Rick Green for MassGOP Chair

(Why one State Committeeman is supporting Rick Green – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

Two weeks ago, I endorsed my state committee colleague Rick Green to serve as our next chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party. I did so, and I encourage others to do so, for many reasons. I’ll present what I consider the two most important below.

Party unity: Given the current state of our party within the Commonwealth, we need above all to become more united. I do not believe, however, that unity requires uniformity: we must find room for Republicans of all stripes. We must remember, as Ronald Reagan and so many others have known, that those who are with us 80% of the time are our friends and allies. Those who agree with us 60% or 70% of the time aren’t our enemies, either: winning coalitions are, by definition, broad enough to include a majority (or at least a strong plurality). This is a particular concern for me both as the youngest member of the state committee, and because I represent a district that, even for Massachusetts, is heavily Democratic: our focus must be on convincing those who do not already agree with us, especially younger voters whose political habits are just being shaped. On all ends of the spectrum, we must stop trying to write those who disagree with us out of the party.

I find myself bemused by recent implications that Rick will impose a “litmus test” on our party. I doubt I’d satisfy anyone’s litmus test: for instance, I’ve publicly stated my support for gay marriage, but I’m equally proud to say publicly that I’m pro-life. I suspect that several of our problems stem from valid feelings among activists of many stripes that they have not been treated fairly, and that their views cannot even be heard. I know that it is one of Rick’s foremost commitments to bring people from all parts of our party together, and to foster the exchange of ideas for returning our party to relevance at all levels of government. I fear that those who complain of imaginary “litmus tests” are unlikely candidates for promoting the sort of unity that will be essential to our future success.

Moreover, the list of Rick’s endorsements demonstrates that he has support from those with a wide range of views. As I write this, 25 members of the state committee  (including me) and seven of our thirty-three elected state legislators have publicly endorsed Rick. I know that some consider themselves moderate, and others further to the right; some are social conservatives, and some are not; some are even libertarians. Many would disagree sharply among themselves on some issues. We all, however, agree that Rick is the best choice to become our next chairman.

Vision: I ran for state committee in large part because I thought — as I still do — that our focus had become too narrow. Devoting all or almost all of our efforts to statewide elections for major offices has not only robbed us of continuity and stability, it has also failed: we have neither a Republican governor nor enough Republican members in either house of the General Court to demand a roll-call vote (though we’re quite close in the House!), much less sustain a veto.

I believe that Rick is most committed to working from the “ground up” and thereby leading us back to relevance at every level of government. I know how well he knows Massachusetts politics at a town-by-town, district-by-district level, and I know he understands how imperative such an approach is. Indeed, it is just this approach that enabled Scott Brown to be the first Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts in 37 years: we are all familiar with the story of how, beginning as a town official, he worked his way up to serve in both houses of the legislature and then in Congress. I am confident that electing Rick to serve as chairman will enable numerous others to follow similar, if not identical paths, and thereby increase the number of  Republicans elected throughout our Commonwealth. 

As I said in my opening paragraph, there are myriad other reasons to support Rick: the executive ability suggested by his career in business, the commitment he has demonstrated to Massachusetts there, and his record of support for candidates at all levels all come to mind. Again, however, I consider party unity and vision to be the most important factors, and I strongly believe that Rick is the best choice on both counts.

The writer is the state committeeman from the Middlesex and Suffolk District

About mecowett

  • edfactor

    Michael –

    Your opinion matters a lot to me, so I take it seriously.

    But why is everyone’s endorsement of Mr. Green so content-free???? I also have very positive opinions of him from his resume and the simple themes he speaks of. But where is all the content?

    For instance, he has been on the state committee. Where are the people who will say, “Rick Green has accomplished ‘X’ on the SC and we worked together on that subcommittee.”?

    Mr. Green has a website and four public media appearances. There is almost nothing there. He has said this one thing over and over again: that he wants to increase voter registration by getting 5 new Republicans per precinct. He also wants to get $30 more per precinct. He then trumpets that we will therefore have tens of thousands of more voters and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Really? I have an even better plan that is four times as good! Let’s get 20 new Republicans per precinct and $120 per precinct.

    Is my plan four times as good?

    No – that’s just math. Without even one single idea about how to get those voters and money, I have no reason to believe him.

    Let’s take support for non-marquee races. A lot of people support this. But has Mr. Green talked to the donors? Is there support to give money to a group that includes a lot of people that cannot win? Is Mr. Green willing to be specific about what this kind of financial support means? Everyone talks about “supporting the grass roots” – yet what specifically does he mean?

    The other thing Mr. Green says in the context of winning more races is that we must start “listening to voters.”  Has he read the election returns of hundreds of elections over the past several years?

    On that issue, I agree with you 100% that we must be a tolerant and diverse party. However, the most angry and intolerant Republicans I know have lined up behind Mr. Green. Many of them believe the party must be socially conservative above all else. They rejected Richard Tisei. They would never, ever, support a MassGOP chairman who was not with them. So I want to know why they support Green. And until Mr. Green says that he wants a diverse, tolerant party where social moderates will also be welcome, I will simply assume that this will remain an officially socially conservative party that just authorized the adoption of Mitt Romney’s losing platform.

    I could go on and on about the things Rick Green has not said. (How could a guy who runs an online store have nothing to say about technology? Absurd!!!) But I am looking forward to him saying more. He thinks he can win on resume and platitudes. There is a good chance he will.

    But I think we, the people that you on the State Committee represent, deserve much more.

  • 1. Party Unity? Hahahahaha. That’s a good one. Neighboring Ayer doesn’t have an RTC, even though there are willing volunteers to organize or reorganize one. MAGOP does not want the party to open up. Everybody wants to keep their own little piece of turf. Brock Cordeiro is the exception to this standard. Brock helped me reorganize my previously 8 year dormant RTC in 2009.

       Endorsements: Does Rick actually have an endorsement he hasn’t paid for?

    2. Vision: It is difficult to work from the “bottom up” if your only view is “top down”.

      The man has never worked on a political campaign. Kind of a drawback, don’t you think?  

  • Rick Green has publicly stated that as Chair it’s not his job to put his ideological fingerprint on the party platform. He believes that is the job of the State Committee. Rick has stated this in Radio interviews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…  http://tunein.com/topic/?Topic

    Last Saturday he spoke before the MARA Convention. I was there. Yes I’m part of the Republican party, so aren’t MARA members… Therefore it is right that Rick spoke the us.

    He made it clear. His personal views are his personal views and yes he’s conservative. However, as Chair he has to be the Chair of the entire MA-GOP. Adding, that he felt if was wrong when previous Chairs made statements about the ideological direction of the party, with out any consensus of the State Committee. Therefore it would be wrong for him to do the same thing.

    The point being EDFACTOR….:  He said that to very conservative crowd. He could have come in to the room and fed the conservative crowd a steady diet of conservative red meat. He didn’t. Instead he said: These are my views. But as Chair, I can’t impose them on the State Committee, the MA-GOP, or the State Convention. The State Committee sets ideological policy and it’s ratified by the State Convention.

    All you have to do is look at the list of people who have endorsed Rick. You’ve got a pretty broad spectrum, as Mike pointed out. So this divisive scare tactic is a weapon of mass distraction.

    At the last State Committee meeting, they all went in to Executive Session.  I’m not privy to the specifics of the discussions. But several SC members of different ideological persuasions, did tell me that there was frank discussion, an airing of issues, and people from different camps got to know each other.  Sure there are still ideological differences. After all that’s what happens when you have a Big Tent. Nevertheless most SC members walked out of the room united in purpose and determined worked together.

    The Platform is a statement of Republican principles. It should reflect the RNC Platform in my opinion. Apparently it’s the opinion of the 63 State Committee members present at the last meeting, because they recommended adopting most of those principles. Unanimously!

    The platform is in committee, the State Committee hopefully will get to vote and amend what comes out of Committee and the Convention will also get a bite at this in 2014.

    No matter what the final platform reads, it won’t preclude candidates with differing views from running or being supported by the MA-GOP.

    The only important question in this race is whether or not the State Committee members believe one high profile candidates gets to control the MA-GOP. OR do they believe resources out to also go towards building a farm team, building a lasting infrastructure, and a competitive ground game.

     

    We’ve tried the former failed strategy for decades. Bill Weld inherited a State Senate with 16 Republicans. Weld, Cellucci, and Swift were all the kind of socially liberal Republicans that Edfactor thinks are the Messiahs of the MA-GOP.  By the time Swift left office, Mitt Romney inherited a Democrat legislature that was veto proof!  That wasn’t necessarily because they were social liberals.  They could have all been Rick Santorum. The problem is the failed strategy.

    If we build the farm team, the infrastructure, and the ground game, the candidates themselves will speak to the issues important in their district.