CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
"Abandon hope all ye who enter
here"
From
Dante's Divine Comedy (1306 - 1321)
Nation's blue states fade to purple, but . .
.
The People's Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts
remains unalterably deep blue.
Massachusetts (2010)
Little "hope and change" to celebrate here
| |
|
Mary Z was a lock - until she lost by 3 points.
And it would have been worse, except that Bump lost 5 percent of her
voters to the even further left Green-Rainbow candidate.
The brutal truth revealed Tuesday is that there are no real
statewide elections here. Assuming, that is, that by “election” you
mean a contest of ideas and candidates competing for support among
engaged voters.
Instead, we have a one-party Democratic duchy, where the combined
power of unions, government workers and taxpayer resources can
deliver a GOTV effort strong enough to deliver any election to the
Democrat of its choice....
My buddy Jim Braude hopes Bielat stays in politics because he’s such
an impressive candidate. My response is “what for?” So he can run
another good campaign where quality doesn’t count?
In fact, why would any quality, non-Democrat take on the
government/union machine? We need a viable two-party system for its
checks and balances. Instead, the incumbent establishment has put
our accountability in the capable hands of its hero, Suzanne Bump.
If you can’t reach her at her “primary” residence, try her
“principal” one.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Lefty landslide a loss for Massachusetts
By Michael Graham
After Scott Brown’s upset Senate victory in
January, Massachusetts Republicans had started to convince
themselves that anything was possible. But their only
significant win in Tuesday’s election came in the State House,
where they doubled their representation in the House to 32 and
several victors won so narrowly that they may face recounts.
“It’s a silver lining, but we were expecting a lot more than a
silver lining,’’ said Republican analyst Todd Domke. “We were
expecting something a little more kaleidoscopic.’’
The most likely target of anger over the results is state
Republican Party chairman Jennifer Nassour, who tried to play
down the statewide losses, preferring to focus on the
legislative gains. The election boosted House Republican
concentration as high as 20 percent ...
“For the past 18 years, we have been losing seats,’’ Nassour
said, “so the fact that we gained so many is such a great
accomplishment for us.’’ ...
Republican ranks were so thin that they did not even have the 16
votes in the House to demand a roll call vote on a disputed
measure. House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. said that by
doubling the GOP membership, the House will have more eyes
keeping a check on the majority and twice as many voices to
amplify the minority point of view.
“The glass is more than half-full from my perspective, and that
is important salve for the wounds,’’ he said. “We would have
liked to win statewide office.’’ ...
“We’re back to the pre-Scott-Brown reputation, this hopelessly
liberal democratic bastion,’’ said Domke. “It definitely feels
like a one-party state again.’’
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The only salve: Wins at bottom of GOP ticket
Whatever the merits of individual Democratic
candidates — and many of them clearly earned their stripes on
Tuesday — one-party rule has created a lack of accountability in
Massachusetts politics. Despite high hopes following Scott
Brown’s Senate election, the state GOP mostly failed to chip
away Democratic dominance, even as Republicans in most of the
country rejoiced at their own good fortune.
Yet this week’s results contained one bright spot for state
Republicans — their surging numbers in the House. And for the
purposes of two-party government in Massachusetts, this may
prove to be the most enduring result of all.
Going into the election, Republicans had 15 seats in the state
House of Representatives, but will end up with at least 26
seats, and perhaps as many as 32. The House needs more
dissenting voices, because in recent years power in that chamber
has become increasingly centralized in the leadership. The newly
elected Republicans have placed a strong emphasis on fiscal
issues, a stance that positions them well to act as watchdogs as
budget season approaches.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, November 4, 2010
For embattled Mass. GOP, a bright spot in the House
Massachusetts voters continue to send mixed
messages about just how high a tax burden they’ll tolerate, and
a mixed message is all the folks on Beacon Hill need to do
whatever the heck they want when they’re short a few bucks.
Yes, it’s true that supporters of Question 3 - to slash the new,
higher sales tax rate of 6.25 percent down to 3 - overreached on
this one. The argument by a powerful coalition of opponents -
that streets and classrooms would be emptied of cops and
teachers - carried the day. Had the ballot question sought a
rollback to 5 percent, where it was before the Legislature and
Gov. Deval Patrick jacked it up last year, we’re convinced it
would have won majority support.
