I kind of liked that balance. I
remember Romney's campaign--
the other candidates just did
not put up a good fight.

Massachusetts might have a budget
and taxes that are out of control
if it weren't for some checks. Some
might already argue that it's out of
control.

I don't know if Romney will stand
a chance against McCain though. Romney
seems a little soft. He might resort
to the lowly tactics he'll need to
sink McCain too late. McCain probably
knows what he needs to do too, after
getting trashed by Bush in South
Carolina.

I don't think successfully balancing budgets is an exclusively Republican ability. Quite the contrary -- look at the difference between the Bush and Clinton administrations. I also think Massachusetts needs a Democratic governor in order to provide an overall partisan balance of governors across the nation. Certainly, Texas and Utah aren't getting Democratic governors any time soon, so why should the most liberal state in the union? (Although Montana and Virginia have Democratic governors, they are both in the middle in a lot of issues. Romney is socially conservative, especially in connection with the Mormon church, which is odd for such a socially liberal state.)

But you're right about the Dems not putting up any great candidates agains Romney (I liked Reich, but he's not exactly a charismatic personality). Hopefully they will this time around.

Yeah, I guess it's fair to say
that the Democrats have an
equal chance of making wise
financial choices for the state.
It's just easier to blame them
right now because they've held
control of the state senate
for so long. Although I have
not paid much attention to Mass/Boston
politics in a few years. I did see
that Menino was re-elected overwhelmingly
this November. It seems like he's
a pretty mediocre mayor.

People like their ruddy-faced mayors.

you're wrong. bill weld, and to a lesser extent paul cellucci, were good matches for the commonwealth. these things don't fall on party lines. weld was rejected by his own party for a clinton appointment to mexico, due to his pro-choice stance. yeah, because that matters when you're the ambassador to mexico.

as for romney, he's a douchebag and he won't be the nominee. what worries me is that he may be tapped by a non-religious-right frontrunner (mccain or guiliani) for VP, to garner the christ-ies support. that would blow.

i swear, the last thing i need, emotionally, is another election where the republicans talk about how massachusetts (the only sane, state in this shitty country) sucks.

but the evangelicals don't like the mormons very much. hence, the christ-ies wouldn't like romney.

Pataki's doing the same thing in NY.

And for the same reason. Except he's less Mormon and less charismatic than Romney.

[...] Crazy Monk [...]

i hear what you're saying about the christ-ies not liking mormons. i HEAR it, but since i have no first-hand knowledge of it, i'm still skeptical. i hope you're right. but if they're not too selective about what flavor invisible donut someone worships, we're fucked. that's alli'msayin'.

trust me, the dislike is real:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

I don't think the dislike matters... they both have the same goals in the real world, they'll be happy to work together.