Spokane7
65°
September 19, 2010 in City
GOP platform proves vexing in Spokane County
Many candidates sign, but some worry it could backfire
Much of the county Republican Party’s platform reflects longtime GOP values: Limited government. Gun rights. Lower taxes. An end to abortion.
But some of the platform’s 120 policy statements make more-surprising calls, for, among other things: An end to no-fault divorce. A return to the gold standard. Tax incentives for the shoe and textile industry. U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.
And some Republicans worry the platform – which they’re asked to pledge to support when they seek party endorsement – diverges from their values and opens the door to attacks from Democrats.
Earlier this month, Democratic state Sen. Chris Marr highlighted his opponent’s promise to support the county Republican platform. He said it’s proof that Republican Michael Baumgartner is “out of touch with his constituency.”
GOP officials responded that candidates, including Baumgartner, who pledged to support the platform weren’t necessarily saying they backed its nearly 120 policy statements.
“We know that no candidate is going to agree 100 percent with what’s in the platform,” county GOP Chairwoman Cindy Zapotocky said. “We require the candidates to read it and consider it.”
The platform, which also calls for an end to the Patriot Act, privatization of Social Security and for the federal government to deed back most federal lands to the states, originated from the grass roots of the party and was approved at the county convention earlier this year, Zapotocky said. As candidates have requested official party endorsements, they’ve been asked to sign a pledge that includes a box where they check if they “promise” to “support the Constitution of the United States of America, the Washington State Constitution and the Spokane County Republican Party Platform.”
Zapotocky said so far, the party has endorsed only candidates who have checked the box — though three candidates on the November ballot (Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, state Rep. Matt Shea and former state Rep. John Ahern) won backing before the party created the vetting process that includes the platform promise. Judicial candidates are not asked to pledge.
The Spokane County Democratic Party also has a long platform, but it doesn’t ask candidates to pledge to support it.
“We’re not the purity party,” county Democratic Party Chairwoman Amy Biviano said. “I don’t think we have a single candidate who is 100 percent supportive of the platform, and that’s OK. We have stronger candidates because we do disagree.”
The biggest concern cited by many Republican candidates is that the platform forces candidates on the record on issues they likely will never have to consider.
Republican county commissioner candidate Al French said he signed the pledge but inserted a phrase qualifying some items that he felt were state or national issues. He didn’t win an endorsement for the primary, but he recently got the party’s nod for the November race.
“I support the platform as it relates to the county commission,” French said.
Morgan Oyler, the Republican candidate challenging Democratic state Rep. Timm Ormsby in the heavily Democratic 3rd Legislative District, didn’t sign the pledge and was turned down by the GOP twice when he requested an endorsement. He said the platform pledge makes it more difficult for the party to win in the central Spokane district because it drives away potential candidates like him who are fiscally conservative but have moderate stances on social issues.
“I would like to see (the platform) be more general and more philosophical and more focused on limited government, freedom and personal responsibility than just going issue by issue,” Oyler said. “I think it drives people away from the party.”
Baumgartner, the candidate for state senator, was one of those who made the pledge. In an interview on Aug. 31, he said he disagreed with some of the items and had not formed opinions on others.
For instance, the platform calls for the repeal of the state’s Growth Management Act. But when asked about that law, Baumgartner said he didn’t know what it was.
“I’d have to be briefed up on it,” Baumgartner said.
The growth act – a cornerstone of the state’s land and environmental policy – aims to prevent sprawl by limiting urban development to cities or to land adjacent to already developed places. Critics say it infringes on private property rights. Supporters say it saves local governments money by concentrating services.
In a subsequent interview, Baumgartner said he believes the growth law should be revised, but not repealed.
“The problem with the Growth Management Act is you have too many decisions made in Olympia instead of it being a local discussion,” Baumgartner said.
In the August interview, Baumgartner also said he wasn’t prepared to take a stance on no-fault divorce – even though the repeal of no-fault divorce is in the platform. No-fault divorce allows couples to divorce without assigning blame to one of the spouses.
“I haven’t looked at that one,” he said. Last week, Baumgartner said he “is not in favor of the Legislature changing divorce laws.”
Baumgartner said he also didn’t have an opinion about repealing the law, approved by voters in 2007, that lowered the threshold needed to raise property taxes for school levies from 60 percent to more than 50 percent. The platform calls for returning to a supermajority requirement to pass school levies.
Marr said he supports the Growth Management Act, though he believes some of it should be revised.
He also said he supports the state’s current no-fault divorce law.
The GOP’s position, he said, is “incredibly intrusive, and quite frankly I don’t see how any thoughtful dialogue could have resulted in that getting in anyone’s platform.”
Marr also said school operation and maintenance levies should be approved if they receive more than 50 percent support.
Marr’s campaign last weekend released a chart comparing candidates’ stances on women’s issues. It cited Baumgartner’s promise to support the platform when alleging that Baumgartner supported the repeal of no-fault divorce.
Baumgartner said he supports the “core principles” of the platform but had a “pretty frank discussion” with party leaders about items that he thought were “out of scope of a state legislator.”
“I also support the Cougs,” Baumgartner said in the August interview. “I don’t always agree with who the coach puts in at tight end.”
But Marr said Baumgartner seems to be changing his mind on issues now that he’s past the primary and needs support from moderates and independents.
“Clearly what he’s doing is he’s attempting to make his positions on the issues be vague,” Marr said.
Ahern, the former state representative challenging Democrat state Rep. John Driscoll in a rematch of the 2008 election, said he generally agrees with much of the platform. One item he diverges on, he said, is the call to withdraw from the United Nations.
Ahern said that he supports repealing the Growth Management Act and that school districts should have to win a supermajority to pass property tax levies. He said he agrees that no-fault divorce should be repealed.
“That’s a cause of a breakdown of society,” Ahern said.
The platform, he said, benefits the party and the voters.
“The voters want to know exactly where you stand,” Ahern said. “They don’t want you to be wishy-washy.”
Driscoll said he doesn’t plan to make Ahern’s support of the platform a campaign issue.
“I don’t want to debate the Republican Party platform,” Driscoll said. “My message will be about what I have to offer.”
MAC faces angry crowd 
drywitt99 on September 19 at 2:18 a.m.
GOP values: Limited government. Gun rights. Lower taxes. An end to abortion.
And devil-worship???
I just finished watching an 11 year old television clip of Christine O’Donnell (Republican senatorial candidate and Tea Party activist from Delaware) freely admitting that she had “dabbled in witchcraft.” That although she never joined a coven, she did have “a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”
I always knew that the Tea Party movement was populated
by right-wing racist nut-jobs. But witches???
So, the party of Lincoln has become the party of Satan worshippers. Why doesn’t that surprise me???
WillyPeter on September 19 at 5:48 a.m.
Witches! You want witches? Check out the Speaker-of-the-House…
drywitt99 on September 19 at 6:03 a.m.
Thanks to the tea baggers taking over the Republican party, she may end up being Speaker for life!!
soccermomsusie on September 19 at 6:17 a.m.
Thanks for articulating our new platform so well. I think that is why any Republican who wants to win MUST swear allegiance to the Tea Party. GWB - the best president ever was behind most of these promises too.
John Ahern - you are my hero! But, come on, let’s get out of the UN. Remember the UN is calling the shots at the city council. I swear I saw most of the city council wearing blue berets at Value Village last Wednesday. What was that about? Probably looking for parts for their black helicopter.
Mr. Ahern - you have led the fight to keep Christ in XMas and to scold young school children/hooligans. Don’t go soft on us now!!!
And I am wondering, every year when I see kids trick or treating for UNICEF, why is it that they are always dressed like Arabs, Che Guevera, new age witches, Bob Apple, bull fighters or Barney Frank?
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
drywitt99 on September 19 at 6:28 a.m.
Yeah, the kids could come dressed like the tea party faithful. All they would need are the white sheets.
dukkandpooh on September 19 at 9:03 a.m.
The fringe elements of the Republican party are doing nothing but damaging the party as a whole. It’s very easy to express anger and frustration and stand on a busy street with a sign…it’s an entirely different matter to come up with solutions to the problems that our country faces. I don’t hear any ideas or plans coming out of these fringe candidates mouths. Fiscally conservative/socially moderate republicans are in no-man’s land, as are many independents who lean to the right on fiscal matters.
Marksman on September 19 at 9:53 a.m.
The Democratic Partys National Platform has contained a “plank ” that says they will decriminalize the possession of marijuana. This “plank” has been in place since 1976, yet marijuana is still illegal in all Dumbocrat states and has been ignored by the present Congress and Administration. Note to dry wit, using a derogatory term like teabagger will result in my continuing to refer to your ilk as Dumbocrats. BTW dim wit would be more appropriate.
misjustice on September 19 at 10:49 a.m.
