Notes From D. R.

The Task Before Us

It won't be easy, but it must be done.

Rebuilding the Massachusetts Republican Party will be a fairly arduous task. As things stand right now, the Democrat Party calls all the political shots in this state, and they will make every effort to protect their hegemony.

The progressive press is thrilled beyond all measure that the state GOP is temporarily out of action. The newspaper columnists and bloggers who served as Deval Patrick's cheering section over the past two years will not be pleased by any sign of a GOP resurgence.

There are people in this state who like the status quo, who love it the way it is. Democrats running the Corner Office. Democrats dominating the State Legislature. A left-wing Supreme Judicial Court. A media culture almost completely devoid of voices sympathetic to the right.

There are quite a few folks in this Commonwealth who wouldn't mind if several years pass before another Republican becomes governor. The last thing they want is for Patrick to be dispatched after one term.

There are more than a few Bay Staters who believe that the State Legislature belongs to the Democrats by divine right. The last thing they want is for Republicans to begin encroaching upon their territory.

Bringing new life to the moribund state GOP will require great fortitude--the willingness to ignore the catcalls of those who are secretly afraid of challenges to their power, the desire to confront a hostile press culture, the strength to support candidates as they navigate treacherous political waters.

But it has to be done. It must be done to preserve critically needed two-party balance. It must be done to restrict political arrogance. It must be done to enhance ideological diversity.

It will be a hard task. Yet we must remember that no task worth doing is easy. Rebuilding the Massachusetts Republican Party is an obligation--an obligation we owe to the residents of this state. We'd be dishonorable not to fulfill that obligation.

It won't be easy, but it must be done...and it will be done.

Marital Discord

Outgoing Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney says he will ask the state Supreme Court to allow a ballot initiative blocking same-sex marriage to go to the voters in November 2008. I thought the battle over the definition of marriage in the Bay State had effectively ended with the election of pro-gay-marriage gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick earlier this month, but it may have started anew. More from the Herald, AP and Globe.

UPDATE: More from the Globe and Herald.

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

You've Got To Be Kidding

Far-left Congressman Charles Rangel says the draft should be brought back. Lord love a duck... More from the Washington Times.

Weekend Box Office: Dancing (Penguins) With The Stars

Happy Feet tops the charts.

We Have Overcome

Does Deval Patrick's victory in the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial election represent the triumph of the American buppie?

For those not familiar with the term, the word buppie is a shorthand term for "black urban professional." It specifically refers to the African-American professionals who moved into the higher echelons of corporate America in the decades following the Civil Rights movement. 

Patrick, like Kenneth Chenault and Richard Parsons, is seen in some quarters as the civil rights dream becoming reality. The activists who waged a virtuous war against segregation and discrimination made a simple yet compelling argument: just give talented, qualified African-Americans a chance, and they will excel and in so doing, benefit American society as a whole.

While one cannot ignore the controversial aspects of Patrick's involvement with Coca-Cola, Texaco, Ameriquest and United Airlines, one cannot deny that his success in the corporate world following his departure from the Justice Department is seen as the fulfillment of a critical civil-rights goal. Decades ago, activists fought to create the circumstances in which African-Americans with smarts and skill could become major players in the private sector. They dreamed that men like Patrick could one day wield corporate power. Thus, when they saw Patrick rise to influence in these corporations, they considered it proof that at least one aspect of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision had become reality.

The day after Patrick defeated Kerry Healey, WTKK-FM talk host Jim Braude noted that after Patrick gave his victory speech, he was surrounded by supporters, some of whom were elderly African-Americans who embraced Patrick and didn't want to let go of him. Those elderly African-Americans grew up during a time in which the notion of a black man becoming a corporate bigwig or the governor of a predominately white state would have been considered an absolute joke. They witnessed blacks being beaten, lynched, forced under glass ceilings, and told they weren't good enough. In Patrick, they saw a man who became the ultimate refutation of the Jim Crow mentality. They saw a dream come to life.

This is why Patrick's secular position on same-sex marriage ultimately didn't matter to black voters in the Bay State. This is why questions about the effect his liberalism on illegal immigration would have on working-class blacks were, in the end, of no consequence. Patrick was what blacks in this state had been searching for politically for years: a bright, charismatic, passionate candidate who "never forget where he came from" (i.e., he stayed loyal to the liberal left, unlike the supposed racial turncoats Clarence Thomas and Michael Steele).

Looking back, the contention--my contention--that Patrick's hard-left stances on same-sex marriage and illegal immigration would cost him black voter support was absurd. Let's face it, even black voters who fervently oppose same-sex marriage and accommodations for illegal immigrants would have been reluctant to vote for Healey, simply because she was a Republican. (In fact, as a result of four decades of Democrat propaganda, it's difficult to get blacks to vote Republican under any circumstances.) Black voters in this state were simply not going to reject a candidate of Patrick's stature and qualifications, disagreements on social issues notwithstanding.

The national Democrat Party has surely analyzed the circumstances surrounding Patrick's win, and will undoubtedly try to recreate those circumstances in 2008.  Barack Obama could have the same galvanizing effect on black voters nationwide that his friend Patrick had in the Bay State. Like Patrick, Obama is seen as the embodiment of the American Dream--and the embodiment of the African-American dream. Like Patrick, he could generate a record turnout among black voters inspired by what he represents.

Patrick and Obama are both considered heirs to the civil rights legacy. They went to the best schools, achieved success in the private sector (although Patrick was far more prominent in this regard) and became influential figures in the political world. They started off as "buppies" and became power brokers. I profoundly disagree with their politics, but I cannot dispute their achievements. They were committed to their principles. They fought hard. And they won.

Rebuilding Process

Former Congressional candidate Jack Robinson plans to help restructure the Massachusetts Republican Party. 

Staying The Course

The Boston Herald's Jules Crittenden on the importance of pursuing victory in Iraq.

Rush Hour

Rush Limbaugh has argued for years that Democrats can never be honest about who they really are when running for office, because if they made clear their opinions on taxes, immigration, education and other issues of the day, they would lose. My guess is that Limbaugh would agree that in the state of Massachusetts, that rule doesn't apply.

It may be an indictment of just how far to the left Massachusetts has gone, but the fact remains that Deval Patrick won the 2006 gubernatorial election without a phony moderation of his liberal positions. He specifically avoided the Bill Clinton "Third Way" approach--he ran as an open "progressive" and won by a 21-point margin.

One reason why I didn't think Patrick would actually win the election was that it seemed absurd that a candidate who strongly opposed a rollback of the state income tax, abhorred the death penalty, supported accommodations for illegal immigrants and cast a skeptical eye upon vouchers and charter schools could be victorious when the electorate was, at least according to polls, at odds with him over those issues. My bad, as they say. What I didn't anticipate was that the electorate's ill feelings toward Mitt Romney--ill feelings that I believed were confined to the hard left--would be so widespread.

This antipathy towards Romney--whose social conservatism was never really accepted by this libertarian state--doomed Kerry Healey's chances for victory. Contrary to the media spin, Healey wasn't a weak candidate; under different circumstances, her fiscally conservative, socially moderate, tough-on-crime vision would have been embraced by the voters. However, the Bay State's negative perception of Romney (and those associated with his administration) was too much of a burden for her to overcome.

The Sunday Boston Globe Magazine will undoubtedly declare Patrick their Person of the Year; partisan politics aside, it would be a fitting choice, in the sense that Patrick was wise enough to recognize the true magnitude of anti-Romney sentiment in the Bay State and to exploit that sentiment in order to defeat Healey. For now, he is the smartest man in Massachusetts politics (although some would argue that he doesn't have much competition for that title).

The question is, for how long will he remain the cerebral champion of the Commonwealth? Will he be wise enough to govern as a true centrist, or will his political IQ drop as he pursues a economically destructive, Michael Dukakis-style ultra-liberal approach? Patrick clearly had the smarts necessary to obtain power. Now, he must demonstrate that he's shrewd enough to maintain power.

The Departed

What happened to the Massachusetts conservative?

It wasn't all that long ago when the Bay State had a core group of residents who resisted the cultural liberalism around them. They proudly supported Ronald Reagan when the Boston Globe editorial page disparaged him. They bitterly opposed then-Gov. Michael Dukakis' pandering to the far left. They believed in free markets and merit, opposed gun control and the welfare state, and believed in the goodness of God and the justice of America.

In 2006, it appears that they have all died off.

Deval Patrick's election is just one sign of the collapse of the right in Massachusetts. With the state Republican Party in critical condition, certain conservative talk radio hosts forced into silence, and social libertarianism ascendant, it appears that traditionalism is toast in this territory.

