Teaparty Updates – Worcester, MA

The Teaparty events of April enabled conservatives,libertarians, and others the necessary room to blow off some much needed steam. In order to turn the Teaparty events into a legitimate movement for change, events such as those taking place in Worcester are essential.  Here is a sample:

Saturday, June 20, Noon-3 p.m.  Worcester Tea Party-Rally for Responsible Government, Elm Park, Worcester.

FREE family friendly rally and picnic (bring your own).  Speakers, live music. Bring chairs or a blanket to sit on.

Tuesday, June 30, 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m.  Worcester Tea Party Forum, Worcester Public Library, Saxe Room:
Nicholas Sanchez, Prof. of Economics, College of the Holy Cross will be discussing the federal budget [and how we got into our current economic mess — shari]

Ken Mandile
Worcester Tea Party

Shari Worthington, sharilee@telesian.com
MassGOP State Committee, 2nd Worcester District
Worcester Republican City Committee, Ward 5 Chair
Massachusetts Republican Assembly, National Committeewoman
Tel: (508) 755-5242 Cell: (508) 397-6345
http://www.worcestercountyrepublicanclub.com
http://blog.worcestercountyrepublicanclub.com
http://www.mass-republican-assembly.com

City of Boston – Mayoral Race update

Kudos to Kevin McCrea for securing a place on this fall’s mayoral ballot. Mr. McCrea is an advocate for transparency in government. Such an initiative would be a welcome breath of air in Menino’s musty City Hall chambers.

Endangered Species: Female Democrats?

The impetus for this post originated with Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein. The bottom line: what do male Democrats have against their female counterparts?

A tip of the cap to Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein on this one:

Congress passed a res. yesterday for 30th anniv of Thatcher becoming 1st female PM. Mass. delegation all voted no, except Tsongas.11:49 AM May 13th from web

Much of the activity that takes place on the floor of the United States Congress (ditto The US Senate and most political bodies) is irrelevant, trivial pursuit, people looking for ways to justify their existence (and our votes). So let me say before I get into the meat of this post, that I believe that this motion and others like it generally have no place. There are plenty of Constitutionally-mandated duties Congress should follow, and if it did, life in America would be a lot better. Nonetheless, pn May 12,2009, the House Roll Call 245 passed with 339 Ayes, 64 Nays, 24 Abstaining, and 6 Presents. (The vote tally is here.) Had I been a member, I would have abstained or voted present. Of the 64 Nays,  all were Democrats. Of the 174 Democrats who voted Aye, only one came from Massachusetts, not surprisingly, and the vote belonged to the Bay State’s sole female member: Niki Tsongas.  And thus arises the question: why only Tsongas and why Tsongas at all. Presumably she’s no fan of the Iron Lady’s pro-growth fiscal policies (as am I). As such, she would be well within her rights to vote Nay with her Democrat colleagues. Had she chosen to do so, no one would have noticed or cared. Moreover, had the entire delegation voted to Abstain or vote present, no one would have noticed or cared either. Is it possible that male Democrats are hostile to powerful women? Might not Hillary Clinton answer (secretly, off the record), in the affirmative. It’s an open secret that many female Massachusetts Democrats are still miffed at the lack of support shown for Hillary Clinton by their male counterparts. It seems, at least on the surface, that women have no place in the Democrat tent, unless it’s one of subservience. Only one female has won statewide elective office in Massachusetts; for that matter, Tsongas is only the second woman to represent Massachusetts at the Congressional level, after a 25 year drought. How can this be, given the prominence of women in the Democrat Party and the omnipresence of Democrats in Massachusetts. I have no answers for you in this regard, only questions and observations. What doYOU think?

There Was A Crooked Man…

The Bay State’s tradition of (alleged) corruption continues. Can the Massachusetts Republican Party take advantage of this controversy? More from the Boston Herald, NECN and Boston Phoenix.

Don’t Get Your Hopes Up

Will former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney run for President again in 2012?

Romney’s stepped-up schedule does seem to suggest a second bid for President Obama’s job in three years. However, considering what happened the last time he ran for President, the chances of Romney actually landing the nomination are Slim and None–and word on the street is that Slim just skipped town.

Romney came into the ‘08 Presidential game with two strikes against him: the perception that his ideological shift to the right was more fiction than fact, and the preference among many Republican primary voters for a candidate who was, ahem, a “Christian leader.” The one-two punch of Massachusetts and Mormonism was a knockout blow for Romney–a blow that led to the lame John McCain acquiring the nomination.

Republicans who regarded Romney as a crypto-moonbat or a cult member in ‘08 won’t change their minds in 2012, no matter how poorly Obama is performing as President. The GOP’s conservative base wants a nominee whose conservative credentials are not in dispute: unfortunately, Romney will never be viewed as such a candidate.

At this point, it seems likely that the GOP’s nominee in 2012 will either be former House Speaker Newt Gingrich or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (assuming, of course, that both choose to run). Gingrich has had his issues with grassroots conservatives in the past, but his legacy as a passionate crusader for the Right’s vision will serve him in good stead on the 2012 campaign trail. Palin will obviously receive plenty of conservative support in the primaries: her only obstacle will be the perception by some moderate and conservative Republican primary voters that she cannot “seal the deal” in a general election.

Romney is a great speaker, a strong intellect, a shrewd businessman. Unfortunately, he is also someone who stands beneath a glass ceiling. Deep-seated skepticism about the sincerity of his conservatism (and deep-seated bigotry about his religion) would prevent him from becoming the GOP’s standard-bearer in 2012. He has a role to play in the GOP’s future–but it will not be the lead role.

It’s (Not) Your Money

Some (many?) Massachusetts politicians simply refuse to leave your money alone.

State Senators Sonia Chang-Diaz and Jamie Eldridge now say it’s time to consider an increase in the state income tax. “It’s a difficult situation, and there are no easy solutions,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge state. “But the tool to solve this budget crisis does exist, if we are willing to show the political leadership (emphasis mine) to use it: an increase in the personal income tax.

“Of course, reforms are still necessary, and it’s up to the Legislature to examine every expenditure and measure it against our priorities for public spending. Every bit of waste needs to be cut – but cutting alone will not get us out of this budget crisis.” (Really?)

Chang-Diaz and Eldridge then slip into sophistry. “…[Taxes] are the way that we, as a society, pay for the things we value: education, police and firefighters, and public transportation. Each day we rely upon government services, public infrastructure, and state regulation, paid for by our taxes, in order to allow us to work and raise a family. What’s so dirty about that – and why are we so afraid to talk about it?”

Everyone understands that we cannot have a society without any taxation whatsoever. The issue is the misuse of taxpayer dollars–and whether it’s a wise thing to give the state more tax money if the state has not demonstrated a willingness to use the tax money they currently receive wisely.

Despite their earlier disclaimer, Chang-Diaz and Eldridge don’t really address this issue. Instead, they assert that “…there is nothing more regressive than a budget cut, particularly to programs that help the most vulnerable among us. For that reason, we applaud the House on its tough vote to raise the sales tax, because any means of raising revenue right now (emphasis mine) is a better solution than drastic cuts to vital services.” Any means? Can we not reassess what government services are vital and what are not?

“Increasing the income tax by one percent would raise approximately $2 billion for the Commonwealth,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge assert. “Cuts will still be necessary to balance the budget, but that revenue would go a long way toward protecting core services, such as schools, shelters, public safety, and hospitals.”

If the average Bay Stater believed that an increase in the state income tax would in fact go to “schools, shelters, public safety, and hospitals,” the average Bay Stater would in fact support such an increase. However, if the average Bay Stater suspects that an increase in the state income tax will be used for, say, pensions, the average Bay Stater would justifiably oppose such an increase. Can we be reassured that the state will not misuse this new money?

“Increasing the income tax is the one tool we have that could help close the enormous budget gap we face without overburdening those who can least afford to pay,” Chang-Diaz and Eldridge conclude. “In other words, if we put aside the political calculations for a moment and focus on the facts, raising the income tax is the best solution to our fiscal crisis.” In theory.

Perhaps Chang-Diaz and Eldridge overstate things when they refer to a budget “crisis.” As Beacon Hill Institute’s David G. Tuerck points out, “According to a [Boston Globe] article of Oct. 15, 1994, the budget ‘was a chronic source of anxiety for taxpayers’ and ‘a ticking time bomb on the verge of wrecking havoc with Massachusetts’s economy’ during most of Governor William F. Weld’s first term in office. That period of fiscal anxiety came to an end, however, with the FY 1995 budget, which was, according to the article, ‘in vintage ways, a vital Weld achievement,’ aided by ‘original thinking’ and ‘good fortune.’ Members of both parties praised the governor, who went on to easy reelection, for this fiscal accomplishment.

“Now fast-forward to the 2010 budget,” Tuerck continues. “How much, we might ask, would the state have to spend in 2010 in order to achieve what was seen as sound budgeting just 15 years ago? The answer, after adjusting for inflation and population growth, is $26.78 billion. Next let’s ask how much the state could budget for 2010, given the existing revenue outlook. If we take the average of the highest and the lowest forecasts offered at the Senate hearing, we get $18.35 billion in state tax revenue. Combining this revenue with various non-tax revenues already figured on by Governor Patrick in crafting his budget, the state could spend $26.79 billion in 2010, $10 million more than it would need in order to match what Weld accomplished with his vaunted 1995 budget.

“True, the state has come to spend more generously in recent years, but a return to the standards of 1995 can hardly be seen as ‘catastrophic.’ To argue otherwise is to engage in Chicken Little economics.”

Doesn’t it sound like Chang-Diaz and Eldridge are engaging in what Tuerck condemns?

You Can’t Get What You Want (‘Til You Know What You Want)

Let me state for the record: I forgive Christy Mihos!

Eric Fehrnstrom obviously doesn’t. Fehrnstrom, the senior communications adviser for Mitt Romney’s 2008 Presidential campaign, insists that Bay State Republicans won’t soon forget Mihos’ rhetorical burial of 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey.

“What is surprising is that Mihos is back and running for governor in 2010, this time as a Republican,” Fehrnstrom writes. “If he learned anything from his off-beat [2006] campaign, it’s that independent candidates rarely win. Without the organizational strength and fund-raising network of a major party, a statewide candidate faces very long odds.

“In 2006 Mihos finished a distant third. He wasn’t even the spoiler he wanted to be,” Fehrnstrom continues. “His 7 percent of the vote, added to Healey’s total, wouldn’t have made a difference in the contest against Deval Patrick, who won with 56 percent of the vote to Healey’s 35 percent.

“So how does Mihos convince Republicans to overlook his disloyalty and make him their standard-bearer? After all, Mihos used to seethe resentment about a Republican Party that he felt was unworthy. ‘There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans,’ he told voters. And he’d complain that ‘people are checking out because what the Republicans are selling people aren’t buying.’ Even more problematic are Mihos’ positions, which are poles apart from those of most Republicans.”

Fehrnstrom asserts that Mihos’ past will surely come back to haunt him. “Mihos committed enough gaffes to turn his last campaign into a running joke. He started the race with a groan-inducing joke about his wife. ‘My wife says I’m awful fast, so I’ll try to stick to that,’ he told biotech executives. He ran a vulgar TV ad depicting animated characters with their heads up their rear ends.

“Because Mihos was a long shot, the media overlooked his many missteps even as they gladly lapped up his criticisms of the GOP. The good news is that Massachusetts Republicans have strong potential candidates in the wings…But so far, Mihos is the only declared Republican candidate, a demoralizing prospect. Last year, in a TV interview, Mihos wondered if it makes sense to run for the GOP nomination, given that he spent the last election riding shotgun for Patrick. ‘I don’t know if the Republicans are going to embrace me,’ he said. It’s a point worth pondering, since he refused to embrace them.”

Fehrnstrom is correct to note that Charlie Baker, Michael Sullivan and Scott Brown would make great gubernatorial candidates. However, if these men opt not to enter the race–or, if they do, and Mihos manages to conquer them in the 2010 GOP primary–then what sense does it make to continue to hold a grudge against Mihos?

Yes, Mihos was obviously had issues with the state Republican Party in the mid-2000s. Yes, he was more aggressive against Healey in the 2006 gubernatorial debates than he was against Patrick. It’s all true. It’s also all in the past.

Mihos is not perfect. No one is. However, if he can oust Patrick from power and return some semblance of fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth, then it’s not really constructive to bash him for past errors, is it?

By the way, that Mihos commercial wasn’t “vulgar.” It was quite funny.

Let It Go

Could Christy Mihos save Massachusetts from Deval Patrick?

The former Mass. Turnpike Authority official has announced that he will run for Governor in 2010–as a Republican. Mihos says he will bring fiscal responsibility to the Commonwealth, an achievement that the current hack in the Corner Office has not been able to pull off.

Mihos, of course, ran as an Independent in the 2006 gubernatorial election: since then, he has drawn fire for supposedly siphoning votes from Republican challenger Kerry Healey, allowing Patrick, a Democrat, to win. (Even during the race, he caught heat for allegedly weakening Healey’s chances; virtually every time Mihos appeared on WRKO-AM star Howie Carr’s radio show in ‘06, callers lambasted him for supposedly attempting to engineer a Patrick victory to punish the Bay State GOP for various perceived sins.)

Of course, it can be argued that Healey would have lost anyway, and that Mihos was not really the Ross Perot figure his staunchest critics make him out to be. In any event, does it make sense to continue holding a grudge against Mihos for his supposed role in helping Patrick become governor? If anyone deserves a second chance, it’s Mihos, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the taxpayers during his Turnpike Authority days.

Considering the recent controversy over Mass. Republican Party chair Jennifer Nassour’s declaration of neutrality on so-called “culture war” issues, one wonders if Mihos’ social libertarianism will become an issue. In 2006, Mihos made it clear that he was pro-choice on abortion and a supporter of same-sex marriage. Will the same folks who attacked Nassour give Mihos grief over his social stances (assuming, of course, that he has not modified his views between ‘06 and ‘09)? Let’s hope not. Fiscal responsibility is an issue that can transcend political boundaries; it will be wise for Mihos to place this issue at the forefront of his campaign.

We haven’t heard much in the past few weeks as to whether Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO Charles Baker actually plans to get in the game and run for governor as a Republican. If he does, Baker vs. Mihos will be a very interesting primary fight. One thing’s for sure: if Mihos beats Baker and challenges Patrick in the general, he’ll come up with some unforgettable ads–and the state will witness an unforgettable campaign.

Old School

Finally, Mitt Romney has been vindicated!

According to a new Rasmussen poll, “Forty-nine percent (49%) say [Massachusetts Governor Deval] Patrick’s Republican predecessor, Mitt Romney, did a better job as governor, while 32% say Patrick is the better of the two. Sixty percent (16%) say neither man did a good job.”

The poll also reveals the extent to which Gov. Patrick has turned off Bay Staters. “Just 33% of Massachusetts voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic incumbent if he seeks reelection in 2010. Nineteen percent (19%) say they’re not very likely to do so, and 38% say they aren’t likely at all to vote for Patrick…One possible explanation of Patrick’s unpopularity is the new finding that 70% of the state’s voters are afraid Massachusetts is once again becoming ‘Tax-achusetts.’ Just 24% disagree. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans, 59% of Democrats and 74% of voters not affiliated with either party share this concern.”

It’s amazing that within three years, many Bay Staters have gone from being consumed with anti-Romney sentiment to missing the man. Romney wasn’t a flawless governor, but he was far from the comedy act Patrick has turned into.

As WBZ political analyst Jon Keller notes, “…perhaps voters are remembering that Romney, warts and all, at least tried to make some serious cuts in the budget and the kleptocracy. And even the biggest Romney haters must surely acknowledge that the man at least knew how to construct and deliver a message via media with actual audiences, all due respect to our rich local tapestry of blogs, podcasts, and assorted twitts. Patrick doesn’t like to get his hands dirty that way, leaving his governorship to be defined by folks with somewhat less esteem for it than he holds.”

Will this anti-Patrick backlash continue into 2010? Or will unforeseen circumstances actually rescue his reputation? We’ll find out soon enough.

Declaration of Independence

Would a divided GOP help Republicans in Massachusetts?

On April 14, a contributor to conservative activist Patrick Ruffini’s blog TheNextRight.com argued that splitting the GOP into two parts would actually improve the party’s overall prospects. “The remedies to the GOP’s slide proposed thus far follow the same basic paradigm,” the contributor wrote. “The purists say that the GOP needs to purge the RINOs and create a clear distinction between the parties. The problem is that the American public sees the difference between the parties and is choosing Democrats. It turns out that the endless harping on pork and nomination battles nominally related to abortion drive the base, but seems petty and shortsighted to most everyone else. On the other hand, the reformers are more interested in creating more conservative and market-based solutions to problems Democrats are also addressing, but they are scorned by a base that sees them as part of a cocktail-sipping Northeastern elite, thus apostates unworthy of attention. Moderate Republican candidates who have shown their ability to win in blue states are targeted by the Club for Growth. They may hardly better than Democrats on some issues, but they contribute to creating a majority of seats.

“So how do you hold on to a base that holds increasingly unpopular ideas on social policy while reaching out beyond so-called ‘real America’ where many voters agree with our foreign and fiscal policy but can’t stand the anti-intellectualism and public moral posturing of the hard-right southern wing? Set it free! Why not split the GOP into a regional southern party while creating a new fiscally-conservative, socially-moderate party in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West?… If the goal is not a GOP revival for its own sake, but the implementation of conservative governance, it’s worth looking at.”

These thoughts are quite similar to those expressed by former Massachusetts Board of Education chairman James Peyser, a Republican who wrote a Boston Globe op-ed piece shortly after President Obama’s election calling for the establishment of an “Independent Republican Party” in the Northeast.

“Reviving Massachusetts’ Republican Party is in the best interests of everyone, not just Republicans,” Peyser wrote. “One-party rule, especially when it’s as lopsided as it is here, inevitably leads to intellectual laziness, excess, and, all too often, corruption. The recent spate of subpoenas and surveillance photos on Beacon Hill suggests that we may already be sliding down that slippery slope.”

Peyser further noted that “…[the] underlying problem for Republicans is the absence of a compelling conservative vision for the future that is aligned with New England’s more tolerant and civic-minded political sensibilities. Typically, political observers say that the national Republican Party has moved too far to the right for moderate New Englanders. But I think a more telling way to frame the problem is that the national party has drifted away from the core conservative principles that used to unite Republicans from all parts of the country, in favor of policies that appeal to an increasingly narrow, albeit fervent, base.”

“If the national party no longer reflects the views of Republicans in Massachusetts,” Peyser continued, “what does the local GOP leadership stand for? I think today the only fair answer is ‘less’ – less tax, less spending, less (I know, ‘fewer’) Democrats. Take whatever the Democrats want, subtract about a third, and what’s left will usually be the Republican position on the issue. This is hardly a rallying cry for the party faithful or potential candidates, and it is certainly not an effective appeal to independent voters.”

“Lacking a governing philosophy of their own, Massachusetts’ Republicans have been tarred with the increasingly unpopular (and often unconservative) positions of the Bush administration and its mostly southern and western allies in Congress.” The Bay State GOP has to have a “governing philosophy…grounded in the basic tenets of conservatism: limited and accountable government, individual liberty and responsibility, and free markets.” However, this philosophy alone “…may not be enough to change the tarnished Republican brand. A name change might also be in order, to symbolize the fresh start and create some distance from the national party. In Minnesota, the local Democratic Party is called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Maybe here in Massachusetts – or across New England – the GOP should start calling itself the Independent Republican Party.”

“Now, some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans might blanch at the idea of splintering the national party. But if this is the only way the GOP’s Massachusetts branch can make a comeback, then it would seem to be in the best interests of the national party, too. Equally important, a vibrant state party that is generating new ideas and winning elections could spark a needed reappraisal of conservatism and expand the Republican base in other parts of the country.”

Establishing a clear separation between the Republican Party in this region and the national Republican Party would have tangible benefits, both psychological and political. Such a separation would signal to independents and moderates that Republicans in this region recognize the national party’s flaws and wish to actually deliver on promises, as opposed to breaking them. An “Independent Republican Party” would also avoid the usual lefty accusations of slavish devotion to talk radio and Fox News.

Is there a potential downside to having an “Independent Republican Party” in this region? Perhaps. While the Northeast lacks large numbers of social conservatives, those on the social right who live in this region might feel disenfranchised by the establishment of a putatively conservative political entity that clearly wishes to deemphasize the importance of social issues. If an “Independent Republican Party” is established in this region, the party’s leaders must make clear that they are not hostile to blue-state residents with red-state sensibilities.

Having said that, the creation of an “Independent Republican Party” in the Northeast could be the vaccine that cures the disease of one-party rule. The GOP’s diminished presence in the Northeast is sickening. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could get well soon?

Next Page »