Active Users
Currently 2 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
April 2014
(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 * * *
<< (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




Coalition for Marriage & Family Claims: Dan Winslow Believes Pro-Life Candidates Deserve to Lose

by: BNCordeiro

Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 18:37:31 PM EDT


(WBUR has Winslow behind Sullivan by a better than 3-1 margin.  In third place... - promoted by Paul R. Ferro)

I received this email today from the Coalition for Marriage & Family.  To put everything into its full and proper context, the original WCVB story can be read, with the video clip featuring the quote below, and others, from Dan Winslow at http://www.wcvb.com/news/polit...

"Pro-Life Candidates Deserve to Lose" says Republican Candidate Rep. Dan Winslow
Senate candidate will also speak at Anti-DOMA rally today

Dear friends,

Last week in an interview with WCVB reporter Janet Wu, Republican US Senate candidate Dan Winslow spouted that the Republican Party "deserved to lose," if it chose a pro-life candidate. He was specifically attacking pro-life front runner Michael Sullivan, who had been endorsed by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life's federal PAC. Winslow argues pro-lifers Republicans shouldn't run for statewide office.

We think Winslow should apologize to all the pro-lifers who have worked hard for less-than-ideal Republican candidates, in the hopes of gaining some ground and saving some lives. We think he should apologize to all his pro-life colleagues in the legislature, for basically stating that the excellent farm team they're building should be barred from future higher office. From pro-life legislators standing up against MariaTalks to pro-life municipal officials fighting the Transgender Bill that Winslow voted for, there's a growing grassroots pro-family movement Winslow should seek to ally himself with on fiscal issues, rather than attacking.

Today, Winslow will speak at an Anti-DOMA rally at City Hall plaza with individuals like Rep. Carl Sciortino (lead sponsor of the Bathroom Bill) and other far-left legislators.

Pro-abortion Republicans often accuse social conservatives with "being divisive" and insist that they not talk about social issues. Winslow is himself engaging in the politics of division, splitting the Republican Party by attacking one of its core constituencies needlessly. Winslow's message is not to focus on the economy and ignore the social issues and find common ground, but to attack the base in the hope that liberals will be drawn into the Republican primary.

We want to take this moment to educate pro-family voters that he's not only attacked pro-lifers, but he was the only Republican to vote in favor of the Transgender Bill, and the only one endorsed by radical transgender groups:
http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.c...

Winslow is attacking his fellow candidates from a position of desperation. He trails in recent polls by double digits, and has the lowest name identification of any candidate in the Senate race, according to a recent WBUR poll: http://www.wbur.org/2013/03/26...

If you'd like to send a message, telling Dan Winslow you're shocked he even calls himself a Republican and ask that he apologize to you and his colleagues, you can click HERE.

Or, if you'd rather do something positive and affirming in response to Winslow's negativity, take a moment to donate to the Coalition today, so we can continue to educate pro-family voters about radical Republicans like Dan Winslow:

Thank you.

BNCordeiro :: Coalition for Marriage & Family Claims: Dan Winslow Believes Pro-Life Candidates Deserve to Lose
Please note that I did slightly edit the original posting.  I added the link to "you can click HERE" so that anyone interested can access & read the pre-written text that could be sent to Rep. Winslow.  I also removed the fundraising URL at the very bottom of the email.

NOTA BENE - to be sensitive to the assertions that the title, lifted directly from quoted email sent by the Coalition for Marriage & Family, is misleading I changed the title of this post.  After all, I disagree with Dan Winslow but I'm not above trying to be fair about the portrayal of the profound differences.

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

I am running out of candidates... (5.00 / 1)
I was no longer interested in Gabe Gomez after I found out he solicited the Senate job from Deval Patrick by kissing his ass, now I have lost any interest in Dan Winslow because he thinks my pro-life values are an embarrassment to the party.  

I think all that is left is Sullivan.  I could vote for an Irish guy!

Ed Markey is now the official 'cheapest' man on earth.  1.5 percent to charity while the average American gave 3 times as much...


Oh snap! (2.00 / 1)
That email is hard hitting stuff.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


Except that it's wrong... (5.00 / 1)
Watch the video.  Winslow never said that pro life candidates deserve to lose... just that we shouldn't beat the drums of the "culture wars" by doing inflammatory things like compare abortion to slavery.

[ Parent ]
It's from the article. (4.00 / 1)
http://www.wcvb.com/news/polit...

"If we continue to send basically gifts to the democrats in the form of culture wars, for general elections, then the democrats will continue to beat us and we'll deserve to lose," said Winslow in an interview with WCVB TV. "In Massachusetts, a social conservative can not win in June. People can make a point in a primary, but they can't win in June."

It's certainly how Janet Wu took it to mean.

If Dan Winslow wants to clarify his remarks he is free to do so, but it would be hard for me to see it as anything other than backpedaling.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
Winslow ran for Senate because he hates Gabriel Gomez and did NOT want to see Gomez get a leg up on him in the 2014 Governors race next year. (5.00 / 1)

Winslow is a hypocrit and entered this Senate race because he did not want to see Gomez run and win the nomination. Winslow of course entered before he knew that Sullivan was going to enter. If Sullivan had entered early I do NOT believe Winslow would have run.

Point being, the biggest thing that Winslow was attacking Gomez about which drew Winslow to enter the Senate race was that Gomez was NOT Republican enough especially when it came down to Gomez donating to Obama and Khazei.

Now we find out through this vetting process that Winslow, himself, is a RINO who is so Liberal he has giving money to the Democratic Attorney General whose name in 2008 was being floated around the press as the next Governor or possibly next U.S. Senator, and a ton of Democrats like Democratic Senate President Robert Travaglini and many others previously.

Winslow entered this contest for one reason only because he hates Gabriel Gomez and did not want to see Gomez get a heads up over him down the road in his own advancement in public office like the 2014 Governor's race. Winslow entered this contest because of his huge ego.

If you read the article in the Boston Herald criticizing Winslow for donating to so many Democrats, what does Winslow do? Winslow tries to spin his own disgraceful RINO actions by attacking Gomez by bringing up Gomez's letter to Deval Patrick again.

Winslow not only supports abortion, but hopefully he'll be forced to give a yes or no answer on whether he is against an Assault Weapons Ban in the debates. Winslow is Anti-Second Amendment and is intentionally being non-responsive on this issue because he is afraid that if he makes the General Election, that Markey and the Democrats will attack him for being Pro-Guns. I'm sorry but Winslow has no political spine and better start focusing on winning re-election for his State Rep seat in Norfolk next year.



[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting what Winslow actually said (0.00 / 0)
As you can see, the headline quote that Brock has attributed to Winslow is entirely made up.  

As for what Winslow actually did say, none of it backs up Janet Wu's characterization.  Winslow doesn't object to the fact that Sullivan is Pro-life, but the fact that he's using the inflammatory language of the culture war.  Remember, what prompted Winslow's comments was this:

"From a purely constitutional prospective, I think there are people from both sides of the aisle who question whether or not the supreme court got it right," said Sullivan last Tuesday. "I mean we know the Supreme Court got it wrong on Dred Scott."

"I think comparing Roe Vs. Wade to Dred Scott which upheld slavery has no place in this debate," responded Winslow.


http://www.wcvb.com/news/polit...

[ Parent ]
You are seeing a distinction that isn't there. (5.00 / 1)
In what sense is Sullivan, who is prolife, entering the culture war by answering questions about his position when asked?  And since when must Dred Scott be only spoken of in hushed tones?  This certainly wasn't the case after the Obamacare ruling.  Dred Scott is the go-to case when speaking of something that was wrongly decided.  It's a case everyone knows.

Would you mind telling me in what sense Winslow is not engaging in the culture war himself when he is being vociferously prochoice? It was only a day ago that he held a press event on the State House steps where he was endorsed by Barbara Anderson because of his support for abortion.
http://www.boston.com/politica...

Anderson said she is backing Winslow over one of his rivals, former US attorney Michael J. Sullivan, because even though both candidates are strong fiscal conservatives, Winslow's support for abortion rights and gay marriage reflects her own views on those issues.


---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
The issue isn't the fact that Sullivan is pro-life, but how he chooses to explain his position to the public. (0.00 / 0)
Comparing abortion to slavery is needlessly inflammatory.

It gets us nothing.

It gives ammunition to the Democrats, which they are guaranteed to use against us.


[ Parent ]
I find it bizarre that anyone here thinks it was Winslow, and not Sullivan, who committed the faux pas. (5.00 / 4)
It's not exactly a secret that that Roe v. Wade is bad law.  But by comparing it to Dred Scott, Sullivan chose just about the worst way imaginable to explain this to voters.

