Republicans like to blame the EVIL DEMOCRATIC MACHINE for their near constant string of electoral failures in Massachusetts. They prefer not to talk about how their state party platform is better aligned with views in Arizona than in Massachusetts:
Reflecting a major shift in the makeup of the elected Republican State Committee, activists overwhelmingly embraced a new platform Tuesday night that frowns upon abortion and praises traditional marriage.
After a spirited debate in which some members disputed whether social issues should be included in the party’s guiding principles at all, the activists backed the new platform by a 52-to-16 vote.
That’s right, the hate platform didn’t just squeak by with a thin majority – Republican leaders chose hate in a landslide. It’s part of a movement to bring the Massachusetts Republican Party backwards:
The move reflects the changing membership of the 80-member committee, which has gained an influx of activists who work for groups that tried to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts a decade ago and that have sought greater influence over promoting candidates and steering public policy.
Actually, re-fighting the battles of a decade ago could be progress: Republicans have spent most of the last generation re-fighting the battles of the 1960s.
This is my favorite line from Stephanie Ebbert’s reporting in today’s Globe:
[Platform Committee chairwoman Amy Carnevale] said that most members should be able to agree upon the carefully crafted language, which also rejects all forms of discrimination and prizes individual rights and freedom.
Individual rights and freedom must be prized! Unless you’re a woman or gay, in which case Republicans will use Big Government to enforce your role as a “host” for a fetus and to prevent you from getting married.
For all the talk of Republican “rebranding” we’ve been forced to endure from political reporters since Democrats won majorities of the national popular vote for President, Senate and House in 2012, the truth is Republican party leadership continues to double down on hateful, divisive policies.
Individual rights? Today’s Republican leadership prefers to help its rich & powerful friends at TransCanada seize American property through eminent domain than stand with Nebraska landowners. Freedom? Top Republicans are much more interested in preserving discrimination. The free market & helping small businesses? GOP power brokers would rather sic Big Government on clean energy underdogs challenging monopolistic corporate polluters.
And if all that isn’t enough: War whoops!
Let me emphasize that personally, I am fine with Republican leadership dragging their party into the perpetually-losing-by-a-landslide wilderness. But I have to wonder: How do rank-and-file Republicans feel about their party leadership’s hateful extremism? Will they ever speak up?
over a year ago, recruiting and running fellow religious extremists and anti-choice, anti-gay ideologues for the Republican State Committee for this very purpose.
One of the ringleaders of this group, who was quoted in both the Globe and the BU Daily Free Press, lives nearby. He’s been pulling the same hijinks during local elections and ballot questions as well. During one public event I overheard him on his cell telling one of his cronies that their next target should be the local regional school committee so they can purge that body of those who would vote in initiatives like the statewide anti-bullying one that passed last year (which this guy has characterized as a way to “promote the gay agenda” in the school system), and to put in office committee members who would promote the teaching of “alternatives to evolutionary theory” and a “Judeo-Christian view of history” in the classroom.
These people really are fanatics. The only care about their narrow ideological and religious purity tests and re-fighting losing battles. We can’t afford to dismiss them as crackpots–they’re focussed, driven and utterly bent on changing the social climate of this state, and not for the better.
to find, as others have, that such decisions on education are made at the state level.
Theirs is a multi-front approach. Two of the GOP members of this same school committee are running to replace Sen. Stephen Brewer when he retires.
They use School Committees, esp. regional ones, as springboards for multiple types of campaigns.
“On the same day that Gov Romney called for AZ Gov to veto Anti-Gay legislation, our “esteemed” MA GOP SC decides to vote for a divisive anti-gay marriage plank. And we wonder why the MA GOP continues to be viewed as the extreme, out of touch party in MA. A group of fourth graders would have had more sense to vote differently. Another shameful day for the MA GOP SC…The SC majority may feel good today about their vote, but it only hurts the rest of the MA GOP in the long-term.” (link)
Wasn’t ever gonna vote for him but good for him. (He really is burning all bridges, isn’t he?)
the state party has decided to emulate the worst of the national party’s tendencies. If there ever was a shred of the old Yankee Republican left in the state, this is a sure sign that it is dead and buried.
to those old-school Yankee Republican voters still filling the oval out of tradition.
He’s going have to run against his Party as well as the Democratic nominee.
He’s also gonna have to run against his own running mate, which should be quite amusing to watch…
Despite all this, I’m worried that the mainstream media, per usual, is going to be in the tank for Baker — so it’s our job to keep banging this drum.
i.e. today’s New Bedford Standard-Times editorial. Charlie Baker: Not quite as awful as you’d expect!
Translation: Four years ago Baker opposed the train link we wanted, but this time he’s decided to supply some vague reasons why, so it’s all good.
Are they really “grabbed” by this? It doesn’t seem like Baker said anything at all. Where’s the follow-up?
Baker: “The solutions to a community’s challenges must be unique.”
NBST: “OK, great! So how do we fix Acushnet?”
Baker: “Um, uh, so with Acushnet…we look at its unique problems and come up with solutions that — and this is key — are unique to that community. And education.”
New Bedford is the last place that could use a Republican in the Corner office. And their paper is too quick to forgive. Rail links are exactly the way to take gateway cities out of their economic isolation.
We may disagree on the 5th Senate, but I appreciate this comment. I suspect the media will be heavily in the tank for Baker, regardless of whom we nominate, but especially if we nominate Coakley. We have to be vigilant about painting Baker as a false ally of choice and LGBT rights, not to mention an out and open regressive extremist on economic questions and labor. They will paint him as the second coming of Bill Weld while he is really the second coming of Mitt Romney.
I don’t know about the other media (I don’t watch broadcast TV), but the Boston Globe will promoting Martha Coakley all the way.
…the media will be in the tank for Baker? Were they last time and I don’t remember?
is that they are always in the tank for a close race, so they can tell us to stay tuned through more campaign ads.
but that’s not the same as being in the tank for Baker. I suspect this race will be close without the media’s help.
Never mind that his policy positions haven’t changed. He’s just so…nice.
In what way is he a false ally?
While I have major problems with the entire Republican Party as a whole on many level, I don’t think it is fair to “paint” Charlie Baker as a false ally of LGBT rights. I have met the Baker family on more than one occasion because I am a friend of his brother (“the gay one”) and have seen how his family treats his brother and his brother’s husband. So I would be careful about any knee-jerk reaction of “painting” him as anti-gay if the term is undeservered. By all means, trash the Republican Party and brand, but please don’t unfairly attack him individually on this.
I wish there was more thinking like this
Boston Globe, 4/17/10
“At one point before the balloting, Baker faced a revolt among social conservatives who flooded the delegations with a leaflet attacking a bill for transgender rights that Tisei has cosponsored with other lawmakers. Contending that it would allow men to enter women’s bathrooms, they demanded to know whether Baker supported the bill. The Baker campaign immediately circulated a leaflet saying he would veto the ”bathroom bill” if he were elected.
The issue could have cost Baker some critical votes at a time when his aides were not certain he had enough to block Mihos from the ballot. Mihos fanned the flames, declaring to applause that he would veto the ”bathroom bill.”
”There is a lot of buzzing going on,” said Kris Mineau, a conservative activist and delegate from North Reading. He said Baker’s statement was a ”positive influence” in his decision about whom to support; he declined to say whom he ultimately backed.
At an awkward press conference after Baker won the convention’s endorsement, he stood next to Tisei and said he opposed his running mate’s legislation and was not concerned about labelling it “the bathroom bill” — a term used by opponents of gay rights.”
2010 Baker was clearly pro-equality and made a historic pick for LG. I think he blamed his loss on Cahill picking a pro- life anti gay LG and taking away hard right support. He has now picked a pro-life, pro-ballot initiative candidate. She may have conveniently flip flopped on that after she was picked, but not taking a clear stance against a divisive ballot when the issue is settled and the tide is turning strikes me as a shallow and boneheaded plot to the far right. I didn’t mean to imply he was anti gay in his own beliefs, simply that he isn’t the ally he was once.
http://red.ma.altercate.net/2013/12/02/karyn-polito-is-pro-abortion/
Back in 2003.
But have never been out in front for them politically. Don’t make the mistake of thinking someone is pro-equality because he isn’t personally a jerk to LGBT people. Look into what Baker did or said publicly that was supportive of marriage equality, anti-bullying legislation, transgender rights etc. early in those debates. That’s what will tell you whether he’ll be in the right place on the next issue that affects GLBT people or whether he’ll be a caboose at best or a panderer at worst to less fair-minded Republicans.
COAKLEY STATEMENT ON MA GOP’S NEW RIGHT WING PLATFORM
BOSTON — Following last night’s overwhelming vote by the Massachusetts Republican State Committee endorsing a new platform taking a right-wing turn on marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose, Attorney General and Gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley issued the following statement:
“The platform that was endorsed overwhelmingly by Charlie Baker’s Republican Party would be a major step backwards for women’s rights and equality, and is the wrong direction for Massachusetts. Charlie had a chance to stand up before last night’s vote and lead his Party in a different direction, but he failed.
This is part of a disturbing rush to the right-wing extremes that the Republican Party has taken under Charlie’s leadership since 2010, when he ran an angry, Tea Party campaign against Governor Patrick. Charlie Baker led the charge to the right in 2010, and while he may be trying to run away from that campaign in 2014, his own Republican Party is stepping backward on women’s rights and equality while he stands by.
I am proud of the work I have done to fight for marriage equality, to protect LGBT teens from bullying, and to ensure that women’s right to choose is not infringed upon. As Governor, I will continue to fight those battles. And while I understand that candidates may not agree with every policy position their party platform may take, when that party goes against basic rights that we have worked so hard to preserve, it is time to stand up and be counted.”
Disclosure – I work with the Coakley Campaign
nt
Do not forget Martha Coakley’s ridiculous prosecution of two young people who placed magnetic promotional placards showing cartoon characters in various locations. It was a marketing effort, but Coakley prosecuted them for “intent to incite panic”!
Yes, Martha Coakley has prosecuted innocent people, and she has abused her power as attorney general.
The Mooninites were a real threat to Boston security she acted totally appropriately.
Get in the way of your love-fest for the AG.
“In exchange for the community service and public apology, prosecutors agreed not to pursue the criminal case against them. Berdovsky performed 80 hours and Stevens completed 60 hours at the Spaulding Rehabilitation Center in Boston.
Attorney General Martha Coakley said it would have been difficult to prove to a jury that the men intended to create panic when they placed the devices around the city. She said she believed they did not realize at the time the problems the ads would cause.
“We believe this was an appropriate and fair resolution,” Coakley said.” Full story here.
Their stunt did in fact incite panic. IIRC, the Longfellow bridge was closed, as well as the Sullivan T stop and BU, and Turner Broadcasting wound up paying a big fat settlement to defray the costs of emergency response that day.
End result all around seems exactly right: A well-publicized threat of prosecution to deter similar “marketing” in the future, a settlement from the companies that commissioned the stunt to defray costs, and the two kids doing a few hours of community service.
But hey, hate on. Because cannibalizing good Democrats in the primary really helps us win general elections.
The two were essentially punished for unknowingly prompting a police panic. Their actions were innocent of any ill-intent as Coakley’s statement acknowledges. Her statement also acknowledges that she would not have been able to successfully prosecute them. The end result does not seem to me to be even approximately right, and it never has. The police uproar made Boston a national laughingstock, and Coakley’s pursuit of the sign-hangers looked like punishment for that. Once again, she went the extra mile for the cops – which she has done at every opportunity.
This episode encapsulated why I do not want her serving in an official capacity – we have more than enough favoring of the police at the expense of ordinary citizens without her efforts.
… turned out to be only 90 lbs… To be sure, the description of the actions of the marketeers, collecting and assembling circuitry and, by stealth, attaching them to bridges and overpasses, differs in no physical way from descriptions of the actions of an actual bomber. I was surprised that a blinking, obscene gesture on bridges and overpasses didn’t elicit more response, nationwide, so it will come as no surprise that I don’t think it says as much about Boston vigilance as it does about other cities lackadaisical attitude.
I think the Police responded altogether appropriately to what was, essentially and publicly, described as guerrilla marketing: be it a publicity stunt or actual attack the only expressible difference was intent and all else… planning, assembly and execution… mirrored each other in a way I find uncanny. I find it fascinating that “guerrilla”, a Spanish word meaning “little war” has slipped so… ah, peacefully… into the lexicon. Or, in other words, they got the reaction they wanted, and then some. They should have known, as they surreptitiously planted homemade circuitry on public infrastructure, that this was a possibility. So I don’t consider them ‘innocent’ in the same way I don’t consider a drunk driver who causes an accident ‘innocent’; there was no intent, sure, to cause panic but the panic could have been avoided with some good old fashion smarts. And I think that Martha Coakley acted perfectly appropriately in this instance.
Yes, there was an overreaction. Yes, the perpetrators did not anticipate that the devices would trigger a panic. But there was nothing “innocent” about what they did. They knew perfectly well that they were breaking the law when they placed the devices.
I am curious about how you can be sure of what they knew. Have they admitted knowing at the time that they were breaking the law?
The perception of police panic and overzealous prosecution was not helped when that MIT student was arrested because she wore a sweatshirt with LEDs on it to the Logan Temple of Aviation and Homeland Security. She was threatened with prosecution in exactly the same way as the ATHF kids, and took a similar plea deal, just to make it all end. I assume you don’t think she also “knew she was breaking the law,” because she didn’t and wasn’t.
None of these young people did anything to warrant being dragged into the justice system and made to do penance for imaginary crimes.
Do you honestly believe that they thought it was perfectly legal to attach an unauthorized device to a public bridge support?
Yes, they was a big overreaction to what they did and they were definitely overly prosecuted. They may have been naive, but the were not “innocent”.
Why does it seem that you want to strip the two hapless kids of their innocence? Is it just because the cops went overboard, despite the same devices having been previously deployed in numerous other cities with no freakouts?
The cops are delusional, seeing terrorism in innocent things. By her actions, our AG is encouraging them.
Why I hope to God you don’t have any role in public safety. Because the police don’t and can’t know what they are dealing with when a bomb scare comes in. Far better that they react decisively to protect public safety and discover afterwards that it was overkill than to hesitate out of concern that someone might laugh at the overreaction.
You’re talking without knowledge, I guess because you did not read the supplied links. In the case of the MIT student, her shirt and other possessions were examined at the scene by bomb techs, and declared to be harmless. They did not resemble a bomb. She was nevertheless arrested and threatened with prosecution. The cops knew it was overkill almost immediately, but carried out their charade anyway, so they would look useful, or something. Then the DA and AG played along to cover the cops’ butt.
In the Aqua Teen thing, pretty much the same thing happened. The experts determined almost immediately that the devices were harmless. They did not resemble bombs, either, unless you have a phobia about LEDs.
I do care about the LED boards that were called in as potentially explosive devices in multiple locations. One of the “innocent” kids who placed them watched police try to figure out what the one under 93 was in the morning, while the highway overhead was shut down, and didn’t come forward to explain or allay concerns. That alone makes me glad the idiot was arrested. It took about an hour for police to realize that one wasn’t dangerous, meanwhile more were reported in other locations, and each one had to be checked out. It wasn’t until late in the day that the company that had hired the kids came forward and clarified what they were. So, no, it was not a case of “pretty much the same thing happened.” A lot of people were unnecessarily frightened and inconvenienced by what happened that day, not to mention the expense for the city.
Why not? The situations are entirely analogous. Somebody saw LEDs in a place they didn’t expect to, and freaked out. The cops flung themselves into full-on Security-State mode without any restraint at all, and wound up persecuting ordinary people for harmless activities, all backed by the prosecutorial might of the State.
The only people to suffer any harm whatsoever were the targets of the police panic. Thank God none of the cops twisted an ankle or something, or we’d probably be arguing about resisting arrest or a shooting. As it is, the MIT student was in actual fear for her safety, grabbed from behind and surrounded by 40 heavily-armed cops.
Any panic was the hysterical over-reaction of police and authorities. Two innocent young people were harassed, prosecuted, and embarrassed. No action was taken to even examine whether police and authorities might have acted differently ૼ never mind disciplinary action against THEM.
