When we started BMG, we expected that we’d support Democrats almost all of the time. We are, after all, Democrats, and we support much of what the Democratic party stands for.
But, as we all know, some Democrats suffer from a serious case of incumbentitis. And in some instances, the condition is terminal.
Secretary of State Bill Galvin, as we explained when we endorsed John Bonifaz, has not only pretty much stopped doing his job, he’s gone off the deep end in his desire to keep it. In addition to allowing things to get to the point that four federal voting rights investigations are ongoing simultaneously in this state, Galvin outright refused to debate John Bonifaz, even standing up the Medford Democratic City Committee which was expecting him. Now, perhaps in light of Green-Rainbow candidate Jill Stein’s growing list of endorsements, he’s agreed to debate Stein for five minutes. I can barely say that out loud — “a five minute debate” — without bursting out laughing.
Furthermore, the debacle of Galvin’s failure to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) would be comical if it didn’t mean that some disabled citizens might not be able to vote next week. Remember, HAVA has been on the books since 2002, and the deadline was the 2006 primary. Four years seems adequate, doesn’t it? Yet Galvin recently informed us that not only did he fail to meet the deadline for the primary, he won’t make it for the general election either.
And the reason? Well, gosh, it turns out that people with different disabilities face different challenges in voting. What a revelation! And we’re sure it took a four-year study to figure out that blind voters face different obstacles from voters in wheelchairs. Honest to God. Where the Phoenix got the idea that this guy is “good, and hes serious,” without even mentioning any of these painful failings, is a mystery to us.
Jill Stein is running on a platform that emphasizes openness and transparency in government (including limiting the use of outside sections in the budget process), clean elections, independent redistricting, and Instant Runoff Voting. Good ideas all. She’s racked up a bunch of newspaper endorsements, including most recently the MetroWest Daily News and the New Bedford Standard Times. She’s a serious person and a serious candidate, and we’re pleased to endorse her for Secretary of State.
I would have to say that I’m a leaner at this stage, but I think you said what people were feeling but didn’t want to say out loud. There is a sense of frustration with Galvin. I still don’t understand his thought process. I started to realize (abet slowly) that Jill is a serious candidate, sometimes it’s difficult to feel that way with third party candidates. She’s pushing for openness and transparency in government while Galvin is hiding to even discuss these topics. Well, now that I think about it maybe I’m not a leaner anymore.
I supported Deval because he is the right guy. I supported Andréa Silbert even though I like Tim Murray because she was the right choice and I support Jill Stein for the same reason I voted for her for Governor. Because she is the right choice. Some day we will get back to the constitution which never envisioned political parties and start voting for the candidates on their character and not on the color of their party. Congrats to Blue mass Group!!
We had this conversation in the Dem primary and lost. Bad. As far as I’m concerned, this election is over and we’ll just have to try again in four years.
We are against Diebold machines and for clean elections. Jill Stein is intelligent and a dedicated public servant. Let’s give her our support.
By voting for Bonifaz. Now I’m sending a message to Jill Stein that I do not support the Green-Rainbow party. Sorry.
What is it about the Green-Rainbow party that you don’t like?
1) They are trying to defeat Democratic candidates. As a Democrat, that is not something that I generally support 😉
2) When the Secretary of the Democratic Party is seen holding a “Victory for Hezbollah” sign at a rally, I’ll probably stop supporting them, too.
(1) You should then offer your critique of the BMG endorsement. The editors have attempted to address this particular concern.
(2) The person to whom you implicitly make reference is no longer Secretary of the GRP; new officers were elected in September. If he is the reason you cannot support the GRP, I would invite you to review the new leadership of the party, and you may actually find some common ground.
As someone who had argued with the former secretary of the GRP, and in fact, has received nasty unsolicited e-mail from him because I participated (happily) in an event that he protested, I can say that I’m firmly in support of Stein. The former secretary does not represent the party, and when I talked with others in the party leadership about this, they referred to him as a problem, nothing more. I also know from internal Green listserves (which I’m not on, but which are publicly archived and often cited on blogs like universalhub.com) that he has been criticized on numerous grounds.
<
p>
Through a number of conversations, I am confident that he is a fringe player who got his position as secretary because no one else stepped up, and who no longer has that position.
Here’s Grace Ross’s statement on Lebanon and Palestine. Points 3-5 on Palestine are particularly shocking.
<
p>
It has been an education for me to see the ease with which this issue is dismissed or ignored by self-styled “progressives” such as in the lead post in this thread. One can only imagine the hue and cry that would arise if these positions were taken by a right-of center fringe party.
<
p>
How this kind of thing somehow becomes acceptable because the other candidate in the race doesn’t want to debate is a mystery to me. Gee, its okay that you appear to stand for the proposition that Isreal has no right to exist, because you are opposed to electronic voting machines and the flat tax? Sheesh! It matters not that neither Grace Ross nor Jill Stein set foreign policy; their choice to freely associate themselves with this party renders them absolutely unfit to hold any elective office of any kind.
The points you refer to have been embraced by international law. Do you have the slightest idea what is happening in the Gaza right now?
There are 20 Arab seats in the UN and one Israeli seat. Most of these countries started and lost wars with Israel at one point or another. The human rights commission condemns Israel every other week but has yet to condemn the actual, real non-exxagerated genocide going on in Sudan.
<
p>
International Law can go sit on a stick in regards to Israel. A few years ago, UN observers literally aided and abetted Hezbollah in a kidnapping. It’s less than 45 minutes from the militarized border to the mediterranean sea. That isn’t a whole lot of room for niceties when you’re dealing with people who’s stated goal, enshrined in their public platform, is to destroy your nation. Has Israel made mistakes? Sure, plenty.
<
p>
But let’s be honest here… if the Palestinians actually wanted and were capable of maintaining peace, they could pull a Gandhi and have their own state within 2 years. Barak offered Arafat everything he wanted except the right of return in 2000. Arafat said “No, I’d rather fight” and then lost. Excuse me if I’m unsympathetic.
In Gaza right now, Palestinian civilians have been killed because they have been used by terrorists, either voluntraily or involuntarily, as human shields, in order to provide a propganda coup when the IDF takes action to prevent those terrorists from firing Qassam rockets that are specifically intended to kill Israeli civilians.
<
p>
As to the rest, jaybooth types faster and writes better than I do.
http://www.iht.com/p…
<
p>
We don’t favor the firing of the Qassam rockets – we never have and we never will. I strongly suggest to you, however, that the six deaths caused by the rockets pale in comparison, CONSIDERABLY, to 2300 deaths. Or might you folks, accusing US of anti-Semitism, actually be racist towards Arabs?
<
p>
Here’s more, by Noam Chomsky:
<
p>
http://www.youtube.c…
<
p>
The full transcript is available here:
<
p>
http://www.falseflag…
<
p>
Professor Noam Chomsky’s phone call to Democracy Now describes the facts about the incident that started it all – Israel’s abduction of two Palestinian civilians as part and parcel of a campaign to punish Palestine for daring to hold free elections. What’s that – you didn’t know that two civilians had been abducted before that soldier was? I view neither action as excusable or praise-worthy – but let’s not pretend that the soldier’s abduction was in no way provoked.
<
p>
Here’s more you need to know:
<
p>
Two thirds of people are unemployed and the remaining third who mostly work for the state are not being paid. Gaza is now by far the poorest region on the Mediterranean. Per capita annual income is $700, compared with $20,000 in Israel.
<
p>
More than 260 Palestinians, including at least 64 children have been killed since 25 June.
<
p>
The UN has criticized Israel’s bombing, which has caused an estimated $1.8 billion in damage to the electricity grid and leaving more than a million people without regular access to drinking water.
<
p>
More than 2,000 people who sought medical care and work in Egypt have been prevented from returning to Gaza. Several have died in the Egyptian Sahara, waiting for permission to return to Gaza. Some 300 patients referred to medical facilities in Egypt and Jordan by the Ministry of Health have been denied permission to leave Gaza.
<
p>
The Israeli Air Force has bombed all six transformers of the only domestic power plant in Gaza. Since then, the power supply has been substantially reduced. Generators are used to operate X-ray departments and operating theaters. Perishable food cannot be preserved.
<
p>
We’re talking about the violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 33. You folks skewer Bush for his Geneva Convention violations, and yet applaud it here.
<
p>
That’s what I, personally, find shocking!
It’s here:
<
p>
http://www.iht.com/a…
Gaza wins in a grief comparison contest with almost anywhere, but if Hamas just removed “destruction of Israel” from it’s official policy goals, international aid would come back. That’s the only stipulation and they haven’t done it.
<
p>
Hamas can give back Cpl Shalit and quit launching rockets anytime they want, it’s not like there are any Israeli settlements left in Gaza. As it is, they’re only giving political ammunition to the wingnuts who advocated that leaving Gaza was a mistake.
<
p>
I’m with you on the power plant, that was a mistake, but they had disengaged from Gaza and Hamas responded by launching missiles and kidnapping soldiers.
<
p>
I’m not racist towards Arabs but I think palestinian society is too severely screwed up for them to stop launching rockets even though that would be the best thing for them. Also, I don’t think anti-Israel people are necessarily anti-semetic. However, if you are anti-zionist in that you don’t think Israel has a right to exist on that land, just say so.
<
p>
And as far as your people who crossed into egypt and can’t get back… sure there’s some sob stories there but there are also a good number of people who smuggle in weapons from egypt every week. That’s what happens in war, innocent noncombatants take the biggest burden of it.
<
p>
Israel tries to avoid killing innocent noncombatants, while Hamas makes it their primary goal.
Ther is a difference bewtween civilian casualties that are caused by the specific targetting of civilians, and civilian casulaties that are the result of the militants launching their attacks and hiding in population centers.
<
p>
If Palestinian militants cared for their own population as something other than an instrument of propaganda, they would not make war in this manner. But they do, and, what’s more, they have deliberately choosen war over peace.
<
p>
But, since you cite Noam Chomsky as if he were an authority, I see that the utility of this discussion has come to an end.
I am most appaled by No. 5, which rtaher explcitly declines to condemn, among other things, suicide bombers.
<
p>
If blowing up a shopping mall isn’t beyond the pale, then what is? Oh, preventing people from doing that.
I don’t see where “the right of Palestinians to self-defense as well as nonviolent resistance” fails to condemn blowing up a mall, unless you define suicide bombing as “nonviolent”. That would be an unusual use of the word.
in this state, it seems that there needs to be a viable second party. I think that the best way to do this is similar to the system in Vermont, where there is a strong “third” party, the Progressives.
<
p>
I don’t see why it is a bad thing to have some checks on the democratic party here in Massachusetts so that having a D next to your name on the ballot isn’t the only reason one is elected to office.
Jill Stein will not be elected, but a vote for her is a good way to send a message that you’re unhappy with Bill Galvin’s complacency.
I already cast my protest vote for John Bonifaz. In the Democratic primary.
<
p>
I am and have been encouraging people who voted in the primary for Tom Reilly or Chris Gabrieli to get on the Deval Patrick bandwagon. How can I at the same time jump ship from the winner of the Democratic primary for Secretary of State?
<
p>
Because it won’t be close? Because Galvin is kind of a jerk? Because he approved some mysterious voting machines that, at least in my town, have not only worked but gotten very positive reviews from our large population of visually-impared voters?
I’m with sco on this one, for all the same reasons.
<
p>
The primary was the place for this, and I also voted for Bonifaz.
<
p>
But I want to work from the inside on this party, not from the outside. It won’t happen immediately, but I think over time it will be the strongest method.
sco I love you in that same sort platonic way I love Tim Murray but I think on this one you are wrong. I certainly identify myself as a Democrat but I do so not for reasons of party but for reasons of principle. The Democrats generally stand for what I believe in so I register as a Dem. However, in those rare instances when the candidate selected by the Party does not stand for my principles then I cannot stand for the candidate. Bill Galvin is one of those rare examples. So when I cast my eyes elsewhere I found a candidate who best represents what I believe is the appropriate role for Sos, and squeamish as I am about voting Green, I came to the same conclusion as the editors of this blog.
<
p>
I have said so many times in relationship to Bill Galvin that re-election is earned, not assumed. Bill Galvin’s strategy is convince us that because he has done nothing wrong he deserves to go back. This is nonsense. Re-election is based on what a candidate has done right. In that department Mr. Galvin is woefully light; he hasn’t served in his capacity as SoS to make this a better state and now he seeks to bring Diebold, flawed elections and all, to Massachusetts. This is unacceptable and certainly makes him unworthy of re-election.
I think this case is special though…we canNOT afford to have those Diebold machines, even if they happened to work in your town…Galvin has clearly demonstrated an inability to connect with even memebers of his own party and has a distain for the whole process. I can’t vote for him. In fact, devoted members of the Democratic party I’ve talked to cannot bring themselves to vote for him on Tuesday. That means either voting blank or voting for an opponant who would be a better SoS.
<
p>
I think loyalty to a party can only go so far. I don’t think I’ve ever cast a vote for a non-Democrat before, and it will be rare in the future too, but in the face of what seems blatant disregard for the democratic process or thoughtful governance, it behooves one to actually sometimes vote for the person who’s best for the job and not let loyalty to a party blind you. Sometimes it requires thinking out of the box every once in a while. I won’t be a slave to an idealogy. I’ll adhere to it as long as it makes sense and not a moment longer.
<
p>
A little off-topic, but how does having touch-screen voting help vision-impaired voters, anyway?? They can’t see!! I still don’t get it. Why can’t we keep the optical ballots we KNOW work very well and very fast, and make printer/computer machines which print out a perfectly-marked optical ballot based on the audio-electronic choices of vision-impaired voters – that printout being something that can run through those same optical scanners we already use?
If you absolutely must vote for a Democrat, consider writing in a Democrat rather than voting for Galvin. I strongly believe in pulling together after the primary, but sometimes a candidate just steps over too many lines.
BMG took a big step today by endorsing Jill Stein. BMG is very influential and I believe that although BMG is mainly Democratic, it has allowed other progressive and often conservative voices to chime into debates and issue discussions, directly participating in the blog. I believe that the Jill Stein endorsement is part of that culture of openess to discuss and work around issues to come to the best choice and stance.
<
p>
This is opposed to the current Beacon Hill culture of closed-door dealmaking and opaque government that Jill Stein will work to repair through her office if elected Secretary. Jill will also be pro-active in enhancing democracy and upgrading it to international standards.
<
p>
Thank you BMG!
I applaud the editors for their principled endorsement. Too often, partisans of all stripes allow their party affiliation get in the way of standing for what they actually believe in. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to buck that trend, so I appreciate your willingness to do so here.
<
p>
Now I hope the readers of this blog will go ahead and stand for what they believe in and vote for Jill Stein on Tuesday, rather than just leave the ballot blank. If we can elect Jill, I don’t think we’ll be talking about five minute debates 4 years from now.
<
p>
Thanks, gentlemen.
Well argued, and all I needed to hear to get me off the fence on this one. We’ll be pounding sand on every other issue until elections and campaign financing are cleaned up. This is especially true considering how active and effective the opposition has been at making the broken electoral process — which the states control — work for them at the national level.
Forgive me if I’m remembering incorrectly, but aren’t Jill Stein and Bill Galvin the only ones on the ballot? If there isn’t a Republican candidate, and if Jill Stein is getting all this attention, I don’t see why people are reluctant to vote for her just because she’s a third-party candidate.
<
p>
Obviously, if you’re against her views, that’s a different story. But Jill Stein is well known in Massachusetts because of her previous run for governor. And she’s getting a lot of attention in this race. I don’t know if she has a chance to win – I hope she does – but I do know she has a chance to garner a significant number of votes, sending a clear message to Galvin.
<
p>
In any case, maybe this third-party thing is starting to work!
We need to send messages to other incumbents that people like Bill Galvin is not tolerable. I for one voted for Jill Stein because I could not, in good conscience, vote for Bill Galvin. It was the first time ever that I didn’t vote for a Democrat, but Democracy comes before Party and Bill Galvin does not respect Democracy.
I heartily applaud BMG for having the courage to reach beyond party and partisan poltics to take a stand for true blue progressive values!
<
p>
Now that the Governor’s race is all but decided, the Stein/Galvin contest has gotten much more attention. Your endorsement sends a clear message to the establishement that we mean business… that the utter disregard for genuine democratic values displayed by Galvin will NOT go unchallenged.
<
p>
To those who don’t have the courage to oust Galvin, who promote voting strictly along party lines, I’d ask: If George W. Bush ran as a Democrat would you vote for him?!
<
p>
BMG has indeed lived up to its headline “Reality-Based Commentary”. The reality here is that there’s no excuse for Galvin’s behavior. Vote for Jill and we all win.
While I am, beyond all doubt, a Green-Rainbow Party partisan – and among the most solidly such folks here might ever meet – I have very often supported and worked for progressive Democratic candidates such as Peter Vickery, Paul Caron and others. We have only very rarely campaigned against any Democratic candidates that arguably share our values, and within this state such campaigns were never “spoilers”.
<
p>
We’re here because, as BMG has wisely seen in the case of Mr. Galvin, entirely too many Democratic Party politicians and leaders are beyond question part and parcel of the problem.
<
p>
I believe BMG hopes to reform the Democratic Party – but one can in no way do this if one votes for the party label only regardless of how right-wing, corrupt, out of touch, or beholden to corporate lobbyists a candidate may be. We can’t, for instance, enact the single payer plan or restore Clean Elections if we continue to put its opponents in office.
<
p>
BMG made a wise and courageous decision. Good for you!
I am writing from Florida, where I will work as a volunteer for Election Protection on Tuesday. Yesterday, I cast my ballot (via FEDEX). I marked each Democratic candidate, until I got to Bill Galvin’s name, and couldn’t bring myself to fill in the circle.
<
p>
I worked for Election Protection in Palm Beach County, Florida in 2004. I was a witness to the disenfranchisement of voters, both attempted and successful, in the form of long lines, voters being sent to the wrong polling places, broken voting machines, and touch screen machines switching votes cast for Kerry to Bush.
<
p>
When I returned to MA, I went to a forum at Faneuil Hall, where, for the first time, I saw John Bonifaz speak. In January of 2005, I went to Washington, D.C. to protest the certification of the Electoral College vote. I followed the debacle in Ohio. I was thrilled when John Bonifaz decided to run for Secretary of State, and I worked on his campaign. He was an outstanding candidate. I was disgusted by Galvin’s behavior during the primaries; I found it outrageous that the person charged with running fair and clean elections had the audacity to diss his constituents by not showing up for debates in which he agreed to participate. And, I am totally outraged at his decision to consider Diebold machines for Massachusetts.
<
p>
So, when I got to the Secretary of State choice on my ballot, I voted for Jill Stein, not only because I believe she would make a good Secretary of State, but because I believe Bill Galvin doesn’t deserve the job. This morning I woke up to the news that Galvin has agreed to a 5 minute debate. I don’t even know what that means. It takes me longer than that to debate with myself about what I want for breakfast. He is making a total mockery of the office he holds. I’m disgusted.
<
p>
Last night, after I had mailed in my ballot, I watched the documentary “Hacking Democracy” on HBO. Bev Harris is inspirational! My hope is that everyone who watches this incredible show will walk away from it with a determination to fight for what we are very close to losing.
<
p>
Be vigilant on Tuesday. Consider voting for Jill Stein.
<
p>
For my next adventure-in-volunteering , Im considering dumpster-diving with Bev Harris. Anyone want to join me?
Whereas I look at the disasters of Florida and Ohio, then back at Massachusetts, and think, “Hey, Galvin’s actually doing a decent job.” The state elections website is generally informative and easy to use. There are few barriers to voter registration. Contested recounts are usually fairly and easily adjudicated. The Secretary stays out of partisan politics; it’s a GOOD thing that he isn’t out stumping for Deval Patrick or anyone else.
<
p>
Nevertheless, he needs to be reminded that he isn’t Secretary-for-Life, that Diebold machines are a bad idea, and that he should have been much more proactive in dealing with all-write-in elections like Wilkerson/Chang-Diaz and the upcoming Framingham contest.
<
p>
I strongly disagree with the Green-Rainbow platform regarding Israel and Palestine, but regard it as entirely irrelevant to the Secretary of State’s office. Jill Stein is Jewish, so one can hardly accuse her of being bigoted against Jews.
First off, I’m no fan of Galvin. As a delegate at the Convention, I supported Bonifaz, and on the primary ballot, Bonifaz had my vote.
<
p>
I will never, however, vote for a Green party candidate, and will certainly not vote for one as a protest against a Democratic candidate. Such a vote is unproductive, in my view, and antithetical to my own personal beliefs that a cast vote is an affirmation and should never be used as a punishment. Very few people, I’m sure, share that view.
<
p>
My options are to a) withhold a vote altogether b) write in a candidate or c) vote for Galvin. I’ll be choosing one of those three.
<
p>
…which is why I am voting for Jill.
<
p>
Always vote your hopes not your fears. Vote for the candidate you want, not against some one. I got interested in John Bonifaz’s campaign because of his overwhelming knowledge and experience on the relevant issues related to the job. If he had won, I’m sure he would have my vote, but since he’s not, my vote goes to the other great candidate who doesn’t have the same level of experience as John but has the talents and values neccesary to do the job right.
<
p>
Never was I an anti-Galvin voter, but I have become dismayed by him as I’ve learned more over the course of the campaign: I was careful to not buy into what Bonifaz or Stein had said too easily, as they were both in positions where it was beneficial to exagerate, but I think the touchscreen machines recently was the clearest step over the line I’ve seen from him.
<
p>
But absolutely, a cast vote is an affirmation. So vote for the best candidate, but don’t vote for the Democrat against the Greens or for Stein to punish Galvin. But please reconsider the “never” and consider voting for Jill Stein for Secretary of State.
but I will never vote for a Green candidate. Never. I have no use for the party, their knack for expediency, their penchant for Republican monies, their shrill sanctimony, and their sense of entitlement. Despite civil and throughful pleas to revisit some of their thinking, Greens persist in their self-satisfied purity of vision at all costs. No, never.
<
p>
And there are a lot of people, perhaps not on this site, who believe as I do. Talk about the cult of party personality? Say what you want about Democrats; must of the criticism is justified. But there are a lot of folks who believe what I just said about Greens to be true–just as legitimately.