September 21, 2010
To whom it may concern:
This is an absurd smear post. I've known Mr. Marston for over three years and his beliefs/principles have never changed. I know, as I attempted to change several of them on more than one occasion.Mr. Marston is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable fiscal conservatives I've ever had the pleasure to work with. Mr. Marston has been a tireless advocate for individual, state and national sovereignty as well as constitutional government. It is all of the aforementioned that led us to work together on numerous projects both at the national and local levels. The specific group mentioned in the post and the post linked to at the Next Right . . . were made up of numerous individuals from a broad spectrum with diverse views. We had more in common than not, however there were things in regards to social conservatism that were disagreed on. Being a big tent organization, similar to the GOP itself in that nature, that is to be expected.
Mr. Marston, whether personally or publicly, never swayed from his social views nor we from ours regardless of the conflict. There was always a bigger picture in view and everyone understood that. The platform of the group came about as a result of overwhelming majority input from those involved. Mr. Marston remained involved because of his leadership, integrity and commitment to fiscal conservatism and the constitution. As the organization grew, changed etc. platforms were revised, focus was shifted, ultimately moving from putting all effort on national elections to local level elections. In doing this it gave us the ability to focus on those races more intimately involved with the problems facing our country, which of course are those at the local level. The solutions needed to save our respective states and the well-being of our nation must come from the grassroots. State representatives are the designated first voices of the people on the local level: Staying accessible to the people of his or her district, giving them a first-hand knowledge of the problems facing Americans and a realistic and commonsense approach to tackling the issues needed to make for a better tomorrow. Mr. Marston fits this description to a T. He is a common sense conservative voice desperately needed in his area.Mr. Marston did not publish the post in question. Mr. Martson did not agree then with our social conservatism views nor does he now. He understood the bigger picture and worked within the group and with the group to further issues and principles he believed in regardless of who agreed and who did not. The platform excerpts listed are from the infancy stages of the group and were revised and changed over time, allowing us all to work together without conflict of interest and to work separately on issues we may not agree on as a group.
Sincerely,
Sheridan Folger
You were accused of being anti-choice because of a posting on a web page, signed by you, which made it clear that you were anti-choice. While we have no idea if you knew of it or not, you claim it doesn’t — and didn’t — represent your views.
<
p>What’s your evidence?
<
p>A posting on a web page, posted by you.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Surely, you can see how this is strange. The exact same pattern of behavior (including the strange order in which you responded to the other thread) would be expected of someone who is lying.
<
p>Now, before your blood pressure rises, note that I did not, and have not, accused you of lying. I do find your behavior in this matter strange, and it’s not the first time you’ve seemed to exhibit strange behavior. I also can’t help but notice that the extent of your evidence is an email from somebody nobody around here knows that resides only in your inbox. With due respect, that’s hardly compelling.
I am sorry you feel the “order” I responded was strange. I was trying to respond to multiple posters in multiple threads. As I said before I think it is interesting is that the original poster, prochoicemass never replied or engaged.
<
p>A number of posters said that I should call on Mr. Folger should respond. I did. I am sorry if I am not willing to jump through the additional hoops you demand. Clearly you don’t believe me or Mr. Folger. That’s your problem. Not mine or Mr. Folger.
You’re right. I am going to step away from this and laugh at all who suggest I am anti-choice.
this is my favorite in Mr. Folger’s hoohah:
<
p>
<
p>Mr. Folger must’ve missed the blood oath thing. Blood oaths not being something those of us on the
are prone to, I am confused how blood oaths fit in a big tent.
<
p>But that’s a minor quibble.
<
p>Frankly, I would like Mr. Marston to explain some of the other views on that page.
<
p>Do you believe that the “Left”, whatever that is, is “Anti-God”?
<
p>Do you believe that the ACLU controls our courts? Which courts? The ones that granted women the right to choose and same sex couples the right to marry? Or, the ones that made corporations human so they can give millions to Republican candidates? (I thought the Knights Templar controlled our courts, or was it the Freemasons?)
<
p>Do you support the death penalty?
<
p>You’ve quite a list of beliefs in your manifesto. It’s only signed by you and Mr. Folger. Which others would you like to recant?
<
p>Best regards Mr. Marston.
As soon as you acknowledge that I am and have always been pro-choice, I am happy to then move on to discuss other issues.
Damned thing won’t show me what you’ve “always been.” Something must be obscuring its view of your past.
<
p>Maybe if you could show us some public statements you made supporting a woman’s right to choose, statements made before you decided to run for office? That would clear things up.
Pull it down. Apologize on it for the anti-choice comments. State explicitly on that web site that YOU are pro-choice, and maybe then we’ll start believing you.
<
p>It’s your web site. The views are clearly labelled as being yours and Mr. Folgers. Take the page down, edit the page, or get someone to do it for you. But as long as that web site exists, as is, with your name on it, you are anti-choice.
<
p>On the progressive web site your pro-choice. On the conservative site your pro-life. Flip. Flop.
To be fair…on my campaign website I am clearly pro-choice but I hear what you are saying.
<
p>I will state my long held pro-choice views and I thank you for suggesting that I do.
<
p>Part of being a Legislator is being a listener. Other times it is being a councilor (there are times when as a legislator one takes positions contrary to the majority view of one’s district).
<
p>I will link back to the statement withing the next 24 hours.
Thank you, Mr. Marston.
<
p>This is what I’ve been asking you to do as well. No more, no less.