2006 Republican Party Platform and Resolutions

I had promised that I'd track this down, and thanks to the courtesy of the SD GOP, they were nice enought to provide me copies.

The platform and resolutions were approved without much of a hitch, excepting a spirited debate over the resolution on abortion. Once they've been completed, these are filed with the Secretary of State's office, and included in the "Blue Book" of state government this next year which is publicly available. Ans also, where they will be completely and utterly forgotten until the next convention.

Really, I'll be the first to admit that these are not much more than a loose statement of belief. I don't think I've ever seen nor heard of a candidate invoking them for all the fuss they bring to the table.

When I'm working for a candidate, I'm not checking off boxes on a checklist on how they compare to the GOP platform. I'm more concerned with how they fit with what my agenda is (usually, less gvernment, lower taxes, and pro-small business.). I work for them based on their character - as I'd bet most people who volunteer for campaigns do.

Regardless, .pdf alerts on these. you can click here for the 2006 GOP Resolutions, and here for the 2006 GOP platform.

Now, for those of who you only care about the so called "origin of species" resolution, here's what all your fussing is about:
Resolution 16:

WHEREAS, education on species origin is a vital aspect in the understanding of nature and the purpose of human life; and,

WHEREAS, evolution is a theory that is taught in public schools as fact and at the exclusion of all other theories; and

WHEREAS, the South Dakota Republican Party believes there are other plausible theories, including creationism;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the South Dakota Republican Party supports efforts to expand beyond evolution the knowledge, scope, and debate in public education on the theories of species origin.
Okay, so the majority of people there wanted to allow for some leeway on this and not on abortion. I personally take evolution as factual, but I can understand that there are those who don't.

Speaking of the abortion resolution:
Resolution 14:

WHEREAS, South Dakota supports all of its citizens, both born and unborn; and

WHEREAS, the 2006 South Dakota Legislature passed HB 1215 in a bipartisan effort by an overwhelming majority of 67%; and

WHEREAS, Governor Rounds, in support of this bipartisan effort, signed HB 1215 into law;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Dakota Republican Party joins many Democrats and Independents across the state in supporting HB 1215 at the ballot on November 7, 2006.
All it said was that "the GOP joins many Democrats and Independents across the state in supporting HB 1215 at the ballot on November 7, 2006." I really didn't find that terribly controversial. A "bipartisan" group of legislators passed it, the Governor signed it, and at convention, 85% of the group said we'll go with this statement. Actually, this is pretty inocuous for several people to be saying that it's driving them from the party.

So anyway, here it is for all of you who are wondering. I'll stand back and watch the debate. Try to keep it civil.


Haggs said…
Thanks for linking to this, PP.

I love Resolution 9.

Resolution 12 is, in my opinion, stupid. I think it would do everyone a lot of good to be multi-lingual. Sometimes it seems like the people supporting English-only laws are too lazy to learn another language.

And Resolution 15 is, in my opinion, discriminatory. If marriage is a cornerstone of society, then isn't allowing gays to marry a good thing for society?

Also, I'd like to see a bigger focus on Resolution 17. It's great to say you want to help make reservation life better, but what are they doing to make that happen?
jeffymom said…
Why is it that the GOP is jumping up and down claiming the government should stay out of people's monetary decisions because they know what's best, but when it comes to moral issues the GOP thinks they have to legislate that because people can't think for themselves?

I'm a Republican because I believe in the Party's princples not the platform.
Anonymous said…
Ommigod...check out the scrolling banner ads.

Brock Greenfield ate Governor Rounds and belched up Rebekah Cradduck!!!!
Brock said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nonnie said…
Haggs: English only laws have nothing to do with your belief that all Americans should learn another language. It has to do with if you immigrate to the US you should be willing and should want to learn our language. To not do so puts the immigrant at a disadvantage as he tries to better his life here. We are a nation of immigrants, but never before has an immigrant group said that we have to start using their language in our business, signage, medical facilities, etc. If you want to better your life by coming to the US, then you should want to assimilate into the society that you feel is going to benefit you so much, and that includes learning English in order to do that. The English language is one of the best unifiers of our diverse citizenry.

My own father came to this country at age 20 and learned English completely on his own. He once lived in an area where his native language was spoken a lot and could have comfortably stayed there, but he moved because he wanted to speak English. He died 64 years later and was a very proud American citizen and grateful for the life he had in the US. And this pride rubbed off on all four of us kids.

