I’m reading about mandates and statements round these parts. People want to make a large victory a launching point. Sadly, though I could ask “launching point for what?”, the better question is “against what?”
Why, Massachusetts’ answer to the terrifying yeti — the Legislature, that’s what! There is an eagerness to “teach them a lesson” and “get them out of the way” that baffles me. I’m reading comments here that are aiming for 45, 50% mainly to “send a message” to those horrible people.
Confession time: I don’t mind the Legislature all that much. Before reaching for your talking points, think about it for a second. People around here are treating the Legislature as a proxy for everything they don’t like about life or politics.
Yeah, they’ve screwed up. Many of these old time pols are not role models. The Big Dig. But I like my rep, my former rep, and my state senator (and so do most of you. Ever notice how it’s someone else’s rep and senator that’s usually the problem?)
We have reasonable taxes, private health care with some public involvement, marriage equality, women’s right to privacy, a very good K-12 education system, and decent infrastructure. This is the work of the Legislature, despite a Republican governor. Heck, we got marriage equality and the nation’s lowest divorce rate! How ’bout that?
Life isn’t perfect, but it’s as good as it gets in the USA. Here’s my advice — learn about another state. Before warming up to a rant about our horrid horrid education system, learn about the systems in California or Pennsylvania. Read about health care in a Delaware or Illinois. Try driving a road in Michigan. And these are just the blue states.
Point is, they’re doing a pretty good job. Admit it. It’s not their fault life isn’t perfect, and no political agenda will change the fact that there are limits on time, expertise, and money.
Deval won’t change that. He can’t. No one can.
We’re going to win the campaign because we got a great candidate and they have a horrid one. So please let’s not screw up the victory by declaring a new front on a political war and attacking the people who’ve gotten us where we are so far.
Deval will be winning because of people whose votes over the last few read “Weld, Celucci, Romney, Patrick.” In 2008, we don’t want anyone thinking that last one was a mistake.
When I say mandate, I mean he’ll have political capital to exercise some leadership. Nothing more.
Tim Murray is the liberal. (shhhh, it’s a secret)
is exactly right. You are reading posts from strong supporters of Deval who want him to be an effective leader, he needs to have an effective relationship with the Legislature to do that and they will take him more seriously if he wins in a blowout than if he wins in a sqeeker. It isn’t about being liberal or moderate or conservative. If Deval wins big, a State Rep or State Senator will tend to reason ‘I may have a lot of support from the voters in my district, but this guy has a lot of support from voters across the State, I can’t blow this guy off’.
I think the real benefit politically of have a Patrick win with a strong mandate is that he becomes not only the leader of the executive branch, but also the leader of the both the Massachusetts Democrats and the Democrats in the Legislature. Right now, the debate on Beacon Hill is between the Legislature on the “left” in opposition to the Republican governor: I believe that Deval is a moderate, a leader interested in broad compromise to get things done, and though left of center overall, I think he’s right in the center of the legislature. The governor sets the center of the debate, and a strong leader in the middle of the Democratic party will bring real debate within itself, and bring Democratic issues into the media spotlight, which will be beneficial to all of us. There are great reformist progressives, centrists, and conservatives within the legislature, but the problem right now is that the leadership is not directly accountable to the public at large and is clouded by history and continued rumours of corruption (I don’t enough about any of that, but it’s a general perception that’s out there). No one’s talking about some “liberal wishlist” but about real leadership and a return to real substantive debate and progress in government: Deval brings the former with his experience and personality, and the latter comes from a strong mandate for change.
That I care the most about (even being an avowed liberal).
<
p>
That said, I’m OK with my Senator (I do still have issues with him but he sorta “gets it”) and all three of Lowell’s Reps generally drive me nuts with their hackery (I happen now to live in the district of the best of them, Kevin Murphy, but Nangle and Golden I have had many issues with).
<
p>
Some of the issues I do have with Lowell’s state lege is the way they use their position. Frankly, Lowell’s politics have been hackey a very long time and things are changing slowly, thank goodness, but people need to learn the line that anyone with a decent set of ethics should not cross. I’ve heard of a few too many times when our leadership here cross that.
<
p>
But lately with the grassroots going so strong, even here, they are seriously chasing us instead of the other way ’round. That’s a very nice change.
The driving issues in this campaign are aid to cities and towns and the big dig and related corruption and mismanagement.
<
p>
These are not inherently liberal issues or even inherently Democratic issues. But Patrick will need a mandate to wring changes out of the legislature, and I suggest the stronger the better.
<
p>
I don’t understand why you want to spin this as liberal per se.
<
p>
I take issue with the idea that things are okay here because some things are worse elsewhere. Things are not all right in Massachusetts. That is basically Healey’s position. There is room for a great deal of improvement, and that is why Patrick is doing so well.
<
p>
Patrick won the caucuses by being connected to the grass roots. And the convention, and the primary. If he wins this election it will be for the same reason, and will be the basis on which he can govern.
<
p>
I want him to have a strong hand to rectify sixteen years of neglect of local government and sixteen years of non-leadership and mismanagement on critical projects like the Big Dig.
<
p>
Despite what you say, the agenda is for those things and not “against” the Legislature. But I expect greater and more energetic cooperation from the Legislature and others if Patrick wins with 50% than with 40%, greater still if closer to 60%.
<
p>
That is what I am rooting for.
Please keep in mind that under Trav’s leadership the Senate has been pretty united. For good or bad. There are tons of unanimous votes there and I do not think anyone would say that he is leading a left wing operation. In short, they are very moderate.
<
p>
Perhaps the issue with the legislature isn’t ideology as much as the priorities of the leadership. Having a Governor that works with them to ship priorities will give an effective third voice on Beacon Hill that has been absent since Weld’s first few years.
…and having that third voice will also help force the issue along when there’s a stalemate between the two branches. The “third voice” for the last 16 years has been a Republican, who can for the most part be safely ignored when such situations come up.
I love the guy, I think his heart is in the right place, I’m voting for him.
<
p>
But if I were elected Queen of the World, I’d shift his views to the left. His anti-drug stance, his grudging acceptance of immigrants, his support for MCAS…wild-eyed moonbats like me view moderate candidates like Patrick as a good compromise.
<
p>
If I were appointing Governor? Grace Ross all the way.
If you like Deval Patrick, vote for Deval Patrick. If you want to push for him to take moderate positions, voice it. As people here have said, he’s a moderate. Those of us who want him to be more progressive are likely to have more work to do than those who want him to be moderate.
<
p>
I have to say, I’d take your post more seriously if it didn’t contain so many sweeping assumptions. For instance, I’m not sure why you say that it’s “someone else’s rep” who’s the problem. This simply confuses me. I’ve lived in areas represented by Vinnie Ciampa and Marie St. Fleur. I certainly viewed them as part of the problem. When it was Liz Malia, I was okay with her, but not too impressed. And when it was Pat Jehlen, I was excited. The same goes for many of my neighbors. So I don’t see where this blaming-other-reps assertion comes from.
<
p>
And you comment to learn about another state is quite condescending. To let you in on a secret–a lot of us have even lived in other states! My life has found me based at various times in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. I’m guessing others have been in many more places (I’m not the child of a military parent, for instance).
<
p>
On some issues, the MA legislature is indeed ahead of the curve (though same-sex marriage owes more to the SJC than the legislature). But on others, no way.
<
p>
I recently moved back to Michigan. Massachusetts is certainly in better shape in terms of various things, including jobs. But you mentioned roads here. Some of the roads suck, but so do some of the roads in Massachusetts. I find the signage around Detroit much clearer than that around Boston.
<
p>
And on other issues, mostof the rest of the country is ahead of Massachusetts. Remember that we were the 48th state to approve sales of needles in pharmacies, despite having a major heroin crisis in the state that’s been driving rates of HIV and Hepatitis C through the roof. And we only passed over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception this year, well after other states. I could go on.
<
p>
So if you’re a moderate for Deval, fine. And if you want to push a moderate agenda, or if you’re concerned that Deval will alienate voters by the next election, then voice your concerns. But if you’re going to indicate that those of us who support a more progressive agenda dsomehow don’t know how Massachusetts compares to other states, I’d ask you to please check yourself.
I do want to respond to your points. I find it amusing that you accuse me of being condescending but start your post with the immortal word of respect — “whatever.” But that’s okay.
<
p>
First of all, the aspect of people viewing other’s rep/senator as a problem is so widespread I thought it was accepted knowledge. Polls usually show higher likeability/job approval ratings for their sen/rep than the general legislature (at the federal or state level), even when the same party controls it. You’ll notice I didn’t mention my (thankfully) former state senator, Bob Creedon because he is part of the problem. But the fact tha tyou do not fit this category does not invalidate the point. In general, people prefer their representative over the general body — this makes other people the problem.
