I found it interesting that nowhere in the attached campaign flyer from Greer Tan Swiston does it say that she’s a Republican. Space is tight, though, I figured, and maybe it’s not the most important part of her message. So I checked out her website where space isn’t so precious and found — to my surprise — that again, she never says that she’s a Republican. I’m not sure whether this is a statement about Greer, Newton, Massachusetts or all of the above. Regardless, it doesn’t sit well with me.
Also on this flyer Greer states that she’s been appointed to numerous commissions by Governors Weld, Romney and Patrick. On her website, she states that she was “appointed by Governor Patrick to the State Advisory Committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights.” A quick google search produced a press release stating that she was appointed, not by Gov Patrick, but by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I followed up with a call to the governor’s office and found out that he does not make appointments to the commission.
I do not mean to detract from Alderman Swiston’s work on the commission. But her literature states that the governor, a Democrat, appointed her to an important commission, while two Republican governors also awarded her with appointments (I have not checked those out). It creates an impression — whether purposefully or accidentally — that she works well with Democrats and Republicans. That may indeed be the case, but I’d rather see her back it up with fact, such as her accomplishments as the only Republican on the 24-member Board of Aldermen.
Interesting post Gail. Nice to see you exercising that journalist muscle and breaking some news. And it must be gratifying to see how quickly your original reporting still gets snapped up by others in the city.
I can certainly see why Aldermen Swiston would want to avoid touting her Republicaness in a Newton election and I’d certainly encourage Greer to comment here and explain what attracts her to the Grand Old Party.
But the decision to vote for a candidate based on party affiliation for the Massachusetts legislature need not be a litmus test as it is in Congressional and US Senate contests right now. I think the decision can be on merit alone.
@Greg and Gail: Any question about party affiliation will get cleared up on election day when voters mark their ballots.
Scott Brown’s doing the same thing (hiding his Republican affiliation) in his campaign. It seems like that’s a basic requirement for any Republicans running in MA.
Thank you to both Gail and Greg for asking.
I registered to vote on my 18th birthday. Based on the values on which I was raised (“Nothing in life is free.”, “Working hard, diligently and honestly will be rewarded”, “Freedom is a privilege and a responsibility”), the party that believed in a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” resonated the most with me. Even then, I had the utmost respect for the Democrat party. My parents wouldn’t have it any other way.
I have always been an independent thinker. Just ask my Mom.
When I first considered running for office, the Massachusetts Republican party discovered I was Republican and did offer me support. I was frank with Gov. Romney and told him that I disagreed with him on several issues and had no intention of compromising my principles or independent thought … was he sure he still wanted to support me? And he and the others at the state party all assured me “Yes.” And they did.
It really meant a lot to me that the Party was not going to try to tell me how to think or how to act.
I especially want to give a shout out to two people, Kathleen Summers (now Grice) and Michael Goetz, who worked so hard to help me find my own voice and articulate my view and never once tried to influence me with their own (which some times turned out to be different from mine, but they never let on until they were sure I was committed to my own.)
It is thanks to them that I am the candidate that I am and I consider myself lucky for having had such a foundation. That Newton elected me for three terms indicated to me that there are many who appreciated my approach. I continue to be the only candidate that does not actively seek endorsements nor do I give them. I not only think independently, I encourage others to do so too. Call it paying it forward.
That is why I am Republican. I hope I have answered your question, Greg.
It seems odd that one should run on party rather than policy. My first consideration will always be to listen to the ideas to determine whether they are sound or not. Greer has sound ideas that look to the breadth of issues that face Massachusetts.
FYI – as should be disclosed, but which I neglected to do, I am Greer’s campaign manager.
Re: ideas judged on merit rather than affiliation of party: I’ve tried to imagine what would happen if legislation were judged blindly, where merit, not party is the deciding factor of worth. I’ll bet we would have a much less polarized Congress.
It’s convenient and easy to say that people should vote based on policy not party, but if you call yourself a Republican, you are a member of that party and it is fair to assume you embrace the party’s platform and core beliefs. I consider the Republican party to be morally bankrupt for many reasons – just to name a few: Romney’s campaign has been full of dissembling and dishonesty, the GOP’s position on women’s rights are medieval, Republican views on healthcare are also dishonest, bad for the economy, and callous. So, sorry, Greer, I will not vote for anyone who associates herself with those views. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to run as an independent, then do so, but don’t hide your affiliation with the Republican party if you are a member of the GOP.
You chose the GOP because the following rang true for you:
“Nothing in life is free.”,“Working hard, diligently and honestly will be rewarded”, “Freedom is a privilege and a responsibility”, “government of the people, by the people, for the people”
Of the above, you found the Democratic party to be in opposition to all of them? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but please tell me which of the above is missing in the Democratic philosophy?
Thank you, Kim, for not putting words in my mouth since that is not what I meant. And thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify.
Actually, I find that there are many values that I share with Democrats, but we often have different approaches and perspectives about how to preserve those values and how to achieve our vision for our country. After all, our government was founded in order to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty”
And that is good to have multiple ways to achieve the same goal. It is better and stronger for our country to have different approaches.
A very influential Democrat in my life used to explain to me the 80-20 rule. He told me that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people and he saw government in the same light. We elect who those 20% should be, but then let them do their job and make all the decisions. Everything would work more efficiently that way.
Basically, I have found that when Democrats think they have a good idea, they feel it is the role of Government to enforce it. When Republicans feel they have a good idea, while they may do whatever it takes to promote it … they normally stop short of making it law because Government should only restrict individual behavior that would negatively impact others. Negative impact to self is one’s own responsibility.
For instance, the seat belt law. It is a great idea, everyone should do it.
Democrats say “Every car should have safe usable seat belts so that everyone has the opportunity to wear them. Better yet, make it a law that it is the driver’s responsibility that everyone in the car must wear a seat belt so that everyone does it.”
Republicans say “We agree that every car should have safe usable seat belts so that everyone has the opportunity to wear them. It’s a good idea to wear seat belts. But people don’t hurt anyone else but themselves when they don’t wear them. Therefore it is not the government’s place to tell them to wear them.”
I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. I find the Republican approach resonated more with me. I can not guarantee that I am going to agree with everything that my Party wants to promote. My experience has shown me that the Republicans will continue to support my right to disagree.
There are many Democrats whom I admire and with whom I share a common goal. We simply respect each other’s different approaches and hope that one of us succeeds!
I wish that Republicans would follow this libertarian approach when it comes to regulating women’s health and women’s bodies. Because across the country, Republican national and state legislators are seeking to deny women constitutionally protected reproductive choices, birth control and health care, as well as requiring invasive and intrusive medical procedures such as trans-vaginal ultrasounds. Republican candidates for Congress as well as state legislatures have made outlandish and outrageous statements about “legitimate” and “forcible” rape and made scientifically unsupportable and irrational statements about pregnancy and rape, whether pregnancy can ever threaten the life or health of a woman, and boldly stating that “some girls just rape easy” to justify their pro-life positions.
These are not mere aberrations: the GOP’s platform includes a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion without exceptions for rape or to protect the life and health of a pregnant woman. I wonder how Ald. Swiston, as a woman and someone with a science degree, is able to reconcile these extreme positions of so many Republicans across the country with her continued support of the GOP, and whether she agrees or disagrees with their positions.
And while Republicans say they want to shrink government, they apparently also think it should be just small enough to fit into the bedrooms of consenting adults. Hence, Republicans in Congress are appropriating millions to defend DOMA, which denies same-sex married couples the same rights as heterosexual married couples. A constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage, too, is part of the GOP 2012 platform. Given that same-sex marriage is legal and enjoys broad support in Massachusetts, it is no surprise that Republican candidates would want to distance themselves from the mainstream of their party when running for office.
I agree. I feel that many Republican policies have taken a rather Democratic approach and it only further illustrates why trying to enforce one’s “good idea” on others by limiting their rights and freedoms is not an approach that I support.
I believe abortion should be legal. I support couples who wish to commit to each other to have the same legal rights, privileges and responsibilities regardless of their gender make-up. However, I don’t believe the woman’s body is the business of government. I don’t believe the bedroom is the business of government. Therefore, I don’t believe the government should either regulate it nor be expected to be responsible for it.
The key is that the Republican party does not require that I agree with them on all their ideas.
While I may agree with some ideas of the Democratic Party (and even then, not necessarily their approach), I can not promise that I will agree with them all the time.
I have seen how the Newton Democratic City Committee treats the people who have disagreed with its views and it is not the way I wish to be treated. The Newton Republican City Committee has always treated me with respect and consideration, even at times when my views have differed from theirs.
That said, I have met many Democrats who are very respectful even when we disagree. I can only hope to support them in their success as I hope they will support me in mine. Then perhaps we can have leadership in our respective parties that can work together for what is best for our community.
@Ted – by your logic then, you’re promoting Kay Khan as supporting taxpayer-funded abortions, abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, and abortions of female fetuses solely for the reason of them being female. Those are all allowed by the Democratic 2012 platform and supported by various Democratic legislators around the country.
Also Ted, who is the only party running an openly gay person to be one of Massachusetts’ congressional representatives?
Greer is her own woman and she will decide each issue she faces on its merits. Why would she advertise her party on her literature unless it’s to signal she’s just going to vote the party line? She’s the opposite of a rubber stamp. Her party may inform her philosophy, but it doesn’t determine her votes. She will be a great representative for the district and will bring a fresh and enthusiastic voice to Beacon Hill.
@Greer, thanks for your answers.
@Anil, nice pivot, or nice try at least. I suppose when you don’t like the music it is best to change the station. But you are not facing the fact that the Republican party platform seeks to outlaw same sex marriage and abortion, without exception for rape, or the health or life of the woman. Do you agree with Todd Akin, Steve King, Joe Walsh, Richard Mourdock, Tom Smith, Roscoe Bartlett, State Reo. Roger Rivard (R-WI), and various other Republican state elected officials who have made ridiculous and outrageous statements concerning rape, reproductive rights and women’ health issues during this year’s campaign, all of whom support the GOP 2012 platform? If not, shouldn’t you be trying to distance yourself from their statements and from the portions of the party platform on which they are based?
And in answer to your question, Massachusetts has had at least a couple openly gay members of Congress so far, who were both Democrats. You might have heard of one of them, Barney Frank, who is also left-handed and Jewish.
Look, I grew up in a conservative town as an outspoken liberal, so I know how lonely it can be sometimes when there are very few people around who agree with your political views. And I sincerely regret that Greer and other Republicans feel they cannot identify with their parties when running for state office in a partisan election. But doesn’t that have something to do with how extreme the national party has become?
Good grief! Now Alderman Swiston is responsible for the extremism of the entire Republican Party? I wonder what the motivation is here to be so accusatory and unkind. It’s not like you are looking to increase readership and sell advertising…
Janet – Why is it accusatory and unkind to ask why Greer doesn’t say that she’s a Republican in her literature or on her web site?
Janet, sorry. The party of “extremism” today is the Democratic party. The Republican party for the most part stands for traditional values, which reject the kind of self-gratification that involves doing things that are in most respects wrong or will have a more widespread adverse effect on society. The Democrats advocate relieving individuals of anything that makes ones own life somewhat more difficult, treating people like babies, who can’t deal with any adversity and conquer it themselves. And they compensate for self-indulgence by advocating stringency in areas that are a true intrusion on one’s personal choices.
So, thanks to “progressives”, we have same-sex marriage (Ted’s obsession), unrestricted abortion (seemingly up to the due date), legalization of recreational drugs, a great growth and proliferation of welfare-type programs, proliferation of gambling options, assisted suicide, and other negative choices, and for sure we’ll soon see many more things becoming legal that shouldn’t be. At the same time, this “progressive” philosophy obsesses against the use of plastic bags in super markets, anyone smoking tobacco even if it has no effect on those who don’t want to be around it, anyone who in their minds burns an excessive amount of carbon fuels, , having any reference to God in any public venue, wearing fur clothing, and so forth.
You get what I mean. We’re living in a society like George Orwell predicted in “1984” where some advocate a society where everything is the opposite of what it should be and no-one sees it.
And, Ted, yes, Barney Frank is homosexual, left-handed and Jewish. He is also obnoxious, inconsiderate, boorish, insulting, rude, sloppy, talks like a troll, and supports pretty stupid political positions. So, what does that all mean?
@Barry, I believe there is extremism in both the Democratic and Republican parties, but I wouldn’t go so far as to put it on one person. I wonder if any Newton Democrats agree with your description of Barney Frank. Things that make you go hmmmmm…
Janet,
Who’s the “one person”? I only referenced Barney because Ted referred to him. The whole party is extreme. And after their infamous Villaraigosa vote on Jerusalem and God, I’d say they are anti-Semitic and atheistic fanatics.
And, honestly, Janet, Newton Democrats appear to me to represent almost the most extreme points of view that one sees in the national party. So, whether or not Newton Democrats agree with me is irrelevant. In fact, it makes me feel good that I get so much disagreement here, because it affirms the correctness of my positions.