Slight Correction (2.00 / 1)

Hi Shari,

    I don't mind if you name names as well, I'll out myself as the person who made the above suggestion.  Part of my thinking was inspired by a 2007 State Committee meeting prior to the June 14 Constitutional Convention when a motion from the floor was made, and overwhelmingly approved, to instruct Chairman Torkildsen to send a letter to each member of our Legislative Caucus asking them to vote in favor of placing the constitutional amendment upon the 2008 ballot - regardless of their personal view on gay marriage.

    I felt that such a suggested motion would be an honest and sincere affirmation of the various pillars of our party.  Perhaps, at worst, an olive branch and extended hand out towards my fellow social conservatives.  

    However, let me try to offer some slight corrections.  I would note that unless something has radically changed without my awareness (and since I serve upon both the Issues & Platform Committees, both of which are chaired by our colleague Matt Kinnaman, I'd hope that I'd be kept in the loop) the Issues Committee work has not been tabled - for the Platform or other reasons - but rather will most likely be brought up at the June meeting.  Matt was unable to attend Monday's State Committee meeting so that, at the very least, necessitated the push back until June.  

    Secondly, we have had 1 conference call in regards to the Platform Committee and that was a few weeks ago.  It is incorrect to state that "the 2010 Platform contains no reference to anything related to social issues."  We are at the embryonic stage of work on the 2010 Platform.  That said, I voiced my concerns for bringing the MassGOP Platform in line with the RNC Platform.  Similarly, the 2008 RNC Platform contains an entire section on "Values."  I would be especially interested in perhaps beefing that up a bit.  After all, the 2006 MassGOP Platform has scant reference to any such issues.

    In fact, here is a copy of my email to Matt Kinnaman, dated March 25, concerning my thoughts on the 2010 Platform:

Hi Matt,

   Here are my thoughts about the platform's development.  As I said on the call, I believe that we need to emulate & bring our state platform in line with the national platform.  I'd even consider virtually plagiarizing the darn thing and adapting it to our state's unique details.  Seriously, a complaint that I've frequently heard over the years is that our state party platform is a rogue document that bears little resemblance to the national.  Now, of course every state has its own circumstances, ours perhaps more than many, but I believe that we need a theme of strong continuity between the two documents - all the while being sensitive to our special challenges.

   Also, I'm not one who is insistent upon brevity (take a look my Master's thesis.  Most at UMass Boston are 60 pages.  Mine was 214 with a first chapter clocking in at 60 pages) but rather readability.   Of course, the document must be read by our activists as well as Joe Six-Pack.  I liked Sandi's idea of a brief overview up front & then having longer resource material in the back.  That said, I'd rather err on the side of information not the ability to be easily skimmed.

   I agree with you entirely that the Issues Committee's work & the Platform Committee's work should be complimentary & reinforcing.

   Speaking of information, I think that our 2006 platform does a decent job of discussing the economic & fiscal but it's light on other issues.  I suspect that there is no Values section, as there is in the national, for a reason but I maintain that we need to include a Values section (and placed at the end with the economic & fiscal up front) that is carefully worded so as to include those social conservatives, to welcome them & embrace them, but not to chase or toss out others in our proverbial Big Tent.  However, a tremendous criticism of the 2006 platform is that it almost entirely ignored Values Voters.  I'd be more comfortable with something that read (and I'm wildly brainstorming here) "while our party respects the laws of our land, and good Republicans may have sincerely, honest, and profound disagreements on the issues, we remain a party that is, in principle, a party in support of life from conception to natural death."  Just an example.  I'd also include a clear reference to a cherishing and defense of the Second Amendment.  These are 2 core issues with 2 hardcore constituencies that often feel that they have not had a place at the platform table in the past.

   I also look forward your probably establishing working groups as you did with the Issues Committee.

   In conclusion, I think that we need to be bold and even more importantly we need to be true to principles.  We must be embracing while not being apologetic for being bull throated Republicans.  I prefer to give the voters & activists the proverbial choice & not an echo.  I'm a firm believer in the concept that the voters, when given a choice between the genuine article & the "lite" version will always go for the real thing.  Let us embrace what makes us different from the Dems.  To borrow a phrase from my buddy Allan Gillis (who preceded Sandi as president of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly), I want a document that looks, feels, tastes, & sells Republican.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 01:08:43 AM UTC

According to the MassGOP Chair... (2.00 / 1)

Social issues are not in the 2010 Platform. I heard that as recently as this past week. I hope it's not true because that is a radical divergence from the RNC platform. We are part of the Republican Party, right?!?  

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 01:14:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would be news to me! (0.00 / 0)

     That would be news to me.  The 2010 Platform Committee had the single conference call to date and the email (typos included & all) sent to Matt Kinnaman can give you a sense of the course of the call.

    Chairman Nassour serves upon the Platform Committee by virtue of her office but neither she nor Matt, who is the chairman of the Platform as well as Issues Committees, has made any indication to me of social issues not to be found in the 2010 Platform.

    I would have to ask you, did you hear such a thing directly from Jennifer Nassour or is this second or third hand retelling?  I would have to assume it's the latter and not the former.

    The 2010 Platform process is in its very earliest stages and I think that it would be idle speculation to rule any out or in at this point.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 01:20:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of the convention... (0.00 / 0)

Springfield would be an excellent place to hold it. any idea when or if they'll announce it's location?

and brock, I'll personally buy you a drink if it gets moved here :-D... with the $ lonnie owes me

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 03:38:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was a direct comment... (0.00 / 0)

from the Chair.

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 04:15:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 2010 convention location (0.00 / 0)

was announced at last week's State Committee meeting. It's Worcester at the DCU Center, April 16, 17, 18.

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 04:17:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow... (0.00 / 0)

that's a shame.


Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 14:58:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh chill out (0.00 / 0)

You gotta have it somewhere remotely accessible to the rest of the state. Springfield is a long way away from the South Shore, North Shore, and other places in the state where there are strong Republican contingents

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 16:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

springfield is accessible (0.00 / 0)

take the mass pike and bang... your there

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 00:21:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

Simplifying that a little?

Yeah I'd just get in my car and bang... in almost 2.5 hours I'd be there!

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 23:24:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well (0.00 / 0)

think of it as a mini-vacation from where you live. it's far nicer (and less costly for the state party) to have it here.

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 23:48:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hrmm (0.00 / 0)

I thought that Worcester was under an hour away from Springfield?  Worcester is about 1 hour 45 min from the cape... so that seems like a pretty fair place to me.  

---

by: plymouth99 @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 19:29:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hah (0.00 / 0)

i'd rather see it in dorcester (sp?) than in worcester.

Alex S.
Chairman of the Springfield RCC
Mandate to Lead!!! lol

---

by: SpringfieldGOPSec @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 00:20:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No meeting - no show - no clue (0.00 / 0)

Missed meeting - bad phone meetings - wasting time - losing momentum - bye bye 2010...

Nassour can say anything she wants - cuz from the look of things - no one can mount a censure vote.

For that matter a successful state-wide committee on any issues would be a miracle.  

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:05:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if you had to choose a first among equals, what would it be? (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 04:34:50 AM UTC

How can a group be a "big tent" (0.00 / 0)

and choose a first among equals?

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 04:40:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well said Patrick (0.00 / 0)

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 16:18:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shari (0.00 / 0)

As a member of the 2010 platform committee, I can assure you that the 2010 platform contains no reference to anything at this point in time.  We have had one meeting, one meeting. The meeting was held by phone and we all talked about our priorities and reasons for being on the committe.  Not ONE word has been written in the 2010 platform.  

Jenn Nassour has never said that social conservatives have no place at the table. All she has said is that anybody who puts an R next to their name will get help from the State Party and that we should focus on the issues that unite us as a party, i.e. fiscal ones, rather than those that divide us.  We need a big tent.  I'm as socially conservative as the next person, but I understand that.  

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 11:42:10 AM UTC

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

     As I haven't spoken to Chairman Nassour about this, let me assume for a moment that you did hear a direct comment from the chair & that you understood her context correctly and that the current intention by the powers that be is for the 2010 Platform to have no social issues included.  

   Having stipulated that for the sake of discussion, EaBo is entirely correct in that it's entirely premature to rule anything in or out at this point.  We've had exactly only 1 teleconferenced meeting after which we submitted our further thoughts to the committee chair via email.  We are at the very earliest stages of putting together the 2010 platform.  I suspect that we will be divided into various working groups (as occurred with the Issues Committee) but we haven't even gotten that fair yet so there is no Values Work Group but then again... there is no other working group either.

   The 2010 Platform is going to have to be written & revised, countless times, by the various work groups & entire Platform Committee.  Once the Platform Committee finally comes to some sort of agreement - and considering EaBo & myself care about social issues I think it's a safe assumption that such issues will be strongly advocated - then the proposed platform has to go before the entire State Committee for its ratification (and possible amendment).  Finally, the near completed document will go before the 2010 Massachusetts Republican State Convention delegates for their final vote of acceptance.

   We've just started the process and we have a very long way to go.  As far as I'm personally concerned, social issues still have a place in the 2010 MassGOP Platform.  

    Jennifer Nassour has frequently stated that all Republicans will have a place at the proverbial table.  That, by definition, includes social conservatives.  The converse of that is it also includes those Republicans who don't give a damn about social issues (be it gay marriage, abortion, etc.).  I have good friends & fellow activists who simply don't give a damn about social issues.  Does that make me dislike them?  Does that make me view them suspiciously?  Does that make me not work with them on the many points of mutual agreement (such as taxes, spending, the size of government, good governance, etc?)  Of course not!  Sure, I wish every Republican agreed with me on issues such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and on to Second Amendment rights and the like... but well, that's not likely to happen this side of eternity.

    As an avowed socially conservative MassGOPer, I understand, and agree with, having a focus and atmosphere that attracts, and retains, the most Republicans possible.  It's a wise strategy to unite the party.  Of course, you can sometimes unintentionally alienate some in the process.  However, I believe Jenn's goal is to build a stronger and more united MassGOP to elect Republicans across the Commonwealth.  

    That goal is one that I, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's 80% rule, can agree with.    

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 14:09:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Censure Nassour (0.00 / 1)

If your idea is to Censure the Chairwomen, promote that idea, look for supporters and put the censure up for a vote. If you are taking a stands - take it and move it forward. This is the problem! The Republicans in Mass aren't taking a firm stands.

Once censured - if he continues then recall her election.

The Bay Windows article is coming up in discussion across the state. And activists don't know where Nassour stands on social issues. She is losing support in the Western past of the state - as if she cares.

I am not promoting censuring her - I am waiting to hear more on this issue form Jennifer.

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 21:59:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More of my original quote (0.00 / 0)

No, the idea is absolutely NOT to censure Chairwoman Nassour but rather, if my State Committee colleagues were interested, to have a sincere and positive affirmation of social conservatism as co-equal with the other pillars of the Republican Party.

In fact, here is an additional quote from my original email on the subject:

Obviously, we can discuss, debate, and tinker with the wording but I would be more than willing to loudly second any motion made in this spirit.  I have zero interest in voting upon a "gotcha" motion or hit piece.  However, a sincere affirmation of the importance of social conservatism is something that I would get behind 100%.  

Even if a censure vote were to be held... I sincerely doubt that it would have a flicker of hope.  After all, Nassour won - overwhelmingly - just back in January.

It's healthy to have a discussion of core principles.  It's necessary to have a debate upon the prioritization of political issues.  Let us remember something and that is social conservatives tend to want to use politics in order to change the culture.  Chairman Jennifer Nassour and the Massachusetts Republican Party exists to use politics to elect Republican candidates.  The two aren't necessarily the same thing, but they can be complimentary and yes... I am a social conservative who believes that our future is best found in the strong, broad coalition of activists, candidates, and elected officials that is Massachusetts Republican Party.

I'm glad that you're not promoting a censure and certainly I would not, either.  Rather, let us ensure that social conservatives have a place and a voice at the table.  I am supported and endorsed Jennifer Nassour during her campaign under that paradigm and I remain in support of my friend today.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:24:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Core Principles (0.00 / 0)

This debate is simple and yet the party still struggles looking for answers.

I have handled this debate with social ultra-conservatives without much of a problem.

Instead of writing an essay about keeping social conservatives happy while growing the party - I'd rather speak to anyone interested over the phone.  

Let's move this party forward - it hurts to see these debate raging on.

If Nassour did say what Bay Windows said - she was wrong - If I were her I'd fire the press handler, she has been traveling with and get a new one.

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:46:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep on talking (0.00 / 0)

Keep on talking to those over the phone.  Here in the SouthCoast, we're doing just that.

Now, if you get a social libertarian or liberal - but otherwise, paragon of limited government, low taxes, public safety, personal responsibility, and clean government, on the phone... what do you do?  Bring them into the party or tell them to go pound tar as a Democrat or unenrolled?

Me?  As for this social conservative, I'll accept them with open arms through Reagan's 80% rule.  

We as the MassGOP would do tell to remember that from Reagan, and well maybe his 11th Commandment, from time to time.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:52:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does anyone know... (0.00 / 0)

what happened to the Issues Committee's draft "Compact with Massachusetts" that was submitted to the State Committee in January? I missed the January meeting. Was it presented as an fyi, as a motion for approval, or ?!?

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 15:00:19 PM UTC

It wasn't (0.00 / 0)

It wasn't submitted to the State Committee but rather I am under the understanding that it will be submitted in June.  It might have been put forward the other day at the April meeting but Matt Kinnaman was going to be unable to attend.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 15:05:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PLEASE, please do it! (0.00 / 0)

Make opposition to abortion and birth control and sex education and "illegal people" and civil rights for gays--and weed, too--key components in your platform. I wouldn't be able to thank you all enough. Really encourage everyone running for office at ALL levels to really drive home your talking points on these wedge issues. Maybe call the platform "A RETURN TO THE FIFTIES." Or, "The Wrong Side of History."
As a parent, I REALLY want the childless folks on this site telling me what constitutes a family. As a married man, I really want the unmarried folks on here telling me what constitutes appropriate relationships and sex. Because as a liberal Democrat who raised three solid upstanding children, I'm, like totally confused and could really use your guidance. And I know the rest of the state shares your obsession with matters of sex and reproduction, and really, really looks to your expert guidance on childrearing.
It's a totally win situation. Please adopt and incorporate as many "pro-family" planks as you can.
This is the best thing I've read in a while. A party in exiles decides to make the very thinsg that make it most irrelevant its banner.
(You could actually win on statehouse corruption and fiscal irresponsibility. The culture wars--which did so much for the GOP, admittedly, in the past--are over. Except in a few of your own heads).

horan
http://www.nosuppertonight.com)  

---

by: nosuppertonight @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 16:26:57 PM UTC

I am married...with children (0.00 / 0)

And I loved that TV show, too.

I think you misunderstand, Horan. The MassGOP is the home for conservatives. So we have every intention of continuing to push on issues related to economic freedom, statehouse corruption, and fiscal irresponsibility.

---

by: sharilee @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 17:41:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MassGop - Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Low Taxes and Economic Growth (5.00 / 2)

I have recently joined RMG, however I am a life long MA resident and life long republican.  The discussion concerning socially conservitive positions in our platform is a good discussion to have.  However, I think the moderate independents that at the end of the day worry more about taxes, fiscal stability and economic growth along with good schools for thier children aren't swayed by conservitive social issues when voting.  Those are the voters we need to attract.  I think our approach should focus more on fiscal stability and tax issues since this state is on a train waiting to wreck off the tracks.  We as a New England Republican Party can let all people who have an R next to thier name in to the "party".  We should take a more "libertarian" or "laissez faire"   (I use that word for lack of a better one)approach.  If folks feel strongly compelled to see conservitive candidates elected, then I think it would be in there best interest to form a CPAC of Massachusetts and support those candidates that they wish.  Anyone that is willing to run as a republican in this state should be supported by our party.  

I have been Following Jenn Nassour and I like what I see.  I believe that she feels strongly about incorporating all republicans and giving them a seat at the "table".  We need a united front to take down the Dems next fall.  Our state depends upon it.    

---

by: Dutch @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:02:11 PM UTC

take away the core values (5.00 / 1)

what's left ?

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:09:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Victory. (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:16:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Victory (5.00 / 1)

More Democratic Victories - correct.

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:38:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go ahead (0.00 / 0)

...and keep pushing that all must be anti-abortion, anti-homosexual-marriage, anti-whatever-YOU-think they must be "anti".........and they most certainly must have all that as their platform.

.....and you not only will continue losing elections, but also voters like me that will vote Republican...to the 3rd parties.

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:15:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Thanks (0.00 / 0)

No thanks, I have no interest in pushing anyone from the MassGOP.  Oh, don't get me wrong... I am pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and all that sort but let us be wise about how we go about things.

I have no intention on shying away from promoting social conservative within my party & throughout the Commonwealth (yes, I dare say that those with me up at the State House on Wednesday lobbying against the so-called "Bathroom Bill" included just as many, or more, Democrats & unenrolled as Republicans) but we must emphasize the commonalities that unite us as Republicans in a broad, vast, and ultimately strong coalition that elects candidates.

I have no desire to "continue losing elections."  Likewise, I pray for the day where all the 3rd party "former Republicans" come one back home - where YOU belong.  

The Republican Party should be, and is, the home of the conservative, be it fiscal or moderate.  Heck, we're the home of the libertarian as well.  Maybe you & I will agree on taxation, spending, & government growth (and the need for them all to be as low as possible!) but not on life issues.  So be it.  I wish you saw things my way but that doesn't make you any less a Republican.  Rather, it makes us both activists & campaign workers for a future winning Republican candidate.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:58:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Libertarians have their own party (0.00 / 0)

They are in opposition to the founding principle of the Republican party, which is that all people are created equal.

Scratch a Libertarian and you'll reveal a Transhumanist who denies that all people are created equal and who takes a very eugenic and materialistic and selfish shortsighted view of genetic engineering.

(And if the Libertarian decides instead to renounce genetic engineering, then he's renouncing Libertarianism, and OK, welcome him back to the party that believes all people are created equal.)

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 12:13:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The (0.00 / 0)

insanity continues!!!!

They are in opposition to the founding principle of the Republican party, which is that all people are created equal.

Exactly which People do libertarians relegate to "lesser status"?  Which to "greater status"?

Booga booga....same sex conception....

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 14:18:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They just deny the principle (0.00 / 0)

Here is a bit of an exchange I am having at CrunchyCons, Rod Dreher's blog.  Some people had been arguing that there was no Truth, which was Rod's "Nemesis Vision"...

John Howard
April 13, 2009 7:42 PM

OK, question to everyone denying an absolute truth: Do you deny that all people are equal? Is that not a capital T absolute Truth?
----
Franklin Evans
April 13, 2009 8:28 PM

John, I in fact deny that all people are equal. The evidence that people are different is obvious.
----
Charles Cosimano
April 13, 2009 8:30 PM

Actually I deny absolute knowable truth, which is not the same thing as denying absolute truth. Certainly there are absolute truths in science and mathematics but when you get beyond that, yes, there probably are but we have no way of knowing what they are and no rational reason to assume that anyone knows either. And no, people are not equal. And when us Transhumanists win, they won't be equal then either, but we won't expect them to be.

And we will win. Scientific progress never loses. Just ask the Pope.
----
Pat
April 13, 2009 10:03 PM

I've never met anyone who believed all people were equal. All people are different. And none of us really knows what is going on with any other one of us -- let alone what might be going on between that person and their god.

Can you believe it?  These morons think that "All people are created equal" is not true.  They're all Transhumanists.  And yes, they all believe (why not) we should allow same-sex conception.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 14:33:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

..... (0.00 / 0)

and WTF does all that have to do with the Libertarian Party?

"All people are created equal".......depends on what your reference point is.  "Equal" is a vague term that means nothing unless you have a qualifier.

"Equal" in the eyes of God with reference to human rights?  Yep.  

"Equal" in innate intelligence/physical ability(fill in the blank)....nope......unless you've never met a retard (oops....mentally handicapable person), midget (oops...vertically challenged person), dumbass (not a protected class yet), or liberal (self-explanatory).

SOME people are "created" quite unequal mentally and physically.

........but WTF does this have to do with the Libertarian Party?

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 15:32:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Transhumanists are Libertarians (0.00 / 0)

or at least they are today, while they want to be able to say "get your laws off my laboratory".  They'll probably all turn into vicious authoritarians soon after that though, if they still want to eradicate diseases in other people's children after taking care of their own children.  Some will, some won't.

Transhumanists and Libertarians are usually the same people, and both believe that "All people are Created Equal" is a PC banality that doesn't reflect the harsh Ayn Randian truth (oops, oh well) that some people are better than others and laws shouldn't impede them or restrict them, laws should only restrict other people.  OK, so you say you recognize that "Equal in the eyes of God with reference to human rights", is what they meant, but libertarians pretty much laugh at the claim.  They laugh first at the concept of God, and then at the concept of human rights too, because by demanding genetic engineering to eradicate diseases they are denying that all people have the right to use their own genes and trying to impose a literal physical equality that insults the notion of a God given one.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:02:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, but at this point in time... (5.00 / 2)

I am of the opinion that you are batshit crazy.

Again, I offer my apologies.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:19:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

[hidden comment] Where are you coming from? (0.00 / 2)

Usually tossed-off insults with no explanation come from Libertarian Transhumanists who are afraid to argue for their goals, lest other people realize how batshit crazy their goals are.  Do you favor or oppose letting people create people from genetically modified genes?

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:30:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should hit reply to my post not yours... (0.00 / 0)

I have read all your responses, that's where I'm coming from.  From their subject matter, I have concluded that you are pretty much unbalanced.

Perhaps a member of a right wing extremest group...

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:56:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still keeping it a secret? (0.00 / 0)

Opposed or in favor of same-sex conception?

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 20:23:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Science Lesson (0.00 / 0)

As far as humans go, conception cannot occur between to of the same gender.

That is not spin or politics or opinion or conservative or liberal.

It is science.  

---

by: VESuggestions @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 20:30:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not without modifying the genetic imprinting (0.00 / 0)

Same-sex conception might be possible very soon using stem cell derived gametes and somehow modifying the normal development to get "female sperm" or "male eggs".  I don't know how feasible it is, and it doesn't really matter, since it just shouldn't be allowed now anyhow.  No one should be allowed to try to create a "human Kaguya baby".

Anyone that says "it should be allowed because it is infeasible" is an idiot, because scientists can still waste tons of money and confuse millions of people, and we'd miss out on a golden opportunity to resolve the marriage debate and achieve equal protections for same-sex couples.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 20:46:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can drive with just your feet... (5.00 / 1)

... but that doesnt mean it is a good idea to do it.

Nature spent millions of years perfecting the old fashioned method. You screw with nature, and it finds a way to screw you back.

Didn't anyone see Jurassic Park?

---

by: VESuggestions @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 21:00:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Insightful <> Banal (0.00 / 0)

This is absolutely true, of course, but, uh, what's your point?  And what does MerrimackMan find "insightful" about it?  That it merely expresses an opinion against it, and doesn't call for preventing people from trying it?  Libertarians love letting people hurt themselves and even other people around them, as long as they aren't in danger themselves.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 23:24:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you... (0.00 / 0)

...keep the tin foil hat from chafing your head?

I would think it would cause irritation resulting in some hair loss.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 22:55:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe it's you? (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty well informed, so I know I'm not making any crazy claims about anything, everything I argue is straight talk, no BS.  And you, you can't even state your position or indicate any semblance of knowledge about what I'm talking about.  Have you done any homework to research the issue?  Are you really going to sit there on your hands when this is such a good opportunity to win seats and get the moonbats out?  They're the crazy ones Dave, they're the ones that think being allowed to attempt same-sex conception today is more important than federal recognition or recognition in more states.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 23:10:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

logical fallacy alert!!! (0.00 / 0)

If "A" then "B" does not mean that if "B" then "A".

Even if, as you baselessly claim, all transhumanists are Libertarians, that doesn't mean Libertarians are transhumanists.

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:48:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They tend to be (0.00 / 0)

To oppose Transhumanism you have to support a federal law, and Libertarians generally oppose laws.  I agree though, that the rare thoughtful Libertarian who looked a few years down the road would realize that if we don't prohibit genetic engineering, then we're in for a huge intrusive government program and massive spending to screen everyone and provide genetically modified gametes for everyone.

So, are any Libertarians thoughtful?  I haven't met one yet.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:47:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

.....and in case (0.00 / 0)

you didn'tr get the logical fallacy.....you're claim is like the current government saying "Right Wing Extremists tend to support 3rd parties....so 3rd party supporters are Right Wing Extremists."

Nonsense...

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 12:02:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

skip the analogies (0.00 / 0)

I still say kick the Libertarians out, they've got their own party, and they're selfish shits I don't want to share a tent with.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 16:49:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

your question (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, forgot to answer your question:

Exactly which People do libertarians relegate to "lesser status"?  Which to "greater status"?

Everyone else: lesser status
Their own self: higher status

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 14:35:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

.......and (0.00 / 0)

what's this answer have to do with the Libertarian Party?

Must've missed that part of their party platform.

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 15:34:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re-branding (5.00 / 1)

when it comes to re-branding the party - look for the vision coming from the western part of the state. stay tuned...

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 22:11:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contents of the Contract (0.00 / 0)

Seems to me that the only way that this is going to be resolved is through a vote of the state committee or whatever body is in charge of determining what is in the platform/contract.  

A reasonable approach would be to come up with a bunch of potential items, give everyone in the decision making body 10 votes, and select the ten items that get the highest number of votes.  If its economic issues, then its economic issues.  If they are social issues, then they are social issues.  If half and half, so be it.

---

by: yankeepundit @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 00:44:21 AM UTC

Process (0.00 / 0)

I'll stand to be corrected but the process of drafting the 2010 MassGOP Platform will basically go this way:

The Platform Committee, which has so far met once via teleconference, will put together a draft.  Of course, this draft will have actually been reviewed countless times by the committee before it gets voted upon successfully and sent out.  I suspect that the Platform Committee will be subdivided into various working groups each to tackle a specific issue.  I should note that I do serve on the Platform Committee as does our own EaBo Clipper.  As you can see, the Platform Committee is not only composed of State Committee members but activists as well as elected officials (including State Senator Bruce Tarr).  The members were elected by the State Committee at a previous meeting.

Once the Platform Committee has adopted its draft it will be sent to the entire State Committee for their review, possible amendment, and final adoption at a future State Committee meeting.

Once the State Committee has adopted the near final form then it will be put before the delegates of the 2010 MassGOP Convention to be voted upon & finally accepted by the assembled at the DCU Center in Worcester on Saturday, April 17, 2010.

The Issues Committee's so-called "Contract" is being done roughly the same way.  Indeed, both Platform & Issues are being chaired by State Committeeman Matt Kinnaman and I serve upon both committees.  We were appointed by then Chairman Peter Torkildsen and as a practical matter divided into work groups (I've been on Taxes/Spending, Jobs/Economy, & Energy).  We've since assembled our individual work into a larger piece that will be adopted by us & then sent to the entire State Committee for its final review, amendment, & adoption.  I had hoped that we would have this in place by the recently passed April 2009 State Committee meeting but that was not to be (primarily as Matt Kinnaman was going to be unable to attend).  As such, I believe we will be rolling this out to the State Committee in June, or at least that had been the time frame as I understood it.

As you can see, there will be ample opportunity for the entire State Committee to have its say on both documents.  The Platform also gets its final approval from the convention delegates.

I personally support inclusive, embracing, welcoming documents that touch upon the full spectrum diversity, richness, and complexity of what it means to be a Massachusetts Republican in today's Commonwealth.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:42:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contract Process (Amended) (0.00 / 0)

I would add that the contract should differ from the platform in that the proposals in he contract should be operational while the platform is a statement of broad principal.  The 1994 contract included specific items that the congress could act on in the immediate future.  If memory serves, the draft legislation written and ready for introduction to committee when the contract was put together.  

If there is a contract with Massachusetts, it should be composed of specific, workable measures that could be introduced in the next session.  I suggest that any measure that is added should be something that has majority support among the electorate.  The burden on demonstrating that a measure has majority support lies on the proposer.      

I think that there are a number of social issues that have demonstrable majority support among the electorate that are consistent with conservative values.  I certainly am no expert in this area but I suspect that issues related to immigration enforcement or crime and possibly also abortion (i.e., parental notification) could quality, maybe others.  If so, they would be worthy of consideration for inclusion in the contract.

Economic issues cited in the contract should also be subject to the same threshold test with the burden placed on the proposer to show that a measure is both feasible and desired by the electorate.

Thanks for your helpful description on process.  

---

by: yankeepundit @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 11:07:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contract & Platform (0.00 / 0)

You're right, the so-called "Contract" & 2010 Platform are two entirely different, but complimentary, documents and while the latter is a broad set of party principles the former are actionable, data driven, areas which our candidates can hopefully make use of, a la the 1994 Contract with America.

It's my personal hope that the Platform will contain socially conservative principles within its pages, akin to the 2008 Republican National Committee Platform.

The Issues "Contract" will predominately have those policy points that are directly actionable in the current climate or would help shape the policy & rhetorical battlefield for & by our candidates.

You're welcome for the description and I'm happy to read that it was helpful.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 11:22:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Party platforms matter? (5.00 / 1)

Didn't party platforms go out of style with the Populist Party?

I wish the fiscal conservatives and libertarians were as well organized/financed as the social conservatives.  

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 00:51:26 AM UTC

sigh..... (5.00 / 1)

AS a ultra-conservative on EVERY aspect social, fiscal etc., I understand how most pick and choose a favorite aspect, even though I support ALL aspects of conservatism.

Some love that fiscal topic, some love the passion of social issues. Cool... pick the CONSERVATIVE aspect of your choice, BUT.......DON'T go AGAINST any (other) CONSERVATIVE aspects!!!
Is THAT so hard????????

If a fiscal conservative comes to me for support, I will give it. If that same fiscal conservative is UNABLE to support a social issue, it would still be OK..just make sure to NOT GO AGAINST US!!!!

In other words support ANY aspect of CONSERVATISM you choose, BUT DO NOT GO AGAINST (ANY) other form of CONSERVATISM. Sit on your hands and be neutral or whatever, but let's not divide ourselves..

We should NOT DROP anything or ANYBODY from CONSERVATIVE principles.

The LIBS don't do it, friggan BLUE DOGS give the San Fran NAN the power to torture us.....
As an ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE, I welcome ALL you CONSERVATIVES,
even you squishy "moderates".....lmao..Group HUG...


"From MY cold dead hands"

---

by: Knightbrigade @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:31:39 AM UTC

Amen! (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't agree with you more.  Preach on, brother!  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:45:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

except (0.00 / 0)

Transhumanists.  They may like the Republican party fro its lasaiz-faireattitude to business and low taxes and other 'selfish' apsects that enable them to pursue Transhumanism full speed ahead, but Transhumanism is anathema to Republican principles or every person being created equal.  Liberty simply doesn't extend to creating people from modified genes.  Democrats are too tied with same-sex marriage to back down now, they're going to have to be the party of eugenics and transhumanism and same-sex conception, Repubicans should go back to Lincoln and fight to preserve Equality.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 12:25:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Booga booga (4.50 / 2)

H+
h+

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

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 14:25:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LMAO!!! (0.00 / 0)

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 22:46:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tim Cahill to run as independent for Governor (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like MassGOP is collapsing like the economy, everyone fighting with each other, too many phonies.  Instead of accepting each and everyone of us for who we are, we allow issues to define us, not good candidates.  If the MassGOP continues down this road, Cahill will be elected by a landslide and not as a Democrat, but as an Independent.  

Everyone I hear from say both parties suck and because no party wants to provide solutions for the future.  Now here we are eating each other like canibals... If the MassGOP isn't careful, as Scott Brown said to the Lincoln Middlesex Club in December 2008, the future of the Republicans here in the commonwealth could be extinction.  

---

by: Ben Franklin @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:32:47 AM UTC

Precisely (0.00 / 0)

We, as the Massachusetts Republican Party, have simply got to stop trying to purge ourselves.  We have got to stop trying to have the more liberal wing purge the social conservatives and we have to have the SoCons stop trying to purge the so-called "RINOs"!

Sure, we have profound principled disagreements on important issues but there is so much more that unites us and binds us as Republicans!  Rather than focus on the 80-90% in common we instead focus with laser like intensity upon the differences.  This simply must stop!

The MassGOP exists to elect candidates!  If a candidate agrees with you 80-90% of the time... GET BEHIND HIM & GET HIM ELECTED!  Only when we begin to change the balance of power up on Beacon Hill will we have the luxury of even worrying about the pure party purges (and even if we were, some day, the majority party... we wouldn't stay that way very soon if we resumed such internicene warfare)!

We are conservatives.  We are Republicans.  We are citizens of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Let us put aside pride and ego in order to emulate the Minutemen of old.  That is, let us remember that at the end of the day we are, first and foremost, brothers-in-arms in a glorious cause far greater than ourselves.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:52:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please don't endorse Cahill by mistake (0.00 / 0)

Read the last paragraph. Brock, as her spin-doctor kinda guy, can you consider advising her NOT to compliment Democrat Frontrunners? (!^%#^@!&*@&#^@!&*!!!)

Link to the entire article attached below:

http://blogs.townonline.com/wa...
(Add your comments at blog spot link above.)
By Bob Montgomery Thomas, April 12, 2009

In a recently published interview titled "The Thin Red Line" in the
alternative lifestyle newspaper Bay Windows, MassGOP Chair Jennifer Nassour
is quoted to have said: "To me social issues are personal issues. Those are
personal views, and we are not legislating here - at least I am not
legislating anyone's personal views. I have no personal agenda I'm trying to
push through other than electing Republicans."
.
.
.
Something else about Nassour could be considered a little disconcerting to
some. On March 26, she warmly applauded State Treasurer Tim Cahill (D)
Quincy. In her words, "I congratulate Gubernatorial Front Runner Tim Cahill
on his new status - certainly he needed some good news. The people of
Massachusetts are tired of the ethical lapses and waste in state
government."

---

by: lonniebrennan @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 03:21:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look she's done some stupid stuff, but.... (0.00 / 0)

Look Nassour has definitely done some stupid stuff...

1. Sure she donated $250 to a Democratic elected official while she was a state committeewoman only two months before she declared her candidacy for Chairman:  

http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/DisplayReport.aspx?reportId=85094&schedule=DisplayScheduleA

2. Sure she gave her first interview to Bay Windows and said that Social Issues will not be the focus of the MassGOP while she's chair.

And

3. Yes, she warmly applauds Tim Cahill on becoming the frontrunner for Governor,

But, we all know that those that run the MassGOP office are invalids anyway.  It isn't these few Party Henchmen that elect Republicans, because think about it, they haven't elected a Republican to the legislature in 5 years (Scott Brown was the last GOP to win a Democratic Seat).

...You get the point... in a nutshell they should focus on getting future Republicans elected, then agitating Republicans.

---

by: Ben Franklin @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 04:48:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too much credit (0.00 / 0)

Lonnie, thank you but you give me too much credit.  While I am chairman of the Public Relations Committee, I'm not Nassour's "spin-doctor kinda guy."  If anything, that would be Barney Keller.  After all, he's on the payroll & I'm merely a GOP activist, like yourself, who just happens to also have the honor & privilege of serving as a State Committee member.  I don't write the day-to-day press releases, I post them over at www.MassRootsGOP.com.  

Jennifer & I do talk, actually generally we email, and we have a good free flowing exchange of ideas.  We may largely agree, we may not always agree, but they're always candid & confidential.  Perhaps most importantly they have always confirmed my support of her and her agenda.  Likewise, Barney gets his email box filled by my notes and Nick Connors has been a victim of my having his cell phone number.  The staff up at HQ are nothing if not responsive.  

BTW - Here is how the MassGOP Bylaws define the PR Committee:

Section 7. Public Relations Committee.

(a) Membership: The Public Relations Committee shall consist of the Committee Chair and such additional persons as the State Chair may appoint.

(b) Duties: It shall be the function of the Public Relations Committee to foster, promote and develop Republican proposals and Republicanism in order to inspire the Party members, and to advise the Party leadership as how best to present the Republican story to the public. The committee shall recommend and supervise statewide publicity, provide proposed media releases, develop data on incumbent Democrats, and shall be responsible for monitoring and responding to news articles, letters to the editor and editorials at the state and regional level.

http://www.massgop.com/massgop...

    Thanks for the "her spin-doctor" compliment but I'm really not.  I can't speak for her but as my predecessor, I don't think that Shari Worthington saw herself as the spin-doctor for Peter Torkildsen, either.  Rather, we - and the chairs of the other standing & ad hoc committees - are just trying to do our part in helping advance the Massachusetts Republican Party and elect our candidates.  We can use all the help we can get and I'm very thankful for all the activists coming out in recent weeks to help us advance the Republican message across the Commonwealth!

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 11:17:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, Brock, (1.00 / 1)

but please don't put my work as PR chair in the same category as what you are doing. I've been in the PR business a very long time. Your approach as PR Committee Chair is much more as personal PR assistant for Chairman Nassour. I believe that level of activity belongs in her Communications Director's hands, but you are free to handle this role as you see fit.

---

by: sharilee @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 07:11:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but wrong (0.00 / 0)

You have indeed been in the PR business for a very long time & I appreciate your experience and previous service.

However, I'm very sorry Shari, but you're dead wrong.  

I am fully independent of Chairman Jennifer Nassour.  What I post here or write on the MassRepublicanForum is entirely uncoordinated with Nassour or anyone else up at HQ. The difference is when I see someone either unintentionally spreading mistruths or intentionally propagating lies I'm not shy about writing my 2 cents & sharing the facts.  

That is how I have personally operated for well over a decade of posting about all things MassGOP here on the Internet (be it the ol' MassGOP message list, the Liberty List, MassRepublicanForum, or RMG).  Nassour has no clue what I write or when I write it.  I wouldn't be surprised if she & her staff wished I'd stop writing at times.  As I've similarly written on the MRF I never ask Nassour for permission nor am I going to beg you for forgiveness.

The difference is rather than trying to sow seeds of discontent on behalf of a small, discredited, group of disgruntled "Conservative Caucus" types who are trying to capitalize upon what some may perceive to be a little blood in the water.  Since then let the feeding frenzy commence!  This entire display has been disgusting & despicable.  Some of you recruited a candidate then switched allegiances to another candidate and both lost miserably in a landslide.  We get it, you don't like Nassour... she, and really nobody, is conservative enough for you.  It's either "my way or the highway" with some Republicans and they really would rather meet in a phone booth than build a winning coalition.  As I posted on the MRF, I know that I'm perceived as a "party man."  I know that I'm not considered to be a conservative.  That's fine.  I understand from whence those charges come and I wear that with a badge of honor.  I am a party man.  I love the Massachusetts Republican Party.  I just wish others cared for it and it's future just a bit more rather than viewing it as their means to become the Grand Inquisitors of Conservatism or the Ayatollahs of Ideological Purity.  

A small group of fellow Republicans have an ax to grind and are still licking their wounds over losing the Chairman's election.  As a result they are going about trying to spread rumors, mistruths, lies, and horribly twisted & contorted facts to suit their reactionary agenda.  As was their right, they tried to mount a challenge to Ron Kaufman, they failed miserably.  You may recall that I was in the room when the Conservative Caucus met that first time.  The atmosphere in that room was toxic.  The fear that Torkildsen would discover the meeting (and what send in some hit squad?) was palpable.    Even the 1 State Committee member who dared to be the sacrificial lamb didn't get his name put into nomination & Ron was re-elected unanimously.  They couldn't successfully mount opposition to Chairman Torkildsen, even with having votes upon the Executive Committee.  Torkildsen was the sum of all evil, second only to the Dark Lord Kaufman, to many of my colleagues and now that he's gone it's time to turn the guns toward and unsheathe the long knives against Chairman Nassour.  I understand why its being done.  They want to win the war of words.  They want to capture the hearts & minds for their own very narrow & self-selective brand of conservatism.  They want to shape the rhetorical battle field.  That would be great if they were spreading the actual facts & truth but well... that's not necessarily the case.  I know it and regardless of party title I refuse to sit idly by.  Being unceremoniously excommunicated from said group was probably one of the best things that happened to me as now I'm not shackled to the MassGOP's Titanic.  The vitriol & hatred by a small group against Peter Torkildsen was embarrassing but this crusade against Jennifer Nassour reaches new depths.

You're right, there is a personal aspect about my replies.  I take it personally when people drag down my MassGOP.  I take it personally when people who should know better would rather tear down the MassGOP rather than build it up.  After all, my own colleagues were shouting "SHUT IT DOWN" in regards to the State Committee after Chairman Nassour was elected in January.  Yes, even when said by my friends, I take that personally.  

It's gravely tragic that the casual reader, without intimate knowledge of what has transpired, can read these posts and be spoon fed anti-Nassour propaganda by shameless but vocal echo chamber.  I can only imagine the Democrat readers of this blog laughing themselves into hysterics and the media who are salivating at the headline "MassGOP Civil War: Who are the "REAL" Republicans?"

I want a Massachusetts Republican Party that is unabashed conservative.  I want a MassGOP that wins elections.  That MassGOP will be neither if we destroy ourselves from within.  We have seen the enemy and he, is us.  We are our own worst enemy.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 12:32:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You misunderstand, Brock (0.00 / 0)

My goal, and the goal of the Conservative Caucus, is to make sure social conservatives have as much of a seat at the MassGOP table as fiscal conservatives. You were at the first meeting because you are a conservative. If you are interested in working toward that goal, then you are welcome at the meetings.

Btw, your information about who supported whom for the chair's race is wrong. The candidates that ran were not recruited by any factions of the state committee. They were supported by individual SC members once they announced. But that's two different things.

---

by: sharilee @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 23:58:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I fully understand (0.00 / 0)

Shari, Mike Franco admitted - live on WBSM 1420 AM - that he was recruited & that he was the second or third choice.  I also know, full well, about the various meetings that a core group of socially conservative State Committee members had to audition & vet various potential candidates.

The stated goal of the so-called "Conservative Caucus" is absolutely wonderful.  It's rather funny how I was never invited to return (indeed, completely cut off from future emails, meetings, & discussions) after that initial meeting.  I'm not exactly upset that I was unceremoniously excommunicated but let's not pretend that there wasn't, and isn't, a conspiratorial group that went out of its way to oust Kaufman, frustrate Torkildsen, block Nassour, & now make her life a living Hell - including the recent misrepresentation of facts, the promoting of mistruths, and outright rumors (while I haven't asked her about it I seriously doubt that she's considering submitting her resignation).  

Yes, the goal of the Conservative Caucus was to ensure that conservatives had a seat at the MassGOP table and that was especially why said members of the first meeting were going out of their way to plot & calculate how to get elected to Regional chairmanships & appointed to Standing Committee chairs so that the Conservative Caucus could hopefully flex its strength during the Executive Committee meetings.  Hey, I'm not complaining... it's a good strategy.

I'm always interested in working with my fellow conservative State Committee colleagues.  However, one of my colleagues recently referred to me as "a tad naive."  Perhaps I was in believing that we're all working towards the same goal of building the MassGOP & electing our candidates.  Of course, hearing said Conservative Caucus members shout out a mantra of "Shut it down!  Shut it down!" after our January meeting was an eye opener.

All that said, I am always willing to sit down & work with my socially conservative friends.  Your stated goal & the stated goal of the Conservative Caucus, that is "to make sure social conservatives have as much a seat at the MassGOP table as fiscal conservatives" is an excellent goal.  It's a goal I share.  It's a goal I, personally, hope to advance.  Perhaps I won't do it in quite the same way but well - when we can work together, the Conservative Caucus & I - then I want us to do so shoulder to shoulder.  

When is the date, time, & location of the next meeting?  I'll try to attend.  If I can't then please keep me in the loop for future meetings.  We, as social conservatives, certainly do need to labor together in the fields.  We as Massachusetts Republicans need to cooperate and collaborate for a more conservative tomorrow.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 00:55:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWI (0.00 / 0)

I know of at least 5 people who hadn't decided whom to vote for until they got there and were assured that Nassour would take the party in the RIGHT direction. They asked a few friends about about the candidates and I will bet that those friends feel pretty crappy right about now.
So for what it is worth, a seat at the table is the least your coalition should have.  Oh, and isn't  the National Platform of any value any more ??
How did Reagan win again ??

---

by: politicalmadman @ Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 00:39:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Big tent is fine; but the focus should be on what unites, not divides (0.00 / 0)

I am a Republican because I care most deeply about low taxes, small, responsible government, states rights, national security, and individual liberty and privacy.  I care so much, I tolerate the GOPs conservative positions on social issues, though I disagree with them.  

I agree with the 80% idea and the "big tent."  The party can and should embrace both social conservatives and social libertarians.  Embracing both groups, however, does not create unity on the issues. It merely means accepting differences of opinion.  Neither side is likely to persuade the other.  

Therefore, I would argue that the best course of action for the Mass GOP is de-emphasizing social issues as much as possible.  Focus on where we agree (fiscal matters) and acknowledge then completely de-emphasize the areas that divide us (social matters). And when I say acknowledge, acknowledge BOTH social libertarian and social conservative ideals as equally valid in the party.  Every word in the platform that puts a premium on social conservative values excludes social libertarian Republicans and highlights the party's biggest area of disunity.  That benefits only one group:  Democrats.  

---

by: Jeanne @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 02:24:10 AM UTC

If I were a member of the MA Republican SC................. (5.00 / 1)

I would say that we can't fight this war on both fronts.  With so few candidates and so few financial resources we need to pick our fights very carefully.

I would find some social issues that the greatest majority of conservatives can agree to.  But, the focus of any upcoming campaign for statewide office (or party platform) has to be economics and ethics.

Win office on the fiscal matters and work on the social issues once you get there.

If you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12:29 AM UTC

Poll Nassour (0.00 / 0)

RedMassGroup - please run a poll on this issue.

Poll
1. Polling State Committee Members - since the Bay Windows article was published does Nassour have the support and confidence that she is doing the right thing on social conservative issues.

2. Polling everyone on the site - same question.

For all you home political hobbyists

1. Problem identified
2. Problem discussed
3. Action taken to resolve issue - Polling, Censure and Recall of Nassour - or not.
4. Move on

It appears everyone in this party stops at the Discussion step. Let's take action and then determine next steps.

---

by: WesternmassGOP @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 09:49:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about... (5.00 / 2)

What is the role of a party chair?

1. Raise money
2. Raise money
3. Raise money
4. Hate teh gheys and planed parenthood. Also, casinos.

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 15:26:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with 3 outta the 4 (0.00 / 0)

Well, I agree with 3 out of the 4.  I'm absolutely against the pro-abortion agenda of Planned Parenthood.  

While I am against so-called gay marriage, I do not "hate" my brothers & sisters who suffer from same-sex attraction.  Far from it, I offer them my most heartfelt compassion.

As far as casinos go, I'm no advocate for them but I am entirely open to casinos.  My area, the SouthCoast, has been interested in casinos for over a decade at this point and I remain open to their possible development.

1-3, I cannot agree with you more!  Just as a bit of an FYI - in the first quarter of 2009 we, as a State Committee, raised more money than we did during the same time period (January 1-March 31) of 2008 or 2007.  As undoubtedly Democrats read these blogs as much as Republicans I'm hesitant to provide the breakdown as provided to the State Committee members during the recently past April State Committee meeting.  

I always want more money raised but at least we're moving in the right direction!

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 15:33:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"I do not "hate" my brothers & sisters who suffer from same-sex attraction. Far from it, I offer them my most heartfelt compassion." (0.00 / 0)

Oh Sh!t Brock!  You are going to start World War III.  People from BlueMassGroup read here you know.

He's just kidding everyone, Brock was just kidding around.  He does that every once in a while.          

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:15:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

Oh, I do know.  In fact, I stumbled across a thread about me on BMG just the other day - http://www.bluemassgroup.com/s...  I don't read BMG but I was Googling for some info, clicked on the link, & nearly fell off my chair when I saw that I had been discussed.

Honestly? Here are my thoughts on your actual topic:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/...

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 16:55:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey Brock (0.00 / 0)

Your BMG page is gone.

---

by: sharilee @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:54:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh Darn (0.00 / 0)

My 15 minutes of unintentional fame is over!  :)

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:44:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Republican Chat-now need to keep working together (0.00 / 0)

Sharilee,
Good blog topic and intelligent conversations.
I just read through this entire blog and was glad to see that most Republican's recognize they need to work together if there is to be any hope for the future of our Party and OUR (Country at this point).
As A rule I believe we can all agree that we are defined by Conservatism. Some various degree of Social & some varied Fiscal.
I believe that MOST Republicans are at least a little bit of both.
A lot of us fall in to the Fiscally Conservative with Strong Family Values Column. Some Strongly Socially Conservative.
Whereas Fiscal is fairly easily defined, Social covers a wide spectrum of ideals,beliefs and emotions and makes it nearly impossible to align almost any two people on 100% of what can only be defined as an infinite number.
Here-in lies our biggest problem. Republicans {especially elected  Leaders} really need to all recognize this and intellectually combine all of the Various Conservative  minds as a Team, before Liberalism rules all.
That's simply my view and having said that, in the spirit of Republican's working together and moving forward I have a request of you Shari.
As the prior PR Chairperson, would you mind sharing what you felt was the most beneficial Role(s) the Chair of the  
Public Communications Committee were?; especially given the many new Media vehicles that have surfaced over the last few years.
I read Brocks intents and the verbiage from our rules and I'm not really clear as to the differences between yours and his Goals and Objectives. Or,whom should this Committee actually be Representing; our Platform?
Here's wishing you and our new Chair's Success!

---

by: billnick @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:04:37 PM UTC

My goal as PR chairman (0.00 / 0)

was to help grassroots activists spread conservative (fiscal and/or social) messages.

First the committee had to find and understand all the media venues available (in print, radio, TV, Internet), and encourage our most active activists to be more visible (Brock is superb at letter writing and radio shows, Peter Porcupine has a stupendous blog and column on the Cape, I have a blog and a seat on the Central Mass Chronicles TV show, etc.).

Then we needed to do some intense work with Matt Kinnaman's Issues Committee on our core messages. We worked on a "Compact with Massachusetts" that addressed: economic growth, education, energy, health care, taxation, spending, government accountability, and oversight of the judiciary.

The Issues and PR Committees met jointly for at least half of 2008, into 2009. The "Compact" isn't quite complete, but close.

The State Committee is an outfacing organization. Our purpose is to engage and grow the base of activists. Nowhere along the line did I see it as appropriate for me to be the Chair's spokesperson. Peter had a Communications Director for that.

I'll let Brock speak to what he is now doing with the PR Committee.

---

by: sharilee @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:53:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Update (0.00 / 0)

The Issues and PR Committees met jointly for at least half of 2008, into 2009. The "Compact" isn't quite complete, but close.

The Issues & Platform Committees are planning to meet jointly during the first week of May to further work on both documents.  The PR Committee will undoubtedly follow in your footsteps in support of the "Compact."

Nowhere along the line did I see it as appropriate for me to be the Chair's spokesperson. Peter had a Communications Director for that.

As does Jennifer & it's the same individual.  That said, if I see something be misreported, unintentionally or intentionally, then I - regardless of committee chairmanship - feel personally compelled to correct the record.

Thank you for the compliments above and the PR Committee membership remains largely the same with the inclusion of the aid of a couple of state legislators.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:04:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the feedback (0.00 / 0)

I wanted to thank both of you for providing answers to my Inquiry.
I went back and re-read article 7b regarding the PR Committee.
The article is obviously generically written in a fashion that leaves a lot of subjectivity to the reader. I can certainly see where different Chairs can interprupt it differently in various areas.
Also, even though I have not seen anywhere our new PR Chair has even attempted to be our MRSC Chair's Spokesperson, In some repects, this position, by definition, is.
Perhaps our MRSC should revisit the various Standing Committee's "job descriptions" after each Presidential Primary to make sure they are consistent with the desires of the newly elected MRSC.
TEA TIME...

---

by: billnick @ Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 17:05:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Will Republicans make the same mistake as Democrats? (0.00 / 0)

First, a bit on my perspective:
I've known homosexuals since I was a child. I've known them as caring, intelligent people. I love and respect them -- completely. I'm personally pro-life. And I believe illegal immigration is a huge problem affecting natural-born citizens, legal immigrants (who cannot easily visit with family), and the illegal immigrants themselves.

There is no way that you are going to eradicate homosexuality through legislation. You won't eradicate abortions and illegal immigration either. Have I hit the "big 3" social issues?

That's the mistake that Democrats, and the liberals that love them, keep making over and over. They believe they will eradicate poverty, ignorance and crime with laws or dollars.

Will the Republicans keep making this mistake?

I would rather see a platform that is pro-family regardless of the gender of the parents.

I would rather see a platform that doesn't subsidize abortion clinics, but doesn't legislate the doctor-patient relationship.

I would rather see a platform that addresses fixing the immigration problems and requires verifiable employment,  English proficiency, and an efficient immigration process rather than trying to seal a border.

Just my 2 cents.

---

by: dweir @ Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:52:48 PM UTC

raving rabbids figurines (0.00 / 0)

raving rabbids figurines

raving rabbids figurines

raving rabbids figurines  

---

by: pandawill @ Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 01:58:37 AM UTC