Patrick Ruffini, former Rudy consultant and new media political guru, says: "I never thought I’d write that."

Ruffini's claim can be summarized thus:

• Huckabee and McCain are "flaky and/or can't win"


• Rudy is in trouble


• Huckabee has made Romney the Iowa underdog


• Huckabee hasn't a prayer after Iowa for New Hampshire


• McCain has a chance after Iowa but everyone knows he's the establishment

Patrick chimes in next with this:

Enter Mitt Romney. He hasn’t been Mr. Excitement, but he has succeeded in positioning himself as the acceptable default — the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” guy. His cornering the market on “undecided (non-evangelical) conservatives” is the beginning of this consolidation. The blue-haired ladies who sit on the county committees won’t make a fuss over him. There will be no “Stop Romney” movement should he vault to the top of the polls, as he almost certainly would after Iowa-New Hampshire wins. (Indeed, the way he has muscled himself into the mold of GOP establishment frontrunner will be studied for decades to come.) Now at 15% in the national polls, he has demonstrated an adequate-enough base of national support to be able to leverage big wins into the nomination.

...

So, unless Rudy manages to turn the election into a referendum on leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis in the next three weeks, at least how it stands now, say hello to Mitt Romney as our nominee.

Labels: Patrick, ruffini

With the inauguration of Deval Patrick the Commonwealth of Massachusetts returns to the suicidal tendencies of it's past. Apparently the inauguration parties have left Patrick a little punch-drunk as he eagerly overturns the spending cuts of the Romney administration:

Haverhill, for instance, will receive $2.6 million in Hale Hospital debt relief, money needed to keep the city's budget balanced.

Funding for Pettengill House, the Newburyport YWCA, the Lower Merrimack Valley Boys & Girls Club, Salisbury's Historical Society, Amesbury's Cultural Council and Salisbury's Chamber of Commerce also were restored.

Salem State College, which lost $800,000 for its nursing program, will see that money. The state will also pay $500,000 for Peabody flood prevention and $400,000 for the dredging of Crystal Lake.

Romney cut $425 million in state spending on Nov. 9, saying there wasn't money to pay for those items. Link

Romney left office with the distinction of having governed every year with a balanced budget. The last year was highlighted by Romney's constant vetoing of the state legislatures spending sprees. Of course kids in candy shops never want to be denied, and the outrage of the liberal legislature was oozing as we well remember.

Some of you might remember the other Romney cuts that Patrick has now restored:

1. Victorian Street lighting in Melrose ($200,000)

2. A gazebo for Braintree ($100,000- thats an expensive gazebo!)

3. Study for the internal combustion engine ($4,000,000- isn't that Ford's job?)

4. Money for the Hyannis Athletic Association ($75,000 well I guess Ted Kennedy is a little portly!)

Yet where the stupidity ends the irony begins. In a remarkable show of cognitive dissonance Pork-Barrel-Patrick has claimed Romney left a deficit "hidden" in the details that Patrick will somehow fix:

"It's a very significant structural deficit," Patrick said. "We have to deal with that, and we will deal with that. There's no reason to panic." Link

(I have no doubt this claim is brought to you by the DNC commitee for 2008)

There wouldn't be a reason to panic if a) There was really a deficit and b) Patrick was intent on cutting spending. Yet when Patrick has plans to fix his imaginary deficit while increasing spending, one is left to wonder how he will accomplish this.

Barbara Anderson, founder of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said Patrick's pronouncement gives her a sense of deja vu.

She said a new, reform-minded governor named Michael Dukakis came into office claiming he was left a fiscal mess in 1975 and responded by raising taxes.

Like a dog returning to it's vomit, Massachusetts has decided return to the days of high spending and high taxes to fix a mess that never existed. How often do the liberals need to be reminded that cutting taxes and spending always leads to a balanced budget? How often do liberals need to be reminded of the failures of past administrations who have gone down this same road?

Labels: Patrick, Taxes