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.