Election Feed

Word was strategically getting around earlier today that the Massachusetts House and Senate were "getting to yes," as senate president Therese Murray has put it, on the gaming bill -- to include two licenses for slots-only facilities.

That was not yet officially announced, but was pretty clearly meant to be the story for the evening news.

But then Governor Deval Patrick stepped in. He made an appearance for the media, to announce that, whereas he has previously demanded a bill with no slots-only licenses, he is now willing to accept a single such license, if the legislature also passes five other bills he wants.

Freakin' brilliant. Instead of reacting after the fact to the deal, he got out in front and acted like he was making the first compromise, while at the same time implicitly saying he will veto the still-unofficial legislature's compromise.

I suspect it teed off the speaker and senate president, who are probably wishing Patrick had stayed in Afghanistan for another week so he couldn't put his nose into places he doesn't belong.

They just want to find a way to pass the bill and get out of Boston -- and then if Patrick vetoes, they can blame him.

But what do the legislative leaders do now? Go ahead and announce their compromise? Now that would now look like an act of deliberate defiance in the face of the governor's show of willingness to compromise. Then he's free and clear to veto it and blame them. So, I think they have to now at least go through some show of negotiating with him -- or, of course, do what he's asked for.

Well played, governor.

 

The state Attorney General's office said today no charges are warranted against mayoral aide Michael Kineavy for deleting e-mail because he was just doing what he and other City Hall employees were told to do: Purge their inboxes every day because messages would be stored on a back up server - which turned out not to be the case.

The AG's office says Kineavy did nothing intentionally wrong and it's not his fault the City Hall e-mail system didn't work the way IS told employees it did. Investigators found no evidence that Kineavy "double deleted" e-mail in a deliberate attempt to purge messages from what turned out to be a non-existent server.

Investigators found that while the city did have backup systems, they were intended only for recovery of key records after a disaster - which meant that when a worker deleted a message from his or her inbox, it quickly disappeared into the ether, rather than being saved.

See the comments below for a statement from the AG's office. Full report.

Plan a visit to the Ashmont/Peabody Square Farmers' Market this Friday. Located at the new Ashmont Station Plaza (intersection of Dorchester Avenue and Ashmont Street), this annual market is open every Friday from 3-7 p.m., July 9 through October 29. This week, the Boston Cyclists' Union will be on hand performing routine tune-ups free of charge, and brake repairs at a nominal fee to cover the cost of parts.

With the end of the 2009-'10 formal legislative session fast approaching, Beacon Hill is jammed up over the question of how to shove money into the state's four existing race tracks -- including its two dog tracks, which are in particular financial trouble. Speaker Bob DeLeo wants the state to give the tracks licenses to install slot machines; Governor Deval Patrick wants instead to dedicate a portion of casino revenues to the tracks, a position that Senate President Therese Murray agrees with, if I'm not mistaken.

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but what the fuck is wrong with these people?

Just 20 months ago, the citizenry of the Commonwealth voted -- in a solid, convincing 56-44 vote, in the highest-turnout election in many years -- to ban greyhound racing. You, or I, or Bobby D might disagree with that decision. We might feel bad for the affected employees, dozens of whom lobbied at the state house yesterday.

But the solid majority of voters clearly believe that dog racing is so venal, cruel, and degrading that it should be among that small category of atrocities we won't allow in our state. And they certainly understood, as they cast their vote, that people would lose their jobs as a consequence.

I don't imagine that many of those voters were thinking: I want to shut down these hellish businesses, but gosh, I hope that the state finds some way to shovel great loads of free money to the people who run them.

This can be very difficult to understand from the point of view of someone who doesn't see the owners of Raynham Park or Wonderland as ogres profiting off of a despicable business. But most voters -- I repeat, voters --  clearly do see them that way.

I would suggest that the folks inside the state house mentally substitute "dog tracks" with something like "brothels," or "cockfighting arenas," or "crack dens," and then consider whether they really want to be clogging up the legislative agenda with this pissing match over how best to financially compensate the people hurt by the laws banning their business. Because, to 56% of the Commonwealth, that's exactly what's happening.

