Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Republican Party Platform

The following excerpt was taken from the 2008 Republican Party stated platform.

“Republicans will uphold and defend our party’s core principles:

Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions. Unleash the power of enterprise, innovation, civic energy, and the American spirit- and never pretend that government is a substitute for family or community”.

If you agree with this powerful statement of what and who the Republican Party is, get in your car and go as fast as you legally can to your voting box location and send a message to the Socialist Liberals in the Democrat Party. Tell them we are no longer going to lie down and allow their over-reaching Party Ideology to have negative effects on our lives.

Andy McCreight

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

That platform says it all. On the ballot however we will have people filling most of the slate that have never done one thing for the Republican party. So in our primary all we really know are a few faithful outspoken Republicans and a bunch of Johnny come latelys - either they have switched parties or they have been silent and absent for years. So I agree with you Andy, people need to protest the assault on American values by voting in the Republican primary, but unless they have intimate knowledge about the candidates voters should elect the primary candidates they think makes the party the strongest. If we do that we can really win some races in November. A strong Republican ticket will help us in the toughest races to be competitive.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McCreight it is encouraging to see we have a chance to reinvigorate Republican party leadership by electing you. Thanks for running and I hope you win.

Anonymous said...

Contrary to mean spirited and misleading gossip, I have not heard one candidate that disagrees with what you have written here Andy. Not one Republican. I have heard three Republican judges answer reluctantly when I asked to comment on numerous issues. I can understand judges not wanting to express their politics on issues they will not be involved in resolving however. Using the platform to play gotcha with judges is counterproductive. In the general election, judges can be made to look bad/political because they have commented on too many issues that are for lawmakers, not interpreters of the law.

Andy McCreight said...

Are you telling me that the personal belief system of a person running for any political office does not play into their logic and thought process?

Have we not heard the concerns of Conservatives and Republicans about Liberal Judges interpreting and making law in accordance to their liberal beliefs.

If you believe that a person's ideology does not permeate their thought process, you are either a fool or you are spinning the story to suit your personal political agenda.

Anonymous said...

No, I am not telling you anything close to something as ridiculous as a personal belief system doesn't play into their thought process. I am telling you it is not uncommon for judges to be reluctant to comment on issue after issue after issue. A judge that will not comment on any issues should never be elected, but a judge that comments on every issue may never rise to the Court of Appeals or the State Supreme Court or higher because they are made to appear too political. I want to hear how a judge stands on abortion before I support him. If a judge has no more respect for life than to be for laws that allow killing the unborn, I will not vote for them. But I understand the judges incampaigns I have seen in my life that do not want to comment on all of the politics of the day. When it comes to Liberty County Judges, not one of the challengers has worked in the local Republican party. They can say they believe whatever and there is no tract record. That should not keep voters from voting for them, but voters need to make certain they do not get an advantage from that. Judges that have ruled on thousands of cases are usually easy targets from liberals and conservatives alike. Both sides can usually find a few cases out of thousand that make a judge look one way or the other. As a voter I always go to a forum or two and catch judicial candidates in the social time and ask them where they stand on an issue. As far as I know Rusty Hight may be the only candidate for any of the judgeships that is not pro-life.

Anonymous said...

I ove the rEpublican platform. It sets high standards and lays out the principles of true conservatism. I am always shocked when the label "conservative" is used by Democrats. The recent death of celebrated playboy and drunkard Charlie Wilson is a good example. He was an embarrassment to this area, but used his office and its power to get government money and help to people who would in turn campaign for Good Time Charlie. The former Congressman's movie is such a pile of lies and distorts history so badly it would take a couple of movies to correct it. And then Dan Rather's quote about this immoral misguided former U.S. Congressman have just added more to the myth: "Charlie Wilson was all Texan and all American. He dreamed big, lived large. He was a member of the pantheon of Texas heroes from Sam Houston, to Jim Bowie." That sounds so much like our local Bill Buchanan's hyperventilating it is uncanny. Immoral people love to encourage the public to put really flawed people up on pedestals. The only problem with poor ole Charlie Wilson is there is no real Alamo or San Jacinto. It is nearly 100% wishful thinking. So we can compare some of his flaws to Sam or Davy but it serves no purpose beacuse we should all be willing to stipulate Charlie had a Texas size pile of flaws. But as for being a hero, he may be a hero to those who embrace adultery, promiscuity, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc., but the rest of us....well Ted Poe is closer to Davy Crockett for us.

Remembering Monica said...

Good point McCreight! I probably can understand why judges may get a little break here, but they should not be allowed to be stealth candidates. Their personal lives become part of their campaign when they run for public office. we can not have one standard for Bill Clinton and another for someone we like.

Anonymous said...

I have some similar concerns these days when I hear people embrace Glen Beck so completely. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy. The only thing is that when Glen lays all of his analysis on us we must keep in mind that he has studied and analyzed the Mormon view of history and life and he is sold that it is the Truth. Before I accepted Christ I viewed Mormonsim as nutty, and now that I am a Christian I always wonder how smeone would defend some of the things they are asked to believe about Joseph Smith, etc. I am with you Andy, people's personal views effect their politics. I always listen to Beck with a little tiny reservation because of his rather important theological flaw even though I love him and usually agree with him. The same with Mitt Romney.

Anonymous said...

Right on Mr. Chairman! Man I hope you win!! I pull no punches with any of these politicains. I went right up to Cain and asked him where he stood on this crazy hyper spending Congress and this socialist President. I could tell all of that helped him to switch parties. I knew he had always been pro-life, I asked him why that wasn't enought to change before. He told me he should have changed four years ago and that there has been a significant number of pro life Texas Democrats. But he added that he thought they should all jump ship. I asked one of Merendino's people why she all of a sudden declared she was a Republican and got involved. They said she had always leaned republican but had been busy raising a family. we should not take anything off of these lawyers. They all can be snobbish in the right setting, but we need to demand answers before we vote for them.

Anonymous said...

If you have voted in the Democratic party and for Democrats thus far in life and what Obama has done (and is doing) has upset you, please consider voting in the Republican party for Republican. please don't allow the past or some obnoxious political person detour you from helping us to bring sanity back to government.

Anonymous said...

I am now wondering if a lot of these Democrats are voting in the Republican primaries in order to place the least person on the ballot that their candidate can beat at election time. It would be easy for them to pull something like this. I also wouldn't put this past them to pull something like this. (ACORN HEAD)

Anonymous said...

I will guarantee you some people will vote in the Republican primary to screw Republicans up. In races where there is a primary challenger they will vote for the weakest candidate and in races other races they will have Democrat officeholders suggesting they vote for one over another,like Judge Hight and Judge Fitzgerald quietly telling people to vote for Merendino.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. McCreight you will probably join me in celebrating that all those people who had grown sick of both parties who were swayed to stay in the Democrat Party or to join it because they thought Barack Obama was more likely to address problems this country has had for years than John McCain are now truly repenting for their transgressions. Now they realize there is not, never was, nor ever shall be such a creature as Obama the "pragmatist". They now recognize he is the worst element in the Democrat Party and a died in the wool crypto-Marxist ideologue, who complains that the framers failed to include the bedrock of socialism, the redistribution of wealth, in the constitution. Now they are ready to risk joining the Republican Party hoping that it will be active in addressing the country's problems and not just hanging on to power. They are willing to hold their nose around the McCain types. They recognize the conservativism in their own value system/ Obama has been the cure for what ailed them. Now we Republicans need to decide whether or not we can embrace them. But we can't reject them on the basis of sincerety. Obama is enough to make all repentance sincere. We should embrace them on the basis of whether we need their leadership or not. If they can make us better we accept them. If theu don't, we let them work and help but not lead.