Mass. Republicans looking to repeal 1933 anti-discrimination laws?

I was checking in at leading Republican blog Red Mass Group earlier today and there are times when I just can't figure out if they intentionally don't get it, or if they just can't bother with the details.

In a very popular post over there about the evils of H. 1728 (derisively known as the "Bathroom Bill"), one of their editors argues against a law that has been on the books in Massachusetts for 77 years.

The editor thinks that H. 1728 is being written so broadly that it infringes on freedom of speech. For instance, this gem:

Section 24 specifically bans the the type of content that can be "published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description" by private citizens in direct conflict of our first amendment rights.  To be clear:  I am not talking about government publications.  These are regulations on us as private citizens not employed by the government.  They want to ban what we can write in books. 

He either doesn't realize or is not willing to acknowledge that the law he quotes was passed by the legislature in 1933. That's right. Massachusetts' leading Republican web site opposes anti-discrimiation statues that have been on the books since the 1930s.

Here is the original text of the ACT TO PREVENT ADVERTISEMENTS TENDING TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS OF ANY RELIGIOUS SECT, CREED, CLASS, DENOMINATION OR NATIONALITY BY PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, RESORT OR AMUSEMENT, passed into law on April 6, 1933:

Section 92 A. No owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or another, publish, issue, circulate, distribute or display, or cause to be published, issued, circulated, distributed or displayed, in any way, any advertisement, circular, folder, book, pamphlet, written, or painted or printed notice or sign, of any kind or description, intended to discriminate against or actually discriminating against persons of any religious sect, creed, class, race, color, denomination or nationality, in the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges offered to the general public by such places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the mailing to any person of a private communication in writing, in response to his specific written inquiry.

Emphasis added to show that the language Red Mass Group finds so offensive has not changed since the original 1933 act.

As you can see, the law is on the books not to "ban what we can write in books," but to keep business owners from putting up signs that say "Whites Only", or from including "No Irish need apply" in a newspaper advertisement. It's an anti-discrimination statute, period.

Over the years, the section has been amended to include sex, sexual orientation, and disability among other reasons that one cannot suffer discrimination.

That is what H. 1728 does: it adds bisexual and transgender to the definitions of those protected from discrimination. It doesn't take away anyone's right to free speech, right to use the bathroom, or anything else.

So, a question for local Republicans. Do you guys really support a repeal of the anti-discrimation act of 1933, or do you just not read the bills you oppose?

JFK Jr., Lady Di, and...Scott Brown?!

It's nice to see that Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown has a healthy self-esteem. In an interview with Chet Curtis last night, he put himself in some pretty exclusive company. When asked something what makes him, he answered (at about the 5:15 mark):

I live every day it's like it's my last. Especially when JFK junior passed away and Princess Di—they’re powerful handsome rich people and they’re dead and they can’t make a difference. Well, I still can. I can work every day and try to make a difference.

That's right, the only difference between the powerful, handsome, rich JFK Jr., the powerful, handsome, rich Princess Diana, and Scott Brown is that Scott Brown is alive.

Right. Otherwise, they're indistinguishable.

Scott Brown, Relic

Fresh off his rousing victory in the Republican Senate primary, Scott Brown wasted no time in going after Democratic nominee Martha Coakley, unveiling an innovative, fresh line of attack sure to catch the Democrat off guard:

Brown signed the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise not to raise taxes on the American people, and immediately challenged Coakley to do the same.

“When I first ran for state office, I signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Today, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, I am renewing that pledge. Very simply, I will not raise taxes on the American people,” said Brown.

In his wide-ranging press conference, Brown also went on to wish the Buffalo Bills well in their third try at a Super Bowl win, congratulated Bill Weld and Charlie Baker on their innovative plan to roll the Big Dig debt into the Turnpike Authority, and reiterated his opposition to President-elect Bill Clinton's health care proposal.

Hey Scott! 1992 wants its gimmick back.

State house Republicans bad for business

Last week, three Democratic state senators offered up a resolution that would have called for a boycott of Hyatt Hotels for firing nearly 100 custodial workers in Massachusetts and replacing them with low-wage replacements. In opposing the resolution, Minority Leader Richard Tisei digressed into the usual anti-Democrat anti-business tripe. In part:

With unemployment at 9.1 percent, and so many companies struggling to just keep their heads above water, we should be doing everything we can to help them weather the downturn in the economy, and not trying to stigmatize them and drive them out of business....

