You can think however you want and post what ever you want,however, in doing so you are subject to others responding to your posts.
It isn't what you think it is how you say it and imo you do just what others doing ,keeping the con tenuousness going.
Like I said, if there are ideas that will help R's win fine,do not care where they came from , just that they win votes.
Everyone let the past go .
Look I liked O Snow also,disagree with most of the sentiment here about her ,what is the point ,she is leaving the past doesn't matter,same should apply to any other factions.
I would like to know how the GOP in any way made social issues too prominent
Understanding the answer to this is critical.
The other side, and their media accomplices, will do this no matter how silent the GOP tries to remain on the "social issues."
Case in point: Obama knew Romney was not going to campaign on pro-life, etc. Romney would run on fiscal issues and sell himself as an able manager and change agent.
Obama's team forced the focus on so-called womens' issues through policy maneuvers, campaign rhetoric, and a narrative picked up by the media.
Case in point: the terrible responses of GOP US Senate candidates on rape and abortion.
Case in point: In an interview last week, Marco Rubio is asked the simple question, how old is the planet?
Rubio protests that this has nothing to do with jobs, etc., but the question is asked because people are interested in his answer.
If he says, "oh about 4 billion years, isn't it?" there's no story.
But he says he doesn't know, there are many theories, etc., and voila! there is a story, and it's not good for Rubio.
Until you understand that this answer alone is sufficient to cause half of the voters to reject Rubio outright (including me), you will not be able to grasp the answer to the question, "I would like to know how the GOP in any way made social issues too prominent."
Now, about the claim that more than 50% are pro-life.
Maybe a lot of Americans are like me.
I think an abortion kills a baby, especially an abortion that occurs after brain activity has begun.
This is my opinion, not an established medical or legal fact.
However I do not see how I could support a ban on abortion, given that enforcing such a ban would by necessity involve heavily intrusive state power aimed directly at women and doctors.
One of the questions I have on abortion is where are the rights of the father represented, should he not also be included in the decision? I know progressives are all about fairness, lol
It's a lot simpler for the unborn's mother to prove she is the mother than for the father to prove he is the father.
Then he should not be forced to pay child support if he has no say in the matter.
The discussion is always aboutthe "rights" of the mother and once in a while about the "rights" of the father. But someone needs to discuss the rights of the baby.
Then there can be an intelligent discussion about abortion.
Typical Emrich. He muddies a thread about the nexy party chair with his one-note social idelogical agenda. And we wonder why the general electorate is afraid of Republicans? Either Emrich renounces his take-no-prisoners methods and acknowledges that there are other viewpoints than his or he consider starting a third party for his one-issue crusades. I respect those who have strong moral views and believe they have a right to hold them but do not think they have a realistic approach to how candidates get elected in a secular society where voters have other concerns. Social issues should be left to individual conscience and not be made part of political discourse or Republicans will always be on the outside looking in. And that is not anti-Christian, amoral or anti-religious. It is just a look at political realities. This thread should be on practical leadership to win elections, not idelogical purity. Neither the hard-core libertarians nor the hard-core religio-social conservatives can win a general election without paying attention to the general public mindset. Politics is NOT the same as evangelizing.
Oh, Vic. I am flattered that you think it was my influence that turned the conversation, but it was not so. My post was after about 220 other comments. I was not the one who brought up "social issues" or "pro-life". When people begin saying that these core issues should be removed from campaigns, I will always object.
You should be careful what you wish for in telling me that I (and those who think like me) should leave the republicans and start a third party. If the social conservatives left the republican party as you suggest, how many votes would you have left? The Republican party has been in support of marriage and life from the beginning. You are the ones trying to hijack the party. At least get that part right.
When the law stops protecting the extermination of millions of babies, then I will listen to talk about it not being a policy issue. When people stop using the power of government to change culture, religion and morals, I will listen to talk about keeping "social" issues out of campaigns.
Until then, insult me all you want. I will not go away.
"Either Emrich renounces his take-no-prisoners methods and acknowledges that there are other viewpoints than his or he consider starting a third party for his one-issue crusades"
Why don't you make that a motion at the next county or state committee meeting? If your fellow committee members agree, I will do it.
To be perfectly clear, once again. I NEVER said social issues caused us to lose. What I am saying, social issues will NEVER be the reason we win. There is a difference and once we get that through our heads, we might start winning a lot more.
My point was the same as Ryan's!
My concern is that our legislators will settle in to their comfort zone as a minority in the legislature. They found that being the minority was easier than being a majority and actually having to make the hard decisions and govern. It cost them the majority. The public saw through their transparent indecision. Harsh commentary? Certainly, and well deserved. Maybe the state committee under Beth O'Connor can help reorient our legislators back to our priorities. There are a lot of hard working grass roots supporters looking for somebody to support.
Yup, Twinkie party it is1
What is the twinkie party?
The abortion issue is not about "life". It is about the primacy of recreational sex in the priorities of a debased consumerist popular culture.
I remember someone standing up at a meeting to advise me to come out against artificial contraception at a public forum, and the poor gent didn't realize that what he was asking me to do was run against sex! A real vote getter, NOT:-)
In a secular nation, the way to run against social decay is to do so in a secular manner. IMO, Mr. Emrich would have been well served to recruit solid gay citizens to campaign against ensnaring gays in the modern polygamy-one-at-a-time divorce trap that is modern, no fault state sanctioned "marriage". That would have at least opened an avenue to discussing why marriage today is in such a perilous state. Then again, trying to preserve the status quo in a system that is clearly dysfunctional and at least arguably demonic seems to be where a lot of conservatives are these days...
Most modern abortions are sought in order to prolong the period available for recreational sex. And of course avoid buying a new wardrobe or to increase disposable income. A current trend is to abort to get the "right" sexed designer baby. Islander is right on when he mentions that while men, even husbands, have no say, they certainly will pay.
An attack that might resonate with a secular, but increasingly weary society, is to say abortion is usually a sleazy creepy thing to resort to, but we'll shut up about it if you will just publicly declare the reasons for your abortion, and the father will be required to sign off. If he won't sign off and has the ability to raise the child, he gets the child. Won't pass right away, but it will surely cause some consternation on the Left, and open some minds. Black men under the age of 25 are the most anti-abortion group in the USA...
In any event, appeals to religious sentiment will carry less and less weight, and lead to greater and greater backlashes. Mourdock didn't even say anything extreme, he just expressed a religious sentiment contrary to the recreational sex culture in public, and that was enough to cost Romney the election.
Thoughtful enemies of the cultural changes that are dooming the human race to extinction need to start crafting strategies that can appeal to any thinking human - not just those from a particular religious or ethical persuasion. Consumerism and its enabler, the Welfare State, are in their final death throes, and we need to put ideas into circulation that can be useful in rebuilding after the ugliness to come.
You Were Found Out, Kids!!! You were not ROBBED... you cheated and got caught.
I'd no more work with you Rick then some Democrat, for there ain't a dimes worth of difference between you, Snowe or Angus or Chillie and Dilly for that matter.
I know that there are some good people working for the Republican Party but to have to work with Rick or Apollo is way beyond the gag reflex.
No establishment no money.
Here's a prime example of what "our" National Party is doing for us:
NRSC Prepares to Interfere in Primaries (To forestall any "Tea Party" candidates)
They have been at this for quite some time now - which is why whenever I get a request for donation from the NRSC it goes directly into the recycle bin along with the AARP pitches and other junk mail. I used to send photocopies of checks I'd written to Allan West, Mia Love, and the TEA Party Patriots etc. with a note that these are donations that they AIN'T getting back in their postage paid return envelopes hoping that would at least annoy them.
My most recent one:
I don't git so many dunnings from the NRSC any more for some reason.
BTW, I think that the GOP establishment had every bit as much to do with these candidate's losing as the Dems did. West didn't "go along / git along" as well as the establishment demanded so they dumped him, pure and simple. The establishment would much rather see a Commucrat in any seat rather than a Constitutional Conservative and will use their considerable influence to throw an election to the opposition if they have to in order to get rid of a recalcitrant TEA activist.
Unfortunately I think that Apollo is right; the establishment has most of the money, and that "golden rule" rubric is a reliable indicator of who comes out on top. At least I can see to it that they won't have very much of mine if I can help it.
Here's one I used to send back to the National Committee ... in their own envelope, of course:
To get back to the subject of this thread, it's about the person to be elected as Maine Republican Party Chair.
In earlier posts, my concern has been focused on the handful of Community Organizers who moved to Maine within the last year or so to ramp up the aggressive efforts for the national Ron Paul campaign. They targeted Maine because we are a caucus state and have wide-open voter registration.
As you are aware, these young people (from Kentucky, Ohio, Maryland, etc.) made their presence known - early, loudly and often - and the impression they made with a huge number of Maine Republicans was quite negative:
==> Maybe it was their behavior at the town caucuses - pointing, gesturing, yelling across the room and telling people how to vote, delaying votes and stretching out the process until they had the votes for a Ron Paul win.
==> It was obviously bad at the state convention.
==> The embarrassment continued at the National Convention as well. Mr. Brakey, for example, refused to answer a reporter who asked if he supported Obama or Romney. Remember he was in Tampa representing ALL Maine Republicans - and he failed miserably in that charge!
==> Their behavior at town and county meetings in the meantime has been unacceptable as well, and much has been detailed over these months on AMG.
==> Mr Boyer's tactic of snapping pictures of people who disagree with him is particularly outrageous! He admitted earlier on this thread that he does this - but did not let us know where he picked up this obnoxious and aggressive habit. Was it studying Saul Alinsky or did he he learn it in a "How To Be Complete Jackass" correspondence class?
While this thread is not about these new Community Organizers - they are an issue here.
A KEY QUESTION for anyone running for State Republican Chair should be whether or not they condone this kind of aggressive behavior targeting Republicans at Republican events and meetings; and whether or not they will staff the Party Headquarters with any of these recent transplants to Maine.
In Addition: If elected Party Chair, would they actually recruit an Executive Director from away - who knows nothing about Maine and nobody in Maine? (Is anybody really tone-deaf enough to get the job leading the Republican Party in Maine, which represents more jobs for Maine people... and begin by hiring someone from out of state????)
Something to consider, isn't it?
So says Rick, then goes into another anti-newboy rant.
Select whomever you want GOP, because in the 2012 selection of our lifetime, many just stayed home instead of selecting A or B. "Who else are they going to vote for?" is becoming tired as the difference between A or B becomes minor, more and more will answer "why bother".
As far as I'm concerned these days neither party is worth a tinkers damn. There's only one way to settle all this tripe and we all know what that is, some just don't want to admit it to themselves. They decieve themselves with "working together" bi-partisan trash, and all they ever do is back up. Absolutely no forward momentum. Putting out a flyer is not an achievment! Then squabble amongst themselves about how to get it done. YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT DONE !!!! You get in power/control and still grab the ankles. Puts me in mind of the moron that was one with the Grizzly, that lasted til "at one" ran out of grub and then he became fodder. Next time he showed up was in the mddle of the trail looking a lot like a Grizzly turd. You're being used from without as well as within trying to be everything for everybody. You fight fire with fire, that's how the founding fathers handled it and until you take the same platform you'll get nowhere faster than you are now. There are no new ideas!!!! 2 Maines
Rick, I'm not sure if it was you or another person, but there were some videos on You Tube where Brakey was bragging that he now controls the Maine Republican Party. Do you have that video?
By the way, you said they moved here a year ago. I heard Boyer actually didn't come here until the State Convention.
Oh, and Rick, don't forget what happened in Westbrook, when the Ron Paul girl yelled at the 80 year old veteran and called him a "stupid idiot" because he stood up to vote for a different delegation chairman then what they wanted. I'll never forget that.
A friend in the liberty movement told me today that Boyer is after David Sorensons Communications Director job, and that they are trying to get Reilly O'Neal in as Executive Director. You may remember O'Neal. He lives in North Carolina and supposedly helped them set up their DOLPAC. Not sure if he would be EC while still living in North Carolina, but you never know.
Boyer was on the ground at the Westbrook caucus - front & center.
He was running the show, telling people how to vote, interrupting the chair, and shouting across the room.
NOBODY there had ever seen this kid before...
and Westbrook Republicans left the caucus asking: "Who the HELL was that???"
= = = = = =
IF BOYER, BRAKEY, PFFAFF, WALLACE, ETC ARE PART OF THE PACKAGE WITH ANYBODY RUNNING FOR STATE PARTY CHAIR... WE NEED TO KNOW THIS NOW!!!!
...AND REILLY O'NEAL - - - - WHO IS THAT ANYWAY????
FYI: This interview with Mr. Brakey was posted on YouTube a week ago.
It's pretty slow-moving - but illuminating!!! It's interesting to hear him take credit for the "Liberty" PAC's great success and impact here in the Maine elections. (Really???)
BOTTOM LINE: The "Liberty" folks see themselves as a different party.
If you question me on this - listen here for yourselves!!!
LISTEN AT 15:00!!!!
He admits this!!! "In Maine, The Republican Party is the best vehicle for us."
He is enthusiastic about having a "Ron Paul Endorsed Party Chairman."
At about 18:30, He claims to have hand-picked the "Liberty" members of the State Leadership, and did it with an eye to taking over the party in December.
Is this what the Maine Republican Party needs????
STATE CHAIR CANDIDATES MUST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE!!! WILL YOU BRING IN THESE OUT-OF-STATERS TO RUN AND STAFF THE MAINE REPUBLICAN PARTY??? WE NEED TO KNOW THIS BEFORE THE STATE COMMITTEE VOTES!!!!
I think at the state committee meeting these questions need to be answered. Otherwise, we can "shut down" the meeting. We can keep raising points of order indefinitely if we have to.
I've seen a lot of energy and enthusiasm from the RonPaulians over the past several years, but nothing like the foolishness described here. Then again I don't get around as much as I used to.
There was one young bloke at a KC meeting who insisted on taking pictures of people meeting out in the hall which offended some of them and they asked him to quit it.. which he didn't. He was being rude and obnoxious but probably within his rights I suppose. Don't know who he was or which side he was on but he wasn't doing it any favors if you ask me.
I have known rich Cebra from our WLOB days - back then he was one of about 16 champions of conservatism in the State House, but when they submitted a petition to the Inspector General to investigate the criminal (probably) and atrocious child abductions and family abuses of the DHHS, our Senators smacked them down hard and apparently brought them back into the establishment's line. When Rich came out endorsing Stevie Abbott the Snowe-clone Hahvahd Lawyah in the gubernatorial primaries turning his back on LePage, I knew he'd been gotten to.
Graciously, our esteemed Governor holds no grudges about that little indiscretion - nor do i... but the observation was made and noted for future reference. That Future is now upon us.
Rich would probably be about as good a chair as any - but at this point I would not expect him to be a counter establishment rebel by any means.
Snowe still holds the deed to the ME Republican Party, and any establishment chair is going to be her loyal sock puppet, for all intents & purposes.
After Cebra turned on LePage, I expect little more from him at this point.
I don't know Beth all that well but have met her a time or two, and get the impression that she is willing to work with all of the various factions now inhabiting the MEGOP and might have a shot at redirecting them away from each other's throats and turning our attention back towards the commucrats who are merrily destroying not only our State and Nation, but the whole bloody world to boot.
I don't think she'll carry the establishment / Snowe's water (in the vernacular, she ain't gonna be Oly's beach) nor do I suspect her of orchestrating a RonPaulian coup to take the party over for any faction over another.
What I expect her NOT to do is keep treating the TEA Party and "Liberty" contingents like dog poop stuck to the Party elite's sneakers.
A lot of what happened at the convention, IMHO, was in retaliation to an establishment that has been perceived as being oppressive, tyrannical, vindictive and corrupt. Nothing that the Romney Lawyers or the Estab. elite did had any tendency to dispel those perceptions, by the way.
Do we want to continue with these divisive competing egos and attitudes, or is it time to seek some reconciliation and healing for a change?
Nothing against Rich; I love the guy; he's a real champion of 2nd Amendment among other laudible causes.... but like the Chinese dissident who's been away at the re-education camp for 3 years and manages to come back alive... he's does not seem to be quite the same as he was back in the good old days.
If you like Mr. Webster (and a lot of good Republicans do for a number of credible reasons) then I opine that you're going to love Rep. Cebra.
The major potential fly in the ointment I perceive with Beth is the speculation that she is going to import talent "from away" to influence the direction the party takes - and that could contribute more to exacerbated divisiveness than to our desperately needed healing if we aren't careful. That concern has been raised here a number of times and I think that it's a legitimate one. Let's hope that this issue can be worked out prior to the vote.
One thing to remember Uncle Jaque is that LePage sent out an email endorsing Rich for chair, so they must have mended their fences. LePage knows he needs the establishment on board if he is going to get re-elected,
Bob S. Twinkie Party...you know..the one where everything one person says is the way it has to be for all involved even if it means the collapse of what they set out to accomplish AND the accomplishments of others who might be 90% on the same page...
Charlie is supporting Beth, that is what my sources are telling me.