And the Republican’ts continue to use abortion as a wedge issue, it is clearly in their platform, and yet when they have power they NEVER work to repeal Roe v Wade. Why is that? I believe that they need it as a wedge issue, something to stir up the base; especially the intolerant christian fundamentalists.
As for no fault divorce, a plank in the Rs platform, what is the three times married Newt Gingrich to do? Watch out wifey #3, it’s about time for the Newtster to move on to wifey #4! Despite his party’s objection to no fault divorce Newt seems to have no problem with serial marriages!
As for O’Donnell, the 40 year old virgin and opponent of masturbation, she highlights the Rs problems in letting the Gaggers take over what was once a legitimate political party; they can win against moderate Rs in primary races but will those type of candidates be able to draw votes from independents and moderate Rs and Ds in a general election? I’ll bet NO! And that will lead to the Gaggers being no more than a fringe element that pushes out moderate voices in the Republican’t party. Could be the death knell for the Rs, dealt from within.
Scoutster on September 19 at 12:03 p.m.
This is going to be one fun election season! So many interesting personalities.
As a staunch independent, I have been disappointed in the inability to tone down the partisan rancor in the last two years. Now, we seem to be back at it. (Sorry…I don’t blame any one person. It’s a systemic thing.)
But one thing that is really going to stunt the GOP (and while I am an Independent, I do lean left), is their continual mantra of no new taxes.
Then, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO CUT?
For 6 full years from 2001-07 they didn’t raise taxes. They didn’t pay for anything either.
spokanecougar on September 19 at 12:10 p.m.
I want to thank the Tea Baggers for putting the most un-electable most extreme candidates possible on the ballots. I was worried for awhile the democrats might lose their majority in congress, but you know I feel pretty safe right now when you people keep putting people like Christine O’Donnell on the ballot. Even Karl Rove says she wont be elected. Pretty bad when you have the man who got a cocaine using, draft dodging, alcoholic cheerleader elected president saying she cannot win.
Love how you call Speaker Pelosi a witch (nothing sexist about that you KKK loving freaks since we all know what you want to say) when you have a real life witch now on your very own ballot. Idiots. Doesn’t worshiping the devil kind of take away from the whole religious thing your party if going for?
misjustice on September 19 at 12:20 p.m.
scouster; I think we all know what the Rs/Gaggers will cut, they’ll cut [ or refuse to fund ] social spending.
And as for what they’ll “do”, they want to give the trillions of dollars in the revenue stream, known as Social Security, to Wall Street. AND they want to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
flutieflakes on September 19 at 12:37 p.m.
Keep pushing those social/wedge issues, republicans; they’re the only things that can stop you come November.
Scoutster on September 19 at 2:18 p.m.
misjustice.
I respectfully disagree. I think the GOP have proven that they only TALK like fiscal conservatives. Even if they said they were going to cut specific programs I would have some respect for them.
But they don’t say what they will cut in campaigning, and when they are in office they have proven that they DON’T cut. They just borrow.
They just keep spinnin’ this conservative fairy tale—they are anything but conservative fiscally.
misjustice on September 19 at 2:55 p.m.
I agree that they only talk conservative when it comes to fiscal matters. But I do believe that should they return to power they’ll resort to a core mission; dismantling the social safety net put in place by FDR and expanded on by nearly every Democratic president since.
Rs can not allow a return to the 1960s and 1970s when the middle class was secure enough (thanks to the New Deal, the GI Bill and other social justice measures),that they could make a good living, their initial needs were met [ think Maslow ] which allowed them the ability to start to get uppity and troublesome. They wanted MORE!
When people don’t have to expend all of their energy just stayin’ alive, when their initial needs are met, they tend to direct their energy into working/agitating for social reform/justice and reshaping the social construct. That is dangerous to conservatism, to what the Rs would view as social order, and is to be stopped at all costs.
Which is what the last 40 years have been; A War on the Middle Class. A war intended to put us back in our place, to make us compliant and easier to control!
Additionally, it serves conservatism to pit ordinary citizens against each other and against phony enemies; hence we have a new boogeyman every few months being trotted out to either get us fighting amongst ourselves or to get us agitated and fearful about the “other”. A brilliant plan to keep us detached, distracted, and distrustful.
And a real coup for them would be to convince voters to ‘privatize’ Social Security; privatize is code for cash infusion to Wall Street. W almost got ‘er did but his own party controlled Congress couldn’t get the votes; no one in Congress wanted to go home and tell the old folks why they sold ‘em out on SS.
But no matter, just because Rs have failed in these endeavors doesn’t mean they won’t try again, and again, and again. They’re nothing if not persistent. And you have to give ‘em credit for that. Oh, and their ability to oppose and obstruct. And their ability to obfuscate.
Lulubelle on September 19 at 4:06 p.m.
Anyone who has heard Cindy Zapotocky speak knows the inmates are running the asylum in Spokane Republican land. Ahern buys the whole purity pledge lock, stock and barrel, French will sign anything to buy an endorsement or a vote, and Bumgartner doesn’t even know what the Growth Management Act is. Aye yi yi…..is that the bunch I want representing me!
DougParris on September 19 at 6:32 p.m.
The Democrats are not the party of “purity” but of filthiness: pornography, sexual perversion, abortion and the destruction of family.
The Growth Management Act comprised literally thousands of words and was ingenious in its complexity and flexibility.
It provisionally took away ALL property rights from all property owners and gave them to government, but wisely left the implimentation of its provisions to be accomplished gradually, over time, picking off the most vulnerable first. It bankrupted small businesses that depended on property rights back in the ‘90s, like the smaller contractors, who literally had to move out of state. And it is literally destroying suburban neighborhoods all over the state (the very people who were told it would protect them against “growth”), forcing high-density multiple units where there used to be single family homes, lowering the living standard and simultaneously ruining all value in rural properties in its drive to de-populate other people’s land.
The GMA is, and was, fascist legislation: totalitarian, insidious and evil. Anyone who supports it either doesn’t understand it (which is not a stretch given its length, complexity and the lies it comes wrapped in) or, in fact, a committed enemy of American Freedom and prosperity.
The Repubican Party has called for its repeal AT THE STATE PLATFORM LEVEL.
The Spokane County Party is the single leader among Republican County Parties in the State, but they are in no way out of step with the principles of the Founders, the overwhelming body of conservative thought or the legacy of Ronald Reagan.
spokanecougar on September 19 at 7:36 p.m.
@ DougParris - so if the the democrats are the party of, and I quote him here “pornography, sexual perversion, abortion and the destruction of family.”
So what does that make the GOP? Have you heard of David Vitter, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Richard Curtis, Ted Haggard, Newt Gingrich, and lets not forget about Spokane’s own favorite son Jim West.
Oh yea, also don’t forget about the RNC just last year was caught paying donors to attend a Hollywood night club that specialized in bondage, S&M, and lesbians.
Please, don’t even think the republican party is full of pure, good christians because they are just as bad as everyone else. The thing that makes the republicans worse than the democrats is these conservatives walking around preaching about family values and then go screw hookers or sleep with underage boys or sleep with their chief of staffs wife and pay her off.
misjustice on September 20 at 12:13 a.m.
Thanks, spokanecougar, for reminding Dougie what the Rs stand for; hypocrisy, oh yeah, and “family values”.
Ted Haggard was my favorite hypocritical, gay bashing preacher; I love the part of the story where he bangs a male prostitute while they snort meth and then his wifey claims that he’s “cured” of homosexuality because he “prayed” about it, praise jesus! Inspiring, indeed!
DougParris on September 20 at 9:08 p.m.
When Leftist Republicans get caught acting like they believe Democrat positions, they typically lose their poltical careers. But Democrats who do the same get re-elected, And the reason for that is clear. The phony Republicans are acting, as Miss Justice says, in hypocrisy, against the beliefs of their party that they profess. But Democrats are acting according to the actual beliefs of the Party of filthiness. Socialism and sexual license. It’s in the Platform. The breakdown of the family Democrats, have spearheaded, the explosion of fatherless homes that are the direct result of the policies and attitudes of Democrats have a statistically measurable correlation to both poverty and crime by their abandoned offspring. And the Socialism, of course, destroys any economy in direct proportion to the degree to which it has advanced, crushing freedom, re-distributing wealth, but mostly distributing to government bureaucrats, the biggest monopoly in history, the biggest special interest group in history. Bush socialism threw the economy into a downspin and Obama has made the same, exact, errors, only MUCH, MUCH bigger. We are nationally bankrupt and liberalism is the direct proximate cause.
Serious on September 21 at 1:51 a.m.
This post if for anyone who would like to have a “Serious” discussion of this article.
The first thing to discuss is the principle behind party platforms and why in the world a party would want to create one that is specific. The answer is obviously that political “representatives” have very, very little accountability to the population which has voted them in. One of the inherent risks of any representative government is that, once elected, politicians have the freedom to vote as they choose, despite the will of the constituents. Many people, especially those who distrust government, want to mitigate this effect. So, given that Republicans are conservative and by nature distrust government it is no surprise that they have a detailed platform and also require their candidates to abide by it.
In regards to the platform itself, I have read it and I did attend the Spokane County Convention in which it was approved; also, I agree with it complicity. With that said I agree with the critique that it addresses issues beyond the scope of Spokane County (such as the UN) which is not necessary. My only rebuttal is that I believe delegates to the state and national GOP conventions use their county platform as a guide for the way that they should vote in order to best represent their constituency, in which case national issues are necessary to include in county platforms. The article points out a few policy statements that it portrays as completely radical and unreasonable to expect candidates to agree with. These include “an end to the Patriot Act, privatization of Social Security and for the federal government to deed back most federal lands to the states” as well as the school levy super majority requirement and changes to divorce law. Although Jonathan Brunt would like everyone to believe it, these are not radical conservative standards, these are mild applications of conservative ideals which any Republican candidate SHOULD be in agreement with. Radical standards would be eliminating the public school system, dissolving social security completely, or the release of all federal lands to be homesteaded. I can understand Republicans having qualms with policy statements that are actually radical but there are none in the platform that an educated conservative couldn’t agree with.
The final episode of my critique to this article is focused on the fact that the title and framing of the article are inherently opposed to the GOP. I do not believe that any writer is unbiased or that they should be required to be, however, it is then the responsibility of people who disagree with the framing to point out the way in which the writer is guiding any reader’s interpretation of the facts. Brunt did not write a “fair” article when he wrote GOP platform proves vexing, the title itself lends readers towards accusing the GOP of extremism and of creating conflict. The article content includes comparative information between GOP and Democratic Party practices in a way that favors democrats and highlights the frustrations of specific candidates with the GOP. It’s not wrong to be biased but don’t claim to be neutral.
This brief analysis of the article is open to debate and inquiry on any of the issues mentioned or not mentioned. Thank you again Spokesman for another liberally slanted political article, we can always count on you.
-Serious
Scoutster on September 22 at 8:10 a.m.
Serious..
You don’t consider this platform radical? I guess if that’s the beginning point, there is considerably less common ground.
Take the “no new taxes”, which is what the GOP has been proclaiming for 30 years. This is the true litmus test for this platform and every other GOP platform.
And it is terrible public policy.
A more intelligent statement would be “We support Pay As You Go”, so that at least elected officials would be responsible for the spending they create (the GOP scuttled it).
We don’t need more “borrow and spend” Reps who call themselves fiscal conservative but really just get by on credit cards. (Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, two wars…none of these were paid for).
Some new taxes seem totally in order to clean up the mess.
TheRain on September 22 at 12:10 p.m.
Seriously, Serious, whinging about how the article doesn’t get into the Democratic platform is just silly until you can show me an example of a Dem being attacked for not adhering to the platform strictly enough.
Serious on September 25 at 5:33 p.m.
Thank you for your comments,
Scoutster-
It seems to me that you have decided to debate the policy of no new taxes in order to show that the GOP platform is radical. In response I say that I and many other traditional conservatives agree with you that the “borrow and spend” system is terrible. Paying trillions of dollars for unnecessary military also seems wasteful. The federal government, I believe, should balance its budget and not spend beyond taxation and I believe that there should be no new taxes. The government should use the billions of dollars in revenue that it collects now to fund legitimate government services that are essential and constitutional. Is this radical? No, it’s conservatism at its best. If being conservative and believing for smaller government is radical then the center has shifted far too much.
TheRain-
The first point that I made was that it is perfectly sensible that a conservative party would apply more strict accountability to the candidates which request its endorsement. The democrats do no such thing and that is also sensible because democrats, as a more liberal party, trust government more. I do not consider what I wrote as “whinging about how the article doesn’t get into the Democratic platform” but more of an explanation for why there might be differences between the practices of the two main political parties in Spokane County and the United States. The point is that the article by Brunt is implying that the Spokane County Republican Party is foolish, impractical and radical when its practices are completely sound when given even brief examination.
Thank you for commenting. If there are any other points which you disagree with be sure to post them. It is good for people who disagree to discuss with open minds.