Congressman John Tierney has an Important Message

I'm so glad I get to vote for that man every 2 years.

Bloggers Weigh in On TV: the Video

As promised, here's the video of the Worcester forum I participated in. It was on live TV, so there was no editing, but I think it went okay nonetheless (even if my hair is crazy - where was some hair gel when I needed it?). Thanks to the other panelists, Mike from Mass Marrier, Luc Schuster, Co-Chairman of the Green-Rainbow Party, and of course to the host, Jim Henderson of St. Kermit. Also, a big thanks to Worcester's WCCA TV for airing it.

The Boston Herald: On Kerry Healey, Take Our Word for It

Oh, this was rich:

Kerry Healey is a far better candidate and a far better person than the campaign she waged.

Let me finish the rest of the editorial:

Really, really, she is! She is! Take our word for it! If only she had the ability to get her word out and talk about the issues, this would have been a totally different race. $15 million clearly wasn't enough money for her to do that! She sides with the people of Massachusetts on the issues, that's why she thinks ALL public schools should be charter schools. She's fantastic and super in every way, but that evil, deceitful Deval Patrick won't let you know any better. I mean, he's not the one showing negative ads, but that doesn't make it Kerry Healey's fault that she didn't get to talk about issues!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember how, just today, I questioned whether or not the Herald would be willing to enter Shilldom? You know, the place where the truth doesn't matter and only spin counts? Well, they went and did it. What a bunch of hacks.

It would be one thing to write a clearly contrived editorial (as the Herald did with Tom Reilly during the primary) if they thought their candidate had a chance - but when there is no such hope? We all know newspaper editorials aren't as important as some would think, but newspapers certainly aren't going to be ecstatic to illustrate just how useless their editorial space can be during the middle of an election.

Boy was I wrong!

You Refuse to Debate, You Lose My Vote. Period.

As any regular reader could tell you, I'm a big fan of John Bonifaz. When he ran for Secretary of State, I was at first very skeptical. He seemed like a one issue candidate running for an office that didn't have the type of control over the issue required to fix it. Then he contacted me and reached out, just as Secretary of State Bill Galvin showed his true colors. When Galvin made it apparent that he wouldn't debate Bonifaz (who, in all likelihood, would have destroyed Galvin - even if the press would have ignored it), it solidified my support of Bonifaz. I interviewed him and went from basically voting for him as a vote against Galvin to voting for him because he was such an amazing, passionate and brilliant person. He would have been an amazing Secretary of State, period. However, he lost. It was my greatest regret after the primary.

That said, I was going to support Galvin after the primary. I'm a true blue voter and sometimes that means going with an incumbent I don't like - or does it? The Green Party has done one thing after another on the national scene that has royally ticked me off, but here we come to a personal conundrum:

Bill Galvin, again, has refused to debate his opponents. Where is his class? Where is his respect for Democracy? Deval Patrick has debated all of his opponents time after time after time. Despite the fact Deval's debated his opponents at least a half dozen times during this election, he agreed to do one more in Dartmouth. He could have refused and NO ONE would have thought less of him for it. He's up in the polls, gave proper respect to the Democratic system... and is yet giving it more.

How can I vote for Bill Galvin if he can't even show up for a debate once? The answer: I can't.

I pulled the Jill Stein lever - something I thought I'd never do. She could have been Alan Keyes and I probably would have voted for her. Simply put, I'll never - ever - vote for a candidate who has refused debate after debate after debate after debate. I can't vote for a candidate who clearly detests Democracy - who sees our government's procedures as an inconvenience. I won't do it now and I won't do it ever.

Will the Herald Endorse Kerry Healey?

Most other bloggers, lefty readers and a horde of others have probably just assumed a Herald endorsement of Kerry Healey. However, on more than one occasion I've felt like going against the grain and warning people to not be stunned if the Herald makes an endorsement of a different color. Even before the Herald endorsed Senator Kennedy and Martha Coakley, both Democrats, I had my doubts.

Why? The Herald certainly is hackish, but the editors aren't quite beyond the realm of reason - they've yet to reach the shilldom of their own Howie Carr, for example. And for those of you who would argue, "but they hired Carr!!" I'd counter with "well, the Globe hired Jeff Jacoby" - and he's a plagiarist.

What we, as readers, must first remember is that the Herald is a tabloid newspaper. While it's a rightward-leaning tabloid, it certainly isn't afraid to unleash the bad on Kerry Healey - as it's done on more than one occasion during this election season. As long as it sells, it probably goes. So, we can't automatically expect them to endorse Kerry Healey just because they are either viewed as being the crazy right wing paper or because they think Deval Patrick's sister's marriage is newsworthy.

Furthermore, there are a confluence of events that have led me to believe that Kerry has - at best - about a 50-50 shot of getting the nomination. For one, the Herald has nominated two Democrats for state-wide office this year - including Senator Kennedy, who they admirably praised ("no single individual in political life today has done more for this state and its people than Ted Kennedy"). Martha Coakley's endorsement could be stronger!

Beyond the Herald's other recent endorsements, there are a number of other things to look at. The Worcester Telegram endorsed Kerry Healey, much to the surprise of readers. The Telegram, as some may know, isn't exactly a liberal bastion. Most importantly, the writing seems to be on the wall. No one likes to back the losing horse - and Kerry Healey seems about as lame as Seabiscuit stuffed with cotton. It would be one thing to write a clearly contrived editorial (as the Herald did with Tom Reilly during the primary) if they thought their candidate had a chance - but when there is no such hope? We all know newspaper editorials aren't as important as some would think, but newspapers certainly aren't going to be ecstatic to illustrate just how useless their editorial space can be during the middle of an election.

So who will the Herald endorse? Perhaps, if they just don't like Deval Patrick, they'll pick Christy Mihos. While he has an even smaller chance of winning than Kerry Healey, at least one could write a great editorial about 'bucking' the mainstream choices and going with a real independent. Maybe the Herald will go for Deval, just less enthusiastic than the Boston Globe's ringing editorial.

Maybe the Herald will still pull the lever for Kerry Healey? However, if that's the case, I highly doubt it will be an enthusiastic voice of support. I could be completely wrong and be overestimating the Herald here, but with the fact that Kerry Healey has been such a horrible candidate - and the fact that she's looking worse and worse (in the polls, especially) - I'd be fairly stunned if Herald would put itself in that sort of a position.

My Worcester TV/Podcast Appearance

Here's the podcast of my appearance on St. Kermit, which went live on Worcester televisions.

Mike joined myself and Luc Shuster (Co-Chair of the Green-Rainbow Party and member of the Cambridge School Committee) on the show. As always, Jim Henderson did a great job hosting.

Listen to the audio to check out me getting grilled on why I think Grace should become a Democrat, on how I think Deval's going to win and even some discussion on old favorites like Clean Elections and Gay Marriage. It was a great discussion.

If the video gets posted on the Worcester TV website, I'll let everyone know.

Debate at UMASS Dartmouth and...

I CAN'T GO!!!! GRrrrrr

I have a test.

If there's anyone who's reading this and is going, I'd like an as-much-as-possible non-partisan take on the debate. So, if you'd like to pen a guest column on my blog with your thoughts, send me an email or make a comment.

It's on November 3rd.

Marty Meehan is a Selfish SOB. End of Story.

If I read something akin to this again, I think I'm going to scream.

I'm not a fan of Meehan- he and his acolytes were downright nasty to us Deval workers back at the '05 Convention in Lowell- but enough with dumping on the guy. I have no problem with him keeping his campaign money for his own campaign use. The people who contributed to Marty Meehan contributed to Marty Meehan- not to some guy in Florida or Tennessee. Most people who contribute to candidates expect that the money will be spent on lawn signs, bumper stickers, mailings, etc. to help the actual candidate to whom they gave it.

If Marty Meehan decides that it's in his best interest to send some money to the DCCC then that's great, good for him. But if he decides that he wants to keep it in his own campaign and use it for the purposes intended by his contributors, then he shouldn't be slammed for it. If the DCCC is so incompetent and ineffectual that it is incapable of raising money from other sources, rather than shaking down incumbents, then screw them. The same goes for the individual candidates. If they are incapable of raising the money and generating the grassroots support that it takes to win, it's not Marty Meehan's fault.

Firstly, I have doubts as to the validity of anyone who starts off a comment by essentially saying 'I'm not a fan of so and so... isn't so and so just so damn swell and perfect!!' However, I'm not going to get into whether or not most of these guys defending Meehan are trolls or Team Meehan Members. Why? It doesn't matter. Their argument is flawed anyway.

Lynne touched on her disappointment in Meehan (and Lynne's in his Congressional District) - and her disappointment in people defending his selfish, greedy, slithering ways. However, I'm going to really analyze why defending Meehan is... well... stupid.

