SC Considers Romney Platform, not RNC Platform: The 38% solution?

Couple Points (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats will always say our platform is too extreme, and that therefore they are in better shape. They won't stop until we are the other Democratic party. Worthless talking points there.

Should the Mass platform say anything about Immigration? It's not the realm of state government. Perhaps a reference to Driver ID's and college tuition breaks, and it would benefit the GOP to oppose distribution of those to Illegal Immigrants in this state.

Third, 80% of voters do not want unrestricted abortion access in this state. I'm pretty confident that a majority of Republicans here are Pro-Life, and the momentum has been on the side of the Life movement for the past ten years or so. Again, becoming the Democratic Party on this issue, serves no one. That being said, even the distinction between the Romney and RNC platforms benefits us. Look at Chris Christie, he and Romney have the same position now-a-days on Abortion, and he's in NJ, a state not too much more conservative than ours. If Akin and Mourdock had followed Romney on Abortion, we would have likely gained US Senate seats this past election.

That being said, Abortion, Gay Rights, Immigration and Climate Change are issues that for the most part are not areas in which key policy changes are going to be made in Massachusetts after the 2014 election. Highlighting them merely offends, both sides of the social issues gap. We are better off sticking to fiscal issues, where a clear majority of voters are on our side.  

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 08:10:45 AM UTC

Counter points (4.00 / 1)

Merrimack Man -

I did not say that 80% of this state wants unrestricted abortion. I said 80% want it legal instead of illegal. I agree that a whole lot of people want abortion restrictions of some kinds, such as when you can have one (trimesters, etc) or parental notification, or not allowing minors to be taken across state lines, or not having one for sex selection reasons. But the Romney position is to make it illegal except for rape, incest or health of the mother. There is no way that more than 20% of voters want that here. Period. (In fact, I don't even think the majority of Republicans want the Romney position. I know some Republicans who ran as pro-choice and couldn't believe how accepted it was among registered Republicans, despite a small number of loud activists. So I challenge you to prove that we are majority pro-life.)

I am not asking for us to be like the abortion-loving democrats. I just wanted silence on the issue, like we have had. Adding the platform plank just harms us to make the social conservatives happy. The main logical flaw on display last night - and in all these discussions - is this: people think that because they believe abortion is wrong that therefore the Republican party must oppose it. Wrong. I am against abortion also. I just don't think the Republican party has to fight that fight. Other groups, like my church, can do that. Let the Republicans fight and win other battles.

And it is irrelevant to point out that a governor from somewhere else is pro-life. I could name lots of pro-choice Republicans from other places. So what? This is probably the most pro-choice state in America. It is still stupid to commit us to a position that most voters do not hold when we are so weak already.

And my point with the Dems' reaction was that it was one of delight, not saying that we are extreme. That's problematic and not a worthless talking point.

Strangely, you seem to agree with me that there won't be any legislative action on any of these things, and that we are better off sticking to fiscal issues. I couldn't agree more and assume that you, like me, would show respect toward social conservatives, but keep the platform silent on all these issues, right?

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:22:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abortion (5.00 / 1)

A conservative candidate for office, whether in New England or Alabama, who says anything about abortion other than, "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, abortion is a terribly personal decision and it should be rare" is a complete moron.

Abortion doesn't win elections; it's just a trap for some stupid candidate. The democrat fast response team grabs the sound bite and tars all other candidates.

Take a cue from the Dem playbook re: gun control.  Other than the bluest of the blue states, you'll see darn few Democrat candidate proposing greater gun control.  

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 14:35:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

gary, I couldn't agree more... (0.00 / 0)

...funny that ed gives you a 5 for saying what I've been saying but he craps all over me.

Abortion (insert Admiral Ackbar photo here) "it's a trap"!!

For some reason, the GOP lets the Dems dictate the language of the campaign.  Scott Brown didn't fall for it in 2010 and he pulled off a fantastic win.  In 2012, he fell for it hook, line and sinker and he got "hammered".


"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 16:07:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait, that's what you've been saying? (0.00 / 0)

Ed was saying the platform should be silent on abortion and marriage and immigration, and you were arguing with him, so I'm confused what you were saying, maybe Ed was too.

At any rate, it isn't just the platform(s) that get Republicans tripped up on abortion. It was the state Personhood Amendments which were extreme and radical and which you yourself defended a year ago. And yesterday Ed also said he thinks that life begins at fertilization. I don't get it. Maybe you guys just don't want your beliefs reflected in the platform?  That's good, but it is bad enough that you have those radical beliefs and go around publicly defending Personhood Amendments and ridiculing Democrats for saying they are extreme and radical.

Here was you, one year ago:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Saying Life Begins at Conception Is 'Extreme and Radical'
by: V
Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 12:10:21 PM EDT
So...not satisfied with disagreement on a seminal issue regarding life, Wasserman-Schultz elects to raise the stakes of the argument by painting those with whom she disagrees as "extreme and radical".  Imagine, thinking that life begins at conception is now an "extreme and radical" belief.  
"CNSNews.com - Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is an "extreme and radical" step.  For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step, she said."

Do you see the disconnect between what she said and what you said, V? She said that "for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is an "extreme and radical" step. Not just "thinking that life begins at conception" which, though wrong and extreme, is not all that radical, unfortunately. But you didn't just "think" that, you said it out loud, on a political blog, and defended those amendments! You even said "I'm wondering why it is "extreme and radical" to protect life from conception, but not "extreme and radical" to protect Spotted Owl eggs." And then ElectricStrawberry called her a "nut job" to pile on.

So it was you guys who were calling for the most radical and extreme abortion plank possible, and me that was trying to get you to become more moderate, one year ago, but you didn't listen. And now you guys blame defense of marriage when it was your own Personhood Amendments that tarred the whole party with extreme radical abortion positions. Sorry but defense of marriage was not to blame, defense of marriage beat the Republican in every state.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 22:40:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No John...you are illiterate. (0.00 / 0)

I also said:

John Howard, commenting without reading and comprehending the post since Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 03:49:17 AM EDT

You were an ass a year ago, you are an ass now.

I was merely pointing out that the Dem party chair was taking the position that "Life Begins at Conception Is 'Extreme and Radical'"

I did not, and do not think that is an extreme and radical position.

And, I seriously doubt ed has any "misunderstanding" of what I've been trying to say.  ed isn't an idiot.  He simply disagrees with me, which is different than what you are doing.


"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 12:21:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are still making the same mistake (0.00 / 0)

No, V, she said that ENACTING A PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT is extreme and radical. Not "believing life begins at conception" is extreme and radical. It's fine for someone to have that personal belief, it's a common belief so it is not radical, though it is incorrect, dangerous, and certainly extreme (could personhood possibly start any sooner?). But it is not a radical belief. Do you see the difference between holding a personal belief and trying to enact a constitutional amendment that puts that belief into law for everyone? Do you see the effect of calling someone who opposes enacting personhood amendments a "nut job"?

Personhood amendments are extreme and radical, and Republicans should stop calling for them, stop talking about them, stop wanting them enacted, stop putting them in the platform.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 14:11:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The mistake is yours John... (0.00 / 0)

...because you fail to comprehend...your boogey man is getting in the way...

Here's the article...I didn't make it up:

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is "an extreme and radical step."

I made no specific mention of the "personhood amendments" in my post. They weren't my point....then or now.

If you actually took the time to read, you'd see that Wasserman-Schultz actually had more to say about the amendments....

"Now," she said, "the effort by the far right [is] to pass these so-called personhood amendments--divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman's right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk."

...but MY specific target was her painting the "life begins at conception" belief as "extreme and radical".

Do you see the difference between reading what is written and putting your words in someone's mouth?


"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 16:12:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But that's not what she said was extreme and radical! (0.00 / 0)

She did not say the BELIEF was radical or extreme, she said that for states to enact "these so-called personhood amendments" is "an extreme and radical step." Nowhere did she say that the belief that life begins at conception was extreme and radical.

Please can someone help V see the difference?

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 16:40:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gary and Ed, what do you think? (0.00 / 0)

I'm quite annoyed that V is getting away with saying I made a mistake here, he's just flat out bullshitting and hoping people will not read carefully enough to know. And I'm also annoyed that he isn't owning up to the damage his support of Personhood Amendments had on the Republican brand. As is evidenced right in the story he links to, Wasserman-Schulz tarred the whole party with it. V is unrepentant and still insists on making his extreme views public and advocating for them. Even Ed says he believes it, though he doesn't want to put it in the platform. But it's harmful enough just to publicly say he believes it. We need to repudiate Personhood of embryos completely or they'll think it's what we all believe! They are bad news!

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 00:36:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know what I think John... (0.00 / 0)

....200 years ago you and I would be on a field somewhere with dueling pistols.

Good thing for you that is an ancient tradition and no longer legal...I have excellent hand-eye coordination.

You are a crazy, lying lunatic.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:41:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gary and Ed, what do you think? (0.00 / 0)

Please take a few minutes to go back and look at this, up to Gary's comment above, which V says he agrees with.

First, did she call holding that personal belief radical, or the act of enacting a Personhood Amendment radical and extreme?

And tell us if you think that stating one's belief on a public Republican blog that life begins at conception, and calling Wasserman-Schulz a nut job for calling Personhood Amendments radical and extreme, is a good idea.

I can't believe these guys are getting off scott free after supporting the most radical anti-abortion laws ever proposed. We need to repudiate Personhood Amendments, not agree with them!!!

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 15:39:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pro-Wife Position (0.00 / 0)

I agree when Merrimack Man says:"I am not asking for us to be like the abortion-loving democrats. I just wanted silence on the issue, like we have had. Adding the platform plank just harms us to make the social conservatives happy. The main logical flaw on display last night - and in all these discussions - is this: people think that because they believe abortion is wrong that therefore the Republican party must oppose it. Wrong. I am against abortion also. I just don't think the Republican party has to fight that fight. Other groups, like my church, can do that. Let the Republicans fight and win other battles."

Bur I disagree that "silence on the issue" is the way to go. I tried that in my recent campaign for 19th Middlesex. In our exchanges in print, in person and in debate, "abortion" dis not come up as an issue with my Democrat opponent. We concentrated on the economy, taxes and unions. This blog wouldn't let it alone, and without ever asking me about my position on abortion despite ample opportunity to pick up the phone or asking me in person at Rep. Jim Adam's "barn" gatherings which we both attended, Rob Eno went out of his way to insert it in the dialogue of the race.  

Look to the Nov. 2 edition's front page. He has my Democrat opponent's smiling face and Rob's endorsement of his candidacy -- all because of my opponent's "Pro-Life" position. If asked, I would have agreed with the afore-mentioned Romney position. As "to save the life of the mother"  does not appear appropriate for the "Prof-Life" position of this Blog, I reiterate that women should know that if Rob ever marries, he should have the decency to let his wife-to-be know that to be true to the position he advocates in this blog, that were a medical situation to arise in which either his wife or the fetus she carries would be sacrificed to save the life of the other, that he would -- "sorry, dear" -- choose to bring up the infant as a single parent.

If this is not Rob's position -- or that of any other of the  mostly single college students or recent college grads who socialize around "Pro-Life" circles -- then why did you go after me and support my Democrat opponent? I am unabashedly "Pro-Wife." I do not believe that Republicans will ever get the "womens' vote" if its party platform is bullied in by single-college-grad-zealots who have never had the responsibility of the "marriage" they coalition over, or by married couples who advocate letting the female partner die in favor of single father-hood! This is un-natural, un-Godly and un-American.

This is the seed of the "war on women" that defeated Republicans. This has nothing to do with "conservative" but everything to do with women not wanting to die because some guy is "pro choice" when it comes to deciding whether he lives or dies when she needs her husband's support the most.

In short, if some copy-machine operator who never has had the experience of being a husband or raising a family is going to tell me that my life experience in these areas -- including operating a copying machine -- is insufficient to make me a representative of the people with whom I live, then I think he should stick to his day job as far as reproduction is concerned and leave family values to those who have accepted God's blessing of family responsibilities.                  

Doug Sears

---

by: dougsears @ Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 13:22:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lots of radicals here (0.00 / 0)

I'm amazed at how radical and extreme many people are at this blog regarding pro-life positions. I couldn't get one person to agree with me that Personhood Amendments were too extreme and hurt the pro-life cause and the party. these amendments give Personhood to embryos before they have even implanted in a woman's womb or started a heartbeat and make it a crime for a woman to use certain kinds of IUDs and contraceptives or take Emergency Contraception after a rape. Surprisingly, these are often the same people who claim to be moderates and criticize the social conservatives who support marriage as a man and a woman. It seems to be a Ron Paul libertarian Transhumanism kool aid position, all "principled" and everything, but really dumb and dangerous in real life.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 17:04:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not be silent all everything? (0.00 / 0)

What's the advantage of putting anything in a party platform? Candidates aren't required to agree with it anyhow, so what purpose does it serve? Why not just let candidates speak for themselves and not have a platform? But then I suppose the RNC platform would be the de facto platform of state Republicans too, unless we got rid of that one too.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:26:50 PM UTC

Because a party must be about something (0.00 / 0)

It is very useful to decide what you want to stand for. Also, the party must have some reason for saying, "You can run on the GOP ticket, and you cannot." With no platform at all, what would be the basis of that decision?

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:34:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do they ever say that? (0.00 / 0)

Do they ever say "you can run on the GOP ticket, and you cannot?" Any examples?

I think the GOP can stand for human dignity and equality and that's enough.  

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 13:26:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take it, "No, they never say that" (0.00 / 0)

I haven't found any cases of people not being allowed to run on the GOP ticket because they disagreed with the platform, and I take it you haven't either. In fact,

In 1996, for instance, Bob Dole famously declared that he didn't even read the GOP platform after the party rejected his proposal to insert a "declaration of tolerance" in place of the anti-abortion plank.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 00:42:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed; (0.00 / 0)

Again I believe that you are falling for a Dem ploy.  "They" say "they" are "happy" with "your battle plans" and you believe them.

Sun Tzu stated:

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

You, my friend, are going to war first, then seeking to win.  The Dems believe they have won first.  And they will continue to do so as long as you believe that whet they tell you is accurate.

Sun Tzu also said:

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Again, you have fallen for it.  The Dems use subtlety to attack the GOP platform so your reaction is to change it.

You have been "snakebit". Conservatives have been "hammered" for raising what the Dems call "divisive and hate-filled wedge issues". You have been stung by the liberal snakes and are trying to keep clear of the snake pit.

In truth, these are not wedge issues. They go to the very heart of who we are as an expression of a common culture and Judeo-Christian ethic. If demographics is destiny, culture is the engine that takes us there. And yet you refuse to ride this vehicle because the road, we were warned (by the Dems), is nasty with liberal IEDs.

You are advocating what the Dems want:  to have a "2 party system" where the parties are essentially the same.  Without clear distinctions articulated well by our politicians and ourselves, the left has little competition for votes.

Unless and until Republicans and conservative stiffen up their spine and are willing to engage in this cultural war, we will continue to lose.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:36:46 PM UTC

What would an alien think of the platform? (0.00 / 0)

I will try to make this point another way, as the loud social conservatives are simply to dumb to see ordinary logic.

-----------------------------------------------------

An alien from another galaxy arrives in Massachusetts at an RTC meeting. We explain to him how a democratic republic works and that a majority of voters elect representatives.

We then say, "Our party is weak and unpopular. Only 12% of voters align with us formally and we have little power in the legislature. We just lost again among the voters. We are unpopular."

Alien: "What is your plan to become more popular, and therefore receive more votes?"

We: "Our party leaders met last night and are considering adopting positions that are very unpopular with voters, and also are issues that we cannot change."

Alien: "That is illogical. The answer would seem to be that you would adopt positions that are more popular than the ones you have now, and that they are issues you can successfully change, so the voters will reward you."

We: "We know. But the party is led by people that cannot accept that their views are unpopular. They believe they will one day convince the majority that they are wrong about their views."

Alien: "Is there any evidence of that?"

We: "No. In fact, the evidence shows that these positions we hold are becoming more unpopular every year."

Alien: "Then it sounds like you need new leaders."

We: "Indeed."

-----------------------------------------------------

Does everyone get it yet?

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:42:53 PM UTC

Geez ed... (0.00 / 0)

...you are straying from reasonable to insulting here...

You make several presumptions in your narrative that are simply untrue, or at the very least, unfounded.

1.  That voters are "unaligned" because the GOP is "too extreme".  Almost certainly not the case.

2.  That the positions under consideration are "unpopular".  At the very least, unfounded.  Most likely you are misreading the tea leaves.  In either instance, your opinion is not correct.

3.  That adopting these "more popular" positions would gain you a) voter registration and b) votes.  Both of these are demonstrably false assumptions.

4.  That the "majority" of people are against these views.  Unfounded, almost certainly untrue.

5.  "Evidence shows that these positions we hold are becoming more unpopular every year."  Demonstrable false.

You left out THIS part of your narrative:

ed:  "Gee Mr. Alien, we ran a moderate/liberal candidate for senate who held beliefs that I espouse and he got his ass handed to him.  What do you make of that?"

Mr. Alien:  "Well ed, it seems that you have to go back to the drawing board here with some of your presumptions."

"Oh, and ed, just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them "loud" or "dumb".  To characterize them thusly is diminishing any power your own weak arguments have."

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 12:56:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am done (0.00 / 0)

Mr. V -

Your false arguments, without any evidence whatsoever, are what causes me to question your ability to be logical.

People like you are the death of the party. I will not respond to you again.

Goodbye.

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 13:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Game, set, match ed... (0.00 / 1)

....before you pussy out ed, go back and read our discussions.

I have provided a fairly decent case (I said "case" ed...I've been open to discussion).  I've included links to the thoughts of others and I have tried to be reasonable with you.

YOU are the one who degenerated the argument to insult level.  Because you don't have one (argument).  It's people like you that damage the GOP brand ed.  You want your way, plain and simple.  You don't want to have to convince anyone.

Your arguments have been classic "ipse dixit" fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

You want to convince people you are correct?  Try a better argument.  Insults and the "I'm taking my ball and going home" strategy is a loser.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 13:29:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political Parties (5.00 / 1)

are first and foremost meant to win elections. The MassGOP in 2012 has:

-Lost a major US Senate Seat
-Lost a major US Congressional Seat
-Lost sitting incumbents in the State Legislature
-Had only one challenger defeat an incumbent Legislator

The MassGOP overall is failing at its main duty to win elections. Why would we delve into a platform that has tenant wildly unpopular in this state? Why not just rewrite our own State Platform that reflects the independent, pragmatic thinking of Massachusetts Republicans at large that once led the Republican Party nationwide?  

---

by: EJD @ Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 15:14:47 PM UTC