Please help me understand

(Is the Scott Brown Coalition already dead? Interesting questions and concerns over the unhappy activist base and their relationship with the Baker/Tisei ticket. Where will they go? Do social cons really have anywhere to go this gubernatorial election? What about libertarians? Should they just throw their token support behind the gubernatorial nominee or focus on legislative races?

Oh, and what about that guy with the 17 daughters in Quincy?   – promoted by Garrett Quinn)

What I’m having trouble understanding is why did all the unity we had as a party in the US Senate race disappear so fast. Conservatives generally supported Scott Brown even though he wasn’t pro-life and even though Joe Kennedy articulated some fiscal issues on which Scott was more moderate. In Scott’s primary, his opponent was even running radio ads calling him a RINO. Conservatives overlooked certain issues because it was so important to elect a Republican that would be the 41st vote against the detrimental policies Democrats were passing and planning to pass in Washington D.C.

Now we have a Governor’s race where people seem to be supporting Tim Cahill because his stances on certain issues are supposedly slightly more conservative than our GOP candidates for Governor. And, I can’t understand why fellow conservatives would embrace an ex-Democrat like Cahill when a month ago they decided that Scott Brown was worth it to vote for over Joe Kennedy.  

Now, I understand that Charlie (not sure about Christy’s current stance) is more liberal than Scott on the gay marriage issue. However, Cahill has the same position so it can’t be that. All the candidates for Governor are pro-choice like Scott is, so it can’t be that.

I also understand that Richard Tisei being the only candidate for Lt. Governor is being put forth as a reason for some to back Cahill. However, when have the stances of the Lt. Governor become the stances of the Governor? Is Tim Murray really moderating Deval Patrick. Do we expect Loscocco, who has already flip-flopped on his gay marriage stance to not just adopt the other stances held by his ticket?  

I have said before on this site that I am backing Charlie Baker. Now, if there was a real and viable conservative in the race for Governor, I might not be doing so. And, I might have not supported Scott Brown if he was running against a real and viable conservative as well. However, Tim Cahill is no conservative. At best, he’s an old-school, Finneran-esque Democrat (big government, but socially conservative), but he’s less socially conservative than that.

I was pleasantly surprised when conservatives across the country united behind Scott Brown who was being labeled as a RINO just months before in his primary. Now, I am just puzzled how those same conservatives have decided that Charlie is too liberal. Is it OK to have a moderate for US Senate, but not for Governor? Is so, why? What issue or set of issues has made Charlie someone who you can’t support?

I simply ask all those who might choose to either stay home or back Cahill to take a 2nd look (or maybe a 1st real look) at Charlie Baker’s issues. He’s running on cutting the sales and income taxes to 5%. He’s promised an immediate freeze on new regulations followed by a rollback of the ones which Massachusetts is the only state to have such a regulation on the book. He’s calling for reducing the number of state employees. And, he has many other great stances at his website.

Like many conservatives, I didn’t support our last candidate for governor with anything more than my vote in November. Many didn’t vote for her at all. Her loss left us with our current Governor, and what Deval Patrick has done in his first term at the state level is almost as bad as what President Obama has done in his first term in office. And, much like how conservatives rallied around a moderate like Scott Brown to put a stop to Obama’s policies, I really hope that we do the same for Charlie Baker to put a stop the current Governor. If not, it will mean 4 more years of Deval Patrick, likely further tax hikes, continued erosion of local aid, and continued growth of state government.  

About brivers