Letters: Conventional Wisdom and Rejection of GOP 'Top-Down' Structure

"It seems the 'First in the Nation' State Republican Party has taken a courageous (and possibly unprecedented) step to reclaim the GOP for the grass roots."

Dear Editor:

Yesterday, the, the New Hampshire Republican Party, after an afternoon of spirited  floor fights, voted to accept a new State Party Platform after 20 proposed amendments were debated. However, the most remarkable event was yet to come. In the closing minutes of the Convention, the GOP delegates passed the following Resolution by an overwhelming voice vote in a sharp rebuke to the national GOP:


Whereas, the new party rules at the Republican National Convention in Tampa were adopted under questionable circumstances with disregard for convention rules;

Whereas, the new rules impose a top-down structure of governance in place of the party's traditional bottom-up structure and reduce the power and autonomy of state and local party organizations;

Whereas, the changes to Rule 12 give unprecedented power to the national committee to change party rules without the input and approval of state parties and their members;

Whereas, it is to benefit of the New Hampshire Republican Party that First in the Nation rules not be open to change between conventions;

Therefore, be it resolved that:

We condemn Rule 12 as antithetical to Republican values and assert the primacy of the delegates to the Republican Convention in setting party rules;

We reject the new top-down structure of governance as detrimental to the long-term success of the Republican Party.
It seems the "First in the Nation" State Republican Party has taken a courageous (and possibly unprecedented) step to reclaim the GOP for the grass roots. The vote, which some observers believe may have been as many as 90 percent  of those present, reflects the growing influence of the Republican Liberty movement in New Hampshire. It is sure to spark controversy and healthy discussion. I wonder if other States will soon follow suit?

David Murotake

Nashua, NH

Charles Hatch October 01, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Anti Union politicians have no future.
Lorna Andoscia October 01, 2012 at 02:46 PM
Anti politician unions are in the wrong business!
Super Fun Size October 01, 2012 at 03:32 PM
"Anti politician unions" What?
News Flash October 01, 2012 at 03:34 PM
Still waitin Pee Wee for you to actually say something.
Kevin Kervick October 02, 2012 at 02:59 AM
I was proud to be a Granite Stater.
Thaddeus S. Kaczor Jr. October 02, 2012 at 05:17 PM
New Hampshire Republicans fire the first shot in the revolution to bring down the autocratic 'King Georges' in the RNC! Don't the Neo-Cons and Party Elites realize (or care!) that by dismissing and isolating the true grass roots of the party that they are committing political suicide? Or is retaining power (albeit in a quickly diminishing party) more important than doing the right thing for the party and the country?
Bob in Boston October 02, 2012 at 05:28 PM
The second one...
fyi October 02, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Now watch the RNC work to remove NH as "first in the nation" before 2016...
Lorna Andoscia October 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Mike, an anti-politician union is one that will spend it's member's funds on bashing a candidate, without consideration that some of their members may back that candidate. Case in point, SEIU is paying $11 per hour for members to show up at Romney events and protest!
Super Fun Size October 02, 2012 at 06:26 PM
That doesn't make them "anti politician", they are supporting a politician, the one who represents the union employees best interest.
patrick marron October 02, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Super Fun Size October 02, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Has The New Hampshire GOP become Democratic Socialists? Democratic socialism advocates for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy from the grassroots level, undertaken by and for the working class itself.
Lorna Andoscia October 03, 2012 at 01:54 PM
Mike there is a BIG difference between supporting a candidate and paying people to bash a candidate...especially when you are paying people with money taken from those who worked hard for it!
Super Fun Size October 03, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Are you still talking about these guys holding signs who were allegedly being paid? What did these signs say that were so bad?
Lorna Andoscia October 03, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Allegedly?!? From the horses mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G5DTqvX74O4#! And, it's not what is on the sign that is disturbing. It is the deception of presenting the union as being backed by it's members. If the members really were anti-Romney, they wouldn't have to pay people to show up! Did you see how many people said they were being paid? And, did you also see that once they saw that people were admitting to being paid, every time someone paused to speak they were herded back into the picket line?
Jan Schmidt October 03, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Oh Lorna... only one person said he was being paid and it was unclear if he meant to be at the protest or for his time spent canvassing. And people often carpool, even to events just a few miles away. And Romney is anti-union so is there some reason union people can't be anti-Romney? Just another example of a cut and paste job meant to control you and your opinions, turn the comments back on and get the other side of the story.
Hilltopper October 03, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Jan, Obviously the one guy that said he was getting paid wasn't getting the same rate of pay as the guy that kept the protesters moving instead of letting the protesters stop and tell if they were getting the flat $11 hr. rate
Lorna Andoscia October 03, 2012 at 03:37 PM
Oh Jan, either you didn't watch the video or you are outright lying! I can't help but wonder the validity of your posts. Does your untrue statement mean you are unreliable or untrustworthy? There were three that admitted to being paid! Another admitted to "canvasers" being paid...and yet, the question was, "Are you being paid to be here TODAY?" I guess those people were "canvasers" who were getting paid to be there. It makes you wonder how many door hangers someone had to hang on a knob to be qualified for "canvaser" status. I never said that union workers couldn't be anti-Romney, just that they could be anti-Obama. Since workers are FORCED to join the union, they are faced with being a member of an organization that may have a different political position than they personally hold. Romney is NOT anti-union. He is anti-forced union membership! He stands for the worker who does not want to be a member of an organization that has an agenda which differs from his beliefs, and uses his dues to promote that agenda. He stands for the worker who is disenfranchised from employment opportunities if he does not want to join a union. He stands for the worker who is not recognized for a job well done, as he sees other union members under-perform and be paid equally due to union pay negotiations. He stands for the right to choose your path to a better relationship with your employer. Cut and paste!?! "How much they paying today?" "Their paying $11 an hr." UNCUT!
Super Fun Size October 03, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Mitt Romney's campaign handed out a total of $112,500 in bonuses on August 3... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-campaign-bonuses_n_1902266.html
Super Fun Size October 03, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Lorna, People can "say" anything, I don't think that makes anything fact unless we see some proof. Surely you could say that these people claimed to be paid.
Super Fun Size October 03, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Romney And GOP Paying Millions To Firms Tied To Voter Fraud Allegation Scandals http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/romney-and-gop-paying-millions-to-firms-tied-to-voter-fraud-allegation-scandals/politics/2012/09/27/49837
Super Fun Size October 03, 2012 at 06:04 PM
There is lots of money in elections.
Lorna Andoscia October 03, 2012 at 06:21 PM
Mike: Campaign funds vs. Union funds. You are comparing apples to oranges. Union funds are mandatory, political funds are voluntary donations. How a candidate spends those funds is up to his campaign. If he sees that a campaign worker is working extra hard to get him elected and feels that his efforts are producing good results, why shouldn't he reward that worker for a job well done. We are not talking about volunteers here. We are talking about high level paid campaign staff that have been working their butts off! This is in stark contrast to paying protesters! As for your statement, "Surely you could say that these people claimed to be paid."... Wow! You must be getting really desperate! So...The Union members were either paid or lying...Is that what your saying? As for them lying, since when does a volunteer tell someone they are being paid? If you were volunteering at a protest, wouldn't you be irate over someone even suggesting you were being paid! Why would someone say such a thing if they weren't indeed being paid?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »