A Maryland GOPer criticizes the MD GOP, for good reason

[Statistikhengst]

Maryland Republican Party: The Party of Stupid « The Hedgehog Report


The guy who runs this website from the link above is a Republican. His postings are usually about polling numbers only, but he is also active in the Maryland GOP and this posting of his today really stood out. The tiitle of his link is his wording, not mine.

I want to make it clear right now that I am not making this thread to trash Republicans. I am making this thread to make it clear that even rank-and-file Republicans are starting to have problems with a number of things going on within their party. The point that this person makes could be worthy of a major discussion, esp. of inclusivity within a political party.

I am quoting all of it, since it is short:

"I’ve been attending Maryland Republican Party conventions as a member of the State Central Committee for five years and every six months, the dysfunction seen atthis conventions makes it pretty clear why Republicans in Maryland are in such a minority. Today might have been one of the worst examples of how irrelevant this party is in the state of Maryland. After listening to a string of speeches, we got to the two resolutions that actual mattered. One of the resolutions had the following recommendation:

Be it Recommended, That the new Chairperson and each subsequent Chair create an advisory committee and formulate a plan of action in order to welcome those with diverse views to our party.

Be it Resolved, that the MDGOP is welcome to all with differing backgrounds and views as we work to bring fiscal responsibility back to our state and repair the damage inflicted by tax and spend economics.

Seems like a pretty sensible recommendation considering Maryland currently does have a single statewide official and is in such a minority in the legislature that they couldn’t even sustain a veto when they actually managed to get a Republican elected Governor. So did the members of Maryland Republican Party endorse this idea? Nope. In fact, we had to listen to a string of members denounce this idea, even at one point claiming this was just a way to make the party more “moderate” and at one point, Gerald Ford’s name was invoked. Yup, because Republicans lost an election in 1976, we should not reach out and figure out how to expand the party base. Seriously, have these people not been paying attention to the election results in Maryland for the past thirty years? But what made this vote even more ridiculous was just prior to this resolution, the same members rejected this resolution:

Be it resolved, The Maryland Republican Party calls upon any elected official who has been convicted and incarcerated to vacate his or her respective office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party discourages any candidate who has been convicted and incarcerated from seeking election or reelection to a public office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party will not endorse or support those convicted and incarcerated candidates and public officials, who, notwithstanding the above, continue to seek or hold public office.

This was obvious in response to one of the current Republican delegates who has now been convicted twice of alcohol related driving incidents (one involving a boat) who still remains as a delegate and has stated he will run for re-election. The absurdity of the opposition might have reached it height when another sitting Maryland delegate, in stating his opposition to this resolution, said we shouldn’t support this because it might mean he could be arrested for illegally having unspent ammunition in his car Really? The reason for your opposition is that you want to make sure you can violate the law yourself in the future without the party calling for you to vacate your office. SAdly, the opposition to this resolution was just as overwhelming as the opposition to the first resolution.

I am proud to say at least my home county of Howard County voted in favor of both resolutions. I think we may have been the only county to do so

To summarize the MDGOP convention resolution votes in one sentence, MD Republicans have more interest in supporting elected officials who committed a crime than they do reaching out to expand the party. And we wonder why we can’t win statewide….

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I've had a certain amount of contact with this guy, since we both collect and re-publish polling data. He classifies himself as somewhere between a Moderate and a Conservative, he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney, but to his credit, he never fudged with the polling averages or results and on election day 2012, he made exactly the same prediction I did: Obama 303 / Romney 235.

I think that this could open up a truly civil debate over a couple of points:

1.) What is inclusiveness? Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

2.) Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Disclosure: I am an admirer of Ford, for a number of reasons.



So, the ball is in your court now. Again, I am NOT trashing the GOP. The link was written by a Republican, not a Democrat. It is a topic I think is worth real thought and honest debate.

 

[Stephanie]

Be it resolved, The Maryland Republican Party calls upon any elected official who has been convicted and incarcerated to vacate his or her respective office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party discourages any candidate who has been convicted and incarcerated from seeking election or reelection to a public office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party will not endorse or support those convicted and incarcerated candidates and public officials, who, notwithstanding the above, continue to seek or hold public office.

too bad the Democrat party didn't resolve for these things...we might have a good start with BOTH parties
but that isn't going to happen...so whatever

and this is about Maryland politics...so why should it interest anyone who doesn't live there?

it's the people who live there, it's their problems...good luck finding Inclusive in that state
and I'll apologize if you were just referring to the MD. gop...but if you were talking all the GOP, this same question has been posted a lot before you joined...try the search dear, you'll see what I mean

 

[Listening]

Now, I've had a certain amount of contact with this guy, since we both collect and re-publish polling data. He classifies himself as somewhere between a Moderate and a Conservative, he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney, but to his credit, he never fudged with the polling averages or results and on election day 2012, he made exactly the same prediction I did: Obama 303 / Romney 235.

I think that this could open up a truly civil debate over a couple of points:

1.) What is inclusiveness? Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

2.) Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Disclosure: I am an admirer of Ford, for a number of reasons.



So, the ball is in your court now. Again, I am NOT trashing the GOP. The link was written by a Republican, not a Democrat. It is a topic I think is worth real thought and honest debate.

Fair questions...although I am not sure what the story had to do entirely with the questions.

If I index back to John Jay...Federalist 2 he says people bind together to form governments which are necessary. But in doing so, they give up some rights to preserve others. Supposedly, the trade off is worth it.

Inclusiveness would mean the same thing, in my estimation. You make deals that are a net win win for both sides. But no deal or arrangement is without it's negatives. That is almost always the case.

I am a conservative. I live in the midwest (not raised here). I get disgusted with the local GOP for being the same way. I can't go to a GOP activity where the entire discussion isn't about abortion. I could care less at this point. I am pro-life, but railing on abortion does nothing for us.

So my point is that you make the arrangements that get you where you need to go as best you can without giving up everything. I supported someone besides Romney in the primary, but when Romney won, I worked for him. I argued with others that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing...and that if you keep at it....you get might get more than 50%.

Dufus Akins was in Missouri basically giving away an easy senate seat. I said he should step out and other said, we don't want those Rinos in there. So who did we get ?

Principle is most important inside your front door. That is where you have the most influence. After that, the farther away from home you get, the more you compromise (which is why I hate the federal government).

So, yes you can include and not dilute. Everyone understands how the game is played and given how stupid the GOP is right now...you have to wonder how screwed up the dems are...they should be kicking our asses.

As to Ford, I think you'd need to look at things differently. Today, Romney would be considered conservative next to him. But I don't think Ford of then would have been Ford of today...he was a bit pragmatic.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is inclusiveness?

To focus on policy only, not one’s behavior, personal life, or personal beliefs.

Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

No.

Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Pragmatist.

Among the last of his kind, unfortunately.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Weakens my debate? I see nothing worthy to debate. Was just curious to see how one sided you were going to be. You've quelled my curiosity. Thx.

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] -

I disagree with you, 100%- first debate what is here, and then, if you wish, I can find something comparable on the Democratic side.

And yes, it does weaken your argument, considerably.

"But mommy, he didn't mention complaining Democrats in the same sentence! Bad, bad man!!!"

come one... let's be a little more grown up than that.

Disagree all you want. I determine what is worthy for me to debate ...not you. I asked you to be fair and you said no. You get defensive. Ok. No big deal. And I don't wish for you to find something on the democrat side because what you found on the republican side was not as fascinating as you think. Nor is much else you're spewing. Thx.

Oh...and I don't require the @ ...if I'm interested I'll come back by.

No, Bloodrock44, in order to be fair, I do not need to engage in false equivalency. That is actually what you are asking for - in order to even justify having this thread, you somehow think I must also publish an incident of a Democrat also criticizing his party side-by-side with the content of this OP, but that is nothing more than shallow, false- equivalency, and at the same time, YOU passed up a good opportunity to add information like that yourself, as part of your own debate strategy. For, you see, in the Democratic Party, self-critique is often the order of the day, which is why we have such a BIG tent, and also perhaps why yours is so small. And getting even smaller.

I also made you a promise that I would even actually bring such information about Democratic self-critique into this thread AFTER you were to debate what is actually in the OP, but you are obviously not interested in real or respectful debate. What a shame. I don't do false equivalency. Sorry, it is just not my thing.

[MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]
[MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]
[MENTION=46181]Davocrat[/MENTION]
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]
[MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]
[MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]
[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
[MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]
[MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION]


Thought that the mentioned individuals may have something to contribute to this debate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

again newbie, I'll remind you this has been posted a 100 times...search can be your friend...You think you can hide and escape any advice because you're in this zone..then just whine and stomp your feet..it says a lot about you and none of it is good
now get cheese with that whine

And I will remind you again, my name is not "newbie"; my name here is "Statistikhengst", which some like to shorten to "Stat". I won't be reminding you of this again. I will simply be reporting it every time you do this.

If you think you can cower me with such behaviour, then you have grossly misjudged me.

Care to try again, this time correctly?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Now, I've had a certain amount of contact with this guy, since we both collect and re-publish polling data. He classifies himself as somewhere between a Moderate and a Conservative, he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney, but to his credit, he never fudged with the polling averages or results and on election day 2012, he made exactly the same prediction I did: Obama 303 / Romney 235.

I think that this could open up a truly civil debate over a couple of points:

1.) What is inclusiveness? Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

2.) Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Disclosure: I am an admirer of Ford, for a number of reasons.



So, the ball is in your court now. Again, I am NOT trashing the GOP. The link was written by a Republican, not a Democrat. It is a topic I think is worth real thought and honest debate.

Fair questions...although I am not sure what the story had to do entirely with the questions.

If I index back to John Jay...Federalist 2 he says people bind together to form governments which are necessary. But in doing so, they give up some rights to preserve others. Supposedly, the trade off is worth it.

Inclusiveness would mean the same thing, in my estimation. You make deals that are a net win win for both sides. But no deal or arrangement is without it's negatives. That is almost always the case.

I am a conservative. I live in the midwest (not raised here). I get disgusted with the local GOP for being the same way. I can't go to a GOP activity where the entire discussion isn't about abortion. I could care less at this point. I am pro-life, but railing on abortion does nothing for us.

So my point is that you make the arrangements that get you where you need to go as best you can without giving up everything. I supported someone besides Romney in the primary, but when Romney won, I worked for him. I argued with others that 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing...and that if you keep at it....you get might get more than 50%.

Dufus Akins was in Missouri basically giving away an easy senate seat. I said he should step out and other said, we don't want those Rinos in there. So who did we get ?

Principle is most important inside your front door. That is where you have the most influence. After that, the farther away from home you get, the more you compromise (which is why I hate the federal government).

So, yes you can include and not dilute. Everyone understands how the game is played and given how stupid the GOP is right now...you have to wonder how screwed up the dems are...they should be kicking our asses.

As to Ford, I think you'd need to look at things differently. Today, Romney would be considered conservative next to him. But I don't think Ford of then would have been Ford of today...he was a bit pragmatic.

Thanks for posting this.

Now, here is a Conservative with whom I can healthfully debate! [MENTION=32163]Listening[/MENTION] - thank you for stopping by, thank your for giving input, thank you for challenging ideas. Every Conservative who treats me with respect will receive the same, and more.

To your ideas,

1.) Yes, I like what John Jay says - but it must also be a matter of balance. However, I do not see a direct relation between that and the two resolutions that were brought forth at the Maryland GOP meeting. For the first resolution, if you will, simply indicates that the Maryland GOP should be more inclusive. Now, how you want to define "inclusion" was the point that I was hoping serious Conservatives here would jump on, which you did to a certain point.

I will be even more specific: inclusion, as far as I am concerned, does not mean that everyone must always be welcome. I sure as heck don't want Neo-Nazis or racists or rapists (no, that is not an opening for RW crazies to mention Bill Clinton, forget it, he was NOT a rapist) in the Democratic Party, but people of diverse backgrounds shiould be welcome. Democrats who are more of the corporate type stood shoulder to shoulder with very Left-Wing Democrats in order to elect Pres. Obama twice. And we just saw that the very same type of "Obama coalition" held in the Virginia Gubernatorial and AG races about 3 weeks ago, and that in an off-year and in a state that has a paradigm of putting the opposition party to the White House into the Governor's mansion in VA. And again, a wild Tea Party type like Cuccinelli killed the GOP's chances of maintaining this type of paradigm. Why? Well, imo, party because Cuccinelli is anything but inclusive.

2.) As for Todd Akin - without wanting to step on anyone's toes too much, his views on women and abortion simply killed his campaign, Ditto for Mourdock in Indiana. But the real argument can be made whether these people are true conservatives, or better, whether their extreme views help fiscal conservatives who may be more willing to be moderate on social issues. Were we to talk to each other about the broad spectrum of my views and your views, you would quickly find that I am all over the spectrum en toto. And we can have that conversation, if you like. It would be a big mistake for people to just label me as a pure Liberal.


3.) I especially like your statement about 'include but not dilute'. That was well-written and thoughtful. May I use that elsewhere in this forum?

I also think it is weird that members of the Maryland GOP invoked Gerald R. Ford's name as somehow being bad and a reason for not being inclusive. Ford was, for my way of thinking, a lucky accident as "accidental" president, have neither been elected to the Vice-Presidency nor the Presidency. He was a decent, kind person and his track record in his short tenure was actually very steady. It was his pardon of Nixon that killed his re-election.

And you would think that the second resolution would be easily passed, I mean, that was a no-brainer. And yes, there are state Democratic parties that also let this stuff get through, and it pisses me off to no end. Crooks have no place in the Democratic or Republican parties, I would want to say.

Thanks for stopping by, hope to hear from you again.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What is inclusiveness?

To focus on policy only, not one’s behavior, personal life, or personal beliefs.

Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

No.

Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Pragmatist.

Among the last of his kind, unfortunately.

Short, sweet, to the point, and I agree with you on all three points. Thanks for stopping by!!

 

[Thx]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

 

[Intense]

Reminder. This is the CDZ. The focus is Civil Discourse. No Flaming or insulting other Posters.

 

[mudwhistle]

Maryland Republican Party: The Party of Stupid « The Hedgehog Report


The guy who runs this website from the link above is a Republican. His postings are usually about polling numbers only, but he is also active in the Maryland GOP and this posting of his today really stood out. The tiitle of his link is his wording, not mine.

I want to make it clear right now that I am not making this thread to trash Republicans. I am making this thread to make it clear that even rank-and-file Republicans are starting to have problems with a number of things going on within their party. The point that this person makes could be worthy of a major discussion, esp. of inclusivity within a political party.

I am quoting all of it, since it is short:

"I’ve been attending Maryland Republican Party conventions as a member of the State Central Committee for five years and every six months, the dysfunction seen atthis conventions makes it pretty clear why Republicans in Maryland are in such a minority. Today might have been one of the worst examples of how irrelevant this party is in the state of Maryland. After listening to a string of speeches, we got to the two resolutions that actual mattered. One of the resolutions had the following recommendation:

Be it Recommended, That the new Chairperson and each subsequent Chair create an advisory committee and formulate a plan of action in order to welcome those with diverse views to our party.

Be it Resolved, that the MDGOP is welcome to all with differing backgrounds and views as we work to bring fiscal responsibility back to our state and repair the damage inflicted by tax and spend economics.

Seems like a pretty sensible recommendation considering Maryland currently does have a single statewide official and is in such a minority in the legislature that they couldn’t even sustain a veto when they actually managed to get a Republican elected Governor. So did the members of Maryland Republican Party endorse this idea? Nope. In fact, we had to listen to a string of members denounce this idea, even at one point claiming this was just a way to make the party more “moderate” and at one point, Gerald Ford’s name was invoked. Yup, because Republicans lost an election in 1976, we should not reach out and figure out how to expand the party base. Seriously, have these people not been paying attention to the election results in Maryland for the past thirty years? But what made this vote even more ridiculous was just prior to this resolution, the same members rejected this resolution:

Be it resolved, The Maryland Republican Party calls upon any elected official who has been convicted and incarcerated to vacate his or her respective office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party discourages any candidate who has been convicted and incarcerated from seeking election or reelection to a public office, and

Be it further resolved, That the Maryland Republican Party will not endorse or support those convicted and incarcerated candidates and public officials, who, notwithstanding the above, continue to seek or hold public office.

This was obvious in response to one of the current Republican delegates who has now been convicted twice of alcohol related driving incidents (one involving a boat) who still remains as a delegate and has stated he will run for re-election. The absurdity of the opposition might have reached it height when another sitting Maryland delegate, in stating his opposition to this resolution, said we shouldn’t support this because it might mean he could be arrested for illegally having unspent ammunition in his car Really? The reason for your opposition is that you want to make sure you can violate the law yourself in the future without the party calling for you to vacate your office. SAdly, the opposition to this resolution was just as overwhelming as the opposition to the first resolution.

I am proud to say at least my home county of Howard County voted in favor of both resolutions. I think we may have been the only county to do so

To summarize the MDGOP convention resolution votes in one sentence, MD Republicans have more interest in supporting elected officials who committed a crime than they do reaching out to expand the party. And we wonder why we can’t win statewide….

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I've had a certain amount of contact with this guy, since we both collect and re-publish polling data. He classifies himself as somewhere between a Moderate and a Conservative, he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney, but to his credit, he never fudged with the polling averages or results and on election day 2012, he made exactly the same prediction I did: Obama 303 / Romney 235.

I think that this could open up a truly civil debate over a couple of points:

1.) What is inclusiveness? Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

2.) Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Disclosure: I am an admirer of Ford, for a number of reasons.



So, the ball is in your court now. Again, I am NOT trashing the GOP. The link was written by a Republican, not a Democrat. It is a topic I think is worth real thought and honest debate.

This seems to be a surprise to you.

Republican voters have had a problem with the GOP for years.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqka0DFRGSk]Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube[/ame]

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

 

[Thx]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqka0DFRGSk]Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube[/ame]

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

edit BBL guys.

Thx

 

[Statistikhengst]

Maryland Republican Party: The Party of Stupid « The Hedgehog Report


The guy who runs this website from the link above is a Republican. His postings are usually about polling numbers only, but he is also active in the Maryland GOP and this posting of his today really stood out. The tiitle of his link is his wording, not mine.

I want to make it clear right now that I am not making this thread to trash Republicans. I am making this thread to make it clear that even rank-and-file Republicans are starting to have problems with a number of things going on within their party. The point that this person makes could be worthy of a major discussion, esp. of inclusivity within a political party.

I am quoting all of it, since it is short:

"I’ve been attending Maryland Republican Party conventions as a member of the State Central Committee for five years and every six months, the dysfunction seen atthis conventions makes it pretty clear why Republicans in Maryland are in such a minority. Today might have been one of the worst examples of how irrelevant this party is in the state of Maryland. After listening to a string of speeches, we got to the two resolutions that actual mattered. One of the resolutions had the following recommendation:



Seems like a pretty sensible recommendation considering Maryland currently does have a single statewide official and is in such a minority in the legislature that they couldn’t even sustain a veto when they actually managed to get a Republican elected Governor. So did the members of Maryland Republican Party endorse this idea? Nope. In fact, we had to listen to a string of members denounce this idea, even at one point claiming this was just a way to make the party more “moderate” and at one point, Gerald Ford’s name was invoked. Yup, because Republicans lost an election in 1976, we should not reach out and figure out how to expand the party base. Seriously, have these people not been paying attention to the election results in Maryland for the past thirty years? But what made this vote even more ridiculous was just prior to this resolution, the same members rejected this resolution:




This was obvious in response to one of the current Republican delegates who has now been convicted twice of alcohol related driving incidents (one involving a boat) who still remains as a delegate and has stated he will run for re-election. The absurdity of the opposition might have reached it height when another sitting Maryland delegate, in stating his opposition to this resolution, said we shouldn’t support this because it might mean he could be arrested for illegally having unspent ammunition in his car Really? The reason for your opposition is that you want to make sure you can violate the law yourself in the future without the party calling for you to vacate your office. SAdly, the opposition to this resolution was just as overwhelming as the opposition to the first resolution.

I am proud to say at least my home county of Howard County voted in favor of both resolutions. I think we may have been the only county to do so

To summarize the MDGOP convention resolution votes in one sentence, MD Republicans have more interest in supporting elected officials who committed a crime than they do reaching out to expand the party. And we wonder why we can’t win statewide….

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I've had a certain amount of contact with this guy, since we both collect and re-publish polling data. He classifies himself as somewhere between a Moderate and a Conservative, he was a strong supporter of Mitt Romney, but to his credit, he never fudged with the polling averages or results and on election day 2012, he made exactly the same prediction I did: Obama 303 / Romney 235.

I think that this could open up a truly civil debate over a couple of points:

1.) What is inclusiveness? Does inclusiveness cause someone to have to give up his principles?

2.) Was Gerald Ford (1974-1977) a Moderate, or a Conservative?

Disclosure: I am an admirer of Ford, for a number of reasons.



So, the ball is in your court now. Again, I am NOT trashing the GOP. The link was written by a Republican, not a Democrat. It is a topic I think is worth real thought and honest debate.

This seems to be a surprise to you.

Republican voters have had a problem with the GOP for years.

I would be interested to hear more specifics from you about this.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The GOP seems like it can't go forward without grinding gears.

First off, it seems to me that The Constitution is a document that broadly outlines the rights of the citizen and the limitations of govt...

So, when you try and introduce amendments like "outlawing gay marriage" for example... take away or restrict rights on citizens, you are standing in a precarious place.

Cries of "Freedom, Freedom!" ring hollow in such light and such action. Consider how John Baynor (<might as well spell it as it's pronounced to avoid confusion .) refuses to put ENDA to a vote... what in the heck is he afraid of, "freedom"?

The will of the duly elected legislature?

Is it right when one person, for personal reasons, personal fears of "frivolous lawsuits" alone can usurp the will of a majority of the legislators? And some people refer to the President as "King Obama"... who is being a despot now?

Is he the "fall guy" so the rest can go home in 2014 and claim they supported ENDA? (If pressed on it that is...)

Next, we have the ongoing and recent attempts at voter suppression... how in the world do you expect to be "inclusive" with something like that? And did it ever occur to these that if they did manage to expand their base they would be suppressing their own supporters?

This is the kind of "Bizarroland" "logic" that must somehow be purged from the party and I applaud this gentleman's attempt at enlightening his own party, and if a democrat said the same thing many would write it off: "Meh, that's liberal lunacy!".

It's a little more difficult to schlub off when it comes from a conservative.

And my own advice is for reasonable conservatives to apply peer pressure if they want to have any chance of getting their party back in shape, I repeat: Peer Pressure.

"Irrational", "unreasonable" opposition serves no one including the unreasonable themselves...

You guys have favored the "1%" and that's about the percentage of popular vote you are working towards: 1%.

Thx

Spot-on!

You know it is a problem nationally when even Bob Dole mentions it, on, of all places, FOX NEWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqka0DFRGSk]Bob Dole Lashes Republican Party They Should Put A Sign On The Door That Says 'Closed For Repairs' - - YouTube[/ame]

Just to remind: Bob Dole was the GOP standard bearer in 1996.

I'm sure Bob Dole is considered an old RINO by many.

It seems to me that the middle-right have been using the T-party like an attack dog that they let off the leash, or let's just say let loose unchecked to spew the vile things, "testing" the limits and then if called on it or finding the majority of the public disapprove...

Then they can just write off the Ted Cruz's of the world as their "Drunk Uncle" and you'll have to excuse them, they don't speak for me" etc.

When in the heck are we going to get back to regular, "run of the mill", if you will legislating and governing?

Why does everything we see have to have some "mouse trap", Karl Rovian slant on it?

Everyone apparently wants something like Immigration reform... "but nyooooo" some little hitch like a John Baynor can hold up the entire country for purely personal reasons.

And.. I don't see anyone on the right criticizing him on this...

Is everything going to be held up until we have a virtual "do-over" of the 2012 election?

Thx

I would like to point out some things very specific to Maryland, since that state is the focus of this OP:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 7 / 45: Maryland

Just 25 years ago, George W. Bush, Sr - 41 (R-TX), won this state with 51.11% of the vote. Ronald Reagan won here in 1984 with 52.51% of the vote. It is possible for Republicans to win in this state. This is not a purely Eastern-Liberal-Democratic state like people may think. The Democrats have a substantial voter registration advantage in this state, but it can go for a moderate Republican.

And just as Democrats accept a very Right-oriented blue-dog Dem like Joe Manchin out of West Virginia, Republicans should accept the fact that they may need a Rockefeller Republican if they want to even be competitive in a place like Maryland.

IMO, if they don't do that, they are willfully exluding themselves from a number of possible pick-up states.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why did millions of conservatives choose to sit out the last election?

Because they don't trust the current leadership.

Obama has rolled over them from day-one with little or no push back. Then he turns around and wonders out loud why they aren't willing to work with him, when in fact Obama refuses to work with Congress. It was part of his re-election campaign. "I cannot work inside the system, so I have to go around it!" Truth is working with folks he despises is nearly impossible for our president. He's just not wired that way. He gives the orders. End of story. The GOP should tell him to fuck off but they fear Obama's media cohorts. This is why we have issues with the GOP.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Why did millions of conservatives choose to sit out the last election?

Because they don't trust the current leadership.

Obama has rolled over them from day-one with little or no push back. Then he turns around and wonders out loud why they aren't willing to work with him, when in fact Obama refuses to work with Congress. It was part of his re-election campaign. "I cannot work inside the system, so I have to go around it!" Truth is working with folks he despises is nearly impossible for our president. He's just not wired that way. He hives the orders. End of story. The GOP should tell him to fuck off but they fear Obama's media cohorts.

They didn't.


Statistically, you cannot be right.

More voters voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008. Romney's statistic lies somewhere between McCain 2008 and Bush 2004.

It wasn't "millions and millions". And furthermore, in the vast majority of RED states, as they are called, Romney greatly improved on McCain's statistic and got more votes, most notably, in WV, TN, KY, AR, MO, IN, ND, SD, UT, WY, ID, AZ, AL, SC, NC, TX and MT. 2012 was the first year in television or radio history in which the state of Arkansas was called for the Republican nominee the very moment the polls closed. This did not happen for Ike, Nixon or Reagan. Oodles and oodles of Conservative voters DID come out to vote for Romney. Only in AK, LA and MS - three RED states, did Romney fall under McCain's statistic and in the case of both MS and LA, just barely.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why did millions of conservatives choose to sit out the last election?

Because they don't trust the current leadership.

Obama has rolled over them from day-one with little or no push back. Then he turns around and wonders out loud why they aren't willing to work with him, when in fact Obama refuses to work with Congress. It was part of his re-election campaign. "I cannot work inside the system, so I have to go around it!" Truth is working with folks he despises is nearly impossible for our president. He's just not wired that way. He hives the orders. End of story. The GOP should tell him to fuck off but they fear Obama's media cohorts.

They didn't.


Statistically, you cannot be right.

More voters voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008. Romney's statistic lies somewhere between McCain 2008 and Bush 2004.

It wasn't "millions and millions". And furthermore, in the vast majority of RED states, as they are called, Romney greatly improved on McCain's statistic and got more votes, most notably, in WV, TN, KY, AR, MO, IN, ND, SD, UT, WY, ID, AZ, AL, SC, NC, TX and MT. 2012 was the first year in television or radio history in which the state of Arkansas was called for the Republican nominee the very moment the polls closed. This did not happen for Ike, Nixon or Reagan. Oodles and oodles of Conservative voters DID come out to vote for Romney. Only in AK, LA and MS - three RED states, did Romney fall under McCain's statistic and in the case of both MS and LA, just barely.

I didn't say millions and millions.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Why did millions of conservatives choose to sit out the last election?

Because they don't trust the current leadership.

Obama has rolled over them from day-one with little or no push back. Then he turns around and wonders out loud why they aren't willing to work with him, when in fact Obama refuses to work with Congress. It was part of his re-election campaign. "I cannot work inside the system, so I have to go around it!" Truth is working with folks he despises is nearly impossible for our president. He's just not wired that way. He hives the orders. End of story. The GOP should tell him to fuck off but they fear Obama's media cohorts.

They didn't.


Statistically, you cannot be right.

More voters voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008. Romney's statistic lies somewhere between McCain 2008 and Bush 2004.

It wasn't "millions and millions". And furthermore, in the vast majority of RED states, as they are called, Romney greatly improved on McCain's statistic and got more votes, most notably, in WV, TN, KY, AR, MO, IN, ND, SD, UT, WY, ID, AZ, AL, SC, NC, TX and MT. 2012 was the first year in television or radio history in which the state of Arkansas was called for the Republican nominee the very moment the polls closed. This did not happen for Ike, Nixon or Reagan. Oodles and oodles of Conservative voters DID come out to vote for Romney. Only in AK, LA and MS - three RED states, did Romney fall under McCain's statistic and in the case of both MS and LA, just barely.

I didn't say millions and millions.

True, but "millions" alone is enough to be wrong on this one.

 

[mudwhistle]

They didn't.


Statistically, you cannot be right.

More voters voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008. Romney's statistic lies somewhere between McCain 2008 and Bush 2004.

It wasn't "millions and millions". And furthermore, in the vast majority of RED states, as they are called, Romney greatly improved on McCain's statistic and got more votes, most notably, in WV, TN, KY, AR, MO, IN, ND, SD, UT, WY, ID, AZ, AL, SC, NC, TX and MT. 2012 was the first year in television or radio history in which the state of Arkansas was called for the Republican nominee the very moment the polls closed. This did not happen for Ike, Nixon or Reagan. Oodles and oodles of Conservative voters DID come out to vote for Romney. Only in AK, LA and MS - three RED states, did Romney fall under McCain's statistic and in the case of both MS and LA, just barely.

I didn't say millions and millions.

True, but "millions" alone is enough to be wrong on this one.

millions as in 3-4 million registered voters.