Lodger, a long-time member of our stalwart band of resident conservatives, may well have summed up the feelings of many of the 50% of MA likely voters who view Charlie Baker unfavorably.
i might be typical
you may know i lean conservative with libertarian bend. i don’t love the governor’s policies but i don’t dislike him on a human level, i believe he’s sincere in his desire to make this a better place in tough times, but here’s the point. charlie baker hasn’t reached me. he hasn’t connected. i’d like to see some passion, some intellect, something for which i could respect him. where’s teddy roosevelt or bill weld when i need him? that’s what i want in this election, passion and core values, not just more campaign rhetoric. so what do i do on election day?
by: lodger @ Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 19:38:24 PM EDT
Deval Patrick.
<
p>Vote for the guy who legitimately wants to make this state a better place, not just be there to be there. I’ve never felt, for even a second, that Charlie Baker was in this for the right reasons. He’s much more of a Mitt Romney than a Bill Weld, or even a Paul Celluci.
who are voting (R) down the line, enthusiastically so for Sean Bielat.
<
p>We are also all voting, maybe holding our noses, for Deval Patrick.
<
p>Charlie Baker has not enthused us, nor has he given us any reason to think he’s going to do anything special or worth having hope over. For me, it was raising his salary at HPH at a rate faster than he raised premiums. For my mom and dad, I know this whole flap with the Cahill camp is what put the nail in the coffin for them.
<
p>I don’t really like Deval’s policies. That said, I also don’t think Charlie would be able to do anything about it. With a veto-vetoeing majority in the State House, Charlie will have no power to push the change really needed. He might as well be a rubberstamp, given a veto or vote of support for bills is irrelevant.
<
p>One thing I will give the governor is that I have no questions as to the fact that I think he is a genuinely good person. I don’t think the majority of things he does is out of self-interest, but for a want of a better state. That said, he feet must be held to the fire by conservatives to maintain an honesty of governance at all times.
<
p>Charlie is right that MA can do better. We can do better by taking advantage of the coming loss of a congressional seat by getting rid of the laughable, embarrassing, and un-democratic gerrymandering of our state. As a party, the republicans can work on a bottoms-up approach to government, through the hard work of people like Geoff Diehl and Joe Michaud, who are running for seats that may someday allow us to have a Republican governor with some teeth.
Do you really think Governor Patrick is going to change districts that suit democrats just fine now. I can 100% guarantee he won’t.
<
p>
The House and Senate are. I assure you that THEY will, and Patrick would be hard pressed to argue with them.
<
p>One of the best things about Finneran was his effort to be somewhat fair back in 2000. A few individuals – like Carol Cleven – were blasted from existance, but he tried to respect town boundaries. Kinda Sorta.
<
p>It’s worth noting that Petro was in charge then, and DeLeo named him again. And Robert DeLeo is no Tom Finneran – he’ll gerrymander out ANY newly elected Republican, screw the voter’s wishes.
If one of the incumbents loses, it will eliminate the game of roshambo that would otherwise determine whose seat gets carved up between their neighbors. The one exception is the 10th district, which would be difficult to carve up, though I suppose I should put nothing past our munificent legislature. Of course, that’s also the district the Republicans have the best chance of winning…
A replica of the Studds district will be re-estalished, as Boston will need that Quincy population to justify keeping all the seats in Boston.
<
p>Unless Sean Bielat wins. Then all hell breaks loose as they try to gerrymander out a GOP incumbent from Sandwich AND Dartmouth.
This is the type of comment that makes this blog worth reading. While I do think that Diehl is an idiot, and Sean Bielat’s main attribute is a good haircut, it’s interesting to see how someone can favor both Bielat and Patrick.
<
p>It’s also interesting to reading about a household where there’s consensus on votes, something rare in my childhood home.
Baker is essentially a quasi-bureaucrat. He understands the limits of government, as does Patrick, but he does not express the possibilities of the private human endeavor because he hasn’t really lived it.
<
p>I will certainly vote for Baker out of strict self-interest but I don’t expect much to happen to my personal financial situation if he’s the only change the state makes.
How, exactly, do you see Baker delivering on that. Even assuming we cut taxes as much as he proposes, the net effect will likely hurt your self-interest: less-funded schools would lead to a decline in our current educational advantage, and a corresponding loss of business; gutted welfare programs would fall most harshly on children of poor families, who are a critical element of our shared prosperity over the long run because they grow up to be participants in the broader society, for better and for worse; neglected infrastructure is bad for business.
<
p>There is a reason the blue states are, in general, richer, and the red states are, in general, poorer: Republican policies are bad for business. That’s reality.
Your Republican/Democrat comparison is very rough, I would vote for a candidate most likely to bring about fast-growing incomes. Sometimes that would be a Democrat, but right now the Democratic party’s philosophy is “government first”. Its activists are plainly hostile to wealth and free enterprise outside the control of government. (Although I doubt if Democratic elected officials other than Obama actually believe this).
<
p>For my products to sell I need people to be rich and have growing incomes. I imagine I am like many people who want to make it on their own and so the handout economy just doesn’t do it for me. At one time I had a rich person’s type aggressively growing job so I know what it takes.
<
p>The stuff you present is very nice, but the part of it that will go to professional workers will only go to teachers and welfare workers, and won’t amount to a big jump in income that will let them buy a luxury product. The portion of the money that actually makes it to poor people will go to schooling or soup kitchens, and while I don’t want anyone to starve or go to a crappy school, I doubt that these services by themselves will ever lead poor people to develop the kind of income that they would need to buy the things I make.
Just wondering.
<
p>Anyway, I’m quite surprised that you really believe that policies that encourage good schools won’t quickly redound to the benefit of the gold-plated toilet seat market. It’s happened over and over again that people who started out with nothing went to a decent public school, got a good education, and became rich. Isn’t that more or less the American Dream? Look at the chairman of Goldman Sachs, for God’s sake, who followed exactly that path. If anyone can afford a gold-plated toilet seat, it’s him.
Business idea… no but I once painted a goldfish on somebody’s toilet seat.
<
p>In my experience the school is not enough. When I was part of the dot-com boom, I had some of the skills yes, but the growing economy drew me in, and the startup where I worked paid me to learn while I was making web sites or whatever it was we did.
<
p>I’d rather my kids read The Tempest or something in school and get their skills on the job. That’s what happens in a real growing economy.
<
p>School generally doesn’t make it happen by itself. It’s possible that somebody will come up with great ideas in school, but if nobody invests in his or her idea then it goes nowhere.
… and if the only incomes that are growing are rich people’s, what you get is a middle class that gets left behind. We’re learning now that this is the ultimate way of shooting ourselves in the foot since our economy is largely driven by consumer demand.
<
p>I’d point out that nobody ever makes it on there own anywhere except maybe Sudan. If your road is paved, if you have electricity, if your food isn’t poisoned, if you can read this, if you ever feel the need for 911, you can thank your government.
The best thing for me would be to have more poor people become rich, not currently rich people get even more money.
<
p>Services are great, I don’t think the answer is to cut services. However when the economy is hurting, generally the response of the Democrats is to offer even more of the same services, like more police etc, when really it would be better if people could get what they want without stabbing each other in the first place.
Well, I for one certainly think that Patrick deserves re-election and I’m mostly quite impressed with him. That said, I find myself saddened by lodger’s comment.
<
p>In a some kind of fantasy of democracy, concocted perhaps out of dreams of Rousseau, Franklin, and Jefferson, a thoroughly informed citizenry votes on the basis of policy and never grabs for the easy-to-hook-onto personality issues. Yes, yes, Patrick projects a more attractive persona than Baker, but, if we make that the basis of voting for him, we have substituted theater criticism for an understanding of budgets, taxation, civil service reform, education, transportation policy, industrial policy, environmental preservation and all the other real parts of government that have a real impact on people’s lives.
<
p>Instead, it’s too too easy to be concerned about the election’s impact on our television.
America would never again elect Abraham Lincoln, an ugly man with a squeky voice who suffered from clinical depression.
<
p>KB – on a slightly more modern note, have you ever seen a television show called Yes, Minister? When it was first-run here in the US I worked for the Federal government, and I laughed out loud at the dialogue and situations. The Politician, the Bureaucrat and the Aide. I met these people over and over.
<
p>Part of Patrick’s governance problems are that he is a politician. Much of Baker’s political problems is that he is a bureaucrat.
<
p>And nobody is enthused about voting for what EB3 would call a ‘half man’.
<
p>Full disclosure – I’m voting for Baker because the campaign DOES end.
Isn’t that what most of us on both sides of the aisles want?
<
p>From my perspective, he definitely understands the issues that small businesses face. I’ve never seen a politician speak with more depth on small business issues, and not just from a partisan cut taxes viewpoint.
<
p>I’ve seen Governor Patrick slog through organization issues the last four years, four more years isn’t going to be any better. Remember last year, how many social workers would Marian Walsh 175K a year salary pay for ?
<
p>I would say if you want more effective social service delivery your choice should be on the red side of the ballot.