Almost everyone who has defended Meehan has done so on the premise that supporters who are contributing to his fat pockets are expressly supporting him, not anyone else. They make it sound as if he doesn't have the right to send the money supporters gave him to other campaigns. That argument is flawed at two levels: first, Meehan gives money away already. If you have such a problem with it, why start complaining now? More importantly, however, is that the bulk of Meehan's nearly 5 million dollar warchest isn't given by the average Jane and Joe. It's not from people in his Congressional District, it's from the pockets of lobbyists all over. Defending him on that premise is just giving lobbyists that much more power.

That's a pretty stinging rebuke on Democracy, right? Well, that's not the only thing that disturbs democracy from this situation. Massachusetts voters should question any congressional candidate who would want to greedily horde five million bucks. Meehan is clearly doing it for a Senate run - and more power to him for wanting to run. However, do Massachusetts voters want any candidate who has that much more money than anyone else able to run? Don't we want a competitive Senate race - if John Kerry retires?

Finally, people said that they don't want their contributions to Meehan going elsewhere. Why? Those people Meehan gives to may not share their values. Ignoring the fact that Meehan has given hundreds of thousands to other candidates or the DCCC over the course of his career anyway, supporters need to ask themselves an important question: do we want Meehan powerless and rich or powerful and slightly less rich? If Democrats don't win a majority, Meehan is going to continue in the minority... and continue to be next to useless. Democrats in the House have been about as useless as an ass on an elbow while in the minority. Even if Meehan gave to candidates who may not share his stance 100%, if Meehan helped get a majority Democrats would finally be in charge. That would mean Meehan would become at least twice as effective since we'd be able to push through Democratic bills. Heck, if Meehan gave a generous donation, he may just get the clout to push through a few of his own ideas that could directly benefit his own district. There are perks to getting Democrats elected.

So enough of this irrational defense of a greedy Congressman. He has by far more money on hand than any other safe Democrat in the House of Representatives. He's threatening Democracy by hoarding cash. He's getting large sums of money from lobbyists - this isn't people-powered money of small donations and lots of supporters. He's being an selfish SOB and that won't change until people convince him about the importance of winning on November 7th.

Oh, That Mitt Romney!

Isn't this cute?

This is the highest-priority state for us . . . We've got a couple of others that are in this category, but nobody's higher than Florida," according to news reports.

Keep in mind, Mitt isn't talking about some Congressional seat in Florida threatening to go Democratic (though, there are several of those). He's not even talking about the campaign for Senate, as Katherine Harris has been a laughable candidate (literally, she's a hoot!). No, Mitt is talking about the race for Florida's Governor.

That's right, "nobody's" more important "than Florida." Ouch. Sorry, Kerry.

But don't worry, Kerry, he also said,

The Massachusetts race "is the most important governor's race in the country to me."

Flip flop? Maybe. Although, "nobody's higher" certainly doesn't mean "most important," right? It depends on what the definition of is is. Besides, it's not like Mitt Romney works at the International House of Pancakes, or anything.

Thinking About Ever Running for Politics?

Then don't ever write erotic fiction.

It has to be the worst "diary" I ever read, but the actual story isn't pretty. Here's my comment on the thread, which makes a whole lotta sense considering the diary's lunatic advice.

Watch Me Live on TV!

I'm doing a TV show in Worcester tomorrow at 4:30pm and I hope you all will watch it!

It's only playing in the Worcester area, but anyone can watch it streaming on the internet. I'll be joined by some Bay State Netroots Activists - Mike from MassMarrier and Jim Henderson of Saint Kermit. There's also Luc Shuster, who serves on the Cambridge School Committee and is also Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party. Anyone think that could lead to some interesting conversations? I do!

The Buck Stops Elsewhere

You know, just for once in my life I'd like to see a Republican own up to a mistake, apologize and then try to rectify the situation.

Today, we learn that to Mitt Romney the buck stops here at the Secretary's desk. What a weasley, awful, no-good, part-time governor.

"I think Secretary Cogliano made a mistake."

The only mistake I can see happened nearly four years ago: the election of Willard Romney. However, with the windy winter will come a renewed belief as Mitt floats on away and Massachusetts sees relief. Marry Poppins style.

Dear Grace Ross

Dear Grace Ross,

I hope you're reading this. I really, really hope you're reading this. Why? Because I really like you. In fact, I really, really like you. While I don't agree with everything you have to say, in fact there's a lot of things we disagree on, if there's one thing I've come to recognize in your campaign it's that you're exceptionally intelligent and well-versed on what's wrong with Massachusetts. You're eloquent, an effective advocate and have made a very good case in each of your debates. In fact, I scored last night's debate for you; despite Keller's clear preference in shutting you up, as a clear and objective observer as possible, I still think you won that debate. There's only one problem - there's only one reason why your assets as an advocate aren't being employed to full potential... you're stuck in the Green-Rainbow Party.

I've frequently chatted with other bloggers and probably on this blog about how much I dislike the Green Party. While this is clearly a stereotype (one that doesn't describe you), I often find that Green-Rainbow members and candidates aren't as well versed as others. Maybe that's because third parties aren't invited to the table as often and most candidates just don't get the chance to get polished, but that clearly hasn't stopped you. Furthermore, while incidents from around the country involving the Green Party (especially in Pennsylvania, where Green's conspired with Republicans to get on the ballot), you have restored some respectability to the party.

But that still doesn't mean you shouldn't switch, or at least employ the fusion option if the ballot question passes. I understand you don't think the system works and that Democrats are part of the problem; in fact, I agree with you. The system doesn't work and Democrats are part of the problem. However, there is a growing movement of progressives around this country who want to change the status quo - and we're electing people who reflect our values. Just look at my State Rep, Doug Pederson, who lost his Chairmanship because he publicly sparred with Speaker Finneran over the Clean Elections Law.

The fact is, we can change the party from the inside. However, we can't do that without strong advocates for change. We can't do that without people willing to buck the party leadership and say "to hell with them." If anyone can resist the urges of lobbyists, special interests and going along to get along - you can. You can also speak from such a perspective that you may just convince a few others to go along with you. This is how we build a movement. The fact is, we need you on Beacon Hill - you're too talented and too smart to be anywhere else. So find a race and getcher butt in there!

Just look around us - there are so many DINOs in Massachusetts who are against so many of our basic, human rights. In your home city of Worcester, there are people like John Binienda, who doesn't (warning: pdf file) support marriage equality and he's anti-choice. After displaying your case so eloquently across the state this year, I'm confident you could get the support in defeating Binienda during a primary to win that race and replace a DINO with a proud, independent advocate. There are literally dozens of other candidates across the state whom I would love for you to replace - and there are guys like US Rep Steven Lynch who are just dying to be unseated.

However, it's difficult to do so from the context of the Green Party. Most media members relegate 3rd parties, especially Greens, as candidates who are 'bringing up issues that Democrats and Republicans won't.' In essence, they don't think you're serious opponents - and sadly, what the media parrots finds its way into the heads of most. They're usually happy to invite 3rd party candidates to one of the debates, but rarely all of them, and won't cover your issues in the press. It's unfair, but reality. It's time for you to buck reality as you have the establishment - and run as a Democrat next time around. We need you. You can do good.

Thanks for adding tremendously to the debates. Deval Patrick is still my guy, I truly believe in him, but I see so much potential in you too. There are serious problems with our state and if you can be an effective advocate inside the halls of Beacon Hill, who cares about Party ID? It's just a name; it's just a little, old letter attached to the end of your name in parenthesis. Stick it on there and be an agent of change so Massachusetts can become a better place to live.

All the Polls are Wrong!!

If anyone notices a pattern in my writing - that I get stuck on topics for a little while and keep plugging away - you're right. It's fun. I admit it. So, of course, when I stumbled on over to Hub Politics (I'm still waiting for Hub Politics to apologize), I noticed a pretty hilarious post - all the polls are wrong!

The brothers are shocked - Shocked! - that conservative talk radio hosts could have the audacity to suggest Deval Patrick is going to win the race. Deval can't possibly have regained his "pre-LaGuer numbers." Why?

Negative ads can backfire, but not when the content of the ad is true.

Case. Point. Match. (Believe it or not, they emphasis isn't mine.)

Really, the Hub's Aaron Margolis went on to explain just how true Kerry Healey's ads are - because the truth can never be distorted. I mean, it's not as if Kerry Healey went over the top, or even flat-out lies. I mean, she'd never stoop so low as to send campaign volunteers to stalk Deval and his campaign manager's house, especially when only a 12 year old boy was home.

Sadly, the Margolis twins have a very strange thought pattern. For example,

No, this is not about shilling for Kerry Healey...by now everyone ought know I am anything but a shill for Kerry Healey.

Wait a minute. Ha.. haha... BWAHAHAHAHAHA LOLERS HAHAHA haha ha. Okay, now I'm better. I've never seen anyone "shill" for anyone more than the Margolises. They can't even admit Kerry Healey's losing when even the Herald says she's dead in the water.

