Well, they're over. What a nasty campaign season, on all sides, nationally and locally. The Dems deserve congrats, they were able to capitalize on significant voter discontent with the GOP and the status quo. If they govern as moderately as, on balance, they presented themselves during the campaign season, the voters will be well-served. If gridlock ensues, well, that may not be the worst thing to happen, either (as we saw throughout most of the 90's, the end result being little activist government legislation...and fiscal restraint.) Worst case: we have two years of non-stop partisan rancor, good for neither party nor the nation. I have some conservative friends who are truly dreading the prosepct of Dem ascendency in Washington; while the Left wing of the Dem Party shares few of my concerns, and while the Dems DID pick up more seats than I anticipated (I thought they would be around 220 in the House, instead it looks like they may be 228, with the Senate, at this hour, still to be determined) I don't see them being able to push through wholesale a Left liberal agenda- many of their new members ran as moderates and will be accountable to their constituents should they veer far Left, there will still be a sizable GOP minority in the House (and perhaps a split Senate) and the President still has his veto pen- Lord knows it has ink left in it! Truthfully, I'm far more concerned about what may happen in Massachusetts. Unlike in Washington, there will be no check on the majority (Democratic) party on Beacon Hill, with Dem candidate Deval Patrick easily winning the Governor's race, Dems holding all six Constitutional offices (and every seat in Washington), and literally a mere handful of Republicans in the General Court unable to counter the- very liberal- Democrats in same. I'm concerned with what this may do to our economy here, very concerned. And I'm concerned that Interest/Identity group politics will be the rule once again. In short, I'm concerned that we will see a return to the worst days of the Dukakis years, unmitigated even by some more fiscally-moderate Democrats that were in the legislature at that time, but no longer. I truly hope I'm wrong, I really do. But hey, I've always said I'd like to move to Nevada...(or I'll hafta settle for New Hampshire!) But congrats to them, they worked for their victories.
As for the GOP...Locally, it's a disaster area. Mitt Romney? Just go away. You wore out your welcome when you started to get Potomac Fever 2+ years ago, badmouthing our state and sticking your finger in the wind and flip-flopping ala John Kerry instead of governing in the effective Republican manner of Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci. You did your Lieutenant Governor no favors in her- weak- quest to retain the Corner Office. Your party has seen it's membership in the General Court, as well as in registered voters, drop even further under your "leadership." Good luck campaigning for the Presidency, I hope your supporters from Utah and Michigan and wherever else like you, because you are not well-liked by much of your party, or Right-leaning folks, here.
This gal won't be supporting you. Massachusetts is once again firmly a one-party state, sadly... Nationally, the GOP has to decide just what kind of party it wants to be. No one faction need be read out, not the social conservatives, not the economic conservatives, not the libertarians, nor any others, but does the GOP want to be a party of limited government, of adherence to federalist principles, of fiscal restraint, of individual rights
and personal responsibilites, a party whose impulse is to advance and maximize individual freedom and liberty consistent with an orderly society; in short, a positive, Reaganesque party? Or does it want to continue down the path it has sadly taken of late, of expansive government, of Conservative Nanny Stating, making federal cases out of state/local issues (see: Terri Schaivo; see also, attempts to federalize marriage law) of profligate spending on dubious measures (see: the unasked-for bloated Medicare bill) and budget-bloating earmark expenditures, of allowing the PATRIOT Act (regardless of how one feels about it) to be used as a law enforcement tool above and beyond combating terrorism (see: the "war" on drugs) attempts to regulate the diversions of adults (see: the asinine insertion of the Internet gaming restrictions into the recent Port Security bill) attempting to "save" people from themselves, in a manner reminiscent more of liberal Democrats than principled conservatives; in short, a more negative vision of conservatism, of America? And this is a shame- while there are some within the GOP who are negative, who seem to crave the exertion of power simply because they can, who are divisive, I truly do not believe President Bush to be that way; he was, and is, better than that. Over the next two years, they need to decide and define what kind of party they truly wish to be; honestly, I feel little more at home supporting them than I do the Dems.
"God bless America/My home, sweet home."