The radicalism of Republican lawmakers in Washington tends to help explain the breakdown in American governance at the federal level. But to find breathtaking extremism, you'll have to look outside the Beltway.
The new Iowa Republican Party platform raised some eyebrows overnight, as we learned that it "intentionally questions" President Obama's citizenship, putting an entire state party apparatus on record as Birthers. To be sure, it's disheartening to see the Iowa GOP drift so far into madness.
But Ed Kilgore went further and read the rest of the Iowa Republican Party platform, and discovered that "the birth certificate requirement is far from the crankiest of provisions."
It calls for the abolition of the federal Departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Commerce. It demands a phase-out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and immediate provisions to make Social Security voluntary. Though it's a bit confusing on this point, it seems to call for the abolition of public education, or, as it often refers to them, "government schools."
It calls for U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and the repeal of all hate crimes and non-discrimination legislation. It endorses a Fetal Personhood Amendment. It demands permanent restriction of total federal spending to 10% of GDP (the draconian right-wing Cut, Cap and Balance Act would limit it to 19.9% of GDP), and reversal of the Supreme Court precedents that made possible the New Deal and civil rights laws.
At a certain level, I can appreciate why party platforms, especially at the state level, seem largely irrelevant, and have little practical value. It's not like GOP officials in Iowa are bound to honor (or even read) its provisions.
So why does it matter that the Iowa Republican Party platform is a ridiculous wish list of loony right-wing fantasies? A few reasons, actually.
For one thing, party platforms are shaped by party activists, who happen to be the folks who vote in primaries and elect policymakers at every level. Reckless activists tend to support reckless candidates who in turn pursue reckless policies.
For another, some of the same party officials who help write party platforms tend to seek elective office themselves. If they're pushing for bizarre, right-wing ideas in the platform, they'll probably push for bizarre, right-wing ideas when in office.
And finally, there's simply the matter of perceptions and fairness: if a state Democratic Party approved a radical, left-wing platform that called for a 100% top income tax rate for the wealthy and the elimination of the military, not only would we hear plenty about it from major media outlets, but Democratic officials would be pressed with one simple question: do you support or oppose that state party platform?
With that in mind, maybe major GOP candidates in Iowa -- including, say, those seeking Iowa's electoral votes -- should say whether they're on board with the wish list in the party platform?
Leave a Comment:
"Is you is, or is you ain't my constitch'incy?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Over the cliff we go. Republican insanity turning to leprosy. Get all republicans out of office and keep them out till sanity returns...a generation at least. Lying and stealing is the only way they will gain power so be prepared...we are fighting against total insanity.
the GOP has gone insane! they believe their own lies! Vote them out
"With that in mind, maybe major GOP candidates in Iowa -- including, say, those seeking Iowa's electoral votes -- should say whether they're on board with the wish list in the party platform?"
Hell yes! If this is their party platform than requiring a declaration of fealty to it (or not) is not only perfectly fair, I think it should be automatic. These things cannot continue to be ignored by the press unless they are willing to be identified as "in the bag" of the rethuglican party! These guys get away with murder, and that has to stop.
Unfortunately, only Steve, Rachel and maybe Ed Schultz along wıth a handful of bloggers wıll pay any attentıon to the outrıght scary stuff ın the Iowa GOP platform. Wanna bet that the Sunday shows ıgnore thıs entırely as a reflectıon of the dırectıon the Republıcan Party has gone - and how the crazıes have staged a complete and total coup.
Havıng grown up ın Mınnesota, I know a lot of Iowa Republıcans. Not one of them falls ınto the wıng-nut category. So I wonder how thıs happened: Was ıt apathy. Koch Bros. money, somethıng else entırerly?
Help!
It was Ron Paul supporters taking over the party apparatus.
So, even tho Santorum "won" the vote in the primary, Paul supporters wrote the platform to include positions both held?
At least they are allowing us to continue implementing Agenda 21 so that the United Nations can control our natural resources, infrastructure and land use planning. Whew. That was close!
Remind me again... What power does the UN have to do anything of the kind? Oh yeah, none. Thanks.
I printed out the complete draft of the Iowa GOP platform, which contains something like over 500 points. (I'm estimating--I have no intention of sitting down and getting an exact count!). A pretty good chunk of those 500 points is devoted to disparaging Agenda 21, which is described in the document as a "diabolical collusion of the United Nations." (Evidently the authors of the platform think that the word "collusion" means "secret plan.") For my part, I had never even heard of this "diabolical" plot until a bunch of local TP-ers complained about rules designed to protect manatees. And, according to Mother Jones, Agenda 21 fears helped defeat a light rail proposal in Tampa (city dwellers voted for it, but suburban and rural voters rejected it).