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I have a notebook-style column about the collapse of hopes for carbon-capping legislation to combat global warming. The article makes several different points and observations -- most of which involve the two US Senators from Massachusetts, John Kerry and Scott Brown.

You can read it here:  Burn Baby Burn

Today Oklahoma holds its primaries, so I thought I'd take a close look at how it stacks up for my big "GOP Glass Floor" theory. 

The theory -- and it's still just a theory -- is that the only women Republicans getting elected anymore are for the big, high-profile, state-wide offices of Governor and US Senator; and below that, they are growing extinct.

Oklahoma has an obvious example for above the 'glass floor,' with Congresswoman Mary Fallon running for the open Governor seat. She is almost certain to win today's primary, and will start as the favorite for November. (In the state's Senate race, one of the two hopeless primary challengers to incumbent Coburn is a woman.)

So, let's dip below the glass floor, shall we?

There are open races for Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer. All 9 GOP candidates in those races are men.

In the 5 Congressional Districts, a total of 22 Republicans are on the ballot, including three incumbents. Only 1 is a woman -- a fringe candidate among the large group challenging John Sullivan in his primary. (Worth noting that all 7 Republicans running for Mary Fallon's open seat are men.

In the state senate -- where there are currently no Republican women -- a grand total of 4 are running in the 24 seats up for election (compared to 21 non-incumbent men). Two are running against Democratic incumbents, one is running against a Republican incumbent, and one is running for an open Democratic seat. None are running in the three open Republican-seat districts.

Believe it or not, it gets worse. In the Oklahoma House of Representatives, all 101 seats are up for re-election, including the 9 incumbent Republican women. Aside from those incumbents, there are just 6 Republican women running. Only 1 of them is running for one of the 8 open Republican seats, and 1 for one of the 8 open Democratic seats. (Both have primary opponents.) Three are running against incumbent Democrats, and one against an incumbent Republican.

Again, this is just one more set of data toward building a complete picture, but it continues to look bleak for women Republicans -- except for those very top ladders of the rung.

 A new Rasmussen poll for FOX25 has the race for governor essentially unchanged since a month ago. Patrick leads Baker 38% - 32%, compared to 41%-34% in June, while Cahill ticked up from 16% to 17%, and undecided rose from 9% to 12%. (The poll doesn't include Jill Stein.)

That gibes with what I've heard about recent internal polling by a couple of the campaigns.

The lack of movement, despite Baker running his first ads, among other developments, probably reflects the oft-repeated maxim that in Massachusetts nobody pays any attention to politics between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

It also seems to confirm what most close observers have thought: the Globe poll with Cahill in single digits was probably an outlier, and he remains -- so far -- a serious factor despite all the ads attacking him.

It has to benefit Patrick that he's gotten a month closer to the election without losing his lead, and without spending any significant money. The race is very, very far from over, but so far we have yet to see any instance in which the Baker campaign has shown any ability to gain support. 

A major problem for Baker, I suspect, will be convincing the Republican Governors Association to continue pouring money into the race, if he's still stuck in the low 30s in September. The RGA has a lot of money, but it also has a lot of competitive races to fund. It made sense for them to spend money early battering Cahill -- there weren't that many other races where they could potentially have a big effect early -- but the fall is another story.

If they cut bait on Baker, not only does he lose a major source of ad spending, but he'll have to run attack ads himself, out of his own and the MassGOP accounts. He'd much rather have those coming from a third party. And he certainly isn't likely to beat the incumbent without running negative ads.

So, in summation: no change, advantage Patrick

MassDOT’s contractor will be working overnight on the Neponset River Bridge, which carries traffic between Boston and Quincy on Sunday, July 25, Monday, July 26, and Tuesday, July 27, 2010. During the work, there will be a double, southbound (outbound) left lane closure in place from 10:30 PM to 6 AM and all southbound traffic will be directed off at the Hancock Street ramp. Drivers destined to Quincy Shore Drive will be detoured along Hancock Street, turn left at East Squantum Street and follow to Quincy Shore Drive.

