The houses are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overpriced. The taxes are not actually that bad but everything ELSE costs so much its awful.

One word about Massachusetts - AVOID.

Better then a Texas conservative but, okay.

And this is somehow worse in a conservative's mind than a Connecticut liberal? Why is it that conservatives can get away with statements like this? If I was to say I would never vote for an "Indiana conservative" I'd be labelled a west coast elitist with low regard for the heartland of America. There is definitely a double standard in American politics.

Oh yeah, that's right. If your candidate is losing, simply drop the "liberal" label. After all, liberal IS a dirty word.

don't know

This won't bring in the sway voters as much as it strengthens voters who planned on voting for Bush anyway. While I planned on voting for Bush, if he only used this or little else to run for President, I sure wouldn't vote for him! He has a lot more that will re-elect him in 2004, so that's not a problem.

While this might resonate with a certain portion of society, it doesn't have the bite that it did when used against Dukakis in 1988. Bush is trying to portray himself as a unifying figure, if he were to take this approach Kerry would counter by portraying Bush as an instigator of regional warfare- an idea that most people would be disposed to accept with great ease.

Now this could cost Kerry the election. I've spent enough time in Mass. to know that the liberal New England myth is just that- a myth. If you spend time in central and western Mass., you will find conservative values are entrenched. But the Bush media will spin the anti-Mass machine for all its worth and the public just might buy it.

Liberals are jacked up OPIE, if they are wealthy like Larry Davids Wife, they preach about driving Toyota Prius' to protect the environment and then get in their private jets and fly to their next vacation, they want world peace ( which means any one else can be at peace but the US) Rosie O'donell is against guns, but yet her body guard carries a gun, because she's important Liberals think they are better than everyone else, they are so out of touch with reality it's scary, and how do you know the savior was a liberal, you flaming idiot, were you alive then, you don't know crap you tree huggin moron.

He is, but that's no reason not to vote for the guy. He represents that he will do everything Bush is doing in the war on terror, but he'll do it better. OK, vote him in and see how long the Muslims wait for the next wave. Opie, the only conscience America has? Phew. Whoopi Goldberg, Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Carville, Kerry, Gore. There's a conscience here somewhere? Who, on earth, is the conscience of the democrat party? Just name one.

Im not sure of this will have alone will have a factor in the election. The last liberal from Massachusetts, Dukakis, lost his election. I predict the same this year. Die hard rich liberals from Taxachusetts just don't understand the problems of the average Joe.

Liberals are the only conscience America has. It's a great reason to elect him. Liberals care about people, Christ was a liberal. Conservatives care about themselves, or they have it in their heads that whatever they believe in is good for everyone. Conservatives...get a clue.

All of the above.

Let's see... Is John Kerry a Massachusetts liberal? He's strong on education, security, defense and economic stability for all of us. He's hands-off in terms of legislating morality on our behalf. He is from Massachusetts. Yep, those qualities are certainly challenging to the status quo. He must be a Massachusetts liberal. The next item for discussion: Is Bush a Two-tone Texan? Bush (and his lip-synching administration) say they are for small government and fiscal responsibility. Witness the massive Department of Homeland Security and the exponentially expanding budget deficit. Ever heard the phrase all swole up*? Its pure Texas. Bush and company say they believe in education and care for the elderly. Witness the fatal under-funding of the well publicized No Child Left Behind Act or the duplicitous marketing for a new Medicare benefit that puts billions of dollars into the pockets of the pharmaceutical giants. Sounds catty whompus* to me. Bush and friends say that they support the environment and the rule of law. Witness the behind-the-scenes attempts to scuttle the legacy of clean air and clean water we hope to leave our children. Witness the repudiation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Witness also the blind support for Rumsfeld in the face of undeniable military blunders and abuses. Someones taking the phrase come hell or high water* too literally. The Bush front says that it is fighting for the average American and his (or her) way of life. Witness the job loss, the jobless 'recovery' and the erosion or our hard-won civil liberties. This recovery appears to be moving slaunchways* at best, while the treatment of our inalienable rights is obviously whomperjawed* in terms of Constitutionality. I hear words and I see actions. Here, the two do not match in tone or content. Clearly Bush is a Two-tone Texan: putting out public-relations fires while dismantling our hard-won freedoms and well-earns privileges for the benefit of his cronies. Seems All hat and no cattle* to me. *For definitions, see: http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Texas/talk.html

this could potentially be devastating if kerry is perceived as the dukakis of 2004, especially if they can morph a picture of kerry into the one of dukakis riding around in that tank with that ridiculous helmet on his head.

With Maasachusetts about to legalize gay marriage and most of the united states being against gay marriage, I think it is the final nail in the coffin.

Not a legitimate issue in general. I doubt Bush will focus on it, and I think Kerry should define himself on the issues and not try to tag any label in particular on himself as far as his views are concerned. Clinton did an excellent job of this when he ran in '92 and '96. Most of the country is moderate; neither conservative nor liberal. There is no shift in either direction taking place. The moderates will decide the election as they always have in the past.

I'm from Massachusetts. Does this automatically make me bad?

There's nothing evil about being from New England (where Bush was also born as well as educated from high school on up). Nor are you automatically evil if you are a member of one political party or the other. Yet, being called a Massachussets liberal is an incredibly effective way to minimize Kerry's national appeal. Americans see liberals in a much scarier context than they see Democrats. Furthermore, many folks from a smaller town lifestyle believe a Massachussets liberal might either be a threat to their traditional values or not appreciative to their more rural way of life. Kerry is pretty much forced to ally himself with running mate from a southern state and do all he can to prove himself to be both Centrist enough and in touch with America's heartland. Otherwise, he'll lose a ton of swing voters and probably the election.

The Massachusetts liberal charge is a loaded one. This killed Michael Dukakis's candidacy when he ran against Bush's father in 1988. In politics, perception is reality. Midwestern and Southern voters view Massachusetts as elitist and disconnected to the rest of the country. George Bush Sr. took a broad swipe at Dukakis by calling him a ACLU Liberal; hinting that he was soft on criminals, against religious values, against capital punishment and weak on defense in general. So far, Kerry has tried to sell himself as the ultimate Alpha male to downplay these roots. He's a liberal, but not a reactionary; Kerry is more pro-defense and pro-growth than his Republican detractors claim. Also, he's appealing by using moderate themes like a balanced budget and middle class tax cuts, which are always a winner and take the edge off the Massachusetts liberal tag. Overall, given his range of international experience, I would say he's the better candidate. Kerry's main problem lies in his speaking style, which is far too long winded for TV. He seems aloof and elitist; candidates with similar attributes usually lose races. As opposed, Bush has managed to cultivate a middle America image which has kept him popular with the people. In the final analysis, it will be a close race, but I give the edge to Bush. Image trumps a lot in politics and despite his negatives, he still has middle America behind him. Bush won't win Massachusetts by a long shot. Too many Massachusetts liberals!

I think this is where Kerry is most vulnerable. With the conservative bent of the country right now, if GWB continues to cry liberal at Kerry, it may be enough. The term Massachussett's Liberal brings to mind vague notions of sexual deviance, irresponsible spending, drinking and driving, relativism, and someone who just can't connect with a 'real american' from the heartland. The diabolical genius behind focusing on this issue is that there's nothing that Kerry can do about it - he's from Massachussett's, and he is a liberal.