Apparently he’s bi-partisan because he said it, so there you go.
Daughter “You’re totally pro-choice and bipartisan”
Charlie “Bipartisan leadership is what we need on Beacon Hill”
See, bipartisan. Done.
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Because we all know that anyone on food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid, and so on is a lazy bum “taker” who is immoral and needs to be punished.
This is red meat for the Scott Brown Democrats. My advise to Coakley is to portray the real recipients of welfare, the child born with spina bifida, the 62 year old former factory worker who is now on unemployment and desperately looking for work as he tries to make ends meet, the single mom whose husband passed away and now is trying to raise their three kids. Put a face on the people on welfare with this message “Charlie wants to put them to work”. Bring back the Poor Farms, elect Charlie Baker.
My first thought was, didn’t Clinton do that in 1996? Didn’t Weld already do that in MA? What kind of 1980s talking point is that?
Otherwise, I would argue it was a decent ad, particularly emphasizing his social moderate, bipartisanship, and the conversation with his daughter. This will definitely be a real campaign folks, Baker 2.0 is far more formidable, and Coakley 2.0 has yet to be fully tested.
Among those that was all “wah wah I dont want to vote for Martha”.
But now, this ad scares the shit out of me. We got work to do.
A: Because he doesn’t have much else to talk about.
When Charlie left state government to start making his millions in the industrial health insurance complex I was quoted in the Globe as saying “He’s the most charming slash and burn artist I ever met.” He sent me a nice note on some nice note paper telling me his wife thought it was “funny”.
I wasn’t trying to be funny — his tenure at both Administration and Finance and Health and Human Services was marked by an innocent, wide eyed, who me? charming, throwing up his hands routine trying to explain away his proposals to “reform” programs serving the poor, the elderly and the disabled.
Here’s the unshortened URL: http://hesterprynne.net/2014/05/07/on-welfare-charlie-baker-wont-take-yes-for-an-answer/ Here are some key points, but it is very much worth reading.
1. Baker worked on the 1994 Weld welfare reform law. It cut the caseload in half. The caseload is today at the same level it was back then.
2. Oddly, you’d think Baker would take credit for this rather than demand the state get more draconian.
3. Draconian it is: welfare grants are worth 40% less than 1989. Only 45% of of families in poverty even get that much.
So many more people require public assistance these days due to the economic recession, and there is a more diverse population entitled to and receiving benefits they deserve, so it can no longer serve as a racist dog whistle.
My ma was on welfare for a time right after her divorce from her first husband and she was going back to school. My brother and sister hated the powdered milk, which they had pour water into and mix with a wooden spoon. Those days are not fondly recalled at family gatherings and is something she was deeply ashamed of for a time. There was no car for her to drive, let alone no Cadillac. I am insulted that we have a jobs and wages crisis and the only solution Baker seems to propose is cutting what little assistance we give to those affected by it.
It’s not like Beacon Hill is paralyzed by partisan gridlock. In fact, there’s no Blue-Red battle to speak of in our state politics. Our state government gets things done, budgets get balanced. This isn’t DC.
If anything, Baker’s case ought to be that Bob DeLeo won’t be able to operate him like a puppet on a string. You know – strong, independent leadership. Yet it’s nice to know Charlie Baker wants to go to Beacon Hill to fix the problems we don’t have.
He’s running to get November voters, not September voters. Folks who only pay attention enough to know they better vote for governor. Plenty of people who are really just consuming national news, and simply applying their impressions onto state voting.
…”bipartisan” does not mean fighting gridlock, but rather injecting additional ideas that he would argue are missing in a one party state.
an uplifting campaign.
You also lost before – just sayin’!
Charlie Baker isn’t the only candidate who’s lost before.
Unless you count Swampscott Selectman
I assume you are referring “public enemy #1” in your world Martha Coakley who has never run this race before.
He’s taken a considerable amount of heat for his bipartisanship from those in his own party. Baker was supportive of Deval on illegal immigration, supportive of Deleo on the recently signed gun control bill (Charlie even went so far as to say he’d sign it if he were governor), and he’s even been supportive of the newly crafted buffer zone legislation.
Not only is Charlie prochoice, so is his running mate Karyn Polito. Some people try to cast Karyn as some sort of stealth social conservative, but the Mass Citizens For Life would have none of that! Look at what they said when she ran for Treasurer in 2010:
But on the economic front, he is still demonizing union members and welfare recipients. Another Republican who was pro-gun control, pro-choice, and pro-gay rights was Barry Goldwater. He also mocked welfare recipients and unions, and I am still glad he lost 44 states in 1964. Baker only needs to lose one, let’s make it happen.
ha
Sad but true. That Goldwater would be a Democrat today speaks volumes about how far to the right both parties have gone.
As the Boston Magazine article observes, Baker released a statement that was initially supportive but was forced to walk it way back once the base became aware of his position. Maybe he was less opposed to Patrick’s position than other members of his party, but that’s about it.
And why do they think using this wooden one will convince us he hasn’t been kidnapped?
Controlling spending, lowering taxes and requiring work for welfare? The Governor has no authority to do any of that. Good luck getting it through the legislature.
Do most lower-information independent voters think that way?
…to submit bills to the legislature and sign/veto/recommend amendments to what comes out of the legislature. In fact I believe our Governor has more room to manoeuver than POTUS does.
Someone who will cut the Department of Waste that lurks in the State House’s shadows. I’ve been waiting decades for a candidate like this to take on the welfare queens and profligate spenders in Boston. It just seems ridiculous I had to wait so long for someone to point and attack the waste — but I should have known somebody coming from the morally sterling health care industry would be the one to make the changes nobody else is willing to make.