their pet peeves. This is not worthy of a national party.

Writer X said...

This platform needs to be trashed. Has anyone from the Republican Party looked at it in the last 50 years? Fortunately I don't think people from either party read their platforms. For the voter, it's more about the candidate and his/her beliefs and ideas than a party platform.

tryanmax said...

What a frickin' mess! I take back anything I've ever said about SoCons damaging the Republican brand. It seems to be spot-on with them. It's the conservative brand that's damaged by being tied to this socio-religious party.

To put it in corporate terms, this is why the Tea Party must perform a hostile takeover of the GOP--not unlike what the fringe radicals did to the DNC in the 60s and 70s, only not crazy-like. Only then can actual brand-realignment occur.

And if that doesn't happen, as cozy as the Dems are with Islam and Sharia, I see an endgame with two religious parties. I don't want to live in that country.

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, This does need to be trashed.

In terms of looking at it, yes, it gets written new each cycle by a committee of people who are chosen for the utter lack of skill in writing platforms.

That said, as you say, no one ultimately cares about these things because the platforms haven't been relevant for 30+ years now. It's now the candidates who matter. The platforms are little more than ammunition for the other side at this point (and to satisfy a few lunatics on our side).

tryanmax said...

P.S. Nice touch on the Ralph Wiggum pic!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I couldn't agree more on all points.

This is a total mess and the reason is obvious -- this is a religious document hiding as a political document. This is a platform for a theological party, not a party of governance. In fact, if they were more open and honest about what they meant whenever they used the phrase "traditional values," I think this would be the Christian version of what you see in places like Iran.

I think this is entirely destructive of the conservative brand to be associated with things like this because it truly does make conservatives sound obsessed with imposing their religious beliefs on the public and unthinking about the very things the public actually cares about -- jobs, economics and protecting individual freedoms.

I agree entirely about the Tea Party: they need to perform a hostile takeover because these people not friendly to the Tea Party at all. They do not care about Tea Party issues and in fact oppose those issues because the goal of the Tea Party is to remove from government he power these people hope to use to impose their theology on the rest of us.

Fortunately, it seems that the Tea Party people get that (though their flirtation with Santorum was troubling) and I think they are ready to push these people out.

As an aside, I've had prior dealing with the inner parts of the Republican Party on several levels and what you will find will be wall-to-wall Rick Santorums/Mike Huckabees. They moved in in the 1990s and they now control everything and they work hard to make drive out anyone who isn't part of the cult. You will find it is a very uncomfortable place unless you are a white fundamentalist Christian.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks! I thought Ralph said it all! :)

DUG said...

Arg. Just arg. How can these people be so damn blind?

I'm with Joel, this has to be Democratic operatives. No Republican could come up with this?

ellenB said...

Thanks Andrew, nice way to ruin a happy Monday for me! Even putting aside the obssession with abortion, how is it they don't cover the economy? How is they can't even identify the kinds of reform they want in welfare or education yet they include it anyway? Prison reform? Where does that come from? Where is the focus on regulation?

DUQ said...

You know, I've been thinking about the inclusion of the FDA rather than the EPA. I'll bet you this has to do with the EPA clearing RU-486. I'll bet that's what they're really upset about and why they included it.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It feels that way doesn't it? Seriously, even if these things were important to you, even if you were fringe Religious Right, wouldn't it make sense to put those things into the background for one election cycle and to focus on the handful of things EVERYBODY in the country cares about right now? At the very least, they should be addressed! I get the feeling that if World War III broke out tomorrow, these people would still be talking about abortion, gays and pornography being the most important issues.

And as an aside, make no mistake that while pornography isn't listed (just gambling and sexual predators) in the internet censorship portion, you can bet that stopping internet porn is their real goal. They've tried that several times now and always failed.

Also, be aware that this document is written in code for the initiated and a lot of it only suggests things they are really thinking. That alone should disturb the hell out of people and, in my mind, disqualifies these people to work for a major political party.

Rep. Todd Akin said...

I don't see the problem with this platform.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, You're welcome. Happy Monday!

The reason they can ignore things like the economy and regulation and not grasp why people are upset with Obamacare is because they don't care about those things. They only care about a handful of socon issues and nothing else matters to them. And since all their friends are clones of themselves, they honestly think these are the issues which matter to the public.

I kid you not, I know several people who think that "if the Republicans just got tough on the issue of abortion, the public would flock to us." They simply don't believe that the vast majority of the public doesn't want to hear about the issue. That's the problem with living in a bubble, and these people are very good at living happily in a bubble.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I almost made that point, but thought it might be a stretch. In the document I read, they did in fact mention the RU-486 pill in the section right above the FDA section, but they didn't mention abortion under the FDA section itself. I thought the two ideas were meant to be related for anyone in the know, but they didn't say so specifically enough that I felt it was right to include that conclusion in my article.

It would not surprise me at all if the reason they single out the FDA is the RU-486 pill. But I suspect that ultimately, the real reason they singled out the FDA was pharmaceutical money, i.e. this was a contributor sop. In fact, their entire healthcare section (excluding the abortion parts) was a sop to insurers and drug companies, and the internet "freedom" stuff was a sop to ISPs.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, DUQ, let me add, the Religious Right has begun a flirtation with leftwing environmentalism under this concept of being "stewards" of the earth. That means they've begun to line up with a lot of leftist environmental groups on issues like global warming. That's why I suspect they ignored the EPA and Obama's carbon regulations entirely, because they've changed sides on those issues.

T-Rav said...

Sounds like these people are putting the cart before the horse. I don't disagree with large parts of this draft platform, but none of that is going to happen if we don't win the election, and this isn't going to help. The party operatives need to take a page from the Dems' playbook--economics during the election, culture afterwards.

LawHawkRFD said...

As I've said before, I'm a conservative by choice and a Republican by default. Historically, the only thing the Republicans have going for them with this platform is that once the hype is over, most voters don't pay any attention to the platform anyway. In fact, once it's over, the candidates don't pay much attention either. What Romney and Ryan say and do during the election proper is what will matter. They may even have made a conscious decision not to have a floor fight over the platform, avoiding acrimony and division when unity is vital in this election.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I see this document as a huge failure to grasp reality on several levels.

First, as you note, until you win the public over and convince them that you know what you are doing, you really can't be pushing hot-button minority-view issues like this. That's the sort of thing you need to wait to discuss until the public trusts your judgment.

And ignoring the issues everyone cares about to focus exclusively on this stuff shows a completely lack of judgment and is the kind of thing which will turn the public off. This will scare people.

Moreover, even if abortion or gays is the most important issue in your life, you (the party people who made this) still need to grasp that you can't come across as obsessed. Skipping issues like economics while playing up abortion is obsessed. Making half a dozen issues that have nothing to do with abortion about abortion is obsessed. Being so far out of the mainstream even for the GOP on civil unions is obsessed.

Also, there is a lot of talking around their real views, which will scare people. The internet bit is the perfect example. It's clear that they have something very nasty in mind in terms of strong censorship, yet they hide the what and the why and they dance around it, even though we know what is bothering them -- in this case internet pornography. When someone is afraid to explain their views openly and honestly, then it is time to fear what they may be hiding.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

In fact, if they were more open and honest about what they meant whenever they used the phrase "traditional values," I think this would be the Christian version of what you see in places like Iran.

Well, what do you think those evil non-Christians have been saying all these years! :-D

Again, this is why I'm an Independent. AND if I didn't know any better, I'd think this was a cruel April Fools gag on your part.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree. Ultimately, this document will go straight to the ass-heap of history and will be completely irrelevant, because what really matters is what Romney and Ryan say. They are the voice of the party now and their views will be those the party follows.

Still, it would be nice if the GOP stopped handing ammo like this to the Democrats. If I were the Democrats, I would play this up with independents everywhere to let them know that the GOP hasn't changed and is still beholden to the Religious Right.

Patriot said...

They need to look at the big picture.........i.e., the "Jerry Garcia" approach......"Stay as high as you can as long as you can"

That's how Reagan did it....

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I hear that a lot from independents. The GOP scares them (much more than the Democrats) because of this very issue. They see the GOP as dominated by intolerant fundamentals whose primary goal is to impose some form of theology. They get this from the obsession with so-con issues (gays, abortion, pornography, prayer in public schools, funding for religious activities) and with the sense that the so-cons are hiding their true purpose behind vague phrases like "traditional values" when what they really mean is "fundamentalist Christianity."

And unfortunately, guys like Akin, Bachmann, Huckabee, Ralph Reed, the Family Research Council, etc., people like this platform committee, keep this idea alive and do just enough to make independents feel that their fears are justified.

The really ironic thing is that the Religious Right should be on the left.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Absolutely true. But that assumes that they understand the big picture or care. When the only thing that matters to you is a small set of ideas, then it becomes very hard to worry about other issues. And in this case, I think the platform committee simply doesn't care about non-so-con issues, so they just don't think about them. In other words, this is their big picture view.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: We'll probably get some help from the Democratic platform and their speakers. They really think they're on to something with the Akin/platform abortion issue. They've scheduled speakers accordingly. As unimportant as the abortion issue is in this election, if they raise it, the PACs can have a field day with pointing out that it's Obama who is totally out of step with the American people on the issue.

Akin's ravings are a detour on the road. One candidate for Senate in Missouri. But the President of the United States has staked out a position that supports abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy. His position on partial-birth abortion is appalling. And as a state senator, he supported "post-birth abortion." Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans would allow abortion in the very early stages (earlier than Roe) as exceptions for rape, incest, and the physical survival of the mother. Beyond that, most believe the states, not the federal government, should set the rules. That is the exact stand taken by Romney, regardless of the party platform. So who's out of the mainstream?

EricP said...

Keeping in the Wiggum vein, I find it unpossible this platform was written by anyone over the age of 7, at least intelligence over that age-level.

Is it possible to pick apart the Democrat platform for comparison's sake, or hasn't it been set (or "rough-drafted") yet?

BevfromNYC said...

Sorry, I was off beating my head against a brick wall. It didn't make that platform go away. I can still read it. Please tell me that it is a joke...well, it IS a joke, but...you know what I mean.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree in part. Ultimately, I think the Akin controversy has helped the GOP because it's given them a chance to separate themselves from Akin and his kind of thinking. And Romney had handled that particularly well. That makes the party and Romney seem a lot more mainstream and moderate.

That said, I have two points of disagreement.

First, I don't think any discussion of abortion will be good for the GOP because it distracts from the real issue of this election -- economics. And the more the GOP talks about abortion, the more they lose the moderates who don't want to hear it and who see the GOP as obsessed. Unfairly or not, the GOP is viewed as the party that can't stop talking about abortion and who are out of the mainstream. So getting into an abortion fight with Obama is not a good idea, especially as he will deny his views and will stick with reasonable sounding positions while the Huckabees will plunge right off the deep end.

Secondly, the issue with Akin isn't really an abortion issue. I see the issue with Akin being one of respect for women. The problem with what Akin said is that it's the same sort of "submission" garbage the Religious Right has been peddling for years (and it's no surprise that the Religious Right has rallied around him). What he said fit the whole pattern of theology over science when it comes to women and of seeing crimes against women as less significant and seeing women as baby-making machines. His words join a long line of Religious Right comments that suggest that they simply don't respect women. Abortion only touches tangentially on that.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, We'll have to see what the final draft looks like, but I feel your pain, trust me. This is one of those moments where you realize that your allies simply aren't people you want to be associated with.

AndrewPrice said...

Eric, I haven't found a rough draft of the Democratic platform yet, but I will pick it apart once I can get my hands on it. :)

I agree that this thing wasn't written by anyone with a brain. This document simply shows no understanding of anything. There was no grasp of economics, no grasp of politics, no grasp of current events. Even when they touched upon things they considered important enough to include, like prison reform, they said nothing that would tell you what they want. It really does remind me of the kind of garbage you would get if you asked high schoolers to "write a platform." It's gibberish.

ellenB said...

Bev, Have you got room for another to join you on that brick wall?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I agree that the less said about abortion the better. But it's going to be an issue in some of the states whether we like it or not. That's why I said that the PACs could have a field day with it, in those states. On the national stage, it should be avoided like the plague. The national committees should certainly steer clear of the issue.

I agree that the Akin flap is about respect for women, but it is also about a primitive view of abortion (and sex). That issue will only get legs in certain narrow parts of the country. On the national stage, it looks like Romney and Ryan will stay away from the abortion issue, and are starting to turn "the war on women" back on the Democrats. Very smart campaigning.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

And unfortunately, guys like Akin, Bachmann, Huckabee, Ralph Reed, the Family Research Council, etc., people like this platform committee, keep this idea alive and do just enough to make independents feel that their fears are justified.

And yet, if you're a standup comedian and you make fun of these people, BH and others will label you an Obama-loving, God-hating Socialist. Because we all know, Obama has all the power and none of the people you mentioned have any power at all. ;-)

In all seriousness, as an aside, it's almost too easy to make fun of a religious politician who plays the God card. But if you want to make fun of something stupid Obama said about the economy or jobs, that actually requires some knowledge of the subject. (At least, that's been my observation.)

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, Wear a helmet.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree. Abortion is an issue that will play well in certain places, but should be avoided like the plague on the national stage. I can tell you, for example, that outside of the Religious Right groups who have moved to Colorado Springs, the GOP loses votes here every time they mention abortion. People just don't want to hear about it, no matter what side of the fence they are on. Even the fairly strong pro-lifers I know don't want to hear about it and have come to despise the RR's obsession with the issue.

I agree with you entirely about Romney/Ryan. I've been very impressed with them throughout the campaign and they've handled this issue really, really well. They've done their best to sound reasonable, to make it clear they don't share views like those of Akin and they don't think they are acceptable, and then to shift the debate right back to economics. Let the surrogates do the dirty work. As you say, very smart campaigning.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I agree about Akin. It's not that he believes abortion shouldn't even be legal in cases of rape or incest--while obviously controversial, it's not an unheard-of position to take, and if he had just left it at that, this wouldn't have affected the race. I mean, everyone even passably familiar with Akin knows he's extremely pro-life. The reason this caused such a flap is his apparent ignorance of basic biological facts and his tone-deafness about sexual assault. The obvious takeaway from his comments, deserved or undeserved, is that it's not really rape if you wind up pregnant, and that's utterly indefensible, nor should it be attempted.

But Huckabee and company know better so that's that, I guess.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, As you said sometime ago, I think it's about intellectual real estate. You've got decades of people laying the groundwork to attack people who play the God-card, but comparatively little groundwork to attack people with leftist economic views.

Not to mention that it's harder because it takes some understanding of economics to be able to point out why someone like Obama is wrong and then to translate that into jokes.

That said, there is also a heavy dose of hypocrisy in the God-crowd which makes them easy targets. The internet censorship provision above is the perfect example. They are calling for censorship to fit their view of morality, but they know censorship is bad, so they couch it in terms of "while respecting First Amendment rights." That's a total hypocritical contradiction.

If Obama was running around saying, "we're going to tax the hell out of the rich while respecting their rights to be secure in their property," then it would be easy to mock him too. But he's not hypocritical about it, he simply says he wants their money.

I think the difference is important because humor tends to exist within the contradictions between what we claim we want and what we actually want, and hypocrisy is the richest vein of humor. If the God-crowd was more honest about what they want, they wouldn't be as easy of a target to be mocked.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I am afraid to see a final draft...

ellenB - Yes, there's plenty of room. And I'm only steps away from the nearest emergency room if the final draft is too much to bare.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree completely. The view that abortion should be banned in cases of rape has been a view held by many politicians. We can argue about how extreme or not that view is, but it has never been seen as disqualifying. Paul Ryan even holds that view. And if that was all Akin had said, then he would be viewed as extreme, but I doubt anyone would have been outraged.

It was the other aspects, which you describe perfectly, which caused the problem -- the idea that he simply lacks respect for women on some fundamental levels. That's where the outrage was with Akin.

And you're right about Huckabee. While I don't agree with most of his views, he's smart enough to hide his more odious ones.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Safety first! I'm glad you're near an ER. :)

I'll keep an eye out for the final draft. If history is any judge, it will be about 200 pages of more of the same.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. Scott, et al., a clarification...

The term "God-crowd" is meant as short hand in this case for those who see the purpose of politics to be the creation of a theological state, not for religious people.

K said...

Disappointing, but not unexpected.

If Akin loses as he most likely will and Obamacare isn't repealed, then the Republican religous right will be responsible for creating a real third party and quite possibly dooming the Republicans to the trash heap.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I can't disagree with either point.

I think this was exactly what we should have expected from the platform committee since this is the kind of garbage they always put together.

On your second point, I think the reason the Tea Party people are working inside the Republican Party is because they think the Republicans are largely sympathetic. But if the Republicans keep pushing religious issues and ignoring economic issues, look for the Tea Party people to finally leave the party and start over with their own party.

ScyFyterry said...

This is truly messed up. The sad thing is that I'll bet these people are proud of what they've written and they think some "silent majority" is out there waiting to be impressed with their wisdom. Assholes.

ScyFyterry said...

On a related point, Bill Nye the science guy has given an impassioned speech asking parents not to brainwash their kids with Creationism. It's worth a read because he makes really solid points:

I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can - we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/bill-nye-science-guy-hits-evolution-deniers-123047918--abc-news-tech.html

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, That's called a defense mechanism and it's what all crazy and deeply-out-of-touch people believe.... somewhere, out there, everyone really agrees with me if only the media would stop hiding those people. You'll see the same thought process on the left, on the right, in religious groups and cults, in racist groups, in single-issue groups, etc., anywhere where people hold strong opinions that aren't consistent with the public's view.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, A very wise friend of mine once said that to understand the book of Genesis, you need to understand that it's a poem. It's not meant to be taken literally. And the point she made, which was very interesting, was that they got the order of creation right. That's pretty impressive.

But to read anything more than that into it is foolish. And to read it literally is delusional. So while I have a good deal of sympathy for the idea that God created the universe, I think teaching Creationism in any literal sense and as a competing theory to evolution is little more than brainwashing.

ScyFyterry said...

Yeah, I don't have a problem with God creating the universe or Earth or man. I do have a problem when they go the next step and say 6,000 years and man was created whole. Even in the short time we've been able to observe people we've seen evolutionary changes. Look at the different way the different races are built. How could we all be built at once and yet have different features like a cranial ridge? That's evolution. That's man responding to the environment and millenia of breeding.

tryanmax said...

I don't know what's changed in the dozen years since I completed my public education, but my primary exposure to evolution theory back then was in my humanities classes. My science curriculum was dedicated to imparting those things regarded as scientific fact, a very high bar which evolutionary theory still does not rise above. To that end, I don't understand why either theory is being discussed at length in the science classroom.

AndrewPrice said...

We got it in biology class and earth sciences in Junior High because it is accepted science.

AndrewPrice said...

Terry, This isn't a fight where you're going to change any minds.

As for Nye's point, I don't think it will hurt the US's competitiveness much because the percentages are small and because when people go into science, the first thing you learn is that most of what you were taught in K-12 is bullsh*t anyway.

StanH said...

Party platforms are always hooey, and rarely reflect reality. But taking it on faith goes to instruct that the firings must continue for a decade of elections to root out these hives of incestuous stupidity that exist to simply perpetuate their own existence. Establishment Washington has lost it’s collective mind.

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, You're getting my blood boiling today! Not only the stupidity above, but now creationism. Thanks.

We learned Evolution in school and we learned it again in college as part of the science cirriculum. But I was lucky to go to school before the flakes came along and tried to add religious indoctrination into our cirriculum. They are doing that a lot now in Texas.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I agree entirely. Platforms have become a waste of time and energy and just give ammo to the other side these days. But this one does tell us that we do need to purge the party from top to bottom to clean it out. These people need to go to get a clean intellectual slate.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I didn't bring up the Evolution v. Creationism thing... blame Terry. I don't think it's worth discussing because you can't convince the people who need convincing.

Doc Whoa said...

Ok, I'll blame Terry. You're right though, this is one of those moments where people just don't listen.

tryanmax said...

So here's the question I should have asked this morning, but I didn't process it thoroughly: If this is the platform coming from the party, where then is the "establishment" that is supposed to be set against these things?

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, And that goes for both sides. You have a hard-core atheist faction who view evolution as killing God, even though it does nothing of the sort -- it cannot, by definition, go back that far in time. On the other hand, you get the religious who confuse belief with fact, ignore the obvious and mistake incomplete with untrue. Neither side wants to listen, both think wrongly that they are right, and there's no point in discussing it.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans, and almost 100% of the rest of the world, ignore both ideological sides of this debate and just plug along doing what they are doing.

tryanmax said...

Oh, and perhaps I should clarify, I did receive some discussion of evolutionary biology as it relates to observable changes in species (micro evolution). But creationism is the counterpoint to macro-evolutionary theory. That's what was left out of my natural sciences curricula.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! You've just put your finger on the BIG LIE within the Republican Party!

Everyone rails against "the establishment" which they paint as RINOs who stand in the way of everything "conservatives" want. But the reality is that with a few minor exceptions (see e.g. John McCain), the Republican Establishment is dominated by the very people railing against it, e.g. Ricky Santorum.

The real outsiders are the Tea Party types who want less government power and less spending.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I don't follow you? Macro-evolutionary theory? I'm not sure what the difference would be compared to micro? Do you mean you were told how species evolve, but not that life on our planet got to where we are through evolution? Or do you mean they never discussed creationism?

Joel Farnham said...

I guess with the selection of Romney, the religious right now must think they are on the ascendant and can afford to come out with every pet stupidity they have been hiding while waiting.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Actually, I think it's the opposite. They dislike Romney and see him as "not one of them." So I think they are pushing in an effort to make sure that everyone still thinks they are the real power in the party even though Romney was chosen.

Today they're have a little soiree where their leaders are getting together to "talk about things Romney won't" -- abortion, birth control, and "religious freedom." Huckabee and Ralph Reed are both there, so is Newt and a bunch of others.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I think this is the Religious Right's wish list, not the actual Republican platform. It has been submitted with out any input from the rest of us. I think they were hoping they could get away with it as fait accompli.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, We'll see. It was presented as a leaked draft of the platform, but it's possible it's something less than that. I guess we'll see when the platform is officially released. But I wouldn't hold my breath for anything much better. The platforms are usually crap and are usually drafted by activists.

Joel Farnham said...

I also think Rush was right. They never thought Romney would be a viable candidate, just good enough to get senators elected. Now that it is starting to show signs of a blowout, they are getting scared and put this crapfest together to create the notion that there is a real fight during the convention. Maybe damage Romney enough so that Obama will still be President.

Anthony said...

The Republican Party’s platform committee declared war on pornography ahead of this week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.

In a Monday morning press release, advocacy group Morality in Media disclosed that “new language replaces previous platform wording, which only opposed child pornography.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/27/gop-platform-calls-for-crackdown-on-all-forms-of-pornography/#ixzz24lxIgt7R
-------
High idiocy.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - Yes, the Tea Partiers are the outsiders and why it was just idiotic for the "Idiots at the Top Who Make These Decisions" to exclude the Ron Paul Libertarian faction...stupid, stupid, stupid.

And, in reference to my post on Saturday, what I want to see at this convention if for Romney AND Ryan to say "Are people freakin' nuts with this platform?".

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I'm tempted to agree, though I don't know for a fact what their motivations are. I know they thought Romney would lose. What I'm not sure about is that now that it looks like Romney will win, if they (1) want to sabotage him and drag him down, or (2) want to find a way to claim the credit for his victory? I suspect that Santorum wants number 1, but I think as a group they probably want number 2.

The problem for them is that Romney's not a fool and he's not going to suddenly think he owes them anything, not after the way they've treated him. Also, I don't think they realize that most of us will view his victory as despite them, not because of them if they try to make issues like abortion and pornography into center-stage issues.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Told ya.

This is idiotic. Pornography is not an issue anyone outside of fundamentalist church groups and some feminists care about. And for them to go after pornography is stupid. It's even more stupid at a time when the public only cares about economics.

This is why people don't trust the Religious Right or, by extension, the Republican Party.

Here's your link: LINK.

Koshcat said...

It's just too much. I can't even start. I only hope Romney or Ryan walks up to the podium and shreds it. Of course they are too mature for that. It would be funny if Romney quipped something like "Oops, that's Santorum's platform if he would have won. You need to bring mine out."

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Which group was stupid for excluding the Paulites? The Tea Party or the GOP? The gold standard thing is supposed to be a sop to the Paulites.

I share your wish. I hope Romney and Ryan basically say the document is crap and they refuse to endorse it.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, That would be hilarious, but you are right, they won't shred it. They will probably just ignore it unless asked directly and then will say they like some of it.


fyi, at the link Anthony provided, you will see that Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council is behind the anti-porn thing and that this is something Santorum was pushing. They claim Romney assured them he would agree, but the campaign refused to discuss it... smart.

It should be noted that Perkins and the FRC were Akin's big supporters.

Anonymous said...

