[This is a long piece that gets pretty conservative even for my tastes, but explains somewhat why we keep getting the same stuff from both parties no matter who we elect. And the drastic view of what change will really look like if it ever appears. Found at www.aldaily.com] America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 – August 2010 issue As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find [...]
Tomorrow’s Boston Sunday Globe features an endorsement of Suzanne Bump in the Democratic Primary for State Auditor. Here is the Globe’s reasoning: Of the three candidates for the Democratic nomination for auditor, former state labor secretary Suzanne Bump is best positioned to look out for the interest of citizens. She argues that, as a believer in the power of government to improve people’s lives, she feels an obligation to make sure it runs well. Bump has a clearer fix than her opponents on how the auditor’s office might be used for the public good. She promises to zero in on the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, as a way of ensuring that parties involved in health care reform are doing their jobs at maximum efficiency; it’s a shrewd allocation of resources, a cardinal example of where a state auditor can do the most good. Guy Glodis, currently the Worcester County sheriff, promises to promote economic development, but some of his proposals – such as investigating the use of out-of-state labor on local projects – lie at some distance from the essential duties of the auditor. Mike Lake, a whiz kid who worked at the White House at the end of the [...]
Why are people not talking about the 6th suffolk Race, Rep. Allen is stepping down and there five people running for this seat.
Here in Massachusetts, we have great down-ballot races, including the hyper-important treasurer slot. The Steves, Dem Grossman and Murphy, head to next week's deciding primary and have just released TV and net ads. One's annoying and the other set oddly impersonal for a personable candidate.
Below are Murphy's annoying spot and Grossman's soft-sell.
Grossman wins, but wowzers.
As we all know, the front of Guy Glodis’s direct mail piece, which many of you have probably received by today, contains a truly hilarious, indeed epic, gaffe that results in the central message of the piece being exactly the opposite of what was intended.
As it turns out, the back of the mailer has a good one too, though it’s less spectacular than the one on the front. Here’s the back (click for larger view):
Looks like Guy Glodis speaking at a rally. I believe (though it’s hard to be certain) it’s a photo of him speaking last year at a protest at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Worcester, which had chosen to hire out-of-state labor for its renovations.
But wait – what does that sign right next to Glodis’s head say?
It’s a bit hard to read, but I’m pretty sure it says “Crowne Plaza W.T.F.”
In keeping with BMG’s “Family-Friendly Front Page Policy,” I must direct you to the flip for the remainder of this post. :-)
I’ve got opinions on the Treasure race and the Auditor race, but I just noticed we’ve got two candidates for Democratic nominee for Governor’s Councillor in the Sixth District, and I know absolutely nothing about either of them. I also haven’t seen them mentioned on Blue Mass Group, so I just did a search and found nothing about this race. The Governor’s Council approves judicial appointments, as well as giving approval or oversight on a few other things such as pardons and notaries public. The Sixth District [PDF map] covers a bit of downtown and Allston, most of Cambridge, and then a bunch of cities and towns to the north including Somerville, Medford, Malden, Chelsea, Revere… up to Reading and Billerica. It’s the seat currently held by Michael Callahan, known to many of us from Blue Mass Group’s first high profile race, the 2005 State Senate special election. He’s one of three councillors retiring this year. The candidates are: Suzanne R. English-Merullo, 31 Clark St., Winchester Terrence W. Kennedy, 3 Stafford Rd., Lynnfield What do you know about them? Wanna advocate for or against either? Edit: Verdict so far: Nobody here seems to know anything about them either, but people [...]
FiveThirtyEight.com became a must-read during the 2008 presidential race for its insightful, truly reality-based analysis of otherwise very confusing numbers that were constantly being tossed around. Nate Silver, the blog’s proprietor, is left-leaning, but knows what he’s doing and doesn’t let his ideological views cloud his assessments. To its credit, the New York Times has given him space on its blog pages, so he now resides on the NYT’s website. He’s located at http://bmg.ma/d0Br5J A couple of days ago, 538 released comprehensive analyses of the state of the Governor’s races across the country. His take on Massachusetts, based on the numbers available so far, is this: Likely results: Patrick 46.9%; Baker 42.4%; Cahill 8.3% Likelihood of win: Patrick 73.4%; Baker 26.6%; Cahill 0.0% For what little its worth, those numbers are in line with my “seat of the pants,” “gut instinct” assessment. There are others whose gut instinct “likelihood of win” numbers are different, but 538′s is the one to watch, since it’s the one based on data. Obviously, these numbers will change as time goes on. But keep your eye on 538′s analysis.
Barney Frank has a qualified opponent for the Sept. 14th primary who needs your support. Rachel is a LaRouche Democrat with a genuine FDR platform, which includes: 1. OUST OBAMA (Nixon-style) 2. Restore Glass-Steagall to stop the bailout of funny money 3. Build the biggest infrastructure project in US history with NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance. More on NAWAPA here Barney has agreed to debate Rachel, but his stipulation was that the debate could only occur in Newton, and with no audience present. There will be a rally outside the debate, more info on that on the events page. This is a golden opportunity to remove Bailout Barney, and the Rachel Brown campaign can be reached through her website
Howie Carr did a piece the other day accusing Cahill of being in the race as a spoiler. He was offering Cahill money to drop out. Tim, exactly how much do-re-mi will it take to get you out of this fight? I’ve asked you this on the air, and you laughed, as if I were kidding. I wasn’t. You said neither Deval nor President Obama have offered you anything to continue your kamikaze campaign for governor, so I think you’re available at what they used to call popular prices. Cahill responded today in the Herald and it a “must read”. Think of a 7th grader writing a short story as you read. Here’s my favorite line… Hmmm, Scott Brown-ish? Me like it! Over the next 58 days me and my Jeep will be crisscrossing this state, asking people for their vote. Cahill needs to remember the saying, “When you fight with a pig you both get dirty – but the pig likes it.”
Glodis is the candidate that keeps on giving. While this is not as good as his promise to “Reign (over) Wasteful Political Spending”…or balking at paying taxes that everyone agrees his campaign has to pay…it’s still a gem for someone running for “Auditor” Glodis’ latest campaign finance report is out (I was poking around to see what brilliant high-paid consultant was responsible for the Reign/Rein blooper) and found this… Glodis itemized three spending items on his campaign finance report totaling nearly $10,000 as ILLEGIBLE under the “purpose” column. So Glodis thinks its OK to itemize things as “ILLEGIBLE” when documenting spending…just the kind of quality we need to be looking for in the next Auditor.