Redstate

To be fair, the criticism is either tounge-in-cheek or nonsense:

So now you have a situation where a majority of the electorate agrees with her on the issues - taxes, crime, illegals. Yet they’re still planning to vote for Deval Patrick. Because they don’t like her.

If the voters like what she stands for, but don't like her, the problem is the candidate, not the "organization" Mitt's left behind. The current administration can help the candidate, sure: they can frame the legislative debate in Massachusetts, and focus it on issues that are favorable to the Lt. Governor. But it doesn't sound like issues are the problem. Mitt can't make people like Healy's personality. If she can't do that herself, she's a dead candidate walking, and no organization is going to change that. Particularly as a Republican in Massachussets.

I don't know if the criticisms of Healy's personality are valid. I'm not from the state and have never heard her speak. That said, "Healy is unlikeable" does not equal "Romney failed her."
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

an organization can bring out voters for even mediocre candidates. If you doubt me, take a walk down the halls of the Capitol and tell me you are meeting bright, charismatic people by the boatload.

And therein is my point. If he can't make this race close for his lieutenant governor he hasn't built a party he's built a personality cult.

If he can't make this race close for his lieutenant governor he hasn't built a party he's built a personality cult.

Two points:

1) The race here will be much closer than the polls indicate. I wouldn't be surprised to wake-up on the 8th to find Patrick won by less than 10 - and lots of people are going to have some 'splaining to do for their lousy polling.
2) A personality cult is precisely what the MA GOP has been since 1990 - hence the lack of organizational carry-over from one governor to the next and the lack of progress in any office other than Governor.

Just saying.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

That's mildly fair only in part because I know you know that a political party is more than just candidates. The party infrastructure here in Massachusetts was a shambles after the Weld/Celluch/Swift debacle and had to be rebuilt from scratch. That takes more than 4-years even in the best of climates.

The unfortunate by-product of that is that you have bright, capable, but ludicrously inexperienced people literally running the party. My county coordinator here, a lovely, smart and energetic young lady, is maybe 25. In the Democrat Party here, or in the GOP someplace like Texas, she'd be a precinct captain somewhere learning the on the ground nuts-and-bolts of local politics.

We just don't have that luxury here.

So yes, Mitt will leave not a whole lot when he leaves. But believe it or not it will be better, far better - if not in the numbers of elected officials but in party apparatus and infrastructure - than what he inerited.

For what it's worth.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

The last Dem governor of MA was Mike Dukakis. In 1990. 16 Years of GOP Governors gone.

With no organization? No nothing?

Its the bluest state in the union. Its tought to get any Republican elected in MA. Their legislature is overwhelmingly democrat and their AG, treasuer, secretary of state and auditor are all democrats. Both their senators are democrats and every US congressman is a democrat. Out of 40 state senators, only 6 are republicans.

The GOP is in a sorry state in Massachusetts, but it has been this way for a very long time. The party has been lucky to hold onto the Governor's mansion for so long given the dynamics.

The republicans have held the governor's office for 16 years due to 3 things:

1. Strong GOP candidates (Bill Weld, Paul Celluci, Mitt Romney)
2. Weak democrat candidates
3. Luck

Unfortuantly this cycle the democrats have the strong candidate, the republicans have the weak candidate and the GOP hasnt had any luck.

you would know.

Weld was all about keeping WELD in office. Celluch was all about getting re-elected and then bolting as quickly as he could. Swift, well, was not.

Besides, when you control 6-of-7 legislative seats (and did through these entire 16-years) and the entire hack-o-rama, you can build-up quite a farm team.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

but it isn't like Mitt is going to leave a Republican party behind in Massachusetts. When he steps down it will be as if he were never there, that is not a man who can build a party regardless of what he's accomplished otherwise.

we have no right to expect results?

How many more elected Republicans are there in the Mass legislature now than there were four years ago? Didn't the Republicans loose seats in 2004?

A lot of people can do a great job in an organization that is successful, and I would contend that the Republican party regardless of what happens in two weeks has been a successful organization since 1994. The question is whether he's leaving behind a stronger or weaker party than that he inherited. I think the answer is clear, it is a weaker party and he has to bear some responsibility for that.