Paulbots who, to their credit, bother to understand the rules and stick with the process long after Brother Romney's Traveling Salvation Show moved on, took over fully half of the state central committee at district conventions and therefore got control of the platform. Events like this are a thing of beauty.
Romney will feel free to distance it, like Presidential candidates of both parties have done with state platforms for a long time. The fun part, however, now that wacky Steve King has a serious challenge for the first time in forever, will be hanging it around his neck. Christie Vilsack out to push him on every last bit of that platform, starting with elimination of the Department of Agricultural Subsidies.
cedar rapids iowa here , we can also acknowledge how dysfunctional the gop apparatus is , in governing , and party organization , the gop campaign leader here resigned in disgrace for being inept , my limited view of what happened in their primary is a classic case of selling out , corruption , back stabbing , lack of character and spinelessness , all the wonderful things the gop represent in office also , and you hear zero out cry about it from their party members , go figure
This is like the Texas Republican Party, which has been calling for a return to the gold standard for about the past 40 years or so.
And here I though the John Birch Society had died out...
The party platform is the foundation of the policies and directions that the candidates will follow when they are elected. That seems to be the assumption of many, including myself. If I elect a member of that party, I can expect them to adhere to the platform. If not, then the platform only serves to keep the base together and holds no purpose other than to support the views of the party activists. If the party platform is extreme, as you have noted from Iowa, than I would expect the candidates to be just as crazy. They propose to almost completely dismantle 50% of the governmental agencies. That is simply ridiculous, which transfers to how I would feel about all the republican candidates from that state. Nordquist has a lot of work to do to catch up to the whackiness of the platform you site. If American ever really saw the platforms of the parties and took them to heart, we'd have a rather nutty legislative agenda.
Is stupidity contagious or is it something in the water they're drinking? Obviously edumakashun, the absence of logical coherent thought, and pure evil are leading these people. By all means let's start asking those GOTP'ers running for office - if this is the platform that they support, should they say yes, turn them in for being psychotic.
Meh, let's just assume that anyone with an R after their name is completely insane. It'll save time.
To paraphrase a quote from the movie Field of Dreams:
John Kinsella "Is this hell?'
Ray Kinsella "It's Iowa"
So that's why they say that Iowa was named after people who live there - Idiots Out Wandering Around.....
ever since the advent of the gipper, i've been wondering, 'at what point does the light come on for the average joe, the working stiff, the ones who actually send their sons to fight the wars the romneys, the cheneys, the kagans and the boltons only dream about? at what point does it happen and these good people say, 'these guys are nuts!'?
I think the mistake this generation made: This isn't the first time in our history when the richest few gained the upper hand, to the harm of the country. In the past, the poor and middle classes always united to push back, to the benefit of both. Not this time. This time, the middle class utterly turned its back on the poor. What the rich are doing to the middle class today is what the middle class already did to the poor. Divide and conquer.
Agreed DHBranski , one example of this is the unions not supporting over all causes the working poor have suffered from for the last 20 years , they have theirs , to hell with the rest of you , I have also experienced this 1st hand working in union shops , the senior members voting in lower wages and bennys for the younger workers , after the generation before them fought for THEM to make a living wage , THE UNION REAGANITS is what I call them
Then when you here certain unions demanding help and pleading that everyone must support their causes , it really rings hollow , you saw it with the OWS protests , some unions looked at the freedom fights like they were dirty hippies and refused to join the cause
The Kagans?
What are the odds for Democrats winning in Iowa now ?
Probably about the same as they were. As someone above said, this platform is probably not a reflection of the Repub party in Iowa, just the party leadership.
From WI -- People have been pleading with the National Dem Party leadership all along to help provide the resources to recall Walker. Their indifference was quite an eye-opener. They refused until just within the past few days, after months of pressure from the people of Wisconsin. I do think the Dem Party leadership must have been "Clintonized," very reluctant to upset their corporate/wealthy benefactors.
Reading that quote reminded me of a "Family Guy" episode, where Peter got caught up in T.P. fever. If you can search with a DVR it's funny. They dissolve government in Quahog, R.I. where the Griffins live. Well, when there was anarchy Peter gathered the townspeople and said "we should get some people we vote for to make decisions for us", etc., etc….
