Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  2. Ok, it’s a humorous spot. At least, until you look at what it’s actually saying and not saying.

    <

    p>Does Brad Marston, or anyone else, really believe we’ve been “turning left”? I’d say that, instead, we’ve been turning right for thirty years now, ever since Ronald Reagan, and the results have been disastrous.

    <

    p>I enthusiastically agree that the corruption of state leaders in the House is an embarrassment. Does that mean we should “turn right”? I think, instead, it means that we should redouble our insistence that our elected representatives be of strong and sound moral fiber.

    <

    p>Does Jeff Perry fit that bill? How about Bill Hudak? What does Charlie Baker’s support of them say about his moral compass?

    <

    p>Perhaps Brad Marston will tell us whether he thinks Jeff Perry and Bill Hudak exemplify the kind of leader Brad Marston thinks we need.

    <

    p>Meanwhile, what in the world does “think outside the box” mean?

    <

    p>I’m pretty sure that when Brad Marston suggests that we “think outside the box”, he means something very different from me. He says nothing about what he proposes to do (other than cut taxes).

    <

    p>While humorous, I think this piece is just more right-wing propaganda. I’ve had enough of right-wing greed, anger, and selfishness.

    • No thinking outside the box at all is required.

      <

      p>It seems to me that we need to introduce greater transparency, efficiency, and accountability into government so that people are happy to pay the taxes necessary to support it. This just seems mind-bogglingly straightforward and commonplace.

      <

      p>Achieving it, alas, is a different matter. I might even agree that achieving it is isn’t a left/right thing.

      Back in the days of Adams and Jefferson, when voters feared mob rule, sound moral character was the essential qualification. In the advertising era, I have no idea how we’re supposed to judge moral character. At best, voters judge the appearance of moral character. The Republican Presidential campaign of 2000 worked hard at painting Gore as an exaggerator even a liar. Possibly he lost because of his perceived lack of moral fiber.

    • The spot was meant as a humorous comment on the tendency of Massachusetts voters to vote for Democrats really without thinking.

      <

      p>Your suggestion that I said nothing about what I proposed other than cut taxes is simply false. The issues page on my campaign website offered specific proposals on cutting waste and other spending, how to promote private sector job creation etc.

      <

      p>My “Speaking Out” YouTube videos also laid out specific proposals. So despite your signature line, it is you who is lying about at least this Republican.

      <

      p>It also brings to mind a conversation I had with a Democrat voter and Marty Walz supporter in the district. He stopped me at a local store and said he appreciated the letter of congratulations I wrote as a Letter to the Editor of our local paper. He then asked “Why did you have to ruin it with the lies about Marty on the Beacon Hill Patch?” I asked him what he meant and he said “You said she voted for Sal DiMasi for Speaker and that she votes with Bob Deleo 99% of the time. You said she voted to cut local aid and funding for libraries. That’s total BS.”

      <

      p>I replied that her votes are a matter of public record. He still refused to believe me. Now I have no problem with someone supporting Rep. Walz for whatever reason they choose but to simply refuse to face facts is a different matter.

      <

      p>That is what I was talking about when I said it was time to stop, take a look around and think outside the box.

      <

      p>BTW…Did you vote for Suzanne Bump?

      <

      p>

Archives