Maine Republicans Adopt Tea Party Platform

[Walter Ego]

This is surprising because Maine Republicans are usually known for being moderates.

The official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

Dan Billings, who has served as an attorney for the Maine GOP, called the new platform "wack job pablum" and "nutcase stuff."

http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/maine-republicans-adopt-tea-party-platform

The entire platform can be read here (pdf doc).

Edit:

Tea partiers celebrated two victories this weekend. The first was ousting Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah after 18 years in office at the state's Republican nominating convention. The second was rewriting the Maine Republican Party's platform to read like a Tea Party manifesto, anti-ACORN provisions and all.

Both victories were greeted with shock—and predictions of more Tea Party revolts to come. "It's the beginning of a trend," said Robin Wright of Bennett's defeat on ABC News' This Week. But neither event is likely to be replicated on a large scale. Rather, they were examples of grassroots activists taking advantage of the quirks in two states' electoral processes—in one case, the nominating process, in another, the party platform process—to draw national attention...

Most state GOP conventions accept the party platform approved by the platform committee, which consists of party representatives from each county. When the platform reaches the floor, other delegates sometimes offer minor amendments. This time, [in Maine] though, one county committee offered an amendment that would repeal the original platform and replace it with a whole new document. It passed. Now the official Maine Republican Party platform explicitly opposes the Fairness Doctrine, advocates a "return to the principles of Austrian Economics," and warns against "efforts to create a one world government."

http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=read&id=2253502

 

[Darth Rotor]

Given what happened to Bennet in Utah, this appears to be a survival tactic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well at least the Tea Party is now getting behind actual agenda's. Shame they failed to get Obama deported in Arizona though, that would have been a major victory for them.

 

[Upchurch]

Given what happened to Bennet in Utah, this appears to be a survival tactic.

It is an interesting situation. The GOP is moving towards the fringe elements of the right to win popular support from their base. In '08, this was at the cost of the general election. A "win the battle, but lose the war" sort of thing.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I have to think party leaders are aware of the lesson from that last election. Perhaps it is a strategic move: Hold the party together for now, take the lumps, and reposition for a stronger position later on?

 

[BaaBaa]

The neighbours done lost their minds!

 

[Thunder]

good. let the GOP destroy themselves. it will ensure Obama's re-election in 2012 and the Democrats keeping Congress in November.

 

[Upchurch]

let the GOP destroy themselves.

That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It is an interesting situation. The GOP is moving towards the fringe elements of the right to win popular support from their base. In '08, this was at the cost of the general election. A "win the battle, but lose the war" sort of thing.

When the better strategy might have been to lose a battle but win a war. They ought to take a lesson from the Democrats a few years and decades back, on how giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I have to think party leaders are aware of the lesson from that last election.

I doubt it. They are still kilt fitting.

Perhaps it is a strategic move: Hold the party together for now, take the lumps, and reposition for a stronger position later on?

You don't win without the swing voters. What they are doing now seems to be hell bent on alientating same.

DR

 

[drkitten]

When the better strategy might have been to lose a battle but win a war. They ought to take a lesson from the Democrats a few years and decades back, on how giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections.

Well, that's the question. Most of the energy, money, and publicity is already coming in from the fringe. If the fringe can't control the Republican party, they have already been making noises about creating a new party they CAN control.

Giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections. Giving the fringe too little voice might well cost the Republican party its existence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

Depends, if they feel that they can get enough people to vote more against the democratic party instead of for them than they can win. I doubt that they can get that level of hate going on, as Bush II seems to be the only politician to be able to do that in recent history.

Long term this is a bad strategy, but long term thinking is getting more and more passe anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Giving the fringe too much voice can cost them elections. Giving the fringe too little voice might well cost the Republican party its existence.

I see what you are saying, but I think it's the other way around.

Give the fringe too little voice costs money, costs elections.

Give fringe too much voice and the GOP becomes a fringe party, not one of the major power blocs. See how well that worked out for the Greens and Libertarians.

I wish I had a pithy line about how the Whigs became irrelevant. Maybe it doesn't matter.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Long term this is a bad strategy, but long term thinking is getting more and more passe anyway.

If you mean in the GOP, seems true at the moment. If you mean generally in politics, I think a notable exception to that perceived trend is President Obama.

I offer a few data points for your condiseration, though this idea isn't original with me. In the past five months, I have read a few articles on people who have worked with him on his campaign, and elsewhere, who each commented on his abilities in strategic thinking.

He took his time, didn't rush, in his decisions on what to do in Afghanistan.

The bailout of GM was seen as a short term fix, but it looked to me more strategic, in terms of his aims and goals for energy efficient cars and the health of the US auto industry. (The decision on Chrysler in the 80's was linked in part to tank production, don't see that link in the GM move).

His patience on the DADT change, and how he's made the DoD take ownership of that change. Very different strategy from Bill Clinton's.

He is patiently engaging with Iran. That play looks to be more long term. (Recent article with Hillary Clinton, Sec State, shows me that the general Iran approach is mid to long term strategic in scope). They are now relooking the regional defense/security umbrella. May not work out to be that big of a change.

His relative patience with the Health Care debate which was almost unnecessary, given that he had both houses of Congress on his side of the aisle already.

This is a slight derail, so back to the Maine Tea Party platform, strategy, and the self immolation of the GOP, which began for my money in 2004.

CT moment: maybe "they" have intended for the GOP to self-destruct all along!

 

[Chaos]

That's what I'm saying. At this point, they may not have much of a choice. Either they bow down the the extreme right fringes and lose the election, or they risk fragmenting the party (possibly, but not likely, loosing out to the rise of a new two party dynamic that doesn't include the GOP) and lose the election.

It's a lose-lose situation, but one loss is better than the other.

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?

 

[Darth Rotor]

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?

Defeat as a habit.

 

[casebro]

But what if, in trying to avoid having the extreme fringe split off, they go so far to the extreme that the saner parts of the party split off, because they can´t take the tea-partyism any more?

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

Too easy.

 

[AlBell]

Then merge with the moderate Dems, and become the Centrist Party, with 65% of the power?

Too easy.

Not really. Moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron.

 

[Chaos]

Defeat as a habit.

If they cause the moderates to split off, then whether or not these moderates join the Democrats, the One True Republican Party will be weaker than it was, and thus in all probability weaker than the Democrats, with or without the moderate ex-Republicans.
However, they *might* cause some nutters, non-Tea-Party variety, to join for whom the original GOP was way too moderate; if they can create the appearance of really meaning the anti-federal-government stuff they spout, they might even catch some Libertarians who are sick of always losing elections with the Libertarian Party.

If they cause the nutters to split off, this will also weaken them, but it *might* cause more middle-of-the-road people to join them, for whom the original GOP was too right-wing, and some of the more conservative Democrats might be persuaded to vote Republican now and then, so the More Sane Republican Party may or may not be stronger than before.

It really depends on the numbers of moderates versus the numbers of nutters out there.

 

[tyr_13]

Not really. Moderate Dem is a first class oxymoron.

That statement really says more about you than about Dems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

The real reason why a centrist party is unlikely to form in the US is that the two major parties are defined by their fringe. Every Centrist has an opinion on one of the more contentious policy issues that aligns with the fringe more closely than the 'centist' position. Couple this with the US 'all or nothing' political system which awards no power to second or third place, and you have a system very resistant from changing away from two parties that are for the most part and in most times, just left of center and just right of center. That currently the Republicans are moving towards the right, or even the far right, will mean trouble from them if they don't play it right.

 

[AlBell]

That statement really says more about you than about Dems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

..... two parties that are for the most part and in most times, just left of center and just right of center.

A belief that the Democrat party is 'just left of center' says more about the usual far-left social-progressive atheist who posts here rather than reality.

We'll discover who's 'right' in 2010.