#chair: Catholics Come Home (a model for massgop!)

Computers vs. Real Live People (5.00 / 1)

Ed,

Let me start by agreeing that there is a branding problem with the Republican Party and we must work to understand what it is and come together to resolve it.

I have to disagree that the way to solving that problem is to start with a website.  I understand that online is your preferred means of interacting with people and that is where you start, but I think you are heading in the wrong direction.

Let's take a look at your Catholics Come Home example.  I am and have been a Catholic since birth but with varying degrees of practicing (as measured by church attendance).  With the scandals I reached my personal low point of attendance by becoming a C&E Catholic.  Since then I have trended back to far more regular attendance.  Not once, though, did I or have I visited the website you mention.  Rather, my confidence in the Church was restores by personal interaction with priests, lay people and other Catholics whom I knew by site or by name and who displayed what it meant to be a Catholic and always invited me to attend events, lunches, dinners, etc.  You see, it was the personal interactions that helped bring me back, not some web site.

So before you have us all coding a website or posting links everywhere how about we take a look at the multiple levels of personal interaction that go into helping attract new members, interactions that are far more than a website can do and far more rewarding.

Difference of opinion, yes, but a very important one.

---

by: ConsEph @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 13:34:59 PM UTC

About the web (0.00 / 0)

I love how you say, "a website" like it is some weird contraption that you find in a toy store.

Did you know that over half of all relationships in 2012 and half of all recent marriages started "with a website"? Or that most home purchases today begin "with a website"? (my last home purchase certainly did.)

It's time we retire the we-must-do-everything-in-person mindset. If you can buy a house, find a husband, and change your religion by visiting a website, surely you can become a Republican online.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:13:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Commonalities (0.00 / 0)

Ed,

You give some really good examples of people looking to do things:

1) You bought your house on-line because you were looking to buy a house and went to one or more websites dedicated to that purpose.

2) People looking for a relationship (or to cheat on their spouse) go to one of the many websites set up to bring people together for that purpose.

Yes, we should have a website for people who are looking to become Republicans.  But how do we get people to think about "converting" to Republican when they are not looking to do so?  Will some go searching on the web and find a site and decide to convert?  Probably, but we need people talking to people telling them about the party, what we stand for and to get them thinking about becoming a Republican (or maybe voting for a Republican to start).

So yes, we need websites to help bring people into the Party.  Yes, we need vastly better tools to help us manage contacts and information. But we still need people talking to people.

I appreciate that you think technology is the answer.  I think its part of the answer, that's where we differ.

---

by: ConsEph @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:40:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Walsh Laughs at us (5.00 / 1)

when we focus on websites.  Seriously he does.  How they've achieved what they have is by personal, one-on-one interaction.  having an effective web-presence is important. But I think waht ConsEph is saying, is you focus on the web to exclusion of the personal.  And say taht personal interaction isn't important at all.  

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stupid (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

What John Walsh laughs about most is how people like you have too much control over the party.

I don't expect someone who runs a 10-year old website and is in the direct mail business to understand the web.

As I said earlier (you never respond to actual arguments) if people are willing to find spouses and buy houses using the web, they are certainly willing to do politics. And did you read all the stories about how Obama kicked Romney's ass using technology?  

---

by: edfactor @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:33:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes I have Ed (0.00 / 0)

Ed,

1) The website is 6 years old.

2) Yes I've read the stories.  And they talk about how Obama's GOTV technology that drove door knocking and actual voter contact outperformed Romney's.  So Romney's voter contact operation ground to a halt because the door knockers had bad data (ORCA).  http://dailycaller.com/2012/11...

3) You need to actually meet the person before you marry them right?  Or do you just mary someone virtually.  You've stated on multiple occasions that person to person voter contact was not what wins elections.  John Walsh has shown, in two cycles that you are wrong. It is exactly what wins elections, not sitting behind a computer screen.  Which, I agree, I do too much of.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 13:16:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Walsh (0.00 / 0)

Ed,

I have met John more than a few times at local gatherings and had a chance to discuss some of his election process thoughts with him.  Me important, I have heard him speak on how the Dems will use technology to drive voter interaction.

In short he focused on technology to:

1). Identify and track Democratic voters across multiple campaigns and multiple election cycles.

2). Once identified, use the data to drive voter outreach at the PERSONAL level whether that be on the phone, at a coffee or face to face at the person's door.  They track it all, record it and then repeat.

3). They are very effective at this and as the election draws near they shift to more face to face and less other contact methods.

4). The one issue all the Dem activists I spoke to this past election was the need to perform data entry after door knocking.  They would take notes while speaking with votes and then have to go back and key in the data.  Tedious and not a good use of volunteers' time.  Very off putting to some.

So, in short, technology drives the interaction but is not the interaction and the data is used, maintained and mined.  We can do this too, but technology is not the answer, it's the tool that makes us more effective.

---

by: ConsEph @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 13:57:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But resources dictate the strategy (0.00 / 0)

Ms. Eph -

We don't have an army of inspiring Republicans to do what is needed on the ground. Online is cheap and effective. Also, note that the church site features content for the faithful also, and gives them ideas to make them more effective evangelists.

