Hub Politics recently had the opportunity to interview the interim Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, Robert Willington. The following is a transcript from an in person interview conducted on August 31, 2007 at the Massachusetts GOP Headquarters.
HUB POLITICS: First off, congratulations on your new position as interim Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party. Now, you just recently attended the Google/Heritage New Media conference; tell us how that was.
ROB WILLINGTON: It was great, I got to personally meet a lot of people that I had only known through the web. People like David All and Patrick Ruffini, I would read them all the time but it was good to meet them. There were about 200 people in attendance. It was fun to see that the “Margolis” name is a household name among that group, we are lucky to have you and Matt in Massachusetts.
HP: What was discussed?
RW: Everything involving new media and using the web. It’s often said that our side has been slower in utilizing the web to promote our issues and candidates so this was an attempt to become better organized as a movement. They covered everything from how to build email lists, social networking sites, and how to keep people coming back.
HP: Why have we fallen behind?
RW: Well, I have heard a few reasons. First, Jonah Goldberg recently wrote about how our side was ahead of the curve in the 90’s and right around 2000 the Democrats really started to advance online. Jonah believes that when a party is in power it’s the opposition party that will advance online and with activism in general. In the 90’s under Clinton it was FreeRepublic that was cutting edge and since Bush has been in office since 2000 the Democrats have had a cause to rally around. Second, about 50% of America has access to high band width and the other half is behind. Take a look at the red/blue map based on counties and you will see that the cities are blue and the rural parts are red. This is another reason
HP: What’s going on with the Mass GOP?
RW: We are expanding our online presence this fall and I’m pretty excited for it. It’s not a silver bullet but it’s an attempt to turn our current web strategy upside down. I’m a big fan of Joe Trippi and his book “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”…yes, Trippi is a Democrat but it was really fun to watch his (Dean) campaign grow from a small office in Burlington, VT to something much bigger. It’s ironic because they actually applied conservative principles to their online strategy and this is what we want to do. Instead of using the web as a top-down (elitist) one way medium, we want to open it up to our activists from Berkshire County to Barnstable County and let a community grow. As a party, we believe in competition and in the free market place. Well, we want to use the web to let ideas flow from the grassroots up to our office at the Mass GOP and to let all suggestions be heard. There are a lot of people that care deeply about the GOP in Massachusetts and we want them to be more involved. During an election time, campaigns and state parties are in the vote getting business and right now we are in the activist getting business. The decentralized online strategy is a great way to do this and we are currently working on our tactics to carry out this strategy.
HP: Are applications like Facebook and MySpace part of this?
RW: Yes, they are a part of this. Email is becoming harder to use (although it is still the major way to communicate) for various reasons but Facebook and MySpace are very important. For instance, you can get word out about an event or a training without having to pass through various hurdles; spam filters, wrong email addresses, etc… Social networks enable you to put the new information right on each person’s personal page, which they check several times a day since their page is all about them. Facebook is also growing at a tremendous rate among middle-aged voters; it’s not just for college students anymore.
HP: Your main page has a form for collecting cell phone numbers. How does the Massachusetts GOP plan to utilize the gathering of cell phone numbers?
RW: The Edwards campaign is at the forefront with this (thanks to Trippi) and it just makes sense. The iPhone is just the beginning. It’s very common nowadays not to have a home phone and people are constantly using their phones to go online and communicate with text messages. As a party, we are always looking to enhance our voice and communicate with more and more people so we decided to start collecting cell phone numbers now.
HP: So what’s next?
RW: Well, I have been spending a good amount of time developing our online initiative which will come out this fall. We have been working with municipal campaigns and have had some victories at the local level…building the bench is something we need to do, and we are doing it. We have a special election in the 5th Congressional District and we are hosting an activist conference on September 29th. The MassGOP has spent a lot of time on the road and Chairman Torkildsen is a big proponent of trainings. A lot of our activists are still all about holding signs as a major campaign tactic and it’s been difficult to break that habit. Sign holding has its time and place but it is a secondary campaign activity. Conducting voter id, executing GOTV, and using voter vault are all things that need to be taught and learned now, not 3 months before Election Day.
HP: Any last thoughts?
RW: Just to repeat my earlier statement that our online expansion is not a silver bullet, it only guarantees the common GOP activist to be more involved with the Massachusetts Republican Party, to enhance communication and increase buy-in with the Party. We need candidates, we need doers and we need donors and there is no way a few people in a Boston office can do this effectively across the entire state without getting others involved.
