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.
ecgberht wrote:
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.
You do understand that the Democrats during slavery times are now the Republicans of modern times, right? There was a seismic shift in the two parties and they literally flipped. The Southern beliefs of Democrats during that time are exactly the beliefs of current Republicans.
ecgberht wrote:
"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.
Response: People who live on the coast tend to be more liberal. True. Those people are also Americans. There may be a a push to label geographically middle America to be filled with "true Americans" because they live rural and white but that doesn't make someone a "true American". A true American is one who is legally an American citizen - period.
"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.
Response: It was racist labeling African-American slaves as less than a person and you damn-well know it! 1 person should equal 1 vote and currently smaller states count for more than one person and larger states count for less. That's not fair but CERTAINLY isn't fair when you count a Black person as even less than 1 person for that state.
our best man on it wrote:
This is a liberal show with a liberal agenda, get Barrack Obama reelected at any cost, surely you know that?
If there's agenda, fine. Just present it to me in logically and not like I'm a twelve year old voting on solely on my emotions. It's a disservice to the American public that all media feels any other subject is not of interest. This entire show reminded me of the morning edition NPR interview done on the Wisconsin business owner. Surely they could've found a Republican who had deeper thoughts than this?
AJ North wrote After all, the Founders "original intent" was a republic in which slavery was legal "the traditional values as put forward by the founders of our country," that may not be exactly what one would choose to trumpet.
Those founders with their values put the tools in place to amend the Constitution and it seems to have righted the wrongs that you site, so where's the beef? Values definitely worth trumpeting by any honest analysis.
AJ North wrote "Oh, and by the way, the first four words of the Second Amendment are "A well regulated militia"
OK, so they thought a proper functioning group of private citizens armed by privately owned weapons was important to maintain a free state, what's your point? You do interpret the Constitution with the meaning of the words at the time it was written don't you?
Lillian M wrote:"If there's agenda, fine. Just present it to me in logically and not like I'm a twelve year old voting on solely on my emotions"
This show has to maintain an illusion of non biased news coverage to maintain it's public funding. What you are witness too is a deception propagated through a lie, the end product has to be a bad one.
Eric Zehnder wrote:"You do understand that the Democrats during slavery times are now the Republicans of modern times, right? There was a seismic shift in the two parties and they literally flipped. The Southern beliefs of Democrats during that time are exactly the beliefs of current Republicans".
"during slavery times" RIGHT!
The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans.
More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate. 82 percent of Republicans voted for cloture versus 66 percent of Democrats.
In the final Senate vote on the Act, 82 percent of Republicans voted "Aye" versus 69 percent of Democrats.
The same is true for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House's version was even more stark as only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
In the House, 82 percent of Republicans supported the bill versus 78 percent of Democrats.
GOP Party Platform and Position on Abortion:
Our "investigative" press never seems to examine the related moral consequences and public financial burdens of the "pro-life" position.
A huge proportion of our 3M incarcerated prisoners [60-70%?] are from "uninteneded pregnancies" of the "non-repsonsible" and or lack of education
Reports indicate that only a tiny % of the "unintended" are adopted with the remaining face the high possiblity of one or no parent bonding, lack of education, abuse , neglect, and sexual assualt, etc. It can be a revolving door life in foster homes until a legal age and then lead to the high potential of a life of crime, pregnancies and prosititution, etc!
The ability to escape from the clutches of the "unnintended pregnancy" must be slim on none.
Do we hear from the pro-life supporters the potential miseries of thousands of the "unwanted" and their huge moral and fiscal cost as "wards of the state"?
Only a tiny percentage of Planned Parenthood Outreach goes to those in need of abortion. A major of the PP "outreach" is education to prevent unintended pregnancies.
If we could educate teens and adults to practice what is reported to be 90% use of birth control practices by Catholics, the cost to the public for the "unintended would be in the Billions and most importantly humanely save thousands from being caught in a life of horror!
Ref: The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration by John Schmitt, Kris Warner and Sarika Grupta [2010]
The last caller was right on, David Keene calling his interpretation "weird" shows how out of touch he is with what average Americans are feeling. Religious extremists are definitelly bullying people into supporting extreme policy.
Did David Keane just say that primary and involved voters are obsessed with politics?
It is indeed ironic that some ideologues believe and claim only THEIR interpretation of the Constitution is correct and supports their world view. Moreover, they claim others either ignire its contents or have disdain for the document and its principles.
The Constitution is only a piece of papaer as long as partisans claim it's just for them......not for the "others". The Constitution is for all "WeThe People"......not just subsets thereof. Although many of the founders were religious people, the document is human......fallible, not writ, and, fortunately, not inscribed in stone.
It makes little sense for any group to claim their righteousness on the basis of either the Constitution or religion. It is ALL politics all the time.
Honest?Abe wrote: "THEIR interpretation of the Constitution"
The Constitution and the bill of rights does have a specific intent, some people will be right some people will be wrong in it's interpretation. But if you don't even know how to interpret it, obviously that's a problem.
Honest?Abe wrote: Constitution is for all "WeThe People"......not just subsets thereof. Although many of the founders were religious people, the document is human......fallible, not writ, and, fortunately, not inscribed in stone.It makes little sense for any group to claim their righteousness on the basis of either the Constitution or religion"
The left has made it clear that they have little respect for the Constitution, they rely on the "living constitution" which means it's subject to the whims of popular culture, obviously not it's original intent. You seem to have deliberately ignored the amendment process in your poorly thought out contribution to this discussion?
Eric Zehnder wrote:
"You do understand that the Democrats during slavery times are now the Republicans of modern times, right? There was a seismic shift in the two parties and they literally flipped." This is a popular meme of the left. "our best man on it" has written the correct response. Suggest you read it.
The Southern beliefs of Democrats during that time are exactly the beliefs of "current Republicans."
This is patently false of course, but I'm sure it makes you feel better to say it.
Eric Zehnder wrote:
"Response: People who live on the coast tend to be more liberal. True. Those people are also Americans. There may be a a push to label geographically middle America to be filled with "true Americans" because they live rural and white but that doesn't make someone a "true American". A true American is one who is legally an American citizen - period."
Eric, no offense, but you are not a deep enough thinker to converse with. This is not a question of who are or are not "true Americans" whatever that means. It's about apportionment of power and ensuring that no one segment of the citizenry can tyrannize any other segment. THAT is why we have an electoral college system. By the way, mchaun, re-read Eric's statements above in the context of my original post. A GREAT example of the straw man argument.
"Response: It was racist labeling African-American slaves as less than a person and you damn-well know it! 1 person should equal 1 vote and currently smaller states count for more than one person and larger states count for less. That's not fair but CERTAINLY isn't fair when you count a Black person as even less than 1 person for that state"
Earth to Eric. We no longer do that. When slaves were counted as 3/5's of a person they were not allowed to vote, so "one person one vote" had no meaning for them, get it? Go back and read my explanation of this piece of our history. It is correct and it is not racist - in fact, just the opposite.
our best man on it wrote:
"You seem to have deliberately ignored the amendment process in your poorly thought out contribution to this discussion?"
Absolutely, best man. With the "living Constitution" construct, there is no NEED for an amendment process. You just reinterpret as you need to. In fact, the amendment process built into the founding document puts the lie to the "living Constitution" notion.
We all know that Diane will similarly be impassioned about how far out of the mainstream the Democratic platform is, especially on abortion, with no real exceptions and federal taxpayer funding. We know this because Diane is ALWAYS evenhanded.