The Arrogance of Massachusetts Democrats

Within the last couple of weeks, I've been told that through my status updates on Facebook, I've insulted the voters of Massachusetts and gloated in the aftermath of the Scott Brown Senate victory. I'm too negative - that if I really want to make my point, calling people "lemmings" is not the way to do it. I should focus on communicating my point of view, rather than kicking people while they are down.

Arighty then. Here goes:

I am registered as unenrolled, but characterize myself as fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Because fiscal issues are the most important to me, I tend to vote Republican. I find the Democrats' "tax and spend" philosophy to be absurd. Now, consider these facts:

• There has not been a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts in 31 years.
• There has not been a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts in 14 years. There were two from 1993-1997. Before that, the most recent one was in 1983.
• The Massachusetts legislature has been controlled by the Democrats for more than 40 years (and probably longer...I can't find the exact date online)
  
• While there have been Republican governors in Massachusetts recently, they all faced a legislature where Democrats held a supermajority, meaning little to no chance of advancing their agenda.

Being anything other than Democrat in Massachusetts has meant that your voice has been irrelevant for decades. For myself, it has been this way for the duration of my voting life. For many more, it goes back much longer. When I vote in the Presidential election, I know that from an electoral standpoint, my vote is meaningless. However, I vote to exercise my constitutional right and to honor those that have died to provide democracy.

Pragmatically, I just don't get how/why Massachusetts is so blindly Democratic, especially on the state level. Whether you want to admit it or not, this state is a mess and a national political laughingstock (at least until last week).

One Speaker of the House after another resigns in shame; taxes continue to go up and numerous state agencies demonstrate their incompetence on a daily basis. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.

Only Louisiana and Illinois rival Massachusetts for the level of corruption by our politicians. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.

The will of the people through binding referendums (sales tax, tolls,death penalty, etc.) are ignored and dismissed by the state legislature. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.

This state is broken. There is nobody out there - even Democrats - who will argue otherwise. And yet, Democrats continue to get elected.

And you wonder why I refer to people as lemmings.

But I get it. People vote along party lines. Democrats blindly vote from Democrats. And to be fair, Republicans do the same. But when you are in Massachusetts, voting for Republican is not a mindless activity...it is a vote for change. It is a plea for something different. Another direction.

Because after a while, when one group of people just aren't getting the job done, you usually give the other guys a chance. Except in Massachusetts.

To be sure, this has happened on the national level. And I am completely OK with it. The Republicans deserved their ass-kicking in 2008. People wanted to give the other guys a chance. Hell, even I almost voted for Obama. I didn't, but I thought long and hard about it - not because I believed in his policies - I don't - but because a new voice was needed.

Which takes us back to last week. The prevailing theory is that Martha Coakley's loss wasn't necessarily about her, but about the dissatisfaction with Obama's agenda. I am sure part of that is true. If you ask me, Obama and the Democrats screwed up - they took on too much too soon. The focus in the first year or two should have been on the economy, not advocating for a trillion dollar health care package with no discernible benefits to the average consumer. They needed to prove to the public that they could fix problems, not create them. And so far, they failed.

But let's not forget that after the primaries, Coakley had a 30 point lead over Brown. That lead was still in the double digits by Christmas. And here is where I finally get to make my point. I believe that political arrogance played a large role in Coakley's defeat. Put simply, she and her campaign team took the voters for granted. "Hey, I am a Democrat, Teddy was a democrat, Massachusetts is a blue state...therefore, I have this one in the bag."

So while Brown was out there campaigning nonstop, doing all of the right things, Coakley was in the Caribbean catching some rays. She famously scoffed at the notion of shaking hands outside of Fenway Park on New Year's Day before the Bruins game because it was too cold. Less than two weeks before the election, instead of pressing the flesh, she was in DC meeting with lobbyists. And then, when it was apparent she was in real trouble, the negative ads started. And they kept going. And then Clinton came to town. And then Obama. Where were they in November and December?

I think this arrogance was the tipping point. Voter anger with Washington had been building, but I believe it was this sense of entitlement on behalf of the Democrats that finally moved the needle. After decades and decades of being taken for granted, the voters had enough. The same towns that carried Obama in a landslide were voting for Brown by a rate of 2-to-1.

And when it was over, I was pleased that the people of this state finally grew a pair. By the time I got home on election night, the race had been decided. I was in a good mood. Finally Massachusetts allowed a different voice to be heard. Who knows, maybe there is hope after all...

And then I checked Facebook. Here is a sampling of what I saw:

"Teddy must be rolling over in his grave."
"I am ashamed of my state."
"What is wrong with you people?"

I realized that this arrogance wasn't confined just to Coakley and her team. Nope, many diehard Dems also felt slighted by the outcome. They also believed that it was divine right that Coakley would win. That the Democrats would win.

Forget about change. Disregard the fact that, in just one year, the Dems have squandered 8 years worth of goodwill. Ignore the fact that there simply is no money to pay for what Obama wants to do.

And to these people, I ask: "What will it take?" Your arrogance and sense of entitlement is indeed appalling. I am man enough to admit that the GOP deserved their beating 15 months ago. I am man enough to admit that George Bush made mistake upon mistake. I am man enough to admit that the Republicans completely lost touch with the people.

When will you do the same? Especially in Massachusetts?

I am not calling out every single Democrat. Some sensible ones have acknowledged that Coakley lost because she ran a terrible campaign and Brown ran a very good one. To these folks, of course I agree.

Of course, Republicans are just as capable of screwing up a state as Democrats. Political scandals and corruption are not confined to one party. But, the fact remains that Massachusetts is controlled by the Dems and as such, they need to bear responsibility for the mess our state is in.

Someone marginally smarter than I made a good point when he told me that all politics are local. The Republicans have failed in this state because they haven't made the commitment. Make a name for yourself on the board of selectman or the school committee...and then try and move up. Don't come out of nowhere and expect people to vote for you. This person is right. Maybe last week's election result will give the state GOP party the kick in the pants it needs to start on a grassroots level and grow from there.

But either way, I'm hoping that the voters in this state will lose their sense of entitlement and look around. Instead of simply looking for the D on the ballot, take stock of what is happening on Beacon Hill...and think about giving the other guys a chance.

Hillary or Obama?

Religion and politics - two topics that one would be wise to steer clear from at work, in a bar and probably, in blogs. Naturally, I'm digging right in. Today, politics:

I am technically "unenrolled," but do tend to vote republican. OK, I most always vote republican. OK, every single time, I vote republican. Not that it matters in the Bay State, which has gone democratic in every election since Fred Flintstone was elected Grand Poobah. That said, I am fascinated at the battle taking place on the democratic side. No matter who secures the nomination, either an African-American or female will be up for President, and not only is that pretty neat, it's about time. Female Jewish Muslim Transgendered Dwarf African-Americans? Your day is coming...

With regards to the two Democratic candidates, here is one fairly uninformed man's opinion:

Hillary - Not a fan. Clearly, her objective is to convince the public that she is our savior. First it was the "It's 3 a.m., your children are asleep..." ad. But what really got my attention was the on-screen text from an earlier TV ad that ran during the N.H. primary:

"A nation at war, troubles at home. America at a crossroads, demands a leader with a steady hand who will weather the storms, solve our problems, rebuild our middle class..and renew our greatness."

Wow, really? Hillary can solve our problems, rebuild our middle class and renew our greatness? All by herself?

Hillary touts decades of political experience, despite the fact that she has held public office only a few years longer than her opponent. Perhaps this is the experience she is referring to: less than a week into her tenure as First Lady, she dove head first into her attempt to reform the nation's healthcare system. Although I commend her effort, she was not successful and I am hard pressed to remember another cause that Hillary publicly championed while hubby was President.

Thankfully, I didn't have to remember, as the records of Hillary's time as First Lady have just been released. Those records show that Hillary privately lobbied for NAFTA, which business experts at the time feared would result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. It passed and President Clinton declared it a great victory. Today, Presidential wanna-be Hillary Clinton wants NAFTA to be re-negotiated, as it has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico. Of course she does.

Obama - Seems to be the anti-Hillary. Doesn't make grandiose promises or tout experience that isn't there. Talks to people, not at them. Last week, describing Obama's terrific speech on race relations, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart said, "And so, on March 19 at 11 a.m., a prominent American politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults."

When it comes to politics, I am as skeptical as they come. Whether they are candidates or elected officials, I believe that most politicians pander to the masses, telling them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Most of the time, it's one promise after another, just about all of which go unfulfilled. But to me, Obama just comes across differently....more honest, more direct, more real.

Clearly, I am making sweeping generalizations. Both have no doubt done good, and both have no doubt made silly promises that cannot possibly be met. But here is where I differentiate the two - It's very debatable just how much Washington can be changed, but for the first time in my adult life, in Obama I see a politician who I think actually has a chance to doing something about it.

That said, Democrats like to raise taxes and Republicans like to lower them, so I'll probably vote for McCain.