Galvin the Good 'ol Boy - and Liar

Well, it's official - Galvin didn't just miss the Medford debate by accident. In fact, it was completely on purpose. Kara, a member of Galvin's campaign team, stopped by BMG to inform everyone that there never was supposed to be a debate in the first place.

That's right, that was how she defended Galvin for "missing" the debate. Galvin would never conceivably participate in Democracy, why would a Secretary of State do something as trivial as that? It's only the most important aspect of their job.

But, take heart, Galvin's doing everything he can to suppress voter turnout, because the Good 'ol Boys - as Lynne likes to call them - don't like high voter turnout. It means machine politics can't automatically secure a victory. And Galvin is doing a great job as Secretary of State by not doing anything about ballot fraud, not addressing campaign finance law violations, not doing anything about voter irregularities and not complying with years-old national statutes in voting law.

Kara tries to say that Bonifaz was clearly lying about the Medford Secretary of State Debate. Well, Kara, why did Galvin say he got stuck in New Bedford if he wasn't supposed to be there in the first place? Was he supposed to be in Medford, or not? It seems like Secretary of State Bill Galvin is the one who got himself caught in a lie.

Sec. of State Bill Galvin Classy?

Remember how I said that Secretary of State Bill Galvin showed a lot of class in choosing to debate his primary opponent, John Bonifaz? Turns out, not so much. The venerable Cos, who's Bonifaz's campaign blogger, had a few questions he left in a comment on my blog last night. I think I'll let him do the asking,

So, I'm not quite sure what happened, but at the beginning of the Medford candidate forum, the moderator announced that "Secretary Galvin is stuck in New Bedford and will not be joining us". Bonifaz answered a bunch of questions, Galvin was not there.

I hope it was something unforeseen and unavoidable, and not a sign that Galvin didn't place a high priority on being there. I hope Galvin will be at the forum in Worcester tomorrow night, though I'm not sure if he accepted the invitation yet. And really, whatever the reason for Galvin's absence, it would look a lot better for him if he hadn't rejected plenty of other invitations to debate Bonifaz or appear at forum events with him throughout the year.

So, I'll give Secretary Galvin the benefit of the doubt - this time. His car got a flat tire or something; maybe a red light never went green. If not for the fact that I've actually lived in New Bedford before, I'd be less inclined to believe that something could have held him up. He has a chance to make up for it by going to Massachusetts's second largest city, Worcester, and debating Bonifaz there, lest I have to eat my words. If Galvin turns out to be just another politico who doesn't respect the institution of Democracy, I'll be sorely disappointed.

Update: Maybe Bill Galvin was too busy to debate his opponent because he had to tell the Globe that no one's going to turn out to vote on the 19th. If telling people that no one is going to vote isn't a sure-fire way to surpress voter turnout, I don't know what is. Good job Secretary Galvin!

Of Debates and Debacles, Rep. Lynch and Bill Galvin

M assachusetts is witnessing two different kind of politics tonight. On one corner, we have Secretary of State Bill Galvin and his challenger John Bonifaz fielding questions from a crowd so people can see how they stack up. This townhall forum style 'debate' will be aired in at least two fairly large Massachusetts cities. On the other corner, there's Representative Steven Lynch who has refused his challenger Phil Dunkelbarger a debate. Both Galvin and Lynch are incumbents who by all accounts should walk into an easy primary victory on September 19th, but only Lynch is too scared to hold a debate. Only Lynch is mocking democracy with his elitist attitude by being too high and mighty to field questions from a crowd.

Props to Galvin for giving Democracy its proper due and actually giving Bonifaz the chance to have a debate. Even though I'm supporting Bonifaz, Galvin has certainly showed a lot of class by submitting to a debate of any kind, one he could have ignored. In Lynch's case, no one should be shocked he'd refuse a simple exercise in Democracy - he's been ignoring his constituents for years.

Lynch is scared to take on Phil Dunkelbarger; Lynch knows it could be the type of event that would end his campaign. Lynch is wrong on the important issues, he knows 9th District voters would prefer Dunkelbarger to his war-mongering self. So Lynch is happy to let his constituents be ignorant about the primary, doing everything in his power to make that happen. After all, emulating Lieberman is all about getting poorly informed voters to the booth. If people know where each candidate stands on September 19th, Lynch will be unseated.

P hil Dunkelbarger knows that. Instead of trying to keep voters down, Dunkelbarger wants them infomed. That's why he's called on supporters to enlighten the 9th District. He's hoping for people to write about the Dunkelbarger phenomenon on their blogs, Kos diaries and hoping the attention will lead to a little netroots cash and buzz. I for one think that's a great idea. Write about the race, send letters to editors, tell your neighbors and coworkers, or even donate $10 bucks. Lets take back our state from people who don't represent our interests.

Speaking of netroots cash, look at the boatload Deval Patrick has raked in this month. Like some of the weather we've seen this summer, it was a record high. If we can get some of this cash to progressive candidates everywhere (like Dunkelbarger), we'll take back our government from K Street lobbyists, big oil and the religious right in no time.

Tough Choices: the LG Race

Last Thursday, I collected my lazy ass and went down to Town Hall to secure my absentee ballot. The clerk asked if I was ready to vote today and I said sure. If anyone is an educated voter, I am, so I thought it was going to be a quick process. It took me all of .3 seconds to vote for Deval Patrick, turns out my second choice took quite a bit longer.

Andrea Silbert
Tim Murray
Deborah Goldberg

Who the hell deserved my vote?

For months I've been primarily going back and forth between Deb and Andrea, but I've also liked Tim. I like Tim because he really does have a great record in Worcester. Mayor may just be a fancy title for City Councilor in his case, but his ideas and contributions have definitely been a part of the solution in Worcester. I see Worcester's progress as something that needs to be emulated in cities like Springfield, New Bedford, Fall River, Lynn and Lowell if Massachusetts is going to recover as a welcoming place for new job growth and fair housing costs for people of all classes. If Tim Murray could help precipitate that, he'd make an excellent choice for Lt. Governor.

Deborah Goldberg was the person I was ultimately leaning towards over the past month or so, mainly because I thought she'd be a great foil for Deval Patrick. He was the grassroots guy, she had lots of money. Give Deval some cash and it would go a long way. However, I realized he's raising money hand over foot, so he wouldn't need Deb Goldberg's money to get his message out. She also had some other qualities I liked about her: she'd balance the ticket with a female presence, she's sufficiently liberal on a lot of important issues, she's competent... but nothing really jumps out.

Now comes the fact that she doesn't support Cape Wind, while Timmeh thinks Mum's the word. The only LG candidate who openly supports Cape Wind is Andrea Silbert, but I didn't realize that until after I voted for Andrea. It seems like my vote has already been rewarded. Ultimately, Andrea Silbert earned my vote by displaying the best vision and showing the most confidence. Seeing her speak along with the other candidates, they all stand out as competent and worthy of office, but Andrea has a lot of the same qualities that makes Deval Patrick so inspiring. Andrea is a great speaker and is someone I'd have no problem with being Governor if anything tragic happened to Patrick. She has a good background, is inspiring broad support and raising a lot of money the right way.

Any of the candidates seem like a good choice, but Silbert is a great one. That's why I voted for her and I urge readers to do the same.

Further reading: For a different take, Mass Marrier likes Timmey.

[Note to readers: I like all of the choices for Lt. Governor, including Tim Murray. If I didn't like them, I wouldn't have said so to begin with. Let's not read meaning into nicknames that just isn't there.]

Some Things Work Both Ways

Like this:

(Note to readers: my words are in italics. Also, read this response I just wrote for something that isn't quite as juicy and snarkalicious.)

It’s sad when a seemingly nice and intelligent guy demonstrates truly uninformed and biased opinions on a regular basis, but unfortunately that is what my blogging peer Aaron at Mass Democracy has been reduced to. Aaron and I have been trading barbs back and forth for some time now over which candidate is best suited to represent the Democratic Party in the election for governor of Massachusetts this year. I have been... and continue to be a strong supporter of Deval Patrick. Aaron is equally vigilant in his support of one of Patrick's opponents, Tom Reilly.

Early in our blogging feud (note to readers - I never realized Aaron
considered this a fued... wierd, huh? Apparently politely disagreeing = fued to some people?), Aaron demonstrated some common sense and respectable points of view. Lately, however, he has gone so far off the deep end in his hatred for Deval Patrick that it is actually embarrassing to watch. It began with the revelation by Boston Globe reporter Joan Vennochi that several Reilly aides had e-mailed one another regarding Ray Rogers of Stop Killer Coke, an organization whose goal is to expose the crimes on humanity and the environment inflicted by the Coca-Cola Corporation, of which Mr. Patrick is a former legal counsel. Since then, the
wheels have come off of Aaron's blog.

When the Vennochi article hit the web, Aaron said he could give a rats ass about Killer Coke and the Swiftboating of candidates. Overall, his all-too-proud ignorance was astonishing, not even caring about whether or not a law was broken. He proclaimed that the Reilly campaign was "in some vague way" helping Ray Rogers without having any shred of evidence as to the level of the Killer Coke/Tom Reilly relationship. Furthermore, he didn't even ask Tom Reilly to publically condemn Ray Rogers for spreading baseless innuendo.

Well, people woke up to their morning papers, and guess what? The Boston Globe didn't give proper coverage to the story. Sure, the bloggers were up in arms, but most of them were never with Reilly to begin with. Average, working families across the state didn't have the opportunity to learn about what truly happened. What is grossly offensive is the superior attitude that emanates from Tom Reilly's supporters. You see, Aaron: when a superior-acting blogger goes and tells off someone for having a bias when they clearly have their own, it's not all that intelligent.

A few days later, when it became clear that the Reilly camp was still standing, Ryan posted a follow up attempting to make sure the story wasn't forgotten. He encouraged Mr. Reilly to inform his campaign staff to “Play by the rules.” Aaron snarkly notes that there's no official campaign rulebook and doesn't care about candidates spreading misinformation or using shady tactics - in fact, it's all par for the course and makes for a great system of Democracy! Unfortunately for Aaron, most of people disagree and it's a statistical fact that negative campaigning hurts a candidate's own image - often ending up hurting their own campaign.

It soon became clear that Vennochi’s Killer Coke story wasn’t causing shockwaves throughout the state, especially since there was a lack of follow-up and media coverage. Furthermore, his repeated contentions that illegal activity had taken place have gone nowhere. It's a difficult law to prove and apparently it only matters if it's illegal, the fact that it was shady only makes it campaign-genius and something we should be proud of and gloat about. Even Adam Reilly (no relation to Tom) of the Boston Phoenix, not the biggest Tom Reilly fan in the world, agrees.

“The Reilly campaign’s apparent coordination with Rogers isn’t necessarily problematic from a legal point of view,” Adam Reilly said in his Phoenix column from August 17.

Here we are a few weeks later, and the Reilly campaign is not only still standing, but a recent poll shows him in a statistical tie for first place. Another poll, released on the same day, show's him in dead last at 20%. Furthermore, every other poll from at least the last month show Reilly in last place. Which brings me to my next point. A few days ago, Ryan wrote a little beauty called ”Reilly surging to third.” In it he quoted an e-mail that was sent to Reilly supporters stating that it is an “Exciting time in the race for governor. And with four weeks until the Democratic primary, the Reilly campaign is right where we want to be.” Ryan then questioned why the campaign would want to be in “Third place?” Well Ryan, let’s try going over this once more. When a poll shows one candidate with 34%, and the other two tied for 30%, and the margin of error is 4.8%, that is a statistical tie. Well, Aaron, let's try going over this once more. When a poll shows a candidate with 20%, and the other two have a higher percentage of the electorate, the candidate with 20% is in third. Furthermore, that third-place candidate had been in third in all polls for over a month and I - as a responsible student of politics - prefer to see the results of a poll revealing extrordinarily different results repeated before I take it for fact. In the case of a poll the apparently unbiased Aaron ignores, the difference between the guy in front and the two guys behind him is MORE than the margin of error. Furthermore, with one exception, all other recent polls show Tom Reilly in third beyond the margin of error.

In Ryan's latest, he reiterates his contention that Mr. Reilly is not fit to be governor for having gone negative in his campaign for Attorney General in 1998 and for many other reasons Aaron completely ignores. At this point, I actually do feel bad for Aaron. He seems to think that politics is all knives and daggers, and anyone who tries to keep an upbeat, positive campaign deserves to lose because they aren't cuthroat assholes. Sorry Aaron, but I have higher standards and millions of other voters do too. Perhaps instead of validating what's shitty in our political system, you should be dignified and stand for change.

The sad irony to all of this is that Aaron, like so many of Tom Reilly's supporters, says Deval Patrick supporters are mean bullies when really Aaron has gone beyond what I've read, seen or heard from any Deval Patrick supporter. Perhaps supporters are accountable for their own actions and we shouldn't blame candidates for what their supporters do, at least when those supporters aren't strongly linked to the campaign. However, I assure you that Patrick himself is not getting all upset by people saying mean things about him - he wrong a lengthy response in an email to clear his falsely damaged name. He’s a big boy, and he can handle criticism, but won't timidly stand back from Swiftboaters. He knew the establishment would do anything - including using nasty campaign tactics, lies and cheating - when he entered this race, and he chose to enter it anyway to reform the way we do government and offer hope to voters who feel turned-off by the system.

And Aaron, in regards to this line from a recent post of mine: “(Reilly) is about to have an early retirement-and all his effort went to what? A second story apartment he doesn’t own?” Maybe you and Howie Carr could take a step back and realize that taking quotes way out of context is immature, immoral and wrong. Both Mr. Reilly and his wife have been in public service for virtually their entire careers, and have raised three daughters along the way and that had almost nothing to do with my post, but nice try. The point was that after losing an election when serving the public for a lengthy period of time and essentially getting a vote of no-confidence, it really stings. I wrote a blog about how I can relate to it and felt a lot of sympathy for Tom Reilly. Aaron chose to ignore all that and make up shit instead. Good job taking one right out of Karl Rove and Tom Reilly's handbook, I'm sure Mr. Reilly would be proud.

Leftyblog Blogwars? Let's All Call Each Other Out!!!

See, isn't it fun? Oh, wait, that's right. Most of us here aren't 10.

Maybe I should call out Lynne. What should I call her? A feminazi? A sleazy skank? I mean, it's all politics and anything goes, right Aaron? Why would anyone want to hold Democracy to higher standards? Lowest common denominators rue the day, so take that you skanky Lynnster!

I thought I went out of my way to be nice to Tom Reilly, especially after I've been critical as of late, but Aaron over at Mass Democracy wasn't too thrilled with my pity. His blog is a real barrel of laughs, often taking my words way out of context and basically doing everything Tom Reilly is accustom to. I wonder - Aaron - are you a member of Tom Reilly's campaign? Are you the person at Reilly HQ that visits my website on an almost daily basis? It doesn't really matter because, just like with Tom Reilly, it's never about ideas. It's a race to the bottom in an attempt to make others look foolish. Tom Reilly can't win on ideas and apparently neither can you.

Kudos, Aaron... good job leaving your dignity at the door. I've been many things on my blog, but I've never been unfair - at least when I was writing a serious post. For Aaron to chastise me about my bias seems a little... well... off. After all, it is MY BLOG. Whatever, it's a free country. All that matters is election day; if others don't want to run dignified campaigns, that's up to them. I, however, will always be about ideas - frequently critical, but never rude for the sake of being rude.

I Officially Feel Bad for Tom Reilly

This man is not fit to be Governor. Going negative early and often, with the help of cozy friends, is how he beat Lois Pines to become Attorney General - so one can question if he was ever fit to be our state's top lawyer to begin with. Not doing anything about Bechtel, Cardinal Law and the ballot fraud of thousands of registered voters (thinking they were getting beer and wine in Supermarkets, instead signing away the rights of gays and lesbians) has answered the question for us all. No, Tom Reilly never was a fit Attorney General. He's not cut out for the Corner Office. Hindsight really is 20-20, even if the glare is blinding for Tom Reilly.

The truth is I can relate to Tom. Tom Reilly was an easy bet, just like I thought I was at 16, in High School and running for Class President. I was a Class Officer for two years and really had my hands on the button during my Sophomore year since the defunct President couldn't even show up to the meetings. About four or five people ran for President for the Junior year, but I thought the clear choice was me: I had the experience and was already elected twice. It was going to be a blowout, I'd get more than half the votes... no one was going to come close.

I was wrong - and in hindsight it was pretty obvious. I may have been the defacto leader the year before, but we didn't do much and had little money in the bank. Heck, I may have even been held accountable. One competitor was probably the most well-liked person in the school, another was our Freshman year's President and that year's victor. It only seemed obvious I would be elected, but I wasn't the candidate I thought I was. I doubt I even finished second.

Come September's primary, I'd imagine Reilly's embarrassment will be a thousand fold. So I feel bad for Tom Reilly. That's right - his race has become pathetic and he deserves some real pity. During the whole Killer Coke thing, I despised him - and thought he deserved everything I sent flying his way.

But the truth is, that's all he had. He doesn't have the vision to be Governor and can't convince the populace that he's best for the job. All he has left is to convince voters that Gabs and Patrick can't be trusted, at best, or are a bunch of criminals at worst. All he has is nothing, at least against a very strong field.

He's reliving Ryan's life at 17, except he's trying to be governor of an entire state. So he's really reliving Joe Lieberman, just weeks later. Lieberman's reelection seemed obvious months ago, but in hindsight it's beyond obvious that he had no chance. The fact that he came within 4% is only because of his election day lies (saying Lamont hacked into his website), some last minute face-savingchanging- and a lot of help from the establishment. Reilly doesn't even have the Bay State establishment's full support now. Their support for Reilly is tepid and divided. Furthermore, his fundraising has tanked - just like his chances to win the office.

So from now on, I think I'm going to take it easy on Tom Reilly. What's happening to him has happened to me - so I know what it feels like and it doesn't feel good. Since he won't be Attorney General, he's about to enjoy have an early retirement - and all his effort went to what? A second story apartment he doesn't own? My point is, it's not going to feel good. A life of public service being rewarded with a vote of no confidence is a sting that really hurts - and there's no way he could have known that months ago. I don't doubt for a second that he had genuine plans to help the state and is probably a decent human being, but he's not fit for Governor and his opponents are clearly better equipped to handle the job. Elections are ruthless and losing doesn't feel good, but sadly it's best for the State of Massachusetts.

Reilly Surging to Third!

Breaking news from the Tom Reilly campaign...

It's an exciting time in the race for Governor. And with four weeks until the Democratic primary, the Reilly campaign is right where we want to be...

In last place?

A new WBZ-TV poll shows what we've known for a long time, that Tom Reilly is the only candidate who is moving in the right direction.

Moving down in the polls "for a long time" is where Reilly wanted to be? Was he trying to go South towards Isenguard to avoid the forces of Isengaurd? Does he even want to be Governor?

I know he's trying to create some sort of buzz, but telling people how great the campaign is doing seems less like buzz and more like desperation. It's not the case of turning lemons into lemonade. It's more like selling spoiled lemonade to thirsty, paying costumers. Voters won't want more and certainly won't come back.

If Tom Reilly wants to win, he needs to create some ideas for buzz - not buzz for buzz (or how about getting some of our Big Dig money back?). He needs to be honest, not desperate. He needs to win on merit, not resort to his old negative-politician self. At the very least, if he wants to win, he could try spicing up the campaign emails (which I never signed up for). Am I asking too much here?

At the Boston Globe, Columnists Do the Jobs of Reporters

Well, actually there was this article I liked today (on how Tom didn't pick Gabs as his running mate because he wouldn't release his tax records... so Tommy Boy picked St. Fleur instead) - and it was real news, for a change. After all, when it isn't about Deval, apparently the news room doesn't have to put in any coded words and prejudicial reporting.

The real fun in today's Globe is Eileen McNamara's column, apparently she has a good memory. I always wondered why no one in the media mentioned the fact that Tom Reilly is historically a very negative campaigner. Maybe it's par for the course, but when they go back to 1999 to look at Devals record at United, you'd think they'd go back one year earlier to analyze Tom Reilly's race against Lois Pines.

Apparently that's why the Globe hires columnists - you know, to do the job of journalists...

Reilly might not be rich, but it is Reilly, not Patrick or Chris Gabrieli, who is corporate Boston's favorite Democrat. They have been with him from the start, his humble rental apartment in Watertown notwithstanding. Back when Pines was being so inappropriately ``aggressive," a group of business executives invited some peers to meet their pal Reilly at the Downtown Club in the Financial District.

``We are concerned that this all-important office will be in hands that will make it more bureaucratic and more regulatory with detrimental implications for the state's business climate," read the letter of invitation that was signed by, among others, Tom May of Boston Edison, Bill VanFassen of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Wayne Budd of Bell Atlantic, all industries regulated by the attorney general's office.

With those friends and that history, Reilly might want to reconsider his misguided efforts to portray Patrick as a tool of the corporate elite. This is Massachusetts; voters have long memories.

Also, props to Eileen for mentioning Vennochi's stellar work on this story. It's a shame real reporters at the Boston Globe didn't... well... do their jobs and follow up on it.

Gabs, Patrick, Polls and the Boston Globe.

Two new polls today - one good for Deval, one not so good. Which one to trust? I'd like to say the good one, especially since I happen to like the polling firm which did it (SUSA), but I can't say for sure. The good one polled over 2,000 people... which is a lot, but other not-so-good poll (Suffolk) questioned enough voters that it shouldn't be a statistical anomaly. It's different than any other poll we've seen recently and the first poll that's significantly different needs to be seconded before it becomes the conventional wisdom in the race.

That said, all the other recent polls have showed Gabrieli in a relatively close second. His commercials certainly haven't hurt him. I especially like the quaint commercial with his family; it's offbeat and fun. While there are some real no-no's in that commercial that usually don't help candidates (i.e. I don't think he called himself a Democrat), he has the name recognition that it doesn't matter much and there were so many good things about it that it detracts from the bad things. Furthermore, Deval Patrick's first commercials were a disappointment. He's going to have to make a more compelling case on the air in order to win.

Here's something on the difference on methodology:

The difference is in the questions they're asking. SUSA asks you to imagine yourself in the voting booth. Who are you pulling the lever for? Suffolk asks you who you are leaning toward.

SUSA is forcing a choice, whereas Suffolk is just asking for impressions. One interpretation is that there are people who, if the election were right now, would vote for Patrick, but are still open to changing their minds (and recorded as Patrick in SUSA, but undecided in Suffolk).

Anyway, for more on the polls go to the Blue Mass Group and be sure to check out Sco's website for an always-savvy analysis, he just doesn't have it up quite yet.

So onto the Globe!

Today, there were two relevant articles on the gubernatorial race. One was a very fair piece on Gabrieli's record spending, the other on last night's Deval Patrick email to supporters. My independently-minded Republican friend, Joe, didn't get why I was irate at the Globe.

What are you throwing a tizzy over? That whole article seemed to be one that defended a guy who is being attacked by an organization that's breaking the law and being unethical. I'm honestly not seeing what's so anti-deval about it.

He asked me to clear it up. Well, Joe, just look at these two Globe articles.

In Gabrieli's article, we get this:

Reilly campaign spokesman Corey Welford said Gabrieli ``has been trying to buy elections for years with no results," referring to Gabrieli's losing runs for Congress in 1998 and lieutenant governor in 2002, during which he spent a combined $10 million.

In Patrick's article, we get this:

``I don't want to be coy. I was paid well. And I earned it -- by making the companies better, by advocating for more enlightened policies, by acting in whatever I did with integrity," Patrick wrote, referring to his corporate experience with Coca-Cola, Texaco, and the parent company of Ameriquest Mortgage. ``I didn't achieve everything I wanted, but I had some measurable success."

Patrick's letter was posted on his website a day after Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly questioned the backgrounds of both Patrick and Christopher Gabrieli, the third Democrat running for governor. ``They tell you what they want to tell you," Reilly said in a CBS4 interview Sunday. ``But we have no idea what we're getting."

The difference? In the Gabrieli article, Reilly's bit didn't come until the 11th paragraph. In between the first paragraph and the eleventh, it's all facts and quotes from Gabrieli that really don't make him look all that bad - they don't even really play up his wealth, other than the fact that he's wealthy.

``Campaigns are expensive, unfortunately," Gabrieli said yesterday when told he had broken the record for self-funded candidates in Massachusetts.

See? Campaigns are expensive! 7.3 million isn't even really that much, it's a campaign after all. Furthermore, there was a nice little picture that went with the story that was equally irrelevant as the one from Deval's United story, with only one exception. 7.5-million-in-the-race Chris Gabrieli looks like the man of the people in the picture. Heck, they may as well have copied Gab's commercial and took a picture of him taking out the trash.

If there's one thing Gabrieli isn't, it's a man of the people. I don't mean that in a bad way, he just isn't. Neither am I, for that matter. I'm a very ordinary, middle-middle class guy... not a construction worker and neither is Gabrieli. It has nothing to do with the story, but makes Gabrieli's big spending seem genial and as irrelevant as the story. After all, he's just quirky.

Compare that to the Globe's Deval Patrick story. The two paragraphs I quoted from there were the second and third paragraph, respectively. They immediately jumped on the major gaffe from last night's email - the words I wish he never said - and followed it up with more from Reilly... in the third paragraph. Say what you want about Patrick, but he makes gaffes. It's okay to say that at a speech, but with an email (though it's the truth and plays well with supporters) can be taken way out of context - as it was in today's Globe piece.

Now, just how is this biased? Well, in both stories Reilly gets the first punch in - for Gabs and Reilly. Maybe it's just a coincidence? More importantly, the stories show a clear prejudice against Deval Patrick. Don't believe me?

Newspapers aren't stupid. They know people typically only read the first 2-3 paragraphs. Gabrieli's story is very newsy, the first few paragraphs just tell facts. Patrick's? The first paragraph is certainly factual and to the point, but the second jumps right on to a highly questionable use of quotes. The quote they pulled from Deval - and used in the 2nd paragraph - wasn't even the main point of his letter.

Here's one I would have wrote, as an unbiased, non-prejudiced reporter:

Democratic candidate for governor Deval L. Patrick sent his supporters a letter yesterday casting criticism of his corporate background as part of ``politics as usual" and a sign that his campaign is ``doing well." (The Globe's first paragraph.)

Because "most people" make their living in the private sector, Patrick said his criticizers were "out of touch... with the issues facing real people every day." Furthermore, he said "those in the 'politics-as-usual' crowd believe... experience in the private sector is inherently bad" even though the private sector is "where most people in Massachusetts make their living." (My quickly written words.)

