D-Day 2006

On the day of the swearing in of the first Democratic Governor in 16 years in the Commonwealth, Mass GOP chairman Darrell Crate reminded us of perhaps the biggest reason we lost the corner office this year, sending out a letter to let us know that, well, the election of the new State Party Chairman has been 'Postponed'.

Here it is....

Good Afternoon, I write to inform you that tomorrow's meeting will be postponed until January 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. I regret to send this message but a couple of members have made it known that they intend to challenge the validity of the meeting. The issue involves the mailing of the notice. As you know, notices must be mailed ten days in advance of a meeting. In my four years as Chair, the staff has followed the same procedure and notices have always arrived in a timely manner. I'm told the procedure for the mailing on the 4th was no different-- it was mailed from Boston on December 22, but apparently not postmarked until December 28, no doubt due to the holiday delays. This morning, we conferred with our Legal Counsel and Parliamentarian regarding the rules. They informed me that, in their opinion, a challenge to the validity of the meeting would have merit. While I have no doubt the majority of the members would agree that notice was properly given, it would be an unwise use of members' time and the Party's money to convene a meeting against the advice and counsel of our legal team.
There is no doubt that every member of the committee was fully aware of it far beyond 10 days in advance of January 4th. I notified all members who have email (95% of you) on December 15th when the meeting would be held. Nevertheless, those for whom process is a priority insist upon challenging the validity of the meeting. The election of the next Chairman is of the utmost importance and any shadow of a doubt ought not be cast upon the vote. Process is meant to move our Party forward in a positive direction and not to unnecessarily delay it due to technicalities. I believe the latter is occurring in this case and it should prompt members to consider changes to the By-Laws in the future.

I regret if this is an inconvenience for members and I look forward to seeing you on the 16th (FYI…the exact location is still TBD at this hour, but it will be in the Metro-West area of the state). Finally, in addition to this email, and in compliance with the By-Laws, we will be mailing a notice of the 16th as well. I look forward to the continued honor of serving as Chairman for an additional 12 days!

Thanks, Darrell

Well, to be honest, this isn't a surprise as the Mass GOP is embarrassingly disorganized at this point. As we prepare for what I'm sure will be one of the most mind-numbing periods in our commonwealth's history, and at a time where the Massachusetts Republican Party needs coherent leadership more than ever before, we are given none.

A few days ago I wrote a piece on how Republicans in the commonwealth are in a state of denial and only through our coming to terms with that will we be able to regain our bearings and begin the arduous work of rebuilding the GOP in Massachusetts.

When one is an alcoholic, one must come to terms with their addiction before kicking it fully, however they also need to be proactive in insuring that it doesn't ever happen again. In the spirit of this, I offer the following 10-point plan towards reconstructing the party in Massachusetts.

A TEN POINT PLAN FOR A REPUBLICAN RECONSTRUCTION IN MASSACHUSETTS

1.) A complete and total house cleaning of the epic sort on the state committee-- Their job is to recruit candidates and help them win elections. They have failed across the board. When you fail in most jobs, save for teaching, you get fired. The same should hold true here. Republicans should seriously re-evaluate their state committee member's ability to 'get the job done' at the local level. Seeing as we failed to win a single seat in the state legislature in this cycle, I feel it appropriate to call for the resignation of every current state committee member effective immediately.

2.) A Departure from the Departure Politics of the MA Republican party in the last 16 years-- None of those in power over the past 16 years have been committed to growing the party in this state primarily because they were more concerned with personal growth, OUT of the state. Year after year, messiah after messiah, It was all the same old rhetoric but not a word of it produced one net gain in the legislature over that period of time. The current strategies being employed by the state party are flawed and have therefore, failed. Why? Because many on the state committee and in the party upper echelon are also worried about their political lives after Massachusetts.Those in power and in positions of authority and influence in the state party are products of both those in power during this period and the plans they hatched. The underlying issues for their lack of success is irrelevant. Regardless if they were put there and received little to no guidance once they got there, it's time for a change. We need to completely re-think the way that not only ourselves, but outsiders as well, view our party and what our overall purpose will be in the future.

3.) Improve the responsiveness of the state GOP through de-centralization of the state committee. By this, I mean de-centralizing the current system almost entirely. The Eastern Part of the state is well, almost an entirely different state than the western part. In order to effectively meet the challenges of this highly diverse political landscape, we must undergo an organizational overhaul to better fit the needs of small communities. This will allow the politics of our campaigns to become more 'local'. The state party should exist to provide general (heavy emphasis) policy guidelines and act as a central pool of resources for the various regional committees that do the ground work, no more, no less.

To localize this argument, imagine if you will, a regional Republican arm in Hampden County. Longmeadow, Wilbraham, Agawam, West Springfield, Springfield, Chicopee, Southwick, Ludlow and Sturbridge town committees would all fall under an umbrella of accountability to a regional committee. Volunteer lists from the various districts would be pooled. Fundraising lists, too. Consultants, polling, mailings, media releases, you name it. This regional organization would be responsible and more responsive to the needs of it's constituency than a centralized state party in Boston.

Regional Committees could be set up in Berkshire County, Franklin/Hampshire Counties, Hampden County, Greater Worcester, Cape Cod, etc. These committees would all work within a large concentric circle of sorts with the state party. The local town committees would interact in concentric circles with the regional committee and so forth.

These committees should not only be state party supported, but state party funded as well. Office space, working officers, etc. I'm not talking about a loose conglomeration of Town Committee chairmen. I'm talking about a formalized, official regional committee.

4.) A commitment to developing a platform that is universally congruent with Republican values and concerns of voters-- We need to look at what we feel being a Republican means. Once we establish this, then we pick our stances on the many issues facing the state. Once this is accomplished, we choose issues which we feel resonate most in a general sense, with ALL voters in Massachusetts, not just the ones that come to our coffee talks.

My picks? High taxes, social conservatism and anti-corruption.

TAXES-- What has been mother's milk for the Republican party nation-wide for years, wasn't this cycle. People have simple forgotten what it's like to have 19% interest rates on their houses and high taxes. Over the break I watched Rocky II with my father. I'm a young buck and was greatly taken aback when I watched the scene where Rocky and Adrian buy their first house. The realtor talks about the interest rate on the mortgage 'only' being 19% I gasped '19%"!? Are they kidding? My father replied; welcome to life under Carter and the Democrats'. It was this type of fiscal atrocity that spawned the Republican Revolution to begin with. Massachusetts voters will get a swift reminder. After a year or so of the Patrick administration, taxes will again be on the table again, in a big way.

MAINTAIN REASONABLY CONSERVATIVE STANCES ON SOCIAL ISSUES-- Our state is chalked full of socially conservative Democrats who, despite what the make up of the Judicial branch may suggest, will grow tired of the hyper-progressiveness of the current governor. As evidenced by the recent passage of the gay rights petition in the constitutional convention, liberals and the Democrats haven't figured out how to politically deal with the backlash. Opportunity looms.

Many Democrats in this state are socially conservative. Many are second and third generation Democrats who are Democrats mainly because their parents were. There are many socially conservative Independents. We have a large population of ethnic catholics like Italians, Portuguese and Hispanics, that while they may not altogether be in line with the Republican party on social matters, they lean Republican because of the strong social conservatism within the Pope Benedict Catholic Church. This is the one group we can skim numbers off of on the other side of the aisle. It's the one area where we can begin to pick up "I's".

The question is not whether we should proceed with speaking to these groups, but rather HOW we do it. This constitutional convention has taught us that lambasting (rightfully so) off the wall justices resonates with voters. Many Democrats didn't vote FOR the petition because they wanted to, but rather because they HAD to. Framing the debate by placing the onus on the change agents in this case (Democrats advocating for a CHANGE in marital rights) to make the argument effectively. In the short term, they will (and have to date) struggled to effectively do so.

While they struggle with formulating a message that doesn't label us as possessing a psychological form of dementia (see Def. of Homophobia), we need to try our hardest to not shoot our foot off. The radically conservative Republicans, while I may agree with them, have no clue how to market water to a well. They should be re-positioned into areas where they can help, not harm us on these issues. Careful management of this will win the day for Republicans.

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION-- Simply put, this may be the biggest issue in Massachusetts today that Republicans should completely and totally dominate. Tommy Finneran is going to plead guilty. He's the former speaker of the house and a Democrat. Billy Bulger. Need I say more kids? He's a 'D', too. How about locally? Michael Albano? Democrat. Angelo Puppolo? Democrat. Chris Asselin and family? Democrats. See the trend?

Voters in Massachusetts are looking for responsible public officials and I feel that we can fill that void. Railing against the deep corruption that permeates throughout the Massachusetts Democratic Party will not only score points, but easy points with voters. Municipalities may be more open to these calls on behalf of Republicans. Pittsfield has struggled with corruption. Springfield has struggled with corruption. Taunton, Lowell and Worcester have as well. Here's where we can make some serious in-roads.

Combining a universally sound but small party line enables us to use three popular stances to our advantage state wide but due to the sheer lack of depth in the platform, allows a candidate to focus more on non-partisan local issues, thus erasing the Republican v. Democrat dichotomy that exists in today's local state races. By positioning ourselves as candidates of character over all else, we win half the debate before stepping onto the stage. Inter-weaving a small yet impactful state party platform and gaging strong stances on local issues is vital to our success.

5.) "Just Run" Mantra needs to "Just go away"-- Many in the state party have and continue to relentlessly advocate for folks who have an "R" next to their name to run for everything. The idea is that the more you run, the better you'll do because you'll increase your 'name recognition' and as a result, your policy stances will begin to better resonate with voters over time. Sure, name recognition is great, but it's also a two-way street. It can be just as bad as it can be good. People losing by more than five points should no longer be considered for office. Our persistence in running them and encouraging their candidacies raises serious questions as to the standards we have for our public faces as a party.

Perhaps my biggest issue with the hopefully outgoing GOP leadership is that I question whether or not they view politics as anything more than a game? Like Tiddly Winks, Clue, or Coke/Pepsi. The decision to run a political campaign is one of the most difficult decisions a person can make in their lives. It exposes themselves, their family and friends to harsh scrutiny in the name of gaining more power. It can effect their businesses. People won't shop at certain establishments if they dislike your political affiliations that much. Wal-Mart anyone?

We need to have effective and highly persuasive state committee members willing to really hit the streets to find the best qualified and financed candidates available and convince them to run. Once they've made the decision, we need to make EVERY SINGLE EFFORT POSSIBLE to support the ever living heck out of them.

The formula is simple. Serious Candidates = The perception of a serious party. It's just like any small business. If you're employees on the store floor look professional and present themselves well, your business is likely to be more credible, or at least that's the assumption that is made. Therefore it is, in the mind of the consumer, a better choice to spend money at your business as opposed to another establishment that has less-professional looking employees who don't present themselves well. Same goes for politics. If the people we're running have been wiped clean multiple times or look like they've rolled off a mountain somewhere, it brings into question much more than just whether or not we're serious. It brings into question our sanity as a whole. Most dangerous of all, it makes voters question whether or not they should 'invest' (see vote) in our candidates. We need to do more to look the part. People will need to become 'OK' with running fewer, but stronger candidates. In party building, more doesn't always equal better. More often than not, less is always more.

6.) Think small in the big picture-- This runs nicely off my previous point. This one is very simple! If we run 10 well financed candidates in 10 districts where real data suggests we've got a legitimate shot at winning, we'll pick up seats. No matter how small the effort may be in scale, it is what it is, a head to head win and a gain of seats. Those wins will be bigger wins in the future. Small gains in the long run end up becoming big gains. A three seat gain one year can manifest itself into an 8-10 seat gain in the next cycle. In sum, We need to learn to walk before we can run. Fewer, well financed and well supported candidates stand a far better chance of winning than many, semi-well financed, poorly supported candidates would.

7.) Stop accepting failure and those whom wallow in it perpetually-- I heard someone at a recent state committee meeting talk about how The Martinez campaign up in Chelmsford 'resonated with voters' despite losing by an embarrassing 22 points. That's a drubbing. There's only room for winning in the game of campaign politics. Everything else is a waste of time. While it's not a nice thing to say, we need to come to terms with the fact that it's the RIGHT thing to say. Democrats are playing to win. So should we.

If that wasn't wild enough, another person said we lost this year because we were 'unlucky'? Is that implying that if we had WON we would have therefore been LUCKY!? This rationalizing of a gang rape is dangerous and should be tamped out. When we lose, we acknowledge it, look at what went wrong and try to avoid it in the future by taking proactive steps to prevent it. You'd figure things would be basic enough. If you're here to play fun time campaigner, run for President of a knitting group. Stay out of real politics.

8.) Realise that campaigning for a majority doesn't end when the last ballot has been counted-- Our task to build a Republican Majority is a far greater task than I think even I understand. For political change to occur in this type of political climate, a cultural change needs to happen. We need to change the way people think about not only the Democratic Party in Massachusetts, but our party as well..... all at the same time.

In order to do this, it will require an ongoing, continuous campaign that does not stop until our goal is accomplished. Candidates are recruited all year. Mailings are sent out every week, not just in September, October and November of every election year. We need to be visible by appearing on TV, making sure our events and what's being talked about at them is highlighted in the local media. We need to do more open houses and really emphasize WHY it's important and what it means to be a Republican and or a conservative. WHY it's important to vote Republican in national, state-wide and local elections. Our membership drives need to be continuous, ongoing and relentless. 49% of the population is unregistered. I call them free agents. Let's begin negotiating.

9.)Play as a Team-- God forbid Massachusetts Republicans showed everyone that we all played for the same team. This one should be a no-brainer but even this has slipped off the radar screen in recent months and plummeted into obscurity.

While working with some campaigns this year, I repeatedly phoned other campaigns in the region asking them to share volunteer lists, fundraising lists and doing whatever I could to share information within the candidate community. Not one campaign was willing to do this. Going along with the regionalization of the party, we need to pool our resources at the regional level. Volunteer lists, fundraising lists, voter lists, etc., should all be in one place and accessible to all who need them. Candidates stumping for other candidates. Elected officials SHOWING UP for more than a campaign announcement would help too.

To succeed in an undertaking as grand in scale as this one will need to be, we need to function as a team. This is the one area that needs to be the exception to the new rule I developed of 'less is more'.

Which leads to my 10th, final and most important point...........

10.) Making the Republican Party a Republican Community-- The Republican Party needs to be more than just a political party, it needs to be a community of people who share the same values and are interdependent. Networking ourselves with each other to advance the greater goal. There are numerous ways to cultivate and maintain this vision.

How about a Membership card with discounts at local establishments owned by fellow Republican Party members? Keep our money Republican money. Keep our goods Republican goods. We need to build a Republican community of people who help each other out in most communal aspects of their life. An old supervisor, a Democrat once told me, 'everything in your life will be dictated by the relationship you have and build with others'. She's right. Building that sense of community from within and being open to bringing in new members of a greater Republican community will be the only way we will ever earn a majority and maintain it.

While at first glance, this may seem extreme or even flat out odd to some reading, I, too would consider it strange only if it weren't for the Democrats, who ARE doing this right now, as I write and you read. Democrats shop at the same places. They attend the same seminars. They buy the same products. They have similar tastes in music, literature and other forms of entertainment. This is the only Democratic principle we should strive to emulate. In doing so, we open the door to a new Massachusetts. A Fiery Red, Republican Massachusetts.




Despite a nagging skepticism,I remain hopeful, that the Republican party has a bright future in Massachusetts so long as we are willing to come to terms with our failures in the past. The party is drunk on bad ideas right now. It seems like instead of admitting we have a problem and correcting it, we're just trading hard liquor for beer. If we were cigarette smokers, we'd be trading Marlboro Reds for Ultra lights. We need to put people in power who realise the party's shortcomings, but also have the vision and the perseverance to usher the party into a new chapter in it's history.

Therefore, I dub today "D-Day" as it is the most important day in our party's history. Our backs are against the wall and we need to perform well despite every conceivable obstacle one could imagine to exist is in front of us.

"Man is not a the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men."-- Benjamin Disraeli, Vivian Grey, 1826

Kennedy Fried Insurgency

For people like me, who takes extreme joy in making fun of the stupidity and intellectual shortcomings of others to the point that I made a web page so I could do so all the time in a very public way, *dramatic pause* this takes the taco, kids.

According to the Springfield Republican... ah Jesus, just read it here...

For those of you who want to avoid the research, I'll give you the short and skinny. Once upon a time there was a fried chicken joint that liked to stay open late and serve it's product to patrons despite not having a permit to do so. One day, a bunch of angry men entered the restaurant and opened fire on each other, killing one, injuring another.

Somehow the clowns at City Hall aren't blaming, you know.. the guilty parties, they're blaming the inanimate objects in the incident for the shooting. Apparently there have been a TON of calls to this particular establishment in the 2 1/2 years it's been operating.

City Councilor and resident Genius Timothy Rooke said the restaurant, not taxpayers, should shoulder the cost. "I think Mayor Ryan should send them (the restaurant owners) a bill," said Rooke, who said after-hours restaurants in the nightclub district were a magnet for troublemakers.

Uh, Tim... that housing project you voted in favor of on Worthington Street (the Entertainment District), probably doesn't help things either. You're hardly a reliable source on what is and what isn't a magnet for trouble makers. Seeing as the only thing Springfield Residents have to get excited about anymore is getting smashed on Worthington Street, the last thing I'd recommend doing is taking away the happy juice that likely contributes to the level of stupidity it takes to repeatedly vote for you and your fellow droolers on the city council.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is yet another example that points to the fact that the Springfield City Government STILL can't tie it's own shoes, let alone take responsibility for any old stupid thing it does. If the restaurant had been closed like it should have been, or had the city Police Department, in it's '143' trips to the establishment had checked for those permits, it's pretty likely that none of this would have happened in the first place.

Despite the delinquent fees owed to the Springfield Business District and operating without a license, I'm pretty darn sure no one who owns Kennedy Fried Chicken wanted there to be a shoot out in their dining area. I'm positive they didn't encourage it and would hope to the good lord on high that they didn't and don't condone it. When ramped up security becomes a requirement for a restaurant to stay open, we've crossed the line of dumb to flat out retarded. What were these guys supposed to do? Put a metal detector at the front door? Or maybe shoot BACK? Uh, kids, is the earth really flat?

It takes me back in time to the old 'suspended license' bills Linda Melconian and Steven Buoniconti filed a few years back, when Linda was embarrassing herself out of the State Senator and Bono was just another fart in the House. It's also known as the "if I could turn back time" defense.

Here's the back story. In West Springfield, a kid got hit by a car and subsequently was killed. He was riding his bike at night and the driver was driving with a suspended license. The police report supported and a judge upheld, that the driver didn't do anything wrong. The kid who was driving the bike basically was at fault because he was wearing all black clothes (stupid), wearing headphones (stupid-er), and was driving in the middle of the road (now, it's just natural selection).

Mommy did the Mommy thing and expressed her 'outrage' at the verdict. She said that since the guy shouldn't have been driving the car with the suspended license, it didn't matter that her incredibly stupid kid made a mistake. She insisted the accident wouldn't have happened had the driver 'respected' (yah, she said it) his suspended license. So she tried to push to get legislation passed on Beacon Hill that would claim anyone driving with a suspended licence would be deemed liable regardless of who's 'fault' the accident was.

Thank god for us on planet earth, the bill didn't go anywhere because even the Massachusetts Legislature isn't dumb enough to jail someone involved in an accident that wasn't their fault. Imagine the stupidity of you forgetting to send in your license information, some no talent @ss clown ramming into you from behind, he dies, and because he plowed into you, you're at fault because you never should have been there.

Really in the end, the onus lies on the City Government to do it's job. The cops could have checked for permits not only at the Main Street location, but in several other locations as well they've claimed to have been called to. In fact, they had 143 opportunities to check up on these things. Or better yet, Charlie and his army of idiots at city hall could have closed the restaurant down you know, when their license was SUSPENDED. Follow up, no?

So in the end, there's really no one to 'blame' per sae, other than the three clowns that decided to shoot up a restaurant on main street of all places over a spilled drink. What's almost as disturbing as the absolute lack of fear on the part of the violators, is the absolute refusal, yet again, on the part of the city government to take responsibility for failing the public once more.

Testing Teachers!?... Great Idea

An article in today's Republican (Found here: , it has been discovered that state education officials will be Seeking to boost student achievement in mathematics by focusing on how well prepared teachers are to teach what they're supposed to be teaching.

This makes me melt with joy. I really mean that.

The simple fact of the matter is that a large part of the education crisis in this country is due to the fact that those teaching and preparing our best and brightest are, well, anything but bright. It is a lot to expect the teachers themselves to teach what they do not know or understand. Tests have repeatedly shown, for decades on end, that college students who go into teaching score at or near the bottom among students in a wide variety of fields. No wonder teachers hate tests so much! And no wonder that they find innumerable fads more attractive than teaching solid skills, which they themselves may not have mastered.

For decades, our children have been incredibly outperformed in math, with American children almost ending up at or near the bottom when compared with children in other countries, DESPITE spending just as much time in the class room as students in foreign countries. Somehow, someway, this has yet to convince 'edgekaters' that they're doing anything wrong of course.

When asked the question; what is more important in math, that children 'know the right answers to the questions' or that they 'struggle with the process' of trying to find the right answer, 86% of these fools answered 'struggling' over knowing the answer according to a recent study. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Learning match, like learning every other subject teachers don't bother to teach, is part of a bigger picture. That picture involves children 'discovering' their own knowledge rather than having teachers take things that are, you know, already known and passing them along to our youth. The concept of thinking that children will 'discover' something that took scholars and geniuses decades and generations to 'discover' is truly a faith to me, which passeth all understanding.

If it couldn't get any better, discipline isn't to be bothered with, either. Fewer than half of the professors of 'education majors' felt that discipline was 'absolutely essential' to the educational process. In fact one even wrote down 'when you have students engaged and not vessels to receive information, you tend to have fewer discipline problems'. All the evidence, in all actuality, points to the exact opposite, but who needs evidence when you've got a golden calf? We need more "teaching to the test" and "Testing to Teachers" so that these truly ridiculous dogmas can be subjected to evidence.

A good teacher is someone who stirs up from within us an internal curiosity. They make us eager to read books. They get us to try new things and prepare us for wanting to learn more and more. In order to be this type of teacher one needs to have that same fire, expertise and passion for whatever their intellectual pursuit may be. Sadly these days, that's not so much the case. Never mind the fact that teacher's don't merely 'know' their subjects. They don't care to learn them at all.

A new survey of education majors at American Universities paints a dismal picture, indeed. College students who are training to become teachers have little interest in, well, learning much of anything.

The Foundation for Academic Standards and Tradition, which is a nonprofit student advocacy organization with members all over the political and ideological spectrum are expressing great concern over the results. Here are just two sobering realities:

--49 percent of the 1,005 education majors surveyed had read no book, or only one book, that was not actually required in their courses.

--Barely a majority, 55 percent, regarded a liberal arts education as better than an education in a trade, and 60 percent think there's too much emphasis on the study of great books.

Apparently, these are the folks who're educating the next generation of Americans, but it's most definitely not clear how that's going to happen. "K-12 education was a top priority for most Americans this election year,'' says pollster John Zogby, who was one of the fine folks whom conducted the survey. "This survey revealed some compelling data about the nation's education majors.''

That's an understatement. In all reality, not all education majors are going to be horrible teachers, but let's face it, one needs to question the sanity of someone who chooses to major in 'education' when the idea of an 'Education Major' is oxymoronic unto itself.

However, what should be most disturbing to all of us, is that this group of education majors is so clueless as to their own ignorance that they've implicated themselves via their own shortcomings, not having any clue as to what they're doing. They're not only products of our now fully retarded Education system, but they fail to see, in any way, that they're contributing to more retardation. They're ignorant of their own ignorance.

What would posses someone to want to be a teacher if they aren't interested in LEARNING?

The public schools recruit from the education majors and private schools are more likely to draw on teachers with a greater depth of knowledge, because, well, they TEST their incoming teachers to determine their competence. That's certainly one reason that there exists a growing number of parents who're supporting school choice. In essence, school choice IS the school reform of choice. I'm willing to bet most who vote against school choice wouldn't ever send their kids to public school. After all, they wouldn't want your kids touching theirs! Who knows where they've been!

In the end, finding out why stupid people try to become exactly what they shouldn't ever be considered for is a problem that will take much studying. However, testing teachers in core competencies is at least a massive step in the right direction towards making sure our kids don't end up wearing helmets to work and eating their own boogers for the rest of their lives. Test those teachers!

Elite Eight for '08 #1: Governor Haley Barbour

Over the next few weeks, I'll break down some of the prospective Presidential Candidates for the Republican Party in 2008. Don't hesitate to leave your comments below!


Governor Haley Barbour (MS)

Credentials: Governor, Mississippi, Former Political Director for the Reagan White House and Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993-1997.

Pros:A Reagan Republican with executive level experience. Need more? How about the fact that the base knows who he is. He also has a lights-out record as the governor of Mississippi: he erased a $700 million dollar deficit without raising taxes, and weathered Katrina (both literally and figuratively) by successfully displacing over 100,000 people with minimal disruption (with temporary facilities such as schools and medical facilities up and running almost immediately) - a record which earned him the award as the Nation's Most Outstanding Governor in 2006 by Governing Magazine (an independent publication based out of Washington DC).

Cons: He has already said that he will be running for reelection as governor in 2007 (Mississippi has odd year elections). He also has a southern accent. Bill Clinton having an accent as governor of Arkansas with his Illinois attorney wife is one thing; Haley Barbour with an accent coming from the same state as Trent Lott is another.

What Makes Barack Obama Qualified to Be President?

What in the way of qualifications does Barack Obama bring to the table to warrant Time Magazine calling him 'The Next President'?

His track record is pretty thin: He wrote a book about himself and beat the pants off of Alan Keyes in an election. What else?

OJ Simpson wrote a book about himself and for that matter, so did Dennis Rodman. Are they somehow qualified to be president? I'm really not all that impressed by anyone who writes a book about.. well... themselves. Obama's book is hardly Paine's "Common Sense" nor is it even a poor attempt at re-creating JFK's "Profiles in Courage". It's merely a piece dedicated to himself, draped with enough unsubstantiated rhetoric to even come close to be called worthy of anyone's time.

As far as being a US Senator, well, let's look at his election. Obama beat Alan Keyes. Keyes is a brilliant orator and in my opinion, a great guy in general. However, beating Alan Keyes in an election makes you somehow Presidential material, than anyone who beats the Detroit Lions in the NFL is a Super Bowl contender. If beating Alan Keyes is now a requirement to winning the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency, then why haven't Paul Sarbanes (who beat the stuffing out of Keyes in 1988 in Maryland for a Senate seat) or Barbara Milkulski (who repeated the beating four years later) being mentioned in the same breadth?

Bob Dole beat Alan Keyes, and for that matter, an entire field of candidates for the nomination in 1996, so how come he doesn't get a mug shot on the cover of Time with the headline "The Next President"?

And maybe it's just me, but how self-absorbed do you have to be to write a memoir (see Biography) at the ripe old age of 34? I know, a person like Obama who is apparently very skilled at marketing his image, without having much of a record to build upon it.

Deval Patrick On One Party Rule...Quotes Mao

Un-substantiated Earmarks

Pop Quiz: Who said the following during the 2006 Gubernatorial Election?

"Legislative earmarks have grown. While some represent legitimate efforts, many have resulted in an ineffective distribution of government resources. The 2006 budget contained 747 earmarks (approximately $408 million), up from 517 earmarks (worth $340 million) four years ago – and compared to 179 earmarks ($208 million) in a similar budget structure fifteen years ago. Therefore earmark spending has increased by 20% in four years and almost doubled in fifteen years.

I will veto unsubstantiated earmarks. I will also work with the Legislature to cap earmark spending at a fixed dollar amount annually. Over time, the earmark cap would be reduced, forcing earmark spending to be pushed into the appropriate line items within the budget, and back into the mainstream of the state’s budget process. I believe this discipline alone can save the Commonwealth $100 million in the first year, and even more over time. "

Was it:

A.) Kerry Healey
B.) Deval Patrick
C.) Tom Riley
D.) Chris Gabrielli


Yes, it's B, Governor Elect Deval Patrick. So how is a $100,000 gazebo in Braintree anything BUT an 'un-substantiated earmark'? If it isn't, then what is? I suppose nothing says 'together we can' like 'free' Gazebos for everyone!

Brian Lees..... Good Riddance

Recently, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow) has been doing everything he can to bash the state GOP and Governor Mitt Romney. When Republicans have friends like this, who needs enemies?

Recently on Brad & Bo in the Morning, the local morning radio show on WHYN AM radio out of Springfield, Lees went on the warpath, pulling no punches in demonstrating his contempt for the Governor as well as the state party that gave him his leadership post in the Senate and put him in office to begin with.

Senator Lees has, in my opinion, confirmed what many of us already knew. Brian Lees plays for one team: Team Brian Lees. Lees recently decided to take a pay raise and run for the wholley inconsequential office of Hampden County Clerk of Courts in hopes of some day being what Sheriff Michael Ashe is to many Democrats today, a socialite power-broker. Only problem seems to be that Lees apparently forgot that in order to be like Sheriff Ashe, you need to have, you know.... friends.

Lees had what appeared to be, all the political power a person could have in Hampden County. He was a nearly invincible incumbent Senator who had a ton of pull on Beacon Hill, despite heading up a virtually meaningless minority in the State Senate. Even though he took many questionable policy positions, his name was tossed around as a strong potential threat to Congressman Richard Neal of Springfield. Even the Springfield City Mayoral office was considered Lees' if he wanted it. Lees, by either staying put in the Senate, or by seeking higher office, could have potentially not only elevated his political stock, but granted some much needed credibility to the Massachusetts GOP in Hampden County.

Instead, Lees took the roughly $40,000 pay increase that comes with the oh so difficult task of scheduling court dates. Jim Goodhines, a Democrat from Longmeadow and an attorney by trade, ran a well organized and impressive campaign that tossed incumbent Clerk Marie Mazza from office and looked primed to take the win at the polls come November. In the meantime, Lees had decided to step down from his post as Senator and pledged his full support to aid Jack Villimaino (R-East Longmeadow) in his bid to replace him. However once the political landscape wasn't about Brian, he grew restless and decided to steal the show.

Two weeks before the primary, like any good glory hog, Lees tore the rug out from underneath his young aid and Goodhines by announcing his bid to become Clerk of Courts, first needing to secure the Republican nomination via write in ballot in the primaries. This did two things. First, due to the high level of coordination it takes to conduct a write in campaign, Lees took his volunteers away from the Villimaino campaign, which was in dire need of them and therefore trouncing any chance Villimaino had of keeping the seat Republican come November. Even more unfortunate, was all the money Lees had promised to raise Villimaino and didn't. Jack's volunteers were Brian's volunteers and now they were REALLY Brian's volunteers. Jack's money needed to come from Brian and, well, it didn't. Second, it showed that he was far less politically powerful than once thought, which may have been an even bigger blow to the party locally. Lees went on to defeat Goodhines, largely an unknown before the election by roughly a thousand votes, less than 2% of the popular vote. Lees couldn't even come off as a convincing bully.

Not only did Lees virtually hand his seat over to incoming State Senator-elect Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham), thus further depleting Republican ranks in the Senate, he exposed himself and therefore any hopes of an immediate gain or place of leverage politically within the area for the immediate time being. In order to further pour salt in the needlessly opened wounds, he's now launched a full out assault on Governor Mitt Romney and the entire state GOP.

Lees has proven himself to be not only politically impotent, but a social climber of the worst sort. It's never been about the party. He obviously didn't care much for his staff either. It's not about doing the right thing or being a virtuous public servant. It's about petty popularity and a pay raise. Although it may sting in the short term, it's all for the best in the long term. The state GOP and Western Massachusetts need team players if they are to rebuild themselves and prosper once more. We're much better off without Brian Lees and others who pretend to carry the banner for everyone but themselves. Good riddance.

I'm a Massachusetts Republican, and I Have a Problem

I spent my New Year's holiday with my Wife's family up in Chelmsford this weekend. I picked up today's version of the Lowell Sun to see one of the headline's reading "Tattered state GOP looking to rebuild". One of the major pieces of the article discussed the State GOP's newest Executive Director, a 28 year old former congressional aid, Brian Dodge.

Dodge, Minority Leader Senator Rich Tisei and some of the others were quoted in the article repeatedly talked about the importance of filling a ballot state-wide to rebuilding the party, which with the loss of the Corner Office, finds itself in shambles. To be blunt, I can't believe the denial we're experiencing within the state GOP despite the spanking we took in this year's elections. I am beginning to wonder if they get even the basics of what it's going to take to re-building the Massachusetts Republican Party.

The 'just run' philosophy has been a complete disaster for the state GOP and quite frankly, is irresponsible. Campaigns are about winning. If you don't win, you can't legislate, or at the very least, block bad legislation. Running random people for office in the name of, well, name recognition isn't the answer.

The problem with many of the candidates who run on the Republican ticket for state offices, is, well, that they've run too many times. In nearly every case, the fact is that they've been branded as losers. Regardless if those labels are fair or not, this perception should, by now, be a sobering reality state wide for Massachusetts Republicans. Name recognition is a two-way street. It can be great to have, but can also work against you. If you're running for the state legislature for the thirtieth time, you're labeled as the guy who runs for anything, no matter what. This reflects poorly on not only the candidate, but the party that's running them, as it shows a glaring weakness in the party's ability to recruit electable candidates.

This flaw makes me question whether or not State Party members really understand how serious running a campaign is as well as what the potential implications that come along with it once the votes have been counted are. Running for the legislature isn't tiddly-winks. It's not Coke and Pepsi. It's not a game. Political campaigns are incredibly costly financially as well as costly to one's reputation. If you run as a liberal or as a conservative, it can effect your business as well, causing long term issues.

Most damaging of all, it fosters a perpetual state of complacency and apathy that has infected the state party at the local level on an unprecedented scale. In Chelmsford, Susan Fargo's challenger Melly Martinez, lost by 22 points, yet folks at the state committee were lauding how the campaign 'resonated' with voters, this time. 22 points is a blow out. It didn't resonate with anything except losing. It's one thing to lose by 5 points and run again. A second try would be warranted then. However, when one is getting spanked that badly at the polls, you have to question the sanity of anyone that would deem a 22-point drubbing as anything but a massive failure.

When in the process of rebuilding, you lose site of the fact that sometimes we need to step back before we step forward, you doom yourself to this kind of perpetual futility, hopelessly digging for whatever fanatical delusion one can drum up to justify their failures to get the job done. In order to rebuild our party, we need to learn how to walk before we can run. The old saying that "All politics are local" should resonate deeply with those of us whom believe there CAN be a future in the commonwealth for the Republican party. However, we must also be willing to come to the table and run our candidates on principles that should be universally inherent within our current political climate.

Discontent with the Democratic majority on Beacon Hill is at an all time high. Several local municipalities have struggled with the challenges of a hamstrung economy due to high taxes and unprecedented government corruption. With a simple, universal conservative message driving fewer, targeted races, we can begin to make inroads. In counties like Hampden, where the gay marriage petition drew the second most opposition of anywhere in the state, where the trash tax in Springfield and taxes in general are loathed and has become a place where government corruption is deeply ingrained, we should be making inroads. It's places like Hampden, where the Mass GOP can build a small base with just by leading the discussion on issues that the voters already care about all the time, instead of when we're running for office, that the Republican party can grow.

Instead of running 60 candidates, why not run 10 well funded campaigns with messages that are guided by a universally appealing platform and solidified by sound local policy stances? If we lose 7 of those elections, that's fine. If we pick up three seats, we are closer to our greater long term goal of some day having a GOP majority in one or both houses in the legislature.

At the local level, state committees need to be held accountable for their continual dereliction of duty. At the same time, the state party needs to do a better job of providing these committees with the resources to succeed in candidate recruitment, the registration of new members and to increase visibility in their respective locals. Running a state party is a two way street. The local committees need to be willing to do the grunt work, the state party needs to be willing to be a guide. Both need to hold each other accountable for their successes and failures. Currently, these relationships don't exist on either level.

The opportunity is there for progress and for growth, yet those at the State GOP seem to be married to minor modifications to a plan that has failed on virtually every level since it's inception. The first step in beating any addiction is to admit one does in fact, have an addiction. Thus far, if the state party is addicted to alcohol, it's merely replacing dark lagers with a light draft. We are perilously close to extinction yet at the same time are staring a wide open door in the face. The time is now for action, however we must be willing to come to terms with what got us in this position in the first place before we figure out how to get out of it so that we don't find ourselves either here once again, or wiped out entirely. We need to look ourselves in the mirror and admit that "We are Massachusetts Republicans, and we have a problem".