Remember when the late Ray Shamie presented the case against the left in two high-profile US Senate elections--his 1982 battle against Ted Kennedy, and his 1984 contest against then-Lt. Gov. John Kerry? Although he lost both races, his commonsense conservatism and embrace of the Reagan vision resonated with many; he would later lay the foundation for GOP success in the Commonwealth during his 1987-1991 tenure as head of the state Republican Party.

Are there any Ray Shamies in the Bay State today? Are there any residents willing
to do what he did--proudly and prominently profess a belief in lower taxes, small government, a strong defense and individual freedom?

The heirs to Shamie's legacy are, sadly, few and far between. Other than a handful of conservative op-ed columnists, an assortment of GOP-leaning blogs, and a few courageous voices on talk radio, one will not find many outlets in this state where the Shamie message can be heard.

It's hard to tell exactly when the conservative tide in the Bay State began to recede. It's been argued that Commonwealth conservatism began to die off between 1991 and 2001--the era in which fiscally conservative, socially liberal Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci occupied the Corner Office. While Weld and Cellucci were firmly on the "progressive" side of the cultural spectrum, I hesitate to place the blame for the death of Massachusetts conservatism exclusively on their shoulders. A better argument can be made that the demise of traditionalism in the Bay State occurred not as a result of Cellucci and Weld, but as a result of the cultural will.

Why has the anti-gay-marriage movement failed in the Commonwealth? On paper, it's because the state Legislature refuses to allow the electorate to vote on the definition of marriage. In reality, it's because the cultural winds in Massachusetts have, for whatever reason, shifted in the libertarian direction. In this state, the cultural imprimatur is not "Let the people vote" or "Marriage is the union of one man and one woman"; it's "Live and let live." Once independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos, an ostensible competitor for conservative votes, expressed his support for same-sex marriage, it became obvious that the battle to define marriage in this state had effectively ended.

The anti-abortion movement in this state has seemingly vanished as well. Just a decade ago, one could still find passionate pro-life activists holding silent vigils outside of abortion-providing clinics, holding rosary beads and praying that young women would choose not to terminate the life inside of them. Now, they can scarcely be found. What happened? The conviction is still there, but the numbers are not. (And let's be honest: when's the last time a Republican gubernatorial candidate--or any candidate of any party for any high office in this state--ran as an open pro-lifer?)

Absent contrary evidence, one is compelled to conclude that Patrick's victory represents the permanence of progressivism in this state. Patrick, running as an open economic and social liberal, secured 56% of the vote. He successfully convinced the electorate that sixteen years of Republican rule in the Corner Office, not decades of Democrat dominance in the state Legislature, generated the problems that the Commonwealth had to confront. Patrick is already considered a political trailblazer. Considering the slow demise of Bay State conservatism in the years prior to his win, it may also be fitting to label him a political undertaker.

UPDATE: Patrick names Joan Wallace-Benjamin, a liberal Democrat and former head of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, as his chief of staff. It remains to be seen if his other appointments will also be solid liberals, or if he'll add some legitimate moderates to the mix. More from the Globe and Herald. Plus, Wizbang weighs in.

Finneran Begins Again?

The news that Boston talk radio station WRKO-AM is considering hiring former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran is being received negatively in some quarters. While Finneran was certainly a controversial figure during his 1996-2004 tenure as Speaker, I'm not certain as to why his possible selection is playing so poorly. It's not that he lacks the requisite skills for a talk-radio position: he was always a compelling presence during his fill-in appearances on crosstown competitor WBZ-AM, and will undoubtedly obey the unwritten rules of talk-radio civility. WRKO clearly feels that Finneran has the potential to be a Boston talk-radio icon in the vein of the late Jerry Williams, and I wouldn't second-guess their logic.

As we move into the "Deval Patrick era," the Bay State talk-radio industry is clearly under pressure to be more "sophisticated"  and "civil" in its approach to the issues of the day. As much as I enjoy the current incarnation of Bay State talk radio, it's obvious that as a result of internal and external forces, the talk market will have to change. Finneran could play a crucial role in that change--and he's smart enough to make sure that it's a smooth transition.

If Finneran successfully resolves his current legal troubles, he could become a major Bay State talk radio force in 2007. There is no question that he'll have influence. The only question is just how significant that influence will be.

UPDATE: From the Boston Herald.

Dear John

Scandal-scarred Congressman John Murtha rejected as House Majority Leader.

The Genius

Influential economist Milton Friedman passes away at 94. More from the Wall Street Journal.

UPDATE: Thomas Sowell remembers Friedman.

Strategic Operation

Will Barack Obama damage the GOP's efforts to reach out to black voters?

Whole Lott-a Shakin' Goin' On

Trent Lott returns to power. More from the New York Times, Michelle Malkin and Power Line.

Code Of Silence

Will we witness an all-out war in 2007 between Massachusetts' civil rights community and conservative critics of Governor-Elect Deval Patrick?

Rhetorical attacks (including unsubstantiated charges of racial prejudice) against right-of-center Bay State talk radio hosts are likely to increase next year, especially if Patrick makes the tactical mistake of governing from the left and those hosts call him on it. Some pro-Patrick callers have already made it clear that they regard the hosts' criticism of Patrick as little more than poorly disguised bigotry, and one can easily see a scenario in which those callers try to take their attacks on the conservative hosts to a new level.

Will these callers encourage the Bay State "community activist"/civil rights community to go after anti-Patrick talk hosts in an attempt to shut them up? One must be concerned about the likelihood of this scenario; civil-rights interests were almost successful in driving Larry Elder from the Los Angeles airwaves in the late-1990s, and successfully forced Michael Graham off the air in Washington, D.C. last year. Some of Patrick's supporters brook no dissent; they simply cannot accept the fact that one can object to Patrick's body of ideas without being hostile to him on account of his race. Angered by talk radio criticism of their hero, they could take action in an effort to squelch speech they don't like.

Nationally, Rush Limbaugh has warned that the Democrat majority in Congress could take steps to force conservative talk hosts off the air (such as attempting to resurrect the so-called Fairness Doctrine). Locally, passionate Patrick partisans could act upon a doctrine of their own--a doctrine of demonizing Deval's detractors. Conservative talkers are often critical of the "PC police." What will happen if those "PC police" begin to use excessive force?

UPDATE: Patrick meets with the few Republicans left on Beacon Hill. More from the Boston Herald and Boston Globe.

Trading Places

If outgoing Mass. Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey thinks she'd had it tough, she should thank her lucky stars she's not State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson! Seriously, Healey will be back in some capacity. My sense is that more Bay Staters will remember her for gracious concession speech than they will for her allegedly "negative" (i.e., fact-based) campaign against Deval Patrick.

Political Talk

Former Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran is being considered for a talk-show gig on Boston's WRKO-AM. His current legal problems notwithstanding, Finneran would be an interesting choice; he always did a great job doing fill-ins on WBZ-AM, and is certainly an expert on Bay State politics.  We'll see what happens.

Honesty Is The Best Policy

Will the new Democrat Congress have the same sort of "ethics issues" that doomed their Republican predecessors? More from the Washington Times, the New York Times, Patrick Frey and the Washington Post.

UPDATE: From the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal.

Network Neighborhood

The best of Boston's blogs.

Beloved

Will conservatives and libertarians in Massachusetts find themselves under pressure to temper their criticism of Governor-Elect Deval Patrick?

In the weeks and months prior to Patrick's historic victory, conservative talk show hosts were routinely accused of racial bias because of their pointed criticism of what they felt was Patrick's ultra-liberal track record. On-air attacks by Patrick supporters on those hosts (particularly hosts on Boston's WRKO-AM) were so frequent they reached the point of absolute absurdity.

Now that Patrick is Governor-elect, it's very likely that conservative talk hosts who question Patrick's actions in the Corner Office will continue to be held up to extreme scrutiny. The question is, how should they respond when faced with allegations of carefully disguised prejudice?

There's always an inherent risk in criticizing someone seen as a heroic figure. Notice that today you don't hear many people publicly criticizing Muhammad Ali for his refusal to serve in Vietnam--despite the fact that four decades ago, Ali heard nothing but hardcore criticism of his actions. Even before his battle against Parkinson's disease intensified, it became "taboo" to criticize Ali for his refusal to serve (largely because people became more sympathetic to Ali as their distaste for Vietnam grew).

The reality that confronts critics of Patrick is that there are plenty of people in this state who regard Patrick as a hero; they admire him for his triumph over adversity and his skill in bucking conventional wisdom to become Governor. Patrick has quickly become the local version of the 1990s Colin Powell, which makes it extremely difficult to attack him the same way one can attack other politicians.

Perhaps conservatives in this state should study the way their national counterparts have dealt with another beloved cultural figure, Oprah Winfrey. Right-of-center broadcasters have long accused Winfrey of subtly promoting the liberal Democrat worldview on her program, but Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham have always been shrewd enough to take Winfrey's popularity into account when
criticizing her. O'Reilly and Ingraham always make a point of emphasizing Winfrey's status as a pop-culture pioneer, a barrier-breaker and a role model for women and people of color. Instead of coming across as being chagrined by Winfrey's success, O'Reilly and Ingraham point out that such success is a testament to the fundamental fairness of America. By acknowledging and respecting Winfrey's accomplishments and her place in history, O'Reilly and Ingraham are able to undercut left-wing efforts to brand them as subtly prejudiced; after all, who can credibly charge them with harboring race-based grudges against Winfrey, when they're on record as embracing Winfrey as a symbol of African-American, and indeed American, achievement?

One can argue that praising Winfrey before criticizing her is little more than genuflecting to political correctness, but O'Reilly and Ingraham are smart to publicly acknowledge her accomplishments and her place in history. While they'll never win over the hard left, they are wise enough to ensure that their criticisms of Oprah cannot be misinterpreted as thinly disguised bias.

Conservatives in this state may have to do the same with regards to Patrick. Their criticisms must be well-defined, well-stated, and framed in such a way as to ensure that the far left has no ground to stand on when claiming that such criticisms are based on prejudice rather than policy. Carefully constructed, well-reasoned arguments against his activities will not persuade passionate Patrick partisans--but such arguments could help to attract the broadest audience possible.

O'Reilly and Ingraham have set a standard for issues-based criticism of an admired public figure. Those of us who disagree with Patrick's views should always endeavor to live up to that standard.

UPDATE: Does Patrick need his privacy? More from the Herald and Globe. Also, Darrell Crate steps down as head of the state GOP.

Watts Of Power

How will the Republicans counteract a possible Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket in 2008?

It seems unlikely that the heavily hyped Obama will end up as the Democrats'
Presidential nominee in two years' time, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Illinois senator could be chosen as Clinton's partner. Obama is solidly liberal but comes across as a charismatic moderate; the combination of Clinton and Obama would make it somewhat difficult for the GOP to compete for the female vote, and almost impossible for the party to yield a greater share of the black vote than they received in 2004.

Republican primary voters must carefully select a candidate for 2008--and that
candidate must carefully select a running mate that will help him compete against
the likely partnership of Clinton and Obama. I've previously argued that, based on his conservative credentials and his potential to draw independent voters, Mitt Romney would be the GOP's best choice for '08--but who will Romney select as his Vice Presidential candidate?

There may be implicit pressure on Romney (or whoever becomes the Republican
Presidential nominee) to select an African-American running mate if it becomes
apparent that Obama will be Hillary's choice. Obviously, Secretary of State Condi Rice and outgoing Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele will be considered, but it's hard to see either Rice or Steele being suitable in the role. While Rice has performed admirably as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, her name and reputation have been so thoroughly smeared by the mainstream press that she would actually be a drag on the ticket. It is a sad truth that Rice, having been attacked for years with the same sort of hate-filled rhetoric directed towards the likes of Clarence Thomas, would not be able to aid the GOP's efforts to increase black turnout; in fact, she would hinder such efforts, as black voters would be more energized to reject the alleged "traitor" Rice at the ballot box.

Steele, while a compelling figure, wouldn't fit the bill either. Unfortunately, the mainstream press has also demonized him as a self-hater, and his perceived lack of commitment to conservative principles would hurt him with the GOP base. In his recent high-profile bid for the US Senate, Steele presented himself as a "maverick" willing to disagree with the party; as John McCain knows all too well, once you position yourself as a "maverick," the base will conclude that you're really a self-promoter.

If the GOP nominee finds himself under pressure to select an African-American nominee, he'd be wise to consider former Congressman J. C. Watts of Oklahoma. Not only does Watts have experience winning multiple elections, he also has charisma, intelligence, low personal negatives, and solid appeal to the conservative base.

While Watts was also a mainstream press target in the mid-1990s, the Fourth Estate was never able to thoroughly demonize him. He has unimpeachable credibility on the social right, but never comes across as a stereotypical "Holy Roller." He was an effective Congressman and a committed advocate of the conservative cause. He's every bit as personable as Obama, and wouldn't be afraid of confronting the senator on his left-wing voting record during a debate.

Watts was considering a rising star in Republican circles a few years back. Depending on the way things play out in 2008, he could have an opportunity to fulfill his potential.