Basically they are using the “no one-party rule” argument, but they also throw out some typical Republican talking points: “taxes should be lower”, “unions only want pay raises”. Oh, and she didn’t accomplish much because Mitt “kept her on the sidelines”.
They also support her idea to “eliminate abuse in the state’s pension system and return more than $200 million in savings to cities and towns that could be used to reduce property taxes.” — funny, I haven’t heard that one debated very much.
Keep in mind that in the past, the Republican has said:
Generally, it is our policy to endorse incumbents who are seeking re-election, and who have earned it through good service to their city or town. This is because of the valuable and often hard-won experience they have gained from prior service in their offices, and which invariably benefits their constituents.
They were also very heavily politically into Tom Reilly, to the point of providing slanted coverage (all positive puff-pieces on Reilly, mostly negative articles on Patrick — such as doing a Killer Coke piece but not following up on the “Reilly was involved” angle).
Personally, I’d view this endorsement with a bit of skepticism.
