Younger Republicans: Burn the RNC Platform on Boston Common!

I like the post (5.00 / 2)

I'm not so sure about the demonstration, but I get where you're going with the idea.

I just want to say that from a purely political perspective my views on what we need to represent are evolving.

After this Presidential election it will be clear that a majority in the Electoral College will effectively be out of reach of the Republicans regardless of the candidate.

States we used to win we aren't even close anymore, VA is blue, NC is on the edge (it's now the 10th most Hispanic state) and if Blacks & Hispanics voted in proportion to their numbers in TX we would even lose that state as well.

We spend too much time on issues that are either settled in law or don't matter to people.

I get having "convictions" (which I think are personal, but which other people seem to think are universal, and attack me accordingly), but I would also like Republicans in office. We'll see how it plays out in November. I'm sure if Romney loses people will scream he wasn't conservative enough, but I don't think that's the answer.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 19:05:28 PM UTC

Conversation has started. (5.00 / 3)

On Facebook, some younger Republicans have already started talking about these ideas. (but not the demonstration yet)

Are any of them defending the platform? Not one.

I don't mean to say there aren't die-hard social conservatives under 40. I count some of them as my friends. But they are a small minority now. And they know it.

---

by: edfactor @ Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 19:22:59 PM UTC

A conversation worth having (5.00 / 1)

The Republican Party was once the party of "Big Ideas" - the party that revolutionized the way America thought, acted, and did business. We need to once again be restored to the part of "Big Ideas" so that we can usher in another American Century - one that America returns to being the most well educated, literate, productive country on earth.

We need new ideas on how to create sustainable, private sector jobs that will employ a larger and greater workforce to pioneer the industries of the 21st century. Yes, that includes green technologies such as wind and solar, but to get there we need to make these technologies sustainable and competitive.

We need policies that incentivize business growth and creating small businesses, that welcomes the wealthy and incentivizes them to invest in small businesses and that technology startup that might one day change the way we do business. We need to expand the job market and then the labor force and find creative ways to bring industry and manufacturing back to America while remaining competitive in the world marketplace.

In essence, we need to be the party that welcomes people of all creeds, races, sexual orientations, etc. while respecting the lives of those that aren't in our Republican Tent. We all have to live together in the same world, and it's no one's place to impose one way of life completely on another. This platform neglects so many ideas that many Republicans have about moving forward as a party.

How can we expect to win if we narrowly define what a Republican is and what a Republican is not by the narrow terms of believing in climate change, evolution, supporting gay rights to civilly unionize?  If we want to remain solvent and competitive, we can't. We have to find healthy ways to compromise and to find ways to stick to whatever your convictions are while balancing the needs of all.

---

by: EJD @ Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 19:54:04 PM UTC

How can we expect to win if we narrowly define what a Republican is? (5.00 / 1)

This a fine paragraph EJD. It is already apparent that Scott Brown is distancing himself from the Republican Party here, and so is Richard Tisei, both fine men who used to be proud to call themselves Republican and defend the party loudly.  

How can we expect to win if we narrowly define what a Republican is and what a Republican is not by the narrow terms of believing in climate change, evolution, supporting gay rights to civilly unionize?  If we want to remain solvent and competitive, we can't. We have to find healthy ways to compromise and to find ways to stick to whatever your convictions are while balancing the needs of all.

---

by: StartedoutRepublican @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 13:04:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As the National Committeeman (0.00 / 0)

As the Massachsuetts Federation of Young Republicans National Committeeman for Massachsuetts and member of the Executive Board of the Same, I would fight very hard to keep our language on working to ban the murder of innocent children in the platform.

BTW, way to play into John Walsh's hand.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 20:09:06 PM UTC

If this is what you truly believe (0.00 / 0)

then why bother talking about tax policy or anything else?

If 1,000,000 three year olds were murdered each year it would be the #1 issue in this country. Be like the pro-life people on my street who ripped my campaign sign out of their yard when it can out in the paper that I was pro-choice. Never mind the fact that my opponent was NARAL endorsed, it was the principle.

You should then not be supporting Brown or any other candidate (Baker) that supports choice. It's murder.

I also do not support the murder of innocent children, which is why I advocate our immediate and unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan and the immediate ending of all drone strikes. I can't condone the murder of innocent children in Pakistan and Yemen based on some hypothetical future threat to the US. That's not sarcasm to make a point. I truly want that because I think we're wicked two faced on the subject (because we as a people enjoy killing from a distance).

From a purely political point of view (which is where this started), by using the word murder you just lost 40% of the vote immediately (before any other issues) in most towns (try finding any mention of abortion in Rep Jim Lyon's material or web site) and probably 60% of the vote inside 128, where we have exactly zero representation.

By having these views in our platform we lose most of the youth vote and cut into the suburban vote.

For all the discussion about "conservative wins" the sad truth is that our loss in Presidential elections of previous swing or red states (that George HW Bush won) can be mapped to the move to the social right in the '92 platform.

Since then:

92 Dems win
96 Dem landslide
00 Rep squeeker
04 Rep squeeker
08 Dem landslide
12 Dem win, TBD if landslide.

That's not to say that conservative social issues can't be a winner in some states and of course locally in many states. They can't be a winner locally in most of MA, not statewide in MA, and they stop us from winning nationally.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 14:04:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See my answer to Peter below (5.00 / 1)

Saying you can't win as a social conservative in Massachusetts belies the facts of teh last election.

I will pick the most pro-life candidate I can find.  If both candidates are not pro-life, I will support the one that best meets my other criteria.  

As a person that was in the womb of a 19 year old unwed mother the day the Government told her that I could be murdered, I will continue to call it murder.

Just war is not murder.  There is a moral difference.  

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 20:50:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey you missed 2010 (0.00 / 0)

when we slowed the slide with pro-life candidates.

Did you notice who lost?  

Our pro=choice gubernatorial candidate
our pro-abortion ) LG candidate

Who won? our Pro-life rep candidates

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 22:10:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You make this point frequently (0.00 / 0)

I would say that Republican candidates won in Republican favorable districts, and would have won whether they were pro-life or not. Certainly there is more money in pro-life circles for ordinary candidates so that does help them.

We got totally creamed in many districts however.

There are more districts to be had, and pro-life candidates might win them, but eventually, even with complete success, we are going to peak and not getting any higher.

I could make a case that there is very little chance of us increasing our numbers in the Senate, what with the urban anchor that comes with each district.  

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 13:17:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Rob likes to cite wins of socially conservative house members. However, it is correlation without causation. Yes, their being socially conservative resulted in support from relevant organizations. But I have seen nothing that would show the following:

1. They would have lost if they were pro-choice. (Yes, they would have lost support of a few orgs and some volunteers, but they would have gained votes also.)

2. That their victories will hold up in 2012. If many of them lose to social moderates/liberals, Rob, will that invalidate your theory?

3. That this is a model that not only should be taken up by other candidates, but also that it should be baked into the platform for every Republican in the state to follow.

As a social conservative, I am very happy to see great guys like Ryan Fattman win. (I met him at the Brown Christmas party - what a great guy!) But even he, on his website, does not even list positions on abortion or gay marriage. Every third party voter information website I checked show no position on these. So if he is supposed to be an example of why the platform is supposed to include this, why won't he advertise it?

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 13:56:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Without clarity on the platform level, it can be twisted anyway the oppostition wants (0.00 / 0)

Joan Vennochi today in the Globe

While she's a lefty and most of her points can be strongly and effectively debated, she has this point.

Nobody wants to send Warren to Washington strictly on the basis of support for abortion rights. But doesn't honesty on that issue matter? Brown insists he is pro-choice, yet Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a leading antiabortion group, endorsed him. Raymond Flynn, a former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican, also endorsed him, telling the Globe, "His heart is pro-life."

Which shows that in politics it's tough to have it both ways. A late mailing to unenrolled women saying "Scott Brown is endorsed by an organization that wants to take away your right to choose" could be effective. There could be a number of "Micky Ward moments."

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 15:13:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Rob... (0.00 / 0)

...the extreme right (you, your roommate, your [RMG] landlord and others) are letting John Walsh paint a huge target for easy hunting.  The 2 Republicans with a chance to win this year (Brown and Tesei) are either distancing themselves or outright denouncing this platform.  Please full speed ahead and once you run over the moderates like Ed, I'm sure you'll back up and run over the moderates again...because that is what you do so well.    

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 23:21:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple J Malarkey - Why do you act like such an asshole? (0.00 / 0)

...the extreme right (you, your roommate, your [RMG] landlord and others

 Don't you think you're getting a little personal there?  

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 15:15:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We HAVE a damn platform. (5.00 / 2)

Rob Eno, Brock Cordiero, Chanel Prunier, and many others on RMG were on that committee.  It worked hard and FOUND a workable compromise on language that respected the principles of those on the committee.

WHO exactly is supposed to be helped by this?  It hurts Brown, those who don't like Romney are REALLY gonna be impressed that the MASSACHUSETTS Gop is pretending to go hard right, and it is a damn ALBATROSS around the necks of our freshman legislators (ANYBODY remember them???)

There is no upside to this.  Rob, who exactly is playing into the hands of John Walsh here?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 02:03:16 AM UTC

Few things (0.00 / 0)

1) Chanel was not on the issues committee.  Brock and I were. I was on the education portion, not the social issues portion.

2) As I've told Ed on numerous occasions.  EVERY single one of the Freshmen legislators save Dan Winslow is pro-life.  They won being pro-life.  There is no albatross around their neck.  

3) Most of our challengers are pro-life.  

4) NARAL considers 50% of the legislature (both dems and GOP) to be "anti-choice"

Saying that being pro-life hurts you in Mass is false.

Take a hard look at when Scott Brown's two best weeks of polling were.

1) During Blunt amendment debate

2) During "you didn't build that"

Both were conservative positions.  Massachsuetts is not as left on social issues as some think.  Get outside of 128 and east of the Berkshires and it's a pretty socially conservative state.


Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 20:48:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Saying that being pro-life hurts you in Mass is false.' (0.00 / 0)

So - you want to evaluate this statement in light of election results instead of polling numbers?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 18:58:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It may very well (0.00 / 0)

Being pro-life may very well hurt "you in Mass" and while I certainly understand & support articulating issues productively and in electoral priority... speaking personally, I would rather fail as a principled pro-lifer then lie to the electorate and try to hide my beliefs in shame.

I'm not saying our candidates have to lie about being pro-lifers, quite frankly I'd rather they just be honest, open & upfront.  There isn't all that much pro-life related that comes before us on a state level and that is where our primary focus should be anyway.

I wouldn't campaign on my pro-life credentials but I wouldn't shy away from them if asked, either.  Then again, that's probably why the only offices I've ever run for are State Committee & Town Meeting.  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 22:21:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

HEAR HEAR n/t (0.00 / 0)

Vir bonus, dicendi peritus  

---

by: Cato @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 12:37:12 PM UTC

The only thing I can add to this conversation is this.... (5.00 / 2)

When it comes to putting a political party platform together it would probably serve us well to say less and leave the ideas to flesh themselves out with each voter.

The party ought to promote a simple belief that smaller government is better and not add specific details about tax cuts that it can not guarantee.  It ought to say that personal responsibility is the goal and not a system of government dependance.  

Most young people do NOT join a political party because of the specifics.  I think they probably join because of the general direction of the party.  In fact, I think most your Republican and Democrats probably woul dhave no idea what the details even are in the party platform...

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

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 12:56:47 PM UTC

Ed you're too dramatic! People are going to laugh at you! (0.00 / 0)

Sigh. If I were still under 40, I would gather all the younger Republicans I know on a Facebook page, invite the Boston Globe, go to Boston Common where I would burn a copy of this platform, before putting it all on YouTube. - edfactor

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 15:03:16 PM UTC

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Radio -

Maybe they will laugh. But the national party has cut us loose, ideologically and demographically, and we must find some way to create a viable Massachusetts Republican brand.

Calling for this protest was dramatic, indeed! But if the newly-more-socially conservative SC and Chairman move toward the RNC, we are toast. I had hoped to shine a spotlight on the platform issue rather than have the party just adopt the RNC platform with few people noticing.

Because if that happens, every Republican candidate in the state this fall will be asked about the platform. We don't want that. We want them to run on what they think appeals to their people.  

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 17:38:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political parties are meant to win elections (4.00 / 1)

Winning.

That's why parties exist. That is why they are not think tanks.

The people, politicians, platform, and infrastructure are all supposed to assist a party candidate in winning elected office.  

But we lose so often here that we have forgotten about winning. Instead we have ideological purity and heresy trials. But not winning.

If any candidate in this state adopted, as written, the entire RNC platform, he would certainly lose.

Platforms are supposed to provide well-thought out posotions to help you win.  A party platform that ensures you will lose is madness.

I appealed to young people because they are not as comfortable with losing as older Republicans here and they have already abandoned the party's positions on many of these issues anyway. And I know they really want to win.  

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 16:50:53 PM UTC

Really not much debate here (0.00 / 0)

too bad we can't just declare victory and move on.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 19:27:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And we will win (0.00 / 0)

by focusing on facebook.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 20:51:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

http://nyti.ms/QKsziL

---

by: edfactor @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 22:50:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buring the wrong thing. (0.00 / 0)

I have a better idea, let's get a life size picture of Ed and burn it effigy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed I'm going to be kind. I love you brother but you are simply stuck on stupid!  

---

by: John DiMascio @ Wed Sep 12, 2012 at 22:53:26 PM UTC

Are You Looking For Another Party? (5.00 / 1)

As I said on Facebook:
'Kay, let me get this straight: Republicans who objected to the high-handed treatment by the leadership of duly elected delegates were disruptive malcontents who should shut up and get with program BUT a subset of the New England GOP are courageous truth-to-power tellers if they publicly burn a party platform overwhelmingly supported by national Republicans.

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 00:06:30 AM UTC

Talk About a Double Standard (5.00 / 1)

Is this the Ed Lyons who spent what seemed like half a day on RMG denouncing a young delegate as being disloyal to the party for complaining to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC about being summarily kicked off the delegation? This Ed Lyons wants to now give the Boston Globe and Channel 2 a photo opp so that we can disassociate ourselves from those nasty red neck Republicans from, oh, all of the midwest?

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 00:19:43 AM UTC

They are unrelated (4.00 / 1)

Edward -

Kenney going to our enemies to call the party corrupt isn't the same thing as suggesting that one group of Republicans should protest another group of Republicans about what a third group of Republicans has done.

This is all in the family. We must debate things in the family and protest things we don't agree with.

We cannot be beholden to Republicans who do not share our values. This is a big country and a party that represents roughly half of that country is going to have big differences.

In South Carolina, being Republican means you think gay teachers should be fired for being gay - as Jim Demint said in a public debate in his last Senate race. His opponent said it should not be an automatic dismissal.

Should we adopt that here?

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 11:32:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: They are unrelated (0.00 / 0)

Huh? They are oh so very related.
Do you really think that the Globe is less of an enemy than MSNBC? Who watching MSNBC is likely to vote Republican anyway? Apparently more democracy is something we are NOT allowed to disagree on.

You don't seem to get why the GOP is what it is even in NE, Ed. If the party jettisons social issues completely it will LOSE VOTES even in New England. The only question is whether it will GAIN more votes than it loses in, say, MA. BUT the former votes are from the voters that show up at caucuses and Town Committee meetings and hold signs and write checks (except for the millionaires). Any attempt in the last 20 years to recast the GOP as a "suburban lib-soc, con-eco" party has caused it to hollow out turning it into only something useful for rich tycoons to run for statewide office usually only governor.

And there is nothing in the platform about banning gay teachers i.e. it's a red herrring. There is something about traditional marriage. Do you think they are the same?

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 23:07:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Differences. (0.00 / 0)

The Globe is the paper of record and I meant a news story. The herald would be fine too. Maddow's show is opinion and is there only to attack us.

My example about gay teachers is to say that being a republican means different things in different parts of the country.  

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 23:19:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are two Points Here (0.00 / 0)

1) Ed disagrees with certain planks in the GOP platform.

2) Ed thinks these planks hurt candidates electoral chances.

It is altogether too convenient for his argument that these two things precisely coincide and it is a too common form of polemical bullying typically deployed against pro-lifers in the GOP. AND it's counterfactual as Rob Eno has been pointing out.

It is one thing to complain that party platforms should not be laundry lists of peoples gripes. But it is another to make success validate your prejudices.  Ed, tell me, how do you KNOW that if the GOP watered down it's tax and economic planks it wouldn't get a lot of pro-life union and Hispanic votes. If it were true is that an argument to do so? How do you KNOW that the global warming plank is not POPULAR? If I proved that to you would you agree to keep it in?

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 00:55:08 AM UTC

When's the last time a statewide republican was elected by focusing on social issues:? (0.00 / 0)

Republicans who do well in Massachusetts win when they focus on competence, integrity, and minimalist government.

Republicans do poorly in Massachusetts when they attempt to tell other people how to live their lives.

Isn't that what we hate about the democrats?

And please, if you're going to be pro-life, please be consistent and respect all life.  What exactly do supporters of the national platform hope to achieve by forcing a stupid, symbolic (and eventually self-immolating) debate on reproductive issues.

You want a productive debate, talk about the physician assisted suicide which is on the ballot as question 2.

You want to be pro-life, then advocate like hell to get the bleep out of Afghanistan.  Today.  We overthrew the Taliban and gave them the opportunity to have a democracy, if they could keep it (to paraphrase Franklin).  It's obvious now they can't.  There's no strategic value to one more American death in that Godforsaken country.  Be pro-life and argue to bring our young men and women home.  

---

by: WeldforPrez @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 02:33:38 AM UTC

Totally missing the point. (0.00 / 0)

Standing up for the right of person to live, whether they be in womb or not, is not telling people what to do.

But to your point, no one expects candidates to focus on social issues. Although had they focused on marriage and had we gotten the marriage question on the ballot back 2006, it would have helped MA-GOP candidates that year.

Every state where the people voted on the issue, it same-sex marriage has been defeated.

Massachusetts is not just the Metro-Boston area.

That said, this election is not about social issues. It's the Democrats that are attempting to make so, in order to avoid talking about the economy.

However, the MA-GOP platform should reflect the entire RNC platform. The only difference should be on strictly local matters like whether or not to get rid of the tolls on the Tobin Bridge or Turnpike, or anything pertaining to Massachusetts healthcare reform laws.

But when it comes to the core principles of the Republican Party, fiscal, social and national security positions. The platforms of all 50 states should be identical.

Now, given the current situation, this might not be the right time take up this issue.

But the point here is Ed's moronic idea of burning the RNC Platform on the Boston Column. That just attracts more attention to the issue than need be.

But we know Ed is just full of himself. He simply wants to pontificate about his theories of how to win an election. It doesn't matter whether or not it's the platform or the use of technology. Ed just wants to blog about it. When it comes to actually looking at the facts and doing something about it, he's no where to be found.

Moreover, Ed hasn't clue what he's talking about. People that vote as social liberals will almost always vote Democrat. You will not attract those people.  You win by attracting Reagan Democrats that are pro-life and pro-family.

Beyond that what is the use of winning an election if you surrender your core values as a party. That's not victory, it's appeasement and surrender.

Social Conservativism is as fundamental to being a Republican as fiscal Conservativism. We would don't embrace a fiscal liberal that's socially conservative. Why do we embrace fiscal conservatives that are social liberals.
The two positions are co-equal and along with national security conservatives make up the center post of the Big Tent. Yes, we can have some divergence of opinion on all these issues. But someone like Tisei, Nassour, or Baker are on the very fringes of the Party. They don't get to re-define the Party or transform our State Party into a bunch of fiscally conservative Moon-Bats, like Ed.  

 

---

by: John DiMascio @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 10:47:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You just don't see it (5.00 / 1)

John -

No regrets on what I said.

This party has no future as a hard socially-conservative-only party.

Let's take gay marriage. In this state, the issue is over. The social conservatives lost. Why it happened, how it happened - all that does matter a lot and there was a lot of unfair stuff done by the left.

But it is over now. Gay marriage gets slightly more popular every single year. It is time to accept what happened and move forward.

Abortion is similar. In this state, it is over. There is a huge majority committed to keeping abortion legal. Is there sympathy for some restrictions? A little. But I think they believe the proper restrictions are in place.

Climate change? The majority of people here believe, as I do, that it is real, and humans are the cause. (We disagree on what to about it)

Immigration? I believe a majority would like to see some kind of immigration reform.

But running on a platform against abortion, gay marriage, climate change, and immigration reform would be absolutely foolish. It is a platform that will result in no Republicans being in office.

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 11:37:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It won't last (0.00 / 0)

People have not been informed of what allowing people to marry someone of the same sex means yet. I think the Supreme Court will remind everyone that it means conception rights soon, and it will then become a federal issue and states that ignorantly gave marriage rights to same-sex couples will be embarrassed they have been so stupid. Once there is a federal law prohibiting same-sex and transgender couples from attempting to create offspring together, and a federal law preserving marriage's right to procreate offspring together, then the issue will be resolved and politicians can truly say it is "settled law."

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your "social liberals" are suburban parents... (0.00 / 0)

and they can, and do, vote Republican.

As you point out, some of the most avidly pro-life folks are urban, catholic democrats.  I think that was a viable and large group when Reagan got them in 1980.  Thirty-two years later I think the demographics have changed.  

Talk to your average suburban soccer parent (which are the tossup voters in this election) and support for a completely -- no exceptions, not for rape, not for life of the mother -- and you'll lose even the more pro-life of them.

This version of the platform is entirely out of touch for anyone outside the core that the party feels it has to motivate in swing states, I guess.  Massachusetts is not a presidential swing state; Romney will probably lose his own "home" state fairly handsomely.  This platform, should we make a big deal about it, will serve only to make sure Scott, Richard, and a bunch of other moderate republicans lose.

In sum: I think Ed's prescription is heartfelt, but misguided.  Don't draw attention to this turkey of a platform.  Vote to lose it in a desk drawer and move on to pointing out substantive and meaningful differences between us and the democrats.

---

by: WeldforPrez @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 12:18:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's too late (0.00 / 0)

Mr. W -

One would hope that the consideration of the national platform would pass unnoticed.

But that can't happen for the following reasons:

1. For the freshmen members of the state committee - many are quite fundamentalist social conservatives - this is a big deal for them. They don't want this to happen quietly.

2. The national platform got a lot of attention two weeks ago and this is the home state of Romney and Brown.

3. It has been in the Boston Globe twice, including today with Tisei - our only House Congressional candidate who has a path to victory - coming out against it.

At this point, the SC is going to make a very public statement. A lot of people will be listening.

And I hope that I have drawn attention to this. (The Globe would have done so no matter what.) I think that the majority of Republicans in this state would prefer to wait until 2014 - when we are supposed to review the platform - to address this stuff.)

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 12:29:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...and another thing (0.00 / 0)

We've already lost by even having this debate.  There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by doing this.

If the committee does adopt the platform it will alienate many moderate independents, possibly even those who are pro-life but would keep exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.  It would alienate environmentalists (it's absolutely sneering about climate change).  And it would give the democrats a huge albatross to hang around the neck of Richard Tisei, who is our only really viable congressional candidate.

(I love Sean Beilat but it looks like a lock for another #$!#!@#ing Kennedy...)

And if the committee votes down the platform it will be a national story that Romney's own home state doesn't support "his" platform and just serve to embarrass the candidate.

It's a democrat's wet dream - nothing good and only things beneficial to the demmies can come out of this.  vote to send it back to committee or table or some other procedural maneuver so we all don't look stupid...

---

by: WeldforPrez @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 09:43:28 AM UTC

WeldforPrez (0.00 / 0)

You make my point about Ed's suggestion. By even suggesting such and action or carrying it out, he's drawn more attention to this matter.

People on the State Committee are stupid. When this was proposed in June, it was framed because it would have looked ridiculous for the Massachusetts (Romney's home State) to have different platform that the National Platform which Romney was running on.

But no one foresaw Todd Akin and the pageant of Estrogen Americans whining about free birth control and Federally funding for abortions and abortuaries.

So discussions have been under way for weeks to possibly put off this debate and vote until after election.

But someone dropped a dime to the globe. I suspect it was on the of 11% RINO Elitists whom I witnessed strong arming SC committee people using the Senator's name to influence them to vote this down.  

Finally, what's with WeldforPrez. William Weld is the idiot that endorsed Obama!!!!!!!! Are you for real.

Elizabeth Childs dropped his name every other sentence. That got her 14% of the vote. She didn't even carry her home town. In fact she got killed in her home town 55 to 40%.  That's how influential Weld is.

   

---

by: John DiMascio @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 10:58:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What does it mean to be a Republican? (4.00 / 1)

To me, coming of age politically in the late '70s and early '80s, the Republican party is the party of freedom.  Economic freedom and personal freedom.

What happened to the optimism espoused by Reagan?  Reagan connected with people by showing them a boundless future -- today's party is just mainly angry.

There are some great exceptions - Senator Brown shows an optimistic and positive attitude.  People can get behind that kind of thing.

And about the handle, perhaps it's ironic.  Perhaps it's tongue-in-cheek.  But it is a homage to a man who was a truly excellent Governor.  I'm a proud Welducci.  Say what you will about Bill Weld, but he didn't leave the Governorship and spend the next two years BADMOUTHING the state he was governor of, like a certain other tall, good looking gentleman has.

---

by: WeldforPrez @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What it means to be a Republican (0.00 / 0)

Well Weldforprez.  The Republican Party was not founded because of fiscal policies. Rather it was founded in 1856 to address the most pressing Social Issue of the day -- Slavery.

The center posts which hold up the Big Tent are 3, Fiscal Conservatism -- Social Conservatism -- Strong National Defense. Now we do have a Big Tent and there is room in that tent for diversity of opinion to a point. But when we have folks on fringe proposing and sponsoring transgender bathroom laws or leading the charge to override Romney's veto of legislation that forces Catholic institutions to violate their faith, then we're talking about people who aren't on the same camp grounds where said Big Tent is pitched.

But returning to Weld, the man made a mess of the MA-GOP. He made no effort to worry about electing anyone down ticket. At least Romney made an attempt in the 2004 state mid-term to recruit some candidates to run for the legislature. He started out with enough votes to uphold a veto and he blew it. And sorry, if you endorse a Moon-Bat like Barack Obama, it's time to stop drinking. I'll give you this Bill Weld is marginally more of a Republican than Charlie Baker. But the best I can see Baker is only a Republican because we live in a Republic.

You mentioned Senator Brown. He's not the same animal as Weld.

Brown a social moderate, not a social liberal. There is a difference. He's not pushing a socially liberal agenda.
He's not trying to redefine or re-brand the MA-GOP.
Unlike a certain Republican Congressional Candidate, Brown stayed out this MA-GOP platform debate.

Weld did a good job as governor fiscally speaking. He appointed some fruitloop judges. I can't recall exactly who. But there were a couple of winners. I suppose that can happen to anyone by accident. And as governor he was no worse than his Democrat predecessor on social issues.

What I hold against him is as I mentioned above. The man did nothing to build the party and as governor that goes with the turf. And how in God's name, as fiscal conservative, could he endorse Barack Obama????????? That's just unforgivable.  I could even understand if he backed Hillary, given his personal friendship with he Clintons. But endorsing Obama is the equivalent of endorsing Deval Patrick or Elizabeth Warren. Unless Bill is suffering from an early onset of Alzheimer's, there is no excuse.

Finally, I have no idea what your talking about when you imply Romney (I guess) bad mouthing the state. I've heard him comment about having a Democrat dominated legislature.
But for my money he was the best governor in the run of Republicans dating back to Weld.

 

---

by: John DiMascio @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 06:52:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tisei comes out against platform! (4.00 / 1)

So Richard Tisei, the only House Congressional candidate with a path to victory, is in the Globe today against the platform. (Link here.)

Good for him!

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 11:39:16 AM UTC

See, he can run against it if he wants (0.00 / 0)

He can remind everyone he's not beholden to the party platform as it stands and if elected will be able to influence the party to be more moderate.  

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 13:01:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This killed California GOP in the same way! (5.00 / 1)

How many of you know that the Republican party in California is dying? Yes, the party that Ronald Reagan led is going extinct there.

Why? Because they also became obsessed with opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and immigration reform - even though the average person in the state had changed their beliefs.

I am sure that in California, social conservatives made the same dumb arguments we are seeing here: it is a winning platform and everyone else is a RINO.

Here is the link to the story that described it.  

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 11:47:44 AM UTC

Why am I suppose to care about California? (0.00 / 0)

California sends some quite conservative (in all senses) representatives to Congress which is more that Massachusetts can say and will be able to say even after a Tisei election. The state has gone Dem because of the power of the unions and the influx of illegals ("there, I SAID it!") NOT because San Fran metastisized and took over the state. But I don't live there.

As for Massachusetts I may have to put up with all sorts of semi-RINOS in the state. It is a complete different question who I support to go become part of the national government. I think Tisei is someone who would willingly force same-sex marriage on all the other states who have voted it down. What do you say to Republicans from elsewhere about this? If I were there I would say "may New England, then stay Democrat." And as far as national elections I would have to agree.

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 23:25:46 PM UTC

But the dirty secret about the Big Lie is: (0.00 / 0)

There NEVER HAVE BEEN "socially liberal, economically liberal" Republicans in this state. EVER. They have ALL been RINOs in the purest sense meaning big government RepUblicans or just empty suits like Bill Weld.

Now, maybe in the future, we will get some real small-l libertarians in the party (I know of one but I have never read Ed mentioning Bob Hedund.) But so far Ed has vehemently opposed any of the libertarians getting a foot in the door.

And most of these libertarians In my experience get along with social consevatives better that Ed, the "social conservative" does.

---

by: Edward59 @ Thu Sep 13, 2012 at 23:33:38 PM UTC

they're not conservative (0.00 / 0)

Libertarians are not conservative, it's a contradiction. One cannot be a libertarian without being a libertarian transhumanist, for if one supports laws against transhumanism, one stops being a libertarian. And a transhumanist is obviously not conservative, they want to transform, not conserve.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 13:12:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When the Archdiocese of Boston gets out of bed with the Democrats (0.00 / 0)

I will become pro-life. I say this as a regular attendee at Mass.

I don't understand how the Catholic Church in Boston can embrace a bunch of politicians that have created a Holocaust like system of systematic murder. Why are they not denouncing the pols? Why was Ted Kennedy not ex-communicated? Why not all the rest? That would send a signal they were serious.

I have to believe that one of these things is true:

1. The Church doesn't really believe that it's murder.

2. It's one of those things they say they're against but aren't really, like capitalism.

3. They are too dependant on the financial support of the MA government (like for all their housing 40B stuff, the government give millions to them) so they have to keep their mouth shut to get the $$

4. They had to bite the bullet and look the other way so that the MA government didn't indict Cardinal Law, et al on some sort of conspiracy charge with regard to the sex with minors scandals.

So if the Church thinks abortion is okay (on the follow what I do, not what I say principle, then I'm on board as well. Ditto for gay marriage.

By the way I got a mailer from the Archdiocese urging me to vote against physician assisted suicide. I'm not surprised that's something they want, but that is so far down my list of concerns (with millions of unborn children being murdered)that I can't even be bothered to think about it.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 13:58:30 PM UTC