What Has Romney Done Wrong?
Massachusetts Liberals are caught in the middle. East of Jiminy Peak, their world is bluer than the royal blood of standard-bearer John F. Kerry. Yet outside the sheltered confines of New England, their nation is dangerously red. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, they eat breakfast three states from the enemy.
That's why, in a way, they provide a breath of fresh air on the U.S. political landscape. Unlike the overly triumphant red-state Republicans, and unlike the namby-pamby hand-wringing red-state Democrats (or, worse yet, the vacuous Hollywood set), Massachusetts Liberals are confident that they're right. After all, Kerry won Cambridge and Quincy.
So it's nice to see that the political in-crowd of the People's Commonwealth has set up such a positive, forward-looking blog, from which to preach their inanities unto the five or six unconverted Coolidgeans here in the Bay State. Of course, their positive attitude doesn't mask the fact that they're wrong, but at least they aren't as shrill or nearly as annoying as your average leftie wonk.
For example: try this reasoned critique of Democratic critiques of Justice Thomas -- from a Democrat who does not want Clarence Thomas as chief justice, but also values honest debate and wants a clean debate all around. Or try this spot-on analysis of Romney's death penalty plan, which asks thoughtful questions (tax burden, "thou shalt not kill") instead of easy and ignorant ones ("doesn't that make us no better than the murderer?" or "isn't this just a ploy for national attention?").
Yet for every good blog entry, there's a doozer like Tuesday's drive-by on Romney, citing a Globe columnist who quoted the governor as saying "from now on, it's me, me, me."
Let's have some context here. Here's the money graf from Joan Vennochi's column in the Jan. 4 Boston Globe.
Romney was beaten. Beaten badly. He gambled that his own charisma and outsider status, which got him elected over a weak Shannon O'Brien in 2002, would translate to a slate largely composed of political newcomers running against seasoned incumbents in 2004. All of this, which was a lot to ask in a good year, was supposed to happen during a year when the GOP had a Texan president with a [little-deserved] reputation for Bible-thumping and partisanship, and the Democrats were headlining their ticket with the Bay State's junior senator.
So the governor says, flat out, he won't be able to mount such a Herculean task again in 2006. Let's not forget that even if he doesn't run for president, he'll be running for re-election in his current office. Besides, he's done this before. As a freshman governor, Romney was enthusiastic about accomplishing his reform agenda, merging the two highway departments, cutting local aid, etc. These things floundered in the face of a hostile Legislature, and he was noticeably more low-key in 2004, bar the election and the gay marriage issue. Once bitten, twice shy. Nothing wrong with that.
Here's a graf of analysis, appearing just below the Romney quote in Vennochi's column:
Besides, it takes two to tango. Here we see a repeat of the Republican Revolution of 1994: it's the GOP that single-handedly engineered a shutdown of the government in 1995; it's Bill Clinton who single-handedly engineered bipartisan Welfare reform in 1996. If a Democrat has principles, he's progressive; if a Republican has principles, he's obstructionist.
If you're going to buy into the notion that Romney alone is responsible for "continued gridlock," you have to think that Romney's ideas are so wacko that anyone who embraces them is an anarchist. That's a fine tack for a Boston Globe columnist to take, but, of course, one expects more from an educated person.
One place where I will fault Romney: he's been dealing with the press in this state for years. He shouldn't known better than to say "me, me, me," especially because it lets Vennocchi set up a perfect closer graf:
I know what Romney did wrong. He acted like a "-Mass." without first affixing the "D-."
That's why, in a way, they provide a breath of fresh air on the U.S. political landscape. Unlike the overly triumphant red-state Republicans, and unlike the namby-pamby hand-wringing red-state Democrats (or, worse yet, the vacuous Hollywood set), Massachusetts Liberals are confident that they're right. After all, Kerry won Cambridge and Quincy.
So it's nice to see that the political in-crowd of the People's Commonwealth has set up such a positive, forward-looking blog, from which to preach their inanities unto the five or six unconverted Coolidgeans here in the Bay State. Of course, their positive attitude doesn't mask the fact that they're wrong, but at least they aren't as shrill or nearly as annoying as your average leftie wonk.
For example: try this reasoned critique of Democratic critiques of Justice Thomas -- from a Democrat who does not want Clarence Thomas as chief justice, but also values honest debate and wants a clean debate all around. Or try this spot-on analysis of Romney's death penalty plan, which asks thoughtful questions (tax burden, "thou shalt not kill") instead of easy and ignorant ones ("doesn't that make us no better than the murderer?" or "isn't this just a ploy for national attention?").
Yet for every good blog entry, there's a doozer like Tuesday's drive-by on Romney, citing a Globe columnist who quoted the governor as saying "from now on, it's me, me, me."
Let's have some context here. Here's the money graf from Joan Vennochi's column in the Jan. 4 Boston Globe.
Quick question: what has Romney done wrong?"From now on, it's me, me, me," said Romney. He was responding to a question about his commitment to a thankless task, trying to elect Republicans in Massachusetts. With Kerry topping the Bay State ticket, the GOP effort failed miserably in 2004. Romney now says: "I can't put as much effort in the next time. . . . Of course, I'll help the Republican Party, but I can't raise as much money. I can't focus on that."
Romney was beaten. Beaten badly. He gambled that his own charisma and outsider status, which got him elected over a weak Shannon O'Brien in 2002, would translate to a slate largely composed of political newcomers running against seasoned incumbents in 2004. All of this, which was a lot to ask in a good year, was supposed to happen during a year when the GOP had a Texan president with a [little-deserved] reputation for Bible-thumping and partisanship, and the Democrats were headlining their ticket with the Bay State's junior senator.
So the governor says, flat out, he won't be able to mount such a Herculean task again in 2006. Let's not forget that even if he doesn't run for president, he'll be running for re-election in his current office. Besides, he's done this before. As a freshman governor, Romney was enthusiastic about accomplishing his reform agenda, merging the two highway departments, cutting local aid, etc. These things floundered in the face of a hostile Legislature, and he was noticeably more low-key in 2004, bar the election and the gay marriage issue. Once bitten, twice shy. Nothing wrong with that.
Here's a graf of analysis, appearing just below the Romney quote in Vennochi's column:
The "me, me, me" attitude has broader implications. In the short-term, it seems Massachusetts will pay the price in continued gridlock. Romney has his ambition, legislators have their own, and it is difficult to see where they meet for the common good.Again: what has Romney done wrong? Ye gods, a politician with ambition?
Besides, it takes two to tango. Here we see a repeat of the Republican Revolution of 1994: it's the GOP that single-handedly engineered a shutdown of the government in 1995; it's Bill Clinton who single-handedly engineered bipartisan Welfare reform in 1996. If a Democrat has principles, he's progressive; if a Republican has principles, he's obstructionist.
If you're going to buy into the notion that Romney alone is responsible for "continued gridlock," you have to think that Romney's ideas are so wacko that anyone who embraces them is an anarchist. That's a fine tack for a Boston Globe columnist to take, but, of course, one expects more from an educated person.
One place where I will fault Romney: he's been dealing with the press in this state for years. He shouldn't known better than to say "me, me, me," especially because it lets Vennocchi set up a perfect closer graf:
He is not the first Massachusetts politician to seek a return for himself, too -- one he hopes will come from beyond Bay State boundaries. But it would be nice, for once, to have a governor who wants it to be about "us, us, us" before it is about "me, me, me."It'd be nice to have a junior senator who takes his senate duties seriously enough to bother to cast a vote for us, us, us. It'd be nice to have a Legislature that makes tough budget decisions, rather than attempting to ignore the repeated anti-tax-increase referenda passed by us, us, us. It'd be nice to see a Supreme Judicial Court that's less worried about making headlines for progressive causes than about reserving legislative rights to us, us, us.
I know what Romney did wrong. He acted like a "-Mass." without first affixing the "D-."
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
