A Great Night for the MA-GOP

What the hell? (5.00 / 3)

John - I actually don't have any evidence to believe that my post on RMG had to do with the delay in the vote. I also think to call anonymously someone who is supposedly your friend "a self-absorbed blogger" is insulting. It shows all people what kind of friend you are and how brutal your politics are.

The controversy with the Globe is entirely self-inflicted and reflects badly on us. For you to vaguely blame the newspaper shows how slanted your thinking is. The story, reported in the Globe here is accurate. I followed the whole thing on Twitter in real time and from multiple sources. The party barred only her - and not anyone else - from attending and then Tim Buckley, the communications director for the MassGOP, then went onto Twitter and insulted her - claiming she should go get some money from the Warren campaign.

Wow - that made the party look like a bunch of petty high school kids. And then she has to do the story from an audiotape smuggled out - making us look like some freakish cult!

As for the issue of abortion itself, this isn't a state issue! This is part of constitutional law now. I don't think Roe v. Wade should have ever happened, but it did happen. Republicans in Massachusetts can't overturn it.  But we should adopt a party plank to outlaw abortion, which the vast majority of the voters are against, in pursuit of a policy goal that will be impossible to achieve?

That isn't politics. Politics is about making things happen. Harming the chances of candidates in most of the state for a policy goal that we can't even achieve is madness.

You keep talking about "a big tent" that includes social conservatives. AS IF you are some outside group hoping to be included. The tent in this party is way too small as it is. Focusing on social conservatives to the exclusion of others will not make the tent bigger.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 12:18:08 PM UTC

Agree on the Globe thing. (5.00 / 1)

If the meeting was open to the public then there is no reason why anyone should have been barred.

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 13:24:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I my elaborate later... (0.00 / 0)

...but Patrick, why do you think the MA GOP hates America?  They refuse to protect our values...shame I have to run, I could have a lot of fun with this given conservatives condemnation of Obama's "failure" to defend our values.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 14:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should write that up as a full post. (0.00 / 0)

Barring reporters from open meetings.  Forcing delegates to sign affidavits swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney.  Before we promote our values abroad could we try promoting them here at home?

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 14:58:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She was physically blocked (4.00 / 1)

This wasn't a matter of being off the guest list. This was about the communications director standing in the doorway to block the globe reporter and no one else. Then he got on twitter and insulted her.

What I want to know is this:

Was he directed to do this by the leadership? Or did he act on his own?

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 15:28:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd like to know, too (0.00 / 0)

I really cling to the illusion that the Republican Party we need to be strong here has a certain amount of sense and very few would block a Globe reporter. Let me use this opportunity to say something useful. It's not just Republicans: conservatives of both parties and taxpayer activists (with the exception of Bill Weld) have rarely dealt well with the media. I can tell you that in thirty-four years of activism, I was NEVER treated unfairly by a Globe reporter, or most others either. CLT always had plenty of fair coverage of our issues. It makes a difference if you don't carry a chip on your shoulder going in.
I  came to recognize the national media bias but never saw it here (not counting editorials) until Deval Patrick ran, then Obama,when reporters were afraid to appear racist to their peers.  

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 19:01:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ed... (0.00 / 0)

...how would you like to be part of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, as opposed to the leftwing of the MA GOP Party (which would put you on the Socialist wing of the national GOP Party--it that makes sense.)

At the very least, you got to be thinking about switching to unenrolled after reading this account of events.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 14:10:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So we have a hidden agenda then? (5.00 / 1)

The delay tells me that we are afraid of people actually knowing what the party stands for.  Is there really any other way to interpret it?

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 13:27:44 PM UTC

Back when I was a Republican... (5.00 / 1)

...the central posts of the Republican Party were Fiscal Sanity/Small Government and freedom in general; the big issue was anti-communism, "None dare call it Treason". There were no social issues: abortion was illegal and gay meant cheerful. My candidate Barry Goldwater leaned libertarian. Miss you, Barry.
So let's not pretend that there's some historic Republican thing on social issues; opposition to slavery is definitely worth mentioning in context for black voters, but not relevant to this particular discussion.

