Pennsylvania Republican Party

[angus]

Inspired by Cathcon's recent posts about me. 

This is from the website from the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, in the "Party Principles" page.  It says, "As Republicans, we believe in…" then it goes on to list these seven items.  For more information, you can read the party's platform, but this is a concise statement of the party's values. 

Which of the seven do you agree with?  You may select up to seven options.  You may change your vote.

[MorningInAmerica]

6/7 for me. Could have clicked on "rights of the unborn," but they had that pesky "sanctity of marriage" thrown in there.

[Mechaman]

Wow, 5 out of 7.

Maybe I am actually a bit more partisan than one would think.  Though admittedly, I have kind of mixed emotions on the bit about "tax relief and energy independence", given that I probably have a different idea of both than the mainstream PA Republican probably does.

Hell, you could probably say the same of all the other choices I chose.

[angus]

Wow, 5 out of 7.

Same here, but on some of them I'm not entirely sold.  This is how I voted:


yes:    Ensuring that Americans remain safe, terrorists are defeated, and democracy flourishes in the world (I agree with the first two points, but I'm leary of neoconservatism.  I'm not sure I want to commit blood and money to flourishing democracy in the world.)

yes:    Expanding opportunities for ownership and investment (this is always a good idea.  the devil is in the details.)

no:    Making tax relief permanent and ensuring greater energy independence (I do think we should strive for greater energy independence, and I don't want to see my taxes increase, but I'm not sure I like the current structure.  Also, I don't think we can laugh in the face of the national debt any longer.)

yes:    Increasing the affordability and accessibility of health care (always a good idea, but like the entrepreneurship question, the devil is in the details.)

no:    Protecting the sanctity of marriage and the rights of the unborn (I think this sanctity of marriage idea reeks of bigotry.  I just cannot support it.  As for the unborn, that's a thorny moral issue that I don't want to get into.  My vote is not usually affected one way or the other by a candidate's position on abortion, but I understand that many voters are swayed in this issue.)

yes:    Preparing students for success in life by bringing the benefits of education reform to high schools (education reform is sorely needed.)

yes:    Helping workers adjust to a changing economy by offering flexible training options that meet their individual needs (see above.)

[Supersonic]

6/7 for me. Could have clicked on "rights of the unborn," but they had that pesky "sanctity of marriage" thrown in there.

This basically.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

6/7 for me. Could have clicked on "rights of the unborn," but they had that pesky "sanctity of marriage" thrown in there.

You can tell these are meaningless platitudes because I agreed with the exact same ones as MorningInAmerica.

[Mechaman]

Wow, 5 out of 7.

Same here, but on some of them I'm not entirely sold.  This is how I voted:


yes:    Ensuring that Americans remain safe, terrorists are defeated, and democracy flourishes in the world (I agree with the first two points, but I'm leary of neoconservatism.  I'm not sure I want to commit blood and money to flourishing democracy in the world.)

yes:    Expanding opportunities for ownership and investment (this is always a good idea.  the devil is in the details.)

no:    Making tax relief permanent and ensuring greater energy independence (I do think we should strive for greater energy independence, and I don't want to see my taxes increase, but I'm not sure I like the current structure.  Also, I don't think we can laugh in the face of the national debt any longer.)

yes:    Increasing the affordability and accessibility of health care (always a good idea, but like the entrepreneurship question, the devil is in the details.)

no:    Protecting the sanctity of marriage and the rights of the unborn (I think this sanctity of marriage idea reeks of bigotry.  I just cannot support it.  As for the unborn, that's a thorny moral issue that I don't want to get into.  My vote is not usually affected one way or the other by a candidate's position on abortion, but I understand that many voters are swayed in this issue.)

yes:    Preparing students for success in life by bringing the benefits of education reform to high schools (education reform is sorely needed.)

yes:    Helping workers adjust to a changing economy by offering flexible training options that meet their individual needs (see above.)

Switch point one and point three and you get my answers.

But yes, this pretty much what I got out of it.

[bore]

6/7 for me. Could have clicked on "rights of the unborn," but they had that pesky "sanctity of marriage" thrown in there.

You can tell these are meaningless platitudes because I agreed with the exact same ones as MorningInAmerica.

This. Who believes in making healthcare more expensive and less accessible for people? *Insert partisan joke here*

[Donerail]

3.5/7.
1: We're neocons. No.
2: Reduce regulations. Yes.
3: Cut taxes, drill more. Yes and no.
4: Affordable/accessible health care. Yes.
5: Typical socon crap. No.
6: Reform education. No (I support education reform, but probably not the kind these guys have in mind.
7: Flexible training options. Yes.

