Active Users
Currently 1 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




#chair: Urban Agenda

by: edfactor

Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:28:39 AM EST


(Ed's latest substantive discussion.  Do you agree, do you not agree.. - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

[This is the latest on my series of articles to try an inject some substance into the MassGOP chairman's race.]

One of the most difficult problems we face is that the GOP has lost the cities. Not just in Massachusetts, but nationwide. Romney lost most of the big cities by a lot. Here, Scott Brown got crushed in all the urban areas. The MassGOP Wards (RTCs) in dense urban areas are some of the weakest we have. (Trust me, I am on the Boston Ward 21 Committee - we barely exist.)

The penalty for the MassGOP isn't just that the Democrats run up the score in statewide elections. It means that we can't win most senate seats because of the urban anchor. (Look no further than my friend Jamison Tomasek. He would have won his Senate race in 2010, as he won everything but Lawrence.) Similarly, some of U.S. Congressmen cannot be dislodged for the same reason - they have urban strongholds where they cannot lose and where they can make up for losing the suburbs and exurbs.

This is the bottom line: we will never be strong in this state unless we can become competitive in the cities. Period.

(If you want to read a comprehensive article about how the national GOP lost the cities over the decades, look at this lengthy NYT piece here. The little section on Jack Kemp - as a counter-example - should inspire us.)

We need a plan. And the problem is so big, it will not be solved by "organization" alone - not by a long shot. We can organize after we put an agenda into place.

So do the MassGOP chair candidates have a plan? No. Of course not. It's too difficult. Yes, they all admit it is a problem, but even Dean and David - they have the most detailed plans - don't have answers. And what is the pressure? None. For who is on the state committee? A diverse group of multi-colored city-dwellers who want an urban agenda? No. I have watched the SC a few times. It looks like a suburban rotary club. You know I am right.

Here are my thoughts:

AN URBAN MASSGOP AGENDA

1. Establish policy initiatives to reform mass transit, education, city management, licensing/permitting and public health  (start with all the wonderful work Pioineer is doing). Get all of these ideas into a central place, inject them into all MassGOP campaigns.

2. Come out for comprehensive immigration reform. (This isn't a federal issue, but we must show solidarity with the illegals who want to become citizens and their relatives who are citizens. The GOP always thinks they can divide the new immigrants who are legal from those who are not - but that has never worked. We must find ways to support all hard-working urbanites who make cities work.)

3. Support non-profits. (This will be an easy one.) Non-profits, including charities, hospitals, churches, colleges, and foundations -  are critical components of many large and medium-sized cities in this state. They often aren't treated well by the Democrats here. (Just look at how Mayor Menino beats them up here in Boston.)  We need to go to them, ask for their urban political pains, and support them.

4. Sponsor volunteer projects to improve urban life. There isn't really a way to improve city life by penetrating the traditional urban political machinery of places like Boston and Lawrence. Instead, the party of private-over-government solutions is going to have to prove that point. We should look at the needs of cities, find those that fit our view, and then sponsor volunteer projects around them. For example, perhaps a charter school could use some volunteers to set up a new facility. Perhaps city services are failing and we could somehow augment them. Perhaps a city could use some online help to make services better and we could fund a Code for America fellowship to improve them. Perhaps we could conduct training for a smaller city like Framingham on city management, using the materials Pioneer created for its "Middle Cities Initiative."

5. Create city-specific websites for all cities in Massachusetts, featuring all policy proposals and volunteer efforts. Make them available in all languages spoken in each city. This will involve some serious translation work. But with Google Translate and some other help, we can do it.

6. Make all MassGOP websites multi-lingual ( the main one and all campaigns ). This is mostly branding, but it is the cheapest way to be accessible to urban ethnic enclaves who just might want to know what we think in their own language.

7. Support gay marriage. Most large cities have a large and respected gay community that contributes a lot to urban culture. We must respect these gay communities. In the state where gay marriage began, and where the battle ended years ago, and where gay marriage is now, according to polling, supported by a large majority of citizens - we must at least accept gay marriage, even if we don't celebrate it. If you think we can get the support of gays in this state while fighting gay marriage, or adopting the Romney platform on it, for example, you're kidding yourself.

