Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.


Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2013
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette





Rick Green for MassGOP Chair

by: mecowett

Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 21:52:57 PM EST


(Why one State Committeeman is supporting Rick Green - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

Two weeks ago, I endorsed my state committee colleague Rick Green to serve as our next chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party. I did so, and I encourage others to do so, for many reasons. I'll present what I consider the two most important below.
mecowett :: Rick Green for MassGOP Chair
Party unity: Given the current state of our party within the Commonwealth, we need above all to become more united. I do not believe, however, that unity requires uniformity: we must find room for Republicans of all stripes. We must remember, as Ronald Reagan and so many others have known, that those who are with us 80% of the time are our friends and allies. Those who agree with us 60% or 70% of the time aren't our enemies, either: winning coalitions are, by definition, broad enough to include a majority (or at least a strong plurality). This is a particular concern for me both as the youngest member of the state committee, and because I represent a district that, even for Massachusetts, is heavily Democratic: our focus must be on convincing those who do not already agree with us, especially younger voters whose political habits are just being shaped. On all ends of the spectrum, we must stop trying to write those who disagree with us out of the party.

I find myself bemused by recent implications that Rick will impose a "litmus test" on our party. I doubt I'd satisfy anyone's litmus test: for instance, I've publicly stated my support for gay marriage, but I'm equally proud to say publicly that I'm pro-life. I suspect that several of our problems stem from valid feelings among activists of many stripes that they have not been treated fairly, and that their views cannot even be heard. I know that it is one of Rick's foremost commitments to bring people from all parts of our party together, and to foster the exchange of ideas for returning our party to relevance at all levels of government. I fear that those who complain of imaginary "litmus tests" are unlikely candidates for promoting the sort of unity that will be essential to our future success.

Moreover, the list of Rick's endorsements demonstrates that he has support from those with a wide range of views. As I write this, 25 members of the state committee  (including me) and seven of our thirty-three elected state legislators have publicly endorsed Rick. I know that some consider themselves moderate, and others further to the right; some are social conservatives, and some are not; some are even libertarians. Many would disagree sharply among themselves on some issues. We all, however, agree that Rick is the best choice to become our next chairman.

Vision: I ran for state committee in large part because I thought -- as I still do -- that our focus had become too narrow. Devoting all or almost all of our efforts to statewide elections for major offices has not only robbed us of continuity and stability, it has also failed: we have neither a Republican governor nor enough Republican members in either house of the General Court to demand a roll-call vote (though we're quite close in the House!), much less sustain a veto.

I believe that Rick is most committed to working from the "ground up" and thereby leading us back to relevance at every level of government. I know how well he knows Massachusetts politics at a town-by-town, district-by-district level, and I know he understands how imperative such an approach is. Indeed, it is just this approach that enabled Scott Brown to be the first Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts in 37 years: we are all familiar with the story of how, beginning as a town official, he worked his way up to serve in both houses of the legislature and then in Congress. I am confident that electing Rick to serve as chairman will enable numerous others to follow similar, if not identical paths, and thereby increase the number of  Republicans elected throughout our Commonwealth. 

As I said in my opening paragraph, there are myriad other reasons to support Rick: the executive ability suggested by his career in business, the commitment he has demonstrated to Massachusetts there, and his record of support for candidates at all levels all come to mind. Again, however, I consider party unity and vision to be the most important factors, and I strongly believe that Rick is the best choice on both counts.

The writer is the state committeeman from the Middlesex and Suffolk District

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Your opinion does matter, but where is the plan? (0.00 / 0)
Michael -

Your opinion matters a lot to me, so I take it seriously.

But why is everyone's endorsement of Mr. Green so content-free???? I also have very positive opinions of him from his resume and the simple themes he speaks of. But where is all the content?

For instance, he has been on the state committee. Where are the people who will say, "Rick Green has accomplished 'X' on the SC and we worked together on that subcommittee."?

Mr. Green has a website and four public media appearances. There is almost nothing there. He has said this one thing over and over again: that he wants to increase voter registration by getting 5 new Republicans per precinct. He also wants to get $30 more per precinct. He then trumpets that we will therefore have tens of thousands of more voters and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Really? I have an even better plan that is four times as good! Let's get 20 new Republicans per precinct and $120 per precinct.

Is my plan four times as good?

No - that's just math. Without even one single idea about how to get those voters and money, I have no reason to believe him.

