If one knew nothing of the facts or the history and just watched this debate or listened to each candidates plan, one would think that all three candidates for MA-GOP Chair have some good ideas and they all have the best interest of the party at heart.
However, at Vote Core Values our mission is to look at what is being said in the context of reality. There is a historical record, there are actual facts, and there are actions being taken that don’t line up with what is being said. Therefore we have these follow up questions for Kirsten Hughes.
Ms. Hughes states that Republicans are perceived as the party of “Rich White Men.” She further asserts that she would immediately change that perception simply be being elected MA-GOP Chair.
How did that work out for Jennifer Nassour? How did it work out for Kerry Healey? They are both women. Ms. Hughes is implying that if we elect a woman Chair, it will dispel the “Rich White Man perception”. Neither Kerry nor Jennifer was successful at dispelling this myth. So is Kirsten going to argue that it was because of their wealth? Is she saying that neither should have been elected Chair?
What is it that she is really saying folks?
Through her surrogates on various blogs and social media, Kirsten has been implying the Rick Green is just another “Rich White Man.” They accuse him of trying to buy votes by hosting dinners, luncheons, or inviting Committee members to sporting events. For the sake of argument, let’s accept this distortion of the facts. In that case Ms. Hughes has to answer these questions.
Was Bob Maginn a bad choice for the party because he’s a self-made man of means? Was it wrong for him to hold expensive receptions for State Committee members in order to win their votes? Was Mitt Romney a bad nominee because he is a “Rich White Man?” Is Ms. Hughes, if elected, going to ask Ron Kaufman to step down as RNC Committeeman? How about Kerry Healey? She’s “Rich and White?” Should she step down as RNC Committeewoman? Is Ms. Hughes going to condemn the establishment Republicans for their history of wining and dining anyone and everyone to persuade them to do what they want?
Here is the real question: Is Kirsten Hughes talking about “Rich White Men” in order to disqualify Rick Green because he’s successful?
Rick Green doesn’t need to be ashamed of his success. The Republican Party is the Party of upward mobility for all. He started a business out of his garage. He now employs over 100 employees in the Commonwealth. He put it best when he said: “Before I earned a dollar I saved my customers ten!“
The smear campaign that Hughes Camp is waging against Rick because of his success is nothing short of Obama-like Class-Warfare. It is in direct conflict with the Republican message of upward mobility for all. As Republicans we should encourage people to pursue the American Dream, not disparage them for achieving it!
Kirsten states that she believes “Family Values” are an integral part of the Republican message. At the same time, she also states that we should support every candidate with an “R” after his or her name. These are both compatible positions. But Ms. Hughes has to answer the following:
Wasn’t Kirsten part of the leadership team in 2010 under Jennifer Nassour? Did she speak out when Ms. Nassour acted unilaterally in announcing to a left-wing publication that the MA-GOP would no longer be concerned with “Family Values?”
Didn’t the 2010 State convention, that Hughes takes credit for running, strike all references to “Family Values” from the MA-GOP platform?
At that same convention were not two candidates that supported family values denied a spot on the ticket for Attorney General because they had differing views on “Family Values” than the top of the ticket?
At the time she held the influential position of Political Director. Did she raise her powerful voice in protest against either of these actions?
Has she ever, since that time, publicly spoken out about these injustices?
Is she now willing to openly criticize Jennifer Nassour, Charlie Baker, and Richard Tisei for their part in keeping “Family Values“ out of the platform and in keeping two Conservative Republicans off the ticket?
If she believes “Family Values” rightly ought to be part of the MA-GOP message and believes all Republicans should get the Party’s support then why did she send out a polarizing letter slamming social conservatives?
Why does Kirsten flaunt an endorsement letter (on her website) by the Needham RTC Vice Chair which disqualifies Rick Green because he is “so readily identified by his social values as this places a severe limitation on our ability to attract viable candidates?” Once again the attempt by the Hughes Campaign to divide the party along ideological lines simply to gain the Chairmanship is simply wrong. She’s attempting to promote inclusiveness while trying to purge the Big Tent of Conservatives.
Kirsten Hughes claims that she seeks the Chairmanship in order to build the party and not to serve only Scott Brown’s interests. If this is the case, then Kirsten should answer the following:
Why is Scott Brown asking for a personal “sit-down” with every single uncommitted State Committee person in order to secure her election as MA-GOP Chair?
Doesn’t he have enough to worry about pondering his political future?
Why is Scott Brown taking such a strong interest in who the next Chair will be?
Has Scott Brown suddenly taken an interest in campaigning for Republicans running for lower office?
Kirsten wants to have a “Unity Summit.” That’s very nice. But it sounds very familiar to me. As I mentioned above, she sent out a divisive letter of her own and flaunts one from her surrogate on her website.
Doesn’t this remind us of Barack Obama hosting a beer summit after causing a conflict by
saying the Cambridge Police Acted Stupidly?
The State Committee came together and unified after the last meeting. Kirsten has since sought to divide them along ideological lines. Now she proposes a “Unity Summit.” So will she invite Joe Biden?
Ms. Hughes wants us to listen to her promises in vacuum. She wants us to forget about her record and her divisive tactics. She wants to us to ignore the facts on the ground and reality of the situation.
Doesn’t her debate performance and entire campaign for Chair brings to mind the following scene from a 1939 MGM Classic Move?
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!