An open letter to our local candidates

Thank you. Running for office is not easy. It takes a substantial toll on one’s family life and finances, yet you accepted that burden and pressed on. If we hope to turn things around we’re going to need people to follow your example and – win or lose – I hope it’s not the last we’ve seen of you.

Thank you to those who threw their hats into this ring for the first time – Jay Barrows, Mike Atwill, Lydia Wiener. You are examples of what we need for the future: people sufficiently concerned about the state of the Commonwealth that they take action.

Last but definitely not least, thank you to our currently-serving Rs – Ginny Coppola and Betty Poirier. Best of luck in all your future endeavors, Ginny, and Mansfield looks forward to having Betty’s continued efforts on Beacon Hill.

Mattapan, Roxbury & Hyde Park run out of ballots

I can see it now: this post will undoubtedly be seen as sour grapes on the part of the losing party. But hear me out - one of the major lefty blogs here in MA had a post & link to a Globe story about polling places in Boston running out of ballots. Huh?!?!

How does this happen when you have a known number of voters on the list? Either 1) not enough were printed, 2) there were way too many spoiled ballots or 3) some ballots were used...inappropriately. As to #1, I'm guessing the state has a formula for how many ballots they print - presumably a percent above the number of voters on the list, so as to account for things like #2. So where does that leave us?!?!

It's GOTV time!

It's here - election day! Time to get out the vote and support our candidates:
U.S. Senator - Ken Chase
U.S. House - Chuck Morse [write-in]
Governor - Kerry Healey
Lt. Governor - Reed Hillman
Attorney General - Larry Frisoli
State Senate, Norfolk and Bristol - Michael Atwill
State Rep, 1st Bristol (Precincts 1, 3 and 6) - Frederick "Jay" Barrows
State Rep, 14th Bristol (Precincts 2 and 5) - Elizabeth "Betty" Poirier
State Rep, 8th Norfolk (Precinct 4) - Lydia Wiener
Governor's Council - Michael McCue

Non-profits and political bedfellows

Let me preface this by saying that my wife and I are probably greener than a lot of our fellow Republicans. So when someone from Clean Water Action came by the house a while back, we talked to them and we probably even gave them some money, too. I mean hey, who's against clean water?

Fast forward to today, when my wife gets a postcard from Clean Water Action urging her to vote for Claire Naughton for State Representative in the 1st Bristol District. It's the second one she's received in this election cycle. Did I mention that my wife and I are also probably redder than a lot of our fellow Republicans - at least from this part of the country? We may support the idea of clean water, but on a host of issues we disagree with Claire - we'll be voting for Jay Barrows.

All this has got me thinking, though. A lot of organizations I support also support candidates that I can see myself voting for - the NRA, Citizens for Limited Taxation to name two. Then there are grayer areas. Immigration, for instance, isn't always clear-cut along party lines. And this isn't solely a problem for the right. Take a hypothetical Massachusetts Democrat who is also a devoted Catholic and believes homosexual "marriage" is wrong. Does she support a group that opposes homosexual marriage, knowing that they'll probably support Republican candidates?

What percent of issue-oriented non-profits like Clean Water Action advocate not only for their stated issue, but also for candidates they believe will vote their way on that issue? Do they all funnel part of your contributions into their political wings? What do you do when an issue group you like doesn't support the candidates you like - do you withhold support from the group? Then how do you express your support for the issue?

One more thing to think about before writing that next check.

What is a negative ad?

Sounds like a dumb question, but let's think about that for a moment.

Does an ad become "negative" simply if it tells you why you should not vote for the opponent? If so, why is that so bad? If you listen to the media, negative ads are to be frowned upon (especially if they come from Republican candidates, but that's another blog entry entirely). Is the goal to simply spend all your time talking about yourself and your qualifications? But even if you do that, you're still saying "I've done A, B and C," with the implication being that your opponent hasn't done A, B or C, so you shouldn't vote for the opponent. If you were shopping for a new car, would you only want to know the good features of the models you're comparing - or would you like to know the flaws of each model, too?

Can you talk about the opponent at all without it being classified as "negative?" What if the things you're saying came right from the opponent's mouth? "My opponent said X, so vote for me, because I stand for Y." Lots of campaigns use comparison pieces that highlight where both sides stand on several issues. Are these by definition "negative?"

How about highlighting who endorses your opponent, or where s/he gets campaign contributions? Now you're starting to get into an eye-of-the-beholder situation. Saying that the XYZ Union endorses your opponent only gets you traction with voters who think that's bad. Your opponent cries foul, calls your piece "negative" and probably garners some support from those who think it's a great thing to have the support of the XYZ Union.

I don't want this to sound like a denial of the existence of negative ads, but I think it's safe to say that the definition of "negative" is far less objective than the media would have you believe.

Cutting John Kerry some slack....I don't want to get booted from our blog but I'm actually going to defend Liveshot Kerry for a moment. I have heard the clip of his latest gaffe and I didn't initially think he was taking a pot shot at our troops. There's no doubt in my mind that he was thinking that he would insult President Bush. The problem is that, just like all liberals, John Kerry has NO SENSE OF HUMOUR. In order for something to be funny, the joke has to have some truth to it and that's why all of the Bush bashing just doesn't get any laughs. As an example, the President has his undergrad degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard - he's not dumb. Yahoos may disagree with him, but he's not a dumb man. Now Ted Kennedy on the other hand.......

That said, Kerry is getting what he and every other humourless liberal deserve. I can't wish people Merry Christmas without that a##%hole Gouviea ripping us in the Fishwrapper so John Kerry deserves to be vilified in the press. Let us all hope that the GOTV machinery is working throughout our fine country next Tuesday (or it won't be so fine!)