Let's take support for non-marquee races. A lot of people support this. But has Mr. Green talked to the donors? Is there support to give money to a group that includes a lot of people that cannot win? Is Mr. Green willing to be specific about what this kind of financial support means? Everyone talks about "supporting the grass roots" - yet what specifically does he mean?

The other thing Mr. Green says in the context of winning more races is that we must start "listening to voters."  Has he read the election returns of hundreds of elections over the past several years?

On that issue, I agree with you 100% that we must be a tolerant and diverse party. However, the most angry and intolerant Republicans I know have lined up behind Mr. Green. Many of them believe the party must be socially conservative above all else. They rejected Richard Tisei. They would never, ever, support a MassGOP chairman who was not with them. So I want to know why they support Green. And until Mr. Green says that he wants a diverse, tolerant party where social moderates will also be welcome, I will simply assume that this will remain an officially socially conservative party that just authorized the adoption of Mitt Romney's losing platform.

I could go on and on about the things Rick Green has not said. (How could a guy who runs an online store have nothing to say about technology? Absurd!!!) But I am looking forward to him saying more. He thinks he can win on resume and platitudes. There is a good chance he will.

But I think we, the people that you on the State Committee represent, deserve much more.


Ed (0.00 / 0)
He has a step by step plan that he has shared with the State Committee.  I've seen parts of it.  To publicly share it, is to give the Democratic Party our playbook.  Not a smart idea.

Full Disclosure


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


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
Rob -

How is it that you, who are not on the SC, have seen this plan? How is it that Mr. Green has favored you over other Republicans? (Yes, in reality, you are more important than most, but it strikes me as being wrong. Nevermind that you have a conflict as you are taking advertising money from him on this site.)

And why do our plans have to be secret? And why would the Democrats give a damn what we plan to do? Our party is in ruins and we just adopted the losing Romney platform!

As for the value of secrecy, it is a fool's errand. Because of reporting requirements and the inability to keep non-Republicans out of most local and state events, you really can't keep things hidden for long.

Lots of people think that our plans must remain secret. They are wrong. We have to get the basics right. I would love the idea that we have plans so innovative and risky that we would have to keep them secret. But there is no way that is what we are talking about here.

Green should release them, as David and Dean have. (Even Kirsten Hughes has released a lot more than Green, but she has still only released a few things.)


[ Parent ]
Have You Tried Calling Him? (0.00 / 0)
Just a thought Ed, but have you tried calling Rick to ask him directly your questions about his positions?

Have you tried talking with Steve and Elizabeth about his plans and whether or not you think he or the other candidates would be a good chair?

Have you organized an event in your Ward to host a debate amongst the Chair candidates?

All possible ways to ask the more about their plans and a potential way to bring more people into the party.


[ Parent ]
We're Trying (5.00 / 1)
Some of us down here in the Second Bristol & Plymouth district organized a forum for Jennifer Nassour & Mike Franco back during that MassGOP Chairman election and we're trying to do similar this time around.

Last time it was an event at Dartmouth's Southworth Library and someone even recorded it and placed it on YouTube.

It may or may not materialize but if it does I'll certainly post the details here on RMG.


[ Parent ]
Thank You (0.00 / 0)
Brock

Thank you for working to try and put something together for the people in your district and via YouTube, some more of us.


[ Parent ]
Good ideas! (0.00 / 0)
Ms. Eph -

Those are good ideas.

I am not going to call Mr. Green, as I am only an individual Ward committee member. My point is that he should be much more candid on what he should do. If he wants my thoughts, I am easy to find, and I will keep posting stuff here that he can read if he wants.

As for my state committee members, I respect them a great deal and trust their judgment. One, Steve Aylward, has already endorsed Rick Green. The other, Elizabeth Mahoney, has not endorsed anyone as far as I know.

I usually contact them only to thank them for their service and to wish them luck in difficult decisions. My opinions are widely known. They don't need to hear them again. :-)

As for debate in my ward on the candidates and issues - I love the idea and I will think about it.


[ Parent ]
Mass Fiscal (5.00 / 1)
Ed,

Have you looked at what Mass Fiscal has accomplished since it relatively recent founding by Mr. Green.

In my opinion, they have been very effective at helping shift the debate on fiscal issues in the State and have both Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting some of their measures and this is the coalition we will need to govern.