Again, it has nothing to do with present American citizens becoming multilingual.
Anonymous said…

why don't you let the market decide which language we speak in america? companies will cater to anyone with money, no matter what language they speak.

are you scared of not being able to communicate with people? what's the deal? it's a republican tried-and-true, "let the market decide."
Anonymous said…
Who writes this crap?

"WHEREAS, evolution is a theory that is taught in public schools as fact..."

If it's a theory, then it's not a fact. If it's taught as a theory, then it's not taught as fact.

"WHEREAS, South Dakota supports all of its citizens, both born and unborn..."

Fetuses are not citizens. You'll have to change the definition of citizen for this to make any sense.
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:56, pay attention here. The THEORY of evolution is being taught as FACT in most South Dakota schools.

A theory is just that, a theory, and as such it cannot be proven and should not be taught as if it could.

Creation can't be proven either, but using the same criteria, it should be taught as fact right along side evolution.

Fair is fair. How would you like that?
K said…
First of all, what is "our" language? Maybe "my" language is Esperanto. Currently, this country doesn't have a national language and we seem to be doing just fine without it. Also, you admit that for a time, your father didn't speak English and he probably didn't learn it overnight. I have never met an immigrant who absolutely refused to learn English, but it's a complicated language and it takes a while, especially without the resources to learn it.

9:53 AM:
When was the last time you were in high school? I've never seen a biology text book that doesn't talk about "the theory of evolution," nor have I ever heard of a biology teacher that doesn't teach it that way. The problem is that most people don't understand what theory means in a scientific context. It's completely different from someone saying, "I have a theory about who took the last slice of pie." Very few scientific concepts are considered solid enough to be called laws (gravity would be one example that has made it), so many things that we consider well-established facts are, officially at least, theories.
Anonymous said…
10:45, I am a regular substitute teacher in our local high school and have seen and heard first hand what is being taught. The fact that evolution is a theory is never mentioned. What a theory is also is never mentioned unless a student brings the subject up, in which case the teachers usually poo poo the fact that a theory cannot be proven.

When is the last time you've set foot in a high school?
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:53 said:
"Creation can't be proven either, but using the same criteria, it should be taught as fact right along side evolution.

Fair is fair. How would you like that?"

It depends on what class it's taught in.

Personally, I'd like to see a philosophy class taught in high schools. You can give them the theory of creation in that class. I'd have no problem with that.

Suggesting that there is a scientific basis for creationism is nonsense, though.

That's in stark contrast to the scientific basis for evolution. No, it's not a proven fact, but it's pretty hard to deny the persuasiveness of the theory. That is, unless you take your cues from the Bible.

Of course, the Bible also says that the Earth is only like 6,000 years old.
Anonymous said…
Anon 10:45, what do you know about what happens in other teachers' classrooms? Are you a tag-team substitute or something?
Anonymous said…
The ignorance over the definition of the term "theory" is startling.
Particularly alarming is the "regular substitute teacher" who does not seem to understand the scientific method and the use of the term "theory".

All of us have theories on many different topics. These are not the same thing as scientific theories.

According to the scientific method, all conclusions are tentative and nothing can ever be proved as an absolute certainty. Thus, gravity is just a "theory". The fact that the earth is round is just another "theory". Creationism, however, is not the same kind of theory.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been verified by direct experimentation and which has demonstrated a high degree of predictive ability. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a belief or personal theory. Two very different things.
nonnie said…
I happen to believe in both creation and evolution. I believe that God created. Whether he did it overnight or through the process of evolution is irrelevant. Another one of those things that in the grand scheme of life is not all that important except to argue about. Why not teach it that way in school? Oh yeah, can't mention God in school, I almost forgot. Welcome to the religion of secularism. Why are we allowed to teach that one in school?
nonnie said…
K, 1045: My dad probably didn't learn English overnight. He also didn't demand that signs, instructions, store information, ballots, etc etc etc be written in Danish so he could understand it.

And I don't see people demanding that ballots, signs, etc be printed in German or Italian or Russian or Serbian to accommodate those immigrants.

English is the unofficial "official" language of the US. What country have you been living in if you don't realize that?
> Welcome to the religion of secularism. Why are we allowed to teach that one in school?

It has something to do with Erasmus, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson. I'm sorry you still are having a hard time with that Enlightment thing.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long