If you've watched Mitt Romney for years--and that description probably fits anyone who reads this blog--you know the Iowa Tar Baby Debacle is just the latest in a long line of dubious mistakes.

New today on ThePhoenix.com, I offer my two cents on the ITBD and rehash Mitt's other dumb gaffes.

7/31/2006 10:34:52 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Check out the email press release the Mass Pike Authority sent out about Matt Amorello's announcement this morning. And read closely!

-------

Advisory:

 

Please join breathtaking Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Chairman Matthew J. Amorello for a statement regarding his future with the MTA.

 

When: Thursday July 27, 2006

             11 a.m.

Where: Parcel 10-North End Park Parcel (enter from Hanover Street—this is the parcel to your left.)

 

Parking accommodations will be made.

7/27/2006 11:19:29 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

New in this week's Phoenix: an assessment of the Suffolk criminal clerk's race, starring Maura Hennigan (who needs no introduction) and Robert Dello Russo (who probably does).

7/26/2006 2:49:24 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Just tying up a few loose ends here:

1. Since those "Where's Galvin" spots work fine for everybody else, my tortured analogy between the videos and John Bonifaz's campaign for secretary of state doesn't quite hold up. I apologize to John & Co.

2. Thanks to everybody who weighed in yesterday responding to my initial post. I agree that Bonifaz's shrillness is a problem--right or wrong, style matters in electoral politics--and that the issues he's most passionate about aren't necessarily the issues on most voters' minds. (Whether they should be or not is another question.)

3. Now, about Bonifaz shooting one of the "Where's Galvin" bits during the run-up to Galvin's mother's death...Can everyone please tone down the outrage? In retrospect, the timing was poor. But this was just one small part of Bonifaz's sustained (and largely unsuccessful) effort to force Galvin to engage him, something Galvin has predictably refused to do. The suggestion that this represents a "new low" is bogus. (I'd also point out that "Renaissance Man," who vented his spleen about Bonifaz's alleged misdeed over at Blue Mass. Group, is likely a friend or close associate of Galvin's, since he attended Galvin's mother's wake.)

4. My condolences to Galvin.

5. I just can't help responding to Jesse Gordon's characterization of my post yesterday as a "kowtow-to-incumbency" article. Jesse, I wrote about this race early on. And as it happens, I'd like to see Galvin debate Bonifaz. But it's ridiculous to suggest that, because I work at a paper that's generally progressive/liberal, I shouldn't be allowed to mention the shortcomings of the progressive/liberal candidate in this race. Don't get all Kucinichian on me, now!

7/26/2006 12:11:54 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

About John Bonifaz's "Where's Galvin?" spots: are they crippled by some kind of fatal technological flaw, or what? I've tried watching on a few occasions, and whatever parameters I try--Firefox + Quicktime, Explorer + Windows Media, etc.--the video never actually rolls.

Maybe my own technological ineptitude is to blame. That said, I can't help seeing the "Where's Galvin?" series as a metaphor for the entire Bonifaz campaign. Bonifaz is clearly a smart dude; after all, they don't give those MacArthur fellowships to just anybody. And I have great respect for his campaign manager, Juan Martinez. But for whatever, Bonifaz's candidacy just doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Yeah, I know Galvin's avoiding him, but there's got to be some other explanation.

Suggestions, anybody?

7/25/2006 1:32:17 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [10] |  

The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts SJC's landmark gay-marriage case are no longer a couple, according to Bay Windows.

As Neil Sedaka noted, this kind of thing is hard to do, period. What sucks for Julie and Hillary Goodridge, obviously, is that their separation will almost certainly become talk-radio fodder.

7/20/2006 4:24:24 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Tough break, Mitt. But look on the bright side--this should quiet any speculation that Mormons give you a private political army, or something.

True, Romney still has the support of Jon Huntsman Sr., who's given his (Romney's) PAC a mess of cash. Then again, Huntsman Sr. backed Libby Dole in 2002. And Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.? He went with George W. Bush.

7/20/2006 11:56:49 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

I’d missed Jim Braude’s July 17 interview with Chris Gabrieli until this afternoon. But now that I’ve watched it, I have to say: when talk turned to whether the Massachusetts Legislature should vote on the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, Gabrieli did not acquit himself well. In fact, he put on a veritable clinic in political shiftiness.

Check out the following exchange--and then take a look yourself to appreciate just how bad it was. (It's "Gabrieli on the Big Dig, other issues [Part 2]"; the debacle starts around 3:45.) A while back, a Phoenix editorial whacked another would-be Democratic governor--attorney general Tom Reilly--for "weasel words" on this same subject. But at least Reilly staked out an actual position!

Anyway, here it is, in all its horrible splendor:

Q. You’re for gay marriage; you support gay marriage. Last week the legislature in constitutional convention decided to postpone their decision on gay marriage, if there is to be one, until two days after the election. Was that the right decision?

A. I think that they wanted to take it out of this year’s cycle, I’m guessing. I understand their logic. Look, I think they’ve got to eventually vote on this. I hope that they will defeat it, because I think it is a bad idea for Massachusetts.

Q. You want them to vote it up or down?

A. I hope that they will get the votes to defeat it.

Q. Do you want them to vote it up or down? I mean, there’s a whole debate, as you know, in this commonwealth about whether or not the proponents--the anti-gay marriage people collected 170,000 signatures; they say, we’re entitled to the vote. If you’re governor-- let’s assume you’re elected on November 7. You won’t formally take office--a reporter puts a microphone in your face: “On November 9, there’s a constitutional convention. Should they be entitled to an up or down vote?”

A. My answer will be, As governor, I oppose this amendment. I will fight this amendment if the legislature votes it and gets it on eventually, I will work to have it defeated at the ballot box.

Q. But is that leadership? I mean, with all due respect, Chris, they will look to you as they look to Mitt Romney. Are you urging your fellow Democrats, overwhelmingly, in the legislature to vote on the merits, or essentially to do a parliamentary maneuver--

A. I’m urging them to--I’m urging them to vote against it. I don’t think that--

Q. So they should take an up or down vote.

A. I’m urging them to vote against it. I mean, Jim, the question about when they schedule votes and how they do their business--

Q. It’s not a schedule--it’s pretty straightforward. Should they take an up or down vote? A yes-no vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment?

A. I think that they will ultimately have to take that vote, yes. I do think they will have to do that. And I do understand why people feel they should. But I’m against this amendment, so I’m--I think it’s important that it not happen due to political pressure, that it not--I don’t think it’s the right thing for Massachusetts. I think we should not be putting reductions of civil rights--

Q. You don’t want to see it get 50 votes, but you think there should be an up-or-down vote, the signatories are entitled to that. Yes?

A. I believe eventually they will have that vote, yes.

Q. But do you believe they’re entitled to it? I mean, this is about leadership. It’s not about what passively--I hate to belabor it, but it’s a huge issue that has only been buried because of the Big Dig. Should they vote up or down on this thing?

A. I will leave that to the legislative leadership to decide how they conduct that side.

Q. Okay, so you don’t have a position.

A. Well, I’m running for governor. I’m not running for the legislature.

7/19/2006 4:20:40 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

[Guest blogging: David S. Bernstein]

 
Mitt Romney has officially taken the reins of the investigation into the Big Dig tunnel collapse, which means he’s in charge of finally squeezing information and culpability out of the two companies that jointly ran the project as general contractors: Bechtel Group and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas.

But Romney’s willingness to do so could be compromised, or at least appear that way. Just 10 weeks before the roof came crashing down in the I-90 connector, Romney accepted generous contributions from both Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff, made to the Republican Governors Association (RGA), of which he is the chairman.

Parsons Brinckerhoff and Bechtel National, the government services subsidiary of Bechtel Corp., gave identical sums, $10,000 each, on the same date, April 27, according to RGA reports filed last weekend with the Internal Revenue Service. Companies or individuals can give unlimited contributions to the RGA fund, which is a so-called “527” political organization.

Romney attended RGA fundraising events in Washington, DC, on April 25, and in New York City on April 26. RGA records show no contributions on those days, but a dozen on the 27th.

Romney’s office referred questions about the contributions to Phil Musser, RGA’s executive director, who said that he did not believe that Romney met with representatives from either company during those late-April fundraising trips. “There is an annual gala the RGA hosts in February -- they probably made the pledges in conjunction with that,” Musser said.

Both companies have been supporters of the RGA -- and the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) -- for several years, Musser noted. Records show that Parsons Brinckerhoff gave $10,000 to DGA earlier in April, and Bechtel gave $10,000 in June.

7/19/2006 1:29:01 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

If you haven't already checked out 43's massage technique, please, take a look.

The video alone is great, but I also dig that German-language title translates to "Bush: love-attack on Merkel!" Truly fantastic.

7/18/2006 8:17:35 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

This is rich.

7/14/2006 3:35:39 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Let's say you go to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority web site to figure out how to navigate the Big Dig, now that various tunnels are shut down following Melina Delvalle's tragic death. What does Turnpike chairman Matt Amorello have to say to you? Let's take a look:

7/12/2006 9:36:44 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

That "new policy initiative" Chris Gabrieli was going to unveil this morning? Turns out it was a detailed plan to cut the income tax rate to 5 percent, per the voters' instructions.

With Gabrieli looking to chip into Deval Patrick's big lead, this is a great issue. Patrick's opposition to income-tax cuts and focus on property-tax relief may have a solid intellectual foundation, but there's a big emotional problem there: Massachusetts voters said they wanted the 5 percent rate. They still haven't gotten it. And this, in turn, helps feed the anti-Democratic establishment sentiment that keeps sending Republicans to the Corner Office.

That's my take, anyway. Here's the meat of the press release Gabrieli put out this morning:

Gabrieli proposed a formula that locks state government into a commitment to cut taxes by tying the cuts to the state’s tax revenue growth above inflation. The more tax money the state takes in, the faster the income tax rate will fall to 5 percent.

Gabrieli’s plan would allocate 40 percent of the state’s tax revenue growth to pay for tax cuts and 40 percent for new spending and increasing local aid, while setting aside the remaining 20 percent for the government’s rainy day fund.

If revenue grows by 6.5%, which is the 25-year historical average according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, then we could cut taxes in 2008 to 5.2% in 2009 to 5.1% and in 2010 to 5.0%, while pumping $1 billion into new programs and local aid, and reserving $800 million for the rainy day fund...

“These are real numbers, and this plan brings the kind of accountability that has been lacking on Beacon Hill for too long,” Gabrieli said.  “This Romney-Healey administration has proven they cannot be trusted to cut taxes responsibly.  And for 16 years, it’s clear our people have been unwilling to trust a Democrat at the fiscal helm.  I want to change that.”

Gabrieli also questioned how some of his opponents could promise a tax cut all at once.

“Simply put, it would be fiscally irresponsible to go to 5.0% immediately,” he said. “I’ve been looking at budgets most of my adult life and the numbers just don’t add up.”

Next year, the consensus revenue estimate includes $18.9 billion in tax receipts.  The FY 07 budget just passed by the Legislature has us running a deficit of over 500 million dollars, which would have to come from the Rainy Day Fund.  According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, just to balance this budget, growth would have to be higher than the consensus budget estimates to the tune of over 500 million dollars, while an additional $600 million would be required to cut taxes to 5.0% immediately.

7/11/2006 9:12:17 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

This just in, from State House News Service:

Deval Patrick has become the clear front runner for the Democratic nomination for governor, and Kerry Healey would lose to any of the three Democrats if the election were held today, according to the latest State House News Poll.

The scientific phone survey of 410 Massachusetts adults was conducted June 28-30 and carries the following margins of error: plus or minus 4.7 percent for the whole group, plus or minus 5.1 for the subgroup who said they are registered voters; and 7 percent among those saying they are likely to vote in the Democratic primary.

Among that latter group, the outstanding feature is how far Thomas Reilly has fallen. Since March, when Patrick polled 21 percent, Attorney General Thomas Reilly has dropped from 43 percent to 19 percent, with his support absorbed both by Patrick and latecomer Christopher Gabrieli.

Those who said they were likely to vote in the Democratic primary preferred Patrick by 35 percent to Gabrieli's 22 percent and Reilly's 19 percent. This was the first major statewide poll to show Reilly in third place.

This poll confirms the findings of a recent Channel 7/Suffolk University poll showing Reilly dropping fast and Patrick the front runner. One poll alone is not a good barometer, but when multiple surveys show similar results, sheer mathematics indicates the trend being detected is a real one.

All three Democrats defeated Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey by small but noticeable margins in hypothetical matchups, with Patrick running the strongest: 40 percent to 31 percent for Healey; Reilly ran the weakest, with 36 percent to 31 percent for Healey.

7/10/2006 1:43:52 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

This wasn't the Sister Souljah moment I had in mind, but it's a start. By siding with Mitt Romney in the Mike Ruane pension flap and the battle over who controls the Mass Turnpike Board, Deval Patrick is showing voters he wouldn't be a patsy for the Legislature if he's elected governor.

Here are the relevant comments, made in an interview with Jim Braude that'll be broadcast on NECN tonight at 7:

JB: Mitt romney says no special deals despite the sympathy [for Ruane's widow]. Who is right in that debate?

DP: He is.

JB: Mitt Romney.

DP: Mitt Romney is right. First of all let me say I want to send my sympathy to Mr. Ruane's family. This is not about Mr. Ruane with due respect to him, and I understand that many legislators feel in a difficult position because they see a colleague in a tough position and they want to help, and I respect that sentiment. What troubles me is the notion of using the public fisc as a piggy bank to deal with that. I mean there were opportunities given this legislator to make contributions into the pension system, but when they make these kinds of judgments outside the process and changing the rules for special cases I think it diminishes confidence in the system as a whole.

-------

JB: Your position is that Romney should have the power to appoint that third board person like he did?

DP: Let me be clear. I want the power to appoint that board person. I want the power to appoint Matt Amorello's successor. I want that as governor and I understand why this governor would want that power. I wish that we were focusing on what is a much more critical issue which is how we get at those cost overruns.

7/6/2006 1:25:12 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Thanks to the assistance of a tech-savvy friend, I've been able to locate some contact info for Craig Nelsen--anti-illegal-immigrant provocateur and Tim Toomey stalker--and his organization, Project USA. FYI, here's how to contact Craig and his colleagues:

P.O. Box 15641
Washington, DC 20003
phone: 202-207-6097
email: craig@projectusa.org

Enjoy!

UPDATE: And here, courtesy of a reader, is Project USA's 2003 tax return. It gives a different phone number (202-543-2373)--and what's more, actual street addresses for Project USA (310 6th Street, S.E., No. 2, Washington, DC 20003) and Nelsen himself (702 4th Street, S.E., Washington DC, 20003). Also, Nelsen made $33,600 for his labors that year.

7/6/2006 10:59:48 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

New in this week's Phoenix: a look at the intriguing--and weirdly unnoticed--primary battle shaping up between Steve Lynch and Phil Dunkelbarger.

7/6/2006 7:59:02 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Poor Tim Toomey. The guy joins the rest of the Cambridge City Council in making that city a safe zone for illegal immigrants, and all of a sudden his address, phone number, and email are posted on the web site of Project USA, an anti-immigration group looking to make Cambridge a scapegoat for the national anti-illegal movement.

The man behind these hijinks? Craig Nelsen, Project USA's executive director. But there's an nice little irony here: while Nelsen's basically priming the pump for Toomey to be harrassed, he seems determined to keep a low, low profile himself. Go to ProjectUSA.org and try to get the info you'd need to write, call or email the group. Far as I can tell, it isn't there.

Allow me to state the obvious: Nelsen is a coward.

7/5/2006 2:18:27 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |