Jon Keller has a new book coming out; the official release date is right after Labor Day. It’s provocatively entitled “The Bluest State: How Democrats Created the Massachusetts Blueprint for American Political Disaster.” OK then, Jon — tell us what you really think!
I got my hands on an advance copy and have just started in. I got worried when I read the following on pages 10 and 11:
An ultra-liberal Democrat, Deval Patrick, Bill Clinton’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, broke the string of Republican gubernatorial victories in 2006, cementing our status as the nation’s bluest state….
Massachusetts has become a national symbol of unleavened liberalism…. Beyond party loyalty, liberal policy hegemony is enforced; moderate or conservative Democrats who dare endorse too much tax relief or balk at rubber-stamping the agenda of key Democratic special-interest groups face scathing public reprimand or exile.
First of all, this “ultra-liberal” business has got to stop when applied to Deval Patrick. It’s simply not an accurate description of the guy. Just off the top of my head:
- As much as some around here might want him to, he is not pushing for universal single-payer health care, and he has given no indication that he intends to do so.
- He has set in motion the partial deregulation of automobile insurance — something that none of his Republican predecessors chose to do (and no, they didn’t need legislative approval to do it; they could have done exactly what Patrick is doing).
- He appears to be open to the possibility of casino gambling in Massachusetts.
I could go on (and stomv does), but it’s late, and you get the idea. Governor Patrick is not, and never has been, an “ultra-liberal,” and anyone who pegged him as such before or after his election (and it did happen a lot) was, simply put, wrong.
As for the notion that the Massachusetts legislature has for years been a hotbed of unchecked liberalism, two words: Tommy Finneran. And here are a few more: Emile Goguen, Marie Parente, Philip Travis, Paul Donato, Richard Moore, the list goes on and on — Democrats every one of ’em. In general, the most conservative members of the Massachusetts legislature have been Democrats in recent years. The Republicans, few and far between as they are, tend actually to be fairly moderate. Bruce Tarr, Richard Tisei, Brian Lees, those guys don’t give lefties heartburn the way Finneran & Co. did. It’s just not accurate to equate “Democratic” with “liberal” in the Massachusetts legislature — as Jon well knows.
Page 11 is of course way too early to deliver any kind of verdict on the book, and I’ll post more reactions as I go along. But I’m a tad concerned by what I’ve seen in the intro so far.
he’s not liberal on environmental policy. He’s no head in the sand conservative, but consider that while he has:
<
p>
* signed RGGI [to bring MA in line with most of the Northeast US and Canada]
* pushed energy conservation and alternative fuels for state government vehicles via executive order
* promoted green high tech through word and deed
* provided public leadership for Cape Wind
<
p>
he hasn’t yet/refuses to:
* expand the funding for state parks that he’s noted is severely needed
* expand the bottle bill in scope [water/tea/wine/liquor bottles] or scale [5 cents in 1982 is worth less than 2.5 cents now], as an effort to reduce both litter/pollution and increase recycling
* work to shut down or clean up the filthy five coal/oil power plants in Massachusetts
* gotten Cape Wind built
* provided plans to substantially improve the QoS or the scale of mass transit in MA, MBTA subway, bus, commuter rail, or other transit agencies in the state
* expanded the number of miles of HOV highway lanes
* significantly expanded the number of miles of bike lanes and bike trails
* increased the tax on petroleum-based auto fuels
<
p>
Those “not yet” and “refuses to” items are all things that other states have already done, so they’re not pie-in-the-sky dirty-f***ing-hippie ideals; they’re quite do-able. NYC is pumping tons of money into parks and transit (greeNYC); Michigan has 10 cent bottle deposit and Maine has a bottle deposit on almost every beverage container; California has no coal power plants; Texas has 7 Cape Wind’s worth of wind capacity built and another 2.5 Cape Wind’s worth proposed or under construction; Washington DC’s HOV lanes have been successful for 30 years (see slugging); Portland in particular and Oregon in general have policies requiring the inclusion of bicycle transportation facilities for all transit projects; NC, WI, WV, RI, WA all have gas tax at $0.30/gallon or higher whereas MA is $0.21/gallon.