Why write that as the second paragraph? For starters, it continues on the first paragraphed main ideas. In news papers, you're supposed to go from the most relevant information to the least relevant... but that novel concept has clearly been thrown out the kitchen window along with the Boston Globe's election-coverage integrity.

More importantly, my version of the second paragraph is actual news - what the article was about. The Patrick email had little to do with how well-paid Patrick was, but it doesn't shock me to read that quote in the newspaper so quickly. In fact, I'm a little surprised that the headline wasn't "Patrick Says He Deserves to Be Rich" or something crazy like that.

I'm not saying the quote shouldn't have been in there. Obviously, it's fair game. Deval(stupidly) wrote it. However, it's sensationalistic to throw it in their as the second paragraph... especially when Gabrieli's second paragraph is this:

Deval Patrick defends his corporate background. B3.

See? There's no prejudice at the Boston Globe. I'm just making it all up. /sarcasm off

Update: A quick note to readers - I'm not saying the Globe shouldn't be hard on Deval. In fact, I want them to be hard on him. I support Deval, but if allegations set against him had any truth to them I probably wouldn't. The fact is the Globe should have investigated Coca-Cola and United. However, they didn't. Instead, they got pundits and mouth-pieces to spew anti-Deval innuendo and hysteria, without a shred of evidence. Even in today's Globe, they still give credence to what Ray Rogers/Killer Coke has to say. What other one-man organization has any say in the newspaper?

The Globe's heavily anti-Deval articles aren't "tough reporting." It's horrible reporting no decent newspaper should publish. Tough reporting uses facts, not allegations. If the Globe wanted tough reporting, they'd have gone to Columbia to see what really happened. Furthermore, each candidate deserves "tough reporting," but there hasn't been very much of that for any of the candidates. The articles on Deval aren't tough; they're irresponsible.

If anyone can't catch my drift, it's now what newspapers say - it's how they say it. In this case, it's been done with little real reporting and a lot of prejudice.

Something You Won't Find Everyday

Everytime I think I've seen all that there is to see, I find something rather unusual. I'd like to call it quaint, yet that doesn't seem appropriate with everything that's at stake.

If ever there was a reason to reform DSS, that link is it.

Oh, That's Right, It's All Deval Patrick's Fault

Oh-oh, another Frank Phillips article on Deval Patrick. Even bigger oh-oh, it's about Ray Rogers and Killer Coke.

And it's all Deval Patrick's fault!

Aggressive moves by gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick's aides and supporters to seize on a misstep by one of his Democratic rivals has put union organizer Ray Rogers under scrutiny by state campaign finance regulators...

That's right folks, it has nothing to do with the fact that Ray Rogers possibly broke the law. It has nothing to do with the fact that Tom Reilly's campaign was in discussion with Ray Rogers regarding his "shadow campaign."

It's all Deval Patrick's fault - seizing on a political misstep! Those bastard politicians! It doesn't matter that laws were probably broken, Patrick is a political opportunist to the maximum degree, taking advantage of poor, old Tom Reilly.

...part of a plan Patrick's strategists hope will blunt attacks on him for his role as Coca-Cola's general counsel.

Blunt attacks? We're trying to blunt attacks? How about get the truth out - something Frank Phillips, the "reporter," is not interested in.

Sadly, that's JUST THE FIRST PARAGRAPH!

How sad that the Globe is losing all its journalistic integrity over the '06 race. Here's how the first paragraph should have been:

The Office of Campaign and Political Finance, acting on a complaint filed last week by union leaders who have endorsed Patrick, is reviewing accusations that Rogers, director of the New York-based Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, may be violating election laws. The complaint alleges Rogers failed to report his expenditures and may have coordinated his visit last week to Massachusetts with other gubernatorial campaigns.

But sadly, it didn't come till after Frank Phillips used code-words to make it sound as if Deval Patrick had *any* role in this whole Ray Rogers-Frank Phillips scandal. He didn't. It was all Ray Rogers, Tom Reilly - and Frank Phillips for being complicit. But I guess Democrats Swiftboating Democrats somehow makes the Boston Globe happy - when Deval Patrick is the target - so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by another example of biased, terrible reporting.

It's not the unions filing complaints (because Ray Rogers claimed to represent unions), it's always:

The unions' complaint reflects how Patrick's strategists and supporters plan to deal with expected attacks on his record as general counsel at both Coke and Texaco and his role on the boards of Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and United Airlines. (Emphasis mine.)

As if it were Patrick filing the complaint, in just some ordinary fashion. In fact, this whole scandal is "routine" as Phillips says. These sorts of complaints happen all the time... NOT. It would be one thing if Phillips used any evidence whatsoever to call Killer Coke routine, but he doesn't. I highly doubt if he'd find one - other than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of course. But even they didn't get caught.

Worst of all, this is how Frank Phillips ends the article:

``I have had no conversations with any officials or representatives of any campaign," Rogers said."

Way to go, Frank. Don't let the truth get in the way of your agenda. It wouldn't help your biased reporting to mention that Joan Vennochi proved that quote was an outright lie.

So, remember, everyone - it's all Deval Patrick's fault. He's the dirty politician, not Tom Reilly. He's the one playing politics, not Ray Rogers. Deval Patrick somehow hurt the gays when he got them all fully equal domestic partnership benefits. Deval Patrick should be blamed for Coca-Cola's role in Columbia, though he resigned from the company in protest. It's all Deval Patrick's fault. After all, you read it in the Boston Globe.

Why I'm Supporting Bonifaz

For months, I've been saying I'm undecided in two races. In the Lt. Governor race, I've been going back and forth between Goldberg and Silbert - I still haven't made up my mind. However, I've also remained uncommitted in the race for Secretary of State. Sure, there's been one or two times that I've praised Bonifaz for making important statements. However, I've stayed fast to the line: my votes don't belong to anyone yet. Well, I've finally come to a decision on one race. I'm getting behind Bonifaz.

Months ago, I didn't think he was "polished" enough. In truth, he probably isn't. However, maybe I bumped my head on a wall or something, because I came to a very sudden and impropable epiphany: what the hell does looking polished have to do with it? I'm much more concerned with what he actually brings to the table.

When it comes to running for office, he's doing it the right way: a grassroots effort. Deval Patrick has proven that not only can the grassroots work, but it can even do so in the face of a strong and wealthy establishment.

Bonifaz's campaign hasn't been anywhere near as successful as Deval Patrick's has been, but can we blame him? While Deval Patrick hasn't been going down the Gabrieli route and throwing his own personal wealth around the table, he's certainly had more to give his campaign than Bonifaz. Furthermore, often people won't get behind candidates unless they have money - and whether or not Deval has been willing to spend a good chunk of his, the fact that he has it certainly hasn't hurt donors willing to give him their $500 bucks. Ultimately, Deval's success brought forth an unrealistic expectation for other candidates when it comes to grassroots campaign. Something special coalesced around Deval's campaign - perhaps aided by his charisma and leadership - that not even Ned Lamont got in Connecticutt.

In fact, Bonifaz got around the same percentage of State Convention votes as Ned Lamont did in his state - both around 35%, a big victory for someone running against a powerful incumbent in a primary. The fact that Bonifaz got 35% of the votes should have been considered a huge coup and propelled his narrative into the media airwaves, but Deval's story overshadowed him.

In reality, the convention doesn't matter - even if Bonifaz's performance was a triumph. Here's what mattes: I've met one candidate for Secretary of State and that wasn't the incumbent. On a warm and sunny April morning, Bonifaz was just on the busy streets of Boston handing out fliers and shaking hands. I didn't even have to go to some big event to try to meet him; he was just there. He may as well have knocked on my door!

Bonifaz is doing things candidates should be doing to win votes. Yet, I should punish him because he isn't "polished?" Nonsense.

Not only did I shake his hand that day, but he listens and reads what people have to say. Imagine that? Instead of getting scorn from politicians, I was quoted on his website. As a blogger, I'm used to vitriolic attacks - but Bonifaz understands the netroots are a force of good, even if not everyone on Leftyblogs has embraced him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen or heard anything about Galvin when it comes to the netroots. In fact, I don't see or hear much of anything from him at all.

In fact, the tipping point in my decision to vote for Bonifaz is his internet presence. Not only is Bonifaz using the internet to educate voters and compel them to vote for him, he's pointing voters out to some of the most important issues going on in Massachusetts. The race isn't about Bonifaz, it's about the issues - and whether or not he wins, he's probably done more good for electoral politics outside of office than Galvin has as an elected official.

Whenever there's been questionable voting or ballot practices, Bonifaz emails supporters to tell them. Why isn't Galvin telling voters about ballot fraud and potentially illegal "Killer Coke" practices? (Or Tom Reilly, for that matter?) I want a Secretary of State that's going to let me know what's going on - that's going to be transparent and accessible. At the very least I'll know he's doing his job and he'll be held accountable. Better yet, by creating thousands of informed voters, there's a chance our collected advocacy could help resolve the situation, even if whatever is going on isn't in his legal domain as Secretary of State. If elected, it seems like he won't be just a Secretary of State, but an advocate and leader.

Though it's taken me far longer than it should have to realize this, voting for Bonifaz is a no-brainer. In fact, I can't think of a valid reason to NOT vote for him.

He doesn't look the part? How should he look?

Because there are other, non-voting responsibilities of a Secretary of State? Sure there are, but what does that have to do with anything? Are they as important? Regardless, Bonifaz will fulfill all his job requirements. If he doesn't, he'll be held accountable.

People should vote for Galvin because he isn't a horrible human being? I'm sick of politicians getting by because they don't cheat on their taxes and force interns to babysit. Is it enough that they merely go to work everday? I want more than that in a politician and an expert on voting rights sounds good to me.

Maybe Galvin doesn't deserve to go. After all, Bonifaz "should" be running for the State Legislature instead. However, people said the same things to Deval Patrick when he said he was running for Governor - it's Tom Reilly's turn, he isn't a bad Attorney General, Deval should run for a smaller office first - and I rejected that nonsense right then and there.

It's time we change Massachusetts. Down with the Good 'ol Boys and in with people who will stand up for everyday citizens of this Commonwealth. I see Bonifaz as being part of that change and that's why I'm voting for him - I only hope there are enough people out there who agree with me. Bonifaz can - and should - win.

Like I Said in Way Back in April, Reilly's Cooked

Can I read the future, or what?

Jeez, if it's not one thing, it's the other. Reilly has proven himself to be an inept candidate for governor. And the polls are starting to bear out that political reality. I commented in one of Lynne's blogs yesterday that "I honestly envision Reilly fading behind Patrick and Gabrieli." It becomes more true everyday.

And, folks, I said that way back in April. And each day after that, it's become more and more true. Reilly's been shooting himself in the foot daily - Killer Coke anyone? Well, today's mistake had me laughing.

Tom Reilly hung a curve yesterday on Channel 4, questioning what the other candidates had done with their lives in the last ten years except for making all that sweet, sweet cash.

Keep up the good work, Tom. At this rate, Deval Patrick may be able to donate all his campaign funds to charity or something.

Does the Boston Globe Just Hate Deval Patrick?

Does the Boston Globe Just Hate Deval Patrick?

Or are they just doing their best to emulate the Boston Herald?

With their lackluster reporting on perhaps the biggest Massachusetts election scandal I've ever seen on my 22 years on Earth, I was beginning to get a little worried about the Globe's potential prejudices in regards to the campaign. I mean, they couldn't even follow up on their own OP-ED columnist's reporting. Well, if I had any doubts about the Globe's reporting, today's Globe has me convinced that the only difference between the Herald and the Globe is the size of their pictures (but not the actual pictures, which we'll get to).

While I'm happy the Globe decided to cover Killer Coke today, just read the first paragraph or so of its reporting.

Aggressive moves by gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick's aides and supporters to seize on a misstep by one of his Democratic rivals has put union organizer Ray Rogers under scrutiny by state campaign finance regulators, part of a plan Patrick's strategists hope will blunt attacks on him for his role as Coca-Cola's general counsel....

The unions' complaint reflects how Patrick's strategists and supporters plan to deal with expected attacks on his record as general counsel at both Coke and Texaco and his role on the boards of Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and United Airlines. (Emphasis Mine)

Translation to readers: Deval Patrick's really the one behind the unions. It has nothing to do with the fact that they were disgusted not only by Ray Rogers's tactics, but by his seemingly utter disregard for the law.

Notice how the Globe doesn't even mention which unions brought the complaint until... well, never. But I guess that's not relevant to the story because, after all, it's Deval's strategists who are behind all of this - right? It has nothing to do with the fact that Tom Reilly's campaign team was aiding and abetting this guy, it's just Deval Patrick stirring the pot - I mean, who cares about the law when there's politics involved? There's nothing here to see, folks, move along.

Sadly, that wasn't the only article about the gubernatorial campaign in the Boston Globe - just don't expect to find one on Chris Gabrieli or Tom Reilly... because, here at Fox News the Boston Globe, we're "fair and balanced."

According to the Globe, Deval Hates the Gays

Deval had a second, more prominent - yet far less important - article in the Boston Globe today. It was on Gay Rights and Deval's record at United Airlines. It was a bombshell. Can anyone say non-story??

Apparently, not the Globe. Not only is it a great story to report, but apparently there's a relevant picture to go along with it. Is the picture of Deval at the Pride Rally in Boston (after all, he was the only candidate for Governor that I knew of there)? Nope. Is it a picture of Deval giving a speech, talking about Gay Rights (as he often does)? Nope. How about one with him standing next to a gay person at all - or even a homophobe?

Nah, that would be too relevant. While the picture has nothing to do with the story, he's looking big and angry with his hands raised just like Hitler... so all and all, it's a great picture. Kinda like how Fox News loves to show pictures of Muslims burning American flags in Iran from ten years ago whenever there's a story about Iran today. I mean, who wants the media to actually report the news when it can just make shit up?

While I should have stopped reading as soon as I looked at the picture, for some strange reason I kept going. After all... I'm a news junkie. And boy did the story look bad for Deval Patrick - he must really hate the gays!

Gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick, who enjoys strong backing from gays
for his support of same-sex marriage, is facing tough questions from some gay rights advocates about his tenure on the board of United Airline's parent company in the 1990s, when the firm refused to grant domestic partner benefits to its employees. (Emphasis mine)

Wow. That sounds damning! So Deval Patrick, the bastard, kept the gays from getting health insurance! Oh, wait, no he didn't...

He said he told the board that United was right to fight the ordinance because it would be hard for the airline to operate nationally if cities dictated its employment policies. He also said he urged United to make domestic partner benefits company-wide policy, which it did in July 1999. (Emphasis Mine)

So, he didn't want cities dictating policies... but oh, by the way, he also kinda, sorta supported Gay Rights and wanted the company to adopt an international policy to support domestic partnership benefits. Which the company did shortly after. While this short paragraph is buried in the article, the Patrick onslaught continues.

``The effect was horrible -- it said `we can discriminate,' " Therese M. Stewart, chief deputy city attorney in San Francisco, who helped defend the ordinance in court, said of United's opposition. ``It was basically an anti-equality position. It was inherently discriminatory and they were determined for their own reasons to continue it and it was a battle, a hard-fought battle."

Stewart, in an interview yesterday, said the airline did not have to fight. ``They could have said it's about time we did this on a nationwide basis," Stewart said. ``We want these people's business so we should be treating them equally. That would have been the right and honorable thing to do, in my personal opinion."

I agree with every word she said. However, how does it relate to Deval Patrick?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. He worked for a Big, Bad Corporation. Maybe Therese Stewart should publicly condemn the flight attendants and pilots while she's at it too.

Here's another interesting blurb:

Patrick, who has attracted wide support from liberal Democrats, has found himself defending his role at a number of corporations, including Coca-Cola, Texaco, and ACC Capital Holdings, parent of Ameriquest Mortgage Co.

And why is he defending himself? The Boston Globe. That's fine, the Globe is supposed to be a newspaper and report important issues about the campaign. If Deval Patrick actually had anything to do with covering up a murder in Columbia, I'd want to know that. It would make me not vote for him. However, instead of really researching the subject, the Boston Globe found a mouthpeice in Ray Rogers and reported his innuendo instead.

Like I said, why report when you can make shit up? So suddenly, weeks before the election (coincidentally enough - even though he's been campaigning for over a year), there's a story in the Globe about how Deval worked for Coke and Coke did bad things.

Now, with this whole United business, the Globe's found more mouthpeices - Californian "activists" and "activist" supporters of the Gabrieli and Reilly campaign. Would they be biased in any way? I find it particularly entertaining that a gay state congressman from Western Mass would support Reilly, of all people, though he clearly has the worst record of the three candidates for Governor on the issue. I guess sometimes principals come at the cost of getting ahead.

The Globe continues,

``I don't think Patrick can have it both ways, which is to tout his position on civil rights as a board member and duck this issue," said Mary Breslauer, a prominent gay rights activist who supports Christopher F. Gabrieli in the governor's race.

Oh, how nice, let's ask what Chris Gabrieli's campaign thinks. They won't be biased in anyway whatsoever... Hey, at least the Globe actually readers full disclosure this time around (as opposed to Ray Rogers). But that doesn't matter, because Deval can't have it two ways.

Instead of rising up out of poverty, he should have stayed poor all his life. After all, he is a black man. They're not supposed to be on company boards. He was supposed to become a Civil Rights attorney (correction: oh, wait, he did). He was supposed to work for next to nothing!

Why should Deval have tried to accomplish a lot from within corporations (and he accomplished a lot at Texaco, United and even Ameriquest), when he could have worked at a non-profit for a barely-livable wage and had a lot of success in not convincing the Catholic Church to get condoms in Africa? He would have been especially unconvincing trying to get President Bush to create policies that help the working class and not just the rich. And he would have tried very hard in utterly failing to convince United to allow domestic partnerships and not convincing Texaco to admit that Global Warming is real and bad news - which are things he actually did.

What the Hell is the Globe Thinking?

Anyone find it a little odd that, just a week or so after Frank Phillip's Campaign to Stop Killer Coke article, about how Deval murdered little children in Columbia Deval's role with Coke, there's an article on how Deval tried to screw over gays in San Francisco? Isn't it odd that one week there's an article on how Deval Patrick was evil because he worked for Coca Cola, the next week the Globe prints another "bombshell" about how Deval Patrick worked for United and was evil, trying to hurt the gays? (When, in fact, shortly after the entire company shifted policy as he suggested?) Anyone sensing a pattern here?

Anyone find it interesting that these extremely easy stories to find and research are popping up now, a month away from the election? Apparently, voters didn't deserve to read this news months ago. What, is the Boston Globe just now discovering that Deval worked for United, Texaco and Coca-Cola? Does the Boston Globe just hate Deval Patrick, or do they instantly report anything Tom Reilly sends their way?

After reading about how Deval owns a really big house in the Berkshires - that isn't quite as big as the Globe said, about how Deval screwed over the gays in San Francisco when he really helped get the company to help every gay person who worked for United and about how Deval worked for Ameriquest and screwed over millions, when he was hired by the company to solve the problem... I'm kind of getting a little sick of it.

Tom Reilly allegedly breaks the law - as an Attorney General - and aside from an OP-ED columnist... there's no investigation by the Globe on that story. Can anyone sense any bias here whatsoever?

Update: In just a couple paragraphs, the Herald's Kimberly Atkins reported the news... how interesting. If the Herald abandoned its Tabloid format, added a progressive columnist or two and was less sensationalist... I may be inclined to read it every day. Here's hoping there will be real investigative journalism on this issue in the future - and not just by Joan Vennochi, who's already done a great job.

Also, BMG, Mass Marrier and Lynne all offer very reasonable and thorough looks at the Globe's distortions of reality.

Winning On Property Tax Relief

Andy blogged about how Virginia Buckingham of the Boston Herald scribed in her latest dish her fear that Deval Patrick could be the candidate to topple Republicandom in a general election facing Kerry Healey. I think she's right, but others may disagree. In any event, that's not what this blog is going to be about. Andy, rhetorically or otherwise, asked readers just how Democrats will 'take away' the Republican anti-tax line that appeals to so many (stupid?) people.

I say Deval Patrick's already doing it, but maybe not doing it quite well enough. Democrats will need to hammer Healey on property taxes and local aid. Because of the income tax cuts that have already taken place in Massachusetts, cities and towns weren't getting the money they desperately needed for years. Now, we're finally approaching the levels we had pre-tax cuts. However, it's difficult to tell if we'll have the financial resources in future years we've recently enjoyed, especially with people leaving the state for more affordable housing and better job opportunities.

While municipal services have been cut, most affluent towns pass Proposition 2 ½ overrides every other year - just to keep up with rising pension and healthcare costs. Still, most of these towns have had to layoff teachers and force families to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars so their kids could join the Cheerleading Squad or the Art Club. Even Swampscott, an extremely wealthy, coastal community, almost banned sports and activities because of budget woes. What’s worse is that the cities and towns thacouldn'tdn’t afford to pass overrides ever year were left far, far behind.

Republican leadership in Massachusetts squandered a budget surplus, forced teacher layoffs all across the state and forced many of those same towns to raise property taxes by thousands of dollars. Do people want this type of leadership - the bad kind- to continue? Absolutely not.

Still, though, there is a large contingent - even (especially?) among Democrats - who cannot resist the urge of tax-cuts. So how do we squash Kerry Healey, whoÂ’s already spending millions on TV bolstering her tax-cut-and-spend credentials? Well, duh, property taxes. But a lot of people are going to say thatÂ’s vague. How does the state control local property taxes?

Valid point. Luckily, I have an idea. What if Democrats were to come up with a plan, a plan that would be the first bill theyÂ’d pass as Governor? TheyÂ’d set up a two-tier system of local aid: those that sign on and those that donÂ’t. Every city and town that signs on will receive priority local aid in an amount that would account for increases in Special Education costs, pension and healthcare rises and other annual cost increases that have been the reason towns have needed overrides these past few years. However, in order to receive additional local aid, these towns must also agree to not raise property taxes while theyÂ’re signed on (with perhaps some exceptions, such as a crumbling school that the state says needs to be improved during the accreditation process).

Not all the kinds are worked out, but at the very least itÂ’s a start. The plan demands fiscal discipline, smart spending - and, most importantly - responsible leadership via a Dem in the Corner Office. It will also demonstratably reduce the local property tax, which is one of the least progressive taxes there is.

At the very least people will be able to see how the plan works. Democrats saying they'll reduce local property taxes is neither believable nor inherently honest without a tangible plan: there's no way to control town spending at the state level. While liberals such as myself are ecstatic over Deval's stance - it's responsible, will lead to overall reductions in property taxes and is thoroughly progressive - people who love their tax cuts aren't going to just take Deval's word for it, not without an easy to follow plan showing just how it'll benefit their pocketbooks.

The reality is that if towns had more money, theyÂ’d spend that money - or at least a lot of it. We can increase local aid all we want and we'll be getting lots of extra programs that while nice, may not be sustainable. Years from now, when the budget is really scary again, weÂ’ll be facing the same layoffs and budget cuts. In order to make a compelling property-tax argument, Democrats need something voters can direbenefiting benefitting them far more than a straight income-tax rollback... and the plan needs to be responsible, unlike the income tax rollback. It won't hurt towns: it's meant to help them (via increased funds). However, it not only demands accountability, it will result in lower property taxes for years to come.

Eventually, the plan could help property taxes become the next sales tax: something small and petty that people don't think much about. And asdisproportionatelyoportionally hurts working and middle class people, that'd be a great outcome.

My plan is a foil between responsible government and Republican leadership. It contrasts fiscal discipline with tax-cumortgagingd morgtaging of the future. Furthermowoudln't plan wouldn’t box towns into sodidn'ting they didn’t want... towns that want to live and die on Proposition 2 ½ can feel free to continue to do so. They just won’t receive as much local aid as the towns that sign on (though, I wouldn't cut their aid either). Quite frankly, the plan only assures residents that towns won't go nuts with their increased local aid. Most importantly, in terms of political consequence, residents will actually see something tangible out of this seemingly metaphorical property tax vs. income tax debate going on in the Democratic primary.

Tom Reilly's Fair Questions

Tom Reilly, in true Bush/Rove fashion, thinks Ray Rogers was asking "fair questions." So, when Ray essentially claims Deval is a murderer... that's a fair question. If questioning Deval over something that happened in Columbia is fair (something in which Coca-Cola was ruled innocent of and in which Deval left the company precisely because he wasn't allowed to investigate), I think it's time we ask Deval some other fair questions. So, inspired by Tom Reilly, I'm going to write to Deval Patrick to find out just what he had to do with other serious matters.

Dear Deval Patrick,

Recently Tom Reilly said that Ray Roger's accusations against you were "fair questions." That got me thinking... if you're responsible for what happened in Columbia, just what else is your fault? So, I have some real serious questions for you.

Did you cause the Big Dig? I'm sure you've driven through it on numerous occasions and all that wear and tear certainly hasn't helped it. Furthermore, you were the first to call for an independent investigation - so was it all convienent political timing, or did you actually cause it so it would benefit you in the future? Something seems fishy here...

Not answering? Well, how 'bout this: Everyone loves the Red Sox, but you're not really from Massachusetts. Born in Chicago, you must be a fan of one of the Chicago teams. And, if that's the case, I'm betting it's the White Sox. Well, last year they beat us in the playoffs... soundly. It was a rather embarrissing defeat... and I think you have some explaining to do. Are you also helping them be in the wildcard lead too? Huh? Are you? Are you?

Massachusetts politics has been almost devoid of powerful, female voices. However, here in your campaign there isn't a women running for the Corner Office. Not only do you not have a vagina, but you haven't even chosen to endorse one of the two women running for Lt. Governor. Explain yourself!

As you can see, Deval Patrick, there are a lot of mysterious situations surrounding you... and I'm not comfortable voting for you until I know just why. Tom's right, there are a lot of fair questions you need to be held accountable for. What did you have to do with the Big Dig? Are you somehow helping the Chicago White Sox? Why don't you have a vagina? Less than five weeks from the primary, enquiring minds want to know. Just like Tom Reilly said, there are some fair questions you need to answer!

Sincerely,

Ryan

Reilly and Killer Coke is NOT DONE

So Tom Reilly says he doesn't know anything about Killer Coke? No idea whatsoever? It's all his campaign's fault... right? It doesn't matter that Reilly is the candidate - and therefore in charge of the campaign. It doesn't matter that he has responsibility for it... all that matters, is this, according to Tom Reilly:

Reilly would not comment about his staff's involvement in media coverage of Killer Coke.

