GOP Elites Ignore Immigration Issue, Re-Elect Deval Patrick


Several
months ago, I wrote about
The
Coming Defeat of Deval Patrick



in Massachusetts` gubernatorial race.

Now that Deval Patrick
has just been reelected—he got 49 percent of the vote
vs. GOP nominee Charlie Baker`s 42 percent and 8 percent
for independent candidate Tim Cahill—I guess I have a
bit off egg on my face. And for one simple reason: I
underestimated the GOP`s ability to blow what should
have been an easy election.[
Deval
Patrick Reelected Mass. Governor, Wins Cambridge and
Boston
,
Harvard Crimson, November 3, 2010] [VDARE.com note:
An almost all-Harvard Election!—Deval L. Patrick `78,
Charles D. Baker `79,Green-Rainbow Party candidate Jill
E. Stein `73. Irish Catholic Independent Timothy P.
Cahill went to Boston University, while working as a
security guard and wrestling coach in Quincy,
Massachusetts.
]


The truth is that over the past four years, there has
been a palpable sense of embarrassment among Bay State
liberals for having electing an inexperienced black
radical who occasionally tries to pass himself off as a
post-racial leader (This might sound familiar).


Indeed, Deval Patrick has accomplished little as
governor, except for


raising taxes

and causing constituents to repeatedly


roll their eyes
.


There was the


expensive new Cadillac
,
the


helicopter

flights to appointments that were only an


hour`s drive

away, the


lucrative book deal

for his life story, and so on.


Last spring,


one poll gave Deval
Patrick only a 29% approval rating
,
making him America`s most unpopular governor. He was


struggling to raise
money
and
had even begun to bore those white liberals who once
cheered so loudly for him (This might also sound
familiar).


And in January,


Scott Brown
,
then a little-known Republican state legislator, had won
a U.S. Senate race no one thought he could win against


Attorney General Martha
Coakley
, a
well-known Democrat.


You would think that, given Deval Patrick`s
unpopularity, the GOP could capture the governorship
simply by turning the Brown voters out again ten months
later.


But that didn`t happen. Here`s my two cents on why:

It`s impossible overstate the
following necessity about running in Massachusetts, and
elsewhere in New England: a successful candidate has to
define himself as someone who will lead and vote
independent
of party. This is true for Democrats,
and it is doubly true for Republicans.


Former Governor William Weld was very good at projecting
himself as an independent Republican, which is why he
was


reelected with 71% of
the vote in 1994,

the largest gubernatorial landslide in state history.


Just to the north in New Hampshire, Governor John Lynch


remains a popular
Democrat

despite the state`s well-known antipathy to taxation and
big government.


When Deval Patrick gave Massachusetts a partial sales
tax holiday last August, Governor Lynch even appeared on
television and ridiculed the idea:


“We felt that it was
important to remind our friends to the south that we
offer sales tax free shopping every day of the year . .
. Customers should be able to shop on their time, not
just on days dictated by the state government.”



[
Lynch:
Tax-free shopping every day in NH
,


August 13, 2010]


Ouch! Obviously, a Democratic governor would not
normally slap down a neighboring Democrat in the midst
of election season. But that kind of independence sells
well in these parts—which is why Lynch was re-elected in
New Hampshire when many other Democrats there were
defeated.


Another important reason for Scott Brown`s election: the
GOP Establishment did not exert great control over his
campaign. They, like everyone else, simply did not
believe that a Republican could win


Ted Kennedy`s former
Senate seat
.


Scott Brown was therefore allowed to


run an effective Main
Street campaign

simply because K Street thought he was a bad investment.


More importantly, Brown successfully defined his
opponent as a career politician. “
I
am running against the machine

Brown told
voters again and again. The phrase became a virtual
campaign mantra.


The Massachusetts machine, comprised of Establishment
elites and labor and teachers unions, has long supported
mass immigration—something Brown was not afraid to point
out on the campaign trail.

Of
course, thus far Senator Brown`s commitment to patriotic
immigration reform is hard to assess, if only because
there have been few immigration votes in the Senate this
year.


Still, Brown recently voted against the


DREAM Act

amnesty, despite
significant lobbying from the state`s higher education
establishment, including


a personal appeal from
the President of Harvard University.

He also voted against Elena Kagan, despite her being a
constituent.


While Scott Brown has yet to fight hard for the cause,
he is certainly not fighting against it. He is clearly a
giant improvement over Ted Kennedy.

In
contrast, in 2010 the


Republican Governor`s
Association

identified Deval Patrick as one of the most vulnerable
Democrats in the country. They therefore decided to get
involved in the race.

We
would have been better off if they had just left us
alone.


That`s because the RGA`s real target turned out to be
not Deval Patrick, but Independent candidate Tim Cahill.
A longtime Democrat, Cahill is the state Treasurer who
left the Democratic Party last year to run for governor
as an Independent.


The RGA spent millions on


attack ads

against Cahill, largely accusing him of political
cronyism. The ads were cliché-ridden yawners, and voters
were forced to watch them ad nauseum.


I`m can`t say for sure why the RGA targeted Cahill. I
suspect one reason was that he was more conservative
than the Republican candidate, especially on immigration
and race. They knew he threatened to siphon off votes.


Cahill criticized Patrick for ingratiating himself with
Muslims. Baker said nothing about the matter. Cahill is
no


Tom Tancredo
,
but he does have more courage than most. [
Cahill:
Patrick `pandering` with Muslim meeting
,
By Glen Johnson, AP,
May 27, 2010]


And, if anyone was the Scott Brown of this race it was
Tim Cahill. He opposed


Romneycare
,


Obamacare
,
and was an


early supporter

of the


Arizona immigration law
.
He was the only candidate who was credibly “running
against the machine”
and people admired him for it.
Unfortunately, he didn`t have much money to compete with
his opponents.

Several months ago, people close to
Tim Cahill told me that he refused to be a “spoiler”
in the election. When it became clear that he could
not win, Cahill would bow out.


Unfortunately, it appears that the RGA attacks so
angered Cahill that he refused to leave the race. The
campaign degenerated into a nasty battle between Tim
Cahill and Charlie Baker, which was especially obvious
during the debates.

In
the meantime, Deval Patrick ran virtually unopposed. He
downplayed his pro-immigration positions and had
terrific ads that included almost no black faces. I was
most impressed with the one that


showed Patrick
surrounded

by white schoolchildren.


Yes, the RGA

eventually ran some
anti-Patrick ads
,
but they were just as boring as the anti-Cahill ones.
The ads also ignored Patrick`s


proposed
“New Americans Agenda”

which
promises a host of goodies to illegal aliens, from
drivers licenses to in-state tuition.


There are few things more discouraging to immigration
reformers than relying on reluctant converts to our
cause. Who takes consolation in watching John McCain


claim

to be
one
of us
“?

Perhaps
Charlie Baker never really was
“one of us”,
even if he occasionally tried to pretend otherwise.
During the campaign, Tim Cahill exposed the fact that
Baker, as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, had


approved a number of
donations
to
the

Massachusetts
Immigration and Refugee Coalition
,
the


nuttiest

immigrant advocacy group in the state


True, Baker`s actual immigration position was quite
strong. But you had to go to


his website in order to
learn of it
.
The position was there “for the record” but there
appeared to be little commitment to it in reality.


The Baker campaign`s most mind-boggling move: opposing
Ballot Question 2, which


sought to repeal 40B
.
As I`ve


written before
,
40B is a state law whereby developers can bypass local
zoning laws to build housing, as long as they reserve a
certain amount of units to “low-income residents.”


Baker most likely opposed 40B`s repeal because he did
not want to risk looking like a racist in a campaign
against a black candidate. But his position infuriated
the many ardent opponents of 40B (and also contributed
to Question 2`s failure to pass).


Another mindboggler: Baker`s decision to


oppose ballot Question
3
, which
sought repeal the sales tax hike that Gov. Patrick
pushed through the legislature. (That initiative also
failed to pass).


There were plenty of easy opportunities to make
immigration a campaign issue. Immigration was in the
news nearly every week.


For example, in September, a local television station
interviewed Obama`s illegal


Aunt Zeituni

who


broadcast her arrogant
immigrant entitlement complex for all to see
.
Everyone I know was complaining about it. But did


Baker make an issue of
it?
No.

A week
before the election The Boston Herald

ran a cover
story
on the
high cost of illegal alien medical care imposed on state
taxpayers. This includes the recent case of a Salvadoran
illegal who gave birth in an East Boston apartment, then
tossed her


baby out the bathroom
window into an alley
.
The infant currently survives on


taxpayer-funded life
support
in a
Boston hospital.


Again, Baker said nothing.

In
another Massachusetts election, Rep. Barney Frank


survived the toughest
challenge of his career

from an underfunded unknown who


hammered

the congressman over his


role

in the


Minority Mortgage
Meltdown
.


Deval Patrick also made a significant and
well-documented contribution to the mortgage crisis both
as


Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights

and in


private practice
.
But Charles Baker and the Republican Governor`s
Association never brought it up.

Why? Because Barney Frank is white and
Deval Patrick is black.

The question now remains: What should
we expect from Deval Patrick`s second and (allegedly)
final term?


Steve
Sailer
has


predicted

that Barack Obama would be more cautious in his first
term but that his true radicalism would surface after
his reelection.

That appears to be what is happening
with Deval Patrick.


Governor Patrick ran a cautious campaign, but upon
reelection, his first official act was to appoint a


black radical

as


Chief Justice of the
state Supreme Court
.

A week
later, Deval Patrick called for the passage of his
“New Americans Agenda
", starting


with in-state tuition

for illegal aliens.


The worst, I expect, is yet to come.



Matthew Richer (
email
him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American
Editor of Right NOW magazine.