I doubt a porn ban would ever work. The industry is just too big and, at least as far as the Internet is concerned, couldn't companies simply store their wares on foreign servers? Besides, there is definitely more than one Republican pornstar. Where was Jenna Jameson's contribution to the party platform?

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - The Republican leadership who decided to exclude Ron Paul from the table. He should be speaking if for no other reason than to bring the Ron Paulites Libertarians into the fold. We need their votes and they most likely WILL form a third-party to compete against Romney/Ryan if they don't get their props.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

I have nothing to add about the Tea Party but it does have its share of religious folks as well. I recall reading about some guy who wrote a book about the people he called "Teavangelicals."

I don't know how much sway they might hold within the Tea Party but they're there.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, A porn ban would not work, which is another reason it's stupid to upset people by advocating it. Basically, these people are declaring an intent to push for censorship of something they cannot censor, meaning their plans are ineffective and will ultimately only piss people off.

The reason this won't work is that the Supreme Court has already said that anything short of "pornography" is allowed under the First Amendment. And "pornography" is a nearly impossible standard to satisfy -- no artistic merit. So basically almost everything you see online would be safe. And the stuff that isn't could be made safe literally with the introduction of one educational sentence. So the idea of banning porn is laughably stupid from a legal perspective.

Moreover, as you note, it would be very easy for true pornographers to simply move their operations overseas or to hidden servers. Look at our inability to stop spam and you will see how effective stopping porn would be.

So what you have here is basically a phony ban attempt played by people who love the idea of regulating other people's lives... a ban which cannot happen legal or practically... a ban which will further the image of the GOP as censors and obsessed with sex. Nice work.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's what I thought you meant. I totally agree with that. :)

I do not, however, agree with the idea of the Tea Party merging with the Paulites. Paul is a svengali with a bunch of messed up conspiratorial views. If the Tea Party took him in, it would quickly get reshaped in his image and that would kill the movement.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, what I did did discuss in science class were things like Darwin's finches, micro-evolution, and observable, reproducible change in species.

I learned about macro-evolution in humanities, the theory that all life came from a single origin. I can't give the reasoning for excluding this from science class other than to suppose that the subject was seen to be sufficiently broached.

I don't recall any significant discussion of creationism in any classes.

Personally, I don't think a high school science curriculum should concern itself with theories that are likely to change significantly. That's how you end up with people who rely on decades old info to make a political point. (Zing!)

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, The Tea Party's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness -- it has no organization. It is basically millions of average Americans making up their own minds in unison, if that makes sense.

This is a strength because it makes them incredibly strong as a group and incredibly agile. They don't need to worry about platform committees or trying to build consensus to change their positions.

This is a weakness because it allows people to try to paint them as something they are not. Let me give you two examples. The Tea Party has no religious beliefs. It is not a party based around social conservative thinking. It's focus is entirely on government spending and the overreach of government power vis-a-vis the individual -- a position diametrically opposed to the Religious Right.

So when it first appeared, people like Huckabee and Santorum attacked it because thye saw it (rightly) as a threat to the power of the Religious Right. But they couldn't kill it. So their next step was to claim that the Tea Party really is the Religious Right and that their primary concerns are moral issues. That proved to be an impossible lie to keep up, but you still see it at times.

Others tried the same thing. I hear Rush calls them Tea Party Republicans, but they do not share the Republican agenda -- in fact, they are directly opposed to most of it, especially the neocon stuff and big business stuff.

If you look at the actions of the Tea Party and not the words of people who are trying to add their own views to it, you will see a focus on candidates who disdain big government, big spending, government power, and a link between the powers that be and the government. They do acknowledge the need for government but they also want a greater emphasis on individual freedoms.

They are essentially, classical liberals... which is why they don't fit into any of the modern forms of conservatism.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, We got what you're calling micro in biology class and macro in Earth Sciences when they talked about dinosaurs and then again when they talked about genes. We never talked about creationism, which was left for Sunday school for those who went.

The problem with not talking about theories that aren't 100% complete is that few theories fall into that. Newton's laws are not complete in light of Einstein's theories and Einstein's stuff is still not proven. So you talk about the state of current thinking.

Ed said...

Oh man, how do we get rid of these people? Let me just echo everyone's comments of frustration above. This is ridiculous.

Ed said...

Scott, I've been to several Tea Party meetings and I never saw anyone pushing evangelical thinking.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew re: Tea Party - You are absolutely correct. That's why there is great annoyance at those "leaders" who have hijacked to movement for their own personal agenda.

Scott - OF COURSE there are religious member of the Tea Party movement. And it would be stupid and a lie to say there weren't. But the guiding principals of the Tea Party are almost entirely fiscal and reining in our government. We are not social conservatives.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, I have no idea how to be rid of these people. Unless Romney does something to reshape the party, and I'm not sure that's entirely within his power, then these people will just need to be replaced one by one.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I see it all the time with various people trying to claim leadership of the Tea Party and I don't trust any single one of them. They are all from some other group or professional lobbyists (see, Dick Armey) and they don't understand the nature of the group at all.

But the strength of the group is that it will keep doing what it is doing and slowly taking over no matter how many people try to falsely claim its leadership.

Also, I did not mean to imply Tea Party people are atheists, I'm just saying that they do not see their political goals as involving social conservative/religious goals.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I probably should have been more specific. I don't think a high school science curriculum should concern itself with theories that are likely to change significantly in the short term.
_____

Back to something marginally on topic, have you heard the one about how the GOP shouldn't convene in Tampa because that's the birthplace of death metal? I'm not even sure if that is true, but even if it is, how absurd! Because when I think of Tampa, the first thing I think of is death metal. /sarc

ScottDS said...

Ed, et al -

I believe you. The man who coined the term "teavangelical" obviously has his own agenda (selling his book and making $$$). And he's probably looking at the movement through a keyhole.

But folks like Glenn Beck don't help either when he says things like, "It's time to turn to God" and so on and so forth. But to be fair, I don't know where the Tea Party ends and his crazy train begins. :-)

(Again, this seems to be the problem: once something is a success, people move in to claim credit.)

ScottDS said...

Bev -

Thanks to our conversations here, not to mention our two dinners, I can tell my liberal friends, "Yes, I'm friends with a Tea Partier and yes, she's a nice, perfectly sane person!" :-)

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I haven't heard that one, but it's sadly believable that certain people would say that. Unbelievable. Idiotic.

Personally, that makes me want to lobby for whatever city was the location of the first porno. Too bad Sodom isn't still around.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Glenn Beck is a nut job. He's got a messianic complex and thinks of himself as God. He is L Ron Hubbard in a bunker rubbing gold bars over his body as he prays to himself.

And yes, he is the classic example of a snake oil salesman who led part of the Tea Party movement down the wrong path. But my understanding is that they've all left him now that he's found God in himself and the only ones left are the hardcore cultists.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Wait a minute, you have liberal friends? You're banned! ;)

BevfromNYC said...

Scott, I am proud that you can say that though it saddens me just a little to be thought of as "perfectly sane"! ;-D

T-Rav said...

I object to you comparing Glenn Beck to L. Ron Hubbard. Glenn Beck has not tried to start his own religion (yet). But then I don't know of any time Hubbard sobbed on television, so maybe it's a wash.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Don't worry, perfect sanity is a form of insanity... the worst kind. You're set up nicely to become a comic book villain! :)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Give Beck time. He'll start his own church soon enough and my guess is it will be based around God appearing to him as a stack of gold bars and telling him that aliens run the country.

ScottDS said...

Andrew, truth be told, most of my friends are apolitical. Some lean left and a few of them lean FAAAR left.

My friends that lean right(-ish) just aren't vocal about it. I mean, I have a friend who lives with his family in Peoria... it doesn't get more middle America than that! He posts photos from his latest hunting trips and that's about it - nothing political about it but one can take an easy guess.

My family runs the gamut from left to right and back. I have one uncle who leans right, another who leans left, and my dad is more or less in the middle. He thinks the Republicans are nuts but he's not the biggest fan of the Democrats either - I think with him, he just sees them as the lesser of two evils. (My dad was a Republican but switched parties at some point during the Bush years.)

Having said all that, while I have many church-going friends, I don't have any "religious right" friends. One guy I went to film school with was a "true believer" but we weren't in the same social circles. And for the brief time I was friends with him on Facebook, all his posts were links to the latest Focus on the Family newsletter. I believe my reaction was, "F--- this" as I clicked the unfriend button.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, My friends are all over the map -- from right to left with most being center right. My conservative friends are all from different factions too. I have had a few Religious Right friends in the past, but they are difficult people to like... very difficult.

