I voted to strike Rule 43 altogether for several reasons. Both the original rule and the proposed modifications are terrible. The onus should be on the candidate to get his or her own copy of the party platform at his or her own expense, not at the expense of the party. No candidates in my SD4 returned the survey this year, including the most outspoken proponents of it (hypocrites). I think an informed voter can read the candidates literature, go to meetings and hear the candidates speak and ask questions or call the candidate or his/her campaign office for clarification on where the candidate stands on issues. People who are uninformed voters don't do the easy things to find out where a candidate stands, so why should they make the trek to party headquarters to review the candidate's adherence to the party platform? Furthermore, I think forcing candidates to adhere to 100% of the party platform represents the "thought police". We have a choice in who agrees with the party platform and that choice is called voting in the primaries. Withholding state party funds from candidates who don't turn in the platform survey was a truly stupid idea that would have an unfunded republican running against a well funded democrat. I mean the idea here is to elect republicans not democrats right?
It's my impression that many of the delegates seriously want to turn American into a theocracy and don't want anyone to disagree with that.
You are absolutely right on this one. Some of the religious fascists in my SD called me a "Clintonite" because I disagreed with them. At least I participated in the March for Justice in 1998, when most of them were probably sitting on their dead asses watching CNN and complaining. The people from my SD that were the loudest shouters of "No RINOs" were the people who do the least for the party, no phone banks, no precinct walking, no campaigning, no fund raisers, no donations, just loud mouths. I think the defense against being called a RINO is just to agree that the name caller is more Republican than you are. It's such a silly argument . . . it's like saying you are closer to God than someone else.
Sadly this was my impression at times. There is obviously going to be dissent in a coalition type of organization. The No RINOs proponents would like to have only one flavor of Republican, which would be death to a party (the situation is different for politicians who SHOULD take more risks). I think the situation has to be looked at without resorting to overbearing tactics. For example I sat next to two delegates who were polar opposites on NAFTA (like some on FR). I would not want to drive either of them on the party though. Nevertheless, I think that candidates should be strongly encouraged to disclose their position on the platform (which has a good number of things that I oppose). Let the voters decide, but get the information out there, and tie the money to the disclosure. The Rule 43 compromise amendment put forth by the Rules Committee was, I felt, a benefit to voter education (funded perhaps wrongly due to some language wackiness but not some enormously huge burden). I was disappointed to see it fail.
We can either make it easier for them to get information or continue with the same results. Why not have a centralized location to view this information, such as on the party website. We can also expose the opponents record or positions there as well to give the voter a clear choice.