RedState contributors have consistently complained about the lack of this Republican-led congress to balance the budget and to controll spending. Unless I am mistaken, Romney has balanced the budget every year (without raising taxes or increasing debt levels), and in fact, he eliminated a $3 billion deficit after his first year. The state currently enjoys a $1 billion surplus. You don't accomplish that without some organizational skills. The problem with the Republican party in this state is not of the governor's making. It is with the quality of the candidates the Republicans run against entrenched democrats. Mitt has little control over that unless we want to invoke a little Romney Derangement Syndrome- that somehow it's his fault for not recruiting candidates. Bush doesn't recruit candidates for national office, and the leadership continues to back failed candidates like Chafee in the primary.

and a short crooked one to boot.

Why doesn't the 80+% Dem Massachusetts legislature get credit for the budget surplus? They have as much to do with that as Romney.

Why isn't a $1 Billion surplus evidence of a tax rate that is way too high?

The governor in every single state, regardless of party, is responsible for recruiting candidates for state office. It is part of his job as the head of the party in the state.

If you think Bush doesn't recruit candidates it is because you haven't been paying attention and if you think the national party chooses failed candidates then I'd say you should compare where Republicans are nationally now compared to 2002, something you don't seem willing to do in Massachusetts.

Seems to me that all Romney has done in Massachusetts is win one election. He hasn't built a party, in fact the party is weaker for his having been governor. Again, this goes back to his inability to help his lieutenant governor. We're beginning to see a pattern here and not one that I'd like to see duplicated on the national scene.

As hard as it is for me to say this, you guys and your excuses are beginning to make McCain look like a good candidate.

then why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress take the blame for the budget deficit? And you should know the answer about the tax rate being too high. Romney had proposed reductions in the state income tax and was rejected by the "80% Dem legislature". Before Romney ever became governor, the people decided through referendum to reduce the state income tax and the "80% Dem legislature" never gave it the light of day.

You can say all you want about the national party choosing and/or supporting candidates, but you chose to ignore my example of Chafee. I could give you others and you know who they are, but what's the point?

My relevant question to you since you seem to have made up your mind on Romney for 2008, is if he wins the nomination, will you support him? Wholeheartedly?

I don't see anyone saying they aren't responsible for the budget deficit, do you?

Ah, so Romney gets credit for balancing the budget and having a $1 billion surplus BUT the Dems are bad for not lowering taxes and giving the surplus back. You have any idea how disingenuous that sounds... and is?

I'm not ignoring Chaffee he's just not relevant. Bush, unlike your boy, has build a parth that has won seats in three elections.

No, I won't support him wholeheartedly because I think he's an empty suit who will run the national party into the ground the same way he's run whatever passed for a Republican party in Massachusetts into the ground. But if he wins the nomination I will hold my nose and vote for him.

at least we know where you stand when it comes to Mitt Romney.
Have a good evening.

About 10 days ago Romney was in Washington for a luncheon speech attended by Ken Mehlman who stated that there was no more sought-after speaker than Mitt Romney among Republicans these days. The important point is that during his introduction, Mehlman said that Romney has used his role as chairman of the Republican Governors Association to raise more money than ever before in the organization's history. He may not be able to find willing candidates to take on the entrenched democrats in Massachusetts, but he apparently does have the organizational skills necessary to improve the fortunes for the national party. Which is really the point, isn't it?

Or, again, is he just "doing a great job in an organization that is successful"?

Ross Perot was a sought after speaker, too.

We'll have to see how well he did heading the RGA in a couple of weeks. Right now, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet we have less that 28 Republican governors on the Wednesday after election day than we do today.

But, of course, that wouldn't be Romney's fault either.

nomination in 2008! I am ignorant of Mass politics but I am reasonably confident that Mitt will do well in the South despite the CW. I've seen him in SC and he wowed the room which was heavily populated by many of my evangelical brethren and sisteren. But seriously, Streiff, who do prefer, as of now, to be our standard bearer in '08?

I like Newt, Mitt, and Rudy in that order.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I loathe McCain. Rudi would be a moderate Democrat in any jurisdiction outside NYC and his stance on abortion, not to mention his nasty personal life, are war stoppers for me. For a lot of reasons I think Romney is a one-man-band who will do nothing good for the national party.

So I'll give my half-hearted vote to whoever gets the nomination but unless things change mightily I'll sit out the primary for president and just punch the ticket for state and local office holders.

He handled a Clinton impeachment/Newt's bad marriages question rather well, which makes me think he could overcome his skeletons.

But really I have been dis-enchanted since Reagan left, although I do like W.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

to like Romney but the best I can say is that he looks great on paper.

I like Newt but he's our Hillary. There are 40-45% of the population that will never vote for him.

And I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't know the answers...
1. Why didn't Romney run for a second term?
2. What would have happened if he had?

Thanks...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

about Senator Frist?

doesn't answer the questions posed about Romney, does it?

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

1. I have absolutely no idea.
2. I live in Arizona not Tennessee.
3. I think Frist is a nice man, probably a good doctor and a complete idiot as Senate majority leader.
4. I'm glad he's retiring, I'm glad we will have a new majority leader whose name isn't Frist.

Now, about my questions? Please understand, I'm not trying to be confrontational or snarky. I used to live in MA a long time ago & I'm simply interested in the state's political upheavals, I've always found it to be a rather strange place for politicians.

I'm not going to take shots at your answers, I'm just interested in your opinion. If you don't want to leave yourself open to shots from others, email me privately, my address is available in my profile.

Thanks.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

1. He's sick of dealing with a 6-1 Democrat legislature and knows after recruiting alomst 130 candidates to run for the legislature for the first time in 2004 - only to see them all swept-up in the Francois Kerry tsunami - that ain't gonna change.
2. He beats Patrick by 5-7.

I have little to nothing to base those on other than gut.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

I lived in MA/NH in the '70's & '80's and I remember (?) that politics was just weird. Is there any chance of Kerry ever getting beat?

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Here's the deal: on nearly every issue - crime, immigration, taxes, spending, illegals, etc. the electorate favors Healey's positions by a nearly 2-1 margin. Yet that same electorate is going to elect Devolve Patrick by roughly the same margin. Go figure!

It is partly because KMH has run a God-awful horrible campaign as FWR mentions downthread. She is surrounded by people at the tip-top levels of her campaign who should be precinct captains at best - in part because our bench is as deep as a puddle in a newly-paved parking lot, and in part because she couldn't sign anyone else on. She is personally a very bright, positive, upbeat person with a good wit but you would never know that from the campaign she's run. She looks like an angry Stepford Wife.

But it's also due in no small part because this has been a corrination for Deval since the middle of the primary season. He's a certified lightweight, an empty suit of first calibre, but he's an ink-blot - no record, no positions, all sunshine. And this just happens to be one of those states - being a People's Republic and all - where a liberal can get away with that.

And no - there is no chance Jean Francios loses an election. He could rape a uniform-clad catholic high school freshman (male or female, don't matter) on stage with cameras rolling and still be able to blame George Bush for it convincingly with a narrow majority of the electorate - so deep in the advanced stages of BDS are they.

Sorry if that imagery was disturbing. It's late.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

They troop religiously to the polls to vote for people who they know will enact policys they hate. I've given up trying to figure it out.

I've only lived here about 7-years now (12-years in CT prior - yippee!) and I've already given-up trying to figure them out. All they do is gripe about taxes being too high, gripe about homo marriage, gripe about the idiots in the legislature and the hacks in the government (all Democrats) - and then walk into the voting booth and vote a straight Democrat ticket.

It's enough to make me wonder why I gave-up alcohol - I think a state or perpetual inebriation must be to required to "get it" because sobrity ain't getting it done.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

when the columnist wrote that it is assumed a first term governor will run for reelection, he's speaking of his own expectations. And those, almost certainly, of Romney's supporters in Massachusetts.

Romney cut the party loose. He cut Kerry Healey loose. All that is his choice, of course, but frankly, the odds are against him becoming a player for the 2008 Presidential nomination. This certainly will not help him, and he needs a heck of a lot more in the end than a few, scattered enthusiastic supporters.

I'm neither a Romney supporter nor Mitt opponent; just watching.