Deval’s no reactionary anti-science business-at-all-costs eat-a-spotted-owl-egg-for-breakfast kind of guy, but he certainly hasn’t used is position to produce a strong set of pro-environmental policies yet either. Maybe he will, but you can’t call him a[n environmental] ultra-liberal based on things he might do.
expand the bottle bill in scope [water/tea/wine/liquor bottles] or scale [5 cents in 1982 is worth less than 2.5 cents now], as an effort to reduce both litter/pollution and increase recycling
<
p>
Two points of fact. Over here in our little Dorf in Germany, many types of bottles are “Pfandflaschen” (deposit bottles) including still water bottles (example: Evian), fizzy water (Spruedelwasser) bottles, juice bottles, and so forth. The local Getraenkemarkt is well set up to receive the returns.
<
p>
To date, wine bottles are not Pfandflaschen, but there is a nice little recycling center for them (and for newspapers, other papers, cardboard and the like) that are in easy walking distance: you don’t need a car to drive to them. And, it is obvious that they are heavily used. And there are similar sites in numerous places around town.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the US is not conveniently set up for returns or recycling. The US politicians may blather on about recycling, but, as far as I can tell, most of them don’t really mean it.
it varies enormously by town. Medford has an excellent curbside recycling service that will happily pick up your newspapers, cardboard, junk mail, most plastic and glass containers, and other common recyclables. But one town over, in Winchester, the town doesn’t even pick up your trash — you either hire a private hauler or drive to the dump.
I don’t think that California’s ban on coal power plants is really replicable on a national scale. Here’s the problem: Not counting the 22% of California’s electricity is imported from neighboring states, 19% of the electricity comes from large hydro plants, which we don’t have big enough rivers for, 42% comes from natural gas, 85% of which has to be imported from other states or Canada, and 16% comes from coal power plants owned by California utilities but located just across the Nevada border. Not to saw that phasing our coal burning nationwide isn’t possible, it is certainly possible and probably necessary, but it would require large investments in alternative energies and simply saying “California’s done it so everyone else can to” makes it appear much easier than it actually would be.
<
p>
Source for energy numbers:
<
p>
http://www.energy.ca…
I swear I thought he was a centrist or a libertarian, whats he doing coming out with this crap? A professional cynic like I thought he was wouldnt overlook the fact that the GOP has really screwed over the country since Reagan and certainly under Bush. Granted the Democrats have failed to be a relevant or viable alternative in many instances but Id rather indict the real criminals than the cruddy prosecutors who let them off the hook.
just an idiot. Although, there may not be a huge difference between the two.
I’ve never noticed much of a difference between the two.
That’s because you don’t know any conservatives. Although I’m one, I don’t think I’m an idiot. I may disagree with my progressive friends on many matters, but none would accuse me of being an idiot.
<
p>
Or intolerant of their views (or them of mine, for that matter.)
<
p>
Unlike you.
Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t get through. Yes, there are intelligent conservatives out there. Misguided, but intelligent =p
And he won’t be stopped by facts!!!!
In light of this book its a little weird for WBZ to continue to spotlight Keller as their “lead political analyst” or whatever they call him. Before this book I always thought Keller tried to present himself as a tough-but-fair commentator on the local political landscape. It was pretty obvious that Keller hated Deval Patrick the moment he laid eyes on him and my eyebrow was raised when Keller’s son went off to work of that Republican in the 5th- Ogonowski. But, after this book why would any news institution present this guy like he’s on the level. Granted its local T.V. news, but there should be some standards.
<
p>
If Keller wants to be a little Howie Carr clone he should be allowed to that but WBZ should cut the bull about him being some kind of “political analyst” they guy’s a partisan conservative.
You get to call Keller ‘partisan conservative’ the same day I get to call others ‘partisan liberal’ – Andy Hiller, Janet Wu, Frank Phillips, Dan Rea, Peter Meade, and on and on.
<
p>
One guy not toeing the party line on TV is too much for you? Cheer up – I remember the language of that ‘objective journalist’, Jack Williams, during the 2000 election – and he has the gall to not even refer to himself as an analyst but as a reporter! I think you got WBZ covered…
However, he has written a book about Massachusetts which hopefully will be based in fact and truth. If it isn’t , he deserves to be bashed . I think that the Keller personal attacks that I’m reading here are ridiculously partisan, childish and premature before the book can be reviewed and scrutinized .
If , on the other hand , his points and commentary are accurate? If the shoe fits? etc.
I doubt this book will make it to the NY Time’s Best Seller List. However, it’ll add to the Taxachusetts mantra and I’m sure some pundits will jump onto it from around the country in their quest to bash us. “See, just look at what the ‘preeminent’ political theorist in Massachusetts has to say!” Key word on theorist.
<
p>
Jon Keller has proven, time and time again, to be nothing but a person willing to say things for ratings and stir the pot up. I’d give CBS or whoever is hiring him today a far better political analysis if they were interested in, well, reporting the truth or the closest approximation of it. Yet, clearly, they’re not.
<
p>
Keller makes a lot of noises – though not loud one’s, because I doubt 50% of this state would even recognize him – but does little else. I hate to sound so harsh, but he’s said so many things no honest person who knows about the political situation in Massachusetts would that I’ve had it with him. He’s either stupid or corrupt and either way he should be fired and ignored as much as possible (only to be corrected when he says something even more heinous than usual).
may not look like a NYT best seller. In my circle of friends and political friends across the country this looks like a slam dunk NYT best seller. A favorite past time of republicans across this country is to demonize Massachusetts and laugh at us for being a bastion of moonbattery. This will definately sell, oh and Mitt Romney will be able to use it to say “Hey Look see what happens when I leave the Governorship”. You may not like that, but I believe that it will happen.
<
p>
This book is a Godsend for the Mitt Romney campaign.
You’re absolutely right. If the quote from the book is any indication, it was written precisely for the audience that is not reality based. Keller could have been a real journalist and written a book that would destroy the myths. He chose not to be a journalist and to pander to the market. What else is new? The media lost most credibility a long time ago, especially Jon Keller. As for Mitt Romney, from a Republican friend, he’ll do anything to get elected including using this trash. Clipper, you seem to have a handle on some of this.
Isn’t that the Romney-Keller philosophy?
<
p>
(a) privatize anything the government does,
–then–
(b) pander to the market.
I’m not sure it qualifies as a Godsend, but it will help bolster the myth that Romney got elected here against impossible odds.
How?
<
p>
Are you trying to tell us that that our esteemed chief executive is not on a steep learning curve every time he answers the phone?
<
p>
Apparently (it is alleged) that the governor has to come up with $31,000.00/mo for his several mortgages. No small pocket change. I guess in the spirit of saving mother earth/gree think/global warming, our governor is bulding a McMansion in western suburbia the size of the Taj Mahal. I wonder how many mega watts it’s going to take to keep that heat/lit/AC? Deval’s carbon footprint will be equal to that of thirty of we plaebians.
<
p>
Then we have our legislators. Yes, the single party legislative body, that bears 90% responsibility for the “Big Rip Off”. I read several days ago that it is not unfeasable that the Tip O’Neill Tunnel could be condemned. How nice. Then we have the mass giveaways to our infamous Massachusetts nonprofits that keep the loons employed between elections. Forget cronyism, nepotism amongst our legislators and our state government, civil service, and quasi public “authorities” is staggering by anyones casual observation.
<
p>
And yes sportsfans, we have the history of Senate President William Bulger, Gerry Studds, Thomas Finneran,
Barney, McCormack, Kennedy’s, Delahunt, and the plethora of pillars of virtue who represent this state.
<
p>
Ya, John Keller is a real rube.
<
p>
Look for his book at all your favorite bookstores and on the NYT Bestseller list.
Two categories: politics and book-selling
<
p>
First with politics. Democratic Massachusetts politics has not been liberal. They have been corrupt. The politicians pay off their buddies, who in turn support them for re-election. It’s incestuous but real.
<
p>
But, is that different than in other states? Decidedly not. In recent years there have been reports of Republican corruption by at least Taft in Ohio, Ryan in Illinois, the former governor of Connecticut (whose name I don’t recall) and, more recently, Stevens in Alaska. That is just off the top of my head, but I believe that if I were to dig deeper, I’d find a lot more Republican corruption. It isn’t just Massachusetts, and it isn’t just Democrats.
<
p>
Second, with book-selling. Keller is not going to sell a lot of books by writing that everything is hunky-dory in Massachusetts. He’s not going to sell a lot of books regardless, but the way to sell any book is to incite at least a little controversy, and that is what he obviously has done with the cited paragraphs.
<
p>
As an aside and an addendum, I’ll merely remark that “best seller” list can be easily manipulated. There have been reports that the “best sellers” of the Left Behind series are oftentimes bought at bargain basement prices by conservative Christian churches and distributed to their parishoners for free. The copy count that is distributed is what matters for “best seller” lists, not the books’ actual revenue.
former CT Governer and convicted felon. Nice ring to it.
John Rowland – former Republican CT Governor and convicted felon. Nice(r) ring to it.
my days in the service. They live in many different States ( over 20) and I have stayed in touch with them over many years in our little alumni society.
I know no one here wants to hear this but they, almost to a man, have a perception and belief that Massachusetts is perhaps the most liberal and corrupt one party State in America. They continually point to what they call Massachusetts’ “poster boy” T Kennedy as a National laughing stock and the butt of jokes especially about Chappaquidick (sp?). So is Keller’s reference to “Kennedy country” meaningful to those in other States? Yup. The rest of America has always had a fascination with all things “Kennedy” anyways.
If my little alumni sampling of opinions from other States is any indication of what people across the country think about Massachusetts, I think this book will strike a national nerve and be a huge bestseller.
How this might or might not inadvertantly (?) help the Romney campaign in the months ahead.
that this ‘expose” for lack of a better description is going to affect a lot of people’s opinions across America.
No one likes to hear and see their shortcomings, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
<
p>
Like it or not, a single deliberating body encourages
all kinds of problems.
<
p>
As I stated to Congressman Lynch (whom I respect): Many, many of our elected officials on Beacon Hill could be in a photo finish with a grand jury. We have a congressman who previously had his nose in the Norfolk County trough who should be numero uno on that list.
I bet you’ll find as much corruption on both sides of the isle depending upon who is in power.
<
p>
Because of the Democratic majority in MA, most MA political corruption is Democratic.
<
p>
I’ll bet it’s the same nationally. I posit that political corruption is highly correlated with positions of power; when the Dem’s are in, they control the levels and the money and corruption swings their way. When the Republicans are running Congress, it’s goes the other way.
But because we have no watchdog, the miscreants do as they damn well please. Tom Finneran was so arrogant he told boldface lies to three federal judges and dared them (he thought he was untouchable) to do anything about it.
<
p>
Senate President Bulger (D-So. Boston) is still beating the rap and that man is truly an evil human being.
This seems much more likely to be Jon Keller’s attempt to score access to all the cool cocktail parties that normally wouldn’t let him darken the door.
and now Barnicle gets to recite B.S. about Democrats as Hardball’s guest host. Keller probably wants to join the Nantucket mansion crowd. People like Dick Scaife and Rupert Murdoch are happy to throw money at media types who disparage Democrats.
<
p>
Keller wants in.
Commentators, unlike reporters, are supposed to voice their personal opinions. So when you listen/read commentator’s opinions, you should always consider the source.
<
p>
I don’t think of Keller as either an orthodox conservative or moderate….I think he is an equal opportunity critic who has over the years clearly expressed his disdain for and disgust with politicians of both parties and all political bents who do not live up to the rhetoric they sell every election cycle.
<
p>
Say what you will because you may not share his opinion, but Keller has the most finely tuned “hypocrisy detector radar” in this media market. And although Ryan is not old enough to know this, Keller for many, many years has applied his sharp-tongued public rebukes to politicians from both sides of the aisle and spectrum.
<
p>
I agree with David, if Jon Keller labeled Patrick as an “ultra-liberal” that would fall very short of accurate. Ultra-liberal compared to whom? Truth is, Deval Patrick’s political philosophy has yet to fully emerge…during the campaign he seemed to be all things to all people which was good for building vote totals but now that he is in office, his actions more than hope-filled rhetoric or platitudes will define where he is on the political spectrum and the jury is still out.
<
p>
I am disappointed in Keller for jumping the gun on labeling Patrick..but if you want to sell political books in this presidential cycle, you have to get out there early before NH changes it’s primary to the day after Thanksgiving. The fat lady will be singing so early this time around.
<
p>
I look forward to reading it…even if I don’t agree with some of it.
<
p>
That someone who’s been paying attention to the media for years could have respectable and coherent opinions about major personalities in that media. Here’s what I’ve gained as primary knowledge about Keller, thus far – in my 23 and a half long years – Keller is exactly as I’ve described him thus far, merely a personality. He’s quacky enough to be interesting for a few minutes on the telly, especially to people who aren’t well informed, but not much else.
<
p>
Sure, he’s targeted Republicans and Democrats before, but so what? Just because someone isn’t partisan, doesn’t mean they add substantiave quality to political discourse. Occasionally he may say something rational, but it probably isn’t original and it almost certainly isn’t because he is trying to be a fair and honest broker of political analysis.
Your chronological age or the years out in the workforce or post discharge from the US Armed Forces?
Ryan,
With all due respect to your political enthusiam…and I do not want to be a wet blanket to your youthful zeal…but Keller was part of Massachusetts political scene before you were even born. He knows all the players…he has seen them come and go…the good, the bad and the in-between…he does not suffer fools quietly and he smokes out hypocrites in both parties.
<
p>
Stick around another 23 years and you may be just as skeptical as Keller…in the meantime, don’t be so quick to dismiss people who don’t agree with you…you might learn something valuable.
Is it necessary to actually study a person before it’s okay to be skeptical about them? I’ve been listening to the stuff Keller has had to say at least since High School – I think I can make an informed opinion.
<
p>
Furthermore, just because someone has been around for a long time, doesn’t mean they actually add quality to the discourse. For example, people change. Maybe, long ago, Keller was a great commentator and had valuable insight into the political process. Then, maybe something happened that turned him bat shit crazy. Or, maybe he got lazy? Or maybe he discovered it pays to attack Massachusetts? Because he had valuable things to say years ago doesn’t necessary mean he has anything worthwhile to contribute now.
…that Keller pulled the chicken little act regarding education standards when the Governor went for some diversity of views on the Board of Education. Someone up above hit the nail on the head … Keller is just another “pundit” who promotes the narrative. In this case Massachusetts is too liberal. As been noted time and again…the professional political class here has been Democratic. On balance more liberal, particularly on social issues, than the majority of the country. But certainly not so much on economic issues.
<
p>
The percentages for incumbent re-election victories across the country is ultra high, not just here. And the hegemony of legislative leaders wielding power over the fold is also true in other states. It is the American system (except places where term limits force turnover like California).
<
p>
On the national level it is rare that streams break through the narrative with anything dynamic or different. Which is why we are blogging to begin with.
Keller is just another “pundit” who promotes the narrative.
<
p>
…actually, Keller’s commentaries are the filler between commercials. That’s all that anyone–reporter, entertainer–whatever, is in an advertising-driven medium. The filler between commercials. It really is as simple as that. The customers are the advertisers, and the things between the commercials are the carney barkers to try to get you to watch the commercials.
<
p>
I learned that 20 years ago from, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.
<
p>
Off and on today, I’ve been watching the Love Parade from Berlin on RTL II here in Munich. The commercials are incessant. Brech.
Compared to the rest of the planet.
…give us evidence to back up the “too liberal” comment, with, of course, comparisons to other states and the federal government.
that has SSM…. is that liberal enough for you? The other 49 States seem to think it is.
Marriage is an inherently conservative institution. More marriage = more conservative. So you’re exactly wrong. IMHO, that is.
rather it is how the rest of the States view Massachusetts in terms of its ideology and political composition. I am merely saying that based on my communications with many friends throughout the States ( about 20 of them) that their feed back indicates that Massachusetts is viewed as one of if not the most liberal States in America and is totally dominated by a single political party. Please don’t shoot the messenger here. I’m just saying what they told me.
composition. These former military buddies of mine are all in their late 50s/ early 60s so maybe their views are biased towards a more conservative viewpoint like most old gezzers like me tend to be. None the less, they are all pretty well read and informed in their respective States, so I tend to believe what they tell me.
i’m frequently greeted with the assumption that MA is 100% liberal when i travel around the country. it is a misconception in many regards, but it is a common misconception in my experience. if you’re coming from idaho or michigan or virginia, the misconception is understandable.
