Why Don't Afro-Americans Vote Republican?

Last night at the Calvin Coolidge banquet I had the chance to hear Holyoke Police Chief Anthony Scott speak after receiving the public service award for being the best Republican public official and all around stud. I was almost ashamed to have never heard the man speak in the past and feel like we could all learn something from him.

During his award 'acceptance' speech, he said 'You think It's hard being a Republican in Massachusetts; you should try being a Republican and black in Massachusetts". I know it's not easy. One of my very best friends in college, a guy I very much admire and look up to is also an African American and Republican. He used to joke he was a 'walking contradiction'. He was black, Republican, and possibly the biggest hippie I had ever met in my life. Nothing about him made sense, but he was one of the few people I ever met whom I could seriously deem 'unique'.

I remember my friend being called a 'shoe shining, Uncle Tom N**ger' for being a Republican. I remember his listening to the phone messages people would leave at his house. Shockingly, these messages weren't left by white people. They were left by black people. They despised him because he was different. They despised him because he believed in self-accountability and was courageously outspoken on his feelings regarding affirmative action and other controversial issues.

I'm sure Chief Scott's dealt with this kind of stuff plenty of times himself. We all dealt with it a little, as someone decided to phone in a bomb threat to try and deter us from enjoying our function. "No one has done more for black people than conservatives" the Chief said almost with a tear in the eye. Chiefs don't cry though, but it made me seriously pause for a second and realize how thankful I am for good, honest people. It's folks like Chief Scott that restore faith in humanity. It was certainly a pleasure to hear him speak.

I walked away from the event thinking on the drive home about my friend and about people like Chief Scott. Why don't African Americans flock to folks like that in droves? Why do African Americans vote Democrat when it seems their core values couldn't be further from the Democratic Party's idealogical core?

I hate the concept of hyphenated Americans, and maybe I’ll do an article on that subject one of these days, but for the nonce I will accept the politically correct term in order to focus on more pressing issues. I cannot understand why the African-American community seems incapable of recognizing that the party they perpetually prop up is working at cross purposes to their own interests. Furthermore, given the nearly even split between the parties, it is unquestionable that African-American voters have the power to swing elections to the Republican side should they decide to do so. Let’s examine a few positions taken by the Democratic party that are in direct opposition to the best interests of the African-American community.

Gun Control:

The Democratic Party is the party of gun control. These feel-good policies might sound good, but the actual effect is to disarm law abiding citizens, or turn them into unwitting criminals, while doing absolutely nothing to stop gun violence and crime. Given the disproportionately high crime rates in the urban neighborhoods in which many African Americans live, the need to maintain the ability to defend oneself is self-evident. The police aren’t going to be there until long after the crime has been committed. Since the state has no affirmative duty to come to the defense of the citizenry, disarming average citizens seems to be an all cost and no benefit position. The inability to defend oneself, particularly in high crime neighborhoods, has been actively supported by the Democratic Party. This is contrary to the best interests of the African-American community.

School Choice:

The Democratic Party is beholden to the powerful National Education Association, the lobbying arm of the teacher’s unions. Any effort to reform the education system will have to come from somewhere other than the Democrats. Unfortunately, school choice (i.e. vouchers) is vehemently opposed by the Democratic Party. In fact, any serious effort at real education reform will be opposed. If a good education is the foundation for moving up and out of poverty, the Democrats haven’t delivered it in over two generations. This is hardly beneficial to the African-American community which has a disproportionate share of underperforming schools. The Democratic position is again contrary to the best interests of the African-American community.

Gay Marriage:

As one of the most deeply religious and church centered groups in the nation, the African-American community doesn’t support same-sex marriage. The uproar that occurs when the gay community tries to compare itself to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans and co-opt the moral high ground earned by them supports this conclusion. These two Democratic constituencies have very little common ground beyond the way they vote. Given the inordinately high illegitimacy rate in the African-American community, undermining the institution of marriage certainly isn’t in their interests. Getting back to a more traditional family model would be an enormous benefit to the African-American community, but not if it’s compromised in the way the Democrats seem determined to do.

Social Security Reform:

Given the shorter life expectancy in the African-American community, social security is a total rip-off for them. Nearly every dollar earned by African-Americans is subject to the FICA tax, and the wealth accumulated during a longer than average working life is forfeited when the earner dies. Having ownership of these savings would allow families to pass on this accumulated wealth to their children, supplying the seed money from which empires are built. Through their fear mongering, the Democrats have managed to gain support for the confiscation of this wealth from the very people from whom it is being expropriated. This is hardly in the interests of the African-American community.

Affirmative Action:

In what can only be the longest running inside joke in the history of mankind, the elites have peddled this monstrosity to the African-American community. On its face it seems like a good idea and a boon to the recipients of this largess. But it is really nothing more than a condescending willingness to concede that African-Americans cannot succeed without the help of their white superiors. It makes a mockery of the concept of equality and runs counter to the ideas of Frederick Douglas and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Every African-American success is tainted by this program, and the elites get to take credit for being so enlightened. Undermining the concept of merit and installing a sense of entitlement in its place isn’t in the true interests of the African-American community. The staunchest defenders of affirmative action, and its close cousin, diversity, are the Democrats.

Welfare Reform:

The hyperbolic predictions emanating from the Democratic Party on welfare reform never came to pass. The planets didn’t stop orbiting the sun. In fact, once its success was apparent, the first “Black President” jumped to the front of the parade and claimed credit for the success. This reform was only signed in the eleventh hour by a president whose concern for reelection overwhelmed the virulent protests of his party. That welfare reform disproportionately benefited the African-American community is indisputable; as is the Democrat’s opposition to the reform in the first place. Once again, the Democrats were working against the true best interests of the African-American community.

How can the African-American community continue to support the Democratic Party? It just doesn’t make sense to me. The “War on Poverty” hasn’t delivered on the promise in over forty years. We’ve spent enough money to give every poor person at its inception a nice three bedroom home and a college education to every child in those homes, and where are we at? Affirmative action gets candidates into colleges and jobs that are beyond their abilities, and the subsequent inevitable failures that follow are simply ignored. It’s insanity to keep doing the same things over and over again while expecting a different result every time. Isn’t it time for a change? With folks like Chief Scott laying the groundwork, perhaps one day we'll see it.

This Week In Western Mass.....

The Springfield Republican City Committee
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
7:00 p.m. at the Parkview Specialty Hospital on State Street
Guest Speaker will be fellow Blog Maniac Tommy Devine speaking on the importance of a strong GOP city committee
If you want some more info, speak at Mary via e-mail at
mjc@attglobal.net.

The Western Massachusetts Republicans Present:
The Calvin Coolidge Banquet
Thursday, March 22, 5:30p.m.
at The Log Cabin Restaurant, Holyoke
Tons o' speakers will be there and oh yeah.. I WILL BE THERE!, Yes, the sexiest man in the blogosphere will be there, make sure you're there too it's going to be an AWESOME event.

Can the Republican Party Get Its Groove Back?

If you've been engaging in commentary on the various blogs on the Internet and around various places on the Internet, I'm sure you've become quite familiar with many of the changing attitudes within the Republican Party, both nationally and here in Massachusetts as well.

Somewhere in the last 10-15 years or so, many of the columns and pundits who were, for a long time, the standard bearers for the conservative movement strayed off the beaten path and began speaking in tongues foreign to our own. Is this another "Rosemary's Baby Moment"? The last changing attitude most folks dealt with was the big dot com boom in the late 1990s which insisted that many of those companies were worth billions of dollars despite they had a barely rented office space with a cheesy name plate on the door. Ask many folks, and they'll tell you that they recall that there was a bubble thing and it popped and people stopped talking about the 'changing attitude'.

Well, the Republican Party has a changing attitude within it and here's how it works. First, a self-appointed group of well-moneyed country club rat pack-wanna bes go out and pick a new star to replace the outgoing star. The new star needs to look differently from the previous star, who likely squandered a lot of his political capital and ticked off the base. The 'elites'.. they don't care much for the base though, as it interferes with their ambition to create a world where they can take advantage of 'markets'. Nationalism, patriotism, sovereignty, the US Constitution and family values mean little to them. In fact, the elites are perpetually frustrated with repeatedly being forced to have to compromise their agenda with conservatives as a shibboleth to power and they just aren't going to do it anymore. Instead, they will do what the 'neo-liberals' did to the 'old liberals' in the 1960s and 1970s. They're going to change the language. The new language will ignore facts and promote a new kind of high-minded truthiness used in building personality cults. The old star was George W. Bush. They've yet to find us a new star.

The pre-Bush Republican Party rose to power largely due to ideas that were fostered, cultivated and communicated by President Reagan in the 1980s and were then harnessed and sold by the Newt Gingrich-led Contract with America in 1994. Republican registration was exploding and at it's strongest point was around 32% and that was largely due to Reagan Republicans (and a few Reagan Democrats too). The Conservative Democrats became known as "Blue Dogs". They came to power as the ruling conservative coalition even before the GOP took over all three branches of the national government and the majority of the Governorships. The problem was that this conservative agenda, no matter how popular it was and continues to be with most folks, actually became an obstacle for those who finance the campaigns. Now, these financiers look for candidates who can sell themselves and give them stuff quid pro quo. Like Humprey Bogart said to Peter Lorre in "Maltese Falcon"; "You'll take your slapping and like it!"

Such feats of circumlocution cannot be accomplished without obfuscation. It is not easy to convince people that this new cancer will cure all that ails you. It is also very expensive. After all, cancer doesn't sell itself. The arguments cannot be made within the old paradigm of conservatism and so they create a new rhetorical language that introduces new terms and words around which to build new "ideas". And anyone who disagrees will be marginalized by being labeled as hard-headed, unreasonable, out-of step with reality, or whatever. Just read many blog commentaries if you need a comprehensive list. This new cancer is spreading quickly throughout our ranks and is already metastasizing.

So conservatism is being destroyed from within by a new political correctness whereby conservatives are not allowed to defend themselves or their principles. Doing so is not nice. Politics is going through a scary change right now. Politics, in theory, are based around disputes. We wouldn't have the need for government at all if there were indeed, no disputes between humans that needed to be resolved. Rather than talking about our problems and talking about matters with which we disagree, voters, Republicans, Democrats and everyone else for that matter seem to be flocking towards 'nice' politics. Instead of focusing on the things we disagree on, we'd rather focus on the things we agree on and make nice with each other. Politics, as we all know now, is only for "nice" people and it is not nice to have well-defined ideas or a list of specific issues to fight for. Nice people don't have ideas because ideas cause tension which leads to arguments. To this new breed of political thinkers, How can you have a democracy if people are arguing all the time? For nice people, the new human brain is a "fantasy reinforcement machine", not a "truth-seeking machine". The world is so much nicer when speech conforms to fantasy rather than reality. Don't believe me? Two words: Deval Patrick. It produces a world full of nice people. People like Michael Medved and the pussified George Will, nice people all. No room for that trouble maker Ann Coulter. Nice people must be forever vigilant to avoid the temptation of succumbing to a sense of humor. Being nice is serious business. Please upgrade your brains by downloading the new software as soon as possible. Someone told me Vista won't screw it all up.

What makes this new shift within the political system in general, and more specifically our party, ironic, is the fact that the neo-Republican takes liberties in eating it's own at every possible opportunity. Names like RINO, neocon, absolutists, single-issue fundamentalists, social conservatives and so on, infest out blogs, discussion forums and general dialogue in the party.
As long as you're 'nice', you may be 'mean', so long as it's a, uh, 'nice' way. The GOP to these folks is a 'big tent' where everyone is conservative, but their form of conservatism is nicer because it doesn't get bogged down in ideas. Instead, they dub it 'intellectual diversity'. We are all conservatives somehow and we should be willing to listen to each others' 'ideas' even when 'ideas' are just vague attitudes about completely irrelevant issues. All ideas are equal, especially the ones we steal from the Democrats, because after all, that makes people 'electable'.

The New Conservatism has turned into a vast ocean of diversity-filled goodness where nice people continue to avoid discussing issues people might disagree on. 'Big Tent' is reserved only for folks who play nice and do what they're told by people who apparently 'know' stuff and can explain it to them in a more truthy, earthy- crunchy way. "Don't think too much kids, you might confuse yourselves!". "Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?" I've heard this song before. Just like "Whoomp There it Is!" sucked the first time it was released as a single, so did liberalism in the late 1980s. Yes, we've turned into the Democratic party, circa 1990. If you'll remember, they dropped the term 'liberal' because it got a little too hot to handle. What're we going to do when 'conservative' becomes and adjective for sucking at thinking?

Our movement right now is utterly confused. It would help a lot of we made the distinction between being conservative as opposed to being Republican. Cut it any way you want, they're not interchangeable terms. To me, it feels like this is the reason we're all talking past each other these days. There are far more people who consider themselves 'conservatives' than are registered Republicans. Do you think our moneyed political elites in the party know this? A third party! Ooh mommy look! A unicorn!

I like to consider myself at least a semi-reasonable guy. Like a lot of folks, I probably know a hell of a lot less than I think I know, but I AM at least, willing to discuss my ideas and views intelligently. Being asked by new Republicans to compromise for the sake of the team isn't healthy. Most marriages fail because couples don't communicate effectively. Let's try and not end up like them and begin to hammer these issues out and entertain alternative and new ideas. As for myself, I refuse to surrender to a personality cult.

All the money and organization in the world are no replacement for ideas, Just as all the slogans in the world are no replacement for actually knowing what you're talking about. We need to stop running from conflict and once again, become a party of ideas, not convenience.

This Week's Events

Here's this week's calender of events! Remember, if you want us to post an event, contact us at Massfederalist@gmail.com! For future reference, PLEASE send in the Name of your event, what it is (meeting, dinner, lunch, cage match), where it is, what time and WHO to contact and at what number or email address.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Event:	Republican Club of Southeastern Massachusetts
Where:	Wamsutta Club 427 County Street New Bedford
When:
Cost:	$15.00 per person
Contact:	Janet Doe - Janet.Doe@verizon.net,
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Event:	Acton Republican Town Committee
Where:	24 Liberty Street Acton MA
When:	7:30 pm
Cost:	Free!
Contact:	David Stone dkstone@flagshipventures.com,
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Event:	Joint Meeting Yarmouth Republican Town Committee and the Dennis Republican Town Committee
Where:	7 PM at the Dennis Senior Center Dennis MA.
When:	7:00 pm
Cost:	Free!!
Contact:	508-398-9621,
Friday, March 16, 2007
Event:	Sandi Martinez Kick-Off
Where:	The Skellig 240 Moody St - Waltham
When:	7:15 pm
Cost:	$50 pp $90 cple
Contact:	Michael J. Benn,

WESTERN MASS REPUBLICANS CALVIN COOLIDGE BANQUET
MARCH 22, 2007LOG CABIN RESTAURANT, 500 Easthampton Road Holyoke, MA

The Price is $40.00 per person, $35.00 per senior
For more information, contact MARCIA EVANS at (413) 221-7577

***IMPORTANT***
Make sure you send in your admission and RSVP *BEFORE* the dinner. They will NOT be accepting walk-ins , not even from ME!

Yes, I know this isn't this week. Doesn't matter. This is the BIGGEST GOP bash west of Worcester every year and one heck of a time. Reed Hillman, Nearly the entire Republican State Senate Delegation will be there as well as an impressive delegation of people from the House, including Rep. Mary Rogeness (Longmeadow) & The always animated Rep. Donald Humason, and Rep. Todd Smola.

DON'T MISS THIS EVENT!

Upcoming Events and Other Fun

UP COMING STUFF

The MassGOP campaign school
Saturday, March 10, 2007,
10:00-3:00 p.m. at the Quincy Marriott.
For more information, contact Rob
Willington at 1-617-523-5005; Ext. 228, or via e-mail at
Rwillington@massgop.com.


The Western Massachusetts Republicans will host its annual Calvin
Coolidge Banquet
Thursday, March 22, 5:30 p.m. at The Log Cabin Restaurant,
500 Easthampton Rd., Holyoke.
Dinner served at 6:15.
For more information, contact Marcia Evans at 1-413-221-7577

MassGOP Primary a Hurdle for Romney?

When I tell people I'm from Massachusetts and Republican, their first reaction is usually one of shock. After a little while the look at me like I'm some sort of ice man that was just found in Switzerland and give me the old 'I didn't know those existed'.

Lately, the statement that follows that is "SO, whatcha think of this Mitt Romney guy eh? You supporting him?"

When I say I haven't decided yet, they're quite puzzled. But I don't seem to be the only guy not completely buying into the Mitt Romney candidacy. According to an article that ran in the Boston Globe today, I'm not the only one.

Of course, the Globe wouldn't ever pass up an opportunity to hammer Romney and certainly didn't here. I would get worked up if it weren't true.

Instead, Zykofsky, of Lynn, backs Rudolph W. Giuliani, believing that of the major candidates, the former New York mayor is the one "most capable of handling the job of president at such a difficult time."

Zykofsky is one of a number of active Republicans in the region who either are supporting others or keeping their options open. Other Giuliani backers include state Senate minority leader Richard R. Tisei of Wakefield, state Senator Bruce E. Tarr of Gloucester, and former Massachusetts Republican Party chairman Brian Cresta of Middleton.

Key local Republicans supporting Romney's run include House minority leader Bradley Jones of North Reading, state Representative Brad Hill of Ipswich, and former lieutenant governor Kerry Healey of Beverly.

Among former Republican governors in the state, Jane Swift supports Arizona Senator John McCain, Paul Cellucci has endorsed Giuliani, and William F. Weld is backing Romney.

Massachusetts is going to be a tough hurdle for Mitt Romney to overcome both in the primary and in the general election.

Not winning your home state can be seen as quite an embarrassment. Just ask former Vice President Al Gore, who lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000-- a state that could have put him in the White House if his friends and neighbors had actually voted for their hometown boy. Romney certainly wants to avoid that kind of blemish in any way possible.

Mass GOP Demands Investigation of Governor Deval Patrick

Looks like the Governor is in a little more trouble than he bargained for.

The following was reported on masslive.com:

BURLINGTON, Mass. (AP) — Gov. Deval Patrick, a day after saying he regrets making a phone call to Citigroup on behalf of a struggling lending company on whose board he once served, said "don't give up on me," as the state Republican Party called for an ethics investigation.

"I will make mistakes, but don't give up on me, because I don't intend to give up on Massachusetts," Patrick, a Democrat, said Wednesday morning after an appearance at the Massachusetts High Technology Council annual meeting.

Patrick urged the public to look past his gaffes, which last month included disclosure of an expensive upgrade of his state car to a Cadillac.

The state Republican Party filed a request Wednesday with the state Ethics Commission, asking the panel to investigate the phone call.

The Massachusetts State Republican Party issues the following release for those of you interested:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Brian Dodge

March 7, 2007 (617) 523-5005

Massachusetts Republicans File Ethics Complaint AGAINST GOVERNOR PATRICK

Boston, MA - Today, the Massachusetts Republican Party submitted a letter to the Massachusetts Ethics Commission requesting an investigation into the actions of Governor Deval Patrick taken on behalf of ACC Capital Holdings.

The letter to the Ethics Commission cites a February 20th call placed by Governor Patrick to a Citigroup Senior Executive at the request of the Vice Chairman of ACC Capital Holdings. The call was made as ACC Capital was requesting substantial financial assistance from Citigroup.

"Governor Patrick's effort to influence a business transaction at the request of his former employer raises serious ethical questions," said Brian Dodge, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party. "Therefore, it is only appropriate to ask the Ethics Commission to investigate this matter further."

And finally, here's the copy of the letter faxed to the Massachusetts Ethics Commission:

TEXT OF LETTER FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICAN PARTY TO THE MASSACHUSETTS ETHICS COMMISSION

March 7, 2007

State Ethics Commission
Enforcement Division
One Ashburton Place, Room 619
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Dear Commissioners:

According to a March 6th story in the Boston Globe headlined, Governor made call on behalf of lender, Governor Deval Patrick contacted Robert Rubin, Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee for Citigroup, Inc. on February 20, 2007 regarding a financial matter. The call was at the behest of ACC Capital Holdings, the parent company of Governor Patrick’s former employer, Ameriquest. The intent of the call was to weigh in on behalf of ACC Capital Holdings as they sought significant financial assistance from Citigroup.

Citigroup, Inc. and ACC Capital Holdings have sizable business interests in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A personal phone call from the state’s highest elected official to Citigroup’s Executive Committee Chairman at the request of ACC Capital’s Vice Chairman constitutes influence of the highest order.

According to Chapter 268A:23 of the Massachusetts General Laws, public officials must not:

(2) use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals;

(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.

Governor Patrick’s actions are in direct violation of this statute.

The mission of the Massachusetts Ethics Commission is to foster integrity in government and promote public trust. It is for those reasons and the reasons laid out above that I request an immediate investigation into Governor Patrick’s activities on behalf of ACC Capital Holdings.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Dodge

Executive Director

Sen. Scott Brown Fundraiser. Howie Car To Be In Attendance

Seeing as we've got four State Senators, we should be getting behind every single one of them to make sure they STAY State Senators. If you're anywhere near this on Sunday, please make every effort to attend! Thanks to Paul Santaniello for sending in the following:

FUNDRAISING EVENT FOR
STATE SENATOR
SCOTT BROWN

AT THE
FRANKLIN CHINESE BUFFET

348 E. Central Street, Rt. 140, Franklin, MA
(ACROSS FROM FRANKLIN TOWN HALL & McDONALD'S)
WITH

SPECIAL GUEST
AWARD WINNING COLUMNIST (The Boston Herald), TALK SHOW HOST (WRKO), & BEST SELLING AUTHOR, (THE BROTHERS BULGER)
HOWIE CARR
THE PRICE OF THE EVENT INCLUDES AN ALL YOU CAN EAT BUFFET & A SIGNED COPY OF HOWIE'S BOOK: THE BROTHERS BULGER

Date: Sunday, March 4, 2007
Time: 5:00-7:00 PM

Cost: $50.00 per person, $90.00 per couple cash bar
Soda and good conversation also included in price
RSVP requested, but not required ? for food and book count
Howie will be there from 5:30-6:30 PM, so come and ask him about his many jobs

Make checks payable to the Scott Brown Election Committee
P.O. Box 566, Wrentham, MA 02093

No corporate checks accepted, maximum contribution is $500.00 per person per calendar year

Am I Stupid For Even Wondering?

I really am dissapointed in myself that I even bother to wonder why the Republican Party has proven itself totally incompetent in recent weeks should look nor further than a story that was (astonishingly) buried in the back page of the Springfield Republican's Local section today.

The Story was entitled "6 Patrick Staffers earn $100,000" or more. The story is the latest in a series of news stories that show how incredibly incompetent and inept our sitting Governor is, and how his spending habbits are completely and utterly out of control. Here's a run down of the fun:

--Chief of Staff to the Governor's Education advisor makes $90,000
--Deputy Chief of Staff Brendan Ryan earns $95,000
--David Simas is another Deputy Chief of Staff (I guess you can't have too many of those) and he's making $100,000 as well.
--Deputy chief legal counsel Michael Pineault makes $100,000

Everyone's on the dole big time in the Governor's office. If you were to add all this up (there's TONS more), we'd be getting into the million and a half range in terms of salary per year. Between the curtains, pod casts, Cadillacs and other things, it's pretty obvious this governor needs to have some folks at least attempt to keep him in check.

............or not so much.

"I Really can't criticize him on that" said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei, who is a Republican. "The Governor is the CEO of a $26 billion entity, and he needs top quality people in positions like chief of staff and legal counsel. If this were a similar sized company in the private sector, these salaries would be considered low," He concluded.

That's a bunch of crap. Plain and simple. The difference between a company and the government is that I forcibly have to pay my money into the government. It's all about the power of coercian. When people get into public administration they usually go into it knowing they're not going to get the kind of compensation you can get in the private sector. We've stuffed the fat cats' pockets for so long in this state, it's now becoming and accepted thing and even Republicans are condoning it. Everyone's in it to make a buck apparently.

We've got tons of people running around talking about getting up and making something out of the Republican Party in this state, but it's impossible to do without, you know, showing people that we're different from the Democrats. Man is truly not a creature of circumstance.

Why the Mass GOP Should Consider "Schilling" a Ball Player for Senate

With the recent announcement on the part of Senator John Kerry that he will not run for the Presidency in 2008, it has stirred up a lot of interest on our side of the aisle as to whom we should throw up against him for his Senate seat.

If he decides to run, I'd be very likely to back Curt Schilling as the GOP nominee.

I know, a lot of people may take exception to our running a guy with no political experience like Shilling for not only a powerful position in the US Government, but for a seat that actually may be as vulnerable as John Kerry's is.

If you're one of those folks you have a point. After all, Kerry is indeed vulnerable. Wouldn't it be wise to strike while the iron is hot and not blow our wad on a candidate with as little qualifications as Curt Schilling has.

Allow me to make the case.

Here is the current state of affairs: John Kerry is in a very weakened state after not only losing his Presidential quest in 2004, but also in his own self-burial in the time since then, taking full advantage of every opportunity he's had to make an idiot out of himself. In fact, he has handled himself so poorly, that running for the White House in 2008 would likely be a detriment to his party, even in such a crowded and comedic field as the Democratic field for 2008 is.

Kerry has not only been lambasted for his off-beat stances on many issues of the day, but has also morphed into everything we love to hate about Democrats in general. He has an incredible penchant for pomposity and has the preachy, if not utterly condescending tone that contributes to the overall perception that he's altogether, insincere. He's the epitome of leftist elitism and a lightning rod for criticism, even from those who share many of his beliefs.

His level of commitment to his home state is a perfect example of what NOT to do if you're a US Senator and coupled with the reasons mentioned above, he may be ripe for the picking, even in an as Democratically-inclined state as Massachusetts.

The Republican Party in Massachusetts is teetering on extinction. Altogether, the MassGOP makes up only 13% of the registered voting population. The Massachusetts Governor's office was the last bastion of hope to many Conservatives who had otherwise been purged and repeatedly and in some cases, have been brutally beaten back by the nearly invincible Democratic Machine that dominates Massachusetts politics.

Party enrollment is at an all time low. While some Republicans can take solace in the fact that Democratic numbers haven't exactly been exploding either, the state GOP has had little success in recruiting those who identify themselves as independents, despite enjoying considerable support from them in past Gubernatorial elections.

Which brings us to today and why Curt Schilling should be the Republican Nominee to challenge John Kerry in 2008.

1.) CREATING A BUZZ-- It's been forever and then some since Republicans in this state had a magnet for publicity like a Schilling candidacy would be. Being a Republican in Massachusetts would be 'cool' again and inject some much needed energy into a State party that badly needs it.

2.) INDEPENDENT APPEAL-- With party numbers dwindling on both sides, a Schilling Candidacy would appeal to those who are otherwise apathetic towards the political process at best. Signing them up and engaging them in the political process would be nothing but a win for the state GOP before any votes are counted. We need numbers and a Schilling candidacy would help boost party membership.

3.) A SHOT IN THE ARM TO THE LOCALS-- If he does run and assuming he wins the nomination, if I were Peter Torkildsen, I'd be sure to inject Schilling's star power into every state legislative race I possibly could. People would show up to see Schilling and as a result, local candidates he supports would receive a rub as well, and likely a strong showing at the polls. It's free publicity for even candidates running for state representative.

4.) CONSERVATION-- Yes, there are more qualified candidates than Curt Schilling for the United States Senate. However, why waste them in a race where they'd likely get beat? This keeps the Kerry Healey's, Charlie Baker's, Andy Card's and Reed Hillman's on the sidelines, but keeps them warm for possible congressional campaigns and or the governor's office in 2010. Taking on John Kerry, even a vulnerable John Kerry, would be a risky proposition for the average state Republican candidate. Sadly, good candidates like Healey and Hillman for example, are a loss away from political oblivion. Why not play our cards smart and run them when the political climate would be most favorable to them, rather than risk them against Kerry?

5.) CONTRAST-- The best chance the MassGOP has of beating Kerry is to run someone who would be his polar opposite. Schilling is a ball player, Kerry is a player. Schilling is disheveled and otherwise unkempt and ordinary, Kerry uses more hair spray then all the members of Poison combined. Schilling has appeal with the 'little guy' not just on his appearance and name recognition, but how he delivers his policy stances. He'd be real, not the 'real deal'. Other candidates, however, do not provide that stark of a contrast. Kerry Healey and Charlie Baker are wealthy and to many, represent the typical White-Collar Republican that doesn't appeal to the masses. Sure, Kerry is in the same boat, but if you present voters with a choice between richy rich lefty and richy rich righty, in this state, they'll stick with the status quo. Andy Card will not win an election so long as President Bush is still in the White House, at least not in this state. Hillman's a little different in the fact that he's very likeable, but likely doesn't have the drawing power that Schilling would have.

Schilling provides voters with a clear alternative whom they can identify with. He brings a level of 'star power' that none of the other candidates, save for possibly Andy Card, can boast.


However, above all, Schilling has an 'X' factor about him that can't be said of any of the other hopefuls: If Curt Schilling loses, the state party still wins. There will be more registered Republicans in Massachusetts. We would likely win a few extra seats in the legislature as a result of the rub he could give lower level candidates. In sum, a Schilling candidacy would be a net-gain either way, without sacrificing better, more politically-inclined candidates.

Kerry, even if he won, would likely resume his reign on idiocy on the national scene and sustain his vulnerability until it's time to un-elect him again. With Ted Kennedy not getting any younger, it maintains a strong pool of candidates to run against a Democratic nominee if Kennedy's seat were to open up. We also have a reasonable field of candidates to stack up against Deval Patrick in 2010. A Schilling candidacy would be a major step forward win or lose.

In politics, it's sometimes better to take a minor sacrifice to win the battle. In the current political reality, the Massachusetts Republican Party is in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. With typically gutsy showing by a possible Schilling campaign may not give us the runs we need to win the game, it would be enough to push the game into extra innings and give us a chance to win. I say "Play Ball!"

Numbers Don't Lie, Kids...

Those on the state committee and the powers that be at the state GOP headquarters would do well to take a look at some recent surveys conducted by the Massachusetts Republican Assembly. The numbers are telling as to how badly the state party has failed it's constituents. Here are some of the highlights:


First how the Candidates felt:


--17% of Candidates surveyed felt positive regarding the training they recieved from the state party, 13% thought it imparted necessary knowledge and skills.

--10% said the State Committee continuously monitored their campaign's progress and provided useful feedback and advice.

--6% felt positive regarding MassGOP fundraising efforts and allocation of funds. 87% had a negative impression.

--83% were dissatisfied with the work State GOP Office holders did in endorsing their campaign.

That's just the candidates themselves. Here's how many town committee members felt about their state committee folks:

--State CommitteeMEN had an approval rating of 45%

--State CommitteeWOMEN had an approval rating of 42%

--79% of WRITTEN responses mentioned that the state committtee is not responsive to local needs.

--51% of respondents felt that their state committe-person did a good job of keeping them informed of the state party activities.


In order for the Massachusetts Republican Party to flourish in this state again, there needs to be a commitment towards developing that 'farm' team, but there seems to be little to no interest on the part of the state committee to do so. Hopefully with the election of Peter Torkildsen, we'll get some much needed change in the overall culture of the state party. Anyone curious as to what the Massachusetts Republican Assembly DOES, you can check out their website at . Apparently despite circulating the results of this survey around the state party in the past, it's been ignored. Maybe it'd behoove the higher ups to pay attention this time.

The Massachusetts GOP Elects a New Chairman

The Massachusetts Federalist would like to congratulate Peter Torkildsen on his being elected to the top spot in the Massachusetts Republican Party

Why A Strong Mass GOP is Important

If one were to ask the question; "Why is the Republican Party virtually extinct in Massachusetts?," one could probably come up with a million and one reasons. They would include political incompetence, lack of energy and enthusiasm, inability to change, strategy flaws, etc. Sure, those are pretty general and don't scratch even a 1,000th of the greater overall problem. However, it is my belief that the party has failed to answer one of the most fundamental questions any Party should have to answer at the drop of a hat: "Why is it important to elect Republicans to office in the Commonwealth?"

Please, save me the diatribe on One Party Rule. That's so 1990. To give you a sense of how old that argument is, when we first started making it, The Ultimate Warrior was the WWF World Champion. Mike Tyson hadn't been knocked out by Buster Douglas. The Yankees really DID suck. No one knew who Saddam Hussein was, never mind giving a crap about him. Today, we know the Ultimate Warrior, though influential in his industry on a character level, was really overrated. Buster Douglas DID knock out Mike Tyson. The Yankees still do suck, but not literally and everyone knows who Saddam was. Freakin' New Kids on the Block were actually 'cool'. The point is the political landscape in Massachusetts, like the world around it, has changed dramatically and now voters are requiring us to tell them something new.

One party rule should be cited for sure, but today, more so than ever before, we need to shift our focus from sitting at the campfire, to getting back to our fundamental reason for existence over the years, which is to minimize the size of a state government that is overflowing with useless and silly government programs that hurt the tax payer more than helping him.

Most would appropriately ask why someone would be against the idea of government programs that are designed to help people. Well, sure Government exists to help people for sure, but WHO are they helping? With WHOSE money? With WHOSE Consent? With what RESULT?

I'm all for government helping the needy and the poor. However, when we Begin dealing in the business of of taking from one middle class family and transferring it to another middle class family, we're running a slippery slope. Do you need examples? Well, take transit for example. People who drive cars must pay for the transportation preferences of other people who like to take the "T". On a national level, we have the National Endowment for the Arts. We all must subsidize recreational activities of others. Whether they want to listen to Rock music or take pictures of their wee-wees, we have to pay for it.

There IS a loud call for cutting back our spending and programs at the state level. However, it's no surprise that most love this concept only when it's not a program that benefits them. It's no surprise that Democrats dominate the political scene given their 'generosity' to everyone with everyone else's stuff. George Bernard Shaw says it best: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support."Many such programs corrupt our politics by making it a contest for who gets to feed at the public trough. Moreover, they do not promote the common welfare or the public good. Rather, they promote the good of some people at the expense of other people.

Now I'm not saying the government isn't important nor should it have little responsibility. We need the government to protect us, put police on the streets, build highways and check the environment. After all, If they didn't, companies would pollute like crazy. Government should also support basic research, patent protections as well as basic education and health care services. There's NO shame in supporting government so long as it's actions rest within it's legitimate sphere. Government can and should be a good thing.

But again, we need to realize that whatever it is the government DOES, it usually does a pretty poor job of DOING. Now I'm not saying people who work in the public sector are idiots. They're most definitely not. But there are simply no real standards. There aren't. Don't let silly legislative 'accountability' bills fool you. Imagine if you worked in an organization that you didn't own, and you were only accountable to yourself for all of your actions. You see, in government, there isn't a 'bottom line' so to speak. There's no real criteria to determine whether or not the bike helmet program is working or not. With change over in administrations at least every four years, there isn't much in the way of consistency. Bills change, political leanings change, staff turnover is huge, etc. In fact, there probably aren't many who really know what the real roles of their departments or agencies are. A few years ago a guy who worked in the Education Department in Springfield asked "How can you say our public schools are failing? A lot of people work here." By his standard, government was doing its job by employing people. He's not an idiot, but certainly misguided in his assumption that Education should just be a incubator for employment.

We Republicans and conservatives know that government, especially here in Massachusetts, continues to do stuff that is A.) Not needed or B.) can be done a lot better by someone else. Look at the big dig. To be fair, liberals are starting to get it, but even at that, they're not learning fast enough. Decades of urban legends (or political legends in this case) have institutionalized themselves in the state. It was believed that Government must run lighthouses, because you know, if they didn't, who would? At a federal level, people think the government should deliver the mail, because if they didn't, no one else would. Prisons are an absolute government responsibility, but they don't operate most efficiently unless they're under government control. In the worst myth of them all, It's widely believed that without public schools, thousands of kids in this state would receive no education at all. These are random issues I know, but all have been proven to be demonstrably false in recent times.

If you truck around the north and south shores, you'll find a ton of lighthouses that are privately owned. There's tons of them in Connecticut and Rhode Island, too. Prisons regularly contract out services to private contractors, and some are even entirely run by private companies. There's zero logic behind the claim that private markets couldn't provide education services through high school. The government's role could be limited to providing assistance to those who would otherwise not be able to afford those services and extending opportunities to our best and brightest. Oh yeah, remember that postal service. Two words: Federal Express.

Here in Springfield especially, but all over the state as well, many folks think big government is a check on the scary big business. Frankly, we're petrified of anything that isn't somewhat subsidized by the federal government. To an extent, the kids scared, hiding under their blankets are a little right. Thank god for the government when Enron hit. However though, there really isn't a check at all between Government and Big Business, or at least one that is proportional in any way shape, or form. How can I say this? Well, because big business' power over the average citizen of the commonwealth, or any American citizen for that matter, is very limited. To sell stock shares and products, these entities must PERSUADE investors and customers to buy them. It's the power of coercion. They must win consent before taking someones money. The government doesn't.

This is, in the end, the fundamental difference between business and government. For example, you cannot simply opt out of Social Security. You are required to pay it, no matter what. If I was to tell the tax collectors; "Hey guys, thanks for the help and all, but I don't think I really need this and to be honest, I don't really want to. In fact I'll take myself off the roles to help you guys save a few bucks to help someone else who needs it. I really appreciate your gesture, but thanks but no thanks." The government would arrest my red haired, freckled rear end and throw me in jail. I can't say no. There is no choice. If Big Business offered me a retirement fund and I said; "Wow, this looks great, but I think there are some other options out there for me to look at," they would say 'OK' or they would try to convince or persuade me to stick with their service. If they got on my nerves enough or threatened my or my family's safety or state of being because we didn't buy into their program, I could call the cops (the government) and get rid of them. But who calls the cops on the government? Even more so, when you really think about it, even those who work at the lowest levels of government (IRS agents, the boring guy at the DMV, the immigration official, the donut mowing Police Officer) have more influence than Big Business does. And this power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the liberal claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.

Finally, I wish to challenge the liberal notion that the private sector is motivated by greed, while the public sector is motivated by noble idealism. It in itself, should make the case for more Republicans and fewer Democrats in the state legislature. I've enough experience in government to drum up this scenario for you. You're at a meeting with a mayor, governor, or if it's me, likely the President, because I'm the man. It involves, because I live at a college, a drug policy (This'll show these kids). The good old folks at the Department of Defense say the problem is because drugs are being produced in Columbia. They have a $20 billion program to destroy the crops. Yay, things that go boom rule. Health and Human Services are out there too though, and they say the problem of drugs was a problem of treatment, and they have a $40 billion program to help treat more addicts. Maybe all I need is a hug. The Education Department doesn't want to be left out though, so they come up with their definition of the problem as well as their solution. They are convinced that the real solution to drugs is education and they think we should take on a multi-year initiative to raise the consciousness of American tax payers that costs $30 billion. If the teacher's hot, I'm there! I know, I'm funny, however, here's where I make my point:

Regardless of the merit of their arguments, they aren't any less motivated by their own interests (see Self.) than anyone in the private sector. The only real difference was that their interests aren't translated in coins and cash (see Money). Their currency is a little different. Fundamentally, they were after power and influence instead of money.

Although it's pretty much true that a lot of the welfare state mentality in Massachusetts is losing it's grip... I think..., the state government in Massachusetts (and the federal government, too) is too damn big. Our duty is to limit it's size and like a good coach or teacher, keep it focused on what it's supposed to be doing. When the state exceeds its proper functions, when it moves outside its sphere, it invades the domain of the citizens, depriving us of both freedom and the responsibility that comes along with it.

Though we've made small baby steps here and there in these regards, it's simply not enough. In order to insure this kind of existence and oversight, we need more Republicans in the state legislature and more importantly, more Republicans/Conservatives in the state, period. We need to get back to basics and make the case as to why we're important. The point we need to make to the massive amounts of independents and conservative Democrats in the state isn't just why or how we will remain viable. The case we need to make is why the people of this commonwealth need us to be viable. Until we do this, we will continue to wallow in the state of entitlement, high taxes, little growth and government intervention. With all that said, Go out and make the case, kids.

D-Day 2006

On the day of the swearing in of the first Democratic Governor in 16 years in the Commonwealth, Mass GOP chairman Darrell Crate reminded us of perhaps the biggest reason we lost the corner office this year, sending out a letter to let us know that, well, the election of the new State Party Chairman has been 'Postponed'.

Here it is....

Good Afternoon, I write to inform you that tomorrow's meeting will be postponed until January 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. I regret to send this message but a couple of members have made it known that they intend to challenge the validity of the meeting. The issue involves the mailing of the notice. As you know, notices must be mailed ten days in advance of a meeting. In my four years as Chair, the staff has followed the same procedure and notices have always arrived in a timely manner. I'm told the procedure for the mailing on the 4th was no different-- it was mailed from Boston on December 22, but apparently not postmarked until December 28, no doubt due to the holiday delays. This morning, we conferred with our Legal Counsel and Parliamentarian regarding the rules. They informed me that, in their opinion, a challenge to the validity of the meeting would have merit. While I have no doubt the majority of the members would agree that notice was properly given, it would be an unwise use of members' time and the Party's money to convene a meeting against the advice and counsel of our legal team.
There is no doubt that every member of the committee was fully aware of it far beyond 10 days in advance of January 4th. I notified all members who have email (95% of you) on December 15th when the meeting would be held. Nevertheless, those for whom process is a priority insist upon challenging the validity of the meeting. The election of the next Chairman is of the utmost importance and any shadow of a doubt ought not be cast upon the vote. Process is meant to move our Party forward in a positive direction and not to unnecessarily delay it due to technicalities. I believe the latter is occurring in this case and it should prompt members to consider changes to the By-Laws in the future.

I regret if this is an inconvenience for members and I look forward to seeing you on the 16th (FYI…the exact location is still TBD at this hour, but it will be in the Metro-West area of the state). Finally, in addition to this email, and in compliance with the By-Laws, we will be mailing a notice of the 16th as well. I look forward to the continued honor of serving as Chairman for an additional 12 days!

Thanks, Darrell

Well, to be honest, this isn't a surprise as the Mass GOP is embarrassingly disorganized at this point. As we prepare for what I'm sure will be one of the most mind-numbing periods in our commonwealth's history, and at a time where the Massachusetts Republican Party needs coherent leadership more than ever before, we are given none.

A few days ago I wrote a piece on how Republicans in the commonwealth are in a state of denial and only through our coming to terms with that will we be able to regain our bearings and begin the arduous work of rebuilding the GOP in Massachusetts.

When one is an alcoholic, one must come to terms with their addiction before kicking it fully, however they also need to be proactive in insuring that it doesn't ever happen again. In the spirit of this, I offer the following 10-point plan towards reconstructing the party in Massachusetts.

A TEN POINT PLAN FOR A REPUBLICAN RECONSTRUCTION IN MASSACHUSETTS

1.) A complete and total house cleaning of the epic sort on the state committee-- Their job is to recruit candidates and help them win elections. They have failed across the board. When you fail in most jobs, save for teaching, you get fired. The same should hold true here. Republicans should seriously re-evaluate their state committee member's ability to 'get the job done' at the local level. Seeing as we failed to win a single seat in the state legislature in this cycle, I feel it appropriate to call for the resignation of every current state committee member effective immediately.

2.) A Departure from the Departure Politics of the MA Republican party in the last 16 years-- None of those in power over the past 16 years have been committed to growing the party in this state primarily because they were more concerned with personal growth, OUT of the state. Year after year, messiah after messiah, It was all the same old rhetoric but not a word of it produced one net gain in the legislature over that period of time. The current strategies being employed by the state party are flawed and have therefore, failed. Why? Because many on the state committee and in the party upper echelon are also worried about their political lives after Massachusetts.Those in power and in positions of authority and influence in the state party are products of both those in power during this period and the plans they hatched. The underlying issues for their lack of success is irrelevant. Regardless if they were put there and received little to no guidance once they got there, it's time for a change. We need to completely re-think the way that not only ourselves, but outsiders as well, view our party and what our overall purpose will be in the future.

3.) Improve the responsiveness of the state GOP through de-centralization of the state committee. By this, I mean de-centralizing the current system almost entirely. The Eastern Part of the state is well, almost an entirely different state than the western part. In order to effectively meet the challenges of this highly diverse political landscape, we must undergo an organizational overhaul to better fit the needs of small communities. This will allow the politics of our campaigns to become more 'local'. The state party should exist to provide general (heavy emphasis) policy guidelines and act as a central pool of resources for the various regional committees that do the ground work, no more, no less.

To localize this argument, imagine if you will, a regional Republican arm in Hampden County. Longmeadow, Wilbraham, Agawam, West Springfield, Springfield, Chicopee, Southwick, Ludlow and Sturbridge town committees would all fall under an umbrella of accountability to a regional committee. Volunteer lists from the various districts would be pooled. Fundraising lists, too. Consultants, polling, mailings, media releases, you name it. This regional organization would be responsible and more responsive to the needs of it's constituency than a centralized state party in Boston.

Regional Committees could be set up in Berkshire County, Franklin/Hampshire Counties, Hampden County, Greater Worcester, Cape Cod, etc. These committees would all work within a large concentric circle of sorts with the state party. The local town committees would interact in concentric circles with the regional committee and so forth.

These committees should not only be state party supported, but state party funded as well. Office space, working officers, etc. I'm not talking about a loose conglomeration of Town Committee chairmen. I'm talking about a formalized, official regional committee.

4.) A commitment to developing a platform that is universally congruent with Republican values and concerns of voters-- We need to look at what we feel being a Republican means. Once we establish this, then we pick our stances on the many issues facing the state. Once this is accomplished, we choose issues which we feel resonate most in a general sense, with ALL voters in Massachusetts, not just the ones that come to our coffee talks.

My picks? High taxes, social conservatism and anti-corruption.

TAXES-- What has been mother's milk for the Republican party nation-wide for years, wasn't this cycle. People have simple forgotten what it's like to have 19% interest rates on their houses and high taxes. Over the break I watched Rocky II with my father. I'm a young buck and was greatly taken aback when I watched the scene where Rocky and Adrian buy their first house. The realtor talks about the interest rate on the mortgage 'only' being 19% I gasped '19%"!? Are they kidding? My father replied; welcome to life under Carter and the Democrats'. It was this type of fiscal atrocity that spawned the Republican Revolution to begin with. Massachusetts voters will get a swift reminder. After a year or so of the Patrick administration, taxes will again be on the table again, in a big way.

MAINTAIN REASONABLY CONSERVATIVE STANCES ON SOCIAL ISSUES-- Our state is chalked full of socially conservative Democrats who, despite what the make up of the Judicial branch may suggest, will grow tired of the hyper-progressiveness of the current governor. As evidenced by the recent passage of the gay rights petition in the constitutional convention, liberals and the Democrats haven't figured out how to politically deal with the backlash. Opportunity looms.

Many Democrats in this state are socially conservative. Many are second and third generation Democrats who are Democrats mainly because their parents were. There are many socially conservative Independents. We have a large population of ethnic catholics like Italians, Portuguese and Hispanics, that while they may not altogether be in line with the Republican party on social matters, they lean Republican because of the strong social conservatism within the Pope Benedict Catholic Church. This is the one group we can skim numbers off of on the other side of the aisle. It's the one area where we can begin to pick up "I's".

The question is not whether we should proceed with speaking to these groups, but rather HOW we do it. This constitutional convention has taught us that lambasting (rightfully so) off the wall justices resonates with voters. Many Democrats didn't vote FOR the petition because they wanted to, but rather because they HAD to. Framing the debate by placing the onus on the change agents in this case (Democrats advocating for a CHANGE in marital rights) to make the argument effectively. In the short term, they will (and have to date) struggled to effectively do so.

While they struggle with formulating a message that doesn't label us as possessing a psychological form of dementia (see Def. of Homophobia), we need to try our hardest to not shoot our foot off. The radically conservative Republicans, while I may agree with them, have no clue how to market water to a well. They should be re-positioned into areas where they can help, not harm us on these issues. Careful management of this will win the day for Republicans.

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION-- Simply put, this may be the biggest issue in Massachusetts today that Republicans should completely and totally dominate. Tommy Finneran is going to plead guilty. He's the former speaker of the house and a Democrat. Billy Bulger. Need I say more kids? He's a 'D', too. How about locally? Michael Albano? Democrat. Angelo Puppolo? Democrat. Chris Asselin and family? Democrats. See the trend?

Voters in Massachusetts are looking for responsible public officials and I feel that we can fill that void. Railing against the deep corruption that permeates throughout the Massachusetts Democratic Party will not only score points, but easy points with voters. Municipalities may be more open to these calls on behalf of Republicans. Pittsfield has struggled with corruption. Springfield has struggled with corruption. Taunton, Lowell and Worcester have as well. Here's where we can make some serious in-roads.

Combining a universally sound but small party line enables us to use three popular stances to our advantage state wide but due to the sheer lack of depth in the platform, allows a candidate to focus more on non-partisan local issues, thus erasing the Republican v. Democrat dichotomy that exists in today's local state races. By positioning ourselves as candidates of character over all else, we win half the debate before stepping onto the stage. Inter-weaving a small yet impactful state party platform and gaging strong stances on local issues is vital to our success.

5.) "Just Run" Mantra needs to "Just go away"-- Many in the state party have and continue to relentlessly advocate for folks who have an "R" next to their name to run for everything. The idea is that the more you run, the better you'll do because you'll increase your 'name recognition' and as a result, your policy stances will begin to better resonate with voters over time. Sure, name recognition is great, but it's also a two-way street. It can be just as bad as it can be good. People losing by more than five points should no longer be considered for office. Our persistence in running them and encouraging their candidacies raises serious questions as to the standards we have for our public faces as a party.

Perhaps my biggest issue with the hopefully outgoing GOP leadership is that I question whether or not they view politics as anything more than a game? Like Tiddly Winks, Clue, or Coke/Pepsi. The decision to run a political campaign is one of the most difficult decisions a person can make in their lives. It exposes themselves, their family and friends to harsh scrutiny in the name of gaining more power. It can effect their businesses. People won't shop at certain establishments if they dislike your political affiliations that much. Wal-Mart anyone?

We need to have effective and highly persuasive state committee members willing to really hit the streets to find the best qualified and financed candidates available and convince them to run. Once they've made the decision, we need to make EVERY SINGLE EFFORT POSSIBLE to support the ever living heck out of them.

The formula is simple. Serious Candidates = The perception of a serious party. It's just like any small business. If you're employees on the store floor look professional and present themselves well, your business is likely to be more credible, or at least that's the assumption that is made. Therefore it is, in the mind of the consumer, a better choice to spend money at your business as opposed to another establishment that has less-professional looking employees who don't present themselves well. Same goes for politics. If the people we're running have been wiped clean multiple times or look like they've rolled off a mountain somewhere, it brings into question much more than just whether or not we're serious. It brings into question our sanity as a whole. Most dangerous of all, it makes voters question whether or not they should 'invest' (see vote) in our candidates. We need to do more to look the part. People will need to become 'OK' with running fewer, but stronger candidates. In party building, more doesn't always equal better. More often than not, less is always more.

6.) Think small in the big picture-- This runs nicely off my previous point. This one is very simple! If we run 10 well financed candidates in 10 districts where real data suggests we've got a legitimate shot at winning, we'll pick up seats. No matter how small the effort may be in scale, it is what it is, a head to head win and a gain of seats. Those wins will be bigger wins in the future. Small gains in the long run end up becoming big gains. A three seat gain one year can manifest itself into an 8-10 seat gain in the next cycle. In sum, We need to learn to walk before we can run. Fewer, well financed and well supported candidates stand a far better chance of winning than many, semi-well financed, poorly supported candidates would.

7.) Stop accepting failure and those whom wallow in it perpetually-- I heard someone at a recent state committee meeting talk about how The Martinez campaign up in Chelmsford 'resonated with voters' despite losing by an embarrassing 22 points. That's a drubbing. There's only room for winning in the game of campaign politics. Everything else is a waste of time. While it's not a nice thing to say, we need to come to terms with the fact that it's the RIGHT thing to say. Democrats are playing to win. So should we.

If that wasn't wild enough, another person said we lost this year because we were 'unlucky'? Is that implying that if we had WON we would have therefore been LUCKY!? This rationalizing of a gang rape is dangerous and should be tamped out. When we lose, we acknowledge it, look at what went wrong and try to avoid it in the future by taking proactive steps to prevent it. You'd figure things would be basic enough. If you're here to play fun time campaigner, run for President of a knitting group. Stay out of real politics.

8.) Realise that campaigning for a majority doesn't end when the last ballot has been counted-- Our task to build a Republican Majority is a far greater task than I think even I understand. For political change to occur in this type of political climate, a cultural change needs to happen. We need to change the way people think about not only the Democratic Party in Massachusetts, but our party as well..... all at the same time.

In order to do this, it will require an ongoing, continuous campaign that does not stop until our goal is accomplished. Candidates are recruited all year. Mailings are sent out every week, not just in September, October and November of every election year. We need to be visible by appearing on TV, making sure our events and what's being talked about at them is highlighted in the local media. We need to do more open houses and really emphasize WHY it's important and what it means to be a Republican and or a conservative. WHY it's important to vote Republican in national, state-wide and local elections. Our membership drives need to be continuous, ongoing and relentless. 49% of the population is unregistered. I call them free agents. Let's begin negotiating.

9.)Play as a Team-- God forbid Massachusetts Republicans showed everyone that we all played for the same team. This one should be a no-brainer but even this has slipped off the radar screen in recent months and plummeted into obscurity.

While working with some campaigns this year, I repeatedly phoned other campaigns in the region asking them to share volunteer lists, fundraising lists and doing whatever I could to share information within the candidate community. Not one campaign was willing to do this. Going along with the regionalization of the party, we need to pool our resources at the regional level. Volunteer lists, fundraising lists, voter lists, etc., should all be in one place and accessible to all who need them. Candidates stumping for other candidates. Elected officials SHOWING UP for more than a campaign announcement would help too.

To succeed in an undertaking as grand in scale as this one will need to be, we need to function as a team. This is the one area that needs to be the exception to the new rule I developed of 'less is more'.

Which leads to my 10th, final and most important point...........

10.) Making the Republican Party a Republican Community-- The Republican Party needs to be more than just a political party, it needs to be a community of people who share the same values and are interdependent. Networking ourselves with each other to advance the greater goal. There are numerous ways to cultivate and maintain this vision.

How about a Membership card with discounts at local establishments owned by fellow Republican Party members? Keep our money Republican money. Keep our goods Republican goods. We need to build a Republican community of people who help each other out in most communal aspects of their life. An old supervisor, a Democrat once told me, 'everything in your life will be dictated by the relationship you have and build with others'. She's right. Building that sense of community from within and being open to bringing in new members of a greater Republican community will be the only way we will ever earn a majority and maintain it.

While at first glance, this may seem extreme or even flat out odd to some reading, I, too would consider it strange only if it weren't for the Democrats, who ARE doing this right now, as I write and you read. Democrats shop at the same places. They attend the same seminars. They buy the same products. They have similar tastes in music, literature and other forms of entertainment. This is the only Democratic principle we should strive to emulate. In doing so, we open the door to a new Massachusetts. A Fiery Red, Republican Massachusetts.




Despite a nagging skepticism,I remain hopeful, that the Republican party has a bright future in Massachusetts so long as we are willing to come to terms with our failures in the past. The party is drunk on bad ideas right now. It seems like instead of admitting we have a problem and correcting it, we're just trading hard liquor for beer. If we were cigarette smokers, we'd be trading Marlboro Reds for Ultra lights. We need to put people in power who realise the party's shortcomings, but also have the vision and the perseverance to usher the party into a new chapter in it's history.

Therefore, I dub today "D-Day" as it is the most important day in our party's history. Our backs are against the wall and we need to perform well despite every conceivable obstacle one could imagine to exist is in front of us.

"Man is not a the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men."-- Benjamin Disraeli, Vivian Grey, 1826

Brian Lees..... Good Riddance

Recently, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow) has been doing everything he can to bash the state GOP and Governor Mitt Romney. When Republicans have friends like this, who needs enemies?

Recently on Brad & Bo in the Morning, the local morning radio show on WHYN AM radio out of Springfield, Lees went on the warpath, pulling no punches in demonstrating his contempt for the Governor as well as the state party that gave him his leadership post in the Senate and put him in office to begin with.

Senator Lees has, in my opinion, confirmed what many of us already knew. Brian Lees plays for one team: Team Brian Lees. Lees recently decided to take a pay raise and run for the wholley inconsequential office of Hampden County Clerk of Courts in hopes of some day being what Sheriff Michael Ashe is to many Democrats today, a socialite power-broker. Only problem seems to be that Lees apparently forgot that in order to be like Sheriff Ashe, you need to have, you know.... friends.

Lees had what appeared to be, all the political power a person could have in Hampden County. He was a nearly invincible incumbent Senator who had a ton of pull on Beacon Hill, despite heading up a virtually meaningless minority in the State Senate. Even though he took many questionable policy positions, his name was tossed around as a strong potential threat to Congressman Richard Neal of Springfield. Even the Springfield City Mayoral office was considered Lees' if he wanted it. Lees, by either staying put in the Senate, or by seeking higher office, could have potentially not only elevated his political stock, but granted some much needed credibility to the Massachusetts GOP in Hampden County.

Instead, Lees took the roughly $40,000 pay increase that comes with the oh so difficult task of scheduling court dates. Jim Goodhines, a Democrat from Longmeadow and an attorney by trade, ran a well organized and impressive campaign that tossed incumbent Clerk Marie Mazza from office and looked primed to take the win at the polls come November. In the meantime, Lees had decided to step down from his post as Senator and pledged his full support to aid Jack Villimaino (R-East Longmeadow) in his bid to replace him. However once the political landscape wasn't about Brian, he grew restless and decided to steal the show.

Two weeks before the primary, like any good glory hog, Lees tore the rug out from underneath his young aid and Goodhines by announcing his bid to become Clerk of Courts, first needing to secure the Republican nomination via write in ballot in the primaries. This did two things. First, due to the high level of coordination it takes to conduct a write in campaign, Lees took his volunteers away from the Villimaino campaign, which was in dire need of them and therefore trouncing any chance Villimaino had of keeping the seat Republican come November. Even more unfortunate, was all the money Lees had promised to raise Villimaino and didn't. Jack's volunteers were Brian's volunteers and now they were REALLY Brian's volunteers. Jack's money needed to come from Brian and, well, it didn't. Second, it showed that he was far less politically powerful than once thought, which may have been an even bigger blow to the party locally. Lees went on to defeat Goodhines, largely an unknown before the election by roughly a thousand votes, less than 2% of the popular vote. Lees couldn't even come off as a convincing bully.

Not only did Lees virtually hand his seat over to incoming State Senator-elect Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham), thus further depleting Republican ranks in the Senate, he exposed himself and therefore any hopes of an immediate gain or place of leverage politically within the area for the immediate time being. In order to further pour salt in the needlessly opened wounds, he's now launched a full out assault on Governor Mitt Romney and the entire state GOP.

Lees has proven himself to be not only politically impotent, but a social climber of the worst sort. It's never been about the party. He obviously didn't care much for his staff either. It's not about doing the right thing or being a virtuous public servant. It's about petty popularity and a pay raise. Although it may sting in the short term, it's all for the best in the long term. The state GOP and Western Massachusetts need team players if they are to rebuild themselves and prosper once more. We're much better off without Brian Lees and others who pretend to carry the banner for everyone but themselves. Good riddance.

I'm a Massachusetts Republican, and I Have a Problem

I spent my New Year's holiday with my Wife's family up in Chelmsford this weekend. I picked up today's version of the Lowell Sun to see one of the headline's reading "Tattered state GOP looking to rebuild". One of the major pieces of the article discussed the State GOP's newest Executive Director, a 28 year old former congressional aid, Brian Dodge.

Dodge, Minority Leader Senator Rich Tisei and some of the others were quoted in the article repeatedly talked about the importance of filling a ballot state-wide to rebuilding the party, which with the loss of the Corner Office, finds itself in shambles. To be blunt, I can't believe the denial we're experiencing within the state GOP despite the spanking we took in this year's elections. I am beginning to wonder if they get even the basics of what it's going to take to re-building the Massachusetts Republican Party.

The 'just run' philosophy has been a complete disaster for the state GOP and quite frankly, is irresponsible. Campaigns are about winning. If you don't win, you can't legislate, or at the very least, block bad legislation. Running random people for office in the name of, well, name recognition isn't the answer.

The problem with many of the candidates who run on the Republican ticket for state offices, is, well, that they've run too many times. In nearly every case, the fact is that they've been branded as losers. Regardless if those labels are fair or not, this perception should, by now, be a sobering reality state wide for Massachusetts Republicans. Name recognition is a two-way street. It can be great to have, but can also work against you. If you're running for the state legislature for the thirtieth time, you're labeled as the guy who runs for anything, no matter what. This reflects poorly on not only the candidate, but the party that's running them, as it shows a glaring weakness in the party's ability to recruit electable candidates.

This flaw makes me question whether or not State Party members really understand how serious running a campaign is as well as what the potential implications that come along with it once the votes have been counted are. Running for the legislature isn't tiddly-winks. It's not Coke and Pepsi. It's not a game. Political campaigns are incredibly costly financially as well as costly to one's reputation. If you run as a liberal or as a conservative, it can effect your business as well, causing long term issues.

Most damaging of all, it fosters a perpetual state of complacency and apathy that has infected the state party at the local level on an unprecedented scale. In Chelmsford, Susan Fargo's challenger Melly Martinez, lost by 22 points, yet folks at the state committee were lauding how the campaign 'resonated' with voters, this time. 22 points is a blow out. It didn't resonate with anything except losing. It's one thing to lose by 5 points and run again. A second try would be warranted then. However, when one is getting spanked that badly at the polls, you have to question the sanity of anyone that would deem a 22-point drubbing as anything but a massive failure.

When in the process of rebuilding, you lose site of the fact that sometimes we need to step back before we step forward, you doom yourself to this kind of perpetual futility, hopelessly digging for whatever fanatical delusion one can drum up to justify their failures to get the job done. In order to rebuild our party, we need to learn how to walk before we can run. The old saying that "All politics are local" should resonate deeply with those of us whom believe there CAN be a future in the commonwealth for the Republican party. However, we must also be willing to come to the table and run our candidates on principles that should be universally inherent within our current political climate.

Discontent with the Democratic majority on Beacon Hill is at an all time high. Several local municipalities have struggled with the challenges of a hamstrung economy due to high taxes and unprecedented government corruption. With a simple, universal conservative message driving fewer, targeted races, we can begin to make inroads. In counties like Hampden, where the gay marriage petition drew the second most opposition of anywhere in the state, where the trash tax in Springfield and taxes in general are loathed and has become a place where government corruption is deeply ingrained, we should be making inroads. It's places like Hampden, where the Mass GOP can build a small base with just by leading the discussion on issues that the voters already care about all the time, instead of when we're running for office, that the Republican party can grow.

Instead of running 60 candidates, why not run 10 well funded campaigns with messages that are guided by a universally appealing platform and solidified by sound local policy stances? If we lose 7 of those elections, that's fine. If we pick up three seats, we are closer to our greater long term goal of some day having a GOP majority in one or both houses in the legislature.

At the local level, state committees need to be held accountable for their continual dereliction of duty. At the same time, the state party needs to do a better job of providing these committees with the resources to succeed in candidate recruitment, the registration of new members and to increase visibility in their respective locals. Running a state party is a two way street. The local committees need to be willing to do the grunt work, the state party needs to be willing to be a guide. Both need to hold each other accountable for their successes and failures. Currently, these relationships don't exist on either level.

The opportunity is there for progress and for growth, yet those at the State GOP seem to be married to minor modifications to a plan that has failed on virtually every level since it's inception. The first step in beating any addiction is to admit one does in fact, have an addiction. Thus far, if the state party is addicted to alcohol, it's merely replacing dark lagers with a light draft. We are perilously close to extinction yet at the same time are staring a wide open door in the face. The time is now for action, however we must be willing to come to terms with what got us in this position in the first place before we figure out how to get out of it so that we don't find ourselves either here once again, or wiped out entirely. We need to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that "We are Massachusetts Republicans, and we have a problem".