Well. Some aggressive progressives are deeply disappointed with their President, claiming that he has played centrist on so many issues. Such is the fate of every ideologue once he takes a leadership role. Even the most liberal mayors had to clear away the felonious Occupy Crowds in their cities, and President Obama has to respond to foreign and domestic threats on American soil (even if he would rather play rounds of golf instead)
In 2014, is Charlie Baker still leaning to the left, hoping to snatch just the right number of Democratic and liberal Independent votes to win the corner office on Beacon Hill? Some of his commercials display these illiberal credentials: "Democrats and Independents across the state are showing their support for Charlie Baker."
Democratic lawmakers and city leaders have endorsed him, too, recognizing that one party-Democratic rule is not a party all, even if it's your party (Republicans learned this sad lesson during the first six years of the Bush Presidency).
Baker is pro-choice, pro-gay rights (he even has a gay brother, whom he likes to share (or showcase) with audiences.
Playing the William Weld card (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), Baker may have what it takes to win in deep blue Massachusetts this year, with no incumbent to run against, and an unsavory Democratic contender who did so poorly in a 2010 special election, she look poised once against to snatch defeat from the closing jaws of victory.
Or will he?
Conservatives whom I have spoken with privately confided that they will not vote for either candidates, Coakley or Baker. They see Baker just a liberal as the Democratic alternative, if not worse. I feel their pain. Here in California, we have a West Coast version of William Weld, Neel Kashkari, and he is right down the line on every liberal issue, and his stances run contrary to the California as well as National Republican Party platforms. How did this guy win the nomination? Actually, Kashkari did not. He just pulled off enough votes to make into the Top Two open primary against Governor Brown.
Playing blue in a liberal state, all while running under a red banner: is this what it takes for a Republican to win in a deep blue state? Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey has remained steadfastly pro-life, even vetoing extra funding five times for Planned Parenthood. He opposes same-sex marriage, even though he refused to file an appeal when a New Jersey Court struck down marriage as only a one man- one woman affair. So, a politician can stand on principle, yet recognize the currents following under and away from him. Then again, do Republicans and conservatives want to follow the lead of a state executive whose big bear hug may have helped cost Mitt Romney the Presidency in 2012?
There is a culture war waging in Massachusetts, where abortion on demand remains in high demand, and even the Supreme Court of the United States cannot stall the progressive pride of statewide lawmakers like Governor Deval Patrick and Attorney General Martha Coakley (now running to replace the former). After SCOTUS declared the unconstitutionality of the wide buffer zone for abortion protestors around abortion clinics, Patrick and Coakley signaled their interest in rewriting the law to protect "the woman's right to choose."
What about the baby's right to live? Or choose a better school, or a good job?
Charlie Baker recognizes the importance of the latter two choices: better schools, a growing economy, plus the dangers to both posed by big government getting bigger without making anything better. Baker has also blasted the terrible setbacks caused by Obamacare.
To the left of Obama? Really?
Then again, conservative critics like Howie Carr have mocked Baker for "baying like a moonbat" on illegal immigration, since he supported letting illegal immigrants receiving housing and immediate care. Another report from Breitbart suggested that the Republican nominee is tough on immigration, and opposes drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
Baker: is he left, is he right, or is he holding his finger in the air determining which policies will get him one point closer to the Corner Office? Whatever his positions on the issues compared to Obama, the 2014 Republican gubernatorial nominee must be (ever so slightly) better than out-going Deval Patrick, and significantly more so than Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Right? (or Left?)