Some of the more prominant changes are mentioned in an e-mail:
Blogmaster: Have a great day, while thinking of the fact that a state GOP managed to get a self-conflicting platform put together which does away with supporting any allies or spying capabilities. Word has it that they also killed a plank that would have supported the Fair Tax, which enjoys the support of both of the state's Senators and 4 of their 5 Congressmen. Apparently, they don't want the IRS, but they also don't want the Fair Tax!I forgot to mention to you that they also succeeded in inserting a plank to oppose all foreign aid. Here's what it says, verbatim:
"6. We oppose any transfer of wealth from the US taxpayers to any foreign governments, usually referred to as foreign aid." Page 18
That's in direct conflict with this, which is right above it:
"2. We should support Israel politically, economically, geographically and militarily." Page 18
...and, I would say that it's also in direct conflict, with this one, which is below it:
"10. We support policies that protect all U.S. allies." Page 19
...and of course there's this lovely gem from page 20:
"11. We affirm the other provisions enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right to due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, nor should private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Therefore, we oppose the Patriot Act and call for its repeal."
They're saying that the Ron Paul people are intending to show out at the Oklahoma State GOP Convention in Tulsa on Saturday, May 3rd, especially after having seen the outcome of the results in Nevada. By all appearances, these people do not see the STARK difference between John McCain and these 2 socialist Democrat Presidential Candidates who are both greatly in favor of partial birth abortion (which is simply infanticide), or if they do see it, they don't care about the party unity that will be needed by the GOP in order to defeat these most historically liberal of all liberal Presidential Candidates. Perhaps they're too blinded by their zeal to have power of their own, in some fashion, to see that the need to defeat these liberal kooks is great and very serious (an actual life and death matter for many children).
4 comments:
I must correct a few things in your blog post:
1. Committee appointments are not done based upon a presidential candidates' showing in the primary. They are made without regard to who you supported in the primary, and instead are to be made fairly and without prejudice based upon whose names were recommended from their counties. In this case, the appointments made by Cheryl were actually slightly LESS than representative of the ratio of Paul supporters whose names were recommended from their respective counties.
2. The Paul supporters were only about a third of those on the platform committee, so you can't say we controlled it.
3. With one or two exceptions, all the Paul supporters on the platform committee have been life-long Republicans. One of them was even a Republican state rep in Montana and was commended by Sen. Randy Brogdon during the meeting, if you'll recall.
4. The Constitution does not permit Congress to give foreign aid. It is not one of the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and according to the 10th Amendment, all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the States and the People.
5. It may actually be better for the conservative cause for a liberal democrat to hold the office of the President than a liberal Republican. Why? Because when liberal Republicans hold the Whitehouse, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere go to sleep and allow terribly liberal things to pass without complaint simply because they were called for by a Republican. With a liberal Democrat, however, they fight against them, and hard. The end result is that FEWER liberal laws are passed under a Democrat than a liberal Republican. Look at the Clinton admin. Yes, it was a nightmare in some ways, but the GOP largely held them at bay and kept the growth of government slow. Then when Bush took the reigns, the size and cost of government EXPLODED! DOMESTIC spending (which does not include cost of the war) increased in Bush's FIRST TERM ALONE, by TWICE the amount it increased under BOTH of Clinton's terms COMBINED.
If you like small, limited government, another liberal Republican is the LAST thing you want.
I just want to make sure that I understand that comment properly. Would you recommend that we vote for one of the liberal Democrats instead of John McCain?
I'd be curious to know what your belief is about partial-birth abortion (or in Obama's case, even post-birth abortion).
Re: voting. For moral reasons, I would not vote for a Democrat. Never have, never will. But for those same moral reasons, I will never vote for the liar McCain who, until the last three months or so, was considered to BE a Democrat by even marginally conservative Republicans. Have you forgotten how he considered leaving the party for the Democrat party? How he considered being John Kerry's running mate?
The reality is you're going to get a Democrat either way. You might as well get one that Republicans will FIGHT rather than one they'll lay down for.
Re: partial-birth abortion. I'm not the one who voted for the Executive Committee slate which was packed with pro-abortion "Republicans" including a man who was on the board of Planned Parenthood until 2 years ago.
The fact you voted for this slate simply because you felt it would be "disrespectful" to not coronate those annointed by the Executive Committee whlie there was a 100% pro-life slate you could have voted for instead shows you have no right to claim the pro-life mantle. Anyone who knowingly voted for that pack of liberals should be ashamed to call themselves a Republican.
It just seems to me that a vote for anyone other than McCain is a vote for the Democrat.
While you're certainly entitled to your own way of looking at it, I'm inclined to think that if enough conservatives look at it that way, then we end up with a total Socialist, pro-abortion President, who would have both the House and Senate in full control of their Socialist, pro-abortion party.
McCain certainly wasn't my first choice, but supporting him now is the only prudent option for a pro-life, limited government conservative. At least McCain is big on earmark reform and would cut out a huge amount of this overspending. And he would also hold the line for pro-life issues. A vote for anyone else would certainly translate into a vote for Obama (or Clinton).
Ron Paul's attempt at a hostile takeover style nomination through the national delegate process only hurts McCain's chances, because it hurts the party that needs to coalesce behind McCain in order to defeat the radically liberal Democrats.
Post a Comment