Active Users
Currently 2 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
July 2014
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
National
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State




Tuesday's State Committee Mtg: DO NO HARM!

by: edfactor

Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 06:35:18 AM EST


So there is a MassGOP state committee meeting on Tuesday. I assume it will not be a happy affair.

There is much that could be discussed about how to re-build the party. I hope those discussions, if they happen, go well.

The one thing that I really do NOT want to happen is for the State Committee to harm the party. The number one way they could do that is, in its weakness, give in to the social conservatives who would rather be ideologically pure than win.

At the last meeting, the SC tabled a motion to adopt more of the national GOP platform as our own. That was a bad idea then, it would now be insanity to do so. That being the case, there will be people who want to do it anyway.

Please do not make such a disastrous move, or any move like that. This party needs some time and space and flexibility to figure out what to do going forward.  

edfactor :: Tuesday's State Committee Mtg: DO NO HARM!
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

What is it about you people??? (5.00 / 1)
You think it was SOCIAL CONSERVATISM that lost these elections???

Name an outspoken social conservative who lost.

Brown isn't one...

Tisei isn't one...

Romney isn't one...

I've said it on a lot of threads the last couple of days....what are you guys smoking?

You have fallen for the trap set for you by the Democrat party.  They want you to THINK it's all about the social issues....it simply isn't.

Sure, sure ed...alienate the social conservatives by blaming us.  Where will that get you?

After you lost the 2010 state elections you were saying the same crap...and Charlie Baker is to the left of Obama on some issues (well...until Obama shifted left).

This time...MORE liberal candidates....more losses.....

Sun Tzu said it best...

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.



"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

Good Party Machinery Lost the MA elections (0.00 / 0)
But run social conservatives candidates  and you won't even have a small chance. Brown would have lost against Coakley.

[ Parent ]
Prove it roark (0.00 / 0)
You guys keep saying it...but your guys keep losing.

It isn't the socially conservative candidates who god drubbed...it was your vaunted moderates.


"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


[ Parent ]
Have to back V up on this (0.00 / 0)
Moderate Republicans do just as bad as Soc Cons in this state.  I don't know how you can look at Brown/Warren  Tisei/Tierney and Baker/Patrick and not see that.

We have a tactical issue.  
   

Molon Labe


[ Parent ]
Yup, especially when Brown won when he was more conservative (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
because the workers... (0.00 / 0)
...who are not social conservatives, will not work for social conservative causes.

And because when they get voted into delegate positions, they are thrown out on technicalities.

The young are the future, and they are unlike us.

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

www.inBrockton.com



[ Parent ]
I'm not so young - but I won't help. (0.00 / 0)
I only made 200+ calls, spent 4 hours canvasing for a state rep - 3 rallies in Brockton/ Tauton and Fall River - held signs on election day for 4 hours. I think probably 10 times more than anyone on our RTC - and I'm a flipping "U".

I should have done more - but hey my town went 2:1 for Brown and something I can't believe Romney had a majority.

The problem is the cites and the machines.

We had a series of moderate governors - and frankly - they have saved our state from becoming CA/IL or NY. But I'm afraid we got big problems now. They have a well oiled machine - and they can elect a Ham sandwich :(



[ Parent ]
I'm not saying we have to "throw out" the moderates... (0.00 / 0)
...I'm saying that moving more to the left is a huge mistake.

If the "moderates can't see that fact...maybe the GOP isn't the party for them.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


[ Parent ]
Who counts as a social conservative to you? (0.00 / 0)
Please name some socially conservative Republicans who won in Massachusetts this cycle.

[ Parent ]
Socially Conservative Republicans Who Won (0.00 / 0)
I can only speak for Southern Worcester County.  Ryan Fattman - Landslide over opponent.  Peter Durant - Won a race by 1700 votes where he was supposed to lose because he was too conservative. Kevin Kuros - Won a race he too was the underdog.  All 3 Freshman Socially Conservative Reps - who were targeted by John Walsh and Mass Alliance specifically.  All 3 Executed Flawlessly - never waivered on their stances and their constituents both respected and admired them. We didn't lose a single seat.  Voters admire those who actually stand for something... called conviction.

[ Parent ]
Mr. Briare - I don't see conviction, I see correlation, not causation (5.00 / 1)
So, Mr. Briare -

We are supposed to beleive that because Ryan Fattman, Peter Durant, and Kevin Kuros won because they were social conservatives, but have conviction.

Here's a test: if someone really is running on something, or has "conviction" they will talk about it a lot, and more than anything, they will put this position on their website. As people like you love citing that these guys are social conservatives, let us go to the Internet. Surely, if they have "conviction" they will admit this conviction online, eh?

Well, well, well!  

In fact, if you enter any of these google queries, restricted to the campaign sites...

abortion site:kevinkuros.com
abortion site:peterjdurant.com
abortion site:fattman.com
gay site:kevinkuros.com
gay site:peterjdurant.com
gay site:fattman.com
marriage site:kevinkuros.com
marriage site:peterjdurant.com
marriage site:fattman.com

...you get nothing. Nothing!

Even on Mr. Kuros's site, he calls himself a social conservative in one sentence, but says this means that he supports the second amendment. That is all.

Of course, these men, in public appearances, (not friendly closed-door ones) don't bring up their social conservative views on abortion if they can help it. Same strategy. Keep these beliefs hidden, win on other issues.

Is this the conviction you are talking about? I think they won for other reasons, despite the fact that they were social conservatives. There is no evidence they won because of this, and the fact they clearly did not run on these issues is evidence that counts for my side, and not yours.

I rest my case.


[ Parent ]
We didn't say they should run on those issues (0.00 / 0)
They didn't keep their views hidden, obviously, if we know them. We don't need every candidate to be a a culture warrior, we just don't want them to be culture warriors for the other side or we'll stay home or vote for the Democrat, if they are not terrible too. Is that really hard to understand? If we don't see "marriage equality" and "pro-choice" etc on their website, that's a very good sign.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Yes, Mr Howard.

But the issue in my post is whether the party should be officially socially conservative. If people can be so and win - that is great. My point on these three guys is that they are supposedly the evidence that we should be officially conservative. That is nonsense.


[ Parent ]
OK, I agree about the platform (0.00 / 0)
I agree with your post that it would be a mistake to add extreme pro-life language to the state party platform, and I think the federal GOP should listen to Scott Brown on their platform wording:
The 110-member platform panel, meeting today in Tampa, Fla., passed a so-called Human Life Amendment that calls for a ban on abortion, without mention of the more common exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," said platform language obtained by CNN. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

I say when a woman has an abortion, it is God's will, and the unborn child's right to life certainly can be infringed, indeed doesn't even exist. I think a human life amendment is extreme and unnecessary, and especially oppose a personhood amendment that applies to fertilized eggs. But I still consider myself a social conservative, because a personhood amendment is radical, not conservative.

My response was to the commenter upthread who said "But run social conservatives candidates  and you won't even have a small chance. Brown would have lost against Coakley."  See, he was just talking about candidates, not the party platform. Brown was still known then as being a solid vote for marriage in the state senate, pissing off moonbats and showing up at Vote On Marriage fundraisers. And remember he faced Robinson in the primary and Robinson ran full page ads in Bay Windows, which Brown shunned. So we all thought he was solidly conservative versus Coakley, and he won.  Then he gave up on ending same-sex marriage and went soft, and he lost.


[ Parent ]
A Said Conviction - Not Obession :) (0.00 / 0)
EdFactor - The question originally proposed was "Show me Conservative Candidates who won"  I answered the question.

Conviction comes in when a candidate is pushed on the issues in debates, or in the press and when its actually time to vote.  all 3 were pushed - all 3 showed "conviction"

Does the politician actually "Walk the Walk"?

EdFactor... you and I both know that no one will agree with someone 100% of the time.  How boring the world would be if we did so.  

However, I do believe that people equate consistency in positions as a sign of "Conviction".  People will respect people who stand for something... for as the saying goes, if you stand for nothing.. you fall for everything.

Conviction in politics (unlike convictions in RI Politics or with Speakers of the house) is a good thing.  People may agree to disagree with conservative stances.. but they will respect the person.  And people equate a persons convictions as an ingredient of their overall character.



[ Parent ]
Respect is good, winning is better (0.00 / 0)
First, I am happy these guys won. I once met Ryan Fattman and really liked him. As they have shown, I think that if your typical social conservative is going to run for office, he's better off not emphasizing that in most of the state.

