(Thanks to Adam for allowing me to guest blog here. --- Deirdre Fulton)

For four years, the debate over the nation's first proposed offshore wind farm has ebbed and flowed, so to speak. Last week, as news spread that Alaska's only representative, Congressman Don Young, was quietly trying to kill the project, things once again got heated.

Young, it seems, proposed an amendment to a Coast Guard re-authorization bill, which had already reached a small, closed-door, congressional conference committee. Citing safety concerns, Young's amendment seeks to ban offshore wind projects that lie within 1.5 miles of a navigational channel (which Cape Wind's turbines would). Representatives of Cape Wind, and Clean Power Now, the grassroots organization that supports the project, were scared stiff that after passing several state and federal tests, their wind farm would be killed through a back door maneuver.

There was certainly fishy business going on behind the scenes. Washington lobbyist Guy Martin, for example, has ties both to Young, and to wind-farm opponent organization the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Young refused to meet with Cape Wind. And it remained unclear whether or not anti-wind-farm senator Edward Kennedy (who also opposes the Alaskan oil-drilling proposal that Young supports) was connected in any way to the amendment.

If the amendment passed, "that would send a very bad signal about how the cause of reform is proceeding in Washington, DC," Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said last week.

Clean Power Now urged its supporters to contact key senators Ted Stevens (R-AL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME): "Both have stated support for this project, but we cannot take that for granted. Here is where you can help. We need you to call or fax letters to Senators Snowe and Stevens to urge them to vote against this amendment," Clean Power Now said in an email.

That strategy --- or at least common sense --- may have worked, but not as well as Cape Wind would have hoped.

This afternoon, rumors were circulating that Young and Stevens worked out a compromise, one that would make the amendment apply to the Cape Wind project only. Good news for the future, bad news for right now.

Meanwhile, wind-farm opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdrew his support for the amendment in a letter to the senators and representatives on the committee, according to the Environment and Energy Daily trade publication.

The site is subscription only, but here's Kennedy's letter, cut and pasted:

Enviro attorney Kennedy opposes Rep. Young's offshore wind amendment

Ben Geman, E&ENews PM senior reporter

Environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is urging lawmakers to block Rep. Don Young's (R-Alaska) plan to place new limits on offshore wind power, despite his personal opposition to the planned 130-turbine Cape Wind development proposed for Nantucket Sound.

Young is attempting to add an amendment to legislation authorizing Coast Guard programs, which is now before a House-Senate conference committee, that would bar wind facilities within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping and ferry lanes. The restriction would capture the Cape Wind project.

Kennedy, in a Feb. 24 letter to House and Senate lawmakers negotiating a final Coast Guard bill, says the amendment would place an "arbitrary limit" on offshore wind projects.

"This provision would foreclose or severely limit the potential for development of appropriate offshore wind facilities in the United States," Kennedy wrote in a letter to the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate committees negotiating the $8.7 billion Coast Guard programs bill. Young chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Kennedy also said it is "simply not good government" to try and slip in the provision that was not debated in either chamber. Kennedy has written that he supports offshore wind power but believes the Cape Wind plan is inappropriately sited. Kennedy's uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), is also a key opponent of the project.

An environmentalist applauded the new letter. "We are delighted to see that someone opposed to the Cape Wind project specifically recognizes that the Young amendment is misguided and would be devastating for offshore wind across the board," said Sue Reid, staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, a New England-based environmental group that backs the Cape Wind project. Cape Wind could be the nation's first major offshore wind project.

(Adam, thanks again.)

2/28/2006 5:19:43 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Kudos to Boston Online for updating its list of the 64 most annoying Bostonians. Judging from the early responses, an inordinately large number of nominees are going to be politicians. And why not, really?

The thing is, there are so many politicians to choose from that it's hard to keep them all straight. So let's do this as efficiently as possible. I'll act as a clearing house for Adam G of Boston Online, if readers of this blog give me their picks for

A) The most annoying US senator/congressman from MA;
B) The most annoying MA politician elected statewide (e.g., governor, LG, AG, etc.);
C) The most annoying county officeholder;
D) The most annoying state senator;
E) The most annoying state representative;
F) The most annoying Boston city councilor;
G) The most annoying political staffer in Boston (thanks, Paul).

Do one, do three, do all seven--you're the boss! But please, take the high road. No nasty ad hominem attacks, people.

To get the ball rolling, I propose Rehoboth state rep Phil Travis for category E. Or maybe Marie Parente--I can't decide.

2/28/2006 3:48:25 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Talk about good damage control. Felix Arroyo didn't just air his dirty laundry on a Friday afternoon--he aired it on a Friday afternoon, two years before the next city-council election!

Just one question: what does "unfavorable driving record" mean, exactly?

Here's the press release put out by Matuya Brand, Arroyo's recently hired spokesperson, at 3:18 p.m. today. (Apparently Matuya's stint as Dianne Wilkerson's flack taught her some lessons about how to handle damaging revelations...)

"Information on Councillor Arroyo's Financial Matters

"City records show that I owe the City of Boston $399 in unpaid motor vehicle excise taxes for one year, for cars which I no longer own. I continue to believe I may have been incorrectly charged for vehicles which were not on the road, but will nevertheless resolve this issue in the near future.

"I additionally owed approximately $25 plus interest for a missing property tax payment in 1997, an amount which I believed had been paid through an escrow account set up through my mortgage company. I recently paid this amount in full.

"I do not owe any other local, state, or federal taxes or student loans.

"I also have an unfavorable driving record (I assure you that this does not and will never include operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol). I am now using public transportation.

"As an elected official, I understand that I am and should be held to a higher standard. I am grateful to represent the people of Boston and will continue to work to meet that standard."

2/24/2006 5:34:51 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [13] |  

So, our governor was down in the Palmetto State this week, doing what he does best--i.e., selling himself with a vengeance. (I'm sure he banged on some corporate doors, too.)

Today, S.C.'s The State has an interesting write-up of an interview with Romney, who's clearly made dispeling evangelical concerns about his Mormonism a top priority. To wit: "I believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I believe in God. I’m a person of faith and I believe that’s the type of person Americans want."

Also, check out this intriguing discussion--from a Mormon perspective--of how Romney's religiosity could play out in '08. The conventional wisdom has evangelicals reflexively shunning Romney because of his faith, but blogger Scott Hinrich argues (compellingly, I'd say) that that may be too simplistic. Bear in mind, too, that the national Mormon network could be a tremendous asset for Romney in a presidential campaign, as I pointed out a few months back.

2/24/2006 9:04:42 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

In this week's Bay Windows, Laura Kiritsy asks whether the Mass. GOP's tradition of social moderation is a thing of the past. Like pretty much everything Laura writes, it's well worth reading.

2/23/2006 2:58:28 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

In this week's Phoenix, I take a look at Christy Mihos and his still-hypothetical independent candidacy for governor. My conclusion: Mihos could be more of a threat as an independent than a lot of people assume--but not if he keeps clinging to his Republican past.

The estimable Wayne Woodlief also sizes up Mihos's prospects in today's Herald (registration required, but try this before you give up).

2/23/2006 11:13:56 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

I'd missed this, and I bet I'm not the only one: On Sunday, the MetroWest Daily News ran an op-ed by Chris Egan, who--along with his father Richard and brother Michael--was a George W. Bush "Pioneer" in 2004.

Basically, Egan complains that the Massachusetts GOP was AWOL as Boston-based Fidelity Investments began looking into a big North Carolina expansion. Sometimes Egan blames Ranch Kimball, the state's secretary of economic development. Sometimes he actually seems to blame Governor Mitt Romney.

What makes Egan's piece especially weird is that he's reportedly a member of LG Kerry Healey's finance team. Obviously, this raises a bevy of questions. Did Egan have Healey's blessing to write the piece? If so, is she trying to disassociate herself from Romney's economic legacy? And does she really think she could pull this off? If not, what in God's name is going on here?

It's no surprise that Jim Rappaport has bad things to say about the current incarnation of the Mass. GOP. But Egan's rant confounds me.

Any thoughts?

2/22/2006 1:18:48 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

When it comes to deciding who gets on the Democratic gubernatorial primary ballot. But what about when someone who's skipped the caucuses decides to get into the governor's race, and needs to get the 500 delegate signatures required to get into the nominating convention? Someone like, say, Chris Gabrieli?

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts Democratic Party ruled that Gabrieli can get his 500 John/Jane Hancocks from all convention delegates, not just the ones elected at the caucuses. David at Blue Mass. Group has already weighed in on this, and I largely agree with his conclusions. But here's a little bit more on the subject.

The rationale, as explained to me by Mass Dems spokeswoman Cyndi Roy, is this: If the other delegates--including both elected officials add-ons picked to beef up the presence of minorities, women, youth, and the disabled--weren't fair game for Gabrieli and any other would-be late entries, the party would effectively be creating two unequal classes of delegates.

"If you say, only these 3000 delegates elected at the caucuses are eligible to sign papers, then you're basically saying those people don't count," Roy told me. "It's not fair to them not to have the same rights as any other delegate."

Fair enough. But what about the awkward fact that the late-entry rule explicitly states that the 500 signatures for late entries can only be gathered from elected delegates?

