It appears that the website for “Let’s Get This Right” was taken down sometime after Marston announced his candidacy in the 8th Suffolk District, which has a substantial number of pro-choice voters. Because this website is no longer available online, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts felt compelled to release its content in an effort to inform the voters in Boston and Cambridge.
Voters in the 8th Suffolk District – like a majority of voters in the Commonwealth – believe in privacy and support a woman’s right to make personal medical decisions, including the right to choose abortion. It’s important that, come November 2nd, voters in Boston and Cambridge are clear that Brad Marston does not share those values.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts is the driving force behind the election of many pro-choice state legislative candidates. With 20,000 members across the Commonwealth, the organization provides direct assistance to candidates, mobilizes its pro-choice grassroots base in targeted districts, trains candidates and volunteers, and produces and distributes the only statewide pro-choice Voters’ Guide.
From the issues page of my campaign website:
<
p>NARAL Pro Choice Massachusetts has never attempted to contact me regarding my views.
<
p>I am pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and support the Transagender Rights Bill.
<
p>Brad Marston
Candidate for State Representative
Massachusetts, Eighth Suffolk District
http://bradmarston.ning.com/pa…
Are you claiming that the material posted by NARAL is not yours? Are you denying that you posted the cited material?
<
p>Inquiring minds want to know.
I am and have always supported a woman’s right to choose. If you read the original post, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts never attributes those statements to me personally.
<
p>There are Republicans for Choice and Democrats for Life.
<
p>The post is typical of the dozens of liberal interest groups, lobbyists, PACs and public unions who are supporting my opponent and her defense of the status quo in Massachusetts. Unfortunately for the citizens of Boston, Cambridge and Massachusetts that status quo is no private sector job growth, ever increasing taxes and spending and a corrupt, bloated and dysfunctional bureaucracy on Beacon Hill.
I believe the following, from the “Info” page of the “Conservative Solutions” facebook page, is YOU (emphasis mine):
<
p>Here is the “admin” pane from that same page (again, emphasis mine):
<
p>I’m asking three simple questions, each with a simple yes/no answer:
<
p>Here is the specific phrase in question:
<
p>If you have always, privately we must assume, “supported a woman’s right to choose”, then we are left to speculate about how a conservative “networking home for people who share a conservative political philosophy” that you created can advocate such a radically opposite view.
<
p>You are absolutely correct that “dozens of liberal interest groups, lobbyists, PACs and public unions who are supporting my opponent” are highlighting your flip-flop, as they should.
<
p>You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Marston — as we all learned with Mitt Romney. You organized a facebook site that now claims over 3,400 members that has been a loud voice against women’s choice.
<
p>Perhaps you are not being entirely accurate when you characterize your position. Perhaps you have so little influence over your own organization that were unable to stop it from publicly advocating a posture so opposite from your own.
<
p>Neither leads me to conclude that you are suited to hold the office you seek.
I think you should be honest with yourself and others and admit that the reason you feel I am not suited for the office I seek is simply because I have an R after my name.
<
p>You are willing to turn a blind eye against the lack of job growth, unsustainable spending and the corruption that has led to three House Speakers in a row being indicted as long as no Republican’s hold public office.
<
p>The question you and NARAL Pro-Choice should have asked is “Mr. Marston, do you personally believe in and as a legislator will you defend a woman’s right to choose? The simple answer to that question is, Yes.
And here I was expecting you to respond by saying that your pro-choice stances constituted a minority opinion among conservatives — and that would be the case even on pages you sponsored.
<
p>Carriage return/line feed on the economics.
Perhaps the problem with the original post wasn’t simply that it is a lie. Apparently prochoicemass simply got the wording wrong. Perhaps they meant to say “8th Suffolk candidate is a radical among conservatives in that he has never held Anti-Choice views.
I think that ProChoiceMass “meant to say” just what they wrote.
