Evan Falchuk did not win the 2014 race for Governor. He did, however, barely manage to achieve 3% of the vote, which was enough to give his United Independent Party or UIP (an amusingly oxymoronic name, but I digress) official standing as a party in which people can register. But, you know, the Green-Rainbow folks have official standing too, and they’ve never really made much of it.
So what does the UIP need to really entrench itself in the Massachusetts political landscape? Sure, Falchuk or another UIPer can run for Governor again in four years … and he or she will probably get less than 5% of the vote again and be a non-factor, just like Jill Stein always does. UIP can – and should – run candidates for the state legislature in some carefully-chosen districts, and maybe they’ll even win a couple. That would be the beginning of some kind of presence, though in our top-down legislature, it would be many years before that route would lead to much ability to influence policy in any meaningful way. They have nicely drafted policy positions that in some respects differ (marginally, in some cases) from those of the major parties … but, as we all know, policy positions alone aren’t enough to grab the public’s imagination.
How else could UIP make a splash? Gosh, if only there were some big, controversial, attention-grabbing single issue that the movers and shakers in the two major parties mostly agree on so that there’s space for a third party to stake out some territory; that involves billions of dollars; that people on both sides feel really strongly about; that routinely hits the newspapers’ front pages; that directly affects the lives of the people of Massachusetts; and that has national and even international implications.
Oh right. Bringing the Olympics to Boston pretty much checks all those boxes.
And that, in part, is likely why the UIP is aggressively opposing a Boston Olympics, and why Falchuk is taking the lead on putting a question about a Boston Olympics on the ballot (presumably in 2016, shortly before the International Olympic Committee selects the 2024 host in 2017). He recently filed the paperwork to create a ballot question committee, called the “People’s Vote Olympics Committee.” That committee’s goal would be to put an as-yet-undrafted question on the ballot whose “purpose would be to restrict the ability of the government to put tax money toward the Games.”
It’s a brilliant gambit. Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Deval Patrick, and most of the other bigwigs in town from both parties seem to love the idea of a Boston Olympics, and Walsh has (foolishly, IMHO) declared that he doesn’t like the idea of a ballot question. (Seems odd that he’s simultaneously suing the Gaming Commission to give Charlestown a vote on a casino, but again I digress.) So Falchuk’s taking the lead in putting an anti-Olympics question on the ballot places him squarely in opposition to the existing two-party power structure, which is exactly where a new “independent” party needs to be. Furthermore, a serious prospect of a ballot question in 2016 means that nearly every time there’s a news story about the Olympics – which will be often – the question, and Falchuk’s role in it, will be part of it. It’s a way of guaranteeing that his fledgling party stays relevant in a way that most new parties (and some old ones) never manage.
Could Falchuk get the question on the ballot? Of course. Falchuk is wealthy – he reported almost $2 million of income in 2012, and he put over $1.5 million toward his gubernatorial campaign. There is no limit on how much an individual can contribute to a ballot question committee, so Falchuk can personally make sure that the committee has what it needs to gather the necessary signatures. If the underfunded anti-casino folks could do it, an anti-Olympics committee can do it too. I’m not sure where the suggestions in the press that it would be an “uphill climb” to get a question on the ballot come from; they strike me as misguided.
The folks favoring a Boston Olympics bid are, IMHO, making a huge mistake by opposing a ballot question, and an even bigger one by suggesting that even if a vote went against the Olympics they might go ahead anyway (it seems unlikely to me that the IOC, which wants local buy-in, would select Boston if the public had already expressed its disapproval at the ballot, and the boosters would appear anti-democratic at best by proceeding in the face of public opposition). By opposing a public vote, they look weak and afraid. Do they think they will lose? A far better route for all concerned would be for the boosters as well as the opponents to agree that the public should be consulted in the most direct possible way – via the ballot – and then let the chips fall where they may.