Well, that's my thinking at this time. I realize some of this will be utterly rejected by the suburban and exurban conservative Republicans who don't give a damn about the cities. They have had years of time do come up with an urban agenda - and they've got nothing. It's time for new ideas.  Think you can do better than this? Leave your thoughts in the comments.

edfactor :: #chair: Urban Agenda
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

(reposted because of formatting issues) (0.00 / 0)
Ed --

Thank you very much for this. Given my SC district and the region I serve as vice-chair, these are issues near and dear to my heart. A few thoughts in response:

I agree strongly that we must be competitive in the cities. I'd offer one brief caveat: we don't have to win in the cities tomorrow, in the sense of electing state reps/state senators or getting 51% of the vote. That's necessarily a longerterm project. But we do have to get from 15% to 20% in Cambridge, and 25-30% to 30-35% in Boston, and so on across the state. That's do-able.

I also agree, strongly, that Pioneer is a great place to start. I think points #1, 3, and 4 are excellent, and I doubt they'd get much pushback from anyone.

I tend to agree with you about #5 and #6, but you might be surprised at who considers it detrimental and/or patronizing. Also, I have a hard time taking you seriously when you propose using GoogleTranslate...

I personally agree with you on the spirit/general gist of point #7. I'd much rather focus on familybuilding efforts generally, as well as efforts to protect the non-profits you mention in #3 from attempts to impose others' views. I'd also like to resist the tendency I fear you have to essentialize all cities into similar monoliths -- as you implicitly recognize, they're anything but. You have that same problem with point #2, about which I've thought considerably less, so I'll therefore refrain from further comment.

More generally...
You'd likely have a better chance of getting your views taken seriously if you didn't feel a constant need to blast everyone who disagrees with you as a crazed radical. Was Scott Brown too conservative for your liking? Did he run too far to the right? Don't know about you, but I found his urban efforts nonexistent.

I don't understand why you need to resort to Democratic tactics of grouping people by race. I'm white. Am I part of the problem, just because I'm white? What about my friend Charlie Marquardt? What about former Rep. Paul Adams (another of my SC colleagues)? What about Brad Williams? What about any number of other people? It's cheap, Ed, and it's incredibly disrespectful to those who are trying to do good work.

I'd like to work with you, Ed. You've clearly got a lot of ideas. I just wish you'd stop making it so difficult to get past the tone...  


Thanks for responding (0.00 / 0)
Michael -

Many things to say.

First, the tone is necessary to get people's attention. If tone didn't matter, I would just get an internship at Pioneer and no one would listen to me at all. The world of right-wing media requires this kind of approach, and that's too bad. I am willing to do what it takes to be noticed. Show me the nice, friendly, let's-all-work-together Republican reformer who gets results. I'm sorry, but this party needs massive reform yesterday. If people don't want to work with me on party reform, then they are free to take my ideas if they want and work on them elsewhere. I don't want credit or involvement on most things, just to see the party reform.

I will respond to the valuable stuff you have said:

1. You are correct that this is a long-term project. You are also right that even some progress would pay great benefits. It will take years to make progress. We need to start now, not hide behind empty rhetoric about "outreach" that never adds up to anything.

2. Google Translate is a constantly-improving service. I think we could use it for a lot of materials, and then find human beings to improve it further. But how we do it probably isn't important. I use that tool often for business purposes and it works well enough. As for those who think multi-language sites are patronizing, is it patronizing when the City of Boston's main website is in many languages? We have to get over that. (I realize that you probably don't see it that way at all.)

3. As for what to do about immigration reform and gay rights, I realize this isn't a simple problem to address. But the Democrats milk these issues for lots of urban votes and we need to, at a minimum, figure out how to not be such easy targets on these. I'm sure you would agree on that.

4. I am a huge supporter of Scott Brown. He is a right-of-center guy who never embraced the far-right part of the party. (If anything, he ran from the Republican label, as you know.)  You are correct, he didn't seem to have an urban agenda. But he has never been big on policy, per se. (I am a policy guy and was always disappointed in that.) But there is also no peer pressure in the GOP to develop an urban agenda.

But on the subject of Brown... yes, he didn't really help with the cities, but he, critically, didn't hurt us. He didn't malign gays, he didn't get into bashing illegals (they come here to get government benefits, have anchor babies, etc), and he didn't make foolish statements about minorities. As a result, I actually saw Scott Brown bumper stickers and signs in Cambridge, Jamaica Plain, and other parts of Boston. I saw them in places where I had never seen Republican advertisements of any kind. Brown is a good example of what can be done when someone just doesn't do any more harm.

5. As for maligning the lack of diversity on the State Committee, it is absolutely relevant in the aggregate, while it does not matter for individuals. So I am an opponent of affirmative action and I have publicly spoken out against the absurd way the Democratic Party reserves slots for all kinds of groups in their state committee. That isn't the answer, either.  But surely a lack of all kinds of diversity on our state committee is very important, no? I am not saying that white people are doing anything wrong. Certainly I respect the people you have mentioned. Certainly I am a white, heterosexual, conservative, christian male. People like me have built Western Civilization eh? However, the nation and our state is becoming more and more diverse and our party is not. That is a HUGE problem. It's time for the party to stop pretending that it isn't there. (Look no further than the mini-scandal about Alex speaking spanish at that recent SC meeting. That kind of image is not what we need.)

Lastly, I know you're not thrilled with the way I do politics. But I don't see a nice way to convince a party that desperately needs to reform, to reform. If people like you prove me wrong, delightful! I will say no more.

(The only exception for me in tone is when I talk tech. After many years of being a technology consultant who must be positive and respectful at all times, I just can't get angry in front of a group about it. :-) And yes, I owe the SC stuff there. Maybe in a few days.)


[ Parent ]
Some good points but as usual.... (4.25 / 4)
Ed has made some interesting proposals. As you some of them have merit.  
However, as usual Ed thinks the way to win elections is to become like Democrats. That's not winning, that's surrendering.

The fact is that those who vote liberal based on social issues, will always vote Democrat. The only way to attract Democrat votes is to attract the traditional old school Democrats who are culturally conservative. That doesn't mean our candidates need to be bible thumpers. But they do need to offer the traditional Democrats something better than what the Moon-battery Democrat fringe base offers and Ed Lyons wants the MA-GOP to embrace.

The fact is immigrants and minorities, who we must reach out to are culturally conservative. The way we reach out to them is promoting our message of upward mobility. Rather than ranting about immigrants learning English we should help them learn English. We should be helping immigrants study to become citizens.

Our field offices should replace Merrimack St. Said field offices should be out-reach centers where the MA-GOP conducts constituent services. Our newly elected State Reps need to be included in this outreach. We need to go to them. Go to the urban and immigrant Churches, meet with these folks. Help the immigrant or minority potential business man cut through the  Democrat created red tape.

Ed is on the right track with man of things he says. But his insistence that party sell our principles will not only not gain us any new support, but it will cause party registration to fall in to the single digits, if we follow his advice.  


Some good stuff, John (0.00 / 0)
John -

First, I want to agree with some of your ideas. For instance, you have long advocated doing charitable works in the city to both show our compassion and the superiority of non-government solutions. I could not agree more there.

I also like your idea of helping people learn English. I think it dovetails with your correct assertion that we are supposed to be the party of social mobility. However, there is a great deal of evidence that social mobility is in decline in America. That's awful. It is caused by many things, but some of them are a decline in the competitiveness of our schools. We need to lead a revolution in learning (homeschooling, virtual schools, online education, and better public schools) that will help with this problem. In fact, we could go very far in the cities attacking the Democrats' blocking of almost all meaningful reforms.

I like the idea of meeting people in their communities and churches. I am not sure exactly what that would look like.

As for how conservative the ethnic communities are - it seems like they should be, but they have been voting in greater and greater numbers for Democrats every cycle. We have to ask ourselves why that is happening. I don't think it is ideology and I don't think it is all about policy. But I don't think the answer is to be more conservative.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps its because (0.00 / 0)
they don't see a difference between the GOP and Dems on their issues so they vote for the Dem when presented wiht Dem Lite?

Full Disclosure


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


[ Parent ]
Edfactor - excellent....... (0.00 / 0)
First, thank you for championing the discussion.  I know this took some time, but I think it will open up some much needed dialogue.  Love all but one idea - (yes, gay marriage), but on all else we agree...!!!  You are absolutely correct that the GOP has a city problem.  

So glad someone is willing to make specific strategic plans to advance the party....

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


I never liked the city. (0.00 / 0)


Molon Labe

Ed Republicans are Conservative by definition (0.00 / 0)
Ed,
The GOP is the conservative party. We don't need to change who we are. Yes we can have a diverse candidates and membership.  But I'll repeat it again till the Lord comes back: If you have to change your core beliefs to win an election, then you've lost already. It's called surrender.