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 14:57:07 PM UTC

You're right Barabara! John is wrong (5.00 / 2)

Barbara -

You are correct. In fact, the example John cites is entirely wrong. Conservatives were for slavery. Those in the South thought slavery was "the destiny of the black man," while those in the north thought it was more of a necessarily evil. Conservatives wrote the Dredd Scott decision! Yes, Republicans opposed slavery, but Republicans were not conservatives then.

Conservatives in the 20th century fought against women's right to vote, against labor laws that forbid unreasonable hours and conditions and child labor. Conservatives in the south fought the civil rights act while conservatives in the north remained silent.

Sometimes Republicans have joined conservative causes, sometimes they have not. If you follow the national platforms over the past 50 years, Republicans were sometimes liberal on some issues in the 1950s and 60s. You don't see social conservatives become a force in the Republican party until the 1908s, after they deserted the Democrats over lots of stuff in the 1970s, including Jimmy Carter, who as a religious man, was supposed to be conservative yet was not.

In New England, Republicans have never been primarily socially conservative. It is only recently that social conservatives have gained so much power as the state parties have become weaker for lots of reasons.

John's attempt to claim that Republicans have always been conservatives, and therefore, the party should adopt conservative platform planks to reflect that, as you can see, is utterly wrong.  The idea that it should be done here in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal places in America, is just foolishness and the path to even greater irrelevancy.

Find me a neutral political observer who thinks the answer to our weakness is that we must become more socially conservative. You won't find one.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 16:14:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ooh-ooh-ooh, here's another good one! (0.00 / 0)

Women's rights! When I moved here Yankee-type Republicans fought to make birth control legal, while the mostly Irish-Catholic Democrats opposed it. I'm told this principled stand was one reason Republicans lost control of the Legislature. Never understood why this wasn't publicized by MA Republicans later, as a selling point for women voters, to ease the gender gap.

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 18:49:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Ed... (0.00 / 0)

...you can't argue with the facts of history and you did a great job laying it out.  Looking at the actions of a political party over the course of American history is silly.  Factions move in and out.  Many of the cultural groups that made up the anti-capitialists reforms of the Popularist era are know part of the socially conservative right.   And the Republican Party of the 1850s was certainly the most liberal party at that time.

As you point out, conservatives have opposed the long list of laws and social reforms we now all embrace, like child labor laws or civil rights.  So I have to ask you, why do you align yourself with a party that is filled to the brim with conservatives whose idealogical legacy centers on opposing enlightened policies that have made our nation great?  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 20:57:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So which is your point? (0.00 / 0)

I like the argument that it's silly to judge a political party by its history. Then you judge Republicans for their historical opposition to long-ago "enlightened policies".

I decided to join the Republican Party around age 12 when I read Uncle Tom's Cabin and was told Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Then it repealed the military draft. I'm still grateful.

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 23:19:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes agreed (0.00 / 0)

The Republicans were responsible for ensuring blacks could vote after the civil war.

Republican got women the right to vote after Democrats blocked it for decades.

Republicans allied with liberal Democrats in 1964 to pass voter's rights legislation blocked by Southern Democrats.

But now apparently we're perceived as anti-black, anti-women and anti-voter's rights.

So clearly some PR is in order.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 00:33:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The cultural groups that made up... (0.00 / 0)

...the Republican Party when the did these things have pretty much left it.  Robert La Follete and Jacob Jarvis are two examples of great Republicans from the Suffrage fight and the Civil Rights movement that would NEVER be a Republican today.  

PR will not change the FACT that the Republican Party of today has NOTHING to do with the great contributions these people made in the name of the Republican Party of the past.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:32:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some things for Simple, Jamison, Barbara, and more (5.00 / 1)

All -

First, I am proud to consider myself a follower of the conservative tradition. That tradition goes back centuries. Yes, at times, conservatives were merely defense attorneys against changes that we now think of as very good things. Like defense attorneys, we are, in that role, a necessary part of a good system. Rapid change can be truly dangerous for a society. (Look no further than the Arab Spring.)

But I, in the above comment did not mention that conservatives have supported many good things and, in addition, often prevented bad changes from happening. For instance, at this time, conservatives are trying to prevent our welfare state from, in the name of compassion, becoming so large, that it ruins our economy. But the best idea that conservatives have defended in the past several decades is capitalism! Capitalism has provided more prosperity for all and lifted more people out of poverty than any liberal idea in human history. It is, ironically for conservatives, the most transformative force in human history. Yet we defend it against the left decade after decade.

Of course, if someone just sees the future as merely a succession of societal changes, we would look like the bad guys. But I don't think that's the right way to look at society. We conservatives often re-invent things from the past, as the Tea Party has demonstrated.

But there is one big new, troubling development in the past 15 years. Right-wing media and its explosion in popularity, has resulted in the corruption of the word conservative from its traditional meaning and turned it into something else. It now means something more like "fundamentalist" than what conservative meant. For instance, the conservative tradition favors compromise in light of massive social change. Conservatives, at some point, even after compromising, go along with change that has proven itself.

Let's take the gay marriage debate. Years ago, I was 110% against the idea. Then, years later, seeing how society's attitudes changed, I supported civil unions as a reasonable compromise. That is a conservative thing to do.

But not now. "Conservative" now means never compromise, ever. Social change? Stop it at all cost. Take gay marriage, for example. In this state, we have had it for several years without any problems, and it gets more and more popular. Is it conservative to say, in Massachusetts, that we should have an opinion about it from the 1990s? No. I know many conservatives who now recognize that some sort of civil union, if not marriage, is a reasonable thing, though it should not in any way be forced on any private institution.

But what about the Republicans? Sometimes they have made common cause with the conservatives. Barbara's example of the cause of anti-communism is a good example. We did that together. There are other examples where Republicans and conservatives were together - such as the recent debate over religious freedom in regards to who should pay for an employee's contraception. Sometimes we are on opposite sides. Conservatives were against Brown v. Board of Education. Liberal Republicans were for it, and, of course, that court was Republican.

In New England, conservatism has run through many political groups. There have been conservative Republicans and Democrats. For instance, there are some older, conservative Democrats on Beacon Hill. These are the Democratic politicians in this state who are "allowed" to be pro-life. ;-) But conservatism never primarily defined either party in this state, at least not in my lifetime.

Where we are now is that the social conservatives, particularly religious ones, have become more and more powerful in the Republican party nationally, having abandoned the Democrats over a variety of issues starting in the 1980s. Because of the influence of national media on television, radio, and online, you have a lot of people in Massachusetts who reinforce their "conservative" ideas in defiance of a majority of people in this state who don't share their views. They wrongly believe that their views are held by huge numbers of other people in this state, justifying making the Republican party firmly a socially conservative party. They talk about a "big tent" publicly, but privately, they say very different things.

Lastly, and I know I have gone on far too long, if real, traditional conservatives wanted a larger role in the party, I wouldn't mind so much. I still think that their views should not primarily define the party. However, the "conservatives" who I run into online, here on RMG, and in person - are not often the traditional kind. (Since he is on this thread, I actually think Brock is of the traditional type - and I mean that as a compliment.) No, what I see are the "never compromise" self-righteous people from the real-time-right-wing-radio-cable-weblog-whorl. They desperately want the RNC platform changed. They want to run around screaming at RTC meetings and at candidates that they are the platform and they are the party.

And we can't have that. Not if we want to increase our numbers.  

---

by: edfactor @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 22:19:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was 110% for gay marriage in the 90's (1.00 / 1)

But around 2000, specifically at the BioDevestation2000 rally in Copley Square where I carried my "Every Child a Natural Child" sign, I had begun to understand there were much larger issues here that were in conflict with gay marriage and radical feminism. I had always been an open-minded non-homophobic person and voted for Mondale and Clinton partly because of their liberal social views. I certainly wasn't pro-life or religious, so I wasn't comfortable being on the same side as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson about anything. In 2004, when the President's Council on Bioethics released its "Reproduction and Responsibility" report which recommended Congress enact an "egg and sperm" law, and when researchers in Tokyo created a fatherless mouse ("Kaguya") combining DNA from two females, I came up with the idea for a sensible compromise that gives everyone what they want. Everyone, that is, but the Libertarian Transhumanists who have infiltrated each side.

It's funny you cite Brock in contrast to the "no-compromise" types, as he rejected my compromise because it included recognition for Civil Unions ("I am not in agreement with civil unions & I will not compromise on that principle or issue.")  Perhaps you can join me in trying to convince Brock to compromise on Civil Unions, and we can end this divisive split and restore some sanity and responsibility.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 16:39:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't help but notice... (0.00 / 0)

...that for someone who claims that you're focusing on economic issues in the upcoming election, you wrote a diary that focuses heavily on socal issues.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 16:52:39 PM UTC

Re: Great NIght (5.00 / 1)

Gentlemen and Barbara,
As I was the person who made the original motion in June and made the motion to postpone Thursday night, I would like to clarify some misunderstood points.
Like some of you, I was raised a Democrat. Maybe unlike some of you, I was raised in a very large politically involved family. As a result, I have been on both sides of the fence with the issues and sometimes on it. When I was elected to the state committee in March, I believed that the current state party platform was four pages on the internet. Seemed a little light to me. Consequently, I asked in June to adopt the platform Mitt would be adopting in August thinking that would be detailed and up-to-date.

About two weeks ago, I got my hands on the new RNC platform. About that time, the DNC was having their convention. As you recall, the DNC highlighted their abortion policy particularly with the number of abortion related speakers. As a result, I decided to also read the DNC platform. The differences are stark.

It was those differences that I wanted to highlight this past Thursday night especially in light of the Atkin's comment. What I pointed out is that the Democrats  are the ones who are radical and extreme, especially when it come to abortion. Consider:
1. the DNC supports abortion till the day the baby is born and wants taxpayers to pay for it.
2. the DNC refuses to ban sex-selection abortion.
3. the DNC refuses to add additional penalties and fines on those who violate the  Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (but why would they when Obama voted against the Act four times on the Illinois Senate Floor.)
4.the DNC calls for supporting a One China policy but not one word in their platform  condemning a One-Child Policy in China. That policy  causes forced abortions on woman in their 7th,8th and 9th month of pregnancy and is a major cause of voluntary abortions on woman who are determined to be carrying girls. In essence, female genocide. That is a war of baby girls.
5.Since China is our "banker", (Clinton announced that in 2010 at his NY China Policy Meeting)  it is clear that Warren, Obama and the DNC has accepted their 30 pieces of silver to remain silent in their party platform on the One Child Policy in China. In fact, VP Biden in August, 2011 told the Chinese  that he "understood" their policy. Be assured that the RNC loudly condemns the Chinese policy.

Where the DNC is silent or extreme, the RNC calls out for compassion or condemnation, depending on the issue.  The final point Thursday night was that the DNC proudly highlights their support of the Arab Spring stating that "it is the world's most sweeping recent movement toward democracy". It is sweeping alright.

In a final note, I then asked the members to please read both platforms, to become informed and come ready in November to vote on the platform so we can be united with Mitt by his Inauguration!!

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 19:13:12 PM UTC

Why do you support a man who invests his own money in... (0.00 / 0)

...a country like China, when you condemn China?  You seem like you have a very strong moral compass, yet you seem to ignore it when it comes to Mitt Romney's actions.

Given that you are a state committee member and was in attendance Thursday night, do you support the right of a free press?  Or do you support those in the state GOP that oppose this American value?  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 19:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

support (4.00 / 1)

 You and I invest in China every day. I did it as recently as yesterday when I bought a crock pot. Are you suggesting that that means we can not object to horrendous immoral actions on the part of the Chinese government. I, for one, will vote for the man and the party that calls the Chinese out on these issues as opposed to Obama who rolled out the Red Carpet at a State Dinner last winter for the Chinese Premier, something Bush never did.
With regards to the press, I also come from a newspaper family and for that reason I talked to the reporter in the hall after the meeting and shared my notes. As a result, she  did a fairly accurate job on the story in the print version yesterday. (Not to be sarky about it but she did say that in the story!)

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 21:14:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

support (0.00 / 0)

oops, meant snarky!

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 21:28:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

John, why is it a "great night" when the values of our country are trampled? (0.00 / 0)

Do you support the suppression of freedom of the press and the barring of a reporter from an open, public meeting?  Your comments above seem to imply that you supported this suppression of is key American value.  Am I correct?

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 20:49:05 PM UTC

Let's not get carried away (0.00 / 0)

Despite my inability to understand why a reporter would be barred, I don't think it has anything to do with freedom of the press! I haven't been to a RSC meeting in years, but aren't they held in a private room, with the general public not invited? What does this have to do with the First Amendment?  

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 23:25:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plenty of Guests (0.00 / 0)

Our State Committee meetings generally have plenty of guests.  Indeed, there were probably 2-3 dozen that night, excluding reporters.  

I learned about the reporter situatio via Twitter.  Haven't clue why things happened as they did.

The closed meetings that are not open to the public would be the Executive Committee meetings that often, but not always (as seen the other evening), happen before the full State Committee meeting.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 23:47:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So Brock... (0.00 / 0)

...you are in a leadership position of a party that overturns free and open elections and suppress  the freedom f the press.  Given that just this week Gov. Romney accused the President of not supporting "American values" when a two time convicted felon a posted a hate-filled video, don't you think the actions of the MA GOP undermine the same American values of democracy?  Will you join me in denouncing the MA GOP for undermining American values?  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:24:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you had a clue (0.00 / 0)

Then you MIGHT be dangerous.  Fortunately, you're pushing some BS so full of propaganda, lies, and deceit that it isn't remotely funny.

That Eno suffers to allow you to continue posting is a comment to the tolerant values of conservative Republicans respecting Free Speech to degrees unjustified by your rants.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 11:53:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What lies am I telling.... (4.00 / 1)

Many commenters at RMG have made the same factual observation that the MA GOP subverted an open election process last Spring.  The Boston Globe and RMG posters also document how the MA GOP barred a reporter from covering an opening public meeting.  You can spout off that these are "lies" but that does not change the reality of these FACTS.

Now you may feel that my assertion that the MA GOP does not support American values.  But I'm simply parroting the very same assertion the Presidential nominee of your party made against the President.  So why is it OK for Romney to charge the President for not supporting American values when a 2 time convicted felon posts a hate-filled video designed to incite violence and it's not OK for me to make the same assertion with the MA GOP has clearly undermine the foundation of democracy with their recent actions.

Brock, we you have no defense you really on cheap rhetoric accusing people of rants, lies and deceit.  You are incapable of offering any kind of substantive defense of the actions of the MA GOP--an organization you hold a leadership position with as a State Committee member.  Prove me wrong.  Defend the indefensible.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 14:49:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lie #1 (0.00 / 0)

The MassGOP did not overturn any elections.  I won't bother wasting my time trying to explain it to you but it's absolutely false to make that claim.  It was wrong before the Convention and it's wrong now.  It simply suits your narrative.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 17:47:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can spin all you want about the "process" of denying... (0.00 / 0)

...delegates elected in the caucus and creates your own narrative that fits your agenda.  As time goes on, you'll be creating a different narrative that your Party did not impede the right of a press to cover this open meeting.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 21:24:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truth & Facts (5.00 / 1)

Are two things you have a hard time actually promoting here on RMG.  Sorry if I'm  stickler for such things but perhaps one day you'll learn how to accept them & with a modicum of both grace and dignity.

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 22:12:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Despite saying it was a "good night"... (4.00 / 1)

...the social conservatives obviously lost this battle by delaying the vote until after the the Nov. election.  You can spin it all you want, but the can was kicked down the calendar until it won't matter.  Sure, after the election the national platform will be adopted.  But enough people understand how politically unpopular the platform is and that it would have hurt the chances of Brown, Tisei and others.  So keep spinning (or living in a delusion), that rest of us understand that it was a defeat for the social conservative agenda in MA.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 at 22:15:18 PM UTC

despite (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Malarkey,

So you can not win making things up since the people with the facts came forward and you can not win on the press issue since the reporter wrote the truth in her article, so, hey, let's just draw some conclusions out of thin air.
Good Night.  

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 00:08:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What am I making up? (0.00 / 0)

The fact is that the vote was delayed until November correct?  What we disagree about is why.  My opinion is that GOP kicked the can past the the election so as not to create any controversies.  The GOP punted a tough subject until after the election.  That is my opinion, just as John's opinion was it was a "good night".  Obviously I disagree.  I'd like to learn more as to why John (or you) think it that tabling this issue until after the election was a positive?

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:18:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only when talking about the MA GOP (0.00 / 0)

would tabling a motion be considered a "Great Night."

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 00:37:15 AM UTC

only when talking (0.00 / 0)

Might be or might not be, depending on the purpose, but no motions were tabled Thursday night.  

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 00:47:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not according the the press account... (0.00 / 0)

...that you described above as accurate

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 02:20:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not according (0.00 / 0)

I am not doing your work for you Mr. Malarkey, go back and read my post if you wish to be accurate.

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 14:04:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell me the difference.... (0.00 / 0)

...between your words above that you "made the motion to postpone" the vote and the newspaper's (and tomasek's) that the motion was tabled?  At best semantics.  I eagerly await your parsing and will continue to wonder why you object to the term "tabling" as opposed to postponed.

Whether there is some kind of difference between tabled or postpone, the result is the same...you and the MA GOP kicked the can down the road until after the Nov election to minimize fallout.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 14:58:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

tell me (0.00 / 0)

There is a huge difference between the two motions. One does not come up for discussion again unless it is voted off the table. The other automatically is on the agenda for the next meeting.
What most people failed to do is read the original motion. It appears that is why there is enormous confusion. The motion was to "consider adopting" not "to adopt".  Big difference. I did set out, as stated above, an outline as to why we should adopt the platform and I asked the members to please read both platforms before the next meeting in November.  My request had nothing to do with "fallout" but the need to make sure people knew what they were talking about. If you were there, and you had paid attention, you would have understood that. You can speculate on my motives all day long (and apparently all night long) but only I can attest to what they are.

Btw, I was amazed at the amount of press the motion received prior to the Thursday meeting but not so amazed at the lack of accurate (there is that word again!!) reporting and the lack of knowledgeable comments regarding the upcoming motion. As far as I could tell, almost everyone was responding to hearsay. Including you.

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 15:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is the problem the press or the MassGOP? (0.00 / 0)

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette, which was let into the meeting and if I understand correctly is sympathetic to the GOP, described what went on as a punt.
http://www.telegram.com/articl...

WORCESTER -  State Republicans last night chose to punt on a vote on whether to accept the national GOP platform adopted at their Tampa national convention.

Was the Globe alone in being given the silent treatment, or were the reporters in actual attendance also given the cold shoulder and not given an accurate explanation of the proceedings?  

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

---

by: Patrick @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 15:59:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

is the problem (0.00 / 0)

Neither. The Globe asked to speak to me after the meeting. Only the substance  was discussed not the procedure. With regards to the Worcester paper, they never asked to speak to me. As far as I can tell, not one reporter or critic read the motion. Apparently, everyone with erroneous thoughts, comments and statements thought they knew what the motion was. Not too unusual.
Good Day!

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 16:34:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep splitting them hairs (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 21:12:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

keep splitting (0.00 / 0)

You may think it is splitting hairs, I think it is an important distinction.  I was there, you were not. I crafted the resolution, you did not. If past foreshadows future, you will continue your mutterings. It was nice chatting with you but I must move on.  

---

by: pbdoherty01 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 22:29:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me get my Robert's Rule of Order out (0.00 / 0)

to parse the difference between "tabled" and postponed.

Either way, these actives are typically not linked with words like "bold" or "brave."

Don't get me wrong, I support the move. It's the title of this post that I have an issue with.

---

by: tomasek1000 @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 22:49:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]