Most of my friend are Republicans by default, though few of them are happy with the Republicans.

El Gordo said...

"It's not that he believes abortion shouldn't even be legal in cases of rape or incest--while obviously controversial, it's not an unheard-of position to take, and if he had just left it at that, this wouldn't have affected the race. (...) The reason this caused such a flap is his apparent ignorance of basic biological facts and his tone-deafness about sexual assault."

T-Rav, I fully agree. But there´s more. Akin did what the left likes to do. The left likes to argue with science (or pseudo-science) to justify their political positions, including abortion. They usually do it to end the debate. Akin also resorted to a pseudo-scientific argument to justify what is an entirely moral question. Science cannot tell you when human life begins, or what it is worth. It cannot spare us grappling with thorny moral issues. When he was babbling about what "doctors" told him, Akin was looking for a convenient way out. A serious man should know that there is no such thing.

CrisD said...

Hey, Andrew!
Actually, I feel partially responsible for this out-of-wack platform because I have not filled out the questionnaire that they send (requesting $$$)---I used to give but have found that just because someone is an R, doesn't mean I have a lot in common with them! I donate to candidates.
But also am voting for the jerk liberal Brown over communist Elizabeth Warren----up here in Mass. Also am voting for the former Gov.!!!! hee-hee...

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, I agree with that too. Too many people, especially on the left, try to cut off debate by saying "I saw studies" or "science has said" without any proof to back it up. When people do that, it typically means they have no support for their position and they are relying on ideology rather than facts or reasoning.

I also think it didn't help him that he couldn't explain what he meant.

AndrewPrice said...

Hi Cris! :)

I think that's the best way, to give directly to candidates you like rather than to the party. The party misuses funds and you can never trust who they will support with the money. So I think it's better to give the money directly to someone you like and trust, and if they think someone else needs it, let them use it to help others, rather than trusting the party to hand it out.

I'd vote for Brown over Warren too. In truth, I think Brown is about as "conservative" as you're going to get in Mass. Still, he's better than some of the others like Snowe and he's definitely better than Warren.

Let's hope Romney wins! :) Actually, I'm certain he will and I think he's going to surprise people with how solid of a conservative president he will be.

El Gordo said...

Oh dear, I wish this "platform" was a parody.

I consider myself a social conservative and pro life. I believe you cannot hope to preserve any aspect of society if you don´t defend basic institutions and values, including Christian values. As Jonah Goldberg said, the left is the aggressor in the culture wars. They want to engineer a new society, complete with new man, today rather than tomorrow. Someone has to stop that train. Without Christian conservatives, there´s no hope of stopping it.

Having said that, I despise single issue voters and the politicians who pander to them. These people aren´t about conserving anything. They want to build their own version of utopia, and for that they belong on the left.

Like the left, they are in it to feel good about themselves, they practice their form of identity politcs and they want to use government to change their sinful society from the top. You cannot trust busybodies and do-gooders in politics. They can be expected to enable the Left when it comes to spending and certain causes, the environment, censorship and what not. I know a few who are pro-immigration absolutists just because it makes them feel saintly.

I have another rant about how hardcore libertarians also enable the Left in their way, but this is not relevant now.

AndrewPrice said...

El Gordo, Well said, and I agree. The problem isn't Christian conservatives. The problem is these people who think that the goal of government is to use the power of law to force everyone to follow their beliefs.

Human history has shown us that you can't win people over using government force. If you want someone to believe something, you need to teach them why you are right. Using the power of government to simply make people comply will always lead to a nasty backlash.

And I think you are correct in your description of these people. They are doing this for themselves, to make themselves feel better, not because this is the right thing to do or will ultimately make the world a better place.

You're also correct that they enable the left. Not only do they often team with the left when it means a consolidation of power which they think they can use, but they help keep the leftist stereotype of conservatives alive. Not to mention, that I've seen them start to drift into other leftwing causes like you have, e.g. environmentalism and open-borders stuff.

I agree too about the libertarians. They do a lot which helps the left.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Now they are talking about a one or two day convention. This might make the Republican Platform moot, or be adopted because there is nothing else.

I still think this is a plant by Democrat operatives (Huckabee for one) and not an actual Republican Platform. Huckabee must HATE Mormons. Seriously. I am a Catholic and I have heard the strangest things coming from a Baptist. Catholics are cannibals is one of the more reasonable things. Mormons are a cult is another.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel,

I think that a short convention actually helps us a lot. For one thing, it keeps some of the looniest from speaking. For another, it keeps the focus of the ticket on Romney/Ryan rather than the rest of the party. For another, it keeps on Obama rather than our side. Those are all good things.

In terms of Huckabee, I think he views Mormonism as a cult and I'm not sure he really wants to see a Mormon as President. I think that's what was driving Santorum too -- beside ultra-ego. I suspect they are not happy about the idea that a "cultist" could take the White House. Does that mean they would sabotage him? That I honestly don't know. I don't put it past Santorum for a second, because he's super petty too. But Huckabee, I'm just not sure.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

The nastiest preachers are the mild mannered ones.

AndrewPrice said...

I don't know Joel, Rev. Wright wasn't all that mild mannered. ;)

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

If you ever saw Rev. Wright in an interview, he is quite reasonable and very friendly. I saw one. He was talking quite normally about how Obama is a politician and to expect Obama to be a politician. Very pleasant interview.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's true. I think being a good preacher involves a good deal of acting ability, just like being a good lawyer does. So these guys probably have the ability to be calm and pleasant when needed and loud and angry when needed.

Huckabee strikes me (at least from television) as a very nice guy who is great at telling stories and is probably an excellent preacher. I can't stand his politics and his thought processes, but as a preacher he seems excellent.

One of the things I like about Romney is actually his awkwardness. People who aren't smooth are typically more honest because they lack the ability to use their tone and body language to hide their mental state. With Romney, what you see is what you get. But with Huckabee I was never so sure.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Do you think this Republican Platform will stay?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, My guess is it will be greatly enlarged, but its substance will stay the same. The platform committee is made up of 112 people and I understand most of them are Religious Right types, and I think this speak to their mindset. Plus, it's almost impossible for a committee that large to make real changes to a document in a couple days, which is when they're supposed to unveil it.

So my answer is that it will look puffier, but it will say the same garbage.

Joel Farnham said...

What happens if Romney and Ryan dump it and put in their own, one more in keeping with what mainstream Republicans want? I am talking about just junking the whole thing and put in one of their own.

DUQ said...

Here's the pot calling the kettle black, Mike Huckabee called Ron Paul "fanatical believers who don't represent mainstream Americans."

And Mike's people aren't? I think the Paulites are much more normal American than Huckabee's people.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I not honestly sure. But I don't think that would happen because there's no reason to do that.

Few will ever read the platform and Romney can get around it by just waiting to be asked about it and then saying, "Oh those are internal party things that nobody pays attention to. I certainly don't believe half of it and it's not part of what I'm promising, and I doubt President Obama believes the crazy things in the Democratic Platform either.... at least I hope he doesn't."

That would pretty much put the issue to bed without the controversy of sparking an intra-party feud and letting the MSM go on for weeks about the war within the party.

If Romney were trying to rebrand the party, then I could see him repudiating it, but he's not trying to do that. So I think he just ignores it and repudiates it quietly as needed.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Fringers rarely realize they are on the fringe and both of those groups are way, way, way out there. I'd estimate them together around 8% of the population.

tryanmax said...

It sounds like I've got the monopoly on connections to the Religious Right in this group. I hung with the WWJD crowd in HS and college and I still keep in touch even though I quit that crowd. I know there are people who pray daily for my soul on account of my having "fallen away." ;-) (I still have my old DC Talk and Jars of Clay CDs, though, LOL!)

But it gets worse than that. I was raised straight from Dr. Dobson's books. I still don't know why I'm not a mess b/c I read them when I had my own kids I simply cannot recommend them. Especially not The Strong-Willed Child. It basically teaches to regard all kids as little $#!+s. Don't get me wrong, kids can act like little $#!+s at times. But I don't subscribe to parenting as breaking a child's will. I look at it as turning human animal into civilized people. It's like Pygmalion every day.

So yeah, if you need a pulse on the RR, I've got it. Of course, they all think of me as a big ol' leftie, which would be a surprise to my theater friends, who introduce me as their "Republican friend" for purposes of bipartisan cred.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've had several who used to pray for my soul, particularly the ones I met in law school. They seemed to regard me as a borderline Satanist at times. :)

I also made the mistake of having Mormon friends at the time, which was unforgivable apparently.

I told one the RR people that I was thinking of taking up drugs just to piss them off and that's when they decided I was a lost cause.

I would never rely on advice from Dobson for anything frankly. They moved in here a couple decades ago and just ruined the place. Plus, they are truly obnoxious people with no clue how to deal with actual humans.

AndrewPrice said...

Also, I've dealt with many RR types in political circles and I find the experience frustrating to say the least. It's like talking to a wall... a very stupid wall with only one thought. In my experience it is impossible to get them to understand that "Jesus said so" is not a convincing argument. They also refuse to believe in good faith disagreements and they absolutely don't care about anything other than their pet peeves.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, been there. There are a lot of unthinking Christian types who use the Bible to justify keeping their brains off. Obviously they've never read the book because it instructs the absolute opposite. (Hello! It goes on and on about wisdom!)

I have a tiny bit of an apologetics background, having associated with several pre-sem students in my college days. (Obviously, the ones I'm still in touch with are pastors now.) One can irritate a RR person to no end when one can bring down their faulty arguments in their own tongue.

My usual retort to the "Jesus said so..." argument is that the Apostle Paul never used it. Oh! I'm sure you've seen many red faces in your line of work, so you know how gratifying they can be.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Wait, your saying your not a satanist, Andrew? That's disappointing, to say the least. :^)

I think fringe right is probably a good designation of these anti-liberty freaks.

Thing is, Christianity is all about liberty! Jesus never said anything about trying to force folks to believe in Him or His teachings.

Essentially, the FR wanna do the same thing the left ants to do: take away liberty for the (false) promise of their version of utopia.

Our Founding Fathers were more in touch with Divine Providence than these jerks will ever be.

I'm not saying good morals ain't important. But I am saying you can't force people to have them. In fact, trying to force it down people's throats tend to have the opposite effect.

The sanctimonious prigs on the right are Akin to the smug "elites" of the left.
Birds of a feather and all that. Opposite sides of the same Two Face coin.
It's still fascism, any way you look at it.

The FR don't understand their Bibles or our Constitution and it's high time we quit letting them have any significant power in the GOP, since they aren't bringing anything constructive or pro-liberty to the table.

If the FR are truly good in character sand have good morals, they would be pro-liberty first and foremost.
But all they are is divisive, just like Obama and the hard left.

They give Christianity and conservatism a bad name and I'm getting sick of it.
We must keep cleaning the House and Senate and fill Congress with true patriots.

tryanmax said...

RE: Dobson - the thing about his books on parenting is that he puts just the right blend of scripture and folk-wisdom with his own cockamamie ideas to make it all sound good until you reflect and realize that he's basically saying that kids are incarnate evil. (My mother would faint.) One could go to the work of separating the good from the bad, but why bother? The good can be found elsewhere and, if you're so religious that you're going to Dobson, should you be going straight to the Bible, anyway?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, LOL! One of the problems I've had with arguing with these people is that I've read the Bible and I understand it. But I haven't sat through whatever course these people have taken which supplements the Bible and completely changes its meaning.

So they start throwing things at me which are directly opposite of the text and I say, "the Bible never said that" and they retort with, "you have to have studied it to understand."

That's pretty much the end of the argument because it becomes clear to me at that point that they're just making up whatever they want out of the text and you can't argue with people who are like that because facts are meaningless to them.

What I find interesting about these people is how often they have completely reversed the things Jesus said to allow them to get to some nasty, intolerant, busy-body result. You know, Jesus never said "use the government to force thy neighbor to stop doing things you don't like."

tryanmax said...

Ben, well said! I'll take a patriot over a Christian any day. Here I will make a "Jesus said so" argument. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."

AndrewPrice said...

On Dobson, that's the way scammers/cultists always do it -- they mix just enough facts to sound credible with just enough common sense to sound wise... and then come the whacko ideas.

I've run across that so much, especially in the political world. A guy like Glenn Beck is the perfect example. He'll talk about the facts of the financial meltdown. He'll spin out a few bits of common sense which make you think he grasps how the world really works. Then he shoves in an incredible amount of ignorance, laughable economics and conspiracy theories. The problem is the first two parts make him seem credible so people often follow right on through to the last part.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Nope, I'm not satanist. He still hasn't made me an offer I couldn't refuse. We're about 15% apart in our negotiations. ;)

On the rest of your comment, very well said! I concur wholeheartedly. These people are neither conservatives nor good Christians. And as you say:

The FR don't understand their Bibles or our Constitution and it's high time we quit letting them have any significant power in the GOP, since they aren't bringing anything constructive or pro-liberty to the table.

It is time. These people really belong on the left. They want to use the power of government to take away freedom to force people to follow their beliefs. That's a leftist worldview -- which is why they are starting to drift into things like environmentalism and funding for the world poor, etc... because they share instincts with the left.

And you're right that they aren't good Christians either. I honestly don't recall Christ every saying "force people to believe in me." To the contrary, he makes it clear that you need to want to believe.

I think these people are not conservatives and they've misunderstood Christianity, and they are bad for our everyone on our side. I would very much like to see the real "religious of the right" disclaim these fools and work toward winning people over rather than forcing people to conform.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

What gets me is, even self described Christian fundamentalists ain't entirely fundamentalist, since they believe the Eucharist (Communion bread or wafers and wine) is symbolic.

Yeah, I put Dobson in the same category as a Deepak Chopra or Tony Robbins.
Mix a few good sayings into their BS and call themselves enlightened.

Little do they (and their deceived and naive sheeple) know they are the opposite.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Believe it or not, I knew people in law school who say that the Caesar quote had been misunderstood and it meant that Christians had an obligation to impose Christianity on the government. I have NO idea how you can get that interpretation, but they did.

tryanmax said...

I forget who it was, but someone once told me to follow Christ, not Christians. Very good advice, IMO.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. The thing that bothers me with Chopra and Robbins is this idea: "God wants you to be wealthy."

I have no problems with wealth and I agree that everyone should strive to be wealthy because it lets you do more than being poor. But I don't see the pursuit of wealth as something that should be the focus of religion which is about spiritual health. This strikes me as false religion, designed to tell people that they are doing fine and shouldn't worry about spiritual issues.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That is actually very solid advice.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, the FR like the left are out of touch with reality and believe they can create their own reality out of prayer or wishes or just believing they can.

When a person gets into that frame of mind(lessness) they are literally blind to the truth or facts or reason or logic.

That's why it's pointless to argue with them...unless there are other folks around (or reading if online).
Then it can be possibly helpful to those actually yearning for the truth, no matter how scary it seems.

But one on one debates are useless, because they are living in la la land with their own language and will not comprehend a word you say...until they are tired of it and start seeking again.
Then there's a possibility of making a breakthrough.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, That's very true. And I'm finding that more and more these days -- both on the left and the right (though more on the left).

The other problem with the fringers is that they tend to have defense mechanisms that let them ignore anything they don't like. With the Paulites, it's "you're part of the establishment, ergo everything you say is a lie to save the establishment." With the RR it's "you don't believe, so you don't understand THE TRUTH and everything you say is based on the wrong premise."

That means that even if you win, you lose because they simply write you off.

That said, it's worth arguing when other people can be warned away from them.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Actually, it's not my intent to debate who is right about the Eucharist/Communion thing.
I just thought it was odd that fundamentalists, which overlook all the other symbols in the Bible, decide that their Communion is symbolic.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the only way to come to contrary interpretations like that is to ignore a lot of other scripture. I would guess that argument stems from the next phrase in the passage, "...and render unto God the things which are God's," with the assumption that all things belong to God.

As a theoretical end-game, the idea isn't entirely unsound if one were to take the approach of winning hearts and minds. Effective heart/mind winning would likely have the oblique result of addressing the myriad social problems that the RR wants to use gov't to address long before they ever acquired the gov't. And that's the problem. Being a Good Samaritan is hard, and their favorite show is on in half-an-hour. But they mean well, and isn't that what really counts? (A: No.)

Seizing the gov't in the name of Christendom is a shortcut. The Bible doesn't commend shortcuts. That's all there is to be said.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, They have a very confused set of things they take literally and things they dismiss as symbolic... while claiming they only read the book literally.

It actually reminds me of the way a lot of people who call themselves Constitutionalists will interpret the Constitution. The parts they like, they read literally. The parts they don't like, they read as rhetoric only. Some words are read expansively while others are dismissed entirely. And then they claim that they read the whole thing literally.

tryanmax said...

As a side-note: I don't discount the possibility of God telling people to run for public office, but I think given the American political climate, He would also tell them to keep mum about it.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, They refused to explain how they reached that result because they said I "wasn't serious". I think the truth is they simply didn't have a reasonable answer.

But like you, I think the only way to get there is to make a bunch of assumptions about the government ultimately belonging to God and thus it must be made to be God-like.

I agree that seizing the government is a short cut, and a bad one at that. The problem is, it sounds reasonable once you believe the idea that the government should be passing laws to declare an official state morality. Once you accept that, then it makes a lot of sense to make sure that they impose your morality.

The problem with that argument, however, is that the government should not be in the morality business. It should be in the business of imposing only those laws needed to make society run smoothly enough to let the people determine their own morality.

And where things have gone wrong is that the left grabbed the government in the 1960s and decided that the government should impose itself on that public morality and shape it toward immorality. The RR countered not by undoing what the left did, but by deciding they wanted to use the government to impose their version of morality. And the whole thing ended up a huge mess with both sides trying to impose opposing views of morality.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I have never seen evidence of God speaking directly to anyone, and the people who claim they've heard from God are never people I would think God would trust.

Joel Farnham said...

All I know about religious people is how easy it is to get them red faced. Still, they are like the far left. They "believe" they have divined what God/Gaea wants. Their motives are "pure" as the wind driven snow. People who don't talk and think like them are "pagans" and there fore "must" be made to understand. I don't know which is worse, a society based on Gaea, or one based on interpretations of the Bible. Both feel that there are too many people on the Earth.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I wouldn't go that far. Most religious people are quite nice and not at all looking to impose their views on others. I would agree with you, however, when it comes to the people on the fringe (in any religion really). And unfortunately, too many of them have drifted into politics because they see the intersection of political power and religious belief as the best way to fulfill their utopia.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Well said, Andrew and Tryanmax!

I would include many of the Paulbots who have their own conspiracies to shelter their beliefs.
They are their own category, I think, not really part of the right or the left.

When you try to reason with them you automatically become part of the conspiracy or are simply written off as a nut...ironically.

They also claim to understand the Constitution, but they miss all the major points.

I'm not saying Paul didn't have any good points, he did, but along with sheer insanity.
A significant number of his followers are the epitomy of bat sh*t crazy and literally worship Paul. Or, Doctor Paul as they like to remind us.

Incidently, I'm leery of Rand Paul as a result. Perhaps that's unfair, but Rand has never dismissed his fathers crazy ideas when asked and he side-steps questions about it very well.

That raises a red flag. Hopefully I'm wrong and Rand doesn't believe any of the crazy stuff. Time will tell.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

The far left and the far right are who I am talking about.

If the far religious right has taken over the Republican reigns, and that I am not prepared to accept, they will force the rest of us to finally abandon both parties to form a third.

tryanmax said...

I won't get into what's going on in the Bible when God is reportedly talking to folks out loud. I will only say that I think of God as a synonym for capital "T" Truth. In that sense, God talking to someone is an expression like Truth bombs going off in one's head.

If a politician told me privately that God told him to run for office, my first question to him would be, "How?" If he told me that he literally heard a voice, I'd call him a nut. If, instead, he relayed a story about how circumstances led him to find it his most sensible course of action, I'd consider it.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

This radical platform cannot stand as is. It is either a wish list for Santorum believers or it is a plant from a Democrat operative. No one can seriously think they can sell this to the Rank and File.

tryanmax said...

Ben, I can give Rand a pass because, after all, Ron is his dad. I can only imagine what Thanksgiving at the Paul household is like. But arguing over turkey and cranberry sauce is a far cry from taking your father to the woodshed in public. I think Rand has made his position very distinct from his father's.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think batsh*t crazy is the best description for those people. They know little but they believe they know everything. Most importantly, they think they have insight into a reality the rest of us can't see. And they are more than happy to twist anything they find to fit their conspiracy theories.

And you are right, you can't argue with them because the moment you argue with them, they assume you are part of the conspiracy.

I also agree that these people are neither left nor right. They kind of float back and forth to whichever side they think will be receptive. And their views really don't fit either side because they are basically faulty views premised on being a victim of vast conspiracies and their "solutions" are nonsense. So it's impossible to really peg them as left or right.

I'm not sure what to make of Rand at this point. I think he's more savvy than his father, but I don't know if he's less crazy.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I would agree with that -- the far left and far right. And I agree with you that if the Republicans are fully taken over, and the Tea Party people are blocked, then it will be time for a third party with the Republican Party probably perishing within 2-3 cycles.

tryanmax said...

...[if] the Tea Party people are blocked, then it will be time for a third party...

And the delicious irony is that it will be a conservative third party when presently the most prominent calls for such a thing are all from disaffected liberals. LOL!

Jen said...

Tea Party people as "classical liberals". Hmmmm, now where have I heard that before? ;)

I know of a couple of people who like to use Scripture for their own agenda, and interpret it however they see fit at that particular moment. Unfortunately, I'm related to both of them, and they drive me, and my sister batty with their BS. One of them had hoped for Huckabee to get nominated, and the other, I'm not sure.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I would buy that. But I think when most people talk about hearing from God, they mean that they were given a special vision from out of the blue or they heard a voice. I find that lacking in credibility. Not to mention, as I said above, the people who make this claim are usually (always) the last people one would think God would trust.

I personally would say that God speaks to us through what we call science and reasoning. We are capable of understanding cause and effect through science and logic, and from that we know the things that are good and the things which are bad. I think that's the way God speaks to people because these rules are clear, easy to understand and immutable. Violate those rules at your own risk.

It's not as sexy as hearing a voice, but it strikes me as more likely.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's a wishlist for Santorum's followers. But I think it will stand because they control the committee that put it together. I just think everyone else will ignore it.

I wish that wasn't the case. I wish someone like Paul Ryan, who has the credibility to do this, would disclaim it entirely and take it apart piece by piece. But he won't do that.

So I think we're stuck with it and the best we can do is tell anyone who mentions it that we think it's a joke.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Could you imagine Thanksgiving at their house?! I wonder if they look under the turkey to make sure the fed hasn't hidden a microphone there? ;)

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I agree. I don't think anyone who really hears God's voice would characterize it that way, which I suppose is what I was driving at to begin with. And the idea that God would back a liar like Santorum? Puh-leez!

I think the Founders had very much the same ideas about the Nature of God, which is what makes it possible for both the fundamentalist Christians (an ironic term) and the atheists to both see the Founders as "on their side." It's not that they held a strange amalgam of both views. Instead, they had a concept of God that fit within a Natural framework. (Hence the term "Nature's God.) And when you really think about it, if God is the cause of all that we know, He would have to be just as Natural as the rest of it, wouldn't He?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, If the Tea Party splits away, which I doubt will happen, I think it would become a genuinely conservative party, which would be very interesting, especially as many "conservatives" won't like that at all... and many moderates will.

In effect, we could get a realignment. Right now 60% of the public is conservative, but only 40% call themselves that. I could see 20-30% of those 40% splitting off and the missing 20% joining them. So instead of having this:

20+20... +20

You would have this

20... +20+20

It would be interesting.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I have no idea where you would have heard that! LOL!

I hate that when people do that. First, quoting scripture is not a convincing argument unless the other person believes in scripture AND reads it the same way. Secondly, it's rather telling when someone claims to believe in something but then changes its meaning to fit their own agenda.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, ROTLMAO! That is why you never bug the turkey. Always go for the corn casserole. Nobody ever thinks to check the corn casserole, but nobody ever eats it, either.

tryanmax said...

I think a Tea Party spin-off is unlikely, too, but my verb was improperly conjugated to express that.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tryanmax, I do hope Rand Paul is just being diplomatically respectful of his father.
I'll take a trust but verify position I reckon.

Thanksgiving at the Paul household? LOL!
Silverware or goldware?

What if Thanksgiving is a conspiracy? Hey, just because it sounds crazy doesn't mean it isn't true.
I heard Macy and Big Turkey are the ones that are really behind the Fed and pulling all the strings...like a wishbone.

And all the other cabals of course. And the Zionists! And the Bilhingersomethingorother group! And the G-20 or whatever number they are.
I have a list, somewhere.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I totally agree! Well said.

I think that is exactly why the Founders can be seen as heroes both by fundamentalists and by atheists and it's why I think religion wasn't a problem in the past -- because their view of God was very much in harmony with nature. And I don't mean that in a hippie sort of way, but in a rational sort of way. God created everything and gave humans the ability to understand. We have that ability because we're supposed to use it so we learn right from wrong. Then we're supposed to act in the right way, with us being punished if we do wrong by the consequences of those actions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people today have a more dictatorial and arbitrary view of God, with God imposing irrational rules and punishing people for things for which nature provides no negative consequence.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Exactly! Never bug the turkey! ;)

I think a spin off is highly unlikely as well because I think the Tea Party people will succeed.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

That's it, Andrew! It's a joke! LOLOL!

Man, we really pawned the left! Wait until they see the REAL GOP platform. Man, will they be embarassed.

I think I'll tell any lefty that brings it up that it's a joke. Just to mess with them. They deserve it. :^)

tryanmax said...

Ben, silverware or goldware? I LOLed so hard I think I peed a little! I want to top it, but I just can't. But I want to so bad! LOLOLOLOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Big Turkey! LOL! Bravo!!

Goldware, naturally.

Jen said...

Andrew, I'll bet you don't know where you heard that.;)

At least you're not related to someone who goes around and tells everyone he's Jesus, AND...cruises the bars for women.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I'd treat it like a joke. That seems to be the best course. You can even act like snotty people do with modern art... "surely you're sophisticated enough to see the irony?" ;)

Joel Farnham said...

Ben,

Is that a list of people that will never be missed? ;-)

Andrew,

If this platform does stick, I will start to look for a serious effort to create a third party. Yes, they may not get the next presidential nomination, but as long as Obama isn't President, I am game.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I LOLed at Ben's entire comment. That was a thread winner!

tryanmax said...

All win to Ben! Thread closed!

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Nope, I'm not related to Jesus, though I had a roommate in college who looked like him. He cruised the bars too. It's what Jesus would do. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I wouldn't take the platform that seriously. I would instead watch to see the actions of the party over the next four years.

But even more importantly, I would give the Tea Party people time to solve this problem.

Ben Franklin said...

Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.

Jen said...

Sounds like ol' Ben is on a roll again. :)

Good one Ben!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben, bottom's up! ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, It seems that all our Bens are talented at this blogging thing! LOL!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thank you, thank you very much!

Now I'm wondering where all that came from. It's as if, now stay with me here, it was transmitted directly to my mind.

Corny, I know. Ha ha. We can laugh about it now.

(Turns on all the water faucets).

Now we can talk freely.

Andrew: LOL! I'm gonna do that!
Gotta work on my English accent though.
Anyone speak English accent? I need lessons. :^)

G'night folks! See ya next time.

Not The C.I.A. said...

Ignore what Ben has suggested. We do not transmit directly to his mind.

Mr_Severus_Snape said...

WOW this is such a ludicrous platform! It's like a leftist's failed attempt at satire. I hope to God it's a hoax.

After reading some of the comments on this page about how stupid social conservative are, I feel a bit unwelcomed in this site :(

I consider myself pretty socially conservative. I'm a Catholic, pro-life, feel that marriage should stay between two people of the opposite sex, a supporter of "traditonal values", etc. Even I can say a lot of those goals are stupid, very simplistic, and just freaking imposible to implement! Banning pornograpy? Really!?!?

With than being said, there are other more important issues going on now, than social ones. People on both sides needs to realize that. We are walking into a trap set by BHO's campaign to divide us all!

AndrewPrice said...

Snape, You are absolutely welcome here and we do have many social conservatives here. I'd say we're split 30/30 between libertarian-conservatives and social-conservatives, with the rest being somewhere in between.

I think what you're seeing above is frustration aimed the Religious Right folks who see social conservatism as the ONLY goal of the Republican Party and who are absolutely deaf to how they are perceived. This platform is the perfect example of that. Banning pornography will never happen and pushing the idea that we favor internet censorship to make it happen only makes us look really bad and out of touch. Spinning the problem with Obamacare into being about abortion is and looks obsessive. Skipping economic issues is obsessive. Constantly mentioning gays or abortion or religion in every section of the platform looks obsessive.

That's what people are responding to.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Speaking of pornography, Obama wants to heavily tax the porn business more, and I have noticed some in the industry are now backing Mitt (for obvious reasons he hasn't chosen the porn stars that back him to be keynote speakers at the RNC convention, although it would be funny to see the expression on Santorum's face).

Talk of banning porn, which, as you said is impossible anyway, and censoring the internet doesn't help.

I'm not saying porn is a good thing, but why unnecesarily antagonize the porn wing of conservatives? Particularly now?

These porn stars have a lot of fans that might also vote for Mitt so they won't hafta pay more for there...um...hobby.

Why even talk about it at all in the nat'l platformthe left's meme that republicans are preoccupied and obsessed with sex.
Hmm. Maybe the idiots that wrote this platform draft are obsessed with sex.

Virtually every parent knows about blocking porn and lefty sites (which are far worse, IMO...many of them) from their kids' computers. Those that need a nanny state to block it for them are imbeciles and we shouldn't be catering to the imbecile vote.

Just sayin'.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sorry, I meant to say talking about banning porn plays into the leftist meme that republicans are obsessed with sex/porn and are closeted perverts.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I agree, though I recognize a couple jokes in there. :)

If it's something you cannot do and it will confirm a negative stereotype by advocating it, why advocate it? All you do is feed the stereotype.

And in terms of there being a porn wing, I'm not really worried about that. What worries me is the image of the party as a bunch of witch hunters who want to use the power of government to decide what they think people should be allowed to enjoy. It feeds right back into this stereotype of the Republicans as obsessed not only with sex but with controlling how other people have sex.

As an aside, how funny would that be if Santorum got to speak, wedged between two porn stars? LOL!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Welcome aboard Mr. Snape! We were talking about the socons that support the idiots that wrote this draft, not the sane socons.

For the record, I'm also a socon (also a fiscalcon) Catholic (formerly pentacostal, if you can believe it).

Hallelujah! :^)

The best thing socons can do

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

The singl best thing socons can do to promote their causes is to promote more liberty and smaller govt..

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, I concur!

Besides, I haven't seen a nat'l uprising or concern about porn. I think that's waaay off most people's radar right now.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

This ain't good. Apparently, Dodd is basing his praise on the GOP platform draft, which is daft.

Not that I think much will come of this. Still, not good.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/08/29/dodd-praises-gop-internet-privacy

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, That is bad news, especially as (if I remember correctly) he pimps for the RIAA right now. Sadly, I'm not surprised.


Also, you are right, no one cares about porn at the moment... no one.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Aye, Dodd is pimping for them. It really makes me angry when people like Dodd, and the idiots that wrote this stupid platform hide their real intentions behind "protecting internet privacy" and "internet freedom."

Grrr!

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, If you read their definition of privacy, it's clear this is a sop to lobbyists. It's honestly written in a way to protect certain industries and ignore everyone else, i.e. the public. This is SOPA II.

Individualist said...

Andrew

I think abortion issue should behandled by stating that the Republican party repects life including those still in the womb. This should not even be a platform point. It should be a statement of position at the bottom. It should be left vague and no real attempt to explain it should be given. It is all you need.

Secondly I think Pro Lifers would be much better leaving Religion out of the argument. All that is needed to be said is a fetus is alive, it is human and to have an abortion you have to kill it. What the bible says has no relevance. Whether or not we protect that life is the same argument as to when and where we are allowed to kill anyone. If you want the right to do that you had better be able to justify it.

Any real reform in the issue of abortion would have to be done through an ammendment to the constitution anyways so the ProLife crowd that really cares about this should be told to direct their energies there. To argue anything else or bring the issue up is pointless because no politician that gets elected can do anything about it.

Individualist said...

Does anyone actually bother with platforms anymore. Honestly we can talk about this "playing into the dems hands" but seriously it is too much reading for the average Prog Reporter I am guessing.

That said I think that the porn issue can be easily solved. We need to expand the extension on the internet soon anyway in order to allow for a greater need for IP addresses. So if you have a gamble sight it must have a .gamble extension, if you have a porn sight it must have a .xxx or .porn extension. Thus anyopne who wants to stop children from accessing it on the net which is the only concern that is valid anyways can simple block those extensions. It is simple and fair and leaves the censoring to the user.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Individualist, well said on both issues!

Individualist said...

Thanks Ben

Post a Comment