In a rather curious editorial, the Herald writes the following:
What are they talking about here? The editorial notes that Reilly gave a speech in which he rejected the notion of “throwing money” at problems, and in which he backed the notion of government partnering, rather than impeding, business.
This makes Reilly a DINO? Does any respectable Democrat really think that government ought to be impeding business? Or that “throwing money” at problems is a good idea?
Here, for example, is Deval Patrick (who one assumes the Herald would not call a DINO) on business (emphasis mine):
I see Massachusetts as a place in which businesses invest because of a well-educated and well-prepared workforce and because they are assured that neither taxes nor regulation will be unreasonable…. In a Patrick administration, I will work in partnership with business, labor and community leaders to grow the Massachusetts economy and expand opportunities.
Maybe there was a time when the Democratic party was actively hostile to business. That time, if it ever existed, is long past. By calling Reilly a DINO based on the views they listed, the Herald seems to assume that Republicans, but not Democrats, want business to flourish. How ridiculous.
Hasn’t that been the standard right-wing assertion for decades? I don’t think it’s ever been true, but that hasn’t stopped it getting pretty firmly established in the minds of a great many Americans.
…advocates for rolling back the .35 % income tax “surcharge” even though most state agencies are still funded at 2001 levels? I think the “middle” in this state can understand the fiscal problems local governments have and the need to boost state spending from 2001 levels (like in areas of public safety, which Reilly should understand), but he’s taking a solid hard right position here. I think it’s more about pandering than being a DINO, but I can understand people labeling him a DINO.