{Update: 9:14 PM on Tuesday evening: It’s looking like the Democratic candidate Michael Brady has defeated Republican Geoff Diehl.}
[This post is a sidebar on the Brockton State Senate race. I mentioned it in a cross-post in today’s election open thread.]
Veterans’ Day being next Wednesday, and our Legislature being fond of honoring those who have served our country, it’s expected that tomorrow the House of Representatives will take up the “Stolen Valor” bill, which would make it a crime to claim, falsely, that you have won a military decoration like a Silver Star or a Purple Heart. (It seems that the problem of lying about military service — whether for emotional or financial gain — is disappointingly prevalent, and the U.S. Congress made stolen valor a crime a couple years ago.)
The last time the House of Representatives commemorated Veterans’ Day through legislative action, two years ago, great controversy ensued. Back then, the House was getting ready to pass a bill honoring veterans by, for example, establishing a “Support Our Veterans” license plate program and by granting a property tax exemption for certain disabled armed forces members, when GOP Representative Geoff Diehl of Whitman (who, come tomorrow, may or may not be Senator-elect Geoff Diehl) offered an amendment to require that anyone seeking state housing assistance provide a social security number.
The purpose of this amendment, its backers claimed, was to ensure that non-citizens be prevented from securing housing aid ahead of, and therefore at the potential expense of, veterans. Whether this amendment was merely a solution in search of a problem was a question that its champions were — and remain — deeply uninterested in. Their only point was to fashion an occasion in which it could be claimed, however implausibly, that members voting against the amendment were dishonoring veterans.
Because the Diehl amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the bill — veterans — it was ruled out of order. However, the amendment’s backers, determined to get some recorded vote, called for a vote on the ruling that the amendment was out of order. The result, a 126-29 vote in support of the ruling, gave them what they wanted — the scandalous (if entirely specious) news that 126 members of the House had voted to give priority for state housing assistance to undocumented immigrants over veterans. The vote was the centerpiece of a flyer distributed in 20 legislative districts the next year by the Mass. Fiscal Alliance and its sister PAC, Jobs First Massachusetts, who were targeting Democratic incumbents in 2014, and who, as it happens, are busy right now supporting Representative Diehl in his campaign for the State Senate.
So stay tuned tomorrow to see if the effort by the House to honor veterans by passing the Stolen Valor bill includes an effort by some of its members to accuse others of dishonoring them.
…to lie about the true nature and effects of procedural votes in a legislative body:) As someone well-versed in parliamentary procedure (if I do say so myself), I find the claim that voting to uphold a ruling on whether an amendment is out of order is tantamount to voting on the merits especially offensive. Oh, and for the record, you (oddly IMO) actually don’t have to be a citizen of the US to enlist I’m pretty sure, so being a non-citizen veteran is entirely plausible.
You run for office against and incumbent and you look up the legislator’s record and…..there’s nothing really. Best you can do is say “votes with the speaker 99% of the time.”
Not saying isn’t a bit sleazy, but it’s more out of desperation than an attempt to dishonor anyone.
is rarely of itself enlightening — and for just the reasons you say.
But those who are advocating a change in the law are generally expected to present someone who has actually been harmed by the status quo. As far as I know, no veteran has been displaced or bumped down the waiting list by anyone who lacks a Social Security Number. Which makes all this seem more like an opportunistic exercise in xenophobia.
as a strategy rather than an opportunistic exercise in xenophobia.
and an opportunistic exercise.
It’s the xenophobia that I think is a little off. If I say “I don’t like people coming here illegally and then getting government benefits”, that doesn’t necessarily make me a xenophobe.
If some women occasionally speed, and somebody says “We need to crack down on women drivers”, would I be out of line to characterize that proposal as sexist? Some portion of drivers speed. Some of those speeding drivers are women. Some are men. Some are Jewish, some are black, some are Muslim. The ethnicity or gender of the speeder has little or nothing to do with the offense.
A great many people abuse government benefits. Some of them are legal immigrants. Some of them are wealthy business people working scams. Most of them are American citizens.
The attempting conflation of “illegal immigrant” with those who attempt to get government benefits that they do not qualify for is why this particular embarrassment is correctly characterized as xenophobic.
We all have some claim to government resources. Some of that is based on residency. NH residents don’t have claim to MA resources. A MA/US resident who is less well off has some claim to MA resources. The debate might be around how much or what criteria is used for the decision. Non-residents have no claim, so it’s much easier to draw a line.
As I mentioned up thread, this particular “embarrassment” would be totally unnecessary (and probably would not have occurred) in a normally functioning democratic legislature.
How worse could it get for them?
Also probably 1 in a 1000 people can properly define that word, and another (sizable) group probably thinks it has something to do with headlights.
I wondered why you arguing with me about this. đŸ™‚
Love your last sentence, and totally agree.
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
campaigning with former Lawrence mayor (and rep) Willy Lantigua. You gotta support your party over whatever you might feel about that guy personally.
I was repulsed by the endorsements of Mr. Lantigua. I strongly disagree that party loyalty should trump basic integrity.
The behavior you cite is why endorsements mean absolutely NOTHING to voters with even a little bit of actual independent thought.
It’s more about fundraising and for the party faithful. I doubt if Baker supporting Diehl changed any votes.
An early indicator that Patrick wasn’t really interested in bottom up grassroots progressive organizing, or if he was, was very inept at demonstrating his political bona fides. Lantigua can be added to that wall of shame.
As for Baker, any additional help in the legislature would be welcome is probably his view. Though he could probably get away with having the bulk of his agenda passes by the supermajority.
mainly just clueless. He never completely understood and never completely learned politics.
It’s no wonder Republicans went backwards in MA during his tenure.
Though I will admit Baker was pretty brilliant as an insider pretending to be an outsider, kinda a sweet spot like it was for Weld and Cellucci (though even he had to inherit a seat).
Dan Wolf is the only guy on our side with that kinda combo, other than Marty Walsh who isn’t running.
with Marty Walsh. What’s he good at?
The Republicans did have Bill Weld who had at least one good term. Not that I ever voted for him.
I was just pointing out he served in the legislature but could also claim substantial experience outside of it. The merits or demerits of his term are up for debate, and I’ll let the Bostonians here fill us in with their views. I like the guy personally but was unimpressed with his approach to the Olympics.
the Grand Prix.
The Stolen Valor bill itself serves as an attempt by legislators to show that they are doing something beyond passing symbolic legislation. They search for a group which they can defend without inviting controversy even as they run away from dealing in a serious way with serious issues facing the commonwealth. If you have no idea what to do, standing up in a symbolic way for veterans is safe, and the best part is that it does not require spending any actual money or dealing with any questions of revenue.
The House passed the Stolen Valor bill yesterday without any attempts by House members to introduce anti-immigrant amendments.
The House also passed bills to give Purple Heart recipients free access to state parks and to impose a fine for the removing of commemorative flag holders from graves of veterans and police and fire personnel.
Apropos Historian’s comment above, all three bills passed unanimously and in the words of one House member, were adopted “as a gift for our veterans.”
Unless the electoral strategy of Mass. Fiscal, Jobs First and their allies has changed significantly, I’d guess their efforts to secure roll call votes on immigrant-related measures are not over.