Cullen ‘content’ with convention outcome

Content? Was he "content" to have his hand-picked platform chairman, Jeff Newman, storm off the stage and run home with his tail between his legs? Was he "content" to have his decision of the chair overridden by a nearly unanimous vote?

Cullen put all his RINO lackeys on the platform committee so he could control the content. He was determined to sanitize the platform. Was he "content" to have his proposed platform stomped by real Republicans.

Oh, I forgot. Cullen didn't have an opinion on either platform because he didn't have a vote. He's only the chairman of the party. He's either a liar or an idiot, my guess is both.

Take it from this 15-year veteran ~ Jeff Newman is a good man.

Can we all take a deep breathe?

First off, Jeff, I hope things have a positive outcome for your loved one. I know how caring you were when my husband was ill.

Fergus, I apologize for Sam calling you a liar or an idiot. Opinions like that are best left amongst friends and not in public.
However, the platform committee was hand picked by you, so you do need to take responsibility for their error in judgement on process. Semprini had asked for people who wanted to serve to volunteer and there were a broad spectrum of the political scale represented in the 26 volunteers he selected. While you may be "content" with the outcome, this would not have been triggered if "your" platform committee had not tried to so drastically change the platform with so little input and consideration to process.

As to who did what on Sunday, there were a number of groups who worked together to stop what they felt was a flawed platform propsal based on process as well as content.
There were hundreds of phone calls made by a lot of people, not just Sam. there were conference calls and targeted mailings. Reagan Network called all the write in delegate winners who NO ONE had notified of the meeting. There was a well laid out strategy and having three hundred and fifty copies of the current platform wasn't just happenstance. When one is trying to put in new language, the "old" language should always be available for comparison. The effort that went into preserving what is so important to so many was a textbook case of teamwork.

A lot of people did their homework, defended platform items they personally believe in, and did so without rancor.

It is unfortunate that it has come to rancor now. I do not support such and apologize for it. Now let's move forward and get the J team elected and get back the majorities in the House and Senate. We're wasting time here.
fran

Fran-

I selected the names for the Platform Committee. They were approved, but the choice was mine and they were good people. We tried to take the previous platform and make it readable. We deleted a little, and on the day of the Convention, I offered to add language that would address concerns about things that people felt were omitted. Several speakers came forward and said that things that were in fact there had been deleted. There was a thick air of conspiracy in their hearts. As Pimm said,the suspicion was that we had been hand picked RINOs to dumb down the Platform. But this was untrue. As Phyllis Wood noted, no one reads a platform. But I think people should.

I had believed that the platform is an election time document, intended to express our values to the entire party. So I picked people who reflected not just one narrow sliver here or there in the spectrum, but across the board. I wanted people to actually read it. But opposing us were those who believe that the platform is a blueprint for legislation and a score card for legislators. I noted this in my address to the Convention.

I honestly still believe that the platform should be written to explain to all Republicans and interested independents what we believe in. But the will of the Convention, which was accepted, was that it is a legislative blueprint, although little read (Phyllis Woods' words, not mine) and a score card. You won. Which is why I realize that our platform, in all of its breadth and majesty can never change. As Paul Mirski noted, changing platforms creates instabilities and bad press in an election time. So I will propose that the platform should be deemed perfect and immutable, and never, ever be changed. NOT ONE WORD, NOT NOW, NOT EVER. Platforms have been found not to exist to inform all party members and those who lean to us, but to express the will of a select few, to allow easier scoring for legislative watchdogs.

But this doesn't change the fact that I, not Fergus, selected the committee. Me. I did that. There really wasn't a conspiracy.

Picking a committee and selecting a committee that is representative of all segments of our party, in order to produce a readable platform that more people would read was my idea. But that idea didn't pass the Convention. Still, there wasn't a conspiracy, only in your mind and Pimm's.

The platform is now a large, an acceptably perfect document that is primarily a scorecard for the few, not intended to be read (as Phyllis Woods so crisply noted, not my words). It is now the province of the few. And I yield that to you.

But if you had put half that effort into getting Republicans elected, instead of trying to thwart them with conspiracy theories, think how much farther we would be along.

I remain certain of victory in November. Energy is high. This is a little thing, and as Phyllis said, no one reads a platform anyway.

I am still waiting for Sam Pimm's apology to me and Jen, who he falsely branded as RINOs.

I will keep waiting for it.

I am, after all, a gentleman, and request that satisfaction.

Best as always,

Newman

Airing dirty laundry in public here is the wrong way to go. It's sad that people are fighting here, since it tarnishes the party.