Eighteen months ago, liberal democrats were pretty excited. The prospect of hope and change was everywhere in the fall air. Campaign rallies featured chants of "yes we can" and political momentum was clearly on the side of an articulate, young black candidate on election day.

A campaign plan of hope and change that would avoid any real policy detail was managed and well planned by David Axlerod. The candidate would campaign on the ambiguous platform of hope and the potential change of government reform. A cut in property taxes and increased local aid was also part of the campaign platform.

That successful election campaign easily elected Democrat Duval Patrick to become the first black Governor of Massachusetts. The voters thought that a Democratic Governor working with a Democratic state legislature would remove any real obstacle to the campaign promise of the hope of government reform.

The campaign of Duval Patrick was the prototype campaign run by the same campaign manager that was to be used on the national stage to elect the first black President of the United States, Barack Obama in November 2009.

So, a year and half later, what is the result of the first campaign of hope and change? Do the people of Massachusetts have hope? Have they seen political change? The answer may be found in the latest public opinion poll from Survey USA concerning the performance of Duval Patrick in his first eighteen months as the Governor of Massachusetts.

The poll shows that nearly seventy percent of the general public disapproves of the performance of the Massachusetts Governor. Independent voters give Duval Patrick a disapproval rate of 80% and even more than fifty percent of Democrats do not see much political hope and change.

The lesson that can be learned from Massachusetts is that even a well crafted campaign of slogans promising government reform and change, has to eventually produce results. Personality and articulation may obtain power but are not a substitute for performance.

The problem for Duval Patrick is that as a candidate of change, he was an promising outsider. However, the lack of government reform in his first eighteen months in office looks to the voters like just more of the same. In addition, there was his broken promise of a cut in property taxes and more cuts in local state aid.

The State budget was badly constructed for the first year of an economic recession and as a result spending cuts were made in a crisis mode. The state now faces the prospect of a huge increase in the gasoline tax, a dramatic increase in state highway tolls, a carbon tax increasing the cost of parking at the airport and a dramatic increase in public commuter transportation fees.

It is now apparent that the campaign slogan "yes we can" applied to the prospect of increasing state taxes and fees. Hope never produced change or the improved efficiency of government reform. To the voting public, these results are only more of the big government politicians tired old tax and spend refrain.

There are the lessons here for the administration of President Barack Obama. An articulate personality in front of a teleprompter will not achieve favorable public opinion poll results forever.

The voter wants real reform through government reform and change. Dubious government spending and increasing taxes will eventually become problematic for the candidate claiming the campaign message of hope and change.

Today, public opinion polls say the first campaign of hope and change is failing badly in Massachusetts. Indeed, Governor Duval Patrick may need a federal government job bailout before the next election.

The truth is that it could happen to any administration where the campaign slogan "hope and change" becomes a governing platform to try to implement the same tired old tax and spend political game.

http://www.eworldvu.com