``We should know what really happened," he said. ``That gentleman was asking fair questions."

So we know nothing, except that Tom Reilly CONDONES what happened. Tom Reilly didn't do it, but Ray Rogers was asking "fair questions." The 527s should have been banned last Presidential Election, but Bush refused to denounce the Swiftboaters. And, just like Bush, Tom Reilly thinks it was a great thing that Ray Rogers insinuated that Deval Patrick should somehow be held accountable for what happened in Columbia - that Deval Patrick is an accomplice in a murder plot?

Nevermind that Deval Patrick left the company because he wasn't allowed by his superiors to do a full and thorough investigation, never mind that the courts ruled Coca-Cola was innocent... Tom Reilly thinks Ray Rogers was asking fair questions.

Well, Tom Reilly, maybe you should stop thinking about what are fair questions and start informing your campaign to play by the rules... or at least and not violate campaign finance laws.
However, this thing's far from over. Despite the scarcity of reporting post-Vennochi bombshell, there's going to be a hearing about this case that the unions brought forward. There will be a full and complete investigation. The media needs to cover it, but you can bet your ass I'll be following as well.

If there's one thing that's more than obvious here, it's that the Tom Reilly campaign has committed serious campaign finance violations. They won't get away with it.

Update: A Frank Phillips article I could read from beginning to end without clicking over to the Letters to the Editor section to complain. Wow. (That said, there were some annoying things in it... but I'm not going to scold general progress).

Gab's 15 Million Dollar Joke

Turns out... Not so funny after all. Before August, Gabs has spent more than 5 million dollars. Doesn't that number sound like something out of a Mike Myers movie? Well the all-time record for campaign spending in the Bay State was Mitt Romney, spending $6.2 mil.

However, that was for both the primary and general election.

Gabrieli is making a mockery out of Democracy. He'll exceed Mitt's record spending by millions.

The choice for Governor is an easy one to make. One candidate pokes fun of Democracy by attempting to buy it. Another completely violates the few and simple rules of the Democratic process. Deval Patrick has run a noble campaign, trying to reach out to the people. The choice is clear.

The Globe's Coverage on Dunkelbarger

As I said, the Globe has has a story on Dunkelbarger's campaign to unseat U.S. Congressman Lynch of the 9th District. The Globe's Political Editor, Donald Dahl, also blogged about it here. Kudos to the Globe for writing the story as the public deserves to know about the campaign. While I have no statistical evidence to back it up, four years of political science classes and a lifetime of being a news junkie has me believing almost no one in the 9th knows who Dunkelbarger is, never mind what he stands for. If we - as a culture - want government to be democratic, we need a system that gives small-money candidates a chance, especially when they hold views that resonate with the public. If Congressman Lynch didn't enjoy the status of an incumbent and a 1-million dollar plus warchest, there's no way he'd be considered a favorite - nevermind a shoe-in.

While I'm very happy the Globe covered Dunkelbarger for the first time in years - and I think the article was decent - there are a few ways it could have been improved. For starters, the article suggested Dunkelbarger is an one-issue candidate. While Dunksl is probably most upset with Lynch's support of the Iraq war, that's hardly the only reason why he's running for Congress.

Indeed, there are lots of reasons most progressives, liberals and even moderates would be upset with Lynch's congressional record. Lynch is not only Pro-War, but also Pro-Life, has a weak record on Civil Liberties (including supporting the "Patriot Act") and voted against an expansion to the Endangered Species Act that has already been exceptionally successful in saving such American icons as the Bald Eagle from extinction.

However, the Globe was very effective in touching on the differences of the candidate on the Iraq war and how their campaigns are run. Lynch has a million bucks in his pocket and dismisses his opponent and therefore the Democratic process, while Dunkelbarger has only spent a couple thousand on the campaign and is meeting with local groups and individuals to win. Candidates like Ned Lamont and Deval Patrick are showing that the old conventional wisdom no longer exists: grassroots, especially in tandem with netroots, can compete with anything the establishment has to offer.

So, when the Globe's article suggested Dunkelbarger has no chance, it's a little disappointing, especially with no information to back it up. How far out of touch was it?

Amy Walter, an analyst for the influential Washington-based Cook Political Report, said she does not see any incumbent House or Senate Democrats in trouble from antiwar primary challengers. She noted that many states have already had their primaries.

So, Amy Walter doesn't see the race as a significant threat - and uses the fact that there have already been primaries to bolster that fact? Two words: Ned. Lamont. Hello - the primaries have PROVED even incumbents are in trouble. In fact, Ned Lamont wasn't the only one to surge past an incumbent. The same day Ned Lamont won there were three incumbents defeated across the country. Ned Lamont was the first candidate for Senator to defeat the incumbent in a primary in 26 years.

Even when the establishment has already lost primaries, they don't even see it. It didn't seem like the Globe saw it either, despite their extensive coverage of the Lamont-Lieberman race. Journalists and political "experts" around the country are blinded by the old, DLC-style political reality that was failed then and no longer even relevant now. If time has taught us anything it's that DLC-style politics isn't the answer - sure, Bill Clinton won as a centrist, but that was because he was such a fantastic candidate and people believed him when he boasted his DLC-type issues (whereas when other candidates have shifted to the center in the past, voters see past it and know it's just political manuevering - the average voter may be uninformed, but they aren't stupid).

With no polls and a serious lack of media attention thus far, it's ludicrous to suggest a pro-war, pro-life candidate in Massachusetts is safe as a clam. Well, maybe Lynch is safe as a clam... safe as a clam at a seafood raw bar with lots of hungry costumers. It's an uphill battle for Dunkelbarger to win the primary, but no one thought either Lamont or Deval Patrick had a chance just six months ago. Lamont won and Patrick's winning the race for Governor despite the fact his competitors are Swiftboating him and spending millions on TV ads while Patrick hasn't spent a dime. Dunkelbarger has his work cut out for him, but we have a very angry electorate and a lot of soldiers in Iraq who are waiting to come home. People are just starting to tune in as the election heats up.

My last suggestion for the Globe is to end the article better. Here's how they did it:

Lynch's supporters dismiss Dunkelbarger as a threat. With a strong record of constituent service and delivering aid to local communities, Lynch should coast to reelection, his backers believe.

``He's a hands-on politician and congressman," said state Representative Kathleen M. Teahan, a Whitman Democrat. ``I don't think people in this district are one-issue voters."Jim Regan, a plumber for the Braintree public schools, noted the blue-collar roots of Lynch, a former ironworker.

``He is the one that represents me -- the guy who wears work boots and carries a pail to work. He represents the values we have," Regan said.

Now, I get there was a lot of quotes in the article that made Dunkelbarger look like a great choice and Lynch a schmuck. Furthermore, I get that the Globe is a newspaper and thus wants to appear impartial and balanced. But, to end the article this way would make a lot of readers believe that Steve Lynch is a great 'ol guy and shouldn't be facing a primary threat. Lieberman loved to spout how he voted with Democrats 90% of the time - and the media swallowed every bit of it. After all, Iraq was just one issue...

So, fine, put in those kinds of quotes. But don't end the article like that! If anything, the article should have started with Dunkelbarger's issues and statements, then moved onto Lynch's and had third-party political advisers to wrap it up. However, the third parties should also include honest reflections: no one knows where this race stands because there are no public polls. In essence, this is a race that presents a lot of issues and shouldn't have favored either candidate at the end. Isn't that journalism 101?

________________________________


One final note to the Globe:

Keep covering the race! So far voters know Dunkelbarger is an anti-war candidate, but they don't know where he stands on other issues. At least a week before election day, voters deserve a comprehensive look at where the candidates stand on all of the issues. Furthermore, voters also deserve to know just how each candidate is spending their time on the waning days of the election. How people run for government is almost as important as what they stand for - plus, since I'm pragmatic, readers tend to like those somewhat fluffy articles too.

Helping Tom Reilly Campaign

As we all know by now, Tom Reilly is an expert campaigner. Months ago, he surprised Massachusetts by choosing Rep. St. Fleur of Dorchester as his running mate (apparently, when you're the establishment's choice to run for Governor, you get to bypass democracy and pick the Lt. Governor). However, the next day she resigned. Apparently, she didn't like to pay her taxes, student loans and things like that. Big deal! The Democratic establishment was so impressed with Tom Reilly's campaigning skills, they got Chris Gabrieli to run for Governor.

But you can't keep a good dog down! Tom Reilly bounced back from that fiasco by pointing out his great record as Attorney General - a job he's had for years. He's such a fantastic Attorney General, he even drove Cardinal Law out of Boston! It was such a great campaign strategy to highlight Reilly's superb involvement there that Deval Patrick began surging and quickly gained momentum. In fact, Reilly's such a great Attorney General his old boss - Scott Harshbarger - endorsed his opponent, Patrick.

Despite Reilly's brilliant campaign strategies, he's sagging in the polls. But Reilly is a great candidate and knows not to let them get him down. In Reilly's boldest move yet, he decided to get tough and hit Deval Patrick where it hurts worst: his connections to the big, bad corporations! Great idea, right?

Well, of course it was! Just look at how it played out! In fact, Joan Vennochi's newest Boston Globe column proves just how brilliant Reilly's latest strategy really is. In fact, I'd say it was such a great move that Reilly brought home an early end to his race - which must be a good thing, since early birds get the worm!

With all of Reilly's brilliant campaign strategies, I figure his campaign team is probably suffering from lots of brain cramps. I'm sure they're just over-worked. While I don't support Reilly's campaign, I do support the Democratic Party. So I'm going to support Tom Reilly just for a few minutes to help him come up with more brilliant moves to help restore his old poll numbers. After all, I already helped Gabrieli fundraise and fair is fair.

Helping Tom Reilly Campaign

Tactic #1: Reilly Needs Some Campaign Magic

Most politicians get a little campaign magic in the form of some good luck. For example, an Attorney General could try to take advantage of a major state project that turns into a total nightmare that just drops on the voters' heads. However, Tom Reilly is proactive. He doesn't wait for tons of things to drop on people's heads.

If Reilly wants some campaign magic, all he needs to do is say Allakazaam.

Tom Reilly should immediately fly to London and go straight to Diagon Alley. In between being sorted to Slytherin and getting a crash course from great minds such as Dumbledore and Lockhart, Reilly will surely be able to make a visit to Ollivanders and buy himself a magical wand. With it, he can help turn his campaign around. Best of all, it could be prominently featured in the campaign because it's an actual skill he could take with him to the Corner Office. After all, it's going to take a lot of magic to balance a budget, cut taxes, pay for a commuter rail extension to New Bedford and properly fund schools and towns.

Tactic #2: Ban the Yankees

Nothing gets me more upset than the fact that the Red Sox are 2 games back. I want a Governor who can do something about it! Though it wouldn't seem to be a Governor's job to regulate sports, it's not as if it would be the first time. Between US Senate hearings on baseball in DC and states building expensive sport statiums all around the country, many voters probably think it's a Governor's duty to get involved.

Quite simply, the Red Sox need to win more games than the Yankees. While Tom Reilly has no jurisdiction over New York as Attorney General and would have no power over New York if elected Governor, he could at least make a law that says the Yankees lose whenever they come to town. Furthermore, Reilly doesn't have to wait till he's elected to do something about it! If he tried all the Yankees for playing baseball in Fenway - which could be against the law with Reilly's support - the Yankees would be doomed! Plus, Reilly could become the next Red Sox mascot - who needs the Green Monster when you have Reilly?

Tactic #2: Improve Speech Skills

People don't like boring politicians - after all, how else would Bush have won? In order to convince voters that Reilly has great charisma and communication prowess, he should practice oratory skills from some of history's best speakers - the JFKs, FDRs and even the greatest American ever - Sunny Ronald Sunshine Brightness Reagan.

Although, maybe Reilly doesn't need it. I mean, it's not as if voters would ever think he could be boring at all!



Tactic #3: Give Out Something Really Cool & Do Something Really Different

Lots of politicians give out buttons - boring. Furthermore, lots of campaigns repeat the same boring messages like "vote for me." Voters want something different. I think I just may have an idea.

Tom Reilly should wear a Deval button!

Why, you ask? Why not! Deval Patrick is the big name going around. If Killer Coke taught us anything, it's that Tom Reilly has his eyes planted on the frontrunner, Deval Patrick. So, if Deval is so cool, why not wear the coolest button out there? It could even start some of that blogger buzz that propels candidates into come-from-behind victories.

There's even more reasons for Tom to don a Deval button. Not only would people never expect to see Reilly wear a Deval button, but maybe even one or two people would find it sort of honorable and vote for him - kinda like that stupid movie no one watched. Let's face it, Reilly needs every vote he can get.

Furthermore, it would confuse lots of voters into playing this logic game: "He's wearing a Deval button, so he must be voting for Deval. Unless, maybe he wants us to think that so we'll vote for him? Or, maybe, he wants us to think that he wants us to know that and vote for the other guy? Or maybe..." I submit that anyone who thinks along those lines will probably come to the conclusion that Reilly should win - thus making it a very effective campaign strategy.

Tactic #4: Stay the Course

Since Tom Reilly pulled a page out of the Swiftboat book, why stop now? In fact, Tom Reilly should do more to emulate Karl Rove and just go with the flow. After all, if you fool someone once, shame on me. If you fool them twice, they can't be fooled again. Or something like that. I'm sure Tom Reilly will get it.

Still attacking Deval Patrick on Coca-Cola is sure to win some votes out there - it may be all lies, but that didn't stop Tom Reilly before! Heck, Joe Lieberman just lost his campaign and one of the members on his team was an expert in low information voters - Reilly should scoop that guy up quick! If Reilly goes after the stupid vote, he's sure to win them. After all, stupid people probably think alike.

Tactic #6: A Sure-Fire Way to Win: Greatest Hits Edition!

The election is nearing and it's time to pull out all the stops. Perhaps Staying the Course is such a great idea that Reilly should even back track. To create some new campaign buzz, why not select St. Fluer as his running mate again.


Didn't they just look so cute together? Bringing St. Fleur back is a sure-fire way to shuffle up the campaign and poll at all sorts of new records.

Though the Democratic State Convention was months ago, surely there's some way to get her back on the ballot - unless Tom can still apparently pick anyone he wants for Lt. Governor 'cuz he's Tom? Even if that's not the case, if Gabs got on - so can Fleur - there must be some hidden, tucked away rule!

A Reilly-Fleur campaign just makes sense. Just look at it all this way - pre-Fleur, Reilly was coast'n. Post-Fleur, Reilly's been struggling. Clearly that indicates that we need more Saintly Goodness. Are ya'll with me? Let's all ask Reilly's campaign to reach out to the Fleur, because while this campaign seems to have hit bottom, things could always get worse.

Reilly's Campaign Wrap-Up

Reilly is running a really exciting campaign right now. With the combination of all the Reilly campaign news coming out nowadays and my great campaign advice, I really think Reilly can except to see some serious changes in the polls. I just hope that my ideas are as good as Reilly's groundbreaking efforts that are quickly changing this race's entire political landcape!

Joan Vennochi Deserves a Pulitzer... Links Reilly to Killer Coke (Can Anyone Say I Told You So?)

I had a full blog planned out tonight when I saw this stunner at BMG and I COMPLETELY forgot about the whole thing. Now, it wasn't just that I had an idea planned... the entire peice was planned out point by point, paragraph by paragraph. Then I saw the headline and poof! All the lights went out.

It doesn't surprise me that Tom Reilly was behind all this. Just read my comment on a thread at BMG that speculated it was Reilly's campaign that was behind Killer Coke days ago. 'No, no,' said lots of people. Maverick Dem - I think - suggested we were just some crazy Deval lovers who'd believe any conspiracy.

Listen to my voice of reason from that comment I linked:

One would think that [there's no connection between Killer Coke and Reilly]. However, Reilly has been known to make the world's stupidest campaign gaffes I've EVER seen. He's pumped at least a million of his warchest into ads already, yet he's barely gained anything in the polls. He's at least 10 points down and, more importantly, last in a three way race.

Would he look at that kind of situation and tell himself he needed to do something - and fast? I'm SURE he's done that, whether or not he's behind Killer Coke (and, despite any connections, I always say INNOCENT till proven guilty - I just think research would be intelligent in this case). Patrick is the toughest opponent Reilly has. He's still in first despite the fact that Gabrieli has pumped about 4 million (probably more) into the race thus far. If it was Reilly vs. Gabrieli, Gool 'ol Tom would have a much better chance.

Again, I'm NOT saying Reilly is behind it or even knows about it. It's just a motive.

Everything I said not only made sense, but seems to have turned out true. I only tossed in all that "motive" nonsense because I wanted to give Tom Reilly the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe Democrats don't Swiftboat Democrats. I was wrong.

I knew Reilly was a terrible campaigner. (St. Fluer anyone? 'Driving Cardinal Law out of Boston'?) I knew, from Reilly's past campaigns, he was a fan of dirty campaigns (with other Dems, too). However, the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke was beyond despicable: it was intolerable.

Lots of people, from the beginning, attacked Deval supporters for giving the Killer Coke campaign the time of day. 'We should just ignore them,' their reasoning went. This is why we can't ignore even fringe groups. I'm sure John Kerry's campaign advisers thought the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth were merely a fringe group to be ignored and they likely cost him the election - both the Swiftboaters and Kerry's idiotic campaign "advisers." Don't forget, Swiftboater group was essentially one person too - but he got lots of help, just like Ray Rogers seemed poised to just days ago before David broke the story.

We need to learn from our mistakes as Democrats. Luckily, thanks to people like David, the Lefty Blogosphere in general and now Joan Vennochi (like I said, she deserves Pulitzer Prize contention for this work) the Democratic Primary in Massachusetts is not only saved but has become a great vetting process - after Joan Vennochi's article, we all now know Tom Reilly is not fit to be Governor of this state.