Shocking News! Liberal-Democratic Governor Fails!
March 27th, 2008 at 12:54am Mark Noonan
I know, hard to believe that a liberal can fail, especially one who spoke of hope and change in his election campaign…but it does seem to be the case:
BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick has lately addressed doting crowds around the country as a surrogate for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, his friend and fellow gifted orator. Last month, Mr. Obama even acknowledged borrowing language from Mr. Patrick’s stump speeches, casting a flattering light on a novice politician barely known outside Massachusetts.
But there is no such glow at home for Mr. Patrick, the first Democrat to lead his state in 16 years and the nation’s second elected black governor.
Mr. Patrick, who easily won office in 2006 after dazzling voters with a message of hope and change, suffered a nasty defeat last week at the hands of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, which quashed his proposal to increase revenues by allowing three resort casinos in the state. None of the governor’s major policy proposals have cleared the Legislature, in fact, and he and Salvatore DiMasi, the speaker of the House, have taken to trading barbs publicly.
Mr. Patrick is faring better than a year ago, when he was under siege for spending more than $10,000 on drapes for his State House office and upgrading his state car from a Ford Crown Victoria to a Cadillac. (He later agreed to reimburse the state for the drapes and part of the car lease.) By his third month in office, Mr. Patrick had announced that his wife was being treated for depression, and by his fourth, he had overhauled his staff.
But even now, governing is not coming easily for Mr. Patrick, 51, a former civil rights lawyer and corporate executive who came to Massachusetts on a prep school scholarship in the ’70s.
So why has he struggled for traction in a heavily Democratic state with a Legislature that should be on his side?
He blames Speaker DiMasi, a veteran of Beacon Hill who embraces old-school ways of doing business and holds far more sway than the governor over his members. Mr. Patrick believes his casino bill could have passed if Mr. DiMasi, who said gambling would be a scourge on the state, had not pressured lawmakers to oppose it.
Why casinos? ‘Cause you’ve got a liberal in charge - and that means if there’s a budget shortfall (which there is in Massachusetts), then the only thing a liberal can think of is how to increase revenues…never a thought to how to cut spending or better run the government. Its also rather typical of a liberal that he’s blaming someone else for his defeat - it isn’t that Mr. Liberal Hope and Change had a bone-headed idea, its that Someone Else failed to deliver the goods. DiMasi might be a lot of things and, sure, he was clearly opposed to the idea of casinos (as should everyone - really, leave casinos to the professionals in Las Vegas…everyone else always seems to make a hash of it, and you can never get “Vegas” anywhere other than Vegas), but its not like he can actually order everyone around - might it be that a majority of the Legislature just decided that casinos weren’t a good idea? Well, you’ll never get a Liberal Hope and Changer to admit that…liberals never make mistakes, you see?
Poor Massachusetts - saddled with an uber-liberal Governor, a Democrat controlled legislature…and Ted Kennedy at the top fo the nauseating heap! I’ll bet they’re starting to regret their choice in 2006…
Entry Filed under: Democrats
20 Comments
1. SEW | March 27th, 2008 at 2:57 am
But Mark you right wing nut jobs are sooo unfair. Have you noticed that Patrick, like Barry, also has an engaging smile! I didn’t think so, you BushHitler/Rove supporters never give credit when it is due. All you think about is going to war and power! You think the only way to raise money is by creating jobs by giving tax cuts to the wealthy, those who don’t even need more money. And that means those with the new jobs will even have to work for their money. This is Massachusetts after all, home to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
And 4000 troops have died in Bush’s illegal war. We need Hope and Change, and a nice smile. And a man of color!
2. D. R. Tucker | March 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I can’t believe the NY Times has turned on Deval “Quota King” Patrick. I never thought I’d see the day…
3. js | March 27th, 2008 at 7:13 am
What ties liberalism to vice?
We see it continually repeated, in major situations.
Liberals endorse abortion, which in turn promotes promiscuity.
Liberals endorse homosexual marriage, which in turn promoted deviant sexual behavior.
Liberals endorse gambling, which in turn results in addictive behavior.
Then, on issues that really matter, like health care and health insurance and border control, they just pay lip service too as a means to an end.
Why is it that they dont endorse family values and do things that would protect society instead of promote its decay? When are americans going to wake up and say that they have had enough?
4. Michael | March 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I found it amusing that with a Democrat legislature the Democrat governor couldn’t get support for his casino plan. I notice it also included tax increases, a favorite “idea” of the left and with that defeat so goes those tax hikes. So now where do they turn. As you said, they’ll never look at cutting costs, so they’ll have to find some other way to raise taxes (or as they call it ‘raise revenues’). Don’t worry, the state being controlled by the Democrats will find some way to sock it to tax payers.
