Oy, blogging via dial-up is verrry lame. But here’s what I’ve been coming across:
- I can’t get over Clinton raising $2 million for Patrick. That’s just a lot of scratch. What an immense asset it is to have an ex-President who is generally acclaimed to be a success.
- Speaking of which … I haven’t seen Healey’s little clip on “Clinton vs. Patrick” (dial-up, you know), but I already know it ain’t exactly Great Moments in Framing. The more people associate “Bill Clinton” with “Deval Patrick”, the better for us. So, thanks for doing our work for us, Healey folks.
- More Clinton: Yeah, Deval sounds like Bill. Anyone got a problem with that? That’s what folks here were saying last May.
- Even yet still more Clinton:
“Everybody knows that somehow the wheel has run off of our national discourse and our common life. And people don’t want us to shout at each other any more. They want to be talked to, reasoned with, lifted up. Even they want arguments, but they just want to hear people talking.”
A bit later, Clinton told the crowd to talk about Patrick with their neighbors, no matter what their political leanings, with the larger goal of establishing a civil conversation about politics.
“We will never make it better with the kind of stuff that we’ve allowed to dominate too many of our elections,” he said.
“Thank you!” a woman shouted.
Now, I will admit that this site has gotten into responding to the rat-a-tat-tat of a very nasty campaign. We’ve tried hard to have civil conversation here, and I look forward to vigorous but civil debate now and after the election. But speaking for myself, I think sliming and bullying needs to be addressed *directly*. The question has been how to pivot from that to talking about issues substantively. And I admit we haven’t figured that out too well yet.
So I’ll say this: I look forward to a Patrick administration taking on the issues of affordability in housing and health care; of meeting our energy needs in an environmentally sane way; in prioritizing education over tax cuts; in taking accountability for major construction projects and letting some sunshine in on the Big Dig Culture; in allowing stem cell research; in making the MBTA run on time; and very generally, in having practical outcomes determine policy, as opposed to ideological shibboleths or Presidential ambitions. I expect Deval Patrick to be a very hands-on, interested and involved governor — one who can credibly take on entrenched interests and who won’t make excuses instead of taking accountability. Those are my expectations of a Deval Patrick administration, and I intend to hold him to those things.
- Make no mistake: People are getting sick of Healey’s negative crap. Good examples: Globe exCORIates Healey, and yesterday asked the dumb question that should be on everyone’s mind: What exactly is wrong with getting a DNA test for violent crimes? Why aren’t they done every single damn time, for every single suspect?
And I would ask further: Why was it up to Ben LaGuer to raise his own money for a DNA test?
- I’m for Question 1, letting supermarkets sell booze (although I do love Kappy’s); and for Question 2, allowing cross-endorsements of candidates. Someone tell me why I’m wrong.
I’m all for bolstering independent and third parties — I think we need to widen our political discourse. But that kind of ballot is just plain confusing.
My concern with Question 2 is confusion. Not for us political junkies, but for a lot other people. Not to mention the elderly. You see the same candidate listed 3 times, do you vote for one? Do you vote for 3? What if you only like two of the parties, can you vote for 2? (I know the answers to these are no, but I’m saying not everyone will know that).
<
p>
On the first level it seems like a nice idea, but practically it seems like a mess. Combine it with electronic voting machines (with a paper trail, of course), where you can only select one candidate, and perhaps you have a little something more. But on paper it seems like it’d be beginning for a Florida like debacle for a bunch of votes that can’t be counted.
<
p>
I can’t help but think of the start of this West Wing episode (link goes to transcript) –
http://www.twiztv.co…
Ummm you probably should look that up. Cause apparently, you didn’t read the question closely.
<
p>
Indeed, voting among multiple party lines allows another level of sophistication – you can vote for a candidate and say party doesn’t matter.
<
p>
Its something that was the norm in the United States for most of our history. The only reason to go against it is if you want to ensure the only way a third party can have influence is through spoiler candidates.
It seems as if this is an oppurtunity to further manipulate the political system.
<
p>
It worries me that a candidate’s name appears more often on a ballot, it will appear to an uninformed that the candidate with the most party endorsements would be the best candidate.
<
p>
Imagine a ballot that looked like this:
<
p>
Republican: Kerry Healey
Democrat: Deval Patrick
<
p>
American Family Party: Kerry Healey
Patriot Party: Kerry Healey
Secure Our Border Party: Kerry Healey
Christian Coalition Party: Kerry Healey
Personal Liberty Party: Kerry Healey
<
p>
Party for Progress: Deval Patrick
American Liberal Party: Deval Patrick
<
p>
Independent: Christy Mihos
Green Rainbow: Grace Ross
<
p>
This system seems ripe source of voting booth coercion. Just imagine the tactics Karl Rove could apply to such a voting structure. I bet the Rovians would spend all sorts of resources setting up puppet independent conservative parties for the sole purpose associating buzz words like ‘freedom’, etc with Republican candidates (and ‘liberal’, etc with Dem candidates) in the voting booth.
<
p>
Plus, we all know the more times you see/hear something, the more it becomes true. I didn’t like this idea when the group approached me with a petition, and I still don’t like it now. The potential bad of this initiative creeps me out.
The Parties can’t just be invented out of whole cloth. The ballot initiative states:
<
p>
In other words, a political party still has to (at least initially) put up its own legitimate candidates before it can latch onto another party’s.
Wal-Mart. Think of Wal-Mart if Question 1 passes. Not only will Wal-Mart eventually be dominant here as grocery stores, they will get those licenses and drive every liquor store out of business. Doubt it? Ask the grocery stores and hardware stores in middle America. Think it won’t happen here? Kappy’s and Martignetti’s may be fine for a little while, but the local mom and pop will go the way of the downtown five and dime.
<
p>
Without Wal-Mart, other grocery stores could do significant damage to local mom and pops on their own.
<
p>
And if the liquor stores start to disappear, won’t it make it that much easier for them to go back in five years and get the licenses for beer and alcohol?
<
p>
Ok, so there are fewer locations where you can buy, but what’s the big deal in that?
<
p>
Limited selection? Check out the variety at the local BJs. Look into how Wal-Mart and others limit variety when it comes to books, magazines, clothing. Even Gillette has prices for its products dictated to it by Wal-Mart.
<
p>
Goodbye microbrews. Goodbye small vineyard merlot. Get used to seeing little more than Coors, Bud, Miller Light and Sutter Home wine.
<
p>
The campaign by the liquor stores is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. I don’t believe most of what they’re saying. But maybe in our Wal-Mart world they have reason to believe the average Joe only cares about convenience and lower prices, not selection and locally based small businesses. Still, I’m voting NO on Question 1.
There is nothing to add to this post. Thanks for saving me the time.
<
p>
Why on EARTH would you want to give supermarket chains a competitive advantage over Mom & Pops. Hell, do you remember when “Super Market” was a new word? Remember when you used to go to the “Grocery Store”, and half the time it was NOT a chain?
<
p>
Time to end, I’m only repeating or making variations on the above post, which is right on the money. But it bears repeating: Yes on 1 means No on micro-brews and small wineries.
<
p>
Want convenience? Then start a petition for internet sales of beer and wine.
Hooey to this argument. I used to live in Chicago, where they practically give out liquor licenses with your utility bills: Just take one, please! The liquor stores thrive because they can specialize, and the supermarkets sell general-interest stuff like Gallo wine and Bud. Works out for everybody.
Most states allow wine and beer sales at grocery stores. Has anyone on the board ever lived in one of these states? Were they limited to Sutter Home?
<
p>
I used to live in Texas. Wine and beer were sold in grocery stores and, perhpas because the greater retail space available in a supermarket, the selction of both wine and beer was greater than I have ever seen at any packie in Massachusetts. I’m a wine drinker, and would have been grumpy to be left only with Lohr, KJ and Sutter Home.
<
p>
Has anyone lived in a place where they couldn’t get any decent wine because the supermarkets only sold wine in boxes and jugs?
Hey! glad to see Question 2 getting some discussion here.
<
p>
Just a note, we will be discussing it today at Drinking Liberally with a representative from MA Ballot Freedom:
<
p>
<
p>
For my own take on the subject, see:
<
p>
http://www.dfacambridge.org/node/360
http://www.dfacambridge.org/node/359
<
p>
I think fusion voting isn’t going to do the liberal movement any favors: we have been wildly successful at using the Democratic primaries to gain power, and fusion voting does nothing to help us win primaries. Given that Democrats win almost every single election around here, and that I don’t see any kind of third party yanking many votes away from the Democrats, I’m not sure what a general-election reform is going to do to change anything. But, the number-cruncher in me says it’ll generate more statistics for people like sco to play with, so I guess that’s a good thing.
Question 1
<
p>
The fear-mongering ad against question one locked up my vote for it. I would have been much more sympathetic to the real reason why liqouor stores are against it (destroying local business)
<
p>
Question 2
<
p>
I may be open to changing my mind but right now there is something I can’t quite touch that is wrong with this.
<
p>
That $5,000 has puzzled me since day 1. FYI, (from great sources) the Globe is still reporting on this issue, so it must have them puzzled too.
<
p>
I hate to restart a debate I started on an old post about question 1, but here goes. I’m generally against ballot questions in general. The whole reason we have a legislature is to make these decisions. If you don’t like what the legislature is doing, call your rep and senator or just vote them out.
<
p>
So rather than spending a lot of time deciding whether it makes sense to sell wine in supermarkets, I’ll just vote against it. If the people who got it on the ballot want to see it passed they can go to the legislature. Same with question 3. I mean really, is wine in grocery stores so important that we have to bypass the legislature and take it directly to the people? Rise up! Be heard! Demand Sutter Home white zinfandel in the Baking Needs aisle! The people have the power!
<
p>
Question 2, on the other hand, may meet my critera for an exception to my anti-question rule. If a ballot question is a good idea and is somehow against the interest of the members of the legislature (campaign finance reform is the best example), I’ll vote for it. Since this one concerns elections it might meet the second criterion.
<
p>
However, I don’t think it’s such a good idea. The example above with Patrick and Healey both on several lines is not too far off except that they won’t necessarily be grouped by candidate. So it can get really confusing.
<
p>
When I lived in New York, that was the system. The parties were generally Democratic, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, and sometimes Right to Life. Sometimes there would be several candidates, sometimes two with the typical Democrat/Liberal, Republican/Conservative/RTL combinations. Other times you’d have the Liberal or Conservative party crossing over to the Republican or Democratic candidate respectively (Jacob Javits usually got the liberal nod). And it wasn’t that unusual for a candidate to get on all the lines and run unopposed.
<
p>
I have to say I don’t see much upside to this, so I’ll probably be voting no on all three questions.
I’m against one purely for the reason that it will take away business from independant, often family-run liquor stores.
<
p>
Also, as the employee of a supermarket, the idea of the 15-year old cashiers in the front of the store possibly selling alcohol to their pals doesn’t sit too well either.
ewww.. i had it all summer… i have pity for you charley.
<
p>
on the questions:
<
p>
1: yes.
2. no.
3. yes.
<
p>
On 1, I could give two craps about local “Mom and Pop” liquor stores.. the same liquor stores that never card me, and didn’t when I was 21. I could have walked in those stores at 19 and 20, if I skipped shaving for the day or two, and rarely ever been carded. Heck, I may have been able to pull it off at 18. So NO ONE give me “Mom and Pop,” they’re friggin liquor stores, not a family restaurant, TV repair shop or tailor.
<
p>
Furthermore, if anyone is going to be more apt to check IDs, I would think it would be Supermarkets. Right now they have a pretty darn good system, over all, in carding minors on smoking… I don’t see why they can’t with alcohol.
<
p>
Lastly, I’m a firm believer of capitalism. While I’ll be the first to tax and regulate, you have to obey the spirit of capitalism… and I think banning a grocery store from selling alcohol does that. If someone wants to do all their grocery shopping in one store – including wine and beer – why not?
<
p>
Packies exist in every state, they’re still in high demand. They may have to adjust, but who doesn’t? I’ve lived in areas where beer and wine was sold in supermarkets and things seemed to be fine to me. Question 1 is a pretty damn easy question: yes.
<
p>
Question 2 is harder, but I’m against it because of the potential for confusion and I don’t think it’s more democratic than what we have now. In fact, I think there’s potential for it to be less. If we’re serious about electoral reform, let’s start with same-day registration and continue on by allowing absentee ballot voting for any reason, as well as early voting at town/city hall for the week or so before the election day.
Most of the grocery stores where I live sell wine, and they always have. They even sell wine on Sundays now too. I’m pretty sure that even the convenience stores sell wine as well, they certainly sell beer and wine coolers and so on. Where are these grocery stores that aren’t permitted to sell wine, and why do my stores not get shut down? My friends and I were wandering around the grocery store the other day picking up bottles of wine, staring at them in confusion and wondering what’s going on.
<
p>
yes on three
First reason – Palm Beach County 2000. While I’m sure most of the readers of BMG could handle a more complex ballot, there are a lot of voters who really need things to be kept simple.
<
p>
Second reason – What has the Patrick campaign been preaching all along but that he wants people to stay involved after the election. Question 2 strikes me as a once a cycle gimmick that saves people from the ‘hard’ work of communicating with their government about their issues the other 47 months between elections.
See below for link, but WFP in NYC was amazing in voter education and moblization. They did tremendous work on living wage and min wage increases. Led to more mobilization, not just around election time.
I think people should look at New York. There is no mass confusion about voting for candidates. There are requirements to get on the ballot and ballot lines are determined by percentage of vote on the last state wide election.
<
p>
It allows progressives to vote for a realistic candidate while also letting that candidate know the priorities you support. I was a huge supporter of the Working Families Party and me and my wife continued to pay dues for several years after leaving the state. It was a great organization that helped GOTV, voter education and I would love to see a chapter open up here in Mass.
<
p>
For the sceptical check out their website, It was antidote to the green party. WFP organizers build local chapters amongst union members and working class areas of the city, rather than just hanging out in front of the billy bragg concert.
Anybody know anything about Question 3? There were lots of supporters of Q 3 at the Deval rally on Sunday.
In spite of its possible benefits of collective bargaining, I plan to vote no on Question 3 – It is more pro-union than pro-child. Question 3 has been pushed to the ballot by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the premise of being good for children. It primarily effects Family Child Cares (FCC) which are small child care businesses licensed for a maximum of 6-10 children in residential homes regulated by the Commonwealth’s Department of Early Education & Care (EEC.) Currently Family Child Care Providers receive very low voucher and subsidy rates which often leave them with earnings below minimum wage. I want to make it very clear that Family Child Care (FCC) providers want and need to collectively negotiate subsidy rates, regulations and other issues with the Commonwealth. Yet, most FCC providers that I have communicated with across Mass. are overwhelmingly against this proposed legislation.
<
p>
Here are some major issues: 1. FCC providers are business owners, not employees – many FCC providers are employers of assistant teachers posing complex issues for a union designed for employees. An association of providers would be a more appropriate bargaining entity. FCC providers can and do currently affect change through associations without this legislation, however, FCC does need much greater influence. This legislation was created with little or no FCC input and favors the “employee organization” that pushed it through – SEIU. 2. FCC providers wish to retain their right to choose an organization which best meets their needs. This legislation requires one exclusive bargaining entity and mandates 2 years before it could be removed. FCC providers should have the right to choose whether they wish to belong to a collective bargaining entity, and which organization they belong to. It could be nearly impossible to decertify or get rid of SEIU if they become the exclusive representative and under perform. They are a very large organization that is willing to fight for a new national membership base of FCC providers. 3. The timing for implementation of this legislation allows little time for an alternative FCC lead and owned organization that could better serve FCC needs. SEIU has been gathering signature cards in preparation for pushing this legislation through – many FCC providers have complained about SEIU’s high pressure card signing tactics. FCC providers want a choice. 4. If a Union becomes the exclusive bargaining agency it is very likely that all costs (FCC provider costs, taxpayer costs, and costs to the families providers serve) would increase to support the Union. An organization lead and owned by FCC providers would likely place funding back into resources and benefits for the FCC providers and families they serve.
<
p> The “in favor” argument on the voter pamphlet is deserving of the included disclaimer – “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts…does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments.” This legislation is good for SEIU! However, this legislation could negatively effect FCC providers and the children they serve. FCC would have to foot the bill and be subject to additional labor organizing laws. There are about 12,000 licensed and 8,000 active FCC programs state wide who could be required to pay union dues whether they wanted to be in the union or not, with no guarantee of additional benefits, and no way out. This legislation could also significantly reduce the number of FCC programs willing to accept subsidized funding to those that wish to belong to a union. Child care costs would almost surely increase. This legislation also affects “Kith & Kin” which are licensed exempt child care arrangements for subsidized care of relatives – I am not familiar enough with “Kith & Kin” to speak on their behalf.
<
p> This is my interpretation of Question 3 as a FCC provider who has been in business for 18 years and accepts subsidies (voucher and community partnership slots.) I am a leader in the field and belong to many FCC organizations through which I am in touch with hundreds of FCC providers by e-mail, meetings & phone. Providers are still looking into all aspects of this legislation and the views stated here reflect the current views of a significant number of providers. I hope this is helpful
Charley — I work on the Question 2 campaign. So take my comments with a grain of salt, but know that I’m not in on this thing for the money (if anyone’s familiar w/ACORN salaries, you know what I mean)!
<
p>
1) I just don’t buy the confusion argument. New York voters handle this fine, it used to be legal everywhere in the country before Republican-controlled legislatures banned it at the behest of corporate interests who wanted to defang the Populist and Progressive movements, and there are protections built into the initiative’s language to ensure EVERY VOTE COUNTS (no double-counting, no throwing out of votes, etc.).
<
p>
2) Shai intelligently asks whether this helps progressives build power. All I can say is that in New York City, where most of the fights are in the Democratic primaries — with the exception of the election of the chief executive (sound familiar, anyone?) — the ability of fusion-based parties to both influence Democratic primaries by pulling new voters into the process and then to send a message to all those unchallenged incumbents, as well (again, sound familiar?) has led to meaningful victories on policy issues that matter to real families (living wage laws, lead-paint protections, investments in affordable housing, etc.). Doesn’t that seem like the bar by which we should measure this thing?
<
p>
3) In the upcoming Governors race in New York, our friends at the NY Working Families Party will get something like 250,000 votes for Eliot Spitzer on their line. Those votes will be understood by legislators as “sending a message” on issues that progressives care most about, and thats something that would be good under the second Patrick administration, don’tcha think?
<
p>
Anyhow, I hope you come down in favor of Q2 — but, regardless, stay off the dial-up!
I think there may be some risk of confusing voters, to a small degree. Of course, considering the other ballot types out there, I think it’s still relatively doable to understand for most.
<
p>
I just don’t like question 2 because it’s a way to change the rules during the game. I could spend days and months trying to influence the Democratic Party in my own little way. Or I could find some like-minded friends and “found” a new party. The new “party” wouldn’t do any actual campaigning, wouldn’t try to nurture the grassroots, wouldn’t do much except threaten the Democratic candidate. It hurts the Dems, all beacuse I’m too lazy to do the hard work of effecting change from the inside. I think the options of building an ideal inside your own party (a la PDM), or building a new party are sufficient. The idea of “building” a half-a–ed party to exaggerate one’s importance is cheap to me.