Skip to content

Dear Massachusetts

January 20, 2010

Listen guys, we don’t ask much from you. For the most part, we let you rest on your Bunker Hill laurels and drink up your Dunkin Donuts coffee. We even let you have the occasional Republican Governor (we all go through that phase), especially if you succeed in spoiling his executive record so much that he can never be viable as a Republican candidate for President. We love that.

But you’re really sending mixed signals! You are thought to be the most liberal of the left; don’t tell me your love affair with Teddy was all about his Kennedyness–you’re not THAT petty, are you? What did you do? Send all those Ivory Towerians on sabbatical all at once? Were you all too busy texting “Haiti” to set down the cell and go vote? We need an explanation.

What can we expect from you now? We thought we had a good thing going here. We made a good team, driving all those red states crazy with our socialist ways. Now who do we have? Rhode Island? Please…that’s not even their real name. Hawaii? Long distance relationships are just hard, and their school system stinks. Vermont? Come on–you can’t be serious; we have quite a bit of history, but it would be like dating our sister, and not even a high-profile one at that.

We have always counted on you to defend our liberal ideals, Massachusetts. And you threw all that away for a man who campaigned with his truck. His TRUCK! Forget public transport or something green or financially responsible like riding a bike or walking–the man campaigned with his TRUCK! He is a Lawyer, for heaven’s sake. And a beauty king–he is not hauling.

Listen–we’ll get over this. Scott Brown isn’t going to ruin America. But I’m not sure this rift, this great disappointment, between us can be repaired, Massachusetts. We’ve just about had enough with your crazy Commonwealth ways. Please reconsider your voting ways. You can do what you want in your own state, but don’t mess with the Senate.

Formerly Yours,
New York

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Amy permalink
    January 20, 2010 1:28 pm

    Man, where did my witty genes go? I must have been benevolent and let Christopher have my share. I enjoyed this post. But it does seem like the Massachusetts Dems could have found a candidate who was willing to put more work into the campaign than being born a woman and getting a nod from the President. It sounds like that was what she was counting on. But, I’m not a political expert, I really only know as much as I hear on NPR.

  2. Melissa permalink
    January 20, 2010 6:41 pm

    What about Utah? Who will be the Hardy to our Orrin Hatch – Laurel? (Although in fairness Coakley was really lacking that fat boy charm.)

  3. esodhiambo permalink*
    January 20, 2010 7:04 pm

    Ahem–I don’t think was actually chosen because she was a woman or getting a nod. Any 35 year old Democrat could have thrown their hats into the ring and participated in the Primary. Coakley did. Then she did not run a stellar campaign. It happens.

    Melissa–I believe this is the magic year of eligibility for you, so belly up to the bar. You’re a registered Dem, union member, accomplished, brainy beauty–I would vote for you. I’d even make phone calls for your campaign (that’s saying a lot). I won’t establish UT residency, though. Think of your hundreds of former students–they’d work for you! Send Ms. Smith to Washington!

  4. January 21, 2010 9:49 am

    Made me smile, nicely written.

  5. esodhiambo permalink*
    January 21, 2010 3:05 pm

    Thanks! Nice to see you around.

  6. EmilyCC permalink
    January 21, 2010 8:38 pm

    I’m so with you on this, ESO…I feel like calling up MA and saying, “I leave you alone for 3 years, and this is what you turn into?!” 😉

  7. Lindsay permalink
    January 22, 2010 11:25 am

    Personally I don’t see what the big deal is (although admittedly I lean towards the conservative in my personal politics and while living in MA am legally a NY and didn’t vote in the election).

    There are a few things that everyone around the country lamenting the election results should keep in mind.

    1. Coakley ran a lackluster campaign and is therefore reaping the rewards of her labor. Hopefully she (and other politicians) have learned their lessons. Also spelling your state’s name correctly in your campaign materials helps show your voters you actually care both about them and the election.

    2. The people of Massachusetts have exercised their constitutional rights to vote as they see fit. It’s their state and they get to decide who they want to represent them.

    3. Didn’t the results of the “Revolution of 1800” teach us the power and celebration of experiencing different political parties/policies? Isn’t that at least a small part of our checks and balances system? I can’t help but think it is a good thing that a state who has held so doggedly to one senator and one party line should get a breather and experience another way of looking at things and clearly the voters feel the same way. Maybe next election they’ll decide they’d rather elect a democrat and that’s the prerogative of the voters, but won’t it be a more informed decision after they’ve experienced a little bit of the “other side”?

    4. Isn’t the Senate meant to be a part of the checks and balances system meant to uphold our government and ensure that governmental policies are what the people want?

    Granted I do speak from an idealistic view of government (well aside from my first point), but that is how the government is supposed to work if I recall my fourth-eleventh grade history correctly.

  8. esodhiambo permalink*
    January 22, 2010 1:02 pm

    Emily CC–nice to see you around.

    Lindsay–no one is saying that we want to take away the rights of MA to represent themselves (we reserve that for the District of Columbia), all we are expressing is our disapproval of this particular choice.
    1–I don’t know of any candidate who writes their own copy.
    2–no one is saying that we want to take away the rights of MA to represent themselves (we reserve that for the District of Columbia), all we are expressing is our disapproval of this particular choice.
    3–well, I wouldn’t have advised them to vote for the same guy for 47 years, but that is what they did. I don’t think it necessary to invite a fluffball to represent you to decide you’d rather not do it again. Use your heads.
    4–Checks and balances yes, but what makes you think this senator is the check and balance? First off, the branches, even IF dominated by the same party, operate in different ways and terms and can still check and balance. Second, the numbers game in the Senate is really about a filibuster–do you endorse that particular Senate rule? I think it is generally poorly used and would happily forfeit it. Third “what the people want” is better determined by the majority than by an obstructive minority, don’t you think?

    Lastly–the issue de jour is healthcare and Mass certainly seems like a poor state on which to hinge that vote–it was a very “let them eat cake” kind of a vote–what do they care if the rest of the country gets coverage? They’ve got it. FWIW, Nyers pretty much have it too, but I would happily work hard for the whole country to have a safety net like ours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: