The candidate I’m most passionate about is Scott Brown – and why he should never be a US senator.

First and most is what he thinks about gays.  He thinks that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and he thinks that the states should vote on the question.  Vote on it? I’ll let him vote on my marriage as soon as he lets me vote on his.

I’m equally inflamed by his preferred policy regarding high school gay support groups.  He thinks that students should get parental permission before attending the groups!  Whatever your position on gay marriage, just think about some poor scared teenager who doesn’t know what the heck is going on – and Scott Brown thinks that poor kid needs parental permission before getting help from a peer group.  Brown might as well give the kid a teen suicide how-to guide with the permission slip.

I know there are a lot of conservative voters out there who don’t care about the social issues but see Brown as a voice of fiscal sanity.  The thing is, Brown isn’t a fiscal conservative.  He’s a big-government, big-regulation, tax raiser.  He may even be more dangerous because he claims to be fiscally conservative.

If you’re thinking about voting for Brown because of his fiscal chops, please consider the following:

• He urged people to vote against Q1 to end the income tax.
• He doesn’t support this year’s question to roll the sales tax back from 6.25% to 3%
• Repeatedly voted to override Romney’s (rare) spending vetoes
• He lists the MA health care plan as a major accomplishment, but the average Massachusetts family’s health care insurance premium rose from $9,867 to $13,788. A 40% increase! 21% higher increase than the national average.
• He joined the Democrats and passed legislation requiring Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in a cap-and-trade pact among Northeastern states requiring power plants to reduce emissions or to buy credits from cleaner industries. “Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine,” Brown said in a news release in 2008. “Passing this legislation is an important step . . . towards improving our environment.”

I am deeply sympathetic to the statement that one-party rule isn’t healthy for Massachusetts.  But is this really the kind of Republican you want to encourage?

The story by itself is just sad.  It’s the story of one man’s addiction and poor judgement and how he hurt himself, his family, and a collection of random people who had the misfortune of being on the road at the same time as his drunken self.  But when you put his story into a larger narrative, it becomes a statistic, the latest chapter in a book about Massachusetts legislators who couldn’t figure out how to follow the laws that they wrote and swore to uphold:

• 2008: Senators Wilkerson and Marzilli resign under indictment, a full 5% of the senate down in one year.
• 2009: Speaker DiMasi resigns and is indicted, the third consecutive house speaker to fall to a felony.
• 2010, day 5: Senator Gallucio resigns with a letter written from jail.

Am I saying that all of our legislators are criminals?  Of course not.  But I can’t help but notice that they’re going to jail at a higher rate than the general population.

It’s an election year.  Let’s hope the voters remember it in November.  Otherwise, we risk being like my buddy Loopus: “How am I supposed to repeat my mistakes if I can’t remember what they are?”

chippy and loopus

Today, the Globe got a pile of emails from the mayor’s office.  Kineavy had deleted emails, but the people he corresponded with hadn’t, and thus the emails came to light.  The Globe published a sample, and there’s a game-changer in that sample.  Kineavy sends an email saying “reminder. . .these are foiable.”  Foiable?  What’s foiable?  Foible?  Friable?  No – it’s FOIable.  As in “Freedom of Information Act”-able.  Suddenly Kineavy isn’t a naive, idiosyncratic geek.  Now, he’s someone with knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act who takes actions every day that violate state law about record retention.  This is no longer a “honest mistake” that Menino can just shrug off – it’s a deliberate attempt to hide the internal workings of government from the public.  This is no longer just smoke.  There’s fire.

There are three interesting question areas that I can think of:

1. The FBI already issued subpoenas, and they presumably didn’t get Kineavy’s email.  Now that the Globe is digging harder, will the FBI?  Is there a link between Kineavy, Wilkerson, and Turner?  When will we see those emails?
2. Will this issue mature quickly enough to affect Menino’s re-election chances?  That seems unlikely, given Boston’s history of re-electing candidates with ethical problems.  But one can hope.
3. Will Attorney General Coakley, a Menino supporter, regret her decision to ignore the issue? I’ve wondered for a while how someone can run as a law enforcement candidate in Massachusetts with such a thin record on rooting out corruption. In this case the violation was brought to her door, and she turned it away.  Will that affect her chances to replace Kennedy?

The last time the Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts was 1972: Edward Brooke, the first popularly elected black Senator.  When Paul Tsongas unseated him in 1978, the Democrats spent the next 25+ years with two “safe” seats from Massachusetts.  In the summer of 2004, they were horrified to realize that their success might mean failure: Sen. John Kerry was running away with the presidential race, and Mitt Romney, Republican, was governor.  When Kerry won the presidency, Romney would get to appoint an interim replacement.  Failure.

In 2004, as today, the Democrats held more than 80% of the seats in the legislature.  They were losing the game, but they had the power to re-write the rules, so they did.  They proposed a law that would strip Romney of his power to appoint a Senator.  The Republicans offered an amendment to permit an interim appointment.  The amendment was shot down, the bill was approved, Romney vetoed, the veto was overridden, and on July 30, 2004, the law was passed.  Read some of the quotes from the debate, and keep the window open for re-reading in a couple paragraphs.  They’re funny, in a sad kind of way.

Fast forward to today.  The national Democrats desperately want another (D) in Washington, but the state legislature is hogtied by its past actions.  They could change the law again and let Gov. Patrick appoint an interim Senator, but that would expose them as partisan hacks.  Or, they could do nothing and watch health care reform founder – the signature priority of their party’s new President.  It’s really a no-win situation for them; no matter what they look like unprincipled partisan whores.  I think this conclusion is an accurate one. It’s nice to see it in black and white without much room for spinning, dodging, or blaming.

There are a couple winners here:

• Congratulations to the unnamed adviser to Gov. Patrick who convinced him to make a full-throated endorsement of interim appointments.  Patrick is one of the few statehouse figures that can distance himself from the 2004 power grab.  Everyone knows he wasn’t governor in 2004.  Either he gets to appoint the 60th vote in the health care cloture vote, or he gets to tell the legislature “I told you so.”  And with almost no political downside!
• Potentially, congratulations to the Republicans.  They made the right arguments in 2004.  It’s impossible to prove whether that was principle or luck, but they get to bask in it now.  If they’re smart, they’ll stick to the same tune, but quietly at first.  If the leaders on Beacon Hill bring the issue to a vote, they should support the vote, and then congratulate the Dems on correcting their error in 2004.  If the Dems don’t bring it to a vote, they get to make hay for each day the seat goes empty.  Every vote, health care and all, they issue a press release bemoaning the short-sightedness of the leadership.  Of course, they can still screw this up -  if they oppose the vote, they also look like partisan whores.  Think red clothing instead of blue.

I’m not a fan of appointments.  Senators should be elected, not appointed.  The counter-argument is that for 100+ days, the state will only have one Senator, that we’re under-represented.  I just don’t think that matters in a 3-4 month timeframe.  I just don’t feel shortchanged.

So here’s what I’d do:  Make the time frame shorter, and hold the election in Oct/Nov rather than Dec/Jan.  Change the electoral calendar from 145-160 days to something like 105-120 days.  Hold the elections in November, at the same time as many cities, and save them some money.  Seat the new guy (or gal) in time for the New Year.  This blunts the “under-represented” argument.  And for the people who want a longer campaign – do you think anyone’s going to vote during the holiday season?  Not too likely.

It’s a change based on calendar, not party.

This is not water under the bridge. The people who put DiMasi in power are all still in power themselves, and they need to be called to account.  DiMasi was re-elected to his speakership just five months ago, and resigned three weeks after that.  Each of us needs to call up our representative and ask them why they voted to make DiMasi their leader.  Read my post from January, when I asked what our legislators are made of: We all knew he was ethically compromised, but they elected him anyway.  Why?

I’m particularly unhappy with my legislator, Jay Kaufman.  Kaufman didn’t just vote for DiMasi.  He nominated him, complete with glowing speech.  He even went on a publicity tour to shore up DiMasi’s reputation.  Check this quote, given after one of DiMasi’s claims of innocence:

“This should put an end to the questions about the speaker’s integrity and about his seriousness of purpose, ” said Representative Jay Kaufman, Democrat of Lexington and chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Service. “But cynics and skeptics abound in this business, and all of us in it know that.”

End of questions about his integrity, Jay?  Really?  A grand jury still has some questions.  So do I.  And they’re questions about you.

So, here’s today’s winning contestant: “Governor Appoints Spending Czar.” You and everyone else guessed Onion, right?  Sorry, it’s real.

The writers at Blue Mass Group, generally defenders of the governor, are as baffled as I am.  You can read the back and forth yourself – from “what the heck” to “it’s good project management” to “don’t we already have that?” and back.

The state has what, 100,000 employees and spends more than $50 billion dollars a year.  There are countless methods the state already uses to spend money.  I do not understand why we’d need a new, special person to spend more money.  It begs the question – what do the other state employees do?

This obviously isn’t the end of the world.  In the grand scheme of thing, this guy isn’t going to break the bank.  But it strikes me as tone deaf on the governor’s part.  Thousands of people are being laid off in Massachusetts this year, and the correct response is to hire someone with skill in spending money?

Real, not Onion.

I still think he’s going to be indicted.  I was wrong about the order of events.

