Massachusetts Made Its Bed, Now It Has To Lie In It
by Matt Margolis, November 8th, 2006 at 10:46am
The voters of Massachusetts have spoken.
They voted for one party rule. They voted for higher taxes. They voted for driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. They voted for closed door meetings, back-room deals, and no accountability for those in charge. They voted for a rubber stamp. They voted for gimmicks and slogans rather than on the issues.
I’m sad for our Commonwealth. Do Democrats really think that one-party rule is going to invite businesses into Massachusetts? Do Democrats really think that one-party rule is going wear out the welcome mat into this state?
Higher taxes are coming. Even more illegal immigrants are coming. There’s no denying it. Massachusetts voted for them. Massachusetts voted for liberal empty suit with a good speechwriter but no good ideas. Make no mistake about it, we are in big trouble.
Massachusetts has made its bed, and now it has to lie in it for the next four years.
The reality of the situation is this, Deval may be the governor for the next four years, but he’s going to be sharing the Corner Office with the unions and all the Democrats in the legislature who have spat in the face of the voters for so many years.
Welcome back, Dukakis.
Entry Filed under: Election 2006
13 Comments
1. Bruce | November 8th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Do Democrats really think that one-party rule is going to invite businesses into Massachusetts?
What do they care? They’ve had their absolute chokehold on power restored to them. That’s all that mattered.
2. GOPizzle | November 8th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Matt & Aaron,
I love you, but you’re way off on this. It is the Party’s fault, both national and state. It starts from the top and works all the way down. Democrats criticize, criticize, critisize, and criticize. And the Republican response: nothing.
And the MassGOP, it is a joke. Darrell Crates needs to step down. The party needs to support local candidates. They need to be fundraising. They need to be phone banking. They need to do mailings. They need to mobilize volunteers and voters.
They don’t do any of this. Seriously, the party needs new leadership. Darrell Crates needs to go.
3. Jay | November 8th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Matt, Aaron, Thank you for your hard work and dilligence during this electoral season, We may have to move slightly to the north in the near future to avoid the evntual demise of the Bay State.
4. mjn | November 8th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
“Chokehold” is an excellent word for the domination of the Democratic Party. It’s about politics, not progressiveness. We just saw an amazing victory for propagandnda. The Republicans have given the Democrats everything they wanted and it wasn’t enough to satisfy them; the Democrats wanted more. This is essentially what is going on with the terrorists as well. If you give them what they say they want, it excites them to want more. The psychology is the same. My greatest concern and my loudest prayers today are for the safety of our troops in Iraq. This country just stranded them in a horribe way. Wars for political power are just like wars for physical power, I think. As I watched events unfold these past two years, here in Massachusetts and throughout the coutry and world, it seemed to me that the conservatives split up. They stopped listening to Bush and supporting him. The Republican Party was a fragile patchwork quilt, and it didn’t hold under the rather amazing assault from the left. In Massachusetts we have a front-row seat on this worldwide battle. We have the cause in Kennedy and Kerry and the cure in Romney. But what I am heartened about today is that we didn’t win but the loss was not as resounding as it seems to be when described in the headlines. Kerry Healey won significantly here on the Cape. There are some Republicans in the state still, and certainly enough with which to rebuild a stronger better party. I don’t think Kerry Healey had the opportunitiy to start early enough in this race. If you look at the dates, you see that Patrick ran a campaign right out of FDR’s book: He started two years ago (which is why, by the way, I am delighted that Romney made the intelligent choice to leave Massachusetts when he did and start his national campaign). FDR went around the country for two years bashing Hoover. It’s quite a story. And Hoover, like Healey, had to run things. The picking away at the administration caught the Republicans offguard because the Republicans are rational people. The most interesting thing about the Mass race was at the end for me, during the last debates when Patrick kept saying that the Mass economy was in the tank, when it has been loudly proclaimed to have grown 4.6 percent over the past year and described as one of the hot-spot economies in the country. I think the Republican Party in Massachusetts is salvageable. We just need to identify people who are good at battling irrational propaganda. And we can safely say that giving the opposition something they say they want is not going to make the love us any more. Dealing with the Democratic Party is really like dealing with an upset child. First you have to calm the situation down so nobody gets hurt, which is what just happened. By siting back and letting them get some control here, now they can calm down and the Bush derangement syndrome will lose its powerful grip. Now we can all think a little more clearly and pray some of their reasoning ability returns. Remember that a great many of the people now in control once did understand George Bush and Gov. Romney sufficiently that they voted for them. So the Democratic Party is not entirely crazy–just momentarily crazed.
This gives the Republican Party some space in which to think without the distraction of the temper tantrum going on beside us.
Don’t give up, people.
5. GOPizzle | November 8th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
The problem is so obvious. I can’t understand why other GOPers are not getting it.
The Republican Party needs a new strategy and new leadership. Crates needs to go.
By the way, great move by Bush dumping Rumsfeld. Hopefully, the public relations of the Administration will improve dramatically. If the Administration continues this elusive, don’t-talk-to-the-public operating style, we’re looking at a Democratic Pres and Congress.
6. fredct | November 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
> The Republicans have given the Democrats
> everything they wanted and it wasn’t enough to
> satisfy them; the Democrats wanted more. This is
> essentially what is going on with the terrorists
> as well.
Democrats are basically terrorists. Yeah, very nice talking point.
Bill? Sean? Rush? is that you?
7. Matt Wilding | November 8th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
so does this mean that you folks are excited about losing the house and probably the senate on a national level? because there was one party rule, which you folks say is bad. So I imagine that you are all thrilled with the national democratic victories!
8. Jws | November 8th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Yeah Matt, NECN had a bunch of Republicans whining about the horrors of one party rule, and the reporter didn’t even ask them, “You mean the horrible intractable mess our country’s in thanks to you?” LOL
9. mike | November 8th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
“The voters of Massachusetts have spoken. They voted for one party rule. They voted for higher taxes. They voted for driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. They voted for closed door meetings, back-room deals, and no accountability for those in charge. They voted for a rubber stamp. They voted for gimmicks and slogans rather than on the issues.”
Are you for real? Most of this is pure speculation or just hysterical.
Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants have been supported by the libertarian Reason.com, Gov. Jeb Bush, and insurance companies.
But the Real ID Act of 2005 limits the ability of states to issue driver’s licenses, so it will not happen anyway (as stated by Patrick).
In state tuition? Most states are moving in this direction — conservative states like Oklahoma, Kansas, and even TEXAS and UTAH have in-state tuition for in-state illegals.
Taxes and back-door deals? All made up speculation.
10. Knightbrigade | November 9th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Ok, Matt-Jws–
87% democratic in MA.= NATIONAL one party government? are you kidding?
Is that why Ted Kennedy threatened a filibuster in the Senate, because he was bored of ONE party rule? The fact that Teddy could even threaten that action shows the difference. Could a mASS republican tie up this democratic body? bwhahahaha not a chance..
You have every right to question whether one party rule is (FACTOR) good/bad or not, but lets not compare apples to oranges.
11. Matt Wilding | November 9th, 2006 at 6:11 am
Knightbrigade,
you don’t read so well.
What was saying is that the REPUBLICAN party has had one party rule on a national level for 6 years. you are all against one party rule, so you must be pleased that the democrats took the legislature. That is what the above argument implies. So I’m asking, do you people really believe that one party rule is bad, or just democratic party rule. you need to be a bit more honest.
12. Voodoo Daddy | November 9th, 2006 at 8:19 am
sorry Matt, but one party rule hasn’t been in Washington for 6 years. Republicans may have had a majority, but Democrats still had a voice, i.e., by filibuster in the Senate, etc. A majority doesn’t mean one-party rule, but a veto-proof majority is.
13. Mark | November 13th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Voodoo,
How interesting that you think there hasn’t been one party RULE for 6 years. It is that very thing that has caused such a big backlash in the polls. The Democrats were rightly booted in ‘94, and the Republicans who took their place fell into similar bad habits and deplorable behavior.
If this group of Democrats fails in kind, it will be right to boot them out of office. But make no mistake, what has been around for 6 years has been one party rule.