newsobserver.com projects - N.C. Republican Party - Comments

Re: GOP wants unaffiliated voters

mjinchapelhill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:24:46 -0500

I would say that the vote was more like 5-1 to keep primaries open. A very small minority was in favor of the resolution. I was disappointed that the N&O print edition ignored the vote in both Sunday and today's edition, only publishing Christensen's column that was obviously written last week before the vote was taken, and was irrelevant after the vote.

Re: GOP wants unaffiliated voters

kttechwriter — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:53:53 -0500

For the full story, check out Katy's Conservative Corner, North Carolina Politics from a Conservative Perspective. Many details are left out in this report. Cut and paste the following link into your browser:

http://katysconservativecorner.typepad.com/katy/2009/11/resolution-to-close-gop-primaries-.html

The News and Observer wasn't even there to cover the meeting, which was open to the public and even voted down the opportunity to go into closed session. Rob Christensen would have been most welcome at THIS GOP meeting! :-)

Even GOP Chairman Tom Fetzer sent out a letter to Executive Committee members, in advance of the meeting, urging them to vote down the resolution. He stated that Republicans need the unaffiliated voters, now more than ever and he is exactly right.

Interestingly enough, "Progressives" are just as dumb

GiggleBox — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:47:50 -0500

Check out the front page of James Protzman's "indy" blog.

Let's all vote Rebublican!

Re: Don't fence them out

BitterEXdemocrat — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:57:52 -0500

can we OUTLAW the 2 dominant oppressive parties, democrackkk and republicannots and require ALL candidates they MUST RUN as UNaffiliated?
Shutting these UNnecessary 'parties' down will help restore freedom back to our state.

Re: Don't fence them out

domewatcher — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:30:36 -0500

The Republicans definitely do not need to fence anyone out. However, they might consider building some fences to keep some in. Parts of the Berlin Wall are on sale at eBay. These days it is all about broadening your base and being less base.

Re: Don't fence them out

libertypoint — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:09:44 -0500

Independent voters and disgruntled conservatives don't need to kowtow to the Republican Party bosses. Nor do disaffected liberals and progressive have to acquiesce to the Democratic Party's abandoning of their interests.

There is a political party that can represent their views -- the Libertarian Party. Libertarians have no interest in limiting or restricting anyone's right to vote for the person of their choice, regardless of party affiliation. In fact, we don't think the State has any right to say who can form a political party, or dictate how they operate.

Re: GOP less inclusive?

domewatcher — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:06:29 -0500

It is just a ploy. When you make the party hard to get into then everybody wants to join. It's like those high class country clubs that only take the blue-blood snobs. If the Republicans can create an exclusive party then everybody will be beating down the door to join. They might even be able to charge an initiation fee and have a waiting list. Joing the Republican Party would carry the same prestige as being named a debutante or becoming the sergeant-at-arms of the local PTA. The Republicans are on the way to becoming the dominant.........??????

Re: GOP less inclusive?

ConMax — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:16:35 -0500

Let's see now! They have ran out the Gays, Communists, Sissy Transgender Crossdressers, Ron Paul, Mexicans, Blacks, Asia Mail-Order Brides, Constitutionists, Venus Cult Worshipers, Atheists for God, National Football Leaque for playing on Sunday Night, The National Basketball Leaque for having Zulu's controling the leaque draft choices. Major Leaque Baseball for trading Cuba players to the Yankees. Well! That leaves only looney Glenn Beck and [More MO]Sara Palin to lead Americans to a Republican Trailer Park Paradise

Re: GOP less inclusive?

starcoconst — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:41:42 -0500

What happened to the big tent. If the strict conservatives don't watch out a 3rd party will form and split the ticket further. I became unaffiliated in order to vote in the Dem primary a few years ago in a local election. I decided not to go back. I never vote strict party lines but rather for the right candidate. Usually in national elections it all Republican. In State and local elections it could be either one. It seems in NC the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot and are unable to build any momentum. I sure do miss Pat McCory or Fred Smith as Governor but I like my local Dem House Rep. I have made friends with many Dems at the GA but wish we had a real 2 party system. That will never happen if Repubs keep worrying about 2 consenting adults and a woman's right to choose. There are many other issues that are more important but not according to strict conservatives.

Re: GOP less inclusive?

mjinchapelhill — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:57:13 -0500

Unaffiliated voters should be welcomed by the Republican Party, whether in primaries or general elections. If Republicans do a good job of defining themselves as conservatives, then having unaffiliated voters vote in GOP primaries will not negatively effect the outcome. If the GOP wants unaffiliated votes in November, it should welcome them in May. Especially if it wants to win!

Re: GOP less inclusive?

mrclean — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:18:46 -0500

Only registered republicans should be allowed to vote in republican primaries.DUH!!

Re: GOP less inclusive?

PlaybyPlay — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:23:39 -0500

I don’t understand why the state pays for the nomination of a party’s representative in the general election. If the state is paying for it, the party should not have a choice of who votes, it should be open to everyone.

Let the party’s pay for their own nominations if they want to limit how many can be listed on the general election ballot.

Primaries are a waste of public money!

Re: GOP less inclusive?

pirateman4gop — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:35:00 -0500

This resolution will be defeated by the members of the NCGOP Executive Committee. The resolution is a result of "knee jerk reactions" by those upset by the nomination of John McCain in the 2008 Presidential primary, which was already determined before North Carolina Republican primary voters had a chance to vote. Outcomes in North Carolina primaries do not support the stated purpose of the resolution, nor does the number of "Unaffiliated Voters" actually participating in the Republican Primaries create a large enough block to affect the outcome of the primary. Finally, with the latest polling suggesting that a large majority of Independent/Unaffiliated voters self identify as "Conservative" it would seem that Conservative Republicans would welcome their votes in Republican primaries. Again, this resolution will be defeated and good Conservative Unaffiliated voters will continue to be welcomed in Republican Primaries.

Re: Fetzer: I'd so kiss Jesse Helms on the mouth

GiggleBox — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:35:24 -0500

Crazy dude. I'm so with you. I voted for Jesse twice before I grew up and read a book. But, this thread is about the NCGOP hypocrisy of Tom Fetzer blaming Jim Hunt for the sun showing it's face every day.

Believe it or not, I split my ticket, but "Tom Fetzer" couldn't make change for Governor Hunt if he was given a dollar for a penny whistle.

You know I'm right CD. But I so appreciate your passion. You're rare.

I'd quote you out of context if I didn't have so much respect for you and occasionally agree.

Re: Fetzer: I'd so kiss Jesse Helms on the mouth

cdtew — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:51:08 -0500

You see, I agree that Jesse Helms had segregationist views at one time. Unfortunately, that's not what you said GoshBox. You trotted out the old wives' tales about flyers printed by Jesse Helms' campaign for misdirection of black folks, and what not.

Things like that did happen, but guess what? No one has ever connected those to any member of Helms' campaign, only to small local groups of "concerned citizens" who overstepped their bounds.

So, before you start slinging mud at Ol' Jesse, then you'd better make sure the mud you're slinging is real.

Take the Democratic party out of the equation, and I guess I'd probably number Jim Hunt in the pantheon of NC greats. However, his failure to control his party as governor (the nominal party head), and his endorsements of Basnight and Rand throughout the years make him less respectable.

Besides, "the best thing to happen to North Carolina"? Really? So not Zebulon Vance? Thomas Wolfe? Nathaniel Macon? Charles Aycock? O. Max Gardner? Willie Mangum? Even on the liberal side, the president of my alma mater, Frank Porter Graham? William Friday? Michael Jordan? Dean Smith? Roy Williams? Jim Valvano? Even Coach K? W.J. Cash?

Jim Hunt was good, but not great. You're seriously putting "Smart Start" on the same level as leading this state to national prosperity after Reconstruction? As putting this state on a path to be an economic and industrial powerhouse? As putting North Carolina culturally on the map?

Maybe its just me, since I'm a Jim Holshouser kind of man.