But with Question 3 now history those voters who voted against
it ought to be prepared to pay that higher tax rate for . . .
well, forever. The only “message” they sent to Beacon Hill was
that they’re just fine with the status quo. They’ve given
lawmakers and Patrick no incentive whatsoever to restore the
rate to the original 5 percent, even when this economic
nightmare is over.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A tangle on taxes
The biggest loser in this campaign is
Massachusetts. Perhaps we should have seen it coming. This is,
after all, the only state in the nation to have voted for George
McGovern in 1972. But in 2010 Scott Brown gave us hope that we
were no longer a one-party state. We were wrong. By re-electing
Deval Patrick and once again sending a Democratic supermajority
to Beacon Hill, we rejected checks and balances and forfeited
accountability on Beacon Hill. Moreover, by sending an entirely
Democratic congressional delegation back to what is now a
Republican-controlled House, Massachusetts voters have
marginalized our state and given up any chance at influencing
national policy. But maybe that’s a good thing . . . for the
rest of the country, at least.
The Boston Herald
Monday, November 8, 2010
Agony of defeat to be felt in Mass.
By Jennifer C. Braceras
... I think Brown's election to the Senate in
January actually made it tougher for Republicans last Tuesday.
Not because of anything he has said or how he
has voted, but because his election woke up the Democratic
machine in the state. And when that machine is awake and
functional, calling in favors and "reminding" its troops how to
vote, there is virtually nothing a paltry Republican minority
can do about it. Party chairman John Walsh said the Democrats
had 20,000 volunteers on Tuesday knocking on doors, driving
people to the polls and manning phone banks. You think
Republicans had anything close to that? ...
Massachusetts is now well past the tipping
point: There are more people in this state who are net "takers"
from the public treasury — paid by government, have a family
member who is paid by government, or receive government benefits
than there are net "givers" — people who have to pay for it. The
takers will vote in their own financial interest. The bigger the
government gets, and the more it takes from the private sector,
the more they get....
An interesting numerical coincidence. With 97
percent of precincts reporting, Question 3, which sought to cut
the state sales tax from 6.25 to 3 percent, had lost with about
965,000 votes. The Charles Baker/Richard Tisei gubernatorial
ticket had lost with about 963,000 votes — just a couple
thousand apart.
Or, maybe not a coincidence.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Democratic machine rolls over the opposition
By Taylor Armerding
The question is raised by a hilarious column
in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal in which former Californian
and WSJ editor Allysa Finley lashes out over last week’s
election results:
“Listen up, California,” she writes. “The
other 48 states . . . are sick of your bratty arrogance. You’re
the Lindsay Lohan of states: a prima donna who once showed some
talent but is now too wasted to do anything with it.”
California is Lindsay not just because its
economy and politics are a re-occurring nightmare, but because
Californians just re-elected the liberals who dreamed it up.
Finley reports that not a single incumbent state legislator lost
re-election in California this year, “including one Democrat who
died a month ago (no joke).”
Sound familiar, Massachusetts?
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Massachusetts in bad company
By Michael Graham
Libertarian loon Carla Howell is fast
becoming the Alf Landon of Massachusetts.
The ballot initiative queen touted getting
950,000 voters to pull levers to slash the sales tax from 6.25
percent to 3 percent. Sadly for her, the other side got 1.268
million votes.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Pols and Politics
By Edward Mason
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
A week ago tomorrow we here at CLT closed our
gaping mouths, and began trying to figure out what happened once
again here in still The People's Republic of Taxachusetts. How could
so many voters conceivably return so many failed politicians to
power when there were so many great alternatives on the ballot? The
results were nothing short of astounding. It was like the
beaten wife syndrome, bloodied and bruised but she's going back home
for another beating.
Everyone is still trying to comprehend how a
tidal wave of red swept over the nation but left Massachusetts high
and dry blue.
Voters reelected tidal flotsam like Barney Frank
and John Tierney to their abused congressional power despite great
challengers; added a sleazy career pol like Bill Keating to the new
minority party, swept back into Congress all nine congressional
incumbents without exception while the rest of America was rescuing
the nation. The electorate here even chose a lifetime pol and tax
cheat – Susan Bump
– over CPA and Turnpike critic Mary Z.
Connaughton, who'd received the endorsement of every
newspaper across the Commonwealth.
Even the longtime Democrat fund-raising bagman,
former chairman of the national Democratic Party, and personal
contributor of $25,000 to the failed 2000 ballot campaign to defeat
our successful "temporary" income tax rollback, Steve Grossman was
the inexplicable pick of the majority for state treasurer over
State. Rep. Karen Polito – and 60% of
the voters in 2000 voted for our tax rollback!
Inexplicable –
astounding – only in Massachusetts
– or the land of fruit and nuts,
California.
There was at least some good news for us
beleaguered taxpayers, a sliver of a ray of "hope and change."
Though the Massachusetts GOP and we taxpayers
lost a taxpayer-friendly seat in the state Senate (down to four come
January), Republicans doubled their number in the House of
Representatives, to thirty-two or so, depending on a couple of
possible recounts.
It's worth remembering here that even with half
as many Republicans in the Legislature, CLT was still able to
preserve and protect Proposition 2½
last
April, when it again came under assault. Twice as many
Republicans should make it only half as difficult upon the next
attack.
During this election cycle,
CLT's 2½ PAC supported
88 state legislative candidates, for both the House and Senate. This
included 83 challengers and 5 incumbents. All took CLT's "No New
Taxes" pledge. Of them, nineteen (19) newcomers and five (5)
incumbents won seats. (Two face possible recounts.)
CLT's 2½
PAC donated a total of $27,200 to most of their campaigns over the
election cycle, which we are sure was appreciated and well-used.
The sales tax cut ballot
question went down to defeat easily, 57 to 43 percent. As the
Boston Herald editorialized, "Had the ballot question sought a
rollback to 5 percent, where it was before the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick jacked it up last year, we’re convinced it
would have won majority support."
So are we, but again Carla Howell over-reached.
I wonder why Carla and her Libertarian campaigns
never seem to even conceive of actually winning, instead of
making irrelevant and futile philosophical statements at our
expense? Just once I'd appreciate if she'd take on something that
can be realistically accomplished – won –
instead of the result making things more difficult for us taxpayers.
After all the time and money she's invested campaigning for one
thing or another over the years, wouldn't you expect she'd have won
something by now, even if just once?
The Boston Herald's Ed
Mason observed, "In 2002 and 2008, she lost bids to repeal
the state’s income tax.... But that’s not all! Howell ran for U.S.
Senate in 2000, governor in 2002 and state auditor in 1998."
The 2008 defeat of her ballot question to
completely abolish the income tax was interpreted by the Legislature as "The voters
like taxes!" so it and Gov. Deval hiked the sales tax by twenty-five percent
last year. What "message" will the Legislature assume from this
latest defeat of the unreachable – and
what do you suppose will be the Bacon Hill tax-borrow-and-spend pols'
response this time?
How much will this
latest ideological over-reach cost us this time – and how
soon will the payment come due?
Carla, please stop trying
to do us taxpayers any favors. We can't afford any more of your
Quixotic crusades.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Lefty landslide a loss for Massachusetts
By Michael Graham
Suzanne Bump? Really? Suzanne (expletive deleted) Bump!?
That’s the race that got me.
I wasn’t expecting miracles Tuesday, but I thought that Republican
Mary Z. Connaughton - “an auditor for auditor” - was going to win
that race. Bump, after all, was the poster girl for the kind of
inside government hackery that inspired the national GOP wave: A
far-left liberal and political appointee who got caught cheating on
her property taxes just weeks before the election.
Meanwhile Connaughton was such an impressive candidate that every
major daily in the state endorsed her, even the Globe-Democrat.
Mary Z was a lock - until she lost by 3 points. And it would have
been worse, except that Bump lost 5 percent of her voters to the
even further left Green-Rainbow candidate.
The brutal truth revealed Tuesday is that there are no real
statewide elections here. Assuming, that is, that by “election” you
mean a contest of ideas and candidates competing for support among
engaged voters.
Instead, we have a one-party Democratic duchy, where the combined
power of unions, government workers and taxpayer resources can
deliver a GOTV effort strong enough to deliver any election to the
Democrat of its choice.
This isn’t sour grapes. I’m actually impressed by how our governor
and his team have developed this machine. But don’t waste my time
arguing that somehow the result is an expression of the will of the
people.
Please.
Arguments about how Republicans need better candidates or have lost
the ideological debate are simply nonsense. Who was a better
candidate for her office than Connaughton? And what “debate” did
Bump win? The “let’s have a Democratic Patrick appointee checking
Deval’s books” debate?
Or take the example of Sean Bielat and Barney Frank. Hard-core
Democrats concede that Bielat’s a smart guy who ran a great
campaign. Most will also concede that Frank has spent most of his
career insulting his constituents and - as we’ve discovered -
screwing up Fannie and Freddie. But once again, even with the
Republican wind to his back and Frank’s flopsweat debate
performances, Bielat’s margin in this gerrymandered district wasn’t
much different from years past.
My point isn’t that Republicans are owed a seat. If Frank were
simply winning the debate among liberal constituents, I’d say fine.
But does anyone honestly believe that the people and ideas of
Massachusetts are represented by our uniformly liberal Democratic
House delegation?
The machine has become so powerful that the mood and will of the
people is largely irrelevant. Other than a fluke like the Scott
Brown/ Martha Coakley race, the elections are over before the votes
are cast.
If you doubt it, answer this question: What would we be calling Jeff
Perry today if he were a Democrat?
Answer: Congressman.
My buddy Jim Braude hopes Bielat stays in politics because he’s such
an impressive candidate. My response is “what for?” So he can run
another good campaign where quality doesn’t count?
In fact, why would any quality, non-Democrat take on the
government/union machine? We need a viable two-party system for its
checks and balances. Instead, the incumbent establishment has put
our accountability in the capable hands of its hero, Suzanne Bump.
If you can’t reach her at her “primary” residence, try her
“principal” one.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The only salve: Wins at bottom of GOP ticket
By Stephanie Ebbert
They had hoped to be celebrating a congressional district upset or
at least the reclamation of the governor’s office. But yesterday,
the only gains Massachusetts Republicans had to brag about were
establishing a stronger minority in the Legislature, fending off
challengers for sheriff, and picking up open seats on the Governor’s
Council.
After Scott Brown’s upset Senate victory in January, Massachusetts
Republicans had started to convince themselves that anything was
possible. But their only significant win in Tuesday’s election came
in the State House, where they doubled their representation in the
House to 32 and several victors won so narrowly that they may face
recounts.
“It’s a silver lining, but we were expecting a lot more than a
silver lining,’’ said Republican analyst Todd Domke. “We were
expecting something a little more kaleidoscopic.’’
The most likely target of anger over the results is state Republican
Party chairman Jennifer Nassour, who tried to play down the
statewide losses, preferring to focus on the legislative gains. The
election boosted House Republican concentration as high as 20
percent, but it represented a sharp reversal of fortune in a chamber
that had long seen a declining GOP presence.
“For the past 18 years, we have been losing seats,’’ Nassour said,
“so the fact that we gained so many is such a great accomplishment
for us.’’
Republicans had hoped for something more like 1990, when William F.
Weld took the governor’s office and the House ranks grew to 38
Republicans.
But they had farther to go to regain ground this year. Republican
ranks were so thin that they did not even have the 16 votes in the
House to demand a roll call vote on a disputed measure. House
minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. said that by doubling the GOP
membership, the House will have more eyes keeping a check on the
majority and twice as many voices to amplify the minority point of
view.
“The glass is more than half-full from my perspective, and that is
important salve for the wounds,’’ he said. “We would have liked to
win statewide office.’’
But the glass is a little emptier in the Senate, where minority
leader Richard Tisei gave up his seat to run for lieutenant governor
and a Democrat picked it up. Without him, only four incumbent
Republicans are returning to the chamber of 40.
Tisei blamed the lack of GOP gains in the Senate on the strong
Democratic turnout in cities that dot the larger Senate districts.
But he found the House results encouraging as a benchmark, since so
many Senate candidates first serve in the House.
“If you’re talking about rebuilding the party from the ground up,
that’s really good news,’’ Tisei said.
Even though Republicans held the governor’s office for 16 years, the
party has otherwise had a paltry presence in Massachusetts in recent
history, and prior efforts to boost Republican legislative ranks
fell flat. In 2004, Governor Mitt Romney introduced 131 candidates
and spearheaded a $3 million fund-raising effort, but the GOP still
lost three seats.
