The Republican Party Platform
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-23/republican-party-platform
Election year party platforms usually don’t get much attention. But this year’s draft Republican platform is different. It’s making national headlines thanks to comments made by Missouri congressman Todd Akin -- and by a widening gap in philosophies within the G.O.P. Akin’s remarks about rape made the party’s proposed adoption of a no-exceptions ban on abortion big news, even though similar restrictions have been in the platform for nearly three decades. Other planks include tougher immigration rules and a decision not to spare mortgage tax deductions. Diane and her guests discuss the Republican party platform and what it could mean for the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Guests
Kirsten Kukowski
press secretary for the Republican National Committee.
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Jonathan Allen
congressional reporter for Politico.
David Keene
president of the National Rifle Association and former chair of the American Conservative Union.
Anna Greenberg
Democratic pollster and senior vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
MR. keene. I am a republican but do not understand why you fulminate against Mr. Obama and his agenda to put the government into our personal lives, but ignore the fact that many of the "values" issues like abortion put the government into the personal lives of American citizens. How do you see this as different?
A constitutional amendment on abortion is simply stupid. The Constitution is the document that describes and imposes the limits on the government, it is not at all set up to legislate social issues. Prohibition proved that quite well.
Love your show, Diane. David Kenne shows us why Republicans love guns...so they can shoot themselves in the foot with them. I have so much respect for you and your staff but for the life of me I cannot understand why he was invited on the show today. His strident and myopic viewpoints do not in any way contribute to the discussion. I'm all for different perspectives but Mr. Keene's whole approach is so biased and arrogant that I find him offensive.
What about the people that hire illegal immigrants and the difficulty in getting workers in AL now that the Gov. has authorized HB-56
This is how our Government really plays :
http://youtu.be/YULXawJgAE8
Mr. Keene's response to the moderate Republican arrogantly attempts to normalize what is patently a radical insurgency fracturing the party - funded by the wealthy special interests, and voiced by the most belligerent - thinking John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham...
Here we go, indeed.
Partisan Politics wrote [my comments]:
Here we go! The republican party has had the same platform for many conventions [Not true, they're ratifying more extreme elements of their platform this week - also known as a CHANGE], desiring the IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a constitutional amendment banning abortion [Then why are they doing it? Just doing it to piss off 50% of the country and further help the Democrats?]. Do any of you liberals even know what it takes to successfully push through a constitutional amendment, I know most of you don't and don't care [no, you don't know that and you're a very hate-filled person].
[break for ease of reading]
The Constitution to the left is nothing more than an inconvenient outdated obstacle [Many acknowledge that the Constitution was written too long ago to be relevant. We vote on a Tuesday because of farmers using horse-drawn carriages. We vote via electoral college because the phone, telegraph, email and internet did not exist. Black people are more than 3/5 of a person...], so nothing would be accomplished by trying to educate you on what you have no respect for in the first place.
[break for ease of reading]
Let's get down to which party really has the "extemist" platform. The republicans are all about the strength of the family unit [as long as they're straight], a strong national defense [which is larger than the next 10 countries in terms of spending despite our current opponents using 50 year old AK-47s and still killing us] and the traditional values as put forward by the founders of our country [the founding fathers believed religion shouldn't be involved in politics, owned slaves, and couldn't have possible imaged a world that we currently live in], that's it! The democrats on the other hand are about fostering a dependency on government [that's a lie], wealth redistribution through onerous regulations [like removing tax breaks for companies that make Billions in profit every quarter], welfare programs [for those that would otherwise die or resort to crime in order to survive], an ever increasing progressive tax system [so that millionaires and billionaires help the country that fostered their wealth] and the baiting of racial and gender issues to drive voters to the poles out of hate and fear [Which party is pushing through bills that let women die rather than perform an abortion? Which party forces a woman who is raped to have the child?]. So when this conversation turns to the "war on women" know that the keynote speaker at the democratic national convention is an accused rapist and known adulterer, Bill Clinton [Accused but no proof of this. I'd rather have a President fool around outside of marriage than start an endless war that was a lie to the American people.]. I know which party I view as having the extremist platform, it ain't the republicans. [Contrary to general public opinion which is formed by actual statements by Republicans, obstructionism, and general incompetence of your beloved party]
P.S. - We need this so that parties don't have to mean all things to all people: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/
One of the guests was decrying government involvement in the private lives of individuals at the same time they're putting in their platform and have a policy of the most intrusive involvement in the private lives of women in American history.
As if there won't be enough hot air in Tampa, it seems that a hurricane might be contributing even more air.
I wonder if the Almighty might be expressing his displeasure with America in general, and our our so-called political process as well.
Political platforms? Just something created by politicians to stand on so that they aren't swimming in the muck they created for everyone else.
It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone so closed minded as you. You have your mind made up. Fine. Who cares though if you're not open to discussing the real issues, not just repeating Fox News talking points. And family values? Please. The list of shamed Republican officials forced to resign over sex scandals, gambling addiction, bribes and financial corruption, and pretending to be a righteous straight while screwing gays is an endless list.
Thank you for pointing out that there is supposed to be seperation of church and state!
Eric Zehnder, I'd have had some further comment on that but you nailed it - well said.
It's great to see the NRA is instrumental in developing Republican policy, and limiting birth control, and women's access to health care is the direction conservatives are still pursuing?
As the GOP drifts further away from the concerns and priorites of most Americans, we may be seeing the extinctiion of a major political party.
What a joke, its a shrinking party of dishonest, misguided clowns.
David Keene, you have to lose that habit you have of preceeding your comments with that silly laugh. You do it every time you are about to either prevaricate, shade an issue or sidestep a question with a talking point. It makes you sound quite disingenuous.
I wish Diane would have asked Mr. Keene when he used the argument, "Some 2nd Amendment supporters do not believe the NRA has gone far enough in some areas," to give an example. I have never heard of such, but then again I do not listen to Ted Nugent. Can any of you NRA supporters give me an example? Thank you.
Eric Zehnder wrote:
"Many acknowledge that the Constitution was written too long ago to be relevant."
And they are mostly leftists to whom a government formed on any kind of actual principles is anathema.
"We vote on a Tuesday because of farmers using horse-drawn carriages."
And some parts of the country are experimenting at changing that. There is no Constitutional requirement to vote on a Tuesday. So what is your point?
"We vote via electoral college because the phone, telegraph, email and internet did not exist."
Pattently false. Read the history of our voting system. The founders entertained many election formats over a number of years before settling on the electoral college and it had nothing to do with "phone, telegraph, email, or internet" not existing. It had to do with small states being less subject to the tyranny of larger states. I'm sure you would be happy to move to a popular vote system wherein the country could be ruled by the left coast and the other left coast. The founders were smarter than you.
"Black people are more than 3/5 of a person"
Again, read the history of the reasoning behind this. It wasn't to "denegrate black people". It was to lower population counts in states with heavy slave populations to mitigate the issue of the south half of the country controlling the rest of the country in areas where census came into play.
Eric Zehnder wrote:
"The democrats on the other hand are about fostering a dependency on government [that's a lie],"
No it isn't! When Vice-President Biden said, "they gonna put y'all back in chains" he could have been talking about the history of the Democratic party. From the slave holding Democrats of the 19th century to the welfare Democrats of the 20th century to the food stamp Democrats of the 21st century, Democrats have ALWAYS striven to keep the underclass in chains. First it was litteral. Now they just keep them chained to the government.
Kathleen, they're not even really pro-fetus, just pro-birth rate. They want to cut funding for prenatal care. All they want is sufficient numbers of births to guarantee sufficient numbers of soldiers for their wars and drones for their factories and fields competing against each other for reduced wages and worse working conditions.
CharlesEB wrote:
I wish Diane would have asked Mr. Keene when he used the argument, "Some 2nd Amendment supporters do not believe the NRA has gone far enough in some areas," to give an example. I have never heard of such, but then again I do not listen to Ted Nugent. Can any of you NRA supporters give me an example? Thank you."
I'm not an NRA supporter, but I've heard numbers of them speak against any background checks or licensing requirements for handguns as an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. I've even heard some say that barring people with mental illnesses from obtaining weapons was discrimination and that felons should be able to have weapons once they've completed their sentences.
Accuracy in language is essential if we are to know exactly what is being talked about. Precise language is essential to clear thinking. So-called “pro-life” is actually anti-choice, and should be called that.
Pro-choice IS pro-life: it values the woman’s life.
Anti-choice defines the value of the women’s life solely on the basis of her function as an incubator.
A woman’s life has developed over a number of years: it is a life in which society has an investment: raising her, educating her, keeping her healthy, etc. To support a woman’s right to continue to live and develop her life in the way that is best for her and the people around her is PRO-LIFE. The anti-choice position actually accords greater value to potential life than to vested, actualized life. Is a packet of seeds the same as a garden of flourishing plants?
To dehumanize women as incubators whose (often accidental) contents must be saved at all costs is disrespectful to the sanctity of the woman’s right to life as an individual human being.
