d   o   w   n       t   h   e       p   i   k   e

Yes we can ... treat all citizens of the Commonwealth equally?
Yes we can ... eliminate one of our truly regressive taxes?
Yes we can ... remove the tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike!

Hey, Deval, you claim you're not a tax-and-spender just for the sake of being one. Your bag is helping people. If that means raising a few taxes, well, that's just because helping don't come free. Money is no object when issues like fairness are being considered.

So why are you so reluctant to free the Pike? Why are all your cronies salivating over the various legalistic maneuvers to keep those tolls up?

Arguments in favor of tolls on Interstate 90 -- (1) it reduces the burden on the general fund, (2) it's a user fee, (3) it discourages gas-guzzling -- all ignore two facts: the current tollway system in Massachusetts is patently unfair to east-west drivers on the state's southern tier, e.g. residents of the MetroWest, Worcester and Springfield areas; and, any flat fee levied on a life necessity (transportation) is a regressive form of taxation, e.g., probably mean-spirited Republican profiteering.

As I've said before, I'm not against tolls. I've drunk the kool-aid on the user fee argument, and would rather tax expressway drivers specifically than use gas tax funds to pay for upkeep on the Pike (sorry about that, redistributionists ... I'm also a flat-taxer). At one point, I was also a strong believer in the environmental case against freeways; now, I'm not so sure, becuase of the idling-at-tollbooths factor (although Howie hasn't convinced me of that one -- how much of the idling at Exit 15 is because of tolls, and how much is simple congestion akin to the Mass. Pike-Central Artery interchange downtown?).

Yet add me to the list, along with Hub Politics, of people who are still waiting for tollbooths on I-93 (yes we can ... put a tollboth in Milton). To reiterate, the current situation is unfair to those of us from Central Massachusetts -- I believe you're acquainted with one of them, aren't you, Deval?

Yeah, that guy, the one who won you the election. Blue Mass. Group offers this county-by-county analysis of Deval Patrick's win last week, comparing the Patrick-Murray ticket's performance to taht of 2002's ill-fated O'Brien-Gabrieli pair. Synposis: Bristol and Hampshire swung about 15%; Dukes, Hampden and Suffolk, about 22%; Berkshire, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk and Plymouth, about 25%; Franklin, 29%; and Worcester County, 33%.

BMG's conclusion: "Murray Brought in Key Central MA Votes on E-DAY."

Time to appease the base, Deval.

First off, thank you, veterans.

On to today's screed, which is really two screeds from two days ago....

I'd like to revisit some comments I made over at Hub Politics on Thursday. Margolis started the thread about the future of the Grand Old Party in the People's Commonwealth, arguing that the state committee and various specific Republican leaders need to do a better job supporting state rep. and other local candidates. He also stumped for the return of Jim Rappaport and more from Reed Hillman.

I don't know how this campaign was run (other than badly), and I don't know Rappaport. So I don't presume to give advice to party leaders on that score. One person I do know is Hillman, though. So I said this:

Let me second ... or third, or whatever it's up to now ... the call for more Reed Hillman. He's real people. He's intelligent. He's a leader.

He also points to the best way to save this party and preserve (or is that revive?) the two-party system in Massachusetts. The party needs to focus on building its grassroots. That means more time spent in Central Massachusetts.

(There's more to that reply in the comments section of Hub Politics' article How To Save the Massachusetts Republican Party. You can read it there. Also, please read the other replies. Many are insightful.)

My own political education in this state came in southern Worcester County, and I found it to be a surprisingly conservative place -- blue-collar Democrats, and a few unabashed Republicans, too. I believe that's where the state Republican Party's future lies. Sure, there's the bluebloods of the North Shore, South Shore and Cape, but see what happens when one of them runs for governor? In order for the party to have state-wide appeal, and to win in working-class suburbs, it needs more standard-bearers who look, talk and think like its State House contingent from the South County.

Thanks to the irreplaceable Howie Carr -- who I also cited in my comments Thursday as a model for what issues we need to emphasize -- we now have roll call records on how the state House and state Senate voted in Thursday's same-sex marriage non-vote debacle. Here's a selected list:

House
N - Binienda [D-Worcester -- also Leicester]
N - Callahan [D-Sutton -- also W. Blackstone Valley]
N - Carron [D-Southbridge -- also Charlton and environs]
N - Gobi [D-Spencer -- also most of the Brookfields]
N - Kujawski [D-Webster -- also Douglas, Dudley]
N - Parente [D-Milford -- also Hopedale, Mendon]
N - Peterson [R-Grafton -- also N.E. Blackstone Valley]
N - Frost [R-Auburn -- also Millbury, Oxford]
N - Polito [R-Shrewsbury -- also Westboro]
N - Smola [R-Palmer -- also Sturbridge and towns between]

Senate
Y - Augustus [D-Worcester -- and inner S. suburbs]
N - Brewer [D-Barre -- and other W. suburbs]
N - Moore [D-Uxbridge -- and mid/southern Blackstone Valley]

See a pattern here? By my count, these are all the legislators that represent Worcester's southern suburbs. Only Augustus, who lives in the city and counts it as his main power base, voted to adjourn. The rest, even though most of them are Democrats, voted in the minority, in favor of at least voting on the marriage amendment. Several of them would have voted to send it to the voters in 2008, if given the chance.

The Republicans on this list seem to occupy safe districts. The Democrats, especially Augustus, the embattled Kujawski, and first-term replacements to Parente and Carron, will be vulnerable to GOP challenges in 2008. This is where the GOP rebirth starts.

At least the election was a democratic process.

My man in the state Legislature (in case you couldn't guess by playing averages, a Democrat, and a liberal one, at that) assured me this wouldn't happen, but it has. The constitutional convention refused to vote on the gay marriage amendment -- they won't even vote "no" on it -- and Bay Windows is celebrating "victory."

I love the take one poster on BlueMassGroup took on this, becuase it really is an anti-democratic move. Somehow, the left has managed to brainwash itself into thinking that "we don't vote on civil rights." Bullcrap. Elected representatives vote on our behalf, and through the U.S. Congress, state ratifying conventions and state legislatures, we voted on woman suffrage; we voted on equal rights (14th amendment); we voted on the entire Bill of Rights; we voted on the entire damn Constitution (and every state constitution). So cut it out already.

I'll stick with the Bay Windows blog because I like the format: it puts several quick takes on the events, as they happened, on one page. Let's go through this thing quickly, just the highlights (follow the link above if you want the full thing).

2:08 p.m. Anne Paulson is smoking something. The state judiciary is not admired across the country. It's ridiculed. Rightly so. Still, I don't think they should be subject to elections (at this point in the afternoon, legislators were considering an amendment to do so). The judiciary should not be politicized in that fashion.

2:45 p.m. "It's clear that marriage equality proponents are stalling while advocates work to get support for an adjournment vote." Democracy inaction.

3:09 p.m. "Lawmakers defeated the measure allowing the filling by appointment of vacancies in the office of governor or lieutenant governor by a 60 to 134 vote." That's too bad. It's a good idea, modeled on the U.S. succession plan.

3:24 p.m. "ConCon is debating first of two anti-gay marriage amendments. State Sen. Ed Augustus is speaking against it: 'My friends, put very simply, it's time to move on.'" There's a football term for this ... taking the knee. Augustus, et al., have been running down the clock for three years. It's not time to move on, Ed. If you'd let us vote on this two years ago, then it would've been "time to move on" 728 days ago. But you didn't.

3:50 p.m. "State Rep. Phil Travis is warning his colleagues not to vote against the current anti-gay marriage amendment because it would be unconstitutional." Can someone explain to me how a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional?

4:12 p.m. "... the liberal legislators, 'the gracious people,' as [state Rep. Marie Parente] put it, are always talking about speaking for the disenfranchised. 'Does your graciousness end' when it comes to those who signed the initiative petition to ban marriage? [she asked.] 'What about their civil right, their constitutional right to be heard?'" I can't believe Bay Windows printed this comment on their blog. I may disagree with their politics, but they get a few points on my scorecard for accurate reporting. Unlike, for example, MTA Today.

Incidentally, Bay Windows' Website is running a Webpoll. The question is: "What will Kerry Healey do now?" My selection is "B," "Land starring role in 'CSI: Beverly.'" Inspired.

5:42 p.m., a lengthy entry:

Lawmakers voted to recess the ConCon until 2 p.m. Jan. 2, 2007 by a 109 to 87 vote, which is the last day of the legislative session. Technically, lawmakers could reconvene to take the issue up, but it’s extremely unlikely. Which means that the amendment has died by procedural maneuver. The significance of the recess vote as opposed to an adjournment vote is that Governor Mitt Romney cannot call the legislature back into session.

"Which means that the amendment has died by procedural maneuver."

I was ready to put forward all my arguments in favor of this amendment, and probably I'll do so in a future blog post (my previous posts on the issue, which pretty much sum up what I would have posted today, except that I also lined up some new citations, are here and here). But I think that statement stands on its own. "Died by procedural maneuver.

Hey, party of "the people" -- yeah, you guys, the ones who just got returned to office by sending a "message of hope" to those were locked out of the system -- hey, congratulations on another great populist victory.

Also in the blogosphere: Bettnet comments similarly, adding an extra heaping of scorn for the "Legis-Weasels."

Also also: Universal Hub headlines its aggregation "Same Sex Marriage Preserved Again," which is not only biased (excusable -- this may be an aggregator, but it's also a blog), but also inaccurate (inexcusable). At no point this afternoon was gay marriage in jeopardy. If you want to say that merely putting it on the ballot would be somehow harmful to gay marriage, well, that wasn't on the docket; sending it off to a second Constitutional Convention, in 2007 or '08, was all that was at stake.

Get ready for the spin, folks ... here goes: It could be worse. We've been living with John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, the overwhelmingly liberal congressional delegation and the 90% Democratic Legislature for years. What's one more?

And, for all his slipperyness and alarming political leanings, Deval Patrick is a leader. Today's news brought a powerful image: charismatic Patrick standing next to charismatic Mitt Romney as the discussed the transition. Wow. What a pair.

So, in no particular order, a few random thoughts on the last 48 hours:

1. Are you happy, Mitt Romney? The worst part of it is, I may end up voting for you for president. I still like you, Mitt, but I've been mighty disappointed in you since 2004. Peter Blute was mentioning this morning how you delivered a great "we fought the good fight" speech at Kerry Healey's concession. I agree, although I thought at points it sounded more like a "here are my credentials for prez" speech. But I also agree with Blute that you should have been delivering this speech every day for the last three months, emphasizing the positive things you and Healey have done, like Melanie's Law and balanced budgets. Instead, you chose to spend time shoring up your race against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for a nomination one and a half years away. Way to build up the state party, Mitt.

2. Speaking of whom, I voted for Peter Blute on Tuesday. I can't bring myself to leave Jim McGovern unopposed on a ballot, so I went with the only Republican I could think of who had run in the 3rd congressional district. Probably should've written in rising star Karyn Polito instead, but hey, it was a snap decision. And now I find, this morning, that Blute is calling starting to call his show ... "Radio Free Massachusetts." C'mon, Peter, I'm a fan, but I was here first!

3. I vote at Grace Ross' precinct. Early on election morning, when I voted, all I saw were Deval Patrick signs. She lives some two blocks from the polling station. I know she was jet-setting (er, sedan-setting) across the state all morning, but she couldn't get a neighbor to hold a sign?

4. "I knew it would be a landslide when ..." ... I saw Sturbridge go for Patrick. Holy crap. Reed Hillman, as trusted a leader as one can find in those parts, a man who can turn Town Meeting votes on one five-minute speech, couldn't carry his own hometown. I sincerely hope this experience hasn't soured him, though. I would be proud to cast my vote for Hillman as governor some day, four, eight, or twelve years from now.

5. What a great choice the Democrats made nominating Tim Murray for lieutenant governor. He gave Patrick some much-needed local government bona fides, and I think he was a huge part of neutralizing the moderate tilt of Worcester County. I was shocked to see more red on the map in the South Shore and Pioneer Valley than in Central Mass. Holden, for Patrick? Shrewsbury? Sterling? I didn't know their ballots even printed Democrats.

6. On a similar vein, Christy Mihos didn't get a bump in Yarmouth. Ten percent, if memory serves, neither at the front or the back of his best showings. The hometown doesn't even show up on The Globe's excellent Best and Worst Towns list for Christy. Although his childhood home, Brockton, weighing in at 15%, did, despite being an urban center solidly in Patrick's camp.

7. One-party rule ... Contrary to the comforting words set over this list, I find the Democrats' sweep distressing. Both elected branches of government, one unanimously (including all constitutional offices), the other overwhelmingly (the GOP actually lost seats in both houses ... how is that possible?). Folks have compared the sitaution here to the pre-Nov. 7 status quo on Capitol Hill, but really, it's much worse here. Yes, the GOP controlled both houses and the presidency ... but it's not as though he's rammed through an ambitious domestic agenda, a la FDR or LBJ. He can't. There are (or were) enough liberal Republicans to cross the aisle and join the 40%-plus Democrats blocking any measure. Meanwhile, here -- and it's only gotten worse now -- a powerful Legislature drives the agenda and, despite opposition from the recent governors, is able to easily override any veto, even if it does lose a few of the most conservative Dems. At least Republican governors have been able to use the office as a "bully pulpit" to suggest reforms.

8. But I'm not going to jump on the we're-so-dumb hand-wringing over at Hub Politics. Fer chrissakes, Healey ran an atrocious campaign in a Democratic year. She deserved this loss as much as Shannon O'Brien deserved hers. Aaron makes good points that Deval is against (and Healey marches with) majority opinion on the issues; but there's more to this race than that. The people said, this week, that they want a leader. They're getting someone inspirational and charismatic. That's no more "dumb" than all the Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan's message of hope.

9. On the other hand, surprising (to me) bipartisanship over at Blue Mass. Group and other liberal blogs. These guys were pushing for Green Jill Stein. They actually used the "one-party rule" and "power corrupts" arguments, to which they gave the charming name incumbentitis. I'll have to steal that one. Anyway, it's refreshing to see statements of principle, and I'm glad I can agree with part of the governor-elect's power base on at least something.

That's it for now, kids. You heard it first here on freemass.blogger.com ... TRUE TALK ... (cut me my royalty check, Blute!).

In the last two weeks, two politicians have told me the same thing about this election. I didn't shock me the first time, but it did the second time.

The analysis is this: Despite Deval Patrick's Rooseveltian (Reaganesque?) lead in the polls, most people agree with Kerry Healey on the issues.

The first person to tell me this was Reed Hillman. It wasn't surprising because Reed is Kerry Healey's running mate. But the second person I heard this from is a Democrat legislator (I'll leave off his name because I was interviewing him for my day job).

Which brings me to this Republican Website, which would be even more brilliant if they'd had a longer list of questions. (and a tip of the hat to the Worcester County Republicans, at whose blog I found the link).

This recalls the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, which television viewers said were won by Kennedy (more polished, more charismatic), but radio listeners said were won by Nixon (more forceful on policy). That may say something about the demographics of media consumers at the time, and Wikipedia says the story's somewhat apocryphal, but it remains a truism of American politics.

I certainly see the appeal of a guy like Patrick. There's so much more to being a leader than simply good ideas; Patrick, like the two most popular presidents in living memory, Clinton and Reagan, can inspire, even if he is a bit fuzzy on the details. He's the candidate of the heart.

I'm still voting with my mind.

Not that it matters, but let's play a little game with the candidates for governor.

According to one of the candidates, there are really only two people with a shot at taking the Corner Office, so let's focus on those two. Let's call them "Candidate A" and "Candidate B." Let's take a look at what they're saying on their Websites about, oh, let's say, education.

Among other things, Candidate A says: "I will support charter schools ... and measuring charter schools in part by whether they are producing innovative ideas that can be imported into district schools." Candidate A also says: "I support the MCAS, including the addition of a science component, as a high school graduation requirement." Furthermore, Candidate A adds, "Quality instruction is the key to academic success for any student. Teachers must continually strengthen their skills. Outstanding teachers should be paid more."

On the other side, let's look at Candidate B. This candidate pledges to "instruct his Commissioner of the Department of Education to revise current regulations to eliminate the MCAS as a graduation requirement." And Candidate B "also intends to lobby the National Governors’ Association, and with the help of various teachers unions, seek to change the [No Child Left Behind] law." And Candidate B "favors charter schools, but he would not raise the cap that limits the number of them."

Neither of these candidates gets my vote, for several issues unrelated to the foregoing. Yet I think it's interesting that one of these candidates did get the endorsement of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. Can you guess which one?

That's right -- Candidate A, Deval Patrick.

This month's issue of MTA Today arrived dans la maison this afternoon, and boy if it doesn't include a front-page photo of the Deval We Know, an editorial supporting Deval Patrick, a profile of MTA's advocacy efforts on behalf of Deval Patrick, a profile on MTA's "100,000 Conversations" campaign to elect Deval Patrick, a profile on MTA's ad blitz in favor of Deval Patrick, and a profile on the fifth annual MTA Retired Gathering, which appears to have focused on how much retired teachers want want to support ... Deval Patrick.

Repeated efforts to find any MTA guidance on local races, such as state representative, were not successful. Apparently Deval Patrick Today ran out of staff hours.

Note that this is the same Massachusetts Teachers Association that says on its Website:

The MTA opposes any use of standardized tests when scores are:
- used as criteria for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding;
- used inappropriately tocompare students, educators, programs, schools and communities;
- used as a single criterion for high-stakes decision-making;
- used inappropriately to evaluate teachers;
- used to design programs for "teaching to the test" rather than to the content measured by the test.

But let's not let a little thing like policies disrupt us from fawning over the most telegenic liberal since Bill Clinton. The editorial takes the form of a first-person account by the MTA president. She admits that "we may not agree with all of his ideas," but brushes it aside by saying "even in those areas where we may disagree -- and again, I cannot emphasize this too strongly -- he will still listen to opposing opinions, and those opinions will perhaps influence and temper his final decisions."

"Will perhaps influence and temper"? The state's largest association of teachers' unions is willing to settle for "will perhaps influence and temper"?

Other than this, the editorial is pretty positive about Deval Patrick, not mentioning his opponents, although the news stories (can we call them that? News reporters try to get both sides ... let's just call them the feature pieces) are heavy on the anti-Romney, anti-Healey message. One gets the feeling that Deval Patrick has captured so many hearts and minds because:

- He's charismatic.
- He's running against Kerry Healey.

Still, that leaves us with very little reason not to endorse Candidate B. You've probably already guessed that Candidate B is not Kerry Healey. Good job. Candidate B is ... Christy Mihos, the independent candidate whose biggest campaign plank is a promise to direct $1.7 billion more to city and town governments (read: School Departments) (read: teacher salaries). The real pro-teacher candidate. The one not even mentioned in this month's MTA Today.

Welcome to the teachers' union, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.