[BlackGriffen]

Conspiracy Theory! (not)

Yes, the title sounds like this will be a conspiracy theory thread, but it's not. It's about misrepresentation of the Republican party at the RNC. There's a long blog entry on it. I'll just post excerpts, the only important parts of which will be the quotes included.

[...]
The morning had been planned as a beachhead. The subcommittee on “Protecting our Families” is the locus of the platform’s pro-life and anti-gay language, and that’s where the moderates hoped to make their changes. “But they stacked the subcommittee against us,” complained Anne Stone, the Chair of the Republicans for Choice. “There are two members from each state delegation to the convention on the platform committee. Those are then assigned to the various subcommittees. They waited until the last minute to make those assignments.” This tactic, she explained, prevented them from finding a sympathetic committee member who could introduce their amendments. All their known allies were — “big surprise!” Stone said — assigned to other subcommittees.

The Log Cabin and Republicans for Choice see this in conspiratorial terms. They point out that the entire platform committee process has been condensed to two days (in past years it has run twice as long); that the draft platform was released only the night before when it’s usually available for weeks; that the scheduling details and appointments were delayed and even kept secret until the last minute. “Usually we have lead time for lobbying,” said Stone. This time, they’ve been “kept in the dark.”
[...]
Barbour and the committee did, however, have time to add a few more barbs to the anti-gay language. Cecelia Levantino from New Mexico introduced an amendment that inserted the following sentences to the Protecting Marriage section:

“And we believe that neither federal nor state judges and bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the Social Sciences confirms that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home , nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”

Christopher Barron, the Policy Director for the Log Cabin Republicans, was furious. “If we can’t get anywhere at the subcommittee,” he said outside in the hall, “we’ll take it to the full committee.” (After the subcommittees wrap up, they re-convene as one unit, at which there will be a second chance to address the platform planks.) “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll take it to the floor of the convention.” Something like that hasn’t happened in a long time, but it sure would make things interesting. A majority of signatures from six states is needed to raise an issue from the floor. “It would be an uphill battle,” Barron admitted, “but we’ll try.”
[...]
“The politics of exclusion doesn’t resonate with most voters,” Barron said. “That’s why they’re not putting Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer on stage next week. They scare people.” I pointed out that, as it’s written now, the Republican platform excludes the stated opinions of almost every prime-time speaker at the convention, including Dick Cheney, who only yesterday restated his endorsement of the states’ rights solution of the Defense of Marriage Act. Barron agreed, calling the platform an “insult to Pataki, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger, whose long standing records of tolerance on gay and lesbian issues are not reflected.”
[...]
Barron was outraged. He may still try to take the issue to the floor of the convention. “We’re going to let people know about this.” And as McElligot sees it, this means trouble for Bush. “If we lose in the platform fight, Bush loses in the election,” she said, suggesting that moderates are ready to bolt. “The feeling among our members is changing. We’re not voting blind. And it will be a shock come November when we pull a different lever.”

All I'm trying to get across is this: don't only pay attention to the speakers presented. Look also at: those in power in the party (note that Tom DeLay et al won't be speaking) and the written platform. The right wingers want to take advantage of the fact that most people will barely pay attention to the speakers and completely ignore the platform.

The most damaging thing for President Bush may be to simply post copies of the RNC platform (with annotations explaining implications), or maybe just short excerpts thereof, around town.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

But does anyone pay any attention to party platforms anymore? I know next to nothing about party politics but it seems as though they've become mere formalities designed to give certain factions the satisfaction of expressing their views while everyone else ignores them. But I could be mistaken.

This is going to be a show designed to appeal to the center, just as the Democratic Convention was. Just as the Dems pretended that Dukakis doesn't exist, the Republicans will keep Falwell et al. off-camera. I'm mostly just curious as to how they're going to deal with Iraq/WMDs - will it be the Republican version of John Kerry's Senate record?

[AKcrab]

“We believe, and the Social Sciences confirms that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage.”

Great. Make divorce illegal.
50% of american marriages end in divorce these days.
The institution of marriage is failing without gays being involved.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Great. Make divorce illegal.
50% of american marriages end in divorce these days.
The institution of marriage is failing without gays being involved.

That is funny one!


It is amazing the number of couples that stick together for the sake of it or of appearances and turn into violence...

From BlackGriffen

All I'm trying to get across is this: don't only pay attention to the speakers presented. Look also at: those in power in the party (note that Tom DeLay et al won't be speaking) and the written platform. The right wingers want to take advantage of the fact that most people will barely pay attention to the speakers and completely ignore the platform.

I agree. It is in the corridors that the power is built.

zigzag, didn't you posted something to that effect a few months ago?

[Capt.McDuff]

When was the last time a platform really mattered or was put into action?

It's just a bunch of words on paper, nothing more. Or are you stating that the GOP can't be allowed to express an opinion about something?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Capt.McDuff:
When was the last time a platform really mattered or was put into action?

It's just a bunch of words on paper, nothing more. Or are you stating that the GOP can't be allowed to express an opinion about something?

speeches are meaningless superficial lures, façades.

the real flexing of power is always unseen...

Speeches are there to rally the troops under one main idea.

But the real work is else...

[Capt.McDuff]

The real work takes place in places unseen. Bush and Kerry are just products we purchase to make us feel good. Doesn't matter who we vote for because nothing will change in the background where the real power is.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I agree. It is in the corridors that the power is built.

zigzag, didn't you posted something to that effect a few months ago?

I don't remember posting anything about it, but I agree with the proposition. What I'm not sure about is whether party platforms represent a real source of power anymore. But I honestly don't know.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I don't remember posting anything about it, but I agree with the proposition. What I'm not sure about is whether party platforms represent a real source of power anymore. But I honestly don't know.

I believe you did because it did strike me pretty strongly. Anyway.