The Stupid Veto

Democracy is a system where the very dumbest citizens are given the power to decide the fate of the people. The smart fraction fights with one another in an attempt to convince and cajole the stupid into selecting wisely. Sometimes it works, most times not, but given enough time the stupid will live up their reputation and the democracy murders itself. Massachusetts is a good example.

Forget about Charlie Baker crying. The ones who should be crying are the voters.

Would you rather win the Lottery or the election?

What’s your signature dish in the kitchen?

What’s the best Halloween costume for your opponent?

Those were actual questions in a debate that will be the last time most voters see Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley in a televised, face-to-face confrontation.

Baker’s cry will get the most attention in this bizarre debate showdown. And that’s not a bad thing for a Republican accused of being a heartless budget cutter. Baker’s cry did not look contrived — he looked like a dad watching the last scene of “Field of Dreams.” And it certainly won’t hurt him among the most important voters in this race — women.

But let’s face it, the question — when was the last time you cried? — was designed to get the candidates to cry. Great for a Barbara Walters interview, but for a gubernatorial debate?

There’s nothing wrong with asking an offbeat question that could show voters a more human side of the candidates. But the gimmick has gotten old fast. Pretty much every debate now ends with a “What actor should play you in a movie?” question.

But now we need to know whether Baker or Coakley would throw away the election with a chance to be rich. Is there any chance either of them would go with the Lottery? No, even Coakley wouldn’t be that clueless.

And there were other head-shaking moments. Like one of the panelists repeatedly pressing Baker or Coakley to take a “pledge.” Apparently just saying you’re against something is not enough anymore. Now you have to pledge not to do it.

There were some telling moments in the debate that will probably be more significant than Baker’s weep show. Baker looked like his old, snippy self at times — not his best side. When Coakley joked she had heard Baker’s question before, the Republican shot back, “Sort of like the ones you asked me before?”

But the crying pretty much wiped out that moment.

Massachusetts is home to many great colleges and universities. Tens of thousands of very bright people move to Boston every year for work. Yet, this is the best they can do for governor. One Senator is a pathological liar and the other has not lived in the state for decades. They have one of the most corrupt legislatures on earth. There’s your choice for governor. A blubbering fool or a semi-retarded hack.

4 thoughts on “The Stupid Veto

  1. Those who know me know I’m a real hard-a$$, but hey, I cry nearly every time I hear Kiri Te Kanawa sing. You wanna make something of it? Bring it on. OK, judging from what I heard on the video clips, the main problem I have with Baker is that he is a Big Government Republican. Now in a blue state like Massamessetts, that’s probably the only way for a Republican to get elected. But if he wins the election, it will not be a win for Conservatism. It will be a win for Liberalism-Lite. I’ll tell you one thing, though, my sister is a Democrat through and through, and she told me she is voting for Baker. That confession just struck me dumb.

  2. OMG, sooo glad I moved from Massachusetts 10 years ago. It’s become a caricature of naval-grazing ultra-liberalism.

  3. Democracy has been called the least worst form of government. Politicians today strive to ensure it is simply the worst by pandering to every shout, whim, sneeze and moan from the ranks in their relentless bid to win votes.

  4. One curse of democratic societies is that the “smart” fraction become dumbed down themselves in their relentless effort to relate with, manipulate, and contol the stupid and the dependent. Dysfunction then grows on both ends of the genome. The great writers and thinkers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries did not live in an era of universal suffrage.

Comments are closed.