Good for her. Email from Mimi Lemay, mother of a transgender child, sent to the AG’s list of supporters on her stationery:
There’s a bill in Massachusetts that would fix this situation. Similar legislation has passed in 18 other states with no negative consequences, but in Massachusetts, of all places, it’s facing serious opposition from the same groups that fought against marriage equality. This bill needs champions, as does Jacob.
Thankfully, we have found such a champion in our Attorney General, Maura Healey.
Last week, under the leadership of AG Healey, Jacob and other transgender residents of Massachusetts earned rousing support from some powerful voices. #EveryoneWelcome, a social media campaign, hit the ground running, featuring short “selfie” videos recorded by celebrities from the world of sports, television, politics and music. I was moved to see videos from, among others, the Boston Bruins and the Celtics, soccer great Abby Wambach, Caitlyn Jenner, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and actress Kathy Griffin, declaring support for our transgender community.
An interesting question is: should Healey run against Charlie Baker in the next election? Perhaps his leaden Donald Trump Republican electoral shoes will have been fully fitted by then. What do you think of the letter, and the next governor’s race?
JimC says
I’d certainly support her if she ran, but if Baker looks solid for re-election, I’d just as soon have her stay as AG. She can be effective there, and (largely) left alone by the Legislature.
fredrichlariccia says
you are a true Profile in Courage standing up for our trans brothers and sisters!
As strong progressives we couldn’t be more proud of you.
We must all keep the pressure on Charlie Faker until he does the right thing and signs the Trans Rights bill into law !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Bay State Stonewall Democrats
Board of Directors
ChiliPepr says
I did not know the bill has been passed by the legislature and is sitting on Gov Baker’s desk!
If you would like him to sign it, put it on his desk! Then if he does not, you have something to argue about.
jconway says
And I didn’t see any indicators in this story that it had. I’d rather send it to his desk whether we have the votes to override or not, let’s know who the allies and bigots are in the House as well as in the Corner Office.
Peter Porcupine says
I believe that is why it won’t get a vote in the House, let alone the Senate.
Curse that Charlie Baker and hsuperstein@yahoo.com omnipotent mind control!!!
fredrichlariccia says
by smoking out those who hide behind the protection of the Democratic Party but are really DINO’s. Get them ALL on the record.
Call your legislators today and ask them to co-sponsor H 1577 and S 735 to end transgender discrimination in public spaces :
House of Representatives : (617) 722-2000
State Senate : (617) 722-1455
Then, call the Governor’s office (617) 725-4005 and demand that the Faker sign it.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Bay State Stonewall Democrats
Board of Directors
Christopher says
If anything the state party should have the backs of anyone who votes for it. After all, the DSC unanimously passed a resolution backing this bill a few months ago, so the “party’s” position is crystal clear.
fredrichlariccia says
Representative Paul Brodeur (D-Melrose) and Senator Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) returned my call to tell me they are proud co-sponsors of H 1577 and S 735 to end transgender discrimination in public spaces.
I did NOT get the courtesy of a return call from my district ( 9th Essex ) rep, Donald Wong ( R-Saugus ). Thank you, Mr.Wong , for at least being consistent. In the six long years you have been sucking off the public teat you have NEVER once returned my many phone calls to your office with inquiries as to your position on issues important to me.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
can be interpreted as a sign of a pain in the ass.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Is Wrong or Broduer your rep. I don’t get it Plus you are on a the board of directors of some lefty group. Why would a repub rep waste his time with you. Are you a cnstituent of Wongs?
Christopher says
Brodeur and Wong are both Reps from that town and I interpret his above comment to mean that Wong is his actual Rep., so yes, he should respond to his constituent, lefty board or not. Some people refer to anyone who represents part of the town they live in unofficially as their Reps.
fredrichlariccia says
but unfortunately, he is my rep because Wakefield is divided into 2 districts — the 9th Essex and the 32nd Middlesex. So even though ‘Wrong’ is my rep on paper because I live in his part of the district I have to call Rep. Brodeur if I want to make my case on an issue that I care about like equal civil rights for all citizens regardless of their gender identity.
As to your characterization of my membership on the Board of Directors ‘of some lefty group’ as you put it. As a proud gay rights activist, I am a newly elected Board Director of Bay State Stonewall Democrats — champions and advocates for ALL our brothers and sisters in the GLBT community.
