/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Sunday, May 01, 2005

CR Supporters demand compliance or you can have no opinion

--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/01/2005

That's right...I missed a day for posting and I'm making up for it with marathon posts. But they are important ones.

Recently I posted about the shenanigans of the MN CRs, the CRNC and the CR vETS for "truth". The responses have been enlightening.

Anonymous said...
Marty,
You have done nothing but try to tear down the College Republicans during your 20 years in College...you have no reason to discuss the race...you aren't even a College Republican...you are a lame wannabe.

I have been very clear that I am Tony, co-host of a budding radio franchise called Race to the Right. Marty is my co-host and has his own blog. Easy concept...we have both been on the air simultaneously for now 20 hours so this is not one of those LaToya/Michael Jackson-are-they-the-same-person things.

I do appreciate the complement about my intellect. 20 years in College? That would mean that in my mid-teens I would have been genius enough to be accepted to college, skipped junior high, skipped high school and still attended while serving in the active duty Air Force outside of Minnesota. Amazing. Doogie Howser would have been envious. I thank you for the compliment, but, alas, I am just an average person.

What is scary about this Anonymous CR is the "you are not a member you can have no opinion" mentality. This is the same broken logic that the left uses when it says that men cannot have opinions on abortion. This is the same discriminating philosophy that the left uses when it says that white people cannot have opinions on affirmative action issues.

Should non-CRs be allowed to have an opinion on the CRNC race? As a Republican we all have a reason to be concerned about the race...Meyers, Hoplin, Gourley and their supporters are damaging the standing of the Republican as a whole.

I am not a CR? That is right. Why not? That is a very important question. I was a CR until the mock "elections" run by Kristen Meyer (I think that was 3 years ago now)...where she took her marching order from the state board. They wanted to install Tyler Richter and install they did. Kristen decided that the nomination process would be secretive...nomination requests would be e-mailed to her. She decided AFTER nominations were closed that requests to "run for all positions" were not to be accepted because they "did not specify the positions desired". Marty was one of the candidates who submitted one of these requests and was not allowed to change it in light of the ever changing rules surrounding nominations. She then brought her husband in to be parliamentarian for the meeting who ran roughshod over Robert's Rules to make certain that enough of Kristen's/Tyler's opponents were denied the ability to vote thus enabling free reign through the selections. That was just the beginning of the process that night. We won't even discuss now the attempt she made to close CR and Campus Republican accounts as well as trying to end the registration of both groups with the campus Student Activities Office.

That is the corruption in the CR. I thought it was just a Minnesota CR issue that started with Hoplin in the 90's. The RDI scandal of robbing the elderly showed me that the problem is national. I am not a member so long as this Clintonian style of running a group exists. Given this activity in the CR I find it a positive that "CR Member" is not a part of my resume. So Mr. Anonymous CR, you are wrong. I am not a CR wannabe. Though I may very well be lame, and I accpet that.

Tear down the CRs? In 1973 the GOP deserved a shakedown. In 2004 the MN CRs deserve a long-needed shakedown. Tear them down? Yes, that is what may be needed at this point in order to restore the dignity that it once had as an organization. It was not on my To-Do list, but I wholeheartedly support an entire rebuilding...kick out everyone in "leadership" positions, ban them from running again within the entire CR organization and start all over.

Anonymous said...
Hey, "Tony," where were you during the campaign. Those who didn't do shit to get Bush re-elected have no right to bitch and complain. Do some work and then maybe you'll have the right to actually talk about what is going on in MCR!

Did you guys catch the recurring "you are not a member so you have no right to hold opinions" theme. Out of 3 sentences in this posting 2 of them had this liberal/Marxist mentality.

I was not aware that this country had fallen to the point that a person had to "do shit to get Bush re-elected" in order to "have [the] right to bitch and complain" about corruption in the CR. I missed that newsflash...will someone please link that for me?

I guess I also missed the part that said that campaigning activity for Bush was germane to a person's right to hold an opinion about anything not related to

I freely admit that up to 9/10/2001 I did not support Bush and I was hoping that he would follow his father's path home as a one-termer. His domestic policies stunk and his foreign policies had glimmers of hope but as a whole he was not worthy of a federalist conservative's support. On 9/11/01 he had my support as our leader in a time of war, but that did not mean I was going to campaign for him or support a conservative candidate in 2004.

Does that mean I should have no rights to an opinion, as the MN CRs supporters obviously seem to believe?

Once Bush gave the ad hoc "I hear you" speech from ground zero he became my candidate for 2004. Should that allow me the right to offer critique of an organization that is seperate from Bush? I guess, according to Mr Anonymous CR supporter that allows people to have an opinion. Only those who did "shit to get Bush re-elected" are allowed to take a position on the CRs...and then only the positions that support the CRs. Given the vitriol that the MN CR supporters are responding with a reasonable person has to ask what is it internally that the MN CRs are hiding? Given the absolute resistance to debates before the convention what is it that the CRNC leadership is afraid of?

Now what "shit" did I do "to get Bush re-elected"? Given the fact that the whole "membership before opinion" mentality is so anti-thetical to American foundations I should not even dignify the comment. To set the record straight I will answer the juvenile comment.

What did you do? Make a few phone calls to people on a list handed to you while reading a script. Knock on a couple of doors here and there, mostly in non-hostile areas. What did you do, since you are calling on other's "dedication to a candidate" as proof of validity to have an opinion let's see your cards. My guess is you did the stuff you were told, and to make it easy for the very flighty CR help you did not get too difficult of a task. Tedious, maybe, but not truly difficult or trying. Parades, maybe...a little walking, waving and woo-hooing. Great, but again, not exactly "hostile crowds" I guessing.

Let's see...first I should mention that I am willing to bet that I did more on campus (which is NOT even within my Congressional District) than you did. I know that CRs for the most part do very little with campus issues. I was approached and contacted by more College Democrats each month trying to sway the vote of this registered Republican than I was contacted ever by a College Republican (or any Republican organization for that matter). I did not see many Bush stickers or pins on campus...so I purchased some to give away. I engaged in many debates at the office (on the U of MN campus) on election issues to sway the undecideds; campaigned on behalf of Bush at the office...both of these put my employment at risk, but I felt it was worthy. I was moving on Election Day...I campaigned to the people buying our house, selling to us our new house and the agents along the way. I campaigned to the movers. That was the easy stuff.

Marty & I had 14 hours of air time that we used to discuss the elections. That does not come close to the amount of time that I put in going through Kerry speeches (several dozens) looking for clips, piecing them together, radio prep. Did I mention that each hour cost $300? That wasn't my money but Marty & I did have to do the fundraising...and the time it took to do the cold calling. (You didn't have cold calling on the phone banks, did you?)

Speaking of money...I contributed more money to blogs and websites that were doing the heavy lifting nationally for Bush than would qualify for a PCR had those been instate. Again...that was the easy stuff.

I was on the MTC buses campaigning for Bush...the routes through the U and downtown Minneapolis. I campaigned to AFSCME members. I worked on people to help them find their true kindred spirits in the Green Party and their principles, not in Kerry just to follow the crowd. I did not just look for Bush supporters and hoot, "Don't forget to vote", I looked to move wavering Kerry-ites and move them over to Bush, or hard-line lefties and make them stand for their principles to go Green. I refuted every utterance, comment and charge that I heard on those buses (and on some of those buses it is risky just to be on the bus).

I stood on the corners waving my Kennedy and Bush signs between house closings. I did the old "soapboxing"...like what Brother Jed does on campus...for Kennedy, Bush, Republicans, conservatives and the state Representatives in my area. Soapboxing requires a little research to find out exactly where the public property is and then standing out just yelling out beliefs, answering questions, etc.

And through all of the time, effort, risk, money and sweat I hold a different position than the Anonymous CR supporters. I believe that I have no more of a right to opine on anything, including CRs, MN CR, & CRNC, than my neighbor who did nothing during the campaign or my neighbors across the street who worked to defeat Bush.

Maybe I should have done more of the easier "I'm a do-what-they-tell-me party boy" "shit to get Bush re-elected" so I would be allowed by the CRs to have an opinion. But in the end all of that "shit to get Bush re-elected" does not do as much as getting down and rationally discussing. Did I attend a Bush event? Hell no, that would have wasted time from talking to non-supporters trying to change them.

Maybe I am just foolish for thinking that everyone is allowed an opinion; everyone is allowed to see something wrong and try to fix it; thinking that the GOP's youth, the CRs, stood for something more than just attacking the messenger. I thought the GOP was a party where a delegate could walk up to the convention entrance and NOT be greated by the likes of Emily Regan saying snidely, crassly, "What are you doing here?"

Maybe.

2 Comments:

Blogger Bryan Shuy said...

Tony, not Marty, I think we could've summarized your entire post by saying you're an idealogue rather than any form of an aspiring politician.

You began your former response by attacking the ethos of your accuser. Later, you suggested his attacking your ethos was ill-advised for his/her lack of knowledge about you. Now, wouldn't you be making a host of assumptions about the aforementioned anonymous poster? Likewise, aren't you engaging in the very same ad hominem approach that said poster engaged in?

However, with all of that said I respect your sticking to your beliefs.

Oh and if you're wondering, yep I'm attacking you credibility for attacking another person's credibility leaving me in the same predicament ;), but intentionally to draw out my point.

May 06, 2005  
Blogger Tony said...

I do not think that being for the right of people to hold and express opinions means that I am not "any form of an aspiring politician."

It scares me that people in the party not only hold forked tongue speakers on a pedestal and assume that everyone who speaks straight is not "an aspiring politician". The GOP should kick out double-talkers (like Hoplin, McCain, Ramstad and Bush I), kick out those who are ethically challenged (like Hoplin, Gourley, Eibensteiner) and hold stronger to those that say what they mean more often than not (like post-9/11 Bush, Mark Kennedy and Phil Krinkie).

I attacked the assumptions of the poster. It assumed that simply because I do not hold a Hoplin allegiance and because I demand better behavior from the MN CR that means I did nothing for my party. The commenter also implied strongly that if I do not agree with the CR leadership that I do not have the right to an opinion about the CRs.

The assumption is just the result of very poor intellectual processes and the implication is blatantly counter-American (American foundation is based on free speech--the right to hold and voice an opinion).

To attack a person for being immoral is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. (Since that phrase is thrown around so often without meaning I will define it: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.) In fact, if someone is immoral (like Clinton or Nixon) than the relevant discussion is that person.

I would love to elaborate more, but I am expecting family to arrive at any minute.

May 07, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home