Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

The immediate implications for PatrickÕs victory over his more moderate opponents include the fact that the Republican candidate, current Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, now has a significantly improved chance to win the general election that did not exist hours ago. Although not a lot here in Boston is made of it, former Clintonite Deval Patrick resides far to the left of his now vanquished fellow Democrats on the political spectrum. Among PatrickÕs little publicized positions on issues include: giving tuition breaks to illegal immigrants, the advocacy of issuing driverÕs licenses to illegal immigrants, the opposition of the MCAS graduation requirement, and opposition to the growth of charter schools. If only the other two candidates had bothered to point out any of these far left positions, they might have had a chance to defeat Patrick.
 

Ummm, was it just me, or did Kerry Healey say in her little victory slam that drug dealers would take over our cities if Patrick is elected? She is a piece of work.
 

Well, all the Republicans have at this point is name-calling and revisionist history. Patrick, far from being "the far left", is a guy that talks sense -- and wants to put back in local aid the money that the cities and towns desperately need. Makes sense to us.

The LAST thing we need is yet another hack gadlfly GOP governor spending millions of corporate dollars burying voters with the same old litany of tired talking points and meaningless pot-shots, biding their time for better jobs, while the Democrats in the legislature do all the Commonwealth's work.

It's time for a change.
 

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Why is telling the truth about Patrick considered "name-calling"? Where do you imagine that Patrick resides on the political spectrum, the center? How is it that you could consider giving tuition breaks to illegal immigrants over legal residents anything but a far left position? You should not be afraid of being considered far left if that is what you are unless you are embarrassed to hold those positions. For example, do you believe that illegal immigrants should have the right to vote? If you do, you do not share the same 'mainstream' opinions as most voters. In fact, let's put it to vote. Even the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts would not abide these far left stances on issues if voted upon. And this name calling charge is like Patrick whining about so-called divisive issues and how voters are sick of hearing about them. What issues are the ones that should be debated, those that all agree upon? I see the strategy of avoiding mentioning where Patrick may stand on issues, but I gotta hope Mass voters are smart enough to see through this political maneuvering. It should be an interesting race, made more interesting if issues are discussed rather than avoided.
 

In the first place, you certainly aren't repeatedly typing "far left" as a compliment; it's a label, used in lieu of argument, and meaningless in this context. We could as easily call Healey "a right-wing nut job" and skip any honest discussion of her positions.

In the second, speaking of honesty, you aren't "telling the truth" if you claim that Patrick -- or anyone -- thinks "that illegal immigrants should have the right to vote". No one, anywhere, has ever said that, as far as we know. Patrick certainly has not.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had over charging illegal immigrants the same tuition as other residents -- an argument we'll make in 201k this week -- but you aren't doing that. You're using labels and grossly misrepresenting the Democratic position on this issue. That speaks volumes.

201k is a monarchy. Make valid points and they'll stay up. Cut and paste dishonest talking points and meaningless labels and they will go away.
 

Read more carefully, I asked you if you were in favor of giving Illegal immigrants the right to vote as has been proposed in Cambridge. I'm glad that you are against that ridiculous idea.

Ok, so you don't want me to call Patrick far left, would you settle for: slightly to the left of center on a wide variety of issues? You would rather not get into where Patrick stands on the political sprectrum, the more that is made of that and more discussion of his positions is harmful to his cause. Did you hear about Mass Dem leader Johnston and his preemptive attack agaist Healey mentioning "race baiting"? You join the ranks of Johnston and others who will try to do whatever possible to preclude discussion of issues, like illegal immigrants, that are important to voters.

And, I only ever cut and paste my own talking points from Microsoft word which has a better spell check. No cut and paste means typos.
 

I would consider voting for Patrick if he would reverse himself on some issues that I have been made aware of, but he won't do that.
 

Oh, we saw that you said "you".

What issues, exactly, is Patrick "slightly to the left of center on"? And we mean real issues in this election.

Bear in mind you have to establish "to the left of center" with polls or other data (otherwise, how would you know?) and then you have to explain what the "center" is, and why it matters (otherwise it's just a label).

For instance, do you favor cities and towns having to raise property taxes and fees, or will you support Patrick?
 

Romney was sent to Beacon Hill to balance the budget and bring efficiency back. In order to to do this, he had to cut funding to cities and town who in turn raised property taxes. That the various municipalities are inneficient is not nessesarily Romney's and Healey's fault. Do you imagine that Patrick would hand more cash over to the cities and towns and not raise Mass state income taxes?

As far as what issues Patrick is to left of center on, I have read/heard about some stances of his which I would certainly consider to be left leaning (opposition to the MCAS test, tuition breaks to illegals), but I would rather let the man speak for himself. Let's hope he does that this evening in the debate. I hope Patrick adresses issues rather than avoiding them. The debate is being hosted by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, fresh from his dust up with former President Clinton who became unhinged during an interview.

Let's see what happens in the debate. Last time after watching the debates it was clear that I wanted Romney as Guv. If Healey is terrible and Patrick is luminous then maybe he'll get my vote. To me it remains to be seen who should be elected governer even though Patrick is leading in the polls in the majority democratic state in which we live and Healey is certainly the underdog (of the two major candidates). We'll see what happens.
 

That the various municipalities are inneficient is not nessesarily Romney's and Healey's fault.

I just wanted to see one again. Hilarious.

Romney cuts local aid, then runs for President claiming he "turned a deficit into a surplus" AND "helped education" -- jetting out of Massachusetts as quickly as he flew in and leaving cities and towns to raise property taxes and fees to cover the gap -- and it's the fault of the municipalities?

And now, what would be the FIFTH gadly Republican governor in a row (The "underdog" ? The incumbent with all the money?) is using the same line. And it may work, despite that even Christy Mihos -- the guy who brought Romney here -- knows that it's all just BS. Promise a tax cut, then stick the cities and towns with the job of raising the money through fees and property taxes -- and get out of town for some better job before it all hits the fan.

Great. Can't wait. A $200 tax cut and $1500 more in fees and property taxes -- and Kerry Healey appointed the next Ambassador to Malta after the 2008 election.

Oh, I forgot -- it's the city's fault for not being "efficient". That's why I have to buy my kid pencils for school.
 

Christy Mihos did fairly well, I thought. He was clear on illegal immigrant issues while Patrick was, shall we say, more nebulous.