Comments on: A Real Point Of Clarification http://www.residualforces.com/2008/06/02/a-real-point-of-clarification/ A Stream of Consciousness by Andy Aplikowski on His Life, His Politics, His Dogs, His Truck, and Whatever Pleases His Fancy Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:17:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Lady Logician http://www.residualforces.com/2008/06/02/a-real-point-of-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-42255 Lady Logician Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:39:52 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/?p=4743#comment-42255 <strong>Going To Extremes...</strong> Because of circumstances beyond my control, I was not at last week's Republican Party State Convention. I gave up my seat to a newcomer since I was not sure that I was going to be here for the convention or not (more on this later). However, I was..... Going To Extremes…

Because of circumstances beyond my control, I was not at last week’s Republican Party State Convention. I gave up my seat to a newcomer since I was not sure that I was going to be here for the convention or not (more on this later). However, I was…..

]]> By: dan http://www.residualforces.com/2008/06/02/a-real-point-of-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-42211 dan Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:45:11 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/?p=4743#comment-42211 Good points, Sam. Especially pertinent is your point about debate over candidates during the leadup to endorsement. Evidently, some think we shouldn't debate about the candidates. Whoever leadership says we should support, we support, right? Not in my book. Not until after the endorsement, anyhow. Good points, Sam. Especially pertinent is your point about debate over candidates during the leadup to endorsement. Evidently, some think we shouldn’t debate about the candidates. Whoever leadership says we should support, we support, right? Not in my book. Not until after the endorsement, anyhow.

]]> By: Sam http://www.residualforces.com/2008/06/02/a-real-point-of-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-42208 Sam Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:49:52 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/?p=4743#comment-42208 With the fear that maybe I am repeating myself. I think this shows what is right with the party - that this is not some large group of lemmings always follow the state party. This is the only Amendment that there was no question that party leadership wanted, and if I recall it failed by the largest margin of anything. And as for the changing the requirement for a meeting. You and the chair were having a argument. He threated to remove you. In retaliation you threatened to call a special session of State Central to remove the chair (something which requires 2/3 vote if I recall). Luckily, like Andy, it appears that you thought it through and realized that this would accomplish nothing except tick off a bunch of people who have to give up another Saturday for no reason. Another example of maturity overcoming righteous anger. Now it something like this can not be done by someone less mature, because instead of just having to get 10-20 people, you have to convince 15%. As I said before, if someone can't convince 15% of the people in one on one conversations of the validity of their argument, how can anyone hope that calling a special session a giving a short speech will convince 66% of the people. I would say that a BPOU has a right to say they are not going to waste their time on a candidate they don't support. I would also say that they also have a duty as a member of the party to respect the parties endorsement and not work against that endorsement. So you don't have to put a Coleman sign on you r parade float, but also should not put a "we hate Norm" sign. If what I heard was correct, some BPOUs did not turn in delegate lists. This is not disrespecting the chair, this is disrespecting the party. Those list belong to the party and the BPOU - give them to the party and if you want use them for what ever purpose, but not sending them in is wrong. This however is not ground for the State taking over a BPOU. Again, just tell the BPOU - no list - no delegates, period. Seems simple to me. And as to the letter to Norm. Until this weekend we had no endorsed candidate, so all was fair up until then. (So in the above example, a BPOU you could have an "I Hate Norm" sign on a parade on May 1 but should be supportive or silent on June 1.) With the fear that maybe I am repeating myself.
I think this shows what is right with the party – that this is not some large group of lemmings always follow the state party.
This is the only Amendment that there was no question that party leadership wanted, and if I recall it failed by the largest margin of anything.

And as for the changing the requirement for a meeting.
You and the chair were having a argument. He threated to remove you.
In retaliation you threatened to call a special session of State Central to remove the chair (something which requires 2/3 vote if I recall).
Luckily, like Andy, it appears that you thought it through and realized that this would accomplish nothing except tick off a bunch of people who have to give up another Saturday for no reason. Another example of maturity overcoming righteous anger.

Now it something like this can not be done by someone less mature, because instead of just having to get 10-20 people, you have to convince 15%.

As I said before, if someone can’t convince 15% of the people in one on one conversations of the validity of their argument, how can anyone hope that calling a special session a giving a short speech will convince 66% of the people.

I would say that a BPOU has a right to say they are not going to waste their time on a candidate they don’t support.
I would also say that they also have a duty as a member of the party to respect the parties endorsement and not work against that endorsement. So you don’t have to put a Coleman sign on you r parade float, but also should not put a “we hate Norm” sign.

If what I heard was correct, some BPOUs did not turn in delegate lists.
This is not disrespecting the chair, this is disrespecting the party.
Those list belong to the party and the BPOU – give them to the party and if you want use them for what ever purpose, but not sending them in is wrong.
This however is not ground for the State taking over a BPOU.
Again, just tell the BPOU – no list – no delegates, period. Seems simple to me.

And as to the letter to Norm. Until this weekend we had no endorsed candidate, so all was fair up until then. (So in the above example, a BPOU you could have an “I Hate Norm” sign on a parade on May 1 but should be supportive or silent on June 1.)

]]>