Blue Dog Reaganite

Election Blurbs

On this Thanksgiving Saturday, let’s take a brief look at some snippets about the coming 2010 elections…

The Boston Globe reports that the GOP is hoping to take its win in New Jersey and use it to build momentum going further north, aiming at the governorships of New England states, including the Democratic bastion of Massachusetts. This isn’t as far-fetched as the casual observer might think. Don’t forget, economic conservatives like Mitt Romney and William Weld won the governor’s mansion in the Bay State. Overall though, the prospect of Republican takeovers here doesn’t exactly set my heart aflutter. New England Republicans tend to be of the country-club outlook that sneers at populism, both economic and social, and while they aren’t always wrong, they aren’t the answer either. The proper answer to the crisis of politics in Massachusetts in general and New England in particular, is the rejuvenation of traditional Democrats at the grass-roots.

Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics has done an in-depth statistical study on the correlation of the economy and the results of the mid-term elections. Interesting data, and I like that Trende shows that it’s not always as cut-and-dried as the pundit class makes it out to be. Nevertheless, the bottom line is this—the Democrats are in a rough ride in 2010, and the fact they hold so many seats in “red territory” inevitably suggested regression to the mean. The sagging economy probably means ’10 is the year that such regression occurs.

Lou Dobbs is getting serious about a possible run for the Senate in New Jersey against Democrat Robert Menendez, and using that seat as a stepping stone to the White House. Because of Dobbs’ stance on trade policy, count me as an enthusiastic supporter. The question remains of whether he should file as a Republican or go independent. I believe the answer is clearly the latter. He has the name recognition to not be dependent on a party. And his strong defense of economic policies that benefit the average American would make him anathema to the GOP’s Wall Street Politburo, just as happened to Pat Buchanan in 1996.

The Professional Political Class

One of my guilty pleasures is reading the memoirs of campaign strategists and consultants. Irregardless of party or ideology, I scoop up these books. From James Carville & Mary Matalin’s All’s Fair, to Bob Shrum’s No Excuses, there’s been countless such books that I’ve either bought or checked out at the library. But I say “guilty” pleasure, because whether any of the above, or Karl Rove, or the late Lee Atwater, or any other strategist, I have deep doubts as to whether they actually do the country in any good. Quite frankly, I think they are more a part of a parasitic class that collects a paycheck while providing no worthwhile service to society.

This may seem like the pot calling the kettle black. I do, after all, make my living writing marketing copy for sports handicappers who sell their predictions to gamblers based in Las Vegas or offshore. Not exactly on a par with nurses, teachers, or police officers when it comes to providing a valuable community service. Although there is one rather significant difference between myself and the political strategists, be they highly successful or mere wanna-bes. That difference is that I don’t fancy myself incredibly important to society or carry on in incredibly self-righteous tones about just how much good I’m doing. We have a job, we do it, and that’s the end of it. Whereas the professional political consultant can be expected to do whatever they can to manipulate an spin the truth whatever way they can, try and jam wedges between otherwise reasonable people, then follow it up with an ode to their commitment to public service. Perhaps the only thing worse was my brief travel through the world of Catholic journalism, where competing publications tried to destroy each other in print, and followed it by in effect signing off with “Sincerely yours in Christ.” As Michael Corleone said in Godfather III, “the further I go up in the legitimate world, the more corrupt it becomes.”

The strategists are just one symptom of an overall cancer, and that’s the professionalization of American politics. Self-righteous speeches aside, the purpose of going into the government really was supposed to be about statesmanship and public service. But when you have people coming right out of college and devoting their entire careers to being in the government, being on congressional staff, running for office or running campaigns, and they become way too vested in, and dependent on the system to keep the best interests of the nation foremost in mind. No one should be naïve enough to think the earliest Founders went into public life solely out of a sense of patriotic duty—power, after all, is the ultimate aphrodisiac. But they had real lives and real jobs outside of politics. They truly came from the society that desired to govern. Such is not the case today.

For this reason, I am a strong supporter of term limits at every level of government. It is most desperately needed in Congress. Here’s where members have enough resources at their disposal to be the most manipulative, and yet are still insulated enough from media attention (as individuals) that they can keep using public money to buy their own re-elections. State legislatures are insulated, but lack the money to do real damage. And the president is so visible that he’s judged on legitimate issues, not how much bacon he can deliver to a certain district or state. However, I still do support term limits at both the state level and for president. In the case of the latter, we have had several excellent presidents since the 22nd Amendment was passes—most notably Ronald Reagan. But it’s dangerous for any society to think that one particular person is indispensable.

As to the problem of the rest of the professional political class, I’m not sure how to solve that. Candidates will always need media advisers and the money will always be there. But if nothing else, maybe we can remove the esteem they are held in, removing one of the core attractions of the job—serving the ego. And then they might be inspired to go and get real jobs. Or at least join the rest of us and not pretending they’re the most important people in society.

Climate Change Activity

Today is a brief run-through some articles on The Hill, which reports the activity in Congress…

There’s division in the Democratic ranks over the climate change bill, with members from the coal and industrial states wanting to proceed cautiously. This is an issue that splits political coalitions down the middle. Democrats and Republicans both have their suburban yuppies, who long to think of themselves as astute and educated people, and support for climate change legislation is a litmus test in proving their own sophistication, at least to themselves. Each party also has a staunchly populist side, the GOP with members committed to free markets. And the Democrats’ working class, the ones with the most to lose economically should this pass. Within the community of pro-life Democrats that Blue Dog Reaganite identifies with, there is division as well. Many pro-life Dems see support for their environment as a part of their religious heritage, which probably motivates their pro-life concerns as well. Others, myself included, think the environmental movement is nuts and has yet to be proven right on any topic of major importance and that Al Gore jetting all over the world in a massive waste of fuel is proof positive that even the movement’s leading acolytes don’t really believe it deep down. And the same religious heritage leads us to be deeply skeptical about reforms that inflict the most damage on those least able to afford it.

One area in which there is no division is Barack and the European leadership. The president says the coming summit in Copenhagen will rally the world to the green cause. With unemployment at double-digits, one wonders if the economically less fortunate people in this country think this is the kind of change they voted for. The fact Barack’s approval rating is now dipping below 50 percent, the official danger threshold for his re-election, suggests that it is not.

And here’s a brief rundown of seven key primaries that will shape the 2010 landscape in advance of November. The one I found most interesting was the coming Democratic Senate primary battle between Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak. The latter is a pure liberal and campaigning against Specter as the Republican imposter. The incumbent has the polling lead and the financial advantage, but I’ve felt all along that if Sestak makes just a little bit of headway, that Specter’s lead will collapse quickly. Put me on record for predicting a Sestak win, setting up a pure Left-Right showdown with him and Pat Toomey in November in a key battleground state.

Pro-Life Or Pro-Choice?

Is the proper term for those who support legalized abortion to be their preferred moniker of “pro-choice”, or the label “pro-abortion” that many, including myself use more commonly? This came up in the debate over the Stupak Amendment to the health care reform bill that was ultimately approved by the House. The amendment, which passed by a much larger margin than the overall proposal itself, got the government out of the abortion funding business. There’s still a long way to go in this battle, as the bill now goes to the Senate and then to conference committee, where the amendment’s opponents will get a chance to strip it out. And it’s an issue in the Democratic primary race to replace the late Teddy Kennedy up in Massachusetts, where the two leading candidates having both said they would vote down any health care reform if the financing of abortions is not a part of it. In assessing the Stupak amendment briefly on Facebook I described myself as happy but cognizant of the fact that “the pro-abortion crowd” would try to change the bill. This drew a rebuke from a friend who said he presumed I meant “pro-choice.” So which is it?

I’m reminded of the great comedy film The Naked Gun, where Leslie Nielsen, playing the role of  Lt. Frank Drepin appears at a dinner party, to the surprise of his girlfriend, as well as to the bad guy, who thinks Frank’s been knocked off. She looks at him and says “Frank.” The conspirator looks up and mutters “Drepin.” To which Nielsen’s character says “You’re both right.” I suspect both myself and my friend are right on the question of labeling this political position. Here’s why.

The amendment I was discussing went beyond the simple question of whether abortion should be legal or not. It would have put all of us—under threat of imprisonment—into the business of paying for abortions. If you think the imprisonment line is extreme, trying refusing to pay your taxes sometime in protest, and see what happens. The government is no longer merely neutral in the abortion debate, but actively financing one particular side. The simple rule of economics is that when you want more of something you subsidize it, when you want less of something you tax it. Abortion is one thing social liberals don’t want to tax, and when they then step forward to want it subsidized, is it really so far off to call them “pro-abortion.” They may still find the act rather gruesome and unseemly. They may still genuinely feel it’s a bad option in most cases. But in choosing to finance this, rather than the countless other things the government could spend taxpayer dollars on, “pro-abortion” seems both accurate and perhaps even mild.

But there’s another side to it. What about the people who just feel the government has no business in the whole abortion industry period. They feel it’s up to the people involved and no central governing body should tell them otherwise. But on the flip side they want no part of financing it either. What they want is neutrality. In this case, pro-choice very accurately describes their position, and I’ll cop to a guilty plea of having too frequently lumped them under the pro-abortion banner.

Having said that, I am still not pro-choice. There are a great number of areas I think the government should stay out of, but the defense of human life in its most innocent stages is not one of them. Human beings come together to form a government precisely so it can protect the helpless and the innocent. If it were merely about protecting the powerful, there would be no need for it—the powerful can take care of themselves in a world run by chaos, although it wouldn’t be nearly as prosperous. But society needs laws that protect people’s boundaries, enforce contractual agreements, guard our shores and have a police force for internal domestic security. Societies that grow prosperous enough have a vested interest in giving those less fortunate—as well as those who may have temporarily screwed their lives up through their own fault—a helping hand back up. So call me pro-life, call me anti-choice, slap whatever label you want on it—but in this context, it’s perfectly appropriate for the government to create a boundary when it comes to taking an innocent unborn life and say that it’s not appropriate for anyone to cross it.

The Coming Campaigns

A brief look at some of the coming elections...

In Ohio, new polling shows incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland into a dead heat with former GOP House member John Kasich. Rebounding in Ohio is absolutely essential for the Republicans if they're going to return to real competitivness on a national scale. The loss of this former GOP stronghold has been a slowly developing story over several election cycles and the national media really failed to pick up on it. But Ohio was once reliably Republican. By 2000, George W. Bush had to fight to hold it, and by 2004 the entire election came down to the Buckeye State. In the aftermath of the '04 campaign, too few Republicans bothered to ask themselves (at least publicly) why a state that was once theirs for the asking had turned into one that needed a big turnout on a gay marriage referendum to save Bush.

The obvious answer is that Republican trade policies have destroyed the manufacturing base that the Ohio economy relies on, and Ohioans know it. If cultural questions and national security issues are muted and the election swings on the economy, Buckeyes vote Democratic. We should note that the Democatic establishment has been equally complicit in these destructive trade policies, but Ohio has Dems like Marcy Kaptur in the House and Sherrod Brown in the Senate that are principled opponents of free trade deals. I will also give a nod to Madame Speaker, who has slowed the passage of the free trade agenda in the House. So there at least enough Democrats working against it to give the party an edge on the issue and in Ohio that is the path to winning elections.

Governor Strickland is in trouble because of the economy. It's ironic that a former member of the GOP House leadership, that rammed through the global trade agenda, stands to benefit from the problems his own policies caused. If I lived in Ohio I might well vote for Kasich on other issues--I'm not sure where he stands on the right to life and school choice is a big issue for me at the state level--but he's not the answer on the economy.

Another sign of how much the political environment has changed is this poll from Gallup, which shows the GOP moving ahead of the Democrats on the generic congressional ballot. The primary thrust of the change has been independents going Republican. I think that is something that's just very difficult for an incumbent party to stop. Independents are pretty fickle and its tough to keep them happy, hence the ebb and flow of partisan control in this country. If the Democrats have to avoid a meltdown they have to do something I dread--keep the Left happy. Pass health care reform. Lift don't ask, don't tell on gays in the military. Completely subordinate U.S. national security interests to whatever the U.N. wants and be vocal about it. The Democrats would still lose seats and independent votes, but not much more than they'd probably lose by natural attrition anyway. And it would be countered by a vibrant and active base that would keep their losses manageable.

Meltdowns occur when a party chases votes that are drifting away anyhow and kills the enthusiasm of their own. A big part of the problem is that too many politicians believe their own post-election B.S. about a permanent governing majority or a grand realignment, rather than accepting the fact that their popularity with the mushy middle is very temporary, and figuring out a way to cushion the blow when it goes away. 

Finally, Tony Blankely of The Washington Times sees Hillary Clinton as a viable presidental possibility in 2012. I put this one in the category of comic relief. Maybe in '16. But Hillary's chances of holding the top political job in D.C. in four years are about the same as Jim Zorn's chances of holding the top football job in the Beltway come next August.

