That having been said, I am unaware of any place that is a perfect model for public policy success at the moment (or, really, ever). I live in one of the lowest tax (and most conservative) states in the country and it isn’t exactly a policy paradise, let me tell you.

I would note that you have thrown an awful lot out in your comment, much of which is vague and rather difficult to directly address. For example, yes I am opposed to an awful lot of what has passed for governance in California for a long time (I lived there for a while, and still have significance connections to the state). Perhaps it can all be blamed on liberals and lack of adequate political education, but then again, perhaps it is more complicated than that (I would go with the latter, by the way).

Back to my basic point, and why I really thought that Dan’s point was a non sequitur (or perhaps just a fantasy): one may want everyone to think a certain way, but the bottom line is that they don’t (and they won’t) and wishing it were so is a pointless exercise. Beyond that, and to the point of the post which was pretty straightforward: the only way a Republican can win in Mass is to be a liberalish one. Further I was arguing (perhaps unclearly) that the notion that the Republicans are ever going to be both an rigidly doctrinaire conservative party and a majority force is a rather fanciful one.

I’m perfectly fine to allow that people in San Francisco and the Bay Area have shown their preferences for high taxes, massive corruption, and no discernible benefits (other than trolleys). I’m also perfectly fine with California’s upcoming series of municipal bankruptcies. I’m not fine with the Feds stepping in to “save” a system that is based on multiple logical fallacies and which cannot ever work. And I would second the notion that Massachusetts needs education more than it needs Rockefeller Republicans and a federal bailout.

There was a time I favored keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent. I’m no longer convinced that’s a good idea. Especially if some of the revenue generating ideas floated recently are the only way to do it ($90 billion tax on banks without a clue of where the banks will get the money — hint: higher banking fees — and requiring some portion of 401(k) contributions go to annuities, which are generally backed by Treasury Bills, which would guarantee the Feds’ ability to borrow money after teh Chinese get cold feet).

Is it not possible that, for any number of reasons, that the people of Massachusetts have an honest set of preferences for more liberal politicians (just as, say, folks in Utah have honest policy preferences for more conservative politicians?).