Hey Mitt, Don't Let the Door Hit Your....

Read Joan Vennochi for a great synopsis of I've been saying all along.

Call this what it is: cynical, insider politics as usual. On his way out the door, Romney is engineering a political coup worthy of any old-time political boss. And he is doing it with more hypocrisy than most.

Romney ran for governor pledging to drive William M. Bulger out as president of UMass on the grounds that the former Senate president was too political. The governor accomplished his goal in 2003. Today, Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, the Republican who is seeking to succeed Romney, tout Bulger's ouster as a major accomplishment. During this week's gubernatorial debate, Healey said, ``I have to say our record as reformers is strong. We removed Billy Bulger from the University of Massachusetts."

However, replacing one circle of political loyalists with another is not reform.

Romney wants to reward Tocco with the UMass chairmanship for one reason: politics. As chairman of the Board of Higher Education, Tocco supported Romney's mission to depose Bulger, and he helped Romney defeat a UMass plan to take over Southern New England Law School in Dartmouth.

And that's just a blurb. From a UMASS student to our Governor, don't let the door hit your you-know-what on the way out. Mitt Romney won't be missed; when he's gone the four-year hangover will finally be over.

Mitt Romney: A Model Governor

Seriously, why bother being a Governor when you can tour the country while running for President and still get good press anyway. That Mitt, he always fixes things!

Much of the concrete ceiling in the Sumner Tunnel is crumbling and in danger of falling after years of neglect, Governor Mitt Romney warned yesterday, and drivers already frustrated by Big Dig tunnel closures will probably face more backups when the major airport-to-downtown route is repaired.

Except, well, he hasn't exactly "fixed" anything since the Salt Lake City Olympics - and that had much more to do with other factors than him alone. He did a fine job in Utah, but in Massachusetts? In the Bay State - no matter how many pieces of concrete he waives in front of TV cameras or hard cover hats he wears on his head - he's not exactly part of the solution.

Here's the impression the article gives me: Mitt Romney allows problems to develop so he can fix them later. That way he'll get a front page Boston Globe article out of it. Meanwhile, innocent women get two-ton slabs of concrete dropped on their heads. The fact that the Sumner Tunnel has loose concrete shouldn't be a surprise - neither was the Ted Williams tunnel for anyone grounded in reality. The warning signs were written on the wall, literally: loose bolts, loose concrete and hanging 2 ton pieces of concrete essentially held up by duck tape. There is nothing about the Big Dig the Massachusetts transportation infrastructure that inspires confidence.

Try as he may, Mitt Romney will never be President. He'll never be able to get by the Big Dig mess. He's trying like crazy now to solve that problem look like he's doing something, but a few months of action will never make up for the years of his administration's neglect. He's just running around a lot in hopes to fool the people, but people have been fooled enough and the Big Dig really is a laughing stock around the country. Mitt Romney did everything he could to make it a punch line - and now he has to own his Bay State jokes when they come back to bite him in the ass two years from now.

Mitt Romney had plenty of opportunities to be proactive on the Big Dig, but sadly opportunity alone can't save lives: only action can. It's hard to be on the action when you aren't even in Massachusetts. He's a model governor, all right: there's nothing real there other than his continuously puzzling moves that have amounted to a lot of sound and fury, but never really signifying much of anything.

I Sacrificed My Dinner for Deval

What will readers do? There's a big push this week to raise some cash for Deval; Kerry Healey has $15 million at her disposal. She's down in the polls and desperate. Who knows what crazy ads she'll throw out at Deval Patrick?

Instead of getting a few drinks at some point this week or going out to eat with some friends, I sacrificed $10 for Deval. It's what I could (kind of) afford to do. It isn't much, but it'll pay for a few lunches for volunteers going door to door. It'll buy some direct mail. Mostly, it'll show Kerry Healey that Deval Patrick has tens of thousands of loyal supporters giving to his campaign. Kerry Healey will know she can't pry those votes away.

I know lots of people are struggling to just get by (including me), but consider sending Deval something, even if it's just $5 or $10 dollars. It adds up quick - and it sends Kerry Healey a very scary message: she's going home on election day.

Memo to the Media: Immigration Isn't Going to Decide Election

If ten voters list their most important issue, maybe one of them will talk about immigration - and I question the reason driving that position. To be sure, immigration is an important issue and people need to become citizens when they move to America, but having sensible positions on immigration isn't going to swing this election. And let's all be honest: Deval Patrick's positions are sensible.

So for Fox 25 to go and talk about how Deval did terrible on the immigration issue and how he could lose lots of votes for it is disingenuous. Poll after poll has shown that it's the media that cares about immigration, not people. Immigration ranks on the bottom of the national conscience, especially in places like Massachusetts where immigration isn't a big problem. Immigration is an issue similar to Terry Shiavo: the media ate it up and suspected lots of conservative leaning people would rally around the issue, but turns out not even Republicans cared - oh, and Steven Lynch.

So let's get off this fixation on in-state tuition and licenses. It's unlikely that the state will have the power to grant licenses to undocumented citizens anyway, with new federal rules (assuming the state will take the money). Immigration is such a loaded issue where facts are confused with the passions of bigots the few and far between.

Instead, let's focus the debate on issues that matter: education reform, property tax vs. income tax, hastening permit approval and other issues where voters need to be better informed in order to make an educated vote. Let's discuss just how we're going to make our new healthcare system work; the new law could be a great thing if the right governor is elected - or it could be a complete and utter disaster. So, media, let's discuss issues that matter to people - not people on the fringe, but society as a whole. Let's target the debate on the nine out of ten people who care about issues that matter.

Christy Mihos: Ballsy or an Eunuch?

He can't have it both ways: He airs a pretty ballsy late-night TV ad, featuring Beacon Hill and Bechtel characters with their heads up their ass (his ads are here for anyone who wants to watch them). In the ads, there's a woman who looks exactly like Kerry Healey - which the media hath noticed. Furthermore, while I don't think the media has caught on yet, there's a man standing right next to the Kerry Healey character who looks almost exactly like Mitt Romney.

Yet, Christy Mihos claims it's just a coincidence. Allow me to call bull shit. Of course the woman in the ad is Kerry Healey - and of course the man next to her is Mitt Romney, even if the media ignored it. If Mihos wants to win, he can't put on an aura of being gutsy and then run away from it. If he airs those commercials, he owns them - for better or worse.

That said, the ad isn't terrible effective. For one, how many people want to watch characters with their heads up their butt? I'm guessing that's a turn off for most of the population. The most effective thing about Mihos's ad is the fact that it was so controversial that the media covered it and he got free publicity to go along with the cost of the ads (it's kinda like the CBS giving him a "buy one get one free" steal). However, Mihos is going to need to do better if he wants any chance of winning - not only better commercials, but he'll need to perform well at the debates. If this keeps up, his campaign is never going to be more than a spoiler: pulling too many votes away from Kerry Healey to give her a chance.

(PS: Thanks Christy).

Swampscott Loses a Soldier to Iraq

I'll never forgive President Bush. 130,000 Iraqis are dead because of his lies and deceit. More than 2,500 Americans - and counting - are dying. However, these are all foreign numbers - until one of your own dies.

Well, one of Swampscott's own died: Jared Raymond, age 20. He joined the army because of 9/11. He joined the army because he felt it was his Patriotic duty. I hate to make political statements when someone died, but if now isn't the time, I just don't know when it is. The President abused this poor boy's patriotism by exploiting 9/11 and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with it. The country Bush invaded, where this poor guy was killed, wasn't a threat to America or even anyone in the Middle East. Saddam Hussien was contained.

We decided to create a new order of things in the Middle East - and now Swampscott lost one of its youngest in a waste of a war. It pales in comparison to Iraq's loss - 130,000 people - but he's one of a mountain of dead bodies coming home to America. His death has hit home and made me more resolute than ever in getting out of Iraq.

One life - something that should always be cherished - is over. What would Jared Raymond have become? What was his potential in life? What would have been his achievements? Who would he have loved? What would his children have been like - and what would they have done? We'll never know now because he's dead. His body is cold and rotting. It's unfair, it's terrible and it should never have happened. How many more Jared Raymonds are there going to be before everyone wakes up and we finally bring our troops home?

Yo, Globe: He's Been Saying that All Along

David Dahl, the Globe's political editor, posted a blog today suggesting Deval is using one of Chris Gabrieli's campaign lines, "I'm not running as a label. I'm interested in good ideas, whether they are Democratic ideas or Republican ideas or independent ideas.'' While there's some real, not-so-subtle differences between that line and Gabrieli's line ('it doesn't matter if it's a Republican idea or a Democratic idea, so long as it's a good idea'), I would like to point out to David that I heard Deval stump on how labels don't define him a long time ago. Specifically, he talked about how he didn't care if something were right and left; he was more interested in if it were right or wrong. He even went on to discuss how Mitt Romney has had some good ideas, Mitt just failed to implement them. As a refresher, that was in April, which is like 15 dog years ages ago in an election season.

And even if Chris Gabrieli were to have said it before Deval, I assure readers he wasn't the person to coin the phrase. However, if people want to think it's a Chris Gabrieli phrase - all the better. After all, Deval Patrick is going to be counting on Gabrieli and Reilly supporters for victory in November: we want to send clear messages to them that they should support Deval, especially since he will borrow Chris Gabrieli and Tom Reilly's best ideas.

Kerry Healey's Worst Nightmare

I wish I could say it's the video I made.



However, it's not. Her biggest nightmare is Tuesday's Deval Country electoral map. With 322 communities under Deval's belt - and almost a million Democratic primary voters in all (half of which voted Deval) - Kerry Healey knows she's got her work cut out for her.

Where are the votes going to come from? North of Boston is frequently where a lot of Republicans get their votes, but I just don't see it this time. Sure, towns like Lynnfield will probably swing Republican, but almost 4,000 people in Marblehead turned out for Democrats out of about 20,000 people living there. Almost 3,000 people turned out for Dems next door, in Swampscott, in a town of 14,500. In working class areas, like Lowell, about 9,500 people showed up for Democrats. Lynn? 9,300 people showed up for Democrats, where Deval did very well. Deval didn't do quite as well in Revere, but a lot of Democrats (around 6,000) showed up.

I don't see Healey doing well in other areas that have swung Republican in the past. Deval has an exceptional presence in Western Mass and Tim Murray could be a large asset beyond 495: he certainly cleanly swept his own city during the primary. In some elections just west of Boston has been an asset for Republican governors, but this year? Deval did not do well in Burlington, but slightly less than 3,500 people turned out for Democrats - a pretty high number. I highly doubt all the Gabrieli voters are going to swing Healey. Most of them will either vote Deval or not vote at all. More than 2,500 people in Westwood turned out to vote for Democrats and Deval got the plurality there too.

While this is a highly anecdotal look at Kerry Healey's outlook; it's an honest one. I'm not picking and choosing which towns I've reported. They were just towns and cities in areas that have helped Republicans win the Corner Office in the past. With the turnout so high in most of these communities for a Democratic primary, I just don't see enough voters going for Healey to swing it in her direction. The scary thing is that doesn't even take into account the huge victories Deval is going to get in cities like Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Quincy, New Bedford, Worcester and Springfield.

Deval is going to win big in most of those communities, while Kerry Healey won't have that same coalition of voters that allowed Celluci, Weld and Romney to win Massachusetts. Healey won't be the outsider, is dealing with the strongest opponent any of these Democrats have had to face and won't have the GOTV operation Deval has built. Not only that, but she's going to have to compete with Christy Mihos. Even if Mihos steals some votes from Deval, it won't be as many. A lot of the socially liberal voters who have voted for Republicans in the past could easily pull the Mihos level, perhaps even attracted to him by his Big Dig record and strong ads (he has one of the best advertising guys in the country).

Kerry Healey is in trouble; there's no doubt about it. That's why she came out with fighting words on Tuesday, but we've had enough of that. This election is going to be about the issues and truth, if Deval Patrick has anything to do with it. As strange as it may seem, perhaps that's Kerry Healey's greatest nightmare?

The Kerry Healey Song: She's a Republican!

This took me waaaay too long to make:

But I had fun using new technology!

My Election Day Regret: Bonifaz Lost

As I came to to know John Bonifaz, I recognized him as the exact sort of person we need in an important position of power: He's exceptionally bright, well spoken, hard working and forward thinking. However, with Deval Patrick stealing all the grassroots thunder, a powerful incumbent who wasn't willing to engage in a campaign and a media that was - for the most part - complicit, John Bonifaz's campaign never really got off the ground. Now we have this: 8 missing precincts in an important write-in campaign. Eight missing precincts in a race that's hanging by a chad - just 141 votes. I just can't, for the life of me, imagine a situation like this happening with John Bonifaz at the helm - especially if he had years in office behind him.

To my readers and fellow bloggers: John Bonifaz is a man who deserves to be in an office where he can work on electoral reform. He's one of the nation's leaders on the issue - and he has the core values that make for a healthy democracy. We need a man like him reforming the system from the inside - a process far quicker than having to fight court battle after court battle that can take months and years to complete.

Memo to Howie Carr: In-State Tuition Isn't Free

Maybe having $20,000+ in loans doesn't seem like much to Howie Carr, but it's sure a lot to me. Not only do I get in-state tuition, but I've essentially been given grants (which really are free) that covered half my costs. UMASS Dartmouth would have cost a lot more, otherwise. Perhaps right out of my price range.

Deval doesn't just want to give them in-state (i.e., free) tuition

Don't you love how he lies? He's worse than Kerri Healey! Deval likes to appeal to informed voters who want hope, Joe Lieberman (proudly) appealed to low-information voters - Howie Carr and Kerry Healey Muffy? Apparently they want to get out the xenophobic vote - oh, and the homophobic vote too! Can't forget that one:

The fact that Ward 19, Jamaica Plain, home of many people who are, shall we say, deeply interested in the gay marriage issue, had a higher turnout percentage-wise than Wards 6 and 7 in South Boston tells you all you need to know about who was excited, and who wasn't.

However, it all makes me smile. It's all they've got - they've got nothing. They can't even attack Deval Patrick on his real positions, they need to distort them. Their attacks are tired, old reruns of the past - against a new, energized candidate for the future. To sum it up, they just brought a knife to a gun fight. 16 years of fog Republican "leadership" is about to replaced by a progressive chief who really cares about the people of this state - and there's nothing Howie Carr (or poor 'ol Ginny) can do about it.

Election Round-Up & My N. Bedford Times Interview

I was interviewed by Jack Spillane of the Standard Daily Times yesterday for an article he wrote on Deval Patrick's victory. Specifically, he wanted a younger voter's perspective and also someone from the netroots. I thought it was a great article - particularly because my favorite professor, Dr. Kenneth Manning, acknowledged one of the key components to this new progressive movement: the netroots. In 2004, I took a seminar with him on Campaign and Elections; we'd frequently chat about what we each thought Democrats needed to do to win. Back then, he maintained it was sticking to the center on issues, "getting the biggest slice of the pie." I thought it was taking principled stances, similar to the Republicans, except without the whole morally repugnant part. Granted, my position has become slightly more sophisticated since then - as I've grown to appreciate the renewed progressive movement in this country - but I think with candidates like Deval Patrick, Ned Lamont, Jon Tester and Jim Webb popping up all around the country I may have been right. These candidates appeal to the population not because they're tied to the netroots, but because they offer a message of hope and accountability.

Finally, since I wrote a gazillion blogs yesterday, I'd like to make a little election round up:

1. Call it a pre-election celebration: Deval's New Bedford Rally last Saturday with some pictures (including one of him and I).

2. I asked people to vote and they did. Over 420,000 of them for Deval alone.

3. A last minute Chris Gabrieli ad!

4. Virginia Buckingham proves just how influential she is, which just may be less influential than I am. Hey, at least my guy won!

5. Some post-election thoughts, including sympathy for the Devil Jane Swift.

6. Town-by-town analysis. I'll be writing more on this later - well, more analysis - because it interests me that a city like New Bedford would be way more pro-Deval than Fall River and I want to know why.

7. CBS called it for Deval when there was just 4% of the precincts reporting.

8. Kerry Healey lies like a rug - and certainly didn't improve her chances with her "victory speech." If there were more than a hundred people at her "rally," I'd be shocked.

9. So much for the theory that Cape Wind would hurt Deval in Cape Cod; he won the entirety of Barnstable County (by a sizable margin). Oh - and he was probably strongest on Nantucket.

10. Deval speaks, Kerry Healey quivers.

Kerry Healey is COOKED!

Live from Deval's Speech:

Deval just ripped her one - and did it politely. 'Let's talk about the big dig - and how it took a personal tragedy to focus the administration's focus on what we've seen everyday... I choose change, I choose hope... and I invite everyone in this state to join on this journey.'

To Kerry Healey, "We have had enough of that." "If you want to engage on issues, on real solutions, then we will give the people a contest they deserve and they will have a real choice to make." Why do I doubt she'll take the offer?

Clearly, Nantucket Wants Cape Wind

Gabrieli: 134
Patrick: 800
Reilly: 169

So that ends that debate.

Update: NECN just made the point too, Deval carried Bristol County by about 50%.

Clearly, Cape Wind needs to be built immediately.

Kerry Healey: She Lies Like a Rug

Someone better be recording this because we seriously need a Youtube.

She's basically said Deval's going to make taxes skyrocket and destroy Massachusetts. She's going to lose because you can see the lies right through her teeth.

Oh, and memo to Kerry Healey: you aren't a work'n gal, my mother is. Get real and be honest - this schtik is about as believable as Chris Gabrieli taking out the trash.

CBS Calling It? Deval Wins

I find it odd they'd call it so quickly, but it seems like they did. Maybe it was a mistake, because even with a big Deval lead so far, Springfield and Boston haven't reported a single district that I've seen yet. (Niether has New Bedford, Fall River, Lynn or Worcester.)

Don't get me wrong, it's looking *really* good - but I wouldn't have called it until at least 40% were reporting.

Update: they really did. Just saw it on TV. I saw it when they had 4% reporting.

Let's hope there's no repeat of Florida: 2000. (I doubt there will be, but I still think I'd have waited longer before I made it official).

Update: Tom Reilly gave his concession speech. If he campaigned with that tone, he could have won. He was really gracious and even joked about it ("we're just trying to crack 25%"). I really, truly appreciate Reilly's gesture of unity: that's exactly what we need to win. Thanks, Tom, for all your service and hard work. It's appreciated and won't be forgotten!

Town by Town: How Deval's Doing

[Note to readers: since it's interesting to see how different areas vote, I'll be taking a quick glimpse at it. Maybe tomorrow I'll do some analysis on just why I think things swinged the way they did at local levels.]

So far, so good. Deval's doing well in a diversity of municipalities - from Belmont to Wales and Gosnold. Falmouth is looking good so far. I'll keep updating this throughout. Though I'll possibly be doing an interview in a few minutes.

Keep in mind, though - there's probably less than one % reporting.

Update: 3% reporting.

Some fairly large communities Deval has won, with all precincts reporting:

Reading, North Andover (by just about 200 votes), Concord (huge victory there), Manchester and of course I can't forget Gosnold and Wales.

So far, Deval has a narrow lead in Burlington with 4 of 6 districts reporting.

Update: Interestingly, Dudley - with 1 of 4 districts reporting - has voted 104 Gabrieli, 110 and Reilly ZERO. Don't ask me, that's just about statistically impossible.

Deval is winning every town so far, though as you can see (Burlington, Dudley, etc.) there are a lot of very close ones.

Update: Finally, somewhere Deval isn't winning: Braintree - with 4 of 12 princincts reporting. Let's hope it's an anomoly. Gabrieli: 838, Deval: 627, Reilly: 678.

Update: Dudley was a Boston Globe typo. They fixed it. Reilly had 110 votes in that district and Deval had 139.

All of Burlington's districts have reported. Gabs won it by maybe 20 votes. Just goes to show that every vote counts, at least in a meaningless kind of way.

Tom Reilly's doing relatively well in Barnstable and Billerica (so far).

Update: Marblehead, adjacent to my hometown, voted overwhelmingly for Deval (by just under a thousand votes - for a town of about 17,000 people). Turnout seems high there, with almost 4,000 votes. That has to be close to 40-50% of registered voters.

Update: 9:30ish - all 10 districts of Dartmouth reporting... big Deval win (almost a thousand votes)! Woot, woot!

Update: More UMASS Dartmouth area updates: Fairhaven, Westport and others went to Deval. Bristol County seems to have definitely swung to Deval - so much for being one of the more conservative democratic-leaning areas. The support tonight for Deval has been far and wide - even in the few municipalities where Deval didn't win, he recieved a lot of support.

Update: I was getting worried about Northampton - just look how close it was!

Gabrieli: 258
Patrick: 1,737
Rielly: 264

Update: New Bedford went solidly to Deval, but turnout seemed abysmal there.

Update: Interestingly, while Deval won Fall River, Tom Reilly finished a close second there... which is an interesting contrast to New Bedford, just next door and very similar in make-up, where Deval beat both by about 2,000 votes each, or 4,000 votes in all. Maybe it's because of the extrordinary effort by volunteers in New Bedford?

Update: Some final thoughts for tonight - Surprisingly, Deval did soundly won in cities like Boston, Worcester, New Bedford and Lynn. So much for machine politics and Mayoral endorsements.

Polls Closed, Some Thoughts (including Jane Swift?)

Well, the polls are closed. I went around Dartmouth and New Bedford to try to get a sense of what was going on and the only sense I got was that Walsh and Suttner have lots of loyal volunteers. There really wasn't much in terms of the Governor's race that I saw - though, I must admit, I didn't go by some of the larger precinct stations in New Bedford. However, from what I hear, the turnout wasn't terrible - and that's what's important.

For my election coverage, I've been reading BMG, the Herald and Globe, as well as watching NECN. For some reason, NECN needed balance in the newsroom for a Democratic Primary. By balance, I mean having a Republican (Jane Swift) and a Democrat (Warren Tolman) for discussion. That seems to me about as logical as having Saddam Hussien lecture a group of fourth graders about how the US House of Representatives is comprised.

That said, Jane Swift really comes across well on TV. Honestly, she'd have been a much better candidate for Governor than Kerry Healey. I always felt bad that Republicans threw her under the bus for a guy that clearly has disdain for Massachusetts. Yes, she did some things in office she shouldn't have, but part of that can be explained by the fact that she didn't have a Governer's House while her family home was in Western Mass.

[Note to readers: I can't believe I'm defending Jane Swift.]

Poor Ginny

She wrote a column today essentially going back on everything she said - that Deval was Healey's worst nightmare. My take? She still feels the same way, despite whatever she wrote today. Simply put, by lambasting Deval's chances right before the primary she's probably turned off some potential readers from Deval. Pretty sneaky, eh?

It doesn't matter. She's about as influential as I am. Funny she tried to dig the Globe for declining readership in the column - it's not as if the Herald's readership has skyrocketed or anything.

Like I said the other day, the sound of victory kinda sounds something like reading Herald columnists of the past few days out loud. Enjoy it, savor it... they're panicking.

Equal Opportunity: A Last Minute Look at Gabrieli

Since I'm a journalist at heart, I thought it was important for me to give a little balance on this blog. As Deval Patrick likes to say, all of the candidates in this race have at least one good idea. So, I did a little searching and found the perfect video in support of Gabrieli.

(Note to readers, I think Milo of Queer Today filmed it.)

Don't Take the Polls Lightly

While it's always nice to be up in the polls - seeing Deval's name leading the pack in SUSA, Suffolk, State House and the Globe is certainly exciting - it's essentially meaningless. My biggest fear today is that Deval supporters are going to be over-confident, which could cost us the election. I don't want anyone thinking this today, "Oh, he's up 15% in the polls! I can take it easy on myself and skip voting," because it could just end up creating a Gabrieli victory. He has millions of dollars to spend, so if anyone doesn't think he's going to create a huge GOTV movement that could be right up there with Deval's volunteers, they're crazy. Gabrieli's campaign was flawed, but at some point if you just keep throwing cash out there you'll give yourself a chance. Don't give Gabrieli that chance. Go get out and vote!

It's essential. Everything is riding on this - the entire future of our state is on the line. There's such a fundamental difference between Deval Patrick and his opponents that we can't afford four more years of the same-old, same-old. We can't afford four years of the Good Old Boy Network, Republican or Democrat. Deval Patrick is fundamentally different and will breathe a fresh air on Beacon Hill; he'll shake up the GOB Network; he'll actually - you know - create inspiring change and display leadership with vision and charisma. There are politicians great at maintaining the status quo - Deval Patrick isn't one of them. What you get with Deval is real change for the better, which is exactly what this state needs. So get out, vote and make it happen!

Belated: Pictures of Deval (and I) from New Bedford Rally

I told you all about the Deval Patrick speech in New Bedford from Saturday - and it was a blast. Well, here are some pictures!



Did I mention the venue was packed? On a very warm Saturday, literally hundreds of people showed up - and most of them either climbed four very long flights of stairs or waited in an even longer line for a very slow elevator. People are excited!


The first speaker of the day was this lovely blond woman - a local activist who has literally secured thousands of election-day votes for Deval before the polls open. She's done more for Deval in the South Coast than probably any other volunteer, by the looks of it. Kudos!


Finally, I waited around for a good chunk of time so I could get a clear picture with him - the guy who has inspired me like no other. He stayed around for probably more time than he should so he could listen to lots of people talk about obscure issues that are surely important to them, but not to 99% of Massachusetts. Yet, he does so happily. That's because he, unlike a lot of politicians, listens. Quaint, huh?

A few other tidbits from the rally - besides the venue being absolutely beautiful, Deval departed from the script in other events I've been to so he could talk about community building. Perhaps he's confident of his chances and wants to remind his supporters that, no matter what, the work we've done so far in this campaign won't end on Tuesday or in November. We've built a broad-based coalition of engaged citizens during this campaign and it will take people like us to effect positive change in Massachusetts. So keep on talking about Mrs. Jones, Deval. It's an important lesson.

Finally, I bumped into a very nice lady walking up the very long stairs - her name (I think) was Libby. I didn't know her, but she was very friendly and said hello. We chatted on the way upstairs. I was intrigued and asked if she was a part of the campaign. "Oh, yes, I'm the press secretary." She was a doll! Just as we got upstairs she took a closer look at me and said, "you aren't Ryan from Ryan's Take, are you?"

"Why, yes, I am," I said. She then proceeded to chat about various things with me, how the campaign was going, etc. It wasn't very important stuff and I told her I wouldn't put it in my blog, but it was just so nice to see that Deval has attracted people who are as nice and engaging as himself. Not only was it nice to see that she was keeping track of what everyone was saying, but that she was as nice before she recognized me as she was after.

So, to Deval's campaign, kudos! Kudos for a great event, kudos for a great candidate and kudos for attracting some of the nicest, hardest-working people I've seen anywhere. May we win tomorrow and bring a new hope to Massachusetts!

New Polls: Just Vote

Adam Reilly posts on some new polling out today - Suffolk just released its last poll before the primary. It's results differ from both SUSA and the Globe; Patrick only leads by 8% with a 4% margin of error and 13% undecideds.

Which polls are right? SUSA and the Globe, which reported nearly identical results, or Suffolk? Honestly, who cares? Just go out, vote and bring your friends too.

I'd analyze the polls and quickly try to figure out why they're different, but I have a paper to finish! Suffice it to say, they probably ask somewhat different questions.

This Is What Victory Sounds Like

Ain't it sweet?

BTW - my camera's cord is mia, so the pictures from my Deval rally are going to have to wait.

Jeff Jacoby Needs to Take English 101

I don't think this makes too much sense, do you? He certainly could do with a class on Massachusetts State Politics... because he doesn't quite get the difference between ballot measures and our state constitution.

Pre-Primary Blogging Roundup - Podcast Style

If any readers ever wanted to actually hear me, this is your chance. On the podcast, we discuss electability, each of the state-wide races and even Grace Ross of the Green Party. Particularly interesting is our dialogue on electability - about 7 or 8 minutes into it.

Pictures and analysis from the Deval Rally I went to later today, including one of Deval and I!

Deval in New Bedford, a Diff. Take on Gabrieli

First, I'd like to mention I'm going to see Deval one last time in New Bedford today - at 2pm. If anyone can make it and wants to meet me there, email me very soon for directions.

Finally, yesterday I continued my theory that Kerry Healey really wants Chris Gabrieli. It was just way to obvious to only go after Gabrieli before election day. It's the type of thing that's either a really stupid move or really brilliant, depending on whether or not she wanted Deval. However, an expert on Massachusetts politics who wished to remain anonymous had a different take on the situation: he or she thought that it was "probably a good move" since there are a lot of low information voters, even among professionals.

Sadly, that's the truth. So let's work hard to get Deval nominated. He's the one who's going to get more people to "check back in."

Chris Gabrieli = John Kerry

Like I said the other day, Kerry Healey really wants Chris Gabrieli as an opponent. She put out negative Gab ads to make it seem otherwise, encouraging support for Gabrieli. Voters are often uninformed, but rarely stupid. They certainly wouldn't vote against Chris Gabrieli in a primary because Kerry Healey told them so - and Kerry Healey is banking on that.

So, I just read this and was somewhat startled. Remember that little quote John Kerry said that pretty much killed him? Well, it turns out Chris Gabrieli was also 'for it before he was against it.'

Gabrieli said, ``I never say I'm actually against it." If the Legislature approved it, he added, ``I have not said I'd veto it."

He's referring to the in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrats - the one he was apparently for before he was against, but is really still for, even if he's against it. Isn't it easy to get why Republicans LOVE THESE KINDS OF CANDIDATES? What the polls say now about how Dems fair against Kerri Healey are almost meaningless; Healey wants to take on Chris Gabrieli for fairly obvious reasons: He's the type of candidate that's for things before he's against them.

I'm Proud to Be From Massachusetts

While history records some of the most important achievements of humanity right here in Massachusetts, our Commonwealth is stained in more than its fair share of repugnant historical footnotes that can never be forgotten. Be it school bussing in Boston or revealing riots that took place in New Bedford, there are certain things the Commonwealth can never forget. However, I question "have we learned?" I like what I see.

Whatever happens on Tuesday, there's something remarkable that's going to take place. Two candidates are going to be weighed, judged and earn a lot of votes. Both candidates have earned my admiration and support. One happens to be African American and the other Latino. Both have a chance to win; one is favored to win.

Yet, that's not the remarkable part. What's remarkable is that it doesn't seem to be an issue. Sure, there was a periphery question at a debate, but the answer given was especially poignant and revealing: outliers of society aren't going to determine this election. Have we finally reached the point in time where, at least for the most part, people aren't thinking of race?

Clearly, there is more progress to be made. Years ago, when I was an adviser to the Board of Education, I had a role in addressing the MCAS test. While I was not in support of the test, I was pragmatic: I wanted to make it became more relevant and give people a better chance to pass. In studying the issue, I realized the media had it wrong: the MCAS wasn't some huge success story. While people were passing it in larger number, the gap between minorities and Caucasians actually grew. Clearly, the differences in socio-economic levels and opportunity have not leveled in Massachusetts - but at least, for once, the political situation seems to be a somewhat accurate dipiction, with two minority candidates poised to win statewide offices.

On Tuesday, I expect a Deval Patrick victory. It can happen and it will happen. Supporters are going to work hard to make sure Massachusetts has a politician who can inspire us from the Corner Office. Bonifaz faces a tougher challenge, but it isn't because of race. It's because he's facing an entrenched incumbent who has been reticent to respect democracy and debate. However, there's still the chance to upset and at the very least make his presense heard.

No matter Tuesday's outcome, I hope both candidates continue to fight for Massachusetts. Both have already dramatically altered the political landscape of the Commonwealth for the better. I've never been so reassured about the future. I've never felt so much hope that things can be better. We can and we will get there. I'm proud to have blogged these races and I'm most certainly proud to be from Massachusetts.

Thank you John Bonifaz and Deval Patrick. For the first time in my life, I know what it's like to be inspired by political leaders.

A Hero in Our Midst

After years of sheepish "leaders," it's amazing to see so many bright stars shine under the political sky once more. Is this what it's like to be inspired?

We have John F. Kennedy Deval Patrick running for Governor, compelling tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens to "check back in" to the Commonwealth. There's Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, sparking people internationally, even while bringing a smile to their faces. However, while I love Stewart, Colbert and especially Deval Patrick, there's one person who is revolutionizing the most essential industry in America by looking to its past and he must be recognized: Keith Olbermann. Olbermann channels Edward Murrow on an almost-daily basis. Finally, there's a member of the media who fact checks and doesn't let punditry bullshit get by. While he's good every night, occasionally there are moments of brilliance that stand out even for him. On September the 11th, Keith Olbermann had just such a moment.

Healey Wants Gabrieli, Don't Believe Otherwise

Andy's theory is not only plausible, but likely. Healey may have an ad attacking Chris Gabrieli, but the political consequences are so obvious that there's no way she was being that straightforward. Healey inevitably must have realized that by attacking Gabrieli, it would make it look like she really, truly didn't want Gabrieli - and therefore people who wanted a Democrat in the office would be all the more likely to vote Gabrieli in the primary. Voters may be uninformed, but they're not stupid. After all, we want to win - we want to vote for the electable guy. Well, folks, like I've said all along: vote for the guy who you like best, because we're going to romp Healey any way she wants to take it.

That said, Democrats have to remember how Republicans operate. They don't win because they have more money. While that may help, it doesn't explain the phenomenon of Republican dominance. Republicans win by creating clear distinctions between candidates. They define their campaign and, more importantly, they define their opponents campaign. Old-style democrats waffle and fall right into the trap.

Kerry Healey knows not to trust a poll months away from the General Election. The candidate she wants to face isn't based on poll numbers, it's based on who she can face that would confuse voters the most. Clear distinctions are key - and she knows it. It's much easier to attack Chris Gabrieli for not being for or against the tax cut, than it is to attack Deval Patrick for not being in favor of it now. It's much easier to attack Chris Gabrieli on a convoluted plan than to attack Deval Patrick on something he's laid out black-and-white: He isn't going to support an income tax rollback right now and wants to address more pressing needs, like housing costs, jobs and healthcare - and Kerry Healey won't be able to handle that onslaught.

Just remember this when Chris Gabrieli sacrifices the Democrat Party up to Kerry Healey trying to win. He's a DLC-style politician and proud of it. DLC-style politics have led to Republican electoral dominance. John Kerry lost because of it, Al Gore lost because of it and we've lost Congress and the Senate because of years of it. However, it's not just a national phenomenon - just ask Shannon O'Brien. None of those candidates had to lose - they all are actually very different than their Republican opponents. However, they all had one fatal flaw: they listened to DLC-style politicians screaming to run to the center and look Republican-lite. Sadly, Chris Gabrieli has that trait too - and that's why Kerry Healey wants to take a crack at him.

PS: Mark my words, Gabrieli is going to run with this. He's holding a press conference at 2pm at the State House. Here's the gist of Gabrieli's speech before he makes it (mark my words), "Kerry Healey doesn't support stem cell research and wants to see little children die from childhood diabetes. The truth is she's afraid of me and knows that I poll the highest against her. If people (note how he probably won't say "Democrat") want to see an end to 16 years of failure by the Republicans in the Corner Office, vote for me."

Gabrieli is absolutely going to run with it - and Kerry Healey is going to be ecstatic. Whether I'm right or wrong on this theory, DON'T LET KERRY HEALEY INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE. This is a Democratic primary, Republicans aren't invited. Despite Gabrieli's problems, he'll still be odds-on to win if nominated. However, let's not make it easier for Kerry Healey by playing into her hands. While I hope everyone votes for Deval Patrick, I only ask that you don't vote based on Kerry Healey or DLC-style "electability" because it'll be a recipe for disaster. We don't want a close general election, especially when we can trounce Kerry Healey and send shockwaves throughout the state: the people have taken back government.

The Phoenix's Endorsements:

In no particular order: John Bonifaz, Phil Dunkelbarger, Deb Goldberg and Deval Patrick.

My only surprise is Deb Goldberg, but it looks like they had a tough choice choosing between Goldberg and Murray. Why they don't seem to think Andrea Silbert is on the same field, I don't know.

If anything, the endorsement for Bonifaz seemed strongest:

If ever there were a natural-born reformer, it is Bonifaz. He is perhaps the only person ever to seek office in Massachusetts who is also the winner of a MacArthur “genius” fellowship for his pioneering legal work in voting-rights and campaign-finance reform. Where others see process, Bonifaz sees policy. He has the rare political ability to see life not as it is, but as it should be. He has the idealism and the energy to try to make our government better by making politics accessible to all, not just to the well connected and the well financed. If you think politics is plagued by cynicism and corrupted by cronyism, then a vote for Bonifaz is a vote for hope that the system, and society, can be made better.

And, finally, you wouldn't read this in the Boston Globe,

A vote for Dunkelbarger might help Lynch make up his mind whether he’s a Democrat or a Republican in drag.

New Bedford's Paper Endorses Bonifaz!

John Bonifaz has been endorsed by the Standard Daily Times of New Bedford. For those of you who don't know, the Standard-Daily is the South Coast's largest and most respected newspaper.

After weighing the cases made by both candidates, we believe that the challenger, John Bonifaz, a young lawyer and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, has the right ideas. Our democracy is at risk as more and more people fail to vote and fewer and fewer people stand for election to public office. The state has one of the highest numbers of uncontested races in the nation.

It will take more than a well-liked incrementalist to turn the tide on these dangerous trends in Massachusetts. The state needs an energetic, high-profile voter rights activist who is not afraid to push hard for election day registration, voting day holidays, campaign finance reforms and greater access to the polls by the growing number of people who speak Spanish or another non English language as their primary language.

Here's what probably sealed the deal, something the Boston Globe ignored.

And finally, it was disappointing that the voters were not given more chances to see the two candidates debate these issues. Mr. Bonifaz made several attempts to get Mr. Galvin to agree to a series of debates, but the secretary has not responded to these attempts, including a letter in July. Mr. Bonifaz can list many debates in which he was the only one on the podium.

It's nice to see that the New Bedford Standard Daily Times gets it. They clearly weighed the evidence and came out with a very logical conclusion: John Bonifaz deserves to be elected. He both has more ideas and energy and is willing to actually engage in the Democratic process (debating).

Note to readers: Yesterday I was part of a Bonifaz blogger conference call in which a Boston Globe reporter joined in. She picked up on a point Bonifaz made from a question I asked: Bonifaz suggested there was likely dissent on the Globe's Editorial Board in its Galvin endorsement. I didn't think much of it then, thinking Bonifaz was trying to make the best of an undesired (but expected) situation. However, Donald Dahl is the one who posted the story on Political Intelligence... and he's the Globe's Political Editor. There just could be something to this gossip, but we'll never know for sure. After all, what happens in Vegas an editorial board room stays in the editorial board room.

Hub Politics: Pandering to... Idiots?

Apparently Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli are out of the mainstream because they went to a debate hosted by a GLBT Law group. While some would call that listening to voters, Hub Politics calls it "pandering to every group possible."

Furthermore, Hub went on to call the forum a "gay debate." Gee, I didn't know debates could be homosexual.

Addressing the arguments Hub tries to make seems akin to debating a four year old, especially since they use neither logic nor evidence, but perhaps I should since it would provide a service to readers to show just out "out of touch" Hub Politics is. Just read this laughably ignorant sentence:

During the gay debate, both candidates revealed just how out of the mainstream they are, expressing their desires for Massachusetts to become the Gay Las Vegas by allowing our state to issue marriage licenses to gay couples from out-of-state.

Maybe the candidates are out of the mainstream for Uganda, but here in Massachusetts the vast majority of people support gay rights. However, it's nice to see Hub using Mitt Romney talking points (memo to Hub Politics: using someone else's idea without sourcing it is called plagiarism, but that's par for the Republican course). Added fun for capitalizing "Gay" for no apparent reason. Note, however, Hub Politics makes a bold statement by saying that being against a 1913 law written for racist reasons flows against the "mainstream," but fails to offer any evidence to support its claim. Are readers just supposed to take Hub Politics' word for it?

If Chris Gabrieli and Deval Patrick are out of the mainstream on this particular issue, chances are it's the mainstream of voices Matt Morgalis (the author) hears in his head. The voices were having a deep conversation with Matt when he wrote,

Strange isn't it that they want the same 87% Democrat-legislature that has gone against the will of the people time and time again to make that call.

I don't think a rational supporter of Mitt Romney wants to throw that one out there, but when one has a chorus of voices in their head they may not be so rational. Perhaps Matt has forgotten about his favorite Massachusetts International House of Pancakes Republican and his propensity to go "against the will of the people." Note to Hub Politics, re: Will of the People... Mitt Romney goes against the will of the people - e v e r y d a y. Heck, Mitt can't even manage to stay in the state for a week straight and it doesn't get anymore 'against the will of the people' than that.

PS: Hey Matt, don't forget it was Republicans who wrote and supported the Goodridge decision, not Deval Patrick or Chris Gabrieli. Just sayin'.

Keeping Composure: Deval's Up Big

I'm not going to crack open the bubbly yet, but things certainly are looking good. SUSA released its poll today - Deval Patrick has 45% of the vote. He's up 15%.

I've said it time and time again, though. I won't trust polls that are radically different until the results are repeated at least once, and preferably by another polling firm. Luckily, the State House News Service is releasing a poll today - soon.

That said, Deval has likely moved up in the polls - and here's why.

1. He did well at the debate and it likely had the most viewers.
2. The post-debate analysis certainly didn't hurt him.
3. The Globe's editorial was both unexpected and well argued.

Update: Today's second poll is out - and has somewhat similar numbers. This time, Deval's up 36-26, with Reilly trailing at 19%.

What does this mean? Deval is up somewhere between 10-15% of the vote. In neither SUSA or the State House poll does Chris Gabrieli crack 30% - for some reason (and I really don't know why) it looks like he could have lost somewhere between 2-5% from the last set of surveys, but it's a small number statistically so who knows if anyone can read much more into that. What is certain is Reilly's numbers have gone way down and Deval's up considerably.

BTW: Charley at BMG explained just why the two polls are somewhat different:

Important caveat: "... Survey of 400 Massachusetts residents, 201 of whom said they’re likely to vote in the Democratic primary."

So SUSA polled 600+ likely voters, while the State House News Service had an even split of 400 voters who were either likely to vote or merely eligible. I'm more inclined to believe SUSA's results, but either way I'm a happy camper.

I still won't crack the bubbly, because Chris Gabrieli has about another million dollars he can spend every day between now and the election (before he maxes out on his 15.36 million dollar joke), but Deval Patrick is in excellent shape to win. I can feel the hope already.

The Globe's Endorsement of Galvin

It was pretty weak; here's my letter to the editor:

In endorsing Secretary of State Bill Galvin for another term, the Boston Globe suggested, "there is no evident reason for voters to replace the incumbent." How about this: Bill Galvin has utterly refused to defend his positions in a debate with John Bonifaz. Not only has he refused, but he actually skipped the one debate he submitted to - according to the Medford Democratic Party.

Contrast Galvin to Bonifaz, who reaches out to voters and will be accountable to them, and I think the choice is easy: John Bonifaz for Secretary of State. However, if that isn't good enough, remember Bill Galvin has had years to enact the Help America Vote Act and citizens of Springfield and Boston needed the Bush Justice Department to protect them. Bill Galvin is not doing his job.

The Herald's Trivial Pursuit

Since yesterday's Herald Op-Eds were a real barrel of laughs, I figure 'let the games continue!.' The Herald submitted to the public two endorsements yesterday and neither of them were yet for Kerry Healey or Reed Hillman. It's clear that the Herald's pursuit of truth is trivial, at best. Therefore, let's play a game of Trivial pursuit. I'm going to name off a few choice quotes from yesterday's editorials and readers will have to guess who they apply to.

1. Which candidate was the Herald discussing when it said, "There is something enormously attractive about a candidate who has spent much of [his or her] career in the business world and then decides it's time to give back to the community through public service?"

A. Jill Stein
B. Chris Gabrieli
C. Andrea Silbert
D. Deb Goldberg
E. Deval Patrick



Answer: If any of you said Chris Gabrieli, for helping thousands of children in this state get free after school programs after being a venture capitalist for years, you're wrong. Deborah Goldberg is the correct answer because she volunteered once at the local soup kitchen.


2. According to the Herald, which candidate scores highest on ""trust, leadership and experience?"

A. Chris Gabrieli
B. Deval Patrick
C. Tim Murray
D. Tom Reilly
E. John Bonifaz



Answer: If any of you thought Tim Murray, for having been the Mayor of Worcester for more than five years, you're wrong. Apparently, Worcester's success doesn't translate into leadership experience. The correct answer is Tom Reilly because he's proven himself trustworthy by lying to everyone when he said he never looked at Marie St. Fluer's tax records and his certainly showed a lot of experience by not convicting anyone from the Big Dig fiasco or getting this state's money back.


3. Which candidate does the following quote apply to, "A governor needs to have strength of character?"


A. Deval Patrick, he took advantage of some luck in society and pulled himself out of poverty.
B. Chris Gabrieli, he took his dead father's failing company and turned it into a multi-million dollar success story.
C. Tom Reilly, he thinks we should have Lt. Governors who don't pay their taxes.



Answer: If any of you said C, congratulations!


4. Whose "local experience would make [he or she] the perfect ambassador to cities and towns, a first rate trouble-shooter on municipal issues, and a well-informed voice for communities at the very highest level of government?"


A. Tim Murray. He's been the Mayor of Worcester for over five years and has helped that city grow, despite the trends of losing jobs and population throughout Massachusetts.
B. Deval Patrick. He's worked with communities in the past and would know how to do it in the future.
C. Tom Reilly. He lives on the second-floor of a two story apartment building. And he's regular folk, like you or I.
D. Deborah Goldberg. She's been on Brookline's Board of Selectmen, while she exaggerated her role in the city, she probably wasn't a terrible Selectwoman.
E. Andrea Silbert. She's on her town's environmental taskforce.



Answer: If any of you said A, Tim Murray, I'm very sorry. His terms as Mayor of Worcester, a city that's shown a lot of progress over the past few years, is trumped by Goldberg's tenure at Brookline - a community that has historically done well for itself. The correct answer is D.


5. Which candidate has "a leg up for the economic development portfolio?"


A. Tim Murray, he helped a whole entire city grow.
B. Deval Patrick, he's sat on the boards of multiple successful companies.
C. Chris Gabrieli, he's helped his own company become massively profitable and helped dozens of other companies create thousands of jobs each through early investments.
D. Andrea Silbert, she built an entire non-profit dedicated to economic development and job creation - 14,000 jobs, to be exact.
E. Deb Goldberg, she has a Masters degree and everything!


Answer: If anyone selected option E, you're right! A Master's degree clearly trumps Worcester's progress and Andrea Silbert's job creation. Furthermore, it blows Chris Gabrieli out of the water... after all, he was just a multi-million dollar venture capitalist!

The Herald: Like the Onion, but Better

The Herald made two endorsements today - here's the intro to one of them:

There is something enormously attractive about a candidate who has spent much of her career in the business world and then decides it’s time to give back to the community through public service.

So, the Herald endorsed Chris Gabrieli. Oh, wait, scratch that... they endorsed Tom Reilly. Curious to know just who the hell the Herald was referring to in my quote?

There is something enormously attractive about a candidate who has spent much of her career in the business world and then decides it’s time to give back to the community through public service. And that above all else describes Deborah Goldberg’s career path that today puts her in the three-way race for lieutenant governor in the Democratic primary. (Emphasis mine.)

Now, come on, I like Deborah Goldberg, but that quote is just absurd. For months, I was leaning toward her. But then I decided I had to decide between the other two candidates; one who gave "back to the community" in the form of getting women jobs - Andrea Silbert - or the other who "scores high" on "trust, leadership and experience" - Tim Murray.

Except, scoring high on "trust, leadership and experience" is how the Herald described Tom Reilly. You know, the guy who lied about and showed incompetence in choosing Marie St. Fluer - which was a perfect example of how one can have a lot of experience, but gain nothing in the form of trust and leadership from it.

But at least the chuckles don't stop at the Herald. I mean, they just loved Tom Reilly at the debate... showing just how shockingly out of touch the Herald is. The Herald should just be honest with its readers and say the truth - they support Kerry Healey.

A Blogger's Roundtable

There's going to be a pre-primary round table via podcasting on the election here. You can sign up to be a part of the dialogue or listen in live! I'll provide a link to the podcast.

You'll get a chance to hear the thoughts of the Bay State's leading bloggers (progressive and otherwise) discussing each statewide race - the Governor's, Lt. Governor's and Secretary of State. In addition, we'll discuss Phil Dunkelbarger, Representative Steven Lynch and potentially other races as well. It'll be an all-around fun time and I'm looking forward to it - hope to see you all there!

Vote for Phil Dunkelbarger, 9th Congressional

It's a good idea.

Oh, and join the Mass Netroots while you're at it. We're a new branch of blogging - instead of just merely being engaged at the blogosphere level, we're trying to take what we learn and apply it to those who don't read the blogs. We're talking to Congressmen, Senators and concerned citizens. It's a great, growing organization.

Rep. Lynch, Don't You Have Better Things to Do?

Last night I found this user IP address on my website: housegate10.house.gov

Interestingly, the ID is described as: "Information Systems U.s. House Of Representatives," from Washington, D.C. The IP went to my site twice, once via this link and the other time through here. Whoever the person was read my Vennochi blog on Lynch and a blog on some media coverage. Big deal, you all say, right?

Well... turns out there's a little added significance to this. While I get visitors from the campaigns for various Governors in this state, I never get them from the Attorney General's office. Tom Reilly's campaign has been known to stop by a few times a week - as well as Deval Patrick's, though to a lesser extent - but it's always the campaign, not the office. Furthermore, I know from a little visit to Ted Kennedy's office discussing various constitutional issues as a part of the Mass Netroots (linked on my 'daily reads'), that the office of Ted Kennedy wasn't even allowed to say TedKennedy.com - I highly doubt they'd be allowed to go research any Kennedy opponent either.

I just think it's interesting. While I'm not well versed in the law and what people in Congressional Offices can and can't do, I can say this: if Lynch's people are really interested in Phil Dunkelbarger, maybe they should show it in other ways than leaving cookies at a blogger's website. You know... maybe he could actually show up to a debate before the day of the primary.

[Note to readers: I'm not chalking up a conspiracy, I just think it's an entertaining little visit. Clearly, it was Lynch's office, which wouldn't be okay if they were doing opposition research and working on elections. However, Andy made the good point that they could have just been keeping up to date with Lynch news - much like they would read a Boston Globe article. Doesn't take away from the fact that Lynch needs to debate Dunkelbarger though - and soon.]

Election Extravaganza

There's been so much coverage of last night's debate, one would almost think it was actually election day. But there's still more than a week yet. Consider this a guide to everything I could dig up. I'll add more as I read them.

Mass Marrier clearly has strong opinions about the debate. But, they're more subtle than the Blog for Cambridge, and Mass Marrier compared Tom to an Orc! Sco's helping Deval win Watertown and Charley doesn't mince words: Tom's campaign is dead. Then again, I said that in April.

The best part about all of this is the media's coverage. Scot Lehigh says it's a two man race, and he used to laud over Reilly. Derrick Jackson agrees. Jeff Jacoby weighs in too, but I don't link to plagiarists. There's oh so much more. Really, the Globe went nuts. I'm almost surprised they didn't have Bob Ryan weigh in.

Well, the Herald's Virginia Buckingham seemingly missed politics for sport; she thinks Tom Reilly would win in a fight - but not a political fight, the kind of fight that goes on in a back alley. Ginny, are they wearing boxing gloves? Is there a referee? (I certainly hope it's not Jeanne Shaheen, she couldn't even control clapping.) laughably, Howie Carr thought Reilly did swell - at least Ginny thought he was "too hot for TV." Luckily, Kim Atkins has a decent story on Reilly's attacks, but it's only worth reading if you missed the debate. Here's the Herald's favorite quotes of the night. (Note to readers: it probably isn't worth the bandwidth to read the Herald's debate coverage.)

Finally, here's the transcript and the actual video (H/T MassMarrier).

Why Murray's Man-of-the-People Works and Reilly's Doesn't

Last night's Lt. Governor forum displayed stark differences between two candidates with somewhat similar backgrounds - Tim Murray and Tom Reilly.

Tim Murray, a Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, comes from a decidedly middle-working class background. His entire family is a product of public education and from Worcester. On the outside, he seems very similar to Attorney General Tom Reilly, who is a Watertown native and - as if anyone hasn't heard it a thousand times - lives on the second floor of a two-story apartment. In short, both Murray and Reilly appear to be regular folk.

Then Reilly opens his mouth. Part of Reilly's problem is, of course, his propensity to be a campaign drag: he's negative, "twerpy," and focuses much too much on the other candidates instead of his own ideas. However, even if he wasn't a political nightmare, his regular folk still wouldn't schtik stick. Why? Well, let's look at Tom Murray.

Tim Murray's man-of-the-people concept works because - get this - he doesn't shove it down your throat. He doesn't make an emphasis of the fact that he's a man of the people because (and here's a novel concept) he is a man of the people. In fact, he gets the point across by the way he speaks and acts. He's polite, friendly, sharp and addresses issues that regular folk - such as myself - care about.

Contrast that to Tom Reilly, who has almost no ideas and loves to talk about how he's one of the regular guys, but doesn't really talk about things regular people care about. If Reilly supporters haven't understood why more bread-and-butter voters haven't supported Tom Reilly, it isn't because either Deval Patrick or Chris Gabrieli is more liberal. It's because Deval Patrick talks about the issues bread-and-butter voters care about. Deval Patrick went to UMASS Dartmouth and talked to us about the high costs of college; he talked about the need to link the South East Coast to Greater Boston through a rail extension. In short, he talked about the things Tom Reilly should be talking about all along (and, ironically, has already come out in support for).

Last night I asked Tim Murray and Andrea Silbert a question at the forum - as a student of UMASS Dartmouth, I have about $20,000 of college debt and student fees are rising fast. I asked how the candidates would address cost issues when there's been a Democratic Super-Majority on Beacon Hill for years. Andrea Silbert answered by saying 'she'd go to bat for me.' It was a great answer and, with her focus on jobs, I believe her. Tim Murray, however, did even better on the question. Quite simply, he's a product of public education. His wife and children are products of public education. He cares about public education. It works, it's simple and it may have even won Murray a vote or two at the event. He managed to pull off man-of-the-people without saying, explicitly, he was a man of the people. Because, when you say it, it just loses its effect. Being regular isn't about rhetoric, it's about actions and the way you conduct yourself.

Silbert and Murray: My Impressions

Of course, the fact that I like both of these candidates isn't really new. Heck, I even like Deb Goldberg. Well, tonight I got the chance to see both Murray and Silbert in person. What do I think? Both of them would make great Lt. Governors.

If readers follow the first link, you'll find that I've already voted - I voted for Silbert. Since then, I've gone back and forth between both Silbert and Murray, questioning whether or not I made a mistake. I still won't "endorse" either candidate; I may as well have flipped a coin when it came time to vote. It's a tough choice, but I'll try to give some semi-neutral advice.

Here's how the two candidates boil down:

I like Silbert because she's exceptionally polished and a great speaker. She has a fiery quality, yet doesn't come off like Tom Reilly (overly negative and not very nice). In fact, in some ways she's an even better speaker than Deval, especially in a Question/Answer forum such as tonight. She's great on jobs and has a compelling story.

Politically, Silbert is the better candidate and I voted for her in part because I thought she'd add to whoever wins the primary for Governor in a way no other candidate for LG could. However, I don't think she's the better policy candidate. Her biggest issue, jobs, is certainly critical - but voters may be looking for more. I'm not sure if her plan on homelessness is really going to do it, however noble it is.

