Posted on 12/01/2005 5:33:43 PM PST by nycfree
DJ, I agree with most of what you wrote, but not this:
"Weld deliberately sabotaged Romney in '94 (when with a strong endorsement, Weld's coattails could've carried Romney to victory"
Even had Weld not deliberately sabotaged Romney in 1994, Romney would have still lost to Kennedy. Romney lost by 17%, and there's no way that Weld's strong endorsement would be worth as much as 17%. (Had Weld endorsed Romney, however, the result would have been much closer, and perhaps Kennedy would have been held to a 5%-10% victory margin, which would have been horribly embarrassing for him.)
William Weld himself should have run against Kennedy. He would have won for sure.
I have long questioned Pirro's commitment to the race, and it looks like I was right.
There goes another Senate race. Oh, well, like fieldmarshaldj said in a prior posting, might as well die with out boots on.
SPENCER FOR SENATE!
Well! You certainly know your Mass politics, and if I can turn off the sarcasm for a moment, maybe you should write a book. Wasn't Bill Weld reelected by something like 83%, the highest margin ever? He is a smart guy, but one of the laziest guys in the world, and when he found out there wasn't much he could accomplish in a one party state, he got bored, and had nothing to show for his second term. Frank Sargent...at least he killed the inner ring. And I'm still trying to remember who ran for AG in 78 :)
"Pataki hasn't got the strength or the dynamism (or the aforementioned not-so-stellar record) to challenge Hillary. He wouldn't even get 40% of the vote."
Just announced today, she's gonna be a pain in the ass and stay in the Senate race. And they accuse us Conservatives of being stupid...
No, I do stand by what I said. Romney was leading up until shortly beforehand (I was up there in MA during the last weeks of the election, so I could see it from "street-level", so to speak). Weld was absolutely terrified at the prospect of a Romney victory because the spotlight would've been off him as the leading Massachusetts Republican. Romney was cut loose, and you could tell something was WRONG in the last 2 weeks of the campaign. Weld could've shed 1 out of 5 of his voters and Romney still would've beaten Teddy. I very much do hold Weld responsible for the loss.
He was too egomaniacal with wanting to win a 2nd term to try to take on Teddy. Witness, however, after he had that under his belt and reverted to his usual "bored" phase, wanting a quick exit from the Governorship, that he couldn't even enunciate WHY he wanted the Senate seat when he ran against Frenchie. The bloom was off the rose at that point (if it ever was in the first place).
I think you're the second person in a week who has suggested I write a book on MA politics (I wrote a much longer-winded essay on the decline of the state GOP on another group, and just wrote one on recent NJ political history yesterday). While I'm somewhat familiar with the "big names", I'm far less versed on the plethora of characters that have inhabited the political landscape of MA for many years. I'd rather leave it to someone who knows the little people and the small stories to pour into a book to paint that larger story.
"Wasn't Bill Weld reelected by something like 83%, the highest margin ever?"
Oh, no. It wasn't that high, but it was 71%. I'm not sure I can recall any Gubernatorial race in the state that was that lopsided, and I'm a bit lazy to look it up at the moment. ;-) As you well know, his 'Rat opponent was his wife's cousin. That always struck me as a bit fishy, as I always suspected that the order came down that no Democrat of any name was to challenge Weld (perhaps in exchange that Weld would sabotage any GOP challengers to Ted Kennedy, who was extremely vulnerable going into 1994).
"He is a smart guy, but one of the laziest guys in the world, and when he found out there wasn't much he could accomplish in a one party state, he got bored, and had nothing to show for his second term."
I was taking a gander at Barone's Almanac from 1996, and I found a soundbyte from Mark Roosevelt (Weld's opponent) that was about as dead on the money as you could get where Weld was concerned. "(Weld is) indifferent, apathetic, feckless, aloof, passive and lazy. Did I say uncaring ? He's uncaring." He left out arrogant with an attitude that could best be described as having delusions of grandeur. I'd never call Weld stupid. Many RINOs aren't, but then neither are many master criminals. But their goals are always the same.
"Frank Sargent...at least he killed the inner ring."
Sargent was a strange man. From chuckling about the time a lynch mob from Southie tried to come out to his house when the school integration order came down (it was dark and they couldn't find his house), and writing me a letter shortly before his death making light about his wife's poor health - "She had a stroke, and that's no joke !" I think my jaw dropped when I read that.
"And I'm still trying to remember who ran for AG in 78 :)"
I wish I could forget. 8-0
Where Pataki is concerned, I just picture him in a debate with Hillary and it painfully reminds me of the scene between Matt Fong and Barbara Boxer in '98. She'd have him on the defensive, forcing him to apologize for everything he'd ever done in his life. With evil women like these, you've got to have people unafraid to go for the jugular. Pataki simply doesn't have that killer instinct.
Well, I wasn't in Mass. in 1994, but I remember that Kennedy took the lead like 6-8 weeks before the election and never looked back (Kennedy's move came after that visit by Clinton in which Kennedy said "after you reelect old Kennedy you'll reelect Bill Clinton, as unelectable as the rest of us," the last few words being badly mumbled and Clinton with a smug smirk throughout---Rush Limbaugh must have played that clip, at all speeds and frontwards and backwards, at least a dozen times in one TV show). Romney only had a 3% or so lead at his peak, and it was with a lot of undecideds, so I don't think Romney ever polled above the 41% he ended up getting.
Weld won 71%-28% in 1994, but that's because the Democrats abandoned their hapless nominee. Romney's opponent was Ted Kennedy, whom we know as a disgusting, drunken ultraliberal misogynist who should have been imprisioned for killing Mary Jo Kopechne but whom, among Massachusetts Democrats, is the keeper of the Kennedy legacy. It was easy for Weld to convince Democrats to vote for him over a nobody; it would have been much more difficult for Weld to convince Democrats to vote for Romney over Ted Kennedy. Romney ran one hell of a race to get 41%, but even had Weld stopped campaigning for Governor and gone around the state stumping for Romney it would not have been enough. Weld is a rat for not having backed Romney more strongly, but I don't think a victory in the MA Senate race that year was in the cards.
"And I'm still trying to remember who ran for AG in 78 :)"
> I wish I could forget. 8-0
Right. Weld, of course. I was thinking Peter Fuller ran for statewide office in the 70s, and there was some kind of scandal...
I think the fact that she started this one, and made a fool of herself accordingly, wouldn't look good in her run for AG.
Whatever. Doesn't really matter. I hope she wins whatever race she's running for, but I don't think she'll win either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.