Spirit of '76,
Thank you for the kudos and words of thought. So the rhetorical questions you asked actually do have answers. A rhetorical question is usually, by it's very nature, one sided. I feel that some more context is in order.
There is a rule change proposal happening as well to make the Iowa Platform actually relevant to candidates that are seeking and in office. I am the once that has proposed and is pushing these 2 changes and will most likely see it happen at the State Convention.
With the new rule changes in place a candidates actual eligibility for funding will be based on their compliance to the party platform. Without getting into the details it will make the platform have "teeth", something it heretofore lacked.
Even without the new rules changes proposed changes of this nature makes headlines. This in turn spurs debate about the topic in question and helps to "re-frame" the argument.
Since Iowa is the 1st state for the 2016 Presidential race there is already discussion of how this very plank.. one solitary plank.. will have to be addressed by 2016 GOP primary candidates. Can you imagine if EVERY liberty issue were addressed by them? Well that is a goal, to have as many of these issues vetted on the public stage, similar to how Ron Paul did, which consequently is the very reason I am able to type this here, and why you are reading this.
So as far as moving the football forward, not every play is a touchdown, but they all move one way or another. Although I'm pretty sure having a majority of delegates at a district convention vote to keep government out of marriage should qualify as a touchdown *-).
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but the
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: