On November 5th, 2002, Shannon O'Brien, Massachusetts Treasurer and longtime resident was defeated by a neoconservative Republican from the west in the run for Massachusetts state Governor. Romney had access to more money and O'Brien's campaign was fairly lackluster. She made the mistake of believing that her years of service and dedication to this state would in some way resonate with the average Massachusetts voter, who–let's face it–is no smarter than the average voter anywhere else…
From Dole, Harris Win; Shaheen, O'Brien Concede Defeat:
… Perhaps the most surprising result of Tuesday's elections came in Massachusetts, where venture capitalist millionaire Mitt Romney, a Republican, defeated Democrat Shannon O'Brien and two other female candidates in a heavily Democratic state. Seventy percent of the Massachusetts electorate is firmly pro-choice, according to recent polls, but Romney said he did not wish to be labeled pro-choice, according to a Boston Globe report. …
O'Brien captured 45% of the vote from a majority Democrat state. Romney, the wealthy Republican outsider, 50%. Why? The answer is obvious. Conservative Democrats voted for him, foolishly believing that a Republican Governor would (a) run a tight ship fiscally and (b) hold in check and be held in check liberal representatives. Except that a number of Massachusetts reps (such as Tom Finneran) are also social conservatives. Romney meanwhile gains a reputation for being (a) a Republican that can capture Democratic votes and (b) a hero for standing up to those wacky Bay State liberals. Both of these things will serve him well in his ultimate goal to get to Washington as quickly as he can wipe Massachusetts from the soles of his boots.
I can't blame Romney for being what he is. He's a conservative; he's a Republican. He's a smart man who is going to use his stint as Massachusetts Governor to move on to bigger and better things in his political party of choice. Make no mistake, our fair state is merely a stepping stone for him. This was obvious when he ran for Massachusetts Senator against Edward Kennedy in 1994, and it was obvious when he ran for Governor against Shannon O'Brien in 2002.
Instead, I can blame O'Brien for a weak campaign, and I certainly can blame the socially conservative Democrats that elected Romney. I have a word for such Democrats, and that word is “Republican”. Democrats should be smart enough to know what side their bread is buttered on. If a candidate in your registered party isn't an *exact* match, that isn't a cue to stay home and sulk, vote Republican, or throw your vote away on a third party.
It's hard to believe that someone would think a neocon who is “just passing through” would be more fiscally responsible than a woman who entered the Massachusetts Treasury when it was undergoing a scandal and instituted new policies to help protect the Treasury from further thievery.
Some argue that O'Brien was too conservative… that she lost because she didn't appeal to the Democratic party's liberal base. I have trouble believing that an intelligent liberal can't tell the difference between a pro-choice gay-rights advocate with some conservative leanings and a dyed-in-the-wool neocon posing as a “moderate Republican”.
From The Democratic Faithless:
First, and probably most important, the Democrats picked the wrong candidate to represent them in November. O'Brien comes from the socially conservative wing of her party, though she's modified her positions in recent years, becoming a pro-choice, anti-death penalty candidate. The state Democratic Party is filled with conservative Democrats such as House Speaker Tom Finneran, who exhibit open hostility toward the party's left wing, so it isn't surprising that a candidate like O'Brien ended up with strong support from the Democratic establishment. In picking O'Brien, however, the Democrats effectively chose the safe candidate, a person least likely to play, to quote Finneran's off-the-cuff slam at 1998 Democratic nominee Scott Harshbarger, “to the loony left.”
Though I would agree that the Democratic party is drifting from its base in order to attract moderate voters, I don't think O'Brien lost many liberal votes because of her history. After all if she had captured all the green (liberal) votes and the libertarian (conservative) votes the race would have been a dead heat, not an assured victory.
Whatever the reason, Mitt is our Governor now, like him or not. Perhaps the Democrats who voted him into office are happy to see him out stumping for Bush, unaware that he is doing so to gain party support for his eventual departure from the Bay State.
From Romney's real agenda is national:
The Governor of Massachusetts is leading the charges against gay marriage, promoting the death penalty, and advocating a new tax cut. That is not the agenda of a governor who is putting the common good of the Commonwealth ahead of his own political ambition. No, Mitt Romney's true agenda has little to do with the people of Massachusetts. It is one large, irresponsible pander to a national Republican audience.
… The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut … A tax cut is not what Massachusetts needs right now. Says Michael J. Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: “We're a long way from being out of the fiscal woods. We still face a structural deficit of several hundred million dollars in 2005, and we have major obligations in health care and education that we must meet before considering a tax cut.”
… Romney's call for a tax cut is his most callow and callous pronouncement to date. For two years he argued that Massachusetts should make cuts to balance the budget. So the state cut spending. For two years Massachusetts led the nation in cutting funding for K-12 education. Massachusetts was a national leader in cutting higher education. During the fiscal crisis, Massachusetts also cut public health by more than 25 percent.
Now state revenue is picking up.
Does Romney propose to reverse any cuts in education, health care, and basic human services? Of course not. That might be good for some Massachusetts residents, but not so good for Romney.
… Legislators are inclined to restore some funding, but there is Romney making headlines with irresponsible calls for tax cuts.
Mitt Romney's ideology is not the problem. It's his lack of commitment to Massachusetts. He is looking far beyond the Bay State, no matter how often or how loudly he denies it.
Romney appeals simultaneously to religious bigots who fear gay marriage, and to the greed of the common man who can't see beyond the cash in his own wallet. Is it any surprise? It's a page right out of George W. Bush's playbook.
Good luck in Washington, Mitt. You're going to fit right in.
from omahoneycartoons.com
Sources:
- Romney's real agenda is national
- Dole, Harris Win; Shaheen, O'Brien Concede Defeat
- Massachusetts Elects Mormon Governor
- OnTheIssues.com: Shannon O'Brien on Government Reform
- The Democratic Faithless
- omahoneycartoons.com
- Mitt Romney beats Shannon O'Brien, gay incumbents victorious
- Romney boosts Bush on Mich. trip
It is insane that we have Mitt as our governor. Michael Moore asked us, when he came to speak at UMass Dartmouth:
“What the hell happened?”
I have to wonder as well. But then I remember O'Brien's horrible performance in the debates. She didn't get out the vote.
A lesson to be learned there…
I suppose. The lesson I'm learning is that not all Democrats are “the Democratic Faithful”, (i.e. you vote for your party, whether or not the party candidate is impressive, because a lackluster Democrat in office is far less scary than a Republican.)
Your ignorant and uneducated views provide significant evidence that the correct spelling of democrat is d-u-m-o-c-r-a-t.
Because you have no moral foundation, you believe that stealing money from one American to give it to someone else justifies voting for dumocrats. All it does is make you unfit to be a voting American.
Your unpatriotic and ignorant views provide more evidence that the rest of America needs to put a fence around Massachussetts to keep you folks from infecting the rest of America. Taxachussetts has no right to foist Kennedy and Kerry and their socialistic views on hard working Americans – all so that you can FEEL good about yourself. You should be ashamed – if there were any shame left in your state!!!
Your commentary is clearly a rather weak attempt at flame-bait… pretty boring really. Is that the best you can do? Sad. Better luck next time. A good improvement would be to actually provide a name and e-mail to associate with your anonymous comments… then you wouldn't look like such a coward.
Y'know if you really wanted to bait flame, you might have tried actually knowing thing-one about what Democrats stand for (which by the way is not “stealing money from one American to give to another”). That's the stereotypical rallying cry of a selfish person who doesn't care about right and wrong as long as his pocket is full of money. Greed doesn't make a very healthy “moral foundation”. (BTW using a computer at GEICO to surf the web and post harassing commentary is akin to stealing, and hardly a sign of a healthy moral foundation.)
Fortunately, my moral foundation is strong and completely intact and my patriotism is likewise. You see, a patriot would never suggest that someone should be denied the right to vote simply because they had opposed political views, but then I'm not surprised you aren't very clear on what patriotism is, since you obviously don't practice it.
Now if you'd like to pull your head out of your ass and actually have a civil political discussion, I'm all for it. Otherwise you can go fuck yourself at your earliest convenience… personally I'm not interested in the commentary of idiots and will be happy to IP-ban you and delete your low-brow neanderfuck comments.
You know, this is why I refuse to engage in political debates with friends, because it ALWAYS ends up in name calling. You're not dumb because you're a democrat, and I'm not selfish, immoral, or greedy because I'm conservative. I wish this foolishness would stop, you can believe what you want, as can I.
, and I ain't running! (pardon the ain't). Move on to bigger and better things, maybe so, kinda like John Kerry, from Lt. Governor, to Senator, to President? That's what politics is to most of these people, a stepping stone to bigger things, good luck to them, most of them have never had a real job or worked a hard day in their lives.
I happen to like Mitt Romney, as always, I DO NOT agree with everything he stands for, there is no candidate like that for me, except for myself
Sheesh, this blog thing is going to drive me nutty. (more nutty)
It doesn't have to end up with name-calling, and I find it doesn't when you're discussing with friends. To me you will always be “my friend Tom” far ahead of being anything else… conservative/american/martian… whatever. For example, for a long time I thought you were libertarian and in my book libertarianism=insanity… but I never once called you a name, nor did I think you insane. I disagreed with your political standpoint but I never argued with you about it. Why? 'Cause you are my friend Tom, and I love you just fine exactly the way you are. So for the most part I ignored the subject.
We're often going to disagree when it comes to politics, you and I, but our friendship is strong enough to handle a little disagreement. I would love having a political discussion with you, as long as we're not arguing. If all that comes of it is we agree to disagree and throw a couple burgers on the barbie, that suits me just fine.
The thing to remember is that when I write an article on my blog, I'm writing it because I'm motivated. Mitt Romney pisses me off on a regular basis, so this article was motivated by anger. Therefore it's going to be an angry article. Many of my political articles are going to be angry these days because my views are not being represented by my leaders. It is infuriating to me to see so much backward legislation getting passed. So I'm going to rail against Conservatism in such an article. Therefore, you might want to skip such articles, since I don't want to offend you, but I need to be free to express that anger and get rid of it. My blog lets me do that.
I had harsh words here for Mitt Romney, and for Democrats who forgot what state this is and what party they belong to when they voted for him. You're a conservative so I would expect you to vote for Romney, since he more closely represents your beliefs than O'Brien or another liberal democrat.
Though the position of Lieutenant Governor was a stepping stone for Kerry, Massachusetts is not. Kerry was elected senator of Massachusetts (succeeding Paul Tsongas, I think) in 1984. He is now serving his fourth term in that post. He took his job seriously and has been faithfully executing it for 20 years. Add his stint as Lt. Gov and you've got 22 years of service to his state.
How much money would you like to bet on where Romney will be in 22 years? 'Cause he ain't going to be HERE.
To Romney, the midwesterner, we are simply a rung on a ladder. Did he live here? Did he grow up here? Does he represent the majority of the citizenry here? No, no, and no. Then what possible interest could being the governor of a state 2000 miles away from his home possibly hold for him? It's power, a step up, to a place where he might be better able to take on his real aspirations.
He showed up here in 1994 to run against Edward Kennedy for senator. Why? Why not run in his own state or in another Republican owned state? Because becoming a Massachusetts senator would kick a powerful democrat off the Massachusetts ticket. It would *help the party*. And that's what Romney is all about. Helping the party, so that at some point in the future the party will return the favor.
Fortunately Romney's senatorial bid didn't work out, but unfortunately he again came here from the west to take a shot at Governor. First he wants to be a senator, representing a state he has no connection with in the senate in DC, now he wants to be a Governor? Governing a state he has no connection with? Come on. The guy's obviously an opportunist… he's about as Bay State as vodka and kangaroos. I'm sure you've noted in the news that if Kerry wins the presidency, Romney is going to (try to) select a senator to replace him. You can bet your ass that he'll pick a republican or a democrat who might as well be one. Big surprise, this was what Romney was trying to do back in 1994. Fortunately the state legislature is trying to prevent that from happening. GOOD.
Kerry fought admirably for this country in Vietnam and was wounded in combat multiple times (he won 3 purple hearts). He bravely led the charge against the enemy on a number of occasions and demonstrated courage, valor, and intelligence in battle. He came home a highly decorated veteran and challenged the powers that be over the war in Vietnam. He voluntarily fought for his country, and then came back here and stood up for what he believed in. I think about that a lot. Kerry was the son of a *very* wealthy family. Many wealthy sons go on to politics (like George W. Bush). In addition many wealthy sons use their money and influence to avoid serving this country in war (again, like George W. Bush). Kerry volunteered. He willingly put his life on the line for you and me while Georgie-porgie was getting a cushy assignment in the Texas Air National Guard (“the army of none”) with a number of other rich boys.
If that doesn't demonstrate a remarkable committment to his country, his home state, and his ideals, I don't know what does. Now that Kerry is making a transition from representing Massachusetts to representing our great nation, he will continue to have my admiration. He's served his time, years upon years of commitment. He's not some wealthy out-of-stater looking for an easy trip to the top. He's demonstrated far more devotion to this country than George W. Bush and therefore I would be ecstatic if he can manage to wrest the executive branch away from the den of thieves that hold it right now. I'd be sorry to lose him as a Senator, but if Kerry takes the white house, MASSACHUSETTS WINS.
He's got my vote.
Hey Chuck,
As for me not being insane, time will tell. The burgers sound good too. This has nothing to do with anything else, but answer me this…should someone running for a higher office have to give up their current office? I don't ask this because of Kerry specifically, it has been a topic at nearly every election. I happen to think that person should step down if they're running, and I think that if they're Republican or Democrat. If you're running and honestly trying to win the office, then have the sack to give it your all, and stop ignoring the post you've already been elected to, those people count too.
It's obvious you love John Kerry, and that's fine. I don't like him much, I don't hate him, but I don't care for him. I think he's one of the least sincere speakers I've heard in a long time, and I just couldn't bring myself to vote for him, but he does have one thing in his favor…he's not Ted Kennedy, thank goodness for that.
By the way, I noticed you were all over Cheney for swearing at Pat Leahy, I'll agree it was the wrong forum for it, although I'm quite sure I would have said a lot worse. There is a nickname for John Kerry, it's “John F-ing Kerry”, because he did a Rolling Stone interview once, and was tossing the F-bomb around like sunflower seeds! I don't equate this to swearing at a Senator, I just offer it up as fodder, do with it as you will.
See ya bud, it's 5:15am, off to work.
Tom
I have always felt that way too. They should either finish their term or vacate the position. How can they effectively do their job and run an election campaign at the same time? I know they have staff for that but still, I feel there full committment isn't there.
The problem I have with that stance is that an incumbent President spends a ton of time campaigning, having his Vice President campaign, and sometimes even having cabinet members campaign for him. It's already an unlevel playing field tilted toward the incumbent. And the President can't vacate the job of President to run for President. The same holds true for incumbents of other positions. An incumbent Senator runs a re-election campaign. The Senator is not paying attention to the job he/she was elected to during this time. Since there is no way of enforcing a rule like this evenly, it is not fair to enforce it at all.
Now, if we came up with a way to campaign more efficiently and evenly, that would be progress. Unfortunately, the right to spend money to gain influence is considered freedom of speech and seems to trump the clauses in the Constitution regarding voter disenfranchisement. So, I don't ever see anything like that happening.
I see your point, Brian. I was only considering those individuals running for a new post. I waslooking at the big picture.
What bothers me too is that there is no one place to go on the web to find out who is running, what position, and what their views are. I do not follow the news much and depend a lot on Chuck for info. Sometimes I find myself taking his stand because I have not had time to review the facts myself. Someone actually told me that I should vote the same as my husband so that I do not negate his vote.
I get discourage easy when it comes to politics.
Patty
You and me both, Patty. Especially now that I live in California. Most of what is happening in the world has happened before I've had my lunch. The 2004 election will probably decided courtesy of “exit polls” before I even get to vote. And, as you said, there's no place to get an unbiased view of who stands for what and where. There are disparate sources, but I'm always skeptical of a source, liberal, conservative or otherwise because of agendas. We're smart people. Let's put our heads together and figure out how to fix it.
And that whole “cancel his vote” argument irks me. Two people should not have to agree on politics just because they are married. Look at Carville and Matalin. You should vote for who you want. If you don't feel you can make an informed decision, you can always abstain.
Women didn't fight for the right for every man tp get a second vote! You vote however you want, sweetheart.
Sure, he says that in public, but we know what goes on behind closed doors. Face it, Patty is a victim of Political Abuse. She is being held down by Chuck's authoritarian views.
I couldn't abuse Patty even if I wanted to, she'd kick my ass and not even break a sweat. One of the things I love about Patty is that although she is sweet and generous, she doesn't let people push her around.
That's right. No one pushes me because they might hurt themselves trying.