The King County Republican convention is this Saturday. (Details at kcgop.org.) The major business of the convention will be adopting a county platform. According to the bylaws, a draft of the platform must be available a week before the convention, so here it is:
King County Republican 2006 Draft Platform (pdf)
A few notes:
p1 line 41 - typo, "tour" should be "our".
p2, line 6 - do you mean to say retrofit? Or rebuild? While shoring up the viaduct may sound attractive, all info I have says it will be almost as expensive as rebuilding it. I hope you meant to support rebuilding the viaduct, at a reasonable cost and hopefully with some attention to aesthetics, and not simply a "retrofit."
p2, lines 31 and 32, p3, line 26. Why do these three planks need to be in here? You drive away people with crap like this, and for no achievable benefit. They contradict the great sweeping language of freedom in the preamble. The planks aren't specific about what facts, when learned accurately, "encourage sexual activity" or "promote homosexuality," and they ignore the fact that children are curious, they will ask questions, and they end up learning distorted biological information from, well, who knows where (parents, siblings, TV, porn) when they talk about sexuality with their friends.
Just leave this stuff out and let parents get involved with the schools and the schools' curriculum as they see fit (and recognize that there are many republicans who would never vote for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage - on grounds that are the same as our opposition to interpreting the commerce clause to allow federal laws prohibiting a farmer from growing certain crops on his own fields, or even his family garden: its about freedom and the proper meaning and role of the Constitution versus the state and federal legislatures).
99% of this platform is awesome - but these three planks get all the rest of it ignored by a great many people, they prevent me from wholeheartedly embracing the party, and they ultimately make republicans sound like reactionary, hate-filled bigots or religious zealots. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot on this issue over and over again - when will it end?
Posted by: srogers on April 24, 2006 11:58 AMI am strongly pro-life and have always been and it is terrific to see that our party remains the party of life. The section on this issue is beautifully written and succinct. It expresses everything I believe in a positive and affirming way.
Kudos to the committee.
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on April 24, 2006 12:20 PMAs far as the WASL is concerned, yes, it is a terrible test. The absolute worst part of it is only Washington students are taking it. There is no way to calibrate the test. We need something like the ITBS which is administered in many, many states. I'd actually like to see SAT or ACT be the standardized test. The students have to take them anyway, at least those students who actually care about school.
Kalomar, turning this platform into action is what we the Republican laypeople have to do. if we get behind this platform and remember it and keep our politicians reminded of it, then it will be effective. If we treat it as something for the moment and without lasting consequences, our representatives will do the same.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 24, 2006 01:03 PMMost of us feel that it is the parent's perogative to educate their children how they see fit, whether it is distorted or not. You obviously disagree. I am ignoring the rest of what you said. You don't think so good.
Posted by: huckleberry on April 24, 2006 01:11 PMI would like to see the "common good" defined as opposed to the "individual good." Too often the budget is increased in the name of "the common good" when in reality it is the "individual good."
Posted by: JCM on April 24, 2006 01:12 PMEducation.
I think that you should take out the word homosexuality, and address it elsewhere. In my opinion, there are two issues here. First is the innapropriate presentation of promiscuity in any sexual situation, hetero or homo with regard to education. You address that already. Second, is the issue of multiculturalism and minority activism. Homosexuality, like illegal immigration, race issues etc. has become more about esablishing minority and class rights. I supect that even many religious Republicans will recognize that there are indeed some homosexuals in our world. Even if the percentage is very small, and I believe that's the case, the problem is not that they are homosexual, but that they believe that there should be special rights attached to that status. As long as homosexuals practice their sexuality in private, which is exactly what I would expect from heterosexuals, then there should be no issue, and in fact, that should be the conservative viewpoint. Certainly the government has no place in regulating and individual's sexuality, in either a supportive or unsupportive manner.
Life
I firmly disagree with limiting either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Earlier in the document, you make mention of an individual's right to pursue their own hapiness, and to limited government. It's entirely inconsistent to the use government to limit and individual's choice as to how and when they end their own life, and/or what constitutes their hapiness or lack thereof. If an individual leaves explicit instructions for euthanasia in a living will, or wants to end their life through suicide, there should be no government involvement whatsoever, because these are choices of the individual. Obviously these choices should only apply to full, legal, rational, consenting, of age adults, but once an individual is of age and responsible for their own life, they are already making life and death choices on a regular basis in how they interact with the world. It's entirely the opposite of conservative to use government to limit a freedom, that most of us, would not ever consider, but that should always remain open under our system of limited government. There are stronger arguments for limiting partial birth abortions, etc. because at least in those cases, there is another, non-consenting human life involved. And I think you carefully side-stepped the issue of abortion. That's a shame. The genie is out of the bottle on abortion, and a significant number of conservative and liberal minded Washingtonians are going to believe in some form of abortion, even if they believe that it should be very limited and very rare. I realize this is a tricky issue because it evokes so much passion, but I believe that a balanced and rational approach to all tricky issues like abotion, illegal immigration, drugs, etc. is necessary to achieve real practical results. Religious conservatives would do well to concede some portion of the abortion debate to the physical reality of the widespread expertise allowing abortions to be performed. A good balance might be to limit it down to the first trimester, etc. I'm not sure of the best possible compromise, but I do know that sticking one's head in the sand on abortion won't win over more moderate voters. There are practical considerations given the real world. I'm not personally a believer in abortion, but it's also very sad when an unwanted child is brought into the world. And the kind of people that make poor choices, engage in sexual promiscuity, etc. are probably not going to obey any attempts to control abortion.
