Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Will Kerry Healey show her face with Dick Cheney?

By

  So Dick Cheney is coming to the Bay State to help honor former Ambassador, EMC Corp. founder, and Bush “Ranger” Dick Egan.  Sean Healey employee State GOP chairman Darrell Crate is all a-twitter about the big event, scheduled for Sept. 8.

Think Kerry Healey, the state’s most prominent Republican candidate, will show?  Think we’ll see photos of a smiling Healey next to Cheney’s crooked leer?

My guess: NFW.  She’ll beg off, claiming a “prior commitment” – a BBQ in Sudbury or something.  Remember, this is the Republican candidate with the website that never once mentions the word “Republican” on its main page – in fact, you have to look really hard to find that word anywhere on the site.  Her bio even omits her stint as head of the state GOP. 

Kerry Healey, in short, doesn’t want Mass. voters to think of her as any kind of Republican, much less a Washington, DC Republican.  Her worst nightmare is to be tied to Dick Cheney, perhaps the most reviled Republican in the country.  She won’t get within a mile of that reception.

UPDATE: Adam Reilly has similar thoughts.  I didn’t see his post before writing this one – honest!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Only in this state can far left Democrats win. It would seem to be Cheney was part of the WINNING party. The Demorcats have not only lost the last 2 Presidential elections but have had control of NEITHER the House or Senate for well over a decade. The Gay Marriage ballot in 2004 was DEFEAT BY HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE MARGINS in every state.

    <

    p>
    Seems to me Cheney is more in touch with the voters than all of the losing Democratic candidates?

    • I’m a huge fan of Cheney actually, and its interesting that you should mention gay rights because Cheney himself supports gay rights in a much broader sense than Bush.  (see:  Lieberman debate) 

      <

      p>
      Cheney himself is definitely unpopular nationally, but I suspect that is largely because he simply does not care about popularity.  He’s all done after this term, so why pander?  This is a guy who tells you what he believes – if you’ve heard him speak, its very refreshing.  I love an honest politician.

      <

      p>
      Would it hurt Healy to be there?  Hmm I dunno maybe but among the rightiest of the right it will probably hurt her not to be.  Not sure if there are enough of those to matter in MA, I guess.  But still I mean does Healy even have a chance?  I can’t believe you guys are at all worried..

      <

      p>
      demo

      <

      p>

      • It’s the one thing Cheney has gotten right in 6 years.

        <

        p>
        As for the rightiest of the right, who cares.  There aren’t very many of them, and they’re not who Healey needs to win.  She’s got to pull a big contingent from the independent/unenrolled middle, and I’m guessing more of them don’t like Cheney than do.

        <

        p>
        Anyway, gosh, I’m delighted to hear a conservative opining that Healey’s a sure loser!  Feel free to broadcast that message as widely as you’d like. 

        • 1.  I didnt say sure loser, just not much of a threat

          <

          p>
          2.  I’m more of a libertarian than conservative, but ok

          <

          p>
          3.  I’ll say what I really think in any case, which I would hope would be more constructive than party spin  🙂

          <

          p>
          4.  I’m not even sure I support Healy [yet!], except as an alternative to a democrat.  Not a great reason imo.

          <

          p>
          You’re probably right about the target audience for Healey.

          • With a) resources at Ms. Healey’s dispoal; b) a recent history of Republican Govenors; c) a tax cut as the centerpiece; and d) a Legislature to run against, I’d have to suggest that the race is, in fact, Ms. Healey’s to lose.

            • What about the polls?  the polls!  the polls!

              <

              p>
              What about the fact that this is one of the most Democrat and liberal dominated states in the nation?  Maybe we need more Republicans in the statehouse?

              <

              p>
              I’m bewildered at the arrogance of politicians who put the brakes on a voter approved tax cut.  It would be justice for the Republicans to win on this alone, but it just doesn’t seem possible to change the makeup of the legislature.

              <

              p>
              With such Democrat dominance statewaide, the gov. is only a figurehead anyway – so whats the big deal?

              <

              p>
              -Demolisher

    • Sorry for the lame subject line, but I’m answering the contention that Cheney is a winner and it’s just the straightforward opposite 🙂

      <

      p>
      Anyway, I haven’t heard of any elections Cheney has won in a long time, and I doubt he could win many right now.  Maybe in Idaho or Texas, but certainly not nationally, or in most states, and certainly nowhere anywhere within hundreds of miles of Massachusetts.  His national approval rating has been bouncing around the teens and low 20s for years now, far worse than Bush.  By what standard would you call him a “winner”?  At best, you can say that he tagged along on the coattails of people who can win.

        • Leaving aside the matter of who actually won in 2000 (and nobody disputes that Gore got more votes), the fact is that voters were picking a president, and the VP was a secondary consideration.  I highly doubt Cheney would’ve come anywhere near a shot at winning if he were at the top of the ticket, and polls from both years support my opinion.  (I doubt Lieberman would’ve, either, but he’s got much more of a winning record than Cheney! 🙂

          <

          p>
          Face it: Cheney is unpopular here, unpopular nationally, unpopular in most other states, and has been unpopular for many years.  He hasn’t been winning elections and he couldn’t.  Association with him is a drag, and Kerry Healey probably knows it.  (by which I bring us back to the actual point of this post 🙂

    • YOU SAY:
      “The Democrats have not only lost the last 2 Presidential elections but have had control of NEITHER the House or Senate for well over a decade.”

      <

      p>
      I SAY:
      Yes, by close margins, the Democrats have lost the last 2 Presidential elections.  But, no, it has not been “well over a decade” since the Democrats had control of the House or Senate.  The Senate was controlled by Democrats as recently as June 2001 (when Senator Jeffords switched parties) thru December 2002.  The House was controlled by democrats from 1949 until 1994.  Republicans have been in control since January 1995. 20 months more than a decade, yes, but hardly a long time historically.

      <

      p>
      We’ll see what happens this Fall…

      <

      p>
      YOU SAY:
      “The Gay Marriage ballot in 2004 was DEFEAT BY HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE MARGINS in every state.”

      <

      p>
      I SAY:
      I guess it depends on what “Huge” (with 20+ U’s) margins means to you.  Only in Mississippi did any ballot measure reach the 80% threshold I would define as 20 U’s worth of huge. These are the actual results:
      Arkansas Passed (75.0%)
      Georgia Passed (76.2%)
      Kentucky Passed (74.6%)
      Louisiana Passed (78%)
      Michigan Passed (58.6%)
      Mississippi Passed (86.0%)
      Missouri Passed (70.7%)
      Montana Passed (66.6%)
      North Dakota Passed (73.3%)
      Ohio Passed (61.8%)
      Oklahoma Passed (75.6%)
      Oregon Passed (58.8%)
      Utah Passed (65.9%)

      <

      p>
      National polls consistently show that about 25% support same-sex marriage, 25% support civil unions but not “marriage”, 40% oppose both, and 10% are unsure.  I said that’s a fairly evenly divided populous.

      <

      p>
      In Massachusetts, polls show that at least 60% of residents support same sex marriage. 

    • … given that billionaire George Soros pretty much singlehandedly empowered moveon.org and others, and the most recent Ddemocrat presidential candidate was himself a billionaire by marriage to inheritance. 

      • Actually, the vast majority of MoveOn’s funding comes from online donations of under $100 from members.  Soros’ contribution of a couple of million in 2004 was large as individual contributions go, but a very small piece of what MoveOn has raised and spent in recent years.

        <

        p>
        People on the right wing like to harp on Soros repeatedly in part because he’s one of very few billionaires who give mostly to Democrats, while the right is full of billionaires.  But a claim that he “singlehandedly empowered MoveOn” is completely detached from reality.

        • I assume you have hard data to back that up?

          <

          p>
          How many billionaires do you think there really even are?

          <

          p>
          This is one frustration I have with the left:  Tax the rich in their minds means all these greedy billionaires who are hoarding all the money;  in practice it just hits small businesses.  John Kerry, billionaire, pays random amounts of income tax because he (terAYZ) already has all the money. 

          • This is one frustration I have with the left:  Tax the rich in their minds means all these greedy billionaires who are hoarding all the money;  in practice it just hits small businesses.

            <

            p>
            I call non-sequitur with extreme prejudice.  You’re out of line.  Stop making assumptions, stop slinging irrelevancies, get back to reasoning.

            <

            p>
            (hint1: I co-founded a small business;  hint2: I made no criticism or characterization of “billioanires”, it’s all in your head)

            <

            p>
            I’ll give you one bit of data: MoveOn raised and spent about $55 million on the 2004 election cycle, less than 10% of which came from Soros and his partner.  That doesn’t count the large sums MoveOn raised directly for candidates through their emails and web site, nor the money they’ve raised and spent before and after the 2004 election cycle (remember, MoveOn started in 1998).

            <

            p>
            Okay, now if you want to go on venting vague frustrations at “the left”, feel free, and I won’t respond further.

            • Soros gave moveon the big early boost that enabled them to become a dominant left wing force (for whatever that’s been worth, I guess).  10% of all money raised by movon since 1998 is no small potatoes, either.

              <

              p>
              Anyway, you are the one who said the right is full of billionaires, which just seemed to totally not reality that I sort of went off a bit. 

    • Shame on them.  It ought to be up there.  Anyone who’s embarrassed about running on their party’s banner shouldn’t do it.  Run as an independent if you don’t want a party affiliation.

  5. Have you any idea how jarring it is to load up BMG and see Dick Cheney at the top of the page?  While I love a good Cheney joke as much as the next person, it’s quite another thing altogether to see its visage in living color on the front page of this site.

    <

    p>
    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go soak my eyes in bleach. 

  6. This might be a great idea for some candidates who want to take a break from running against Democrats and actually take on the opposition:

    <

    p>
    Go to an area where you know the traffic will be bad during this tie-up.  Bring two or three van plastered with campaign signs.  Park them in a service area or rest stop.  Set up tables with cold water or hot coffee, or both — preferably served in containers bearing your name.

    <

    p>
    The candidate spends half an hour in an orange vest, serving liquids to people stuck in traffic, in conjunction with a press availability. Talking points include:

    <

    p>

    <

    ul>

  7. Republicans love traffic.  Millionaire fundraisers, the Sagamore ramp proposal.
  8. At least it’s not as bad as the traffic this summer after they had to work on the Big Dig.  Too bad Romney was too busy campaigning in Iowa to supervise it.
  9. This could also be better with a stronger public transit system.  Hopefully we won’t have a Republican governor standing in the wa of that next year.
  10. The wait time here is bad.  It feels like wait times at government offices since Romney has slashed service from education through employment training.

Archives