Five Things you should know today, September 14, 2012

Ideological blindness (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

You are such an angry sophist!  It is not essential for the MassGOP to condemn abortion! I condemn abortion - therefore it is not important that every group I belong to does so. God will hold us accountable for our actions, not that of political organizations.

I think you should form a separate "Right to Life" political party, as I knew when I grew up in New York. That is the place for abortion-above-all-else politics - not in a state where there is an overwhelming majority to keep abortion legal, and anyone who is for making it illegal is not viable as a statewide candidate. (Romney, Brown, Tisei - all ran as pro-choice people for statewide office. We can't have a state platform plank that cannot be used statewide - that is completely irrational, no matter the morality of the underlying position. Politics is about winning - not about guaranteeing a loss.) If people can win legislative races being pro-life, good for them! But that doesn't mean it should be in the platform. But even rising superstar Ryan Fattman doesn't list his position on abortion on his website.

On Tisei - yet another ideologically blind spot for you. He is down by 7 points in that survey. There are 22% undecided. 22% undecided is a nightmare for a long-time incumbents. Those kinds of people tend to break for the new guy, as their indecisiveness shows that they don't like the old guy - whom they know well.

Romney is down by 10 points with 13% undecided. In his case, the undecided is not as favorable as he has 100% name recognition here and is well-known from becoming governor.

So which campaign would you rather manage? The one who is down less with far greater upside or the one who is down more with much less upside?  The fact that you use Romney as a reason why Tisei is not doing well is ridiculous.

---

by: edfactor @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:22:25 PM UTC

The data do not support your conclusions (0.00 / 0)

did you read the crosstabs?  Did you?

When undecideds are asked to whom they are leading 1/3 say Tierney, some say Fishman, NONE say Tisei, not even ONE.  Thems the facts.

You are the one with stockholm syndrome Ed.

Have you been in the room when an Establishment Republican told a pro-life candidate to run as pro-choice?  Because he needs to to win in Massachsuetts? I have.  It's disgusting.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 12:55:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The data does support me, you are wrong. (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

On Tisei

Since you are being such an ass about this, I will refer to specific parts of the report. We are talking about pages 4 and 5, where they ask undecideds how they lean.

Here are the actual numbers, Rob:

Tierney :   33 %
Tisei :     11 %
Fishman :    5 %
Don't know: 49 %

That means half of the undecideds - 11% of the electorate - really don't know. Historically, they break for the challenger with a long-time incumbent. Tierney's 33% isn't solid because they obviously have doubts or they would be supporting him. There is no other good stuff they will learn about this guy after all this time.

Tisei will likely win that 11%, unless something bad about him appears.

The misleading statement you made above "NONE say Tisei, not even ONE.  Thems the facts." is a reference to that there are no Republicans who are undecided and leaning toward Tisei. No surprise there. If you haven't decided to vote for a socially liberal Republican at this point, you're not going to. However, I think some, in the secrecy of the voting booth, will hold their nose and vote Tisei.

The actual numbers, which I have just outlined, show that my point of view has more merit than yours. Tisei has a path to victory without 30% of the Republicans, many of whom I think will vote for him anyway. The number of undecideds is lethal to Tierney, and this is why the NRCC and other out-of-state players are spending millions on Tisei.

On Abortion

If there is an issue to rally around, why would it be abortion? It could be the one policy area that we can't possibly change.  That's right - if we had the governor's office and super-majorities in both chambers and all congressional and senate seats, abortion would still be legal.

So you want candidates to embrace a very unpopular policy goal in this state - and one that is impossible to achieve. That's crazy. That isn't politics. That's fanaticism.

Do I think it is tragic when someone who is pro-life is told (or realizes) that they must run as pro-choice to win? Absolutely. I feel awful about that.

But the question is this: Since abortion is going to be legal no matter what you do, are there other reasons you want to be in office? If no - then don't run. If yes - then run as a pro-choice candidate. Or move to the South.

---

by: edfactor @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 13:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

But you are the one being an ass.  How many times do I have to repeat these facts:

1) Every GOP freshman save Dan Winslow is Pro-Life and did not hide that fact.

2) 50% of the Massachusetts House of Representatives is Pro-Life.

I agree nobody should lead with being pro-life.  But they shouldn't hide it either.  There's something all people hate, and that's a fraud.  You are suggesting that our candidates and our party support frauds.  Who's the bigger ass?

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 14:07:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Average GOP Freshman (5.00 / 3)

Represents a district that voted 63% for Scott Brown, that's over 10% more Republican than the state. I would hope a Pro-Life candidate could be elected in such a circumstance.  

(R)- Outside 495

---

by: MerrimackMan @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 14:14:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that is the issue (0.00 / 0)

and it doesn't get outside Boston in Cambridge cocktail parties.  he doesn't realize that a good portion of this state is actually conservative.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 14:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed about a minority of districts (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

I have looked at registration data for every county in Massachusetts. There are very few places where Republicans outnumber Democrats - in those places, not by much.

However, in some places, as you say, the unenrolled are more favorable to conservative beliefs than others. I will grant you that, in those places, that Republicans can win.

The problem is that this is a small minority of House seats and almost no senate seats at all.

So, to have a platform that will only work in small parts of the state makes no sense. It is better to say nothing and let people do what they can.

The big test is statewide office. When was the last time we had a pro-life statewide Republican? Well?

I think the platform should be what can win statewide, with lots of room for people to win however they can locally.  

---

by: edfactor @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 22:15:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

actually it is a majority of house seats (0.00 / 0)

The number is around 85 to 90 based on statewide races in 2010.  Charlie Baker has done the same analysis and agrees with me.  There are 160 house seats, 85/ 160 is a majority

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 22:24:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you are living in a fantasy (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

I am amazed at how many self-serving things you believe. You have posted hundreds of things on this site over the past years that flatter your beliefs. The idea that we could have a pro-life House majority is insanity. You never post anything that would interfere with your dream of taking over Beacon Hill.

I think the Baker "analysis" that you cite would merely say that it was somehow possible to win a majority of House seats. On paper. Having nothing to do with all of the conditions that would have to be there for this to happen - like say, even fielding candidates for a majority of seats, which we cannot even do. And you use 2010, of course. Give me a break Rob.

A neutral political scientific analysis would show that we are consigned to be nearly powerless for many years to come for so many reasons (positions, money, organization, turnout, etc) There is nothing you and your little blog can do about that.

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 04:43:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great thinking Ed (0.00 / 0)

Let's set the bar real low, and shoot for it.  If we get half way there you will be appeased.  The same holds true if the bar is set high, but let's restrict ourselves.  In fact, according to you, it would have been insane for Scott Brown to even contemplate running for Kennedy's seat, especially against the renown Marsha.  Keep reaching for the bread crumbs and you're sure to get a few.  

---

by: Term Limits @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 05:40:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed once again you speak without factsi (0.00 / 0)

It is you who "believes things"

Read the document by NARAL at this link

http://www.prochoicemass.org/i...

The house is split RIGHT NOW at about 50-50.  

That is according to the National Abortion Rights Action League.  

While you continue to be negative, I will continue to have a relentless optism rooted in reality.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 17:43:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NARAL, Rob? What sophistry! (0.00 / 0)

Rob -

Give me freaking break. You and I probably agree on this: NARAL is one of the most awful organizations in America. My antipathy toward them is vastly greater than Planned Parenthood. If it were up to NARAL, you could get an abortion at a McDonald's drive through with an EBT card.

So you would now cite their analysis of who is and is not pro-choice????? What does it take to get a full "pro-choice" rating from them? Be willing to allow someone to stab a baby to death as long as you haven't left the delivery room?

In their twisted world, 78 of 160 legislators are pro-choice. I shudder to think of what they had to say to get that rating. 11 are mixed. 20 have not enough information.

Once again, you have taken liberty with numbers. (Perhaps a course in statistics might help you?) NARAL considers the house about 50% pro-choice, about 8% mixed, 12% unknown, and about 30% anti-choice. In their evil minds, you could be what appears to be pro-choice in our minds, but perhaps you get anti-choice because you don't believe in taxpayers paying for it. This document doesn't even explain what the ratings mean!

In any case, this document does not support the statement: "The House is split right now at 50-50" where you imply that the house is 50 percent pro-choice and 50 percent pro-life. Nonsense.

p.s. On a related note, some of these anti-choice people are Democrats. In such a liberal state, it is far easier to be elected as a pro-life Democrat than a pro-life Republican, which is relevant to how this whole discussion began, which was the wisdom of Republicans being pro-life, not whether it was wise for the Democrats to do so.

Again, Rob, I am with you on the issue. Life begins at conception. Abortion is the killing of a human being. This is about politics for me, not morality.

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 18:26:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So for you (0.00 / 0)

Winning trumps conviction?  That's what you are saying.  We've tried your approach as a party for 30 years.  What did that get us? 15 reps and 5 senators.  We've now more than doubled our seats with freshman reps that are far and away, openly pro-life.

Ed I've never said lead with the issue, but your approach calling for pro-life candidates to lie about it, is reprehensible to me.  Id rather lose on principle than win on a lie.  And, we've proven we can win on principle, just ask Representatives Orrall, Levy, Lyons, Fattman, Hunt, Richardson, Kuros, Boldyga, Ferguson, Beaton, Adams, Howitt, Ross, D'Emilia, O'Connell about it.

You don't have to lie about your convictions to win in the Commonwealth.  That's all, I and others have been saying.

Full Disclosure


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

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 19:39:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rob loses the argument right here... (0.00 / 0)

You guys were arguing #s and ed appears to have demonstrated he was right...Rob then changed the subject to hide the fact that he lost the argument.

And Rob, how many Republican candidates for the state house were pro-choice?  You point about every GOP rep winning were anti-adbortion, except 1 would be pointless, if in fact a vast majority of the candidates were anti-abortion.  Great way to confuse the discussion.

And to back up Ed's point below, I have a feeling that the litmus test that NARAL uses to call someone anti abortion is far lower than you or MARA would set.  So the "50% of the MA Leg is pro-life is a meaningless statement.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 22:04:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm confused why it's an issue too (0.00 / 0)

Seems to me its really marriage that is in play, but people are not being backed-up when they defend marriage, so they concentrate on being pro-life which is easier to defend because of the innocent babies. No one calls someone who defends innocent babies a bigot and embarrasses them in public, because it just reminds people that they are talking about babies. But that's what we should do for marriage too, point out that we are only defending babies from being genetic experiments that might have unknown genetic defects and will probably be aborted many times before any are born.

When it's framed as the liberty of adults to do what they want, people tend to agree. But it is about protecting people and preserving equal rights and dignity.

---

by: John Howard @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 14:11:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you MA Republican State Committee (5.00 / 2)

I'm not a Republican so have no influence with the Party; but because I support Mitt Romney, Scott Brown and Rich Tisei, and CLT's 2 1/2 PAC is supporting many Republican legislative candidates, I've long feared the emphasis on abortion and gay marriage would cause our side to lose (and not to overdramatize, but since the country is watching Massachusetts, would help end America as we've known it). Unlike one accusation here, I can't imagine asking any candidate to lie about his heartfelt position on these issues; just to recognize that focusing on them this year, in BlueState MA, will only hurt all of us for the long-term. So thanks to all those Republicans who encourage focus on the national debt and other fiscal issues.

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 19:18:13 PM UTC

Wait! they banned who? (0.00 / 0)

Just learned that the MA RSC banned Stephanie Ebbert from the meeting because of... the accurate story she wrote about a possible vote on the platform?  Another reminder of why I became an Independent...  

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 14:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Despite your spin Rob... (0.00 / 0)

...by kicking the can on the platform vote until past the Nov election, the MA GOP caved on this issue.  No doubt damage it would have done to Scott Brown and Tisei was to great and the moderate wing of the party prevailed.

You can spin this all you want, but the soc-cons lost this one.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 22:08:47 PM UTC