except that he has. And the wonderful Roger Lau is everywhere, at once, in MA for John Kerry. (And Sen. Kerry couldn't have a better ambassador to MA. Roger is wonderful.)
MA is spoiled. Absolutely and completely spoiled. That is the explanation. It really is. Politics is personal here. It has always been personal. It has also been an enterprise that has
engaged people the way it hasn't in other states. This goes back to the very origin of MA as a colony. We were founded by loud-mouthed dissenters and separatists who came here in order to get away from their English brothers and sisters. They fought each other, sued each other, argued constantly and vigorously and often about politics. The heavy influx of the Irish and their dependency on politics for jobs added to the already exisiting strain of emphasis on political speech. We love a good argument in the Bay State. We live for it.
We are just built this way. Even a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party gets the blood going and gives MA/Boston people a chance to argue. We just do this. And we are spoiled. Very, very spoiled. Our pols have the good news/bad news job of engaging with their constituents personally. It is expected. It is, after all, hard to have a really good and heated argument with someone who isn't there. We then report on the argument and the disagreements because "Kumbaya" isn't in our nature.
This is what MA does. We argue. We are not a mellow state. (God, you should hear some of the battles I have heard here over non-political things, like software engineers hashing something out. Ouch, my ears still hurt.) We formented a Revolution here and then told the rest of the country to suck it up and fight it. Ah, this is our heritage. We engage. So, our pols have to engage as well.
How the Revolution came about in Boston, according to the late Howard Zinn, unabashed liberal
What seems to have happened in Boston is that certain lawyers, editors, and merchants of the upper classes, but excluded from the ruling circles close to England-men like James Otis and Samuel Adams- organized a "Boston Caucus" and through their oratory and their writing "molded laboring- class opinion, called the 'mob' into action, and shaped its behaviour."
We have here a forecast of the long history of American politics, the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances, which helps to account for its effectiveness as a tactic over the centuries. As Nash puts it:
James Otis, Samuel Adams, Royall lyler, Oxenbridge Thacher, and a host of other Bostonians, linked to the artisans and laborers through a network of neighborhood taverns, fire companies, and the Caucus, espoused a vision of politics that gave credence to laboring-class views and regarded as entirely legitimate the participation of artisans and even laborers in the political process.
http://libcom.org/history/peoples-history-american-revolution Boston is actually the capital of the world. You didn't know that? We breed smart-ass, quippy, funny people. Not that I'm one of them. I just sorta sneaked in under the radar.
John Krasinski, writer