Should I start with other stuff and finish with “Ernie’s Transgender Report” as I campaign for the “2010 GLAD Person of the Year Award?”
EB3 – the She-males’ and He-males’ BFF
—-
Hey Paul Levy, thank you for allowing me to use you as a teaching tool regarding the dangers of the CEO choosing to make himself the brand’s logo. And in your case that’s putting it lightly.
Throughout his career Paul has meticulously created a well crafted public image of the honest and ethical captain of the sea coming on board and taking brilliant and courageous actions steering the ship away from the shoals. You can ask Paul if you don’t believe me. Don’t forget to inquire as to his humility too.
Quiz, start naming presidents of other hospitals or the current heads of the other institutions Paul has lead. (MWRA head doesn’t count because of recent events)
See what I mean. How much news would it be if they were using hospital $$$ to keep some strange tail happy. And I think a better job would have been done to keep it quiet too.
Ya think Paul has some enemies within? Nahhhhhh, not Paul
———
Did Howie Carr get suspended for a week from his radio show because of his on-air accusations of corruption being the cause of him losing his legal battle with RKO? Did RKO pay off the judge? That’s how I took it. Maybe Howie’s bosses did too. After of course I pointed it out on more than one occasion. I like to think so. (there’s that ego again Ryan)
Speaking of RKO, Charley’s Manning show is another disappointment. No original thinking there. Same for Dan Rea..
—————
The repub. Governors’ radio ads remind me of the second album from the band Boston. Remember that one? It sucked times twelve. Talk about a complete rip-off/re-mix of their first album.
Well let me take you back to the year 2002. A time when the country was just getting over the Y2K scare and Bostonians were learning to worship the newly arrived Three Wise Men; Lucchino, Henry, and Werner. So too, we were choosing a new governor. Mitt Romney at the time had a little known wonk named Eric calling many of the shots. Eric, I mean Mitt, ran a radio ad against Shannon O’Brien which is exactly like the current one against Cahill. Right up to the point where the state employee has to hang up fast because Shannon/Tim is coming.
Talk about mailing it in Eric. Did you charge an hourly rate for this?
——————–
The Time Square van bomb was parked in front of the Viacom building, the company the owns Comedy Central and broadcasts South Park. It’s pretty easy for Matt and Trey to be big men in their gated homes and body guards while demanding they not be censored re: Muslim stuff. Who gives a shit about “Barbie the Receptionist, “Mail Room Dave”. “The Fat Guy in Accounting” or “Eddie, the UPS Guy”? Right guys?
————————–
I have a strong feeling that voters will be sick of Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill by the time November rolls around.
They both whine.
————
Time for a Meeting.
Attention. Transgender Lobby. Now is the time. After November many of the 100 plus reps who co-sponsored the transgender won’t be here. And many of the others will say the climate isn’t right. You got snookered in the budget. If you don’t act in the next few weeks you will be back to square one.
We all know now Jason Lewis is an empty suit with a line of bullshit. (Sorry to be the one to break it to you). Carl Sciortino or someone has to file a Motion to Discharge the Transgender Bill (bill number) from Committee. This is the only means to get it on the floor and debated and voted.
If the gay marriage lobby had 100+ sponsors including the speaker yet found themselves spinning their wheels what would they do in this position?
CIVIL RIGHTS WAITS FOR NO MAN!!!
———–
How involved was Jason Lewis in throwing his aide under the bus by having her anonymously defend him on Blue Mass Group. And during work hours too. How bizarre is it that within minutes of her post I asked by name if she was Jason’s aide. A day later I posted the details of her posts with rebuttals to her very specious arguments. I again asked if she was this person.
Minutes after yesterdays post the following comment appeared under her original comment from a day earlier.
Mea culpa (0.00 / 0)
Apologies, I had intended to include my association with Rep Lewis in the original post and in my haste to correct some of the assertions in the original post, I omitted it. Mea culpa!
______________________________________
by: LauraEm @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:53:31 AM EDT
My goodness. Wouldn’t you love to cross examine this poor little pawn being used by the Harvard educated, weak kneed, self-important, full-o-shit, not very smart Jason Lewis.
What did Jason Know and when did he know it?