Winslow would be committing political malpractice to not point this out.  And if you're smarting over that remark, just wait until Markey pummels us 24/7 with ads on the issue.

If Sullivan doesn't back away from his comparison of abortion to slavery... then yes, he will have earned the defeat that he has coming to him.


The Liberator (5.00 / 2)
Michael Sullivan is no William Lloyd Garrison but the latter was right on abolition and the former is right on abortion.  Both treat human lives like an inhuman commodity.  

[ Parent ]
Brock, (0.00 / 0)
I really do respect your position.  But if we go to the voters comparing abortion to slavery, we lose.  I have nothing against losing on principle when we don't have a realistic chance to win (and let's fact it, that's not uncommon in this state), but this is a rare open Senate seat we're talking about here.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (5.00 / 2)
We may lose electorally, however I'm not of the opinion that the main battle is political but cultural, yes a culture war for the hearts & minds of the American voters.

Don't have a realistic chance of winning?  Again, perhaps politically - at first - but did you know that in the Diocese of Fall River that out of 3 abortion clinics there is only 1 left open?  I know, I spent a couple hours on Saturday afternoon with my brother Knights of Columbus engaging in a peaceful prayer vigil while standing in a public park across the street from the slaughterhouse.  It was a part of the 40 Days for Life --- www.40DaysForLife.com.

This is a matter of life or death, far more important - if I do dare say so - than the question of what percentage a tax rate should be, as important as that issue actually is to the residents of the Commonwealth.

We lose politically because we've been cowards for decades.  We've let liberal define us and we've lost our sense of right and wrong.

So yes, we may lose politically because we gave up politically and now we've got to fight a culture war on behalf of the Culture of Life because most assuredly, we live & have been living in a Culture of Death, something like 50+ million Americans over 40 years.

It's not that I find offense at Winslow's being pro-choice, or Gomez, for that matter (I simply am upset at his trying to have it both ways as a pro-life Catholic, BUT...) but rather at Winslow's apparent rejection of pro-life conservatives in & beyond the MassGOP.  I'll support him if he wins the primary as he's no worse on the matter than Democrat (despite the pro-life of convenience that is Lynch) and certainly a lot better than the Democrats (and in accord with my/our views on other crucial matters) but it doesn't mean I have to embrace a pro-choice candidate telling me what to do & how to do it.

In this primary, I'm not going to hold my nose and vote out of some strained equation of born out of political calculation.  Rather, I'm going to adhere to my faith and my ideological principles and support the most electable conservative in the primary.  

I just hope that if Dan Winslow is the victor on primary night that he hasn't burned too many bridges and offended too many activists that they won't rally around him as our candidate.  I abide by Reagan's 80% Rule but very many pro-lifers do not.  Funny thing is, I may end up being a post-primary Winslow supporter whether he wants me or not.

There is a hierarchy of issues & Life Issues are paramount for everything descends from life.  I'm not a single issue voter but I do understand that without LIFE, there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness.  


[ Parent ]
Watch the video again, Winslow didn't reject pro-life Republicans -- (3.75 / 4)
He objected to making this race into a new front of the culture war.  He rejected political suicide for the sake of making a point.  You seem to embrace the politics of cultural warfare, with all the perils that entails.  That's fine, but don't feel offended when some of your fellow Republicans refuse to follow you down that path.

[ Parent ]
I've watched it several times... (5.00 / 1)
...and every time I've been gravely disappointed.  The video is just the final straw in a progression of straws heaped upon us in recent days.

My fellow Republicans can march to the beat of their own drummers, and I can respect that even when I profoundly disagree.  What I don't have to respect are my fellow Americans, even within my own party, who have no respect for me or my views.  We're supposed to use wedge issues to drive in between the Democrats and not our own party.

Dan Winslow is trying to wave the bloody flag and demonize pro-lifers to distract the primary voters all the while proclaiming that he's focused upon fiscal issues.  He is engaged in political campaign of fear by creating and exacerbating divisions.  He's found a boogeyman in pro-lifers and he's intentionally picking at the wounds in order to exploit the division he is causing.

The point is actually far more important then the politics but never let principle get in the way of pragmatism.  I appreciate Dan Winslow's recent stance on defending the fishing industry, and doing so while in my district. I don't dislike Winslow or think everything he does is wrong.  I wish I knew him better.  However, instead of the good things about him, all I've been given is reason to distance myself ever further from him during this primary candidacy.  I am puzzled and a bit offended at the ham-fisted way he's gone about trying to differentiate himself from Michael Sullivan, who is just happens to be pro-life.  

On more than  few occasions, I've supported those who profoundly disagree with me on issues of life (usually because there was no viable alternative choice) before but never have I seen this sort of strategy employed, that is to cast off social conservatives in an blatant political gambit to try to win social liberals.  Maybe it will work and I'll congratulate nominee and then Senator-elect Winslow.  I'd rather be using my time here on RMG to post about the Democratic opposition and not what I believe to be friendly fire from one of my own candidates.

Yes, I embrace the politics of a Culture Life and if that makes me a bad Republican in the eyes of some then so be it.  I've had plenty of conservatives distrust & dislike me for being too accommodating to candidates so perhaps now I'll have social moderates, libertarians, and liberals condemning me for standing on a non-negotiable principle.  Maybe I'm a man without a country....

Maybe I've been around the MassGOP a little too long or maybe I'm just sick & tired of being told that I've got to sacrifice my values on the altar of political expediency.


[ Parent ]
Honestly Brock, you seem to be the one driving the wedge here. (5.00 / 2)
No one is asking you to disavow your principles

No one is saying that we can't nominate a pro-life, socially conservative Senate candidate.

What Winslow did say (and I happen to think he's absolutely right) is that we can't expect to win by expressing these principles using the most inflammatory language possible (ie, comparing abortion with slavery).

Declaring cultural warfare is not, and will never be, the path to statewide electoral victory for Republicans in Massachusetts.  You know that.  I know that.  Winslow says it and you act like it's somehow a personal affront.

As for Sullivan's off remark -- he's an experienced politician who's probably just showing some rustiness that he has to shake off.  We'll see.  But IF his principles demand the political suicide you seem to embrace, then I guess you're talking me into voting for Winslow.

And one last note:  I've seen principled libertarians and social conservatives work together in our state party.  I'm confident that this campaign will not change that unity of purpose.


[ Parent ]
All a game? (5.00 / 1)
No, I'm simply unwilling to give a free pass who wants to rub my nose into their crap.  Sorry, when it comes to my principles, I won't be force fed a crap sandwich and then required to smile like some puppet on a string.  It's not a personal affront as I don't know the man but it is an general affront and most likely a (very bad) campaign tactic to prove he's not "one of those" Republicans.

I simply reject the notion that we need to win for winning's sake.  This isn't a game, we're not the Red Sox versus the Yankees just hitting a ball with a bat to score runs.  That is how far too many people people act regarding politics.  

Sullivan's remark?  Refreshing honesty, something you don't usually see from a politician.  Michael Sullivan spoke the truth.

I hope that your last note is correct.  Unfortunately, it seems a certain libertarian candidate isn't interested in work with social conservatives but rather ostracize them.  As far as me driving a wedge?  I didn't get the memo that required me not to express a dissatisfied opinion on a matter of life or death.  My sincere hope is that we can not be distracted and all focus upon other crucial issues during the rest of this primary & rally around whoever wins in April in order to fight & celebrate in June.


[ Parent ]
Outrage based on a lie. (3.33 / 3)
Sorry Brock, but you lose the moral high ground when you attribute a made-up quote to another candidate -- in the headline, no less.

If you were Dan Winslow, what would that make you think about Brock Cordeiro?


[ Parent ]
Nice try but you fail (0.00 / 0)
 Couves, I'll be charitable in assuming the best of your intentions but you clearly did not read my original post very carefully, at all, did you?  Right at the very top of the post, before the main text, is this following statement:

"I received this email today from the Coalition for Marriage & Family. To put everything into its full and proper context, the original WCVB story can be read, with the video clip featuring the quote below, and others, from Dan Winslow at http://www.wcvb.com/news/polit...

  Now, a let's explain a few things:

1.  If you'll notice the link that begins http://www.wcvb.com and click on it you will see both the text and video of the entire report.  I even very carefully wrote "to put everything into its full and proper context".  I can only assume that you missed this upon your initial and subsequent readings.  
2.  I did not come up with the quotation in question but rather it was the subject line of the email distributed to the email list members of the Coalition for Marriage & Family.
3.  If you actually look at the lengthy block quotation you will see that I replicated the email, verbatim, and included the exact same subject line.
4.  I did later remove a fundraising link and restored a link to the text so that anyone, including you, could read what the Coalition for Marriage & Family provided as suggested text as an email to Dan Winslow.
5.  Any discrepancy from what Winslow said, which is clearly on the video to which I linked, and the email, which I did not author, is not mine.
6.  Had I tried to be disingenuous, I would have hidden any reference & disavowed any knowledge of the WCVB story but instead I linked to the very article and video - which you seemed to miss - that you are now trying to use against me in questioning my honesty.

  Now you, an anonymous blogger, is attempting to call my integrity into question.  Whether it is because you're a Winslow partisan, a pro-choice person, or for some unknown reason you are simply wrong.  I carefully and intentionally included the link to the video and the accompanying text report to provide a fair, balanced, and transparent relating of both the email sent by the Coalition for Marriage & Family and the WCVB news story that prompted the discussion.  Indeed, the actual reporting is rather negative toward Michael Sullivan and his endorsement by the Massachusetts Citizens for Life.  My rejection of pro-abortion policy aside, if any of the three candidates should be annoyed with me it should be Mike Sullivan since my posting of the video & article clearly highlights the MCFL endorsement about which it is claimed Sullivan would prefer to keep his distance.  As I noted previously, Winslow may actually be thrilled in an unintended way as now he can use me and pro-lifers like me as his foil to show to pro-choice voters just how moderate & reasonable he is compared to, well, me.

  Perhaps I will grant you one concession, rather than repeat the provocative subject line provided by the Coalition, I may have been more creative to come up with my own title.  However, to claim that I created the title is simply a dishonest lie in its own right by you when I went out of my way to remove any personal commentary to the original posting, about which you object.  I kept to a strict reproduction of the email - one sent to me both by the Coalition directly and from a brother Knight of Columbus who was outraged by the email about Winslow - and as such I reproduced the title, exactly.  You would've preferred I was more imaginative.  That's a reasonable objection.

  I honestly don't care what Dan Winslow thinks of me.  I don't think he even knows who the bloody Hell I am.  I have met him exactly once in our lives and that was when I shook hands with him immediately after he concluded his remarks at the recent Straw Poll in Danvers.  However, what he should think of me is simple: I sincerely object to his pro-choice position based upon my own pro-life principles.  I have clearly, and honestly, expressed my displeasure with both his views and those of Gabriel Gomez and while possibly forceful, there has never been any disrespect intended towards either gentleman and I look forward to volunteering for their candidates if they are victorious at the primary.  I have some good friends who are involved with the Winslow campaign.  If Dan ever wants to discuss our differences he is always more than welcome to call me.  I'm not hard to find and I'm sure an aforementioned friend could pass him my phone number or email address.

  BTW - at least Dan Winslow can identify me and my blog posts by name, which is more than I can say about you and most others here on RMG.  Whether Winslow, Gomez, or their supporters like me and what I write, or not, at least they may know, or come to know, who wrote it.

  In conclusion, my pro-life views - my preference for Michael Sullivan (who I've met exactly once and who has not yet asked for my endorsement), and disagreement with Dan Winslow & Gabriel Gomez on Culture of Life issues is now, indisputably, well-known.  I have, and have had, no intention or interest in rhetorically being up on Dan Winslow, Gabriel Gomez, or my fellow Republicans who happen to be pro-choice.  I also will not apologize for being a pro-life Catholic conservative Republican.  It's not likely that I will make further comment in any lengthy or major way but I stand upon this rock and I shall not be moved, no matter how unpopular it may be.


[ Parent ]
You passed-on a lie without correction (0.00 / 0)
At no point does Winslow say "pro-life candidates deserve to lose."  That was made up.

Brock, you'd be furious if someone did this to you, and with good reason.


[ Parent ]
Not a lie (0.00 / 0)
It didn't need correction.  Winslow clearly believes that the MassGOP deserves to lose if it puts forward pro-life candidates.

The exact quote is:

"If we continue to send basically gifts to the democrats in the form of culture wars, for general elections, then the democrats will continue to beat us and we'll deserve to lose," said Winslow in an interview with WCVB TV. "In Massachusetts, a social conservative can not win in June. People can make a point in a primary, but they can't win in June."

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/polit...

The error in the Coalition email is that it paraphrases & then put quotation marks around it.  The essential nature of the quote, Winslow's intent, is correct.  It's also something I obviously disagree with profoundly.  It does make me wonder, and I hope this is idle speculation, whether or not Winslow & his supporters will support Sullivan, if he were to win, as I'm willing to support Winslow, if he wins.

Beyond that, you clearly did not either see or bother to read the contextual information that I provided which contained Winslow's exact words on video.

For someone who tried to smear me, you did a damn poor job of it.  Try actually reading what I post - all of it - and not merely the portions that ruffle your feathers.


[ Parent ]
"Not a lie" - Brock (0.00 / 0)
[Shaking Head] Um actually it is a lie Brock ... The guy never said it.    

"pro-life candidates deserve to lose."
That's one hell of a quote Brock.  Just hearing that makes me mad, makes me want to give Sullivan $$ to beat Winslow ... and now 3/4 of the way down the thread we find out it's bull shit???  You should be ashamed of yourself.



Molon Labe


[ Parent ]
Strongly disagree (0.00 / 0)
The error in the Coalition email is that it paraphrases & then put quotation marks around it.

You make it sounds like an editing error.  What they did was put words in another man's mouth.  Nothing in your post indicated that this was the case -- I had to scrutinize the original source.


[ Parent ]
What part of... (0.00 / 0)
What part of I posted the email exactly as sent to me (later only removing the fundraising link) without any editorial comment don't you understand?

Furthermore, I DID add the link to the WCVB story & video for, as I wrote, the full and proper context.  You know, the original source that you scrutinized but apparently didn't notice at the very top of my original post.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with what I did, how I did it, and what I believe.  

Finally, in an abundance of effort to be fair to Dan Winslow I event went ahead & edited the title of my original post for the sake of clarity.


[ Parent ]
"Finally, in an abundance of effort to be fair to Dan Winslow I event went ahead & edited the title of my original post for the sake of clarity." - Brock (0.00 / 0)
LOL - So Couves shamed you into telling the truth eh Brock?  ROFLMAO!

You have to admit this is pretty funny!  3/4 of the way down the thread we find out The Coalition for Marriage and Family paraphrased Winslow then pretended it was a direct quote.

Brock, correcting the bull shit that you helped spread was the least you could do.  



Molon Labe


[ Parent ]
Thank you Brock (5.00 / 1)
Brother,
Now you're getting what so many of us have been screaming about for a few years now.

A Big Tent has to include the base of the party which is the center post that holds the whole thing up.

I'm perfectly willing to support most moderate Republicans. I would have even supported Winslow in spite of the fact he's no moderate but an Uber-militant-leftist on these issues. /

But now forget it. If he happens to win the nomination, I'll write in a name. I won't support this guy after this.

A wise man by the name of John LaRosa once said (and I'll paraphrase) there is difference between a moderate and a RINO. A moderate is person who based on personal conviction or even strategy will take a position or vote with Liberal Democrats.  But the moderate doesn't use the language of the radical left and he doesn't accept and perpetuate the false premises promulgated by the radical left.

Dan Winslow in every way uses the language of the left and deliberately perpetuates their incorrect premises.

He describes himself as socially tolerant.  I see so those of us who believe human life in the womb is just as sacred as our own, are intolerant. Those of us that believe marriage is between one man and one woman must be bigots. Those of us who believe that transgender person in transition (in other words certain parts have been enhanced while others still exist) shouldn't be able to use the same public locker room as daughters, sisters, and nieces must all be intolerant Neanderthals.

But now he's gone further. He's crossed a line.  I cannot and will not support him should he manage to win the primary. Moreover, I certainly hope someone challenges him in the primary for his seat in 2014. With friends like this who needs enemies.


[ Parent ]
Consistant (5.00 / 1)
One last reply regarding acting "like its somehow a personal affront".

I'd respectfully assert that I've been very consistent on the matter of life in this primary.  When I saw Gabriel Gomez post his issues on his website I took that occasion to post my profound disapproval concerning his trying to have it both ways by claiming that he's personally a pro-life Catholic BUT...and I also voiced my opinion regarding his insinuating that traditional marriage-minded people (including, and perhaps especially, Catholics) were discriminatory.

Since I saw Dan Winslow's abortion post about the "anti-choice MCFL" I've expressed my grave opinion regarding his views on life and how they relate to the average pro-life (Republican) activist.  I also am convinced that Winslow's views are those often shared as a cudgel against pro-life activists to brow beat them into submission.  Culture war? There is a culture of cynicism and defeatism that treats pro-lifers, within & without the party, as if we should embrace a political Stockholm Syndrome.

So no, my objection it's not personal (either taken by me or intended to Winslow) but it is constantly principled.

So, let's bring on the "principled libertarians and social conservatives work together in our state party...."  At least in that you & I can certainly agree.


[ Parent ]
At the risk (0.00 / 0)
At the risk of compounding the perception of myself as the Catholic nut, here's a couple of quotes from the New Testament that I think are particularly appropriate in summing up my views of fellow Republicans trying to diminish pro-life conservatives:

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." -- Matthew 6:24

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" -- Matthew 16:26

In pursuit of the US Senate seat, or any political office, are we willing to lose our souls in pursuit & control of filthy lucre?

Let us focus with laser-like focus on a tiny set of issues around the fringes & be damned with everything that forms the foundation of our society.

I'm not suggesting that candidates run solely or even primarily upon social issues.  I understanding prioritization and emphasis.  What I reject, and what I find offensive, are attempts to put pro-lifers & social conservatives in the proverbial back of the bus when we should, and we must have - for we demand - a seat at the table.  Winslow or anyone else doesn't have to have respect for us & our beliefs on Life and they don't even have to great us equally or fairly, but they certainly need to realize that we're here, we're not going to hide or be hidden, and we're neither going anywhere nor are we going to be forced to be silent.


[ Parent ]
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!! (0.00 / 0)
I can't seem to embed YouTube videos on RMG lately but this clip from Star Trek: The Next Generation pretty much sums up pro-choice & pro-life activists.  

http://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU

For those who don't remember this episode, the alien (a Cardassian) is deceiving and torturing Captain Picard during an interrogation, all the while trying to get his captive to admit that he is staring into 5 lights when indeed there are only 4.  

Here is the explanation from Wikipedia:

With word of the failure of the Cardassians to secure Minos Korva, Madred [the alien] attempts one last ploy to break Picard, to claim that Cardassia has taken the planet and the Enterprise was destroyed in the battle. He offers Picard a choice: to remain in captivity for the rest of his life, or live in paradise on Cardassia by admitting he sees five lights. As Picard momentarily considers the offer, a Cardassian officer interrupts the process and informs Madred that Picard must be returned now. As Picard is freed from his bonds and taken away, he turns back to Madred and defiantly shouts "there are four lights!" Picard is returned to the Federation and reinstated as Captain of the Enterprise. Picard admits privately to Counselor Troi that while he was willing to tell Madred anything, he was more concerned that, for a moment, he thought he really did see five lights. Madred's test using four lights is an homage to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which O'Brien tortures Winston Smith until Smith admits that he sees five fingers when O'Brien only holds up four.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

I'm a faith-informed socially conservative pro-life Republican and THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!

I've always been more of a Star Wars fan over Star Trek but this geek never did forget this episode.  :)  


[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
Abortion is more akin to genocide than it is slavery!

[ Parent ]
I agree that was extreme (0.00 / 0)
I think we need to come together and articulate a moderate position on social issues, such as being pro-life but opposing radical extreme bills like Rand Paul's Life and Conception Act (an actual bill he submitted to the Senate) and state Personhood Amendments because they go too far, and unimplanted embryos are not yet living people with rights. And a moderate position on the other social issues, opposing gay marriage but supporting Civil Unions with the same benefits but without procreation rights, and opposing transgender reproduction while expressing compassion for intersexed and transgendered people.

If we take those positions, then the Democratic candidate will have to defend same-sex procreation and transgender procreation and it will be clear how expensive and crazy it would be.


[ Parent ]
Mr. Ferro: Wrong on the polling results. (5.00 / 1)
WBUR has Winslow behind Sullivan by a better than 3-1 margin.  In third place... - promoted by Paul R. Ferro

From WBUR:

With more than a month to go to the primary, Sullivan is in the lead among Republicans, with 28 percent of likely GOP voters saying they'd pick him. Winslow is second, with 10 percent, and Gomez trails with 8 percent.

http://www.wbur.org/2013/03/26...


Fine, he's losing 2.8-1. I rounded. (0.00 / 0)
I flipped Gomez and Winslow.  Would you fell better if I wrote "almost three to one"?

Grasping at straws a tad, aren't we?  


Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro


[ Parent ]
You're welcome? (5.00 / 1)
You have Winslow in 3rd place and that's not correct.  Do I really have to defend correcting a factual error?

[ Parent ]
It's also statistical irrelavent ... (0.00 / 0)
2% difference in this poll has them statistically tied.  They're both in second/third place.

And they're both "losing" to Sullivan by almost 3-1, at least in this poll.

If you extrapolated this poll to the whole electorate, Sullivan would be getting 61%.

So, yes, I made a mental error.  But Winslow is still behind.  By a lot.  

Frankly, to point out  that your candidate isn't at 8%, he's at 10% strikes me as comical.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro


[ Parent ]
Being in second place is a lot better than being in third. (0.00 / 0)
But I was only trying to correct an error, not pick a fight.

[ Parent ]
My point was, it's kinda irrelavent (0.00 / 0)
In this case, being "second" or "third" in this poll are not really "different".

They both, at least right now, are getting C-R-U-S-H-E-D.  They're losing by 10%. Combined!!

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro


[ Parent ]
The truth is always relevant, (0.00 / 0)
particularly in this case.  Sullivan is way ahead, but the majority of voters remain undecided.  Campaigns often come down to the top two candidates -- so it matters who the second guy is, even if the difference is only two points.

But even if it doesn't make any difference, it's always worth getting the facts right and correcting errors.  


[ Parent ]
Accuracy matters! (0.00 / 0)


---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
BMG noticed an interesting tidbit from the poll. (0.00 / 0)
http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/...

A propos, Lynch largely getting a pass on social issues. Favorability rating of 36-13 among "pro-choice" respondents; 36-15 among "pro-life" respondents. Astounding.


---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


My gifts to Winslow & Gomez (0.00 / 0)
Considering I've objected to the social issue positions of both Dan Winslow & Gabriel Gomez, I've probably done them both a favor for they can now proclaim that they're much more enlightened & reasonable than the crazy pro-life kook(s) in the Republican Party.  

Totally and 100% dishonest (5.00 / 1)
At no point does Dan Winslow utter the phrase.  "Pro-life candidates deserve to lose" - that is a complete fabrication.    

He does say:

"If we continue to send basically gifts to the democrats in the form of culture wars, for general elections, then the democrats will continue to beat us and we'll deserve to lose," said Winslow in an interview with WCVB TV.

He says that culture wars are 'gifts to the democrats' and people who engage in culture wars deserve to lose.  

The better question would be, is it possible to be pro-life AND NOT start a culture war?  Sure.  

But to put words in his mouth and distort his message is so dishonest, and is downright shameful.  



[ Parent ]
I'll throw this out there for the hell of it. (5.00 / 1)
Brock, et al,

Take this issue off the table. Now who would you support? We get it that this is the primary reason that you support Sullivan. Are there any others? Or are all three so close to each other on the 1,000 other issues facing this country that you could support any of the three if pro-life was off the table?

I'm just curious.

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld


Playing Devil's Advocate (0.00 / 0)
In your scenario I'd likely still support Michael Sullivan as he didn't attract me primarily due to his pro-life position but rather his extensive resume & political experience.

Using that criteria, my next choice would probably be Dan Winslow with Gabriel Gomez at a disadvantage due to his electoral inexperience.  

I like Gomez's biography & military experience but Winslow & Sullivan have far superior records of public service outside of the military and at various levels of elected & appointed government.

If either Dan Winslow or Gabriel Gomez are victorious in the primary then they will have my full support against the Democratic candidate.  Far more unite the four of us - me, Sullivan, Winslow, & Gomez, than divide us as Republicans.


[ Parent ]
State-wide (0.00 / 0)
who has the best chance to get 70% of the unenrolled vote? Are unenrolleds closet-conservatives who choose not to be identified as Republicans? Will they overlook social positions in favor of fiscal and/or reform agendas. Or are they socially to the left and will not consider a social conservative under any circumstances?

And how many Democrats will be willing to break ranks over social issues, thus lowering the percentage of unerolleds required for a Republican victory. Will pro-life Dems NOT vote for Markey or Lynch because they're both now pro-choice?

Democrats have a built-in 3-1 advantage in registration. If you can categorically tell me that a social conservative can take 60%+ of the independent vote in MA state-wide, then and only then, will I believe that Sullivan can win this election. I just don't see that happening.

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld


[ 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