Sometimes it can be painful to see candidates we like lose - I guess the Margolises must really like Kerry Healey. I tried to prepare myself with Bonifaz and Dunkelbarger during the primaries - but I knew it was a long shot. I knew the cards were stacked against them. I knew that Deval's army made it harder for guys like Bonifaz to recruit his own army - there are only so many troops available. If the Margolises don't want to look like the shills they are, then they need to stop acting the part. They should apologize for or at least correct their mistakes. They should admit the polls are more likely to be right than wrong (there were three of them out on one day, after all). Of course, the "fat lady hasn't sung," but the Margolis bros. collectively sinking their fingers deep into their eardrums and screaming "LALALALA" at the top of their lungs isn't going to help their candidates cause - but it does bring me intense, schadenfruedic pleasure.

In Your Face, Hub Politics!

I mean, clearly, that hidden sign there was a supporter! Hubpolitics... it's time to suck it up and apologize, or lose all your remaining respectability increase your ever-burgeoning deficit of respectability.

What's that smell? Oh, yes, accountability.

PS: Thanks Susan for finding that video! I REALLY appreciate it (you rock!).

My Submission to BMG's Ad Contest

Blue Mass Group is having a contest to see who can come up with the greatest commercial. It has to show why Republicans are a failure. Let's just say, I couldn't resist making a submission.

It's not as if I haven't been active at Youtube; I've bashing Healey made a few ads for kicks and giggles. Let's see... there's one about how Kerry Healey is a Republican, how Kerry Healey is not that girl, how the Lt. Governor is wrong for Massachusetts and of course the one I stole. What could I possibly come up with next?

I hope you all find it amusing!

Kerry Healey on Immigration!

Patrick's Lead is 27%!

Apparently, the damage is even worse than we thought.

With two weeks remaining until the General Election, Democratic nominee Deval Patrick leads Republican nominee Kerry Healey by 27% (53%-26%), according to a 7NEWS/Suffolk University poll released today. Independent Christy Mihos (9%) and Green Rainbow nominee Grace Ross (2%) were far behind. There were 11% of likely voters undecided.

This from the Globe's political blog, Political Intelligence.

File This Under "Too Rich!"

When the Herald can't help themselves from bashing a Republican, you know it's going to be good. Today, it was too rich as we learn that Mitt Romney is putting on his hard hat and taking over Big Dig safety by putting... you guessed it... Bechtel in charge!

That man is never going to be President.

Hub Politics Lied!

What won't these people do? The shocker of all shockers, the Rovian Republicans at Hub Politics did it again... they blatantly lied.

They claimed that a malicious sign at Deval Patrick's Boston Common Rally was part of Deval Patrick's campaign - why? Because it was there of course! It was on video and everything! Well, Matt Margolis, I just happened to be at that rally. I just happened to see about a dozen Deval Patrick supporters BLOCKING that sign as best they could throughout most of the rally.

However, you won't know that from watching Margolis's video: he didn't even take it during the friggin rally! The video was from when people were either just getting there or starting to leave, because other than that there were some loyal supporters making sure that Deval's name wasn't smeared by people who clearly weren't there for Deval Patrick, but for their own selfish reasons. You can't pin that on Deval anymore than you can with those crazy Laroushians who continually disturb political events.

I wrote a comment on Matt's blog, asking him to post a correction. I suggest other people do as well - it's time they learn a little something about human decency and accountability. Let's hope NECN and other MSM outlets have figured out just how shrill-like the Margolises really are - and cease and desist allowing them any airtime. There are real, genuine, free-thinking conservative and Republican bloggers in Massachusetts. The Margolis gang family isn't one of them.

PS: I'm calling on some people who went to this rally to send me some pictures of Deval supporters blocking that sign. I just checked my camera and I can't believe I didn't take a picture of it, because I remember being really annoyed by the distraction, but I was too caught up in the rally itself to even pay more than a moment's notice to anything but the speeches and amazing crowd of more than 5,000.

Update: Susan found this video that shows a the Deval Patrick supporters blocking the sign at about 5:44. I'm still looking for more pictures and videos though, if anyone has them, because during that video the Deval supporters were so effective that you couldn't see the sign in question.

Patrick Up in Newest Poll!

BMG knows the news before it's reported. Tomorrow's Suffolk poll will reveal that Deval is up a significant amount in the latest poll and now leads the race at about 49-25-5-1 (there's still one day of polling left, but it'll be around there). Previously, Suffolk had it at 46-33. Let's not forget that Suffolk has continually demonstrated the strange ability to underestimate Deval's stake of the electorate - I wouldn't be surprised to see this race at 55-25 by the next SUSA or UNH poll.

Kerry's already abysmal negative numbers will go from that of "disliked by many" to "social pariah." On Saturday, in Keith Olbermann fashion, I wrote that Kerry Healey is the worst person ever. Clearly, a lot of people in Massachusetts agree.

Barney Frank on Bill Maher's Show

Not only did I miss this episode, if you can call it that, but it sure looks like I missed out.

Romney and Religion

The Globe has an editorial criticizing Romney for his Church fundraising, including an interesting contrast between Romney and JFK.

Non-Catholics were unduly fearful that the worldly Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican. But Romney appears all too willing to entangle religion and politics. Voters who practice a different faith, or none at all, deserve assurances that he can separate the demands of public life from the urgings of Salt Lake City.

The Globe need look no further than Mitt's agenda to see just how deeply embedded Romney is to the religious movement in America. If America wants to stop having Presidents beholden to religious interests, it needs to stop electing them. Mitt Romney's tactics have been no better or worse than George W. Bush's. Evangelical churches across the country are holding voter registration drives, inviting the army to come on over and visit and talking about just how wonderful the GOP is for religious people everywhere. It needs to stop, but Mitt Romney won't be the one to do it.

Speak Up, Speak Out

Hey everyone, I wanted to remind you all that I'll be a part of "Speak Up, Speak Out." It's a forum at UMASS Dartmouth on the upcoming election and state politics.

If anyone wants to attend, it's this Wednesday in the Library Browsing Area at the UMASS Dartmouth Library. It'll go from 7-9pm and I think I'll even shave and wear a tie! There will be College Republicans there, so expect at least some Republican Bashing heated discussions to go on.

Also, on Friday I'll be appearing on live TV in Worcester... so that should be interesting (not to mention a hike!).

Kerry Healey: Worst Person Ever

Keith Olbermann, quickly becoming one of my personal heroes (isn't it nice to finally have a real journalist on TV?), has this feature he calls "the worst person ever." Basically, he takes talking points from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and so on and quotes them on TV. As he quotes them, he ranks them in order of their pure evil-ness.

Now, Bluemassgroup posted on how Kerry Healey's campaign is the "worst Massachusetts has ever seen." Not only am I inclined to agree, but I think it's official: we can call Kerry Healey the worst person ever. She refused to condemn Mitt Romney's National Tour of Dissing Masachusetts, therefore condoning it. She not only refused to apologize for her most recent LaGuer attack ad, she's running it twice as often. She's rufused to condemn the group "Inmates for Deval," who have stalked 12 year old children until cops came.

The Washington Post has called Kerry Healey's campaign "as vicious as we've seen this cycle," all the while it's been ineffective and most of it is either patently false or distorted beyond all recognition. If my name were Keith Olbermann and I was the host of "Countdown," Kerry Healey would be my "Worst Person Ever." Why? Because she quite possibly could be.

Kerry Healey Wields the Education Axe

Was anyone else stunned to hear her opinions on Education? She essentially said that all schools should be charters.

It was a pretty heated debate. The first round really beat up on Kerry Healey and her negative ads, but after that everyone took shots at both Patrick and Healey. I think Patrick did well and Healey did okay (well, that's if you ignore her horrible, out of touch positions) and there really weren't any winners - which means Deval won.

By the way, don't we all love the spin? I'm watching NECN's wrap up and Kerry Healey's surrogate was talking about how "a lot of people" just loved Kerry's negative ads. Note to surrogate: no one in that room did.

PS: Andrea Cabral has a future; anyone else find her relatively eloquent and very well spoken?

Update:

Mike Barnacle: "I think Kerry Healey's frightening." He also thinks she'll lose by 10-15 points and isn't "used to speaking out of turn" because she's Mitt Romney's lapdog. Considering Mike Barnacle isn't exactly what I'd describe as a liberal (look at who's shows he's filled in for), I think that's a pretty strong rebuke.

Hold Kerry Healey Accountable!

Regardless of whether or not Kerry Healey fed the Herald the Deval sister rape story, her administration is at fault and needs to be held accountable. Joan Vennochi, as usual, lays out a clear case showing just why Kerry Healey is - at least in part - responsible for getting Deval Patrick's family involved in this election.

Under Massachusetts law, the letter Sigh received is the first step in a confidential process that includes a hearing. That is followed by classification as a Level 1, 2, or 3 sex offender. A high-risk offender gets a Level 3 status; a person at low risk of committing a sex crime would be a Level 1. The law governing release of sex offender registration information states that the public has a right to information ``only if the offender is a sex offender who has been finally classified by the board as a level 2 or level 3 sex offender."

The seven-member Sex Offender Registry Board, like all such entities, is stacked with political appointees....

Board members, who get paid at least $75,000 a year, have the awesome power to determine the future of more than 15,000 convicted sex offenders listed in the registry. This board has come under fire in the past for not doing its job when it comes to identifying thousands of serious sexual predators.

But when the case involved the brother-in-law of the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, the Romney-Healey administration was quick to notify Sigh that he must register. It also made sure this embarrassing family matter got full public disclosure -- before a hearing or official classification as a Level 2 or 3 sex offender.

A recent Healey political ad criticizing Patrick's past criminal defense work asked: ``While lawyers have a right to defend admitted cop killers, do we really want one as our governor?"

Here's my question: Do we really want a governor who hails from an administration capable of trampling the law?

Here's a shocking bit too. Kerry Healey claims she had nothing to do with this whole story - right? Well, turns out.... not so much. Here's what her campaign said (emphasis mine),

We had absolutely nothing to do with the Herald's description of this information.

Pardon me if I remain unconvinced. Apparently, while Kerry Healey questions whether or not Deval Patrick should either be ashamed or governor, Kerry Healey's administration ought to be investigated instead of reelected.

I Stole Kerry Healey's Next Ad!!

Thanks to the tireless efforts of my shadowy campaign research team, working through the night and mastering all the techniques of espionage from the greatest veterans of Mossad, I've gotten my hands on Kerry Healey's next campaign ad. Let me just tell you, it's a shocker!!

You Should Be Ashamed, Kerry Healey

Kerry Healey's newest ad is also her worst. Not able to 'dig up' any new lies and distortions, she's sticking to the Ben LaGuer meme. The ad can be found here and everyone should watch it. We need to watch it so we burn Kerry Healey's image and record in our head. Never again, Kerry Healey, will Massachusetts elect a candidate who employs these tactics. They don't serve to elect a noble government, but one that will cheat and steal as it has during its campaign to actually get in office. Sometimes how you get there is important as what you do when you're there, because how you get there expresses exactly what you're willing to do once in office.

Citizens of Massachusetts have to ask themselves this question: Is Kerry Healey what we want in a politician? Do we want to elect someone who refuses to discuss the issues and instead spends millions upon millions trying to demean her opponents? Do we want a candidate who is willing to engage in open and honest discourse, or one who distorts the truth and plays by the gutter?

At the end of Kerry Healey's ad, she says of Deval Patrick, "He should be ashamed, not Governor."

No, Kerry Healey, you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed, not Governor. You should be ashamed, not Lt. Governor. You should be ashamed, not a Congresswoman, Town Selectmen or member of the Board of Education. You should be ashamed and driven out of government for good.

You should be ashamed at the politics you've been willing to resort to, rejecting time and time again new chances to engage in honest discourse. You should be ashamed at going way beyond the boundaries of taste and class. Most of all, you should be ashamed for proving to all of Massachusetts just how unworthy you are to sit in the Corner Office. The damage was self-inflicted and digging yourself deeper with new ads even worse than the ones that came before it will inspire no one: for shame, Kerry Healey, for shame.

Going on the Channel 95's "The Rational Individualist"

I told you all that I'd be making some appearances to discuss politics. One of those appearances is sitting down to chat about some broad political concepts on Channel 95's The Rational Individualist, hosted by Stephen Grossman.

The show is being taped tonight, to be aired the following week. Here's the schedual,

Fairhaven/Acushnet

Tuesday, October 24th at 8:30pm
Thursday, October, 26th at 6:30pm
Friday, October 27th, 10:30am

New Bedford
Friday, October 27th at 7pm

It should be an interesting dialogue and I'm looking forwad to it.

Healey Outclassed by Murray; I'm Sensing Another Healey Flip Flop

I was watching some NECN videos on the political race (they've got some great reporting, btw) and I watched this hilarious one on how Kerry Healey was talking about gun control and said, "I'm going to welcome this debate on crime - any time Tim Murray or Deval Patrick wants to bring it to me."

Tim Murray was standing about five feet away, behind the reporters. Whoops!

Tim Murray wanted Kerry Healey to release her GOAL questionnaire, which is a gun group only slightly less crazy than the NRA. Healey said she wouldn't "weaken" any laws in Massachusetts, "I think the laws that are here in Massachusetts that are some of the toughest in the country are just right and I'm not going to weaken those laws in anyway."

Except, well, I guess that's a matter of opinion. Why? Because she's now calling to strip police chiefs of their rights to grant gun permits. Funny how this comes out right after the GOAL questionnaires. While I'm not against state-wide standards, it seems odd to take away local control over an issue where the Chief of a local town just may have a better idea if someone who wants a gun represents a threat as opposed to a "sportsman."

Some random comments on the event: this is exactly the sort of thing a person running for Lt. Governor should do. Murray created a lot of buzz with this event, despite the fact that he's supposed to be the also-ran. He severely embarrassed Kerry Healey, who could barely stand toe-to-toe with her opponent's running mate. Imagine how strong Deval Patrick's position is when he can send Tim Murray to tackle Kerry Healey and expect a Murray coup. Brian McGrory is right, Kerry Healey should just be happy she got this far.

Vote Yes on One

If I read another blog about how we need to protect the "Mom and Pop" liquor stores, I think I may just have to barf. There's so many things wrong with voting against 1 that I don't even know how to contain myself, so I'm not going to try. Everyone who's determined to vote no on 1 needs to take a deep breath and gain a firm grasp on reality.

Let's get first things first, liquor stores are not "Mom and Pop" stores. A "Mom and Pop" store is the family restaurant passed down generation after generation, Dad's TV Repair shop struggling to pay the rent and Uncle Jim's Tailor Shoppe where you can 'bring your new suit to get fitted for a fair price.' A Mom and Pop store is the neighborhood mechanic - the one who won't tell you to get new breaks when all you really need is a tune-up. It's the business who's owners actually live in the community.

People are so quick to attach the romantic allure of the Mom and Pop stores to any local enterprise, when sometimes what they need to do is take a step back and reassess the situation. Mom and Pops are often struggling and do deserve some forms of protection, but the liquor industry is by no means a Mom and Pop. They by no means need financial help, either. Let us also not forget that this is the same industry that sells alcohol to minors en masse; it's the same industry that sells to people who have a tendency to drive with reckless abandon. Uncle Jimmy's Boozetown just doesn't pass the "Mom and Pop" sniff test.

I'm not trying to suggest we go back to the days of prohibition, but to suggest liquor stores deserve special protection from competition is ridiculous. Think about it - do we protect florists? Do we protect the town bank? Do we protect the local video store, bakery or fruit market? How about the local deli? Butcher? Convenient store? Pharmacy? Last time I went to the supermarket, there was a florist, bank, 24 hour ATM, DVD machine, pharmacy, full-service bakery and all the fruit anyone could hope to buy. There's also books, magazines, make-up, pots and pans and all sorts of other non-edible items. Heck, my supermarket of choice is open 24 hours a day, Monday through Friday, and you can buy cheap gas right in the parking lot.

Again, people need to take a step back and take one serious dose of reality. Here's some reality: my friend and fellow thespian, who I've worked with on two separate occasions, lost his father last December. His Dad just happened to own the family florist shop, handed down from generation to generation. It's one of the oldest businesses in all of New Bedford - and one of just two or three florists in a huge city. My friend constantly complained of his conundrum - he has a degree in Theater from UMASS Amherst and wants to pursue his dreams. However, he knows his grandmother would "haunt him forever" if he gave up on the business. One day I asked, "why don't you just hire another hand then?" He couldn't afford to, the business was just barely staying afloat as is - and it didn't seem to be from a lack of costumers.

Meanwhile, here's another story: my much older brother's best friend in High School had parents who owned a small, hole-in-the-wall liquor store in Lynn. The business is small in square footage, in an economically depressed area and has lots of local competition. Yet, his friend lived in the most exclusive area of Lynnfield, one of the most exclusive towns in the state. They drove Lincolns and had a grand atrium when you walked into their house that was quite eye-opening for a little kid. Are people really proposing that my brother's friend deserved special protection, the florist shop be damned? Is liquor really where people have come together to collectively say, "this far, no futher?"