<
p>I’ll thank you to not attempt to put words in my mouth either — I have a reasonable command of the English language. I think you’re not suited for the office you seek because you seem to lack the courage or the integrity to either stand by your convictions or admit that you changed your mind. My gosh, even Mitt Romney found a way to do that.
<
p>As a candidate, and even more so as an elected representative, you do not get the luxury of choosing the questions you want people to ask you. You are in a public forum, and in a nation that celebrates freedom of speech, we ask the questions and the candidates answer them (or duck them).
<
p>Your refusal to answer my questions, and to instead attack me and NARAL — and, failing that, to resort to tired economic whining, is itself an eloquent answer.
<
p>Mr. Marston, my questions were softballs and you’ve whiffed on all them. I don’t care whether you have an “R”, a “D”, an “I”, or any other party designation after your name — you’re running for national office, and the more you write the less qualified you seem.
<
p>…because I never have. I am and always have been pro-choice.
<
p>The original poster attributes to me statements I never made. You attribute to me positions I have never held. Now you’re complaining that I am putting words in your mouth?
<
p>Refusing to answer your question? Yes. I refuse to answer “When did you stop beating your wife?” type questions.
<
p>Whining? I point out that 500,000 people in this state are unemployed or under-employed and that the budget choices of our legislature have put thousands of members of at-risk populations in further danger by cutting programs for HIV/Aids prevention, Rape Prevention, Healthcare in community centers etc., and you call it whining? Wow. And some people call conservatives heartless?
<
p>You actually provide the best commentary of your lack of knowledge about me, the positions I hold and the campaign.
<
p>
<
p>Actually, no. I am running for State Representative in Massachusetts.
<
p>To borrow your signature phrase “If you’ll stop lying about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”
Yes, I did think you were running for Congress. I apologize (see, that’s not so hard, is it?).
<
p>If a preponderance of evidence suggests that an individual has beaten his wife in the recent past, then asking whether he continues to do is perfectly reasonable.
<
p>Only one of us is lying here, Mr. Marston.
<
p>The statement is on the record, attributed to you, and published by a group that still lists you as “creator”. If that attribution is wrong, your issue is with them — not me, and not NARAL.
Does “a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices” mean you’re against rape and forced insemination, and believe that a woman ought to be able to choose who to marry or not marry, and when to have sex or not have sex? Do you think a woman should not be able to make someone else’s reproductive choices, like the man’s?
<
p>I can see how that would parse, like the meaning of “is.” Like, everyone should have a choice about joining the military, but you can’t ask to come home once you’ve heard the explosions, because you’ve already made your choice. Choices don’t hang around, they have their windows.
I now recall that a NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts candidate questionnaire is one of many that I filled out and submitted. I would welcome their releasing my answers.
Did you endorse this statement or not?
I see. So you did not endorse the statement, even though it is signed by you (along with Sheridan Folger) and carries the byline of the group you created.
<
p>Or perhaps you dispute the meaning of the word “endorse”.
<
p>I’m genuinely astonished by your continued attempts to evade your role in drafting this statement. If you did not endorse it, then you have far more to fear from Mr. Folger and your peers at “Conservative Solutions: Let’s Get This Right” than any candidate or, for that matter, from anybody here.
<
p>If it were true, this would be an excellent time for Mr. Folger to come front-and-center, schedule a press conference, and announce that the statement was his and his alone, that you had nothing to do with it, that he regrets his fraudulent attribution to you, etc., etc., etc.
<
p>I’m not holding my breath.
<
p>Hope that clears it up for you and you didn’t even have to hold your breath.
It would help a little more if:
<
p>(a) you had a link to that, or if Mr. Folger posted it himself.
(b) you explained why your name is signed to the bottom of a document with Mr. Folger which professes beliefs that you don’t share. An oversight? Confusion? You didn’t know it existed?
Sheridan sent it to me via e-mail. There is nothing to link to. Sheridan can’t post here as he has not applied to do so.
<
p>The issue is whether or not I do or have ever held anti-choice views. I have answered and Sheridan has confirmed that I do not and never have.
Mr. Marston is willing to take a key role in an organization that seeks to deprive women of their reproductive rights because that organization furthers his fiscal views. And he wants pro-choice voters to trust him? I think not.
Mr. Marston, you are listed as the creator and as an admin.
<
p>You and any of your fellow admins can post this email on that site whenever you like — the info page is a good candidate, as “Recent News”
<
p>The concept is really fairly straightforward, Mr. Marston. You, as admin and creator, exercise “editorial control” over the contents of the page. You are also running for office. It is entirely appropriate for voters to ask how the campaign statements you offer to the general public align with the editorial control you still exercise over a group that you founded.
The discussion belongs here as this is where the discussion is taking place.
<
p>I was asked to explain that I am pro-choice and I did so. Sheridan Folger was asked to explain the post and the fact that I am pro-choice and he did so.
<
p>Beyond that, your posts do not deserve a response.
It sounds to me as though neither you nor Mr. Folger want “Conservative Solutions” to know too much about your true feelings about choice. I am reminded of a two-timing husband who says one thing to his mistress and something very different to his wife.
<
p>Here is the reality: this discussion is public. This site is read by a great many people, many of them active in politics. Many of our local pundits read these exchanges — that, presumably, is at least some of why you participate here.
<
p>You are a candidate for a public office, and the public has a perfectly legitimate interest in your public record — including your role in “Conservative Solutions”.
<
p>I seem to remember another candidate who founded an investment company that specialized in leveraged buyouts. That candidate went to great lengths to distance himself from the facts of several rather unsavory transactions of his firm that occurred on his watch. That candidate also claimed to be a strong supporter of women’s choice and gay rights — until it was politically advantageous for him to be opposed to both.
<
p>The question every responsible voter is ultimately seeking to answer is “who is the real Brad Marston.” You can take any posture you like with me or your other questioners here. You can post or not post whatever you like on the web organ of the right-wing extremist group you founded.
<
p>The sum total of all of it reveals who you really are.
without your permission, and you’ll be speaking to them about that?
<
p>I’m sorry to hector you about this, but the original post says you espoused those views in at least two places; one of them is gone, but the other is still available. It’s why the question of your association with Sheridan Folger, whose name appears next to yours in the statement, is relevant. You have not answered that question yet, nor have you explained how your name came to be attached to that statement.
that Sheridan and I don’t agree on social issues. He and I became friends when we were both volunteering for the McCain campaign starting in April or May of 2009. We along with a number of other people created an online volunteer web presence in support of Senator McCain during the primaries. We then partnered and were the two leading organizers (again, along with others as evidenced above) of Let’s Get This Right/Conservative Solutions which had two purposes. The first was to support and raise money for Republican candidates for Congress in battleground states in 2008 with the idea that the stronger they were able to run the better it would be for the McCain campaign.
<
p>The second purpose was to create a conservative social networking site that would go on beyond the 2008 elections. One of our goals was to focus on local candidates and races in an effort to deepen the Republican bench by helping to elect Republicans to school boards, city councils, state representative and senate etc. For a number of reasons our plans for LGTR/Conservative Solutions didn’t really pan out and now only exists as a Facebook Group.
<
p>Sheridan and others involved are strong social conservatives. I am not. I am a free market, individual liberty, constitutional, state sovereignty conservative. (I hope that answers Doubleman’s question as to why I am a Republican.) While those differences caused tension at time, we decided that achieving our overall goal was more important than having everyone agree on every facet of our platform. It was akin to President Reagan’s 80/20 rule.
<
p>Kirth, I hope that answers your question. I am a Republican. I don’t agree with every tenet of the Republican platform just as there are Democrats who don’t agree with every tenet of the Democratic party.
that the one person who hasn’t responded is prochoicemass the originator of this discussion. While I have engaged with multiple commenters here and responded to most if not all questions, they remain silent.
<
p>Now I don’t know, and based on their silence increasingly doubt that prochoicemass is actually the voice of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.
<
p>Perhaps those who have questioned me should ask PCM why they are unwilling to respond. Why are they unwilling to provide my answers to their questionnaire? Why are they unwilling to provide the link where they warned their members?
<
p>It seems to me that this is just a typical hit piece from the left.
A quick web search reveals the answer: he is a state rep. candidate from Dover NH. If he posted something false using someone else’s name without consent, the voters in the district he seeks to represent will want to know this. This gets curiouser and curiouser.
<
p>But, lets get back to Mr. Marston’s views. Why consent to such strong anti-choice language for the organization you worked to create? It was based in your home, you created the Facebook page, and you let the anti-choice position be posted knowing your name was being associated with it. Until, that is, you became a candidate in a pro-choice district. Then you decided to have the anti-choice text removed from the Facebook page. You didn’t clean up the post on The Next Right, and now you’ve been caught.
<
p>At best, this is sloppy. More likely, it is a new position to fit with the district.
I called him on his teabagger and anti-choice crap a long time ago. Thank goodness for google. Like Hudak, his garbage is cached all over the internet.
It’s the same middle ground that thousands of politicians take: they personally believe that life begins at conception and feel that there is a right to life, and, they believe that this is a pluralist secular democracy and people have a right to disagree and should be allowed to choose to get an abortion. Isn’t this Kerry’s position, and Clinton’s, and everyone’s? Unless they called for shutting down the clinics and jailing the doctors, it was never anything other than sugar coated sugar anyway.
Uh, here is the lead from the statement:
<
p>This statement is no “middle ground” — “we do not have the right to kill unborn children” stands in stark contrast to the statements offered by Mr. Kerry, Mr. or Mrs. Clinton, and other mainstream Democrats.
<
p>I think the point is that statements like this are the foundation upon which efforts to shut down clinics and jail doctors are based.
<
p>If you are pro-choice, you do not want to support a candidate who espouses these views (which is surely why Mr. Marston now strives to distance himself from this statement).
That kind of divisiveness, trying to force people to pick up the signs and march either in support of guilt-free abortions or for shutting down clinics, is precisely what Obama and the Clintons and Bush and Romney and Scott Brown and everyone has been begging for people to stop doing. They have tried to get us to a solid middle ground where everyone accepts that abortion is not a good thing and even kills an unborn baby, but also that pregnant people should be allowed to make that decision and have access to safe medical procedures to end their pregnancy.
<
p>I agree Let’s Get This Right was being divisive too, I am only saying that Brad Marston is going further than necessary to actually say he does “not agree” with their statements, since they did not call for shutting down clinics or making abortion unavailable, they only expressed fairly universally held views about abortion. By bouncing all the way to the looney left that wants everyone to approve of abortion as if it was a good thing, he alienates a lot of moderate pro-choice people who also think that there is such a thing as human dignity and abortion is not a good method of family planning. It’s not too late to land on the middle ground and end the tennis game.
I can’t say I would have let my name be used in that manner, especially if I ever thought to run for office, but I’m not you.
Above Mr Marston writes the following:
Progressives have been pretty clear that we want to see more transparency in government, less dictatorial and less corruptible Speakers. In general, our wing of the party doesn’t get the House Speakers we want.
<
p>Further, we want to see the state have a sustainable budget and the appropriate investments to expand a vibrant level of innovation and private sector expansion.
<
p>Republicans seem to feel that they can cut taxes, goodness will rain from the skies, and they can go home.
on the fact that the original poster, prochoicemass lied about my position on a woman’s right to choose. That’s what this thread was about.
<
p>As to your points, I think most people who know her or of her would say that Representative Walz is a member of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. In her defense she did say in a Beacon Hill Times article that (and I am paraphrasing) ‘sometimes [she] feels [she] is not liberal enough for her district.’
<
p>Perhaps you would agree with her. She did vote for Sal DiMasi for Speaker just weeks before he left the legislature. She consistently votes against bills and amendments that would create greater transparency.
<
p>She has voted for nearly $2 billion in tax increases for budgets that despite cutting local aid, education funding, library funding and social safety net programs are anything but sustainable.
<
p>As for innovation and private sector expansion, according the National Federation of Independent Business-Massachusetts, the advocacy group for small business and entrepreneurs (the people who create 70%+ of new jobs), she has the 3rd worse voting record of any current representative in supporting their positions.
<
p>Since Representative Walz does not vote in support of the issues you clearly care about, let’s look at where you and I agree.
<
p>You want increased transparency. I actually call for total transparency both in state finances and in that all open meeting laws must also apply to state government.
<
p>I also advocate for reducing the power of the House Speaker. I think a good way to accomplish that is to elect 30 to 35 Republicans who can work with moderate Democrats to take away the power of a veto-proof majority from the Speaker.
<
p>Sustainable budgets? Since 2000, spending on core programs has increased by 100% while the state’s economy has only grown by 30%. That kind of growth is unsustainable. I am convinced that with $53 billion in state spending there is enough money to fully fund the social safety net programs that Massachusetts is rightly proud of.
<
p>I also think that if we have clear, concise and cost effective regulation of the private sector economy, we will see continued innovation and return to job growth. Representative Walz thinks that requires hugely expensive tax credits to the Biotech, Film and other industries.
<
p>I think it is unconscionable that we are giving these industries hundreds of millions of dollars a year while cutting programs for rape prevention, HIV/Aids prevention, community based health care programs, etc.
<
p>We seem to agree on a whole host of issues. I look forward to your support.
Citing the NFIB’s voter guide as proof that someone is against innovation and private sector expansion is insane. The NFIB is against CORI Reform, parental leave, and raising revenue through any sort of tax. If anything, they are the extreme ones.
<
p>Walz is “ranked” 3rd “worst” along with almost fifty other members (and behind about a dozen). You can have your arguments against the legislature as a whole on business issues, but don’t point to her as some anti-business outlier when she’s in line with the majority of the legislature.
<
p>I don’t think Walz prefers to cut programs related to rape prevention, HIV/AIDS, and community-based health care programs over other things.
<
p>If you are so amped about more funding for those programs, and if it is true that you are pro-Choice, pro-Equality, and for the Transgender Rights Bill, then why are you a Republican?
<
p>They seem to be the only ones consistently against those things.
I have looked at her entire NFIB voting record since she came into office in 2005. In 2005/2006 she supported the NFIB positions 13% of the time on recorded votes. In 2007/2008 she failed to vote on half of the bills important to small business and entrepreneurs.
<
p>Perhaps it is simply a coincidence but Representative Walz has voted in support of the NFIB positions 3 times more since I entered the race than she had in the previous five years. It may also be a coincidence that it was not until July of this year that she listed Jobs and the Economy as issues of concern on her campaign website.
<
p>I am not suggesting I would vote with the NFIB 100% of the time. CORI reform is an excellent example. I also tend not to pick a single vote but to look at trends. Private sector employers have not been able to create a single net new job in Massachusetts since 1998. Small business creates 70%+ of the jobs in this state. Since 2005 the NFIB-Massachusetts has taken a position on approximately 40 bills and amendments. She has voted in support of their position four times. You can take from her record what you will. It indicates to me that her priority is not to support small businesses and entrepreneurs in growing and creating jobs.
<
p>As for what Representative Walz prefers, I couldn’t care less. What I care about is how she votes. I don’t think there is anything stopping her from saying to her constituents “I am sorry but I cannot in good conscience vote for a budget that includes these cuts.”
Just curious, how would you have voted on the NFIB bills from 2009/2010?
<
p>1. Increase sales tax to 6.25%
2. Gas tax increase
3. Income tax increase
4. Cell phone driving ban
5. Independent contractor definition
6. Eliminates treble damages for fair wage cases
7. Parental leave
8. Prescription drug mandate
9. Association health plans
10. CORI Reform
11. Alcohol tax repeal
12. Sales Tax Holiday
13. Unemployment tax freeze
14. Tort reform
15. Economic Development
16. Daycare worker unionization
<
p>It seems to me that you look to the NFIB positions as representing the best interests of small businesses and entrepreneurs. I see many of their positions as being against the interests of working families and the poor. When it comes down to business interests or the interests of working families, I’ll always go with working families. From the votes she’s taken, I think Marty Walz shares that view, and that’s why I will be voting for her.
<
p>I’m going to keep giving you a hard time, but I do really appreciate that you are engaging us on BMG.
if it wasn’t for Marty Walz and her ilk there would be a lot more working families.
<
p>I will limit my answers to the same questions the incumbent had to vote on.
<
p>Question 1:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: No NFIB: No
<
p>Question 2:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: No NFIB: No
<
p>Question 10:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: Yes NFIB: No
<
p>Question 12:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: Yes NFIB: No
<
p>Question 13:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: Yes NFIB Yes
<
p>Question 14:
<
p>Walz: No Marston: Yes NFIB: Yes
<
p>Question 15:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: Yes NFIB: Yes
<
p>Question 16:
<
p>Walz: Yes Marston: No NFIB: No
<
p>I think that puts me at 75%. Hardly lock-step but certainly more supportive of small business and entrepreneurs.
Mr. Marston notes that NARAL’s statement doesn’t attribute the statement to him personally. Follow the link to The Next Right website and, voila, there is Mr. Marston’s name on the very same statement. Can’t get much more personal than that. How can you walk away from that, Mr. Marston? These are your words, not the words of some other person posting for the organization (which, by the way, is run out of your home).
Look at the top of the post on the Next Right. Is it my name as the author?
<
p>The answer is no.
From The Next Right:
Are you saying “Brad Martson” isn’t you, or you didn’t mean to say that, or what?
Can you link to where earlier this week you expressed your concerns? I tried to find it but your link was just to the Naral website.
and what is his relationship with you, Mr. Marston?
Regardless of this position & that position, the fact is Marty Walz is not an effective State Representative. All the post-ers on this site will vote for her. Her opponent may peruse this site to gather info but 99% of the people on this site will blindly vote for Walz. On Beacon Hill, word is she blew her Chairmanship. She angered many people with her I know Better attitude and she burned all her bridges. Her district is composed of people who don’t need many social services…look at the socio-economic data for her district….so she gets away with not having to deliver but just posture and sound liberal….with a little more focus, you see ineffectiveness. Plus, she gave Aaron Micheelewitz the questions before a Back Bay debate…is that up-front transparency…she should be asked repeatedly on the campaign trail what makes her any better when she engages in this old boy insider type stuff…..any comments from any of her defenders why she did something that reeks so badly and yet is claiming thhe mantle of good government…such a hypocrisy!
As I have always maintained, Representative Walz is popular in the district because people don’t know her record.
<
p>Even Democrats question her vote for Sal DiMasi. When they learn that she took thousands in taxpayer money for her walk to work and only stopped after I announced my candidacy they are equally questioning.
BMG should be embarrassed by this post. Ugh.
kirth makes a post just a few lines up. Check it out. I’ll give you a hint… it includes
<
p>Let’s Get This Right believes in the dignity of life, that every human deserves the right to life–from conception to death–and that we do not have the right to kill unborn children … Best Regards, Sheridan Folger and Brad Martson
<
p>That’s pretty straight up against abortion rights. The question remains… wrong Brad Martson? Wrong conclusion? Change of mind? Interweb conspiracy? A smear job, or good research? Mr. Marston has replied to this diary since kirth posted his question, but has yet to reply to kirth directly. A smear job, or good research?
I suppose I could be more generous, given that it is full rah-rah yay, our team, boo, your team season, but I’m not that generous. This is just another round of Why-Don’t-you-denounce some crap we found on the internet. Zzzzz.
There was some pretty extreme views posted on a Facebook site that had Marston’s name and attribution all over it. It needed explanation. I think the guy did a good job explaining it. Frankly, he should insist that it be taken down or corrected. It leaves the impression that he is trying to have it both ways. Why this guy is a Republican is beyond me. Those views listed above have nothing to do with Republicanism (I’ve got mine. The hell with you. Cut my taxes.)
is a whole lot different than what some punter posted in an opinion piece, stretching truth and skewing quotes.
<
p>Brad Marston wrote something stating clear political positions. He’s now claiming to believe the opposite. It’s certainly fair to ask what happened. It’s also certainly fair to observe that the evolution of this thread suggests that Mr. Marston is awfully cagey on the matter.
From what I could see, it isn’t even that clear that the “best regards” bit is actually connected to the sentences preceding it. It looks like a jumble of links, cuts, and pastes.
<
p>And then there are “extreme views” posted on a facebook page– by Marston? If not, this entire thread is nonsense.
He created the website. He is still an admin of the site. He founded the group. He lists his home as the address of the group.
<
p>If the situation was reversed, and it was a Democratic candidate who founded a radical left-wing group and was now attempting to woo conservative voters, would you feel the same?
<
p>It seems to me that the public record is a crucial aspect of evaluating any candidate. Folks are quick to exploit the power of the web to promote viewpoints — surely it’s why many of us post here. Statements we make (or that are published on sites over which we exercise editorial control) are part of the public record.
<
p>If the owner and editor of a hard-copy newspaper allowed his or her name to be published on a particularly strong opinion piece, that piece and its attribution would be fair game if that person subsequently campaigned for public office.
<
p>I think it’s entirely appropriate to focus attention on the clear dissonance between his campaign statements to the general public and his earlier statements to his right-wing fans.
I know that you view all organizations of any kind as absolute monoliths, with zero range of opinion, and everyone marching along it lockstep, but that world exists only in your imagination.
<
p>I voted for the present President of the United States, despite his association with (i) Chicago political corruption (Rezko); (ii) a church, the pastor of which appears to hold what can be most charitably called extremely divisive and offensive views; and (iii) a left-wing terrorist. I don’t think Obama was involved in political corruption, is a racist, or condones terrorism, despite these associations, and I do, and did, think that attempts to smear him with them were lies typical of the political activist.
In the interest of continuing the conversation, I’ll chuckle about your attempted cheapshot towards me and move on.
<
p>President Obama did not organize a group for any of those things. He did not maintain a website for any of those things. I’m not aware of any broadsides, hardcopy or online, from any of those groups that was attributed to him. None of those groups listed his home address as their own during his campaign.
<
p>I am, however, fairly certain that if President Obama had, for example, launched a facebook group advocating extreme left-wing views, listed himself as admin, and allowed a piece calling for violent revolution to be published under his name, you would have been less inclined to vote for him.
<
p>If he had done so (which of course he did not), I think it would have been an entirely appropriate matter for journalistic attention. Apparently you disagree.
<
p>I think the bottom line here is that President Obama did not do anything comparable to what Mr. Marston did.
I know that you view all organizations of any kind as absolute monoliths, with zero range of opinion, and everyone marching along it lockstep, but that world exists only in your imagination.
<
p>I voted for the present President of the United States, despite his association with (i) Chicago political corruption (Rezko); (ii) a church, the pastor of which appears to hold what can be most charitably called extremely divisive and offensive views; and (iii) a left-wing terrorist. I don’t think Obama was involved in political corruption, is a racist, or condones terrorism, despite these associations, and I do, and did, think that attempts to smear him with them were lies typical of the political activist.
CentalMassDad,
<
p>I appreciate your support but there isn’t really any chance of having an intelligent conversation with Tom. He refuses to believe anything or anyone that does not comport with his views.
<
p>The point was and remains that I do not hold anti-choice views. That seems to have been lost in the discussion here.
So Brad believes that “we do not have the right to kill unborn children”, and he supports “a woman’s right to choose”.
<
p>Seems consistent to me. A person can feel that abortion is not a right without trying to stop people from doing it or make it illegal and unavailable.
If not, try reading this.
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…