What Makes Barak Obama Qualified to be President? Part III

Thank you so much to 96.9 FM Talk Radio and Michael Graham for Making My Day. I'll parrot some of his points and toss in a few of my own, allowing and inspiring me to complete my mini-series on Barak Obama's unqualifications for the White House.

POP QUIZ!

Who said which of the following statements have been made by both Barak Obama and Deval Patrick in the last 90 days Can you identify which one said what?


A) "We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans."

B) "You know what else has to change? Our politics."

C) "Grassroots governing, like grassroots campaigning, is about listening to people."

D) "I've learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots."

E) "There are people just like me who are hungry for a reason to hope."

F) "People are hungry for a different kind of politics."

G) "I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you."

H) "Changing our politics can only come from you."

I) "The change I’m talking about is up to you. "

J) "Take a chance on hope."

K) "We must draw a line in the sand between the politics of cynicism and the politics of hope."

L) "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"


Does it even matter at this point? It looks like the Democrats just want us to vote for eloquent, unqualified black men. For all I know, there could be tons of reasons to really go out and support Barak Obama's campaign for the Presidency, but no one from his camp are telling anyone. They did mention however, that he is, you know... black.

I'm already tired of the new wave of supposedly eloquent African American Democrats who are constantly talking about being above the fray, yet have no mark on their record that would suggest otherwise. Instead they mask their charade using words like 'hope' and 'change', all the while using their race as an excuse for avoiding the specifics. In the end, Democrats want us to vote for someone because of their race, which is just as ridiculous as voting against someone for the same reasons. This is a new, dangerous trend that puts race and style above substance and experience. Ironically, both Patrick and Obama completely lack the experience to pursue the offices they decided to seek. Patrick tricked the crowd, and it's very likely Obama could do the same.

Throughout the 2006 campaign, Patrick was high on substance and low of policy stances. It's taken until now to find out how he sees the world, and sadly, it's too late to avoid the train wreck. Let's hope voters find out what Obama thinks about things BEFORE we head to the polls.

Ever Walk in On Your Parents Having Sex?

This is the one thing that just makes me shake my head at Massachusetts Politics in general.

There is perhaps no other legislative body in the country that is more disgraceful then the Massachusetts General Court. No one is as unqualified to be a Governor as Deval Patrick. If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what does.

To be blunt, I could care less about where Governor Patrick's ideological stances are at this point. I never thought I'd say that, but really, it's true. I just want to see this guy get through one day giving off the aura that he might have the slightest clue of, I don't know, WHAT TO DO.

We've had all sorts of fluffer-nutter Pod Casts, Civil Rights speeches, and other acts that give us 'fuzzy feelings'. Deval's not wearing the old tie to the office as much anymore and is going for the more casual, cool look. He opened up the Governor's private elevator so everyone can use it. He took those ugly velvet ropes around the corner office down, too. Don't you feel more 'engaged'!?What's next? A soft serve ice cream maker in the main rotunda of the state house that gives away 'free' cones to anyone who wants it? Is this Sesame Street?

In his first month in office, Patrick has almost burnt his office down accidentally (which he laughed about on his 'Pod Cast'), dismissed the man whom he had just appointed to the head of the Economic Affairs cabinet position and replaced him with, well, himself. He played long-face about the recently discovered budget deficit before re-instating nearly $383 million dollars worth of cuts to the budget and now apparently is considering completely crushing the budget by raising the salaries of members of the state legislature all so he can get a free ride for the next four years. Seeing as everyone else seems to be getting a nice wad of dough except for, of course, those of us whose shoulders it will fall on to pay for all these goodies.

If that weren't fun enough,, has announced he will not be keeping his pledge to cut property taxes, abandoned any state role in apprehending illegal immigrants and announced his opposition to voters participating in the state constitution's initiative and petition process.

Then right up there with The Senator Barrios "Kill Peanut Butter and Fluff Sandwiches" legislation, Deval Patrick is trying to get more in touch with us by speaking to use through our iPods. After all, If that's not government in action, I don't know what is. Patrick said he was eager for the opportunity, touting it as a wonderful opportunity for more 'dialogue', which in the end, kind of confuses me. For a 'dialogue' to occur, two people need to be talking to each other, right? So if Governor Patrick is interested in hearing from me or is considering playing people's concerns back and responding to them, there isn't much 'dialogue' going on, just more Patrick sweet talk.

