Active Users
Currently 1 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
May 2013
(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
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette




A Cross Road for MA-GOP

by: John DiMascio

Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:21:07 AM EST


( - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

The Massachusetts Republican Party finds itself at a crossroad. Save a few bright spots, we've experienced consistent defeats for far too long.

Some have suggested that Republicans in Massachusetts need to compromise convictions, give up core values, become more like the Democrats. Well that's no winning formula. We've tried that failed approach. Look at the end result - 11% registration and across-the-board losses. Besides, the whole point of winning an election is to promote our policies. Changing our principles isn't victory; it's surrender!

It's simple. What we've been doing hasn't been working. We have an expensive office on Merrimack Street that is not accessible to rank and file Republicans, let alone the general public. When it comes to dealing with the grassroots, the MA-GOP has sadly earned a bad reputation for its hubris.

Changing the culture is the place to start. Arrogance and disdain can no longer be the rule or the exception. That expensive Merrimack Street office needs to be closed in favor of local storefront field-offices.  Each location should be an outreach center staffed with interns and open to the general public, seeking assistance. Every call needs to be answered. Every message gets a call back. In other words the MA-GOP has practice customer and constituent service.

Without pandering, we need to start targeting new demographics. Hence, particular attention must be paid to immigrant and urban neighborhoods.

John DiMascio :: A Cross Road for MA-GOP
Presented properly, our message is simple and has broad appeal. We stand for The Dignity of Life, Individual Liberty, Family, Upward Mobility, Opportunity for All, and Personal Charity. But it's not enough to talk about these things. Actions speak louder than words. We need to help people help themselves climb the socioeconomic ladder.  Our field-offices should be ready to help everyone from local businessmen trying to cut through Democrat created red tape, to immigrants studying to become a citizen or seeking to learn English.

Republicans have always been a strong supporters of private charity. Hence, the MA-GOP should consider everything from establishing scholarships for less fortunate kids, to organizing youth public service projects.

Outreach must go hand-in-hand with a sound grassroots political strategy. Focusing virtually all our resources only on the top of the ticket, marquis candidate, has devastated the party. We must recruit and support good candidates for every office. Every race, for whatever office, (win or lose) must yield new voter data, new volunteers, new donors, and new prospective candidates. All the data acquired in one race, must be made available to help in the next race.  Sharing this information must be the price candidates pay in order to receive support from the MA-GOP and local Republican Committees. We must start thinking and acting like a TEAM on a mission to win.

Electing candidates to municipal office must therefore be an essential component of our strategy. This builds the "farm team" and the ever-important ground game. Further, this affords potential State and Federal candidates the opportunity to campaign for municipal candidates in off years. Not only will they get themselves exposure, they'll also earn the loyalty and support of municipals candidates, their volunteers, their supporters, and their donors.

Municipal elections also offer a unique opportunity to maximize manpower. Towns have their elections in the Spring, while Cities in the Fall. So local committees can virtually double their manpower, by having the City Committees assist Town Committees in the Spring and vice-a-versa.

Collaboration among Local Committees can also be furthered by creating a volunteer database. It should list people with various campaign skill-sets. These people can then be tapped for campaigns in various Communities in a local cluster.  Eventually these databases can be merged. The end result will be the MA-GOP will have access to an exhaustive list of website-developers, social media experts, volunteer organizers, callers, writers, doorknockers, graphic designers.  Name it. If a candidate needs someone with a particular talent, they'll be able to find them in the database.

At a state level we must promote a strong statewide message. The best  "contribution" the MA-GOP can make to individual candidates is an extensive media campaign, promoting the Republican brand and the need to end one party rule in Massachusetts.

Although few in number, Republicans in Massachusetts are not short on good ideas. Yet for too long the rank and file Republicans have been locked out of the process. Policy decisions have been made by a select few "experts." The MA-GOP needs to start listening to other voices. Regional Chairs and State Committee members should meet with local activists to listen and discuss their ideas.

State Committee members and Regional Chairs know the districts, the candidates, the local issues, and demographics. Once a budget for local candidates is established, these folks need to be given decision-making power over how this money gets spent in trenches.

In short, we need to change our attitude, approach, strategy, and tactics. Not our conservative convictions! We need to put our Republican values into public practice. We need to prove to the citizens of Massachusetts that we know how to run a city or town, before we they will trust us to run the Commonwealth.

Once again we find ourselves at another crossroads. In January the State Committee will elect a new MA-GOP Chair. This will be the first of many important decisions. We can continue on the same old path, which has lead to political irrelevance or chart a new course to political influence.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I don't understand. (5.00 / 1)
What do these mean?

The Dignity of Life, ?? I'm guessing anti-abortion. If that's the case you just lost half the remaining party.

Individual Liberty ?? Perhaps this is what the governor means when he thinks EBT cards can be used for anything.

Family. On this I am 100% in agreement. As a married father of three I think there are too many "not young" single people in the party. Married people with children only after the age of 25, with an exception for retired and divorced. In general being single should be discouraged (it already is through the tax code).

Upward Mobility. Here here. Are we talking about lifting people out of poverty, or just moving up to the next tax bracket?

Opportunity for All. Including those on welfare? Or again are we just talking about us?

Personal Charity. I'm not on board with this one. I think that charitable deductions should be capped because I don't see why I am subsidzing gifts to Harvard et. al. In fact, all these foundations, not-for-profits, etc. need a good going over because I don't think that they are all on the up and up.

I think many of the rest of your points have theoretical merit, but slam hard up against the reality that is 2013 Massachusetts.


Single Republicans (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Tomasek,

Please tell me that you are not serious with this statement:

Family. On this I am 100% in agreement. As a married father of three I think there are too many "not young" single people in the party. Married people with children only after the age of 25, with an exception for retired and divorced. In general being single should be discouraged (it already is through the tax code).

So are you saying that anyone who is single and above the age of 25 should get out of the party?  I happen to know a good number of pele in their late 20's, 30's and some a little older who are single and very dedicated to helping the Republican cause.  They door knock, make telephone calls, host coffees, put up signs and contribute money to candidates.  Are these the type of supporters that we should seek to drive from the Party?  When you ran for office did you turn away volunteers who were unmarked and older than 25?

This is the type of statement, if serious, that only serves to shrink the party further, so, please, tell me that you are not serious.


[ Parent ]
My point is that the poster made a statement that is subject to interpretation (0.00 / 0)
If we're the party of Family, then I want mostly Families to be in it, or at least make all of the decisions. I don't trust 35-40 something Seinfeld wannabees to talk to me about family.

BTW the Democratic Party is full of people doing things against their own self interest. Why should Puerto Ricans (or immigrants here legally) be supportive of letting more immigrants in? Yet they are, and they're all Democrats.

PS Of course I'm not serious. My challenge is with posters who are serious but presenting ideas like "we are the party of family" and acting like that's a real idea.


[ Parent ]
A point of clarification... (5.00 / 2)
Puerto Ricans aren't immigrants. We're citizens.  

[ Parent ]
I know that (0.00 / 0)
and my post doesn't imply people from the PR are anything but, hence singling them out from legal immigrants. If anything Puerto Ricans should be Republicans (which their governor is), but at least the ones I know in MA (all from Lawrence) are not.

[ Parent ]
More than half the country identifies as pro-life (0.00 / 0)
Tomasek.... check your statistic. People who identify as pro-life, wanting to at least put serious restrictions on abortion, are now in a clear majority.

As for half the party, you're wrong on that point as well. The vast majority of Republicans are pro-life. A good portion of Democrats are as well.

We've driven Republicans from the Party in this state, especially under the tyranny of Jennifer Nassour.

The dignity of life is a message that goes far beyond protecting the rights of unborn citizens.  It is the very basis of dignity of each human person, whether it is the elderly, those who suffer from mental illness, or developmental challenges, the handicapped and so forth. Wherever and whenever possible we should take the side of life.

That being said; those who sought to purge pro-life and pro-family conservatives from the party, I'm not for moment recommending that we purge social liberals from our party. But that doesn't mean they get to redefine, re-brand, and limit Republican principles to some meaningless materialistic notion of fiscal conservatism.  The very reason we are fiscal conservatives is because fiscally conservative policies are better for society. They are a means to an end. They are better for freedom, for the individual, for life, for family. for society, for individual charity.    


[ Parent ]
" As a married father of three I think there are too many "not young" single people in the party" - Tomasek1000 (0.00 / 0)
That's a pretty tall order Tomasek1000 I'm going to need some more time.  

Molon Labe

[ Parent ]
the poster (0.00 / 0)
Presented properly, our message is simple and has broad appeal. We stand for The Dignity of Life, Individual Liberty, Family, Upward Mobility, Opportunity for All, and Personal Charity

I dispute that this represents an actual message that we can all get behind, and that it will attract people to our cause.


[ Parent ]
The blockquotes confused me (0.00 / 0)
I was confused by the use of block quotes that made it seem like those paragraphs were from a MassGOP document or something. But I figured out that he was just misusing blockquote to make it stand out, not to copy a quotation from another source. (John - you should probably edit this to remove those blockquotes, to make it more readable).


[ Parent ]
Dignity of Life, Individual Liberty, and Family (0.00 / 0)
I think that Dignity of Life needs to be understood as rejecting materialist understandings of human beings as products or property or experiments or slaves and seeing all people as equally worthy of taking part in the human family, marrying and procreating like our parents before us, preserving natural sexual reproduction. We should emphasize preserving equality and equal natural conception rights, and again let the Democrats be the party of materialism and people-as-property to manufactured and designed and shipped around at the whim of their owners.


[ Parent ]
Dignity of Life means (0.00 / 0)
All human, civil, and Constitutionals rights emanate from the God given right to life.

As for family, it certainly doesn't exclude single people. I'm 52. I'm single. I have a family. Praise God, my mother is still living and healthy at 87. I have 2 sisters, 2 nieces, 3 nephews, 2 great-nephews, with one great-nephew expected any day now. I certainly played a roll in raising my nephews and nieces, as my aunts and uncles, grandmother played a role in raising me.

The family is the most basic and local form of human government. It's not limited to parents and children. The extended family is the first community in many instances. It certainly should be whenever possible.

Unfortunately we've lost a lot of that in recent years. In part because we are mobile society. Materialism and a pop psychology that places self-affirmation and self actualization over family relationships have contributed to the extended family's down fall. Heck people don't even have children for the right reasons anymore. They talk about having child, like they talk about getting a pet. It's become of about some selfish need to be fulfilled, as opposed to selfless desire to give of self to another human being.

And then there is government. We substituted government assistance for family assistance. When I was growing up, it wasn't remotely a thought to ship grandma off to nursing a home. No the family took care of her. When she finally had a stroke at 93, it tore us apart to have to put in her one, because we had no choice.

But I'll tell you what. This message certainly does resonate with minorities and immigrants. And it will resonate every bit as much as freedom, opportunity, and upward mobility.


[ Parent ]
What point are you trying to make, that you have "family cred"? (0.00 / 0)
Have a few kids and then get back to me.

You and your "objective truth."

Sorry I even weighed in on this thread.


[ Parent ]
The point is standing for the family .... (0.00 / 0)
I don't need to establish my family credentials.
I was answering the post above that implied standing up the family somehow excludes single people....

And it's not my objective truth.  Objective truth is objective truth. Tomasek.  There are still people and always will be people that actually stand for something called principle.


[ Parent ]
We're sorry too. (0.00 / 0)
It was counterproductive to read your comments.  Better luck next time that you might contribute something.

[ Parent ]
Block quotes are for emphasis (0.00 / 0)
Sorry John, the point of the block quoting was to isolate the text not to actually quote anyone.


[ Parent ]
That's what I figured (0.00 / 0)
It's not too late to remove the blockquote tags, because they are confusing. They should only be used for copying verbatim quotations from someone else. People assume they contain a quoted source from somewhere. In this article I assumed it was the MassGOP website.

[ Parent ]
HOW?? (0.00 / 0)
John Howard, Not sure how to edit the post once it's been posted. I'm one of those technology impaired people that Edfactor looks down his nose at ;>)

[ Parent ]
look for the [Edit diary] link at the top (0.00 / 0)
You should see a link [Edit diary] near the top, below the title, when you browse to your own diaries.  Just click that and you can update your own posts and change formatting or fix spelling mistakes. To remove the blockquotes delete the html tags.

[ Parent ]
If only this were so! (0.00 / 0)
John -

You are clinging to a simple, religiously-certified citizenship that, unfortunately, would only be enough for an aging and shrinking part of Massachusetts.

As a Catholic, I wish your message would resonate with 51% of the state. But all the data and every outpost of political culture in this state says otherwise.

In the religious world, God is first, family is second, community is next, and somewhere off in the distance is state and federal government. I completely support this idea that is central to our religion.

However, in this state, people want much more out of government and have liberal social views. They overwhelmingly do not want abortion to be illegal. (Yes many want the restrictions now in place.) They, by a large margin, now support gay marriage. They want to acknowledge many kinds of families. I have watched how otherwise great Republican candidates get beat up by the media for abortion and gay marriage. If you come out strongly against both, more than half the population will not vote for you in probably half of the state and all of the major cities and certainly not inside of greater Boston. That's why the party absolutely cannot be officially against abortion and gay marriage. Period.

As for government itself - they want it to solve all kinds of problems. Very few will want a government that does as little as you  or I imagine. For instance, social mobility has declined in America, though most well-off Republicans don't know that. The people want the government to do something about that. (Of course, fixing the schools in the cities would do a great deal and the fact that we don't talk about that much is our fault.)

As for your assumption about the conservative nature of immigrant groups, that is the thinking of years ago. These groups have voted in greater and greater numbers for Democrats. Yes, they are religious, but even religious people in this state vote Democrat - even though you and I just can't see the logic in it.

Also, a party that wants to be in government probably shouldn't be talking about families and personal charity. What does that have to do with government? Yes, you can say that government should not infringe on the ability of families and charities to operate - I am totally for that - but should that really be in the mission statement?

I think there are clever ways of getting traditional morality into government policy, as long as they somehow dovetail with Republican goals. So I wouldn't mind someone talking about the moral imperative of staying out of debt and not over-consuming. Or that we will favor work over idleness. But we'd have to do that in a way that didn't sound like the Puritans were coming back to govern.

In summary, the Republican party that is against government must find a way to articulate how it wants to govern in a place that likes government very much, with a liberal culture that is not one we would have built. That's hard stuff. But if we want to have power, we're going to have to think long and hard about how to do that. But any plan that doesn't have some strong evidence that 51% of the public would support it means it is not valid for the Republican party.


Clinging to the truth Ed (0.00 / 0)
Ed truth is objective.  It doesn't got out the door with public opinion polls.

And you are wrong about what the people in MA want. Ergo the defeat of Richard Tisei.....  You're brand of Republicanism will not win and cannot win.  You will never attract the liberal element of the Democrat party.  You refuse to see the facts for what they are.


[ Parent ]
the defeat of Richard Tisei is not a good (5.00 / 1)
bell weather for otherwise good arguments.  A significant spoiler, but even moreso FRAUD would do better to explain that close race.

What is it with the GOP that they don't take on fraud and corruption as one of their biggest rivals?  Overcoming that, and the machine would win us more races.  


[ Parent ]
Compromise doesn't mean giving up core convictions (0.00 / 0)
I agree that the Republican party should be the party of human dignity and individual liberty and equality, as it was in 1860 in being the party that opposed and then ended slavery. In the present, it should be the party that opposes and ends children-as-property and manufacturing of human beings. The issues are the same: are people material products to be manipulated and manufactured, or does that violate human dignity, which gives people a right to be born naturally from the union of a man and a woman. (The answer is, yes, that violates human dignity, we should prohibit conceiving a child by any means other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified gametes.)

Do you agree (and does Ed agree, and does Brock agree) that we should not allow people to try to make a human being from two women, or any way other than joining a man and a woman?

And do you agree that we should preserve marriage's essential core meaning of meaning the couple is approved and allowed to have sex and procreate offspring together? In other words, we shouldn't treat the right to procreate together separately from the right to marry, as eugenicists have long wanted to do?

I think those are things that all Republicans should agree on.

We need to convince Ed that there is a way to be for preserving marriage and not alienate the majority of the voters, so that he stops dividing the party. We can unite around Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights." Now before you say you reject Civil Unions, consider that these are not the Civil Unions that we all opposed back when they were being proposed 10 years ago, these are not "stepping stones" to marriage, these in fact re-inforce what is unique about marriage and a man and a woman, and preserve marriage. This compromise I propose would end same-sex marriage in the whole country! It would strengthen marriage. If you would agree to meet Ed in the middle, preserving marriage but offering legal recognition in the form of Civil Unions defined as "marriage minus conception rights" then the GOP could unite again around the same issue that it was born to protect: human dignity and equality.


Freedom of Association is a right -- marriage is not. (0.00 / 0)
John (Ed and Brock for that matter).

As a Republican, I'm a strong believer in Freedom of Association. While I have my personal religious convictions,  about any "illicit" union (heterosexual or Homosexual), I would never want the state knocking down people's bedroom doors.  

If people wish to cohabitate romantically or in a platonic relationship it is their right. They also should be able for legal purposes to set up domestic household trusts, corporations, whatever they want to call them.  Things like survivor benefits, etc, etc, etc, can all be included in such an arrangement.

My actual position on marriage pre-dates Martin Luther who gave us civil marriage when he denied marriage is a sacrament.

Government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all. But we can't turn back the hands of time 400 years to before the Protestant Reformation. So we have government issuing marriages licenses.

Marriage as you state John, is not just about love, romance, and two people. Marriage is specific institution that is meant to protect children and for the betterment of society. There is a reason why we allow the State to establish an age of consent, determine whether or not a couple has to close of blood connection, and why two people can enter in to marriage at once.  Utah was not allowed to enter the union of states until the Mormons gave up polygamy. Now there is certainly more historical foundation for polygamy than same-sex marriage. Heck, there is more historical foundation for close blood relatives getting married then there is for same-sex marriage. I'm not advocating for either. But if you're going to allow for same-sex marriage, where do want to draw the line? Close relatives aren't allowed to marry because of the danger of genetic mutations. Well, that certainly doesn't apply to a same-sex relationship. So why shouldn't two adult sisters, cousins, brothers, father and son, mother and daughter couples allowed to marry??????  And certainly we know that some couples have "open marriages" or live polyamorous lifestyles, why shouldn't they be allowed to have their relationships sanctioned by the state as polygamous, pylamorous, multi-sexual, marriage????

There is a reason why marriage is licensed by the state. And since it is, it is therefore not a immutable right. Just because something looks like marriage, has certain elements of marriage, like love and commitment, doesn't mean it's marriage.  Someone with a Real Estate License fills out legal documents, much of what a real estate agent does resembles that work of lawyer. But it's not practicing law. You can't use a Real Estate License to practice law, a fishing license to hunt, a Series 6 security license (mutual funds) to sell individual stocks that require a Series 7, or a commodities that require a Series 3. Just cause something looks like something else, it ain't the same thing.  


[ Parent ]
Right, so what about what I said? (0.00 / 0)
What about getting republicans to unite as a I suggested above?

[ Parent ]
Not sure we need to go that far (0.00 / 0)
John I appreciate your input.

But I don't think we really need to make a huge deal about this.  What EdFactor and others are getting hung up on essentially a platform issue. And they really are making a bigger deal out of it then necessary.

To be honest, each election is different and each district is going to be different. I don't expect candidates to go out there talk about abortion and same-sex marriage, no matter what their position is, unless their asked.  I understand enough about strategy to know it's not worth alienating either side.

A platform is generals statement of the party's principles. That's all it is.  

I chose to use Dignity of Life and family in the message instead of right to life and traditional marriage specifically because they are broader terms. I would have hoped that Ed with his understanding of philosophy would have seen the direct connection  that "Dignity of Life and Family" has with the rest of message.

Question:
Why do we believe in in "Individual Freedom, Upward Mobility, and Opportunity For All????????"

Answer: Precisely because the Dignity of the Human Person and the importance of the Family as building block society, demand these things.  If you believe that every person has dignity because they are human, then you believe they should be free, have the opportunity to rise up from whatever circumstance they face. If you believe the family is the foundation of society, then you believe they shouldn't be taxed to the point where both parents have no choice but to work in order to food on the table. Likewise you believe in thriving free market where those that provide for their family can find gainful employment, start a business and so on.

I'll go further... I do consider same-sex couples a family unit. I don't agree with the lifestyle. I don't believe it can ever be marriage, because marriage is very different and special thing which can only be by it's very nature one man and one woman.  But I do not ever presume to say the emotional bond and commitment a same-sex couple has is not real in it's own way. So in that regard, provisions can be made to allow for a generic Domestic Contract. As I said above, it doesn't necessarily need to based on emotional/romantic bond. People should be able to include people in their domestic trust for whatever reason. Such and arrangement does not impose on society acceptance of a lifestyle which is contrary the societies cultural standards. That's why I'd call it a "Domestic Trust" and not a civil union. That would even allow people to include in their family a sibling who cannot support themselves.

But the point that is being lost is that as Republicans we don't believe in free markets, smaller government, etc, in a void or because we are greedy.

I'm going address a couple of other points that Ed made.

1) He disputes that immigrants and minorities are culturally conservative because they vote Democrat.  What Ed fails to see is that they've been voting Democrat because the Democrats have made the effort to befriend them. In the end their policies have hurt them. But nevertheless on the surface, they appear to be helping them.
It goes back to the days of Ellis Island. The Democrat bosses where there to sign them up, get em a job, etc, etc, etc.

All the while Republicans have been for status quo Conservatives. I call them preservatives NOT conservative. We've made no direct effort to encourage and assist immigrants and minorities to climb the socioeconomic ladder.

This could be an entire separate thread. And I'd love to have that discussion with Ed and anyone else. We do have to address immigration and with that we have to  look at what to do with those who are not hear legally. That's not an easy question. We need to balance the rule of law and mercy.
But again, if we believe in the dignity of life, the human person, and family, we must address this, without rewarding and encouraging further illegal immigration. And for God sake some of my fellow conservatives need to stop talking like freaken XENOPHOBES.

2) Ed made a point about government getting involved in charity. I think he's misunderstanding my point. I think we actually agree. I don't want government sponsoring charities. I want the MA-GOP to do it.

As Republicans we believe in "Personal Charity." Therefore as a party we should undertake charity. There are many ways of doing this. Local Republican Committees could sponsor charitable efforts in their community. The MA-GOP could fund a scholarship for civic minded students. There are all kinds of opportunities for the MA-GOP, Local Committees and individual Republican Activists to live out what we profess.  


[ Parent ]
The Platform is a great opportunity to unite (0.00 / 0)
I think the platform is an opportunity to unite and to show the public that electing Republicans is a way to resolve these cultural issues now. Let's show we've got a solution, not that we've got a intractable debate we can't resolve. Let's have candidates we can all support, instead of half of us rejecting them.

The platform should be for restoring marriage as a man and a woman with a right to reproduce offspring together, and also for establishing Civil Unions for couples that don't have conception rights that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights."

Civil Union should be the name because it should show that people who opposed Civil Unions in the past have changed their position to come to a compromise, just as those who supported same-sex marriage have changed their position to arrive at a compromise. The GOP would be a model for how the state and country can do it.

These Civil Unions would be available to any two people that aren't married or CU'd already, it wouldn't only be for intimate couples.

And the platform should preserve sexual reproduction rights and oppose postgenderism by endorsing a federal Egg and Sperm law. Make the Democrats say they agree or disagree about that.

And the platform can also show a reasonableness on abortion: we can be pro-life, but also explicitly reject Personhood of embryos as way too radical and extreme, because they would force us to implant cloned embryos and ban IUD's and all sots of other things that would be upsetting to people.


[ Parent ]
an embryo is a person (0.00 / 0)

First of all John, the MA-GOP platform should mirror as close as possible the RNC National Platform. Now I understand that in Massachusetts, we may need to add some exception, such as rape, incests, and Life of the Mother Life NOT Health... You use the word health and it's a loophole big enough to drive a Hummer through.

We don't have to include embryos being a person in the platform. But we can't specifically reject that truth. A person is a person from the moment of conception until natural death. Speaking the truth isn't radical and I'd leave the GOP in an instant if it denied the person of the unborn as the Democrats do. Moreover, since the RNC Platform specifically states that an embryo is a person, the MA-GOP platform can't specifically deny it. That's a matter of RNC BY-LAWS if I'm not mistaken. We can omit, but we can't contradict.

Which is another reason why Mr. Edfactor's plan to have the MA-GOP embrace gay marriage won't fly, because that is a contradiction of, not an commission from the RNC Platform.

And sorry Civil Unions specifically deal with romantic domestic relationships. It's the state validating a behavior which goes against nature. We can have generic domestic contracts. That can apply to a broad spectrum of situations. We can't positively affirm unions that by their nature turn society upside down.

You're not going unite people by forcing them to accept things that are against their convictions in order to compromise. It's very simple John... the center of the Republican Party is conservative across the board. Moderates are welcome in the Big Tent, but they don't get to re-brand the party by changing our core beliefs which are based on OBJECTIVE TRUTH.


[ Parent ]
Rejecting Personhood LAWS is not rejecting that truth (0.00 / 0)
I am suggesting that the platform should oppose enacting laws that declare an embryo a person such as the Life At Conception Act that freak people out and make them think Republicans are too extreme to elect. The laws are too extreme and would have bad consequences that harm human dignity. Personhood of unimplanted embryos is NOT in the RNC platform, which calls for ending experimentation on embryos and affirms the sanctity of life of unborn children, but does not call for legal personhood of unimplanted embryos from the moment of fertilization. That does not mean rejecting the dignity of embryos. We can still be pro-life and call for laws against abortion, without calling for laws that force us to implant every embryo, frozen and cloned and genetically engineered, and that would suddenly end not just all abortion but also IVF and many contraceptives. But its the forcing us to implant cloned embryos that freaks me out, that isn't a good thing, it's a bad thing. The Bible says life is in the blood, so until a body develops blood and a heartbeat, it isn't alive with its own life. It is a unique body growing for a new person to ensoul, but not yet alive. People do not die when embryos do not implant in a uterus, they just don't come to life in that body. That body stops developing and returns to dust without having come to life with a soul or consciousness. They have dignity even though they have not come to life yet, because they are human bodies that God creates to be vessels for life, but they are not alive, just like a dead body still has dignity but isn't alive anymore, the soul has left it, and the blood has stopped flowing through it. And you are thinking of some other definition of Civil Union. These would not require or endorse any behavior, they'd be available to siblings and platonic couples too. They would specifically explicitly not include conception rights, which means they won't approve or allow sexual intercourse like marriage always does and should continue to. (The platform should endorse affirming marriage's right to conceive offspring too, again to make the Democrats either agree or disagree.) Same-sex marriage is what is turning society upside down John, and this plan would end same-sex marriage. These Civil Unions should not be against your convictions, especially if you accept freedom of association and "domestic trusts" then you accept these CU's. You are just still opposing the old ones that were stepping stones for marriage, which I also oppose. These aren't those! I think if you and Ed can agree to these Civil Unions, then we can unite the party and win the state and the country and end same-sex marriage and restore human dignity. But as long as you and Ed take extreme opposite opinions, we will lose on all fronts.

[ Parent ]
an embryo is a person (0.00 / 0)

First of all John, the MA-GOP platform should mirror as close as possible the RNC National Platform. Now I understand that in Massachusetts, we may need to add some exception, such as rape, incests, and Life of the Mother Life NOT Health... You use the word health and it's a loophole big enough to drive a Hummer through.

We don't have to include embryos being a person in the platform. But we can't specifically reject that truth. A person is a person from the moment of conception until natural death. Speaking the truth isn't radical and I'd leave the GOP in an instant if it denied the person of the unborn as the Democrats do. Moreover, since the RNC Platform specifically states that an embryo is a person, the MA-GOP platform can't specifically deny it. That's a matter of RNC BY-LAWS if I'm not mistaken. We can omit, but we can't contradict.

Which is another reason why Mr. Edfactor's plan to have the MA-GOP embrace gay marriage won't fly, because that is a contradiction of, not an commission from the RNC Platform.

And sorry Civil Unions specifically deal with romantic domestic relationships. It's the state validating a behavior which goes against nature. We can have generic domestic contracts. That can apply to a broad spectrum of situations. We can't positively affirm unions that by their nature turn society upside down.

You're not going unite people by forcing them to accept things that are against their convictions in order to compromise. It's very simple John... the center of the Republican Party is conservative across the board. Moderates are welcome in the Big Tent, but they don't get to re-brand the party by changing our core beliefs which are based on OBJECTIVE TRUTH.


[ Parent ]
Behind the doors (0.00 / 0)
I don't really care what any two (or more) people do behind their proverbially closed doors as consenting adults.  That is between them, their faith (if they are religious) & God.

What I object to is the legal recognition of any union other than as one man & one woman as marriage or an equivalent thereof.

As a society, and in our government, we should not predicate benefits, visitation, and other matters upon sexual orientation but rather individual contractual rights.

If someone wants to engage in what I consider to be an alternative lifestyle, so be it.  That's their right as an American but there is no need for it to be sanctioned by government.  Beyond that, as long as people are engaging in activities that aren't harming anyone else or violating the law, go in peace.


[ Parent ]
Great, support CU's that are not equivalent (0.00 / 0)
and we are on our way to ending same-sex marriage and restoring marriage as a man and a woman. Support CU's that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights" so that they offer all the incidental legal stuff while also reinforcing what is unique and special about a man and a woman uniting in marriage.

These CU's do not approve of sex or intimacy, they are purely the contractual elements of marriage minus all the approval of sex and children. But they also do not hinder anyone's right to live as they choose, they reinforce the Republican message of individual liberty as long as it does not harm anyone else. But creating a person using stem cell derived genetically modified gametes puts people in harms way and undermines the basis of liberty.


[ Parent ]
Aside from the discussion on the mesage. (0.00 / 0)
I would appreciate comments on my other proposals.

stay focused (0.00 / 0)
John-Roe v Wade is here to stay. We can allow ourselves to be distracted by idealism or we can deal with reality and focus on getting the party some credibility. Abortion, gay rights etc are distractions. The state party needs a very simple platform--small government and low taxes. Absolutely NOTHING else. Because the legality of abortion is not going to be coming to any kind of vote, either locally or nationally, it is a non issue. Should we be be wasting our time on non issues when there are REAL issues to deal with?? We can put a new face on the party with the right advertising campaign, we can build up the party, we can support our candidates. We can't waste time on any item, agenda or issue that will put this country further into the hands of socialism. Is this what your man Rick Green will be doing? Will he be wasting our time too? I hope Rick Green will be working on strengthening the party and not hanging out in front of abortion clinics.

The mass murder of 50 million citizens is a real issue (5.00 / 1)
Sorry Charactermatters, this is a real issue.
It is what the GOP stands for.

Now that doesn't make it the only issue. In fact I didn't make this the issue, others did. I simply stated what the GOP already stands for. I'm re-iterating what the National Platform states.

And yes we do need to be about the business of building the party. We're not going to do it by alienating the base. And we're not going to do it by electing someone Chair whose sole mission will be to divert all party resources to one candidate.

Rick Green, has repeatedly said that the State Committee will work it's will on policy and platform matters. Unlike a certain recent predecessor of Bob Maginn, Rick doesn't see the Chair's role as redefining or re-branding the party. His job is to help the Committee and eventually the convention to reach consensus.


[ Parent ]
the real issue (0.00 / 0)
John--If Rick does not see his role as redefining or rebranding, then he is not what the party needs now. We need a massive PR campaign to show everyone that Republicans are not selfish old white guys. There is a stereotype out there and many are looking to the new Chair to do debunk the stereotype. Abortion is an issue for many people on both sides--but as a party and as a platform item we should stick to just the taxes and government overreach. Anything else is a wedge issue. We need to bring the party together, not allow it to be torn apart by social issues. We can all agree on lower taxes and smaller government. Let's just stick to that and support our candidates. I could support the right candidate regardless of where he or she falls on abortion or gay marriage. It's the economy. Anti abortion Republicans call the other side RINOS. Abortion rights Republicans call Pro Lifers, right wing nuts. Stop the name calling, put social issues aside and let's unite the party with the one issue that well all agree on--the economy. It really is just that simple.

[ Parent ]
Being against taxes reinforces selfish image (0.00 / 0)
Debunking the stereotype won't be accomplished by electing a young female if the only message continues to be "more money for us, screw everything else."

Yes the social issues are dividing the party but they will continue to until we figure out some way to unite on a common ground. As long as half of us are rejecting the other half we won't accomplish anything. We need to come together in ways that we can all support, and show a way forward out of gridlock and bickering into resolution and action.

We need the extremists to give a little bit. We need those that oppose Civil Unions to say that, OK, as long as they are not marriage in all but name and not stepping stones to marriage, and as long as we are preserving marriage as a man and a woman, then I'll support them. And we need those that are insisting on gay marriage to say that, OK, as long as we are giving the security and benefits to same-sex couples that they need, then it's OK that we aren't giving them equal marriage and procreation rights, which would lead to big government regulation and entitlement and harm the basis of equality.

And on abortion, we need to go back to the incremental changes to the law that promotes a change in culture and abandon the radical extreme attempt at ending all abortion and IVF and IUD's all at once by enacting Personhood-At-Fertilization laws. Those are the laws that freak people out, they aren't as freaked out by traditional pro-life advocacy that only seeks incremental changes like ending partial birth abortion and showing ultrasounds to women considering aborting their baby. Can we meet in the middle there? I think so.


[ Parent ]
still against taxes (0.00 / 0)
John--I'm not shilling for any GOP chair. I really don't have a preference. What I want is someone who can help the party's image. Since I don't know enough about either candidate, you can try to convince of one or the other. Keep in mind that whoever it will be will probably have influence on a possible platform. He or she will have to be able to bring the party together by finding what we can agree on--not by picking divisive issues. There are too many party members who have joined the party just to use the word Republican to further their pro life focus. I've met them working on campaigns for candidates who were pro life. They didn't see anything else. They've run for state committee positions just to influence the state party platform. Those of us who see a bigger picture can give a little on social issues--civil unions v gay marriage, banning high power weapons v complete gun ban etc. It's the single issue pro life party members who can sabotage any effort by our new Chair. BTW, I'm pro life but have resigned myself to the fact that it's not going to change. I am now far more concerned now about the Constitution.

[ Parent ]
How about it Ed? (0.00 / 0)
"Those of us who see a bigger picture can give a little on social issues--civil unions v gay marriage, banning high power weapons v complete gun ban etc."

Ed is willing to be moderate on the issue of guns, but so far he's been silent on finding middle ground on supporting Civil Unions and preserving marriage. Does he "see the big picture" as you say? We could have the party at full strength, all united, if we just convince people that we don't need to be for Personhood laws to be pro-life, and don't need to be opposed to legal recognition for same-sex couples to be for traditional marriage. And we don't need to support gay marriage to win elections, or support abortion on demand, as long as we aren't extremely anti-gay or anti-women about it by opposing even CU's and proposing personhood laws...most people support some restrictions on abortion and support Civil Unions for same-sex couples.


[ Parent ]
platform issues (0.00 / 0)
It is the extremists in the party that are forcing the party to take a stance. Why does the Republican party have to have a platform policy on social issues? Abortion will never be legal in the lifetime of anyone reading this blog. If the party took a pro life position they would be setting themselves up to loose. You can't loose a game you don't play-so why play? As much as I dislike the idea of gay marriage, it will be legal someday. Kids graduating from college now have absolutely no tolerance for what they consider to be 'denying rights' to gays by not allowing for gay marriage. I disagree. Marriage is a union of man and woman, but when our generation is gone, so will our ideas. We can alienate otherwise conservative kids and discourage them from joining the party, or we can embrace them (and their conservative gays friends) by welcoming them with their love of our country and the Constitution. We are alienating a lot of people by focusing on the wedge issues that won't be issues in 10-20 years.

[ Parent ]
We can all come together (0.00 / 0)
The extremists are so extreme because they are reacting to the opposite extremists being extreme. We have a split party, with half of us saying give up on being pro-life and give up on preserving marriage, and half of us doubling down in response with the most extreme positions possible.

I think we need to convince everyone that we don't have to hunker down into one of those extremes. It is possible to be pro-life and pro-marriage without being extreme and turning off the fiscal conservatives and freaking out moderates, and it is possible to be moderate without rejecting the social conservatives. We have to convince people that they aren't capitulating on their principles when they agree to be less extreme and unite in the middle, they are in fact advancing their principles and winning at the same time.

Republicans have won in Massachusetts by taking moderate pro-life positions that seek incremental progress and changing hearts and minds. As long as people don't think they are going to suddenly force women into back alley abortion clinics and coat hanger abortions, it doesn't freak people out that a Republican is pro-life and says he believes in the dignity of life and will work to protect unborn children. It used to be standard position, even Democrats often were pro-life. But then the Personhood movement grabbed hold, and suddenly we have Republicans pushing the most extreme anti-abortion position that is possible to support, where every unimplanted embryo is declared a person with full rights. Often these people claim to be moderates even as they endorse this extreme position - no, you have to reject that extreme position to be moderates, not just say "don't look over there." The party should adopt a moderate position by being pro-life but rejecting Personhood laws.

And the party should adopt a moderate position on marriage, supporting Civil Unions that don't give the right to attempt to conceive offspring together. That is not denying rights to gays, because there is no right to manufacture people on demand that are genetic offspring of two people of the same sex. If the Democrats want to demand that it is indeed a right, then let them start demanding that, and show how crazy and extreme they are.

Preserving equality and human dignity is as important and urgent today as it was when the Republican Party was founded.



[ Parent ]
Unity doesn't mean uniformity (0.00 / 0)
John I appreciate your desire for unity.

Look I'm staunchly pro-life. But I worked my tale off for Scott Brown who is pro-choice. Scott gave me something better on the issue than did either of his Democrat opponents.

He also held up a defense appropriation because it allowed for women in the military to have abortions at military hospitals, at the their own expense. Brown rightly argued that the taxpayers build and maintain the hospital, so that's taxpayer funding. That was a courageous vote for someone who claims to be pro-Choice.

Our platform needs to reflect as close as possible the RNC Platform.  But I'll repeat it again. I believe in a Big Tent.

Mostly I tell candidates I'm working for be they pro-choice or pro-life, to stay away from the issue in their individual campaigns, unless asked. If you're pro-choice there is no reason to alienate your base, the way Brown did in his second election. If you're pro-life, no reason to give the media fodder.  So if asked, state your position and PIVOT to what you want to talk about.


[ Parent ]
Unity means finding common ground (0.00 / 0)
There can't be two complete opposite factions in the big tent. There can't be those who support gay marriage and those who oppose any form of legal recognition for same sex couples, because those are polar opposite positions, they can't exist together, so the tent cannot stand, but no one wants to leave it to the other guys. If we want the tent to stand, we have to make it so they can be in the tent together. We have to create common ground somehow. I think everyone can easily agree on Civil Unions that are not legally equivalent to marriage. There is no reason why everyone can't support those in good conscience, even the Pope says that Catholics should oppose "juridically equivalent" unions that obscure the unique meaning of marriage, but since the CU's I propose do not have the same rights and serve to highlight what is unique about marriage, Catholics do not have to oppose them anymore. The Pope changed, the Pope is looking for middle ground, to make progress. It is not a compromise of principle, these CU's would actually reinforce the principle.

And we can do a similar trick on the abortion issue by charting a reasonable middle course. No one has to abandon any principle. But there can't be those who want us to be 100% Emily's List pro-choice in the same tent with those who support laws that would immediately end all abortion even in the case of rape and incest and make us implant cloned embryos, prohibit many forms of contraception, and so forth. It's fine to feel that all those things are bad for society, but we have people proposing laws in Congress and pushing for state Amendments that would be even worse for society because of how disruptive they would be all of a sudden, leading to chaos of back alley abortions and self-administered coat hanger abortions. It's fine to feel that embryos have dignity and should not be experimented on or created in inhumane manufacture, and someday we should prohibit that, but we should not do it with a law that requires us to implant cloned embryos because it doesn't even prohibit creating cloned embryos!! Do you see how terrible that law would be, from a dignity of life perspective? I'm telling you we can find common ground by rejecting Personhood laws as too extreme and yet affirming the right to life of unborn children and the dignity of life.


[ Parent ]
Republican Rites (0.00 / 0)
I certainly agree with unity does not equal uniformity.  To yet again use a religious analogy, most of us automatically think of the Latin rite when we think of the Catholic Church.  That's understandable as it's the most common and most numerous rite of Catholicism.  However, there are several rites within the Catholic Church that are not from the Western tradition but rather are from the East, with distinct practices, yet are are still in full communion with His Holiness, the Bishop of Rome.

Among these Eastern Catholic churches include the rite of the Byzantine, Maronite, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Chaldean, and Syro-Malabar, among others.  Each has its own and distinct "flavor" in how they express their Catholic faith that has grown out of their own historical & geographic circumstances but each is as fully Catholic as the Latin rite (that is Roman Catholic) in the Catholic Church.

Our Republican Part can, and should, be similar with unity but not necessarily uniformity.  It is here that conservatives (of various stripes) should be able to be fully Republican along side our more libertarian minded brethren and all those who follow Reagan's 80% Rule.

I've labored on behalf for plenty of pro-choice Republicans even if I vastly prefer pro-life candidates, especially after the primaries.  In most cases, especially at the state & local level, social issues are not at the forefront.  I never, ever, advocate lying about a candidate's beliefs or positions but one does not have to turn off potential supporters & voters by wading into waters that aren't under consideration.  The prime issues for most of our candidates are jobs, the economy, taxes, spending, & public safety.  When the winds change and social issues come to the front then be honest and if you're pro-life then be proud and vote accordingly.  Point is, I agree with you in that there is no need to go looking for a fight when the fight is over issues where we, as conservative Republicans, are already in agreement and those unenrolled voters are receptive to our message.


[ Parent ]
Right on the Rites (0.00 / 0)
My only question Brock is which group of Republicans will say the Filioque and which ones won't.

I think we are in general agreement. But since marriage is state issue the party must take a stand at the local on the platform, giving freedom to individuals and candidates to differ.

We can't specifically take a position for same-sex marriage. That would contradict the RNC Platform. We can be silent, but doesn't make sense. The party believes in traditional marriage.

@ John, there are plenty of conservatives that can't embrace civil unions PERIOD. You're not going to unify people along those lines. The state sanctioning civil unions is the state endorsing something many conservatives cannot endorse. That's why a domestic trust that is more general can pass. Trust a great portion of the base would leave the party. We've chased enough the base

But let me throw this out. The party could take a stand against the Goodrich decision in which the Court imposed it's will in violation of article V of Judiciary Powers section of the State's Constitution. And it could take a stand and say hey, the voters of MA signed an initiative petition to get it on the ballot. Let the people vote.


[ Parent ]
He is exactly what the party needs (0.00 / 0)
The Chair's job is to implement political policy, not t write it. His role is to lead not dictate.

I agree that the party must re-brand itself, but it's not the Chair's job to define the platform by forcing it in one direction or another. The State Committee and the State Convention ultimately determine the local platform which should reflect the principles of the the National Platform. The variations should be slight. We obviously don't need to be talking about some Federal issues in the State Platform. By the same token there may be state specific issues that we might include.

We happen to agree that we've been painted as the party of selfish greedy white men.  And why is that?  Because for too long the Rockefeller wing of the party has only talked about fiscal issues in a vacuum...  I'll repeat it again. We believe in low taxes because that better creates and environment in which people can prosper and clime out of their economic circumstance.  We believe that because we believe in the dignity of life and family.

Abortion  is based on the dehumanizing a segment of the population, saying they have no rights, and makes it legal to dispense with them.  The Republican National Platform reflects this objective truth. So shouldn't the MA-GOP platform in some capacity.

That doesn't mean, we can't support good candidates that happen to be passively pro-choice as opposed to militantly pro-abortion.  

Of course the focus our local campaigns needs to be local issues. One size doesn't fit all. The purpose of the platform and the message to say why we believe what we believe about specific issues.  

Because we believe in the Dignity of Life, the value of the family, individual freedom, personal charity, opportunity, upward mobility,  we therefore believe in smaller more efficient government, lower taxes, that lead to economic growth.

I don't want a bunch of bible thumping candidates that aren't focused on the issues which people are focused on in their districts.  But by the same token we need to explain to people "The why" as well as "The How."  


[ Parent ]
On Abortion (5.00 / 1)
Over 1.2 Million children are killed each year by abortion.

3500 are killed by guns.

We are told to shut up about the 1.2 Million but hear non-stop about the 3500.  I'm confused by that.


Full Disclosure


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


[ Parent ]
It's the moms who are upset when their children are killed (0.00 / 0)
They don't really care about the children, they just want to protect their precious investments. They worked hard procuring them and breaking them and have so much planned for them, so to have them taken away is unacceptable.  

[ Parent ]
everytime we lose big... (5.00 / 1)
...I read the same commentary.

We could search this site and find the same posting from different people almost word for word.

In the mean time, the other side is winning.

But hey...  have at it.

V3PN

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

www.inBrockton.com



Have to back BrocktonDave up on this (0.00 / 0)
I think I've been on both sides of this argument at least twice now.

Molon Labe

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to move beyond the platform and message and discuss some my other points. And entertain other suggestions.
The point of this excercise is to get people talking about how to build the party.

To that end, Edfactor has put out a proposal with some good points.  I believe I've made some good suggestions. Not every idea is great idea, but the should be discussed and perhaps through some brainstorming we can come up a decent plan of action.


[ Parent ]
Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.








Local Feeds 

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