They were also instrumental in helping shift several seats in the house more rightward in the last cycle.  They were not alone, but they played a large role in doing so.

So you ask what he has done on the SC, I say he has done more outside the SC in the last year than a majority of his peers.


[ Parent ]
A few thoughts (5.00 / 1)
Ed --

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It's always nice -- no snark, really! -- when something one writes provokes debate. A few things in response:

1) My number's on my FB page; give me a call any time. I do represent a (small) part of your ward (and I'm also the regional vice-chair), so I'd be more than happy to talk to you about this directly if you'd like. That said, your SC members are without question among my hardest-working, most diligent, and most effective colleagues, so please reach out to them, too.

2) He's done better than talk to the donors -- he founded an entire group that focuses in large part on those non-marquee races (i.e. MassFiscal). Moreover, he has what I consider pretty unimpeachable credibility in terms of donating to those races: he's done it himself, in very large amounts. Go on OCPF and search for contributions by "Richard Green" or "Rick Green" in Pepperell -- you'll get 46 records of donations to candidates for state rep, state senate, or Governor's Council, totaling $10,250. (There's also some other money donated to various other groups, too, mostly the Marlboro RCC.) I'm not exactly one of the high-volume/high-dollar donors who would be most helpful here, but I would think that those who are would be much more readily convinced by someone who's first invested himself and thus has, as it were, "skin in the game."

3) I fear you don't really believe we must be a tolerant and diverse party, because I'm concerned you may be committing the cardinal sin of those who preach diversity and tolerance: you do not respect diversity of, nor do you have tolerance for, those you consider to oppose diversity and lack tolerance.

Moreover, the same logic would lead you to reject a Democratic candidate whom some crank Communist group endorsed, or Republican candidates endorsed by the Klan. I have serious policy disagreements with many folks on the state committee. But I don't really view the position of chair as a policy position, at least not primarily. I do not think we should elect a chair who will impose his or her policy preferences on the rest of the party. Rather, I think the chair should foster free and fair debate, in the proper forum, about the policy direction the party should take. I'm much more interested in the policy views of people who are running for jobs in which they will set policy.

I would not support Rick if I didn't think I would be welcome in the party he would chair. I am not a social conservative, at least not a consistent one: I have some views that would be considered socially conservative, and some views that would definitely not be. You are more than welcome to read my FB and talk to some of my more socially conservative SC colleagues if you're curious about that.

Lastly, on this point: it's possible to be intolerant with a smile, and it is possible to disagree in good faith. I hope, too, that you have the self-awareness to realize that many consider you yourself to be quite angry and intolerant. I know that you mean well. Others, I fear, may no longer feel quite so charitable.

4) We didn't vote to authorize the adoption of Mitt Romney's platform. We voted to suggest to the next platform committee that they consider it. I do not agree with every word in it -- quite frankly, I'm not sure it can truly be said to exist. You surely don't agree with it in toto, either. But Ed, I'm presuming you voted for the man; even if you didn't, you surely think there's something of value to what he was proposing, even if his methods for articulating it were a failure. Nobody is suggesting we hire him as our press guy.

If I didn't get to everything, I'm sorry -- if there's anything else in particular you'd like me to respond to here, just let me know.



[ Parent ]
Thanks for the thoughtful reply (0.00 / 0)
Michael -

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

First, the only time I really reach out to my SC members is to say thanks and good luck. As one of the most opinionated people in the party, no one needs to hear my thoughts one-on-one. And thanks for the offer to contact you. I am sure you have enough to deal with.

Second, I agree that Mr. Green has been financially supportive. I don't have to look at the reports. Many have told me. It is a very good thing.

Third, being intolerant of the intolerant is a vice I would gladly be convicted of! Again, you, like others, start with the principle that we somehow must figure out how to be both the party of angry, unkind people who turn off independent voters and also those who favor things like gay marriage. But since our awful image among unenrolled voters is one of the things that prevents us from winning elections, I think that declaring that we will no longer tolerate racist comments about immigration or President Obama, hateful comments about gays, sexist remarks about women, or nativist remarks about illegal immigrants - is both a good thing and good politics. Many of these conservatives are my friends. I see their Facebook posts and email distribution lists. It is often ugly.

I know many people really can't stand my criticism of the far-right in this party. I welcome their loathing! We can't be the party of both them and Richard Tisei. What you probably don't know is that I have fans all over Massachusetts, particularly young Republicans, who are sick and tired of this old, white, prejudiced party. They want a diverse, tolerant party and they want someone to mince no words in calling out the people who would rather lose and be purely socially conservative.

Fourth, I am aware that you guys did not adopt the platform, but sent it to the platform committee. I have never heard of something being so enthusiastically sent to a committee before. :-)  Let's face it - the whole platform adoption thing is about getting the party to be officially pro-life. Now, I, like you, am pro-life - (in fact, my gothic Catholicism probably makes me more conservative than you) but in such a firmly pro-choice state, it seems crazy to adopt something in the platform most Republicans can't run on.

That being said, I am a huge fan of Mitt Romney. I voted for him with great enthusiasm. His platform has many wonderful and well-thought out ideas. But you know as well as I that this platform effort was not an attempt to find good ideas. It was about making us more socially conservative. In the most socially liberal state in America, that makes no sense.

I wish you the best of luck during this whole process. Yes, you are the youngest, and yes there is deference to be paid, but you are also almost certainly the most intelligent person on the committee. Please do what you can to elevate the discussion.


[ Parent ]
Hang on Ed (0.00 / 0)
Third, being intolerant of the intolerant is a vice I would gladly be convicted of! Again, you, like others, start with the principle that we somehow must figure out how to be both the party of angry, unkind people who turn off independent voters and also those who favor things like gay marriage.

Ed, you are wrong about gay marriage. The majority favors Civil Unions and opposes gay marriage. Why can't the Republican party settle on Civil Unions that give all the security and legal benefits of marriage but don't give a right to reproduce offspring together, and let the Democrats be the party that demands  same-sex reproduction using genetically modified stem cell derived artificial eggs and sperm, free sex-change surgeries, and telling six year old boys they can be girls and giving them drugs to delay their puberty?

Please don't tell me you think it is angry or unkind to want to preserve the basis of equality and everyone's equal natural conception rights and stop genetically modified people being created so that same-sex couples can have children together.

I agree it is unkind and angry to oppose Civil Unions for gay couples, but together we ought to be able to convince those people that they are hurting the party with their intolerant refusal to accept Civil Unions, and explain how these Civil Unions are acceptable because they are not juridically equivalent and they would serve to highlight what is special and unique about marriage as being the right to have sex and reproduce offspring together.


[ Parent ]
The issue isn't what the majority wants: (0.00 / 0)
We don't set out principles by taking a public opinion poll!!!

A political party needs to stand for something and lead. We do battle in the arena of ideas. Our ideas are better and they will eventually win out.

Again, I have to ask: What is the purpose of winning an election? Are we just trying to say we won? Are we just interested in power?  This isn't Baseball! We're don't want to  win just so we can sing "We Are The Champions!"

We want to win because we believe in something.  Embracing gay marriage is no different then embracing singe payer healthcare.  

Ed is under the misconception that being Republican is only about economics.  What he fails to understand is that our economics flow from our social values. We believe in small government, lower taxes, free enterprise because they are the means to end. Not the end. They are rooted in human freedom and their purpose is to allow people to clime socioeconomic ladder.


FISCAL ISSUES ARE SOCIAL ISSUES JUST AS SOCIAL ISSUES ARE THE ROOT OF ALL FISCAL ISSUES.

The Republican Party was not founded on economic or fiscal issues. It was founded to address the most pressing social issue of the day --- namely slavery.  Our party fathers didn't take a poll to see whether slavery was popular!

Our job is not to jump in front of parade and try to lead it. Our job is to see what direction the parade is going first. If it's in the right direction, then we join it. If it's headed of a cliff, we try to turn it around, not lead it off the cliff.

The Democrats have sold their soul by pandering to every crazy special interest group in the book. The direction Ed would lead us in is precisely the same. It doesn't matter what the issue is. It's the way he's approaching it. He's sticking his finger in the wind to see which way it blows and then taking a policy position. It seems that his only core value is some nebulous notion about what fiscal policy should be. And even there, he's willing to change core positions in order to win, once suggesting that Republicans not oppose raising taxes on the rich.  Now when passing legislation we obviously have to compromise sometimes. But we don't start by selling out core convictions in order to get elected. All due respect to Ed... but that's just absolutely spineless.

Yes we are Republic and the will of the people should ultimately prevail. But there are also fundamental truths for which we must stand. No we aren't a dictatorship. But that doesn't mean we don't continue to make our case for what is intrinsically and immutably the truth.    


[ Parent ]
You're quite welcome! (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I think you're making a tactical mistake. I'm sure Steve and Elizabeth appreciate your forbearance, as do I, but you might find that you get further having smaller-group discussions in person or via phone than in large fora online. We can argue all day about the value of different types of communication, but I'm sure we'd both agree each has its own strengths and weaknesses. (The classicist in me can't resist pointing out that Plato and others of the ancients have some truly fascinating stuff to say on this point. That might be better for another space, though.)

If you believe that it is impossible to oppose gay marriage without being angry and/or unkind, then it's here we've parted ways. "Many bad people support X" does not lead to "X is good." Again, I agree with you on the basic point of the policy issue; I just happen to have a lot more respect for those on the other side of it. That said, I don't think we should have an ounce of tolerance for real racist, sexist, or anything-else-ist comments. To me, though, that's a far cry from policy stances that are deemed by others to constitute racism, sexism, and anything-else-ism to score cheap political points.

I would have voted for Richard Tisei, had I had the fortune to live in his district. Alas, I'm a bit too far south for that. Our analyses of the reasons for our 2012 (and other) losses, moreover, differ sharply. I don't really have much interest in beating that poor, dead horse even further to death.

We're going to get crushed if we try to change with the opinion polls. Beyond a certain point, I think the evident lack of any principle is a far worse sin in the eyes of many voters. Many in our party would argue that a belief in the sanctity of human life, from conception, is a core principle. You may disagree. But we have to have that argument as a party; it can't just be someone decreeing it.

As for your last comment: I thank you very much for the compliment, but I fear it's given in error. There are numerous people on our state committee who have both knowledge, experience, and the wisdom that comes from the pair. I certainly don't have the experience of most of my colleagues, and an awareness of the knowledge I've gained in the past ten months of service to our party makes me certain that I've taken only, to appropriate a quote, a first step (or maybe two) on a journey of a thousand miles. I'll continue to do what I can to elevate the discussion -- I'd begin by asking you (and everyone else reading this) to do the same.


[ Parent ]
Ha! We should talk about Plato at sometime, Michael. :-) (0.00 / 0)
First, I think my strategy and tactics are wise. I was a chess player before you were born. (I am not trying to win over the SC or the people you know.) We will see whose tactics will get reform. :-)

Second, yes - I, like you, have read Plato and others on the merits of different kinds of communication. (Though I have not read Plato in Greek as I never learned it. Maybe you have.) I agree that not all forms of communication are suitable to all ends. Red Mass Group is probably one of the worst! Yet this is the only place where the party goes to talk about party things that is discoverable by others. If you ever, as Plato recommended, want to go for a long walk and talk politics some time, I would be glad to do so. (I am not a jerk in person. Only online.) The wisdom of the ancients bears heavily on my thoughts, as little in politics has changed since then. :-)

Third, don't worry about your lack of experience! Yes, as Tacitus tells us, Experientia docet, but not all experience teaches things we should learn. The state committee is full of good citizens and good Republicans who no longer remember how to win. You probably could use their knowledge of people and community. You don't need their knowledge of politics, as it is contaminated by years of alienation.

Lastly, be bold! I expect to hear from your work in the SC. This party needs a young Republican from Cambridge more than any other kind. :-)


[ Parent ]
Failed Strategy (0.00 / 0)
Ed you say you know how to win. But you've made a self-defeating argument.

Tisei is not only pro-gay marriage, but he's proposed the infamous bathroom bill that would have let a grown man wearing lipsticks and pumps to use the same bathroom or locker room as a 14 year old girl. He is militantly pro-abortion as opposed to pro-choice.  

 

 AND HE COULDN'T BEAT A CROOK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for your winning strategy. People who vote based on those issues will always vote Democrat. Get it through thick head. You don't need Plato, Aristotle, or Tacitus. You need a does of common sense!



[ Parent ]
Why not seek a reasonable middle ground? (0.00 / 0)
We can give all the benefits and security of marriage to same-sex couples without giving approval to try to create offspring for same sex couples, by offering Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights."

