Not Sure I'm Buying David

David's questions yesterday were intended on finding out if Charlie Baker can win on being the anti-casino candidate. Here's what he added today, to explain himself.

CLARIFICATION: Apparently, I was less than clear about why I want to know the answer to these questions, as readers both here and elsewhere have misunderstood why I posed them. So let me be clear: I am not saying that these three issues are what is going to drive the election -- they're not. I am trying to figure out whether Charlie Baker can win. As sabutai has explained, the math is not easy for him as long as Tim Cahill stays in the race. But one possibility that occurs to me is for Baker to pick off some liberals who probably voted for Deval Patrick in the 2006 primary but who hate casinos. If Baker appears solid on hot-button social issues (liberals will not support someone suspect on those issues) but says he will oppose slot machines and casinos, all of a sudden he becomes the last best hope for the anti-casino crowd to keep casinos out of the state. That could let him cut into Deval's base, and that could change the math that sabutai correctly notes is difficult as long as Cahill is viable.

A few things -- "best, last hope?" Um, last time I checked, 3/4 of the house voted against casinos. Between the new, pro-slots speaker and the state's budget woes, that could change this time around. But, still, the pro-slots side has a long way to go.

Furthermore, the #1 reason why there probably isn't slots in this state is because there is no one slot lobby -- there are many, competing slot lobbies. There are people who want casinos, people who want racinos and people (like Cahill) who just want to give out the damn licenses to the lowest bidder. They have never been able to get on the same page. Can they now? Tough to tell.

But here's what you can take to the bank: Deval won't approve anything that doesn't include a full scale, resort casino. DeLeo won't approve anything that doesn't "save" Wonderland and Raynham Park. Senate President Murray probably won't approve anything in which the licenses aren't given out to the highest bidder -- which would mean, if Wonderland and Raynham Park were to get slots, they'd need to be the highest bidders. That's three state forces with three wildly different concepts of how this state should engage in slot machines. They may as well all be anti-slots, for all the good their differing policies will work for them. Short of legalizing everything all at once, which seems unlikely, what kind of room is there left for "compromise?"

So enough with the newest reincarnation of the inevitability argument, okay? It's not inevitable, no matter who's Governor or Speaker or Senate President. Now, let's move on to the crux of David's argument. David says that if Charlie Baker supports marriage equality and a woman's right to choose, assuming he wins the primary (a rather big assumption, IMO), he could then be free to pick up oodles of former Patrick supporters should Baker come out against casinos. Doubtfully.

People who tend to be anti-gambling are often so because of small business issues or social costs. How likely are people who are concerned about social issues to defect to the Republican HMO CEO? Not many. Moreover, I'm not so sure Patrick's going to go back to the casino well anytime soon -- it nearly killed his first term. Should a bill he like pass, he'd probably sign it, but would he ever go back to the mat for another casino bill? I doubt it -- which makes my support for him an easy decision. There's undoubtedly many more anti-slot voters who feel the same way.

If Baker's the only candidate that opposes slot machines in Massachusetts, David's probably right in that Charlie Baker will get some traction from it. However, it won't be enough traction to win the race. The only way Baker can win is if he makes a compelling argument that Deval Patrick helped cause or is incapable of fixing these economic woes (neither of which is true) -- at the same time he convinces a majority of the state that he's the only person capable of solving them. Given Baker's background with the Big Dig, good luck with that.

On Newspaper Online Advertising

I fundamentally disagree with David that boston.com can't at least provide a substantial profit to the Globe, one that could perhaps pay for an entire news staff (even if it's not quite as large as the present staff). Why? The LA Times does it - their online ads are enough to pay for 660 employees at the paper, making the paper sales and ads gravy.

David points to Kos and Perez Hilton as sites that get a lot more hits than the Globe and don't generate the type of revenue necessary to staff a newsroom. Well, true, but do those sites have entire trained staffs completely dedicated toward selling ads - seeking out those advertisers, making the case, using established contacts? Even if they do, how large, qualified and talented are those staffs? What sorts of numbers and figures from professional polling and marketing do they have to work with? This is just one of the many good points Stomv makes in David's thread - points that I think even Stomv underestimates in terms of how much more profitable online papers can be than websites where the writer draws cum on celebrity faces and you have to click on the website to find out how to advertise on it.

Again, I say there's too many questions regarding the NYT's claims about the Globe to take at face value. But whether or not the Globe's really projected to lose $85 million this year, it doesn't mean online ads can't sustain a news staff. For all we know, the NYT/Globe's losing that $85 million through distribution costs alone, or from not maximizing ad sales (online or otherwise), or some combination of the two. Unfortunately, no one really knows what the heck is going on at the NYT and its management of the Globe. However, whatever it is, it's nothing to inspire confidence -- so people shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Friday's Important Things

Here's a list of all the things you need to know before you go home this evening:

• Don't vote for Jim "Idon'tknowski." David has two great posts on how the wannabe Rep won't be Repping the truth on children's health care, the S-CHIP program. Idon'tknowski says he wants children to have health care, just not undocumented immigrant children. Um, considering the program requires a valid ID, I fail to see how that's a problem. (Though, as David notes, the Globe's still confused.)
• Now Idon'tknowski says he just wants to rewrite the bill, which would effectively kill it (though you won't get that from him). The program would expire and hundreds of thousands of kids would lose access to health care. What a swell guy. Meanwhile, this was a completely bipartisan bill: no re-dos, Mr. Idon'tknowski.
• Why was this guy within 10% last poll? Expect that margin to increase, by a lot - and work for it too. Obviously, the kids can't afford Oganowksi Idon'tknowski in Congress (never mind the troops in Iraq).
• Meanwhile, for all those who were just dying to tear me a new one for being pragmatic on ENDA, you never can tell what will happen.

"Although Bush said during his 2000 election campaign that he does not support ENDA, neither he nor the White House has said whether the president would veto that legislation."

Now, I wouldn't expect him to actually sign the bill, but as I've said all along: we could send the blandest, worst ENDA possible to his desk and it would only help us in the long run if he vetoed it. I doubt most rational human beings know that glbt people can be fired from their job, in most states, simply for being gay, bi, lesbian or transgendered. There's no better way to put that issue on the map than a Presidential, George-W.-Bush veto, especially when the media can go on and on about how bland the actual bill was. Unfortunately, though, it's a lost opportunity: it seems we'll have to wait for a Democratic President to even have a chance on issues like ENDA, all because certain (loud) folks don't know how to be pragmatic and won't stand for anything less than a Titanic bill.

Apparently, Keller Quoted Me in his Book

According to David, I'm one of the lucky winners who gets to be quoted in Jon Keller's upcoming novelization of Massachusetts politics. Hooray! One wonders what incredibly nefarious, communist, ebil left-wing thing I had to say to pull that off? People should have equal rights? Health care for all? So, will Keller's work of art be a complete and utter work of fiction? David seems to think so - and he was given an advance copy. Was Keller actually hoping for some favorable press?

Well, here's what a small portion of I-Don't-Think-So tastes like, courtesy of David Kravitz.

The book is an unwieldy amalgam of serious issues (e.g., waste and corruption on the Big Dig), Keller's personal pet peeves (is political correctness really responsible for crime in the cities?), and a smattering of right-wing talking points (remember the welfare queens?), all swirled together with little regard to what's a real problem and what just annoys Jon. Even more peculiar is Keller's willingness to ascribe just
about every one of these perceived problems to "liberals" -- even though, as I've already pointed out, many of the people Keller is complaining about are not, in fact, liberal. The tendency that I was concerned about by the time I got to page 11 -- conflating "Massachusetts Democrat" with "liberal" -- continues unabated throughout the book.

Peter Porcupine thinks I should read the book anyway - giving it the benefit of the doubt - but I say Keller's body of work is large enough as is to decide he's nothing but a pundit who'll say anything for attention and ratings. After all, he's an Important Man and what he says matters, just because he said it, dammit. But, I suppose now I'll be lured in with the prospect of catching just whatever he had to say about me and disproving it. But, hey, at least I know I'm past Ghandi's first stage - because I certainly wasn't ignored. But am I being laughed at - or is he using fighting words? I suppose I'll have to wait for the book, but in the end it doesn't matter - because we, as a progressive movement in Massachusetts, are already circling our prey for the win.

Have I Lost Credibility?

According to one anonymous poster, I've lost credibility because I defended Peter Porcupine's right to remain anonymous. Pretty funny, eh? Funny how someone's basis for an attack is sort of like casting stones when their house is glass. It's also funny like a group of legislators who say 'we're only voting on this amendment because we have to,' and then go and block another amendment procedurally.

When I defended PP's right to remain anonymous, I was afraid that I'd lose the respect of some of my readers. However, I've always been the type of person who writes what I think is true - based on my life experiences, my studies and my personal code of ethics. I'm not going to write things purely to appeal to the base of people who read my site: then I'd truly be singing to the choir. I'll get things wrong and have gotten things wrong, that doesn't mean I should lose credibility or respect - it just means people will respectfully disagree, which is something I absolutely support. Healthy debate is what makes the blogosphere interesting and worth reading - or is being personally challenged out of style nowadays?

I'm sorry if people disagreed with my feelings on PP, but "outing" her wasn't something I supported then or do now. I support PP's right to remain anonymous - as I support the rights of the anonymous poster who just attacked me to remain hidden behind his or her comfy desk. However, here's what really rubbed me: instead of saying "well, Ryan, I disagree with you there," the commenter went much further. Read the whole reply for full effect:

Tell that to Ryan's BFFs David "let the people vote" Kravitz and Peter "I'm not anti-sodomite, I'm pro-constitution" Porcupine. Or any of the host of 'phobes (EaBo, MCRD, John Howard) Laurel is gamely battling over at the Blue Cess Pool. Ryan, you've sacrificed some of your own credibility standing up for these creeps, especially PP. Maybe it's time to call in some favors...

First, let's start off: I've never stood up for EaBo, MCRD or John Howard. If I had a blog like BMG, which is more of a community than a place where people come to read someone's thoughts, I'd remove the cancer from my blog's body. I've been at the forefront in defending against their hate. Feel free to read my comments and the high proportion that have been dedicated to debunking EaBo, MCRD and John Howard. It's a dirty job and, like Laurel, I realize someone has to do it.

What's more odd is the fact that one day, at Boston Latin during a Deval event, I was cheered by lefty bloggers all the state over for having the guts to take Blue Mass Group to task and say a lot of the things people were thinking privately (and emailing me about), but not saying out loud. The next - and David Kravitz is suddenly my Best Friend Forever? Does that person really read my blog? Have people forgotten that I have criticized BMG strongly for allowing the trolls to take it over?

How did I go from the person the entire lefty blogosphere in Massachusetts rallied around because of my hardline stance, to being called soft on that stance when I haven't done anything to indicate a change in said stance? Furthermore, people will do well to remember that I challenged David Kravitz on his "let the people vote" opinion as early as last summer. I was so harsh and angry, I later apologized.

However, some of my points remain valid to this day: I like David, he's a bright guy, but he needs to be a little more progressive and a little less legalistic. The "process people" were wrong then, wrong now and will be wrong until there's a process that actually works. David should at least recognize the fact that the ballot initiative process is long-since dead and we shouldn't resurrect it just because it gives people the chance to step on them queers. As we saw last January, the legislature was willing to let the process die once again - just about five minutes later - for any bill but the one that effected gay and lesbian people. But wait, I forgot... how could I have possibly written that stuff? I'm supposed to be David's lap dog. /sarcasm off.

Is this how people really feel? Or, is this one, anonymous commenter just some crazy outlier? In truth, it doesn't really matter: I'm never going to stop writing what I think is right, but I don't want my name to be tarnished either. Unlike completely anonymous posters (even without an alias), I have a reputation that I can actually value. I can actually take pride in my body of work because it's there for everyone to see. I'm not ashamed of the fact that I defended someone's right to be anonymous - and I'd do it again, whether it's PP or some random Joe who thinks it's a good idea to write a bunch of baseless attacks against me. Heck, Laurel was so worried about PP being able to retain her anonymity that she appealed to me to delete my BMG diary because it alerted a number of people to who PP really was - something I agreed to do. Would that same commenter now like to call Laurel a PP/David BFF?

The world isn't so black and white. Everyone needs to realize that. With the marriage amendment, tensions are high right now. I get that. But, as both bloggers and readers of blogs, let's try to remain informed and make informed opinions. If we can't do that, it hurts our cause. The amendment needs to be stopped at all costs. I'm trying my hardest to do that - working night and day. I've opened the silos on Senator Murray for not having the right priorities as Senate President - and have urged others to do the same: it's one of the few things we can do to win now, with just a few days left and a number of solid "yes" votes no amount of lobbying will change. Let's just stay on focus and actually get the job done, instead of going on the attack on one another. We each have a role to play, so play it.

Jon Keller's Arrogance: the People Don't Matter

That's essentially what he says. Deval Patrick can't possibly get his issues passed, because the legislature just doesn't care about people anymore.

I have news for the Patrick organization: if they think that rallies on the state house steps or global e-mail barrages are going to influence votes on Beacon Hill, they’re in for a nasty shock. The legislature has made it clear in recent years that they’re growing impervious to general public feedback.

Referendum questions approved by the voters are routinely ignored. Incumbents almost never lose. Why SHOULD they worry?

Keller's mad - just angry - that Deval Patrick's team won't be naming names on their website. While it may be helpful if his team did, it could just spark the kind of nasty battle that would be counterproductive. Patrick's supporters will know the names, rest assured Mr. Keller, they'll just get them from bloggers, friends and individual supporters on the website. After all, that's what the website is all about: the people. The people can easily name names. Right now, I'm naming Keller - a talking head who was very wrong yet again.

Update: David disagrees with much of my assessment - and he does have a point. Naming names could have a tremendous impact, but there is some risk. If Deval Patrick changes his mind, I'll run with it, though he risks further alienating people he is going to need to work with. It's a tough choice - that's why we put him in office. Ultimately, he's accountable for whatever he chooses. If Jon Keller were slightly less condescending toward democracy and focused more on that point, he may have convinced me.

David at BMG Couldn't Be More Wrong on the Anti-SSM Amendment

David either thinks it's his job to regulate the facts or only pretends to pay attention to Bay State politics and news, because his latest update to BMG couldn't be more offensive - or so strongly worded. I just wonder if he really is progressive or one of the increasingly less common stone-age democratic DINOs that don't really care about progressive issues, but are as blue in the face as Angry Joe Lieberman after he lost the Connecticut debate (to a real progressive).

Well, actually, I don't wonder. Because time after time, he's proven himself to be a progressive in sheep's clothing. He just loved Bush's immigration position, all 4-5 sentences of it, and thinks Massachusetts should bankrupt itself because voters, years and years ago, wanted to reduce state income tax (apparently, hindsight isn't 20-20). He's no progressive at all, merely a product of Massachusetts's outmoded machine democratic party. Left of center, maybe, but couldn't give a crap about the real people that are effected by matters of government policy.

I'm sorry if I'm being a little on the strong side, but he essentially skips all the inconvienant facts of this Phoenix editorial and proceeds to call them disgraceful.

Disgraceful? Really? Not just wrong, but disgraceful? Wow, those whackos at the Phoenix must have done something really bad to be called disgraceful... so what was it? Endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2008? Suggested we establish permanent bases over in Iraq? Tell everyone to go watch a Tom Cruise movie? Eat children?

Oh, yea, they stuck up for the GLBT community. That earns them the label "disgraceful" from someone who pretends to represent an entire progressive community. Don't make me laugh.

Apparently, David was mad that the Phoenix thinks we should use parliamentary procedures to avoid voting on the Same-Sex Marriage ban. He says it's unconstitutional, but avoids mentioning the fact that the Same-Sex Marriage ban is unconstitional anyway: it was an amendment strictly created to overturn a court case, which in this state isn't allowed (but Tom Reilly, the so-called supporter of marriage equality, decided to skip matters of principle then... and here as well).

(Update: The SJC ruled on what I mentioned above and found it to be legal. I disagree with the opinion, but I'm not going to be too harsh on them, other than say that I think it was a little sheepish as the language in the state constitution seems quite clear to me.)

Would I be remiss to point out that a lawyer who served as clerk to not one, but two (TWO!!) SCOTUS Justices should have figured that out? Oh, wait, that's right... they weren't exactly the liberal ones on the court, were they? Fitting for BMG's Dino Flintstone of left-wing politics.

David not only calls the Phoenix d i s g r a c e f u l, but he propogates right-wing talking points Mitt Romney and Karl Rove just love to spout (like 'we just need to put it up to a vote!' 'let the people decide' 'up or down' blah blah blah... Isn't that what Lieberman said when he let Scalito get on the bench of the SCOTUS?) Parliamentary procedures be damned, let's put everything to a vote. Illegal wiretapping? Public opinion polls say yes! Free speech? Public opinion polls say no! No matter that democratic values brought forth parliamentary procedures to begin with (those pesky checks and balances), let's leave our civil rights to the whims of the masses.

Want the bottom line? Readers, we have a new Democracy in America - the rabid kind. And meet David de Toqueville over at BMG, I hear he has a bridge to sell ya.

David, you're wrong. So was the Boston Globe when it wrote the same invalid points you and Mitt Romney tried to make, but at least they didn't call people disgraceful for trying to defend Civil Rights. In all honesty, that's the only disgraceful thing that happened on your blog - vociferously attacking defenders of Civil Rights is never a good thing. I wouldn't be writing this if you merely said the Phoenix was wrong - but no, you had to go all hyperbole on your readers.

But this isn't about you, David. It's about me! Civil Rights should never be placed on any ballot, where demogogues charge the masses and strip the rights of people left and right. When you put Civil Rights on the ballot, they lose. State after state has banned marriage equality and let me just say I'm glad to call the Bay State home.

My advice to David at BMG? Stick to doing the Weekly Traffic Reports, leave the rest of the blogging to the real professionals progressives. Oh, and I hope the singing career is going well, because your vision of the law seems to be about as hazy as your hindsight. (Update: I'm striking that last sentence, even though I thought it was pretty funny - and I hope David didn't take it too seriously - because of the way the SJC ruled.)

Update: I added additional content in this blog because of today's SJC ruling; wherever that content was added, I put it in parenthesis with an "Update" in italics.

I'm not going to pretend to be disappointed in today's SJC ruling, especially since they ruled in favor of it 6-0.

The Court's decision:

The plaintiff's claim is that the proposed amendment, which seeks to overrule the rule of constitutional law announced in Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) (due process and equal protection clauses of Massachusetts Constitution bar limiting marriage to heterosexual couples) constitutes the "reversal of a judicial decision" and therefore is excluded from the initiative process by art.

Well, saying there can be no "reversal of a judicial decision," seems pretty clear to me. But then the court goes on to essentially explain that what the Constitution really means is that the Legislature can't reverse a specific court case... but I guess reversing that case's decision is just fine and dandy. Whatever.

Like I blogged about in the blog just above this one - urging candidates who want to be elected to lobby to kill this amendment the old fashioned way, voting it down - is a way for them to really show they support marriage equality (and something I expect if they want my vote).

If Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrieli, the Lt. Gov candidates and any of the others say they really support marriage equality, then they should spend 5-10 hours over Tuesday and Wednesday seriously lobbying legislators who are known to favor this blatantly bigoted amendment. It's time for all the candidates to put their most important asset where their mouth is: time they'd normally use to campaign. Deval Patrick went to the Gay Pride parade, which I applaud, and I expect him to be calling on the State House to convince our elected representatives to truly support everyone and not be controlled by either our Catholic Prince, Cardinal O'Malley, or our Chief Executive Campaigner, Mitt Romney.

Everyone should call their state Reps and Senators and tell them to vote against this new Constitutional Amendment. Why? It isn't anyone's business if either two guys or two girls want to get married, so long as they're both consenting adults. But certain people find it morally reprehenisble that gay people even exist - and will keep them down at all costs. State after state has even banned partner benifits. Gay couples can't even be allowed to get health insurance together! It's rediculous and must be put at a stop here and now. If the amendment gets less than 50 votes on Wednesday, it will be.