Yeah I just watched that. And then he proudly proclaims that they were able to establish a form of representation, public service, and authority to keep everyone safe without using government.
The funniest thing, or saddest (pending perspective), is to read the Hulu comments and realize that the majority of people watched that show and assumed it was a far left episode. I don't think it ever occurred to half the people there that the show is using hyperbole to show how extremism, when taken to it's logical conclusion, is destructive. We learned this lesson w/ communism- and I've said this several times before- now we are seeing the right wing version of what the left learned long ago. Libertarianism is essentially the opposite of communism in that it allows for a far more free market and w/ that comes famine, death, disease, war, and generally speaking chaos. The same thing happens w/ communism. Both extremes are destructive. But then again what any of that has to do w/ a video review is beyond me ;-)
On a side note: does it not strike anyone else as odd (or am I just alone here?) how much emphasis exists on ending things associated w/ minority, in particular black, empowerment?
Yes it is ODD , imo the last 10 years the gop have come out of the closet with their racism , a better way to put it might be their racism has driven them out
Another comical/ sad observation is seeing them demand the ending of all social welfare / investments in the community programs , and thinking only the black people will be effected by the spending cuts , when in fact THEY would be getting the short end of the stick also
Mouzer, it does seem that way, but I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to racism. Rather, libertarian philosophy calls for the elimination of all but minimal government...which in this case, are programs intended to help the less fortunate, or least well-off, in society. All those programs impact all POOR people, not just blacks.
There is, of course, a serious problem with libertarianism in that it is not a comprehensive philosophy of morality or justice. It is more appropriately understood as a theory of property justice. Interestingly, if you read libertarian philosophers, they acknowledge that more than the "minimal state" is necessitated by morality.
But hey, no point in letting morality get in the way of a good talking point, right?
Libertarian philosophy doesn't call for an elimination of government, just as little government as there can be without a societal collapse.
Libertarian philosophy is best summed up by these two quotes.
"The best government is that which governs least." - Henry David Thoreau
and
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
gsh:
You forgot the third quote:
"I have mine, screw you." - Every Libertarian policy ever.
Libertarian Philosophy is premised on the assumption that all persons (including corporations) are rational moral actors under the Kantian model of morality. This assumption is flawed and is not applicable to the real world. Consequently, libertarian philosophy is not applicable to the real world.
Further, Libertarianism uses a Kantian concept of self and moral agency, but a Lockian concept of property. These two concepts are only partially compatible, and arguably wholly incompatible.
I don't think it's odd. I think it's a 'logical' reaction to what is going on in society. For decades, Republican electoral successes has been pegged to the Southern Strategy. Continued success is threatened by the shrinking percentage of white people in this country, and success becomes very unlikely when whites become a mere plurality.
On the cultural front, they have been losing consistently and losing badly on matters related to race, gender and sexuality. Add to that the election of the first black president (do you realize it's been about two decades since there's been a white male Secretary of State?), and the increasing radicalism of the GOP, and you have the recipe for the perfect freak out.
They have had so much success in winning elections, but still they are on the verge of losing the country, and they know it no matter how much they deny it. The evolution of America has backed them into a political and cultural corner, and like a wild animal their fight increases they more penned in they become. Or, using a different metaphor, they're like a gambler who becomes increasingly reckless the more he loses. So, why shouldn't they be going gangbusters now in efforts to reverse the gains made by minorities and women? What else would they do? Lie down and take it?
(And, John, there's a reason why Mickey prefaced her final question with the words 'on a side note', and that was to disconnect it from what she had written above that.)
Let's review what they want and why, OK?
Abolish Dept. of Agriculture - Founded 1862 - Much of what it does is either subsidies or foreign food aid and it costs $132B/yr. Most of the functions that actually serve a purpose could be placed under the Dept. of the Interior.
Abolish Dept. if Education - Founded 1979 - Intended to provide federal funding for education to improve the US education system, it has accomplished worse than nothing. Education levels have actual dropped since it was begun. All for just $19B/yr.
Abolish Homeland Security - Founded 2002 - Intended to make the country safer, but has only succeeded in adding another 216,000 federal employees and creating an even bigger and slower bureaucracy. It also violates the civil rights of US citizens on a daily basis. It costs $55B annually.
Abolish HUD - Founded 1965 - It's primary mission is housing for everyone. In 47 years it still hasn't come close and it's policies have actually caused housing prices to rise. Annual cost is $44B.
As for the rest, it would make too big of a post to cover them all. Suffice it to say they have all failed in their intent, operate so poorly they cost more than they are worth or are covering something the Constitution reserved for the states per the 10th Amendment.
The total annual cost of the other departments is as follows;
HHS - $900B, Energy - $24B, Interior - $20B, Labor - $10.5B, Commerce - $9B.
The departments listed cost a combined $1.2T
As for the tax side of the equation, 10% of GDP might be a bit too much cutting.
Historically, regardless of tax rate, annual tax revenue has been right about 18% of GDP. For 2011, GDP was $15.09T, tax revenue was $2.36T (15.6%) and the spending was $3.36T (22.2%).
The lower than normal tax revenue is likely due to the economy, but the math shows the problem. If spending had been capped at 18% of GDP ($2.72T), we would have had a deficit of only $360B (2.3% of GDP) rather than $1T (6.6% of GDP).
Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. Programs will HAVE to be cut to prevent an economic collapse that makes 2007 look like a college kid's bounced check.
You missed the whole fact they want to abolish civil rights!!!!
No, they don't want to abolish civil rights. They want to abolish laws that force people to classify others into racial groups.
If you have 5 applicants for a job and only need 2, you pick the best 2, right?
Not so fast!
Do you have the appropriate number of minorities working for you? If not, then if one of the people applying is a minority, then they get preference for the job.
So you get a less qualified person for the job, but you make the government happy because you now have the appropriate percentage of minorities working for you.
Most civil rights laws have good intentions, but never actually accomplish what they were meant to. In fact, most manage to keep people categorized into racial groups and pit those groups against each other.
Since that is the case, why bother keeping them?
Because people are homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, racist jerks and will deny equal rights to people because they're gay or lesbian, transgender, female, black or brown and for no other reason but that?
Are you seriously saying we should abolish civil rights (stop splitting hairs - abolishing civil rights laws abolishes civil rights)
gsh341
You're presuming that people will not use their personal bias to admit, sell to, hire and treat certain people differently. Because someone would like to proclaim racism dead, but racial (and other) bias is alive. Can a person honestly say if we declare no more statistics based on race (or whatever) can be used that people will just suddenly drop their biases?
That is a smokescreen or just unrealistic.
Abolishing civil rights laws ,such as EEO, does not abolish civil rights. A right exists regardless of a law. All the law does is protect that right. And those rights are not specific ton one race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.
However, a law that places undue emphasis on hiring someone because of their race, creed, gender or sexual orientation and disregards actual qualifications does violate civil rights.
Not too long ago, an organization had 15 management vacancies to fill. There was a standard qualification exam that every applicant had to pass to qualify for the position. Of the over 100 applicants that took the test, only the top 15 scores would be promoted. of the 15 top scorers, 13 were white and 2 were hispanic, even though many black and hispanic applicants also took the test and passed.
The organization, worried about potential problems due to Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act after the black and hispanic applicants complained, tossed out the standard qualification exam and denied the promotions the white applicants had earned based on the results of the exam.
That's your precious civil rights laws being used to discriminate against non-minorities.
What organization was it?
The New Haven, CT Fire Department.
This is just one example of civil rights laws and their unintended consequences.
Also, approximately 28% of the US population is a racial minority, 23% is non-Christian and 4% are LGBT.
Are you really trying to say that any US business is willing to risk shrinking their potential labor pool and market share by 28-35% (possibly more) just so they can be racist in their hiring practices and sales?
If so, you're being unrealistic.
Any business doing that needs to wake up and smell the coffee. But we still have businesses and fundraising organizations willing to throw under the bus women as customers and donors.
Look, I truly wish we could have the society most people wish for, but I am wondering if schools would be permitted to have 100% single racial makeup without being challenged by law. Would someone be permitted to turn away applicants of some other race when they are qualified applicants of other races.
Do we or do we not have legacy points given to children of alumni? Tell me, how does an oppressed group compete with legacy students whose parents and grandparents went sailing through college and given so much opportunity without any challenge whatsoever?
Civil rights laws are for all persons, so the white firefighters were able to use it, correct? Did justice prevail? That is really what this is about. There is a recourse when harm is done until such time it becomes more natural to think of the law is for all and if we break the law, we may face consequences.
No, I do not think the market will automatically do right, but I am seeing the business people are reaching out to wider customer base, wisely.
The customer base does not desire to cut funding to planned parenthood, so the wrath of the customers is a true consequence. But if someone justifies to bully or exclude someone because the law allows it, then we just say, oh wait for the market to fix it. Sorry, that's not going to work for me or many others. Which came first, civil rights or the market share concerns? In other words, would the market be concerned with LGBTQ (or other) customers if they remained "in their place". Would people applying for jobs feel so discriminated against for not being bilingual, when market sees so much potential money if they communicate the language? I hear it all the time, seem to be victims because Spanish (or whatever language) speaking is a desired skill.
It is people like Bill O'Reilly that blame secular humanists for those businesses that wish to encourage Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans and non religious folk to enjoy "Happy Holidays" and buy gifts and food items. It truly isn't some war on Christmas.
I think some day we may be able to see a fair and level field when accepting students, hiring and promoting, renting or selling, giving loans, etc., etc.. I just am not convinced we are there yet. I see an awful lot of people that resist giving certain people (they have biases about) a chance. I have been the target of such things and I do not want to endorse the practices of bigotry.
It sounds to me like people who experience privilege do not want to lose their privilege.
The only way to rid ourselves of racism is to stop thinking in terms of race.
I have friends and relatives of different races, but the only time I bring up race with them is if it's in reference to how dumb racism is. I don't see "Mike" as my "black" friend, he just a friend. I don't care that my cousin married an Arab, other than I have trouble spelling his last name right. And my cousins that are half Sioux? I think of them as some of the most wonderful young ladies I know. I often forget they are half Sioux at all.
Until we stop being African-American, Asian American, Hispanic-American, etc. and all just start being Americans race will continue to be a problem.
The first step toward this goal is to get race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to shut up.
The next step is for people to quit being so ridiculously sensitive about everything. If I chose to wish someone a "Merry Christmas" and they respond with "Happy Hanukkah" I could care less.
And people need to quit thinking the 1st Amendment guarantees a separation of church and state cause it doesn't. It does however guarantee a freedom to practice your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as you choose and prevent the government from passing laws that establish a state religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
If a politician wants to use their beliefs to guide their political decisions, thats their right.
If a city wishes to have a nativity scene in the city square, that's OK, too. After all, Congress doesn't control every single city in the US, just DC.
I'm sorry, I disagree. I would like people to identify in ways they wish to self-identify. Taking away someone's heritage seems to be controlling.
We like to measure progress for our goals. Do not businesses wish to measure different criteria to measure success or failures?
I have no problem with nativity scenes, nor saying Merry Christmas or Happy Channukah.
I only have a problem if someone blames government for what businesses have done. When Spanish is a skill, the non Spanish Speakers say "discrimination", but if some business requires a skill of computer knowledge, it isn't discrimination, it's a desired skill.
I know what the 1st Amendment says. I never said it prevented people from putting out nativity scenes It is a business sponsored inclusion of other religions that started it, not some separation of church and state.
People can say what they believe, but religious test is not required. Peoples' beliefs do not take away rights from persons based on one religion beliefs, because if we establish one religion's beliefs we are establishing a state religion. Because other religions and non religious people do not believe as that religion insists.
The blaming of secularists for "separation" is misplaced. Happy Holidays is inclusion for business sake. There may be a handful of people insisting upon removing the word God. No huge movement for it, but someone keeps trying say there is one. There was a desire to keep religion from being established and if we say this religion says same sex marriage is invalid, when we have states already marrying same sex persons, we have existing marriages that some would like to nullify using the Bible.
Are equal rights for all persons or not? It must be so if we say it is so.
I think we're done, but I do hope you will read what I said, not what you thought I said.
Here's the pitch from sandy...
...and the swing!
So, basically, the idea obviously is to get rid of all civil-rights legislation so that rights will no longer be protected. This guy isn't opposed to the Other having rights, but it'll be a cold day in hell before he will consent to their rights being protected. After all, isn't bigotry part of religious liberty these days?
Strike one!
That won't eliminate racism, it will only serve to re-institutionalize racism. At the heart of bigotry is the conviction that the Other shouldn't exist. Pretend that they don't exist and you entitle yourself to shove them into the background. Simply shut up everyone who is different from you, and then you can go about your life not worrying your pretty little head about all those non-people who look, think and act so wrongly.
That's only strike two, but since our latest tr0ll and punching bag, squish, has just flung his bat into the stands and through a little old lady's head, I'm going to call that an out.
The problem with the Civil Rights Act is not the fact that it exists, but that, just like most laws, it was so poorly written. It protects minorities from bias, but does nothing to prevent bias against the majority. It allows frivolous lawsuits that companions end up paying on just so they can avoid the larger expense of a trial.
As for racism, I'm 50% Danish, but I don't go around calling myself a Danish-American or a European-American. So why should someone that whose great-great-great-great grandfather came from Africa be insisting they are African-American? How many generations must this BS continue before they just cal themselves Americans?
Celebrate your heritage proudly, but be an American first and foremost.
And why should those "African-Americans" insist on preferential treatment due to a genetic coloration of their skin? The whites aren't keeping the black man down. They are doing it to themselves by cooperating in the race game that jerks like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakahn and others keep pushing.
I'm a firm believer that Martin Luther King, Jr. said. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
The problem is that the Civil Rights Act in it's implementation DOES judge people by the color of their skin.
Until people realize this, racism will continue as a means to political gain.
This is just so idiotic I just have to respond, then I'm putting you on ignore because you are such a waste of time (and space).
It is not enough to assert that the Civil Rights Act is poorly written. You have to justify the assertion.
Bias against the majority? That is just so freaking stupid. The privileged, powerful majority are not under threat. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination.
People can identify as they please and it does neither you nor the country any damned harm, so stop whining.
Nobody with dark skin is demanding preferential treatment. It is the unexamined privilege of your white skin that is making you see just demands for equal treatment in a distorted way.
You are no believer in anything MLK said. You are a liar.
The only correct thing you have said is that racism serves a political purpose, and that purpose belongs to you and everyone like you. You are a bigot and a racist and I'm am disgusted with your ignorant, hateful antics. Goodbye forever.
What is the vision the GOP has for America? What do they want? Seriously how is an agenda like the above going to be beneficial for us as a country?
The complete Iowa GOP draft platform is a hoot to read. Just about every tinfoil talking point gets hit (ACORN. . . .evolution. . . .abortion. . . .Agenda 21. . .Obama-czars. . .prayer in schools. . . "build the fence" . . .God in the Pledge. . .etc., etc.). The writers of the platform fail to bring up flouridation (how did they miss that one?), but do specify that federal grants should not be used to fund "bike trails, rain forests, etc." The whole document does smack of Ron Paul-ism.
One troubling aspect of the proposed platform is the lack of material on foreign policy. Israel is OK, and we are advised that we should keep illegal Mexicans out and teach legal Mexican immigrants how to speak English. But there is nothing in the platform about Cuba, China, Iran, Brazil, South Sudan, Syria, etc. etc. Apparently in the Iowa GOP's ideal Atlas Shrugged-istan, we'll just let those countries mind their own business. Never mind that their own business often overlaps our own affairs.
"At a certain level, I can appreciate why party platforms, especially at the state level, seem largely irrelevant, and have little practical value. It's not like GOP officials in Iowa are bound to honor (or even read) its provisions."
Uh, Steve, I think you missed a significant (but buried) provision that makes this platform a litmus test for state Republicans:
1.1 The Republican Party affirms that it will only endorse and provide financial support for candidates who agree to vote for legislation in substantial alignment with the party platform.
Did you catch the nullification provision? Sounds like the South before the Civil War. One of the Paul supporters who was recently elected to the state central party committee was quoted in the press as promising to make the party more conservative, as he thumbed his nose at establishment Republicans. It looks like they have taken another major step in that direction.
The state dems haven't publicly commented yet. In fact, the Des Moines Register hasn't mentioned the issue (and I don't think they covered the platform during the last election, either). Cityview (local publication) pointed out the more extreme planks the last time around -- blogger Civic Skinny should have a field day with this one. Personhood amendment, scripture in schools, abolish the IRS, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, stand your ground, pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit, abolish no-fault divorce, vote out/impeach state Supreme Court Justices who voted that equal protection required same-sex marriage, abolish hate crimes, deny the US Supreme Court jurisdiction over any marriage cases, eliminate Social Security, philosophical exemption to vaccinations, guns on campuses, investigate and defund ACORN, return to the gold standard, multiple anti-UN provisions, no 1st amendment protection for porn, no gay adoption, handcuff the EPA and the state DNR... that's just the tip of the iceberg. Then there's contradictions, like campaign finance regulation should only relate to internet disclosure, but, oh, we also don't want foreign involvement in campaigns.
The more reasonable members of the party should really stage a coup, before they alienate all the moderates and independents. Don't see it happening, though.