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

Margery Eagan, like Howie Carr and Peter Gelzinis, has been an institution at the Boston Herald–a voice that defines the newspaper. She’s probably most famous for taking heat from conservatives, particularly traditionalist Catholics, for her progressive views on religion and social policy. I haven’t always agreed with her take on the issues of the day–but there is a difference between disagreeing with her and personally attacking her.

In yet another depressing example of the extent to which ideological intolerance has defined coverage of the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, the pro-Deval Patrick website Blue Mass. Group today brutalized Eagan in response to her mild criticism of the site. Blue Mass. Group’s overreaction to Healey’s criticism exposes the operators of the site as being profoundly thin-skinned–and deeply hateful.

Earlier this week, Eagan criticized the site for reading racism into a sophomoric stunt recently pulled by a handful of Kerry Healey supporters. Eagan’s criticism was fairly restrained–but in response, Blue Mass. Group attacked Eagan as a sloppy columnist, a borderline bigot, and an arrogant, self-loathing human being.

This line of attack is as pointless as it is perverse. Say what you will about Eagan’s opinions, but she has proven herself as a reporter and as a columnist. It’s fair to challenge her ideas, but there’s no excuse for challenging her integrity.

This is not to say that Eagan is above criticism–no one is. However, there’s something fundamentally unsound and fundamentally illogical about attacking Eagan’s character in this manner.

Blue Mass. Group’s response to Eagan is filled with blind rage–rage over the fact that Eagan, like her colleagues Gelzinis and Carr, does not bow down to Patrick as though he were a deity, rage over the fact that she has raised questions about Patrick’s platform in her column and on her popular talk radio show, rage over the fact that Eagan had credibility long before Blue Mass. Group existed and will have credibility long after Blue Mass. Group is gone.

Eagan deserves far better than what Blue Mass. Group gave her. They should have responded to her claims with erudition. Instead, they responded with evil.

UPDATE: Another repellent Blue Mass. Group attack, this time on Kerry Healey’s past in Florida. Plus, Hub Politics on Eagan.

Former South African President P. W. Botha passes away at 90.

John Kerry steps in it again. More from the Boston Herald, Jon Keller, the New York Times, Blue Mass. Group, Hub Politics, Power Line, Human Events and Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: More from the Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Michelle Malkin and the Weekly Standard.

I wholeheartedly endorse Kerry Healey for Governor of Massachusetts and Jack Robinson for U.S. Congress.

I’ve always found it deeply strange that those who support "diversity" in our institutions never seem to emphasize the need for ideological diversity. We often hear about the need for increased racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity in business and politics, but rarely do we hear about the need for the most important form of diversity in existence–diversity of ideas.

If Healey’s opponent, Deval Patrick, is elected, it would represent a tremendous step backward in terms of ideological diversity in Massachusetts. The combination of a liberal Democrat in the Corner Office and a liberal Democrat-dominated State Legislature would not only be fertile ground for corruption, it would also represent the complete silence of any opposing views on Beacon Hill. If you feel that one-party dominion hasn’t worked out well in Washington, D. C., why would you want to replicate such a scenario in the Bay State?

Speaking of Washington, D. C., it seems that rumors of the Republican Party’s impending demise are greatly exaggerated. As Robinson himself has noted, it makes far more sense to have an independent-minded Republican representing the Ninth District than it would to have a politically inscrutable, and provably ineffective, Democrat like incumbent Stephen Lynch in that role. Residents of the District have spent five years waiting for Rep. Lynch to bring home the bacon; if he couldn’t get the job done between 2001 and 2006, why should we trust him to get the job done between 2007 and 2009?

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be poorly served by having one party dominate the executive and legislative branches. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is poorly served by having an all-Democrat Congressional delegation. Why not forestall the former scenario, and bring an end to the latter?

I have criticized Patrick and Lynch over the past several months, but they are not dishonorable men. Both came from adverse circumstances to become figures of prominence. Both are living testaments to the value of hard work. Both men are shrewd, personable, and passionate in their beliefs.

Patrick and Lynch aren’t evil. They are, however, more of the same.

To cast a vote for Healey and Robinson is to strike a blow for ideological diversity–the ideological diversity that keeps our electorate engaged, that keeps our democracy vibrant, that keeps our Commonwealth whole.

Healey for Governor. Robinson for Congress.

Together, they can.

UPDATE: WHDH-TV on Robinson vs. Lynch.

Saw III is #1.

If Deval Patrick does win the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, I won’t be happy with the result, but I won’t assign blame either.

I will not blame Howie Carr, Mitt Romney or anyone else if Patrick emerges victorious. The only person who will be "responsible" for a Patrick victory will be Patrick himself.

When Patrick announced that he would run for Governor, it was my estimation that he was too liberal even by Massachusetts standards to win. I concluded that his alliance with ethically questionable corporations and his controversial 1994-1996 tenure as US Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights would be issues that would sink his campaign.

I still believe this to be the case…but if he does win, then my estimation was wrong, and I’ll have no problem acknowledging it.

I would advise other conservatives and Republicans in Massachusetts not to engage in the politics of blame in the event that Patrick wins. The last thing I want to see is conservatives and Republicans acting the same way the left did after the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections–i.e., making excuse after excuse instead of simply acknowledging defeat. We’re better than that.

I believe that when the voters cast their ballots on Election Day, a majority of voters will, in fact, support Kerry Healey. If, however, they do not, I urge fellow conservatives and Republicans not to attack Romney, Carr, third-party candidates, or the voters. Assigning blame won’t change the result. Once the voters speak, we have to abide by what they say–which distinguishes us from the left.

Conservatives and Republicans in this state have to be unified. We literally cannot afford divisiveness. The left, already mocking us because of "unfavorable" polling data, will be rolling in the aisles if our response to a Patrick victory is to fight amongst ourselves. If Healey wins, let’s celebrate–but if Patrick wins, let’s acknowledge the result without blame, and move forward.

A Patrick victory would be bad enough for those of us who object to his political agenda. It would be even worse if we attacked each other in the wake of such a result.

Former boxing star Trevor Berbick passes away at 52.

Legendary Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach passes away at 89.

Can anyone–anyone–come up with a coherent, logical reason as to why voters in Massachusetts’ Ninth District should return Rep. Stephen Lynch to Congress on November 7?

It would be one thing if Lynch actually had some accomplishments to speak of, but can anyone point to anything he’s done that has had tangible benefits for the residents of his district?

It’s been mentioned again and again in the press that this upcoming Congressional election will result in scores of "do-nothing" incumbents being removed from power. Can anyone make the case that Lynch should not be among the list of legislators who get kicked to the curb on Election Day?

I’d love to hear from folks who’ve actually been helped by Lynch–people who can vouch for the Congressman’s capabilities, people who have been aided by the man who has served them on Capitol Hill for the past five years.

Why do I suspect that the number of folks who have been assisted by Lynch is almost immeasurably small?

Jack Robinson has the commitment to public service that Lynch lacks. He has the political independence that Lynch does not possess. Robinson is a candidate engaged to excellence, while Lynch is married to mediocrity.

Rep. Lynch isn’t pulling his load. Send Jack to Congress, and tell Steve to hit the road.

In what could turn out to be a case of journalistic hubris run amok, the Bay State
press has effectively declared the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election over, with Deval Patrick the winner. This means only one thing: if Mr. Patrick is not the actual winner on the night of November 7, the press will have to set the spin cycle on high in order to explain a Patrick defeat.

If Patrick wins, it will confirm Massachusetts as a citadel of progressive philosophy, a place where Mitt Romney’s social conservatism is considered an absolute anomaly. However, if Romney’s second-in-command, Kerry Healey, "comes from behind" to win, this result will indicate that not everybody in the state subscribes to the journal of liberalism. Many of Patrick’s supporters loathe Romney’s social conservatism and wish to send a message (via a Patrick victory) that Romney’s views are not tolerated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If the result of the election indicates that "Romneyism" is on some level embraced in the Bay State, such a result will be depressing for progressives.

Since a significant portion of Patrick’s supporters find it beyond comprehension
that a majority of voters would want to continue the allegedly failed Romney-Healey administration, they will have to concoct some sort of excuse in the event that Healey wins. The obvious course of action will be to suggest that the spirit of racial tension in Massachusetts has never been fully exorcised, and that a Patrick loss is proof positive that the state is still possessed.

Just as progressives seized upon the images of post-Katrina New Orleans to sell the idea that America itself hadn’t advanced much beyond 1965, so too will the left interpret a "surprise" Patrick loss as proof that the state as a whole is frozen in 1976. (It’s almost a lock at this point that if Patrick suffers a "shocking" defeat, the Boston Globe’s political cartoonist will come up with some sordid image representing the loss, such as Patrick being attacked with the American flag on Boston City Hall Plaza.) Patrick’s vagueness in debates, his controversial public- and private-sector past, and a concern about one-party dominion over Massachusetts government will not be cited as primary reasons for a Patrick defeat at the hands of the supposedly inferior Healey. Since progressives cannot countenance the thought of Healey beating Patrick legitimately (i.e., on the issues), they must–and will–find a nefarious narrative to explain a result they don’t like.

A few years back, OpinionJournal.com "Best of the Web Today" creator James Taranto coined the term "The Angry Left" to describe progressives who couldn’t get over George W. Bush’s defeat of Al Gore in 2000. The extreme consternation exhibited by the national left in the wake of the 2000 election will be on display in the Bay State if Healey "pulls off an upset victory." Healey would be well advised to study the first term of the Bush Administration and the way the President responded to unrelenting political attacks from progressives. She’ll have to defend herself in the same fashion if she becomes Governor.