According to Roy, the rule originally stated that only "certified delegates"--i.e., delegates who'd paid to attend the convention and had received their credential--were fair game. But because there was no way of knowing who paid, that posed a problem for would-be late entries. Roy didn't know when the wording change was made, but that seems to have been the rationale.

Here's the million-dollar question: Did any previous late entry have to abide by the more restrictive interpretation as tried to scrape up 500 signatures? If not, I don't think anything sketchy's going on here; if so, it's worth asking whether the party's bending over backwards to help Gabrieli out.

Finally, here's the official ruling from the Mass Dems--a clarification, Roy says, not a rule change--followed by a critical statement from John Bonifaz, who's running for secretary of state and thinks the party's decision fails the smell test. (FYI, the ruling was reached on Tuesday, and announced at the Democratic State Committee meeting on Wednesday.)

"Legal Counsel Opinion Regarding the 2006 Massachusetts Democratic Convention Rules Section II, A3

"It is the intent and purpose of the rules to provide for an orderly and inclusive process by which all the elements and viewpoints of the Massachusetts Democratic Party may find expression. Accordingly, the word “elected” as referenced in the rules includes all those chosen or designated as eligible to serve as delegates to the convention and is not intended to be used to discriminate against or otherwise exclude from participation in the process of nomination those delegates who were not chosen at caucus events but who otherwise qualify as delegates by virtue of their election by other means.

James Roosevelt, Chief Legal Counsel

The Massachusetts Democratic Party"

"BONIFAZ ISSUES STATEMENT ON MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S RULE CHANGE IMPACTING THE GOVERNOR'S RACE

Boston, MA - Yesterday, the Massachusetts Democratic Party's leadership issued a rule change allowing non-elected designated delegates to the state party's convention to sign a petition placing Christopher Gabrieli's name as a gubernatorial candidate before the state party's convention in June.

Voting rights leader John Bonifaz, Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, issued the following statement today on the Democratic Party's rule change yesterday impacting the Democratic gubernatorial primary:

"Everyone knows that it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game," said Bonifaz. "Yet, the Massachusetts Democratic Party's rules committee has done just that.  This is patently unfair and antithetical to basic democratic principles and to the values of the Democratic Party.

"I have no issue if people want to play by the rules.  Party rules allow for a previously undeclared candidate's name to be placed before the convention for statewide office provided that a petition for such purpose is signed by at least 500 of the 'elected convention delegates.'  But, here, we have party insiders trying to subvert the process just after the completion of the statewide caucuses.  This kind of action should be opposed by anyone who believes in fairness and transparency in our primary election process.

"Last night, members of the Democratic State Committee supporting this move tried to mask it as merely an 'opinion' interpreting the existing rule.  That dog won't hunt.  The phrase, 'elected convention delegates,' by the literal meaning of those words, refers only to those delegates elected to the state party's convention at the caucuses.  It does not refer to ex-officio members, such as members of the Democratic State Committee, who are non-elected designated delegates.  I urge the Democratic Party's rules committee to come clean and reverse this action.  The integrity of our election process must be protected."

2/17/2006 10:07:37 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

New in this week's Phoenix: a look at Deval Patrick's business background and how it could help or hurt him in the governor's race. At this point, I'm not sure which it's going to be.

2/16/2006 7:43:01 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

I'm a big fan of Beyond 495's Susan M. Today, though, I totally disagree with her. Susan is--to put it mildly--not pleased that Chris Gabrieli might be jumping into the Democratic governor's race. Here's why:

If Gabrieli wanted to be in the Governor's race, then he damn well should have gotten involved before the caucus and actually done the work. Having this "committee" do the work for him with his blessing, but not his involvement (yeah, right) is damn passive-aggressive and is also an insult to grassroots democratic activists who have been busting their asses to work for the two announced candidates.

What's worse though is the idea that all a person has to do to get into the race this late, is not so much based on support, but the ability to say, "Right. Who do I make the check out to?"

To which I reply: Susan, I'm not sure if Gabrieli is the Democrats' best hope to reclaim the Corner Office. But let's suppose he is. In that case...Who cares how grassroots party activists feel about his prospective candidacy? The top priority for Massachusetts Democrats should be electing a governor for the first time in two decades, not bolstering the collective self-esteem of the grassroots.

I happen to agree that there's passive-aggressive quality to Gabrieli allowing his supporters to explore a late entrance. And it's reasonable to lament the tremendous power of money in politics. But Gabrieli isn't just a legitimate prosepct because he's rich--he's a smart, thoughtful guy who knows his shit and has paid his dues. (Remember 2002?) Furthermore, the former frontrunner, Tom Reilly, has been committing long, slow political suicide. And despite Patrick's considerable appeal, there's legitimate concern about whether he can win a general-election fight.