My goal in pointing out that these guys didn't run on these issues is that the 2010 freshmen are often used as the "evidence" that being socially conservative is a winning campaign strategy by many of our activists. It's one thing to say, "Social conservatives can win if you run in certain parts of the state and don't talk about opposition abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage very much."  But that statement surely does not mean the party should be officially socially conservative or that this should be what all campaigns everywhere should do, or that social liberals are not welcome in the Republican party. (I know you are not saying those things.)

But a lot of activists and some of our new state committee members believe just that - that we should be officially social conservatives and - voila! - people will see the true conservative spirit we have, and Massachusetts will magically become a red state. That is the triumph of ideology over experience. This is the most liberal state in America and Republicans must pursue other goals if it wants a place in our politics here.

And while it is nice to be respected, it is better to win. And winning power is the whole point of political parties. (e.g. Tisei had far more respect than Tierney did.) We need to go back to having winning, not respect, be the top priority.


[ Parent ]
Winning MAY be better... (0.00 / 0)
But it generally doesn't change anything....unless the politician has CONVICTIONS....and WE must pick politicians who can not only WIN, but who embrace OUR convictions.

Politicians no longer try to change people's minds.  That's "too hard". They are in the business of marketing. They look at the map of the day and then create a platform and a message that they think will win them an election. THIS is where Scott Brown, Richard Tisei and Mitt Romney went wrong....and this is where you are going wrong.

YOU (and they) think that their platform is equal to LEADERSHIP...and it isn't.

I think one of the lessons of the election is this: Elections are not the leading edge of change. Elections are the lagging indicators of what's already changed.  What has been LOST.

We have already LOST.  Unless WE are willing to stand up for something...and select politicians who are willing to as well.

We have to shift the entire conversation about cultural values, not just transform the platform. We don't need a bigger "tent." We need to make a more convincing case. That's what brings about real change. That's leadership.

THAT's what Reagan talked about when he said we should not "give in".

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


[ Parent ]
Sandi Martinez (0.00 / 0)
"Name an outspoken social conservative who lost."

Done.


[ Parent ]
Just Sayin' (0.00 / 0)
In the Republican primary, no less.

[ Parent ]
You're Mistaken (0.00 / 0)
No, she won the primary against Greg Howes (a social moderate) and lost the general to Michael Barrett.

[ Parent ]
My Bad (0.00 / 0)
   In volunteering for Jon Golnik, her name never came up after the primary, in my time there. I had incorrectly assumed she'd lost.

[ Parent ]
Huh, so maybe the MAGOP didn't want her to win? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
We have many problems, V (0.00 / 0)
First of all, Mr. (or Ms.) V -

We have a lot of problems. Just about everyone loses - left, right, and center. The party has nothing but problems: money, organization, brand, communications, infrastructure, and more.

It isn't like we are this well-functioning organization that loses too many elections because our beliefs are not in line with the voters in some places in the state. I wish we had the luxury of just talking about ideology.

I don't even think ideology is our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is not being able to function properly as a statewide organization, due to lack of infrastructure and the ability to communicate well. When I list all the issues, (I won't here) I get absolutely no resistance from anyone from any part of the political spectrum. Even the MARA guys admit that I am right on this.

(So, yes, the state committee should do infrastructure first. I got appointed to sub committee to handle that, but I had no time to volunteer this summer. I will return to it soon.)

My post was to address another big problem that we have, which is that our party activists are passionate about certain "social" issues that are in direct opposition to the majority of voters in this state, yet want to push these issues everywhere.

I have no problem with people being socially conservative, as I am one of them. If a candidate can win by being pro-life, or opposing ill-advised laws about "transgendered" rights - that's good.

But there are very few places in Massachusetts where you can be a staunch social conservative and win. Statewide, I think it is nearly impossible.

This doesn't mean that social "moderates" can win, either. Do I think Charlie Baker would have won as a pro-lifer? No. I don't believe that. Would Tisei, who lost by 3,000 votes, have won if he was against gay marriage and abortion? On the north shore? No, he would have lost by a lot - but not as much as "your guy" Hudak - did in 2010.

What about Scott Brown? Is it even mentally possible to think that Scott Brown would have won as a social conservative? He lost by 250,000 votes. Is your theory that a quarter of a million pro-lifers didn't go to the polls? Or that they voted for Professor Warren? No, both of those things are silly.

I actually think it should be perfectly acceptable to be socially conservative in this party. However, I think that outside of some House seats, most people are not going to be able to do that. Therefore, the party should not make being socially conservative the official position of the party. Let the candidates do what they need to. That's what I am asking for here.


[ Parent ]
Ed, thank you... (0.00 / 0)
...for your thoughtful reply.  (it's Mr...btw...)

I think your view of the big picture is incorrect.

Mrs. Warren received all of the votes she was going to get.  I'm doubtful that anyone who voted for her did so because Brown wasn't conservative enough.

What I do NOT doubt is that a LOT of people blanked the race.  Warren got ALL of her available votes...Brown did not.

You have to look at WHY.

And...I'm not necessarily of the opinion that Brown should have RUN as a social conservative.  But what I AM certain of is that he shouldn't have run as a moderate/liberal.

Warren had those votes in her pocket.  What Brown needed to do (as did Tisei and Romney) was to appeal to ME!!!  People like me.  Socially conservative people.

I know dozens of people who left the ballot blank.  I am not one of them.  I voted for Brown.  But MANY people simply refused to vote for Brown because of his stance on (what I truly believe) are not the most important issues.

Simply put...Brown pandered to a rather small segment of available voters....most of whom Warren already had.  He never had a chance.

If Brown simply kept his message focused like he did in 2010 (I don't remember Brown crying about abortion, birth control, Lilly Ledbetter, etc...in 2010), he would have held on to the social conservatives.

Most reasonable socially conservative voters don't expect serious "red meat" from a candidate.  Although pro-life...I agree that someone running with "pro-life" as the basis of a campaign would be "hammered".

I am NOT an all or nothing voter.  But I do recognize campaign error when I see it.  The GOPe, as of this election, has LOST the "hold-your-nose-and-vote" voter.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


[ Parent ]
One quarter of a million (0.00 / 0)
Mr. V -

Do you really expect me to believe that 250,001 people left the senate race blank?  That was the margin of victory.  And the polling showed that Scott Brown's negatives were heavily dependent on giving Senate Republicans control.

No - he lost because of the party brand. Yes, I am sure some social conservatives didn't vote for him whom otherwise might have - but that could not have been that many.

I think you and I would agree that he was no spokesman for what it means to be a Republican. Yet I can't imagine him doing that - especially in a way that would have helped him. His #1 priority seemed to be to distance himself from being Republican, because that's what the polls showed he needed to do.


[ Parent ]
No...not completely ed... (0.00 / 0)
But between the blanks and those voters who stayed home....

I don't agree that Brown distanced himself from the GOP brand because of polls....he pandered because he didn't have a winning strategy and he bought the media line.

Brown lost because he failed to articulate a good message.  He got bogged down with his pandering and the media (and blog) created faux indian thing.  Fine for us to do, not so much for him.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  


[ Parent ]
How about this (0.00 / 0)
I think the Personhood movement is responsible for scaring off votes, because it is such a ridiculous extreme and radical new position: fertilized eggs are not living people with rights, eggs about to be fertilized by a rapist's sperm are not living people with a right to be fertilized and implant in the victim's womb. Personhood of fertilized eggs and unimplanted embryos leads to so many ridiculous positions, such as denying EC to rape victims, not allowing embryos to be discarded making IVF both expensive and extra risky and requiring us to find wombs for every frozen embryo, and making embryonic stem cell research illegal, it turns off nearly everyone. And it isn't even biblically or legally or medically true, life is in the blood and starts with the heartbeat and ends with the heartbeat.

Do the people advocating here for moderate positions agree that Personhood Amendments are bad? How about V and other social conservatives like Brock? Are there any Personhood advocates here?

My point is that if we want to distance ourselves from crazy radical stupid stuff, pick Personhood, not marriage. Endorse Civil Unions for same-sex couples, but not genetic engineering of babies for same-sex couples. It's easy to be moderate and for preserving marriage, you don't have to throw in the towel on marriage to be moderate. All it takes is a rational argument based on sound public policy. Same-sex procreation would be too expensive and risky and there is no right to do it.


Personhood? (0.00 / 0)
Life must be respected & protected from the very moment of conception through natural death.

[ Parent ]
wow, sticking with the extreme Akin position? (0.00 / 0)
That position was what scared women away from the GOP. Do you support the GOP platform plank that seems to leave no room for exceptions for rape and incest? Why not just remove it and let candidates make their own argument?

And haven't you heard of the Personhood movement? They want an amendment that gives embryos the right to life, which would prohibit not just late term abortions but also Emergency Contraception that prevents an embryo from implanting (a fate of millions of embryos every month even without hormone pills), and it even prohibits IVF unless all the embryos are implanted, making IVF impractical and expensive and unsafe. Women will love that.


[ Parent ]
NCBC (0.00 / 0)
Honestly, you're not worth the time & effort to try to engage in a conversation as you haven't an ounce of sincerity much less interest beyond your single sci-fi cult issue.  Akin made an entirely foolish comment & for entirely different reasons you're in the same category.

Get yourself out of the latest edition of Coast-to-Coast AM with Art Bell & George Noory and educate yourself:

The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), established in 1972, conducts research, consultation, publishing and education to promote human dignity in health care and the life sciences, and derives its message directly from the teachings of the Catholic Church

http://www.ncbcenter.org/


[ Parent ]
The foolish comment was because of the extreme platform (0.00 / 0)
The comment was squeezed out of him because he had to defend the "life begins at conception, no exceptions" platform plank. It is the plank that is foolish.

And if we had spun it like I said we should, that it's OK after rape for a woman to reject an embryo, then we could have accepted Emergency Contraception that helps a woman's body do just that and led the party into the sunshine. But instead we just left the platform plank dangling there, unapologeticly sticking with the "no exceptions" idea while agreeing with everyone that Akin was an idiot.

Thanks for the link to the NCBE. Did you notice they oppose sex change operations and so presumably would oppose postgenderism and transhumanism and creating people from genetically modified stem cells? They point out how IVF will lead to genetic engineering of designer children, too. It's not Art Bell to oppose that stuff, it's Art Bell to consider it inevitable, or talk about it happening for entertainment.

I think you should agree with me about my Civil Unions that affirm the uniqueness of marriage, and I think you should agree with about the Egg and Sperm law that prohibits genetic engineering, and I think you should agree with me about preserving conception rights of marriage too. Unless Catholics think people with genetic flaws should be prohibited from procreating with their own genes, you ought to agree with me. It's distressing that for some reason you resist.


[ Parent ]
2002 Vatican statement (0.00 / 0)
Brock I came across this in the wikipedia entry on Transhumanism, in the "Debate" section: A 2002 Vatican statement "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" stated that, "Changing the genetic identity of man as a human person through the production of an infrahuman being is radically immoral", implying, as it would, that "man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature".

I followed the link to "infrahuman" and found it describes thinking of people as "less human" or maybe "more human", so it is similar to "transhuman" I think.  At any rate, it is a clear statement against the libertarian belief that there is a right to take control over the genetic identity of future people, and attempting it would be radically immoral. Combined with the FAQ about sex changes and IVF on the NCBC site, you should certainly support the Egg and Sperm law that limits creation of people to the union of a man's unmodified sperm and a woman's unmodified egg.


[ Parent ]
Tuesday (0.00 / 0)
Btw - the MassGOP State Committee meeting is on TUESDAY!!!

State Rep Results (0.00 / 0)

So what were the final results for the State Rep contests?  What seats were losses and were there any pickups? I'm assuming none for the latter.

No change in the State Senate as far as I could tell.


Net loss of 4 (5.00 / 1)
We lost 5 seats (3 incumbents and 2 GOP open seats). We gained 1 open Dem seat in West Newbury.

On twitter @bfrivers

[ Parent ]
TONIGHT IN PLYMOUTH: Madness or Prudence? (0.00 / 0)
Well, tonight is the night. We will find out if the party chooses a prudent course - keeping its platform minimal in order to find space and time for reform - or whether we embrace the madness of the national GOP brand, now seen as unsuitable for winning the presidency.

What will our state committee do?


ed, the GOP didn't lose the presidency because... (0.00 / 0)
of an "unsuitable brand" (unless you are finally agreeing that "moderation" from the GOP is a loser).

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

[ Parent ]



Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox