Baker Only Player on MA GOP Bench

Lord love a duck, was it only three years ago that Mass Republicans' great wide hope, Charlie Baker, went down grimacing to Gov. Deval Patrick? He's back and big and bland as ever.

You can see his ho-hum announcement on the front of his new campaign site. At there moment, there's no other content accessible, short of signing up for his mailing list or giving him money.

The key concept here is that his only real hope of winning the open office will be voter delusion. The MA electorate loves its fantasy that putting Republicans into that office somehow is the smart thing to do, avoiding one-party rule and such.  Those who vote that way often say something like, "It's only common sense." Yet, that invariably means, "I got nothing. I'll make wild assertions and I don't want to be challenged or prove anything."

In MA reality, over half the electorate is unenrolled. The other 48% divvy up 36%-plus for Dems and 11%-plus for Republicans. Within both the unenrolled and Dems are substantial numbers of socially and fiscally conservative voters. I have long contended that this shadow Republican party is the base that the opposition needs to rally, where they need to pluck and groom their candidates from. That would apparently take more smarts, guts and energy than the GOP has here.

Amusingly, blogs around here, including the Red and the Blue Mass Groups, already carry Baker barkers claiming he will skunk Steve Grossman or whoever else wins the Dem primary. Some shills advance the very false idea that in the 2010 election, Baker would have beaten Patrick if Dem-turned-unenrolled Tim Cahill would not have run. That assumes Cahill's 8% of the vote would have gone entirely to Baker — a risible fantasy, when in fact Cahill bled Patrick votes from both Dem and unenrolled voters.

As outgoing MA Dem party chair John Walsh clears his desk, he also clears his throat and ridicules Baker's bluster. Moreover, sites like BigDigBaker.com and ProgressiveMass' list of 13 things Baker would like voters to forget they know about him are not being subtle about the candidates failures, shames and duplicity. If those seem like showing your hand and telling the opposition what's coming, it's no surprise to either side. Voters will have to delude themselves to smear the oval for Jolly Cholly.

Baker's Free Ride or Free Fall

It wasn't a clean and definitive win for Charlie Baker. Yet as far as the MA GOP bigs are concerned, he cleared the field of his single primary opponent, Mark Fisher.

A few more days may pass until we're positive that, unlike the Dems, the GOP'ers will have an uncontested race at the very top of the ticket. The debate includes how real the 14.765% of yesterday's convention ballot was. Fisher needs 15% to get on the primary ballot.

Complicating it is that the rules say blank ballots don't count. The party tabulators did instead tally 64 blanks, knocking Fisher down below 15% (as in Baker at 2,095 to Fisher at 394 and Fisher at 15.829 without blanks).

Fisher and I had a good chat at Left Ahead last week. I'll stick in his half-hour show below. He also graciously called me before the convention to thank me for being reasonable and respectful to him, as he was to me despite our political disparities. I can't run a Baker show; neither his campaign manager nor his communications director has responded to numerous requests.

Today, Fisher's FB feed includes:

Dear Friends,Thank you for your support over the last 5 months. I am currently speaking with lawyers about being jobbed out by Kirsten Hughes at the Massachusetts Republican Party "Kangaroo Convention". There were improprieties in the counting of the 'blank' vote that occurred which were not allowed to be challenged and no re-count was allowed. I will let you know our plans in the coming days.

He certainly has every right to feel cheated and to fight.

I don't know anyone who thinks Fisher would win a primary election against Baker. Yet we simple folk who took civics classes cling stubbornly to rudimentary concepts of democracy and fairness.

Conventional wisdom on this is that an uncontested primary is far better for the candidate than spending money and energy before a general election, all the while getting prodded and exposed by another party member.

Today's Globe has a pretty good piece on the convention results. They include a contrarian of moment, former Gov. Bill Weld, among the several saying how great it will be for Baker if he goes unprimaried. Weld says a Fisher challenge would help Baker interest unenrolled voters. As we all note here in MA, with 53% of voters unenrolled, that is where elections are won.

For analysis of uncontested MA primaries, you can try your own tabulation. Instead, look at the stats compiled and analyzed over at the Mass. Numbers blog. Over there in Nov. 2012, Bret Benson admitted the samples are small and Dems rarely have top seats without primaries. However, he concludes that most times, it works solidly in the GOP's advantage to clear the field for governor.

I note and admire the relentless optimism of the MA GOP leaders. I've heard the shouts of the party chairs from the carousel that seems to spin them off so quickly. This election will be different, like Weld or Mitt Romney and such. This is the right candidate at the right time. Then again, they insisted that when Baker went against Deval Patrick.

They would be foolish to turn down real or perceived advantages. Moreover, we have a long if irrational history here of the unenrolled claiming that voting for Republican governors to keep a check on the monolithic Dems. The wide disparity from one Dem legislator to another is plenty of restraint, more than a single chief executive could impose.

So it comes down to Baker. He's trimmed down and comes across a lot more human than in his last run. It may be long enough from his slash-and-burn at Harvard Pilgrim and his Big Dig associations that he can run pretty clean.

We in MA also are quite forgiving and don't burn an L for loser in the foreheads of unsuccessful politicians. Two or three goes at a high office are OK around here. Baker too has the plus of two full terms of a Dem governor. Those many voters who like that fairy tale of the magic of balance only a GOP can bring will certainly want a change on that alone.

Instead, I like the agon, when a governorship or presidency is the prize. Surprisingly, I find myself on Weld's side here. Whoever ends up as the Dem candidate will emerge well defined and with clear positions and personality traits for voters to see. For the other side, wouldn't it be swell to have the same?

Monday Followup: The Globe reports that Fisher remains unhappy at the appearance of a fix being in on the count and rules. MA GOP bigs deny both. I call with Baker the sure winner of a primary, the party should have let Fisher have a go, pretended they were honest and honorable, and not alienated unenrolled and GOP voters.


Update: Autoplay on Blogger started this regardless of settings. That's annoying. I removed the embedded player. Instead, click here to listen.

Gov. is Baker's to Lose Again

Saddle up your swayback horses with cliché tack. The MA governor's race will be the wheezing GOP-for-balance one.

Lordy, that's tired and stupid!

Do-nothing state rep and senator, then fizzling firecracker fill-in US Senator Scott Brown said he would not run for MA governor next year. At least this time he seems to have finally learned not to jerk his party around until it was too late for other candidates to raise money.

That likely was a race he might have won. He hasn't failed at this race. His probable Dem opponent, Steve Grossman or a slimmer chance of Juliette Kayyem, face the dual disadvantages of that one-party paranoia and less celebrity glow.

The badly aging former teen model suffers from his own dual problems brought by ego and vanity. Someone he trusts needs to alert him to the reality that he is already making more money than he deserves to and that his occasional appearances on TV and in other media let him pretend to be wise and observant — traits he has never shown. He can play that online and on air without challenge.

Now the empty-bench MA GOP turns over in their political bed back to their old companion, Charles D. Baker Jr. Supposition, already in the Boston tabloid, is that the nomination for next year's race is his already.

 I have to agree that's almost certain.

Oddly, there may be other, better candidates, but they are hiding as Dems. The fairy tale here is that progressive, very left Dems dominate the politics, indeed the whole world of the Bay State.

If you are simpleminded and literal enough, sure, you can make that case. Both houses of the legislature are rife with Dems and have only a few Republicans. You can point to an over 3-to-1 party enrollment among voters as well.

Yet, numbers as well as even cursory analysis show a different reality. Consider that party registration is 35.7% Dem and 11.1% GOP, with a half percent Green-Rainbow and political designations (not officially parties but still a voter registration choice). Wait, you say, that's less than half. Sure enough, over half the MA voters do not choose a party — 52.6%.

The unenrolled as the official term has it regularly vote Democratic Party but have their pretense. They love literally to shout at polling places that they are "not unenrolled. I"m independent!" It's sort of silly but not too bad as adult foibles go. I've written on this before.

---

The One-Party Game

---

The game we play here is pin the governor on the statehouse. We've had up to 18 running years with Republican governors, while we vote solidly for Dem presidential candidates and keep that Dem balance on Beacon Hill otherwise.

The unproven, unprovable fantasy is that if we have a one-party system both legislative and executive branches, something terrible will happen. Specifically, voters across parties are wont to tell pollsters that Dems will ride the state with their spurs digging in, implementing all manner of extreme left-wing laws and expenditures. Voters are apt to chant, "It's only common sense."

That phrase is a verbal and political tic. Almost invariably that and "let's not reinvent the wheel" mean "I got nothing. I'm about to make wild, unsupported assertions and don't expect to have to justify them."

Back to reality, both major parties here are full of moderates and wishy-washy liberals. A few Republican legislators over the years have been nutty anti-choice types and such, but not many.Moreover, former Gov. Willard Mitt Romney constantly had to dance around his leadership in implementing universal health care for us while he was in office, arguably the most liberal act of any MA gov.

I contend that most Republican voters hide in the unenrolled ranks. Likewise, I contend that most Republican legislators hide as Democrats. There's general truth to the idea that except for governor or legislature from very conservative districts, you need a D next to your name for election.

That written, Left Ahead co-host Ryan Adams and I are among the legion lefties who want a more vibrant MA GOP. We end up speaking in political and economic code here instead of having substantial discourse and debate, both in campaigns and in the statehouse.

---

Guts, Anyone?

---

Lackaday, we seem to have a courage deficit here. Many Dem pols are willing to say they are fiscally or socially conservative but none switches to the GOP. For the Republicans, I can't even get a state party chair to chat it up with us on Left Ahead.

I had hopes for Jennifer Nassour. Three times when we met, she said how much she looked forward to coming on the show. Twice she asked for my card, took it and swore she'd make it happen. She never returned calls or email afterward.

Now I've tried the current one, Kristen Hughes. As close as I've gotten was to her scheduler guy. I called repeatedly to get him. I admit it was amusing when he heard the name of the show and asked whether we were left-wing. I told him both Ryan and I were progressive sorts, but that we let guests speak their piece without badgering them, pulling out surprise adversaries or using trick questions. He swore he'd get back with me but never has. No guts, those elephants.

I'd very much like to ask Hughes what chance she has of flipping conservative voters from unenrolled and conservative pols from Democratic.  I do see that as the positive future of the GOP here. Then again, that would require both insight and courage.

No Turn Signals

Boston drivers, even cops (boo on them), rarely use turn signals. The attitude seems to be that an early warning to the enemies gives them too much information and reduces your options.

Likewise, Massachusetts voters feign freedom of thought by not registering with either major party. The unenrolled and independents actually blow off crucial democratic steps. They don't help decide the candidates at the primaries, caucuses or conventions.

Like not using turn signals too, this gives them to chance to whine later. "I wouldn't have chosen them to run!"

You can see how pervasive this attitude is in sidebar numbers we grabbed from The Phoenix. They saved us the minutes of snagging these figures from their sources, the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Democratic Party. Registered voters are as of 1/13/6 and gender breakouts as of 12/31/5.

Basically, half the voters do not affiliate with either party.

In terms of gender, you can speculate as to what gives. You will notice:

• Republicans closely map by gender numbers. Could this mean they have a high concentration of like-minded married couples registered?
• Democrats have a lot more women to men. Does this mean women tend to vote more liberal and progressive?
• Unenrolled/Independents have about 10% more women then men. Does this mean slightly more women engage less in the process?

The figures by gender would be a bit small if they fit on the chart. They are:

	Democrat	Republican	Unenrolled/Indy
Men	607,338	272,970	913,085
Women	831,448	232,869	1,020,790

There are a lot of ways to slice and reassemble these data.

Now, the trick if you waded this far is to swim. Tomorrow, Saturday, February 4th, that means Democrats should go to their local caucuses. Of course, you must be a registered Democrat to do so.

If you live in Waffle World, consider registering for the next primaries, next caucuses and next convention. Bystanders get the blame for what they don't do.

If you are registered, check the state Party site to verify your caucus location and time.

We'll be at the JP/Roslindale one, Ward 19, Painter's union hall, 25 Colgate, Rozzie, 11 a.m.

Traps that Candidates Set

It's fantasy season and the Morpheus crew are eager to entrance you with their spells and fantasies. Our talentless, inexperienced lieutenant governor is already trying the Republican version and lately she has found witchy company from the other chasers after the governor's chair and doorplate.

So, what manner of witchery would beguile voters in November, yea, even in the Democratic primary?

Taxes 1. Yes, indeedy. Republican Kerry Healey has fully sucked Tom Reilly into that trap, and even Chris Gabrieli -- with his usual non-commitment -- is playing the game. She is doing what Willard Mitt Romney and George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did before her. She has taken a pledge of no new taxes and to roll back the temporary 5.3% state rate to the old 5.0%. That's right folks a breath-taking 3/1,000th, $3 dollars on $1,000 taxable dollars to you lucky voters who support her.

Reality Check: According to state revenue figures, that 0.3% would give an average couple $2.75 a week back. This is the same sucker game Bush played with his $300 give back.

Reilly bought into the same fantasy. This is the guns-and-butter dream world that is the basis for Reganomics. Give ordinary people a tiny bit of tax money back, pat them on the head and remind them that they need to be grateful at election time. Tell them that the wealthy people and corporations who benefit will not sock away this money, but will be honor bound to spend it creating jobs and making our lives better. Get a little; give a lot. God bless us, every one.

Great trick, if only it worked...

Patrick says not so fast. Our economy is weak. We don't have the cash to meet our payroll and social programs now. If we take out those millions, we can't build that stable and growing economy. His honesty is definitely not as sweet or sleep producing as Healey and Reilly's fantasy.

Taxes 2, Taxachusetts: Republicans nationally and locally have done well promoting Massachusetts as Taxachusetts. Funny thing is though, while this makes a nice figure of speech, it is not at all true. Last year, for example, we were way down the list 32 of 51 in combined state and local taxes per capita. Good old conservative Maine was highest at 13%, we were 9.8%.

Instead, the fantasy is that Republicans in D.C. or on Beacon Hill don't raise taxes, so taxes are lower. In reality, the Romney sorts move the pea under a different shell. By not raising taxes, but giving the cities and towns less revenue sharing, he raised taxes...repeatedly. It ended up nearly 35% average when the local governments had to add or increase fees and property taxes.

This fantasy is an accounting trick, one that Democrats had better be ready to name for what it is and has been. Mumbling a weak defense is not the right tactic, nor is joining in the deceit. Screaming it loud and specifying the blunder are.

Reilly seems to be playing the same dishonest game. Then again, he's been part of a Republican executive branch so long, maybe he really has bought into it.

One-Party, Tax-and-Spend Government: The most popular fantasy and the one easiest to sell to inattentive voters is that a Republican executive branch is essential to rein in irresponsible Democratic legislators. In a virtual one-party state, what's standing between wastrels and our bank accounts if not New England fiscal conservative Republicans?

That has a tough one to counter for several reasons. Most obvious is that we have an unearned reputation for liberalism.

Let's say it together, Ted Kenney and John Kerry and Barney Frank's votes are not enough. The culture here, the centuries of fiscal conservatism, the bluenoses, the racial and cultural compartmentalization and so much more roil our waters. Bay Staters tend to be liberal on some issues only.

Consider also:

• Unenrolled voters. We have a huge 49% unenrolled voter base. They like to call themselves independents as though that means they are cosmopolitan free-thinkers. Most are more like mugwumps. They vote left for President, right for Governor, and give-me-mine for General Court. Liberals in a pig's eye!
  
• DINOs live. Our General Court does not spend freely on social programs. It trails many other states in liberal legislation. It is more inclined to support local programs that will help each rep or senator get re-elected. [View the inaction on same-sex marriage for two years that led the Supreme Judical Court to legalize it by default. Shameless. Also, we are in our current anti-SSM amendment flap because this allegedly liberal legislature couldn't even act after the fact when commanded to do so.] Instead, we have many middle-of-the-road lawmakers and some damned righties, like Emile Goguen and Phil Travis. The card may say Democrat, but calling a pig a giraffe doesn't give him a neck long enough to munch the tree leaves.

Let the Dems call it loud and proud. We don't need a Cap'n Brylcreem or Muffy Healey to keep us from enacting liberal laws. We alleged Democrats can do that just fine on our own, thanks ever so much.

We're not a high-tax state with spendthrift, liberal legislators bankrupting us. We are a fairly culturally and fiscally conservative state frozen in inertia.

We need to wake up from those daydreams and shake off the spells. We have had decades of timorous governors and stagnant legislatures. That has gotten us, even with our educational and industrial base, to declining economies, lowered expectations and self-imposed limits.

Since the colonial era, if ever a time has arrived that calls for vision and decisive action, this is it. Come September 19th, come November 7th, we need a new New England. Let it start here.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, governor, Taxachusetts, Kerry Healey, Chris Gabrieli, Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick

GOP Dreams of Top

At local and national levels, Republicans finally get to strut again. Failed shadow Vice President Sarah Palin never stopped strutting. That is, after all, the only way she can move. Increasingly though, her fellows join her.

Nationally, Republicans are fairly wetting their Depend garments in anticipation of 1) taking a Congressional majority (pure fantasy) and 2) sweeping all open seats (bloody unlikely). Yet, we can be almost positive of one outcome — as in almost all mid-term elections, the party out of power gains Congressional seats. Actually, let's make that two outcomes — whatever the loss, Republicans will grossly exaggerate their success and predict that they will create a juggernaut rolling to majority out of it.

Of course, there is a harm in leaving the GOP to hopes and delusions. When they continue to marginalize themselves through obstreperous and unworkable positions, democracy suffers. We don't have a worthwhile political and policy dialog. The we'll-show-'em Republicans become less and less in the game, further delaying their comeback. Even the befuddled and relatively gutless Dems in Congress end up advancing the country and being seen as the good guys.

---

DINOs and RINOs

---

Here in Massachusetts though, we could see real advances even with the predictable mid-term successes for the GOP. The cowardly crypto-conservatives here often hide as Dems, even the elected officials. They might emerge from their cover to snipe on this or that bill, but largely pretend to be that other party's members to get elected.

Much of the rest of the nation buys into related misconceptions. Notably, we are allegedly extremely liberal, in no small part because Dem registration is more than double GOP. That dismisses the slim majority of voters who are unenrolled in any party, as well as the number of DINOs in the party.

Many voters often loudly and insistently call themselves independents and like to claim they could, if so inspired, vote as a bloc and sway any election, any time...if only they chose to do so. They don't choose.

I would love to see more confrontation. That can't happen until the hidden GOP types out themselves. We have seen that in other places and periods, notably the huge shifts from Democrats to Dixiecrats to Republicans throughout the South following voter registration and integration and (shudder to many there) election of a Roman Catholic President.

Here some solid victories in 2010 and 2012 at the state level should inspire DINOs to switch. That has more benefits than simply being able to recognize which army someone follows. Primarily, that could frame and clarify debates both in the General Court and during election campaigns.

---

Elephants on the move

---

Meanwhile, we have some strategies, at least short-term ones. While I can carp about so-so coverage by the Boston Globe, it has two nice pieces today. Check State GOP looks to gain more ground and Cahill calls the two-party system 'broken'.

Starting with our governor's race, the GOP is probably deluding itself here as the national party is. Is somehow extrapolates such factors as failed candidate Palin's celebrity and U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's victory in the special election for Ted Kennedy's seat into a great portent of success in all endeavors.

They surely will have a lead candidate in Charlie Baker. He is stained with two dreadful marks — in charge of Big Dig money and overlord of a huge health-care provider. The first destroys his fiscal cred and the second lumps him in with modern robber barons.

Then even if he can tap dance away from those, he faces an incumbent governor who can unroll a tapestry of reforms and accomplishments. Baker has a huge vanity and Republicans are throwing bucks his way. He might be able to pull it off, but I doubt it sincerely.

A couple of other players to watch are goofball multi-millionaire Christy Mihos. He's missed deadlines, kited checks and more. Yet, he swears he can get the 15% of GOP delegates from the convention to get on the primary ballot. Maybe yes, maybe no, but either way, he's doomed to another also-campaigned ending. (As a pastime, perennial office seeking must be more exciting than many hobbies.)

The other fun at the GOP convention will be lurking Tim Cahill. The Dem turned independent treasurer of the commonwealth, he'll be there to impress conservatives for his gubernatorial run.

His other politically promiscuous move recently was to attend Wednesday's Tap Party play date on our Common downtown. While Brown and Baker blew off the event, Cahill told the Globe, "I went because I think we need to stop being afraid of talking to people we may not agree with on everything and start talking about how to fix the problems we face."

He said our local two-party system was broken. He presented himself as a sort of populist fixer. Unfortunately for his hopes of grabbing every unenrolled voter's mind and heart, he didn't spit out Palin-like slogans. He said he wanted to make sweeping reforms and fundamental changes. Good luck pitching that when the disaffected voters are tired of thinking and striving, and want simple and even simple-minded answers instead.

---

Tea sippers

---

Cahill is not the only politician here willing to make out with the Tea Party. The state party chair, Jennifer Nassour, snuggled right down. She told WBUR that she'd like to deal with TPs. She also put that interview at the top of the party's Facebook page.

The BUR piece includes:

But Nassour says she hope’s the Republican Party can benefit from Tea Party enthusiasm. “I feel that it’s important for us to embrace everyone, whoever it is,” she said after the rally. In order to win in Massachusetts, Nassour and the GOP have to capture conservatives without alienating independents. And Nassour’s job is winning in November, as she acknowledged: “I would like them to come and talk about having a two-party system and how we can merge together and get our candidates elected in November.”

In terms of the unlikely, we have to wonder what the chance that the tremendously ego-driven TP folk will stroke the MA GOP back. Unfortunately for her hopes (that word again), the numbers suggest they don't identify primarily as Republicans. She'll have to supply convincing reasons for aligning beyond the we're-not-Democrats one.

So, let's keep tabs on the predictions filling the air. We've heard many of the right that the GOP will cleanly sweep state and national races. I call bovine feces on that and forecast a net loss for Dems in line with any mid-term election. Voters who just can't stand Obama and liberalism will be partially offset by those who see the GOP as obstructionist and anti-humane for their health-care-reform ploys.

Then check back for the 2012 view. Mitt Romney still lusts for the top office and wants to convince America than he's more than Captain Brylcreem, the good-hair guy.

Congressional podcast: Keep tabs at Left Ahead! or our BlogTalkRadio site. We'll have more candidates on, including U.S. Rep. Niki Tsongas. A boatload of Republicans have filed for her seat.

---

Tags: massmarrier, GOP, elections, DINO, RINO, Palin, Massachusetts, Baker, Cahill, Tea Party

Let Loose the Dogs of TV

Let's pace ourselves. The ads for the 2012 Senate from MA race are just kindling in competing bonfires being heaped.

State and national GOP and wingers accept the now obvious, that Elizabeth Warren will go for the seat against incumbent Scott Brown. Following the Citizens United/Super PAC/money-is-free-speech boner, this is the election where will find out how stupid and destructive that SCOTUS decision was.

Both Brown and Warren already have support from well funded and often hidden snipers. There are tons of coverage on the new, nasty reality. You can also find lots of examples, which I won't bother to embed any of here. Head to YouTube and search for strings like Scott Brown oil or Elizabeth Warren OWS to find current ones. Fresh dirt for him is here and for her here.

Disclaimer: We chatted with Warren over at Left Ahead last month and the three of us liked her both personally and for her ideas and solutions.

Let's now consider what's likely to happen with attack ads for these candidates.

First note that Brown has been in office over a year and one-half. Voters, should they bother, can look to his votes and statements, his record. Having never held elective office, Warren has the advantage/disadvantage of presenting what she would have done and would do.

The advantage here definitely looks to be hers. Brown has been a showboat from the beginning. He bragged about being in a pivotal spot, able to block or allow to pass any bill. During his tenure, legislation has been cumbersome, ineffective, and with negative effects on the economy and other big areas. Instead, he could have picked a couple key issues, as wise Senators are wont to, and led bipartisan efforts. Then he could have fairly claimed leadership and national interest — very good reasons for reelection.

She is left with his weakness and her forte, ideas. He speaks in political clichés and generalities. She likely has 20 or 30 IQ points on him, but is no Utopian or limited theoretician. She has the decided advantage of conceiving of and bringing to life the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is much needed, very appreciated, and in strong contrast to anything Brown ever did on state or national levels.

Her weakness is not that she can be aligned with some aims of OWS. Rather, she so far has spoken largely of rescuing and revivifying the American middle-class. Those folk not coincidentally are the majority of us and of voters. On the trail, she'll have to respond to other themes, such as foreign policy.

So far, the winger attacks have seemed desperate. Now there is her statement that she set the intellectual foundation that helped spawn OWS. Previously, they failed in trying to portray her banter with me on Left Ahead about being called a hick in MA as some insult to rural voters. Well, that backfired. Not only was that self-depreciating bit plain to the 10K-plus who heard the YouTube outtakes, it clearly was not what they wanted to trick people into thinking. They also drove over 1,000 so far to listen to the whole show with her, quite likely getting her new supporters. She could use more attack-ad enemies that politically clumsy.

Warren has powerful, detailed solutions to big problems. Her introduction into the race suddenly elevated the dialog beyond any ability to propose or debate that Brown so far has exhibited.

However, Brown has a predictable winger strength. He speaks in those clichés and generalities. Like Presidents Reagan and Bush the Lesser, he offers reassuring, if disingenuous, messages that don't require voters to think. For those who want guns-and-butter and everything-will-be-OK messages, Brown will be ready.

Let's also not overlook the gender factor. MA is at the bottom of states in terms of electing women to statewide office, much less sending them to the U.S. Senate.

Moreover, even here in the allegedly liberal land, STRONG + SMART + FEMALE = SCARY CANDIDATE. Her election would mean a breakthrough for the commonwealth.

As these attack ads proliferate, one factor to watch is the local v. out-of-state one. Voters here are largely provincial. As Southerners are wont to ask, "Who are your people?," Bay Staters favor those born and raised and still living in one MA town. Likewise, they are quick to ask of candidates, "How much of the campaign money is local?"

The latter is kablooey for the first time now. Following the unlimited-money thingummy, we'll see ads and cash flowing largely from out there. You can be sure the MA GOP and wingers will whinge about her support, while they will be even more guilty of the perceived sin of out-of-state funding.

Here, the slight majority of voters are unenrolled in any party. They feign independence and love being wooed. The ads will be for them.

Even flat-out lies by Warren defamers are not likely to benefit Brown with the unenrolled and undecided. The wingers, self-identified social conservatives, Republicans, and even those who demand a man in office made up their minds. If they are swayed at all, it will come from the likely outcome of debates where the empty barn coat creaks and flaps like a barn door.

What a great use of technology in a science-fiction sense if we could go about our lives while fast forwarding all the attack ads until next fall's election. At this time, I'm more delighted than ever that I watch almost no TV.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead, U.S. Senate, Scott Brown, Citizens United, attack ads 

No Fake Fairness for Dems

There are ways, ways and other ways to view Elizabeth Warren supporters drowning Marisa DeFranco's hopes and expectations for a US Senate primary. Yet at its base the point is that MA Dems want that seat badly enough to transcend cliché.

Many of us, including party officials were sure DeFranco would get the requisite 15% of delegates at the convention to advance. It has always been the sop handed to sincere, energetic campaigners, the thanks-for-playing prize, the C for trying.

It's like the wider electorate sending two chambers of lawmakers filled with Dems and mischievously picking a Republican governor. Large numbers of voters will provide an addle-pated justification of not giving one party all the power. Yet even cursory analysis indicates that with the RINO/DINO/moderate levels, that's crap and doesn't balance or control anything.

So yesterday, with forearm touches and sincere stares, The likes of ex-Gov. Mike Dukakis and literally thousands of Senate-starved delegates held the day on the aptly dark floor. DeFranco got about 4% of the votes and there's be no primary.

Dems chose not to reward DeFranco with the consolation prize. They chose to act with the efficacy of Republicans who did as much to Christie Mihos two years ago when he ran for governor and the elephants wanted Charlie Baker without a distracting primary.

In fact, the Mihos case better illustrated the stated fears of Dems this year, that a primary would sap resources and anger or confuse voters. He was an is much more conservative than Bib the Michelin candidate, Baker. The party regulars and independents would have a stark choice.

DeFranco is the same but different from Warren. She is more progressive, has concerns and platforms that deal  more below middle-class problems/solutions, and has concentrations like immigration reform that Warren does not. Yet their basic left values and approaches are close enough that there'd been no party splintering or turning off the unenrolled sorts.

I would have welcomed a primary. I would have loved for Warren to attend debate-like-events throughout the campaign. I have no question she was the best debater in the field, even when it was substantial.

Yet we have a direct and limited fight now. Incumbent Scott Brown v. Warren and their combined sordid, sundry funds.

Until debates begin, all indications are that Brown's side will continue to distract and lie, while Warren's will spray all with truth and sincerity. So far too, to their disgrace, the media, particularly the two real Boston dailies have manufactured issues, particularly the Cherokee-heritage one, where the Herald and Globe pretend they have substance instead of moot trivialities. I don't expect them to up their games, just to begin reacting like dogs to electronic collars when the debates put real topics in huge letters right in front of them.

Brown should not be nervous. His record is pathetic and ill serves us here in MA. He's probably hidden almost as long as he can behind made-up crap about Warren. His facade of voting against his party is based only on selected bills where his made no difference. When it came to substance, such as jobs bills, economic recovery and student loan costs, he spits and stomps on his constituents and the larger nation.

Shame on those who gave him cover for so long. The princeling is not only naked. This is not a silly magazine centerfold either. It's been governance and he's exposed in the worst ways..

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, DeFranco, Elizabeth Warren, Congress, U.S. Senate

Quick Kiss from Brown

Get him smelling salts. How very awkward for Sen. Scott Brown The gays like him. They really like him. (At least the small group of conservative, Republican ones do.)

Praise to Politico for being at the Log Cabin Republicans awards dinner last night. He was one of two pols getting the Spirit of Lincoln thingummy in D.C. He mumbled minimal thanks and refused to talk about LGBT issues with the press. So in a way, he was covered in case LCR members might still want to contribute to his campaign.

He did eventually vote for Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal. That was significant in that he's Republican and he's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It's your call whether MA Dems' views that he only joined in after the issue was settled is cynical or just honest (see Politico link  for quotes or the Globe coverage of Brown's LGBT record).

For that vote, Brown and Maine U.S. Sen. Susan Collins got the award. Brown also received the group's endorsement for re-election next year — not a terrific surprise as he's the sole Republican in the race.

The PR release on his award includes:

We thank Senator Brown for being on the right side of history in ending this failed policy and we are honored to present him with the Spirit of Lincoln Award. Senator Brown has proven himself to be an ally to our community whose service should be recognized, and Log Cabin Republicans are proud to call this warrior-citizen a friend.

Senator Scott Brown stated, "As I said when I voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, when a soldier answers the call to serve and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor. I would like to thank Log Cabin Republicans for this award." 

The one on the endorsement reads in part:

He has been a tremendous advocate for the people of Massachusetts and a solid ally for Log Cabin Republicans, representing the power and potential of an inclusive GOP. 

Brown grabbed his award, said little, and would not answer any Politico questions as he beat an exit. As they quote him, "I'm here talking about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and I don't really respond to what the Democrats say. Never do." That seems along the line of, "Yes, I'll be your friend...so long as no one sees us together."

Even with the boosts of national GOP money and the terrible U.S. economy, it was very impressive for Brown to campaign well enough to grab the special election from a much better known Dem. He was an exurban state senator with an undistinguished legislative record, a who's-that? guy. Yet, he won.

Now he's clearly sweating his associations. He wants support from social conservatives and he wants it from homosexuals. He seems increasingly to alienate the Tea Party types, who remain doctrinaire. I suspect they just can't smudge the oval for him again.

Even with huge amounts of out-of-state funds from those who want to keep this symbolic seat Republican, can he appeal to enough of our 51% unenrolled voters to get a full term? I can't see his footwork being fancy enough to dance to everyone's tune.

He Spits on the Popular Guy

Putting the gab in Gabriel, that Gomez clown has been doing the winger whinger thing. He is shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that Democrats are openly supporting Democratic candidate for US Senate Ed Markey. Can you imagine?

WTF, Republicans? Day follows night.

Reading and hearing his non-stop petulance, I see the parallel with such lunacy as anti-gay MassResistance spewing about and wanting a boycott of the corporate sponsors of Boston's Gay Pride week and events. Year after year, twisted little Brian and Amy (the army-ette of two) revealed the shocking, shocking I tell you, truth that Pride had a huge list of sponsors.

Apparently, this was to elicit outrage among us far morally superior to libertarians, queers, Unitarians and other scum. We were supposed to see the long and getting longer list of corporate and governmental sponsors and produce steam from our ears, grab our checkbooks to write checks to MR, and boycott these dreadful enablers.

From my distance, I couldn't help but see it otherwise. The sponsor list was a catalog of America, like the city of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Bank of America, Apple, Verizon, and a huge cross-section of hotel chains, supermarkets and on and on and on. In fact MR got its shaming list from the Pride brochures and any current year's sponsor list will show similar political and corporate power.

This allegation was that this was an anomaly that people could correct with protests and economic sanctions. Somehow, the clueless couple has yet to see that their publicizing the kissy-face support of LGBT celebrations carries a very, very different import.

What shame?

The real message has been for well over a decade that the world has moved beyond anti-gay paranoia and silliness. The wide and deep list of companies and agencies that celebrate diversity and equality indicates that those who hate gay folk are out of touch and out of tune with America and these times. Publishing the lists does not shame the sponsors at all. Instead, it makes reasonable folk ever more aware of how mainstream equality is.

Likewise with Gomez and other Republicans, complaining that two Presidents, the other US Senator from MA and dozens of Dems endorse Markey does not smear him. In contrast, the good guys like Markey, like him enough to trot to places like Boston and Worcester to say so publicly and at length.

In contrast, the best Gomez has earned has been an email from the very short-term, fill-in Senator Scott I-have-a-truck-to-haul-hay-for-my-daughters'-horses Brown. That's right, Brown couldn't even bother to endorse him at an even or on camera. (Insert snicker.)

So Gomez says repeatedly, "That Markey is so popular. Big shots endorse him. That's terrible! Vote for me!"

Instead maybe the unenrolled and even the Republicans will listen to all those effusive and specific endorsements of Obama, Clinton, Warren and on and on. Gabriel needs some friends. After he loses this race, he should have the time to find some.

Fretting Local MA Picks

Come November 2nd, I'll be busy working a polling place for the city. Before then, I need to come to terms with awkward voting decisions.

Fortunately, most picks in this crucial election are easy. Statewide, Patrick/Murray, Coakley, Grossman and Bump aren't even in question. They are strong and proven, while their opponents are inadequate and lacking in necessary vision.

Among my other endorsements, a key one that rends me is Jim Henderson for Secretary of State. I'm certainly voting for him. I fear though that the vast majority of voters have paid no attention to this race.

A body at rest tends to remain at rest. Inertia in the person of incumbent Bill Galvin could well win this contest.

Other than the huge factor that there is a sitting Secretary, this race parallels that for Treasurer. I am for the candidates who represent much needed change, overhauling these disused offices for the benefit of the citizens.

I have a Henderson sign on my lawn. That stirs conversations with neighbors. I chat him up with friends. I'm sure I've gotten converts. Yet, how many of me are out there doing this in a down-ballot slot? Sigh.

Far, far worse for my big and little D Democratic psyche is the Ninth District race for the U.S. Congress. Both for much of my long-term residence in Jamaica Plain and more recently in Hyde Park, my Congressman was Stephen F. Lynch. I've blanked him before and certainly can't vote for him this time.

He is unquestionably a DINO. He has voted as a right-wing Republican on all the big issues, as a champion of the Iraq war and the PATRIOT Act, and doing his best to stop health-care reform. He has a D after his name, but why and to what effect?

I campaigned for and endorsed Mac D'Alessandro in the primary for the Ninth. In the general, the GOP's Harrison and the unenrolled Dunkelbarger are no better than Lynch, perhaps even clones.

---

Riding Rocinante

---

Here is my real windmill tilt. I'll throw away my vote by writing in D'Alessandro.

On paper at least, keeping a nominal Democrat in the seat might be a slight advantage when it opens again. Certainly the voters had a clear choice in the primary and took the winger over the progressive by something like 80 to 20%. Perhaps Lynch will be safe there for another election after this one for reasons I can't fathom. Yet, replacing him with an actual Republican would likely make zero difference to Massachusetts.

In this case, this will be a protest vote, which is not my wont. That makes me sad.

Henderson at least has a sliver of a chance, particularly if the major media come out soon endorsing him. I've wondered throughout this campaign why the major papers and broadcast political types, and even the second-tier ones like David Bernstein of the Phoenix have not been on Galvin for ducking debates and allowing for full democratic process. They have really failed us this time for this race.

I am generally Spock-like in my rationality. Risking a vote as in these two are not like me; I am my mother's child in that.

In the end though, Henderson belongs in the Secretary's office and I cannot in good conscience vote for Lynch.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, election, endorsements, candidates, Secretary, Congress

Oh, My, O'Malley

The unbelievably clumsy and irrational attack on marriage equality here by the Roman Catholic hierarchy says much on the current and future of orthodox religion. In Massachusetts, the church of the large plurality seems determined to trivialize itself.

In Baltimore yesterday, Cardinal Sean O'Malley did it yet again. He, an Archbishop of the church that has become synonymous with scandal, called supporting Democrats, "...at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned." He said he was willing to go beyond "his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, (viewing) abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers."

The analysis is in the Baltimore Sun here. The parochial, he's-our-local-guy story is in the Boston Globe here. A related big picture for trends in the nominally solid R.C. Spain in a two-year-old Washington Post analysis is here.

Our Stereotypes

Hark to stereotypes of our commonwealth, as rich as visions of the Manifest Destiny times of our Great Plains. Here, the huge grazing herds were not bison, rather Democrats and Catholics and Catholic Democrats. That was all we needed to know about politics in the Bay State. It is increasingly inaccurate and meaningless.

We need to keep in mind that heads of nearly all religious organizations are and must be politicians as well. O'Malley has proven himself in general to be a very good one. In his several diocesan locations, he turned around some pretty sick situations, getting congregants, elected officials and priests to work together. In this archdiocese, he faced even more disgrace, scandal and corruption than he had before, and did not fare as well cleaning it up and bringing various publics into line.

Moreover, with the new, strict and even reactionary Pope, we have heard O'Malley joining in those quixotic calls for punishing our elected officials — we should oust them from office and the church should deny them rites if they don't vote the way the Pope commands. Many Catholics seem to think the miters are on a bit too tight.

So the broader effect seems to be that the Vatican continues to grow in influence slightly in Africa and Asia. It loses a bit in members and a lot in clergy in Europe. In both Europe and the United States, congregants continue to self-identify as members, but pay less and less attention to both political pronouncements and calls for strict doctrinal adherence.

Even with their own figures (much higher than anyone else's accounting at 17.2% of world population), the church is stagnant in the balance. That may well suit the Pope, who announced several times that he'd favor a smaller, more obedient membership.

So, what about Massachusetts' native fauna? We do have a lot of Catholics and a lot of Democrats. While Rhode Island leads the nation in percentage (over 50), we are not far behind as number two, with 44% of us being Catholics.

Similarly, Democrats are a common species here, with a plurality of 37%. Republicans are a sorry 13%. However, the unenrolled, what the rest of the nation calls independents, are the remaining 50%. We see the volatility and unpredictability of that several ways. We do send Democrats to Congress and vote for Democrats as President. However, we seem to elect Republican governors who appeal to our fiscal conservatism and have no problem mixing and matching Dems and GOP candidates on more local offices.

Then for the General Court, I won't start on DINOs. I think of them the way O'Malley speaks of pro-choice politicians. Suffice to say that far too many nominally Democratic legislators here are not at all progressive or even liberal.

Lip Service

Back to the politicians who run the Roman Catholic Church. Spanish, French and Italian Catholics have openly, clearly and often broken with doctrine. The Spanish government and voters enabled same-sex marriage for example. Abortion and divorce laws and regulations increasingly become more liberal throughout historically Catholic nations.

Even more than the past few Popes, the current one has made it clear that the Vatican won't reconsider its links to doctrine and politics any more than celibacy or female priests. It's a like it or lump it attitude that has loosened the bonds for a huge number of Catholics.

It may be good for the Church that the elderly Benedict is like a short-timer. After running the former Roman Inquisition, that Vatican arm that enforces doctrine, for 25 years, Benedict is not exactly the flexible sort. He offers a rest from the slow but steady liberalization of some previous Popes, but he is the current doctrinally infallible leader.

Quixotic Campaign

Back in Boston, for the past several years, O'Malley let himself and his bishops and priests fall into the VoteOnMarriage trap on the amendment to halt same-sex marriage here. Still reeling from the many decades of large numbers of sexually abusive clerics, the local archdiocese didn't need to roll in the mud with the basest anti-gay, anti-equality wingers.

O'Malley never said, but I certainly assume that the Pope gave him his orders on this one. O'Malley has always been a loyal officer, apparently even taking his elevation to bishop and beyond with misgivings.

So, we had a military-style campaign as a result. From archbishop to bishops to priests to committee heads and congregants, the orders were both clear and disastrous. Use the pulpit and back of the nave for politics, even shaming people into signing ballot-initiative petitions in church. The clergy appeared with extreme right-wingers for causes that many congregants seemed to disagree with or at least feel inappropriate for their religious leaders' involvement.

Calls to conscience gave way to marching orders. That honestly doesn't play well here, in the rest of this country or in Europe.

After the huge initiative defeat in June, O'Malley clearly had led an ill-chosen campaign into ignominy. From both religious and political views, his drive further damaged his effectiveness here. Further calls for political signatures and funds, as well as voting by mandated doctrine, will be harder for many to hear or act upon.

Short and mid term, there may be no undoing of this mess. Certainly this is not the time and place where the archdiocese will be seen as the leader in working for people's bodies and souls. Instead, it seems to have disdained and squandered the good will and respect of the large number of Catholics here.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, O'Malley, Pope Benedict, same sex marriage

O'Day Romps in Worcester

Although expected, the victory of the pro-marriage-equality and more progressive candidate in Worcester is reassuring. James O'Day trounced the other guy, unenrolled Joseph Cariglia, to replace 14th House District Rep. James B. Leary.

Leary stepped down after his November re-election to become chief of staff for Lt. Gov. Tim Murray. He had a long record of good votes for good causes.

In yesterday's election, the lowest O'Day got in any area was 83.4% of the vote in Worcester. His opponent was from the city, while much was made in the campaign that O'Day was from nearby West Boylston. He averaged 85.1% across the district.

Provincialism yielded to hopes for progressive achievements, it appears.

This ratio of pro-marriage equality state reps did not diminish. In the primary, at least two of the candidates were anti-SSM and favored advancing the current amendment to stop SSM here. O'Day soundly thumped them as well.

The Worcester Telegram covers the vote and has details on O'Day's background here.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, John O'Day

Fully Baked Charlie Baker on Gay Folk

There's a disarming, charming big-lug quality to Charlie Baker, candidate for MA Gov. You see him, as well as his brother Alex mirroring him, in the new ad off his campaign site.

Click below for a worthwhile two minutes. It's not going to make you cry or touch you deeply. Both guys are stiff, but hell, they're from New England. Yet, regardless of what you think of Charlie, you are likely to feel more positive about him...unless you hate and disrespect gay folk.

The head on his site page featuring the video is Charlie Releases New Video, "Brothers" To Mark 10 Year Anniversary Of Marriage Equality. That shows at least a bit of guts for an otherwise personally timid Charlie. It has not been news to Charlie that Alex is gay for quite some time. Alex married a man 10 years ago when MA was just gearing up for same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, even in blue MA where SSM has been the law of the land for a decade, being openly LGBT friendly takes a bit of courage for a Republican. After all, the official state GOP platform claims on the one hand to " reject all forms of discrimination, intolerance and exploitation" and right below that " We believe the institution of traditional marriage strengthens our society." That passive-aggressive crap is just barely shy of overt anti-gay lingo.

So Charlie lets the exchange with Alex humanize him, in a big-lug, fraternal way. The arch conservatives and anti-homosexual types weren't going to vote for him anyway. As a political ploy, this can only help, In particular, unenrolled voters and wishy-washy Dems, particularly those who buy into the fantasy that we just have to have a Republican governor to keep balance in our government, are likely to feel good about the socially liberal Baker. That puts him in the mold of his mentor and former boss, GOP Gov. Bill Weld. That's good company around here.

Many around here though also know that the state house is full of registered Democratic legislators who are fiscally conservative, may also be somewhat socially conservative, and really were they honest and not afraid of losing their seats would swap registration to Republican. I've long held that most Republican pols in MA are Dems.

This ad can only help Baker get more undecided voters liking him. Nicely done at low risk, Charlie.

---

---

Can't Happen in Massachusetts!

"Vote for me. I'm inexperienced and that means I'm clean!"

That's the gist of the two leaders in the special election to replace U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan in the Fifth Congressional District. On a tale of the tape, Democrat Niki Tsongas and Republican Ogonowski are disturbingly similar, expect on a couple of policy positions. Either could take this race in one of the commonwealth's most conservative areas.

This race illustrates the risk of political clichés. Consider that other one, that people and businesses are overtaxed here in contrast to other states and nations. Taxachusetts has a literary ring, but is not accurate. Likewise and to this race, the tired theme that this is a state of liberals based on party registration and our national elections shows a real lack of observation and understanding.

On paper in the most literal sense, this is a Democratic state and the majority of Democrats report they are liberal or progressive. For example, after the 2006 election, we had only 13% (about one in eight) of the General Court seats help by Republicans. That fairly well reflects voter registration of 14% for the GOP.

Liberals?

Yet, don't get me started with DINOs (Democrats in name only) and unenrolled voters. They can range like nomadic goats all over the political desert and are the reason we are so slow to enact progressive legislation here.

The few big Massachusetts cities are in fact pretty solidly left wing in voting. Yet even in Boston, it's easy to pick neighborhoods where the majority of the registered voters are Democrats, yet the votes are socially and fiscally conservative. This is more the case in the Fifth.

That SW to NE diagonal from next to Worcester to Haverhill includes quite a few wealthy suburbs and towns, Lowell and other industrial and blue-collar areas, and enough rural communities to edge toward red. We see that now as recent polls have had Ogowonski within 10% of Tsongas.

While this quickie summer race was supposed to be a promenade for Ms. Niki, she's having to shed her pumps to wade in the mud. She could lose this one.

We think of this same seat in 1990 when the incumbent, Democrat Chester G. Atkins, scraped by over Republican challenger John MacGovern. The other votes could have gone either way, with totals being 110,232/101,017/9,891. This less-than-4% margin prompted the Democrats to put Marty Meehan up two years later. He started with a 52.2% to 37.5% victory over Republican Paul Cronin and got stronger from there, and ran unopposed three times.

Insider Smears

The current fight is not one where we need the Mr. Smith character to bring integrity to the office. Meehan was fine and in many areas better than fine. This is not a case where people should be saying the resigned candidate was an example of too many white lawyer guys — fresh blood, a new perspective, and an outsider, please.

Yet, ironically because of their backgrounds, both leading candidates are trying variations on such themes. On the face of it, neither has the experience for jump-on-the-treadmill performance. Both have high name recognition in our little world because of deceased relatives as the number one asset.

Niki wears her last name or that of her late husband, the well respected U.S. Rep. then Sen. Paul Tsongas. Yet, she kept a double-arm distance from his work when he was in office. Instead of legislative savvy, she was been on hospital boards and a middle-of-the-pack community-college dean.

Jim is very similar. He dresses in the name and heroic patina of his brother John, a pilot of AA 11, hijacked and flown into a World Trade Tower on 9/11/1. He has a background as a farmer and 28 years in the USAF and Guard, retiring as chicken colonel. His actually has somewhat more of a managerial and political résumé, given the nature of the military.

On the Democratic side, primary voters went with Tsongas over several highly qualified state legislators. They seemed to favor the emotional links and name recognition.

In the first debate of the candidates, last night, fairness muddled things a bit as the two were joined by surely also-ran to be candidates Kevin Thompson (Constitution Party), Patrick Murphy (independent) and Kurt Hayes (independent). Yet at every chance, Niki and Jim went over variations on nearly identical attacks.

Each claimed that it was the other one who was the insider. Niki pointed to Jim being a pro-Iraq War Bush lapdog (my term). Jim said that Niki was supported by D.C. insiders and that was proof she was same old-same old.

I question Jim's wisdom on this. Stressing how much beloved elected officials favor your opponent may not be the best strategy. Moreover, Niki is playing to a strong base of voters tired of burying local soldiers in a largely unpopular war.

Issue Differences

Jim has a better wedge with immigration. The district does not have a big immigrant voter populations except in a few places like Lowell. This relatively conservative district also seems to have lost the sense that its ancestors were immigrants, mostly before there was any regulation on entry. Jim is strongly agin' 'em and uses loaded terms like Congress trying to "sneak benefits" to immigrants. Niki wants a way for undocumented aliens to earn citizenship.

That other big issue, the war, is even clearer. Jim is a stay-the-course guy, until Iraq is "safe and secure." Niki wants a specific timetable to get troops out within six months, shifting the situation to other Iraqis and other nations.

What's fascinating is that this confluence of factors for the pair probably won't lead to the first Republican to hold this seat since 1975, but it could.

Fortunately for Niki, Jim is no mellifluous orator. She's not the silver tongue herself, but she more than holds her own against his few rigid themes. Unlike the primary, the issues are stark. During the summer, no one issue stripped the veneer off Tsongas. Health care and her affiliation with big medical interests was there, but voters were not stirred. State Rep. Jamie Eldridge was clearly the most liberal and progressive of the Democrats, but again, this relatively conservative district was apparently the wrong audience for that theater.

This one could very well be like Meehan's first win. Niki might get the seat by 15% or 10% or 5%. Once in, the spot should be hers as long as she can stomach it.

Follow-up: Over at RichardHowe.com, Tony notes that the Fifth has moved in a major poll from solidly Democratic to leans that way.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Congress, Eldridge, 5th CD, Tsongas, Ogonowski

Mark Fisher Gets Shout Down Instead of Shout-Out

Like the old man in Moonstruck, "I'm confused." Not only did I get sucked into a winger radio show embedded in a RedMassGroup diary, but here I pass it along.

You can go to The Kuhner Report page for the audio show. You can catch it on Red Mass Group, replete with sniping comments from its readers. It is over 40 minutes of fast-paced accusations, counter-accusations, bluster, innuendo, and calumny.

H/T to RMG's Rob Eno. I had never heard Kuhner's show and would have been unaware of this high theater had Eno not featured it.

Guest for Jeff Kuhner's show yesterday was Mark Fisher, the Tea Party GOP candidate for MA governor. As he was when he joined Left Ahead, he started and remained calm and rational throughout the show. In stark contrast, a couple of caller- in said he was a liar, that he misrepresented him involvement in the GOP, and worse.

The gist of Fisher's contentions includes that a couple GOP Poobahs and moneyed types asked him to drop out of the gubernatorial race, giving nearly certain nominee Charlie Baker a clear field with no primary. In return, Fisher said, he would get a shot at a more winnable office, plus funding toward such a race.  He named the Grand Poobahs in the show.

There have been he-says/he-says disagreements on who offered whom what when. To us with clean hands, those seem like quibbles. Some Baker folk may imply Fisher tried to extort up to $1 million from the party bigs to get out. Fisher's competing implication is that they wanted to bribe him.

Regardless, the consensus among GOP functionaries seems to be avoiding the primary is essential for Baker's November victory. As an aside, I'm with various righties and lefties thinking a primary can only strengthen Baker's hand, particularly with unenrolled voters.

The lowest ring of his Kuhner-show hell featured Boston Herald columnist and GOP consultant Holly Robichaud. She is the show.

Robichaud plays the drama queen and is even worse than Chris Matthews and at least as bad as Bill O'Reilly in screaming, in shouting down other speakers, in raw, abrasive emotion in lieu of logic. She is unbelievable in multiple senses of that term.

Her basic refutation of Fisher relies entirely on ad hominem ploys. Again and again, she screams that she knows this or that person Fisher says was involved in proposing the deal. She knows, she just knows (without evidence) that what he said is impossible. She was as far as possible from demonstrating anything in her QED. She just knows, like a parent who just knows her son would never steal a car.

The show fascinates me. There's the circled-wagons aspect. There's the crazed shouting lady, bordering on sociopathy.  Mostly there's the raised curtain revealing the motley GOP crew backstage.

---

---

Tracking the Brown Meteor

Current conventional punditry here is delighted with its newest consensus. That would be that regardless of the outcome of next week's special election for U.S. Senate, MA Republicans and candidate Scott Brown win. The idea is a good, better or great showing by PlayBrown would vivify the trivial GOP here and likely lead to high statewide office for him, like governor.

This is a state where 51% of voters are unenrolled in any party. This seems akin to their disdain for signaling turns when driving. Never give the enemy information on where you're heading. In reality, of course, the vast majority of voters here go Dem in an election. They are made of the same wishy-washy stuff as their moderate Dem elected officials. On the GOP side, 12.5% of voters are Republicans and in the most generous polls of active and likely voters, that climbs only to 16%

Brown's brilliant and assured future is a very appealing construct, but both facile and very short-sighted. I think we like the idea of Brown and the elephants getting strong. That would liven up the facade of politics here, if not the interior. In reality, the General Court has many Republicans disguised as DINOs. Senators and representatives, particularly from the less urban, nearly all white, areas are Republicans by New England standards. They form a kind of fifth column that helps the lethargic non-progressive Dems in the legislature stay stagnant and stifle needed systemic improvements.

So let's assume Brown does very well next Tuesday, like within 10 points of Dem Martha Coakley. The pundits have it that inside and outside conservative donors will pour cash into the MA GOP. That will lead to more state legislators, a good chance at the freed-up statewide offices, and likely a governorship for the winning-losing candidate Brown.

I call fantasy on that. Mid- and long-term Brown can only be destructive to the GOP here (call me on this in a year and two years if I'm wrong).

The elegant possibility of a resurgent GOP here understandably intrigues us all. Both for our Gov. Deval Patrick and President Barack Obama, we see parallel dynamics. Both came into office with hippie-dippy promises of getting everyone to work together for the common good — after all, both pols claimed, they had done that elsewhere. Then once in office, both struggled mightily to get those necessary compromises, and in the case of Patrick, were thwarted in every single effort to get the funding and other resources to correct decades of problems. So far, with two years for Patrick and one for Obama, citizens have been unforgiving in demanding that they fix long-term trouble in a relative flash.

So, sure, we hold our the typical national fantasy of grand times just over the hill. As a group, we voters do like to delude ourselves. It was a lot of years ago (1928) when Al Smith was the Democratic Presidential candidate. He said, "The American people never carry an umbrella. They prepare to walk in the eternal sunshine."

For our local GOP though, their Cosmo flasher does not presage great things. Let's all face the too clear fact that he is terrifically out of place and out of touch. For this state and this century he has virtually all the wrong positions — pro-war, pro-gun, pro-torture, pro-rich tax cuts, anti-choice, anti-marriage equality, anti-health reform...it goes on and on and on.

If the GOP hooks its wagon to this star, it will find the fragile vehicle incinerated all too quickly. In this foreshortened Senate race, Brown has benefited immensely from two factors. First, people have not really gotten to know him and examine both his positions and miserable record as a state senator. Moreover, the cautious and timid Coakley has not brought the game to him.

This was his freebie. He got to commit one foul after another without penalty. No matter what the next go will be for him, he is certainly to be shocked by being held responsible for what he has said and done as a pol.

For certain, the GOP needs champions here. Yet, as they do nationally, they need to stop imaging that the delusional clichés of Reagan and Bush the Lesser will work again. Americans were fooled too often and too long. They need a less extreme hero than the winger Scott Brown.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Brown, Coakley, special election, U.S. Senate

Marriage Collage Taking Shape

It must be part of that secret gay agenda we keep hearing about. Over in Worcester, the pro-marriage-equality candidate to replace Rep. James B. Leary ran away with the Democratic primary. Up on Beacon Street in Boston, the pro-marriage-equality Sen. Therese Murray is poised to take over from go-for-the-bucks Senate President Bobby Travaglini today.

In Worcester, the union guy from all the way out in West Boylston wasn't supposed to have a chance. Instead, it was a solid win and James O'Day almost certainly will beat unenrolled candidate Joseph Cariglia in a two-way in the April 17th special election to fill the slot.

Under the sacred cod, Murray would have the gavel in this year's Constitutional Convention. She surely won't play Stay Puft marshmallow roll that Travaglini has.

Today's lead editorial in the Boston Globe characterize the out-the-door senate president as "amiable" and wrote that he "performed solidly in his four years as president by seeking the middle ground between the liberal Legislature and the conservative Romney administration." There are many less kind ways to depict his waffling and his lack of support for both economic reform and civil rights. Murray apparently has already told the senators to lift their snouts from the trough and to expect fewer goodies in tight times.

These trends are heartening, but still leave the very real possibility of another year and one-half of screaming, spending and squabbling over the amendment to take away homosexuals' right to marry here. Murray and House speaker Sal DiMasi -- plus the public -- will have to rub a lot of shoulders and whisper in many ears to defeat the amendment.

Her recent pix in papers portray her as something between a harridan and a drug addict -- not flattering. However, images on her state senate page and her personal campaign page make her look like Terry and someone you could a cup of coffee or a cocktail with in comfort.

Much has been made of Murray's downstate cred. She is from Plymouth (or is she?) and supposedly will balance the urban boys and girls in General Court. That's the way her campaign site reads. It makes no mention of her growing up in Boston projects.

She may have fled Cape-ward, but she carries the knowledge of the city and its issues. The pork has been packaged and delivered disproportionately to the suburbs and exurbs. Still, everyone from the tiniest villages to the few real cities moans they don't get enough money.

The biggest part of that is the revenue sharing model that Lt. Gov. Tim Murray (surely no direct relation to Therese) wants to fix. The other major factor, of course, is taxes. We have relatively low taxes contrasted with other states and we'd like to keep it that way. That means fewer d0llars for the General Court to save, spend or squander.

I can't see a huge jump in taxes, but I bet that the two Murrays will make a big difference in how we allocate what we have now.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, amendment, same sex marriage, ConCon, Travaglini, Therese Murray, John O'Day, Tim Murray