Property Rights and the Environment
You don't go far enough in this section. There are many other forms of intense government encroachment on property rights under the cloak of environmentalism. Irrational fears and responses to "Global Warming" and other very vague threats. And in Pierce County and elsewhere in the state, Draconion "Wetlands" laws that turn every puddle into government protected land. I'd beef this section up a lot. More people will respond to the protection of their private property than the views of a few extreme-left wacky environmentalists, regardless of party affiliation.
I guess I'll just have to miss out on the joy of reading the rest of the draft.
If the teachers had been holding their pupils and students to standards by administering "rigorous, fact-based" tests, we wouldn't have considered the need for a WASL.
The grades and promotions given to public school students meant so little that we needed a way to find out what the students and pupils were actually learning.
The ITBS and other such norm-referenced tests tell you only how well (or poorly) your students and pupils are doing compared to all the others who take the test. These tests do not tell you much about what the students have learned.
The WASL and other such standards-based tests tell you whether your students and pupils are learning what you wanted them to learn.
I agree that information about reproduction and sexuality ought to come from parents, but I see no harm in teaching factual information to anyone, anytime. The truth never hurts, and it does not promote any agenda or encourage behavior, good or bad.
So read on - it won't hurt you.
Posted by: srogers on April 24, 2006 01:51 PMSo with that, I agree, the WASL mention in the Education section should be removed in favor of real assesment tests such as the SAT that measure individual performace and real knowledge.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 24, 2006 02:40 PMI'd also like to remind all the delegates that we're not writing law here; the platform is just supposed to reflect the basic philosophy of the party. Let's not wordsmith it to death at the convention. Unless there's something you actually disagree with or something missing, let's pass the planks pretty much as written. My experience from the past is that we usually get about a third of the way through the platform amending amendments of amendments to tweak the wording and finally get so tired and hungry late in the afternoon that the rest of the platform is passed by acclamation.
Posted by: RBW on April 24, 2006 02:48 PMPLEASE!
I went to one of these things ten years ago and at that time it was obvious that all too many didn't know what was going on. I remember one vote to end debate where it was obvious that people thought they were voting on the motion itself.
Most of the time though, the PCOs are just mind numbed robots who look to a leader to tell them how to vote. But perhaps people are finally thinking for themselves.
Well, just read up before you go. Perhaps then you won't look so stupid.
I hate elitists but I also admit I do have some elitism in me. I hate it when the grassroots give the elite reason to have the low opinion of them that they do.
http://www.robertsrules.org
http://www.robertsrules.com
http://www.rulesonline.com
Posted by: Conservatitve, Not Republican on April 24, 2006 03:04 PMThe WASL is a valid and reliable measure of learning.
If you believe otherwise, please provide a link to your source of information.
The SAT is an aptitude test which can tell a lot about the learning achievements of those who take it, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to determine a student's scholastic aptitude as a means to assist in deciding whether to grant admission to a college or university.
I figure there is one reason so many people want to throw out the WASL: It shows what everyone already knew, that is, half our students haven't learned anything close to what they needed to learn -- and shows exactly which students are the non-learners.
That last fact is something that has been pretty well hidden by the teachers and the inflated grades up till now -- and it is the one that rankles the most.
People who want to eliminate the WASL have taken that position simply because they don't want a valid and reliable measure which will identify those who haven't learned what we wanted them to learn.
If the Republicans join the Demwits and teachers union in advocating the elimination of the WASL, then it's over.
I always figured that our politicians would chicken out, rather than send "Johnny" home with a report that says he cannot read.
It has been just fine to send home a "Johnny" who couldn't read -- so long as no official test said so in plain terms.
That's what the people want, so that's what they should get -- good and hard.
Posted by: Micajah on April 24, 2006 03:18 PMWhat would we do to a cop who refused to enforce laws they didn't agree with? Or soldiers who refused to fight an enemy? Or firefighters who refused to rescue certain people? Why should health care workers be any different?
I'm sure we have some small business owners here. What would you do if one of your employees refused to perform a service for some of your customers, and was costing you money? And what if the State came barging in and told you you had to honor their prejudice?
On the face of it, assessment is a good thing, but frankly the real world is going to do its own assessment either way.
There are definitely societal implications of allowing a bunch of stupid, bored kids to emerge from our schools, but I'm not convinced that assessment tests are the magic bullet.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 24, 2006 03:33 PMShame on you. If you're going to argue by analogy, use valid analogies. You've used four screamingly invalid analogies out of four.
Police, firefighters and the military are 1) public servants, and 2) the image we get is that of an emergency situation, which is where these folks come in really handy.
How is an independently licensed pharmacist telling a pregnant woman that she will have to go to a different store to get an abortion pill -- not like there's a shortage of places she can do that -- the same as a cop from some weird cult religion refusing to intervene in a domestic violence incident because of his extreme views on patriarchy? Any comparison of these is invalid.
And your small business example is also faulty. Now, if I start a business called Northwest Abortion Supplies, and I have an employee who refuses to sell our abortion pills, then yes, he's probably going to get fired. But if my business is Northwest Pharmaceuticals, what right does the government have to force me to sell abortion pills? The same right that they have to force to sell hula hoops -- none whatsoever.
Posted by: TB on April 24, 2006 03:56 PMHow about ambulance drivers, then? They're not civil servants. Should they be free to refuse to transport certain patients? How about in a non-emergency situation? Say I'm a driver, and I have to routinely transfer a patient to another hospital--someone who belongs to a faith that I consider morally repugnant. Can I make them wait? There's plenty of other ambulances in the city. Under the Republican platform, I'd be free to do so, and if I were disciplined for such a transgression I'd find a lawyer and sue the crap out of the ambulance company.
> the image we get is that of an
> emergency situation, which is where these folks come in
> really handy.
Pharmacists also come in handy in emergency situations.
Consider this scenario: your daughter or wife or mother is admitted to the ER with bleeding that sounds suspicious to the hospital pharmacist. Would you rather have your physician doing their job and helping your girl, or would you rather have your physician wasting time justifying things to the pharmacist? What's an acceptable conscience-based delay before your family member gets their meds? One minute? Two? Three?
The Stranger reported an episode where a woman was denied antibiotics that were prescribed by a family planning clinic. If you need antibiotics, a delay in obtaining them is not helpful.
> And your small business example is also faulty. Now, if I start
> a business called Northwest Abortion Supplies, and I have an
> employee who refuses to sell our abortion pills, then yes,
> he's probably going to get fired.
This is precisely the situation I'm describing--except that the Republican platform holds that such an employee cannot be fired, or even disciplined. If a business stocks certain medications, and a doctor has prescribed those medicines, what right does the individual pharmacist have to defy the will of the patient, the patient's doctor, *and* their employer?
> But if my business is Northwest Pharmaceuticals,
> what right does the government have to force me to
> sell abortion pills? The same
> right that they have to force to sell hula hoops --
> none whatsoever.
TB, respectfully, you've misunderstood me. I'm not advocating that governments mandate that pharmacies carry certain medications. I'm saying that a pharmacist's job is not to question the judgment of the doctor, the patient, and their employer.
If you don't want to do a job, don't do it. It's pretty simple.
Bottom line more items would be nice for transportation and Audit system. Adding teeth and penalties. And make positive suggestions on improving the situation.
Posted by: David Anfinrud on April 24, 2006 09:07 PMAt the Snohomish County Convention, we passed a resolution this resolution to address your concern that so many others share:
Whereas the Snohomish County Republican Platform is, first and foremost, a statement of the goals and purposes of the Republican Party as an organization that seeks to design and influence Government;
Whereas our platform is not a campaign document nor other form of light reading, but a manifest for action on serious policy matters;
Whereas the goal of our platform is to express the principles that define the proper role of government, both its positive mandate and the limits to its reach that should protect our freedom, addressing the most pressing current issues facing our county, state and nation;
Whereas the active Republicans represented in this body dedicate time, talent and efforts to electing Republicans to public office, in expectation that once elected, will represent these principles;
Be it resolved that the Snohomish County Republican Party acknowledges the right to expect elected Republican officials to work to put these principles in place as public policy, and when that expectation is not fulfilled, the Republican Party has the right and duty to work together to replace those officials with Republicans who will.
RBW said,
I'd also like to remind all the delegates that we're not writing law here; the platform is just supposed to reflect the basic philosophy of the party.
Actually, the platform is potential law. The platform says what we elect Republicans to do.
Greenlake Mark said,
1 Skimmed through it briefly
2 Hope none of the folks (who like to hear themselves talk) get up again and want to put in
a Bill of Rights
b Constiution
c Other "kitchen sink" documents like the Magna Carta, Ten Commandments, Hanurabbi, et al
d I kid you not the tinfoil hats did this at SPU in 2004
I was at the 2004 convention. Were you doing drugs that day or did you fall down a rabbit hole? Such fiction and fantasy.....Quotes from the constitution and bill of rights, maybe...but in their entirety, no....Magna carta, Ten Commandments, Hanurabbi....tin foil hats....really!
Greenlake Mark is spot on. You should remember better than that, you were there - quite often at the microphone. Maybe your tin foil hat was covering your ears?
Posted by: AliciaCR on April 25, 2006 04:24 PMOne pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all.
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall.
And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call.
Call Alice
When she was just small.
When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low.
Go ask Alice
I think she'll know.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head"
Alic(iaCR) and Greenlake Mark,
Just what do you have against quoting the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? (The only motion that was anything close to Greenlake Mark's claims. Any sane person who was there would remember that.)
Nifty little ditty. Did you pick up that tune with the pointy tip of your tin foil hat?
My objection is - individuals who believe that the republican party platform is written just for them or their little club (instead of the ENTIRE county) and proceed to hijack the convention floor with their drama. I vividly recall in 2004, watching you (and the other two or three of you in your club) imposing on the convention attendees your exasperating (egocentric) routine.
With you in exile, maybe we'll get a break this year.
Alicia (not Alice)
Posted by: AliciaCR on April 26, 2006 11:34 AMI'm wondering where Republican in Exile has been exiled to and who she will attempt to impose her views on next?
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on April 26, 2006 11:45 AMI'm wondering where Republican in Exile has been exiled to and who she will attempt to impose her views on next?
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on April 26, 2006 11:45 AMI guess you're too young to remember Jefferson Airplane and too young to remember that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution applies to ALL Americans, including those who live King County.
JJJr,
If you think making a motion to insert quotes from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in a Republican platform is "imposing my views on everyone", then you're the one who wants the platform to be a document for some "little club".
Posted by: Republican in Exile on April 26, 2006 12:29 PMYou were up at the microphone so often you should have just glued it to the side of your face.
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on April 26, 2006 12:35 PMMotions aren't the only time you were at the microphone...
very selective memory, Republican in Exile.
by the way, where are you exiled to?
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on April 26, 2006 12:45 PMHe or she is probably an older Republican who recently moved to a retirement community in another county and is having difficulty remembering what happened two years ago.
The Jefferson Airplane comment alone makes this person at least sixty!
Posted by: Casey Burnett on April 26, 2006 12:51 PMActually, I'm no longer in Exile, since I'm out of King County. Just haven't gotten around to changing my handle.
I'm in Snohomish Co. now, where I didn't need to go to the microphone at all (I really prefer to not have to). The platform was beautifully written and passed overwhelmingly with very few minor changes that only served to strengthen it. In fact, I submitted the resolution that I posted above in writing and it also passed overwhelmingly with resounding "Amen's".
Posted by: Republican in Exile on April 26, 2006 12:56 PMI even know a little bit about beer, which I'm sure you guys have me beat in consumption amounts. I know the atmosphere of the CR's (it wasn't that long ago, that I spent time around your little club). The first priority is to party, the second is to be "politically incorrect" in the Bill Maher sort of way. So I can see why you object to the kinds of motions I was making. The Affirmitive Action Bake Sale is a great idea, but beyond that, you need to grow out of your self-centerdness before you can understand Republican principles.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on April 26, 2006 01:27 PMActually, the platform is potential law. The platform says what we elect Republicans to do.
Nobody's going to submit a county platform as a congressional bill. Any bill submitted will be crafted in congress. That's where the strict consideration of the implications of the wording is important since the resulting laws will be subject to the interpretation of activist judges.
Posted by: RBW on April 27, 2006 01:38 PMThe platform expresses the intent of the grassroots Republicans. A congressman could submit what he misconstrues from a poorly worded platform as a bill, saying "this is what our constituents want," thereby giving us a poorly written law. That's why it's important to clearly state what we intend.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on April 27, 2006 02:16 PMNow that you have totally trashed the college republicans - you should know C and R are my middle and last initials.
It appears that you are a little too focused (re: your previous posts) on drugs and alcohol???
Whew!
I have no idea who you are, but you obviously think you know who I am. You and your defenders sure sound like a bunch of College Republicans who are under the influence of any kind of indulgence, including drugs and alchohol. Your recollection of events is pure fiction and fantasy.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on April 28, 2006 05:58 PM