Watching some US Senate floor debate yesterday, I was reminded of one of my favorite things about it -- something I have had fun with in the past, but not nearly often enough: yielding for a rhetorical question.

When a Senator is speaking, another Senator may ask the speaker to yield for a question. What often happens is that a Senator on the same side in the debate -- typically the leadership representative, committee chair, or bill sponsor assigned to control debate for his or her party -- will use this parliamentary procedure to chime in with additional commentary or attack on the opposition.

By rule, this must be phrased, Jeopardy-like, in the form of a question to the interrupted Senator. Hence, some of the most entertaining rhetorical questions you've ever heard.

For example, yesterday afternoon Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was controlling debate for Democrats discussing her small business loan amendment. She asked Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell to yield for this question:

Would the Senator say again how we are going to explain that we did send billions to Wall Street with virtually no terms whatsoever, and now we have an opportunity to send money to small businesses on Main Street and we can't get a supermajority of Senators to do so? How are we going to explain this?

And later asked Senator Whitehouse to yield for this one:

Could the Senator from Rhode Island give us any more information as to what he is hearing in his State and why he thinks there are some Republican leaders who are adamantly opposed to this? It is mind-boggling to me.

That's pretty good rhetorical questioning. But here are some samples, excerpted from the Congressional Record, of how a real veteran does it -- Dick Durbin of Illinois, during yesterday morning's floor debate on the bill to extend unemployment benefits. Enjoy!

 

Is it not true that we tried three or four times to get the Republicans to go along in a bipartisan way to extend unemployment benefits to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own so they could keep their families together while they are searching for work?

Isn't it true that historically we have done this without this kind of political rancor and argument?

I ask the Senator from Michigan what she is finding with these people who have been cut off from basic unemployment benefits because of the Republican filibuster.

I would ask the Senator from Michigan, who sees thousands of people who have been out of work for long periods of time, what she thinks about this Republican argument that unemployment checks make people lazy. 

I ask the Senator from Michigan: How do you reconcile this; that all of a sudden now this is all about a deficit, which the Republican Senators virtually ignored for 8 years while we reached the stage of today.

If we can't stand together as a Senate behind those families, I think we have lost something very basic. I know I had to put that in the form of a question, so I am going to hazard a guess: Does the Senator?

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print and online now -- I write about two topics concerning state politics, and one concerning Mitt Romney.

In my column, I start by considering the backlog of legislation on Beacon Hill, with time ticking down to the July 31 end of the formal '09-'10 session, and wonder why there isn't a greater sense of urgency to move bills through considering how different things might be starting in 2011. And I suggest that part of the answer may be that inside the legislature, there's an assumption that they'll all be back to pick up on any unfinished business next January.

Think about it: have you heard anyone talk about this being, perhaps, the last two weeks for Deval Patrick to pass his legislative priorities? Have you heard anyone talk about this being, perhaps, the last two weeks for Democrats under the Golden Dome to pass legislation without a Republican holding the veto stamp and a larger GOP presence in the legislature?

It's certainly still very possible that Republicans, from Charlie Baker on down, could do very well here in November -- and one thing that might help them is the list of ballot initiatives officially approved by the Secretary of State last week.

That's the second part of my column. All three of this year's ballot questions are essentially anti-Beacon Hill measures, including two tax roll-backs. Millions will be spent, on both sides of the issue, and some feel that it figures to help stir the public mood for ousting the current residents.

And finally, in a separate item, I consider the proposed changes to the 2012 Republican Presidential primary calendar -- and how the drawn-out process could hurt the chances of former Governor Mitt Romney winning the nomination.

The column on state politics is here: He'll Be Back?

The Romney piece is here: Bad News For Mitt?