UPDATE: More on Patrick. Plus, another excuse for a possible Healey win?

SECOND UPDATE: Margery Eagan and Jeff Jacoby on the campaign.

President Bush takes action on illegal immigration.

Isn’t it interesting that Rep. Stephen Lynch can find the time to express his approval of the possible sale of the Boston Globe to local owners, but he can’t seem to find the time to attend to the critical needs of his district?

It’s amazing that Lynch seems more interested in the economic improvement of the Globe than he is in the economic improvement of the Ninth District. It’s as if he can’t be bothered focusing on the big picture, so he turns his attention to minutiae.

Why is Lynch concerned about the Globe’s fate? Despite their tepid endorsement of him, he’s hardly one of their favorites. Lynch’s political ideology is at cross purposes with that of the Globe’s editorial page. While the newspaper is obviously reluctant to endorse a Republican, it seems obvious that the Globe’s "positive" assessment of Lynch notwithstanding, the Ninth District desperately needs new, independent-minded leadership.

Jack Robinson will provide such leadership. He’ll be an active, engaged Congressman, not an empty vessel like the inscrutable incumbent. Let’s face it–Stephen Lynch is yesterday’s news, and on November 7, Jack Robinson will be the breaking story.

In a contentious political contest, the smoke of partisan rhetoric soon becomes the fire of unmistakable extremism. When the desire to see a certain candidate come to power becomes a blind fervor, reason, rationality, and reality take a back seat.

In what will go down in history as an example of the horrors of extreme
partisanship, Dan Payne, a former consultant to Massachusetts Democrat gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick, today did what many feared, but hoped, would not happen: he in essence declared Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey the new Louise Day Hicks.

In a hyperbolic column devoid of reason but filled with rancor, Payne attacked Healey for supposedly exploiting racial fears with her ads condemning Patrick’s advocacy on behalf of a convicted sex offender and his progressive position on illegal immigration. Payne reads a racial subtext into the ads that does not actually exist–and in doing so, reveals the paranoia that lies in his own mind.

It’s hard to read Payne’s column without suspecting that he’s concerned that the ads, denounced in some quarters as over-the-top, may well prove their effectiveness when the votes are actually counted on the night of November 7. If the ads did not have their desired effect, why attack them?

It appears that Payne senses that, despite Healey’s oft-mentioned weakness in current polls, there may be a difference between what people say now and what people will do in two weeks. If Payne and other Patrick supporters were so confident that Patrick’s lead will carry him through to Election Day, then why is it that his supporters are still attacking Healey, bashing anti-Patrick sites like Hub Politics, and lambasting anti-Patrick talk radio hosts?

It’s obvious that, if Healey "comes from behind" and defeats Patrick, Payne and other Patrick backers will have no other option but to paint Healey as a resurrected Pixie Palladino in order to explain Patrick’s failure to seal the deal with Bay State voters. The only surprise is that they’ve decided to do this before the election.

UPDATE: The Patriot Ledger on Healey. Plus, having declared the race over in this fashion, isn’t it at this point undeniable that, if Healey "contradicts the polling data" and actually wins, the only "out" for the press is to declare both Healey and the people who voted for her closet bigots?

The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that gay couples must receive the same benefits of marriage as straight couples. Will this ruling affect the 2006 Congressional election? More from Glenn Reynolds, the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the Boston Herald.

Will November 7, 2006, be a day of vindication for Jack Robinson?

It was six years ago that Robinson was vilified to an unconscionable degree by the Massachusetts press for daring to launch a grassroots campaign against veteran US Senator Edward Kennedy. The attacks on Robinson set new standards for yellow journalism and biased reporting; by essentially declaring Robinson a fringe candidate, the press played a central role in making the election far less competitive than it could have been.

Now, six years later, Robinson is launching another challenge against an entrenched, incumbent Democrat–the unpopular, unaccomplished Stephen Lynch. This time around, the press has turned its attention to the contentious gubernatorial campaign between Republican Kerry Healey and Democrat Deval Patrick, and thus is not attempting to call the election prematurely for Lynch, the way they called it for Kennedy six years ago. (It helps that Lynch is not nearly as admired by the Bay State press corps as Kennedy.)

If he wins, it will be an example of political justice delayed, but not denied. In 2000, Robinson showed the leadership skills necessary for effective public service; only those who bought into the media caricature of Robinson failed to realize his obvious intelligence and gravitas. It’s unfortunate the press chose to turn Robinson into a political pinata rather than focus on the ideological contrast between the candidate and Kennedy.

Now, Robinson is free to speak his mind without fear of the press distorting his words. Unobstructed by the Fourth Estate’s attempt to play favorites, he can present a compelling case against Lynch and his flawed, failed pseudo-leadership. He can walk into the court of public opinion and declare that Lynch is guilty of failing to deliver for the residents of the Ninth District–and on November 7, Jack Robinson can expect a victory six years in the making.