Cranky Delegates on the Floor

For John, BLUF:  Differences of opinion abound.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From someone I know:

I was for Mark Fisher.
I was not comfortable with the way the voting was done at the Convention.
I was pounced upon by my State Committeewoman to change to a Charlieguy, early in the morning. She told me that a Fisher vote was a bad idea.
I was later pounded on for Charlie by a delegate who later wound up recording the vote. She told me that a vote for Fisher was a bad idea. Then I saw her recording the verbal votes.

Then to see that Fisher was killed by blank votes makes me very suspect that I was once again railroaded by the State Committee.
Charlie Baker is a big guy and I feel like he was shoved down my throat by the State Committee. Is public debate dead?

If we vote it should be in writing so that the results can be verified and replicated.

I have no evidence of foul play, but my instincts tell me that there is a skunk under the shed.

Frankly, a number of Republicans I know were for Mark Fisher at this point, because they wanted him to have the 15% of the delegate votes, so there would be a contested primary.  Why a contested primary?  To get the issues out there and to find out who supports what.

I would suggest that those of us out here in the grass roots don't like the "Down Town" (read Boston-centric) Republicans trying to dictate to us.

Was it a railroad job?  We will never know.

What we do know is that a chance to debate the issues important to the voters of this Commonwealth has been missed and we will all be poorer for it.

Regards  —  Cliff