And you really should read this week's cover story, written by a guy who recently learned that his friend Misha is in fact an agent spying for the Russian government: My Buddy The Spy

Bear with me, and I'll show you how something good is about to happen for the economy, which can be traced directly back to the rabid conservative movement -- the GOP Village of the Damned, as I called it two years ago.

It turns out that, barring further developments, the US Senate will successfully vote tomorrow to pass an amendment to a small business bill, that will in turn be passed later this week. (As often is the case recently in the Senate, schedules and results are subject to change.)

The amendment is a piece of legislation that Senate Democrats have been trying to pass for something like eight months or so. It would create a $30 billion pool to allow, and indeed encourage, community banks to extend lines of credit to small businesses.

One of the very big problems during this recession has been the frequent inability of these community banks to loan money to small businesses -- even good existing loan customers; even when the banks have the capital; and even when those banks want to provide the loan. That's due to rules that (wisely) prevent these small banks from overextending themselves.

This bill would provide a $30 billion pool that would be used, in essence (and to the limited extent that I understand the bill), to shore up those community banks' equity positions to allow them to lend more money under those rules -- allowing them, in fact, to actually loan an additional $300 billion. Which is a lot of money, that is desperately needed by small businesses to stay in business, expand, hire people... you get the idea. As I understand it, under this legislation the more money a bank loans out (under their raised cap), the lower their repayment rate to the government, so they'll be highly motivated to get the money out quickly -- but the banks remain wholly responsible for the loans, so they're still incentivized to make smart decisions on extending credit.

Oh, and I believe the CBO says the bill will pay for itself plus add over a billion dollars to the Treasury -- not counting any additional revenue benefits from additional taxes that will be paid by businesses and workers affected.

If this seems like a no-brainer, it kind of is. A whole host of banking and business groups approve of it, President Obama wants it, all the Democrats want it, and as I understand it, it polls really, really well.

For all those eight months or so, however, not a single Republican would agree to support it. Presumably that's part of their overall obstructionist strategy; publicly they argue that this bill would set up a "TARP-like" structure, which they seem to think is a form of nationalizing banks. So, the bill has stagnated for many months, just short of the 60 needed to get past the GOP fillibuster, while actual small businesses have closed, or laid people off, or failed to expand, all for want of credit from their local community bank.

That fillibuster has included Senator George LeMieux of Florida. If you'll recall, LeMieux, a Charlie Crist acolyte, was appointed by Crist to temporarily replace Senator Mel Martinez, who retired last summer.

Who can guess where I'm going with this?

Crist, of course, is running for that Senate seat this year -- and if all was normal in the world, he would right now be in the final campaign stretch toward the August 24 Florida Republican primary, heading toward a hard-earned victory over ultra-conservative Marco Rubio. And I think we can safely say that in the final five weeks of that primary campaign, Senator George LeMieux would not want to cause a headache for his once and future mealticket Charlie Crist, by using his Crist-appointed vote to cross party lines and vote for what Rubio would undoubtedly call the socialist takeover of every local bank from Tallahasee to South Beach.

So, in a normal world, LeMieux would be -- as he had been -- a solid no vote on this bill, certainly right up through the August recess.

But this is not a normal world. This is a world in which the conservative base of the Republican Party ganged up against one of the most popular governors in the country for being too moderate. National conservative leaders endorsed Rubio; money poured in to Rubio; conservative media fawned over Rubio and bashed Crist relentlessly; and polls showed that the conservative voters who now dominate the Florida chapter of the GOP Village of the Damned were going to pummel Crist in the primary.

So, about two months ago, Crist left the Republican Party, to run as an Independent. So, now he doesn't need the votes of the socialism-spotting conservatives -- he needs the votes of Democrats and moderates. Or, to put it more simply, the votes of that majority who think it's a good idea right about now for the government to help put money into the hands of small businesses.

That hasn't exactly turned LeMieux immediately into a regular crossover voter, by any means -- but Senate Small Business Committee Chair Mary Landrieu declared on the Senate floor tonight that LeMieux had agreed to vote yes on this loan bill, and that she expects to have her 60 votes tomorrow. (The vote will be on attaching it as an amendment to a broader small business bill, which as I mentioned above is expected to pass later in the week.)

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if a few other Republicans, seeing that the thing is actually going to pass, might suddenly find themselves converted to be part of the winning side. Regardless, if this bill does indeed pass, and ultimately become law, it will be because LeMieux crossed the partisan line, which wouldn't have happened if Charlie Crist was still a Republican, which he would be if the right-wing movement conservatives hadn't declared was on RINOs like Crist. So, thank a conservative!

As you know, I love everybody.

And I usually don't like to complain about anything that causes a good political scuffle. But for cripes sakes, when you get handed a policy difference please understand that you can either have a policy debate, or you can accuse someone of corruption. When you do the latter -- when you ask the Attorney General to investigate, for example -- you kinda toss the policy debate out the window.

I'm talking to you, Charlie Baker, Richard Tisei, and other Massachusetts Republicans.

The Massachusetts Education Commissioner has recommended that the state adopt new "Common Core" standards -- proclaiming that those standards are as good or better than the current MCAS standards. This is the end of a long nationally-watched process to see if Massachusetts was going to be too snooty to join in the Common Core thing; the state lost out in the first round of Race To The Top funds, in part, because the state hadn't yet committed to adopting them. For Massachusetts to have a better chance in the second RTTT round, I am informed by an Ed Dept spokesperson, the state would need to adopt Common Core by an August 2 deadline. The final version of the proposed Massachusetts version of the standards was sent to the Commish in June; there was a period of public comment; and that brings us to the Commish's recommendation, and a Board meeting tomorrow for a final vote to adopt.

This could be the opportunity for a legitimate policy debate, over whether the Common Core standards really are better, or whether they represent a risk of stepping backward from MCAS -- as, for instance, former senate president Tom Birmingham argues. Good debate; good opportunity to fight over who wants to do best by the children.

You can even make up bogus claims about how this policy will lead to the elimination of the MCAS graduation requirement; I've seen policy arguments go in similarly dubious directions many times before. 

But Baker and Tisei, along with other state Republicans, are claiming that Governor Patrick adopted this new policy as a quid pro quo in exchange for the endorsement of the Massachusetts Teachers Association -- an endorsement that was voted on by the MTA board earlier last week and was a surprise to just about nobody.

This is such a ludicrous contention that I honestly thought I misunderstood it. But no. In fact, the Associated Press has reported -- and the Baker-Tisei campaign verified for me -- that Tisei has asked Attorney General Martha Coakley's office to investigate, specifically requesting that the AG's office procure emails from Patrick's staff and search for anything that might show a connection between the MTA endorsement and the Commissioner's decision.

I'm sure there are emails somewhere about many things that the MTA has wanted from this administration, but I can't imagine that this would be one of of them -- I've checked with a few people who I believe would know, and they tell me that the MTA has no particular interest one way or another in whether the state adopts Common Core. Pretty much the only effect the change would have on teachers would be that some of them might have to adapt some slight changes to their curriculum -- not something they usually lobby for, let alone base their endorsement on, above-board or in secret emails.

Seriously, does anybody think that A) Patrick needed to buy the MTA's endorsement in this race, or that B) THIS would be the quo the MTA would demand?

If you told me that the MTA used its endorsement to buy off Patrick's acquiescence on teacher evaluations (the other major reason Massachusetts lost out on RTTT), at least you'd have plausible motive.

As for evidence... Well, I asked the Baker-Tisei spokesperson whether the campaign was aware of any evidence of any kind of this alleged illegal collusion. I mean, Mr. Fiscally Prudent Charlie Baker wouldn't be trying to waste the AG's taxpayer-funded resources on an investigation based on absolutely nothing, right?

No, that's exactly what he was doing. "It doesn't pass the smell test," I was told; "We want to make sure there wasn't anything fishy going on."

Glad to know that the next Governor will consider "the smell test" grounds for an AG investigation. Honestly, guys, I love everybody -- but you make it awfully difficult sometimes.

 

MassDOT’s Contractor will be working overnight on the Neponset River Bridge, which carries traffic between Boston and Quincy on Friday, July 16, 2010 and Saturday, July 17, 2010.

Rep. Forry is happy to announce the birth of her daughter, Madeline Casey Forry, who was born on Tuesday, July 13. Madeline joins big brothers John, 6, and Conor, 3.

In light of the recent discovery of the Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB) in Jamaica Plain, it is important that everyone be informed of the invasive pest that has had a staggering impact on several of our cities and towns.

I'll be on the Emily Rooney radio show today, doing 'week in review'  commentary with Kara Miller and Kevin Cullen. It's at noon on WGBH 89.7 -- please tune in!

Join Boston Bikes, BCYF, Franklin Park Coalition, DotBike, JP Bikes and RozzieBikes for a fun day of cycle activities! "R.O.C.K., Roll and Ride in Franklin Park" will be going on this Saturday, July 17th, from 10am-2pm in Franklin Park. There will be plenty of activities and things to do including: bikes to borrow for free; escorted family friendly rides of various distances so everyone can find a ride right for them; a bike maintenance station; helmet giveaways while they last, and other fun bike activities. The registration area will be located across from the Giraffe entrance of the Zoo accessible via Pierpont Rd. off of Circuit Drive.

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I write about the rough seas ahead for President Obama.

Just three months ago, the future looked considerably brighter for him; but now the disappointing economic recovery, the return of public attention to Afghanistan, and of course the oil spill threaten to make the coming months as problematic as the ones behind him.

Most worrying is his waning ability to persuade others to follow his lead -- which will make solving these problems even harder.

Or, so I argue. Please read the full article here: Rough Seas Ahead

It used to be, when media reports referred to transgender equality legislation as the "bathroom bill," I could rant about the journalistic irresponsibility. And we all feel good when we can feel morally superior to people in the news media.

I suspect we'll be seeing that phrase a lot today -- here it is this morning, slapped into the headline of an AP story by bostonchannel.com -- because MassTrans is leading a rally at the statehouse in a final effort to get the legislature to pass the piece of legislation that, as far as I've been able to determine, a majority in both houses supports but probably won't bring to the floor because they're a bunch of pantywaists. (Go ahead and feel morally superior to me for using that term.)

I've got no problem with people opposing the bill, or with supporting it but being too much of a sissyboy to vote on it; it's even fine if you want to argue that a broad range of civil rights should be curtailed if those rights might, conceivably, result in the legal use of a wee-wee in the ladies' stalls.

But it would be journalistic malpractice to prominently refer to the legislation as the "bathroom bill." Or, it would have been, until the standard-bearer for the Republican Party in the state decided to call it that. I can't really blame the media for using the term now. (Although I would still keep it out of the headline, bostonchannel.com!)

But I can blame Charlie. Oh, and Deval, you're not off the hook either. When asked about it, the Governor essentially conceded the underlying claim that the bill would allow men to whip out their willies willy-nilly in the girls' room. (Patrick said, in essence, what's the big deal, I share a bathroom with my wife and daughters at home.)

Sigh. Now, if the MassTrans folks want to cheer me up, here's my advice: co-opt it. Unveil a "Bathroom Bill" mascot today; I'm thinking with a big 'B' on his chest and a toilet lid hat. Bill would be a dopey guy who thinks he can go into the girl's locker rooms, so someone has to explain to him that he's got it all wrong -- and explan to him carefully what the transgender equality bill really does.

And it would be fine with me if Bathroom Bill looks a little bit like Charlie Baker. And, if the guy explaining the bill to him looks maybe just a little bit like Richard Tisei.

Know of a child care or education facility in need of repairs? Children's Investment Fund has a limited pool of funding available and is accepting applications from non-profit early care and education or out-of-school time programs in Boston in need of emergency facility repairs. See below for qualifications and how to apply. As always, don't hesitate to contact my office with any questions.