We don't have to a long bitter intra-party squabble where half of us hate the other half because of our positions on gay marriage. We can all have the same position: Civil Unions! It is the only acceptable solution. I hope you agree we should not allow labs attempt to create genetic offspring for same-sex couples. It would be a huge government entitlement and require regulation and lead to a loss of equality and natural reproductive rights.


[ Parent ]
In Order (0.00 / 0)
1. Party Unity? Hahahahaha. That's a good one. Neighboring Ayer doesn't have an RTC, even though there are willing volunteers to organize or reorganize one. MAGOP does not want the party to open up. Everybody wants to keep their own little piece of turf. Brock Cordeiro is the exception to this standard. Brock helped me reorganize my previously 8 year dormant RTC in 2009.
   Endorsements: Does Rick actually have an endorsement he hasn't paid for?
2. Vision: It is difficult to work from the "bottom up" if your only view is "top down".
  The man has never worked on a political campaign. Kind of a drawback, don't you think?  

Order again (0.00 / 0)
Bill,

Few comments on your comments:

1). If there are willing people in Ayer to form an RTC why haven't they done it yet?  Complete the appropriate paperwork and they are good to go.

I also take by your comment that the folks in Ayer have reached out to Rick and asked for his hand he has turned them down.  Is this the case.

2). Exactly how is Mr. Green buying his endorsements?  Just wondering how it is done should I ever want to run for Chair (not a likely occurrence but why not be prepared)

3). Help me understand what you mean by "work on a campaign" please.  Mr. Green has founded, staffed, raised money for and helps lead an organization to bring fiscal sanity back to Beacon Hill through a variety of methods.  These methods have included working to get representatives elected that are more fiscally conservative than the then incumbent.  So how is this not a campaign.  Or would you wish to see something else that he has done.

4). You claim he is Top Down yet everything he has done is building organizations from the ground up.  Mr Green appears to have a broad array of endorsers.  Ms. Hughes has the endorsements of Senator Brown and past and presumed future gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker.  That sounds more top down to me and more like how we have always done things, make the MassGOP serve the top of the ticket and everyone else is on their own.  That said, I think Ms. Hughes has plenty to offer the party.  Hr success in Quincy is awesome and she brings strong fund raising credentials to the race.  She should have a role in Quincy and in the MassGOP.  Dean and David have spelled out a very comprehensive Playbook which seems to me the epitome of top down - here's how we will do things, let's go.  That is not to disparage their ideas, they have many and many good ones, just seems to me that the Playbook is to prescriptive aka top down.

So it's a good race with different and good candidates so let's have a healthy debate and a good election and then get to work on electing more conservatives to all levels of government.  We already have 2 special elections whose clocks have started so let's go win something.

P.s.  Happy New Year


[ Parent ]
Happy NewYear ConsEph (0.00 / 0)
 1. In October, I hadn't even heard of Rick Green. I don't think they had either.
2. I'm pretty sure Green has donated to the candidates that have endorsed him.
3. Donations aren't physical work.
4. I met Kirsten Hughes at a GOPSue run MAGOP sponsored seminar. She could only help to register, as she had another event to attend. Can you imagine a MAGOP staffer working on a weekend? It was a pleasant surprise.
  Not being judgemental, but I think Kirsten should concentrate on her family duties currently.
   

[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
You don't like either one?

[ Parent ]
Neanderthal Thinking (5.00 / 1)
So you believe Kirsten shouldn't be chair - because she is a mother.  Probably the worst reason I have ever heard - and illustrates why the left thinks we are backwards mouth breathing losers.  Actually if you think Kirsten shouldn't be chair because she is a mother - then you probably are a mouth breathing loser.

And you don't like Rick Green because obviously by donating to candidates over the years, that means that he had an elaborate plan to run for Chair was buying his support - instead of supporting candidates that he knows and likes and got to know.  It would be crazy to think that you can actually meet a State Rep and get to know them, and they actually end up liking you as well.  That whole loyalty thing in politics is so passe.  

Maybe these two are closet transhumanists.    


[ Parent ]
Ayer (0.00 / 0)
Ayer is within the Middlesex & Worcester State Senate district.  Their State Committee members are Brian Burke and Jeanne Kangas.  Please refer those Ayer Republican activists to http://burke.massgop.com & http://kangas.massgop.com.

[ Parent ]
Thank You Brock (0.00 / 0)
   As always, you're the man.  

