Falchuk pitches himself as smart, brave reformer

Ready for a new political party in MA? Well, Evan Falchuk is.

Ancillary stuff: He secured Political Designation status for the United Independent Party (UIP). The link on the Secretary of the Commonwealth's site goes to Falchuck's campaign one. By the bye, a designation requires signatures from 50 registered voters, does not require any number or percentage of votes cast to continue, and its members may not vote in a primary. However,  in theory, if a candidate for governor met the stringent requirements, public-financing matching funds would be available.

We at Left Ahead are dickering with his folk for a chat. Meanwhile, he appeared at Suffolk Law's Rappaport Center roundtable and has a campaign site.

At Suffolk, he stood out for several obvious reasons. He has a great shock of dark hair, perhaps suitable for one of the Hong Kong Cavaliers in The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. More meaningful though, he is a personable campaigner. Unlike the typical of these roundtable guests, he did not arrive just at the 12:15 PM showtime. Instead, he worked the room, introducing himself, shaking hands and encouraging interaction.

Smart, brave reform

Placing himself in a netherworld — below the support and primary risk of a party, and separate from an independent candidate per se — Falchuk stands out with a good theme. I enjoy a sharp slogan and he delivers with smart, brave reform.

His platform on the campaign site details all that comprises. That theme lets him weave all related topics back to it. He also showed his one true routine of snark at the roundtable after starting with saying he was like other voters in being tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils. For motivation, he said, "When I go and I see candidates say why they are running for governor say, 'I'm ready' or 'I want to prove that I an redeem myself from some prior failure,' I say, 'That's interesting for you, but what does that have to do with any of  us?'"

His reform refrain goes to three key areas — politics, economy, and government. He gets to play the populism card in each area.

For example, in campaign finance, he definitely is in the money-is-not-speech clique. That includes a Constitutional amendment, in effect voiding Citizens United. For this commonwealth, he cited what he says is a built-in 15:1 advantage for big-party candidates. That is, the laws and regulations allow $15,000 per year per candidate for party folk and $1,000 for others, including him and his UIP. He calls this "a corrupt system."

For taxes, we are one of seven states with a flat tax. In our case, it is in our constitution (Article XLIV). He calls it "inherently regressive when it comes to the disposable money people have." He'd like to see an amendment changing that, plus a tax-modernization commission to update MA to a 21st Century tax code.

Refreshingly, he did not push the stereotypical fraud-waste-and-abuse buttons on spending. Instead, he said much of MA's money was misallocated. He cited such areas as funding for the homeless, and pledged a line-by-line examination of where money went.

On transportation, he had a couple of strong statements. For one, the train tracks in the Pioneer Valley were now straightened out and good enough for Amtrak. He'd like to see commuter trains moved there as the MBTA replaces them, to be used for local transit out there. For another, he's big on the South Coast rail project. He said it "has become a political hot button issue. It ought not be. We should go ahead and build it."

Health-care costs were as big an issue with him as with other gubernatorial candidates. He had a different view of the root of the problem — the continuing consolidation of hospitals into big systems, which then set prices as suits them. He took AG Martha Coakley and the whole Democratic administration to task for watching this happen and doing nothing. He pointed to the current effort of Partners to take over South Shore Hospital. He would like to stop that and decrease the geographic monopolies here.

He also noted that then Gov. William Weld and Charlie Baker (current candidate for governor and Weld's Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Administration and Finance) deregulated the health-care industry. That, Falchuk, says has led to 72% of market being controlled by a few health-care systems.

Not coincidentally, among his credentials is the past 13 years in executive positions at Best Doctors, Inc.

In education, he was the same and different as other candidates. He sees too much emphasis on teaching to standardized testing. He thinks government has a role in making sure kids get the skills they'll need from school. Where he diverges is in what he thinks students should come out of schools with, including:

• independence
• resilience
• critical thinking skills
• grit
• knowledge that they can overcome obstacles

Those of course are much harder to measure than math proficiency. Those goals like so many he cited would require presenting them to a smart group of advisers, legislators and officials to ask the best way to get to them.

Getting there

Falchuk is relentlessly optimistic and enthusiastic. He definitely counts on his populist message to suck in voters. He noted that America from the beginning was "an experiment in government." He listed the problems and possible solutions, concluding "There is not a king or queen who's going to come down and do it for us. We have to do it."

To the obvious question of where he expects to find victory, he quipped that he only had "to get more votes" than the other candidates. He said he expected to go out and earn them, to convince voters in all his appearances that he could achieve what they all want.

For the two major parties, he added, "I never think of it as taking votes from anyone. I have to earn every single vote."

From my distance, I surmise that the future of the UIP and whether it will exist apart of Evan Falchuk depends entirely on how he pulls in November.

Indy McCormick Goes for MA Gov.

Cross-post note: This first appeared at BlueMassGroup.

Following a recent post here linking to chats with three Dem candidates for MA governor, a comment asked about the independents. The first Left Ahead did was today with Jeff McCormick.

Click at the player on the bottom to hear the half hour with him. In addition, he recently appeared at Suffolk Law's Rappaport Center roundtable. His 13-minute self-intro there appears as a video on Suffolk's site here.

My diary draws on both his chat today and on the roundtable.

Not Mitt

First, there are bound to be the obvious comparisons with Willard Mitt Romney. McCormick too has been very successful in MA as a venture capitalist (21 years with his Saturn Partners). 

Very much unlike Romney, he grew up blue-collar in upstate NY, to college on scholarships, and did not have a rich, politically and corporate connected father. He claims to have arrived in Boston with $800 to make his fortune, which he did. Unlike Romney, there is no delusion when he says he's self-made.

Superficially, McCormick was a lacrosse champion in HS and at Syracuse. He has a chin that could be a weapon and a great jawline. Those are important only in that they serve to reinforce his self-confidence and well-thought-out positions. I never for a moment felt he was jiving me.

Voters and donors have not been kind to independent gubernatorial candidates here. The few original governors came to office before parties, but maybe only Henry Gardner in 1855 fit the category. Although, as part of the Know-Nothing Movement, he was sort of in a party and managed to beat a popular Whig by a landside.

At the moment, McCormick figures he can appeal to enough voters, particularly the 53% of unenrolled ones. He seems to think it might not be as hard as some of his professional accomplishments. When asked about whether he's hitting the public meetings and diners, he's in his element. "I'm really comfortable in diners, much more than in ballrooms," he said. "I can relate to just about anyone."

Jobs and Jobs

His stump speech starts with asking voters to associate his campaign with Jeff for Jobs. As background, he cites such VC successes as Boston Duck Tours, Twin Rivers Technologies, and Constant Contact. 

He honesty figures he can make a culture change on Beacon Hill to bring some of that mindset. He thinks he can do a reset there. "We need to teach people to get out of their comfort zone," he stated with great confidence in his ability to do so.

He claims to be part of team in his VC career and said, "No one is voting for a CEO." Instead, he wants the legislators and administration to do the kind of problem solving he favors. He cites ME's US Sen. Angus King as saying when people see you are solving problems, they want to join you and that’s an easier way to govern. 

He offers a familiar and well articulated outline for job growth. He does rely on some accepted but un-implemented ideas, such as no dumb taxes on technology when you want that sector to grow, having an easy flow from high school into voc-tech or community colleges or four-year schools making sure people are learning for jobs that will be there when they finish. Listen in and check is campaign site for specifics.

He needs to be a little careful in his frequent use of business clichés. At Suffolk, for one example, he spoke of opening the kimono for sharing proprietary information. On the other hand, he is on solid ground, particularly in a sports-loving area alluding to Wayne Gretzky's comment on his icy success as being able to skate not to where the puck is but rather where it will be. McCormick sees his jobs proposals as doing that for workers and future workers here.

Why and How

We did deal today as he did last week at Suffolk with some of the very obvious areas. For one, why walk away from his highly profitable VC biz? Another is how to deal with a long boat of Dems, plus several Republicans and likely more independents.

For the why, I don't know how many millions he has, but I'm sure he could coast on that forever; likewise I'm sure that is not in his nature to coast at all. Instead, he readily agrees he'd take a huge economic hit to be governor, but that the challenges would be likely more than he has faced and he'd look forward to them.

He is confident enough in his approach and ideas that he thinks they can hold sway in the campaign. He figures there will be a shakeout (my term) as the campaign progresses. Then, "when everyone knows us equally well," he'll stand out as the right choice.

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

Baker Sticks With Familiar Tunes

Suffolk Law's lunch series with gubernatorial candidates is at once inconvenient and worth the trip. Yesterday's showcased almost-certain GOP nominee-to-be Charles Duane Baker Jr., known to all here as Charlie.

Check 'im out: Suffolk's Rappaport Center is very efficient about posting vids of these sessions. Yesterday's with Baker is here.

Pic note: Any photos I run in this blog are Creative Commons. You are welcome to them, just make one mention of Mike Ball if you use one.

I won't recap his show in detail. Use the like above to hear it all.

At these luncheon thingummies, some of the usual suspects are inevitable. The moderator will invariably call on the special-interest types to get their predictable questions in the air. The candidate format is 10 minutes to pitch and self-intro, then about an hour for Q&A (no speeches, thank you very much).

We who attend regularly know there'll be a tobacco tax/smoking cessation one from an anti-cancer advocate. Almost always, a land-conservation guy will tunnel down to an obscure law that needs enforcement or tweaking. Former AG Scott Harshbarger will try to get a commitment to hold a vote to overturn casino approval. These brief hazing incidents don't seem to bother the candidates, whom I suspect have been warned beforehand.

By the bye, Baker would be happy to have a plebiscite on repealing the casino approval. He doesn't see such gambling on top of the lottery as a wise or viable economic-development strategy.

The overwhelming impression Baker left yesterday is that he's not making promises of big changes. He's not giving other contenders targets. Likewise, his campaign site is sparse, asking for money and not providing any platform yet.

He returned repeatedly at lunch to the same few, neither controversial nor innovative, concepts. For example, his biggie, which he iterated three or four times, is that:

• He has visited many MA towns
• In each, everyone agrees on which public schools wew best
• Therefore, good education is not limited to a few wealthy communities
• Further, the conclusion is to analyze what a good school does and replicate in lesser schools

That's old and obvious stuff, but he loves it. He is clearly proud of his insight and you'll hear that repeatedly during his campaign.

Likewise, you'll hear repeatedly that his parents were on opposite political poles. He and siblings grew up hearing Dem/GOP debates at meals. He uses that as a metaphor suggesting he learned how to get workable compromise across political divides.

As close as he got to controversies or strong positions were:

1. The recent state budget should not have touched the rainy-day fund
2. Local municipalities need to streamline permitting and otherwise make starting or expanding businesses easier
3. A three-year college degree would lower costs
4. We somehow need to align health-procedure costs so the range is not huge among facilities
5. He doesn't want recreational pot
6. MA cities need to each stand on its own and not see itself as a satellite of another city, particularly Boston

Again, he offered no sweeping, inspiringly named program or set of planks. In this second go at governor, he still pushes himself as a pragmatist who rises above party affiliation to get stuff done. He admits to being in the Weld/Cellucci model, a social liberal and fiscal conservative. (Hey, that sounds like most MA Dem pols.)

In a shallower, yet obvious, note, he has been in training. He used to look too much like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters. As a fellow pasty-faced white guy, I empathize.

He's toned and trimmed. He looks healthy and pretty for 57. He has an unfortunate taste in shirts and ties (lose the pastels, which accent your sallowness, Chuck), but seems vital enough.

In 2010, Gov. Deval Patrick beat Baker, but only by six points. The new, improved contender seems to figure it's his time. Failing in a race for a major office never stamps LOSER on your forehead here.

I'll be intrigued to see whether he clings to his pragmatism/collaboration ideal. If the Dem candidate has big ideas and big promises, he may have to be less spongy.

Scotland Joins the Equality Party

Are you happy to see me or is your sporran just full?

Scotland becomes the 17 nation to legalize marriage equality yesterday. By a vote of 105 to 18, its parliament approved same-sex marriage, to begin in October.

While there are a few Muslims there, the two major churches — the majority Church of Scotland (the Kirk) and the minority Scottish Catholic Church — made the usual weak and unsupportable arguments. In the debate though, the prevailing argument was that there were plenty of protections for religious sorts and no church or cleric would have to host or officiate in SSM. Anti-gay types know that's a red herring, but they can't seem to stop themselves from emotional indulgence.

Those unhappy types put forth a variety of unnecessary amendments, which failed. This law ended up slightly differing from many others in countries and U.S. states. It requires religious organizations who want to let their clergy perform SS ceremonies to first opt in to doing that.

England and Wales had previously approved SSM. Their citizens can marry under that as of March 29th.

Christie, Never an Ex-Jock

Online big, braying heads from left and right, from pretending to be real news (Fox) to pretending to be pretend news (Stewart), one phrase in NJ Gov. Christ Christie's saga of a news conference got chuckles and guffaws all around. In his pretense that he knew nothing of the GW Bridge mess before it happened, he started with, "I was done with my workout yesterday morning and got a call from my communications director at about 8:50, 8:55, informing me of this story that had just broken on the Bergen Record website."

[If you're nitpicky or masochistic enough, you can get the transcript at the WaPo here. ]

The risibility trigger was the single word workout. The underlying justification is that because is visually is such a porker, he can't really work out, can't be anything like a jock.

I have no doubt that in his Christie brain, he remains as much an athlete as he was in school. He may weigh twice as much and jiggle like a twerker (except on top) when he moves, but his mind and body remember. He'll always be a jock to himself.

In fact, he reinforced that in answering a question in the conference about his HS chum David Wildstein, who seems to have done the bridge dirty deed. In trying to distance himself from his until-that-day great buddy, Christie said he didn't know him much in school, that they ran in different circles, that "You know, I was the class president and athlete."

Here again, he surely was the only person in the room who considered himself an athlete, but he thinks, says and acts it.

We can get into how he might be strong and even quick, despite his rotundity. In his gymnasium (don't think of the origin of that word as running naked), he could well lift more and run longer at a faster pace on a treadmill than younger, scrawnier sorts. Fat does not preclude fit. 

The important aspect is that his being still is that of a jock. His pubescent identity remains and defines him. He has the poise and confidence of a competitor who has been successful an strutted his stuff in front of thousands, in his case as varsity catcher on the baseball team — not bad training for being a politician, confidence, arrogance, accomplishment, control of the situation. 

As a disclaimer, I was also an athlete in high school and into college (until a gruesome auto wreck cut that short in the sophomore year). I identify with the benefits of team sports and understand how you don't outgrow that anymore than you would if you were a cheerleader or even a U.S. Marine. 

To worry the cheer leader example a bit (and putting aside that G.W. Bush was one), cheerleaders keep key attributes they had or picked up in the process. The former cheerleaders I know are, well, cheery. They have that people-person persona. They push those around them to succeed...with them. In other words, they make good real-estate agents, PR or marketing types, and other best-food-forward optimists. They smile a lot and many have kept their version of blonde hair. They are still cheerleaders at 40, 50 and beyond.

We all supposed are who our parents were, what we eat, what we wear, and many other nature and nurture background factors. I remain convince though that what we've done, particularly in high school and college push its way out of our insides our whole lives. 

Much is made of the nerds in high school, the bookworm introverts and such who stay that way. That is even more true for the jocks and cheerleaders. In Gov. Christie's case, I suspect his crouched glories as catcher have defined him immutably. 

As this bridge scandal inevitably expands and splatters him, let' s see how many times he alludes to athleticism and his former glories. Jon Stewart may snort, but there is a jock inside the massive pol who won't be denied.

Cross-post: Because this is personal as well as political, it appears in Harrumph! as well. 

MA Dems for Gov. Already a Good Crop

MA Gov. Deval Patrick has to step down after this second, four-year term. One of the usual buffoons, Charlie Baker, is certain to be the GOP nominee. On the Dem side though, there are some really good people running.

Disclaimer: I am well aware MA has elected numerous Republican governors. The prevailing, if you pardon, wisdom by polled voters is that there are so many Democrats in the State House that somehow it's only fair to elect a Republican to counterbalance them. Picking by party rather than policies and performance is pretty dumb and self-destructive. Yet, that mythology gives Baker a chance.

That aside, progressive sorts have a wealth of options this campaign. We'll invite many of them to chat with us at Left Ahead. We just had Steve Grossman; you can catch his show here. Next up will be Juliette Kayyem; you can hear her live at 2:30 PM Eastern on Tuesday, 1/28, here, or afterward at Left Ahead.

As I can, I'll also trot down to Suffolk Law for their Rappaport Center's lunchtime shows of candidates. This week was Don Berwick. He'll be on Left Ahead's show Tuesday, 2/11 at 2:30 here.

Kayyem has a solutions-to-big-problems platform and bills herself as a proven progressive. Well, so do Grossman and Berwick.

Grossman is someone Stephen Colbert would call a friend of the show. He's come on Left Ahead numerous times and we like him. He's very straight-ahead and presents well thought out progressive positions — replete with his solutions to problems.

Berwick has been new to me. I was impressed yesterday at Suffolk. If you drill into his issues, you'll find he offers detailed definitions of problem areas and presents how he'd better the condition, and even how he'd pay for doing that.

I wondered how he would cover his platform. Each plank could have taken the whole hour he had.

He spent about eight or ten minutes introducing himself and took questions from all comers. There was only one that stumped him, an arcane legal point about land frontage. He admitted he didn't know about the topic and asked the questioner to educate him after the session. He'll know next time.

If you see him in action, be prepared to be charmed. He is the son of a rural Connecticut (Moodus, population about 1400) GP. He likewise became a physician. He has that avuncular manner. He can also sling metaphors effectively.

One that I suspect will characterize his campaign referred to his upbringing. He drew the image of a small town where when a car is pulled over beside the road, the locals don't drive by. Rather they stop to ask whether they can help.

He riffed on that to say that government should be in the helping...together...business. He went into his favorite Hubert Humphrey quote to tie the car into his philosophy. That would be:

It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

By the bye, the Rappaport Center has made the video of Berwick's appearance available. They were as good as their word yesterday. You can see and hear it here.

He is the sort of very bright, extremely accomplished fellow who could be a jerk but isn't. He goes far beyond health care into such areas as a very detailed transportation-infrastructure plan (specified on his site). without bragging or condescension.

I left the session aware that he'll be a player in this election.

Elephant Dump on Henriquez

Can it be a pig pile if Republicans are jumping on? They were quick to the task today after MA State Rep. Carlos Henriquez was convicted and immediately sentenced. He will go to jail for six months of a two and one-half year term for two counts of assault and battery on a woman.

The jury found him not guilty on another A&B, on witness intimidation and on larceny under $250. He may even have been fortunate that the original charges could have included kidnapping.

The judge though did not like his attitude, did not find him remorseful, and did not seem to approve of his slapping his erstwhile female companion around then driving her against her will until she was able to hop out and away. As the Globe quoted Judge Michele Hogan,"When a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, she doesn’t want to have sex."

We chatted with him in late 2010 when he was running for the 5th Suffolk seat. You can hear his show on Left Ahead here.

MA politics don't offer too many chance for glee or schadenfreude. The Globe article linked above does list other state Dems who have been charged with crimes. Today's sentencing hearing seemed to release pent vulture behavior.

As the article puts it:

After Henriquez’s sentencing, Republican Representative Elizabeth Poirier and the state Republican party called for Henriquez to resign.

“Now that Representative Henriquez has had his day in court, it is time for him to leave this institution which should in no way condone violence against women,” Poirier, who represents North Attleborough, said in a statement.

MassGOP Chairman Kirsten Hughes also issued a statement.
“The MassGOP calls on the state’s leading Democrat, Governor Deval Patrick to immediately demand the resignation of Representative Carlos Henriquez,” the statement said. “If the resignation is not tendered right away, there may not be adequate time for a special election and thus robbing the good people of Dorchester representation on Beacon Hill.”

Not surprisingly, Dem legislators called for a little compassion and for the process of his removal from office to take its course. Sure, he's out of there, but kicking him and jumping up and down on the supine body doesn't seem very civil. The Dems figure they can wait a day or two.

Then again...Republicans.

PM Update: The responses were not as reflexive and visceral, but Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Roberty DeLeo and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh have also asked Henriquez to make this easy for everyone and resign. DeLeo said he'd act to expel Henriquez (supposedly through the House Ethics Committee) if he had to.

There is no accounting for GOP delusion

Unfortunately for the collective intelligence of the nation, few schools teach current-events classes, a minority of homes get daily papers, and families don't discuss the world at dinner anymore. Yet in the last few days, a wonderful teachable example presented itself in many guises. If you want to point young folk to some defining differences between lefties and righties, there's Benghazi.

First a thoroughly researched dissertation analyzing the events leading to, during and after the attack there appeared in the New York Times, by David D. Kirkpatrick. In itself, it was neither left-wing nor right-wing. He set out the facts, got the best commentary, added some boffo multi-media for clarity, and named names. He pointed to ignorance and bungling by State Department officials and employees, recalcitrant blunders by Congress, and murderous malice by the perpetrators. He also laid bare the inane, irrational and jaundiced lies, paranoia and calumnies by those in Congress, right-wing media and conservative organizations.

To your youth who might want to know what other lessons should come from such information, you would have to first say that this is first a great opportunity for the adults involved to be, well, adult — admit their blunders, say what they've learned, and perhaps apologize to those they have defamed and those they have misled.

They could look to Hillary Clinton to see how it's done. She was Secretary of State at the time of the attack. When the initial follow-up reports came out, she took personal responsibility and did it specifically. She could have placed much more blame on Congress for slashing embassy security funding and denying requests for more protection. Instead, she identified State Department errors and set policies and practices in place to prevent them.

In contrast, numerous Republicans and a few Dems in Congress openly lied about the events, slandering both Clinton and President Obama. That continues even after the NYT report.

Not even Fox (if you pardon the exprssion) News cannot outdo today's Washington Times abrogation of responsibility here. You can read winger deceit and puerile immorality at its worse in NY Times’ whitewash of Benghazi attack aids Hillary Clinton in 2016.

They are not about to admit that over a year of paranoia and outright lies have been completely exposed. They are not going to apologize for manufacturing Al Qaeda involvement and denying the component of that perceived-to-be-anti-Muslim video.

Instead, they portray Kirkpatrick's evenhanded assessment and blaming as a devious ploy to bolster Clinton's chances as a 2016 Presidential candidate. Pathetic is one word. Cowardly is another. Immature is another. Irresponsible is another.

The real current-events and civics lesson is that far too often, the left wingers are the liars and bullies. Don't believe them.

As comedian and sometimes philosopher Lenny Bruce said so well, "There is only 'what is' and that's it. 'What should be' is a dirty lie."

Left wingers have been lying to us non-stop, shamelessly and now unrepentantly. Evidence is not evidence to them. Proof is not proof. Believe that they say at the peril to your brain and morals.

Utah Clerks, Gov. Pouting

There seems to be a lot of chest thumping and petulance in Utah. The Christian Science Monitor has a nice piece of analysis of the disbelief, denial and disobedience following the federal court declaration mandating marriage equality...and the refusal of the judge to stay same-sex marriages.

While over 1000 gay couples have married there, clerks in some counties refuse to issue licenses. The state AG told them they risked contempt of federal court. The Governor said he's had the AG appeal to the full 10th District Circuit Court and will go to the Supremes if that fails. [Here's betting the SCOTUS wouldn't take it and if it did, do the same as it did with the appeal of the California post-Prop 8 case.]

In his 53-page ruling, District Judge Robert J. Shelby was very specific about how Utah's ban was unconstitutional. Then in rejecting a plea for a temporary order blocking implementation, he made it plain the arguments the state used were all in the original trial and findings. Nothing to see. Nothing to do. Move on.

Utah pols seemed determined to be real asses about it though.

Check and maybe Mate: In an update, the 10th Circuit Court did not wait until its Tuesday session next week. It quashed the request for a stay. The ruling is here. It denies both a stay pending appeal and a temporary stay, writing that the request did not meet the criteria — (1) the likelihood of success on appeal; (2) the threat of irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; (3) the absence of harm to opposing parties if the stay is granted; and (4) any risk of harm to the public interest.

Utah for Marriage? Sure, Why Not?

The hits keep coming, like companies shoving big financial news in after the week's market close, or everyone trying to end the calendar year with some oomph. Now Utah has to obey its nondiscrimination laws and regs by permitting same-sex marriage.

With New Mexico earlier, that's a third of the states (and DC) allowing marriage equality. It's closing in on 40% of the population. The wingers who said a couple of years ago that the SSM battle had been won by the pro-equality forces were smack on.

The anti-gay forces have been funneled down to two sad stances:

• Calls for plebiscites, figuring the regressive, oppressive types will be able to rally at the polls
• Reliance on their panicked, anti-American democracy state one-man/one-woman reactionary laws and amendments

Would the Supremes had said, "Give it up," when they recently had the chance to lead and be rational. The SCOTUS has simply dragged out the inevitable, humane, and rational.

Yeah to New Mexico and to Utah. Welcome to the world of compassion and reason.

Saturday Updates: The governor is fairly soiling his trousers in anger and promises some kind of action. The federal court there denied a state request for an immediate stay, and marriages proceeded. The well-reasoned 53-page judgment is here.

Land of (Equal) Enchantment

OK, we knew it was overdue. Today, New Mexico's high court made it official. The state will widely allow same-sex marriage.

It had been a nether world, or rather a neither world. Its statutes neither forbade nor allowed marriage equality. Meanwhile, various country clerks had taken it on themselves to be American. That is in contrast to the old Soviet Union's cliché of whatever is not allowed if forbidden, ours was whatever is not forbidden is allowed.

Regardless, unlike the many states that panicked when first Hawaii's court noted that its non-discrimination laws implied homosexual couples could marry, then New Hampshire enacted civil unions, and wham, pow, Massachusetts started enabling gay marriage, New Mexico sat and watched. There were no paranoid constitutional amendments nor no homophobic legislation. It waited.

In that sense, it was easier for NM. It didn't have to undo humiliating evidence of hate and stupidity. Good on them.

Warden Watson Passes

Again, my fantasy got ahead of the obvious. Joel Watson died on October 1st. He must have been really bothered to miss the huge Boston mayoral election.

We had worked together as peers for years at the industrial sanitizer scented dining room of the Woodbourne Apartments in Boston's Jamaica Plain. For each election, that became the shared polling place of Ward 19, Precincts 7 and 12. Joel was warden of 7 and I of 12.

He was a dedicated pinko and a solid Dem functionary, on the party's state committee for many years and such. The punchline there was that everyone in the political river knew, respected and liked Joel.

I can mention one aspect that does not appear in the obit linked above. He got along well with and managed difficult people. That's not a small deal in the elections biz. For those who have never managed inspectors and clerks, be aware it is both a talent and proof of temperament and breeding. Joel placated the irate, he soothed the indignant, and he made the average feel extraordinary. He had a good soul and humility beyond his superior essence.

I am sorry Joe passed.

Political Circus Restart

OK, it's really nothing in contrast to the recent, yet prolonged Boston municipal election season. They're back though, the pols that is.

I confess up front that I've missed it in the past month. I'll go for all five Dem gubernatorial candidates, as well as the GOP on as guests on Left Ahead. I'm unsure on Charlie Baker; donkeys are happy to talk with anyone, but elephants seem timid, particularly when our show's name has "left" in it. Dems seem to have more of the courage gene and willing go on hostile right-wing radio.

The house meet-and-greet mini-events are underway for next year's election. Last evening was sort of a mandatory hustings one — two would-be governors, in Jamaica Plain, at Doyle's backroom. It's a must stop. The other three will do the same thing in the same place in two weeks.

It's a fairly small room that fills for these. If you can't do these on a Wednesday evening, you can check the JP Progressives site for the videos of these one-hour-per-pol thingummies.

I apologize for the snaps. The lighting is God awful and I didn't disrupt with flash.

In some bizarre media meme, our commonwealth's treasurer/receiver general gets the "boring" bill. I've never found that true. He wasn't last night and clearly against AG Martha Coakley he was the star of the evening. Plus he always has handsome ties.

You can judge his presentation yourself by checking out any of his several appearances with us on Left Ahead.

Both candidates did well enough. It was nothing like a debate. One exited the arena before the other entered.

My takeaway was primarily that Grossman is already in finely tuned campaign mode. I think Coakley needs a better speech writer(s).

For a couple of examples;

• Grossman spoke to a primary thrust as being addressing societal inequalities. He said his administration would try to leave no one behind. Instead of stopping with that predictable crowd pleaser, he made it memorable by saying that wasn't just rhetoric. "You can't put rhetoric on the dinner table, cut it up and feed it to your family."
• Likewise, in responding to the importance of arts in education, he promised to find the funding and make it part of schools again. He didn't dribble off with that. Rather he said, "If we teach children to pick up a flute or paintbrush, they're much less likely to pick up a gun or syringe."

He's smart, both in general and in marketing himself. I bet he ups everyone's game in this race.

Hawaiian Anti-Gay Death Twitch

Sure, we knew they'd try. As threatened/promised, anti-marriage-equality sorts ran back to Hawaiian courts to try to block implementation of same-sex marriage after it became law yesterday. No dice, guys.

The AG had already said that the amendment passed in 1998 gave the legislature the power to define marriage. They did just that and came down for marriage equality.

Now the likely last word came from Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto. He refused to issue a temporary restraining order. Instead, he plainly remarked, "After all the legal complexity of the court's analysis, the court will conclude that same-sex marriage in Hawaii is legal," SS marriages are set to start December 2nd. 

Hawaii Done Deal

Moments ago, Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed same-sex marriage into law in Honolulu.

Sure, sure, the anti-forces — anti-gay/anti-equality — will make a stab at getting a court to stay the Dec. 2nd start date of marriages. Just as certain, there must be plug nasties ready to start a drive for a new constitutional amendment with the sole intent of reversing it. I don't see either of those happening.

Much more likely, the anti-LGBT sorts will be reduced has they have here in MA. They'll be a dwindling party of bitter types, fewer each month, each year. As the state sees the lies about disaster that heard a decade ago, people will know (almost to a one) that SSM helps many, harms no one, and is, as the Hawaiians call it, pono.

We can hope for a quick healing of the hearts and a resetting of the minds of those who would harm, hinder and hurt homosexuals.

Hawaii = 16 = marriage

Hawaii passed same-sex marriage today, making it the 16th of 50 states and DC. Gov. Neil Abercrombie has been eager to sign and should this evening.

We saw the same hackneyed, even bigoted, emotional and personal-religion based rants by legislators and 1000+ who testified to the Senate and 5000+ before the House (much overlap). Many were opposed to equal marriage rights. They used identical whines, non-intellectual arguments, and even threats of election retribution as we heard here in MA.

Same-sex marriage starts Monday, December 2nd.

The good guys prevailed. The law is pono — righteous.

Post-vote update: Listening to many hours of testimony and speechifying by voters and legislators, I was moderately surprised. The anti-equality arguments were replays of those a decade ago here in MA. So many of the anti-SSM voter made it plain that because people heard their emotional pleas, somehow that should mean agreement. Not so in MA nor in HI.

Update update: The Star Advertiser got around to a full recap.

What Were We Thinking? Hawaiian Version

Marriage-equality legislation staggers along in Honolulu. Yesterday, after many (I think 29) amendment attempts, the House approved the bill, 30 to 19. Next it goes back to the Senate, who had previously voted for it...without these amendments.

The Senate should take it up Tuesday and will almost certainly make it law. Gov. Neil Abercrombie has pens screaming for him to use them and he's ready.

The few amendments that did pass are mostly silly, with one exception. The process in Hawaii mirrored the Connecticut debates and compromises five years ago.

The troublesome change is a fair capitulation to anti-gay clerical types and church pols. It gives loosely religious-institution groups the right to continue discriminating. Even in their for-profit activities, like facility rental, that are open to the public, they can use the we-don't-like-homosexuals trump card. This in effect alters the state public-accommodation laws to allow this.

The other amendments are benign and redundant. The gist is a triple-pinky-swear for clerics. The bill already let them say no to officiating at same-sex weddings. They can play the faith card at will. The amendment specifies that no one can bring any charges or lawsuits if this happens.

Watching hours of testimony before the House committees was stunningly familiar. The queue of several thousand who spoke in opposition did so too predictably. The gist of most was that their personal religious feelings should determine public policy. To the endearing credit of the moderator legislators, they did not ridicule or even point out the illegality and irrationality of those two-minute anti-gay tirades and whines.

Yet in the version tossed back to the Senate, the influence of the haters ("Don't dare call us haters!," they say) and bigots ("I am not a bigot," they say.) is obvious. As it was in CT and elsewhere, when the concessions that moderately impinge on gay rights in order to deliver some equality become part of the law, the anti-gay nasties appear largely placated.

I assume serious control issues here. They had called for defeat of the bill; no. They wanted to go back to the start and do another task force to delay everything for a year or more; no. They wanted every business operator to be able to discriminate as churches still can. In amendment after amendment, they did all they could to weaken the bill; with these few sops as exceptions, no.

Now their death twitch will be a lawsuit to overturn the law as soon as it gets the governor's sig. They simply cannot tolerate democracy. It's every procedure and trick in the book when they don't get to harm and hamper homosexuals. They'll eventually go away wailing. Who knows, they may try what they did here in MA, a ballot initiative and court challenge. Unfortunately for them, Hawaii only allows initiatives on constitutional amendments.

The anti-equality sorts thought they had done that with the vote to give the legislature the right to define and specify who could marry. Well, now that actually happened. They don't like that either.

Raised as a Christian, I remain confused when any religious types, particularly Christians contort to hurt people. They'll very selective go to Leviticus in the Old Testament and Torah to find scripture that supports their bigotry, while ignoring much scripture that would lead them to support equality. Particularly for Christians, they have a whole New Testament and a Messiah who preach against what they are about.

I am pretty sure in a few years and certainly within 10 or 20 that Hawaiians will be proud of their inclusive equality, almost to a person. That's happened elsewhere, as here in MA. When they come to and ask, "What were we thinking?," don't ridicule them. Just be glad they arrived at the right place.

Hawaii Anti-Gay Types Play the Game

Astonishing still how the anti-gay folk would harm, hamper and hinder homosexuals. As we saw a decade ago here, we now hear and see in Hawaii. With the special session to consider same-sex marriage in full, tedious hearings, debate and readings, the same shtick is on stage.

Those who don't like gay folk (or much stronger than don't like) go through the same scripted skits. Those include:

• Catch-22 logic — SSM mandated by courts fails due to activist judges, passed by legislature is not representative democracy rather somehow unfair, passed by plebiscite requires a second or third public vote, approved by multiple ways circularly turns back to court appeal
• Personal religious views trump all — ignoring state and federal constitutional and case law, anti-gay sorts say their feelings overrule rights of homosexual couples
• Time-out — despite years of discussions, hearings and trials, they claim there is not need to pass this law without restarting the whole process
• 1st Amendment paranoia — forget contradictory history proof and history in 15 US states, Canada and numerous European and Scandinavian nations, enabling SSM will absolutely force clerics to conduct SS weddings, force teachers to describe and condone gay sex acts, that parents rights will be crushed and blah blah

There are numerous other lunacies, but they are along the same lines.

One would think that Hawaiian legislators and voters would have at least a passing knowledge of SS info on the net, in papers and on TV over the two decades. Every one of their objections are total jive. In countries and states that have enabled marriage equality, no one is harmed and many are helped. Even the total disingenuous lies about the mad-dad (David Parker) case are so blatantly false that only the willfully ignorant would begin to accept them.

Yet. it has come to this again and again and again. The anti-gay folk know they are dishonest and dishonorable. They simply don't care.

Aloha. Who's pono here?

Hot times in Honolulu, as the legislature is finishing passing marriage equality in a lengthy, highly contentious special session. Tomorrow morning, the House is certain to hand off its moderately amended version to the Senate, which already passed its. The latter will almost surely pass it. Gov. Neil Abercrombie has his pen ready.

There are both reasons and excuses for anti-gay sentiment there. This process stains our fantasies of the loving, peaceful paradise way out there. Several of the print and broadcast media show heavy anti-SSM bias. Moreover, the anti types made much bigger displays in demonstrations and in testifying before both Senate and House committees.

As the very conservative and obviously anti-SSM Hawaii Free Press tabulated it:

The unofficial count found that of 10,749 unique pieces of written testimony submitted to the House, 8,556 (80%) were in opposition and 2,193 (20%) were in support. Of 1,032 oral testifiers, 895 (87%) opposed the measure and 137 (13%) supported it.

Both pro- and anti-equality types often used Hawaiian terms. One particularly pointed and poignant here was pono. That is right or righteous. Numerous pro-testifiers said equality was pono, and some on the other side claimed their religion trumped such civil rights, that rejecting the bill was pono.

What we saw and heard there is very familiar to folk here in MA and elsewhere on the mainland. That included:

• Non-stop calls for a plebiscite on these rights
• Vast majority of those testifying citing personal religious feelings
• A few threats that (blah, blah) anyone who supported this would lose in the next election

In addition, as we see in one of the tweaks to the bill, there an extra, a racial component. The original SB 1 allowed for married homosexual couples where one is considered by blood (that word figures frequently in Hawaiian laws and programs) to be Hawaiian, they can claim Hawaiian ancestry for a child they adopt or conceive.

That was too much for some of those who testified. I recall vividly one young woman at the point of tears decrying the unfairness were a child with no Hawaiian blood to get access to government education and other benefits provided to descendants of the original people, pre-contact. Sure, that's pure racism, but consider how the native Hawaiians were subjugated, their monarchy replaced and on an on. Pride of genetics is a big deal there. I had heard that years ago from friends who grew up in Hawaii.

The bill itself started out straightforward enough. It slightly revised the main marriage statute to broaden it for same-sex couples. It did have the exemptions the legislators knew clerics, church politicians, and the most serious laypeople have needed elsewhere. That would be such as no penalty for legal solemnizers who refuse to officiate at SS weddings, and no penalty for religious institutions that refuse to allow SS weddings or receptions in their religious buildings.

Among the red herrings dragged around on the issue are the baseless contention that ministers and priests will either be forced to perform SS marriages (or face fine or jail or both) and that when this passes, all textbooks will have to include and teach homosexuality in the most positive light. Those and similar ones are sacks of crap, but ones some religious loons can't put down.

Instead in this process, they had most of their craziest demands shot down, while winning a few. For example,  they also got the effective date pushed out three weeks.

More substantially, non-profit wording came out of the religious institution exemption. In Hawaii as in MA other most places, public-accommodations laws and regulations do not allow discrimination by a religious organization when they run both a church and say a rental hall open to the public. Now in the form that this law is most likely to pass, religiously affiliated groups can pull their church card and discriminate willy nilly.

What the anti-folk did not get here was the same right for ordinary citizens running small businesses. Think bakers who weep at the idea of decorating queer wedding cakes. Lackaday.

So, Hawaii's version will be a little weaker than ours and most of the other 14 states'. Still, this is a big step.

A huge lesson learned here and elsewhere is that once SS marriages begin, people see that there is nothing but good coming from this slight expansion of equality. Sure, the most dedicated anti-gay types continue to fume or fulminate, but the vast majority go on. They become or return to being, as the local expression goes, hau‘oli — happy.

Boston Pol Moms to the Rescue

For the preliminary, it was mayoral candidate Rob Consalvo's mom on the line. Today for the final, it's the tearjerker from Marty Walsh's maternal unit.

Rob's mother was much less emotional, and considerably more sincere. In fairness though, she got me from a phone bank and Mary Walsh's letter clearly came via a campaign flack.

I kind of know Rob's parents. I am the warden at their polling place. So when I answered the phone and heard, "This is Rob Consalvo's mom," she was in context. It was the vote-for-my-son pitch, but it was more comfortable. We live in the same neighborhood, I know her casually and her son pretty well. She even ended up saying, "He's a nice kid," and immediately correcting herself to, "I shouldn't say that. He's a grown man. He's a nice man." It was a jolly call and I ended up endorsing him for the preliminary, all things considered.

For the final two in this mayoral go though, John Connolly gently uses his family too. His wife and kids are in pix on his campaign site. She features in an ad for him. These though are just homey appearances. The Mary Walsh letter is melodramatic, plucking on every heartstring.

I'll paste the text below so you can roll the rich aroma of it. As a fair introvert myself, I have to revel in the heavy-handed piece. Whoever wrote this has no shame.

The whole letter text is:

---

Dear Neighbor, 

I am writing to you to ask you to consider voting for my son, Martin l. Walsh, 
for Mayor of the City of Boston. I am, of course, so proud of Martin -as I have 
been his entire life. 

The worst day of my life was when Martin, at age seven, was diagnosed with a 
deadly form of cancer. But at the same time, I knew he had the determination 
to beat it. That determination is what now makes him such a wonderful 
advocate for seniors and people in need of help. 

He has never given up on anything. He will work and work and work unril 
the job is done. That's what he was like as a construction worker, as a state 
legislator, and even as a seven-year-old cancer patient who did whatever he 
needed to do to help the doctors make him better. 

Martin is the kind of guy who cares deeply for the welfare of others. He was 
always looking out for my husband and me, my son ]ohn, and for our 
neighbors. And he's been helping those in need his entire life. 

Personally since my husband passed away, Martin has done everyrhing in his 
power to help me to stay in the house he was raised in. Clearly, he understands 
how important it is for me to maintain my independence. He appreciates 
that, physically, I am not what I once was and intuitively provides the 
support I need particularly as it relates to my staying at home. 

Simply put, Martin has the vision and values that would be so good for our 
city -to ensure that everyone has an opportunity for a better life. I ask you 
to support my son's candidacy, as I have no doubt that you will be as proud of 
him as Mayor as I will be. 

A1l the best, 

Mary Walsh 

---

Ya got your kid with cancer. Ya got your loyal son caring for the decrepit mom. Ya got the widow.

For all the journos who've been looking for differentiation between the two candidates, here's a big one. Unlike the present and previous mayors, a Walsh administration might well be a TMI one, heavy on the emotion and revelatory details. I suppose we could adapt.

Recently, Meg Connolly finally appeared to have had enough of the kid-with-cancer card. She didn't note that the type young Marty got almost always responds excellently to chemo, as his did, and unlike his mother's "a deadly form of cancer" description. Meg revealed to a reporter that she had had cancer and they beat it together with her doctors. She still doesn't make it a pity point, despite being the mother of three wee ones. It's a different mindset.

Read the putative Walsh-mom letter and see that, first, it's not credible that she wrote it. Second, that's a computer font and not her signature (small point, but why not get real at the bottom?). Third, was the worst day of her life, a life of a long-term married that included the death of her husband, a cancer diagnosis with a good prognosis? Fourth, why should we extrapolate that doing the expected son's duty of keeping his mom perking to proof that he "has the vision and values that would be so good for our city..."? The letter appealed only to raw emotion.

Of course, that last question is rhetorical. The letter clearly was written by some political functionary.

An underlying theme is that Marty Walsh wants us to believe. He wants us to believe he is sincere, honest and transparent. Other than that background, this kind of cheap hyper-emotional gimmick would not be unusual. Candidates use their family members are props and puppets all the time.

Truth be told, I found the call from Rob Consalvo's mom, the real human being, much more convincing than the voice-over in Mary Walsh's name.

Walsh could well win this thing, but if so, he'll come in slimier than he has to.