People are mounting campaigns to protect the liquor industry, and for what? They don't like the grocery lobby? Well, it's not as if the liquor stores in Massachusetts haven't raised millions - easily. And it's not as if the liquor lobby is one that deserves the common progressive's support. However, let's look at this question rationally: will the passage of Question 1 lead to the destruction of an entire industry? Liquor stores exist all around the country, despite the fact that most states allow the sale of wine (and beer) at grocery stores. I lived right outside of Washington D.C., in Alexandria, for several months slightly over a year ago. There were plenty of packies, despite the grocery stores being chalk filled with beer and wine. Liquor stores aren't going to go away anymore than banks.

If people are so worried about capitalism run amok, focus on real solutions. The problem isn't grocery stores selling wine, it's grocery stores paying their employees in nickels and dimes, while relying on the Government to pick up the healthcare tab. Banning wine from grocery stores seems so out of scope in addressing the problems of today that I can't even believe this is up for debate. It all boils down to this: if someone wants to buy a bottle of Merlot at Shaw's, that's their own damn perogative.

Wolf Blitzer and Mitt Romney on NOW!

It's hilarious watching Mitt Romney trying to justify an amendment to ban gay marriage. Is it just me or do wingnuts completely lose it when they actually try to explain their positions? I can't see how explaining their position would even help people who oppose gay marriage; people who oppose it can't even stomach that sort of twisted rationalization. The only thing it can possibly accomplish is making people on the fence become pro-equality and people who opposed equality start to question their beliefs.

Keep on talking, Mitt.

Memo to Kerry Healey: Tim Murray Actually HAS a Law Degree

This just makes me laugh. Kerry "I have a PHd in Criminology" Healey actually has the audacity to criticize Tim Murray for needing to take the Bar Exam more than once. At least he actually took the Bar Exam, which is far more than Kerry Healey can say! It's officially the first time I've ever witnessed someone who doesn't have a law degree criticize someone who does because that person essentially didn't get an A.

This falls in line with everything Deval Patrick has said about Kerry Healey: distraction, distraction, distraction. Despite being a "criminologist," Kerry Healey has a terrible record in crime and has done nothing significant to contribute to the field. Then she goes attacking people who actually have contributed, unlike her.

The sad thing is Kerry Healey doesn't have to resort to this sort of crap - and let's all be honest, it's complete and utter crap. Kerry Healey has a perfectly able former Chief of the State Police who she could have used to engage the populace in a meaningful, positive way. She could have designated him the point man on crime for her administration and said "as a leader, I have to admit when policies have failed. It's time for a new strategy to combat violent crime and I want one of this state's chief experts in crime to help me out, my running mate Reed Hillman." It would have been brilliant and - more importantly - worked!

Instead, it's just more negative attacks to distract voters from what's really going on. Like I said, it didn't have to be this way. However, Kerry Healey has run a truly inept campaign. She's a real novice. Instead of trying to build up reasons for people to vote for her, she's depended on tearing her opponents down - and it just hasn't stuck coming from her and directed towards Deval. When Deval's record speaks for itself and Kerry Healey doesn't have much of a record at all, she was crazy to think this strategy of her's would ever work, at least in Massachusetts.

Haha: Mitt Romney got Beat up by a Girl!

Margery Eagen had as much fun today pointing out Mitt's hypocrisy as anyone in the Massachusetts lefty blogosphere. Just look at her go,

OK, Mr. Romney. But if gay couples' children - so minuscule a number the government has no definitive stats yet - are in terrible danger, what of the children of the divorced and never married? What frightening perils do they face?

And if Romney is really so disturbed about children's plight shouldn't he first protect the millions and millions produced by 100 percent heterosexuals? I mean, wouldn't that make more sense?

Why, yes, it would Margery. Margery's beating continues,

What's even more enraging about Romney's transparent let's-use-the-kids-as-pawns ploy? Mitt's on his supposed high moral horse just days after the Security and Exchange Commission raised questions about his administration's possible lying about safety checks in the Big Dig Tunnels.

Gay marriage hasn't yet killed anybody, has it?

However, none of this is as good as what Margery ultimately uses her column for: pointing out how little Mitt Romney cares about either Kerry Healey or the Republican Party of Massachusetts.

This sort of thing surely fuels notions that Romney wants Kerry Healey to lose. How do you suppose all this played with on-the-fence independent voters in Springfield, Worcester or anyplace else? Romney's hardly been home for months. Did he have to come home just to bad-mouth his own state - on Tremont Street, within inches of the Freedom Trail?

I would like to point out that Margery Eagen is only partly right. It's not that Mitt Romney wants Kerry Healey to lose, it's that Mitt Romney probably doesn't give a crap about what happens to Kerry Healey. Mitt Romney cares about one thing and one thing only: becoming President. If he cared one iota about the people of Massachusetts, he'd be making his case right now trying to beat Deval Patrick, but he's not.

My question for Republicans: would you really support someone like Mitt Romney for President? There isn't a bigger political hack gunning for the Oval Office - nor is there anyone who could care less about Republicans who could badly use his help and support. Mitt Romney once wished to help expand the Republican Party in Massachusetts. He really did field some candidates and provided them with at least some support. Yet, his meager attempts failed miserably - Republicans actually lost seats.

However, that doesn't mean a fully dedicated Governor couldn't have increased Republican rank and file here in Massachusetts in '06. Imagine if Romney had been going town to town, stumping for Republicans running for this upcoming race in November - instead of running for President two years before that election. Not only would some Republicans have won who otherwise wouldn't have, but Mitt Romney would be seen by all as trying to rebuild the state. He'd actually be here, working for Massachusetts. He'd actually earn (and deserve) respect by people across the state. Heck, he may have even had a shot at reelection.

Instead, Mitt Romney doesn't even care about his own supposed partner in this administration. Where's the party loyalty? Republicans from across the country would be wise to read Margery Eagen's column and decide for themselves if that's the kind of guy they'd want leading the USA.

Videos From the Clinton Event

I wish I could have been there, but luckily the Globe has posted a short video of the event. There's also some videos that compare and contrast Patrick and Clinton's penchant for fantastic speaches, but I think they're both somewhat different in their delivery. Clinton's biggest asset, in my opinion, is his ability to really get a crowd going - if need be - or to tame it down and get everyone listening, turning a political rock concert into a Bruce Springstein-like event where no sound can be heard other than the Boss, or in this case the last Boss (D) we've had in a long, long time.

Making Some Appearances

In the heat of the election season, I'm making some appearances to discuss issues around the state and figured I'd let readers know ahead of time. It's always fun to write blogs, but it's more fun to actually get to meet people and participate in different venues and settings. Best of all, I love being forced to defend positions and listen to people with other perspectives.

On this coming Wednesday I'm popping on Channel 95's "the Rational Individualist," which airs in Fairhaven, Acushnet, and New Bedford, but will be broadcast later. The show will be about politics, but much more so on broad ideas as opposed to really detailed issues - which is radically different than my site. It'll be an opportunity for me to discuss political concepts that are always on my mind, but don't necessarily fit in the context of this blog (which has become, almost exclusively, about state politics). I'm especially excited to talk about the greater progressive movement and why, after decades of failures, it's finally becoming the political force it could have always been.

The following Wednesday, on the 25th, I've agreed to do a forum at the UMASS Dartmouth Library, on the behalf of the College Dems. Joining me will be several other groups to discuss electoral politics in Massachusetts for this upcoming race. There's going to be all sorts of people on the panel, so it could be explosive. I'm looking forward to it. I'll give more information as I have it (I just agreed to do this tonight!).

Lastly (so far, anyway), on Friday the 27th, I'll be doing a panel discussion that will be podcasted and put on TV in the Worcester area. Several Massachusetts bloggers and campaign representatives will be there, including folks from BlueMassGroup and maybe others like Sco and Mike from MassMarrier. With the friendly folks at Saint Kermit hosting the event, it should be a great time and an even better (and more informative) discussion. The last election podcast I did with them went very well, technical glitches aside, and I expect this coming one to be even better, especially since we'll be doing this in person! Plus, I almost never make it out to the Worcester area and I've been hearing so much about how the city is progressing nicely - and I'm excited to see it!

So hopefully I'll get a chance to meet some readers - say hello! If anyone is interested in coming to these events, or wants to watch them when they're available, let me know and I'm sure I can get you any information and directions needed.

Speaking of Scotto

Not only is he hilarious, but he just about wrote a small novella to trash a guy who just died. That's real classy, Scotto, real classy. What was that again, Scotto, I am the big meany for making a satirical video of Kerry Healey? Like I said yesterday, Scotto, hypocrisy much?

Update: Let's all laugh together at Scotto's Wikipedia, especially at this gem:

Miller is for the most part, a fair and balanced talk show host with a deeply developed thought process and a slight chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.

Um... I wouldn't quite call his show's content exactly "fair and balanced," but that never stopped O'Reilly. What is it with screaming wingnuts and trying to pretend they're fair and balanced? They aren't, no more than I am, though at least I try to be somewhat fair (for example, not only did I criticize Deval Patrick for not stepping down from Ameriquest, I haven't touched Kerry Healey's husband on this website, while Team Kerry Healey And Friends dragged Deval Patrick's sister into this). And a "deeply developed thought process?" I rest my case. I wish these asshats had the guts to stand up and tell the world who they really are. They talk tough, but they're a bunch of lame chicken-hawks and patience is wearing thin: 22 days and counting till they're all swept out of power in Massachusetts. Hooray!

I Laugh at "Scotto"

Scotto, some talk radio guy I've only heard of in passing, is apparently uncomfortable with little 'ol bloggers like me. He apparently isn't having enough fun distorting truth and spewing filth on the airwaves, so he has a blog. Just yesterday, he used it to attack me.

Patrick is stone silent about the depths that his supporters stoop to attack Kerry Healey on a personal level on the Internet.

Hmm... I guess someone is getting nervous that The Friends of Kerry Healey's latest is backfiring like nobody's business. Well, get used to it Scotto. The days of politics of fear, doom and gloom are numbered - 23 days, to be exact. There are 23 days until Deval Patrick is elected Governor of Massachusetts; Beacon Hill is about to get a breathe of fresh air. Scotto's ratings will probably plummet.

But enough about Scotto's nightmares. Let's talk more about me.

Scotto's big problem with my Youtube video is probably that it's funny and somewhat effective, so he decided to make up crap instead. Now that Scott's seen it, my video's "thesis seems to be that Republicans are, by definition, honorary members of the KKK" (Scotto's words). Umm... no, Scotto. It's called satire. Satire is what people would think your radio show probably is if you weren't so friggin crazy and close-minded. The only difference that separates your blog from what my video expressed is the fact that I intentionally tried to be funny; everyone who laughs at your blogs aren't exactly laughing with you.

So, Scotto, lighten up. I made a funny video about Kerry Healey - other people dredged up Deval's sister's rape and threw it on the pages of the Boston Herald for all to see (including Deval's nieces and nephews, who knew nothing of the incident before). My video was harmless, somewhat funny and had an off-handed point (I was about to use the word enthymeme, but I'm not sure Scotto would know what that means). The Boston Herald's article, which was published solely because of some dirty political op - 'the politics of Kerry Healey' (Deval's words) - did serious damage to a family that has recovered over the past 13 years and had nothing to do with the campaign.

So... to sum this up in a way even Scotto can probably understand, my video made lots of people laugh. Team Kerry Healey's attacks probably made Deval's sister, nieces and nephews cry. My video was hilarious, Kerry Healey's campaign is nasty. I've been satirical, Team Kerry Healey has been deceitful, mean-spirited and is trying to drive the campaign away from issues that matter via her negative attacks (that don't even work). I would never, ever intentionally hurt anyone - or attack a candidate's family (hence my silence on Kerry Healey's husband). Kerry Healey's campaign is based on attacking others.

My website has always been a mix of politics and political humor; for Scotto to take my humor so seriously makes me laugh.

PS: I love how Scotto finished the blog in question by doing the exact same thing he criticized me for... posting a youtube video, but this time attacking Deval Patrick. Hey, Scotto, hypocrisy much?

Herald: Sleazy and Distorting Facts

Well, I got riled up yesterday. Today? Not much better. It's funny that the Herald would print Deval's "accusations" against Kerry Healey as a story, when the newspaper itself was the cause of the story to begin with. The Herald knows exactly how it's disgraceful piece came about, yet didn't even mention that fact. It would be one thing if they wanted to protect their (gutter) source and said that in the story, but to not even do that betrays a reader's trust: they aren't fully disclosing their role in the story.

There's a little more about the story that's come out over the past few days. It seems the Globe has revealed - reluctantly or not - it's role in the story. The Globe received an "anonymous" (as they call it) letter about how Deval's brother-in-law raped his sister. The Globe did some fact checking, which included calling the state's Office of Public Safety. Thus, the Globe actually contributed to the Herald's ridiculous front-page article. The Globe ultimately decided to not print the story because it wasn't newsworthy. However, the fact that they were doing research on it illustrates the fact that they were seriously considering printing this smut - which has absolutely nothing to do with the campaign and should a private matter between Deval's sister and her husband.

Here's my take: The Herald should be ashamed. Not only was their first article outrageous, but today's update completely distorted what Deval Patrick said. He didn't accuse Kerry Healey of the ad (though I will), he accused Kerry Healey's brand of politics.

More importantly, the letter sent to the Globe, which prompted this whole mess, clearly came from someone either directly in the Healey camp or closely allied to them - it's right in line with every other thing she's done on this campaign. If the shoe fits...

Furthermore, I have a second grievance: when has the media decided to cease reporting the story and become the story instead? It's a phenomenon sweeping across the country on the national scene; however, one would hope our local media wouldn't be so self-absorbed. Note to the local media - do your jobs.

Lastly, I'll be at the rally in the Commons tommorow, via the T. Hope to see some of you there!

Herald: Sleazy and Distorting Readers

Well, I got riled up yesterday. Today? Not much better. It's funny that the Herald would print Deval's "accusations" against Kerry Healey as a story, when the newspaper itself was the cause of the story to begin with. The Herald knows exactly how it's disgraceful piece came about, yet didn't even mention that fact. It would be one thing if they wanted to protect their (gutter) source and said that in the story, but to not even do that betrays a reader's trust: they aren't fully disclosing their role in the story.

There's a little more about the story that's come out over the past few days. It seems the Globe has revealed - reluctantly or not - it's role in the story. The Globe received an "anonymous" (as they call it) letter about how Deval's brother-in-law raped his sister. The Globe did some fact checking, which included calling the state's Office of Public Safety. Thus, the Globe actually contributed to the Herald's ridiculous front-page article. The Globe ultimately decided to not print the story because it wasn't newsworthy. However, the fact that they were doing research on it illustrates the fact that they were seriously considering printing this smut - which has absolutely nothing to do with the campaign and should a private matter between Deval's sister and her husband.

Here's my take: This letter, which prompted this whole mess, clearly came from someone either directly in the Healey camp or closely allied to them - it's right in line with every other thing she's done on this campaign. If the shoe fits...

Furthermore, I have a second grievance: when has the media decided to cease reporting the story and become the story instead? It's a phenomenon sweeping across the country on the national scene; however, one would hope our local media wouldn't be so self-absorbed. Note to the local media - do your jobs.

Lastly, I'll be at the rally in the Commons tommorow, via the T. Hope to see some of you there!

Kerry Healey Went Too Far

Deval Patrick just put up a public comment on today's Boston Herald story. I chose not to write about the story before because, quite frankly, I was appalled they'd go there to begin with. It's one of those "have you no decency" moments that extends beyond the Herald's typical tabloid faux news into the classless and indecent. It turned the Herald front-page into something akin to a Howie Carr column. How was it even newsworthy? Deval Patrick's sister was raped, over a decade ago, by her very own husband. What does that have to do with this election? How does that better inform voters? It doesn't - which is precisely why it extends beyond news and becomes classless. So, today, the Herald ceased to be a newspaper and became Kerry Healey's free vehicle of attack against Deval Patrick.

For the past few days, I've been having fun by poking at Kerry Healey. She's trying to run a campaign that's as negative as possible, but it just isn't working. Normally, after the MSM starts tearing her a new one, I'd have some pity for Kerry Healey. At one point, during the primary, I ceased to dislike Tom Reilly and just felt bad for him. Kerry Healey doesn't deserve that; she won't get my pity. Instead, I'll watch with fiendish glee as she gets crushed by Deval Patrick in November.

However, at times it isn't going to be pretty. Kerry Healey has seen the poll numbers. She knows that her negative ads, while they seemingly improved her position somewhat, have driven a lot of people away from her. When you're already tremendously disliked, it's dangerous to go negative: you just feed into the position you've put yourself in.

It's Kerry Healey's own damn fault she's going to lose this race - and lose it big. Yet, she'll do anything - anything - to get at Deval Patrick. Well, she'll do anything except what she should have: staked out issues early on and run an informative, tough campaign. She needed something more substantive than cutting income taxes, which clearly didn't help her. Failing to do that, she turned to Rovian tactics. However, Karl Rove's tricks are anathema to Massachusetts voters. That barrel of tricks just doesn't work here, but she learned that too late to actually do anything about it.

Now, her Rovian tactics are all she has. She can't run a positive campaign at this point because people would know she's full of it; they've seen the venim she spews. You can't pretend to be a kitty when you already unleashed the tiger. It's too late to change tactics, so she has the choice of either giving up or employing a stay-the-course approach. She'll stay the course and try to ratchet it up a notch, but she'll fail. In the meantime, while she tries to fire up the electorate, she's really only be firing up Deval's people-powered army to come and drown out her flames in November.