In the meantime, Falchuk may just be able to generate enough statewide interest in the UIP via the Olympics to cause some serious headaches for the major parties down the road. And wouldn’t that be interesting.
chris-rich says
There was nothing to stop them from basic feasibility research like using this to figure out who owns what property they propose to mess with or what status it currently has.
And the reason they spent more effort on the PR side may be that feasibility is sketchy at best.
But if public opinion is stroked, it might shift the situation in a more favorable direction.
They really are caught between conning the IOC, which will eventually look more carefully at the nothing sandwich and conning the public which isn’t all that con-able.
I think it’s funny that the main gatekeeper, DeLeo, is on the fence, while the various thwarted cheerleaders you’d expect are waving the pom poms.
HR's Kevin says
They don’t really care whether the bids are totally honest as long as they feel the winning city will deliver the goods. They don’t care that much about the ugly details or whether a democratic process was used. The Boston committee was simply giving the USOC/IOC what they wanted to see.
chris-rich says
But if this strange two sided con botches any ability to deliver goods due to broad based rejection, it’ll probably send em off to bother Rome.
Christopher says
…once the bid is locked in in 2017, if Boston does in fact get it, they can turn around and say, “OK, now we’re doing things OUR way.”
sabutai says
Athens more or less did that around 2003. When it’s too late to move the event, the IOC becomes the LOC’s hostage.
TheBestDefense says
The final bid will be subjected to the Article 9 dispute resolution process, which is completely stacked in favor of the USOC and the IOC, litigation about promises made by the Boston 2024 successor, and the indemnification language in the bid document. We would be subjected to multiples of millions of dollars in damage payments.
gmoke says
Saw him speak last Sunday at the Humanist Hub in Harvard Square. There was a Boston Globe reporter there because he was, in small part, talking about the Olympics. Most of the talk, however, was about the party and how it plans to organize. They do plan to run in representative and senate races around the state. They do intend to register 1% of voters in their party. They do intend to be around for the long haul.
But we’ll see.
jotaemei says
I would have never expected them to bring in Falchuck for a discussion or presentation.
petr says
Full stop.
A gambit is a sacrifice of one thing for another: in chess, it usually refers to a piece for a position but in politics it a naked power play and, as such, is the full opposite of a compromise. You have to ask yourself, David, what is your gambit here? What are you sacrificing in the hopes of gaining position against the Olympics.
Evan Falchuk is not the Governor. He lost the race. If he wants to spend millions of his dollars trying to yank the steering wheel out of the hands of Governor Baker or Mayor Walsh, why are you helping him? Or, put another way, if similarly NOT-Governor Scott Lively put unelected dollars into a referendum on the criminalization of homosexuality, would you similarly characterize it as ‘brilliant’? When Carla Howell failed to win the Governors office in 2002 did you similarly describe her 2006 ballot initiative to outlaw the income tax as ‘brilliant’?
Lest my opposition be mistaken for a pro-Olympics bent let me be clear and underline my longstanding opposition to a plebiscite run amok and backseat driving by either the electorate or by failed candidates. Here we have a failed gubernatorial candidate financing a referendum on something that isn’t even law yet. That’s not a referendum, that’s entitlement and anti-democracy. If the United Independent Party wants my support they first have to demonstrate a respect for the duly elected officials and the processes of an actual republic. So far, not so much.
TheBestDefense says
and nobody is “financing a referendum on something that isn’t even law yet.”
I would not be surprised if Falchuk puts in a large chunk of his own coin to finance a ballot question. I also have no doubt than any effort to put a question to the voters will be before the Olympic bidders get the multiple pieces of omnibus legislation they state they will seek, since there is zero chance that the legislature and Governor will consider the omnibus bill before the IOC accepts the bid, which is still two years away. Any ballot question will be a preemptory strike regardless of who leads it.
petr says
… but that’s beside this particular point: if we shouldn’t discard our principles in order to host an Olympics why should we discard them in order to oppose the Olympics? If discarding principles is bad, why do it for any reason?
TheBestDefense says
I never hinted at that. You like to argue about the arguments. Please just stick to the facts without attributing your foolish assumptions to me.
petr says
… when you blithely endorsed a ballot question:
It may well be a preemptory strike. That doesn’t make it morally correct or, in any way, aligned with the democratic principles of the CommonWealth.
I’m very sorry you don’t like the direction in which the CommonWealth may be heading, but a mulligan is not an option here.
TheBestDefense says
I stated what seems obvious. The people who are talking about a ballot question, whether it is Falchuk, BMGers or the Boston Globe, are talking about a preemptory strike. I said no words of support since I don’t support things I have not seen and support. More lies, petr, more lies don’t make your arguments stronger.
Christopher says
I read the line of his you quoted as a statement of fact rather than as an endorsement.
petr says
It can be read that way. But because it can be read that way does not mean that it must be read that way…
In the context of the response to my post, in which he notes that there is no ballot initiative to speak of, as yet… as though that refutes my argument… why make note of the possibility, indeed, the inevitability, of a ballot measure, if not to endorse it? He first refutes my argument by saying it’s not an actuality, then he supports my argument by stating the inevitability of the actuality of it??? Truly dizzying.
TheBestDefense seems to think, of late, that his best defense against me is that I like to “argue about the argument.” This may be true — I might like to argue about the argument — but that’s because the actual impetus behind his argument might not be logic and rationale, but emotionalism and ego tripping, which aren’t necessarily good argumentation techniques. So if he uses bad argument, I’m going to argue against it… duh.
If he uses good arguments, and good argumentation, then nothing I say will affect them one way or the other. Double duh.
TheBestDefense says
Unless someone write the words “I support,” or “I endorse” or something similar, don’t use the idiot’s argument that something “can be read” in a way. Gawd, talk about straw man arguments…
I don’t think you are stupid so I am forced to conclude that you are intentionally dishonest.
petr says
I think that the “USSR” could once have been read as the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic but testing that reveals neither a union, nor much in the way of socialist, and certainly nothing like a republic. But it was soviet… so I guess there’s that. One out of four, I guess, ain’t bad.
The “peoples republic of China” could be read as for the people, an actual republic and ‘of china’. Under your logic, one in three must be even better than one in four.
There are tests that can be used to decide if the bald meaning of what one says is aligned or at odds with what one means… Like if someone uses a specific point to refute an argument and then uses the opposite of that point to support their own. There are arguments with no engineering to them… these arguments generally fail.
Because I disagree? Who made you the keeper of the flame? The only way I could be dishonest is if you are comprehensively, incontrovertibly, correct and without flaw in your argument and presentation.
Not so much.
TheBestDefense says
and you claimed that because I reported on something that I must believe in it. So:
I Hereby Accuse You of Being A Ruskie Sympathizer And Rat Fuck Commie.
After all, you reported on them so you must be one of them. QED
David says
I really don’t understand the bulk of your comment. I’m not making a gambit, as far as I can tell. Falchuk is, or at least will be once he commits a lot of his own money to this cause, which he seems likely to do.
As for your analogies to Lively and Howell, well, if Lively were to take the tack you describe, it would fail because there is no discernible public support for his position. So, not brilliant. Howell’s strategy was closer, but she didn’t have the financial resources that Falchuk has, and she miscalculated by going all-in on income tax repeal instead of reduction. So, also not brilliant. Moreover, neither of them was simultaneously engaged in an effort to stake out a position for a new political party. And I do think it’s quite clever of Falchuk to wrap the Nolympics flag around UIP, for the reasons described in my post.
You can of course disagree with my characterization of what Falchuk is up to as “brilliant,” but do try not to attribute malicious motives to everyone who might disagree with your own take on things.
petr says
You are getting in bed with a guy who won’t take the electorates no for an answer. That’s your gambit. Are you prepared for that? What happens when he does do something you don’t like and you try to stop him? You think just because he (ostensibly) agrees with you now he’ll always do so?
Would you like me to list the names of all the tin-pot dictators who clearly lost an election and decided to ignore those results? Shall I remind you of the both the first and second triumvirates at the end of the Roman Republic? Crassus, Pompey Magnus and Julius Caesar in the first and Octavius, Marc Antony and Lepidus in the second? In the first triumvirate Pompey Magnus did something that Julius Caesar didn’t like and Caesar took his armies across the Rubicon to fight the armies of Magnus. Beginning of the end of the Republic.
You may think me guilty of hyperbole. But, really, what’s the distinction? The unwillingness to take no for an answer is the injury to the Republic. So Evan Falchuk doesn’t have an army? He doesn’t need one if he’s got a personal fortune and can just get the public to vote the way he thinks they should. And it’s clear, like Carla Howell, he’s not willing to take no for an answer. It’s clear that he want’s to leverage nolympics sentiment for his own gain.
I don’t know from malicious. It’s clear your aligning yourself with him. That’s your motive. I’m asking you if you are prepared for the consequences of that alignment? And I’m telling you there is a price for it. I’m asking you if you believe the electorate in a Republic can, or should, be so easily circumvented by a rich guy who already had a bite at the apple…?
jconway says
How is a ballot question on the Olympics related to his gubernatorial bid? Plenty of folks I know that voted for Baker or Coakley will vote against the Olympics even if they didn’t vote for Falchuk.
And it’s pretty odd to attack the one political player willing to risk his own political and personal capital against the games by holding a vote, when nearly every official in favor of the bid opposes a vote in the first place. Hard to argue he is somehow subverting democracy when he is the only player willing to fight for the vote.
petr says
I think David pretty clearly laid out that case above. Why don’t you read it first, before replying with questions that have obvious, readily discernible, answers?
David says
This is where I think you’re way off base, and it taints the rest of your argument. The electorate has said not a thing, yet, about the Olympics – indeed, that’s the very point being raised by those of us who’d like to see some sort of ballot question on the issue. So Falchuk didn’t win the race for Governor. Big deal. He’s not running for Governor at the moment, and if he were, I wouldn’t endorse him. My point is that by positioning the fledgling UIP behind an Olympics ballot question, he is likely to raise the profile of that party way beyond what it otherwise would be – and, simultaneously, advance a cause (a ballot question for the Olympics) that a lot of people think is a good idea (around 75% in the last poll, if memory serves).
I think you’re conflating “getting in bed” with Falchuk with thinking that he is onto something on this issue. They’re not the same.
petr says
The electorate has clearly said “NO” to Evan Falchuk as Governor.
Evan Falchuk still wants to affect the workings of government and, as you lay out, is willing to lay out private funds to do so ON A VERY LARGE SCALE. He has, in affect, said, “well, I guess Charlie Baker can be governor until I disagree and can pay to make that disagreement public.” If he singlehandedly works to tie up the workings of government and perhaps even the specific workings of the actual Governor — no matter on what point– he is not respecting the will of the people: he definitively was told “NO, you can’t be Governor”
That is extraordinary.
This is different only in scale from Julius Caesar saying to Pompey Magnus, “I’m going to Gaul to beat up on Germans, you be in charge until I disagree with you…at which point I’m coming back to beat up on you.”
You’re getting in bed with that, maybe because you agree with the specific case against the Olympics, but the specific case is not the point. If the Olympics weren’t on the table what other shenanigans would Falchuk be cooking up to gin up interest in his party and his goals? Would he, like Carla Howell, spend private money on an effort to abolish the income tax? Or something similarly inane? You dismiss that as unlikely to eventuate a winning ballot question, but I say even a guaranteed to lose ballot question might be an injury to the Republic. One could argue that Julius Caesar was guaranteed to lose in the end, but that didn’t prevent the cycle from repeating in the second triumvirate and the stake, finally, definitively, being driven through the heart of the Roman Republic.
jconway says
Sure, and that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they will say NO or Yes to the Olympics, which is an entirely non-partisan issue. My friends in Cambridge are all opposed, most voted for Coakley. SomervilleTom is opposed, he voted for Falchuk. Porcupine and my brother and sister in law are opposed, they all voted for Baker. This is a non-partisan issue, you either want the Olympics or you don’t.
