An Open Letter to Kirsten Hughes

An Open Letter to Kirsten Hughes

Chairman, Massachusetts Republican Party

Dear Chairman Hughes:

The recent US Senate Special Election has kicked off a firestorm among many Republicans, some whom I represent and many other long time Republicans.  Their common theme is that we as a Party continue to make the same mistakes over and over, leading to loss after loss.  Almost worse, there is concern that we have grown complacent in simply accepting the inevitable, so complacent in fact that we are putting little or no effort into the open 5th Congressional seat.  To get back on track, we need to acknowledge our mistakes, and then implement a plan to change the way we conduct business.

There is no way to sugar coat what happened on June 25th of this year. This was an election that should have been won.  It was ours for the taking, but only with a strong Republican candidate supported by a strong Republican message.  Ed Markey was uninspiring, and the Democrat base was unmotivated.  But our voters were even less motivated.  The Conservative Independents, the Reagan Democrats, and the Moderate Independent/Democrats were all disinterested.  In fact, none of the voting blocs we need to win elections will ever vote for a candidate as far left as Mr. Gomez.  We can think they should, hope they would, or even pray that they will, but history shows that to motivate our voters, our candidate must adhere much more closely to traditional Republican beliefs.  And history also shows that without a motivated base, we cannot win.

In election after election, we continuously have the same problems.  First we minimize the importance of our core voters, and fail to understand what brings them out to the polls.  Second, we welcome with open arms candidates who move so far to the left as to be indistinguishable from liberal Democrats.  Thirdly, we forsake message in order to protect these left leaning candidates.

Problem # 1 – Our Core  Voter

We consistently misunderstand the mindset of our core voter, and underestimate their passion for the principles of the Republican Party.  These people are a principled and strong willed group, who put agreed upon common sense principles far ahead of anything as suspect as Party affiliation. So when a candidate runs away from those principles, often times proudly stating that he or she is more of compromise than of conviction, we should never be surprised that they do not turn out.  Time after time however we wonder why they sit home.  But they do, because they shun any candidate at any level who speaks loudly and proudly of “working with the Democrats”.  They see that as providing a political crutch to the Party that voted to ruin our health-care system, that takes away our individual freedoms, that over-regulates our businesses and that wants to turn over our nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.  They see the Democrats for what they are and what they will always be – a malicious group who never ever shies away from lying about Republicans and blaming Republicans. All while warping young minds, and pitting American against American.  So if a candidate ever wants to lose a Republican race, simply make “reaching across the aisle” a centerpiece of the campaign.  When a Republican candidate speaks the words “I want to work with Democrats”, what our voters hear is “I am not to be trusted.  I am more of the same.”

Problem #2 – Embracing Weak, Anti-GOP Candidates

The fact that Mr. Gomez was our candidate in this election is not the issue.  Under current rules, he won the Primary Election fair and square.  But how and why did a candidate with so little experience even get to the point of being on the ballot?  Now if the goal is to continue to lose, our Party leadership can claim they played no role in promoting the Gomez candidacy.  But if we want to stop the bleeding, we need to be honest.  Nobody is naïve enough to believe that our leaderships does not in fact seek out and encourage left leaning candidates to run statewide, as it did with Mr. Gomez.  It props up their candidacy, and gives vitality to candidates who might otherwise never even make it on the scene.  Worse, it does so without properly vetting these candidates.  In allowing Mr. Gomez to even think he had a hope of leadership support, it hindered far better though less affluent candidates from rising to the top.  The improper endorsement by then RNC Committee Woman Healey on MA GOP stationary is the most blatant example of the favoritism that helped propel an unqualified upstart to the top of our ticket.

The lesson here is that it is indeed the responsibility of the MA GOP to seek out qualified candidates, but only candidates vetted completely beforehand.  But what is not proper is to get involved before the Primary.  GOP Leadership must stick to the letter and the spirit of our by-laws, and stay completely out of any Primary race.

Problem #3 – Candidate over Message

The other way the MA GOP makes it easy for liberals to run for office as a Republican is the inclination to stay silent on important issues.  We remain silent because our candidate holds a totally different position than the mainstream voter.  In order not to hurt their chances for election, we shy away from Press Releases and strong stances on issues that affect the quality of life of our voters.  This is better explained with a few example of winning issues we have ignored.

1)      The Bathroom Bill. What mother or father, in either political party, wants a situation in our public school where their little girl or boy is required to share a locker room or bathroom with a grown member of the opposite sex?  None!  It is an overwhelming winning issue for Republicans.  As a Party we should be banging the table on this one, and pushing for repeal.  But we fail to speak out against it because one of our candidates, a supposed rising star, was a big proponent.

2)      Common Core. What parent ever wants to lose control of his child’s elementary school to bureaucrats from the Federal Government?  None!  And if it is the women’s vote we want, then understand that no issue is more important to a women than her child’s education.  But in spite of that, the MA GOP never took a position against Common Core, while our US Senate candidate stood with Deval Patrick  and the leftists.  Another lost opportunity.

3)      The Right to Bear Arms.  Gun control and the US Constitution are polar opposites.  And if we do not stand for the Constitution, then we really do stand for nothing.   Mr. Gomez was for background checks and for assault weapons bans.  For our gun owners, that was anathema.  Where is the MA GOP on an issue so fundamental to our principles?

4)       Illegal Immigration.  In joining with the unholy gang of eight, Gomez stood for rewarding law breakers with a path to citizenship.  He openly bragged about being pre-amnesty.  In supporting that legislation, he was also supporting trillions more in spending, making any claim of being a “fiscal conservative” nothing more than pretty words.   This is a gigantic winning issue for us, but we balked.

Stay silent and be defined by the Democrats.  We’ve tried that – it doesn’t work.  Use the bully pulpit for effective messaging, and we can get our voters to the polls.  And we will win!  Speak with passion on these issues and others, like Agenda 21, or on a State Judiciary hell bent on destroying families.  EBT reform is a nice issue, but it is only one issue.  And as we are seeing now, the Democrats have proven time after time that they can and will steal fiscal issues right out of our grasp.  Tomorrow, Rolling Stone Magazine will throw you a softball.  Please hit it out of the park.

Also, please do not stand idly by while Republican candidates take cheap shots at Republican values and principles.  Fire back and it will be last time any Republican candidate engages in that disgusting practice.

Candidates will come and go.  Some will adhere solidly to our principles.  Some may not.  But let the candidates come to us, not the other way around.  Voters admire courage and conviction, but they are seeing little of that from the MA GOP.  Build our house on a solid foundation, and our family will grow and prosper.  Build our house on sand and we will continue to slip.

Some may question the reasoning for an ‘open’ letter.  A fair question.  Historically however, in the opinion of many, the MA GOP has been less than receptive to suggestions from the grassroots.  Complaints and suggestions go unanswered.  By example, when forced to deal with the voters disenfranchised by the Caucus debacle, the MA GOP held ‘closed’ meetings, with Police guarding the door.  Even elected State Committee Members were excluded.  At our June 2012 State Committee meeting, no discussion took place on that issue, in spite of members desperate to stand for the people at the back of the room, as the result of some parliamentary maneuvering.  We are no longer in a position to ignore the 800 lb Gorilla, and hope our leadership will take action. Leadership must act!

I suspect that naysayers, heavily invested in the status quo, will be quick to pull together some polling data to counter my premise here.  For surely they cannot counter these assertions based on a won-loss record.  The problem however is that the data will be put together by our Republican consultants.  These are the very same people who have helped steer our ship into the abyss time after time, loss after painful loss.  I have little faith in these people, be it their numbers or their political insight.  At this point we should start looking for consultants who actually succeed, not just talk.

There is a belief out there that the MA GOP is turning a blind eye to the events of June 25th.  As a result, our voters fear that we are intent on continuing down this road to self destruction.  In closing I would ask that the media and our voters hear from you directly that the leadership of the MA GOP understands that we can no longer move to the political left; that in fact we must get back to our roots and move center-right.  They need to hear that you and our Party stand arm and arm with our voters, linked by common sense principles and traditional values.  And mostly they need to hear that going forward we will not be embracing or supporting any candidates who feels the need to mock, minimize or otherwise insult the voters and the values of the Grand Old Party.

Respectfully,

Steven Aylward

Republican State Committeeman
Second Suffolk and Middlesex.

Related posts

29 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Kirsten Hughes

    1. Ed Note: When he ran for state committee, S. Aylward said that if the MassGOP did not have a candidate, he would personally carry the banner of opposition, something which has not been done in recent memory. He stated his goal to raise awareness and gain volunteers for future races…

  1. mms

    Aylward was recently a candidate for state Senate. Did he win? Which percentage he got? Do you need a reminder?

  2. mms

    Which percentage Aylward himself got while running for state Senate? Loser….

    1. John DiMascio

      Aylward put his name on the ballot for 2 reasons.

      1) Because in 40 years there had been 1 possibly 2 Republicans that ran for the seat. His predecessor failed to recruit one candidate to run for State Senate in his 4 decade tenure. During that same period of time, his predecessor, also only managed to recruit 1 Republican to run for State Representative in any of districts with the Senate District.

      Aylward was elected State Committeeman in March of 2012. He recruited 2 State Rep Candidates, on in the 10th and 29th Middlesex and he ran himself for State Senate.

      2) The second reason he ran was to get Republicans in Watertown out of vote. People were very unenthusiastic about Scott Brown. Aylward brought out close an additional 1,000 Republican or Republican leaning votes simply by putting his name on the ballot. He did that to help Scott Brown.

      Aylward did not run a campaign. He did not hold fundraiser. When he received a contribution he donated it to other Republicans in races that competitive. His nominal campaign (a few lawn signs, a mailing, and a Robo-call) was 99% self-funded.

      He got 4,400 votes in Watertown which about 1,000 more than Republicans get running for State Rep or Congress. Comparing Brown’s 2012 numbers to 2010…. he basically got the additional votes Aylward drew out. In Boston, where no one knew him or heard of him, Aylward got 14,000 votes. For once Republicans and Republican leaning voters had someone to vote for in the State Senate race and they took advantage of it.

      Aylward has done more work as State Committeeman since 2012, than his predecessor did in 40 years.

  3. David Johnson

    From: DJ

    I am not familiar with Aylward and did not know he ran for state senate. Did he get any support from the GOP establishment? I suspect not.

    I stumbled across this letter and it is excellent – just excellent.

    For the first time since I have been voting (since 1972) I skipped an election. I simply could not believe that Kaufman, Healey, etc supported Gomez. He was a new low – an absolute disgrace. I would never vote for him for anything.

    1. John DiMascio

      Aylward supported the nominee, although in the primary he was a Sullivan supporter. I’ve know Steve for decade now. He is a loyal Republican.

      That said; like the rest of the base, Aylward is fed up with the way the establishment does things.

      Fact is this letter could have gone on for another 10 pages. After we get talking about the issues, we need to talk about the complete train wreck on Merrimack Street. These guys simply don’t have a clue how to mobilize or how to put together a campaign strategy. And then we could spend forever talking about how far we are behind with the use of technology. For Pete’s sake they can’t even manage to keep the website up to date. And while our foot soldiers are out there with pen and paper writing down information as they knock on doors, the Democrat machine is out there with IPADS and Note Books entering in data which becomes available in real time to every campaign.

      One last point about Aylward and his work…. He was instrumental in recruiting Michael Sullivan. He was also instrumental in the effort to get him on the ballot. In a matter of 3 days after Sullivan announced, he and Holly Robichaud, pulled together a team which grew from 1/2 dozen to close to 300. In 2 weeks we gathered 30,000 raw signatures, all with volunteers.

      Sullivan would have won that primary. Why did he lose? Simple he hired a bunch of establishment professionals. Within a day of Sullivan handing in his papers, he lost all momentum. On establishment’s advice he hired Richard Tisei’s campaign manager. The man needs a GPS to find his political private parts. He wound up pulling Sullivan to left on DOMA, when it was not necessary. He took a grass roots effort and turned it in to the typical Merrimack Street train wreck. And that impeded Sullivan’s ability to raise money.

  4. If I could add my two cents worth to a letter that is nearly perfect and clearly nails 3 major problems on the head, I would say that if I were Kirsten and really cared about turning things around in the MA GOP, as she claims, I would memorize this letter and implement the principles and guideline Steve so earnestly sets forth here, during future elections and stop listening, I repeat, stop listening to the same old players and consultants that have run the MA GOP into the ground. The unbridled truth is they are more than content with being part of a permanent political underclass that relishes those invitations to political fundraisers, summer-time coctail parties, and political conventions. Some even pack their bags and head for Disneyland after another satisfying loss. I kid you not.

  5. TrueRepublican

    The MA GOP is so weak that John Walsh and the Dems have infiltrated it with Democrats. They use the language of the left – like ‘big tent’ and ‘working with the Democrats’. They prey on State Committee members that want to use their position to advance their careers -Party be damned. John Walsh can afford to do this. He has an incredible vote advantage. He has tons of money. He is a master at manipulating the weak minded. But he is a genuis at manipulating the corrupt. When Deval Patrick got the Gomez letter, do you think maybe John Walsh got a copy? And do you think Walsh did nothing, or did he use it to his advantage? As George HW Bush told us, politics ain’t beanbag. Unless you run the MA GOP.

  6. Alice Zinkevich

    OMGosh! That is the best letter I have every read! Talk about an honest guy! This MA GOP has become quit a joke. Does anyone know what their values are? Do they know? Do they have any values? They are just a bunch of weak kneed, butt slappers that have lost all their dignaty. We accuse the Dems. of voting for the D no matter what and think that is so unamerican. I say this MA GOP is worse. We know what the Republican Party used to stand for and it’s not what the Scott Brown’s or the Gomez’s are all about. I will never donate another $ or hold a sign for another LEFT WING Republican and I am dam sure people in my circle will follow. The MA GOP is a disgrace. Shame on you all for backing people that would sell your country down the drain!

  7. As a fellow MA Republican State Committeeman, serving with Steve Aylward, I thought it appropriate that I add some observations and comments.

    1. I thank Steve for his efforts. He has tirelessly (and when I say tirelessly, I mean tirelessly) worked, and continues to stand up for traditional Republican principles and values and has dedicated his work to that. Steve’s efforts are only to build the Republican Party and allow the Party to help get this nation back to what made us exceptional.

    2. I understand and share Steve’s frustration. Steve has many times approached MA GOP leadership with plans to get back the conservatives who have given up on the Party and re-energize the base. He is constantly told things like: We can’t work on that right now because that would hurt candidate “X”. Of course candidate “X” inevitably campaigns with a slap-down-conservatives theme while pandering to liberal ideology it seems.

    3. Team player. Steve has been a team player. He has shut up at the request of the MA GOP and stumped for candidate “X” over and over to show that he is a team player. After stumping for that candidate, Steve is then told that we can’t move forward on any of his plans because that would hurt the next candidate “X” in the pipeline. There’s always another candidate “X”.

    4. Making the Democrats happy. Since joining the SC, it has become crystal clear to me that a (now) small majority within the Committee wish to only put candidates forward who make the Democrats happy. The mentality there is that only a candidate with Democrat values can win here in MA. This is a failing mentality and even if Republicans were to “win” with a candidate like that, what have we won? A liberal with an R after their name and someone who will vote with the Democrats? No thanks.

    5. MA Unenrolleds are left leaning. Bull Sh@t! We’re tired of being told unenrolled voters are liberal by fellow Republicans. This is a lie and untrue for the majority. This has been proven over and over. Scott Brown wins with a campaign message of “41 – 100% opposed to Obamacare” and loses with more money, more name recognition, an incumbency – essentially every advantage you could possibly ask for, but with a horrible re-election campaign message of: I’m Mr. moderate. The unenrolled voters I heard from say things like: “If I want to vote for a Democrat, I’ll vote for a Democrat” and “I’ll vote for a Republican if they act like a Republican. Until then, I’m not voting”. Maybe people are afraid to say these things to a sitting Senator or National Committeeman or Party Chairman, but they sure aren’t afraid to say it to me.

    6. Anti-Agenda 21, Private Property Rights, Withdrawal from the UN. These are other positions the MA GOP could stand strong on to contrast the destructive policies of the left in addition to those listed by Steve. The same tactics used to burden us with Common Core standards have been, and continue to be used by the left to force social and fiscal re-engineering on us and our nation through Agenda 21. These tactics bypass the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our sovereignty and promote layers of government red-tape and are also a breeding ground for croney-capitalism which many on the right have unfortunately become a part of weather knowingly or otherwise.

    7. What is 19,529 (89.3%) to 2,343 (10.7%)?
    That is the margin of victory for Markey over Gomez in Cambridge and Provincetown which are 2 of the most heavily homosexual town in MA. After pandering to the homosexuals by setting up a campaign booth at a homosexual event and thus slapping down family oriented conservatives, this is how they repaid him – by voting for the Democrat.

    Republicans won’t vote for liberals and liberals won’t vote for Republicans – even if we pander to them. How many times must it be proven before Republicans start listening to Steve Aylward?

    I’m grateful that Steve has the leadership qualities and the warewithall to help try to fix what is wrong with the MA Republican Party. I also stand with Steve, wish to build the Republican Party by standing up for conservative principles and values.

    I leave you with one question: Does your State Committeeman and Committeewoman want to promote liberal candidates and lose weather they win or not – Or are they with Steve and wish to build the Party by giving conservatives something worth working for, running for office for, and voting for? Let them know how you feel.

  8. Bob McCorry

    I didn’t vote for Gomez in the primary but supported and voted for him in the special election. If everything you guys say is true, why did the primary voters choose Gomez? I had to unfriend some ultra conservatives on Facebook because I could not convince them a (not voting) was really a vote for Markey. My plan would be to find a way to get “everyone” working together to get the Republicans winning again, then they could quietly reform the Mass GOP from the inside.

    1. Lonnie Brennan

      Bob, I can’t speak for everyone, but I know many who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for an anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual everything, Obama-donator, Deval-Patrick suckup, Gomez. Yes, your logic is sound, but lots of folks are just too tired to be bothered supporting liberal ‘Republicans’.

      How did he win the primary? A few ways:
      1. Money: Gomez had it, Gomez spent it. Big money. Those TV ads helped a lot.
      2. Infiltration: Sullivan’s campaign was internally infiltrated and sabotaged by liberals. Truly.

      Winslow (anyone remember that liberal?) and Sullivan (shunned by the MassGOP for being a traditionalist) never stood a chance against the money Gomez threw at the masses…and the infiltration of Sullivan’s campaign (liberal campaign staff, Sullivan’s greatest mistake) was eventually his undoing)…

      1. Lonnie

        I got an e-mail off-line asking for the numbers…fair question, here they are:

        Amount raised by candidate:
        (this does not include the amounts raised, for example, $141,000 for Gomez by the ‘Crate’ group out of Beverly Farms…everyone remembers them right?…if you do, you’re laughing about the insiders Romney/Crate/Healey/Kaufman connections…)

        GOMEZ: $ 3,304,338
        WINSLOW $ 480,800
        SULLIVAN $ 174,498

        Gomez loaned his committee $900,100 to get through the primary.
        Winslow loaned his committee $154,050 but lost in the primary.

        As for the ‘insider’ comments, poke around the web. Really nasty dirty stuff happened to the Sullivan campaign….let’s just say, the fix was in.

    2. The unenrolled conservatives I know would not donate to, work for, or vote for Gomez. The pro-family folks would not vote for Gomez no matter what their affiliation. The pro-gun folks stayed home no matter thier affiliation. Anti-Obama folks who found out that he donated to Obama and other Democrats did not trust Gomez did not vote for him and will not vote for him in the future. He won the primary with a ton of advertising proving that money can buy a primary. However, it also proved another thing: That yet again, slapping the Republican base in the face and believing your base is liberals is the key to losing. All those people you unfriended will not vote for someone like Gomez and guess what, niether will the liberals – they will vote for the Democrat every time.

  9. Sylvester

    Bob,
    Go back and look at #2 in Steve’s letter and you will find the answer to your question. Gomez won the Primary because the MASSGOP was funding and supporting him. The MASSGOP is nothing more than the right wing of the Democrat Party.
    Your ultra conservative friends are fed up. They are no longer going to hold their nose and check off the “R” candidate because it is the best the MASSGOP can come up with.
    The conservatives that won seats on the State Committee are fighting the fight. Since the 2012 election the committee is almost split in half. But the conservatives came up short after the election and they have to fight for EVERYTHING. The conservatives on the State Committee are working from the inside. But they just do not have the votes. Kaufman is running the show and he needs to go. We need to have a candidate that has some principles. When you come down to it was Baker any better that Patrick? Gomez was a carbon copy of Markey. Gomez is looking for a lifetime job in Washington. You can add Sean Bielat to that list as well.

  10. Alice Zinkevich

    What a dam mess! And we criticize the Dems. Isn’t there anyone left with honor and dignity? Has the word honesty been removed from these peoples volcabulary? I say “Bye Bye” to Mr. K and all his cohorts! Have they done a dam thing for the party or our state? Do we want to keep loosing and using the same old excuse, “well this is MA”. Come on folks It’s BAD LEADERSHIP, BEHIND CLOSED DOOR POLITICS and IT”S JUST NOT RIGHT! Someone in the MA GOP needs to find the strength to CLEAN HOUSE and get back to a position where we will win these political battles.

  11. arnold koch

    Notably absent from “Winning Issues” is right-to-life. As Gomez demonstrated, if you are
    pro-life in a Mass. Republian primary, you can win as the liberal Republicans are outnumbered by
    the chrisian evangelics who will turn out for you. A pro-life candidate can never win in the
    general election. It’s a message that is unacceptable to pro-lifers so the Party will continue to be
    basically disfunctional.

    1. mms

      I can only second that. In fact – moderate republican can win much more moderate Indies and Democratic votes then he would lose “base” votes because of his “moderation”. The “base” vote, while substantial in Republican primaries (because of sheer size of participants) plays much lesser role in general elections, especially “normal” with much bigger turnout. It’s NOT a Texas, where you can’t win without “base”, because it consist of 75-90% of REALLY BIG party. In Massachusetts it’s less then 50% of relatively SMALL party. Bill Weld has shown how you can win elections effectively ignoring what’s now called a “base”. It Can be ignored, when it begin to dictate other people it’s “conditions”…

      Conservatives in party (essentially – right-wingers) like to call moderates in party “losers”. But they (conservatives) lost essentially EVERY election they ran (above state Representative level) in the last 20-30 years. I can’t remember a SINGLE conservative Republican winning anything on statewide, congressional or even state Senate level, and i follow Massachusetts politics for decades. REALLY conservative Republican candidate has EXACTLY zero chance of winning on such levels, and even in the state House they can’t count on more then 30-40 sets maximum.

  12. Sylvester

    mss, It is a different world today then it was 20-30 yrs ago. People were a sleep at the switch and not paying attention to what was happening in the State. People are watching our Country being destroyed by the liberals in Washington. The people of MA are watching their children being force to learn about the GLT lifestyle in the public schools. Are children are being dumbed down. The people of MA what a serious Change.
    The reason we only have 40 + or- seats at the State House is Kaufman and his buddies for over 20 years have cut off any funding and destroy any candidate that is a conservative.
    In 2010 we had a great candidates for Sec. of State, Treasurer, ect. but the MASSGOP was too busy trying to push Mr. Moderate BAKER and the ” The Bathroom Boy” over the finish line.
    The MASSGOP never gives a hoot about any race expect the Gov. and Lt. Gov. WHY? because the entire bunch of them are Democrat infiltators. They will find the weakest candidate to run against the Democrats and in many cases they will not even bother to find a candidate. The MASSGOP turns their backs on funding any State Senate or State Rep race. WHY? Because they know ( being Democrat infiltators) that if your party does not get any kind of majority in the State House your party is worthless. Kaufman and his buddies will do anything to help the Democrats to keep their power. It is all about MONEY.
    Scot Brown had the entire State with him the first time he ran. Every conservative worked hard for his campaign and voted for him. Brown never thanked the Tea Party and the Conservatives after he won in 10. He then voted with the Democrats 47% of the time. And the conservatives that you say can’t win a statewide election must of stayed home and did not vote for Brown in 12.
    If you talk to conservatives in other Blue States ( which I have) they will tell you the same thing. The GOP’s in the Blue States are so infiltrated with Democrats that any conservative candidate that surfaces to run for office is “taken out”.
    Let’s face it Kaufman has to go!!!!!!!

    1. mms

      Excuse me, but you didn’t convinced me. At all. Statistics for 20-30 years is very eloquent: Massachusetts is NOT a conservative state. At all. So, REAL conservatives will nor win here, just as “real progressives” doesn’t win in Utah or Idaho. You speak about “great candidate” for SOS in 2010. William Campbell who got 32.7% – a great candidate? Don’t make me laugh under table. BTW – that’s 10% BELOW Baker’s percentage, and Baker would have really good chances to win if not for Cahill campaign as “independent conservative” (at least – on social issues). Polito as Treasurer candidate? That’s another matter really good candidate, but Polito was never especially conservative, especially on social issues (fiscal issues – another matter). But her percentage (45) wasn’t too different from Baker’s, and that’s – in 1-1 race (it’s an easy guess that Baker would overcome her in similar race). And so on. Who among republicans won in the last 15 years? Cellucci, who wasn’t especially conservative and was Weld’s loyal LG, Romney, a conservative who successfully masqueraded as moderate, Brown (47% vote with Democrats is too LITTLE, not too much for Massachusetts Republican, the last Republican Senator from Massachusetts before Brown – Edward Brooke – voted with Democrats much more often and was popular) – as a very moderate-conservative (BTW – he lost NOT because he was too moderate, but, because, in the eyes of 53%, who preferred REALLY left-wing Warren, he was INSUFFICIENTLY moderate) pragmatist. The last really successful Republican in House – Sylvio Conte, was moderate-liberal.

      In short – you CAN run your “beloved” conservatives – and lose EVERY TIME in almost every election (i formulated some exceptions above – some state House districts, and that’s all). That’s something spitting against the wind: the consequences are, usually, unpleasant. Or you can accept the fact, that Massachusetts is, GENERALLY, a liberal state (not always, but – in MOST cases) and try to adapt. You will not, in feasible future, turn most of the voters in the state, to your credo.

      1. Why do liberals, and liberal Democrats, insist that Republican must adopt all their values? Just a question.

        1. mms

          In Texas, Utah or Idaho – no. You can win there on solidly conservative platform. In Massachusetts (if they want to win) – yes, because that’s the only way to win here. If you are satisfied with status of perennial losers (in Massachusetts) – no question, but then – please state that on first page in BOLD letters. I frequently say to my Democratic friends that if they want to win in Alabama or most of Louisiana – they must run the most conservative candidates they have.

  13. Sylvester

    MSM
    You can list off all the stats that you want. The landscape has changed. The MASSGOP has not had a winner in two major elections. It is time for a new face at the MASSGOP. Period! You can’t keep running the same old re-runs that loose.
    People are fed up! And again the down ticket candidates were given zip zero nadda help from the MASSGOP. And there is the problem.

  14. Sylvester

    MMS,
    I forgot to mention. If MA is such a Liberal State then WHY did the ballot quesion last year on “assisted death” go down 49 to 51%? With that result it looks like MA is in lock step with the rest of the country that is “Right of Center”. All the more reason for the MASSGOP to give the voters a conservative candidate.

    1. mms

      Your “conservative candidate” couldn’t even win a Republican primary and would be crushed even by utterly uninspiring Markey. That’s first answer.

      I don’t know anything more convincing then long-term statistic – and REAL conservatives NEVER won anything substantial in Massachusetts on my memory. NEVER! In decades. You can’t deny it. As i said to Lonnie – you can either declare yourself perennial losers and run your “pure” candidates (and lose everytime) – or adapt. That’s two

      “Death with dignity”? The answer is VERY simple – a heavily Catholic culture of this state – many liberals i know are against it. That’s three.

      And you are answering my posts (with names and percentages) with platitudes worthy only those of Joe DiMascio and James Howard. Is this because you REALLY have nothing more to say??. That’s four.

  15. Naome Lixes

    You don’t suppose Massachusetts voters reject candidates that embrace lunacy like the “Agenda 21 menace” and the blatant contradiction of Conservatives that dictate sexual behavior to others? And yet, you wonder why you lose?

    Why not go back to gutting the local schools and driving down your property taxes? It’s not as if anything else really matters.

    Why do you lose? You’re the modern Know-Nothings.

    You’ll get a candidate in the game when you get off the sidelines
    and back between the hashmarks, where The Game is played.

    You Tea Party cranks are the marching band that won’t get off.

  16. Patrick Henry

    Can you imagine if a candidate stepped up to the plate and said, “I am neutral of pro-choice abortion rights as legislated with a 20 month limitation? I endorse firearms background checks only (like the ones we have in Massachusetts). I believe the existing gun laws are adequate. I think secure borders are a priority, and any immigrant here has six months to sign up for a priority green card with rules in place to remain in this country while employed. All previous green cards are void. I think the joke of anchor babies has been played out. I believe in ending the welfare grab and if false information is used the culprit will spend 6 months on highway cleanup for each one thousand dollars of fraud. I am not supporting a national same sex marriage, if it passes it will be without my vote. I am anti Obama-Care it is destroying our nation.
    I want the truth to come out in the recent scandals of this administration. Criminal perpetrators will be prosecuted and I will support any partisan support to get the national debt in order. I do not believe there should be military presence in any country on a policing or occupying mission unless invited by the existing government. I am against spying on the American people and the constitution will be adhered to. I will support any bill that encourages job creation and will deny any that is detrimental to jobs. I will not support any bill that does not have an overwhelming need and has a plan for funding that will not be raised in taxes.” I think that the subsidies paid for gas additives are silly and I will join in any measure that will guarantee oil independence.
    I hold a reserve judgement on believing the wind and solar are the solutions on speculative government investment either through loans or tax incentives, both of which have proven to encourage corruption.

    Apathetic result, if a Democrat runs against a person with Democratic values the Democrat always wins. Brown won the first time because he displayed chutzpah by his anti Obama-Care stance. Then he forgot what the Devil got him elected, the chore coat and pickup truck. He still thought it was looks. Being his ‘own man’ he thought he would pick up some liberal votes. How did that work out? Our man Gomez thought same sex marriage was okay and should be supported and he gave a few bucks to Obama. Instead of promoting what they believe in (They really don’t know) they dramatize working with Democrats and promoting the same garbage we are sick of ingesting. Liberals always vote Democrat, give the conservative regardless of their party affiliation or independent status a reason to support the candidacy of a politician with a back bone.

    Right now, we bring about apathy from anyone with a shred of conservatism and the left wins.
    Whining about who should have been nominated is like blaming it on Bush.

    Patrick Henry GMLOGMD

  17. TrueRepublican

    Goods points all. At least the debate has been started. We can all agree that the Party has to do something different. Anything! Getting rid of all of the players who got us into this tailspin would be a good start. But if not, at least these postings prove that there is still a lot of passon for the Party. Hughes and Kaufmann have a chance to step up to the plate here, and use the letter as a catalyst to listen, learn and change. Let’s see if they do.

Leave a Comment