Unfortunately, the anti-choice people have hi-jacked the language used to talk about these issues, and the pro-choice people haven’t taken it back. As a consequence the rhetoric more often than not misses the real point.
Thank you for the reply Jokr8790. You make some interesting points. I think Mr. Keene may have been technically correct, but I think there is little doubt that some, if not all, of the points you make are things the NRA publicly supports, but has only done so as a compromise to avoid overall stricter regulations being put in place. I do admit that not know specifically what the NRA's stances are on all your points or how they came to those conclusions, and therefore my thoughts are currently conjectures. Today's show has given me something to research, and research is fun! :) Thank you Diane for another thought provoking radio show!
Well said Carolyn.
Carolyn Bloomer wrote:
"So-called “pro-life” is actually anti-choice, and should be called that.
Pro-choice IS pro-life: it values the woman’s life."
Ah! You have hit upon it Carolyn. So I will ask you the same question I have asked so many times on this board. I have yet to get an answer.
There are three parties to an abortion and their interests are all different.
The woman looks after her interests.
The doctor looks after his interests (with respect to lawsuits, etc. as well as the health of the mother)
Who speaks for the unborn dead?
Where is his or her "choice"?
"To dehumanize women as incubators whose (often accidental) contents must be saved at all costs is disrespectful to the sanctity of the woman’s right to life as an individual human being. "
Someone has put this much more eloquently than I have. "This is not a control issue. People who are strongly opposed to abortion aren't focused on controlling women's bodies. They are focused on the little ones who depend on their mother's wombs for support and stand to be betrayed by the ones they count on. To a pro-life advocate, those are new and unique individual people who are just starting on the continuum of life and development that all of us are in the middle of. They are the most vulnerable of all and yet their mothers would betray them and destroy them. That is what it is about. If the mothers go out and drown them in the bathtub two years after they're born almost everyone would get upset. But they were the same babies when they were still on the umbilical cord, just not as old, grown and developed."
I really wish we could replace the term "pro-life" with anti-choice. You are not wholly pro-life if you support the death penalty, which is the case for many abortion foes. Likewise, pro-choice does not entail an anti-life view. The whole purpose of family planning services is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, thus lowering the incidence of abortion.
Not sure why one thinks the platform position on abortion sways the presidential election. Congress is where the mischief is done. If people oppose it they need to change their vote for their congressman, which right now looks as thought it is leaning heavily Republican.
There's plenty of political frenzy happening on these posts. But we should all realize by now that no amount of rhetoric is going to change our minds about which party we support. We're either die hard Dems or Republicans and we will vote accordingly this November. The votes that are still on the table belong to so-called "Undecideds". The important question, and perhaps the only one that matters is, "What are the parties doing to court these folks?"
The unfortunate reality is that many people vote for the party that will give them what they want, not necessarily what is best for our Country as a whole. The "me-first" people can be found in all our social classes in society; rich, middle class, and poor. And they are certainly to be found in positions of power in Washington D.C. Corruption is the issue that needs to be addressed. Everything else is just a "red-herring" to keep the focus off the real threat! Open your eyes!
Nevermind our heinous war in Iraq, let's talk moral issues on abortion as the priority issue for our nation. Infuriating.
Lillian M wrote: " let's talk moral issues on abortion as the priority issue for our nation. Infuriating."
This is a liberal show with a liberal agenda, get Barrack Obama reelected at any cost, surely you know that?
Of course, I cannot speak to how many might know what the requirements are to amend the Constitution of the United States (nor how many care) -- of any political stripe.
For the record, to amend the Constitution:
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it (a method that has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition).
There is also a time limit; the Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, however there has never been an actual determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.
As far as Republicans being all about "the strength of the family unit" and "the traditional values as put forward by the founders of our country," that may not be exactly what one would choose to trumpet.
After all, the Founders "original intent" was a republic in which slavery was legal -- and the ONLY citizens who could vote were white male adult (twenty-one and over) property owners; it wasn't until 1810 that the last religious prerequisite for voting was eliminated, and 1850 when property ownership and tax requirements were eliminated. It was not until 1910, and the seventeenth amendment, that U.S. senators were elected by the people of the respective states, rather than the states' legislatures, and 1920 when women finally got to be full citizens with the ratification of the nineteenth amendment -- their right to vote.
The "Right's" view of the "family" is likewise regressive and repressive, belonging to the dustbin of history -- not the twenty-first century.
Oh, and by the way, the first four words of the Second Amendment are "A well regulated militia" (followed by a comma).