I have no doubt that Ms. Coakley believed “this was an appropriate and fair resolution”. That’s why I agree with jconway that she should not be governor.
Just not intended to harm. Not forseeing the disruption doesn’t absolve the kids or the companies that planned and caused it.
How many times have we heard the cliche of “guilty of poor judgement”? The young people were INNOCENT of the extreme charges brought against them. If the issue was “disruption”, then that’s what the charges should have been.
The prosecution was heavy-handed and over-wrought.
Beyond that, your apparent presumption of guilt is an example of the ways that our society’s hysterical over-reaction to 9/11 and the “war on terror” rots the very fabric of western law, going back long before America existed.
People — each and every one of us — are INNOCENT until proven guilty. The more supporters, apparently like you, of Martha Coakley join her in turning that notion on its ear, the more you energize me to ensure that she does NOT gain the office she seeks.
1. A well-publicized threat of prosecution to deter…
2. … said it would have been difficult to prove to a jury that the men intended to create panic…
3. End result seems exactly right.
These things simply do not add up. It always seems incongruous to me to find myself so very far to the left of so-called “progressives” on this.
Threatening the criminal prosecution of citizens when one does not have the evidence to support a criminal prosecution of those citizens, in order achieve some public policy objective is an abuse of the police power of the state. Full stop.
The reasoning of your last sentence reminds me of the Jon Stewart/John Oliver bit on waterboarding, in which Oliver simplified the Cheney argument: that waterboarding can’t be torture because the USA does it, and the USA doesn’t torture.
The connection there is clear as mud.
It’s not even a year after the terrible bombings here. I’m not conceding this one an inch. I want the police to check out every report of suspicious objects. They can’t know in advance which are real and which will turn out to be hoaxes. And I want people who plant suspicious objects and shut down T stops, universities, roadways to be accountable in a proportionate way.
I have no problem with the police checking out suspicious objects. When those objects are completely harmless, it’s pretty silly to act as if some major threat existed. Just because an item appears to be suspicious doesn’t mean that somebody planted it with an intention of causing harm!
In this case, there were ten other cities where these objects were similarly “planted”. There was no problem in any other city.
Martha Coakley’s prosecution of those two kids was not proportional to what they did. They were charged with a felony that carried a five year maximum sentence.
There was no prosecution. They were arrested, charged, and the case was dropped in return for a public apology and community service – as I’ve already stated, exactly the right outcome. Enough of a response to deter copy cats, but not a disproportionate one.
At their arraignment, Judge Leary said that it is necessary to prove intent to cause a panic, and the Judge said: “it appears the suspects had no such intent…”
So, the judge clearly saw that the felony charge was baseless. It’s a clear case of misconduct on the part of the Attorney General. Those two kids should never have been charged with a felony.
And did not come forward. Arresting them and charging them with the felony display of a hoax device was totally warranted. And if, as the investigation ultimately disclosed, they had been told by the firm that hired them not to come forward, and they did not have malign intent, it was also appropriate to drop the charges, and let them off with community service. Which is what happened. Misconduct? No.
As the judge said, M.G.L. ch. 266, 102(b), requires intent. Your arguments may make sense in the court of public opinion as a matter of policy, but they don’t hold up in a court of law. I don’t expect every Martha Coakley supporter to know the specific elements of each crime, but the Attorney General surely is able to read a statute and determine if it is applicable.
In my view this was less about enforcing “the law” as it is written and more about grandstanding to look “tough.”
I’m married to a Austrian who grew up in Germany. Our circle of friends and associates includes Indians, Japanese, Chinese, South Americans, and of course Europeans. The rest of the world rolls their collective eyes at attitudes like those you express here.
The rest of the world has been dealing with bombings like this for decades. Each such episode is a tragedy.
It is NOT a reason turn our nation, once a bastion of individual freedom and liberty, into a militarized police state. I would remind you, yet again, that it was our Keystone Cops who surrounded two amateur “terrorists” with thousands of armed police, let loose a fusillade of weapons fire that nearly killed an MBTA officer and did NOT hit either suspect, and then let them drive away. It was our government authorities who shut down the ENTIRE MBTA (demonstrating the true value of the millions of dollars worth of fancy “anti-terrorist” electronic signs), and locked down an entire city for a day — and STILL didn’t get the single remaining suspect.
I want our government to react to situations like this in a measured, professional, calm, and competent way.
The eagerness of Martha Coakley to pander to hysteria such as you display in these comments exemplifies her unsuitability for Governor.
Here’s what a real leader says in situations like this: “We have nothing to fear but FEAR itself.”
You’re off in directions that have nothing to do with anything I’ve said here.
You’re doing a great job making activists skeptical of Martha Coakley feel better about her.
Had this panicky prosecutorial gross over-reaction been the only black mark on the list– I actually think that this one of the least egregious things on the list that have been cataloged ad nauseam here– I might be more charitable.
As it stands, I think the function of public officials is to govern without succumbing to mob panic, rather than to indulge it.
But since this is not the only time that innocent people were prosecuted in this manner by that office, I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
The fact that the AG has been a candidate for any office at any time over the last 20 years is evidence enough that the real function of the party platform is to write some bullshit down to make the naive Devoted Party Activists who will believe anything they are told by Party Loyalists happy.
The MA GOP may embrace craziness, but the MA Dems seem to have absolutely no principles at all.
It is ironic — and a foreshadowing of the upcoming campaign if Ms. Coakley is nominated — that this thread started with a piece about the *GOP* platform.
I reluctantly agree that the enthusiasm with which our Democratic Party elders embrace Ms. Coakley makes their criticism of the GOP platform ring falsely with hypocrisy and irony.
Ms. Coakley’s eagerness to shred my privacy rights is no less egregious than the similar eagerness of the GOP to insert itself between a woman and her doctor.
They were not mere “placards” but electronic devices. No one is going to confuse an unauthorized poster for a bomb.
Granted there was an overreaction the incident, but the perpetrators fully deserved to be prosecuted for the stunt.
They were simply signs with blinking lights that made the shape of a cartoon character. They were placed in ten different cities, including New York, Chicago, and Los Angelos. There were over 50 placed in Philadelphia alone, and they were placed there two weeks before the Boston incident. Boston is the only city where there was police panic over these signs.
Martha Coakley’s prosecution of the two kids involved was not proportional to what they did. She charged them with a felony punishable by five years in prison. She also used the incident for press appearances.
You are incorrect. There was no prosecution.
“Each device, measuring about 1 by 1.5 feet,[2] consisted of a printed circuit board (PCB) with black soldermask, light-emitting diodes and other electronic components soldered to it, including numerous resistors, a few capacitors, and at least one integrated circuit package. At the bottom was a pack of four Publix brand D-cell batteries, with magnets attached to the back so the devices could be easily mounted on any ferromagnetic surface. The batteries were originally covered in black tape to blend with the black PCB.”
Here is a link to what these devices looked like.
My point was that you were making it seem that they were just ordinary painted signs. They were not. I have never heard anyone refer to an electronic sign as a “placard” in any context before this.
Otherwise reasonably progressive posters are defending some pretty brutal overhanded tactics from law enforcement. Are you guys the same liberals that give Obama a pass on drones because he has a D next to his name? It’s one thing to be bullish about the blue team, it’s another to defend a Democrat who has a significantly troubling relationship with civil liberties. Sometimes I think Scott did us a favor since we ended up with the next Ted Kennedy/Hubert Humphrey instead of the next Diane Feinstein.
… you aren’t that “speechless”…
Actually, I’m pushing back on the “pretty brutal overhanded” qualifiers you’ve attached in order to both work yourself into a fervor and, simultaneously, justify that fervor.
I like to think that a fundamental respect for and enthusiastic embrace of civil liberties and fundamental freedom is neither blue nor red, but AMERICAN.
The treatment of far too many innocent people in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 qualifies as “pretty brutal overhanded (sic)” — and would be a national shame whether ordered by Democrats OR Republicans.
The behavior by authorities who are also Democrats towards these INNOCENT young people is, in my view, part and parcel of the same overreach that gave us the Patriot Act, NSA spying, the wholesale and illegal “detainment” of pretty much anybody suspected to be Muslim, and — for that matter — the torture and abuse done in GITMO and AG.