[fezzyfestoon]

Very politically adept, it makes things like pumping chemicals into drinking water or funneling money towards the wealthy sound good for all of us.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

6: Reform education. No (I support education reform, but probably not the kind these guys have in mind.

Well, I was just going by the actual words. Otherwise it'd be 0/7 for me.

[courts]

i agree with some of these. i also like puppies and think mean people suck.

[Franzl]

i agree with some of these. i also like puppies and think mean people suck.

Do you like apple pie?

[courts]

i agree with some of these. i also like puppies and think mean people suck.

Do you like apple pie?

yes but only if its wrapped in the american flag with a baseball on top

[Franzl]

i agree with some of these. i also like puppies and think mean people suck.

Do you like apple pie?

yes but only if its wrapped in the american flag with a baseball on top

Alright, that's good. Just make sure you say the Pledge of Allegiance before consuming it.

[Maxwell]

I put yes on only one because its all depends.

[Goldwater]

6/7, I agree with all of the points except the fifth one.

[Simfan34]

7/7.

Marriage is sacred, or at least religious marriage, just because gays can get married too doesn't mean it's not sacred.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

5/7

the PAGOP is pretty establishment, though. Phil could explain this better than I could, but basically the party doesn't take real kindly to Tea Party types, especially if they're spunky newcomers. This is just from what I've heard, however.

cue Phil though.

[angus]

7/7.

Marriage is sacred, or at least religious marriage, just because gays can get married too doesn't mean it's not sacred.

No doubt, the institution of marriage is rooted deeply in religion.  Marriage is a sacrament, if you're a Catholic, and for Jews, it is actually a contract commanded by God and in which God is directly involved.  Hindus actually see it as a sacred duty.  But to protect the sanctity?  Since when did God, or any of the sacred institutions he created, need the protection of the United States government?  

If we're going to have state-sanctioned marriage, for the purpose of economic benefits such as life insurance policies, etc., then we cannot confuse the state's marriage with a religious concept.  Either the state needs to get out the marriage business entirely, and leave it as a religious concept, or it needs to extend it equally to all.

[Simfan34]

7/7.

Marriage is sacred, or at least religious marriage, just because gays can get married too doesn't mean it's not sacred.

No doubt, the institution of marriage is rooted deeply in religion.  Marriage is a sacrament, if you're a Catholic, and for Jews, it is actually a contract commanded by God and in which God is directly involved.  Hindus actually see it as a sacred duty.  But to protect the sanctity?  Since when did God, or any of the sacred institutions he created, need the protection of the United States government?   

If we're going to have state-sanctioned marriage, for the purpose of economic benefits such as life insurance policies, etc., then we cannot confuse the state's marriage with a religious concept.  Either the state needs to get out the marriage business entirely, and leave it as a religious concept, or it needs to extend it equally to all.

I wrote essentially the same thing back in April:

-in support of gay marriage.

I have given the issue a fair degree of thought, and I think it can be boiled down to this: civil and religious/cultural marriage are two separate- similar and sharing a name, but still separate- things. Being separate, gay civil marriage is something that does not infringe upon the rights of the religious institutions, nor does it impose any unwanted action upon them. In no mainstream religion is a civil marriage held to be a sacrament or sacred union, and so is beyond their purview.

As a country predicated on the principles of equality and the right to the equal enjoyment of liberties, the lack of the right of gay people to be married civilly runs counter to those principles. In a time where a farce is made of the institutions of marriage, both religious and civil, it seems disingenuous to deny men and women, many of whom have been partners for decades, the right to legally enshrine their partnership and encourage its perpetual continuation. In that vein, it also seems counterproductive for those people to be denied to raise children in a stable and loving environment.

My primary concern is that the state shall eventually oblige religious institutions to marry gay couples. I continue to believe that religious marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman and thus gay religious marriages would not be looked upon favorably in the eyes of God. This is unlikely to change, and so are the positions of religious institutions. Great care should be taken to prevent such things from ever coming to pass. Otherwise, gay marriage initiatives have my full support.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Given what most of these empty platitudes actually mean in the case of our godawful legislature and governor, 0/7.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

7 out of 7.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

godawful governor

Yay! We agree on something!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

2, 4, 6, and 7 all sound good, but I don't like what they would entail if Republicans implemented those policies.  I almost voted for 3, but I don't get why they included tax reform and energy independence in the same plank.