Why so long to realize your inadvertant identification error?
Were these posts done at the state house?
Where was jason was you posted them?
Did you have any conversations with your boss prior to and following your posts? What was said?
When you posted that Rep. Lewis did not pull the amendemnt ecause it dies in the consolidated amentment, did you know that the representaive could have brought the amendment to the floor for debate and vote at anytime?
Did you intentionally mislead the readers?
Who told you to?
and on and on and on.
Hey Jason, why don’t you come out and explain your actions. Thats what reps who do their jobs do. Or don’t do.
But the never ever throw an aide under the bus like you did.
bob-neer says
A news photo captures Senator Boch meeting with the BMG counsels.
<
p>
bigd says
Quick question Ernie –
<
p>You seem to know a lot about the House and parliamentary procedure in the House. That being the case, why have you focused almost exclusively on Rep. Lewis and very little on Rep. Driscoll?
<
p>Yeah, yeah… You mentioned Rep. Driscoll once or twice early in your series of posts on the transgender amendment (5 now counting this one – wow, that’s a lot!), but since well before Laura posted, Rep. Lewis has received almost all of the focus. You have called him out singularly by name in the four most recent diaries.
<
p>The reason I ask this question: Rep. Driscoll was the primary sponsor of the transgender amendment, not Rep. Lewis. That being the case, Rep. Driscoll was the legislator who was in a position to pull the amendment from the consolidated amendment and have it debated on the floor, not Rep. Lewis.
<
p>So, why all the focus on Rep. Lewis?
<
p>–
Source: If you do a text search for “764” on this page, you will notice that Rep. Driscoll is listed as the amendment’s sponsor: http://www.mass.gov/legis/11bu…
—
<
p>For the record, as someone who supports the transgender rights bill, I think the sponsors made the right move to withdraw their request to ask for a roll call on the amendment.
<
p>If they had forced a roll call, the Speaker’s office would have likely offered a further amendment to study the matter, just as they did on every other policy proposal offered as an amendment to the budget.
<
p>One might argue that the bill has over 100 cosponsors, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a further study would have been voted down. First, only 84 of these cosponsors are from the House. This is still more than half of the 160 House members, but not every one of these cosponsors is guaranteed to have voted against a further study.
<
p>Why is that? Because this is not only an election year, but an election year in which many members whose seats are being challenged are nervous. There is a strong anti-incumbent mentality among the electorate on both the left and the right, and there have been a lot of very tough votes since the economy tanked. More than a few of the cosponsors of the original bill are among the Reps facing challenges in the fall, and some of them don’t want this to become an issue in their campaigns.
<
p>If Reps Driscoll and Lewis had decided to pull their amendment from the consolidated amendment and force the issue during budget debate, it is almost certain that a further amendment would have been offered by leadership. Many members of core leadership who are cosponsors (of whom there are quite a few) would have been compelled to vote Yes on the further amendment.
<
p>Additionally, some of the cosponsors who wouldn’t want to have a vote on the original amendment on their records this year would have voted in favor of the further amendment. They would have rationalized it by saying they were not in favor of attaching any non-Budgetary matter to the budget, and pointed to their votes on the further studies which were slapped on top of the anti-immigrant and death penalty amendments.
<
p>The study amendment might have failed, and the underlying amendment might have passed, but it is just as likely (if not more likely) that the further amendment would have prevailed. That outcome would be far worse for supporters of An Act relative to gender based discrimination and hate crimes than what actually happened.
<
p>Instead, they avoided having the amendment killed with a further study, while raising the profile of the issue at the same time.
sabutai says
There’s enough in Ernie’s history on alternative lifestyles to make his sincerity in this…suspect.
charley-on-the-mta says
but EB3 as the anti-anonymity crusader is pretty rich.
ryepower12 says
Charlie thinks you’re rich.
ryepower12 says
What’s wrong with an aide commenting on a thread about their boss? How is that anything different, than, say, an aide who writes a Letter to the Editor (and then signs their boss’s name) to a community paper when some angry constituent writes an op-ed in the paper? While she used a somewhat anonymous name, she set the record straight pretty quickly IMO. I really don’t see what she did wrong here and trying to say she shouldn’t have done it at the state house is absurd given her job description.