Election Feed

January was a big month for the small business community throughout the Commonwealth and the United States.  Key initiatives were launched at both the federal and state levels and the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Business announced plans to continue pursuing an aggressive agenda that will benefit small businesses throughout Massachusetts.  Regarding this [...]

Word started spreading yesterday that former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi had departed his new residence at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky -- ie, the pen where he is serving an eight-year sentence. This morning, Andrea Estes and Shelley Murphy drop a bombshell: according to their sources (and they typically have good ones), DiMasi is on his way to Worcester to testify before a federal grand jury, presumably the one readying corruption charges relating to the probation patronage scandal.

This may or may not clarify the apparent delay in indictments from that investigation. The Globe reported on January 17 that indictments were imminent, and people I spoke with at the time believed they were coming that week.

Since then, rumors and speculation have run rampant; more than once I have been told that indictments were definitely coming "tomorrow."

Most of the scuttlebutt maintains that the Globe was correct that the indictments were coming, but then something caused a delay. There have been, broadly speaking, two sets of explanations offered.

The first has it that Boston's US Attorney Carmen Ortiz kicked the case up to Washington, for US Attorney General Eric Holder to make some decision about how to proceed. The second theory for the delay posits that someone flipped -- that someone, on the eve of indictment, offered to make a deal and gave the feds some new information. Prosecutors, under this scenario, have been pursuing those new leads.

These two theories are not exclusive to each other. It's possible that both were happening independently. Or, one could have caused the other.

Now, comes DiMasi.

As Estes and Murphy make clear, we don't know what brings DiMasi to Worcester. But it sure looks like DiMasi, having lost his legal attempts to stay free pending appeal, and to be housed close to home, saw that the probation indictments were pending and saw a moment of maximum leverage.

I am told, by people close to DiMasi circles, that this is more or less the case -- that the feds and DiMasi have been negotiating this deal for a couple of weeks, which if correct would place the first discussions just after the January 17 Globe article.

All of the above -- if true -- is of course just backdrop for the real issue: what, and whom, is DiMasi giving the feds?

You'd have to figure it has to be pretty big. Once the feds land a big fish like DiMasi -- and publicly orate about the grossness of his crimes, as Ortiz has -- they don't ease his sentence without getting something good. Indeed, it's quite possible that the reason the deal took two weeks to finalize is because the feds kept demanding more from him.

Estes and Murphy drop a huge suggestion at the end of today's story. Without suggesting directly that this is the subject of DiMasi's testimony, they bring up old allegations that DiMasi and DeLeo traded probation jobs for votes to make DeLeo speaker after DiMasi. That allegedly included DeLeo, then Ways & Means chair, adding money to the probation budget to accommodate those hires.

(Worth noting: DeLeo supporters have long believed, with some justification, that the Globe has been desperate to tie the probation scandal to DeLeo; the inclusion of this allegation could be viewed from that perspective.)

Needless to say, DiMasi testimony affirming all of that would be devastating to DeLeo. And, it is likely that DiMasi would also be testifying to other improper uses of probation patronage -- and other types of improper dealmaking -- going back through his own and Tom Finneran's speakerships, that could implicate many current and former representatives, including those in leadership.

Also, consider this. It is plausible that many of the representatives who knew about these deals didn't think that much of them at the time. After all, people like Finneran, DiMasi, and DeLeo are deal-makers -- sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. Promises of patronage jobs probably wouldn't have struck someone as particularly worse than, say, promises to get an earmark into the budget, or promises to provide help for a re-election campaign.

But that changed a little over a year ago, when patronage at the probation department became the known subject of a criminal investigation. At that point, anybody with knowledge of anybody making, or offering, any deals involving a promise of jobs at that department has a duty to come forward with what they knew.

If DiMasi is giving federal prosecutors information about such deals, and how they were done, and with whom they were discussed, then there are a bunch of current and former reps potentially on the hook legally for withholding that information. The Feds might not be looking to prosecute all of them, but they would certainly be interested in using the threat to squeeze testimony out of them.

The theory I'm hearing today is that DiMasi, who many say has grown bitter toward DeLeo for a variety of reasons, decided to take DeLeo down in exchange for some changes to his sentence. He may have initially thought he could do this without endangering other former colleagues, but -- according to this chatter -- the Feds wouldn't do the deal without a fuller accounting, which would implicate others.

If this is the case, then DiMasi's upcoming grand jury testimony will likely be followed not by immediate indictments, but by more appearances by people suddenly willing to talk. In other words, this could get ugly and uglier.

Or, maybe DiMasi is just coming to Worcester for a drink at the Boynton. Anything else is just speculation and rumor at this point. But, it's increasingly interesting speculation and rumor.

I will be on Emily Rooney's WGBH radio show today at noon, doing a political week-in-review segment with the estimable Jeff Jacoby. The main topic will be Mitt Romney and the GOP nomination battle, so here's my quick take before you tune in to hear me talk about it on air.

Romney, of course, followed up his big Florida victory by winning an impressive (albeit expected) romp in Saturday's Nevada caucuses. There are contests tomorrow, in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. Then a break until Arizona and Michigan at the end of the month, followed by (a relatively small) Super Tuesday on March 6.

There is very little doubt, in my opinion, that Romney will get the nomination. But I think he still needs to keep fighting for it, and that's potentially a problem for him.

Think of it as a baseball game, with your star pitcher on the mound, and a solid five or six run lead in the fourth inning. You're going to win. But you might not win if you pull the pitcher this early. So, even if you would prefer to rest his arm, you have to leave him in for a while.

(A better analogy would be a star quarterback in a late-season game where a win gets you home-field advantage in the playoffs -- but nobody around here wants a football analogy today.)

Winning individual states, at this point, is like hurling a shutout inning -- it doesn't really matter, except that if you did give up a run or two you might need to leave the starter in a little longer than if you maintain that bigger lead.

See, if Romney doesn't pitch shutout innings, that means someone scored -- and will feel it's worth it to keep their own A team on the field.

For example, Rick Santorum is polling well in Missouri (where Gingrich is not on the ballot) and Minnesota. If he wins one or both, he can make the case that he's poised to win midwestern and rust-belt states, including Ohio on Super Tuesday March 6. That could get him more funding, and media attention, which will help him compete in Ohio and beyond.

Likewise, if Gingrich wins his home state of Georgia, and perhaps Tennessee on Super Tuesday, he can make the case that he's poised to win other upcoming Southern states, ultimately including Texas on April 3. If Ron Paul can win a caucus state or two that he's targetting, he can also keep building his campaign.

None of them appear to have much chance of actually accumulating large masses of delegates this way -- but they could collectively prevent Romney from rolling up a dominant delegate stash himself. And that could keep mean even more attention and money for the challengers deep into the contest. And that, in turn, means that Romney (and his Super PAC) will have to use more and more of their resources, and spend more and more time using rhetoric that is doing him no good for the general election.

So, Romney has to stay on the mound, and try hard to keep throwing shutout innings. That way, the other candidates -- whether they stay in the race or not -- get their A team (in attention and funding) pulled by the media and donors. At that point, it becomes safe to pull Romney and coast to the nomination.

So, even though Nevada doesn't really mean anything, and tomorrow's contests don't really mean anything, they're actually quite important to Romney. Or, so I would argue.

 "ProfessorU" asks:

Any recommendcations for prof navigating the Vegas strip?

First of all, get yourself to the downtown strip for at least a few hours. That's where you want to play your table games and poker, or drink through a straw from a yard of daiquiri hanging around your neck while operating two slot machines. Or so I hear.

On the main strip... just about all the Sports Books are good. There's a PF Chang's in the Planet Hollywood. Use the monorail -- it's, a much longer walk than you think. There's a Jimmy Buffet Margaritaville now. I'd skip the Cirque shows. What else did you want to know?

Oh, and if you get married, I highly recommend the Hitching Post -- the lucky place to get hitched for life. 

 

 "RMC Strategies" asks via Twitter:

Handicap a Tim Murray v. Steve Grossman primary?

 I'll assume we're talking about governor 2014, although I'd lay odds that they won't both be in that race. But let's assume that it's the two of them head-to-head. Let's also assume that nothing substantially worse comes out about Lil' Timmy's recent escapades and whatnot.

I think that Murray is the powerhouse in the race for the nomination. He's well-liked in activist circles, for the most part. He'll have the strong backing of Governor Patrick, to whom Murray has been a very loyal lieutenant. He'll raise a lot of money. He'll have a huge advantage at the convention. And so on.

I'm not convinced Grossman intends to run, and if he does I'm not convinced he's that strong a candidate. He has a loyal following, and is getting high marks for his work as Treasurer, but he bear in mind he only beat a very over-her-head Karyn Polito 55%-45%. 

If that's the contest in 2014, I think Murray takes the nomination. And, I think that would be OK with Charlie Baker as he takes his second shot.

 

 

On the ol' Twitter, "tfrocahill" asks:

Boxers or briefs?

Boxer-briefs -- but if your hubby the former treasurer finds out you're asking me these kinds of questions, it'll be worse than when I told him I'd been Tweeting with his daughter Makena. Those Quincy men are pretty protective about the women in their family.

Loving the great questions -- please keep 'em coming! On Twitter, "DuncanDubs" asks:

 Any chance Joe Curtatone would run for Gov?

Personally, I put the Somerville mayor in my top 5 likely next Massachusetts governors, but I hear mixed things about whether he is seriously interested in running.

(Which is my way of saying that I want you people out there to tell me what you're hearing.)

On Twitter, "Brad Marston" asks:  What's your over/under on number of Massachusetts Democrats to be indicted in Probation Dept. scandal?

 And relatedly, "MAGal" asks:

I'm a proud MA Democrat in many respects, but I get really embarrassed by all the corruption in state government (a la the McLaughlin/Murray story).  Any chance the up-and-coming younger generation of MA pols are better on this front?  Lots of them are great and progressive on issues, but so were Wilkerson and DiMasi...do you see this problem lessening in the next decade or two?  What could actually make it so, besides wishing? 

For Brad, if we're talking Democrats currently holding elected office, I think the over/under line is at 3.5.

As for MAGal's broader question, I do think that slowly but surely we're getting a crop of electeds who get that the old ways -- the common practices and attitudes that allow the nonsense to happen -- don't fly anymore. And I think it's worth pointing out that the Patrick administration, and the Romney administration before it, were both remarkably free of criminal activity. Not everything is ever going to be purely kosher and clean, and you (and I) can find plenty of fault there, but I think that's worth noting.

As for what you can do, a good start is speaking out about your level of disgust and distrust. It is very good for them to know that it's coming not just from the right-wing talk-radio yakkers (no offense Brad!) but also from their own side.

Also, we should get rid of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, as I wrote a while back. Seriously.

 "Stephen" asks:

Kim Driscoll....Governor?

 I swear I just asked someone yesterday this exact question. The individual I asked agreed that the Salem mayor would be a great candidate, but thinks Driscoll is looking at running for lieutenant governor. That's probably the smart move. Of course, Driscoll has still not disproven my suggestions that she may be a witch. Also, I'm under the impression that there may be some family issues for her to consider. But I think you're on the right track with the question -- a smart, polished, younger local or regional political figure, who starts campaigning early, could be the 2014 version of Deval Patrick, looking pretty good compared to whichever Tom Reilly-esque Beacon Hill insider the establishment rallies around.

 "Micah" asks:

Who will challenge Menino next year? 

 Will Dorcena, who ran a solid but losing campaign for city council last year, has declared that he will take on that suicide mission. I don't think John "JC Pennies" Connolly will try it, especially after slipping out of the top at-large spot. I haven't heard much about anyone looking at it, beyond prepping in case Menino doesn't run.

One person who could give it a serious shot: DA Dan Conley. If I was him, I'd be thinking about it.

 "Marty" asks:

I hear Bob Hedlund might be in a fight for his political life in November, any truth to that? 

 That depends on how seriously you take Steve May. I can't give you a fair answer on that yet, but he hasn't raised big dough yet -- he ended the year with less than $2000 on hand. I wouldn't bet against the mighty Hedlund at this point. Also, I noticed that May has spent a lot of his campaign money in small, meal-sized increments at Burger King, KFC, McDonald's, Pizza Box, Taco Bell, and Wendy's, so I'm concerned that May might not make it to November in good health.

From the Twitters, "AltoidLover" asks:

Newt clearly isn't going to win the nomination, but how much damage do you think he can do as he stumbles on fueled by superpac?

That depends a great deal on how long the Adelsons, and/or others, decide they want to prop Newt up. He's not likely to have any momentum-driving victories in the next couple of weeks, so we'll see if the Adelsons want to keep paying for Romney-bashing ads in Super-Tuesday states and beyond, or just pack it in.

I wouldn't be stunned if Newt himself soldiers on, Buchanan-like, to keep building anti-establishment conservative cred and, of course, his mailing list. But that wouldn't matter much to anyone outside those circles -- unless he decides to leave the party and launch a third-party run. I doubt that would matter a whole lot in the final election, in terms of actual voters, but it could seriously mess with Mitt's head, and throw him off his disciplined anti-Obama strategy.

I actually think Rick Santorum may yet make a little trouble for Romney. Not to win the actual nomination, but maybe to get a little attention with his criticisms.

Sure, everyone is talking about the Presidential race, or Liz vs Scotto, but the cool kids have their eye on the Massachusetts state legislature!

"Guest" asks:

Do you think Comrade Eldridge will be able to successfully recruit a band of idiots to run against his state Senate colleagues, who he deems as "not progressive enough?" 

"BostonBertie" asks:

With nomination papers out next week, what is in store for the freshman class of GOP State Reps who won last year. What has redistricting done to their chances - and how will they fare with their opponents' coattails of Obama and Warren. How many of the 15 seats they won in 2010 will they lose?

On the state senate, it's reasonable to keep an eye on intra-party challenges, because there is so far very little so far to suggest that Republicans will pick off any of the Democrats. (Yes, I see you bold few who are running -- prove me wrong!) However, I am highly skeptical there will be much successful primarying. Open seats will be contested, but I would note that, from what I hear, newly elected state senator Will Brownsberger has rebuffed advances by Eldridge and others to join the progressive resistance.

As for the freshman Republican representatives, I personally think it's likely that a good half-dozen could lose this year. I haven't studied the redistricting effects closely, and I am still learning about the potential Democratic challengers, but a bunch of those new reps won by very slim margins, in a much better turnout scenario than they'll get this year. The infrastructure advantages of the Democrats, plus the turnout edge, is likely to overcome the incumbency advantages in a number of cases -- unless the state Republican Party makes a really impressive, coordinated, smart effort to help them. Be sure and let me know if you spy any evidence of such a miraculous and unprecedented phenomenon.

It's been a long time since the rhyme rode a rough road, as Chuck D put it, and a long time since my last Ask Me Anything Day. So bring it on -- leave your questions as comments to this post, or email them to me at dbernstein@phx.com. Or, you can Tweet them to me at @dbernstein or with the hashtag #AskMeAnythingDay.

I will provide my best answers, guesses, predictions, analyses, speculations, or gossip in separate posts throughout the day.

So, ask me anything!

According to reports, Donald Trump will endorse Mitt Romney today.

Yeah. So, if Mitt had snagged that Michele Bachmann endorsement earlier this week, he really could have alienated the sensible center in one swoop.

Reports have it that the Trump endorsement was worked out at the "highest levels" of the Romney campaign, and came about because of their fear of a Trump third-party candidacy.

I find it hard to believe that the Romney team is really that stupid, but I guess I've been wrong about that before.

 You don't want to miss Boston Phoenix editor-in-chief Peter Kadzis's take on Kevin White, from this week's issue. A quick taste:

The wake was a belated celebration of the Irish-Catholic Democratic culture that reached its zenith during White's 16 years in office, but which began to decline even before White left office in 1984.

 

In this week's issue of the Boston Phoenix -- in print tomorrow, online now -- I ask why Massachusetts seems incapable of moving forward with serious, evidence-based reform to its public-safety and criminal-justice system. The answer, I suggest, lies with the state legislature.

Please check it out, and let me know what you think: House of Incorrections

I was interviewed on Democracy Now this morning, about Mitt Romney; if I can successfully put the embedded video here you can watch it in all its glory.

The first part centers mostly on the importance of the Florida primary for Romney:

...and the second part was more about Mitt the man:

 

MassUniting and others are holding an anti-Romney protest today outside Bain Capitals HQ in Copley Square. They are calling the action a "funeral for American jobs," and plan to have a casket, pallbearers, a priest giving a "eulogy," and tombstones. This will be at noon.

Just a few blocks away, at St. Cecilia's, the very real funeral for former mayor Kevin White is just underway this morning.

[Update: MassUniting informs me that they are postponing the protest until a later date, out of respect for Kevin White.]

Join us as we remember the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010 and sound a call to action for 2012.  Guest speakers including Governor Deval Patrick, Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo and I will reflect on that tragic day in 2010 as well as the incredible work that has been done by Massachusetts [...]