Missing in Massachusetts

Knock. Knock.

Who's there?

Haydn.

Haydn who?

Haydn from the homos.

This week, Bay Window's Larua Kiritsy asks the real question —— Why is there only one gubernatorial candidate courting the gays?

It doesn't take much to expand that to, of Kerry Healey, Deval Patrick and Tom Reilly, why is only Patrick concerned with civil rights at all?

Come with us to the thrilling days of now. Last month, we checked the announced candidates' Websites to compare their stances on the major issues facing our commonwealth. There's no comparison. Patrick has a very specific platform and direction. The others showed squat then and it's not better now.

Tom Tomming the Issues

For nothing in particular, head over to Reilly's Web HQ. He has nothing up front about anyone's rights. In fact, the closest the site comes to sticking up for anyone is vague comments about protecting kids and his stance on helping immigrants.

Like Healey, he tries to push the fear buttons by promising to be strong on fighting crime. He cobbles together an odd amalgam of disconnected events, pledges and acts that he says shows that he lives his life to protect the commonwealth's children.

In three pages of linked news stories, not a single mention is there of standing up for same-sex couples, whose rights are under severe assault as I type. That's surely because he has a disgraceful record here, allowing two highly legally questionable anti-SSM ballot initiatives to proceed and vigorously enforcing and defending a shameful 1913 marriage law to keep out-of-state couples from having equal rights to marry here.

His deep site does not discuss civil rights. He apparently does not care about them.

Hit him with the GOP wand. I dub Tom Reilly a Republican.

Hee Hee Healey

Our deb waking up from 16 years of political slumber, Healey is also all crime all the time. Despite her only theoretical and lip synch criminology background, she suddenly remembered that she just hates crime and criminals. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Oh, yes, and she wheezes the wheezing wheeze about how unspecified terrible fiscal things might happen if the Dems also had the governor's office. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Like Reilly with kids, she dug into policy and press releases to weave a lumpy fabric that says she's tough, really tough, really, really tough on crime. Bad. Bad. Bad.

As for rights, she also elides over her switches against SSM, for SSM, for civil unions. Whatever.

The closest she has come so far to any rights statement is a negative one. When she announced her candy-see, she tried a GOP weasel trick. She hinted at a DoMA mindset, while stopping short of actually saying it. After lying by claiming, "We're going to be clear in our words, strong in our convictions...," she tried to finesse it with:

I believe in family life, its defining obligations and its timeless meaning.

Fathers should be encouraged to support their children.

Families caring at home for seniors or loved ones with special needs should be able to count on our support.

Those are the best kind of policies because they respect the family and its central place in our lives.

Government goes astray when it presumes to meddle in matters that are best left to the family.

There's really no other way to put it. The stinking message steaming under that tarp is that, at best, gay rights are on their own with her.

C-Store Christy

No wrap-up of avoidance would be complete without the other egotist hopping in. Christy Mihos is running as an independent. His site shows attractive kids with sparkling smiles, but no teeth in his politics.

He can't stoop to the big issues. Instead, he promises us a toll-free Mass Pike. Whoop-de-do-dah.

Beacon Hill already has enough rich, goofy-looking folk shuffling around.

Dance of the Capons

Back to BW's query, what is it with these other people? Patrick has the guts to post strong positions with policy and plans on his site. He is a bear on human rights, civil rights, and freedom.

In contrast, the other clowns won't hit the hard issues and won't put up positions that might offend anyone or invite a challenge from other candidates.

We are left wondering whether they assume that Massachusetts voters want a pig in a poke. That might not be any worse than Cap'n Brylcreem, but don't we deserve better, at last?