Finally, as embarrassed as I am to acknowledge that I am a constituent of ‘WRONG WONG’, even the most disconnected and ignorant politician understands that its politics 101 to answer your voters’ phone call if only not to piss them off. Not that you’re going to agree with them on every issue.
‘WRONG WONG’ pissed me off so bad that I’m now volunteering my services as Campaign Manager to his Democratic opponent, and my next State Representative, Jen Migliore.
Smart move, Donald. Not.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
ChiliPepr says
I would ignore you also.
I have never met you (and have no desire to) but you continually insult people and groups that disagree with you. Every time I see one of your posts it seems like there is an insult in it. People in office deserve a modicum of respect. Whether I agree or disagree with them, to me it is always Pres. Bush, Pres. Obama, Sec. Clinton or Sen. Sanders (although I hope I do not ever need to use a honorific with Donald Trump). If I was a republican, I would never take your call either.
If Jen Migliore is as smart as I think she is, she will “regretfully” turn down your kind offer.
Christopher says
…that Mass. AGs running for Governor is starting to sound like a perfect example of Einstein’s definition of insanity. Plus I suspect she still considers herself not really a politician. It seems she essentially wanted an internal promotion and the only reason she got into electoral politics is because that’s how you become AG in this state.
TheBestDefense says
Neer, can you please explain what this means? I am curious as I don’t understand the connection between the two men.
jconway says
At this point those are the two possible Republican nominees, with the establishment rounding up a rear guard action against Trump through Cruz. Already Coca Cola and other corporations are openly talking about pulling out their support from the Republican convention if Trump is the nominee.
He is a foul mouthed racist, misogynist and Islmaphobe and someone a self described socially tolerant Republican can’t support. Baker backs buffer zones while Trump wants women to be punished for their abortions. Cruz, who is now talking about rounding up Muslims door to door isn’t substantially better.
Baker has publicly said he would support the Republican nominee
and not vote for Hillary. He only has 3 million in the bank, supporting Hillary will dry up his RGA and big Wall Street Republican money. You have to support your party’s nominees or face consequences.
The bulk of his own party’s legislative delegation in Massachusetts is supporting one of those two and his right flank I’d still upset about the treatment of Fischer and he state committee fight. And if he does support either it will do him some damage and be a recurring nightmare for him if either actually becomes President.
Peter Porcupine says
Cement shoes are a bad fit.
And I am wondering about the ceaseless churning. Maura Healey could be hit by a Greyhound bus over the next 3 years, and you want to promote her candidacy now?
fredrichlariccia says
in the Massachusetts primary who endorsed Il Douche the Misogynist Loser.
So, now what’s he going to do ? Endorse Lose Cruz ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
SomervilleTom says
A transitive relationship is one, like “equals”, where it is logically correct to say that if a=b and b=c then a=c.
Endorsement is NOT transitive — if a endorses b and b endorses c, it does not mean that a endorses c.
We would not want it to be different. Doing so leads immediately to guilt by association, for example, which is a toxic element of political discourse.
I read the “leaden Donald Trump Republican electoral shoes” as referring to the appropriately shameful consequences of Donald Trump being the nominee of the GOP.
There’s just no way for the GOP to duck that. The GOP did it, and EVERY self-professed Republican bears the consequences.
Mark L. Bail says
An intransitive verb has no subject. Ex. Trump stinks.
A transitive verb has a subject. Ex. Trump makes money.
edgarthearmenian says
A transitive verb has an object. An intransitive verb has no direct object.
Mark L. Bail says
That’s what I get for rushing at lunch. I’m an English teacher!
I meant object.
SomervilleTom says
I used the term “transitive” in its mathematical sense.
You’re an English teacher, I’m an engineer, together we will crush the Trumpists. 🙂
rcmauro says
For the curious — your tax dollars paid for two professors at UMass-Lowell to explain mathematical relations at this link (section 6.3).
Doerr & Levasseur Applied Discrete Structures
Regarding all the education bashing in the otherwise very convincing Thomas Frank thread, not all of what we do in Massachusetts is expensive and elitist. You can take a good discrete math class at UMass-online for pretty reasonable tuition …
SomervilleTom says
The ironic thing is that I learned about the “transitive” property (in its mathematical sense) in my seventh-grade math course in my Mongtgomery County MD public junior high school (from Mr. Hughes, to be precise. 🙂 ).
That one course, where I also learned about the commutative, associative, distributive, and similar properties, has been more influential in my life than pretty much ANY other single math course (I have a BSEE from an allegedly awesome university). This provides the foundation for a huge portion of the “higher” mathematics I later encountered — systems of linear differential equations, continuous and discrete calculus, linear algebra, partial differential equations, and innumerable courses in circuit theory and analysis.
It’s great that this material is available from UMass-Lowell. I’m not sure any of my five children were exposed to it at any time during the public school career, never mind in seventh grade. So far as I know it was not, by the way, covered on any standardized test and was not taught in order to “improve” the performance of my school, teacher, or county.
It was taught because my community, in 1964 or thereabouts, felt that it was important that children in Montgomery County MD know about “new math”, so that they could do better in later years. It was an example of something that my school system of that era got right.
I’d like our public schools today to embrace a similar stance towards knowledge for its own sake.
Peter Porcupine says
Don’t you mean ‘transferable’ instead of ‘transitive’?
petr says
Not he meant transitive.
A object is ‘transferable’, meaning the object is able to be taken from one state to another state.
A system has ‘transitive’ properties if it includes objects or states that have identifiable relationships to/with other objects or states. This can include the transferability of one object or state to another object or state.
Somervilletom responded to fredrichlariccia ‘s post by saying that Baker’s endorsement of Christie is not related or relatable to the electorates endorsement of Trump (or Cruz) in the primary… that is to say it is not transitive.
SomervilleTom says
I put up a link to a formal definition, for crying out loud. If you look at the big letters on the top of the page at that link, they spell “T-r-a-n-s-i-t-i-v-e”.
Is it asking too much to actually open a link I cite before asserting that I’m wrong?
Bob Neer says
Nominating a birther and anti-women standard bearer will hurt Baker electorally, just like leaden shoes make it hard to swim, no matter how much he tries to distance himself from Trump ’16. You can already see the consequences of the toxicity of the Republican brand in Massachusetts in the party’s inability to elect more than a handful of legislators or to find more than a very few competent and accomplished state party leaders.
Mark L. Bail says
but I think Baker is trying to rebuild the Mass GOP in his own image.
Porcupine may be in a position to know something I don’t, but if I were Baker, who drew support from unenrolled and Democratic voters, I would be interested in building a more moderate Republican Party in my own image. The story I would spin: as the national GOP goes off the rails, Baker is trying to preserve a moderate, tax-averse state party. He could play on history, of Massachusetts Republicans like Bill Weld and Edward Brooke. Previously, Karen Polito had run as a fairly conservative candidate. When I spoke with her at our municipal compact signing, she definitely downplayed partisanship. (I had told her that I had invited prominent Granby Republicans to the ceremony).
My speculations could be wrong, and Baker could eventually have a problem with social conservatives, but in Massachusetts, I think he’s demonstrated a viable path for Republicans in the state.
jconway says
41% of MA republican primary voters went for Trump, more than Alabama his next best state. More legislators endorse Trump than anyone else. So that’s where Charlie will have to go, or the establishment decides to lose with Cruz. Either way, the Republican backing buffer zones is dealing with a nominee that says women have to be punished or a nominee that will round up Muslims door to door. It’ll hurt him, the question is how much and for how long.
SomervilleTom says
There were 856,166 votes cast in the Alabama primary, and Donald Trump got 371,735 — 43.4%. In that same state, there were a total of 398,164 votes cast in the Democratic primary.
So of the TOTAL number of Alabama primary votes (1,254,330), Donald Trump got 29% of the Alabama primary vote.
In Massachusetts, meanwhile, there were 631,395 votes cast in the GOP primary, and Mr. Trump got 311,313 of those. Here’s the difference though — there were 1,204,927 votes cast in the Massachusetts Democratic primary. The Massachusetts Democratic Primary alone collected nearly as many votes as the TOTAL Alabama primary.
So of the TOTAL number of Massachusetts primary votes (1,836,322), Donald Trump got 17% of the Massachusetts primary vote.
Here’s my point:
1. Only 17% of Massachusetts primary voters went for Donald Trump. That’s strikes me as a far less compelling goal for Mr. Baker.
2. Only 29% of Alabama primary voters went for Donald Trump, his “next best state”.
3. Hillary Clinton got 603,784 Democratic votes, nearly TWICE as many as Mr. Trump. Bernie Sanders got nearly as many, 586,716.
While I agree that we should not minimize the threat Mr. Trump poses, we should also not exaggerate it.
I think Donald Trump is a loser. I think he loses in the general election. I think he costs votes for the GOP in the down-ballot races in the general election — I think that’s why the “GOP establishment” is terrified right now. I think Mr. Trump loses Massachusetts in the general election, by a landslide.
I think Donald Trump is toxic to the GOP nationally, and even more toxic to the Massachusetts GOP. I think Charlie Baker flees Mr. Trump, as fast and as loudly as he can.
Christopher says
…and he certainly doesn’t have to adhere to the narrative you’ve adopted that puts Trump on such an electoral pedestal. Endorsing Kasich makes the most sense in terms of compatibility, but won’t help either of them politically. I’m with Mark above – focus on rebuilding the state GOP in his image and try his best to ignore the circus his party has become nationally.
Mark L. Bail says
And Trump is a choice in time. He may represent a trend, or he may be the confluence of events at a particular point at time. Trump isn’t necessarily the future. It’s too early to say that they represent a coherent platform. They know their own minds, but their minds don’t necessarily line up with a party.
I don’t know if Baker can keep it up. He doesn’t need all Republican voters. He needs enough of them, enough independents, and maybe enough Democrats. It’s a mistake to think he has to accept all of the GOP. He has taken steps to control the Mass GOP apparatus. If his candidates can get nominated by the party, and supported by enough of the electorate, he’s all set.
The GOP is fracturing. Baker represents one strand of the party.
Peter Porcupine says
…for accuracy.
We’ve always had the RA types, the ‘Republican Wing of the Republican Party’ as they like to call themselves. I think they got a little drunk with power, mistaking previously non-voting unenrolleds for new adherents – like those 900 who voted for Gilmore in Chelsea. But those primary votes didn’t trickle down the ballot to the SC races, and many/most likely don’t subscribe to their extreme (for MA) social conservatism.
MA GOP has fractured oodles of times. Pierce/Weld, Cellucci/Malone, Swift/Guerrio, Healey/Rappaport, and other passionate races even less well known. Just because none of you paid attention doesn’t mean we were a band of brothers in the past.
The SC battles aren’t new either, and I have direct knowledge of other party chairs offering the same cash subsidies in the past (no, I turned it down). But crappy politician that he is, Charlie got caught. Excellent Governor, lousy politician. And outside of wonky political land, the former is more important.
jconway says
He caved on the film tax credit, hasn’t led on climate change or solar which should be easy wins for him, is pushing the flawed charter ballot in the fall rather than accepting a more equitable compromise. He’s done a good job managing the day to day and developing working relationships with legislative leaders, but he seems like a weak Governor in our de jure strong Speaker system just like Deval. He’s just a nicer guy and smarter manager than his predecessor. It’s also troubling he can give away state jobs and dump dark money into these races, it’s not just lousy politics it should be illegal.
Peter Porcupine says
Take a look at the Pike, where a $500 donation made you a toll taker. Baker appointed people to positions in his administration, just like Deval, which is appropriate with a change. That’s part of why voters changed administrations – DCF seems to have done better than 8 years of Democrats, for example.
And as I said, the untracked money is not an innovation. Gee, wonder why the Democrats aren’t right on top of that abuse.
Since he doesn’t agree with the Democrats position on charters, and has said so often, I’m not sure why you think that a failure. Again, part of a change voters endorsed.
Mark L. Bail says
Baker is a good governor (as much as I hate to say it). I don’t agree with his position on charters, and as more communities hit their levy ceilings, his likely position on tax increases. He’s a Republican. I’m a Democrat. But he’s more coherent and effective than Patric ever was.
His EITC move was politically graceful, and his Community Compact program is a low-cost way for Karen Polito to travel the state, make local officials feel important, and make it look like they’re doing something productive (we’ll see what my own town’s compact turns out like).
jconway says
You will find no harsher critic of Patrick’s handling of DCF than yours truly. The bipartisan legacy is tax breaks to GE, casinos, and inaction on transgender rights just to name a few. I got tired of slamming my head against the wall and sucking up to idea of the likes of Jim Miceli occupying the same political universe as the people who call themselves progressives and basically vote with him on the important economic and procedural matters in the House. I am tired of government by organized mob and organized money. The former is the Trump fever swamp and the latter is most members of both parties who claim to represent us in Boston.
But yeah, Charlie ain’t a check he’s a part of the problem. So was Martha.
Christopher says
…that you have adopted the pox on both their houses attitude toward the parties. Any objective study of respective voting records (e .g. Progressive Mass scorecard) will show that most Dems really do vote to the left of most GOPers most of the time.
jconway says
JCohn and Harmony Wu proved this extensively in a recent thread you participated in. “Not voting with Republicans” is not the same as “voting as a progressive”. Maybe that’s acceptable in Washington, I hold our state to a higher standard.
Christopher says
I said they mostly vote to the left of most Republicans. If you take the progressive scorecard and listed every legislator from highest to lowest score, almost every Dem will be listed before almost every Republican. We can and should work harder to give Dems cover for voting progressive, but we must realize that not every district in the state shares the general ideology of BMG.
jconway says
A majority that exists just to be a majority is hardly something worth fighting for. A majority that actually passes progressive legislation is. We haven’t had the latter in Massachussetts for quite some time, and the former is more often than not an obstacle to achieving the latter.
Christopher says
Is it progressive fantasyland majority? No, but given the overall voting records I’ll take a Dem majority over a GOP one without reservation.
jconway says
I’d rather have a socially moderate Republican than Jim Miceli, even if the overall record is just as center right on others issues, since that man is one of our biggest obstacles to a transgender bill and pushes GOAL legislation. He’s a Democrat. We don’t need to mention the EBT and immigrant bashing of your former rep.
Yes these districts might go Republicanot otherwise, or if we can actually grow our fundraising base and recruit they could go UIP. But either outcome is better than the lousy Democrats who are there. And it’s a few more votes that won’t go the Speakers way on basic questions of whether we have a small d democratic house or not. Nothing I said applies at the national level, so let’s keep this local.
Christopher says
…though for the record Miceli scored 67% on the PM scorecard (up from 25% in the last GC interestingly). You made it sound like the party in general wasn’t much better I thought, which is just inaccurate. It appears that you can form a majority with those with PM scores 67% or higher which I would argue isn’t bad.
jconway says
67% means 100% with DeLeo on every issue. It’s nowhere near the 90% that Hechts are getting. Oregon’s legislature, which coincidentally (or not?) has more Relublicans and crazier ones at that, is passing far more ahead of the curve pieces of legislation. It’s not a fairyland to say that the supposedly bluest state in the country with a long time blue supermajority can actually pass progressive legislation. It’s called doing its job, and I for one won’t settle for the crumbs you are. Policy has always trumped politics in my book, and our policy outcomes aren’t where they could be.
Christopher says
…and I interpret it as just maybe DeLeo is a little more progressive than he is given credit for.
jconway says
I’ve been waiting for an answer for ten years as a participant here. There are plenty of good Democrats on Beacon Hill, but they have consistently been the minority of the caucus. We can’t even pass transgender rights, we’re pathetic. And frankly all the Bernie v Hillary sniping here is a digression to the real work that has to happen at the state level to fundamentally transform our government. And unlike Washington you can’t blame the Republicans since they simply aren’t enough of them to honestly point the finger at.
jconway says
“Not as bad as most of the Democrats on Beacon Hill” is not my standard of doing a good job, let alone, an excellent one. That’s the partisan blinders talking and we could all do better to avoid them and be reality based in our approach. You’d be perfectly pissed if 300k of dark money from New Balance’s CEO was given to state employees as a slush fund for a partisan race on the Blue Team. As I’m sure it has in the past, hence my radical notion of building up a party committed to electing authentic people who want to serve the people instead of themselves and enrich the commonwealth as a whole and not just the companies that underwrite them.
JimC says
I missed that somehow. I like the film tax credit, it’s a good investment. It might be time to cut it back a little, but everybody loves having movies shot here, and it’s good for tourism and such.
jconway says
Was what he told DeLeo. He was gonna kill that pork project to expand EITC and found the funding elsewhere to keep both priorities in line. I for one am tired of my tax dollars subsidizing the Walhbergs or another tired movie depicting us as insular crime addicted racists. Maybe that’s just me.
hesterprynne says
the Gov. came back with a modified plan that would, among other things, cap the film tax credit at $7 million per picture. This struck me as another politically adroit move on the Gov’s part — returning the film tax credit to where it was under Gov. Romney, and dividing the Dems between those who oppose corporate welfare and those who benefit rather directly from the credit in its current form (including but not limited to the Teamsters, who get a lot of behind-the-camera work).