Liberal Governor Charlie Baker of
Massachusetts rode the second Republican wave of national victories in 2014.
Democrats damaged themselves with Obamacare, even in “RomneyCare” Mass. A
Republican won Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate special election in 2010. A
Republican stronghold of working-class Americans is breaking out in the middle
of the state.
And now, Massachusetts has Baker.
He had run for Governor in 2010,
rightfully banking on the Tea Party wave. He didn’t make it against incumbent
“Mr. Governor” Deval Patrick. The second time, Massachusetts voters welcomed
him to the corner office.
He made some welcome changes to the
way the commonwealth political class does business. He removed a lot of the
frills and trappings from the governor’s office. He did away with a lot of the
unnecessary glitz. He submitted budgets which didn’t raise taxes or fees. He is
a “good guy” with Democrats as well as Republicans (after all, the
Massachusetts state legislatures retains a wall of blue). He has expanded
cooperation between ICE and the Massachusetts State police. Public safety and
fiscal prudence matter to him.
But on those cultural issues, Baker
really burns his base!
He promoted an openly gay rights
platform. In 2010, he candidly admitted himself to the left of President Obama
on gay marriage (at the time, Obama remained coy on the subject, until Vice
President Uncle Joe Biden opened his mouth—again). A number of commercials
advertised Baker as “100% pro-choice.” In 2014, he stayed true to this agenda,
although pro-liberty advocates hoped that he wouldn’t trample their rights in
the process.
He still seems happy with
gun-grabbing in a state where “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire and
Gun-Enthusiastic Vermont border to the North. How about those farmers who fired
“The Shot Heard Round the World”?
So, is Baker a Republican’s dream in
a Democratic strong-hold? In 2014, concerned conservatives asked the same
question. They were rooting for pro-family Mark Fisher, a Tea Party activist
with strong connections and conservative values. In a head-to-head debate with
candidate Baker, he identified his political role model with ease: Scott
Walker. Baker laughed, chuckled, struggled with the question, then blurted out
the least objectionable leader: Jeb! By the way, Walker is planning a third
term in a purple state turning red. Jeb repudiated his conservative legacy as
Florida’s governor when he ran against the base for the presidency, then
dropped out after South Carolina.
Because Republican forces believed
“moderate” Baker would be better, Fisher lost at the state convention (despite
allegations of electoral misconduct. Baker challenged major loser Martha
Coakley, a terrible campaigner and figurehead for the Massachusetts Dems.
Yes, Baker won, but at what cost?
And how should the pro-family Republican Party respond?
The Massachusetts conservatives
(weary of their new leader) and the Republican base have already started
asking: “How much longer will Baker defy his base?”
The answer: as long as possible.
Earlier this year, Baker raised a
million dollars to elect liberals to the state Republican central committee. He
attacked fellow Republicans—while three contested legislative seats went
unchallenged to Democrats.
Now, he’s turning more heads,
flushing the GOP pro-family agenda in the process. Baker announced support for
a statewide “Transgender Bathroom Bill.” This crappy capitulation is worse that
his decidedly liberal stance on cultural issues.
Even though he had caved to the left
on abortion and gay marriage, he had staunchly opposed the transgender agenda,
and did not support allowing biological men into women’s bathrooms, and vice
versa.
“Governor-elect Charlie Baker would
not support expanding the state's anti-discrimination laws to add protection
for transgender people in public places, such as restaurants or theaters.”
Let’s remember that those “public
places” are also private property. Men and women may operate their businesses
as they see fit. Baker stood on the right side of this issue.
“Baker, a Republican, does support
an existing law that protects transgender people from discrimination in
employment and housing. But he said Monday that he does not favor a bill that
is expected to come before the legislature next session to add a prohibition
against discrimination in places of "public accommodation.”
Well, now he does!
What does this turn-around say about
the state of the Republican Party, especially in a region where conservatives
are just now clawing back inch by inch? A stark lack of conviction is the norm,
and has infected elected officials. The LGBT lobby enshrined same-sex
“marriage” in Massachusetts. This battleground victory allowed the further
advance of this horrific agenda around the country. Because of judicial fiat,
“gay” marriage has become the dictate of the land. Schools teach it, require
kids to learn about it, and even encourage experimentation with their own
identities. People have lost their jobs for speaking out against gay marriage
or the dangers of same-sex conduct (including well-respected Dr. Paul Church of Beth
Israel Deaconness Medical Center).
Now, even in the reddest of states,
politicians are avoiding or caving to this controversy. They want to be liked,
they want to win on issues that will generate little conflict with a wide swath
of the electorate. While South Carolina lawmakers discussed enacting a similar
set of restrictions on public bathrooms, Tea Party Governor Nikki Haley
questioned the necessity of such a measure. U.S. Senator Richard Burr of North
Carolina (in a tight re-election bid) has refused to dig in his tar heels with
Governor Pat McCrory. Other states have already rolled out these transgender
laws, without regard to public consideration.
Will the transgender bathroom agenda
be the next Republican capitulation, with RINO Baker leading the way?
Conservatives need to stop the
stalling. Republican leaders need to protect the gender distinctions within
bathroom stalls, stand up for the normal, moral distinctions of male and
female. This bathroom fight is about more than “Splish Splash” restrooms, but
public safety, individual privacy, and the fundamental definitions and
distinctions which make life and prosperity possible: male and female, and the
families which follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment