Romney's Routine

More today from the Post on Governor Romney's strange, groundbreaking comedy routine wherein he goes to other states and makes fun of his constituents. This sentence in the article puts it best: "Romney favors comedic riffs that depict him as a bemused and besieged 'red dot' in a sea of liberalism."

I've said before what a bad tactic I think this is. New Hampshire may not have the same reputation for liberalism as the Bay State does, but Romney is still betting that most voters in that crucial primary state don't see anything wrong with a politician who mocks his constituents (New Hampshire's neighbors) to get ahead. I think he's wrong about that.

Source: Washington Post, "Massachusetts Governor Makes His State the Butt of His Jokes", 9/26/2005

Redistricting

The Los Angeles Times mentioned Massachusetts today in an article about California's "Prop 77", Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan to have retired judges draw legislative boundaries in the state. The article has some good general background (and history) on why gerrymandering is such a problem; a more fleshed-out version of the article that appeared on KTLA's site featured this proposal, currently making the rounds, for how Massachusetts should draws its own lines.

Who draws the lines: The governor appoints a dean or professor of law, government or political science from a Massachusetts university; the attorney general appoints a retired judge; and the secretary of the commonwealth appoints a civil rights law expert. Those three members then choose four more members from a list of nominees prepared by the top four legislative leaders.

Criteria for districts: Districts should be compact, lie within municipal boundaries, keep neighborhoods together, contain House of Representative districts within Senate districts and not take the addresses of incumbents into account.

Timeline: The commission adopts a plan after the federal census in 2010.

Source: Los Angeles Times, "Several States May Revisit Redistricting", 9/26/2005

No Debate

For all intents and purposes, Boston Mayor Tom Menino has refused to debate challenger and fellow Democrat Maura Hennigan. According to the Herald, Menino agreed to three meetings between now and election day on the grounds that questions can only come from audience members (WGBY will screen the questions) and that no podiums will be used because "podiums signify a debate". Also, the debate will be on the night of a crucial game in the AL East between the Red Sox and Toronto.

Hennigan is probably going along with this because she figures it will at least give her some desperately-needed publicity. But how much can she complain about the format if she agreed to it? She would have gotten a lot more mileage (and publicity) out of this by refusing to accept the format and demanding that Menino actually debate her. She could get in the news cycle every day by challenging Menino to a real debate in some new and interesting way. She should hire that "Chicken George Won't Debate" guy to go to every event at City Hall.

Source: "Menino avoids all close encounters: Candidates won't have real debate", Boston Herald, 9/22/2005

Disaster Czar

Speculation has been rampant for at least a week now that President Bush would name Gov. Romney as "Reconstruction Czar" of New Orleans. According to Politics1.com, Romney's press secretary on Tuesday insisted "our office hasn't been contacted by the White House nor has our office contacted the White House about this. Governor Romney loves the job he has and is intent on serving his full term."

If offered the job, though, expect Romney to take it. I'm firmly of the opinion that he will not run for re-election; the loss that his low poll numbers seem to predict would be disastrous for his near-certain (at this point) run for President in 2008, and the business of governing would keep him from effectively campaigning. Also, if he resigned in the near future to take over the rebuilding effort in New Orleans, that would give Lt. Gov. Healey incumbent status for the 2006 election at a time, and incumbents rarely lose. It would allow him to save face in avoiding the decision to not run for re-election. And, most importantly to Romney, it would raise his low national profile in a way that advocating the blanket wiretapping of mosques can't.

Wiretapping Mosques

I was pleased to see this story get a little more attention today, a day after it was reported that Mitt Romney's speech at the Heritage Foundation included the comments: "Prevention begins with intelligence ... How about people in settings, mosques for instance, that maybe are teaching doctrines of hate, are we monitoring that, wiretapping...?"

There are a lot of things wrong with the blanket wiretapping Romney seems to advocate, the most obvious violations being those of unreasonable search & seizure, half of the provisions in the First Amendment, and (depending on who you ask) the right to privacy. Politically speaking, it's also just a plain stupid thing to say if your goal is anything other than ridiculing your constituents in front of a national audience. But putting those gripes aside for a moment, it's just a bad way to prevent terrorism or other criminal activity. As five senior counterterrorism experts for law enforcement and anti-terrorism agencies explained in a memo shortly after Sept. 11, only profiling based on behaviors (not characteristics) is effective. When we start looking suspiciously at all Muslims, the suspicious behavior of an individual (Muslim or not) will go unnoticed. Besides, our translators aren't suffering from a lack of source material; if we force them to translate hours of prayers and harmless conversations, they will miss the next "Tomorrow is zero hour" conversation, guaranteed.

Other people have adequately made the civil liberties argument against Romney's suggestion. My point is that this sort of profiling increases the likelihood of future attacks.

Source:
Boston Globe, Wiretap mosques, Romney suggests, 9/15/2005
Boston Globe, Romney's slip, 9/16/2005

Gary Lee Profile

Interesting profile today of gubernatorial hopeful Gary Lee (R) in the Daily News Transcript. He makes some good points about the state GOP being a party of millionaires, but he also seems to be making a mistake a lot of people (Democrats, Republicans, and Third Parties alike) make in attacking New England GOPers. For example, he points out that he is pro-choice, but his main competitor, Lt. Gov. Healey, is too. I think if you try to paint New England Republicans with same brush as the national party you're going to lose. No matter how many times you say it, voters are never going to buy that Kerry Healey is Rick Santorum. As Lee points out, though, there are a lot of Republicans fed up with their local party's fiscal policies. That's the way to win.

Source:
Money doesn't matter to Lee, Daily News Transcript, 9/14/2005

Know Thy Neighbor

The Herald had a scathing editorial today denouncing knowthyneighbor.org and its founders, a married couple named Tom Lang and Alex Westerhoff. The website has vowed to publish a list of everyone who signs a petition to put the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008. The Herald claims:

The aim here is clearly to intimidate. It is also an open invitation to harass those who sign on to the measure. It's rather like earlier efforts by ardent anti-abortion groups who posted the names of doctors who performed abortions on their Web sites. At least one of those doctors ended up dead.

How wrong can one editorial board be? This comparison is a calculated play on emotion rather than reason.

The people who sign this petition are not voting for a law or a candidate. Rather, they're bypassing the legislature and the judiciary and trying to make law. Therefore, they're legislators. If the Massachusetts legislature stopped recording which lawmakers voted for or against legislation, that would be a clear violation of the law. How is this any different? When a minority of people want to propose a change that affects everyone else in the state, we the people deserve to know who these people are. As David from Blue Mass. Group put it, "if the backers of this (or any) constitutional amendment can't find 66,000 Massachusetts residents who feel strongly enough about doing so that they're willing to make their support public, then maybe the measure shouldn't be on the ballot after all." Indeed, this is public information anyway. Inevitably, someone signing this petition will not have been informed that his/her name would be made public; so the publicity surrounding this website may serve a valid public service.

Source: Intimidation on the Web, Boston Herald, 9/9/2005

Day of Reckoning

Today is probably the day Attorney General Tom Reilly will decide whether or not to certify the 2008 ballot question that would outlaw gay marriage. Reilly is/was a longtime gay marriage opponent, though his views have gotten more squishy since he undertook a run for Governor.

The question is by most accounts illegal under the Massachusetts Constitution because it seeks to overturn a judicial decision. It is also nearly identical to a ballot initiative put forth in 2002. Since Massachusetts law prohibits similar ballot questions for two election cycles, that may also be grounds to refuse to certify it.

Obviously, the compelling interest here is in upholding the law, so we won't get an idea of his personal views. Still, his decision has implications for his candidacy as well as Mitt Romney's presidential run.

For what it's worth, here's the wording of the proposed ballot question:

When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. (from ago.state.ma.us)

Update (2:45PM): Reilly certified the initiative. Did he give the Democratic nomination for governor to Deval Patrick (or someone else)? Time will tell. This certainly makes Romney's probable presidential run a bit easier: in the Northeast (which he obviously would need to win) he can avoid this divisive social issue for the duration of the campaign. Likewise, he can use his support for this measure to show the rest of the country what a conservative he is.

Boston Mayor's Race

This is technically from last week, but I wanted to point out this story in which the Globe gave Boston Mayor Tom Menino some unbalanced free publicity for a cheap stunt. As apprehension reached a fever pitch last Friday over gas prices driven sky-high by Hurricane Katrina, Menino (up for re-election in two months) staged what sounds like a clumsy photo-op in which he renounced his gas-guzzling ways and jumped into a hybrid SUV, then tooled around City Hall Plaza for the benefit of reporters and photographers. Maybe the Globe is going to indulge every candidate's pratfalls from now on, but otherwise I fail to see how this is news.

The response by also-running Maura Hennigan was at the very end of the story:

City Councilor Maura Hennigan, who is challenging Menino for reelection this year, said Menino should have made the changes long ago.

Hennigan acknowledged that she drives a Jeep Cherokee, but said that is different because it is her private vehicle.

Of course it's different because it's her private vehicle! Hennigan, like the rest of us not in control of the City of Boston's sizeable budget, didn't have the option (or means) to call a press conference on Friday and just decide to get a new vehicle because we don't like high gas prices.

I'll admit that I feel bad for Hennigan; she's raised $20,000 (and mortgaged her house) to Menino's $1 million. Either way, I'm looking forward to the debates between the two, the first scheduled for Sept. 28. Priyanka Dayal wrote a really good article on the race in today's Daily Free Press, a Boston University daily paper.

Source:
Menino plans to trade SUV for gas-sipper, Boston Globe, 9/3/2005
Mayoral race a story of two bank accounts, Daily Free Press, 9/6/2005

Lt. Governor's Race Up

The Lt. Governor's race has been added to the right. Thanks to Patrick for suggesting that I put it up, and for helping me fill out the field of candidates. The Republican field is understandably a bit thin at this point; like everything else, it all depends on Romney's decision.

Will he or won't he run for re-election? I personally think he won't. It seems from his frequent out-of-state trips (and in-state rallys) that he's decided to run for president in 2008. Assuming that for a moment, for Romney to run for re-election next year and lose (as current polls suggest would happen) would deal a fatal blow to any presidential aspirations.

What do others think?