During a Fox News interview yesterday, Mitt Romney expressed outrage over minor changes to the language of the national Democratic Party platform.
"...I think their having removed purposefully 'God' from their platform suggests a party which is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream of American people. I think this party is veering further and further away into an extreme wing that Americans don't recognize it."
Now, as it turns out, President Obama apparently learned yesterday about some of the platform changes, and told party officials to edit the document, putting references to "God" and "Jerusalem" back into the platform. If Democrats, to use Romney's word, "purposefully" made their platform more secular, Dems also purposefully reversed course one day later.
And while there's ample room for debate about whether Democrats caved too quickly and without good reason, I'm also struck by the notion that the party's platform can be used as evidence of Democrats "veering" from the American mainstream, "into an extreme wing."
After all, has Romney seen his platform? The whole, 55-page document is online, and for those who are up to it, the Republican platform is well worth reading. Adam Serwer went through it in some detail last week and found oblique references to the nutty anti-Shariah theory, bizarre fears of the United Nations, and misguided sympathy for the gold standard. Adam also noticed language that suggests the party wants to reinstate "Don't Ask Don't Tell," too.
Brad Plumer also dug through the GOP document, highlighting its hostility towards the 16th Amendment, a desire to police academia for liberal bias, and a desire to crack down on pornography. Molly Redden took her own tour through the platform, and noticed the Republican intention to apply the 14th Amendment to the unborn.
It's not unreasonable to scrutinize platforms for evidence of extremism, but Romney appears to be throwing stones from a glass house. "A party which is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream of American people"? The GOP platform seems to get a little nuttier every year, showing increasing acceptance of fringe ideas that would have been laughed at by the Republican establishment before the radicalization of the party.
Leave a Comment:
My name is Mitt Romney and I approve this masquerade. Deceit is not an American ideal.
The DNC put those words back into the platform because they got caught. It's just like when a man gets got cheating on his wife then he says he is sorry. But in essence his is sorry he got caught not sorry for what he did.
3 months ago the White House Press secretary was asked several times in a row " what city did the White House recognize as the capital of Israel?" He would not answer the question.
It's is amazing to me that liberals can read the minds of others and it turns out that no one on the left means what they say. Its like they are speaking in tongues.
So the "liberals" made a republican move. Somehow I doubt that is the point you are trying to make. Otherwise you would be saying "yeah Dems!" to the move, huh, right winger?
That GOP platform sure has lots of big government to "order" our lives as they see fit, not as we see fit. It's a joke to say "forget about that preamble" liberty pursuit of happiness must be determined by our moral standards, not yours.
Our lives as the libs see fit. They tell you what light bulbs to use, how much salt you can put on your food, and how much soda you can drink. Yea its the RNC tell us what to do.
chem, you can salt your food all you want. My brother even put salt on his pizza, but he died at 57. You can horde light bulbs if you want, and if you hate buying 2 sodas so badly, you can buy them in NJ or something. You know, maybe some other city. FYI, I thought that was over the top about sodas.
Wow, you compare light bulbs and salt to telling women they have no right to decide for themselves and marriages in certain states will be nullified?
When did liberals tell you what lightbulbs you had to use or how much salt you could put on your food or how much soda you could drink? And how is this any different than you demanding that gays not be allowed to marry, that people not be allowed to marry in video games, that porn not exist, that women not be able to use contraception, and that abortion not be allowed legally? At the best you would be saying both sides do it.
For the record you can drink however much soda you want in New York. Businesses are just limited in what they can sell you at places like McDonalds. While I personally don't agree with this law there is a huge difference from regulating a company and regulating individual behavior. Even the biggest cynic about the New York and San Francisco food restriction laws should be able to see the difference.
It was when more energy-efficient bulbs became available, and when health professionals realized that too much salt could be harmful, and that soft-drinks are pretty much bad period.
Whenever they hear advice on what is a better or worse alternative, they always interpret it as an order, and like willful adolescents they are defiant just to be defiant. Whenever a right-winger complains about something being forced on them, that's just an expression of a petulant impulse to rebel simply as an assertion of autonomy. It really has nothing at all to do with what others have actually done or are doing.
It's frustrating, of course, but since they insist on acting like children...
Maybe that explains why they thought people boycotting Chik-fil-et or however it's spelled over their CEO's statement was somehow a limitation on free speech. I kept arguing with people at work over this (although I work in entertainment as an animator so I don't deal with many conservatives in general anyways (yes, be afraid- computer programmers are all liberal nerds!!!)) and I couldn't figure it out. I was like wait but isn't that called the free-market??? Someone buys from you if they like your product and your business practices and if they don't like them then they don't buy from you. How is not purchasing from your store anymore anti-business? Isn't that the way conservatives always argue it should be: that we should deregulate everything and let the consumer decide? Wasn't that the consumers deciding? I couldn't wrap my head around it.
If what you're saying here is true (if meaning to imply plausibility, not implausibility) then that would explain it. Because people not buying from companies that agreed with them were implicitly telling them they were wrong. And petulant children always point the finger at someone else when they're told they're wrong because they don't want to own up to having done something wrong.
chem - I guess you're not aware the the light bulb standards came from Bush Adminstration policy, before Obama took office. You just assume that since they became effective during Obama's term they must be his doing. Fail.
Cartoonthenews, I have to mostly agree that computer programmers are mostly liberal nerds ((and I love them)). My Dad was a computer programmer from the earliest days. He was an Eisenhower (and Reagan) Republican. Toward the end of his life, he was pretty much aghast with Republicans, though.
Anyway, I think this Citizens United gave companies some kind of political stances. But when they are publicized, the people (customers) react. They think that is bad, but yeah… they were active in politics and that usually results in losing customers.
Michael Jordan famously said "Republicans buy shoes, too".
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/07/michael-jordan-headline-fundraising-game-for-president-obama/q0uXceUYNSHJMe2pnIqAUK/story.html
Monk, yeah children that think they have authority over us to tell us what to do but no, no, no… I will not eat my broccoli. You can't tell me what to do, if you do, I will double down and eat nothing but donuts for breakfast.
KJ, chem's not aware because he assumes the position whatever they tell tell him on Faux or Beck & Limpy show. Persecuted by libs-snkkkkk...
I should probably say something about why I compare "conservatives" to willful teenagers. A lot of what I say about right-wing motivations comes from reading I've done on the subject of the psychology of authoritarian personalities. But not on this subject. This just comes from personal observation. I think the thought dawned on me a few years ago while listening to some right-wing pol (whose name I've since forgotten) who was complaining about not being offered paper or plastic while shopping in San Francisco. The stores only provided paper, and he wanted plastic, dammit! It's tyranny! Seriously. That's what he called it. It was just so whiny, petulant, and so much like a teenager (especially one in the early teen years). After that, I started noticing it more often. Maybe I'm not being fair to them, but then I've yet to see anything to really make me think that I'm being anything but fair.
If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times:
They have all the self-awareness of a pet rock.
In warfare- and this is warfare- you start with the rockets and artillery. When those are exhausted, you fire the rifles and grenades. And, when you run out of ammo, in desperation- and they are in desperation- you resort to rotten fruit and taunts of, "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!"
("I fart in your general direction, you silly
EnglishDemocrat person!")This is what's been missing from American discourse in general ... Monty Python references! Thanks for the laugh Day.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more . . .
Well we can't have Monty Python references about elections and political parties without Monty Python's Election Night Special
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU
Guess who would be the Silly Party today? ;-)
Are you the Judean People's Front?
No we're the People's Front of Judea
Too bad the democratic party could not adhere to a democratic process.
Too9 bad you couldn't keep your head up there where the sun doesn't shine while you peed on the fire hydrants in Wackoword, but thanks for the daily demonstration of what whacked-out ignoramuses you morons are.
Want to talk about extreme? Look up the goofy crap Mormons believe. I wish this actually were part of the campaign because it's actually funny. We need some comedy these days.
Are you talking about Harry Reed the Mormon. Because I think he has some goofy beliefs, that guy is a hand full of nuts away from a squirrel party.
Sure! Reed is just as nuts as robme. You should love Reed, right winger.
chem
That should be Reid not Reed. Really learn to spell.
Nope. Chem is apparently a doctor, chemist, dentist, lawyer. He doesn't need to know how to spell or form grammatically correct sentences (even though all those jobs require as much on some level). He just needs to know that businesses are good and liberals are bad. The fact that he got all that education using liberal schools and liberal welfare and that he makes money using liberal welfare is not supposed to be mentioned, apparently.
Everybody's beliefs look crazy to people who don't share them. It's nevertheless OK to believe them, provided the believer can manage tolerance if not acceptance for other points of view. It's also OK to criticize other people's beliefs, so long as criticism is not confused with name-calling, and if the critic can also be tolerant. A bad attitude is actually a sign that you don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, I agree with Steve that it's instructive to read the Republican National Committee Platform, rather than hope a reporter will get the details right. (Surprise: they sometimes don’t.)
So, a few days ago, I read it online, figuring I wouldn’t agree with much of it. But it’s far worse. The RNC Platform is a jaw-dropping throwback, and shows how out-of-touch the RNC has become. It embraces ideas that ought to disqualify their holders from any claim to leadership.
Here are a few samples:
1) Repeal the 16th amendment (on the graduated income tax).
2) Oppose any legislation that would regulate the purchase of large ammunition clips, or that would allow any state to have gun control laws more stringent than any other state.
3) Roll back the recent advance on gays serving in the military.
4) Zero out any tax on interest income, capital gains, or inheritances.
5) Since "young Americans" do not "believe in Social Security” -- eliminate it.
6) The census should ask respondents for proof of their legal residency status.
7) Retain the Citizens United decision, and roll back laws on campaign finance reform.
8) No federal funding for ANY type of embryonic stem cell research.
9) “Remove political incentives from publicly funded research.”
10) Recognize that: “private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship” of environmental resources. (Oh you bet, corporations will always make sure the environment stays pristine.)
11) No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
12) Repeal Dodd-Frank. (No mention of anything effective to replace it.)
13) Repeal the voting rights act.
14) Eliminate any federal support for orphans and teens in foster care. (Yep, you read that right.) Leave it to the states only.
15) Allow health insurers to revert to the practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, unless an individual has maintained “continuous coverage.”
16) Withdraw FDA approval of RU-486.
17) Recognize that abstinence education for teens is “effective” and “science-based.”
18) Revert to the college loan programs (eliminated two years ago), where the federal government would backstop private sector banks, rather than making the loans directly.
19) Immediately authorize the Keystone XL pipeline, so that “there will be no need to ship hemispheric oil to China.” (What do they think that pipeline is for, anyway?)
20) Pass a balanced budget amendment; allow for no deficit spending, even for countercyclical purposes during economic depression; cap federal spending to prohibit tax increases even in times of war or natural disasters.
21) No same-sex marriage.
22) Filibuster judicial appointments between now and the next presidential term.
23) Support voter suppression laws.
There are many more. I’m not even listing the many historical inaccuracies – recognizing that some of those can be chalked up to election-year politicking. And yes, there are also some worthy goals. For example, I personally agree that we ought to streamline environmental and administrative regulations on businesses, although most of the current thicket of conflicting regulations on businesses can be shown to arise at the state and local level anyway.
You may not believe me. So, please read it for yourself. I predict that regardless of your political leanings, you’ll be appalled.
Here’s my bottom line. One political party, representing roughly half of America, stands for this nonsense. That’s bad for America.
Like
Hoo boy. Apparently the route to 1789 is via the rabbit hole.
By the way, here it is in all its wingnut glory: 2012 Republican Platform - GOP
America is screwed. The GOP's policies have worked, inasmuch as they've turned half of our populous into knuckle-dragging pinheads who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. Kudos, Republicans! You've turned America into the Roman Empire, and now you can blame Democrats for it! And we can all enjoy our third-world craphole together!
While Truman ran against a do nothing Congress, Obama should be reminding folk that he is running against a oppose everything Congress which left him with no partner to deal with.
Doesn't have the balls.
The presence or absence of references to God in either platform is one of the biggest I-don't-give-a-damns I can think of right about now. I don't happen to want religion to influence my government, thank you very much.
What's curious to me about the DNC platform flap is this: There had to be some discussion around the "Jerusalem" and "God" issue, some back and forth on "keep it/take it out" and here's why.
Why can't anyone recall and relay that information? Then we would know how the whole thing got started? This is one of those issues that's hard to undo and correct as just an error. After all, half of the delegates still liked the platform as it was.
Oh, well.
There's also the possibility that no one saw it as an issue and therefore didn't care
Do you mean, "Should we include the line about Jerusalem?" "Oh, we don't care." "Okay, stricken." I guess I don't really see that happening, but you are correct, it's a possibility.
What do you think of just taking a voice vote for President? Ha! The battle would be for the presiding officer. All those in favor say "aye."
RobDon had no comment about the GOP platform last week.
As Bill Clinton would say: ZERO. Now, platforms are such pressing issue for Rob. I can't stand phony concern trolls.
Romney gets caught lying about Obama, military voters
By Steve Benen
-
Mon Aug 6, 2012 10:34 AM EDT
RobDon
BAM!!!!
Go Rollo, go!!!!!
Good job calling our blob!
The above quote is mine...so is this one, also regarding the actions around the Ohio voting issue:
Look, we're not obsessed with God's plan for Israel and enacting some Apocalyptic chain of events. We do have differing beliefs and some with no beliefs.
There is a friendship and a duty to help Middle East peace. OUR country needs to deal with the people in our country first.
Yes, Teapublicans party has a vein of racism running through it, Instead of confronting them, they pander to them. The onus is on Republicans to stop their own platform of division. Just look at it. Please.
Throwing African Americans, Latinos and women out in front of the cameras does not address the policies that maintain a dominion of male over female and caucasian over non caucasian, heterosexual over LGBTQ.
There is nothing equal about pretending everything is equal. It especially does not address the worst kind of stink, the continued racist suppression of voters.
It's not just Ohio doing it. It's the "swing states" that are targeting the suppression of certain votes. Totally shameful. This is America, land of the free, except them.
That's not the way the voting works Rob. They don't go through issue line by line. They have the "platform" prepared in a pamphlet that they hand out when you arrive (it's several pages long) and people read through it and then say yay or nay to the platform itself. If someone wants to amend (either add or negate) they have to say so and then get a second. It's quite possible people read it, didn't think it mattered, and so didn't care.
FTR the UN isn't sure whether it considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel, so it's not like Democrats omitting as much is some crazy left-wing conspiracy to kill the Jews (this is snark at the way it's been worded on blogs like Townhall- not meant to apply to you personally as you haven't made such an insinuation nor do I think you would). I don't think it is or should be. I think Jerusalem should be an international city and the UN should actually put it's headquarters there. Make the property belong to no one and therefore make it impossible for any one person to rule over it.
If I had read that on the paper I wouldn't have blinked to not see Jerusalem, Israel written. Too many people make the connotation of Israel as being Jewish and holy anyways. In fact that's probably why so many people have died over that one piece of land. But, I digress, my point here is that the right is assuming wayyy too much about why the left did or didn't mention it. For all we know it was a clerical error (comical and plausible).
For the record I feel the same way about the whole "they didn't mention the soldiers!" bullcrap. I honestly don't care since no one in this country seems to give a damn about our soldiers anyways. The only egregious thing the Republican Party did was act like the rest of America. I would, however, like that to be used as evidence so that arrogant Republicans can't continue touting how they're so much more patriotic than Democrats.
Has anybody noticed that even the Israelis—who, arguably, are a little concerned about their continued existence—can't agree on the fate of Jerusalem, the settlements, and the two-state solution?
So this is a political football because...?
@GM- I have no idea man. Technically the Israeli government has declared Jerusalem the capital...but even our embassy is set up in Tel Aviv (however it's spelled). How does one figure that?
I think it is because both parties have always had the same position and policy when it came to Israel, it has never been a political football before. Even if it is just a change in a meaningless platform, coupled with things like President Obama "1967 borders" comment,
it opens the door for a political attack...deservedly or undeservedly so.
Note, I'm not saying the "attack" was appropriate, but in the world of hypersensitive Presidential election year politics, any chink in the armor becomes an opportunity.
How in the world could Mitt Romney know what the mainstream wants when he's never been anywhere near it?
I'm sure that somewhere on his team there's a token member of the middle class.
I suspect that every GOP attack on the Democrats is actually something that is weak in their candidates positions/beliefs/votes/etc. As Bill Clinton said, "It takes some brass to attack a guy for something you did". They are fearless, reckless, and mendacious because very few folks would vote for them if they knew what they actually stood for.
"I think this party is veering further and further away into an extreme wing that Americans don't recognize it."
Wow, Romoney can too tell the truth - about his party.
Rovian politics 101 - accuse your opponent of your own biggest weaknesses.
Statements like Romney's about the "extreme wing" reveal what he believes his weaknesses to be. And in this case he's probably correct.
Whose God are Dems referring to anyway...some sort of American god or what?... cause I certainly don't believe in the republican's God. There must be a generic God out there or something...one that talks to idiots about how to punish people they don't like. Funny how God seems to hate all the same people Republicans hate. How did Jerusalem get into the dem platform anyway?
Keep God personal and out of politics as it always leads back to the Dark Ages of power grabbing in God's name. Whose God dems...oh no not political debates in mega churches moderated by preachers again. More fear mongering with God huh.
Where's Bush/Cheney anyway
Question: If the GOP wants to pass a personhood amendment that applies the 14th amendment to the unborn...does that in turn mean that US citizenship is granted at conception rather than birth? Because I'm thinking that would be an immigration/naturalization/deportation/legal or illegal nightmare in all kinds of ways...
Or would they concede that there is a difference between a child that has been born and one that has not?
So if I'm to understand Romney correctly, he's totally on board with 100% of the PoG platform because it's a sort of Party Holy Writ.
Good to keep in mind should a reporter ever slip past his security.
I find it offensive that the GOP replaced the well thought out word "Creator" that our founders used to acknowledge that we as a nation were guided by reason rather than religion.
We are to adhere to whom they tell us our Creator is, despite this:
MR. PRESIDENT ,
You need to stand up against the lies the right is making on the National debt.
They are accusing you of spending $6 TRILLION during your term.
I know for a fact that they are all GOP policies that caused it.
Fixing the GOP screw ups is not your spending Mr. President it is theirs.
Stimulus to save the GOP screw ups are LOANS not spending.
INTEREST on the GOP TRILLIONS of debt is NOT yours to be responsible for.
MR. President,
They will say the Democrats had a “majority”.
But we all well know the filibustering, obstructing GOP has the “CONTROL”
The unfunded wars were GOP started wars based on deception.
Mr. President,
The $16 TRILLION National Debt is GOP Policies of the past 32 years.
Stand up for your record and denounce those accusations.
Use their debt clock against them.
Mr. President,
Use ARITHMETIC against them.
Democratic policies that added to the National Debt = ????
Deduct that from $16 TRILLION
The balance will equal GOP DEBT.
This is NOT blaming the GOP or BUSH.
This is ARITHMETIC Mr. President.
For those of you that dont know why President Obama gave a safe acceptance speech at the DNC here is why. POTUS knows there is a debate coming up soon he doesnt want to give Romney or his cam[paign any direction. Thats why he told him he is new on foreign policy, and that he is the President of the United States who has hugged parents of fallen soldiers who has visited people and sw people who hv lost thier jobs and houses up close and personal. Governor Romney already not good on his feet from the start POTUS wants him shakin in his boots before he hits the stage. If he goes bland the media will kill him. If he goes bold he will put his foot in his mouth several times. Oh by the way the setup man was a big dog named BUBBA!!!!
President Obama has better people arounf him and he is using them. If it makes u republicans feel any better he will still look for compromise and shared sacrifices for the better of the country.