This year, national disenchantment with Democratic leadership and
the rise in influence of the conservative Tea Party seemed to
portend better results. But even before Tuesday, it did not
translate into increased Republican registration. The GOP entered
the general election with less than 12 percent of the voting base,
but still managed to put up 140 candidates and had energy atop the
ticket as they tried to return the governor’s office to Republican
hands after four years of leadership by Democratic Governor Deval
Patrick.
Now, the party has also lost its new standardbearer, Charles D.
Baker, the wunderkind of the Weld and Cellucci administrations who
was beaten by Patrick.
For Republicans, the disappointing results reaffirmed their
assumptions rather than their dreams: The GOP needs to rebuild from
the ground up.
“There’s nothing that we could have done differently,’’ said Nassour.
Party leaders had been trying to rebuild by activating Republican
town committees and recruiting candidates for down-ballot races well
before Brown’s election ratcheted up the pressure to repeat the wins
on a grand scale. But some misread the lessons of his election, said
Nassour. Though Brown may have seemed to burst onto the national
stage, he had put in many years as a Wrentham selectman, a state
representative, a state senator, and a tireless campaigner before he
emerged as a candidate for the US Senate, she said.
“You can’t just wake up and be Scott Brown,’’ Nassour said. “You
have to be homegrown and organic, and it has to start somewhere,
which is why I have high hopes for our new group coming into the
Legislature.’’
She and her spokeswoman pointed to a smattering of Republican wins
beyond the Legislature: Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson and
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz won reelection, and Lewis
G. Evangelidis won an open seat for Worcester County Sheriff. Jennie
I. Caissie, an Oxford Republican, won the Seventh District race for
Governor’s Council, and Charles Cipollini won in the First District,
against his brother.
“We’re back to the pre-Scott-Brown reputation, this hopelessly
liberal democratic bastion,’’ said Domke. “It definitely feels like
a one-party state again.’’
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A Boston Globe editorial
For embattled Mass. GOP, a bright spot in the House
Whatever the merits of individual Democratic candidates — and many
of them clearly earned their stripes on Tuesday — one-party rule has
created a lack of accountability in Massachusetts politics. Despite
high hopes following Scott Brown’s Senate election, the state GOP
mostly failed to chip away Democratic dominance, even as Republicans
in most of the country rejoiced at their own good fortune.
Yet this week’s results contained one bright spot for state
Republicans — their surging numbers in the House. And for the
purposes of two-party government in Massachusetts, this may prove to
be the most enduring result of all.
Going into the election, Republicans had 15 seats in the state House
of Representatives, but will end up with at least 26 seats, and
perhaps as many as 32. The House needs more dissenting voices,
because in recent years power in that chamber has become
increasingly centralized in the leadership. The newly elected
Republicans have placed a strong emphasis on fiscal issues, a stance
that positions them well to act as watchdogs as budget season
approaches.
Until Tuesday night, of course, Republicans seemed poised to have a
much larger impact on the Massachusetts political scene. Yet the
party was shut out in congressional races — even in the 10th
District, which seemed ripe for the taking. Plus, a well-respected,
well-funded nominee for governor finished seven points behind the
once-embattled Democratic incumbent, and promising candidates for
treasurer and auditor fell short as well. The party even lost ground
in the state Senate, where it had only five seats to begin with.
It’s time for state Republicans to concede that Brown’s election
looks more and more like an outlier. This week’s outcomes suggest
that Republicans will gain influence not in big waves of voter
dissatisfaction, but by steadily strengthening their voice and
deepening their bench. Among the party’s entire crop of candidates
for the US House, only 10th District contender Jeff Perry served in
the Legislature.
For their part, local Democratic leaders shouldn’t take the party’s
big victories Tuesday as an excuse for complacency, nor should they
assume voters are no longer interested in far-reaching reform on
Beacon Hill. Governor Patrick won reelection in part because he had
asked everyone, including public-employee unions that often provide
Election Day muscle for Democrats, to share in the sacrifices needed
to sustain Massachusetts through the recession.
With a bigger presence in the House, state Republicans will be
better placed to press for more efficiency in state government — and
to take Democratic leaders to task if they don’t deliver it.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A Boston Herald editorial
A tangle on taxes
Massachusetts voters continue to send mixed messages about just how
high a tax burden they’ll tolerate, and a mixed message is all the
folks on Beacon Hill need to do whatever the heck they want when
they’re short a few bucks.
Yes, it’s true that supporters of Question 3 - to slash the new,
higher sales tax rate of 6.25 percent down to 3 - overreached on
this one. The argument by a powerful coalition of opponents - that
streets and classrooms would be emptied of cops and teachers -
carried the day. Had the ballot question sought a rollback to 5
percent, where it was before the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick
jacked it up last year, we’re convinced it would have won majority
support.
But with Question 3 now history those voters who voted against it
ought to be prepared to pay that higher tax rate for . . . well,
forever. The only “message” they sent to Beacon Hill was that
they’re just fine with the status quo. They’ve given lawmakers and
Patrick no incentive whatsoever to restore the rate to the original
5 percent, even when this economic nightmare is over.
Meanwhile Question 1 - to repeal the new sales tax on alcohol, also
enacted last year - passed, if by a pretty narrow margin. Could have
been those funny ads where the customer is “slapped” with the new
tax.
Or it could be that supporters - who included package stores
(especially those near the New Hampshire border), the liquor
industry and anti-tax advocates - made a strong case that it is
unfair to ask taxpayers to pay government tribute twice for the same
product. Alcohol is already subject to an excise tax.
Those who decry the loss of funds for addiction treatment (revenue
from the alcohol tax goes to state-funded substance abuse programs)
never mention that it’s only a loss of earmarked funding. Every year
before the new tax was approved the Legislature set aside funds for
such programs, and there is nothing preventing them from doing so
every year hence.
Yes, it was a weird election day in Massachusetts, and not just
because the national “wave” passed the commonwealth by.
The Boston Herald
Monday, November 8, 2010
Agony of defeat to be felt in Mass.
By Jennifer C. Braceras
Now that the dust has settled, who are the winners and losers from
Campaign 2010?
Winners:
The Tea Party - Unfairly demonized as a monolithic group of
right-wing extremists, the Tea Party turned out to be a middle-class
protest movement - an amalgamation of Reagan Democrats, populists,
conservatives and libertarians spurred to democratic action by the
cancerous growth of government. By focusing on spending, taxes and
bailouts, the grassroots movement changed the national conversation
and reminded the professional political class that their power
derives from the people.
True diversity - The 2010 elections produced a diverse crop of
Republican leaders for the future. Minority GOP candidates picked up
three governorships (Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Susana Martinez
in New Mexico and Brian Sandoval in Nevada), one Senate seat (Marco
Rubio in Florida) and two congressional seats (Tom Scott of South
Carolina and Allen West of Florida will be the first black
Republicans in Congress since 2003). They become the new face of the
GOP, proving that diversity is not synonymous with Democrat.
The GOP - The big winner is, of course, the Republican Party which
picked up six seats in the Senate, 61 seats in the House and seven
governorships. Perhaps most significantly, however, Republicans also
picked up more than 500 state legislative seats - the biggest gain
since 1928. In addition to providing a new pool of talent from which
the GOP can draw in future statewide and national elections, these
state legislators will help redraw congressional districts after the
2010 census, paving the way for more Republican gains in the House.
But although they won big, Republicans would do well to remember
that this election was not a blanket endorsement of the GOP.
Note to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell: The era of big government
conservatism is over.
Losers:
President Obama - Last week, the American people delivered a
stunning vote of no confidence in President Barack Obama. Why?
Whether because of incredible hubris or a political tin ear, the
president vastly misread his 2008 victory as a mandate to
nationalize health care and push the country toward a European-style
political economy. Will he now move to the center as Bill Clinton
did so effectively after the midterm elections of 1994? Unlikely.
Clinton is a survivor, a consummate politician. Obama, on the other
hand, is an ideologue who lives in an echo chamber of his own
making.
National Organization for Women - After endorsing Jerry Brown for
governor of California just days after Brown (or someone talking to
Brown) called his female opponent a “whore,” can there remain any
doubt that NOW is not a women’s group, but a gaggle of left-wing
provocateurs?
Massachusetts - The biggest loser in this campaign is Massachusetts.