I note that Ms. Coakley has consistently advocated for EXPANSION of the Patriot Act, NSA spying, and similar attacks on our privacy. Her attacks on online behavior were and are similarly invasive — the courts have ruled, consistently and correctly, that such moves violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Ms. Coakley’s stance towards privacy and civil liberties is, in my view, itself a reason she should not hold her current office, never mind the office she seeks. The fact that she continues to defend the actions discussed here further confirms, in my view, that these steps were not some temporary aberration caused by the “fog of war” but are instead a reflection of her own values and priorities.
1. This revision certainly doesn’t help the local GOP any. It is my view that Baker has a pretty good shot this time, and it is an eternal wonder that the local party would act to make that harder (although not much, because see below) rather than easier. Seems they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
2. Does a platform really matter, at all? I say it matters more than the color of my shoes, but only by a little. What matters is the candidate, and what the candidate does. Exhibit A–see the discussion right in this thread about AG Coakley. Perhaps you can all point me to the part of our local Democratic plaform that advocates the use of police and prosecutorial intimidation of innocent people in order to achieve public policy goals, or the part about expanding the surveillance power of the state.
Is Baker going to run on gay marriage? You should all be so lucky. What it does do is give the Democratic campaign an opportunity to screech, as in this post, about “hate” and “extremism.” But, they would do that anyway, no matter who the candidate is, and no matter the circumstances. The only people convinced by that kind of BS are those who don’t need convincing. So, I am not convinced that this platform issue has much staying power.
3. The damn platform itself is damn-near top secret. The post here has lots of people talking about it, and has links to newspaper articles that have people talking about it, but no language from the actual document itself. The local papers don’t have the document, they just talk about it. The MAGOP website doesn’t have it, as far as I could see. (Shocker, there.) I had to go to redmassgroup, which has it, but so zoomed in that you can only see about 3 square inches at a time, which makes it next to illegible.
4. So there I sat, looking for all of this extreme right wing hate, and I found:
And that’s about it. I could be missing something here, because the damn thing is illegible, but, that seems pretty milquetoast to me. It seems more like a white flag on the issue than anything else. It certainly doesn’t warrant hair-on-fire reactions, other than from those who screech “right-wing religious extremism” every time Republicans say “hello.”
a potential tactic in what could be a strategic combination of attacks. The strategy would be running against the very unpopular (at least in Massachusetts) Republican Party. Baker will run to the middle and could even use the GOP’s extremism to position himself as a moderate, something that might be hard to do with his running mate. If I were on the attack, I’d question why Baker belongs to the party, question the sincerity his beliefs, question whether a man who doesn’t know what he stands for deserves to be governor.
That’s the idea anyway.
But the “why won’t you denounce [insert Republican who said outrageous things here” schtick gets played every time, anyway. It must be on Page 1 of the playbook. I guess it works, where a lot of your opponents are complete neophytes who don’t know how to duck.
Does this add anything to the play that wasn’t there before? If not, then it is pretty insignificant, no?
It is my view that most voters know the difference between a candidate that is a crazy religious right winger on social issues, and one who is not, and see through the charade fairly rapidly.
Doesn’t Baker just say:
Why are you running for governor as a Republican?
I have said before, and I will say again now that I disagree with [whatever some other crazy person said, this or that extremist provision of the platform if one exists, etc.], but now is not the time to focus on such divisive and unimportant issues, when this is such a critical time, and there is so much that we can do to make the Commonwealth better by working together, etc. etc.
I am running for governor as a Republican because Massachusetts needs a change. A change from an party that has been in complete control of the government for eight years, and whose signal accomplishments are that the huge tax hike it wanted was defeated, and the opening of slot parlors across the Commonwealth. A change from an party that claims to believe in the effectiveness of big government, but then uses its control of that government to give overpaid, no-work jobs to its friends and relatives, and then supported those friends and relatives at the DCF, even when that institution is so manifestly failed the children of the Commonwealth. A change from a party that threw away the functioning health-care system put in place by Governor Romney, and replaced it with something that makes going for a checkup seem like a trip to the RMV. (hee, hee, I guess he probably wouldn’t say that, but he should).
