Friday, December 21, 2012
Scott Brown Speculation runs Rampant on Senate Run for Kerry’s Seat – Ben Affleck may Run as well – Mind-boggling Bay State Politics.
Scott Brown, media speculates a run for Senate - image from Salon.com
First, Scott Brown, in this opinion, was the one U.S. Senator who made the most sense; most of the time – unlike his august counterparts, who are normally so partisan or who have been in office so long that it appears as if they are far apart from those who put them there if the first place. Brown’s victory in 2009 was seen as some sort of anomaly, and his defeat by Elizabeth Warren, was surprising to many who considered Brown’s seat safe – and therein lay the problem. Who would believe that a solid, bi-partisan, Independent leaning Scott Brown, would be defeated by a Harvard Professor, with little political pedigree, and a whole lot of baggage, that somehow got slipped under the rug. Elizabeth Warren will absolutely be a rubber stamp for the Democrat Leadership in the Senate – one can bet she does not break ranks from the party line – ever. There are those who sometimes stray, and those who stray more frequently –giving leadership on either side of the aisle hysterics (see Brown), but the Democrats have no worries with Warren, which, is what is so mind-boggling about Brown’s loss, given the independent streak that is Massachusetts.
There were factors that may have led to his defeat, but for the most part, those who voted for President Obama, the women overwhelmingly who supported him – did so, and this is not a specific study mind you, but Q&A’s, because of birth control – they were afraid that the election of Romney or Brown would end their access to birth control. It wasn’t because Scott Brown was a bad guy, or that even his policies were not approved by a majority of Massachusetts voters – the problem was one ad and one common them: If the people elected Brown, (went Warrens last ad), then he might vote with the Republicans. It was the death knell, when it came to the lunatics that make up the Massachusetts electorate and honestly thought “ok, that makes sense, he might do that, let’s vote for Warren!, We know she’s not going to take away our birth control, and she is going to raise taxes on the rich!!!
Wait until they open their paychecks to a huge shock the first week in January 2013.
One has to understand that the Democrats, progressives, believe in a field where all is equal, and, rhetoric and politics aside, the one determining factor in making everyone equal is to tax the daylights out of everyone, while supplying more “government services”, and those blinded by the fact that the “government is taking care of them”, miss the point that they are paying for this “care” in the first place.
Brown is not your average politician, but whatever may be his future plans, the pundits are fast at work trying to figure out what is the impossible. Brown has his own opinion.
Over at MSNBC, they had to find a nefarious reason as to why Brown would be the first GOP senator to back a federal assault weapons ban”. The article does mention the fact that Brown also supported the same ban in Massachusetts when he was a State Senator, but, Brown’s pattern of parting ways with the right when it doesn’t make sense appear lost on those who cannot step one tenth of an inch over their own party line. Therefore, they believe that it must be political positioning for John Kerry’s may be vacant seat! First, the Massachusetts Senior Senator must be asked to be the Secretary of State (possibly done), past the Senate Sniff Test for nomination (pretty much a shoe in) and then there will be a special election – on which, Brown has not said yeah or nay as to whether or not he’s seriously interested. But that’s the national media. Local media on the other hand, has seen more news on Brown since he lost to Warren, than during the campaign itself!
The local media, aside from the commenter’s on the far right and the far left under the articles, appear to miss Scott Brown.
Over at MassLive The Springfield Republican (Oxymoron) website; the article headlines; “Scott Brown in strong position to run for John Kerry's Senate seat, according to WBUR poll” with the end result, with Brown at such a high favorable rating, how did he lose? How can he lose another run at the Senate? Maybe he’ll run for the Governor’s office!!
Maybe they miss having an elected official with an (R) in front of his name to beat up on once a week or so.
Image of Ben Affleck, speculation run for Senate in MA - Image by, Salon.com - incidentally
Be that as it may, the outgoing Senator from the Bay State, may have some serious competition as the Democrats look at the odds and figure, we need someone who’s going to get inside those silly girl’s heads and trick them once again. Enter: Actor, Ben Affleck The Daily Beast – (go figure) is touting Affleck for the next Democrat from Massachusetts, and why not. He’s a Democrat; he’s from Cambridge (Good Lord) and from the article: “After I interviewed him,” Schieffer said, “every female who works at the CBS Washington Bureau was in the hallway as he was leaving. Funny how that happened. They were getting their pictures taken with him. He was very good-natured about it.” (Daily Beast)
As a feminist, it is hard to believe that those in the media, and well, anyone with half a brain would think women in general are that stupid. However, the last election has led this feminist to believe, maybe. Not just women, but people who buy – hook, line and sinker, the promises of a candidate and vote out of “fear” of losing something. When they should be voting on policy and any available records that individual provides. Had they done a comparison on Scott Brown’s voting record, versus the narrative coming from the Coakley campaign, and with a 60% approval rating, Brown would have been a shoe in. The fact that they did not know, did not care to know, just beloved what they were told, and went along with the party lines…leads one who is not, admittedly, an intellectual genius, to conclude there’s something seriously wrong with the educational system in this nation, or, the electorate is really – stupid.
So, we’ve got Ben Affleck, and Scott Brown and a whole slew of Democrat Congressional Reps, all being speculated upon and asked if they might be running for the Senate if Kerry is confirmed as the Secretary of State.
This feminist logic see’s a slightly different and better use of Brown’s tenacious spirit when it comes to doing what is right by the people, regardless of political cost. He should run for the Governor’s office, then he should run for the Presidency – in the true spirit of Massachusetts, as an “unenrolled”, no party affiliation what-so-ever –just on his true core beliefs and his record. Of course, that’s a fantasy to envision an independent running for and attaining an office in this nation if one is not attached to one of the two major political party’s – or is it?
Having watched Brown’s record in the State Senate, and keeping tabs on the man’s political bent for several years, (prior to the Miracle in Massachusetts), only one thought kept coming to mind: he’s the real deal. When he ran for the Senate Seat, this blogger knocked on doors, made phone calls, and left the comfort of the blog – there was a lot of company, from independents, Green Party Members, and yes, Democrats, Tea Party and those rank and file Republican’s that showed up for appearance sake. (That’s politics in Massachusetts). This last election, with the thought process that Brown was as safe in his seat as a babe in swaddling cloth, no one got up to the dance, or blogged a great deal, looking towards the national race or local races that were much more in need of assistance, and then realization struck, when in the waning hours of the campaign, the worst thing about Brown was that he was a Republican. Who knew?
Whatever that Scott Brown decides to do, be it a run for public office, or a private sector career, those who brought Warren to the Dance and those who didn’t may be missing Brown a lot more once the new Congress takes to the nations woe’s in January of 2013. Even one sane voice in the playground that is Washington DC will be missed by those who are in the middle, not to the far right, not to the far left, but squarely in the middle.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
“Fiscal Cliff” Impasse – Pelosi, Boehner, Obama, Reid – What Compromise? Tax Hikes Certain, No Cuts Likely; Debt has No Ceiling, Nothing but Political Chicanery
The Impossible Task: Getting anything accomplished - image Al.com
One might come to the conclusion that the whole lot of those who “we the people” elected to make decisions on our behalf are, for lack of a better set of phrases, “out to lunch” and “out of touch”. The last three weeks or so, the big deal on the horizon has been the “Fiscal Cliff” – or where the government must act to prevent a slew of tax increases from occurring, while cutting the budget, and keeping both businesses happy, in order to continue recovery, and sustaining or increasing entitlement spending in order to please “everyone”. It’s all about the body politic and has little to do with reality.
The basic concept of spending money is not unique to this current crop in Washington; it is a lifestyle that has proliferated since the “temporary” income tax (to cover costs to fight WWII) morphed into a permanent stream of income for the Federal Government. The problem occurs when the Federal Government has fewer “taxpayers” and more programs than one can shake a stick at. The fact remains that without taxpayers, the government has no income- does not produce a product, does not offer a commercial service, does not have an unlimited trust fund from an old rich aunt or uncle. When, late in 2008 it appeared as though the world would end due to the burst of the housing bubble, and banks bad business decisions (some due to government regulations), with the prospects of a dire economic collapse on the horizon, President George W. Bush called the troops to Washington and they all agreed to bail out the banks. When President Obama took office in 2009, he decided to stave off more layoffs and underwater mortgages by jump starting the economy with a “Stimulus” in the billion. That tactic did not works as most of the money either went unspent or went to those who worked for a government – teachers, for example, we hired more teachers. We (as a nation) also bailed out and took ownership of “GM”, which was nearing bankruptcy, in order to “save jobs”. Apparently that didn’t work as, one has to have a stream of tax income from the private sector in order to pay for those teachers, and government employees of various skills, as again, the Government makes no money of its own.
How difficult is that to grasp? The government has two choices, increase revenue by raising taxes, and cutting unnecessary items from the budget – the only way that we, as a nation will get our house in order. The problem lays in the fact that the GOP would rather stick a fork in their collective eye than raise taxes, and the DNC (with the President at the head), would rather do the same than to cut one duplicate or totally unnecessary budget item and delete it from the budget. We appear to have an impasse and the press is screaming “Fiscal Cliff!
Apparently, no one in Washington is smarter than a 5th, 4th or 3rd grader (who is in a private school setting); otherwise, this debate would not even be occurring. The alleged debate has turned into name calling and avoidance.
Last week, as the specter of the Cliff loomed, Republican John Boehner, Speaker of the House, came up with a plan that mirrored, former speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s plan as to tax increases and limited to no cuts (and throwing those down the road a bit) Conservatives were (and still are) ready to throw Boehner to the proverbial wolves, so anti-tax, and anti-spend a group has never graced the halls of congress since, the 1990’s.(Human Events). The plan was immediately rejected by the President. One might recall that the President and Nancy Pelosi play on the same team. It was John Boehner reaching across the aisle and giving an opening to the “other team” in an attempt to be bi-partisan. Suddenly, Boehner is under fire, for his “Plan B” (the Pelosi Plan) from and Harry Reid, Democrat, Senate Majority Leader got into a “pithing” match with Mitch McConnell (Republican) - over the whole shenanigans. Reid would not sign any bill that came from the house offering only taxes on those earning 1 million or more (the Pelosi-Boehner plan), and McConnell filibustered over Reid’s insistence that we raise the debt ceiling (increase the already limitless ability of the U.S. to borrow money (or print money that doesn’t exist). (Huffington Post).
The latest gambit is that the President is going to veto Plan B, and will not sign a bill unless the tax hikes go towards those earning $250,000 or $400,000, and he has put Social Security on the table, in return. (Reuters)
This was followed by the President, saying ”Take me out of it” (NBC News) and the GOP calling the President: “Irrational” (NRP)
Something the collective “we” should remember – we pay these people.
That‘s why we pay taxes, to pay for these collective idiots to screw around like 10 year olds at the playground.
Meanwhile, Rome is burning.
Here’s the most likely outcome: we, the collective, will all pay more taxes, either through income tax increases, or elimination of child tax credits, mortgage deductions, and bear the brunt of the new taxes on the Affordable Health Care Act (Obama-care) including the $53 tax on every insurance policy in order to build a “pool” to cover those who have pre-existing conditions, and the tax on medical equipment (which includes everything you may need from a crutch to a pacemaker). The debt ceiling will no longer exist as there will continue to be a need to feed the collective trough, and those left with any taxable income will have a little bit less income and make due. Unlike those we sent to Washington, who will continue to live in la la land, and refusing to craft a reasonable budget and make some hard decisions – such as cutting duplicate programs. We’ve paid higher taxes before (before George W. Bush), and so it’s not the end of the world. Who doesn’t like eating more pasta? Or carpooling if possible? What is incompressible is that this is occurring at all.
It’s time to pay the piper, the American taxpayer saw this coming from a mile away (ok, Tea Party Members), and the idiots on the hill, are putting their heads in the sand. There will be, by the way, no cuts to government programs, only increases in government programs.
Will it be the “end” of the way the U.S. does business? Will we be “Greece”? – Hardly, what we will be are the people paying for the mistakes of those we hired. We have an opportunity coming up every 2 years to change the situation. If one thinks its one party alone, then one is as out of touch with reality as the entire lot in Washington – it’s both parties. Whatever can we do? Vote out incumbents; bring in a bunch of individuals who have no ties to Washington in any previous life, and hope for the best. One can hazard to guess if tomorrow, the Congress and the Senate, was composed of Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Handymen, Construction Workers, and name a career path other than professional politician, things would move forward as all of the aforementioned have to balance budgets, make cuts and care for those less fortunate, and manage to do it, day in and day out. – Therein lays the solution, the problem is finding anyone who is willing to take on the job for starters, and then getting those so used to pulling a lever for an R or a D to do the opposite.
For now and the foreseeable future we will be “paying Caesar”, no matter which party, no matter how ridiculous the debate becomes and no matter who blames who.
Additional Reading: Opportunity to step away from ‘fiscal cliff’ dissolves into one-upsmanship” (Las Vegas Sun
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Sandy Hook Tragedy Brings Parents Trying to Deal with Children with Mental Health Problems to the Forefront – No Answers or Solutions for those Parents Fearing the Worst.
Some articles apparently get buried in the national conversation, but one that is starting to take hold is that of parents who are expressing their frustration in dealing with a child or young adult who is both mentally ill and prone to violence. In the wake of the massacre in Connecticut, the first thing that was politicized was the need for gun control. Granted, as a defender of the Second Amendment and knowing that there are measures in place that make it difficult if not impossible for the average individual , in most states, to acquire a gun, the fact that certain types of guns are available , those that are more appropriate to a battle field, give pause. There Is, however, another aspect of the problem, and that is the lack of care and options for those parents who, as blogger Liza Long so heartbreakingly suggests, feels she may be the next to be “Adam Lanza’s mother”. Liza goes on to describe her growing fear over a son who is in desperate need of services, but, those services appear to be less than available. She is obviously not alone. A petition was begun on Chang.org. requesting that the Federal Government increase the availability of mental health services. Those signing the petition are also recounting their personal stories. They are angry and fearful that there is nothing that can be done to held their child, brother, sister, family member, before another tragedy occurs. There was a suggestion that the move away from providing adequate mental health facilities, and allowing individuals with server problems fend for themselves, as part of a civil right, may be been the wrong course to take. They speak to the lack of insurance, and how insurance dictates the care, rather than the providers. They speak to the fact that unless an individual is a threat to themselves and/or others, they cannot prevent a crime before it happens. They speak to the statistics on our prison systems where, in the last decade there has been a significant increase in imprisonment of those with mental health disorders, and growing trend towards imprisoning those who are suffering from mental illness, after the fact – once a crime has been committed.
With the lack of adequate care, and care governed by constraints of insurance carriers (whose guidelines are written as a result of both federal and state laws – which is the crux of the problem), those who are dealing with the medical and legal issues of having a loved-one at risk, are helpless to help themselves, their loved one and the community in which they reside.
Then there is the emerging story of Adam Lanza, from the fact that he was given an antipsychotic drug that had less than stellar side-effects (Business Insider), that the diagnosis of Aspergers by the press, may have been somewhat premature, as it was based on speaking to those “sources” who knew him in high school. It was not definitive, but a pickup by a news agency which went viral. (New York Times).
We have learned that Nancy Lanza had spent the last several months of her life, trying to find a safe place for her son, that she was afraid of him, and that, he knew she was looking for a place for him. This, reasoning of the press, may have been behind his killing of her, as well as the children.
From the British Tabloid (given the source) the family had a history of mental illness, according to the mother’s correspondence with friends: “her own father shut out one of his other daughters at a young age and lived a ‘secret life’ until his past came out. He ‘turned his back’ on baby Cheryl when he remarried and moved away from his home in Ohio to New Hampshire.” the tabloid goes on to suggest this may have been the reason she was so invested in the care of her son.
It appears there are victims on all sides, and that the discussion regarding those with severe mental health conditions needs to be dealt with. After the deinstitutionalization in the U.S., the violent crime rate soared. There were no longer the gatekeepers, yet, those “institutions” run by the states, were horrible and expensive at the same time. Between the lack of services(be they facilities, availability of appointments and/or doctors) and the stigma that is attached, regardless of our inclusive society, to those that are suffering and those that must pray they are not the “Next Adam Lanza’s mother”, something must be done to help these families, be it on a state or federal level.
A list of national tragedies, compiled in March of this year, from a paper written on Deinstitutionalization:
To read the entire article in PDF (which covers the care, or lack of care in both the U.S. and abroad for those who are in need) click here. One may not agree with the political bent, but the premise aligns fairly well with what has taken place, and what will continue to take place, unless and until something is done to reform the health system, the regulations regarding mental health care and the insurance industry.
Something changed in the 1980s: these senseless mass murders started to happen with increasing frequency. People were shocked when James Huberty killed twenty-one strangers in a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California in 1984, and Patrick Purdy murdered five children in a Stockton, California schoolyard in 1989. Now, these crimes have become background noise, unless they involve an extraordinarily high body count (such as at Virginia Tech) or a prominent victim (such as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords). Why did these crimes go from extraordinarily rare to commonplace?
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Niki Haley’s Choice to Replace DeMint - Tim Scott (R, SC) – Independent Tea Party Conservative - Media weighs in
Tim Scott - Tea Party Comfortable - image from Earlcapps.blogspot.com - read article.
Niki Haley’s decision to choose Tim Scott, a Congressman who along with dozens of other like-minded individuals, were elected to the Congress in 2010, was in keeping with the character of the Tea Party. The media is, of course, is searching for words to explain the fact that Scott just happens to be a Republican and an African American, which is out of context with the left’s narrative of the Tea Party as White Racist (or the Republican Party for that matter – see previous election and Joe Biden’s remarks, or pick any Democrat – it was certainly about race.) The New York Times article has given an fairly reasonable portrait of the man, and acknowledges his Tea Party background, while bringing up the fact that he is the 7th African American to serve in the Senate, and goes on to point out the lack of diversity in the Republican Party! Frankly, the fact that he is African-American is not of import to those Tea Party members, who, contrary to the national narrative, is a diverse and welcoming movement, candidates for public office are chosen on their abilities, rather than on the need to include or diversify.
The Washington Post, in the overview on Scott is , for the most part, a history of African American’s in the Senate with some biographical data of Scott included. Apparently, something has happened at the Post, for more on Scott, they linked to an article from the The National Journal: “House GOP Favorite Tim Scott is Ready for What Comes Next” - No kidding.
What is most disturbing is the fact that there have been so few African American’s who have served in the U.S. Senate – understanding that the two party system, on both sides of the aisle are pretty “white”, and that one of those political parties, feel s it owns the minorities (and considering the last election, that may be a case in point). That said, it is not race that disqualifies or qualifies someone to hold an elected office, it is competence and desire that should be the factor (and yes, obviously like-mined political ideology). That is where the much maligned Tea Party takes a left turn from the main political parties – in not recognizing race first, rather ideology and accomplishments. We are all American’s, and we all are “something else”, in the greater scheme of things, we are Spanish, African American, Asian, Polish, French, or a combination of any of the aforementioned – but we are all Americans. That should be the only criteria, the balance should be secondary . We are here in this nation, given the opportunity, all of us, to either rise or fall on our own merits. This is unique in the world, where these are nations (Pakistan for example) if one is born a street sweeper, then one is destined to become a street sweeper, and nothing more. The governments in some nations choose one’s career, or one is pigeonholed as having a propensity to be this or that, and there is no other course for their lives. Here, in the U.S. we are able to change outlives on a dime, we enjoy the freedom to take chances, change careers, or move freely from one state or another. The constant focus on race as a factor in any of the aforementioned , may have been true 100 years ago, or perhaps further back, prejudice exists in all forms, between race, ethnicity and yes, class and cash, but from individuals, not from the collective that is the nation. That may be why the Tea Party, and it’s representatives are who we truly are, the good and yes, the bad, but overall American’s who see the opportunity provided by the Constitution, without worrying much about someone’s race, or how diverse they might be.
One can hazard to bet that Senator Elect Scott will be an independent, conservative, voice in the Senate, and we, as a nation, are lucky that he has accepted Governor Haley’s nod.
Most important: Tim Scott as a Congressional Representative – From his Congressional Website: Sponsored Legislation, and His voting record, unusually forthcoming for an elected official.
Monday, December 17, 2012
In avoiding opining on the tragedy that struck the small Connecticut town of Sandy Hook this past Friday, the search for answers, both through personal reflection and research, brought some confusion, and more sorrow. As a mother, it is unimaginable what must have taken place, it is beyond comprehension. There will be those who politicize the very personal grief that is taking place - it will be all about guns, or not. That argument appears to be somewhat deflated when one understands that without guns, those that are not quite right, so to speak will find other means: knives, machetes, to do evil.. That said - guns should never be near a child, or a man or woman who are child-like or emotionally unstable.
In looking at the problems of society as a whole, and thinking back on the decades of disasters and murders that are not quite explained away so easily, it is clear that there were few if none of these types of incidents in the 1950's, or 1960's or 1970's, but with increasing frequency in the last decade. That is when an article was found that was both politically incorrect and somewhat uncomfortable, but made some sense in the greater scheme of things: "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder", a piece published in just March of this year. It speaks to the lack of care available to those who may do harm, the inability of the parents or families to find a "safe" place to hold a family member who is capable of committing murder - yet, those places no longer exist. Uncomfortable as this may be to discuss, institutions served a purpose, and the fact that in today's society, we are all seen as equal, or more to the point, our children are told they are equal, may be part of the problem. Perhaps, with talk about gun control, talk about keeping those who have a propensity to be a harm to themselves and others under lock and key, should be part of the discussion. It came up that the mother was divorced and therefore, that must be the problem. Another pundit quipped that it was the lack of religion (of course, there is little faith discussed now in our very secular society.), another that the parents and friends of the disturbed young man were responsible for not alerting authorities.(Which, by today's standards, that would include a few days or weeks of observation, then release into the stream of society.) Some rightly suggest that there is evil in the world.
That said, there are uncomfortable solutions, but really no solution or answers to what would cause someone to take the lives of innocents - except evil and an inability to deal with evil, in a real sense, from an early stage. The later, in our society as it stands, is simply not a reality. There is simply no respect for life, either born, unborn, aged, or infirm. There is a right to die, a right to a abort, there is - in essence generations, wedded to violence, also have a lack of of general belief if the import of life. The culture where we find ourselves, is not without hope, it is not without some safety, but there is a lack of dealing with situations with uncomfortable concepts when religion or mental illness, or evil are on the table.
John Kerry (D-MA) – To be Secretary of State – Safe Senate Replacement - Dem’s to Possibly Choose Dukakis
John Kerry pictured with Michael Dukakis - from the blog beldar.blogs.com
The replacement for Hillary Clinton, who will be leaving her post as Secretary of State has boiled down to the man who brought Barack Obama to the forefront the Senator from Massachusetts, John Forbes Kerry(Boston Herald) Kerry, who has served as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be an easy nomination for the President. Kerry and Republican Senator, John McCain, both having run for the office Of the President, have worked together over the years; in the “club” that is the Senate. For all the bluff and bluster that comes with general elections, (the media recounts of what was said, so viciously, the name calling that takes place, when partisanship trumps the congenial worth done in that august body over an election), it appears that Kerry would sail through a nomination with ease.
Massachusetts will need to replace Kerry, that task falls to the Governor, Duval Patrick – who is required to name a replacement until a special election can be held. The Hill is reporting that the most likely possibility for Kerry’s replacement is the 79 year old, Michael Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts and also a Presidential candidate” Dukakis would be a reliable Democrat vote in the Senate, and had recently helped in the campaign for Senator Elect, Elizabeth Warren. Also said to be lobbying for the seat are several of the Congressional Democrats from the state, Capuano, Lynch and Markey. Republican’s who might run for the open seat are Weld, Baker and Brown. (The Hill) The later three are considered “Moderate Republicans” by most standards – with experience with Brown showing a more Independent streak from the party in his voting pattern in the Senate. That said a moderate Republican from Massachusetts is more likely to focus on the vote on hand than be more like a rubber stamp as the case with Dukakis.
Duval Patrick has also noted he will not run for reelection – several of the above referenced on both sides have indicated an interest in running for Govenor. Republican’s, although in short supply, have historically had success at running and winning the Governor’s office in the Bay State. Brown made history in 2009 when he won the special election to the U.S. Senate replacing Ted Kennedy. There are few Republicans that have managed to obtain a Congressional or Senate seat in the “Bluest State”, which begs the question: If a Republican can be handily elected to the Governor’s office, why the difficulty in procuring a Senate or Congressional Seat? – One would think, that with 51% of the States electorate opting for non-party status as “unenrolled”, the option for choosing an alternative to the “status quo’ would be welcome - that said, ground troops, something that is necessary in winning the City Council seat, is lacking on the Republican side in Massachusetts. How then, did the Republican’s ascend to the Governor’s office, or Brown the Senate – general disgust by the people of policies in place that directly affected them at that given time. With Patrick, pro-tax, that may be an easier route for the aforementioned Republican’s to take. That said, in Massachusetts, nothing is impossible, if the ground game, and grassroots are in place for whoever the GOP candidate may be.