Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

A Florida Republican Congressman resigns in the wake of a sex scandal–and a Minnesota Democrat Congressional candidate with ties to the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam could win in November. More from the Washington Times and Power Line.

In a shocker, Senator Ted Kennedy agrees to his first debate in twelve years.

More gay-marriage controversy in Massachusetts.

UPDATE: More from the Globe, the Washington Times, and the New York Times.

There is one reason why I want to see Kerry Healey and Jack Robinson become, respectively, the next governor of Massachusetts and the first Bay State Republican congressman in a decade: because both wins will shock the hell out of those who promote the "conventional wisdom."

Already, the arrogant prognosticators are proclaiming Healey and Robinson’s respective opponents, Deval Patrick and Stephen Lynch, the guaranteed victors in their races. The puffed-up pundits can’t even entertain a scenario in which Healey and Robinson could go over. It’s simply beyond comprehension that people could reject a vague, ultraliberal, blow-dried candidate who can deliver speeches but nothing else, or a flip-flopping, unaccomplished, profane hack.

To the professional predictors, Healey and Robinson are unsophisticated, unserious candidates. Their business and educational achievements aren’t relevant; after all, if you didn’t come out of Harvard and the corporate world praising the virtues of the Democrat Party, there must be something wrong with you.

It’s sickening to see Patrick and Lynch being deified while Healey and Robinson are demonized. However, on November 7, it will be funny to see how those who guaranteed Patrick and Lynch’s victories will spin the opposite results.

We know that there will be an attempt to cast aspersions upon those who decided to vote for Healey instead of Patrick–but how will they explain Lynch’s defeat at the hands of the independent-minded Robinson? After all, these are the same people who declared that Robinson wasn’t fit to be elected dogcatcher after he was defeated by Ted Kennedy in 2000, a defeat largely prompted by the fact that Kennedy unleashed his attack dogs on the candidate. How will they analyze a Lynch loss in a way that doesn’t take into account the incumbent’s tremendous flaws?

The press won’t like seeing Healey and Robinson in the winner’s circle. They’ve tried to bury the so-called "Romney-Healey Administration" since early-2003, and they attempted to bury Robinson in 2000. However, both of them refused to be sent to an early political grave.

It will give them fits, won’t it? How funny will it be to see the Boston Globe editorial page and the left-wing cheerleaders at Blue Mass Group react to Patrick and Lynch’s losses? How humorous will it be to see the left caught in its own smugness, choking on the pride that led to the fall?

I can’t wait to hear the excuses, to see the looks of shock and awe on their faces. I can’t wait to see Kerry Healey and Jack Robinson prove that the "conventional wisdom" is pretty damn stupid.

There is one reason why I want to see Kerry Healey and Jack Robinson become, respectively, the next governor of Massachusetts and the first Bay State Republican congressman in a decade: because both wins will shock the hell out of those who promote the "conventional wisdom."

Already, the arrogant prognosticators are proclaiming Healey and Robinson’s respective opponents, Deval Patrick and Stephen Lynch, the guaranteed victors in their races. The puffed-up pundits can’t even entertain a scenario in which Healey and Robinson could go over. It’s simply beyond comprehension that people could reject a vague, ultraliberal, blow-dried candidate who can deliver speeches but nothing else, or a flip-flopping, unaccomplished, profane hack.

To the professional predictors, Healey and Robinson are unsophisticated, unserious candidates. Their business and educational achievements aren’t relevant; after all, if you didn’t come out of Harvard and the corporate world praising the virtues of the Democrat Party, there must be something wrong with you.

It’s sickening to see Patrick and Lynch being deified while Healey and Robinson are demonized. However, on November 7, it will be funny to see how those who guaranteed Patrick and Lynch’s victories will spin the opposite results.

We know that there will be an attempt to cast aspersions upon those who decided to vote for Healey instead of Patrick–but how will they explain Lynch’s defeat at the hands of the independent-minded Robinson? After all, these are the same people who declared that Robinson wasn’t fit to be elected dogcatcher after he was defeated by Ted Kennedy in 2000, a defeat largely prompted by the fact that Kennedy unleashed his attack dogs on the candidate. How will they analyze a Lynch loss in a way that doesn’t take into account the incumbent’s tremendous flaws?

The press won’t like seeing Healey and Robinson in the winner’s circle. They’ve tried to bury the so-called "Romney-Healey Administration" since early-2003, and they attempted to bury Robinson in 2000. However, both of them refused to be sent to an early political grave.

It will give them fits, won’t it? How funny will it be to see the Boston Globe editorial page and the left-wing cheerleaders at Blue Mass Group react to Patrick and Lynch’s losses? How humorous will it be to see the left caught in its own smugness, choking on the pride that led to the fall?

I can’t wait to hear the excuses, to see the looks of shock and awe on their faces. I can’t wait to see Kerry Healey and Jack Robinson prove that the "conventional wisdom" is pretty damn stupid.

Forget about Deval Patrick. If Jack Robinson defeats Stephen Lynch to become the state’s first Republican congressman in a decade, such a victory will be the real "biggest Bay State political story of the year."

A Robinson win would be sweet vindication for the Harvard-educated businessman and attorney, a hearty last laugh for the man known for refusing to bow down when the powers-that-be insisted that he kneel. A little over a half-decade after he withstood underhanded efforts to force him to abandon his grassroots US Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, Robinson may well end up on Capitol Hill with the senior (citizen) senator–and representing the state far more effectively than Kennedy has in the last few years.

As an "unbought and unbossed" Congressman, Robinson will not be reluctant to challenge outdated ideas and philosophies. He will reject both "rubber-stamping" and knee-jerk obstructionism with equal fervor. He will combat the Washington culture that rewards sloganeering, sloth and special interests. Unlike former Bay State Congressman Bob Drinan, Robinson is not a priest; however, if elected, he will not hesitate to read the eulogy for politics as usual.

Robinson could have a galvanizing effect on his potential Congressional colleagues if elected. Let’s be honest–when’s the last time you’ve heard of John Olver or John Tierney or Jim McGovern or Ed Markey or Martin Meehan doing something truly beneficial for the residents of Massachusetts? Once Robinson gets down to the people’s business, and begins to draw media attention for his effectiveness and independence, you can be sure that his Congressional colleagues will work twice as hard to ensure that they aren’t ignored. That means they’ll once again be responsive and accountable. That means all of our Congressional representatives will once again truly represent us.

The residents of Massachusetts haven’t had the Congressional leadership they deserve in a good long time. For years, members of our congressional delegation have ignored the will of the people, preferring instead to bash President Bush and pander to the Daily Kos. If Jack Robinson wins the Ninth District Congressional election on November 7, he’ll put an end to that nonsense–and usher in an era of common sense.

UPDATE: The Terri Schiavo case could be an issue in this election.

A politically interesting site selection for the 2008 GOP convention. More from the New York Times and Captain’s Quarters.

The operators of the prominent Massachusetts-based conservative blog Hub Politics have drawn fire for alleging that Deval Patrick has cynically exploited his race in an attempt to win the 2006 Bay State gubernatorial election. While some have chosen to passionately attack this assertion, a far wiser strategy would be to analyze it.

Essentially, Hub Politics claims that the press and certain voters have rallied behind Patrick because he happens to be black. One part of this assertion is erroneous, but the other is not. Patrick has received a "free pass" from the press not because of his ethnicity, but because he reminds many reporters of the 2000 John McCain, "maverick" image and all. Anytime someone with a compelling life story and a forceful personality runs around claiming that they’ll change politics as usual, the press always falls for it. Even though many reporters hated Pat Buchanan’s politics, he was the darling of the press corps during his 1992 and 1996 Presidential runs. Some in the press were even fascinated by Steve Forbes’ 1996 bid for the Presidency because of the "maverick" factor.

The press loves to create political superstars: Gene McCarthy in the 1960s, Jesse
Jackson in the 1980s, Howard Dean in the 2000s. All you have to do is to bill yourself as a reformer and the press will swoon, no matter what color you are.

As for whether liberals are supporting Patrick for reasons of political correctness: there is no doubt that some progressives want to see Patrick become governor largely because they believe that if he wins, it will represent the "official" end to the racial tensions that tarnished the state during the 1970s busing crisis. Symbolism is of the utmost importance to some on the left, and a Patrick victory would be "proof" that ethnic tensions in Massachusetts have finally subsided.

Patrick is seen by some on the left as a true testament to American egalitarianism: figures such as Oprah Winfrey are viewed the same way. While certain progressives are skeptical of his ability to win, the Bay State left is happy that he has even made it this far, for his success up to this point is seen by the left as irrefutable evidence of progressive fairness and open-mindedness.

I object to almost everything Deval Patrick has to offer politically. I believe that if he is elected, he will not be kind as he rewinds the state back to the awful final years of Michael Dukakis. However, I don’t believe that he is in the position he is now owing entirely to political correctness. The PC mentality is a supporting player, but good old-fashioned slick marketing is in the main role.

UPDATE: More on the Healey-Patrick race. Plus, Hub Politics with a great follow-up post.

"Nothing worth having in life comes easy."

That’s a lesson Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey had to learn growing up amidst adversity in Florida. She learned that lesson a second time while she earned her Ph. D. She learned it a third time making a name for herself in the rough-and-tumble world of Massachusetts politics. And now, she is learning that lesson once again, as she confronts numerous obstacles on her path to becoming the Bay State’s next governor.

The two main barriers she must topple take the form of Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deval Patrick and "independent" candidate Christy Mihos. The far-left Patrick is subtly hostile to Healey’s moderate Republican views; the "maverick" Mihos is openly hostile to her beliefs, as he showed during his repulsive performance in the first debate of the general election. Patrick and Mihos
are aided and abetted by an irresponsible media structure that detests Healey and her boss, current Governor Mitt Romney, and seeks to promote Patrick and Mihos–Patrick because they see him as the Bay State’s version of the 2000 John McCain, and Mihos because he blames Healey and Romney for everything that’s wrong in Massachusetts.

You have to admire Healey’s courage as she faces off against the rabid Democrat partisans, the bloggers who dismiss her intelligence, the activists who view her as the symbol of GOP mendacity, and the extremists who truly believe that the victories of her Republican predecessors were all flukes. Healey is inspiring people she has never even met with her determination and dedication.

No matter what the sarcasm-soaked scribes say, Kerry Healey will win the Massachusetts gubernatorial election on November 7. She’ll do it for everyone who’s been told they can’t make it, for everyone who was told they didn’t have the ability, for everyone who was told they were overmatched but who were in reality underrated.  Anyone who knows the Kerry Healey story understands that she is a woman who, once she decides on a goal, will not rest, will not stop, will not abandon, will not relent, will not quit until she has achieved what she set out to accomplish.  Her goal is to be the state’s guardian against the schemes of the licentious Legislature, the person who will speak common-sense truth to elitist power. That goal’s within reach. In just under seven weeks, she will grasp it.

The novelist Victor Hugo once said that "nothing, not all the armies in the world, can stop an idea whose time has come." Well, the time has come for Kerry Healey to be the next governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. On November 7, it will be more than just an idea–it will be reality.

UPDATE: More on the campaign from the Herald and Globe.

It can be argued that Massachusetts has not had a truly decent, truly effective
representative on Capitol Hill since Edward Brooke left office in January 1979.

Brooke, who was first elected to the US Senate in 1966, was renowned for his political courage and independence. He was a social liberal, but he defended his progressive views with reason and rationality, something in short supply today from many on the non-conservative end of the spectrum. Brooke was always a gentleman, always quick-minded, always proud, always a man who embodied the finest ideals of public service.

We haven’t had a man of such dignity representing us in Washington in 27 years. When one surveys our current list of Bay State Congressmen and Senators, one is hard pressed to find any member worthy of shining Ed Brooke’s shoes, much less filling them.

Will Jack Robinson be able to live up to Brooke’s legacy of outstanding public service if he is elected to the seat currently held by Ninth District Congressman Stephen Lynch? Certainly, it’s far more likely to buy Robinson as the heir to Brooke’s legacy of courage and independence than it is to buy Lynch in that role. It’s hard to imagine Brooke giving in to pressure from irrational extremists
the way Lynch has (in backing a "quit Iraq now, before a fully functioning government has been established" proposal.) It’s hard to imagine Brooke ducking debates in an egregiously cowardly fashion (as Lynch did in refusing to debate his Democrat primary opponent, Phil Dunkelbarger). It’s hard to imagine Brooke resorting to gutter language to assail his political adversaries. In short, it’s hard to imagine Brooke behaving in a way that epitomizes politics as usual–in other words, the way Lynch behaves.

Robinson has the independent spirit, the political courage and the passion for service that defined the Brooke era. If he defeats Lynch on November 7, he could very well fill Ed Brooke’s shoes–and use them to lead us on a new and brighter path.

Does Mitt Romney have it in the bag for 2008?

Am I the only Bay Stater who’s noticed that the Boston press doesn’t seem to be protecting hack Ninth District Congressman Stephen Lynch, currently facing a tough challenge from independent-minded Republican Jack Robinson, nearly as much as they protected US Senator Ted Kennedy when Robinson ran against him six years ago?

You may recall that when Robinson ran his grassroots campaign against Kennedy in 2000, the Boston press did everything it could to sabotage him, out of a misguided belief that Kennedy had "earned" the right to run unopposed. Robinson was subjected to a "politics of personal destruction" not seen since the demonization of Ray Shamie in his 1984 US Senate fight against John Kerry.

Today, however, you don’t see the press feverishly trying to rob Robinson of his credibility. I wonder why that is? Obviously, reporters have less of an emotional connection to Lynch than they do to Kennedy, but is that the only reason? Perhaps members of the press are so sickened by Lynch’s split personality on the war in Iraq that they’ve decided he isn’t worth being "protected." Perhaps there are some reporters who, while not being fans of the GOP, at least respect Robinson’s independence as well as his consistency on the war question.

In any event, it seems that the press’ coverage of the Robinson vs. Lynch contest won’t be nearly as one-sided as the media’s characterization of Robinson vs. Kennedy. Robinson has distinguished himself as a man who calls it down the middle and tells it like it is. Let’s hope the press continues to do the same.

UPDATE: Robinson calls on Lynch to agree to two debates. 

Jackass: Number Two goes to number one.

Do the folks who ardently support Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick realize that those of us who back Republican candidate Kerry Healey support her just as passionately as they do Patrick? Or do they underestimate our support just as much as they underestimate Healey?

I wonder if Patrick’s people know just how deeply committed we are to seeing Kerry Healey become out next Governor. I wonder if they realize that we see Healey as someone who can bring desperately needed change and reform to Beacon Hill.

Do they understand how strongly we appreciate Healey’s respect for the will of the people, as reflected in the vote to roll the state income tax back to 5.0%? Do they comprehend how much we admire Healey for taking a tough stand against unrestrained illegal immigration?

Do they know how disturbed we are by assaults upon her character from folks like Massachusetts Democrat Party chair Philip Johnston?

I don’t think Patrick’s people really "get" how strongly we feel about Kerry Healey’s leadership and intelligence. I don’t think they understand that we see Healey as one of the few outposts of political rationality in what has been, in many respects, a politically irrational state.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Those of us who support Kerry Healey believe that she, not Deval Patrick, is truly "No Ordinary Leader." We admire her courage in fighting for the rights of victims of sexual abuse and drunk driving. We revere her independence and her willingness to step outside of the boundaries of ideology to do what’s best for the Commonwealth. We praise her outspokenness in challenging our licentious Legislature to put the people’s business first, and their own shallow ambitions last.

In short, we think the world of Kerry Healey.

You Patrick supporters don’t understand it. And you won’t understand it…until she beats your candidate on November 7.

UPDATE: Some of Patrick’s supporters seem to believe that he’s already won the general election. Don’t they understand that there are many Bay Staters who are growing tired of the Boston press’ glorification of Patrick, and who will vote for Healey as a means of protesting the Fourth Estate’s attempt to shove Patrick down everyone’s throats?

SECOND UPDATE: The pro-Patrick blog Blue Mass. Group attacks some of the Republicans running for office in Massachusetts as ethically challenged. Wait a second, boys–you’re backing The Ameriquest Kid for governor, and you’ve got the nerve to attack people as being ethically challenged? Plus, more on Healey and immigration.

I’m looking forward to Monday evening’s first-ever debate showdown between Massachusetts GOP gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey and Democrat opponent Deval Patrick. Listeners and viewers will hear and see a contrast between a woman who’s not afraid to speak her mind and a man whose mind is controlled.

Healey has the boldness to disagree with the Republicans on critical issues–abortion, civil unions, same-sex adoption, stem-cell research. She defends her views with intellectual acuity; you don’t get any vagaries or pie-in-the-sky sentiment out of her. Healey is a candidate who believes in the actual and the factual–something in short supply in Massachusetts politics.

Patrick, however, is seemingly disgusted by the thought of disagreeing with the far-left on critical social issues. As I argued last year, he comes across (to those not already worshipping him) as a political android, repeating left-wing catchphrases with quasi-robotic precision. For years, the left has pushed the notion that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are Republican ventriloquists who use President Bush as their dummy; in Massachusetts, however, this theory is fact–only this time, it is Patrick who is merely mouthing the words of the teachers’ unions, the blogosphere elitists, the "No Draconian sentencing" crowd, the "tax-them-back-into-the-Stone-Age" contingent, the "You Can’t Vote on Marriage!" activists, and other assorted Democrat special-interest groups.

This is what makes Healey such a refreshing candidate: the woman thinks for herself. She’s not listening to a cabal of moonbats telling her what do to, what to say, what to believe. She’s concerned about the interests of the moderate many, not the pet causes of the fringe few. It’s the ultimate irony that the "change" and "reform" that Patrick keeps talking about is the "change" and "reform" that only Kerry Healey can deliver. As I’ve pointed out before, the real "No Ordinary Leader" is actually the Republican nominee.

Patrick can talk all he wants about platitudes and attitudes and latitudes and gratitude–hell, he can even bring up the Beatitudes. However, it’s not going to stop Kerry Healey from showing that she’s got the magnitude.

UPDATE: Healey rings the alarm on Patrick. Plus, Phil Johnston, moonbat.