Back to Reilly for a minute. When Reilly tapped St. Fleur, Lynne at Left in Lowell criticized him for being anti-democratic. Now, we all know that the St. Fleur pick was disastrous. But I'll hearken back to my previous point: if Reilly sized up the existing Democratic LG field and decided that he didn't want to run with any of the candidates, why shouldn't he get his own woman into the race?

To reiterate: the top priority for state Democrats should be winning the Big One. Period. As long as everyone plays by the rules--which Reilly did when he picked St. Fleur, and which Gabrieli is currently doing as well--there's no reason to complain.

2/15/2006 2:47:57 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Two weeks ago, I argued that Tom Reilly made a smart move--at least in the short term--by tapping state rep Marie St. Fleur as his running mate. St. Fleur was gone before the Phoenix hit the streets, and Reilly still hasn't recovered.

Last week, I had nothing but praise for state senator Dianne Wilkerson's WILD-AM radio show. Last night, I confirmed that Jimmy Myers' arrival at WILD means that Wilkerson is caput as a drive-time talking head.

Take that, Mark Jurkowitz!

Anyone out there have a politician they want to see fail? Let me know, and I'll write something nice about them.

2/15/2006 7:52:52 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

Is it just me, or is there something unusually loathesome about Bill Frist?

Back in 2004, Frist's RNC speech practically made me lose my lunch. And now word comes that Frist wants to hold a Senate vote on a federal gay-marriage ban "as early as possible," probably in June.

What a jerk. Please, somebody tell me he'll never be president.

2/13/2006 7:37:38 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Scot Lehigh says Kerry Healey avoided social issues in her campaign kickoff speech. But that's not the case. Healey hinted at the culture wars, all right--but she did so in a very crafty way. Here's what the LG and would-be governor had to say:

"I believe in family life--its defining obligations, and its timeless meaning. Fathers should be encouraged to support their children. Families who are caring at home for seniors or loved ones with special needs should be able to count on our support. Those are the best kind of policies because they respect family and its central place in all of our lives. Government goes astray when it presumes to meddle in the matters that are best left to the family."

The beauty of these sentences lies in their vagueness. What's the "timeless meaning" of family life? And when, exactly, does government "meddle in matters that are best left to the family"? More to the point, did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court meddle when it legalized same-sex civil marriages? Or are the meddlers the ones who want to amend the state's constitution to ban these same marriages?

Healey's already on the record as supporting civil unions, but where that support would lead her as governor is anybody's guess. Her kickoff remarks kept the mystery intact--which, of course, allows both social liberals and social conservatives to tell themselves that Healey's beliefs are in line with their own. Crafty stuff. But remember, Healey's learned from a master.

2/10/2006 10:47:18 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Biography matters in politics, and Kerry Healey's tremendous personal wealth is a valid campaign issue. But let's not get carried away. I'm talking to you, Cyndi Roy and Kim Atkins!

Don't get me wrong--the Omni Parker House is a very nice hotel. But it's hardly the Ritz Carlton or the Four Seasons or the Langham. I mean, it's not even the fanciest hotel on its block.

If I were Cyndi--and I'm sure she'll appreciate the unsolicited advice--I'd focus all my class-related Healey digs on that dubious $1.2 million tax break that Affiliated Managers Group received a few years back. As most readers already know, Healey's husband Sean is AMG's president and CEO. And it's money he earned at AMG that's going to bankroll his wife's run for governor.

All of which means that, contrary to what Healey told Jim Braude last night, the AMG tax break is her problem, too. And it's going to be a tough one to deal with, especially since AMG's eventual decision to give the $1.2 million back to the state looks like an admission of guilt.

There's no obvious out for Healey here. But she needs to figure out a more graceful way of addressing the issue, and quick.

2/9/2006 11:56:59 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

So, here's what the lieutenant governor had to say earlier today.

I've already said it was a smart speech. Agree? Disagree? Give me your two cents, already!

"Thank you so much for coming here today, and thank you, Ron, for those kind words. One of the finest experiences in my time as lieutenant governor was working with Ron and his family to pass Melanie’s Bill. And it was a privilege to have him as an ally in that cause, and it will be an even greater privilege to count him as an ally in the cause we are beginning today. Thank you.

"I am here today as a candidate for governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It will be a hard-fought campaign, and we will take nothing for granted. We’re going to speak to every voter, across every line of party, in every city and town in this commonwealth. We’re going to be clear in our words, strong in our convictions, and respectful of our opponents. The people of Massachusetts expect this of their candidates for governor--and I believe they will reward us with a victory on the seventh of November.

