Here I gave some of my overall thoughts of the changes proposed to the NH GOP Platform on Saturday (redlined changes here: 2014-Platform—Red-Ruled). Fair to say, I’m not overly impressed but hey, that’s what happens when you don’t participate in the process (bad on me) but at least I get to vote on them (good for me). In order presented:
We believe that the New Hampshire and United States Constitutions were written by our forefathers to limit our government, not our freedoms protect freedoms and define the boundaries of our government.
Limit is a much stronger word and puts a better nuance of who comes first when it comes to government and our freedom. I downcheck this change.
We believe that the Founding Fathers gave the 1st Amendment has its pre-eminent position with intent that religious freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom of redress of grievances, all deserves to be protectedion.
We believe that our founding fathers placed the 2nd Amendment is in a position of prominence with the intent that law-abiding citizens of the United States of America have a right to protect and defend their lives, their families and their property without government infringement.
Why did somebody think that removing mentions of “our Founding Fathers” is such a hot idea? And then others went along with it? Haven’t we already seen vast efforts by the educational-industrial complex (mostly run by non-conservatives) doing exactly that, and that the Left as a whole demonizing them in order to demote their most precious output – the Constitution? And now, intentional or not, the optics of this is “SURE, we’ll join in – who needs those “old white slaveholder men!”. Yup, that’s what it looks like.
We believe that economies flourish when all people individuals and business owners retain as much of their hard earned income as possible, to spend and invest as they see fit.
Meh, ok, it gets rid of the perceived class structure – not that Republicans should be lowering themselves to the political structuring that Dems use to separate and isolate one group from another – even tangentially.
We believe that the beautiful state of New Hampshire, with her rock-solid values and proud history of political activism, must preserve her First In The Nation Primary position.
What, beautiful is offensive here or what? Why even bother in deleting it? These next ones, inserted in their entirety, get my goat:
“That the history of the nation during the last (six) years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican Party, and that the causes that called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph…
Rubbish, absolute rubbish. The Republican Party, throught its elected representatives in the NH Senate, just implemented the Democrat Obamare’s Medicaid Expansion. If this isn’t an indictment of sheer stupidity (in voting) and verbiage (above), they really do think us to be stupid. If it keeps on its present path of not having its officials and elected representative NOT implementing even just the MAJOR Planks, and violating whatever brand it has left, continuing to erode the Trust it once had, it should (and will) disappear with nary a whimper. Nothing is etermal, and if something doesn’t meet the needs, wants, and desires of those that support.
Or they will go away.
That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of (special) interests…and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people…
Yeah, so what else is new. Tell me, why do the memes of “Jr. Partners of the Democrat Party” and “Jr. Lackeys of the Welfare State” never seem to fade away….
That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans…(and)
And Republicans keep voting for continuing resolutions that just keep the spending going instead of standing up and saying “NO MORE”. How’s that working out for us? Look at what Speaker Bill O’Brien did – he accomplished this very thing and yet he has been vilified within his Party for doing it at worst and received little support by the Party apparatchiks at best. How does that present to the outside electorate?
Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principals and views, we invite the co-operation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.” – Republican Platform, 1860
Give me something to affirm, actually walk the COMPLETE talk, you might even get to be successful (and, um, stop demonizing those that would support you (e.g., TEA Party, Libertarians) and chasing them away).
Oppose “downshifting” of costs and regulatory enforcement from state to local government
Er, WHY do we have to do this? How about just saying “We will implement the NH COnstitution – nothing more, nothing less). Er, the above is Article 28-A, by the way – unfunded mandates. These next were inserted in their entirety as well – and the first
Oppose the implementation of Obamacare in New Hampshire Support the repeal of Obamacare and oppose its implementation in New Hampshire
Ooopsies! Lost the lock for the barn door on this one – you’re too late. The Opposition turned into “git’re done” by NH State Senator Chuck Morse, NH State Senator Jeb Bradley, NH State Senator Nancy Stiles, and NH State Senator Bob Odell, didn’t it? What a sad thing to do – the Republicans implemented it and now they call for its repeal? Seriously, they DO think us to be that stupid!!!!!
Allow free market driven health care plans and “ala carte” insurance plans free from government mandates
Allow the purchase of insurance plans across state lines
Allow for “portability” of health care plans
Yeah, well now that elected representatives of the Republican Party have helped to put Obamacare into place (even as they STILL try to say otherwise – silly politicalese!), how much HARDER will it be to do the above? Pretty darn impossible – FWIW, I think it is just political cover because it ain’t gonna happen now.
There’s a couple of others non-critical changes, but this is a big one – the complete removal of any mention of Claremont:
Amend the Constitution to overturn the poorly decided Claremont rulings and return educational funding and policy to the people at the local level.
They have given up On The People. They decided that this is a battle not worth fighting over. They have decided that the struggle is too hard. That limited State Government is no longer a goal to be achieved. That education decisions will be made, forever, at the State level.
And continue to tax us all for the privilege. Just great….
And now on to the elimination of “traditional family” again:
Encourage individuals and organizations who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers through adoption, support, counseling and educational services to meet the needs of the family
Require parental consent for minors seeking abortions, ban the use of public resources to fund or promote abortion, support the unity of the family appoint judges that support traditional families values and the sanctity of innocent life, and support similar efforts at the federal level
Continuing on is the complete elimination of gambling from the Party Platform:
Oppose expanded gambling because of the negative social consequences
If someone wants to gamble their lives away, well, the libertarian side of me goes “ok” (even as, for me, it is verboten for moral and religious reasons) but the conservative side of me says “go ahead, do so, but don’t ask me to pay for the bad consequences for you and your family”. This is a great example of “All social issues have fiscal costs” – and given the propensity of the Democrats / Progressives to want to mitigate ALL personal bad consequences, this WILL have a large fiscal cost. Bad move.
Protect the rights of law-abiding individuals citizens to own and carry firearms to defend themselves, their families and their property; oppose any taxation, licensing restrictions, or registration of firearms; oppose the requirement to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm; oppose any “assault weapons” ban; support the universal right of self defense wherever one has a legal right to be
Glad to see support for 2nd Amdendment, but again, why has Citizen been downgraded? Aren’t we seeing too much of that already? Once again, at least in my eyes, the optics of this are bad – joining the Dems on the slippery slope of reducing what it means to have the Rights of citizenship.
And finally, the last – what is SO WRONG about making the distinction clear and obvious, that there is NO question that one is good and the other is bad?
Oppose laws and programs contrary to our founding principles such as Shariah Law, International Baccalaureate, and UN Agenda 21 or other ‘sustainable’ development programs
We have been fighting wars against those that would impose Shariah upon us on a military basis – and we see the lawfare equivalent of it happening in Britain, Canada, and now here in the US. It is absolutely incompatible with the values of the US Constitution – not only does Shariah outline all public behavior but demand lockstop in private behavior as well – it is a would up rope strand of a political system masquerading as a religious system. But the Republican Party can’t be against even this, for the sake of being “inclusive”?
And as far as IB is concerned, earlier planks speak to local control of education – IB ain’t that for once decided for implementation, major decisions are made elsewhere. And don’t get me started on the Sustainable Communities Initiative.!