<
p>
As for the comparative state thing, I think it’s a legitimate point. Of course many of us have lived in different states, and different countries. It was not my intent to be condescending to anyone, but it was my intent to retrieve the idea that the ideal is not the possible. I maintain that it is foolish to throw out or abuse a government for not reaching the ideal when they’ve reached the possible. It’s not enough to say “this is no good” but you need to say “this is better.”
<
p>
To take the example for which I’ve been mocked before, the NAEP shows Massachusetts K-12 schools as #1 in math and English in the nation, and comparatively #3(ish) on its own against the Western world. Yes, many of our schools are still having a tough time — I work in one. That doesn’t mean that it’s time to condemn the system or use it as a political foil. And this is why I mention this point…what else do you want? Seriously, point out to me a statewide (not a cherry-picked miracle story) system that’s superior to ours and I’ll take notice.
<
p>
Yes, some Mass. roads and schools and hospitals suck. The signage sucks majorly — but I’m sure you’ve notice dthe perserve pride many of us have in how we confuse tourists and visitors with our cRaZy traffic patterns. The needles issue is one, Cape Wind is another where we’re clearly behind.
<
p>
Finally, the post was not that I’m a “moderate for Deval” because I truly don’t know how I’ll vote on the 7th at this rate. Call me a “moderate who wants to be for Deval, but isn’t sure if Deval is for moderates”.
Frankly, I didn’t know where to start. How about this, what makes you a moderate and what are you concerned with?
If your concern is that Deval will bow to the cacophony of advice from all sides, well let’s wait and see. I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that he has given into such influence in the past, have you?
<
p>
The moderate thing is interesting. Compared to what are you moderate? People in your house? Your block? Your town/city? The Commonwealth? The nation?
You’re obviously somewhat heartened by the recognition of same-sex marriage (marriage equality if you must), although you give undue credit to the legislature for its existence. Such a position in just about any of the states you mention would not be considered moderate. I am very interested in why you think you’re a moderate.
<
p>
Regarding the legislature and your truthiness about it’s good deeds, can’t say that I agree with you. For me, the specifics about its shortcomings are too numerous to mention. But I will say this. Given the history of this great Commonwealth and what it has provided the world, given it’s institutions of learning, culture, science and more, given the passion of its people and their willingness to think and act beyond the boundaries, the Great and General Court falls far short of matching these ideals. Are things better in Mass than in some other places? Absolutely, that’s why I live here. But I’m not sure it’s because of or despite our Great and General Court.
<
p>
Overall though, I do like your question because I think there are people who are voting for Deval but don’t know what to expect. One thing I feel confident in telling them is don’t expect much in the way of CHANGE (whatever that means) very quickly. Anything Deval does will be viewed through the prism of this campaign. Despite the poll results over the last few days, many people believe Deval is left of center and are concerned he will move in that direction quickly. In my mind he’s too smart for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” first 100 days agenda. Likewise you won’t see a whole lot of movement on criminal justice reform (“inmates for Deval” may have backfired on Healey but no one is forgetting it) or undocumented immigrant policies.
It’s dangerous to ask me to talk about myself, but I’ll try to keep it quick. I’m a moderate because I don’t think government isn’t always the answer, and it’s an expensive wrong answer. I spent six years living in two countries with single-payer health care and was appalled at the quality of care (Canada and Ireland). I think reuglation is way over the top in permitting, and grants. I’m largely a fiscal moderate, and a social liberal/libertarian (I don’t care what you in your own house, including gay marriage, smoking pot, or what have you. Same on abortion).
<
p>
I guess I’m one of those people who still isn’t 100% what I’ll get from Deval. I know he’ll be competent, but I’m not sure in what direction. I’ve monitored his education policy closely and still have no idea what he thinks of charters or how he’ll supplement/ modify the MCAS. It’s fair that Deval doesn’t know yet either, because to an extent you can only make those decisions when you get in there. I just want to make sure those decisions are made in alignment with my values.
<
p>
Finally, I return to another question (not to sound condescending). The General Court isn’t what many of us want it to be, and we should keep working to change that. But I would genuinely like to know what state legislature you would hold up as a model. Watching every minute of the first debate on gay marriage — and being present for much of it — the Great and General Court came darn close to very much being a Beacon on a Hill to other legislators.
yes you can. Why? As many have said above, Deval IS a moderate. Enough has been said on that point by now that I don’t want to wallow in redundancies. So let me just say the following:
<
p> I agree with a good bit of what you say about Massachusetts: I’d put more items in the “messed up” category than you do, and I’d more strongly highlight the failures in political culture on Beacon Hill that stiffle both political discourse and dampen “curiosity” (as Deval would put it) about massive failures such as the Big Dig, but, for all that, I think the main thrust of what you say how things are here in comparative perspective is largely right.
<
p>
Since you were a frequent and–as you are in your diary above–eloquent poster throughout much of the primary, I feel that I’ve read enough of your posts to know where you’re coming from, politically. I remember, for instance, without having to search old posts, that you worked for Dean, supported Reilly, personally voted against the tax rollback and don’t think it’s good policy but believe on democratic principles (wrongly, I think, but that’s another story!) that we ought to feel obliged to honor the vote in the referendum and roll the rate back now. So I know you don’t agree with Deval on everything, the rollback being a case in point, but, still I’m perplexed by your indecision.
<
p>
Sabutai, I can’t figure out why Deval’s not your guy. I would think this would be an easy choice for you. Deval’s an honest, principled, eloquent, engaged, serious Democrat, and (I say this with a twinge of regret) hardly one from the far left of the party. His temperament and affect are way different, but his politics aren’t miles apart from Howard Dean’s.) So on the spectrum of possible electoral choices, for a moderate Democrat in a liberal state, supporting this candidate ought to be, if not optimal, pretty unproblematical, even satisfying. That’s before we consider the alternatives. But shall we consider them? Ross is obviously way too left for you, Christy is a nut (a lovable nut, perhaps, but not fit to Govern) , and Healey has, besides lacking much in the way of accomplishments or postive ideas, just shown herself to be a practitioner of the most reprehensible forms of fear-mongering and demonization. So what’s tough about this choice?
<
p>
I recognize that Deval has won the support of left activists. Perhaps their–for me that means, “our”–embrace worries you. But we’re not the candidate. And if we support Deval wholeheartedly, it’s because we think he will bring integrity, passion, political imagination, and some commitment to basic fairness and social solidarity to the Governor’s office, not because we think he’s going to make this state a laboratory for cutting-edge left policy reforms. I think we’ll get what we expect, not what we don’t expect–and, again, I think you should end up pretty satisfied with that outcome. And if the tone of some of the more rabid supporters sets you off, ok, fine, but their–our!–tone is hardly Deval’s. I say this as someone who had a primary tiff or two with you on this site but who always said, sincerely, that I looked forward to the moment when we were fighting for the same team. It never occured to me that, whichever way the primary went, we wouldn’t be united behind the nominee. I can’t for the life of me figure out what good reason would keep you from unambivalently fighting for the Democratic victory on election day.
Sabutai first asked his “can moderates vote” question in response to this statement in another diary yesterday:
<
p>
<
p>
Somehow from there we got onto the vast liberal conspiracy and the defense of the Legislature.
<
p>
I don’t see how this comes across as “cocky talk about mandates.” No one is saying, Ooo, Patrick’s gonna win big and then he’ll kick butt! That would be completely at odds with the whole tone of his campaign and his essential character.
<
p>
I am sorry to have rubbed Sabutai the wrong way. He is a stout fellow. But I don’t understand his misgivings and I think what I said is right.
<
p>
The true issues of this campaign–local aid, the Big Dig, and mismanagement and corruption in general–are all “centrist.” Ironically they could easily have been Republican issues were the Republicans not part of the problem (more than part in some cases). None of them are ideologically liberal or big government.
<
p>
Local Aid in particular has been off the radar screen on Beacon Hill for sixteen years. The idea that aid to cities and towns might trump both new state spending and cutting the income tax is a fundamental shift (one that was hotly disputed even here at BMG).
<
p>
Steering such a new agenda through the Legislature–through any Legislature–is not a trivial task. A strong turnout for Patrick will put the wind at his back.
<
p>
That is why I am working for the strongest Patrick result on Election Day. Sabutai, I hope you will join us.
That’s me: Independent, Moderate and Undecided. I guess I’m in that teeny tiny slice of the population that’s still up for grabs. For what it’s worth (and I haven’t the slightest idea that I speak for any other indie mod undecides), here are my views (I’ll dispense with the easiest first):
<
p>
(1) Ross – Seems nice enough, but far too loony left. No way I could vote for her or any other Green-Rainbow candidate.