Politically, one must wonder where Patrick's head has gone. Ideological differences aside, I admired his political know how and his ability to pain an image of himself and successfully market it to the masses. He ran a brilliant campaign for governor, although now, the truth may be coming out that it wasn't about changing anything, it was about marketing a gimmick. Never once was it about substance, it was all style. Senator Steven Bounoconti of West Springfield, the DEMOCRAT legislator of the year once upon a time, called Patrick "Naive". Dan Bosely, Patrick's original Economic Affairs appointment, couldn't take it on saw the writing on the wall before so much as the first week of his administration was done. Now, Patrick's willing to bump up the salaries of the pigs in the legislature in exchange for passing more of his goof-ball legislation and doing it blatently right out in the open for everyone to see. Listening and watching the actions of the Democrats in the state house, you can't help but question whether Patrick possesses even the core competencies that are required to do the basics of the job.

Now I'm not naive to the process. I know how it works. The Legislature gets goodies if they give goodies back to Deval, Quid Pro Quo. But the problem I have with deals like the one Patrick is floating around with the Massachusetts Legislature is alot like the one we have about our Parents and having sex. Sure you know your parents do it, afterall, if they didn't, you wouldn't be here reading this. But it's a totally different thing to see it actually happening right in front of you. I know the legislature and the Patrick Administration are trying to stuff their own pockets as well as their buddies' pockets. I just wish they'd at least try to do it behind closed doors.

It's less politically inclined folks like Patrick that make me squirm these days. At least when most politicians make these kinds of sleezy deals, they try to keep them hidden. Then I can justify my outrage and come on and rant about it around here. But when you've got bafoons like Governor Patrick running around the Corner Office, I can't help but think the fun has been taken out of it all.

Why the Mass GOP Should Consider "Schilling" a Ball Player for Senate

With the recent announcement on the part of Senator John Kerry that he will not run for the Presidency in 2008, it has stirred up a lot of interest on our side of the aisle as to whom we should throw up against him for his Senate seat.

If he decides to run, I'd be very likely to back Curt Schilling as the GOP nominee.

I know, a lot of people may take exception to our running a guy with no political experience like Shilling for not only a powerful position in the US Government, but for a seat that actually may be as vulnerable as John Kerry's is.

If you're one of those folks you have a point. After all, Kerry is indeed vulnerable. Wouldn't it be wise to strike while the iron is hot and not blow our wad on a candidate with as little qualifications as Curt Schilling has.

Allow me to make the case.

Here is the current state of affairs: John Kerry is in a very weakened state after not only losing his Presidential quest in 2004, but also in his own self-burial in the time since then, taking full advantage of every opportunity he's had to make an idiot out of himself. In fact, he has handled himself so poorly, that running for the White House in 2008 would likely be a detriment to his party, even in such a crowded and comedic field as the Democratic field for 2008 is.

Kerry has not only been lambasted for his off-beat stances on many issues of the day, but has also morphed into everything we love to hate about Democrats in general. He has an incredible penchant for pomposity and has the preachy, if not utterly condescending tone that contributes to the overall perception that he's altogether, insincere. He's the epitome of leftist elitism and a lightning rod for criticism, even from those who share many of his beliefs.

His level of commitment to his home state is a perfect example of what NOT to do if you're a US Senator and coupled with the reasons mentioned above, he may be ripe for the picking, even in an as Democratically-inclined state as Massachusetts.

The Republican Party in Massachusetts is teetering on extinction. Altogether, the MassGOP makes up only 13% of the registered voting population. The Massachusetts Governor's office was the last bastion of hope to many Conservatives who had otherwise been purged and repeatedly and in some cases, have been brutally beaten back by the nearly invincible Democratic Machine that dominates Massachusetts politics.

Party enrollment is at an all time low. While some Republicans can take solace in the fact that Democratic numbers haven't exactly been exploding either, the state GOP has had little success in recruiting those who identify themselves as independents, despite enjoying considerable support from them in past Gubernatorial elections.

Which brings us to today and why Curt Schilling should be the Republican Nominee to challenge John Kerry in 2008.

1.) CREATING A BUZZ-- It's been forever and then some since Republicans in this state had a magnet for publicity like a Schilling candidacy would be. Being a Republican in Massachusetts would be 'cool' again and inject some much needed energy into a State party that badly needs it.

2.) INDEPENDENT APPEAL-- With party numbers dwindling on both sides, a Schilling Candidacy would appeal to those who are otherwise apathetic towards the political process at best. Signing them up and engaging them in the political process would be nothing but a win for the state GOP before any votes are counted. We need numbers and a Schilling candidacy would help boost party membership.

3.) A SHOT IN THE ARM TO THE LOCALS-- If he does run and assuming he wins the nomination, if I were Peter Torkildsen, I'd be sure to inject Schilling's star power into every state legislative race I possibly could. People would show up to see Schilling and as a result, local candidates he supports would receive a rub as well, and likely a strong showing at the polls. It's free publicity for even candidates running for state representative.

4.) CONSERVATION-- Yes, there are more qualified candidates than Curt Schilling for the United States Senate. However, why waste them in a race where they'd likely get beat? This keeps the Kerry Healey's, Charlie Baker's, Andy Card's and Reed Hillman's on the sidelines, but keeps them warm for possible congressional campaigns and or the governor's office in 2010. Taking on John Kerry, even a vulnerable John Kerry, would be a risky proposition for the average state Republican candidate. Sadly, good candidates like Healey and Hillman for example, are a loss away from political oblivion. Why not play our cards smart and run them when the political climate would be most favorable to them, rather than risk them against Kerry?

5.) CONTRAST-- The best chance the MassGOP has of beating Kerry is to run someone who would be his polar opposite. Schilling is a ball player, Kerry is a player. Schilling is disheveled and otherwise unkempt and ordinary, Kerry uses more hair spray then all the members of Poison combined. Schilling has appeal with the 'little guy' not just on his appearance and name recognition, but how he delivers his policy stances. He'd be real, not the 'real deal'. Other candidates, however, do not provide that stark of a contrast. Kerry Healey and Charlie Baker are wealthy and to many, represent the typical White-Collar Republican that doesn't appeal to the masses. Sure, Kerry is in the same boat, but if you present voters with a choice between richy rich lefty and richy rich righty, in this state, they'll stick with the status quo. Andy Card will not win an election so long as President Bush is still in the White House, at least not in this state. Hillman's a little different in the fact that he's very likeable, but likely doesn't have the drawing power that Schilling would have.

Schilling provides voters with a clear alternative whom they can identify with. He brings a level of 'star power' that none of the other candidates, save for possibly Andy Card, can boast.


However, above all, Schilling has an 'X' factor about him that can't be said of any of the other hopefuls: If Curt Schilling loses, the state party still wins. There will be more registered Republicans in Massachusetts. We would likely win a few extra seats in the legislature as a result of the rub he could give lower level candidates. In sum, a Schilling candidacy would be a net-gain either way, without sacrificing better, more politically-inclined candidates.

Kerry, even if he won, would likely resume his reign on idiocy on the national scene and sustain his vulnerability until it's time to un-elect him again. With Ted Kennedy not getting any younger, it maintains a strong pool of candidates to run against a Democratic nominee if Kennedy's seat were to open up. We also have a reasonable field of candidates to stack up against Deval Patrick in 2010. A Schilling candidacy would be a major step forward win or lose.

In politics, it's sometimes better to take a minor sacrifice to win the battle. In the current political reality, the Massachusetts Republican Party is in the bottom of the ninth with two outs. With typically gutsy showing by a possible Schilling campaign may not give us the runs we need to win the game, it would be enough to push the game into extra innings and give us a chance to win. I say "Play Ball!"

Numbers Don't Lie, Kids...

Those on the state committee and the powers that be at the state GOP headquarters would do well to take a look at some recent surveys conducted by the Massachusetts Republican Assembly. The numbers are telling as to how badly the state party has failed it's constituents. Here are some of the highlights:


First how the Candidates felt:


--17% of Candidates surveyed felt positive regarding the training they recieved from the state party, 13% thought it imparted necessary knowledge and skills.

--10% said the State Committee continuously monitored their campaign's progress and provided useful feedback and advice.

--6% felt positive regarding MassGOP fundraising efforts and allocation of funds. 87% had a negative impression.

--83% were dissatisfied with the work State GOP Office holders did in endorsing their campaign.

That's just the candidates themselves. Here's how many town committee members felt about their state committee folks:

--State CommitteeMEN had an approval rating of 45%

--State CommitteeWOMEN had an approval rating of 42%

--79% of WRITTEN responses mentioned that the state committtee is not responsive to local needs.

--51% of respondents felt that their state committe-person did a good job of keeping them informed of the state party activities.


In order for the Massachusetts Republican Party to flourish in this state again, there needs to be a commitment towards developing that 'farm' team, but there seems to be little to no interest on the part of the state committee to do so. Hopefully with the election of Peter Torkildsen, we'll get some much needed change in the overall culture of the state party. Anyone curious as to what the Massachusetts Republican Assembly DOES, you can check out their website at . Apparently despite circulating the results of this survey around the state party in the past, it's been ignored. Maybe it'd behoove the higher ups to pay attention this time.

College Fun

Your tuition dollars at work folks. Yes, I know this one's a little old, but these are the types of folks being hired by colleges and universities. We've come so far.



This guy says the Kurds weren't really gassed... or at least if they were... it wasn't Saddam's fault.



This guy came to class roasted..



Apparently basic proficiency in English isn't a requirement either



Campus Activities...




I'll keep posting some of the best from our college campuses and universities. The kicker of all of this, is that these professors and activities are paid for by you, the tax payer. Every single one of these clips is from a state university. I think it's time our elected officials started taking notice at what the results are of writing blank check after blank check to our state colleges and universities.

The Massachusetts GOP Elects a New Chairman

The Massachusetts Federalist would like to congratulate Peter Torkildsen on his being elected to the top spot in the Massachusetts Republican Party

What Makes Barack Obama Qualified to Be President? Part Deux

So it's official, Barack Obama is in. Earlier today, Obama announced that he has filed papers to form a 2008 Presidential Exploratory committee, but as my friend at GOPnews pointed out, when was the last time a Presidential Exploratory Committee came back and said "Um, now's not the time, go back to work"? So, unfortunately, it's safe to say, he's in. The timing is impeccable as it comes one day after Martin Luther King Day and exactly one day before he goes on Oprah, who I'm sure will stop just sort of removing all her clothes and allowing Obama to ravish her body on camera tomorrow.

Don't expect to learn anything new about Obama on Oprah. There really isn't much to talk about. Here's everything you need to know about Obama: Barack Obama is a rank and file Democrat who gives a good speech, presents himself well and so happends to be black. There's nothing else of substance about the man worth knowing or that makes him any more special than any other Democratic politician. He's simply the latest in an emerging type of black rank and file Democratic politicians who say a lot without ever really saying anything at all, cloaked in vagueness while being completely and utterly devoid of vision and ideas. Sounds like a certain Massachusetts Governor.

He was born to white mother and has a black father. He spent 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, but if spending 8 years as a state legislator is a qualification for the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency, I'm expecting Senator Gale Candaras, Steven Bouoniconti, Susan Fargo, and others to declare that they've filed their papers for the Presidency as well. Obama has come to the US Senate and voted 'across the aisle', uh, zero times. He has failed to take the lead on one piece of major legislation since he arrived in Washington.

Obama wrote a book (all about him) and then like the complete fake that he is, began talking to others about being above the fray, although there's nothing to suggest that he himself, was ever above any fray, anywhere. While he certainly talks about them a lot, Just what divides has Obama ever 'bridged'?

In refferring to the state of America today, Obama said in his 'announcement speech';

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that
concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics.

First of all Senator Obama, if you want to be President, you'd BETTER be worried about the 'magnitude' of our problems, especially today. Being the President isn't a game. Second, This statement says everything you need to know. Here is a man who clearly believes his own hype and is hopelessly consumed by his own ego. No ammount of disengenuous postulating and catch phrases are a replacement for actually knowing what you're talking about. Finally... Barack, try addressing the 'smallness' of your own ideas, or lack thereof, before talking about the smallness of others.

But in the end, maybe he's right. After all, thanks to the 'smallness of our politics', someone like Barack Obama who brings a lot of style, but is completely devoid of substance, has a shot at the Presidency. Maybe he has a point, after all.

Why A Strong Mass GOP is Important

If one were to ask the question; "Why is the Republican Party virtually extinct in Massachusetts?," one could probably come up with a million and one reasons. They would include political incompetence, lack of energy and enthusiasm, inability to change, strategy flaws, etc. Sure, those are pretty general and don't scratch even a 1,000th of the greater overall problem. However, it is my belief that the party has failed to answer one of the most fundamental questions any Party should have to answer at the drop of a hat: "Why is it important to elect Republicans to office in the Commonwealth?"

Please, save me the diatribe on One Party Rule. That's so 1990. To give you a sense of how old that argument is, when we first started making it, The Ultimate Warrior was the WWF World Champion. Mike Tyson hadn't been knocked out by Buster Douglas. The Yankees really DID suck. No one knew who Saddam Hussein was, never mind giving a crap about him. Today, we know the Ultimate Warrior, though influential in his industry on a character level, was really overrated. Buster Douglas DID knock out Mike Tyson. The Yankees still do suck, but not literally and everyone knows who Saddam was. Freakin' New Kids on the Block were actually 'cool'. The point is the political landscape in Massachusetts, like the world around it, has changed dramatically and now voters are requiring us to tell them something new.

One party rule should be cited for sure, but today, more so than ever before, we need to shift our focus from sitting at the campfire, to getting back to our fundamental reason for existence over the years, which is to minimize the size of a state government that is overflowing with useless and silly government programs that hurt the tax payer more than helping him.

Most would appropriately ask why someone would be against the idea of government programs that are designed to help people. Well, sure Government exists to help people for sure, but WHO are they helping? With WHOSE money? With WHOSE Consent? With what RESULT?

I'm all for government helping the needy and the poor. However, when we Begin dealing in the business of of taking from one middle class family and transferring it to another middle class family, we're running a slippery slope. Do you need examples? Well, take transit for example. People who drive cars must pay for the transportation preferences of other people who like to take the "T". On a national level, we have the National Endowment for the Arts. We all must subsidize recreational activities of others. Whether they want to listen to Rock music or take pictures of their wee-wees, we have to pay for it.

There IS a loud call for cutting back our spending and programs at the state level. However, it's no surprise that most love this concept only when it's not a program that benefits them. It's no surprise that Democrats dominate the political scene given their 'generosity' to everyone with everyone else's stuff. George Bernard Shaw says it best: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support."Many such programs corrupt our politics by making it a contest for who gets to feed at the public trough. Moreover, they do not promote the common welfare or the public good. Rather, they promote the good of some people at the expense of other people.

Now I'm not saying the government isn't important nor should it have little responsibility. We need the government to protect us, put police on the streets, build highways and check the environment. After all, If they didn't, companies would pollute like crazy. Government should also support basic research, patent protections as well as basic education and health care services. There's NO shame in supporting government so long as it's actions rest within it's legitimate sphere. Government can and should be a good thing.

But again, we need to realize that whatever it is the government DOES, it usually does a pretty poor job of DOING. Now I'm not saying people who work in the public sector are idiots. They're most definitely not. But there are simply no real standards. There aren't. Don't let silly legislative 'accountability' bills fool you. Imagine if you worked in an organization that you didn't own, and you were only accountable to yourself for all of your actions. You see, in government, there isn't a 'bottom line' so to speak. There's no real criteria to determine whether or not the bike helmet program is working or not. With change over in administrations at least every four years, there isn't much in the way of consistency. Bills change, political leanings change, staff turnover is huge, etc. In fact, there probably aren't many who really know what the real roles of their departments or agencies are. A few years ago a guy who worked in the Education Department in Springfield asked "How can you say our public schools are failing? A lot of people work here." By his standard, government was doing its job by employing people. He's not an idiot, but certainly misguided in his assumption that Education should just be a incubator for employment.

We Republicans and conservatives know that government, especially here in Massachusetts, continues to do stuff that is A.) Not needed or B.) can be done a lot better by someone else. Look at the big dig. To be fair, liberals are starting to get it, but even at that, they're not learning fast enough. Decades of urban legends (or political legends in this case) have institutionalized themselves in the state. It was believed that Government must run lighthouses, because you know, if they didn't, who would? At a federal level, people think the government should deliver the mail, because if they didn't, no one else would. Prisons are an absolute government responsibility, but they don't operate most efficiently unless they're under government control. In the worst myth of them all, It's widely believed that without public schools, thousands of kids in this state would receive no education at all. These are random issues I know, but all have been proven to be demonstrably false in recent times.

If you truck around the north and south shores, you'll find a ton of lighthouses that are privately owned. There's tons of them in Connecticut and Rhode Island, too. Prisons regularly contract out services to private contractors, and some are even entirely run by private companies. There's zero logic behind the claim that private markets couldn't provide education services through high school. The government's role could be limited to providing assistance to those who would otherwise not be able to afford those services and extending opportunities to our best and brightest. Oh yeah, remember that postal service. Two words: Federal Express.

Here in Springfield especially, but all over the state as well, many folks think big government is a check on the scary big business. Frankly, we're petrified of anything that isn't somewhat subsidized by the federal government. To an extent, the kids scared, hiding under their blankets are a little right. Thank god for the government when Enron hit. However though, there really isn't a check at all between Government and Big Business, or at least one that is proportional in any way shape, or form. How can I say this? Well, because big business' power over the average citizen of the commonwealth, or any American citizen for that matter, is very limited. To sell stock shares and products, these entities must PERSUADE investors and customers to buy them. It's the power of coercion. They must win consent before taking someones money. The government doesn't.

This is, in the end, the fundamental difference between business and government. For example, you cannot simply opt out of Social Security. You are required to pay it, no matter what. If I was to tell the tax collectors; "Hey guys, thanks for the help and all, but I don't think I really need this and to be honest, I don't really want to. In fact I'll take myself off the roles to help you guys save a few bucks to help someone else who needs it. I really appreciate your gesture, but thanks but no thanks." The government would arrest my red haired, freckled rear end and throw me in jail. I can't say no. There is no choice. If Big Business offered me a retirement fund and I said; "Wow, this looks great, but I think there are some other options out there for me to look at," they would say 'OK' or they would try to convince or persuade me to stick with their service. If they got on my nerves enough or threatened my or my family's safety or state of being because we didn't buy into their program, I could call the cops (the government) and get rid of them. But who calls the cops on the government? Even more so, when you really think about it, even those who work at the lowest levels of government (IRS agents, the boring guy at the DMV, the immigration official, the donut mowing Police Officer) have more influence than Big Business does. And this power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the liberal claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.

Finally, I wish to challenge the liberal notion that the private sector is motivated by greed, while the public sector is motivated by noble idealism. It in itself, should make the case for more Republicans and fewer Democrats in the state legislature. I've enough experience in government to drum up this scenario for you. You're at a meeting with a mayor, governor, or if it's me, likely the President, because I'm the man. It involves, because I live at a college, a drug policy (This'll show these kids). The good old folks at the Department of Defense say the problem is because drugs are being produced in Columbia. They have a $20 billion program to destroy the crops. Yay, things that go boom rule. Health and Human Services are out there too though, and they say the problem of drugs was a problem of treatment, and they have a $40 billion program to help treat more addicts. Maybe all I need is a hug. The Education Department doesn't want to be left out though, so they come up with their definition of the problem as well as their solution. They are convinced that the real solution to drugs is education and they think we should take on a multi-year initiative to raise the consciousness of American tax payers that costs $30 billion. If the teacher's hot, I'm there! I know, I'm funny, however, here's where I make my point:

Regardless of the merit of their arguments, they aren't any less motivated by their own interests (see Self.) than anyone in the private sector. The only real difference was that their interests aren't translated in coins and cash (see Money). Their currency is a little different. Fundamentally, they were after power and influence instead of money.

Although it's pretty much true that a lot of the welfare state mentality in Massachusetts is losing it's grip... I think..., the state government in Massachusetts (and the federal government, too) is too damn big. Our duty is to limit it's size and like a good coach or teacher, keep it focused on what it's supposed to be doing. When the state exceeds its proper functions, when it moves outside its sphere, it invades the domain of the citizens, depriving us of both freedom and the responsibility that comes along with it.

Though we've made small baby steps here and there in these regards, it's simply not enough. In order to insure this kind of existence and oversight, we need more Republicans in the state legislature and more importantly, more Republicans/Conservatives in the state, period. We need to get back to basics and make the case as to why we're important. The point we need to make to the massive amounts of independents and conservative Democrats in the state isn't just why or how we will remain viable. The case we need to make is why the people of this commonwealth need us to be viable. Until we do this, we will continue to wallow in the state of entitlement, high taxes, little growth and government intervention. With all that said, Go out and make the case, kids.

Musings

Just because i'm devoid of things to write about...

-- There are a lot of people who feel that my calling them a 'liberal' is "Name-Calling". Last I checked, there aren't any negative connotations associated with the word 'liberal'. If it has ACQUIRED negative connotations, it's probably because of what liberals have done and what has happened afterwards.

-- If people couldn't be any more self absorbed than they already are today, how can one stake out their policy position (sounds so important doesn't it...) as being 'anti-war'. Unless you're a blood thirsty person who gets jollies from watching people die or a complete idiot, of course you're 'anti war'. The real debate is how we best limit and deter war, or in today's world, finish it. But then again, people who are busy talking about how 'anti-war' they are, are usually those who fail to take the responsibility of confronting the issue to begin with.

-- Despite having no snow this winter and the mass hysteria over global warming, our Earth's temperature still isn't as high as it was around 800 AD. Those darn serfs and their SUV's.

-- What church is Rev. Jesse Jackson a 'Reverend' in?

-- I'm confused. So most people who have to file their income taxes use someone else to prepare the forms and do the tabulation, etc. Then you're supposed to sign under 'penalty of perjury' that the forms are correct, right? But if we were fully competent to do that, wouldn't we NOT need someone else to do our taxes FOR us?

-- Many people say we should leave Iraq for a variety of reasons: It's a civil war, foreign dictatorships and genocide are bad, but we shouldn't be bothered, too many of our troops are dying... but then they call for action in Darfur for the same reasons the Iraq war is supposedly 'not justified'?

-- Sports are the reason I am out of shape. I watch them on TV.

-- Historically speaking, we've always frowned upon those who lack judgement. Why is it all of a sudden so cool to be 'non-judgemental'? Not to mention how anything can be cool or good or, well, anything for that matter if you are, in fact, 'non-judgemental'.

-- Has there ever been a war we've fought in this country's history, or even World history, that operated under a 'timetable'?

-- If Sex Offenders are so dangerous that we need to write their names down and then post them up on the Internet for the rest of their lives, then why are we letting them out of jail?

-- Apparently teachers in Massachusetts are tired of 'teaching to the tests'. Some how, it has disabled them from being able to teach well. But what they deem as 'good teaching' is the exact reason why our students do so poorly when juxtapositioned next to international students. It would also likely explain the huge number of remedial (see 'wearing a helmet') courses that most colleges and universities carry because their students lack basic skills.

-- How can you be an 'insurgent' when you're fighting in someone Else's country? We're supposedly fighting waves of terrorists coming INTO the country right? So why do the media insist on calling what the terrorists are doing in Iraq and 'insurgency'?

-- Why do all 'non-conformists' dress the same?

-- There IS a right and wrong, there is an up and down, and people sure as hell aren't 'just different'. For example; "Every one's beautiful in their own way" completely strips the word beautiful of it's meaning doesn't it? If the world was all the color blue, there wouldn't be the word 'blue' in the language because it would be meaningless. It wouldn't distinguish one thing from another. Therefore there are Beautiful people, but, there are some pretty damn ugly ones If I don't say so myself.

-- Why is acting decent considered a violation of the first amendment so much these days?

-- In the little black book, the 'face book' of the Massachusetts Legislators, there are tree surgeons, legislators, lawyers and even plumbers listed as occupations and professions. However, not one single person claims to be a 'public servant'.

"Imposing Freedom" and Oxymoron

So it seems everywhere I go these days, I see little spots of anti-war protesters here and there. I'll be honest, I greatly admire the persistence and commitment of these folks while I completely disagree with their cause entirely. Frankly, if our right wingers had a tenth of the passion and commitment that these folks have, we wouldn't be on the verge of extinction in Massachusetts.

All that aside, I mentioned that I disagree with their cause. I very much disapprove of their playing on the emotions of others in hopes of convincing people that somehow war is never justified, which is really is complete and total buffoonery. These must be the same folks, who if someone put their family in danger, would likely ask the attacker if he would like to talk? Nothing encourages violence more than people who lack the spine to stop it or prevent it from happening before it begins.

Many of the peace-nicks seem to insist that war has never solved anything. Is that really any kind of rational statement to make? War has, in fact solved many of mankind's greatest problems and issues. Did War not solve the issue of slavery? Did War not cast Hitler from this earth? What if we confronted Soviet Communism not with Nuclear escalation, but by laying down naked in Australia, allowing our nude bodies to form the word "Peace"?

Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it, or so I've been told. With Islamic fascism becoming the new Nazism, what will it take for these folks to take it seriously? What is most unsettling to me is that even the audacity of the 9-11 attacks wasn't enough to make people take this new struggle seriously. 2,000+ people died in the middle of our largest city in broad day light. If that wasn't enough, what will be?

More importantly, what will it take to stop Osama Bin Laden and co.? A relentless succession of sit-ins, die ins, and crap ins? Maybe dressing up in garbage bags and laying in the street will do it? Are these people to be taken seriously at all?

We have many, many issues facing us in this country today, but none greater than fighting the war on terror. Democrats have conveniently flip flopped on their position of 'more troops to win the war' and are now in full blown 'get them out, we've lost' mode. I can't think of a more disastrous foreign policy blunder than to yank our troops out of Iraq at the most critical point in the war.

However, beyond the tactical and political implications lies the truly disturbing piece of all of this, which is how much traction self-defeatism has gained. There has been a relentless effort on the part of Democrats and those generally opposed to the conflict to point out every conceivable flaw this war has had. If it's a success , it should have been a success months ago, not now. Nothing is ever good enough. One must question any idealogical sect that makes the argument that we somehow are "Imposing Freedom on others". Isn't that, in and of itself, oxymoronic?

When you strip it all away, it's all about power. Of course the Democrats want to remove the troops from Iraq. When it goes to hell in a hand basket, they'll ask Americans in 2008 a simple question: "After the foreign policy disaster that was the Bush Administration, how can you possibly elect another Republican President?" It all boils down to power and a party that never viewed our current President as legitimate. Because they never saw him as legitimate, not one single policy he's ever brought up has been seen as remotely legitimate. Nothings up for negotiation when you feel the person sitting in office is not legitimate. It's created a fanaticism and bitterness towards a sitting President never before equaled and quite possibly, never will be ever again. Democrats hate George Bush. Burying him and his Presidency, his party and even perhaps his people, is what drives them every day and will continue to do so until they regain the power they feel is rightfully theirs. If national security of the American people is compromised, then so be it.

Which brings me to the part of all this where I pull things together. Those driven to stop this war are motivated by power, not principle. For the very reasons they supposedly 'threw the bums out' in November, they're opposing this war. It's about being 'right', not DOING what's right. I give full credit to peace-nicks and liberals for wanting to live in a better world. However, their recklessness and thirst for power make me question their motives. You can't be serious about ending a war unless you are serious about ridding the world of the causes of war, which include socialist dictatorships, like the one that we had in Iraq and spreading freedom and democracy and values which we believe to be god-given. Once they start to do that, then I'll take their gatherings on the town green and on the on ramp to I-91 seriously.

Patrick Administration Lost Already

After an inauguration filled with much pomp and circumstance, newly-sworn in Governor Deval Patrick is learning that maybe this whole Governor's thing wasn't as easy as he thought it would be, that is assuming of course, he gave it much thought at all. Given the events of the first three days in office, one must be wondering.

Just today it was learned that newly appointed Economic Development advisor Rep. Daniels Bosley (D-North Adams), will, uh, not be appointed to anything at all. The job, at least Patrick figured, was going to be a 'super cabinet' position of sorts, overseeing housing and urban development, technology and some other areas of the state government. The pay was assumed to be well into the $100,000 a year range. Sound too good to be true?

Bosley today, stepped down from his post before he ever got there to go back to the house, after not really ever resigning there. It was discovered that his office was to be moved from the Governor's office to way down the street, his pay was to be cut, and in the ultimate insult and exercise in the weird, he wasn't going to have any power anyways.

One is probably shaking their head reading that last section, but Patrick, according to Bosley, let him know that, well, he was just going to be a figure head. In fact, Patrick wants to run the department himself, in an effort to be more 'hands on' in his administration. Jimmy Carter was 'hands on' and look where it got us. What a precedent to set. It will be interesting to see how Patrick reports the weekly happenings of the Massachusetts Economy to, well, himself.

In a statement of even greater comedy, Patrick said this would be a change from the "way many of my Republican predecessors operated". I have yet to hear of many Republican Governors, in Massachusetts or anywhere for that matter, that would think that hiring themselves as a cabinet level authority would be a smart move. Come to think of it, I've never heard of DEMOCRATS ever doing that.

Bosley isn't foul on this whole thing, he just wants to go back to the house and get to work again. Some wondered if his position of opposition to Casino Gambling strained the relationship and he said it didn't. I mean, it's not like it would have mattered. He was just supposed to be a figure head!

And in the greatest shocker of all this week, Governor Patrick had to re neg on that good old campaign promise of lowering property taxes. In addition, we found out that Patrick's pretty silly plan of putting 1,000 more police officers on the streets won't even be happening to a quarter of his original plans. Two corner stone issues to his campaign, squashed once there isn't enough of everyone Else's money to spend.

Patrick has thus far proven himself to have very little knowledge of how to govern. Most of his campaign promises were, as expected empty. His civic-re engagement plans a smoke screen for a total lack of an agenda. What little agenda he did have is now out the door when he's not spending money like a madman.

For future reference, a candidate for the Governor's Office is saying "I don't have a plan", "We'll be looking into that", or "Let's Connect the Dots", perhaps it's time to raise some questions about their qualifications for the post.

The most disturbing trend in both Massachusetts politicians and the voters of the commonwealth has been the incredible will to commit to vague promises that when we finally get around to opening them up and looking at the guts of the issue, find out that, well, it wasn't so great of an idea after all. Maybe we all don't agree.

Campaign slogans and rhetoric are no excuse for actually knowing what you're talking about. It's clear Deval Patrick doesn't have the slightest idea of what to do in the corner office. I can't say i'm honestly surprised Patrick is back peddling. However, I am utterly shocked at how early it's come.

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