Finally, I leave you all with an excerpt from Deval's message, emphasis mine:

I got into this race with no illusions. In a world where negative campaigns are commonplace, I expected to have my own accomplishments trivialized, my own judgments questioned, my life choices challenged. I haven’t always liked it, but I knew it was a price I would have to pay to be an agent of change -- not just in our policies, but in our politics.

And I took the time to prepare my family for what I thought would be coming. My sister and her husband went through a difficult time, and through hard work and prayer, they repaired their relationship and their lives. Now they and their children -- who knew nothing of this -- have had their family history laid out on the pages of a newspaper. Why? For no other reason than that they had the bad luck to have a relative who is running for governor. It’s pathetic and it’s wrong. By no rules of common decency should their private struggles become a public issue. But this is the politics of Kerry Healey. It disgusts me. And it must be stopped.

Kerry Healey has never offered a single reason why she should be governor that doesn’t depend on tearing me down. She has no vision, no plan, no positive agenda, and no leadership experience. Her record on jobs and the economy, on health care, on higher education, on crime has been one of shortcuts, gimmicks and failure. And so rather than deal with that, she has done everything she can to change the subject.

Update: Before I get any comments that say, "but it was the Herald that printed the story, not Kerry," let's see if she denounces it. Until then, this is all part of the dying right-wing propaganda machine. When you want to smear someone and get away with it, you dial up the Boston Herald.

2nd Update: The Globe knew about this story since last Friday, yet is trying to cover up that fact (read the comments). So far, the Globe has refused to confirm or deny whether or not Kerry Healey's forces were behind this most recent smear tactic. My guess is Kerry Healey is about as far removed from whoever is peddling this crap as the Bush administration was from the Swift Boaters (which is to say, barely removed at all). Deval Patrick is right: It's time we stop allowing politics to become games of cynicism and start ensuring government becomes a tool for good once again.

Hey Scot, Why Can Higher Ed Reform Wait?

So, let me get this straight, fixing computers is more important than the more than 100,000 students enrolled in Massachusetts public colleges and universities?

On this one, the speaker is right: The higher-ed bill, though important, can wait until next year.

Um... it can wait until next year? Scot, if there's going to be some tuition relief in this higher ed bill (or lowering of class sizes, etc.), it can't wait. Reform is needed now before the concrete at UMASS Dartmouth falls in on itself. Heck, just look at Group 6, that place is a building just waiting to implode.

Lehigh thinks that it's a swell idea to have a special session to fix the IT bill. That's fine and dandy, but Senator Trav is playing political hard ball: he says he'll only have the Senate come back if the Speaker of the House also takes up the Higher Ed bill. The House has had ample time to take up this massively important bill - the fact that they haven't sends Finneran-esque chills through my spine. Lehigh is wrong; the Legislature doesn't need marriage councilors, it needs someone tough to make sure the legislatures are prodded in the right direction. It needs Deval Patrick, but for now Senator Trav seems up to the challenge. Let's hope Speaker DiMasi gets off his buttinsky and actually does something to help some of the people who need it most in this state.

The Globe: Kerry Healy Strikes Back!

It was a long time ago, in a galaxy far away...

... that NARAL supported anyone other than a Democrat

... .... ...... ...... Kerry Healey whines.

Note to Kerry Healey: In New England alone, NARAL has endorsed both Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee. Coincidentally, neither Lieberman nor Chafee are Democrats - which means only one of the three people to get NARAL endorsements running for Senate in New England is a Democrat (I'm assuming Ted got the NARAL endorsement).

Furthermore, Reed Hillman had the audacity to attack union support of Deval Patrick.

Are we supposed to act surprised when Deval gets the endorsement of the Massachusetts Teachers Association...

No, not surprised - but maybe just a little ashamed? However, that doesn't mean there weren't any surprise endorsements: the Springfield Police Union endorsed a Democrat for the first time in decades. Apparently, they're not so hot on Kerry "I have a Ph.D in crime!" Healey. To Reed Hillman, the former State Police Chief, that should have been both shocking and shameful.

(Note to readers: I hope you're enjoying my Kerry Healey cliches as much as I am. It is nearing Halloween, so 'tis the season to get naughty and have Kerry Healey costume parties blogs.)

A Herald Editorial I Agree With!!

Who would have ever thought?

Beyond the negative campaign ads (Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey’s) and the negative ad about the negative ads (Deval Patrick’s), there are two incredibly smart, thoughtful candidates who presented themselves yesterday before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.

If only all voters could get to see these two contenders for the Corner Office without the rancor and showmanship of debates as they presented their platforms for growth and economic development.

The Herald is referring to a candidate forum held yesterday in Boston. While I love debates, I also love candidate forums. Both allow people the opportunity to see how candidates stack up against each other at the same venue, but candidate forums are less about political sport and more about getting to the actual issues. They may not be as much fun to watch - and don't lend themselves well to campaigns where candidates just can't seem to get along - but I wouldn't mind one of these upcoming debates to be more like a live candidate forum and less like an actual debate.

Healey: a Liar and a Hypocrite

Why bother to tackle Deval on the issues when you can just make crap up?

A reader or two asked if Songer was really up for parole, as Kerry's ad explicitly states, or not. Well, here's the answer:

Songer remains in prison today and the Florida Parole Commission has repeatedly decided he will not be eligible for release until 2098. Clearly, the public is safe.

I can think we can all safely agree that - dead or alive (almost certainly the former) - Songer won't be a threat to anyone in 2098.

More damaging is the rest of the Boston Globe's editorialized smack-down.

Her most outrageous attack is the television ad that portrays Patrick as unworthy of the governorship because he assisted in the appeal of a man who murdered a police officer in 1973. Patrick, then working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was right to urge the Florida Supreme Court to reduce Carl Ray Songer's sentence to life imprisonment. As Florida's high court found, the trial judge did not consider mitigating circumstances when sentencing Songer to death. In death penalty cases, procedures must be flawless to ensure that this ultimate sanction is not applied capriciously.

But the Globe doesn't let up.

In the Benjamin LaGuer case, Healey seeks to portray Patrick as a coddler of a man convicted of rape in Leominster. But there were legitimate doubts about LaGuer's guilt, and Patrick acted properly by contributing $5,000 to get LaGuer a DNA test. Patrick says his advocacy stopped after LaGuer flunked the test.

For someone whose academic specialty is criminal justice, Healey's website offers sparse detail about her crime-fighting proposals.

Finally, I think it's safe to say that the Globe feels safer with Deval dealing with crime.

Patrick, in contrast, has unveiled a comprehensive public safety strategy, the centerpiece of which is the deployment of 1,000 extra police officers in high-crime areas, at a cost of $85 million. He would also improve post-release monitoring, redouble efforts to reduce the flow of guns illegally brought into the state, and improve coordination among federal, state, and local authorities.

In an interview with WBUR yesterday, Healey said: ``When people go downtown in a city, what they want to feel is safe." Recriminations about Songer or LaGuer won't contribute to that sense of security. More police and fewer guns will.

A Special Note on National Coming Out Day

Today, I'd like to make a special comment on just what Civil Rights mean. Frequently, people who attack Civil Rights try to one-up those they would persecute by saying they, themselves, are the one being persecuted. This sort of backward thinking leads to all sorts of crazy conclusions, but few more crazy than Mad Dad. "Mad Dad," as Mike from MassMarrier refers to David Pecker, is a father from Lexington who is championing his civil rights, as he would call it, because Lexington's school system had the audacity to allow teachers to read books that featured such terrible things as two people of the same sex holding hands. Many may remember Mr. Pecker for taking particular umbrage over a Lexington teacher's decision to read "King and King," in which a prince didn't want to marry a princess - and married another prince instead. Now, Pecker says his Civil Rights as a parent have been violated.

Such arguments are nonsense. Schools serve a number of purposes, but one of them is to encourage free thought, a broader understanding and the development of the mind. As such, teachers in early elementary grades frequently read wide selections of books to help their students understand such basic concepts as racial equality, fair treatment and cultural understanding. As students grow past reading about Cinderella, they graduate to such books as Pocahontus and Sacajaweya, learning about an important part of American history and broadening their understanding. They'll learn about Thanksgiving and how Native Americans helped some of the first colonists make it through their first years - then about the unfortunate aftermath and how our history isn't squeaky-clean.

This early childhood education has been crucial in reducing racism and other isms in this country. Through learning about important historical instances of various cultures living in America, children gain an appreciation for other people that their parents just may not have had. For example, it's hard to be racist against African Americans if - as a young child - you learned about the 54th Infantry during the Civil War, a unit comprised solely of African Americans who fought directly for their freedom in dangerous battles in the Civil War - despite the fact that many people back then didn't want the unit anywhere near the front lines.

In a similar way, books like King and King are important. Children learn that there are many different ways that people live - and not all of them are like their lives at home. When children aren't exposed to certain fundamental ideas in their early stages, awkward questions abound as they grow older. For example, a toddler may ask an awkward question the first time they see a minority - if they weren't exposed to the fact that not everyone looks and acts the same.

Of course, some would argue that parents should have the right to dictate what kids learn at school. However, those people are wrong. Parents have no more rights in dictating whether or not King and King should be read than what kind of math their kids should learn. The fact remains that it's not only in the interest of the children that books like King and King are read, but paramount in their development. Why? While most parents may not even be greatly exposed to gays and lesbians, the fact is that their children will be classmates of kids with gay parents. For the sake of those children, the sons and daughters of gay parents, it's crucial that some sort of understanding be adopted at an early age.

By not allowing books like King and King, the Civil Rights of gays and lesbians are violated. Not allowing children to understand those differences at a fairly young age is tantamount to encouraging the fact that they'll never learn it. If people are worried about seven year olds reading about two princes who fall in love, they'll be worried about their 10 year old. If they're worried about their 10 year old, they probably will be worried about their 13 year old. After all, parents are overprotective.

Suddenly, we have a student in High School who has never been introduced to the concept that there are gay parents and gay people in the world. That child is much more likely to be homophobic because it would be an entirely new idea to them, presented when he or she isn't a child anymore - and things aren't quite as innocent. Furthermore, not allowing books like King and King can make it much more harder for adolescents questioning their own sexuality as they grow older - if they've never been introduced to the concept and see that it's normal, their struggles will only be that much worse.

Now we get back to the meaning of Civil Rights. A few years ago I took a class on the Transatlantic Slave Trade. It was a pretty intensive, 300 level course - the first 300 level course I took. We learned about the slave trade in all its different aspects, from its origins in Africa to the differences between what slavery meant in North America versus South America. We learned just how many people were involved and just where they were involved. Over the course of the class, there were a lot of intense discussions as level headed people who thought they were completely open-minded had to deal with some extremely uncomfortable concepts.

One of those concepts was the differences between prejudice and racism. The discussion arose when someone talked about "reverse discrimination," and how many African Americans today are "racist against white people." Not so, the professor explained, because being racist implies "having power." So, while there may be African Americans who are prejudiced against white people, there's a distinction in their attitudes because they probably don't have the power to abuse the majority.

The same can be applied to the Lexington case. While Pecker may be screaming reverse discrimination, because he isn't allowed to single-handedly alter the entire school curriculum as he sees fit (which would be discrimination if he were allowed to do so), the truth is at best he can only claim that people are prejudiced against him. However, when his goal is to strip away important school curriculum that will benefit all students and their quest to have a broader understanding of the world, Lexington being defensive about the case isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's a downright miracle that the school system has had the cajones to stand up to an angry parent - and even be willing to go to court instead of bowing down. To have bowed down would have been to give Pecker power in his own prejudices, thus violating the Civil Rights of everyone else.

PS: This case is especially important today, on National Coming Out Day - and during Gay History Month. While having a "National Coming Out Day" is important - battles like Lexington vs. Pecker are even more important. By fostering understanding at young ages, one day there won't be a need for a National Coming Out Day because people won't feel any pressure to stay in the closet. Being gay to them would be just as natural as having blue eyes or red hair and, thus, the closet may never really exist for them at all - other than as an area to store their clothes. Until then, people like Mr. Pecker need to be bitterly rebuked: those kinds of people should be given no power or amplifier to make any glbt person feel shame for being who they are.

The Boston Globe in Action

Here's a case of "too much time on your hands."

I was checking out my website statistics today and looked over some of the search terms people used to find my site. One of them was a google search for "free them all Deval," which almost made me burst out laughing.

I finally did burst out laughing when I realized just who was behind the search: someone at the Boston Globe. Um.... someone please remind me, isn't there an election going on? Aren't reporters supposed to be.... oh, I don't know, covering it? I'm sorry, but searching for "free them all Deval" does not count. It's great to see the Boston Globe aspiring to be the Herald, while the Herald has actually broke several big stories this election season, but I'd like to see some more investigative research than funny slogans no one has used.

(BTW: I wouldn't have written this blog if it weren't for the fact that the person at the Globe used the same search term twice.)

Kerry Healey: I'll Get You, My Pretty

"And your little dog, too." In the spirit of October and Halloween, Kerry Healey is doing her best impression of the Wicked Witch of the West. She's showing the world she's a Republican and can pull off Karl Rove as good as anyone. Her's is not a story of pumpkin seeds and Trick or Treat candy, but of thick, green skin and ghoulish nightmares. After all, she had to work during high school and get financial aid and everything!

However, one starts to wonder just what part she is playing. Is she the Wicked Witch of the West as seen in the Wizard of Oz: Dorothy's merciless foe and villain extraordinaire? Or is she the Wicked Witch of the West as seen in Wicked, the Musical: Elpheba, a tragic figure who's life conspired against her? Is she pulling off nasty ads, or does she just seem ebil?

Truth be told, she's neither Witch nor Elpheba: she's lived a wonderful life, supported by an exceedingly wealthy husband. She lives in a mansion in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Massachusetts. Her money and her party activism made her a (forgettable) Lt. Governor of the Commonwealth, just a heartbeat away from being the Top Dog. Her life certainly hasn't conspired against her just because it's conspired against her candidacy.

For another dose of truth, while she's more Elpheba than Wicked Witch, she would rather be the merciless villain than any other role. Every time she tries to be Glinda the Good, reality gives way. She's neither Glinda nor the Wicked Witch, as her ads seem more desperate than effective. However, she's rolling with the punches and - effective or not - she's got the millions to keep them on the air. We'll see if throwing money at the populace works any better for her than it did Chris Gabrieli.

Well, Kerry Healey, I have a gift for you. In your quest to mimic the Wicked Witch of the West during this election season, I've casted you as the star: Elpheba. It's a role thousands would die for - and, yet again, it's just being given to you on a silver platter. Prepare to wow crowds across the state (and country, even!) with your tragically insignificant presence in the "No More Good Will I Do" phase of your campaign. Here you'll try to be viciously mean, yet can't even pull that off: you're no more nasty than you are nice. This is a part you were born for, Elphie Kerry, so break a leg.

Deval Patrick's Wikipedia: Abysmal

I just toured Deval Patrick's Wikipedia... and was stunned. What a piece of trash! I'm not saying that because I'm a Deval Patrick supporter; if Kerry Healey's section were that bad I'd be complaining too (maybe I'll even check out her page to see). I know Wiki can be dangerous because of its user input, but Deval's page was just abysmal - even for Wikipedia. Here are some of the problems:

• The "criticisms" section was laced with prejudiced reporting and failed to present almost any context (I added some tonight).
• There were almost no detailed issue positions, which is beyond belief. (Seriously, there was only information on Stem Cells, Cape Wind and the Death Penalty - and it was limited at that. What about k-12 education, health care, public colleges, housing, jobs, etc?)
• There's almost nothing on the campaign or its development; there's no information on current polls and little on campaign opponents.

I'd love to say, "no problem everyone, I'll fix it," but I just don't have that kind of time. I may go back and add some sort of policy views, but I don't want to go anywhere near the criticisms section again because I am biased. I added some badly needed context to it tonight and think I did a good job at remaining neutral, but I wasn't about to go and change language that desperately needs changing for neutrality's sake. If a few volunteers who can be neutral would work on that section, that would be great.

However, adding in more policy positions is really what needs the most help on the website - which is a job anyone can do, even the biased. It's important for people to know where Deval stands on the issues: quotes from his position papers, speeches and debates add a lot to that section. Furthermore, information about the campaign - such as polling information, some basic information on Deval's opponents to add context the election, information from the debates and the primary results would all be relevant information. If we all do our part, Deval's wikipedia page can be a goldmine of neutral information for voters across the state - and even the country.

Is This for or Against Kerry Healey?

You tell me. It clearly looks like it's against Kerry Healey, but it was seemingly made by "Dems for Healey." Maybe the name is a joke because, according to survey after survey, there really aren't any Dems for Healey. They're certainly a rare breed and, if this youtube is to be believed, rather confused.

Despite the fact that the video is a spoof on Star Wars, which is about as cliched as the ultimate cliche, the introduction is actually somewhat entertaining. It gets random and disorganized after that, but who am I to complain?

Update: Is Mitt Romney for or against Kerry Healey?

Romney is quoted in a good piece today in the Los Angeles Times as saying it would have been "a lot smarter to stay in Michigan" had he known he was going to be a GOP bigwig. (Read the full story here; an excerpt follows below.)

After a breakfast here for Iowa Republicans, Romney admitted in an interview that he would have been "a lot smarter to stay in Michigan" if he had foreseen his plunge into GOP politics.

With friends like that, does Kerry Healey really need enemies? Or pesky bloggers on her tail? Oh - and here's the weekly reminder for Mitt Romney: don't let the door hit you on your way out.