When it comes to the policies, Tim has the upper hand. Tonight really cemented that for me, especially when he answered a question on Brownfields - areas polluted, vacated and worthless (until they're cleaned up). Not only did Tim answer the question, he answered it with flourish. He has a great backround in Worcester and has proven he's capable of being part of the solution in the critical issue facing Massachusetts: a need for an urban renaissance.

We can't create new jobs without more affordable housing and areas hospitable to new growth in employment. Right now, Springfield, Lynn, Fall River, New Bedford and lots of other cities just aren't fitting that mold, despite the fact that they should. Not only are a lot of them expensive relative to the quality of services, education and safety, but there aren't many examples of budding industries or innovative growth. In Lynn's case, there's no thriving downtown - it's about as dead as it was 10-15 years ago, perhaps more so. There's some resurgence in New Bedford and Fall River, but still no where near what it could be. From what I've read, Springfield isn't sitting pretty and things just seem to get worse and worse.

Worcester, on the other hand, is a city moving in the right direction. Perhaps I'm saying this because of a paucity of adaquate comparisons, but Worcester seems like a beacon of hope in the Commonwealth of stagnation. If Murray could help replicate that across the state, Massachusetts would recover in a hurry. (New campaign slogan there?) Springfield could help resuscitate Western Mass, which is bleeding population. Cities like Lynn could help not only make Greater Boston even wealthier, but a place where everyone shares in the increased standard of living - not just the millionaires in Lynnfield and Westwood.

With all that said, here's the critical question for voters: which is more important, policy or politics?

Andrea Silbert tried to make the case tonight, when she said (paraphrasing), 'the great thing about Lt. Governors in Massachusetts is it's a very open-ended job. You can do pretty much whatever you want to do. You can focus on two or three things and make those your issues as part of the team.' While seemingly pragmatic, it may be a view not many voters are willing to share.

Certainly, there are those people out there. A lot of people don't like Silbert because she seems like a one-issue gal. She's come out with some new proposals, but like I've previously mentioned, homelessness as an issue just isn't going to knock the socks off of voters. To me, it screams Mass PIRG and sends chilling nightmares down my spine of people knocking on my door asking for a hundred bucks, then rudely refusing the counterproposal of $5.

Of course, that's being completely unfair because homelessness is an incredibly important issue (and something I worked on during my Fellowship in D.C.), but it's just not an issue that's registering with voters in this day and age: the Republican scream machine has convinced too many Americans that poor people deserve their fate for being lazy drug addicts. Homelessness needs to be solved, but it has to be an issue taken up while in office, not as a method to gain office - at least until the people of Westwood, Swamspcott and Lynnfield see homeless people on their streets.

Like Andrea Silbert said, a Lt. Governor could be very effective as a leader if they focused on specific issues. They would be recognized as the leader on that issue, which would result in the media actually paying attention to the Lt. Governor. Furthermore, they'd have a real impact in coming up with creative solutions as the 'decision-maker,' as President Bush would say.

If a Lt. Governor got bogged down on a lot of issues, would they be effective? The answer is probably no. The media would have no reason to look to the Lt. Governor as the authority on the issue. Furthermore, they couldn't possibly be the decision-maker and actually create policy if they were simultaneously working on dozens of issues. So, in a way, Andrea is right - but does that even help her? The question is who do voters trust more: Andrea on jobs, or Tim Murray on his record of improving cities?

This is purely my take, but if Tim Murray, Deborah Goldberg and Andrea Silbert were running for Governor - I think I'd vote for Tim Murray. However, when it comes to Lt. Governor, Andrea Silbert already got my vote and I don't regret it. There's no doubt, with new leadership, Massachusetts is going to churn out new job growth. Andrea Silbert could only help that. If she's going to be a one-issue candidate, she's running for the right office for it. In the meantime, I'll gladly take her fiery presence as an added bonus on the campaign trail in our quest to rid Republicans from the Corner Office after 16 long and hard years.

PS - Two things on Murray:

1. Kudos for shaking everyone's hand before the event and asking if they had any questions. I was rather surprised (and somewhat disappointed) Silbert didn't do it. You can really tell if a candidate is genuine when they're shaking hands; it's hard to hide the disdain some candidates have for such grunt work, especially if a candidate is really an elitist. If there's anything Murray isn't, it's an elitist.

2. His position on Cape Wind disappoints me. While I appreciate his general Wind position - to sprinkle wind farms across the state, and invest heavily in non-populated areas like the Mass Pike - his stance on Cape Wind itself was frustrating. Not only would he not take a stance on the issue, he didn't see why we'd want to face the politically wrath of putting it in Nantucket Bay. If people held Murray's Cape Wind view as their general philosophy, nothing big would ever be accomplished. NIMBYism shouldn't be excused because it makes things hard. What's right is right - and clearly, Cape Wind is right. Even a majority of Cape Cod's citizens support it.

Equally frustrating, Murray wouldn't take a position on Cape Wind. He said there was an unfinished Coast Guard report that needed to come out before he'd be willing to support Cape Wind. Fine. However, if the only thing holding Murray back was the Coast Guard, he simply could have said, "if the Coast Guard says it's fine, I say it's fine." He didn't. Instead, he left himself some politically room - it was the one issue that he seemed to play politics on throughout the whole night. If Murray simply states, "I'll support it fully when the Coast Guard okays it," I'll be a happy camper. That's all he needs to do.

Go Joan! Rep. Lynch is "arrogant."

STEPHEN F. LYNCH is entitled to his evolving opinions regarding war with Iraq. But why is the congressman from South Boston entitled to duck an opponent who questions his role as the Joe Lieberman of Massachusetts?

....A former ironworker, Lynch stresses his common man touch. But he's not anxious to display it in any debate setting.

The interesting thing about Joan Vennochi's most recent column is she lets Lynch do most of the talking.

Asked to explain his reluctance to debate, Lynch, instead, chastised Dunkelbarger for failing to question him during a voter forum on Iraq policy that Lynch held last February at Curry College.

``He came to the forum. He sat 10 seats from an open microphone. It was a big crowd. I don't know why he didn't get up and speak. . . . He had that goddamn open mike," said Lynch -- as if that should satisfy a congressman's obligation to answer for his votes. (Emphasis mine.)

Dunkelbarger had that "goddamn open mike?" "Goddamn?" Pardon me for being a tad Puritanical, but I don't think "goddamn" should be in the lexicon of a Congressman's vocabulary - especially when they're talking to the media. Beyond the Congressman's language, though, he betrays his lack of respect for Democracy. Dunkelbarger's candidacy is worth, begrudgingly ("goddamn"), one open-mic question, insofar as Steven Lynch cares.

In essence, Phil Dunkelbarger is worth no more or less than anyone else's voice in this campaign, this despite Dunkelbarger got the thousands of signatures needed to mount a Congressional Campaign. What's more revealing is the fact that Lynch doesn't respect the need to talk to any constituents - after all, it wasn't "goddamn" Phil Dunkelbarger - it was "goddamn open mike." Sadly, that wasn't the worst thing Representative Lynch had to say. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

Asked if he faults Bush for the shifting mission, he answered, ``I do. They've had the same approach, this stay-the-course approach."

Lynch's answer makes his June 16 vote [to back the "stay-the-course" strategy] all the more curious.... To that, Lynch replied that since it was a nonbinding resolution, ``It didn't mean a hell of a lot to me. If it passes, it meant nothing; if it doesn't pass, it meant nothing." (Emphasis mine.)

More than 2,000 dead Americans may not mean "a hell of a lot" to Steven Lynch, but surely the people of the 9th District care. Unlike Representative Lynch, they aren't out of touch. The fact that Steven Lynch doesn't care about a resolution vote illustrates the exact reason why he should be sent home. He doesn't care - that's his common theme. He doesn't care about the Iraqis who are being maimed and slaughtered, doesn't care about the hundreds of billions we've spent in Iraq and certainly doesn't care about the people who live in the 9th Congressional District.

With this column, Joan Vennochi is officially on a r o l l. Say what you want about Vennochi, but she certainly cares about the upcoming election and has written column after column in service to it. She gets that Democracy is important and elections are the bedrock of democracy - unlike certain incumbents.

In short, she's doing what columnists are supposed to do: hit on the big ideas that reporters often miss or can't cover in one story. She's speaking truth to power and providing readers with the knowledge they need to be able to vote - knowledge hard to find from the so-called journalists who are supposed to be covering these races. Joan Vennochi deserves some high respect (and a hearty raise) from the Boston Globe for not only writing great columns, but doing it with style, integrity - and information that no Boston Globe reporter has yet to dig up.

Thanks Eileen, You're 100% Right on Taxes

Isn't she?

Is this gubernatorial campaign really so bereft of original or substantive ideas that it has come back to this, a tired old slugfest about a meaningless tax pledge?

It's another reason to vote for Deval. There are only two candidates who aren't a broken record on what would be a bad policy, cutting the already-low income tax, and the only reason Christy's on that list is because we don't hear too much from him at all.

Vote for Deval Patrick. He's right on taxes - and, most importantly - right on most of the other issues too. Instead of being the same-old, broken-record politician, Deval Patrick is a leader who will bring hope to Massachusetts.

Bonifaz on his Critics

[Note to readers: I already posted my full interview with John, but it was very large and I'm breaking it up into peices. This is part 1.]

1. Some people, even in the blogosphere, have suggested you'd be better off running for the State House or Senate - that you'd be better able to enact changes from the legislative branch. How could you directly impact your issues from the office of Secretary of State?

According to Bonifaz, a lot of the issues he advocates for is specifically related to office of Secretary of State. In fact, his answer left no doubt that there's little to the belief that he can't directly impact electoral reform from office, much more so than as a state legislator. Why? "We shouldn't rely on the Bush Justice Department to enforce the law." The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002, a bill Galvin "is supposed to implement." However, in four years Galvin hasn't ever started the planning phases. What's the fallout? Citizens in Springfield and Boston sued - and won - the monitors that were promised in HAVA, while Galvin fought against them.

In fact, Galvin fighting against little-d Democracy was a common theme in the interview. Bonifaz talked about how Galvin ignored a mandate of his office by completely ignoring a new type of voting technology, called Votepad, which provides "equal, if not greater, access" than DIEBOLD to handicapped voters. It was more efficient, cheaper and already in use in several states - not to mention the technology came from "local creators." Bonifaz "would never consider DIEBOLD," especially after having experience in Ohio.

So... Galvin ignores local technology that's proven itself to be safe and reliable, violating a mandate, while he's currently "considering three" types of technology - including DIEBOLD - for Massachusetts. I'd be shocked that he's considering new technology at all, but at some point Galvin's going to have to comply with HAVA. There are only so many cities and towns in Massachusetts to lose to in court.

Finally, Bonifaz addressed critics head on. While some of his proposals may need to be enacted through the State Legislature, the legislature looks to the Secretary of State for guidance. Bonifaz said that when the Legislature was considering enacting Same-Day Voter Registration, Galvin "worked with Republicans" to make sure it didn't happen.

My Interview With Bonifaz

I just got off the phone with Secretary of State candidate John Bonifaz. I asked him all sorts of questions - ranging from tough questions leftyblogger critics have rhetorically posed to questions I was genuinely curious about. However, before I get to my interview, I'd like to mention this important fact: John Bonifaz did everything in this race with one phone call that Secretary of State Bill Galvin has shown an absolute disdain for during the whole campaign. John Bonifaz reached out to a voter and continually made his case for why he should be elected, Bill Galvin won't even show up to a debate.

I say "continually" because Bonifaz literally had to call me three times because there's almost no reception at UMASS Dartmouth, my cell phone kept losing signal. In planning this interview, I received at least 10 emails from Bonifaz's campaign manager. Furthermore, both of them have read my some of my blogs and each thanked me for a different one.

How many other politicians would have done that? When it was clear my cell phone was not going to work, I was resigned to the fact that I'd probably be lucky to get some questions answered in an email. Instead, Bonifaz gave me the time to switch phones and get on a landline - this while Bill Galvin won't even submit to a debate.

If I knew nothing about the campaign and hadn't already endorsed Bonifaz, I would have known to vote for Bonifaz by the time I picked up the phone. What it all comes down to is this: if we want the government to have as its chief interest group people, then we need to elect politicians who communicate with people. John Bonifaz is communicating with Massachusetts residents, Bill Galvin won't even show up to a public debate.

Now, to the questions.

Early critics of Bonifaz on leftyblogs - such as Massmarrier and Lynne - questioned whether Bonifaz should really be running for Secretary of State, as opposed to the State Senate. It was a rational I bought into earlier, until I realized I was very, very wrong. Massmarrier has since switched sides and endorsed Bonifaz and it seems like Lynne is coming around.

1. Some people, even in the blogosphere, have suggested you'd be better off running for the State House or Senate - that you'd be better able to enact changes from the legislative branch. How could you directly impact your issues from the office of Secretary of State?

According to Bonifaz, a lot of the issues he advocates for is specifically related to office of Secretary of State. In fact, his answer left no doubt that there's little to the belief that he can't directly impact electoral reform from office, much more so than as a state legislator. Why? "We shouldn't rely on the Bush Justice Department to enforce the law." The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002, a bill Galvin "is supposed to implement." However, in four years Galvin hasn't ever started the planning phases. What's the fallout? Citizens in Springfield and Boston sued - and won - the monitors that were promised in HAVA, while Galvin fought against them.

In fact, Galvin fighting against little-d Democracy was a common theme in the interview. Bonifaz talked about how Galvin ignored a mandate of his office by completely ignoring a new type of voting technology, called Votepad, which provides "equal, if not greater, access" than DIEBOLD to handicapped voters. It was more efficient, cheaper and already in use in several states - not to mention the technology came from "local creators." Bonifaz "would never consider DIEBOLD," especially after having experience in Ohio.

So... Galvin ignores local technology that's proven itself to be safe and reliable, violating a mandate, while he's currently "considering three" types of technology - including DIEBOLD - for Massachusetts. I'd be shocked that he's considering new technology at all, but at some point Galvin's going to have to comply with HAVA. There are only so many cities and towns in Massachusetts to lose to in court.

Finally, Bonifaz addressed critics head on. While some of his proposals may need to be enacted through the State Legislature, the legislature looks to the Secretary of State for guidance. Bonifaz said that when the Legislature was considering enacting Same-Day Voter Registration, Galvin "worked with Republicans" to make sure it didn't happen.

I thought it was interesting that Galvin didn't want Same-Day Registration, doesn't go to debates, didn't want election monitors and emphatically claims there's going to be a dismally low voter turnout - almost as if Galvin wanted the low turnout. So I asked a follow-up; it went something like this:

2. Why does Galvin not seem interested in enacting policies that increase voter turnout?

"He's a machine politician," he's "more focused on protecting the status-quo than reaching out and expanding" election day services. In fact, Bonifaz didn't seem to think Galvin was all that into his Secretary of State position - he "looks at the office as a basis for broadening" his machine.

Galvin's amassed 1.8 million in the bank and was openly considering a run for Governor not too long ago, yet decided to run for reelection instead - too many debates.

Bonifaz?

I don't think the position should be seen as a stepping stone or a fall back [position].

With Bonifaz, you know there are no alterior motives. He's been working on voting rights for years; now, he's just looking at a new way to tackle the problem. Isn't it easier to fix the problem at the source than trying for years to get the most basic voter rights through long and costly court battles?

Bonifaz wants a Secretary of State who will respond to voters and protect their rights, he wants to "defend voters, instead of attack" them - like Blackwell and Harris did in Ohio and Florida. The sad thing is Bill Galvin can be added to that list after his clear disregard for Democracy in Lowell, Springfield, Boston and other cities regarding HAVA.

3. Why do you think Bill Galvin is so afraid to debate you?

He's "unwilling to engage in answering questions - difficult ones he doesn't have answers for." Galvin thinks he's "entitled" to the job, "it's an insult to the voters, complete disrespect to the institution of Democracy."

Bonifaz thinks that debates are critical, "Secretary Galvin is not fit for this office if he doesn't engage in candidate debates."

The interesting thing here is while some may be willing to forgive Galvin for his disregard of Democracy if he does belatedly debate Bonifaz, Bonifaz think Galvin "has already flunked." I'm inclined to agree. Bonifaz still "welcomes [Galvin] to debates," but it's too late for Galvin to completely save face for his utter disregard.

4. Addressing specific issues, I asked Galvin about Killer Coke, the fraud surrounding the anti-SSM amendment, etc.

On Killer Coke, Bonifaz would be "vigorous in enforcing campaign finance law," because there are "still remaining questions." Specifically, "seeing if it was linked" to campaigns. However, Bonifaz was "happy" that the issue is currently being investigated by the OCPF and "wouldn't interfere" with their review.

I was much more interested with the fraud surrounding the proposal to amend the constitution - and his answer impressed me, maybe more than any other. Bonifaz wrote an Op-Ed-Ed to the Boston Globe, "highlighting how" he "didn't think signatures should have been [automatically] certified." Bonifaz says the state "owes it to the voters not to have this initiative... move forward under this clowd."

At minimum, Galvin should have "investigated how many signatures were valid." When asked how Bonifaz would have handled the situation, he addressed one easy way to do it. Since one of the major fraudulent tactics was to get voters to sign a petition to sell alcohol in grocery stores, then have them sign a 'back-up' copy, Bonifaz would have seen what signatures were duplicates and then sent them all mail to see if they really signed.

After the OF-ED, Galvin responding - he "found 14,000 matches." Again, that was his response. He didn't actually do anything about it though - and Bonifaz didn't seem pleased, "why would you certify those 14,000 signatures" without the proper knowledge. While Bonifaz was mildly concerned that - with that level of fraud - there may have not been enough signatures, he was more worried about "protect[ing] individual voters."

Bonifaz made an interesting point - when I mentioned that lots of voters who found out they were falsely added to the signature total and thought it was incredulous - that he thought it could be a "freedom of association rights violation." He said it was "a name attached to something" lots of people would never agree to - sort of the opposite of free speech. Bonifaz said if he had more time, he'd have brought it to court.

Bonifaz was so concerned about this issue, he checked the list of people who signed it himself. A colleague, Barb Dugan, was "testifying at a press conference" on the issue. She only signed one ballot question - on greyhounds - and later found out her name was added to the anti-gay marriage amendment. Bonifaz had signed the same ballot question, but luckily wasn't falsely added to the list.

5. Bonifaz's Final Say

I gave Bonifaz a chance to have a final say, something he's never enjoyed with Bill Galvin in the room. Bill Galvin is "a machine politician and demonstratably has refused to debate." He's "not interested in what voters think, more interested in his power."

Bonifaz will "stand up and fight for ordinary voters and citizens."

Sounds good to me; support John Bonifaz, the one who actually cares about democracy and its participants - us.