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
Posts
1 comment:
LOL.
My point by making that comment (besides the fact that I thought it was hilarious) was that it wasn't really a "gay debate" it was a debate that would include gay issues. For example, I highly doubt gay issues were the only issues, even if that was the debate's focus.
That said, I think there's a large chunk of the word that throws in "gay" to make a loaded statement - or even to use it as a derogatory term. It's not as prevalent as people using "homosexual" in the same way, but it certainly exists.
I'm sort of a English-language minimalist, as much as possible. I like to just say whatever there is to say and try not to load my words. Occasionally I'll do it, but that's only when I'm feeling slightly evil (or if I'm trying to be sarcastic and funny).
Post a Comment