I am running for governor as a Republican because this Commonwealth needs a change to someone who knows how it is to run a business, to meet payroll, and to live within one’s means. Who knows how to make an organization run without the waste, fraud and abuse that costs us all so dearly. And who knows that the citizens of the Commonwealth will be better off if they get to keep more of their hard-earned money, rather than handing it over to a Democratic politician to use as a favor for a friend.
And so on.
That was supposed to be indented, as if it were a quote. My bad.
Anyway, the point stands. I think he might be more skilled than, say, Gomez, was at deflecting this kind of thing. I could be wrong– as I said, the local GOP never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Also, I guess that last line, if spoken by a Republican, should read “Democrat politician.” Does Baker do that?
The use of the word “Democrat” as an adjective hits me like the use of the word “corporatist” in any way– as a signal to stop listening.
If he’s slick, he won’t do it. The key is to look like you’re NOT a Limbaugh-Ted Cruz Republican.
Though he loses that edge if Berwick is the candidate and maybe even if Coakley is the candidate.
It’s not a punch he can’t block, but it’s something he has to defend. It’s a long fight. Blocking also takes its toll. The more Baker has to defend, the less time he has for his own message.
Winning a campaign and winning an argument are two different things.
But this was a punch that you were going to throw anyway. It’s Page 1 of the playbook, and really, the only play any MA Dem with a GOP challenger has run for ten years. Already starting with Baker.
I’m not saying that “EEK, ___________ is a crazy tea party right winger! Run for your life!” doesn’t score points– clearly it does.
I’m just saying that this particular platform is a snooze.
about the benefits of a business background in government. I don’t think you can or should necessarily criticize a business background; it wouldn’t necessarily be any worse than any other background. But people seem to think it automatically confers something particularly helpful.
Government isn’t a business. In fact, it’s extremely different. Unlike business, which is driven and limited by the pursuit of profit, government is a service that lacks that limitation. The pursuit of surplus revenue is never really a goal. As Paul Krugman says of the U.S. government, it’s basically an insurance company with a military. If a business were to arbitrarily cut revenue and cut services as government is forced to do when we cut taxes, that business would be out of business.
“Traditional marriage” has come to have a specific political meaning in the past decade. When you say “the institution of traditional marriage strengthens our society,” instead of just “the institution of marriage strengthens our society,” you’re clearly implying that certain “non-traditional” marriages do not strengthen our society. It’s an obvious dog whistle.
Not to mention the platform was written with an effort to reach broad agreement. The proponents wanted much stronger language. It’s relevant that, a decade later, when most Massachusetts voters have realized that no negative consequences ensued, a sizeable (and growing) portion of the Massachusetts Republican Party still takes hardline positions on these issues.
I think I gleaned that from the platform.
But my point wasn’t that they were somehow taking a position on no-fault divorce, but that this is one extraordinarily feeble dog whistle.
I
I thought the platform is arguing that divorced people who remarry are harming society.
After all, the official policy of the Roman Catholic church is that remarriage after a divorce is a sin (adultery). I daresay that the number of such sinners SWAMPS the number of gay and lesbian couples getting married in any given year.
You mean that’s NOT what they’re talking about?
CMD you are the independent minded centrist the MA GOP needs to survive. A supermajority of our voters are committed to marriage equality and do not want to re litigate it at the courts or in the ballot box. Re litigating it would also waste time and money spent on other priorities. It’s not a feeble dog whistle but an admission that the official state party has been overtaken by the same extremists that have taken over the national party. Tisei can go on huff post all he wants and argues his presence advances gay rights, makes it bipartisan, and he will push the party to the left. But the fact is the party has pushed Tisei and Baker to the right-to the far right of MA on fiscal as well as social issues.
I’m bit even pining for a Brahmin like Salty or Sarge but even the Republican governors I grew up under (and I’m only 25!) were considerably to the left of this platform. So was Baker himself in 2010.
I want him on the record opposing putting marriage equality on the ballot. He owes that not just to us but to his brother . He can’t pretend to be a good brother and moderate statesmen while simultaneously embracing this out of touch platform. It’s fair game.
I see it as one of the major issues of the campaign
in that with these proposed changes, it allows us to fan the flames of discord in the opposition. It allows us to help them divide themselves further.