Perhaps we should have seen it coming. This is, after all, the only
state in the nation to have voted for George McGovern in 1972. But
in 2010 Scott Brown gave us hope that we were no longer a one-party
state. We were wrong. By re-electing Deval Patrick and once again
sending a Democratic supermajority to Beacon Hill, we rejected
checks and balances and forfeited accountability on Beacon Hill.
Moreover, by sending an entirely Democratic congressional delegation
back to what is now a Republican-controlled House, Massachusetts
voters have marginalized our state and given up any chance at
influencing national policy. But maybe that’s a good thing . . . for
the rest of the country, at least.
Jennifer C. Braceras is a lawyer and political commentator.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Democratic machine rolls over the opposition
By Taylor Armerding
Welcome to the post-election, 20/20 hindsight room, where everything
is clearer in the rearview mirror:
There was indeed a Scott Brown effect in Massachusetts. It just
wasn't the one everybody was talking about.
It was the opposite of coattails. I think Brown's election to the
Senate in January actually made it tougher for Republicans last
Tuesday.
Not because of anything he has said or how he has voted, but because
his election woke up the Democratic machine in the state. And when
that machine is awake and functional, calling in favors and
"reminding" its troops how to vote, there is virtually nothing a
paltry Republican minority can do about it. Party chairman John
Walsh said the Democrats had 20,000 volunteers on Tuesday knocking
on doors, driving people to the polls and manning phone banks. You
think Republicans had anything close to that?
Yes, Brown's win was partially because Attorney General Martha
Coakley ran a lousy campaign. But it was more because the state
Democratic party got a bit complacent, never dreaming that voters
would install a Republican in "Ted Kennedy's seat."
When they did, you could almost hear the party chiefs telling one
another, "never again." And they are the team with the ground game.
Their soldiers work in the public sector, where there is always more
time off to work to re-elect your benefactors, unlike those losers
in the private sector. Unless the economy completely collapses, it
will be a very, very long time before a Republican wins a statewide
office again.
That could include Brown. This election showed he is vulnerable.
He'd better start campaigning now.
Supposedly nobody likes a sore loser. But what about a sore winner?
Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, after coasting to another
victory in the Massachusetts 4th District, was filled with more
needless venom. Humility? Thankfulness? Graciousness? Class? Forget
about it.
Which is just a reversion to form. As one commentator put it
recently, not only does Frank not suffer fools gladly, he doesn't
really suffer anybody gladly. That's why it was such a hoot watching
him trying to force a few smiles at the peasants in his political
ads. He doesn't have to put up with that crap in Washington, where
everybody has to genuflect to his wisdom, wit and power.
Frank accused the Boston Herald of limitless "bias and vitriol."
Really, Barney? Sounds like they were just following your fine
example.
He also contended that the campaigns of most Republicans are
"beneath the dignity of democracy."
Stop it, Barney. You're killing us. Apparently you never watched the
ads of your colleague John Tierney against Bill Hudak, or the attack
ads elsewhere in the country on Rand Paul, Sharron Angle and anybody
else who dared disagree with you. Apparently you never watch MSNBC,
or read all that dignified discourse from MoveOn.org and the Daily
Kos.
Massachusetts bucked the national trend, big time. In an election
when Republicans gained more than 60 House seats nationally,
exceeding even the 55-seat romp in 1994, around here it was business
as usual. Yes, there were a couple of small Statehouse GOP gains in
the Merrimack Valley — state Rep. Barbara L'Italien was unseated by
Republican Jim Lyons, and the rep seat being vacated by state
Sen.-elect Barry Finegold went Republican.
But the GOP didn't take a single statewide or congressional seat.
That, according to the winners, is because the voters know that
we're "leading the country out of the recession" and we're "on the
move and on the mend" and "optimism" yada yada yada. Talk about
falling for simple slogans.
I think it is simpler than that — simple math.
Massachusetts is now well past the tipping point: There are more
people in this state who are net "takers" from the public treasury —
paid by government, have a family member who is paid by government,
or receive government benefits than there are net "givers" — people
who have to pay for it. The takers will vote in their own financial
interest. The bigger the government gets, and the more it takes from
the private sector, the more they get.
They are now the majority. They rule. Their enablers in the media
will call you "mean" if you suggest there should be any limit on
government growth and spending.
Republican Charlie Baker said he was going to "stand up for the
people who have to pay the bills." He lost — big.
Not much more you need to know. If you are productive, Massachusetts
is not going to be a friendly place.
An interesting numerical coincidence. With 97 percent of precincts
reporting, Question 3, which sought to cut the state sales tax from
6.25 to 3 percent, had lost with about 965,000 votes. The Charles
Baker/Richard Tisei gubernatorial ticket had lost with about 963,000
votes — just a couple thousand apart.
Or, maybe not a coincidence.
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Massachusetts in bad company
By Michael Graham
If California is the Lindsay Lohan of the 50 states, what does that
make Massachusetts - Britney Spears?
The question is raised by a hilarious column in yesterday’s Wall
Street Journal in which former Californian and WSJ editor Allysa
Finley lashes out over last week’s election results:
“Listen up, California,” she writes. “The other 48 states . . . are
sick of your bratty arrogance. You’re the Lindsay Lohan of states: a
prima donna who once showed some talent but is now too wasted to do
anything with it.”
California is Lindsay not just because its economy and politics are
a re-occurring nightmare, but because Californians just re-elected
the liberals who dreamed it up. Finley reports that not a single
incumbent state legislator lost re-election in California this year,
“including one Democrat who died a month ago (no joke).”
Sound familiar, Massachusetts?
Yes, it’s true that a handful of incumbent Democrats on Beacon Hill
were defeated. But taxes, spending and debt virtually ran the table
here, where we already have too much of all three.
We’ve got a looming $2 billion deficit next year, the second highest
per capita debt and the highest (and fastest-rising) health care
bills in the country. And we just re-elected the same liberal team
to do it to us again. Only when the time comes to pay up again, Gov.
Deval Patrick won’t have Barack Obama to play sugar daddy.
Remember the $14 billion in “stimulus” money the president sent us
last year? What do you think the newly-Republican House is going to
say to an Obama request for more Bay State bailout money?
Probably the same thing they’ll say when California comes, hat in
hand, looking for federal dollars to cover all the promises Jerry
Brown liberals have made to their state government workers.
It won’t be “yes.”
Meanwhile, we’ve just elected the political equivalent of Ado Annie
from the musical “Oklahoma” - the girl who can’t say “no.”
Patrick all but promised tax hikes on the campaign trail (taxes
shouldn’t be treated as a “dirty word,” he said).
Our new state treasurer, Steve Grossman, is a liberal activist who
never met a government program he didn’t like.
And our fiscal “watchdog” will be Democratic auditor Suzanne Bump,
who was caught cheating on her own property taxes and who said
during the campaign that her job would be to “advocate” for
government programs, not just oversee them.
All this with the cooperation of a Legislature that’s around 85
percent Democrat and 110 percent beholden to liberal interests.
And you want these folks to control spending and reduce taxes?
That’s like asking Mel Gibson to sober up and lead us in a chorus of
“Hava Nagila.”
Unlike California, Massachusetts has not hit full-on “Lindsay”
condition. Yet. But all the things that have brought the Golden
State to the verge of bankruptcy are in place here, too. One-party
domination, powerful public-sector unions, knee-jerk liberal voting
blocs.
And while the numbers in California seem staggering - a projected
$80 billion deficit over the next four years - it’s also a much
larger state. In 2007, the Tax Foundation found that Massachusetts,
not California, had the highest debt in the nation measured as a
percentage of state GDP - almost 20 percent.
So what does that make us? The Amy Winehouse of America? Or the
Courtney Love - older, tougher but still on the verge of a meltdown?
Personally, I think Massachusetts is America’s Fredo Corleone. If we
were a little smarter, we wouldn’t have to be so corrupt.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Pols and Politics
By Edward Mason
Cheers for Carla
Libertarian loon Carla Howell is fast becoming the Alf Landon of
Massachusetts.
The ballot initiative queen touted getting 950,000 voters to pull
levers to slash the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. Sadly
for her, the other side got 1.268 million votes.
In 2002 and 2008, she lost bids to repeal the state’s income tax.
But that’s not all! Howell ran for U.S. Senate in 2000, governor in
2002 and state auditor in 1998. I guess you can’t fault a girl for
trying. Howell recorded “How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes.”
Perhaps it’s time Howell go back into the studio full time.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