Tags: Mass GOP, Rob Willington
September 7th, 2007
Hub Politics recently had the opportunity to interview Jim Ogonowski, the Republican candidate vying for the congressional seat left vacant by Rep. Marty Meehan’s resignation.
HUB POLITICS: Even before being labeled as “the Republican candidate” vying or Rep. Meehan’s seat in Congress, you were labeled the “brother of pilot killed on 9/11.” You have even said that your brother’s death was a factor in your decision. Are you concerned about your opponent(s)– or the media — accusing you of exploiting 9/11? What would your rebuttal be, should that occur?
JIM OGONOWSKI: September 11 was a historic day for America, and it was a day that deeply impacted my family. The same day our country lost its innocence, I lost my older brother. I tell people about our experience because it’s a part of who I am, and because it shaped my feelings about national security and terrorism. My family’s experience revealed a new call to duty for me, beyond my service in the military – it made me see that our policies have a dramatic impact on people’s lives, and I can’t stand on the sidelines if I care about the outcome. So yes, my brother’s death was a factor in my decision, just like many other things were, because we are all a product of our environment and lifelong experiences. I’m not worried about a “9/11 label” because the people of this district know there’s more to me than that. They know that I grew up on a farm watching my dad, a union truck driver, work two jobs to send his children to college. They know that I’ve flown missions around the world and come home to help my family harvest hay. I’m not afraid for people to know that 9/11 showed me that there’s even more I can and should do for this country.
HP: This is your first attempt at elected office, and you have set your eyes on Congress. Was there ever a consideration for starting your political career on Beacon Hill instead of Capitol Hill?
JO: People are tired of politics as usual. Congress is broken. We need to send someone to Washington who is not an insider. We need bold leaders who are not afraid to make tough choices. We need someone of character and courage. Washington needs fresh ideas and real solutions, and those are things that a few years on Beacon Hill won’t give me – they’re things I already have.
HP: One of your primary campaign messages is about overhauling the tax code. Do you think this message will resonate with the voters of your district?
JO: The working men and women of this district are overtaxed. Our current tax system is unfair to working families. They work and work to get ahead, sometimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. When they get their paycheck, much of it is lost to taxes.
The tax code needs to be overhauled and replaced with something that is fair, equitable and simple. I have one job and one W-2, but even I need a professional to help me do my taxes. Working men and women should not have to hire an accountant to do their taxes. The whole thing needs to be simplified to give working families the break they deserve.
HP: How are you going to appeal to overwhelming majority of Massachusetts citizens who repeatedly elect Democrats?
JO: That’s a popular misconception. This is a winnable district for Republicans. Governors Weld, Cellucci and Romney all won the district. In fact, in 2002 Mitt Romney won the 5th District with 56% of the vote. But more importantly, I’m not in this race because I think a Republican can win: I’m running because I am the best person to represent the district. My family has lived in Dracut for over a hundred years, and I’ve lived here all my life. People here care about fiscal discipline, and they also care about the environment, and they’re tired of the usual Washington politics. People know I feel the same way, and they know I’ll take that understanding to Washington. Trust me, I wouldn’t be in this race if I didn’t know I could win!
HP: Many aspiring congressmen, as well as elected congressmen, speak of ending wasteful government spending. A great sound bite, but broken record nonetheless. If elected, how will turn those words into action?
JO: This is a great question and really highlights one of the biggest problems I see in Congress. People have lost faith in our Government. Congress is broken. It’s simply not doing a good job. It has become too partisan. They are too concerned whether an idea is a Republican idea or a Democrat idea. The question they should ask is: Is it right for America? Among other things, the result is that Congress is spending the taxpayer’s money frivolously. They have forgotten that they have a responsibility to serve the people who elected them, and the constitution of the United States which they have sworn to uphold.
I will spend the taxpayers’ money like I spend my own money. No more bridges to nowhere. No more earmarks. No more pet projects. Unfortunately the Republicans in Congress have been just as guilty. It’s our money and Congress should spend it efficiently so that we will be ready to meet the demands of the changing world.
We need to change the way government does business. I hear a lot that this is not the way Washington works. That it simply can’t be done. I say to them: That is exactly the problem with Washington, and that is why you should send Jim Ogonowski to Congress. This is our district. This is our government. And we are going to take it back.
HP: At this time, six Democrats are going after the same seat. Do you have any preference on who you would like to challenge?
JO: No, it’s the job of the people to decide which Democrat they want to nominate. The five or six Democrats in the race will have to prove themselves and the worth of their ideas, and I’ll be learning about them along with everyone else. I’m ready to get into the ring with the most worthy contender they select.
HP: It’s been a long time since a Republican has represented the citizens of the Commonwealth in Washington. Republicans have made fair efforts to beat out Democrats with no success. What makes you different?
JO: Not only am I different, but I’m running in a district in which a Republican can win.
As I mentioned before, Governors Weld, Cellucci and Romney all won the district. In 2002 Mitt Romney won the 5th District with 56% of the vote. This race is not about electing a Republican or a Democrat. This race is about ideas and the future. My campaign will be about the hard working men and women who get out of bed every day in pursuit of providing for their families, just as my ancestors did. It’s about our friends and neighbors who come home late after working a second job so that their children too can realize the American Dream.
I have strong roots in the Fifth District. This has always been my home. This is where I have raised my children and hope that they too will raise their children. I am a candidate for Congress because I want to make this district a better place for all of us to live. When people get to know me and my family’s history of hard work and service to country, they understand that I’m the right representative for us in Washington.
HP: With Deval Patrick being elected governor, will it be harder for you (or any Republican running in the state) to get elected?
JO: If anything, the people of Massachusetts are disappointed in one-party rule in our state. There are a whole lot of people who are ready to send a Republican to Washington to represent us.
HP: How has Marty Meehan served your district wrong, and how do you plan to be specifically different?
JO: This campaign is not about Marty Meehan – it is about the future. Congressman Meehan has been a friend to my family since 9/11. He helped us through a very difficult time. As an alum of the University of Lowell, I plan on working with him to help make it the world-class university it can be.
Tags: Jim Ogonowski, MA-05 Special Election
May 14th, 2007
Hub Politics recently had the opportunity to interview Ron Vining, co-founder of the group Massachusetts Republicans for Truth, which was recently profiled in the Boston Herald.
HUB POLITICS: Why did you start the Mass Republicans for Truth?
RON VINING: Before I begin, I would like to thank you guys for giving us, well me in this case, the opportunity to speak to my fellow Republicans and hopefully set the record straight about what our true mission is.
Back to your question - We started Mass Republicans for Truth in an attempt to provide some, well, “truth” in the political process. Why not start an organization the calls candidates out when they backtrack, outright change or allow their positions to conveniently evolve prior to an election? It is all about issues and if a person doesn’t have firm beliefs (no matter what those may be) then I have little respect for that person. For example, there is something good to be said for Governor Romney’s marital fidelity; whereas; there is nothing good to be said about Senator Kerry’s flip-flopping.
The idea of starting the organization goes back long before 2002 when a group of activists, I being one of them, were talking about creating a group that could actually make an impact statewide or on the national level. Then we all saw how effective MoveOn.org had been for the left, so why not have something equally effective on the right we thought? The idea kicked around for years and throughout 2006 we finally decided to put something together.
HUB POLITICS: You started the organization with Holly Robichaud, both of you were involved in Jim Rappaport’s 2002 campaign for Lt. Governor when he ran against Kerry Healey. You also were involved briefly with Christy Mihos’ campaign. Are you current efforts just sour grapes against Romney, or the Massachusetts Republican Party?
RON VINING: Sour grapes about what? That is an absolutely absurd question when one thinks it through. Don’t feel bad, you are not the first to ask it, but it is still absurd.
Let’s go way back to 1994. I was one of Mitt Romney’s earliest supporters. How many people can say that they rode on the bus with Mitt and his family when he announced in Springfield, Worcester and Boston? At that time, there were few Mass Republicans with Mitt. In fact, the bus, which left from Alewife, was full of people from Utah. I was one of a small handful from our state actively volunteering for him at that time. I was honored to sit with the late George Romney for a short bit too and hear him run through his speech (he introduced Mitt) and proudly talk of his son.
Let’s fast-forward to 2002; sure Mr. Romney has some explaining to do when it comes to that whole fiasco - not just to Rappaport and his supporters but to the people of the Commonwealth for putting us in the situation we are in today (but I’ll get to that later).
I am going to give you a scoop that none of us have ever let out to the media before. I am going to get it off my chest now as I think it is appropriate considering what has gone on the past few days.
Mitt and Jim had a deal that was forged back in 2001. While Mitt was in Utah running the Olympics, Jim would run for Lt. Governor and undercut Acting Governor Jane Swift. While Mitt was out of state, Jim would do all the dirty work and build a statewide organization filled with delegate-rich supporters. When the Olympics ended, Mitt would return to MA and together he and Jim would take out Jane and her running mate. Did anyone ever stop to think why Jim would be running to be Jane’s Lt. Governor? Duh! He was running as a team with Mitt all along.
But something happened on the way back from Utah…Jane saw the writing on the wall, dropped out of the race and Mitt no longer needed Jim. Why did Mitt break his word and do this to Jim? I’ll leave the specific details of that private phone conversation for either man to tell the public. However, Mitt’s decision to betray Jim and his supporters had a profound effect on Massachusetts four years later when his handpicked running mate got trounced like no Republican before her. When we complain about Deval being elected Governor, we should not blame Ms. Healey; instead we should thank Mr. Romney for his unwillingness to share the spotlight with Jim four years earlier.
Do you remember the Rappaport mailing we put out that was titled, “What if…”? It asked the question of what if Mitt Romney decided to step down or not seek reelection as had Governors Weld, Cellucci and Swift before him? That mailing painted the scenario that played out before our very eyes last November. The voters didn’t listen (well the Republicans did, it was the Unenrolleds who crashed our primary that didn’t) and as a result four years later, we have Deval.
Honestly, there are no sour grapes here, but I think I, and every Rappaport supporter, have earned to right to say “we told you so”. It is sad, but true!
If you haven’t already fallen asleep, let’s look at 2006 as you mentioned my and Holly’s “brief” involvement with Christy Mihos. If you will recall, we, along with the campaign team we put together dumped him just prior to his public announcement that he was going to run as an Independent. If we were about sour grapes or revenge against the Mass GOP, don’t you think we would have stayed on and used Mr. Mihos in that way? It was quite the contrary.
In 2005 / 2006 we did polling that showed that Kerry Healey’s name identification and favorability (even among Republicans, due to no fault of her own and for the record, I truly like her and hope that she will remain active in the Party) was just too low. We also knew that the team she was left with (as most of Romney’s key people were focused on Pennsylvania Ave) would never be able to set her on the right path. Unfortunately, as we were with Jim in 2002 we were helplessly on the outside looking in.
That said, being true Republicans, when Christy had indicated that he was interested in running, we hooked up with him in hopes of putting something together so that our Party could retain the corner office. However, when it became apparent that Christy was either on a vendetta against the Party or just wanted to chart his own course, we bolted and endorsed Lt. Governor Healey.
How many political consultants do you know that have walked away from big paychecks and the cache of running a statewide race like that? We did it for our Party!
What also may be unknown to your readers is that Holly and I then went on to provide pro bono services to all Republican candidates last year (House, Senate, Congress). We emailed weekly strategy tips and took their calls with questions about xyz. We did this without any financial support from the Mass Republican Party. She and I (via her firm Tuesday Associates) won the only GOP race in New England that year – that of Jay Barrows for State Rep.
So the sour grapes or revenge thing is just ludicrous! Anyone who says it is talking out of their you know what and doesn’t know Holly or myself at all.
HUB POLITICS: Christy Mihos wasn’t a true conservative, he was pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, how does that square with your efforts to expose Romney as not a true conservative?
RON VINING: Who says we’re trying to expose Romney as not being a true conservative? All MassRepublicansForTruth.com is doing is presenting the facts about Romney’s record. He is telling the country that he is a conservative, the group is just pointing out that his road to conservatism has had a few forks and rotaries along the way.
As for Christy, let’s not even go there. When I met him, he was a somewhat conservative Republican, when I quit, he was a liberal Independent. I see no hypocrisy. I think our actions of quitting his campaign were consistent and speak for themselves.
HUB POLITICS: Holly Robichaud told the Boston Herald that your group is “not carrying water for any of Romney’s GOP rivals” and several of them have questionable conservative credentials. Will any of Romney’s rivals become targets of the Mass Republicans for Truth, especially since your website says you’re not going to focus on just one candidate?
RON VINING: Yes, yes, yes! As you must know from maintaining this blog, the work isn’t easy and the pay stinks! We have not received any money for these efforts yet we are spending countless hours on it. Give us some time. We have a whole year to point out the positions of the other candidates both Republican and Democrat.
HUB POLITICS: Don’t the current efforts of the Mass Republicans for Truth go against Reagan’s 11th Commandment?
RON VINING: I spoke before a local group of activists and conservatives last week about the formation of MassRepublicansForTruth.com and our plans for the coming year. The reaction was mixed. While some applauded the effort, others felt that our group would hurt the Party and were in violation of President Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” – But are we?
Since when are Republican’s no longer allowed to point out where one of their own stands or has stood on a particular issue? Is it only speaking ill when that person’s position(s) cast them in a negative light? What if that person’s position(s) run contrary to the Party’s values? Is it speaking ill then? In either case, we think not.
Besides, we are bringing these issue inconstancies out so early in the process. If a candidate cannot rebound and explain their positions then they should not be running for the highest office in the land.
For the record, many of our members (including myself) would like to see a conservative Republican in the White House in 2008. Perhaps this will become clearer when The Clinton Report or The Obamma Report is launched in subsequent months. If the requisite funding and support are achieved, we would ultimately like to run reports about where all of the presidential candidates stand on the issues. I must point out that though the majority of our members are “conservative” Republicans we will be judicious in our reporting and all other activities that the group engages in. It is about issues, not bias.
HUB POLITICS: Were you ever contacted by any of Mitt Romney’s competition for the Republican presidential nomination, or a Democratic candidate, either before the launch of Mass Republicans for Truth, or since?
RON VINING: In relation to this site, no, absolutely not! Prior to its launch (which was kept secret, so the campaign did not know about it), we were offered work for one of the Republican presidential contenders but did not accept it. We have not spoken to any Republican or Democratic candidate since.
HUB POLITICS: Earlier this year, you were a candidate for Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party. In our interview with you, you said that if you were elected Chairman, “my role will be to bring us together not divide us.” Isn’t Mass Republicans for Truth an effort to divide us?
RON VINING: How so? We’re trying to get a Republican elected to the White House! If Republicans were his only audience (no Unenrolleds), Mitt Romney would have had a hard time getting reelected had he gone for a second term. Frankly, I am surprised at the reaction of some Republicans who loathed him before yet are now taking issue with the fact that Mass Republicans for Truth is pointing out the inconsistencies they too complained about. Maybe it was all the payoff donations that the New York Times reported on earlier this week???
Mass Republicans For Truth is NOT about Mitt Romney, he is just the first candidate we are looking at. However, based on some people’s overreaction to our group, I must ask these questions. As a Party, are we, as Massachusetts Republicans, better off today than we were four years ago? The answer, without question is a resounding no!
Am I or Holly or MassRepublicansForTruth.com suddenly to blame for the Mass GOP’s failings? I think not!
Honestly, who is to blame for that? Who raised huge sums of money that our candidates never saw? Who used our Party and the corner office for their own gain? Who was out of state when he should have been here electing Republicans?
Did you see Mitt at the fundraisers for our candidates this past year? Did you ever hear him say, I need Ken Chase or Jeff Beatty in Washington? Or hear him say that he needed Jim Aldred, Lonnie Brennan, Doug Obey, Bob McGovern or Sandi Martinez on Beacon Hill? I think not!
How are we dividing the Party? Had I been elected Chairman, I would have worked to unite the divide that Mitt created. The Party has yet to do it, but we must look inward and take action to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of our past.
My above statements are not anti-Romney; they are just the plain old truth. Mass Republicans for Truth is NOT about dividing our Party; it is about letting people know what they are getting. We didn’t know what we were getting in the Spring of 2002, but we sure wish we had known come the Fall of 2006.
Like I said earlier, in a few months we’ll be on to the issues of another candidate, most likely a Democrat and no one will be complaining about our group then. We also hope to use the group to shed light on the issues in the newly opened congressional seat. If we can raise the right amount of money, we can educate voters about the positions of the Democratic and Republican nominees. I think most Republicans will be quite pleased with the group if that can happen.
HUB POLITICS: You dropped out of the race for Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman just prior to the election. Is there a connection between your involvement with Mass Republicans for Truth and dropping out the race for Chairman?
RON VINING: No, none at all. Though the race was clearly rigged from the start, I dropped out primarily because of the last minute change of the voting date. That unexpected date change had me out of state the week prior to the election, had me missing the second candidates forum and had me having to take the red-eye back from LA just to make it back the day of the vote.
What had me most dismayed about this whole process was that I had called on Chairman Crate to hold the vote at the end of January to allow myself and other candidates’ time to host events for the State Committee Members. My request was never acknowledged and the January 4th was selected. It was selected so that the establishment’s choice would have a leg up on all the other candidates and so that the then Chairman could officially join Romney’s exploratory committee sooner.
Once the original date of the vote had been set, I made plans to go to California on behalf of one of my clients (the band Action, who by the way was signed to a multi-album deal, shameless plug for Vining Communications, sorry).
Just as my candidacy was building momentum (I was a close second at that time), the date of the vote was moved suddenly on January 3rd from the date of the 4th to the 16th. What was most peculiar about the whole process is that the establishment’s candidate was the only one notified of this change by the Mass GOP.
Anyway, having been out of the Commonwealth for more than a week…I simply lost momentum. My dropping out is truly as simple as that. Prior to the State Committee meeting I released my seventeen committed votes to vote for whomever they choose. When I arrived, my supporters still wanted me to be nominated and speak, but it was never about ego for me so I declined so as to move the process along. After the votes were tabulated, I sought out the victor and volunteered my assistance to him and the Party.
On a side note, if you were to add my support (most of which went to Peter) to those of the other candidates, the grassroots may have actually won. The problem was getting the grassroots factions to unite in the same way that the establishments did…
HUB POLITICS: If not Mitt Romney, who meets your conservative criteria for President out of the current crop of candidates?
RON VINING: Again, let me point out, MassRepublicansForTruth.com is NOT about conservative criteria and it certainly is NOT about Mitt Romney. It is about informing voters about the real positions candidates have taken on the issues, not the convenient positions that they suddenly are subscribing to as the election season is upon them. Even though I personally am primarily a conservative, what I care most about is that we elect a Republican to the White House in 2008. Whether that person is a conservative or a moderate is not the number one issue for me. What is, is that the person has integrity and has the courage to publicly state and stand by their convictions.
HUB POLITICS: Your chances of having a role in the future success of the Massachusetts GOP are very likely wiped out, which is a bizarre thing to happen to someone who sought the chairmanship of the Party. Is it worth it?
RON VINING: I find the tone of that question both biased and insulting. I reject the premise that I am now somehow banished from the Mass GOP. For every complaint I’ve received since our Web site’s launch, I have received three pats on the back from Republicans across our state who appreciate my candor.
What I do find bizarre is that true Republicans still are not fired up about what happened last November, that they are not disgusted at how the Massachusetts Republican Party and its former leader squandered our resources. Why don’t you check the books and see where all the money that the Party raised went? I won’t give you the answer, you check it out.
We may have a new Chairman, but did the staff, who failed miserably at electing Republicans last year go? When are we going to wake up? We’ve already passed on one legislative special election, I don’t have high hopes for the second and now we have an open congressional seat.
You are correct, we’ve taken a risk, but it will all be worth it for me personally and professionally if MassRepublicansForTruth.com can wake up the faithful before it is too late!
HUB POLITICS: What are your long term plans for the Mass Republicans for Truth?
RON VINING: Our goal is for MassRepublicansForTruth.com to have an impact from the right in the way that MoveOn.org has had an impact on the left. As I indicated in my prior responses, we hope to focus on all of the 2008 presidential candidates’ positions on the issues, ultimately using our resources to show which candidates’ issues are more in line with our Party and with the majority of Americans.
I would also like to use MassRepublicansForTruth.com to shed light on the issues in the newly opened congressional seat. If we can raise the right amount of money, we can go on air and educate voters about the positions of the Democratic and Republican nominees. Just imagine how our group could certainly level the playing field for our Party’s nominee. I am betting that my fellow Republicans will be quite pleased with MassRepublicansForTruth.com then. Hopefully, everyone will just give us a chance!
Aaron and Matt, I would like to thank you both for your Web site and for the opportunity to get this information out to your readers and to the general public.
Tags: Holly Robichaud, Massachusetts Republicans For Truth, Ron Vining
March 16th, 2007
