A peek at the double life of the Texas Republican Party

Houston Chronicle ^ | October 12, 2003 | RALPH NADER

[TheAngryClam]

Ol' Ralph seems to have a problem with this platform and W.

I wish that W actually followed this, rather than being the pseudo-conservative that he is.

[Support Free Republic]

The Free Republic Lifeform

"... This is a wonderful description of what Free Republic really is. It is a living and evolving Life Form to battle the left wingers and those who would destroy this country!

The Free Republic Life Form enables us to discover the truth about what is happening. We can avoid the spin of the major mediots as they work 24/7 to weaken this country. We come to the Free Republic Life Form to find the truth! ...

Free Republic needs a constant infusion of cash to keep the Free Republic Life Form alive, viable and to grow. If we believe in Free Republic, we must donate each month or quarterly to keep this incredible life form alive...

Good stewardship is what this world needs, not good intentions. Good conservative stewards will insure that the Free Republic Life Form continues to grow, be viable and thrives!"

Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo To Donate

Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[SwinneySwitch]

Ralph Nadir, no bias there!:^}

[Dog Gone]

Actually, many of the platform planks are kooky. We engaged in a lengthy discussion of the Texas Party Platform earlier this year at this forum, and nobody here agreed with all of it.

[deport]

The corporatist Republicans give the platforms and the core ideological issues to the conservatives, pat them on the back at convention time and then move into office with the welcome mat for Big Business lobbyists and their slush funds.

---

Ralphie got close to the answer with the above paragraph...

[deport]

If I remember correctly President Bush then Governor didn't attend the party convention in 1998 when he was running for reelection.

[Dog Gone]

That's correct. He sent Laura to give a speech, but he wanted to disassociate himself from the Texas GOP platform.

In fact, no Republican candidate elected to statewide office endorsed the state GOP platform in 1998 or 2002.

[TheAngryClam]

Oh I know, I've read through it.

Ralph does hit on a good point if you change his rant about "corporatists" to "liberals," as we see all too often in the California GOP, with people like Brooks Firestone, Gerry Parksy, Duf Sundheim, Richard Riordan, and, most likely, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Actually, many of the platform planks are kooky. We engaged in a lengthy discussion of the Texas Party Platform earlier this year at this forum, and nobody here agreed with all of it.

Nobody, ANYWHERE agrees with it all. Over a ten year period it changes position on several matters, then changes back. We need to cut it's length be about 75% and get to the core of what we believe.

[squidly]

Surely no Democratic president or politician has ever done anything that was at odds with his home state party's stated platform. Surely not.

[Dog Gone]

What? You don't agree that we should abolish the FBI, Border Patrol, BATF, Secret Service, and US Marshalls?

From the platform:

Law Enforcement – According to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, federal law-enforcement powers have criminal jurisdiction limited to the high seas, federal installations, and counterfeiting operations. The Party believes that most crime is local and that the states, according to the Tenth Amendment, reserve law enforcement authority. Implementing this policy would effectively eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which we would applaud. Many citizens have become concerned about the expansion of federal law enforcement authority and the use of military personnel and equipment against its citizens. The rights of American citizens must be respected.

[rapture-me]

"The candidate shall be asked to read and initial each page of the platform and sign a statement affirming he/she has read the entire platform."

Actually, this statement is false. It actually says no such thing. However one of the rules (Rule 43) does say...

Rule No. 43 - Candidate Platform Review Any candidate running as a Republican for any public office on any ballot in the State of Texas shall be provided a Texas Republican Party Platform by the Republican Party of Texas, upon which each candidate may indicate for each plank item whether the candidate agrees, disagrees, or is undecided, as to each plank item, with comments if desired. The SREC shall have the platform available to the candidates within two (2) months after the adoption of the RPT Platform by the RPT Convention Delegates. Candidates for federal or state at-large office should file the completed platform containing the candidate’s responses at the time of filing for office with the State Republican Party of Texas in Austin. District and local candidates should file the completed platform containing the candidate’s responses with their SREC member(s) or County Chairmen of the districts, or counties, respectively, in which they are running. The candidates completed platform shall be made available by the appropriate party official at reproduction costs to any person requesting such.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

What? You don't agree that we should abolish the FBI, Border Patrol, BATF, Secret Service, and US Marshalls?

Well I could live without the BATF!

[weegee]

I couldn't believe it. Here I thought that I was agreeing with Ol' Ralphie Boy for once and then I got to this sentence...

"The platform has one demand that is quite sensible..."

The platform is sensible; the elected officials who signed that platform go against the public's wishes and the party platform. Yeah, we have some RINOS, tell us something we don't already know. Mr. Nader seems disturbed by what we are asking for (and here I thought that Mr. Nader was going to take a stand against executive orders and domestic record keeping...).

We want the size of government reduced and this has the Greenie Weenie shaking to the core.

[weegee]

President Bush made his fortune by getting Texas taxpayers to pay for the Texas Rangers' new baseball stadium.

Does Ralph seriously believe that the new stadium is what made the Rangers a more valuable team? Has the value of every team ballooned since all across America MLB is helping to get new "retro" stadiums constructed at taxpayer expense?

[weegee]

It has to do with the double life of the Republican Party -- the main party dominated by corporatists and the adjunct party relying on conservatives and libertarians to produce the margin of votes for victory in elections.

Where else are we going to turn Ralphie? To the national socialist (Rats, Greens, Reds, Labor...) Parties?

I think that what frustrates Mr. Nader is that the leftist extremists are anarchist socialists who urge for an unlawful overthrow of our government to reduce intrusion into our lives while the conservative/libertarians are seeking a limited role that follows our constitution. The leftists who are the garden variety socialists seek to expand the role of government.

[weegee]

The border patrol doesn't seem to be doing a fully effective job, let's put the Texas Rangers on it instead.

The FBI has been ineffective for a long time (requiring an insider's whistleblowing to solve many cases).

The BATF is a tax regulating agency.

I do accept that there is a need for a Federal investigation group, be it FBI or US Marshalls (since some crimes occur in the jurisdiction of several states). I don't understand why the FBI was financing Hamas to see if money went to foreign terrorists. This is outside of the domestic US. Put the CIA on it.

Secret Service deal with money and their role has been expanded to include protecting the President (and I support this).

[weegee]

I've tried to explain to the libertarians that under our present system, legalizing drugs would just move the DEA under the BATF. So much for "legalize it and then tax the hell out of it". Also, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

On another thread (related to Rush's rehab) someone posted a monologue from Rush where he said that to truly fight the War on Drugs, it should be legalized and then legislated and litigated like tobacco is. A few liablity lawsuits at recreational drug manufacturers would take billions out of the producers hands.

[Eagle Eye]

Thanks for posting this. When I read it this morning in the paper, I missed that Nader had written it. But so what? It doesn't seem that anyone is having issues with the FACTS of the article, just that someone has the audacity to point out the disparities between what they say and what they do.

I'm also glad you posted it because I don't have internet access right now. Seriesly. It's a hugh problem for me right now.