And to be honest, I am a little tired of all the "the only thing that matters is in person communication." That's just not true. In fact, the main reason, in my opinion, that we have a branding problem is the awful brand coming over the TV from non-Mass Republicans. I have many liberal friends who hate republicans, but don't know a single one. If your theory is true about people being turned on by good Republicans in person, why is the opposite not true? We live in a mass media world that is superseding personal contact. We must compete aggressively there, and change the brand there first.

But, as I said, we do have to, once we get some people willing to listen, direct them to some offline organization or people.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 13:50:04 PM UTC

Good for you Edfactor.... (4.00 / 1)

I look forward to the series.  I think the Catholic Church is a wonderful example to use to self diagnose the problems with the state Republican Party.  A website as you describe might work wonders for those who wish to explore the party on their own and privately - as they often do in their faith journey.

That being said, it might also be good for the MA Republican Party to look at what 'Red' state Republican Parties do to encourage, foster and develop their following.  What is it that they say that makes the message stick or resonate with their right leaning voters?  

At this point though things look bleak because the state Republican Party lacks answers.  Last night I met with a good friend and long-time Republican activist.  He was distraught about politics, and especially about the situation in Massachusetts.  Mind you, this is a guy who was active and excited about local, state and federal politics for as long as I have known him.  He worked phone banks, wrote letters to the editor, stood in the rain with candidate signs, gave money, held coffee hours, etc.  He has given up and looks forward to the day when he and his wife can move south to warmer climates and where politics is not such a losing effort.  His decision did not come easily, but it is anecdotal evidence of what is to come.  The troops are surrendering and its because they no longer believe the Republican Party in MA is a viable organization.  They are tired of sinking their hard-earned money, their available hours, their reputations and their pride on an organization that simply can not 'hit the ball'.  

Personally, I will tell you where I think a great part of the problem is - the state committee!  I know that saying this will win me no friends on this website, but it is what I truly think.  The SC has been the one consistent factor in the many years of failed political efforts.  The Chairpersons come and go, the RTCs come and go, the candidates come and go, but all along the one thing that is unchanged is the SC.  Sure, a few members turn over every few years, but largely it is a consistent body.

Think of it this way - we have about a half dozen Republican members of the state senate and about 3 dozen members of the state House.  In total about +/- 40 Republican legislators, and no other executive officeholders.  Yet the SC, which is really the board of Directors of the Republican Party is 80 members.  We have twice as many Chiefs as we do Indians!  Does it really take 80 SC members to manage the party that can only put 40 office holders into the state legislature?  80 SC members should be producing a lot more output.  That is exactly what I would tell a company if they had 80 managers and only 40 lineworkers....

I know the bylaws require 80 members, but it is time to recognize that we have the wrong members and not enough output.  That is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to...

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 16:03:46 PM UTC

Stereotype vs Reality (0.00 / 0)

The main flaw that I think is in your argument is that while an 80-member State Committee exists the turn over even since I first joined in 2007 is very high.  Be it through the 2008 & 2012 elections or resignations/caucuses there isn't a high number of long-term veterans/deeply entrenched members.  Indeed, I was at a meeting recently where I looked around where about only 2 of a dozen or so had been on the State Committee any longer than March 2012.  The turnover isn't "a few" but it has been much larger than you assert.

Also, 80 members isn't actually very large when considering various factors:

The Democrats have hundreds in comparison (mostly based on "affirmative action") and they do so largely because there are 40 State Senate districts so having 2 people per district trying to help organize & represent isn't very large.  within the districts, there are 351 municipalities, the cities of which have multiple wards and trying to organize and perpetuate those local committees is no small task, especially when some districts are just geographically vast.

I'll agree with you about a palpable apathy and cynicism at all levels of the party.  At the local level it has never been easy finding Republicans willing to actively step up & get involved.  Sure, there may be a couple of thousand of registered Republicans in a town but those willing to step up & be activists has always been relatively rare in my experience over the past 13 years.  Compounding that problem IS a problem with the State Committee, at least a large segment of individual members.  For example, when the Public Relations Committee with our then Communications Director asked for every State Committee member to identify 5 volunteers per Senate district for a Letter to the Editor writing project not only did those who respond barely found the 5 volunteers but I could proverbially count those marginally successful SC members on 1 hand, the 70-75 others well... never responded.  Now, on one hand that does speak to your point but a large number of those who failed to even attempt to participate are no longer members, having been turned over for a variety of factors.

You're technically right about the Board of Directors in theory but I would suggest a different practical example.  If I were to equate the MassGOP with say, Walmart, instead of practically thinking of the State Committee with those big wigs in Bentonville, Arkansas a more realistic metaphor is probably the town/city committees being analogous to the individual Walmart stores around Massachusetts with the municipal committee chairs being the store managers.  That would make the State Committee members similar to the Market Managers who "represent" several stores.  I could insert Regional Vice Presidents for MassGOP Regional Chairs for the sake of this discussion and the State Party Chair being basically CEO Mike Duke.  It's by no means a perfect analogy but I think that on a practical level it is far better than the BoD in AK with some guy name Walton sitting at the head of the table.

To circle back, I do agree with you about the "not enough output" as I've seen it myself.  I, by absolutely no means, hold myself up as an ideal SC member.  I have plenty of faults but I do keep trying to scratch & claw away rather than simply sit around marking time for four years.  I also like to think that dispute the Hatfield & McCoy dysfunctional feuding between us that we ultimately unify around supporting our candidates.  My ultimate point is simply this, there are plenty of problems from the tippity top down to the very bottom and every level in-between.  We need all segments to step up & be more effective, including but not limited to the State Committee.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 17:01:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Increase size of state committee (5.00 / 1)

The state committee is at the minimum legally required size, with one male and one female for each district (that law was enacted by democrats, remember). I think the law allows it to be increased to whatever size and composition the party decides. It could be doubled in size, with the additional seats available for people of any sex, and there could be special at large seats for various constituencies like 10 business owners, 10 senior citizens, 10 church members, 10 divorced people, 10 married people, 10 young republicans, etc.  

---

by: John Howard @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 18:44:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is (5.00 / 1)

That is what the Democratic Party has done, but obviously with different demographics.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 19:24:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And it has been a farce! (5.00 / 1)

Looking at the Democratic SC makeup makes me feel good about being Republican. They reserve seats for french speakers, for men dressing as women, and, separately, women dressing as men. (I am not making this up.)

We don't need more SC members. We need more people in the party producing the right things to help a lot of people. The average registered Republican probably has no idea the SC exists. I moved here in 1998, registered Republican, but didn't know the SC existed until 2004, despite having gone to some Boston-based Republican party events.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:06:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I grew up in Dartmouth (0.00 / 0)

I grew up in Dartmouth, registered to vote in 1996, and I didn't know that the Dartmouth Republican Town Committee existed until 2000.  I didn't know that the State Committee existed until shortly thereafter when I joined as then both members for my Senate district were Dartmouth residents who were involved with the town committee.  

Now, I did know that there was some vague notion of a Massachusetts Republican Party in or before 1996 as I first got "involved" through opining via the long extinct MassGOP email discussion list.  

It was while participating in that email discussion forum that I got to know various activists from across the Commonwealth and where my then State Committeewoman eventually invited me to attend the Dartmouth RTC meeting.  

Two years later, I was elected the town committee's chair & the rest is history.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:14:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is the minimum number better? (0.00 / 0)

If there were more slots, there'd be more enthusiasm and participation by registered Republicans that wanted to be part of the process. The Democrats do it because it works, it gets more people involved, motivates constituencies, makes things more fun. Why should the Republicans hamper themselves with a limited, weak and unrepresentative committee?

---

by: John Howard @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 23:05:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some Assumptions (0.00 / 0)

You're making some assumptions that may or may not be accurate.  For example, while some State Committee races were hotly contested in 2012, I've seen numerous incumbents go uncontested and in at least one case nobody ran and a caucus had to be held later.  It's also not a new thing, for while we have had a very healthy turn over during the past several years I've seen caucuses where trying to find people willing to fill the State Committee seats was nearly impossible.  As such, there isn't necessarily "more enthusiasm and participation by registered Republican" as well, very many have no interest in being "part of the process".  

Simply because the Democrats do something doesn't mean that it works.  Likewise, it doesn't mean that it should go unconsidered, either.  

Republicans shouldn't "hamper themselves with a limited, weak, and unrepresentative committee".  That is why we have quadrennial State Committee elections.  However, simply increasing the number of State Committee members doesn't automatically or magically provide solutions to the problems you perceive. If anything, it could merely compound the problem.

That such questions can & should be asked, is another matter entirely and such discussion can be healthy and productive.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 23:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At large seats would be easier to fill (0.00 / 0)

And maybe more people would be willing to serve on the committee it if there were more slots, if running didn't mean muscling out a long serving respected member. Those people could still serve by seeking an at large seat as a business owner, or a married person, or divorced person, or single person. I don't see how adding enthusiastic new blood could compound any problems of stagnant and unrepresentative committee.

And just curious, but on those occasions you witnessed when no one ran for a seat, was it for a committeeman or a committeewoman seat? Are the committee women seats harder to fill? That quota system was imposed by Democrats and helps Democrats and hurts Republicans, and unless it can be repealed or overturned, it should be dealt with by adding more seats to make room for more people who are enthusiastic conservative Republicans.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:01:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both (0.00 / 0)

Both genders have had their difficulties but I'd say a slight edge would be to women, but not by very much.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:36:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Organization (5.00 / 1)

I've known of Catholics Come Home and been in the periphery of their work for years now.  They also run commercials on EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network as well as affiliated Catholic radio so they engage not only, but perhaps primarily, to an Internet audience.  They're also appealing to a self-selective audience and that is to those curious of Catholic media, such as the EWTN Radio Network, the Immaculate Heart Radio Network, and Radio CorMariae 88.5 FM in New Bedford.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 17:07:49 PM UTC

Asking Catholic football fans to come home (5.00 / 1)

Ironically, this story just came into my email inbox from the National Catholic Register.  I've seen this ad several times.

MIAMI - Tom Peterson, founder of Catholics Come Home, announced that his Catholic evangelization organization will be airing a new national television commercial featuring retired college football coach Lou Holtz during college football week and ending with the BCS National Championship (Notre Dame vs. Alabama) on Jan. 7. The 30-second ad features Coach Holtz delivering a half-time "pep-talk" reminding viewers to keep focused on life's goal: heaven.

"Faith is not a spectator's sport; it must be lived ... it's interactive," said Peterson in a press release. "We're trying a creative game plan, with the goal of winning loyal fans for Jesus and the Church."

Using a locker room as a backdrop, Holtz reminds viewers of the importance of doing God's will, loving others, prayer, discipline, gaining strength through God's Word and the receiving the sacraments. And, when we "fumble due to sin," the Sacrament of Confession "puts us back on the field," the Catholic retired coach reassures.

The Holtz ad will be aired in various markets and programming throughout the United States, reaching an estimated 70 million households. Peterson said he wrote the spot more than a year ago, and "by God's grace" met Holtz by accident at Los Angeles International Airport and invited him to star in the ad. Holtz agreed.

http://www.ncregister.com/dail... #NCRegister18:58:01lyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 20:01:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Advertising on EWTN and religious radio to reach... (4.00 / 1)

lapsed Catholics doesn't sound like effective targeting, they would literally be preaching to the converted.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:25:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Really (0.00 / 0)

There is a good number of Catholic questioning Protestants and atheists (as well as other faiths) who tune into Catholic TV & radio.  If one watches or listens to the call-in shows it's clearly evidence.

More directly, that's how I arrived.  Living proof.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:33:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I fall somewhere in the middle about you point... (4.00 / 1)

...of course any organization has to master the web and everything that means (and it certainly does not mean just having a website--the web means engagement).

But having a clever message that gets people's attention can only go so far, especially if a person is already inclined to be against the message.  So the GOP can do all it wants relative to "marketing" to Hispanics, for example, but if the core message is still viewed by Hispanics with hostility, then a effective web site will do squat.  

Perfect example is the example you give Ed.  No surprise if I tell people that I'm "lapsed Catholic" (more like a recovering Catholic).  So I went to the Catholics Come Home website and click on door # 2.  I immediately clicked on "5 Reasons to Come Back"--after all that is the purpose of the site.  I got these reasons and here were my reactions to them:

5. We hunger for meaning and purpose in our lives.
Yes we do and I believe I have good balance of this (or at least I'm aware i have to try for that every day.)
4. We need God's forgiveness and healing for our failings and God's mercy to help us become better people.
We certainly need to forgive and ask for forgiveness, But I think it is more important to ask forgiveness to the very people you hurt and forgive those who hurt you.

3. Our families need to be built on a strong foundation of faith and we need to live in community with others.
Of course, but this living "in community with others" sounds kinda like communism.  An families and community can grow and thrive in the secular world also.
2. The Catholic Church has the Sacraments-and we especially long for the Eucharist.
Sorry but, whoop dee doo.  As someone who has 3 Sacrament "strips" (I got married outside the Church), every time I hear about Catholic Sacraments,  I think back to a friend who about 10 years ago pieced together the fact that EVERY priest that gave her a Sacrament (and did the funeral MAss of her mom) was part of the abuse scandal...EVERY SACRAMENT COMMITTED BY A DISGRACED PRIEST!!!!  No website with catchy slogans can easily wipe away that stain.
1. Catholicism is TRUE!
Ok, if you say so, but I've got decades of life experience that undermines that clever bumper sticker.

So in summary, the Catholic Church as got to fundamentally change to have me even consider coming back.  For one, if modern political activists would advance more New Testament teaching of Jesus about helping the poor and not the rich, instead of Old Testament morals, I'd start listening.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:48:29 PM UTC

From a political example to an anti-Catholic screed (0.00 / 0)

The sacrament of the Eucharist is believed by Catholics to be the actual (not symbolic) body, blood, soul & divinity of Jesus Christ through the miracle of Transubstantiation affected by the the validly ordained priest through the sacrament of Holy Orders.  The personal state of sin by the priest does not alter his ability to validly consecrate the bread and wine.

Therefore, while you state that "every sacrament committed by a disgraced priest" may or may not be accurate, the validly of the sacraments is unaffected.  Questions pertaining to state of grace of the celebrant have been around for centuries and were answered by none other than St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.  You clearly have an anti-clerical bend and continue to smear many good men for the despicable sins of a few.

You harp on the issue of reconciliation, that is seeking forgiveness.  The Sacrament of Reconciliation does require a contrite heart, a firm purpose of amendment, and an act of reparation.  One who needs forgiveness can & should seek it from the aggrieved - it may even be mandated by the confessor as reparations - but acceptance by the aggrieved is not a condition of the sacramental process of reconciliation.  After all, what makes a sin to be a sin is primarily the offense to God, even if that is through a grave offense to our brethren.  Nothing is more important than offending God although the offense may very well occur to someone from whom we should seek forgiveness for having offended them.

I hope that you've had your marriage properly blessed by a priest and brought into full conformity with the Catholic Church.  However, you admit to being a disobedient - and apparently proudly so - Catholic so we should all pray for your full re-conversion to the faith - just as we should for all lapsed Catholics and indeed all people who struggle with their faith, which is well...all people.

Similarly, since you deny that the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth - as someone raised a Catholic and has knowingly rejected its teachings - then you need to fundamentally change yourself in order to have the Church welcome you back.  Of course, it always will just as the father welcomed his prodigal son, but an obstinance in disobedience is a cross that you need to bear.  The 2,000 year-old institution established by Jesus Christ does not need to change itself, but rather individuals must conform itself to the Church.  Listen or not, that's up to you and between you and God.  I happen to think that if I'm fortunate enough to make it into His presence, quite honestly I won't notice whether or not you are nearby but I hope that you will be, despite your despise of the Church.

Of course, what you do is up to you and you're entitled to your opinions but they should be refuted with accurate Catholic teaching lest your clear bias & bigotry be perpetuated uncontested.  

Finally, it is not at all surprising that you would attempt to turn someone's example of how to use the effective efforts of one group's evangelical efforts for a secular, political, purpose into a screed against and attacking the Catholic Church.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 22:23:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Despite my disagreement (0.00 / 0)

Despite my profound disagreement with the anti-Catholic post above, I am reminded of the natural limitation of using any religious example or analogy for a political purpose.  After all, this is America with our Constitutional rights to religious freedom as well as speech and association so I can't politically fault someone for not sharing my particular faith, however there is a greater point to be made.

After all, a political party is dependent upon the number of registered voters and activists willing to self-identify as either Republicans or Democrats.  Candidates and and elected officials need to pay particular sensitivity to the democratic values and electoral tendencies of their constituents.  A political party must always be a large enough tent to be both viable and successful.

While some churches are distinctly democratic, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers) and other Protestant denominations others such as the Orthodox Church - and we were particularly discussing the Catholic Church, is not a democratic institution.  The Catholic Church isn't even a republican institution but rather it is a (divine) monarchy with a vicar left here on the physical, temporal, Earth to conduct the affairs necessary to lead as many people as possible to eternal salvation.

That being the case, the parallel of Church focused evangelical outreach does break down when regarding politically focused efforts.  Clearly, some people wish to democratize the Church and make the Church broad.  On many levels that is an admirable aspiration although it may often lead astray.  Others, particularly many in the Church, prefer to focus on a deepening of the faith.  After all, what is broad is often superficial in depth.  To be a little silly, you can't swim in a couple of inches of water.

To this end, the New Testament itself quotes Jesus in Matthew 7:13-14 concerning the wide or narrow gate:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.

How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

A Church, especially one that believes that it was founded by God and has the full deposit of the faith can afford to e narrow but a political party must, by its very nature, be broad.

Refocused here in the Massachusetts Republican Party, what we often fight about fraternally is this very point.  Some people demand a narrow ideological gate & others insist on a wide gate.  I'm "narrow gate" when it comes to my faith but relatively "wide gate" when it comes to my party.  I can be this way because my Church is concerned with eternal salvation and not with partisan registration, activism, and re-occurring election cycles.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 22:41:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen! (0.00 / 0)

I'm "narrow gate" when it comes to my faith but relatively "wide gate" when it comes to my party.

Amen to that! I could not agree more.

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 22:50:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except when you aren't (0.00 / 1)

"I'm "narrow gate" when it comes to my faith but relatively "wide gate" when it comes to my party."

But you do impose your "narrow gate" no-compromise positions on the party!

Specifically you oppose Civil Unions and say you "will not compromise" on that issue (even though the Pope recently has allowed for compromise by specifically opposing CU's that are "juridically equivalent," you still insist on following some decades old encyclical that opposed any legal recognition for same-sex couples.) And you support Personhood Amendments and Rand Paul's Life At Conception Act that would make IUD's illegal and force us to implant every embryo a lab creates. Those are scary and divisive and unpopular extreme positions that you advocate as a member of the committee publicly on RMG, in the political realm, and you cite your commitment at a Catholic as the reason for imposing those positions.

If you truly want to be "wide gate" about the party, you should support CU's and reject Personhood Amendments, so that the party won't be seen as aggressively opposed to gays and women.

---

by: John Howard @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 23:28:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the risk (0.00 / 0)

At the risk of trying to educate you one more time:

I've never imposed anything on my party.  I've never had a litmus test for any candidate.  I've supported candidates who, abiding by Reagan' 80% Rule, were diametically opposed to me on this & other social issues here in the Commonwealth.  I've been pushed out of & ostracized by others for my willingness to work with those with whom I profoundly disagree.

Indeed, I accepted compromises on our 2010 MassGOP Platform, as a member of not only the Platform Committee but also a member of the Values Working Group that expressly contradict the line of bull you try to shovel around here about me on RMG.

It's hard to tell if you're a blatant liar or simply ignorant.

However, I undeniably reject any union other than the traditional union of one man & one woman and I will never deny the right to life from the moment of conception through natural death.  If you wish to continue to crusade against me for your strange alternative agendas, by all means do so for now that you have been educated, once again, it dispels the ability to default to an excuse of unfortunate ignorance.  Then again, if you're attacking me for your agenda then that is indeed a badge of honor.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 23:34:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Choice (0.00 / 0)

Considering some "true conservatives" apparently don't consider me one for my willingness to play well with my fellow Republicans and considering that people like John Howard condemn me for being well, too conservative then I can only assume that I'm just right, as Goldilocks would say.

During the 2010 state platform process I often said that I was there not to write a catechism for my Church, after all the Catholic Church already has one, but a platform for my political party and that platform for me was a balance between  uncompromising principles & political pragmatism as we are a party comprised also of libertarians & more moderates.

As I told a colleague a few weeks ago, if there ever came a time when my principles prevented me from serving in my capacity as a State Committee member for the Massachusetts Republican Party then I would resign.  After all, my principles & my Catholic faith are infinitely more important than crass political pragmatism.  I will never, ever, apologize for allowing my faith to permeate and motivate my political activism.

I have & will always follow Reagan's 80% Rule - even when it has gotten me in trouble with fellow social conservatives with whom I'm in agreement.  However, at the end of the day - that is the end of my days - I care not if I've pleased John Howard, any state or national party chair, or any candidate or elected official but rather an authority much higher in accordance with my principles and my fully formed and informed conscience.

Therefore, feel free to twist & corrupt my activism all you want but to be opposed and attacked by you merely validates that I'm on the right track.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 23:51:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are not "too conservative" (0.00 / 0)

Considering some "true conservatives" apparently don't consider me one for my willingness to play well with my fellow Republicans and considering that people like John Howard condemn me for being well, too conservative then I can only assume that I'm just right, as Goldilocks would say.

You aren't too conservative, because supporting the Life At Conception Act is not conservative, it is extreme and radical. There has never been a law declaring embryos as human beings with full rights, and enacting one would be a huge radical change to long established laws. Conservatives don't advocate for radical extreme changes, radical extremists do that. And conservatives believe we should keep marriage as a man and a woman and stop postgenderism, which you apparently do not care about doing at all. Instead you make alarming anti-gay statements about refusing to compromise on civil unions that harms the party brand as much as the Personhood nuts do.

You are not on the right track, unless you want to bring about postgenderism and more same-sex marriage and keep Republicans from winning elections.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 19:46:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John 15:18-27 (0.00 / 0)

Particular pieces of legislation are certainly debatable and subject to the prudential judgment of a fully formed conscience.  The Personhood Amendment is/was one vehicle to achieve a greater goal and bedrock principle.  There are many legislative, judicial, and moral persuasion cards in the deck.

I am not wedded to the Personhood Amendment but I am absolutely committed to life being defined and protected from the moment of conception through natural death.

If being a practicing Catholic makes me radical, so be it.  Well before I am a conservative Republican I am first & foremost a Catholic Christian.  As the "Republican Oath" states, I believe that the Republican Party is the best vehicle for my principles.  If and when it ceases to be that best, most viable option, then I will leave it behind.  It's also why the Knights of Columbus, of which I just just today appointed Financial Secretary of my Council, is a non-partisan organization beholden to no one and nothing but His Holiness and the Church.  As is recorded by the Beatitudes in the New Testament, Jesus said "Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Mark 5:10.

Speaking of Catholicism and bedrock principles, since you like to cite Popes, albeit out of context and in twisted forms, when it suites you.  Here is a quotation from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops:

For the Church, there is no distinction between defending human life and promoting the dignity of the human person.

Pope Benedict XVI writes in Caritas in Veritate. . . that "The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that 'a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.'" (no. 15).

As a gift from God, every human life is sacred from conception to natural death.

As a gift from God, every human life is sacred from conception to natural death. The life and dignity of every person must be respected and protected at every stage and in every condition. The right to life is the first and most fundamental principle of human rights that leads Catholics to actively work for a world of greater respect for human life and greater commitment to justice and peace.

The bishops pledged to affirm the intrinsic value of human life and the dignity of every human being in a way that transforms the culture by implementing "The Life and Dignity of the Human Person" priority plan for 2010-2012.

To achieve this goal, the priority plan includes ongoing education, prayer, policy, and advocacy efforts to mobilize the Catholic community on issues of life, justice, and peace. In this way, the Catholic community celebrates the gift of human life and witnesses to the Good News of Jesus Christ.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-an...

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 22:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some dangerous ideas you are spreading (0.00 / 0)

Faithful Catholics do NOT need to support embryo personhood laws in order to respect life at every stage and "work for a world of greater respect for human life and greater commitment to justice and peace." There are better ways to do that than calling for the most extreme law imaginable to immediately end all abortion and also force us to implant cloned embryos all those frozen embryos out there, and do other things like prohibit IUD's and maybe end IVF. Those elect Democrats and lead to more abortion.

And it's not just politically smart, it is a fact, legal and moral and religiously, that un-implanted embryos have not yet come to life. Though they have unique DNA and are growing bodies, their growth is not directed by their own will but by the outside miraculous hand of God. They aren't living people because they have no heartbeat, and I think it respects life more to let embryos that were created outside the body decompose back into their constituent elements like what happens to millions of embryos every day that fail to implant and come to life. People have known for decades that not every naturally fertilized egg implants in the womb, but the church has never said that is a grave situation that must be stopped, and it isn't when it happens to artificially fertilized eggs either. I am not saying it's OK to create embryos, it is not. Just that it is OK to let unimplanted embryos remain unimplanted and return to dust.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 00:30:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You do impose those positions on the party (0.00 / 0)

As a Republican committee member, when you say you reject any legal recognition for same-sex couples and support laws that define embryos as people, people think that's the Republican position that would become law if we elect enough Republicans. It's not in the platform, but it's what people think is in the platform.

How come you aren't supporting an Egg and Sperm law that preserves natural sexual reproduction and rejects the postgenderism that the Pope recently called on Catholics and all people to oppose? Ed said that he found the Pope's words "satisfying" and wants to do nothing to oppose postgenderism. Is that your position too? Do you think that is a popular position? Even Warren opposed the prisoner sex change ruling, knowing that if she said she supported it, she would probably lose the election.

Why do you choose the most radical and unpopular laws to support, while doing nothing to support popular moderate laws the Pope asks us to support, like ending same-sex marriage and stopping postgenderism and transgendered reproduction?

And don't call me a liar unless I lied about something, and then you better say what it is that I lied about. And what is it about "my agenda" that you think is "alternative"? There is nothing I advocate that contradicts the Pope, or is strange or extreme or unpopular.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:15:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are what you've proven yourself to be (2.50 / 2)

You lie, constantly.  It's hard to determine when you're actually even trying to tell the truth.  As far as the Pope, I've pointed out repeatedly where you've contradicted Papal teaching.  The "strange or extreme or unpopular" goes without saying.  In addition to being a liar, you're also creepily obsessive.  Alas, I actually assume you mean well you just have a deranged way of expressing it.

"It's what people think is in the platform".  Sorry, I can't control what people "think".  I can't control their ignorance.  I can clearly show them what the platform says.  Since you like to make things personal, I can also explain my history of activism & performance.  Now, if you choose to ignore or dismiss that, then so be it.  After being educated if you continue to perpetuate that which is not true that makes you a liar.  That you're grasping at fanciful delusions rather than concrete facts makes your opinion even less relevant.  

I adhere to the letter & spirit of ever teaching of the Catholic Church (you do know that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, don't you?).  If being a faithful & practicing Catholic, especially in the most Catholic state in the Union, makes me "extreme" then so be it.  I'll be red hot, certainly not ice cold, but you can be luke warm and be vomited out.  When you've at least read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Papal encyclicals like Evangelium Vitae & Humane Generis, both of which deal with these social matters, then get back to me and we can have an educated discussion.  Until then, continue to distort and corrupt some quotes you read online and pretend you know of what you really have no clue.  Fortunately, I don't have to be the John Howard stamp of approval for anything in my life.  At best, your BS simply makes me interact with RMG a bit less so as not be subject to your crazy rantings & untruthful attacks.

By all means, go advocate your pet projects and do so with likely the best of intentions but you as you've gotten no where here on RMG you'll get no where outside, in the real world.  Putting aside the actual issues, you're simply a failed messenger because well, despite your intentions you present yourself as as obsessive, creepy, and disingenuous.  To that, you selectively quote that which feeds your weirdness.  Yes, I reject civil unions but I have clearly written over the many years here on RMG that I have absolutely no problem with such things as legal contracts between any two individuals, something that would NOT be dependent upon sexual identity, that would facilitate inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.  The fact that embryos are genetically distinct individuals from the moment of conception is simply a little thing called science. Embryos are distinct human persons and the onus is upon you to define when human personhood begins.  I don't care where you think that moment beings, personally, but if you are going to condone the killing of a human embryo, then you'll have to reconcile where along the 9 months that a "clump of cells" becomes a human person.  I'm comfortable with my position, are you?  Is it the moment of delivery?  Do you support then partial birth abortion?  Is it the third trimester?  Second?  Third?  Btw - you keep trying to cite the Pope, I know exactly where the Pope comes down on these issues, evidently you do not.  Of course, you either are ignorant or you are a liar.  Since I know you read RMG & have for years that you take my comments out of context makes you a liar, whether you like it or not.

Ironically, I'm probably the person on RMG closest to many of your views but that is only an occasion for you to rabidly lash out.  You're entitled to your views, you're even entitled to your opinions about me, but you're not entitled to blatantly lie.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:58:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey Rob!!! (2.50 / 2)

Here's a RMG request, can you create a blog setting where I can simply block out certain annoying people engaged in harassment?  Sort of a RMG restraining order :)

Such an ability would make RMG a much more enjoyable experience and potentially not distract everyone so they can focus only on those productive posts by people who aren't seen as regrettable distractions.

Maybe it already exists so if so, let me know.  On the flip side, I'm sure plenty of people would like to use the very option on me so you'd be doing a lot of people a RMG service!

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:04:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't come up with an example? (0.00 / 0)

I have never lied.  Either link to something that's a lie, or stop insulting and discrediting me. A faithful Catholic ought to appreciate and support my efforts, not call me creepy and say they are "pet projects" when they are the same projects the Pope is telling everyone to try to accomplish.

You can be a faithful Catholic without tarring the party with radical abortion laws and radical anti-gay positions. Those go way beyond what the Pope calls for. Its mystifying why you don't advocate the popular Catholic positions where we have a chance to win, like preserving marriage and stopping transgenderism, which are supported by the majority in the state and country and are not radical changes to existing law, and could be accomplished if we tried. Instead you obstruct progress on those, and advocate for things that are not going to happen and would be unpopular and aren't things the Pope is currently urging people to fight for.

I don't think I've contradicted any papal teaching. I respect life from conception to natural death, and oppose creation of human embryos outside the womb, but I don't call for enacting Personhood Amendments (neither has the Pope). I think life begins at heartbeat end ends when heartbeat ends. I respect life at all stages, from before it comes to life as an embryo and long after death in the grave. I respect marriage and work very hard to preserve it, and the Pope now explicitly doesn't rule out CU's defined like I propose to accomplish that. I work hard to stop postgenderism as the Pope urged recently. The only thing I can think of where we diverge is a moot point, regarding germline genetic engineering to fix genetic diseases, that I think undermines the connection of a man and a woman to each other and their offspring and would be bad public policy to allow, but the Vatican is more sympathetic to, if it could be done, which it can't.

I'm sorry in my frustration to lash out at you, but you are someone who ought to be helping preserve marriage and natural sex and instead you are the biggest obstacle because it's friendly fire and I can't even get off the runway. I don't know why you have such a distorted and uncharitable picture of me and my efforts, you seem to be perpetuating a caricature of me that is unfair and hurts us all. I'm not crazy or creepy and you shouldn't say that, you should be defending me and helping convince other Catholics to support my plan to preserve marriage.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 16:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed cited Catholic Come Home as a example of what the MA GOP should do... (0.00 / 0)

...I am the very target this website wants to reach, and it did not change my mind.  Instead of leaving it at that, I said why it did nothing to persuade me.  While not my intention, I did assume you would react that way.

Ed, Brock's comments reinforces my critique.  To have a website (or any marking message) that says we want you back, but doesn't address the fundamental and obvious substantial (based on Brock's comments) differences I have with the Church.  The many groups that feel alienated by the GOP won't be persuaded by the glitz of a website.  Their needs to be at least small shifts in reality to significantly change perceptions.  For example, if the Catholic Church determined that birth control was not a sin, I could become a little more open minded about the Church.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 21:35:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inherent Problem (0.00 / 0)

The inherent problem is that if the Catholic Church were to suddenly change its position on artificial birth control then it would violate its own teaching, doctrine, and indeed dogma and thus effectively cease to be the Catholic Church.

Much like a political party there are principles that may not be altered or undermined or you no longer are the institution you claim to be.

The Catholic Church isn't a social organization and it doesn't bend or depend upon popular opinion.  It believes that it has eternal truths and as such it simply does not, and cannot, change those positions.  Even if the Church was whittled down to 5 people in the proverbial phone booth it still cannot, by its very nature, do what you wish it would do.

Political parties have a bit more leeway but hoping that the Catholic Church will change its position on artificial birth control is like hoping that the law of gravity, or some other law of science, be changed.  Your desires are natural, indeed common, but they will and can never be realized.

Again, here is where a religious example does not accurately fit a political reality.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 22:08:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But they don't want people back that aren't ready (0.00 / 0)

They don't want to invite anti-church liberals, who would try to poison the church with bad social agendas. They would prefer you not come home, at least not while you still have those attitudes. So the site worked, if it turned you away. They want people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman and there is a fundamental difference between being a man and a woman, and who are open to the idea that using birth control is a sin, to come join them.

The same thing applies to the GOP. They shouldn't be trying to grow ranks by appealing to liberals like you, or people that want to change it into the Libertarian Party. There already is a home for them, in the Democratic and Libertarian parties. But there are many thousands of marriage supporters who aren't enrolled in the party, who would love to feel the moral support of other people who agreed with them that marriage should only be for a man and a woman.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 22:29:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed - I agree with the marketing idea (0.00 / 0)

The snapshot provides a cautionary example, though.

Protestant and Not Religious are lumped together?  This is the kind of thing the GOP does all the time.  We alienate natural constituencies like Hispanics by making gauche remarks like this.

So if such an effort is to be tried, you need to watch out for the efforts of 'true believers' who genuinely don't see why anyone would be offended by such a label.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:21:51 AM UTC