A new poll in the UK's Sunday Times is saying that Iraqis feel life has improved for their since Saddam Hussein left. You won't ever see this talked about in the US media. God forbid they jeopardize their agenda.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone — the fact that I worked for the CIA — should have put up a red flag."
So Deval Patrick finally cans friend, donor and campaign chairman!
.....and then hired a few more hacks.
Now I'm a little befuddled as to where this money is all coming from to hire new staffers? Joe Landolfi is replacing Nancy Fernandez Mills, who's not really being fired, just being placed somewhere else in the administration, likely doing nothing, but retaining her salary. So that's not really a replacement, that's an addition. Dave Morales who was Senate President Robert Travaglini's 'chief of staff' and will go from $80,000 a year in that job and his salary will be bumped up to $100,000 even.
It's likely Patrick will use his firing of his wife's 'Secretary' Amy Gorin, whose salary totaled $72,000. So essentially, Patrick is adding $207,000 in salaries right? They're being funded basically out of the dropping of a $72,000 salary. Apparently, there are even more appointments on the way. So far, we've got $135,000 is new money that needs to be allocated for the governor's office and at this pace, it'll top that substantially.
Deval's putting a spin machine together with your money. Excellent.
Speaking of spin machines, The Republican just decided not to cover the reshuffle. At all. It wasn't anywhere on the paper. No mention, nothing. It might as well not have happened out here in Springfield.
This is where the text for Friday's really funny column will go. It will be quite uproarious, and will not be a total and complete piece of crap. It will be as un-disappointing as text on a white background can possibly be. If Hillary Clinton were to read the text that will populate this column, she would laugh so hard that she'd stop talking like a southern twit.
But only for a second. Then she'd be a twit again.
This is where the second paragraph for Friday's column will go. It will be very short but with a "big bang" sort of joke that requires its own paragraph to be properly funny and politically offensive to the 'other' side.
This is where the third paragraph for Friday's column will go. It will be dirtier and more offensive than the first two paragraphs, with phrases like "pee f-----", "smooshy a-hole". It might also include a funny anecdote about how circumcised penises are metrosexual penises because they're clean and stylish. Once people read a few sentences into the third paragraph, they are likely to keep reading until the end of the column, even if they are offended by it. This is because they are stupid.
This is where the fourth paragraph for Friday's column will go. Here the author will get tired of writing awesome hilariousness, and will just put in a bunch of easy garbage jokes about celebrities and blah blah this and poopy boat that, ha ha isn't that great. And don't forget 'I'm so smart!"
This is where the fifth paragraph for Friday's column will go. It will be disappointing as well, but not quite as crappy as the fourth paragraph.
This is where the sixth paragraph for Friday's column will go. Here the facetious and scintillatingly witty content will return because the author will have stopped for a while, recharged, maybe watched half of "Anchorman", and come back with fresh ideas that aren't crappy.
Welcome to the seventh paragraph! Like the second one, this paragraph is another add-on joke that requires its own paragraph. Everybody likes the add-on joke paragraphs, even jerks like you, reader.
This is the eighth paragraph, where the humorous anecdote starts wrapping up. While funny, this paragraph will also include just the right amount of seriousness and heartfelt confession, to get stupid people to like the author more. Dumb people love to feel sorry for others. This is partly because they're slow in the face, and partly because they're gullible, dopey, mutton-headed fart-bags who would get emotional over a dog food commercial if the dog were wearing an adorable hat.
Here's where the text for the ninth and final paragraph will go. This paragraph can include any selection of worthless filler and crap, just as long as it leads to a witty ending that brings the whole column around in a circle. I'm not sure why everyone expects political columns to wrap things up in a tidy little bow, but I'm not going to worry about it right now. I remind you one more time that I'm both smart and exceptionally witty before reminding you that our President is a real dirt bag, as if you didn't get that the first 9,000 times I said it in previous columns. Did I mention I'm really smart and witty?
Amy Gorin, former Deval Patrick campaign co-chair and chief of staff to Massachusetts First Lady Diane Patrick, resigned from her post.
The resignation comes after controversy regarding Gorin's being placed on the tax payer-funded pay roll at a salary of $72,000 per year.
Gorin, Patrick's former campaign chair, also came under fire early last year when a testimonial posted on Deval Patrick's Campaign web site blog featured Gorin not disclosing her identity as the chairman of the Patrick campaign, instead showing herself to merely be a random supporter.
The official press release can be found here.
So is Global Warming just a bunch of rubbish? Thomas Sowell seems to think so. Below is a documentary that aired in England that is quite interesting. Spread it around. Grab a bag of popcorn though, this one's just a little long!
Governor Deval Patrick announced yesterday, that he is filing a "cost avoidance" bill with the Legislature according to Boston.com. The "cost avoidance" bill will only cost taxpayers $1.47 BILLION dollars. The money wlll be used to build "emergency" projects. "Emergency" projects like a new psyc hospital, and a few new bridges.
Who's avoiding the cost again?
According to State Representative Ben Swan (D-Springfield), Massachusetts is as racist, if not more racist than Mississippi.
Swan said in a sworn statement filed in connection with the case that he once preferred the Deep South to Springfield.
"When I first moved to Springfield (in the 1950s) I wanted to go back to Mississippi because of the racist attitudes I encountered," Swan said.
Yesterday, he testified he believed there have not been equal opportunities for blacks to get elected here, due to fund-raising and networking handicaps.
The Springfield Republican ran a headline today that read "Realities muddle voting rights suit". 'Muddle'?
No. More like "kills".
US District Judge Michael A. Ponsor sounded like he had enough of listening to the stupidity and questioned whether the proposal to create nine voting districts across the city would really advance equal voting rights, saying "It does collide with logic".
In perhaps the greatest moment of hilarity in an entirely hilarious proceeding, Judge Ponsor pointed out the one thing that no one seemed to touch on that would, you know, be important.
"I'm, frankly, surprised to see a proposal in which..... five of the nine districts are overwhelmingly white." He said. Ponsor also questioned whether this suit came in a little too late, as blacks and Hispanics now constitute a majority of the population in Springfield.
Fortunately Ponsor's bright enough to be setting aside the B.S. so we can get to the real reason we're wasting tax dollars on this trial, that being how far-left groups can insure that their candidates are elected without hassle to the city council year in and year out.
The best, I'm sure, is yet to come.
He won't ever go away. Former Governor and 1988 Democratic Presidential Nominee Michael Dukakis was at it again, letting us all know we should stop picking on Deval Patrick about his wife's depression.
The best quote from this story:
"Former Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, whose wife waged a public battle with booze, pills and depression and wrote two books about it, said the media should just leave Gov. Deval Patrick and his wife alone as she battles her own illness."
This one's from Deval Patrick Watch:
Apparently Deval's approval ratings are dropping quicker than a hooker's drawers. His approval rating is down a whopping 20 points and his disapproval rating up 22. Yikes.
Read the story from CBS here.
What the!? Why aren't there any statues for these books at the Doctor Seuss park in the Quadrangle?
Is it utterly impossible for Democrats to look at their own and raise an eyebrow?
In the latest 'How Dare You' piece by a member of the liberal Boston media, Margery Eagan is quick to point out all the mean-face, Republican evil-doers who also apparently hot-dogged on the job in an attempt to justify Governor Deval's recent issues. This one though, took the taco:
Perhaps you have heard about Mitt and Ann Romney’s “my family is better than your family” presidential tour, where they go on about their perfect marriage, family, teeth, hair and home? It’s nauseating, really.
I’ll take grit over Mitt and Ann in Wonderland. Any day.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in distress at not recieving much of a favorable nod from talk radio, recently revived the specter of the Fairness Doctrine. This concept was introduced and rapidly killed in the last century. She was joined in this clamor by fellow liberals, to no one's surprise.
The essence of the Fairness Doctrine is equality in presenting points of view. The idea is that if one political candidate is criticized on a media outlet such as television or radio, he or she must be given equal time to rebut with a personal defense.
The problem with the doctrine, which was quickly discovered when the original act was implemented, is that the United States of America is not a socialist nation. That is, the airwaves are "public" in the sense that no one owns them per se, but they are very private in that one must pay money--big money--to secure the exclusive right to broadcast on a particular bandwidth. Neither you nor I could broadcast an alternate program on one of the major networks because they have a license to transmit solely their choice of programming.
Thus, to demand of Rush Limbaugh's network that Al Franken be allowed equal time to do his unfunny rant-and-rave routine, which failed miserably on Air America despite being subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars in donor contributions, one would cite the Fairness Doctrine as the casus belli. (Note that that particular Latin term is deliciously appropriate: it means the rationale for going to war.)
But the Doctrine quickly ran into the problem of ownership. Having nothing of substance to say, liberals are rather boring. Once one sees past their accusations and spins, a process which requires up to five minutes for the dull-witted of us, they are worthless in terms of entertainment or interest value. Radio and TV stations make their money from renting air time to advertisers, who pay the high fees to pitch their products and services in anticipation that there is someone out there listening. If your main content is a drag, your ratings go in the tank and advertisers go where the eyes and ears are. Hence the merciful death of Air America after years of useless drivel. It was a total, utter, and dreadfully embarrassing failure for liberals because they have nothing whatsoever to say that anyone other than a moveon.org mouth-foamer would want to hear.
But Hillary says that's not fair. After all, she alleges, talk radio is almost entirely conservative. Therefore, raido listeners are presented with a daily barrage of conservative points of view and there is no surviving liberal counterpart.
This is somewhat mysterious. After all, Hillary is reasonably bright. She managed to survive the Bill years with a reputation that enabled her to buy a New York senate seat. Does she not understand that no one wants to hear liberals on the radio because there is nothing to hear? That listeners tune in to talk radio--voluntarily, with no one holding a shotgun to their head--because conservative points of view are preceived to be factual, sensible, and reasonable? That they are actually interesting?
Perhaps Hillary isn't so bright after all. She seems to think America is rather stupid not to see through her nonsense. But then, liberals are by definition afflicted by the mental disorder of trying to live in the world of their imaginations and earnest emotional desires rather than reality. More likely than not, she is sincere and just living up to her job description.
Would an event like this draw 300 people. For those of you who are curious, yes, this is front page news on masslive.com.
SPRINGFIELD - School Committee member Marjorie J. Hurst testified today that backing failed mayoral candidate Thomas M. Ashe in 2005 boosted her political career in by exposing her to more white voters.
Hurst, taking the stand in the second week of a voting rights trial in U.S. District Court, said Ashe's lopsided loss to Mayor Charles V. Ryan coincided with her strongest-ever showing in a School Committee race.
Underscoring the dynamics of race and politics at the center of the trial, Hurst said she concluded there was one explanation for her success.
"I attended a lot of events with a lot of white people," said the lawyer and four-term incumbent, who served as Ashe's campaign co-chairman.
Hurst was testifying in a lawsuit filed by Arise for Social Justice Inc. and other groups seeking to change Springfield's at-large voting system to district representation.
The trial, based on a lawsuit filed in 2005, is pitting some of Springfield's most prominent civil rights advocates against the city. U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor is overseeing the non-jury trial, which is expected to last two or three more weeks.
Responding to questions from plaintiff lawyer Paul E. Nemser of Boston, Hurst said her vote total for 2005 was second only to Ryan, who coasted to victory against Ashe, a School Committee member and ally of Hurst.
CREDIT: Springfield Republican
If you've been engaging in commentary on the various blogs on the Internet and around various places on the Internet, I'm sure you've become quite familiar with many of the changing attitudes within the Republican Party, both nationally and here in Massachusetts as well.
Somewhere in the last 10-15 years or so, many of the columns and pundits who were, for a long time, the standard bearers for the conservative movement strayed off the beaten path and began speaking in tongues foreign to our own. Is this another "Rosemary's Baby Moment"? The last changing attitude most folks dealt with was the big dot com boom in the late 1990s which insisted that many of those companies were worth billions of dollars despite they had a barely rented office space with a cheesy name plate on the door. Ask many folks, and they'll tell you that they recall that there was a bubble thing and it popped and people stopped talking about the 'changing attitude'.
Well, the Republican Party has a changing attitude within it and here's how it works. First, a self-appointed group of well-moneyed country club rat pack-wanna bes go out and pick a new star to replace the outgoing star. The new star needs to look differently from the previous star, who likely squandered a lot of his political capital and ticked off the base. The 'elites'.. they don't care much for the base though, as it interferes with their ambition to create a world where they can take advantage of 'markets'. Nationalism, patriotism, sovereignty, the US Constitution and family values mean little to them. In fact, the elites are perpetually frustrated with repeatedly being forced to have to compromise their agenda with conservatives as a shibboleth to power and they just aren't going to do it anymore. Instead, they will do what the 'neo-liberals' did to the 'old liberals' in the 1960s and 1970s. They're going to change the language. The new language will ignore facts and promote a new kind of high-minded truthiness used in building personality cults. The old star was George W. Bush. They've yet to find us a new star.
The pre-Bush Republican Party rose to power largely due to ideas that were fostered, cultivated and communicated by President Reagan in the 1980s and were then harnessed and sold by the Newt Gingrich-led Contract with America in 1994. Republican registration was exploding and at it's strongest point was around 32% and that was largely due to Reagan Republicans (and a few Reagan Democrats too). The Conservative Democrats became known as "Blue Dogs". They came to power as the ruling conservative coalition even before the GOP took over all three branches of the national government and the majority of the Governorships. The problem was that this conservative agenda, no matter how popular it was and continues to be with most folks, actually became an obstacle for those who finance the campaigns. Now, these financiers look for candidates who can sell themselves and give them stuff quid pro quo. Like Humprey Bogart said to Peter Lorre in "Maltese Falcon"; "You'll take your slapping and like it!"
Such feats of circumlocution cannot be accomplished without obfuscation. It is not easy to convince people that this new cancer will cure all that ails you. It is also very expensive. After all, cancer doesn't sell itself. The arguments cannot be made within the old paradigm of conservatism and so they create a new rhetorical language that introduces new terms and words around which to build new "ideas". And anyone who disagrees will be marginalized by being labeled as hard-headed, unreasonable, out-of step with reality, or whatever. Just read many blog commentaries if you need a comprehensive list. This new cancer is spreading quickly throughout our ranks and is already metastasizing.
So conservatism is being destroyed from within by a new political correctness whereby conservatives are not allowed to defend themselves or their principles. Doing so is not nice. Politics is going through a scary change right now. Politics, in theory, are based around disputes. We wouldn't have the need for government at all if there were indeed, no disputes between humans that needed to be resolved. Rather than talking about our problems and talking about matters with which we disagree, voters, Republicans, Democrats and everyone else for that matter seem to be flocking towards 'nice' politics. Instead of focusing on the things we disagree on, we'd rather focus on the things we agree on and make nice with each other. Politics, as we all know now, is only for "nice" people and it is not nice to have well-defined ideas or a list of specific issues to fight for. Nice people don't have ideas because ideas cause tension which leads to arguments. To this new breed of political thinkers, How can you have a democracy if people are arguing all the time? For nice people, the new human brain is a "fantasy reinforcement machine", not a "truth-seeking machine". The world is so much nicer when speech conforms to fantasy rather than reality. Don't believe me? Two words: Deval Patrick. It produces a world full of nice people. People like Michael Medved and the pussified George Will, nice people all. No room for that trouble maker Ann Coulter. Nice people must be forever vigilant to avoid the temptation of succumbing to a sense of humor. Being nice is serious business. Please upgrade your brains by downloading the new software as soon as possible. Someone told me Vista won't screw it all up.
What makes this new shift within the political system in general, and more specifically our party, ironic, is the fact that the neo-Republican takes liberties in eating it's own at every possible opportunity. Names like RINO, neocon, absolutists, single-issue fundamentalists, social conservatives and so on, infest out blogs, discussion forums and general dialogue in the party.
As long as you're 'nice', you may be 'mean', so long as it's a, uh, 'nice' way. The GOP to these folks is a 'big tent' where everyone is conservative, but their form of conservatism is nicer because it doesn't get bogged down in ideas. Instead, they dub it 'intellectual diversity'. We are all conservatives somehow and we should be willing to listen to each others' 'ideas' even when 'ideas' are just vague attitudes about completely irrelevant issues. All ideas are equal, especially the ones we steal from the Democrats, because after all, that makes people 'electable'.
The New Conservatism has turned into a vast ocean of diversity-filled goodness where nice people continue to avoid discussing issues people might disagree on. 'Big Tent' is reserved only for folks who play nice and do what they're told by people who apparently 'know' stuff and can explain it to them in a more truthy, earthy- crunchy way. "Don't think too much kids, you might confuse yourselves!". "Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?" I've heard this song before. Just like "Whoomp There it Is!" sucked the first time it was released as a single, so did liberalism in the late 1980s. Yes, we've turned into the Democratic party, circa 1990. If you'll remember, they dropped the term 'liberal' because it got a little too hot to handle. What're we going to do when 'conservative' becomes and adjective for sucking at thinking?
Our movement right now is utterly confused. It would help a lot of we made the distinction between being conservative as opposed to being Republican. Cut it any way you want, they're not interchangeable terms. To me, it feels like this is the reason we're all talking past each other these days. There are far more people who consider themselves 'conservatives' than are registered Republicans. Do you think our moneyed political elites in the party know this? A third party! Ooh mommy look! A unicorn!
I like to consider myself at least a semi-reasonable guy. Like a lot of folks, I probably know a hell of a lot less than I think I know, but I AM at least, willing to discuss my ideas and views intelligently. Being asked by new Republicans to compromise for the sake of the team isn't healthy. Most marriages fail because couples don't communicate effectively. Let's try and not end up like them and begin to hammer these issues out and entertain alternative and new ideas. As for myself, I refuse to surrender to a personality cult.
All the money and organization in the world are no replacement for ideas, Just as all the slogans in the world are no replacement for actually knowing what you're talking about. We need to stop running from conflict and once again, become a party of ideas, not convenience.
Yikes, Even Reuter's is giving Deval Patrick some rough treatment these days. An interesting, all encompassing summary of Deval's more than shaky start.
With the weekend being fairly slow, I figured I'd take some time to take a look at the Presidential Race thus far and try to make some sense of where all this has been and is heading in the next couple of months.
The Republican Candidates
Rudy Giuliani-- Rudy has run an extremely solid campaign thus far. His 80-20 message seemed to sit OK with Conservatives at CPAC a week or two ago and generally speaking, he seems to be the moderate candidate, as John McCain has more or less fallen on his face out of the gate. Giuliani is trying to keep this debate as much about National Security as humanly possible, which is what has more or less put him on the map to begin with. However, he's still got a lot of questions to answer, especially about some seedy female-related activity in the past, however I think concerns over this may be overstated, at least in a political sense. Yes, his promiscuity will rub Republicans the wrong way, but head to head, Hillary Clinton certainly can't hammer him with it. Yes, he's 'more liberal' on 'important' social issues, but Republicans seem to be looking for someone who can really sell and better prosecute the War in Iraq. Overall, I think he's in a good position, but again, there are some questions to be answered, but it's safe to say it's a little early yet to predict how they'll play out. Overall, he's looked strong.
Mitt Romney-- Mitt seems to be emerging as the Conservative choice, although he's still in the 'getting to know you' mode. Romney, in my view, is probably the strongest candidate at this point from a political perspective. The Mormonism won't be an issue. When candidates attack Mormon candidates, they do so implying that its creepy. What makes it creepy? The answer is polygamy. Mitt has been married longer than anyone in the field. Considering McCain and Giuliani's partners were mistresses before they were anything else gives them very little credibility in terms of being able to make those claims. I think he'll be fine.
In terms of organization, Mitt's campaign is unmatched right now, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton. He's raking in the cash and essentially stacked the rolls down at CPAC to win the straw poll and make himself a legitimate candidate amongst McCain and Giuliani. Some people are questioning his moderate views in the past, but Mitt has consistently moved to the right over the years, and doesn't LOOK like a panderer. Mitt's done the best so far because he's accomplished the most. He proved he can raise money with the best of them and flat out, out-organized the rest of the field at CPAC. He's arrived and seems to gradually be picking up more and more steam, although the arrival of a Newt Gingrich-type Conservative Candidate could seriously eat into his support.
John McCain-- I don't really get what McCain's strategy has been. He announced his candidacy in front of a largely liberal audience and his double-talk on many issues is beginning to really torpedo his poll numbers. More or less, McCain has been the most quiet of the big three Republican candidates in the media, and doesn't seem to really be able to get both feet under him. Romney's nimbleness and Rudy's marketing have forced McCain's campaign off balance and he almost seems dead on arrival to many. He has a huge uphill battle to wage and his failure to react more quickly in the past few months may have left him permanently behind. His name recognition make him a perennial threat not to be taken likely by anyone, but he has appeared to be completely out-maneuvered in the early part of this campaign.
The Rest-- There isn't much to be said about the Republican field outside of the Three Musketeers. Newt Gingrich confessing his affair this past week all but puts him on the outside for good. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, while very likable, certainly look like second tier candidates. They may liven up the debate, but don't look for these two to really go anywhere. The one dark horse with an outside shot of making a name for himself is Sam Brownback of Kansas, whose organization was commended at CPAC both for it's scope and general aggressiveness. Brownback is well to the right of even Romney and has the burden of being a legislator in the US Senate these days to keep him down, but if Brownback plays his cards right, he could make himself, ironically, the anti-establishment candidate in this election, even though his views are probably the most congruent with the current ideological bent of the Republican Party.
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton-- I'm utterly shocked at how her campaign has struggled out of the gate. While hugely popular with the base, voters don't seem to be 'buying into' her like they went for her husband. Her stump speeches have appeared forced and rather cookie cutter, and she's struggling to establish herself as a likable candidate. She's been reacting to news rather than making it and seemingly has been off-balance the entire last month or so despite not really seeing anything in the way of resistance. In sum, Hillary seems to be hurting Hillary, and if you're a supporter of hers, that's not a good sign, even this early.
Barack Obama-- Obama's been the hot candidate on the left for sure. Despite not taking so much as a single policy stance on much of anything, he seems to be inspiring a fervor on the left for an individual candidate that hasn't been seen in some time. He's got many big money celebrities in his corner and is even picking off support from the Hillary Clinton camp, which is utterly shocking. The big question still looms large though: Will the rubber meet the road with Obama the closer we get to Primary Day? Obama can't avoid taking stances on issues forever. In times like these, even the left and the right agree on the fact that this choice is going to be one of the most important ever. Will his lack of experience really come out to bite him in the backside? Again, he's avoided it thus far and is doing well. However, when he can't anymore, how will he, and most importantly Democratic voters, react?
John Edwards-- Edwards has been hopelessly quiet, save for his publicized spat with Commentator Ann Coulter, but Edwards has run a focused, bare bones campaign. Edwards has done this thing before and really never got rid of the campaign infrastructure he had in 2004. Edwards seems to have the most out-in-the-open and focused strategy of any of the candidates. He learned in 2004 that a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire can completely win this thing and in my view, he's right. Edwards is by far in the best position in the places that matter. He's incredibly popular in Iowa. He looks like an overwhelming favorite there. If he wins New Hampshire, this thing's over, but if he finishes second, Obama and Hillary need to move over in a big way, if not get out of the way entirely. Sure, Edwards has appeared whiny thus far and has even had to beat off conservative attacks regarding two insane-o bloggers who were working as campaign staffers for him, but more or less, still seems to be in a pretty solid place all things considered.
The Rest-- Something about this Democratic field makes me think we may have a dark horse emerge. My pick is going to be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. If Richardson can get some media, I think he'll win the primary. Yes, I said it. Not only is he by far the most experienced candidate in the race, it's all experience that involve critical issues to voters this election cycle. He's got 8 years worth of experience in the House of Reps and will be able to work congress well. He's got two years of experience under his belt as a Governor in New Mexico, which also makes him credible on illegal immigration, not to mention he's, uh, Hispanic too. He worked as the Sec. of Energy for the Clinton administration which makes him a credible voice on the energy crisis and then spent his final days with Bill as the US Ambassador to the UN. If he can frame the debate as one about experience, he'll cleanly run over Hillary and Obama. He's incredibly dangerous. Two tax cuts in New Mexico will also give him cross over appeal. Whether he can get media or not is a big question, but Obama and Hillary talking qualifications with Richardson would be like two little leaguers trying to prove they can hit a baseball farther than Barry Bonds. Look out.
Chris Dodd shouldn't be in this race, period. Whoever told him he had a shot at getting anything higher than 3% in this race should be fired. He's not just dead on arrival, he's been dead for the last 5 years.
Dennis Kucinich.... riiight.
The rest of the field is certainly defined by the 'who cares' category.
I'll try and do a monthly analysis of where we're at with this whole mess. It's shaping up to be a very interesting race, indeed.
Here's this week's calender of events! Remember, if you want us to post an event, contact us at Massfederalist@gmail.com! For future reference, PLEASE send in the Name of your event, what it is (meeting, dinner, lunch, cage match), where it is, what time and WHO to contact and at what number or email address.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
| Event: | Republican Club of Southeastern Massachusetts |
| Where: | Wamsutta Club 427 County Street New Bedford |
| When: | |
| Cost: | $15.00 per person |
| Contact: | Janet Doe - Janet.Doe@verizon.net, |
 Wednesday, March 14, 2007 | |
| Event: | Acton Republican Town Committee |
| Where: | 24 Liberty Street Acton MA |
| When: | 7:30 pm |
| Cost: | Free! |
| Contact: | David Stone dkstone@flagshipventures.com, |
Thursday, March 15, 2007 | |
| Event: | Joint Meeting Yarmouth Republican Town Committee and the Dennis Republican Town Committee |
| Where: | 7 PM at the Dennis Senior Center Dennis MA. |
| When: | 7:00 pm |
| Cost: | Free!! |
| Contact: | 508-398-9621, |
Friday, March 16, 2007 | |
| Event: | Sandi Martinez Kick-Off |
| Where: | The Skellig 240 Moody St - Waltham |
| When: | 7:15 pm |
| Cost: | $50 pp $90 cple |
| Contact: | Michael J. Benn, |
I just got an email from the National Rifle Association. Check out what I found!
Looks Like Deval Patrick's 2008 budget has a nice little piece slipped in there to make sure that written notifications for Firearms ID Cards and License to Carry permits are done a way with altogether. Usually, these laws require that a permit holder is notified 90 days before his or her permit expires.
The new language would require the state to supposedly send an 'electronic' notification of some sort only if the holder of the permit contacts the state themselves and provides them with their email address.
I'm a little shocked at this, seeing as $100 fee for licenses should more than cover the expenses of sending out written notification, but apparently, this'll do a better job of making sure people get arrested for possession of illegal firearms, thus making it easier to label them as the left like to label gun owners as; complete cooks.
Give Deval a call and let him know this is BS at (617) 250-4000. Call some legislators and give them an ear full too. (617) 722-1276.
Politics 101: When seedy stories of corruption under your rule begin to take hold, try to make people feel sorry for you. Sympathy always works.
So here we Governor Deval Patrick's Wife is now officially depressed.
I hope Diana Patrick gets better, but really, this whole thing is far too convenient to not at least arouse suspicion. A lead story in the Sunday edition of the most widely read paper in the region while in the midst of a few scandals? C'mon.
After all, he is a Democrat. It's not like he goes around parading his wife around for political gain. I mean, gosh, who do you think he is? Mitt Romney?
I wish the Globe could at least PRETEND not to be so biased.
