Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

MA Republicans for truth, an oxymoron?

By

Thanks for the tip, Laurel.  In Reporters blowing smoke [http://www.bluemassg…]

Laurel notes the new website MA Republicans for truth [http://www.massrepub…]

MassRepublicansForTruth.com is a federal political action committee comprised of local activists around the United States whose focus is on nonpartisan education and advocacy on important national issues. As an issue advocacy organization our work is focused primarily on nonpartisan civic engagement projects and a variety of activities aimed at educating voters about issues before them in the next election.

Ummm…. “local activists around the United States”

Ummm #2….”nonpartisan civic engagement…to elect a conservative president”

Ummmmm  #3 “please check out a sampling of our first project – The Romney Report. It is neither our intent to favor nor to come out against any one candidate.”

Oh and just to clarify #2, “Our members would like to see a conservative Republican in the White House in 2008”

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Doesn’t really help much with MA Republicans for Truth.

      <

      p>

      <

      p>
      MRFT Question: Where has he flip-flopped?

      <

      p>
      PP Answer:Holly and Ron will have to answer this. Their imaginations may be taxed.

      <

      p>
      MRFT Question: What were his accomplishments?

      <

      p>
      PP Answer: Abolition of the hack-ridden Metropolitan District Commission, the firing of Billy Bulger, the creation of the John and Abigail Adams scholarship programs to UMass, bringing the Sagamore Flyover project to completion on time and under budget, appointed Gen. George Keefe to shore up troubled Mass. National Guard, wrote origninal Massachusetts Universal Health Care bill, was able to save Camp Edwards from the BRAC closing commission, took un Katrina refugees – many of whom have chosen to relocate to Mass. permanantly…this could go on and on.

      <

      p>
      MFRT: When did he say that he was to the left of Ted Kennedy?

      <

      p>
      PP Answer: Never. He said he would be a more effective advocate for gay rights in housing and employment in the 1994 Sente debate, and at that time, it was true. Sen. Kennedy was hamstrung by the positions of the powerful pre-scandal Catholic Church, and had to tread carefully there 13 years ago.

      <

      p>
      MRFT Question: Was he a good governor?
      PP Answer: Yes

        • http://blog.electrom…

          <

          p>
          “What you have, and what I do not see in other candidates, is an innate decency, a strong work ethic, a wealth of business and executive experience and an ability to communicate and work with disparate points of view in a respectful way without compromising your own principles. Some more right-wing candidates may condemn your `collaboration,’ but we both know that effective government is a matter of principled compromise, not the excitement of lobbing verbal and ideological bombshells. You are, at your core, an adult, and a decent one. So, you are my guy.”

      • and read those responses to the ‘Romney Report’ questions.

        <

        p>
        PP, you are like a one man Massachusetts “Maginot Line” for Romney, protecting the Homeland.

        <

        p>
        Whatever Mitt is paying a true believer like you, it certainly is not enough.

        <

        p>

  3. Holly and Ron’s use of the Name Massachusetts Republican without state committee approval is a violation of MGL Ch 56 Sec 40.  As much as using Democrat in your name without Mass Dem approval would be.  It is punishable by up to six months in jail, a not more than $1000 fine or both.

    <

    p>

    Chapter 56: Section 40. Using names of political parties; restrictions

    Section 40. No organization consisting of two or more persons, other than a political committee duly elected in accordance with law or a corporation organized prior to January first, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, under the laws of this commonwealth and having as a part of its name the name of a political party, as defined by law, shall, in order to promote the success or defeat of a political party or principle or of a candidate in a public election, in any circular, advertisement or publication use in its organization name the name of such a political party, except with the written consent of the duly elected state committee representing such political party.

    Any member of an organization subject to this section who participates in a violation of any provision of said section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.

        • The comment to which I was responding referred to a “Holly” and a “Ron” without a link that the comment was referring to.  So it was impossible to determine what the commenter  was referring to.

          <

          p>
          Aside from that, regarding the statute, it was obviously intended to be a “trademark-like” statute, forbidding others from using the name of a political party to defraud “customers” or potential “customers.”  The name of the political party in issue is “Republican Party,” not “Massachusetts Republicans For Truth” (note the bolded “s” on “Republicans”)  If the proprietors of the website are indeed members of the Massachusetts Republican party, where is the fraud?  And, since there likely is none–I’m presuming that the proprietors of the website are at least Republican-leaning–where is the violation of the statute?

          • so i didn’t feel I needed to provide further clarification.

            <

            p>
            The only groupings of two or more people that can use the name “Republican” anywhere in the name of their organization are those chartered by the Republican State committee or those prescribed by law (town, ward and city committees) all others are in violation of that law.  Re-read the statute. 

            <

            p>
            The Springfield Republican is grandfathered in as they obviously existed before the 1920s.

            • I stand by the rest of my comment.  Apparently, you are unable to distinguish between “Republican Party” and “Republicans,” but some of us are.

          • The newly formed Martha’s Vineyard Republican Club, for example, had to have a vote of the State Committee last year to grant them a charter and the right to use the name.

            <

            p>
            As far as Holly and Ron goes – perhaps EaBo assumed that you had read the post I offered which includes the line to Holly robichaud and Ron Vining.  Holly especially knows better, as she was on the State Committee for sixteen years ending in 2000.

                • n/t

                  <

                  p>
                  Actually, t

                  <

                  p>
                  Dealing with you has become little more than trying to beat an Esel (get a German translator) on the head with a two-by-four.  Are you really as dense as you seem to be?

                • …it is my Partner who is of Bavarian descent, and Bavarian is hardly teutonic.

                  <

                  p>
                  British animosity against Germans notwithstanding.

                • is why they use the term “Partner”.  Honest question.  If you want the same word (marriage) to describe the legal binding between two of you, why not use the term “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”. 

                  <

                  p>
                  I’m not attacking, I’m honestly asking.  Why isn’t it your “boyfriend” of Bavarian descent?

                • Actually, he’s now my spouse.

                  <

                  p>
                  Why not “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”?  I’ve used the first (“boyfriend”) in the past.  But it sounds a bit “high-schoolish” and since we’re in our mid-50s, it seems a bit odd to continue using it.  I suspect–but cannot prove–that some other people, primarily those of the younger set or those whose relationships have not been as long as ours has been, still do.

                  <

                  p>
                  Why did I use “partner”?  It seemed like a value-neutral term.  Actually, since we have a relationship contract dating from decades ago–long before there was same-sex marriage in Massachusetts–in a sense we are partners.  Not business partners.

                • You’re right that boyfriend and girlfriend are juvenile.  There is no good intermediate concept to describe a long term committed adult relationship that is just short of marriage.  Significant other?  Life partner?  Partner?  All very stilted.  But there aren’t really any satisfactory alternatives.

            • …if the Republican Party doesn’t want the putative Republicans as members, I would suppose that they would be able to de-register them as Republicans.  Why don’t you encourage them to do so?

                • …a 1960s style mantra “Love it (America) or go to North Vietnam.”  Even the 1960s conservatives weren’t that dumb.  Almost, but not quite.

    • …is there anyone the Republicans don’t want to throw in jail? I mean, if eabo-type republicans want to throw people from their own party in jail for using the term “Mass Republican” in a dopey blog, then why even engage them in conversation about immigration and the constitution?

            • …it is a bit obscure as to what the legality or illegality of the group using the phrase “Massachusetts Republicans For Truth” has to do with whether or not they are tax exempt under 26 USC 527–a federal statute–but I’ll let it pass.  Either their usage of “Massachusetts Republicans is legal or it is not.  Whether they are tax exempt under 26 USC 527 is an orthogonal issue.

              • referring to Peter Porcupine as Ms. Porcupine? For whatever reason the person behind the handle has decided to give themselves a masculine name as an online persona.  Maybe its a man who really admires William Cobbett.  Maybe its a woman embarrassed she lives on the Cape and doesn’t want people to know her real identity.  Maybe its just someone named Peter who hates furry animals.  I don’t know.  I’ve read speculation about who Peter Porcupine may be, but I have no way of knowing for sure.  I wish you would respect his/her/its decision to use the handle, however, and refer to Peter Porcupine like almost all others of us do as either PP, Peter, Peter Porcupine, or some other respectful way that doesn’t cast aspersions on the true gender or identity of the poster.  I encourage you to check out The Rules of the Road.