We don't need to change who we are Ed. Minorities and immigrants have always voted Democrat because the Democrat machine always reached out them, while the Brahman Rockefeller establishment, which is still in charge of the MA-GOP has ignored them and looked down their noses at them.


Really? (0.00 / 0)
John -

I am quite conservative. In fact, you and I probably agree on almost everything. It is strategy for the GOP where we differ. I think the GOP has to acknowledge reality on gay marriage as a political issue. (I think something different personally.)

Parties must change over time. For instance, the GOP of the Eisenhower era would probably be totally unrecognizable to you. Yet they were who they were because of the times.

So why is it that we cannot change now?  

And what does "reach out to them" mean? That sounds so easy. What would it mean for the GOP to do the same? Senator Brown had a lot of money and made some ads for the city. They didn't work. What would you recommend? On what basis would we reach out?


[ Parent ]
Reaching out doesn't mean running ads (5.00 / 1)
Ed... Reaching out to the minorities and immigrants means doing the kinds of things I mentioned. It doesn't mean running ads in urban areas. It does mean actually meeting them, talking to them, and so forth. I also means sharing our message so they understand that there is better way than having big government take care of everything.

As for marriage Ed. Sorry Ed but no way. That is as much a core principle as standing for free market enterprise and small government. And that's something you can't get through your head.  You're suggesting that Republican embrace society being turned upside down by redefining the most basic institution to be something that it has never been.  You are expecting people to accept,condone, and recognize behavior which denies the natural order.

Marriage requires a license, therefore the state has the right to define it. You will lose far more Republicans than you ever gain by embracing this sort of Moon-battery in the platform.

And sorry Ed, you're not quite conservative if want the GOP to embrace Gay Marriage. Not by a long shot.

Moreover it's a failed strategy. Look at the results out of Province Town in 2010. Perry got more votes than Baker and Tisei.  People who vote based on their support for Gay Marriage, will always vote Democrat because they are moon-bats. Those that voted for Perry obviously vote based on other issues. Whereas more people voted for Patrick in spite of the fact that Baker and Tisei, who i a militant pro-death, anti-religious freedom activist, ran around the state screaming they were more liberal than Obama on social issues.

Like I said, we can have a Big Tent. But the center post of that Tent is conservative across the board. Embracing gay marriage is what moon-bats do---- NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE REMOTELY CONSERVATIVE.


[ Parent ]
Let me clarify this. (0.00 / 0)
If people want to run as Republicans that support gay marriage, that's entirely different then officially embracing it as social policy.

Obviously I'm not going to support that particular position of a candidate. But I'll weigh the totality of his or her positions.  Like Like I said, embracing gay marriage is radical social policy which turns society on its head. So yes it is an extremely LIBERAL position.

This has nothing to do with freedom of association or interfering with people's personal choices about who they want have a romantic relationship with.  Romance however, is not the purpose or function of the institution of marriage.

But the GOP has always stood for life and family along with fiscal responsibility, small government, opportunity, upward mobility.  We don't need to pander, we don't need to change who are.


[ Parent ]
Let me clarify this. (0.00 / 0)
If people want to run as Republicans that support gay marriage, that's entirely different then officially embracing it as social policy.

Obviously I'm not going to support that particular position of a candidate. But I'll weigh the totality of his or her positions.  Like Like I said, embracing gay marriage is radical social policy which turns society on its head. So yes it is an extremely LIBERAL position.

This has nothing to do with freedom of association or interfering with people's personal choices about who they want have a romantic relationship with.  Romance however, is not the purpose or function of the institution of marriage.

But the GOP has always stood for life and family along with fiscal responsibility, small government, opportunity, upward mobility.  We don't need to pander, we don't need to change who are.


[ Parent ]
hey John (0.00 / 0)
Ed is also against the second amendment now.  He's in full blown surrender mode  

Molon Labe

[ Parent ]
Wrong :-) (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Radio -

I am totally for the second amendment. As a student of 18th-century American history, I am aware that the men who wrote the constitution and amended it sometimes brought guns to the proceedings! It is laughable that the second amendment is as small as Democrats think.

However, I do support some gun control. I think that since we now have more guns in America than we do adults who can fire them, that we probably have enough now.

I also think that many weapons that are legal now have no civilian use (hunting, home defense, etc). I am for limiting their use.

Of course, I have many GOP friends who think guns are about resisting tyranny, as if having a Bushmaster in the basement is going to matter when President Obama sends Seal Team Six to your house. :-)


[ Parent ]
You say you understand the 18th Century Reason for the 2nd Amendment (0.00 / 0)
Then you state that you don't believe it's for protection against tyranny, which means you don't understand the 18th Century argument for the 2nd Amendment.

Full Disclosure


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


[ Parent ]
Dude.... (0.00 / 0)
this is a prime example of the purposeful MISeducation of the People.
"We have enough guns now" is now the dumbest thing I've heard from ANYONE on this subject.  Really?  The Amendment does not have a limit of "well, there are more guns than adults capable of firing them, so no more can be manufactured, bought, or sold."  I have the right to own a friggin' 100 million guns if I so choose.  Not 1, 2, 3, 4000 or any other arbitrary number some government weenie deems is "enough."
Even MENTIONING "hunting" shows you've lost the argument to the libs.  The 2nd Amendment is not there to protect hunting rights.  Demand a refund for your 18th century American history classes....you've been miseducated.  Guess they forgot to teach you Federalist #46:
Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it



"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

[ Parent ]
Hey RRRR, speaking of the second amendment......... (0.00 / 0)
Did you watch the video I posted today about homemade guns?  It is legal and approved by the ATF and there is a video of how to do it here.  A company in CA makes the basic components and sells them to customers to finish.  

As you can see I am trying to get someone to watch some of the videos I post.  Its a funny thing - people say they don't take me seriously when I post a story about Chris Christie being a fat slob, which got 35 excited comments.  But when I post educational videos about important subjects such as the federal budget, health care, gun control, the debt limit and abortion - no comments.  Go figure!

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


[ Parent ]
Chris Christie being a fat slob ... (0.00 / 0)
Dude you totally got hell for no reason on that one. I  spit out my morning OJ when I saw everyone gaining up on you ... It was like they never heard a Chris Christie fat joke before???

I liked the gun making vid but my favorite was the down hill roller blade guy!  He should fight crime in that crazy get up.



Molon Labe


[ Parent ]
Concentrate and Do One or Two Things Really Well (0.00 / 0)
Ed,

I agree with many of the points you make and that we have to start being more of a presence in the urban areas of the state.  I would suggest that instead of focusing on a laundry list of issues that we focus on a couple and do them extraordinarily well.

I would focus on the following two, get them nailed down, and then move on to others.

#1 - Education. This is the proverbial silver bullet that will help to lift people out of poverty an into the middle class and beyond.  The good news is that it's a debate that we should be able to win for the child's, if we frame it right.

#2 - Public Transportation   It's a mess beyond compare and something needs to be done to reform how it works and how it is maintained.  Having a better mass transit system helps us to get cars off the road, people to work and home more efficiently and allows for more develment around transportation nodes where density can drive down the cost of housing further helping those looking to move into the middle class.  Here we would have potential support from all different groups and can lead to other discussions.  We just need to be more creative in our approaches and more consistent in our message.  Daring is a word we should not be afraid to use in regard to our positions and proposals.

So let's nail these two and make real progress, not just reports and commissions and go from there.  I think people are starving for real reform and real results, let's show them how it can be done.


Immigration reform (0.00 / 0)
There is no human right to become a citizen of another country. Countries are expected to restrict citizenship to the children of citizens (who in turn have a right to be citizens of their father's country), but are ALLOWED to offer citizenship to non-citizens. Non-citizens may have a right to live and work in another country indefinitely without being deported, according to this document on UN Human Rights laws, but that isn't explicitly stated, and it certainly doesn't state that non-citizens have a right to become citizens eventually. That actually undermines human rights law to be fully a citizen of your own country and be able to return to it (statelessness is a violation of human rights). There is no right to dual citizenship or moving beyond the borders of your own nation.. There are 194 nations, and every person is a citizen of the one his father was, or became through the power of nations to declare someone a citizen. I for one don't believe in a one-nation world government, I like having 194 sovereign nations to which everyone is a citizen.

International and regional instruments protect a number of key rights relating to the freedom of movement:
- The right to leave and return: All people have the right to choose to leave their country of origin or nationality if they so choose and additionally they have the right to return to it with no questions asked by the government and no restrictions placed upon their freedom of movement.
- The right to seek asylum: All people have the right to seek asylum in another if their rights are being violated in their country of origin or nationality.
- Freedom of expulsion: All people have the right to be exempt from expulsion from their country of origin or nationality as well as countries they have immigrated to. This right applies to individuals as well as large groups of people.
- The right to education (elementary, secondary, and higher): All people are entitled to the right to an education and if their country does not have access to high quality schools or universities then citizens should be allowed to leave and pursue an education in order to raise their standard of living. Many governments worry that citizens will not return if they leave the country to gain an education thus perpetuating the problem of the brain drain. In this instance governments are viewing their citizens as economic entities and not as human beings.
- The right to housing and the right to own property: If sufficient housing does not exist within the boundaries of a nation for single families or entire groups of people they should be allowed to leave in order to find a home and thus raise their quality of living. Additionally this right holds true for citizens moving around within a nation as well. People should be free to move wherever they choose and not be subject to internal exile (the case of Guzzardi vs. Italy, 1965)
- The right to family: This is also perpetuated by the right to housing. Citizens have the right to care for their families in the best way that suits them and meets all of their needs. If that means moving to a new country they should be allowed to do that and establish a new residence in that country without blockades.
- The right to self-employment and wage earning: All human beings have the right to attempt to make a living as best they can and to provide for themselves and their families if they cannot move about to find jobs then this is in violation of their natural human rights.

Each of these rights are basic human rights that should be afforded to all people regardless of whether they are citizens of a country or not. Thus, these fundamental rights apply to the freedom of movement because no matter where one moves every basic right should still be applied to their life.



Support Civil Unions (0.00 / 0)
7. Support gay marriage. Most large cities have a large and respected gay community that contributes a lot to urban culture. We must respect these gay communities.

So we should support Civil Unions and federal recognition for our gay and lesbian families. We don't need to insist that they get equal conception rights as a married man and woman do, because that is a divisive and radical demand that harms gay and lesbian couples. People don't need to reproduce offspring to have full dignity and respect as human beings, there is no right to reproduce offspring, though there is a right to be allowed to, with someone eligible who consents...

In the state where gay marriage began,

This is where it should end.

and where the battle ended years ago,

Ahem, no it didn't. There were some attempts at enacting a constitutional amendment that were scuttled and blocked, but those count for squat. It's a national issue anyhow.

and where gay marriage is now, according to polling, supported by a large majority of citizens - we must at least accept gay marriage, even if we don't celebrate it.

Civil Unions are supported by far more people than support gay marriage. And many of those that support gay marriage would not support gay marriage if they realized it meant allowing children to be manufactured with two moms or two dads using genetically modified gametes, or denying that married couples have a right to reproduce offspring together. Once they realize that there is a better solution in the form of Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" that would be recognized by the federal government and give all the other benefits and obligations and security for gay families, most gay marriage supporters will become Civil Union supporters.

If you think we can get the support of gays in this state while fighting gay marriage, or adopting the Romney platform on it, for example, you're kidding yourself.

Lots of gays would rather have federal recognition and a peaceful end to the divisive marriage debate that respects their families than have a right to attempt to make genetic offspring with someone of the same sex. That can't even be done and might never be possible and isn't necessary or demanded by anyone.

"Supporting Civil Unions" is a lot more positive and productive than "fighting gay marriage" so we should be trying to convince the people in the Republican party who oppose not just gay marriage but also Civil Unions to support Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights."


#3 could be a winner, but will likely be ignored. (0.00 / 0)
I am the director of a non-profit.  When my fellow denizens in the non-profit world learn I am also an active Republican, they regard me with disbelief.  One state committee man actually resigned from the SC when he took over a small museum because he 'couldn't afford to be identified with the Republicans' and succeed in his job.  That is the extent to which we have allowed Democrats to politicize idealism and charity.  We only give them the money.

One reason I work for a non-profit is that I firmly believe that help for others should be voluntary, not governmental.  It is more efficient, can be better targeted, and will be more financially stable in bad times.  It cannot replace government, but every person I help who then does not have to apply for a taxpayer funded program saves us all money.

Right now, there is a lot of anxiety about the capping or eliminating of the charitable deduction.  I GET why they are pushing it - people like me are keeping those in need free of government control of their lives.  Progressive/Democrat non-profit administrators are truly puzzled.  They know that most money is not given to religion-based entities, they know they are doing good work, and they cannot understand why the candidates they support are slitting their throats.

We have a big oportunity here.


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