[ Parent ]
This is not about the Platform (4.00 / 1)
Rick Green has publicly stated that as Chair it's not his job to put his ideological fingerprint on the party platform. He believes that is the job of the State Committee. Rick has stated this in Radio interviews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  http://tunein.com/topic/?Topic...

Last Saturday he spoke before the MARA Convention. I was there. Yes I'm part of the Republican party, so aren't MARA members... Therefore it is right that Rick spoke the us.

He made it clear. His personal views are his personal views and yes he's conservative. However, as Chair he has to be the Chair of the entire MA-GOP. Adding, that he felt if was wrong when previous Chairs made statements about the ideological direction of the party, with out any consensus of the State Committee. Therefore it would be wrong for him to do the same thing.

The point being EDFACTOR....:  He said that to very conservative crowd. He could have come in to the room and fed the conservative crowd a steady diet of conservative red meat. He didn't. Instead he said: These are my views. But as Chair, I can't impose them on the State Committee, the MA-GOP, or the State Convention. The State Committee sets ideological policy and it's ratified by the State Convention.

All you have to do is look at the list of people who have endorsed Rick. You've got a pretty broad spectrum, as Mike pointed out. So this divisive scare tactic is a weapon of mass distraction.

At the last State Committee meeting, they all went in to Executive Session.  I'm not privy to the specifics of the discussions. But several SC members of different ideological persuasions, did tell me that there was frank discussion, an airing of issues, and people from different camps got to know each other.  Sure there are still ideological differences. After all that's what happens when you have a Big Tent. Nevertheless most SC members walked out of the room united in purpose and determined worked together.

The Platform is a statement of Republican principles. It should reflect the RNC Platform in my opinion. Apparently it's the opinion of the 63 State Committee members present at the last meeting, because they recommended adopting most of those principles. Unanimously!

The platform is in committee, the State Committee hopefully will get to vote and amend what comes out of Committee and the Convention will also get a bite at this in 2014.

No matter what the final platform reads, it won't preclude candidates with differing views from running or being supported by the MA-GOP.

The only important question in this race is whether or not the State Committee members believe one high profile candidates gets to control the MA-GOP. OR do they believe resources out to also go towards building a farm team, building a lasting infrastructure, and a competitive ground game.
 

We've tried the former failed strategy for decades. Bill Weld inherited a State Senate with 16 Republicans. Weld, Cellucci, and Swift were all the kind of socially liberal Republicans that Edfactor thinks are the Messiahs of the MA-GOP.  By the time Swift left office, Mitt Romney inherited a Democrat legislature that was veto proof!  That wasn't necessarily because they were social liberals.  They could have all been Rick Santorum. The problem is the failed strategy.

If we build the farm team, the infrastructure, and the ground game, the candidates themselves will speak to the issues important in their district.



Almost (0.00 / 0)
The platform is in committee, the State Committee hopefully will get to vote and amend what comes out of Committee and the Convention will also get a bite at this in 2014.

Actually, the Platform Committee that will develop its recommended draft of the 2014 MassGOP Platform has not yet been created by vote of the State Committee.  However, with approximately 16 months left until the customary Convention time (April 2014) we should probably be about that business fairly soon.

At an upcoming State Committee we will have to elect members to the various necessary & desired subcommittees such as Rules, Credentials, Site Selection, and Platform.  This is briefly explained in the MassGOP Bylaws in Article IX, Section 1.  I served on both the Rules & Platform committees.  Indeed, RMG's own Rob Eno was also a Platform Committee member.  I would like to serve on at least the Platform Committee once again but that's not up to me.  If I recall correctly, the Chairman - I believe it was Peter Torkildsen at the time - appointed the Platform Committee Chairman.  That individual was then State Committeeman Matt Kinnaman who also chaired the Issues Committee (upon which I also then served).  

Not to get too down in the weeds because who knows if the newly constituted Platform Committee will desire to proceed this way but we then we all signed up for various working groups, and I was on Values, Energy & Environment, and Philosophy of Liberty.  Those working groups created their drafts, those were edited & eventually voted to incorporate into the entire draft, and that whole document was then later recommended to the full State Committee which then - after possible amendment, and I don't recall if there were any from the floor - voted to recommend the Platform to the delegates of the State Convention who then adopted it by vote from the floor of the 2010 Convention.

The at the recent State Committee meeting we voted to recommend the Romney platform as a starting point to the future Platform Committee, once established.  


[ Parent ]
Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.








Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox