The primary race in the 31st Middlesex just took an interesting turn. In a front page article in yesterday’s Winchester Daily Times Chronicle incumbent Paul Casey has announced he is not going to seek reelection, citing a desire to spend more time with with his young family. (Sorry, no link as the Chronicle isn’t online ). In addition to Jason Lewis, Michael Rotondi, the Town Moderator in Stoneham has pulled papers to run for the seat. There will also now be a Republican challenge in November.
I’ve been involved with Jason’s campaign since last fall. He’s a talented, hard working, idealistic individual who could be doing just about anything he wanted to but chose to take a year off from his career and run for this seat because he wanted to make a difference. I think he’d make a great state representative. I think this announcement by Casey is good news for the towns of Winchester and Stoneham. More information about Jason can be found on the Lewis Campaign Web Site
I’m speechless. Good luck to Jason, I know he’s the right person for the job.
Casey was an opponent of marriage equality – will be glad to see him gone.
Paul Casey must go because he voted in a way you opposed, on an isssue where you won, and is now moot?
<
p>Nobody will vote how you want all the time. Me, I’m glad to see him go too – because he tried to justify the continuation of the ‘temporary’ Dukakis tax increase after the voters repealed it by outright lying during Cellucci’s testimony in front of the Taxation Committee which he chaired. I would have thought you’d be a big fan of rep. Casey and his belief in the need to enhance revenue by raising taxes – but you are glad he’s gone over a moot vote?
is just pathetic. perhaps you don’t fully understand how deeply important access to civil rights is to other people.
<
p>perhaps you don’t fully understand how deeply important fair tax policy is to other people. Shoe, other foot….
tax policy is very important, i will agree. but not all of it raises to the level of a class of people being denied access to civil rights and constitutional protections. I will agree, however, that tax policy is a major worry for same-sex couples. We’re not allowed to be taxed like hetero couples. We’re considered legal strangers by the federal government and most states. Many of us lose our homes when the partner goes into a nursing home or dies. As far as I am aware, there is no other minority that has been similarly singled out for tax abuse.
You said
<
p>I might reply, comparing gay marriage to tax policy is just pathetic. Tax policy affects every single person within the state; the power to tax is the power to destroy…
<
p>Many have issues that are important: healthcare, tax policy, indigent legal representation, gay rights, abortion rights, rights of the unborn. But for you to assume that your issue is more important than someone else’s and that their issue is ‘pathetic’ is rather intolerent of you.
<
p>
i admitted that tax policy is important. beyond that i guess we will have to agree to disagree.
II have to say of all the blogs I have visited this is the most polite, which is refreshing.
<
p>I understand the point about the flaws of voting on a singular issue. This is how the republicans were able to stay in power when they don’t represent the views of the majority of citizens. They find a hot button issue, which many voters will go to for a singular issue.
<
p>Nixon I think was restoring order, Reagan return us to dominate military, Bush was flags, Bush II was same sex marriage, etc. I understand the flaw in that thinking. One should look at the whole picture and who MOST represents your views. Defending flag burning is a minor issue compared to wealth distribution.
<
p>Same sex marriage can be an exception to this. If one is homosexual and has a child or significant assets, or wants their partner to make medical decisions, he (she) would want the power of atty to be with the person who cares for them. Not a parent who threw them out at 16 because they came out.
<
p>One could argue that these rights can be obtained through other legal contracts. This is not completely true, but mimics separate but equal. It also, reinforces the stereotypes and prejudices against gays.
<
p>Let’s face it. Allowing same sex marriage is not making hetero marriages any more likely to fail. If anything, young GBLT people will not be pressured to conform, enter a traditional marriage, only to face their demons later in life, and divorce.
<
p>Now in a general presidential election we have two realistic choices which could affect the power structure, democrat and republican. Neither one will state support for same sex marriage, so yes one must compromise and choose the party the MOST reflects my values. Hence I supported John Kerry even though he doesn’t support same sex marriage. However, he did support many rights for homosexuals, while the opposition wanted to out and out ban me.
<
p>With rep. Casey it is a different story. It is a primary. I view this as our chance to pick who we really want, and hope the party agrees with us. Here is our chance to make that John Kerry, have views closer to ours. I think an issue of this magnitude, given the differences between the candidates, in this primary election, is definitely a fair issue to be singular about.
<
p>I have to respectfully agree that tax issues pale in comparison to issues regarding discrimination and civil rights. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect government to be non-corrupt, and still fill in the gaps that our society needs to maintain itself that the market cannot accommodate without levying taxes. We can certainly have reasoned arguments about how the tax is levied upon and to whom. We should not argue about who we are allowed to discarnate against and by how much.
I share B.I.T.B’s jubilation.
<
p>I want better Democrats in the House — and that means better on a lot of issues. For someone representing Casey’s district, we should certainly be able to do better.
<
p>Speaking about agreeing on all issues, remind me why the Republicans in the Senate would confirm Weld again. Or what happens to Log Cabin Republican contributions. Doesn’t the RNC have an entire printing office devoted to publishing Litmus Tests?
such a spoil sport — and I don’t even call you a troll!
Why the revenge over a moot vote which you won?
<
p>I’ll put you up to a 4, as when a question is asked, it’s helpful to answer instead of repeating what seems to pass for ‘satire’ on this site (not you, the charlton Heston thing..)
I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d guess it’s because no one accepts the assumptions underlying your question. Neither “moot” nor “revenge”.
There were plenty of reps who were wrong on the issue in the beginning, but who were able to listen and evolve. Casey couldn’t. I’d be happy to see him replaced by someone who doesn’t think 10% of the population should have lesser rights than the other 90%. I’m sure there will be other challenges to glbt rights and welfare in the future, and I’d prefer to have someone who ‘gets it’ in the seat. Same reason I’d cheer to see Donato defeated, or Scott Brown etc.
I am so glad to see him go; he is a self promoting ego-maniac that would throw a colleague under the bus if it meant putting himself in a better light! He once sent a press release to the local newspaper in which he attempted to take credit for something that another Rep. did, while he sat back and did nothing!!! (BTW: The release never ran.) I guess I would have preferred to see Lewis bounce him, but gone is still gone, so I’m happy!
…but I’ll bet he’d agree.