A New Era Of Immigration

Immigration is a sensitive topic in today’s political culture—well in today’s culture, so focused on whining, the unnecessary taking of offense and milking every unkind remark for political benefit, virtually everything’s a sensitive topic, but this one especially so. It goes right to the heart of America itself. To some, any restriction whatsoever is a violation of the Statue of Liberty’s promise and a betrayal of the American Dream. To others, the complete flooding of America with newcomers is threatening to destabilize the national culture. Let me try and lay out my thoughts.

It all has to start with properly understanding this country’s history. When it comes to the Statue of Liberty’s vision of an open door, the Golden Age was the 1920s. The U.S. threw open the door to Irish, Italian, Poles, all sorts of newcomers from south and central Europe. Like the Mexicans of today, these newcomers were seen as a threat to the social order. But they went on to become an intrical part of the American social fabric and no one can imagine the United States today without us. That part of my heritage—indeed, the heritage of the nation itself—puts me on the side of the pro-immigration forces.

But there’s more to the story that’s often overlooked. In 1965, The Golden Door Act radically increased the numbers of immigrants this country would take in. Whereas previous eras had seen an ebb and flow, combined with manageable numbers to allow for assimilation, now we were having huge volume that never let up. Furthermore, the new immigrants were coming into a different country. As the political and cultural Left seized control of key institutions in government, the media and education, the standards for assimilation were lowered. No longer was it presumed that newcomers would adapt themselves to the norms of their new country. Now it was considered the obligation of the United States to adjust itself to the newcomers. No longer did a new immigrant have to show the ability to support oneself—or have a host family. Learning English was considered an unfair burden. Having pride in the great traditions of American government and jurisprudence, firmly rooted in the West, was considered racist. We should note that embrace of institutions modeled on Great Britain was hardly a no-brainer for the Irish, but they did it.

As a result, the possibilities for peaceful assimilation decreased drastically. And today, to restore the norms of old gets one branded as anti-immigrant. In a bizarre twist of logic, if you argue for the same exact same rules that your own ancestors and family played and lived by, you are accused of betraying that exact same heritage. No one ever said American politics was sane. Furthermore, the distinction between legal and illegal entry is now considered non-existent, another completely baffling development.

This latter point simply has to be cleared up. Any legislative solution to today’s immigration situation has to start with firmly securing the border against illegal entry. We can argue about whether we want 1 million, 5 million, or 10 million newcomers every year. We can argue about where they should come from or what they should learn when they get here. But there should no dispute amongst reasonable men about obeying and enforcing the laws of the country.

In terms of volume, I want to see a restoration of the Golden Age. Let’s tone the numbers down to manageable levels. Some have argued for a time-out, to assimilate the huge volume we’ve seen in recent decades. I understand the logic, but am not ready to die on that hill. I think it’s more important just to move forward with a sustainable policy.

When we look at where the immigrants will come from, I don’t think any preference should be given one particular country or region. I have to part company with my old political mentor Pat Buchanan (well, he didn’t officially mentor me, but I followed him with great passion) on this one. The future immigrants are going to come from the south or from Africa or from the Pacific Rim. Western Europe isn’t producing enough people to populate itself, much less provide newcomers for us. And on a better plane, there’s no longer starvation in Ireland, political upheaval in Italy or crackdowns in Poland that create the conditions for people wanting to leave. All this is to the good. I further reject the notion that people with “marketable skills” should be given preference over the downtrodden. If there were ever a rejection of the American ideal, this is it. And that rejection has come just as prominently from pro-immigrant people in the business establishment. I understand the concerns good people—like those in the Buchanan movement—have over opening the doors to people of a completely different culture who are poor, but those concerns have been overcome in the past, and can be so again, as long as the immigrants are arriving to a healthy culture ready to absorb them.

It’s this latter point that’s really the problem. Elite liberals have caused tremendous damage by their denigration of the American heritage, primarily its tradition as an English-speaking nation and the notion that have created immense problems. The increased secularization and mocking of religious faith have created a cultural stagnation that new immigrants can help fix, just as the Irish gave new life to the city of Boston, suffocating under Brahmin rule and led by people with sticks of charcoal stuck up the wrong places. This is where the problem lies. Perhaps, to put in baseball terms, we can trade a few veteran liberal academics for some burgeoning minor league talent in another country, and start the cultural rebuilding that way.

Why I Like George W. Bush

Regular readers of Blue Dog Reaganite know that the site splits its twice-weekly commentary into responding to current news and taking a bigger picture look at the issues. Earlier this week we looked at the election returns. For our big-picture piece, I’m going to take up a topic that seems tied to that—the presidency and person of George W. Bush.

As the returns rolled in, one of the talking heads on Fox (I forget whom) opined that the one common thread between defeated Democratic candidates Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine (Virginia and Jersey, respectively) was that they each tried to make Bush their opponent. That it didn’t work suggests that the age of scapegoating the former president of all the country’s problems is over.

For people that really believe Bush created the so-called mess we’re in, this is probably not fair. If you believe the former president spent eight years creating something right next door to The Great Depression, destroyed America’s standing in the world, built a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, and ran the planet right up to the point of a meltdown, it’s indeed unreasonable to think Barack would undo all of that in a matter of months. But I’m not one of these people. I’m willing to put myself in what’s a distinct minority and say unequivocally that I like former President Bush and I’m going to spill a few words and tell you why.

George W. Bush was first and foremost a leader. And the reason he’s unpopular today is that he did not sit around obsessing over whether every move he took was going to be well-received, be it here at home or abroad. In the wake of 9/11, Bush’s popularity soared into the stratosphere. He had complete support for the military strike against the Taliban and Afghanistan, including from the Left. If all he cared about was his personal political standing, he would have just stopped right there and coasted into re-election. But he cared about more than that, he cared about the security of this country and became genuinely convinced that Saddam Hussein and state-sponsored terror was a greater long-term threat to our security than whether bin Laden was at large or illegals were coming across the border. In an act of leadership, he forced the issue of Iraq onto the public stage in October 2002, in time for the November mid-terms and demanded that elected officials be accountable to the voters.

Democrats went ballistic, accusing Bush of playing politics with national security. But where were their priorities? This was their chance to bring a mature anti-war case before the American people. If they won, the invasion question would have gone away. Instead, Senate and House Democrats cut and ran, fudged the issue and lost anyway. They lost because they deserved to lose. I didn’t necessarily buy the president’s priorities on the national security agenda—mine are outlined below about three posts down—but I appreciated that he cared more about national security than his personal political security. And that is the highest compliment that can be given a Commander-in-Chief.

His second term provided Bush more chances to rise to the occasion and do what he believed the right thing was, even if it wasn’t always popular. After some initial stumbling in 2001, when he cautiously let the government into the area of embryonic stem-cell research, he stood tall and moved us back from the brink of medical experimenting on human life. In the tragic case of Teri Schiavo in 2005, where she was being starved by a leech of a husband and having it allowed by an agenda-driven judge, Bush made a futile, but worthwhile attempt to intervene and save her life.

On the economic front, he pushed forward with a plan to modernize Social Security, allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax dollars into the stock market—which for whatever its current troubles, is a better long-term investment than the government’s trust fund. If you doubt, ask yourself how many liberal congressman and pundits have given up their stock portfolios. That Bush was abandoned by his own cowardly party in Congress does not decrease the nobility of the effort.

Bush continued to push forward with securing Iraq, even as public support predictably declined, as the occupation entered its difficult phase. In 2006, his party began to act like the Democrats had in 2002, running for the tall grass and started to second-guess and invasion they had enthusiastically supported. And like the Democrats of ’02, the Republicans of ’06 lost because they thoroughly deserved it. They blamed Bush for all their problems, failing to practice the personal responsibility and accountability they freely demand of everyone else.

And the president was successful in areas where he didn’t have to fly in the face of public opinion and a weak-kneed Congress. He nominated two first-rate judges to the Supreme Court in Samuel Alito and John Roberts, along with a host of quality men and women to lower federal courts. These judges will secure his legacy not just for four years, but for forty years.

There were weaknesses—he had a misguided approach to illegal immigration, was way too lenient on the question of big spending. And some of his low popularity was due to an unwillingness to take the time to communicate to the public the reasons for his actions. Courage is admirable, but self-indulgence is not, and too often I got the impression that W didn’t communicate his ideas simply because it wasn’t part of the job he liked.

But the good points far outweigh the bad. George W. Bush was not a great president like Ronald Reagan, but he was a good one. He was man of decency and above all, a man of honor who put his country ahead of himself. That’s why I like him.

Rehashing The Returns

The election results rolled in last night and it was mostly good news for Republicans and for the ideas Blue Dog Reaganite believes in. There are some areas of concern that remain on the horizon. Here’s a brief rundown…

VIRGINIA
As expected, Bob McDonnell, graduate of Notre Dame, postgraduate work in the city of Boston and moderately conservative Republican, won the governorship over Creigh Deeds. McDonnell had been pulling away in recent weeks, so his decisive win was not a surprise. Still, his piling up 59 percent of the vote and hitting landslide numbers was an eye-opener. Particularly given that these same two candidates had run against each other for Attorney General four years ago, and McDonnell only won by the tiniest of margins. Whatever spin the DNC puts on this, that fact alone demonstrates this wasn’t just about the candidates and didn’t just turn on local issues. The only thing that’s changed in the last four years is that the Left now governs the country in D.C. and these results can be reasonably seen as the beginning of a return to politics’ normal trajectory.

NEW JERSEY
Chris Christie ousted Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine in a five-point win. This was a dead heat going into Election Night, with Christie perhaps narrowly favored. But that had to be counterbalanced by the possibility of late movement toward Corzine in a heavily Democratic state, as voters “came home” at the end. But not only did Christie win, he ran ahead of the final polls by a few points. This is another case that defies the claim I’ve seen made by lefty bloggers that it was all about bad candidates on the Democratic ticket. If Corzine, a former Senator, friend of the Clintons, with strong support from Obama and a huge personal war chest is a bad candidate, what’s their definition of a good one? If Virginia was the beginning of a return to normalcy, the results in New Jersey give validation to the claim of a Republican surge.

NEW YORK
The Democrats score a win here in the race for a House seat long held by Republicans. The GOP split, with its nominated candidate actually dropping out in the face of a strong Conservative Party candidate and a revolt from the Right. The withdrawn candidate still drew 5 percent of the vote and the Dems won a tight 48-46 final (though we shouldn’t necessarily presume that 5 percent would have gone to the loser, if moderate Republicans disliked him enough to vote for someone no longer actively running).

These results underscore the importance of party unity. If a political party is going to be successful, all bloodletting must be done in the primary. If this is going to happen, two factors have to be at play. The first one is that the primary must be fair. Thinking back to 1996 when I was backing Pat Buchanan, I watched the Republican establishment go vitriolic on Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire primary with a populist economic message that suggested GOP fatcats at the country club should actually be concerned with the job prospects of the guy clipping the hedges. The Republican Party then re-wrote the rules of the primary in 2000, to prevent a populist candidate without backing from the establishment, from ever having a real chance to get started. I was in no way going to buy the idea that I owed the party any loyalty in a general election and it set the stage for my enthusiastic embrace of PJB’s ill-fated third-party try at the White House in 2000.

The other thing that must be at play is a real sense of common values, that what unites you is greater than what divides you. In 2008, Democrats had that with Hillary & Barack. It was a battle that included some differences, but none over fundamental policy questions. As a result, a bitter primary fight was able to be healed. If you think like Blue Dog Reaganite, this puts you in a tough spot. Because I don’t share those common values with the Republican’s Wall Street machine or its neo-conservative pundits. And I certainly don’t share them with the Democrats’ coalition of Planned Parenthood, the Pink Palace and the Pacifists. Where I do share common values is with those in either party who believe in the great heritage of the pre-1968 Democratic Party, along with populist conservatives who want to see traditional cultural norms, a strong national defense and a strengthening of the police force as a part of the national agenda. I’m willing to live with differences over various aspects of economic policy and how best to implement social justice. Most who share my beliefs aren’t, and choose to align themselves with a particular party, which is why we remain without any real clout.

MAINE
A huge victory for those who believe in the wild-eyed idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, and who actually have the notion that the configuration of the human body makes that blatantly obvious to anyone with a mind of their own. Count me among these crazies. A law legalizing same-sex marriage was overturned in a socially liberal state that was supposed to finally break the losing streak (now at 31) of states the Pinks have lost in.

BOSTON
It may not have gotten the national attention, but when I see a candidate named Flaherty coming out of South Boston challenging for the mayoralty, you bet I’ll pay attention. But Michael Flaherty, with his radical leftist stances, was an embarrassment to the whole notion of being Irish Catholic and surely left the great ones like John McCormack, James Michael Curley, Louise Day Hicks, Tip O’Neill, John Hynes and Ray Flynn turning in their graves (well, Ray Flynn isn’t actually dead, but you get the point).Fortunately, the fine Italian mayor, Thomas Menino won a fifth term. Menino's more socially liberal than I'd like to see, but on balance he has worked to keep lines of communication open in a political culture that's tended toward the Intolerant Left. It's heartening to know that this very characteristic makes Menino so popular among the people, helping prove my argument to conservative friends, that Boston may be Democratic to the core, but at the grass-roots it's not crazy liberal.