Why single out Idaho, Mich or VA? What about the other 46 Stares ? (Ma excluded) My former military friends come from many, many other States than you name. Hearing the truth is sometimes difficult in spite of one’s predilections and biases isn’t it?.
MA is not 100% liberal. it may be more liberal than many others in certain ways, but it is not a liberal shangri la. if it was, each and every bay stater would have health care, bay wind would already be pumping electrong, and there would not been an ongoing effort to shit on LGBT people.
…my parents (from Ohio) were amazed. Why would you want to move there? they asked. The taxes are too high.
<
p>
After I moved to the Boston area, I became aware of what that missconception stemmed from. Actually, the MA state sales and income tax rates weren’t particularly high. It was the property tax rate in Boston that was high. But the property tax rate isn’t the important thing in the actual tax payments, it is the tax base that is important.
<
p>
Apparently, at the time, Boston’s properties had not been re-valued for tax purposes for decades. So you can have a rate of US$250 per thousand (which was quoted at the time), but if your valuation is only a couple of thousand (which was oftentimes the case before Prop 2 1/2), the base times the rate would actually be very low. But, for people like my parents, they were looking at only the rate, not the base times the rate, and they concluded that MA had very high taxes. And, based on the “high taxes” part, they concluded that MA was very liberal.
Is an inaccurate descriptor. Peculiar would be somewhat more accurate. I mean, I find Vermont absolutely bizarre, and Maine is not far behind, but the residents there have enogh sense to draw the line between reality and fantasy.
<
p>
Look at the folks we have in elective office. It speaks volumes. The paragon is a philandering, lying drunk, who killed someone through gross negligence. This man was unrepetent and persisted in the same behavior for decades.
The electorate has seen to repeatedly re elect this despicable person.
<
p>
Then we have our other stars, that I won’t waste my time ennumerating. We all know who they are. In any other state, they would be in jail or at least punished and hidden in the private sector.
<
p>
Not Massachusetts. They are revered and extolled as pillars of the community and exemlified.
<
p>
Excuses are like a—holes. Everyone has one and they all stink!
Clearly, we have a lot of work to do if we want to turn Massachusetts into the bastion of unchecked liberalism that Keller thinks it is. Better get crackin’!
is so much hype and past history. It began with the state being the only state to not vote for Richard Nixon for a second term, and boy, were the Massachusetts voters so right. But in reality, Massachusetts is conservative in so many ways as evidenced by: the staying power of proposition 2 1/2; Tom Finneran being Speaker of the House for so long; the 3 elected Republican Governors; the political influence of the Catholic Church; (albeit waning influence); the status of women in the commonwealth (which is slowly improving). I have lived in other states and commonwealths and, believe me, this is not the bation of liberalism it claims to be.
<
p>
Massachusetts’s liberal image, though, helps to keep it visible on the national scene where otherwise it would be pretty insignificant. It’s a great p.r. job.
We don’t advertise ourselves as liberal, other places do. And from a political culture point of view, they’re right.
<
p>
I’d also add that Finneran was a bit of an anomaly; he became speaker by cutting a deal with GOP legislators.
<
p>
But the rest is true. I’ve always said Massachusetts is not all that liberal among ordinary citizens.
if you compare our Congressional delegation to the rest of the nation. Measure it any way you wish (ADA, ACU, whatever.) The people we send to Washington are, measured collectively, the single most liberal contingent.
there are important differences between the congressional delegation — which I would agree remains quite liberal — and the overwhelmingly-Democratic state legislature, which for a long time has not been particularly liberal, particularly through the long Finneran era. So far, Jon’s book doesn’t make a clear distinction between the two, but that may change as I get further into it.
Maybe, as a caveat, he’ll add a paragraph on page 332? Just a guess.
I’ve never been a Keller fan. He’s smarmy first, last, and always. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say anything that was both insightful and original.
page sampling is not enough to condemn the guys book, but this sounds like it was written for the 25% ers. Keller’s take on Patrick ignores reality as you noted, and his claim about MA taxes that you cite is just plain wrong.
<
p>
Here’s part of the lead editors review of Keller’s book on Amazon:
As has been mentioned often enough that even Keller should have noticed, since 1999 Massachusetts has ranked no higher than 27th in State & Local tax burden. (#1 being the worst).
<
p>
From the same review, more scary bullshit replete with a couple of references to ‘failed boomer politics’:
Really? MA public schools are consistently among the highest rated in the country, and the problems that MA has with ?urban deterioration? and jobs are no worse than any state with major cities, Red or Blue.
<
p>
This is a joke. It sounds like someone writing about MA from their Mom?s basement in Oklahoma, with only Faux News as a source of information. Using the MA liberal bogeyman might sell a few books, but I would have expected a little more substance, even from a lightweight like Keller.
<
p>
If anyone has a MA ?Blueprint for American Political Disaster?, it?s Mitt Romney. IMHO, if Romney wins the GOP nomination, he won?t even carry a single New England state in the general election.
Then maybe next year Keller can take his thumb out of his ass long enough to write a book about that.
Who knows? After you actually read the book( unilkely) there may be an opportunity for an even more uninformed and completely biased bashing….. do you have any idea how juvenille and uneducated you sound? Note that truly educated people here like David, reserve there opinion until AFTER they have read the book?
two instances where:
Keller has his facts wrong on MA taxes
&
The promoters of Keller’s book have their facts wrong on the high quality of MA public schools.
<
p>
Between ignoring the two things I spelled out for you, and describing your wet dreams upthread about how Keller’s book “will strike a national nerve and be a huge bestseller” (even though You haven’t read it), I’d say that you’re exactly the kind of ‘reader’ Keller is aiming for.
<
p>
I also gave my opinion that I don’t think Romney can win even one New England state in a general election, which will qaulify as the ‘American Poltical Disaster’ that Keller should be writing about. Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but you better get used to it, or stick to Faux.
<
p>
has a pattern of ignoring the evidence in other people’s arguments.
You just pointed out two examples of wrong facts from Keller.
This whole post started with a very good refutation of the claim that Deval is an ultraliberal.
<
p>
But Toms opinion won’t acknowledge any of that.
He lost any rights to that after years of his work on TV. Should I give Bill O’Reilly the benefit of the doubt before actually reading one of his books? And why would I want to help buy O’Reilly – or Keller’s – lunch, through buying their book, when they’ve spent so many years making a mockery of any sort of journalistic standards that once existed. Buying their books to gauge whether or not they’re fair, when they’ve spent so many years spilling forth shoddy work, will only reward them and make it more likely they’ll be printing more books in the future. No thanks.
Well – yes.
<
p>
One if the best books I’ve ever read about politics was ‘Locked in the Cabinet’ by Robert Reich. I’ve read ‘Rush Libmaugh is a Big Fat Idiot’ and other such diatribes by Al Franken and others of his ilk.
<
p>
You can get them at the library, Ryan, if your worred about contributing to their ill-gotten gains – or do what I do, get them from the Dollar Table at Borders.
<
p>
But Ryan – you are wrong to take an attitude that you don’t need to read them because you know what they say. In the end, you’ll just wind up ignorant and/or manipulated by those you are just SURE you already agree with.
That I know what Keller will say, it’s that I don’t really care what Keller will say because he’s said so much that I’ve heard over and over again that I don’t respect him as a commentator. It’s one thing to ignore someone that you don’t know a lot about, but it’s completely different when you’re very familiar with the person in question.
<
p>
For an example of what I mean, let’s take President Bush. Perhaps, come next week, he’ll come out with a new plan on Iraq that will lead us to absolute victory and, according to him, all will be good. At this point, with all the opportunities people like me have given him, do I owe President Bush the benefit of the doubt?
<
p>
Or, what about a taxi cab driver that I’ve had five times before. If that Taxi Cab driver got lost all five times I had driven in his cab before – and he pulls up to pick me up – should I actually trust him to be able to find his way?
<
p>
History counts. It counts at court when juries weigh evidence, it counts when government officials create policies and it most certainly counts when I decide whether or not I’m going to read a book. That said, I’m also fairly open minded – if, suddenly, I hear absolutely fantastic things about Keller’s book, maybe I’d give it a shot. However, until then, history is against him.
It’s easy for someone who lives in Paris, France to make those comments.
<
p>
Try moving to Massachusetts. How about Lucerne Street in Boston? Brockton is a nice spot. Fall River, New Bedford, Lawrence, Holyoke, Springfield. All a veritable paradise.
<
p>
Our schools. Ever talk to a recent high graduate and ask them where they balkans are? How about the countries that comprise the United Kingdom? Or a tough one, who is Nelson Mandela? Give me a break. We are graduating morons, who can’t seem to figure out that an adjustable rate mortgage is a bad idea.
<
p>
Mike Dukakis: Good jobs at good wages, The Massachusetts Miracle?
<
p>
The way things are going we won’t have a workforce in MA. Everyone who really wants to work and keep some of their wages will have departed .
<
p>
I have a neighbor who has sold his home. His family, along with two adult married daughters and their respective families, have their homes on the market and they have departed for N. Carolina. An anomoly?
<
p>
I’m beginning to understand your point.
Someone critiquing American education can’t even critique it properly.
Interesting that Keller’s son is spokesperson for Jim Ogonowski (R) Dracut, running for Congress. He’s already made shrill and adolescent comments about the Democrats up here. Frankly, I have to turn his dad off because of his whining tone of voice. If this is the level of political commentary in Massachusetts, we’re in trouble.
<
p>
I’d rather read a good piece of fiction than political analysis by Mr. Keller. No Ed Murrow awards here.
<
p>
Will
At the best, Keller’s stories are of the variety that are “based on true events.”
I’m going to be lazy and lump them into one post.
<
p>
I know some conservatives; I even like some of them. đŸ™‚ But the problem with Keller is not that he’s conservative, he isn’t. He’s a cranky contrarian who knows that bashing Beacon Hill is hipper than praising it.
<
p>
He’s clearly bidding to go national, and positioning himself as a right-winger who knows Massachusetts makes him a good candidate to go on Scarborough Country or the O’Reilly Factor. Trouble is, all the well-known conservatives already know the People’s Republic pretty well, and Keller brings neither special insight nor a good TV personality.
<
p>
I don’t consider the comments about him partisan, especially since he hasn’t been reliable for either side, but it is intriguing that his son is helping Ogonowski. I wonder if he’s advising the Romney campaign? He wouldn’t be the first journalist to do political work on the side (Charles Krauthammer reviewed Bush’s State of the Union speech at least once). Maybe Keller, who once worked for the Phoenix, has decided to go full-blown conservative. It worked for Mike Barnicle.
<
p>
Implying that Keller’s son’s political activities necessarily reflect on those of Keller is a little too biblical for my tastes, and looks like grasping at straws. Let Keller hoist himself by his own petard – he certainly provides us plenty of ammunition all on his own.
But I’m not grasping at straws; Keller is his own bale of hay.
This is relative to the arguement how? That’s the same smear tactic that Kerry and Edwards attemted with Cheney re his daughter. Or is that just a standard democrat tactic?
As I recall, Kerry and Edwards complimented Dick Cheney on how he raised his daughter into a fine person, who happens to be a lesbian. And Dick Cheney thanked Edwards for the compliment at their debate.
<
p>
I think it was Jon Stewart who made the comparison with Strom Thurmond, who utilized prejudice against black people, while his own daughter was black.
<
p>
So, really, MCRD, you’re upset about a Comedy Central tactic.
I didn’t do that, and I’ve been whacked for it. Fair enough.
<
p>
But is implying that someone works for Romney a smear? Works for me, if you say so. đŸ™‚
…He’s a cranky contrarian…
<
p>
Of course Keller is a “contrarian.” If he wasn’t, he would have a gig on WBZ. If he said “everything is hunky-dory” nobody would watch the commercials that he is filler for. He has to find some inkling of controversy to get people to pay attention to his gig and maybe stay around to watch the commercials.
<
p>
This is all showmanship, people. Don’t let the blatherers on TV and radio fool you into thinking it has anything to do with reality.