                • The person behind the handle has been identified to me as a female Republican party apparatchik. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Hence Ms. Porcupine.

                  <

                  p>
                  If the person behind the handle states that he, she or it is not a female, I’ll refer to the poster otherwise.

                • …from the writing style, it seems fairly obvious that the commenter behind the Peter Porcupine handle is female.  Ther are noticeable difference in writing styles between males and females, and it’s fairly obvious that the poster using the handle is probably female.

                • Not that it really matters.  She should be called whatever she wants to be called.

                  <

                  p>
                  Going down the William Cobbett path muddies the waters further.  I’ve no idea why anyone would want to borrow his pseudonym. Especially one who purports to be in favor of “civil discourse.”

                  <

                  p>
                  http://muse.jhu.edu/…

                  <

                  p>
                  “Sambos” and “Black Cut-Throats”:
                  Peter Porcupine on Slavery and Race in the 1790’s

                  <

                  p>
                  Arthur Scherr
                  Kingsborough Community College

                  <

                  p>
                  William Cobbett (1763-1835) is known primarily for his activities as a radical publisher and political activist in England during the first three decades of the nineteenth century who defended the rights of the poor and denounced Britain’s corrupt, aristocratic governing circles. During the 1790s, however, as an English expatriate newspaper editor in Philadelphia, Cobbett upheld reactionary ideas and shuddered at the United States’ democratizing trends. His Philadelphia daily, Porcupine’s Gazette, initiated in March 1797, adopted a spiritedly ultraconservative stance, protesting the extremes to which the raw republic carried individual freedom. In an early number of the paper, borrowing a metaphor from Edmund Burke, one of his favorite political thinkers, Cobbett voiced disdain for the “swinish multitude.” Under the pseudonym “Harry Hedgehog,” Cobbett proposed legally enslaving the naturally lazy poor: “Would it not be a kindness to themselves to take their liberty from them?” he argued. “And a material advantage to the public to whip them to their work?”

                • …has not denied that he, she or it is not a female.  Ms. Porcupine was identified as being a Republican party apparatchick on, I believe it was, in a comment thread on Ryan’s web site.  If the person behind the Peter Porcupine handle wishes to take issue with that, that is his, her or its option.  He, she or it has not.

                  <

                  p>
                  Maybe, if the person behind the handle is female, he, she or it might want to adopt a more gender-appropriate handle–like Peatrice Porcupine.

                • I think it was during the did-Ben-Laguer-post-or-didn’t-he discussion that PP complained about having been “outed.”  If PP doesn’t care I’d be happy to retract my request, but I think its just a matter of courtesy that should be extended to a fellow respectful BMGer. 

                • I thank you for your supoport, but trying to get naturally rude people to behave with respect to others is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

                  <

                  p>
                  BTW – I hope you read the biography of Wm. Cobbett in full; he was an extraordinary person.  Oddly, I addressed his deplorable racism in a recent post caled Making Amends.

                • Its a thing, not a person’s name.  “Kai” is the word in the indigenous language for one of my favorite things in the far away locale I have been living in for the past few months.

                • …it appears that “Kai” is redominantly a male forename.  I don’t recall referring to “Kai” as a Mr or Ms, but, if the person behind the handle indicates his or her sex/gender, I’ll respond accordingly when circumstances present themselves.

                  <

                  p>
                  If I had not been informed that the person behind Ms. Porcupine’s handle was a female Republican apparatchick (misspelling intentional), I wouldn’t have used a female honorific.  I’ll avoid using “Ms. Pumpernickel” in the future, largely because the Germans would probably be horrified with the association.

                • I recognize that Wikipedia is not entirely authoritative, but if you were to look at its page regarding Kai it should be obvious that most of the references are to male persons and characters.  Just to let you know, I looked there before posting the previous comment.

                  <

                  p>
                  That doesn’t mean that the person who posts here as Kai is, of necessity, male, but unless it or someone else suggests otherwise, I would presume that the person is male.  Contrariwise, it was mentioned that the person that posts here as Peter Porcupine is female, and that has not been controverted.  I’m sure that even PP can understand the difference.

                  <

                  p>
                  BTW, Ms. Porcupine, I don’t know whether I’ve made it obvious enough for you, but the fact is that I’m a male.  A homosexual male, as I’ve mentioned, but a male, nonetheless.  I’m not even Indian, although on some wingnut web sites, because of my handle “raj” some people have suggested that I go back there.

                • Since his beliefs “evolved” to serve his ambitions and pocketbook.

                  <

                  p>
                  Cobbett’s stance on slavery in both England and the United States was influenced by his keen political sense, an intuition of what his readers and, later, his constituents wanted. Despite his frequent blustering pretense of editorial independence, he was undoubtedly aware that Pennsylvania’s gradual emancipation law, passed in 1780, was unpopular with the state’s slaveholders despite provisions favorable to them, and that a quest for “equal rights” for blacks would attract few readers to Porcupine’s Gazette. Likewise, in England Cobbett continued to espouse racist views until his quest for election to the House of Commons led him to modify his stance, no doubt owing at least in part to the demands of his constituents.

                  <

                  p>
                  Even outside of that, he sounds like quite a charmer:

                  <

                  p>
                  As editor of Porcupine’s Gazette, Cobbett expressed gross contempt for blacks, ethnic minorities, and women, and disparaged their intelligence and abilities. His coarse rhetoric expressed inflexible devotion to traditional mores and antipathy to the French Revolution’s rupture of hierarchical Old World values, while his pamphlets and newspapers vented anxiety and rage at a changing social order. Significant for its widespread popularity and its pro-Federalist and Anglophile editorial policy, Porcupine’s Gazette’s neglected role as a major progenitor of racist proslavery opinion illustrates the limited advocacy of reform in the Early Republic’s popular press.

                  <

                  p>
                  Oddly, this is one of the more positive articles on Cobbett out there.

        • It gets tedious reading comments that frame everything as an over simplified binary.  And given the climate in this country propagated by the Fox Noise and the Limbaughs, the Coulters and the Malkins, and given that we need acts of Congress to restore Habeus etc, I have to wonder if certain conservatives even think of anything more complicated than “round up the usual suspects”. I would like to see some “reality-based commentary”, not “rigidly simple” based commentary.

          <

          p>
          Also, the cut and paste of MGLs needs to end.  Unless people have the education to properly contextualize for the resto fo us what is being cut and pasted, stop.  I can read the statutes, too, but that doesn’t mean I’m qualified to apply it to the discussion. I mean, if it were that easy, I would take a bunch of law books and lock myself in a room for a few weeks, emerge and then go clerk for a judge somewhere.  Alas, it is not that easy and I just don’t care what eabo thinks the law says.

          • Problem is, if a reference is made by a differently winged person to a commonly accepted fact, WITHOUT the MGL citation, the harpies shriek – CITATION!  CITATION!  But including it is called overkill.  Perhaps we will stop citing MGL when Bob and David do.

            <

            p>
            And you tut-tuted me on another thread about zeros and threes – that began when David gave me one for saying Democrat instead of Democratic, and I decided to give zeros to RepublicOn, ReTHUGlican, and so on.  And of course, there are parties who give me a zero if I say the sky is blue (It’s TEAL, you homophobic bastard!).  The rules of the road are being a little selectively applied.

            <

            p>
            For a person to respond to a post by answering – you’re wrong, idiot – with no attempt to discuss or ask why you think that – it causes what you characterize as binary threads.  Because the poster is going to say – no, I’m not – and attempt to justify their argument.  There are entirely too many references to neglected medications by some commenters.

            <

            p>
            I will do better – and I will note how churlish some of the people David et al have to put up with.

            • …and when you or your compatriots suggest that something performed by somebody is illegal, some of us actually demand a chapter and verse descriptions of (i) the particular statute(s) that have been violated, and (ii) the facts that support the allegation that the statute(s) have been violated.

              <

              p>
              I guess that it has escaped your notice, but the fact is that I have stayed out of the discussion of the merits of the LaGuer case in other threads here.  The reason is because I am unfamiliar with the facts of the case and the statute that he allegedly violated.  I’m not going to go into a discussion of the merits of the case (as lawyers would put it), when I don’t know the merits of the case.  And, I’ll put it bluntly, I’m not overly interested in educating myself as to the merits of that case to discuss it.  Others can.

              <

              p>
              But, when you and your compatriots make comments here that are of interest to me, I may educate myself as to the merits of your comments.  I did here.  And you seem to be uncomfortable with the fact that I have.

              <

              p>
              Citation, citation, citation?  Yes, most definitely.  I do the same thing on science blogs.  Quite often, when I’ve encountered a comment on a political blog that doesn’t pass the smell test, and that I’ve demanded a citation, I’ve discovered that there was a good reason that it didn’t pass the smell test–it was wrong.

            • …as it is for those who you defend. Get your boys to raise their games if want you them to be taken seriously around here. Personally, I’ve read enough of eabo’s comments on other blogs to form the opinion that he likes things in over-simple  terms (including this nugget of brilliance on sex-ed).  I dismissed him before he even posted here. He can’t bring that same attitude over here and be a respected voice, especially given the foot he started off with belittling mental illness.

              <

              p>
              I don’t think it was me who was tut-tutting about zeores and threes on the other thread. I may be guilty of “tut-tutting”, but it must be about something else unless you can refresh my memory.

              <

              p>
              A citation is fine. A link is good.  But it seems sometimes people will just cut and past the MGL as if it were a complete answer and not offer any practical interpretation as to how it applies to the dialogue. You mention Bob and David – it seems to me that they have the credentials to explain to non-lawyers like me what the heck they are talking about and usefully synthesize the cited MGL into the discussion.  Others seem to over use the “what part of illegal don’t you understand” argument and site the MGL as if to say “nuff said”. That to me is a dead end conversation.

              <

              p>
              I can neither speak for nor defend others, and I can understand your frustration with name-calling.  But I can say that, as far as I can remember, anytime we have engaged in discussion, any attacks made by me were directed only against your ideas or the veracity of your specific claims or the lack of back up.  I haven’t called you a thug or a homophobe.  And as far as the “you’re wrong, idiot”, again, I hope you recognize that’s not me. 

          • IANAL, but I enjoy reading it.  I also don’t fool myself into believing that my interpretation on that small bit of text is correct without reading what is above and below it, without knowing the legal definition of vocuabulary, and without knowing court case decisions.

            <

            p>
            But, it’s factual.  It may be deceptive by omission, but that citation at least offers folks a place to start.

            <

            p>
            So, yay facts and figures and citations!

            • I’m all for the pasting the chapters into a comment if it can be contextualized and syntesized, like I said above.  But useless cut and paste jobs like eabo’s are tedious and add nothing. Absolutely add a link, but when lay-people cut and paste the MGL sas supposed back-up to an opinion, it reveals a certain nescience.

              • give us no basis to conduct any kind of argument, since the tools for interpretation are not found in the statutes themselves.

                <

                p>
                I ended up in a ridiculous debate over whether simply being inside the United States when you’re not a legal alien or citizen is a crime per se. This is not a controversial issue–any relevant article in the legal or popular press will give you the same answer.

                <

                p>
                I could not have gotten EaBo to go do some actual reading on the subject if I had knocked his head into his monitor. He really seemed to feel his personal interpretation of the statute actually mattered in some way.

  4. MassRepublicansForTruth have set up their main offices in Kerry Healey’s basement. No word yet if they will be setting up satellite offices at the homes of Swift & Cellucci.

    <

    p>
    BTW, if they do have to give up the name, here’s one that’s still available:

    <

    p>
    LastBreathingMassRepublican.biz

  5. I guess it’s a victory for the site and Red Mass (since they posted a comment in rebuttal to the site).  But other than the counter going up for each site.  The report is probably a rehash of the psycho at MassResistance.

    <

    p>
    …and most importantly, who cares?

  6. Perhaps one of you great legal minds can explain how STATE law regulates a FEDERAL PAC.

      • What is credible?  If a blogger posts arguements that are considered reasonable by readers, they are credible to those readers.  End of story.

Archives