Duval Patrick – Governing in the Bluest State

Massachusetts governor, Duval Patrick, has come under constant fire from his own party, the media and his constituents since the day he took office. The State Speaker, Sal DiMasi has shut down every proposal from the governor, including a recent proposal to allow casino gambling in the state. (Note: A proposal that was voted upon and approved by the people.).

The New York Times published an article (here) this morning outlining Patrick’s troubles, and comparing/contrasting him to Barack Obama. In reading the text, one derives a note of empathy for the embattled Governor. The author notes that the speaker supports Hillary Clinton, as well as the fact that Obama did not fare well in the Bay State primary. What could the two men possibly have in common?

There are some similarities between the two candidates: both lack experience and both are progressives. What boggles the mind is that what should have worked in Massachusetts (a testing ground for every progressive idea), did not. When progressives have difficulty exporting policy implemented in Massachusetts to other states in the Union, it is not surprising. What is surprising is that the current Governor cannot function as a progressive in the Bluest State. This cannot bode well for Obama, should the country, once again, deny progressive think in favor of a more moderate candidate.

From “upgrading” the state car from a Crown Vic to a Cadillac to marching in the annual Gay Pride Parade, to killing a bill that was supported by the people to allow a vote on the Gay Marriage issue, to changing the drapes in his office – Deval Patrick (also called Devil Patrick by most Mass. Radio talk show hosts), has had a battle on his hands. The Times article implies the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the Speaker (another ridiculed politicians in the Bay state), but is that truly the case? Might it be that the lack of experience coupled with progressive policy, has finally placed the final straw on the camel’s back (the people)?

The Short End of the Stick

Massachusetts Legislature Considers Height and Weight Discrimination Bill

A bill currently before the Massachusetts Legislature would include height and weight bias as a “discrimination” thereby adding an additional burden to already embattled businesses in the Bay State. One phrase comes to mind: “frivolous lawsuits.” Employers look at qualifications, for the most part, allowing that certain positions will take into account physical attributes and health in order to protect an employee (examples: those positions that require a physical exam due to strenuous and or dangerous work). One legislator in favor of the bill has gone so far as to suggest that, without new regulations in place, employers might use height and weight as an excuse not to hire someone who was elderly, gay and/or black. Will it never end?

The only state that currently lists weight and height as discrimination is Michigan (along with municipalities such as San Francisco and Washington). One can find startling similarities in the governing of both Massachusetts and Michigan, to the point where other state legislatures should use them as a model of “what not to include” if one wants to live in a state that is more prosperous and offers a better quality of life to its citizens. The exodus of the population of Massachusetts should offer some insight into what works and what does not. People tend to migrate to states that have better jobs, lower crime rates and less ridiculous governments.

The idea that height would be a consideration for bias is simply ridiculous. As a petite woman, I stand offended! I was taunted, most certainly, as a child and perhaps on occasion as an adult. That said, not once did I feel that my height was a deterrent to acquiring any specific position, or being able to function as well as anyone who might be 6’2”! (Ok, I might need a step-stool or a chair to reach certain items on the shelf – to which I reply – “So what!”) Height is a matter of birth; one’s grandparents, or great-grandparents play a role. Weight on the other hand, may be a matter of choice (except in obvious medical circumstances), regardless, neither should be considered as a disability (which might or might not take taht leap from discrimination thereby adding weight and height to the already burdened entitlement programs in these states.)

Seriously.

This appears to be one more example of why lawyers make such great legislatures; they are constantly promoting legislation that will ultimately benefit their profession.

Story reported here in the Springfield, Massachusetts Republican
(Don’t let the name of the publication fool you.)

Related:

Michigan Population Loss, Michigan.gov



Massachusetts (Boston Globe blames Romney)

He said – She Said
Playground mentality invades campaigns

Most news articles and/or blog reports on either the Clinton or Obama campaign have a familiar theme: “An associate said this,” or “A campaign official said that,” The old expression “Tit for Tat, comes to mind. This weeks “stunning revelations” include discussions on an Obama “supporter” commenting on the infamous “Blue Dress” in remarks referencing Bill Clinton’s recent stump speech during a campaign stop for his wife. Why? Apparently a conclusion was drawn after Bill Clinton spoke of a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain as being between two people who love the country. The Obama camp immediately became outraged that the Illinois Senator was not included in president Clinton’s speech during his wife’s campaign, (note: the former President is campaigning for his wife, not Obama). Apparently, being left-out of this speech was tantamount to calling Obama un-American! The cry of McCarthy was let loose and of course, to add a bit of spice to the criticism of the Clintons – the “Blue Dress” was thrown in for good measure.

Mind-numbing and ridiculous - true, but reported and debated upon as if it were even relevant!

This morning’s AP article on Breitbart.com on Hillary Clinton’s miss-statement of facts regarding a trip to Bosnia in the 1990’s, is yet another example of playground speak. Obama’s camping’s indignation that this statement was a deliberate exaggeration to beef up a claim by Clinton that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama, follows the lead paragraph.
CBS News has the video of the original Hillary Clinton trip proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she most definitely misspoke.

Predication: three to four days spent analyzing Mrs. Clinton and her recollection of events and how it directly affects Obama.

The moderate and sane analysis: Bill Clinton was speaking for his wife, regarding her campaign and Obama wasn’t even a blip on the radar of his mind while he was making the speech. Obama’s need to be included in every aspect of every campaign appears needy to say the least. Hillary Clinton may have misspoke, she may have forgotten, she may have embellished, she was telling a story about one event – one which she has written and spoken about for 15 odd years. Anyone over the age of 40 that can claim they have never made such a miss-statements regarding events that took place 10, 15, 20, 40 or in John McCain’s case, 60 years ago, is simply not being honest.

Additionally, one might draw the conclusion that something must come up to “dingy up” the Clinton Campaign as the Obama Campaign has some heat due to his association with a hate-based church pastor and his rate-baiting statements (Obama’s). Ah youth!

American’s are faced with a critical choice this election. Youth, and all the tattling, whining, inexperience and progressive political think of Obama, or the “wisdom” and experience of the older candidates, Clinton and McCain, either one of which may or may not recall an event specifically as it actually happened. Call me old-fashioned, or just old, but I would rather play ball with dignity. Either Clinton or McCain are more suited for the position – it is a question of experience, in politics, in life, and in the ability to deal with slights real or imagined.

Of McCain and the Progressive Dream Team

The New York Times, known to some in this country as a left leaning, progressive piece of journalism, has its sites on Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain. Granted the paper endorsed the Senator, but they are continuously pointing out his close relationship with his DNC counter-parts. Today's NYTimes political page, looks almost fondly at the moments in the past 8 years where Senator McCain has come close to changing sides of the aisle. The article "Two Divergent McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned", discusses McCain's meetings with his DNC counterparts after his failed 2000 presidential campaign bid, and the 2004 contest, when he was on John Kerry's list of possible running mates.

It is as if to say: We understand the problems within our chosen party, therefore, this left-leaning Republican Senator, who we feel just might be a Democrat under the surface is the best bet!

The day the New York Times promotes or appears to promote a Republican candidate, is the day that that candidate is, in all likelihood, not as conservative as Republicans might like.

The results of a recent Franklin and Marshall poll coming out of Pennsylvania last week were telling: McCain is a strong second choice should the voters DNC first choice not succeed in receiving the DNC nomination. 20% of Obama supporters and 19% of Clinton supporters noted that they would vote for McCain should their candidate not receive the party nomination.

Good news for the Republican party, perhaps, but is it good news for conservative, values voters?

Obama-Gate

Intelligence Matters

According to CNN News, John O. Brennen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Contract firm (Analysis Corp.) whose employees sifted through the 08 presidential contenders passport files is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign. Perhaps calling for a full investigation was a bit short-sighted on the part of Obama. What, in the most likely scenario, is a case of curiosity across the board by low level contract employees, has mushroomed out of proportion. Should they be dismissed and reprimanded – of course – especially if peeking into anyone’s files is grounds for dismissal under the State Departments employee guidelines.

What is of interest is the fact that the CEO of the contracting firm is a consultant to the campaign. This brings embarrassment – to Barack Obama’s campaign, not the State Department. Surely once this story broke, someone at the highest level of that campaign should have realized that Mr. O’Brennen advises Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues.

Repeat and reflect: intelligence issues.