"Everyone in this room has a crucial part to play in the campaign ahead. Many legislators and other elected officials have joined us here today, and I’ve seen the skill and dedication they bring to public service. You are the kind of men and women who keep this commonwealth on the right path, and I thank today for the confidence that you have placed in me. Thank you all for coming.

"At my side, now and always, is my husband Sean. Today begins a new adventure in the life that we’ve shared, and we’re proud, so proud, to share it with our children as well, April and Alexander; with my mother, Shirley Murphy; and my mother-in-law, Yvonne Healey. Yvonne. Thank you for helping me recognize them.

"It would be a complete picture for us except for the absence of my father, Ted Murphy, who passed away last year. My dad was a World War Two veteran. He served for 27 years in either the Army or the Army Reserve. He believed that public service was a citizen’s duty and an honorable calling. My father not only believed that, he lived it--and we remember him today for the example that he set for us.

"My mother, too, has lived a life of service--as a public-school teacher for more than twenty years, and as a community volunteer for as long as I can remember. My mother is a first-generation American, and by word and example, she has always reminded me that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all. And I believe, as she does, that equal opportunity begins with public education, and with great teachers like my mom.

"My parents both learned many of their own life lessons in the severe school of the Great Depression and the Second World War. They learned and passed along the importance of thrift, self-reliance, family unity, and compassion for the needy and the overlooked. There was rarely such a thing as extra money in the family budget. But the upside of that was the special pride that we had of working as a family to make the most of what we had.

"My husband and I started our lives together in our early twenties, with a lot of student debt to pay off, but also a sense of confidence about our future. We believed we could accomplish good things together in our family life and in our careers. And we welcomed the work that it would take. We believed in the values of responsibility and integrity that we took from our parents. And when our children came along, we came to feel that stake in our community in a deeper way that parents do. And we were grateful for the opportunities we had to make our community a better place. These experiences have shaped both my life and my beliefs. And if I am elected to be governor of this commonwealth, they will shape my service as well.

"These are my beliefs. I believe in fiscal responsibility. It’s been said many times, but it always bears repeating, that we in government are here to serve the taxpayers, not the other way around. Men and women across this commonwealth work hard for their wages and salaries, and government must never take their efforts for granted. We show our respect for taxpayers by leaving them with more of what they earned.

"There is no surer way to encourage prosperity and job creation than by a leaner and more efficient government. I believe in a government that respects honest effort, rewards self-reliance, and gives second chances. Government can guarantee that every citizen has certain opportunities in life, and it should always be generous in doing so. There will always be those among us who cannot help themselves. But for most, the goal of government assistance should be to help those in need to use their own gifts to build their own lives of security, dignity, and independence.

"I believe that Massachusetts should offer top-quality education from Kindergarten through college. In order to compete in this new global economy, our schools need not to be just the best in the nation, but as good as any in the world. To fulfill our promise to today’s children, we need to focus on education in new ways, creating enhanced opportunities for early childhood education, intensive early interventions for children with learning difficulties, and more time in the classroom for everyone. I also believe we need to make public higher education more affordable for everyone.

"I believe in family life--its defining obligations, and its timeless meaning. Fathers should be encouraged to support their children. Families who are caring at home for seniors or loved ones with special needs should be able to count on our support. Those are the best kind of policies because they respect family and its central place in all of our lives. Government goes astray when it presumes to meddle in the matters that are best left to the family.

"And I believe it is our duty to care for those who cannot help themselves, both young and old. The true character of any society is seen in how it treats the sick, the weak, or the voiceless. They are not a problem for us; they are a priority. We pride ourselves on compassion in government here in Massachusetts, on helping those who cannot help themselves. And this moral commitment--this bipartisan moral commitment--will guide us well in my administration, as we face the challenges of protecting our children, helping the homeless, and caring for the elderly.

"Those are my values. And if they are yours, too, I hope that no matter what your party--like Mayor Bell--I hope you will step forward and join us in this cause.

"I know the challenges of governing this state because I’ve seen them up close. It will take leadership. And I know what that requires. Many citizens and entrepreneurs are finding it hard to stay here in Massachusetts, because of the high cost of housing and the high cost of doing business here. It’s a problem that must be faced squarely by a governor unafraid to speak plainly, even when the news is bad or the solution is hard.

"The next governor must stand up to the tax-and-spend attitude of the Democratic legislature. And let’s have no illusions--let’s have no illusions about this. That old mindset is still alive and well under the Golden Dome. This fall--this fall, the House approved more than a billion dollars in random spending, all in a single day. And that’s with a fiscal conservative watching from the corner office. Just imagine what they would be up to if the Democrats controlled the governor’s office as well.

"As a member of the Romney-Healey administration, I’ve helped to usher through four budgets. All of them never raised taxes, even when the pressure was on to do just that. And I will continue to call on the legislature to immediately lower the income-tax rate to five percent. The voters have waited six years, and that’s long enough. It’s right, it’s fair, and we owe it to the people to carry out their wishes.

"When the legislature tried to put in a retroactive tax, I worked with chambers of commerce and citizens’ groups to oppose that tax, which would have sapped energy from our economy and caused the people to lose faith in their government. By standing up to the legislature, we won a tax refund for our citizens instead.

"And I helped block legislative attempts to fund college tuition breaks for illegal immigrants, while all the time supporting public college scholarships for Massachusetts students who score highest on the MCAS, and for National Guardsmen who fight to preserve our freedom.

"Even now, there are more tax-and-spend proposals before the legislature, and you’ll hear a lot more about them in this campaign. Just for starters, I will not accept any attempts to link healthcare reform with a new tax on our businesses.  We will never be able to effectively compete with our neighboring states, let alone the rest of the world, until we recognize that our jobs and our workers are already taxed too much. Massachusetts workers and job creators face the highest unemployment taxes in the country, the slowest and toughest regulatory environment, and an anti-employer bias on the part of the legislature that scares jobs away.

"This is the wrong approach on every account. And we’re going to change it on every account. You don’t create jobs by overtaxing employers. And government spending does not create jobs. People do. Entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small--they are the job creators. And if we want them to stay here in Massachusetts, we should make them feel welcome with tax rates that are predictable, fixed, and fair.

"And we need to lower our tax burden on working families, too. As governor, I will find every opportunity to reduce fees and hold down property taxes, by giving a larger share of our state revenue taxes to our cities and towns. As Mayor Bell said, I understand the needs and concerns of our local communities better than any candidate in this race. Because I’ve been there. I’ve met with local leaders from every corner of the commonwealth, not just once, but in good times and in bad.

"What do our communities need? They need healthcare reform to help contain mounting insurance costs. They need housing incentives, so young people can afford to stay in the communities where they grew up, and school aid, to help with the rising cost of educating our children. And finally, our communities need support for their local police, so that citizens are safe and the only people who are in fear are the criminals. That’s why I’ve been fighting so hard for higher local aid, and more funding for housing and schools. Our cities and towns have always been a priority for me. And they can count on me more, even, than they have in the past, if I am elected governor.

"Now let me say a few words about our schools. Our communities across Massachusetts are also entitled to see measurable improvement in our schools. Our fourth and eighth graders already score first in the nation in reading and math, and that’s a good start, but there’s plenty more to do. In our upper grades, we need to increase our emphasis on math and science and engineering. And for our youngest children, we need to start school earlier with high-quality early childhood education programs. Early childhood programs give every child an equal start, and boost school success by addressing learning problems before kids get to first grade.

"We also need to keep--to make sure that our kids spend more time in the classroom. Spending time in the classroom is really what helps our kids learn best. And the reality today is that most kids come from families in which both parents work, or they’re from single-parent families. Why, then, do our schools end at two or three p.m.?

"Before I entered politics, I worked for the U.S. Department of Justice researching crime. And one fact that has always stayed with me is that kids get into trouble not in the middle of the night, but after school, while their parents are still at work. I propose to change this with a longer school day and with after-school programs that keep kids occupied, supervised, and safe.

"Another problem with our schools that no one ever wants to discuss is the dropout rate. Now, we can all take some comfort in the fact that over ninety percent of our graduating seniors pass the MCAS. Yet at the same time, fourteen percent of the children that start high school never make it to twelfth grade--and in some urban districts, the dropout rate is closer to fifteen percent.

"Fifty years ago, it might have made sense to let young people drop out of school at age sixteen. But today it’s a different story altogether. To allow sixteen-year-olds to end their education is to sentence them to a life of disappointment, poverty, or even jail. And in fact, I’ve been told by some of our sheriffs who are standing here with me today that in some cases, eighty percent of the people in their jails dropped out of high school. You have to wonder where would they be instead if someone had cared about them enough to keep them in school. We don’t have to write these kids off. We should raise the age of mandatory school attendance from sixteen to eighteen years old, and expand our alternative education options so that all kids can have a real shot at success in their lives.

"In today’s competitive employment environment, a great high-school education is a start, but it’s not enough to ensure a young person’s future. Access to good, quality public higher education is essential to both our economy here in Massachusetts and our children’s success. We must reduce the cost of public higher education for middle-class families.

"And here my experience comes firsthand. And I hope my mother doesn’t mind me talking about this publicly. But when I was fifteen, my father had a serious heart attack and could never work again. My mother’s income as a schoolteacher was nowhere near enough to support the family and pay for college, too. So it was necessary for me to work during high school to save money for college, and during college to help pay bills as well. And because of this, I will never forget how important it is to make college affordable to anyone and everyone who’s willing to do the work.

"These years under Governor Romney’s leadership have been good for the commonwealth. But we cannot afford to go back to the days of single-party rule. Our administration found a $3 billion budget gap, and through sensible fiscal restraint made it a $1 billion budget surplus. An unemployment rate of 5.7 percent is now down to 4.9 percent, and our economy is back on track. We have new housing going up, smart-growth developments are in works all around the state, and we have doubled our multifamily housing starts.

"Not bad for three years in office. But there is more to do, and only one way of staying on course. Democracy demands more than one voice, more than one party to govern. We in Massachusetts have seen what happens when government is all checks and no balances--when every interest group has a voice on Beacon Hill, and the taxpayers have none, and while important work is being left undone. As governor, I would make sure that the work gets done, and maintain the voice of taxpayers on Beacon Hill.

"In this campaign, ladies and gentlemen, we have a proud record to build on, a clear agenda to take to the voters, and nine months to make our case. The opposition is strong, the stakes are high, and we’re going to give it everything we’ve got. To every citizen in every party in every region in Massachusetts, I thank you for the privilege of serving these past four years. And I ask you to join in the great cause we begin today. And I ask you for your vote on the seventh of November."

2/8/2006 5:23:07 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Just got back from Kerry Healey's campaign kickoff, and I have to say, it was a very effective bit of political theater.

I'll have the full text up later this afternoon. Until then, some highlights:

• Ron Bersani--whose granddaughter Melanie Powell was killed by a drunk driver, and later gave her name to the anti-drunk-driving legislation known as Melanie's Bill--introduced Healey after praising her to the skies. To state the obvious, the Legislature's mishandling of this issue was a real boon for Healey.
• John Bell, the mayor of Gloucester and a Democrat, spoke just before Bersani. My prediction: he'll be the first in a long line of Democratic municipal leaders to publicly back Healey.
  
• Healey pressed all the right buttons in her speech. She explicitly warned that that the Democrats will run amok if they control the governor's office as well as the House and Senate. She took credit for derailing legislation that would have allowed the kids of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state schools. She called for the income tax to be cut to 5 percent, per the Massachusetts electorate's instructions. And best of all, she played up her humble roots in a highly convincing manner.

I've always thought that Healey tends to get short shrift, and her announcement today only reinforced that conviction. (Sco of .08 Acres offers his more skeptical take on the LG here.) Lefties love to poke fun at Healey, and she's provided plenty of fodder. But whichever Democrat lands the nomination needs to take her seriously.

2/8/2006 1:52:40 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Does it matter that a mortgage Deval Patrick got in 2003 was only officially recorded two years later?

Obviously, Patrick can expect heightened scrutiny now that the Democratic governor's nomination is up for grabs. But this strikes me as irrelevant.

2/7/2006 2:29:23 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

If you missed it tonight, be sure to take a look at Chet Curtis's interview with Chris Gabrieli. Tom Reilly's running mate who wasn't has some interesting things to say about Reilly's week from hell ("Any time you're making a splash, and it's a belly flop, it's never a positive"), his LG candidate of choice ("That'll be between me and the booth"), and the possibility of a late Democratic entry in the race ("I think Democrats are hungry to win, and I think they're asking themselves, how confident are they that either of these guys can get it done?")

Given that last comment, it should come as no surprise that Gabrieli also took a pass on endorsing Reilly.

The video's not posted yet, but you should be able to find it here in the near future.

2/6/2006 8:32:29 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

So says the Dorchester Reporter. But look sharp, Representative St. Fleur--Althea Garrison is on your case!

2/6/2006 4:49:58 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Judging from this new 7NEWS/Suffolk University Poll, it may be time to stop calling Tom Reilly the Democratic frontruner. Here's the big number: among Democratic voters, Reilly leads Deval Patrick 39 percent to 30 percent.

"What was nearly a 40-point lead last February is only a 9-point lead today," David Paleologos, Director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, says in the accompanying press release. "What’s worse is that among core registered Democrats, the Democratic Primary is now a statistical dead heat."

Ouch. And remember--this poll was taken before Patrick crushed Reilly in the Democratic caucuses.

There's bad news for Kerry Healey, too: the LG and presumptive Republican nominee loses hypothetical matchups to both Patrick (39-32 percent) and Reilly (47-32 percent).

2/6/2006 4:39:46 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

Corey Welford, Tom Reilly's campaign spokesman, just assured me that Reilly's already secured enough delegates to reach the magic 15 percent mark. So my report of a sub-15 percent showing may have been premature.

Something to ponder, as we wait for firm numbers: the Reilly camp's ability to spin Patrick's big caucus win as no big deal may be the best thing that's happened to the AG in weeks.

2/6/2006 1:47:08 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

This just in: contrary to early reports, Tom Reilly may not have secured 15 percent of the delegates at this weekend's Democratic caucuses.

If so, Reilly's in serious jeopardy.

More to come.

ADDENDUM: Since the caucus system can be a bit confusing, here's a thumbnail sktech of how it all works. For Reilly to get his name on the Democratic primary ballot in September, he needs the support of 15 percent of the delegates at June's state Democratic convention. Most delegates are elected at the caucuses, and most of the caucuses wrapped up last weekend; when they're completely finished, roughly 3500 of 5300 delegates will have been elected. (You can find a comprehensive list of caucuses here.) The remaining 1800 delegates, who'll be named later, will be ex-officios (1100) and add-ons from three categories: youth, minorities, and the disabled (700).

If Reilly's under 15 percent when the caucuses wrap up, he could still make up the difference among add-ons and ex-officios. Furthermore, some caucus delegates are ostensibly neutral, and all are free to switch their allegiance before voting at the convention. In other words, a sub-15 percent caucus showing won't necessarily doom Reilly. But it could come close. No one wants to be affiliated with a loser, and if Reilly's hovering around the 15 percent mark, you can bet that plenty of his supporters will be thinking about jumping ship.

2/6/2006 11:54:25 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

So, Tom Reilly isn't good at politics.

[Insert wiseass comment here.]

But seriously, folks, Reilly's stumbles have created an interesting challenge for the Deval Patrick campaign. (Incidentally, I'm running out of terms to describe what's been happening to Reilly. Individual mistakes are travails, gaffes, missteps. Taken together, they're a debacle, a train wreck, a political self-immolation... Any other suggestions?) If Patrick does great at this weekend's Democratic caucuses, people will chalk it up to Reilly's, um, whatever. If he does poorly, though, the Reilly camp can just spin this as proof of the AG's resilience, and play up Patrick's inability to capitalize on a perfect opportunity.

Finally, was anyone else surprised by the last line of the above-linked Globe story--i.e., "Yesterday, Reilly's chief Republican rival, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, declined to comment on the St. Fleur situation"? Decidedly out of character, and a very smart move. We'll see if she can continue to hold her tongue.

2/3/2006 9:16:25 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

Whether you like his politics or not, it's hard not to feel sorry for Tom Reilly this morning. One of my Phoenix colleagues likened following Reilly's recent travails to watching a dog get hit by a car. Myself, I keep thinking of that moment in the Charlie Brown Christmas special where C. Brown thinks he's destroyed that little tree and screams, "I killed it! Everything I touch gets ruined!"

To a large extent, Marie St. Fleur's abrupt exit has only reinforced a preexisting concern about Reilly--namely, that he's a troublingly inept candidate. But three aspects of today's coverage strike me as noteworthy:

1. The Herald editorial page wondering if the St. Fleur debacle points to a fatal Reilly character flaw.

2. The Globe's Joan Vennochi suggesting that Reilly quit the race.

3. Most ominous for Reilly, unnamed allies pointedy questioning his handling of the LG pick in a damning front-page Globe story.

Each of these represents a new twist, and each creates a new PR problem for the Reilly camp to manage.

Can things get any uglier for the AG? Hard to imagine. But then again, no one could have predicted the train wreck that went down this week.

2/2/2006 11:33:11 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Here's what the general public is about to learn about Deval Patrick's tax issues:

A decade ago, Patrick and his wife were paying an unexpected federal tax liability in installments. They missed one* payment, which triggered an IRS lien.

Here's where things get fuzzy. According to the statement, the Patricks took "immediate steps" to pay off the balance. However, it's not clear whether this refers to paying off the entire balance or the balance on the missed payment. The figure mentioned in the statement is $8778. But it remains to be seen what, exactly, this number refers to.

*CORRECTION: Not that Howie Carr's the most credible source, but I just heard him read the statement on air, and the phrase used--if memory serves--was "one or two" payments.

2/1/2006 5:01:52 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Breaking news--Deval Patrick is about to issue a statement regarding a tax-related irregularity in his past. Doesn't sound like his situation was as bad as Marie St. Fleur's currently is. But still, not the best publicity.

Let's do some brainstorming: which prominent Democrat has the next embarrassing revelation?

Now Kerry Healey's the one who must be celebrating.

2/1/2006 4:12:35 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Apparently Marie St. Fleur's husband isn't the guy you want doing your taxes.

I thought the St. Fleur pick would end Tom Reilly's ongoing credibility hemmorhage, at least for a week or two. So much for that.

2/1/2006 8:23:25 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |