The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

New Mass GOP Chair?

For John, BLUFNotwithstanding your belief that the GOP is a waste of time, we are the opposition and it is our duty to oppose.

The Massachusetts Republican Party is seeking a new Chairman.  A number of names have been bandied about.  Here is one review of the situation, although the reporter (or editor) is discredited in the lede:

The Massachusetts Repulican Party has never been as big or popular as the [C]ommonwealth's Democratic Party, but as it prepares to elect a new leader, the task ahead is daunting as ever
Look at Commonwealth Senators from the Civil War on.  A lot of Republicans.

I believe the consensus of the Lowell Republican City Committee is that our State Committeeman, Rick Green, is the person the Committeemembers should pick.  (Ms Susan Slade is our district's Committeewoman—we get one of each.)

Per Ms Sandi Martinez, a GOP Committeewoman for Chelmsfor, there will be a debate amongst perspective candidates this Thursday, 17 January, in Lexington.

- The time is 6:00 pm until 9:00 pm.
- The location is 1 Cranberry Hill, Lexington, MA

- There will be a Meet and Greet from 6 to 6:45 pm.

Dick Hersum, founder and Chairman of the Board of AMRC will speak briefly and introduce the candidates.  Then, Citizens for Limited Taxation's Chip Faulkner will moderate the first part of the debate.

As I mentioned the Lowell Republican City Committee has a consensus for Mr Rick Green.  Former Lowell Republican City Committee Activist Rob Eno is also supporting Mr Green.

Regards  —  Cliff


Craig H said...

Does "duty to oppose" make you as uncomfortable to type as is does me to read? Yes I know, believe me. "Question Authority" is one of my favorite mantras. But I still like to believe our duty is to contribute and, when able and when called, to serve. Our vision and our goals do much to define us and frame our potential.

JoeS said...

Yes, "duty to oppose" reinforces the negative stereotype of the Republican Party. Maybe "duty to offer constructive alternatives" would be a more positive challenge.

C R Krieger said...

It is a term of art!

Sure, as I typed it I thought about and asked myself if some might misunderstand, but I decided it was a well established principle and there would not be misunderstanding of how the friction of politics works, by one party opposing the other.

Here it is explained by The New York Times, and Columnist William Safire.

George Tierney, an 18th century English Whig, opined that the duty of an opposition was to oppose everthing and to propose nothing.  That was pure cynicism.  Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill later put forward the more sensible aphorism:  ''The duty of an Opposition is to oppose.''  Fair enough; in politics as in law, justice thrives when adversaries compete.  The most stagnant political period in American history was called the Era of Good Feeling, when one-party rule led to bickering over petty issues.

I think Mr George Tierney has it wrong, but Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill has it right.

Even MSMBC Talker Chris Matthews has talked about a "Duty" to oppose, although he limited it to Church Leaders.

Unless we are prepared to sit down and be quiet, based upon the idea that we are the "loosers" in the last election, or, opposite, just blend in and disappear, we must oppose.  We must point out the shortcomings of the other side.

Quoting from the Wikipedia link above:  "Former president James Madison had cautioned [President James] Monroe that in any free government, it was natural that party identity would take shape."

Yes, it is the duty of the opposition to oppose, and thus to bring to the attention of the voters the perils of the ideas being put forward by the majority.  The National Democrats wanting to close the budget gap almost exclusively with taxes?  If not the National Republicans, who will point out the bad math that involves?  They have a duty.

The Democrats have never opposed when "in opposition"?

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

There must be a reasonable distance between oppose and filibuster.

While Cantor holds his breath, we turn blue.

(That is not intended to be 'poetic.' America is sucking for oxygen while extremists fiddle.)

Jack Mitchell said...

The folks over at Blue Mass Group have a bone to pick with your guy:

AND IN THIS CORNER … Rick Green, a businessman and head of the Mass. Fiscal Alliance (whatever that means). Green recently appeared on Jeff Kuhner’s show on WRKO, and pulled off what many would consider impossible: he made Kuhner sound like the reasonable one in the conversation. Check out this rant from the beginning of the segment – entirely unprovoked by any question from Kuhner.

Wow – “union thugs.” And the “Democrat party.” Talk about sticking to the bad ol’ Republican playbook of demonizing working people and blaming others for your own problems. Amazing – the more that strategy fails, the more committed people like Green seem to be to trying it again. Hey, knock yourself out, Rick – as long as you guys stick with the failed strategies of the past, you make our job much easier.


They also noted Kirsten Hughes can't spell.

C R Krieger said...

Let us not be picking on people who can't spell!

Regards  —  Cliff

Craig H said...

I would still insist that a goal to simply "oppose" (as opposed to something more) inevitably leads to weak thinking and bad results. Consider the logical scenarios:

Some ideas are actually good. If the goal is pure opposition, (the dictionary definition of the word "perversity" comes to mind), ones credibility becomes a loser right along with ones opposition when the electorate does the judging. (I think today's Republicans suffer from a fair amount of this on several issues, and, of course, D's have their moments on this score as well).

Many ideas are of mixed value. Here pure opposition may not be as much deserving of ridicule as in the first case above, but pure opposition misses, first of all, the opportunity to improve the quality of the proposal via collaboration, and, second of all, the opportunity to lead via establishing a better alternative. Presently, we seem to have a contest to gain perceived credit for every collaboratively positive step that essentially makes any such collaborative step impossible. Everybody just looks bad. (To wit, Congress' approval ratings).

Last, but not least, some ideas are pure stinkers. Here the temptation is to showboat ones opposition a la shooting an already dead fish in a barrel. But what, really, does that accomplish in the end? Does it earn votes, or loyalty, or anything else of persistent political value? The "other" guys get to re-propose and make political hay of the attempt. All you get to do is wait to become the loser in scenario A or B above.

The duty of all is to do better. In business, we compete against others by establishing and delivering on the superiority of OUR value, not trying to subsist on merely tearing down the competition. Only in politics are people so slow to learn the pernicious and corrosive consequences of incessant "opposition" and negativity. In business, you could ask American manufacturers what ridiculing the quality of Japanese imports got for them 50 years ago.