<
p>
(2) Mihos – Added some entertainment to the race, but mostly a distraction. Seems way too obsessed with his revenge against Romney-Healy. It’s boring. No vote from me, even though he’s running as an “independent” (really more as an independent Democrat, though – he’s pretty close to the party line on a lot of issues).
<
p>
(3) Healy – As a moderate and independent, I see her much more objectively than Dems and Patrick supporters, and I’m seriously considering voting for her. She’s reasonable on the social issues (of secondary importance to me, but I’m glad she’s moderate there), and I am very concerned with jobs leaving this state because of a business unfriendly government and regulatory environment. We need a governor who balances out the liberal legislature if we want to have some hope of steadying the flow of good jobs leaving the State and not many new ones being created. I like her stance on taxes, too. Her foolish decision to go harsh in ads, especially about the non-starter “soft on crime” nonissue, is what’s keeping me from a certain vote.
<
p>
(4) Patrick – There’s a lot to like about this guy, no doubt about it, and he almost has my vote (not that he needs it – he’ll have to gay marry Osama bin Laden next week to blow this election; otherwise, it’s in the bag). Two things, though, give me pause. The first is I’m just not sure where he really stands on most issues, and the vague responses he’s given indicate a strong liberal view. That in and of itself is not a deal-killer for me, but as a moderate I like balance, and this State is so heavily tilted to the left that I worry about having the deck stacked so far left in all branches. Kind of scary.
<
p>
The second reason will not win me any friends on this board, but that’s life. Honestly, the cult of personality around this guy creeps me out. I don’t blame Deval necessarily, but whenever I talk with his supporters, well, it’s kind of weird. In their eyes, he is perfect. No matter what I bring up, they just won’t hear it. And I’m not even all that critical of Deval, either. But his ardent supporters’ unwillingness to look at their candidate with any reasonableness just plain scares me. They are star-struck. Granted, that’s the main reason why he’ll sail to victory without a problem on Election Day, but it’s hard for me to want to be part of that.
<
p>
Anyway, that’s the view from the moderate independent undecided…at least this one.
who isn’t a cynical bastard. We’ve had enough of them, haven’t we? (Certainly Healey seems to be taking a page out of the cynical bastard playbook, no?) There is plenty I disagree with Patrick on. But I’m volunteering for his campaign because he’s the first politician I’ve seen in a long time who can inspire people. I’m not bothered by his lack of specifics – he can hash out the details with the legislature when it comes time to push the legislation. I know generally where he stands on the issues, and compared to the competition he’s closer to where I stand. I also have confidence that he will appoint good qualified people to policy-making positions. I have confidence that different and thoughtful points of view will be listened to when policy is being made. Compare that to what we’ve seen come out of the Romney-Healey administration.
Wow, is it odd to log in and see a lot of stress over labels, and how to pigeon-hole Deval so one can get comfortable or stay uncomfortable. Moderate? Liberal? Far-left? Moonbat?
<
p>
Dinner parties have been ruined when my most self-styled “liberal” friends months ago were gagging on Ameriquest and Texaco and Coke; and my more “conservative/moderate” friends were gagging on tuition for immigrants and defending criminals. If you apply the social issues screen, Chris Gabrieli is as liberal if not more than Deval, yet ran as a “moderate” because, well, he could! Every time Reilly staked out a position and Deval had one more to the left, the latecomer could say he was in the middle. Or he could talk about business issues, and seem to many moderate.
<
p>
The real divide between Deval and Healey is on the age old “role of government” question. People are not voting totally on policy, but this group can at least discuss it as if that is the case.
<
p> If you fundamentally believe that every dollar you pay in taxes is either tantamount to theft or must be justified by a direct benefit to you personally (which is close to the historically philosophically true definition of conservative), and that government which governs least governs best, then you are with Healey (with some notable exceptions of heavy handed government powers.) If you fundamentally believe that a democracy requires taxation to provide public goods and services to benefit those who the economic system will leave out, in order to enfranchise “We the People” and create a “more perfect union”, and has an affirmative but limited role in economic stability, then you are with Deval.
<
p>
Not every position fits neatly into this divide. But generally, Deval espouses positions that assume a role for government in improving the lot of a broad base of people, whether it is jobs, schools, safety/crime, the poor/weak/outcast/immigrants, education. Healey espouses positions that assume that government is more the problem that takes from some people to benefit others, and wants to defend “us” against “them” (taxpayers versus benefits users; citizens versus criminals; citizens versus illegals; businesses versus those making demands on business.)