We have a glimpse here of what Obama would be like. This guy sounds like a carbon copy down to his “hope and change” mantra. Obama, likewise, has little support in congress, even from Democrats and if he defeats Hillary and wins in November, guess where Hillary will be? There is talk already of giving her Senate majority leader as a consolation prize. Good thing she’s not vindictive or anything…
5. MorrisMajor | March 27th, 2008 at 11:26 am
So only liberals support casinos? Like all the liberals in Nevada?
6. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Morris: GIGO
BTW, love your knee-jerk spasms of anti-whatever-any-conservative-ever-says. It sooooo confirms your Liberal credentials.
As does your inability to read or at least to process information. The casino reference was, very clearly to most of us, a commentary on—let me see if I can find the exact wording—-”Why casinos? ……..the only thing a liberal can think of is how to increase revenues…never a thought to how to cut spending or better run the government”.
Maybe Mommy can read it to you and ’splain the big words.
7. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
This thread supports a theory of mine, which is that if Obama does get elected, he will be impotent because he will be dependent on the two houses of Congress to pass whatever cockamamie schemes he comes up with (if he ever does at all) to pay for his lavish handout platform, and the Senators and Representatives all know that they will have to answer to the voters back home if they support grandiose taxation plans which will cripple the economy.
I’m seeing Patrick as the Pre-Obama…..
8. Joe | March 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Wait a second here…..
the point of your thread is that a liberal lost something they wanted? You do understand that it is a “liberal” democratic state congress that shot down the casino idea, right?
So Democrats defeated a Democrat. I assume you are now singing the praises of a democratic house???
Or is this just to pick on a Democratic Gov?
By the way… how are casinos Dem or Repub?? I like going to a casino as much as the next guy, but I wasn’t necessarily for Deval’s plan. I didn’t like the idea of 3 casinos. I thought 1 or maybe 2.
Either way… the Mashpee Indian tribe are going to be building a resort casino, so it isn’t like casinos are not coming to Mass anytime soon.
I just don’t get the point of your post other than to try and poke fun at a Dem Gov not getting what he wants.
9. Tractatus | March 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
BTW, love your knee-jerk spasms of anti-whatever-any-conservative-ever-says. It sooooo confirms your Liberal credentials.
You do know of Mark “liberals are by definition wrong about everything” Noonan, don’t you, ‘Ranty?
Now let’s see how hard you resist the point. I’m betting you’ll resist pretty hard.
10. Sunny | March 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
MorrisMajor | March 27th, 2008 at 11:26 am
So only liberals support casinos? Like all the liberals in Nevada?
Or like the liberals in Oklahoma? We have so many casinos and we are one of the reddest states in the US.
11. Michael | March 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Almiranta,
I agree with your theory. If Obama wins (shudder) he will either have to renege on most of his pie-in-the-sky “ideas” that just happen to be bery expensive. Hillary, the likely leader in the Senate will go out of her way to trip him up since his failure means she gets to run in four years. She (and her hubbie Willie) are the defacto head of the old school political machine which has all the wealth and power. And that same machine just threatened Nancy Pelosi with removing their support for her if she keeps up backing Obama. They will soon have her under control. Then Obama would face some rough sledding. Almost every Republican (McCain did not give up his seat either) and many of Hillary’s cronies in congress will make it a point to ensure Obama fails. Then Hillary can say, “I told you so.” There will be little change and no hope for the silver tongued rockstar. This scenario could be the most likely outcome of an Obama win. He has few friends in congress, the one place he needs them if he becomes POTUS.
12. MorrisMajor | March 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
No Almiranta, it shows that I actually think for myself instead of just repeating back the party line. Being honest, intelligent and educated, concepts beyond your ken, forces me to constantly explore and examine things and my assumptions beyond the mere repetition of slogans and applications of cheap, shoddy labels. I am sorry that you are so socially and intellectually impoverished that you can only think in one dimensional, cons= goooood libs = baaaaad stereotypes. Life and people are more complicated than that. Such simplifications that you indulge in are basically dishonest too. The fact is that both liberals and cons support casinos, as well as sovereign Indian nations here, makes your observation moot.
13. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Tract sneer: “Now let’s see how hard you resist the point.”
Can’t “resist” something that doesn’t exist.
Morris, glad you see yourself as “honest, intelligent and educated…” But you forgot to add “…smug, condescending, egocentric, and self-satisfied..”
Mo, if you had actually READ my posts, and actually been able to UNDERSTAND them (there go “educated” and “intelligent”…) you would have seen that nothing I wrote even comes close to your accusations.
I merely pointed out that the casino idea was just another way to fund a lavish Dem program or two or six, as illustrated in the words I actually USED: ”Why casinos? ……..the only thing a liberal can think of is how to increase revenues…never a thought to how to cut spending or better run the government”.
Now if you are really “honest” (are we getting ready to lose the third leg of your debate stool?) you will admit that the casino idea was floated to bring in more money to the MA government, which of course would be used to fund programs put in place by its Democrat (ie: liberal) statehouse.
I quoted an opinion, voiced by Mark in the orignial thread post, that “…..the only thing a liberal can think of is how to increase revenues…never a thought to how to cut spending or better run the government”.
If you disagree with this opinion, please do state the reasons you think it is false, and address those issues.
Your entire diatribe against me is silly, irrelevant to what I said, and—to borrow a phrase—shoddy. I never said one word against casinos, or implied in any way that support of them is partisan. Neither did Mark. This was about ONE casino project (three casinos) in ONE state.
I just shake my head and wonder where you guys GET this stuff. I hate to think what kind of garbage you would invent to hurl against me if you were NOT so “honest, intelligent and educated”.
You said something really really stupid, irrelevant, and, well, stupid. There was nothing whatsoever in the thread post to imply in any way that “..only liberals support casinos…” and then you compounded it with some silly sneer about all the libs in Nevada. You got called on it.
So get your panties untwisted, take a deep breath, and get over it. Or, you can be more predicatable and use the incident to try to justify another temper tantrum, albeit a polysyllabic one full of self-importance and assumed superiority.
No one cares, on way or the other…….
14. Tractatus | March 27th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Can’t “resist” something that doesn’t exist.
‘Ranty World:
Knee-jerk spasms of anti-whatever-any-conservative-ever-says = BAD!
Knee-jerk spasms of anti-whatever-any-liberal-ever-says = GOOD!
Let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you even further, mkay?
15. FoolYouTwice | March 27th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Ranty,
js specifically tied casinos and gambling as bad things that liberals endorse. Maybe you skip his posts, can’t blame you there, but that is the reference you seem to have missed.
You project more than anyone I have ever known.
16. congressive | March 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Aahhnold just tripled the slot machines here in California. Not exactly an anti-casino stance for a Republican governor.
17. Almiranta | March 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
FYT, you certainly don’t know me, and it would be good if you would stop your pseudo-analysis. When a person preens about being “honest, intelligent and educated” it IS smug. And your self-congratulatory sense of superiority oozes out of everything you write. Projection, my donkey.
And then there is silly old Tract, just mumbling on and on about his hallucinations.
Tract, I commented on the knee-jerk spasms of you radicals against everything posted by a conservative.
You responded with a knee-jerk spasm of snottiness at my post.
Yeah, you’re really disproving my point….
You seem to have missed the many many MANY comments on the difference between liberals and Liberals. True, Liberals seldom if ever say anything of note, but you can’t blame us for not agreeing with posts that have little or no content other than mindless attacks and repetition of lies.
Small-L liberals get respect here, because of the belief that even when we don’t agree with them, they are sincere in their beliefs.
It is the capital-L Liberals who get the disdain, and that is because you (plural you…) seldom if ever post anything of substance, just relying on the hate-based hurling of insults.
When and if a real thought is posted, it is addressed as such. It’s just that it happens so seldom, and is buried amongst the deitrus of insults, accusations, manipulations of facts, and assorted junk dropped on this post on a regular basis.
And, sweetie, why are you quoting something someone ELSE said in an attack on me?
I’m sure you guys are thrilled to have a new attack target—even you must be getting tired of sliming Bush by now—but please just try to realize that the intent of this blog is to create a forum for discussion of topics of interest, not to provide a convenient place for you and your ilk to deposit your droppings.
You both remind me of an old cowboy saying: “Ya don’t never want to rassle a pig. Ya cain’t do it without getting as dirty as the pig is….and the pig LIKES it.”
Therefore, no rassling with you. You get off way too much on dragging people into your petty spitefests, and it is too distracting from the real issues. That may or may not be one of your goals—-as a conservative, I don’t have any Thought Police to assign motives, or any desire to play Junior Shrink…
18. Tractatus | March 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Just as I predicted, ‘Ranty: You resist the point pretty hard. I can call it a mile away.
FYT, you certainly don’t know me, and it would be good if you would stop your pseudo-analysis.
Yeah! Don’t you know that ‘Ranty is the only one allowed to do pseudo-analysis? Just like she’s the only one allowed to hurl hate-based insults, she’s the final arbiter on who’s a socialist, she’s the only one allowed to preen, and she’s the only one allowed to play Junior Shrink, providing diagnoses like “the chicken-guts approach,” “OJ Jury Syndrome,” and the ever-popular “BDS.”
But it’s not projection on her part. Oh, no. Not at all. Just because she indulges in everything she claims is the domain of those damn dirty liberals, it isn’t projection for her to say that stuff is the domain of those damn dirty liberals. Because ‘Ranty said so!
19. Michael | March 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Almiranta,
Just ignore them. They crave attention. Don’t give it to them.
20. Jeebus | March 28th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Almiranta…wooweee! You shure got a purty mouth for someone who spends their day eating sh*t.