David’s analysis is that if he is seen as helping oppose the Olympics, it could help his career, but that is ancillary to getting the question on the ballot and making sure we have a fair vote. Personally, it wouldn’t change my vote one way or the other. And I totally disagree with the idea that letting people vote on a project of this magnitude is a thread to the Republic. The cost overruns and corruption by the Bechtel boys during the Big Dig was a far greater threat to the Commonwealth, and one the public had little to no say over.
petr says
…The funniest bit here is that chris-rich, the guy fond of throwing around the term ‘oligarch’ uprates you comment in defense of the proposition that Evan Falchuk gets to be one. Throwing money at the electorate to vote his way is the first three chapters and the bulk of the appendices of the official oligarchs playbook…. LOL indeed..
David has clearly laid out the fairly straight line from Evan Falchuk to his political party (“partisan” and “party” share the same root…) to the proposed referendum and/or ballot initiative, which, approvingly by David, would be principally funded by Falchuk. So this is about as far away from “non-partisan” as you can get and still be speaking the native tongue.
Yeah, the actual vote on the Olympics might not fall on partisan lines but that doesn’t mean the machinations to put that vote on the ballot are non-partisan…. far, far, from it.
jconway says
But it is disingenuous to keep linking Falchuk’s 3% in the last election as a means diminish the growing opposition to the Olympics. It is polling at 43%, only 5% below supporting the Olympics, which at 47% is a plurality rather than a majority. And these are the numbers before the public funding burden is fully known. Already it seems that opposing the Olympics seems to significantly outpoll the UIP during the last election, and it seems unlikely it’s association will temper that opposition all that much. His 3%, no matter how ill gotten or ill gained in your subjective view, entitles his party to ballot access. It does not entitle this question to the ballot, so again, the two are entirely separate.
Signature gatherers will need to put it on the ballot, and while that offers the UIP a great chance to introduce itself to activists concerned about the Olympics, it does not make this a UIP effort by any stretch. Plenty of people who have no idea who the UIP is, who Falchuk is, or plenty of people that do and did not vote for him, will be voting up or down on an Olympic proposal on it’s own merits. I am not viewing it as a referendum on the UIP one way or the other.
I would add though, that David’s analysis, which I think you are misinterpreting (albeit unintentionally), does apply and would argue that he may gain some support for being the public face of the opposition. It certainly doesn’t hurt his movement to take this strong stance early and publicly. Only time will tell if it grows the UIP, it certainly doesn’t shrink it. 3% seems to be it’s floor, not it’s ceiling.
paulsimmons says
There is this analysis from the MassINC Polling Group:
spence says
Falchuk similarly expressed a philosophical opposition to ballot questions in general in his campaign- as part of his position against the casino law repeal.
jotaemei says
And, I appreciate your keeping that hypocritical position of his against ballot questions from being lost through the memory hole
chris-rich says
I always laughed at the fuss over flip flopping often foisted by Fox News.
New information and new situations often make a mockery of prior instances of posture rigidity.
petr says
.. your constant mockery of local ‘oligarchs’ doesn’t seem to extend to Evan Falchuks attempts to be one??
Just askin…
jconway says
He will be outraised, outspent, and outbartered by the significant political and economic capital behind the Boston 2024 bid. He is a millionaire, and barely one at that, fighting an organized group of billionaires who desperately want the bid. If this does go to a vote, you can be sure that Boston 2024 will significantly outspend Evan Falchuk.
sabutai says
Awkward for progressives fighting Boston 2024 if he becomes their de facto leader. Who is the most prominent Nolympics leftie these days, anyway?
Christopher says
I can’t think of a prominent leftie, or for that matter an elected official of any stripe who I could call the face of the opposition. In fact, the elected supporters I can think of our more or less on the left. Mayor Walsh and Sen. Donoghue come most quickly to mind. This is why I find it ironic and a bit inappropriate that my partisan and political spectrum credentials have been called into question on this matter.
chris-rich says
I bet he’ll be pretty effective. He worked for Kennedy campaigns and has an interesting CV including Bain.
http://www.wcvb.com/politics/on-the-record-dempsey-segment-1/30862360
jconway says
He had his people out in force the week I was in town in Harvard Sq. Cutting footage for a No Olympics ad, and he reached out to me after seeing my thread. He is a great organizer.
I might add Curtatone could be the face of the opposition if he doesn’t get his way, his comments on the velodrome show this. Most of the elected officials in Cambridge oppose it, including our reps.
Falchuk rightly has identified that there are a lot of progressives tired of tying their horse to the ward heeling wing that runs Beacon Hill. He could be an interesting factor in certain areas. Getting progressive candidates to run outside the machine in places like Revere and also a way to get centrist Republicans to run on an electable ticket in places like Newton.
chris-rich says
It would be interesting to find out what kind of constituent service and outreach is underway for the newer wave of immigrants in Revere from Southeast Asia, Brazil and various Arabic homelands.
There are watershed changes in the ethnic and demographic composition of many of these old ward heeler domains. It would be natural for a start up party to go and engage these constituents especially if the ward heelers are complacent
jotaemei says
I’m not sure we should be evaluating a position on a left-right spectrum based on what establishment pols in office sign off on. The Democratic Senators didn’t seem that interested in including Single Payer/Medicare for all in the Affordable Care Act, so I wouldn’t then argue that what resulted (mandates w/ the major insurers still keeping the majority of the market) could be considered a Leftists position.
chris-rich says
Maybe someone will claim leadership but this is a faiirly organic coalescing.
It may be because 2024 has been so obnoxious about process.
I’m guessing different interest groups will hit different elements based on their particular focus. ACLU already has a spokesperson. Curtatone is quite effective on his own as is Chris Dempsey. Falchuck is covering another angle.
Despite a few assertions I’ve seen about broad scale popularity for the games, it is increasingly clear that a number of public figures are concluding there isn’t much downside to confronting the foist.
sabutai says
Strange how “a number of public figures” doesn’t include anyone recognizable. I know organizers and foot soldiers are necessary for any movement, but so far the face of opposition right now is a laughable also-ran.
jconway says
Bobby DeLeo is on record saying we can’t afford it, he ain’t a nobody. Cambridge City Council voted against having events (seems like Boston 2024 already override that). Toomey and Decker came against it, maybe Curtatone if Walsh and Boston 2024 don’t play ball. Baker doesn’t seem that enthusiastic. Friends of the Common are against beach volleyball and pissed they weren’t consulted. This will make my alma mater screwing up it’s bid for the Obama library look like child’s play.
We got a deficit to plug and nobody wants to raise taxes, the bid is dishonest about cost overruns, so how will we pay for them when the inevitably happen? What about getting the horse dung off of Franklin Park, the lost revenue from all the tourist sites, some of them publicly owned, that will be totally inaccessible? Bid proposals are creating more questions than answers.
chris-rich says
Once the weather vane indicates wind direction, you might see less equivocation either way.
HR's Kevin says
Marty Walsh aside, most politicians don’t want to jump in the Olympic pool yet.
chris-rich says
Everyone is keeping powder dry until the situation clarifies with real information.
The bits being revealed now have already been adequate to cohere an interesting mix of adversaries. And the appearance of ham fisted imposition potential that seeps out of what is being revealed is unlikely to win more friends.
It is not a good trend pattern. And if it continues, it will make a hapless bag holder of Walsh over the course of a short one term mayoral run.
jotaemei says
I’ve no idea if Falchuck would be a good and memorable governor or if he’s really just an incredibly savvy and clever opportunist, but I find your analysis of the situation, especially regarding those opposed to the ballot initiative (reminds me of Coakley’s irksome and anti-democratic opposition to the ballot initiative on casinos) dead on point, and the shenanigans of the Olympics boosters will certainly be something to behold going forward.
spence says
Here we have an opportunistic rich guy using his money (earned via daddy’s company, btw) to stay in the political spotlight while complaining about other rich guys using their money to try to bring the Olympics to Boston. And he’s coming off getting 3% in a gov election- less than half of what certifiable Chisty Mihos or got. This might not be the best public face if stopping of the Olympic is something you want to be seriously on the table. To be fair to Falchuk, give the near-total silence on the opposing side of this issue by the political class, he couldn’t not try to take advantage of the space.
As for the party, it would be great to have one- I welcome the possibility. Massachusetts could use a real functioning 2nd party. But, there is little evidence that much of a party exists outside of Falchuk and people paid by Falchuk. Virtually no fundraising and less than 100 members after two years & millions spent by Falchuk. There isn’t even a website distinct from Falchuk’s campaign website.
chris-rich says
While a significant number may just be masked affiliations because both parties suck, if for different reasons, like GOP =Vicious and Democratic = Spineless.
It is always possible that this fence sitting could shift to something more substantive. The very idea of being a member of something could be in remission for now if not on its way to becoming an anachronism.
And Spineless is arguably more sympathetic than Vicious.
jconway says
At the end of the day, you either think the Olympics are a good idea or a bad idea. This is as non-ideological and technocratic as it gets. It either helps the city, hurts the city, or on balance evens out.
I appreciate that a centrist wonk like Falchuk wants to lead the effort, since he can make compelling arguments from a fiscally conservative perspective that these Olympics are unaffordable (a place DeLeo, hardly a progressive hero, has also seemed to stake himself out) while also from a social perspective that they do little to help the least of these. If he is serious about that combination, this is a great testing ground to put both of these values in place.
Libertarians should hate this since it’s crony capitalism that will inevitably trigger public bailouts. Conservatives should hate this for the same reason, and also since the IOC is a classic example of international law overriding American and local law, something that movement has always feared since the Birch society days. Progressives and liberals should oppose the games since it benefits private interests without a direct tangible public interest benefit, beyond prestige.
Curtatone has made the only progressive case for the Games, and even that requires the Games to operate completely differently than they have in the past. It’s an interesting gambit.
abs0628 says
Thanks for mentioning DeLeo’s comments, jconway — I’d not heard that. Along with Curtatone’s nuanced & smart opposition, DeLeo being against this — and on fiscal grounds no less — could be a huge factor in the “No” folks favor, so that gives me some hope.
The other factor that I think will have huge impact is the really horrible press the boosters have been getting about property owners in the “Midtown” area none of whom have been consulted about being removed from their property. Most of those folks are, I would imagine, not flaming liberals but just garden variety business people — and many of them are quite peeved, rightfully so.
Lots of interesting allies in this one, for sure…
chris-rich says
When was the last time Howie Carr and Cambridge City Council were on the same side of any argument?
And the CCC is ordinarily fairly deferential to Mother Harvard.
jconway says
As I did my morning wingnut check over at RMG, seems they are against this too, and they seem to count our new Governor among the skeptics.
chris-rich says
http://www.dotnews.com/2015/city-lawmakers-air-concerns-after-meeting-no-olympics-group
TheBestDefense says
It seems Senate Republicans are starting to question the Olympic bid according to the State House News Service.
A bill filed by Senate minority leader Bruce Tarr (Gloucester) and Wrentham Sen. Richard Ross would require at least one public hearing on the Olympic bid to be conducted by the House and Senate Ways and Means committees. Tarr’s bill would require the Legislature to pass a special act approving of the Olympic bid before Bay State dollars could be spent on anything associated with the games.