I was discouraged to read over the weekend that EMC – one of the state’s largest employers – is moving 400 jobs to North Carolina because of the high electrical rates here in Massachusetts. These are the kinds of problems we should be addressing and trying to fix.

Instead of attacking businesses, the Legislature should be meeting in session every day to discuss how we can improve the state’s business climate, encourage companies to locate and expand here, and get Massachusetts residents back to work.

The criticism that the Democratic legislature is not doing “everything we can to help [businesses] weather the downturn in the economy” and that it should be doing more to “encourage companies to locate and expand here” was particularly rich considering what was going on in the other chamber at nearly the same time.

A number of mayors from smaller urban centers like Fitchburg were petitioning the Legislature to pass a package of tax credits that would encourage “companies to locate and expand” in these decaying communities. The proposal would increase tax credits to refurbish former mill buildings and provide direct tax credits to companies who hire new workers.

This proposal to encourage businesses to locate in Massachusetts communities by cutting taxes was opposed by...house Republicans, including Rep. Lew Evangelidis:

Not everyone on the Revenue Committee was persuaded. Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, R-Holden, said he worried about the potential cannibalizing effect the tax credits could have on other communities.

"They might entice companies to move from one community to another," Evangelidis said. "Also, we're in a budget crisis, and tax incentives cut into revenues."

But Representative, “these are the kinds of problems we should be addressing and trying to fix.” “With unemployment at 9.1 percent, and so many companies struggling to just keep their heads above water, we should be doing everything we can to help them weather the downturn in the economy.” Why wouldn’t we want to provide tax credits to help match struggling companies wit struggling communities?

A ha! I think I’ve found the answer:

Their pitch came as lawmakers consider a bill of state Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, described as an economic recovery act for older cities that serve as regional economic hubs.

It’s because the bill was proposed by a Democrat. Period. A tea-party attending tax fighter like Evangelidis is opposed to a tax cut because it might "cut into revenues?" How disingenuous. Look, I'm as partisan as anyone, but if you're going to try to make a name as a tax-cutter, then support tax cuts. Unfortunately, the State House Republicans seem to care more about opposing Democrats then advancing a policy agenda.

Just a reminder...the Schilling for Senate idea was mine first

Now that there is an open Senate seat up for grabs, speculation has heated up that Curt Schilling will be a candidate for the Republican nomination. As the speculation swirls, I just want to remind people that I was the first to propose the idea, back in November on 2006:

The state's Republican party is in such shambles it would be fair to ask: Can they find a viable candidate to run for Senate in two years?

I can only think of one really good option for them: Curt Schilling.

About six weeks after that, the media picked up on the possibility of a Schilling candidacy. I wrote then about some correspondence I had with a TV station wanting to interview me for a Schilling for Senate story:

So, three-and-a-half months after I started the whole Curt Schilling for Senate thing by explaining exactly why Schilling would make a great candidate, the story finally has some legs. Sure, it took a talk-show caller to get the ball rolling. But I didn't really expect a whole lot to come of it in the first place.

I kind of thought it was going to take off back in November when I first wrote the article here and cross-posted it at Blue Mass Group. Universal Hub linked to the post and the Hub Blog pooh poohed the idea, but after a couple of days of traffic, things settled down.

But not completely. Out of the blue about a month later, I received an email from the political editor at an in-state TV news organization, wanting to do an on-air piece about my post...

So here we are again, with Schilling openly discussing the possibility. I don't think I would ever vote for him, but if he runs don't forget where you heard it first.

* * * * *

Here is my original rationale for a Schilling candidacy, as I wrote it on November 9, 2006:

Over the next week or so I'm going start looking ahead at the next big election, and I figured I'd start at the bottom. The state's Republican party is in such shambles it would be fair to ask: Can they find a viable candidate to run for Senate in two years?

I can only think of one really good option for them: Curt Schilling. What do we know about Schilling that would make him a viable candidate?

1. He is a Republican. After helping the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004, he spent the week between the end of the Series and election day campaigning for President Bush in TV appearances and on the stump. Would his support of the president be a liability? Probably not...there were still a lot of people who supported the president in 2004.


2. He will be available. His contract with the Red Sox ends at the end of the 2007 season. That would give him five months or so until the primary (it's early in 2008 because of the presidential race), and a little over a year to the general election. He wouldn't have to worry about the primary at all--the minute he announced his candidacy the decks would be clear--and he'd be left with plenty of time to run a general election campaign. In fact, he could get a head start since the Democratic primary could be hotly contested.


3. He brings instant name recognition and popularity. Everyone in Massachusetts knows who Curt Schilling is, and they probably have a generally positive view of him. The old joke is that a member of the 2004 Red Sox will never have to buy a drink in Massachusetts. That level of built in support would go a long way. Instead of volunteers running around in orange jumpsuits, he'll have his supporters wearing "bloody socks." In a strange way, that would be endearing.


4. He will have no problem raising money. See number 3. Not only does he have quite a bit of his own money if he needed to tap into it, but he would be able to raise lots of money in both Massachusetts and across the country based on his star power alone. And don't think that national Republicans will forget his support of Bush. He'd instantly have as much money to run as he needs.


5. He can campaign as a true outsider. Because he won't have a voting record on issues, he will be able to define himself. If I had to guess, I'd imagine him as a strong-defense, low-tax, social libertarian...the only type of Republican that could be successful in Massachusetts. But even if he's not, he'll have the ability to let voters know who he is, and not have to worry about having a trail of votes that can be twisted and used against him.


6. He can campaign as a local businessman. Just last week, the Boston Business Journal reported that Schilling had rented space in Maynard to house his start-up video game business. Schilling will be able to say that he has "created jobs in Massachusetts," that he "understands the needs of small business," etc. etc.


7. He has a TV presence. Not every athlete is comfortable with the cameras, but Schilling certainly is. In fact, some of us who follow the Red Sox think he's too much of a publicity hog: always on TV, calls WEEI to vent about this or that issue, frequents internet message boards (I'm one of those who wishes he'd just shut up and pitch). In any event, he is a skilled commentator and would be a media darling.


8. There is no one else. Quick, name a Massachusetts Republican. Mitt Romney's running for president, so he's out. Kerry Healey? Her only chance would be if Deval Patrick failed miserably right out of the gate and people began wondering if she weren't so bad after all. Paul Cellucci might be a possibility I suppose, but his ties to President Bush are so strong that he might have difficulty here, not to mention that he saddled us with two years of Jane Swift (uh, no). Wayne Budd was Deval Patrick before Deval Patrick. Former Suffolk County DA Ralph Martin, perhaps? Do any of those names inspire you?

All of this speculation is based on one huge assumption: John Kerry will run for President and the seat will be an open seat. If Kerry stays on, I'd guess that he will not face any real opposition. But if he goes, there will be a huge fight for the first senate opening in 24 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Curt Schilling is part of the mix.

GOP at it again, blame Patrick for Romney's "wheels for welfare" program

I begrudgingly have to give state Republicans credit...they have been doing a great job manufacturing outrage over programs that began under a governor they supported. A couple of months ago, they tried to blame Deval Patrick for Mitt Romney's attempt to collect sales tax on New Hampshire businesses. Now they are going after the governor for another program started during the Romney administration:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work....

The program, which started in 2006, distributes cars donated by non-profit charities such as Good News Garage, a Lutheran charity, which also does the repair work on the car and bills the state.

Kehoe defended the program, saying the state breaks even by cutting welfare payments to the family - about $6,000 a year.

“If you look at the overall picture, this helps make sure people aren’t staying on cash assistance. It’s a relatively short payment for a long-term benefit,” Kehoe said.

First, the Boston Herald also incorrectly (or misleadingly) calls it Patrick's program, although a follow-up today does mention that the program began under Romney (the Herald also claims the program began in 2006, but reports from the Department of Transitional Assistance show that it began in 2003). Beyond that, this seems like the perfect Republican program. It hits the following big time Republican positions:

1. The Good News Garage is a Lutheran charity, which means that this is a faith-based program, long a favorite cause of social-conservative Republicans who want more government money to go to churches.

2. It reduces direct cash aid to welfare recipients.

3. It helps move people off welfare and into work.

It was such a good Republican program that none of the Republicans in the State House were interested in killing it during the time that the Romney government funded and administered the program. I wonder what changed.

(And before someone replies that opinions have changed because of the economic crisis, remember that when the Romney administration program started in 2003, the state was also facing a billion-dollar deficit).

So, because of their blind opposition to the current governor, State House Republicans are going to try to kill a plan that moves people off welfare and into jobs, lowers welfare payments, and helps keep a faith-based program afloat.

That's not leadership, that's obstructionism. It's also all Massachusetts Republicans have to offer.

Update: Here is a memo dated May 22, 2006, with Mitt Romney's name on the masthead, outlining the program.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House Deval Patrick

The Republican Flu

As concern over the Swine Flu grows, keep in mind which party removed $800 million that Obama had proposed to improve our nation's ability to fight the next pandemic flu:

Thanks so much.

Tags: Maine Susan Collins Republican Swine Flu

Mass. Republicans duped by New Hampshire

Oh, those mindless contrarians that make up the Mass. GOP. They are so eager to oppose any and everything that Deval Patrick and Democrats even sniff at that they don't realize when they are being used. Case in point, their touting of a "Border Coalition" made up of New Hampshire and Massachusetts legislators who are opposed to new tolls on I-93. From the official Senate Republican Web site:

Sen. Robert L. Hedlund and Sen. Scott P. Brown were among the Massachusetts and New Hampshire legislators who gathered today on the State House steps to voice their opposition to additional tolls on Interstate 93....

“We initiated this coalition to stop a border war among the states,” said New Hampshire Rep. Frank V. Sapareto, who represents District 5 in Rockingham. Rep. Sapareto was joined by Rep. Al Baldasaro, Rep. Frank R. Emiro, Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, and Rep. Margaret Crisler. All are Republicans.

The legislators argued that tolls on Interstate 93 could also lead to toll plazas on Interstate 95, Route 3, and Route 1 in order to prevent drivers from circumventing the toll plazas.

Well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. Or at least it makes sense if you are in New Hampshire. Of course New Hampshire doesn't want new tolls on I-93, I-95, or route 3...because New Hampshire already has tolls on all three of those roads. Take a look at this handy map I have produced showing tolls on those three highways. I've marked the tolls with the word "TOLL" in large, Republican red letters so that our minority legislators might more easily notice:

See, unless you are heading to Hampton Beach, the Pheasant Lane Mall, the Rockingham Mall, or the Mall of New Hampshire (you know, because you're from Massachusetts you must shop in New Hampshire to save pennies in sales tax), the state of New Hampshire is already charging you tolls on the only three highways that go north out of Massachusetts.

New Hampshire doesn't want Massachusetts to put up new tolls, it wants to continue it's monopoly on border toll revenue. And New Hampshire is more than happy to let our Republican legislators carry its water.

If that wasn't mindless enough, you'll notice that our Republican senators are worried that someone might put a toll booth on route 1. Clearly, whoever wrote this release has never driven route 1 near the border, or they would have realized that it looks like this:


Yup, our Republican legislators are trying to scare you into believing that Massachusetts (or New Hampshire) is going to try to put a toll on a two-lane suburban road. Not only are they willing to do New Hampshire's bidding, but they think we're too stupid to notice.

Tags: Massachusetts New Hampshire Republican State House

Run Around Lew

A couple of events scheduled for tonight caught my eye. First, from The Landmark:

The Sterling Republican Town Committee will hold a dinner meeting on Monday, March 16, at Twin Oaks Restaurant, Leominster Road/Route 12, Sterling. Social "Hour" cash bar, 6 p.m.; Dinner Buffet, 6:30 p.m., $17/person; Speaker, Rep. Lew Evangelidis, 7 p.m.; Business meeting, 8 p.m.

And from the Telegram and Gazette:

State Republican leaders are planning a “Hardship Listening Tour” for the public to voice their opinions about the proposed gas tax increase and other proposed tax, toll and fee increases.

One of the first forums will be held tomorrow at Auburn Town Hall, from 7 to 9 p.m. It is sponsored by state Reps. George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton; Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn; Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury; and Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden.

Either the Republicans in Sterling aren't going to be getting their $17 worth, or Rep. Evangelidis won't be hearing about much hardship in Auburn. For Lew's sake, I hope the Staties don't have their speed trap up on I-190 tonight.

Tags: Massachusetts Lew Evangelidis Sterling Republican

Beacon Hill Republicans offer no solutions

All I keep hearing from Republican critics of plans to raise revenues to address the state's $4 billion deficit is that we should cut costs first, reform the system, the economy is too weak to withstand new taxes, people will go to New Hampshire to shop, and so on.

The one thing I have yet to read or hear is a plan...or even a portion of a plan...to actually do this. Where are the specific plans to cut costs and reform the system so that we don't need to raise taxes and fees?

There aren't any. The Republicans on Beacon Hill have no plan. Instead of proposing specific fixes, they have chosen to demagogue the issue.

Let's take an example from yesterday. Here is a release from Republican State Rep. Karyn Polito:

Well, we all knew it was probably coming. Now it's here.

Yesterday, several leading members of the House and Senate were quoted as saying they are considering increases in the state sales tax and the state income tax as ways to generate revenue to bridge budget shortfalls....

I think new taxes need to be off the table unless and until we make a serious effort to tame irresponsible state spending. I fully acknowledge the important role that our government plays in the lives of everyday people in this state, and I admit there is a price we all have to pay to fund those programs. But, I refuse to ask my constituents to pay more money to support a system that is fundamentally broken.

What do you think?

I will tell you what I think (and thanks for asking). I think it's high time that Rep. Polito and other opponents of plans to raise revenues get specific. What "irresponsible state spending" needs taming? How exactly and specifically will you fix "a system that is fundamentally broken?"

Now, I cut out the three middle paragraphs of her statement, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety. Please, if you come across a specific cut--even one dollar--in her discussion of the issue please let me know, because I missed it.

It's not enough to be for or against something, there need to be specifics. Whether or not you agree with proposals to raise gas taxes, meal taxes, sales taxes or any other kind of tax (and I have supported some of them), at least the proponents of those measures have been specific in how much revenue they will generate. Citizens are given the information they need to make a decision on whether or not to support a measure.

"Tam[ing] irresponsible state spending" sounds like a great idea, but it is meaningless if there are no specifics regarding what state spending is irresponsible and how much we will save by taming it. As an example, reforming the state pension system sounds like something that needs to be done, but for all of the stories of pension abuse and double-dipping, I haven't heard a discussion of how much money a comprehensive reform plan would save.

The rhetoric can only take us so far. Republicans on Beacon Hill can either snipe from the sidelines or unveil specific, detailed proposals for reform. So far, they have had lots to say, but nothing to offer.

Update: As if on cue, my State Senator Jennifer Flanagan--who I strongly supported during her campaign and still strongly support--circulated this op-ed to local newspapers today suggesting that we need to reform our transportation system before raising gas taxes. Her column does not mention specific numbers, which is a problem because I just don't see how one gains support without presenting evidence. But at least it does refer to a specific bill, Senate President Therese Murray's proposal to save $6.5 billion over 20 years by restructuring the state's transportation system. I'm curious enough to go searching for the details, but how many voters are? Again, if our representatives want to gain support for their proposals, they need to be specific.

OK. So that's a start...$325 million each year. Now we've only got $3.7 billion to go.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House Karyn Polito

Have Republicans already "taken back Beacon Hill?"

Apparently they have. Two months ago, Rep. Lew Evangelidis announced that the seven Republican state reps who voted for him for House Minority Leader had teamed up to create a new Web site that was designed with Republican "activists" in mind:

I'm posting here to make you, as the grassroots activists of our party, the first ones to know about the first step in this initiative.

We are launching a new Web page that is dedicated to taking back Beacon Hill for the people of Massachusetts. We want to take things in a new direction and help to create a legislature we can be proud of, one that actually listens to people and represents them appropriately. And it is specifically designed with you in mind.

I guess it wasn't designed with me in mind, because when I visited www.takebackbeaconhill.com today all I got was this:

Then again, that does seem to accurately reflect the extent of the Republican agenda.

Tags: Massachusetts Lew Evangelidis Sterling Republican State House

Republican efforts are worth every penny

The Boston Herald reported Friday that every Republican in the State Senate receives at least $15,000 on top of their salary because they are considered members of the leadership team. How does that work? Apparently, there are five members of the minority party's leadership team. Since there are only five Republicans in the Senate, they all get big bonuses:

The state Senate’s five lone Republicans, spearheading a new campaign against the Democrats’ wasteful spending, are raking in more than $80,000 a year in taxpayer-funded stipends, each claiming a leadership title - even though they have nobody to lead.

All five members of the anemic Senate minority caucus boast a top-tier post, including a minority leader, an assistant minority leader, a “third assistant minority leader,” a minority whip and an assistant minority whip....

Tisei gets $22,500 on top of his $61,440 salary. Assistant Minority Leader Bruce E. Tarr (R-Gloucester) gets a $15,000 stipend in addition to his $58,237 salary, as does Third Minority Leader Michael R. Knapik (R-Westfield).

Minority Whip Robert L. Hedlund (R-Weymouth) and [Scott] Brown [(R-Wrentham)], as assistant minority whip, both get $15,000 tacked onto their $61,440 salaries.

Tisei said his caucus led by example when they refused a 5.5 percent pay raise earlier this year, but he argued his members earn their stipends.

Now, you might think that the Republicans are being hypocritical in taking $15,000 leadership stipends when there are literally no followers, but I have it on good authority that the members of the leadership work hard at their leadership positions. I recently came across a transcript of an earlier caucus meeting held in a statehouse phonebooth conference room. As you can see, the leadership takes its jobs very seriously:

	Minority Leader Richard Tisei: The meeting of the Republican Caucus will come to order. On today's agenda, discussion of whether or not to accept the automatic 5.5% raise in salary. In my opinion, we should reject the raises. I'll turn the floor over to the assistant minority leader for his view. Senator Tarr?
	Assistant Minority Leader Bruce Tarr: I agree, we should reject them.
	Thanks Bruce. Let's see what the third minority leader has to say, Senator Knapik?
	Third Minority Leader Michael Knapik: Ditto, Senator.
	Excellent. Senator Hedlund, the leadership has decided that we should oppose the raise, can you whip up the votes we need? I'd like to make this unanimous if we can.
	Minority Whip Bob Hedlund: Sure thing Mr. Leader. Senator Brown, you work on whipping up senators whose names begin with B or K. I'll work on the H's and the T's.
	Assistant Minority Whip Scott Brown: Will do, Bob. Senator Knapik, will you stand with us in opposition to the raises.
	Of course, Senator Brown. You're a very persuasive assistant whip. I was wavering there for a moment.
	Senator Tarr, are you with us or against us?
	You drive a tough bargain, Bob, but I will stand with the caucus.
	Thanks Senator Tarr. Mr. Tisei, your vote is very important to the caucus. Will you join us in opposing the pay raises?
	I'll be happy to stand with you, Senator Hedlund.
	OK, Scott, Including my vote, I've been able to get three votes in support of our position, how did you do?
	I got two, including mine.
	Great work, Senator! By my calculations, the entire caucus will be on our side! Let's report back to the leadership...Third Minority Leader Knapik, I am proud to announce that by our count, the entire Republican Caucus supports the leadership in its opposition to the pay raises. Please pass on the good news.
	You continue to impress me, Senator Hedlund...Assistant Leader Tarr, I've been informed by our whips that we have unanimous support for leadership's position.
	Fantastic news, Senator. I continue to be amazed at how well this year's caucus has been able to stick together. I'll let the Minority Leader know right away...Mr. Leader, by the count of the whips and the report of the third majority leader, it looks like we have unanimous support. We will all be rejecting the automatic raises.
	Thank you all for your support. I'm proud that every member of the Republican Caucus has decided to stand with me on the side of fiscal responsibility. The commonwealth cannot afford to be paying its legislators an extra $3,000 in this time of economic difficulty. And I want to give a special note of thanks to my five-man leadership team. Without your work in keeping the caucus together, this vote would never have been possible. If there is anyone who deserves to receive a $15,000 leadership stipend, it's the four of you. Congratulations on a job well done.
	Now, if there is no further business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Rush will be on in a couple of minutes and I'm sure you all want to get back to your offices so you won't miss any of his show.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House

Don't get around much, anymore

Looks like what passes for right-wing punditry in Massachusetts has decided to close the cocoon a few days early. One of the top Republican blogs in the state had this gem earlier today:

Governor Deval Patrick delivered his State of the State address last night. Much like President-elect Barack Obama, his address was one of hope, but lacking in substance.

The disheartened Republicans must not get around much, anymore. How else to explain that they missed the detailed, substantive stimulus proposal unveiled in Washington yesterday. Not that I expect reality to encroach on conservative commentary...

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Barack Obama Republican

Was Evangelidis robbed, or is he a sore Lew-ser?

Despite my generous support of State Rep. Lew Evangelidis, he failed earlier this week in his effort to become minority leader. After losing by a 9-7 vote, he released the following statement to PolitickerMA.com:

"The most disappointing aspect of today's caucus was the way the process was conducted attempting to shut down all debate," the Holden Republican said. "Our caucus always laments how the majority party abuses its power and authority to serve their own particular needs, not the voters of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, that was the tact that was taken by the leader of our caucus. There was a refusal to allow the clerk of the court to come down and rule on a procedural matter of whether or not we had to adhere to the existing house rules. There was a refusal to have this election conducted by secret ballot and our current leader offered no plan when given the opportunity."

A couple of things…first, I challenge you to understand what Evangelidis is talking about without going back and re-reading it once or twice. You can’t do it. It’s a bunch of procedural gobbledygook. For someone who wants to be the public face of the Republican Party in Massachusetts, it’s an awful statement. If he keeps talking like that, no one will listen.

Second, it’s not a “tact that was taken” it’s a “tack that was taken,” as in, a course of action or conduct. I realize Evangelidis was running for Minority Leader and not spelling bee champion…but again, if you want to be the public face of the Republican Party, you should know what you’re saying.

And third, complaining about not having a secret ballot may have its merits in many situations, but not when you lose by one vote. The whole idea of having a secret ballot in a caucus like this is so that the members don’t have to fear retribution if they vote against the eventual winner. But in this case, a change of one vote would have deadlocked the caucus at 8-8, so what would someone who might change a vote have to lose? If one of the nine who voted for Brad Jones was a secret Evangelidis supporter, casting a vote for Lew would have actually changed the outcome. In this case, there was no reason to vote secretly because there would be no repercussions against a member for their vote. Complaining about this just looks like sour grapes.

Given Evangelidis’s public response to the vote, I wonder if reelecting Minority Leader Jones wasn’t the best thing for Republicans after all.

Tags: Massachusetts Lew Evangelidis Sterling Republican State House

I support Lew Evangelidis

Well, OK, let's not get carried away. I wouldn't suggest that any of my fellow townspeople vote for the State Representative for Sterling's other precinct if a Democrat were to oppose him. But I hope Rep. Evangelidis can get eight other members of the moribund Republican House caucus to vote for him in his effort to become Minority Leader:

Saying he is tired of watching fewer and fewer Republicans be elected to the state Legislature, state Rep. Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden, is challenging House minority leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading, for that post.

"Everywhere I go, Republican leaders and state committee members are pleading for a change in direction and new leadership for our Republican Party," Mr. Evangelidis said in a statement issued yesterday after he told House Republicans of his plans to try to take the seat from Mr. Jones.

Being the leader of the State House Republicans is about as relevant as being the best ski area in Georgia, but it would be nice if someone in leadership were to come from Central Mass. Heaven knows the Democratic leadership hardly knows we exist, unless they are trying to win votes for speaker

For his part, Rep. Jones gave Evangelidis a less-than-subtle smackdown in response

"I welcome Rep. Evangelidis' newfound enthusiasm and interest in participating," Jones, a North Reading Republican, told PolitickerMA.com.

Evangelidis expounded on the rationale for his candidacy in his statement to the Telegram and Gazette:

"Outside the building we need someone who is going to be more visible and outspoken on the issues and inside the building I think we need someone who is going to be a little bit more confrontational with the Democrats," he said.

It will be nice to see Evangelidis be the one mixing it up if he wins the race. This is one Democrat who will have no problem being "a little bit more confrontational" should the new Minority Leader be one of my town's representatives. I hope we get the chance.

Tags: Massachusetts Lew Evangelidis Sterling Republican State House

Sarah Palin's view of the world

This made me laugh out loud...


(via BMG.)

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Sarah Palin John McCain Russia

Bristol Palin's pro-choice choice

The big non-Gustav story of the day is the announcement by the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter Brooke is pregnant:

We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

Many conservatives joined in their support of the Palin family. David Brody of Christian Broadcasting Network:

Look, this development will actually be positive for the most part with Evangelicals. First they hear that Sarah Palin chooses the life option even though she had a Downs Syndrome baby and once again the family (and Bristol) has chosen the life option in this recent case.

Evangelical leader Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation.

Rod Dreher of Beliefnet, in a post titled "Palin's daughter gets pregnant, chooses life":

Bristol Palin is not going to abort her unborn child. She's going to keep the baby and marry the father. Good for her. It shouldn't have happened, but it did happen, and now she's going to do the right thing -- the hard thing.

And so on and so on. There doesn't seem to be any awareness by any of these conservatives that they are endorsing the pro-choice position. If these and other conservatives have their way, girls like Miss Palin won't be able to "choose" the life option.

I commend Miss Palin for her choice to keep the baby and hope both she and her child are healthy and happy. Women facing the same situation in the future should still be able to make that choice.

Tags: Election 2008 Republican Sarah Palin John McCain pro-choice

Mass GOP misleads on Benson, Tsongas

I realize that any headline that starts with "Mass GOP misleads..." is like reporting "Dog bites man," but this item on PolitickerMA.com in response to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas's endorsement of State Rep. candidate Jen Benson was just too much of a lie to pass up:

"It's no surprise that Niki Tsongas would endorse a fellow tax and spend liberal like Jen Benson," Barney Keller, spokesman for the Massachusetts GOP, told PolitickerMA.com. "Niki Tsongas voted for the largest tax hike in American History, which would raise taxes on those making as little as $31,850."

There are two good whoppers in the span of one short paragraph. First, how exactly has Barney determined that Jen Benson is a "tax and spend liberal?" Certainly it can't be based on her record in the Lunenburg School Committee. Benson and the school committee doesn't have the power to tax, and they can only spend what they are given by town meeting. I suppose that the Mass. GOP just assumes that every Democrat must be a "tax and spend" candidate, but they can't really be that lazy, can they?

What's that, you say?

Secondly, the attack on Niki Tsongas is demonstrably untrue. The national GOP has attacked Barack Obama using the exact same $31,850 mark. Just three days before the PolitickerMA.com story, FactCheck.org revealed that the claim was incorrect:

What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. (The McCain campaign relies on an AP article which puts the cutoff at $31,850, but that figure is from 2007, not this year.) So the McCain campaign claims that anyone making "as little as $32,000" would be affected by the rate increase.

But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our "taxable income." The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that "people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that." In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.

So it turns out that not only did Tsongas not vote for a tax increase--in fact she voted to uphold the law that President Bush signed in 2003--but the tax bracket would not change for someone earning only $31,850. Only singles with no dependents and no itemized deductions who earned over $41,500 would be affected by the change in tax policy that President Bush signed in 2003.

I suppose it would be too much to expect the state Republican machine (the Edsel that it is) to at least be the slightest bit accurate in their attacks, but I would hope that a political news site such as PolitickerMA.com would at least acknowledge that the claims of the GOP's press flack had been discredited in the days before the attack.

Tags: Lunenburg Massachusetts Jen Benson Election 2008 Republican State House

Friday quiz: Name the voting rights crusader

Which champion of voting rights said the following yesterday?

I'm disappointed at the lengths people will go to disenfranchise voters and to win at any cost.

• Al Gore, recalling voting irregularities in Florida in 2000
• John Kerry, recalling voting problems in Ohio in 2004
• Hillary Clinton, complaining about the plight of primary voters in Michigan and Florida

Would you believe Jim Ogonowski? That's right, a Republican is concerned about the disenfranchisement of voters. Of course, he's worried about opponents disqualifying his voters. But still, it's refreshing to see a Republican in favor of growing the voter pool. I'm looking forward to his fervent support of same-day voter registration, mail-in voting, and strong opposition to identification requirements.

Heh.

Tags: Senator Massachusetts Jim Ogonowski Election 2008 Republican voter fraud

Edited to correct the spelling of "Ogonowski."

Michael Graham’s unwavering support for Veteran candidates

As I’m sure he did in 2000 and 2004, Michael Graham takes on those who would oppose a Vietnam veteran’s campaign for president this morning in a post titled "We Support The Troops...Unless They Run For President." Among the excerpts:

Berkeley liberals attack a Marine recruiting office and even try to cast spells on it. Cambridge shuts down a Boy Scout drive collecting gifts to send to soldiers in Iraq. Harvard chased the ROTC off campus during the Vietnam War and still won't allow them back.

But whatever you do...don't question the Left's patriotism!

It’s always nice to see a right-winger support the candidacy of a Vietnam veteran. One of the hallmarks of conservatism in the 21st Century is its unwavering support of presidential candidates who fought overseas...

Now, I wasn’t a listener of Graham’s back in 2004 (OK, I’m not now either; you got me), and I wasn’t reading his columns or blogs or whatever he might have been writing then. But I imagine that if I was I’d have found this:

We Support The Troops...Unless They Run For President.

Georgia conservatives attack a triple-amputee Vietnam War hero and tie him to Osama bin Laden. Conservative religious leaders preach that God sent the 9/11 attackers to punish America. Thousands of delegates to the Republican convention sport purple band-aids to mock the war wounds of a decorated war hero.

But whatever you do...don't question the Right's patriotism!

I’m sure I’ll find that link in the archives somewhere. Just got to keep looking...

Tags: Election 2008 Republican veterans John McCain Michael Graham