<
p>
Some folks apparently uncomfortable with the US framework of having a market based/capitalist system would label Deval “moderate” or worse because he accepts that as the current system, has worked within in, and even been successful personally in it. So if he does not go far enough to attack big business, or big landlords, or big health care, he is merely a ‘moderate’? Tell me who would possibly get elected who is more progressive on issues in any state in the United States to any statewide office, and I will consider labeling him.
<
p>
His overriding success, it seems, is premised on his personal ability to listen to differing views, respect them, and still reach a conclusion. He respects without pandering; he listens without caving. He is, as a friend said months ago, “comfortable within his skin.” So my own observation is that it is his style/character, more than policies, that are winning this campaign. That drives some folks nuts, but for those of us who actually LIKE someone who listens and maybe even changes his mind based on what he hears, it is the winning quality.
…cause future candidates for statewide office to conclude that running highly negative smear campaigns is a non-starter.
<
p>
I am serious that this is one of the most important issues to me right now.
<
p>
I am sick to death of campaigns that end up obsessing on a few “hot-button” issues at the expense of serious discussions on issues that matter to me. Frankly, whether or not children of illegal immigrants pay in-state or out-of-state tuition rates is not going to have as much impact on my life as things like crumbling infrastructure, public parks, cuts in local services, and health care.
<
p>
The lt. gov’s mud-slinging and negativity is an absolutely disgrace. In my opinion, a vote for Kerry Healey is a vote saying that the kind of campaign she ran is a success, and this will encourage others to do so in the future.
<
p>
I consider myself a moderate. I voted for Bill Weld. I’ve voted Republican for state rep. Although I have moved more to the left as the national political spectrum has moved too far to the right. But if Patrick wins, I am not worried about any kind of “mandate” for “liberals.” Patrick was a corporate counsel for several Fortune 500 companies. I don’t see how you can call someone with that on his resume some kind of flaming liberal.
<
p>
I like Deval Patrick’s tone, I like the style of leadership he will bring, I like how he listens to people, and I agree with him on many issues. I disagree with him on some, but I don’t expect to agree with candidates on everything.
<
p>
Please PLEASE think about whether you want to reward the kind of campaign Kerry Healey has run — negative, divisive and fear-mongering. This is one of the most important issues to me right now, and I urge you to think seriously about it. I want civil discourse back. All moderates should.
<
p>
I categorically deny your (implicit) assertion that there is de facto opposition betwixt ‘moderate’ and ‘liberal’. In fact, I assert, they are apposite: That is to say more tangent and relevant — to each other — than you allow.
<
p>
Two of the most influential political figures, at least to us here in Massachusetts, of the last decade are Bill Clinton and John Kerry. They are, both of them, liberal without doubt. Interestingly, they both enjoy, in their free time, activities that are considered “freewheeling” and reckless: Clinton is a social risktaker and occasional adulterer; Kerry is a pilot, windsurfer, hunter, etc… I bring this up to point out the contrasts between their private daring and their professional ethic: neither one is all that daring and/or reckless when it comes to politics and, in point of fact, they neither blaze new trails nor open new vistas on their own. The primary politic instinct they both share appears to be an unwillingness to proceed without consensus. This, I feel, is the only working definition of ‘moderate’ available for use as applied to politics. I think Deval Patrick shares this trait. (Though I know nothing about his private life, he certainly has taken risks in the courtroom).
<
p>
Interestingly, George Bush (and Dick Cheney) appear to be the polar opposites of moderates: they both profess a staid, ‘safe’, conservative ideology and, at least in the case of George Dubya, are in bed each night by 9pm. When it comes to policy and politics they are reckless in the extreme and do not, ever, worry about consensus. Ever. Perhaps it is just I — or perhaps it is a certain type that tickles the Republican fancy — but I see the same sort of political recklessness in staid form like Mitt Romney (You hired Bechtel! Again!) and Kerry “Don’t Rape Me Mister Angry Black Man” Healey.
<
p>
There is no divide between ‘liberal’ and ‘moderate’ as you assert. Deval is your candidate. And mine. Great things await.
The labels of moderate, liberal are a political device not to bring better understanding of views but to cause descension. Are we going to figure out how we all get along with various views or do we persist in having a litmus test about who we hang around with?
<
p>
Mr. Patrick has demonstrated he listens to all segments of society and has the know-how to have good chance of governing this state well. No boogy men, no distracting issues, just rolling up the sleeves and tackling significant problems. He gets my vote.