Now all eyes turn to the Democratic caucus.  Which ethically-challenged candidate, Rogers or DeLeo, will succeed DiMasi?  I can’t say that I care.  Let’s hope a third, clean candidate appears.

Here’s the problem: The citizens of Massachusetts have witnessed a parade of scandal, corruption, and conspiracy from Mass Democrats.  Sal DiMasi is at the center of at least three scandals, involved in a couple more, and is actively fighting the ethical investigations into his office.  He’s not fit for the office.

Here are some links to refresh your memory:

• Five percent of the state senate was indicted last year, specifically Democratic Senators Marzilli and Wilkerson.
• Robert Couglin (Gov. Patrick aide and state rep) was fined $10,000 for seeking employment from an industry while he was writing them tax breaks.
• Middlesex Count Register of Probate Buonomo was caught on tape stealing change from the copier machines at the courthouse.
• House-Speaker-contender John Rogers’s campaign funds found their way into a vacation home mortgage.  ”Ooops.”
• State Rep. Charles Murphy was caught voting on Beacon Hill.  While he was in the Virgin Islands.  The guy is tall, but his arms aren’t that long. . .
• Boston City Council member Chuck Turner was arrested for his role in the Wilkerson conspiracy.
• The Wilkerson conspiracy includes an as-yet unnamed state representative – presumably one who will be casting a vote this week for the next speaker!
• DiMasi is directly implicated in the contract that was improperly awarded to Cognos.
• DiMasi’s accountant and campaign treasurer Richard Vitale has been indicted for illegal lobbying.  It’s worth nothing that DiMasi claimed to have never talked with Vitale on the issue, a fact that is contradicted by the indictment.
• DiMasi and his wife were involved in killing a liquid gas facility in Fall River – while DiMasi’s friend and wife’s employer Jay Cashman made $14M on the land in question.
• DiMasi is fighting the Ethics Commission’s inquiry into the issue.

I think you could look at any one or two or three of these items and think of them as a few aberrations, outliers.  But a list that long?  With so many players, in so many areas?  To me, that’s a system of corruption.  It’s a set of people who can’t tell right from wrong.

What sort of message will it send when DiMasi is re-elected?  The message, loud and clear, is that it’s business as usual in Massachusetts.  It doesn’t matter how cloudy your reputation is.  All that matters is that you’re a Democrat with clout; it’s all you need to get by.

I think this is deplorable.  DiMasi should not be the Speaker.  He should step down; if he won’t step down, he should be voted out.  The House should choose a new leader.  He or she should be a clean as clean can be, and should be given the mandate to reform and reform again until the public trust is restored.

At least one State Representative agrees with me.  State Representative David Torrisi (a committee chair even) has announced that he will not support DiMasi’s re-election.

I wish I could say that Torrisi was my representative!  I’d be proud to have him.  In my new home I’m represented by Jay Kaufman who is quoted:

“I don’t feel at all distracted,” said Rep. Jay Kaufman, the Lexington Democrat whom DiMasi moved from the back bench to the House chairman of the Public Service Committee and has defended the speaker. “I think I’m very focused, as are most members, on the challenges we’ve got by way of the economy and loss of jobs, an education system that still needs serious attention, etc., etc., and I’m sorry that David feels distracted. I don’t.”

What Kaufman does not appear to understand is that it is impossible for him to work on the economy and education while the government he supports is distrusted by its citizens.  He can only succeed with the support of the citizens and tax payers.  He will not have that support while the government declines to confront its image (and evidence) of corruption.

Some defenders of DiMasi will say that it is up to the courts to decide if DiMasi is guilty or not.  I agree with the statement, but it is irrelevant.  The only thing that is up for debate on January 7th is if DiMasi is the right person to be Speaker.  At this point, it does not matter whether or not he is guilty. It is unarguable that DiMasi is in ethical trouble.  It is unarguable that he’s declining to cooperate with investigations into alleged improprieties.

The bottom line: Do the Democrats understand the degree that the public has lost faith in their moral compass? Do the Democrats have a moral compass?  Do the Democrats want to show the public that they’re serious about changing the culture on Beacon Hill?  Do the Democrats have the guts to change leadership?  In short, do they have the guts to follow Torrisi?   Of course, I’m skeptical.  DiMasi is going to win re-election this week, and he’s going to hold the title until there is an indictment.

This is one of those votes that shines a bright light on your representative.  Are they willing to stand for change?  Are they willing to step out of line?  Are they willing to take a stand for an ethical government? I’m not suggesting that you call your representative and let them know what you think.  This is where you find out if they know how to do the “right thing,” without a poll or a phone bank to tell them what to do.

Watch how he or she votes. Record it, remember it. And take it to the ballot box with you in 2010.

• Two Sentators indicted this year
• House Speaker DiMasi who won’t turn over documents to the Ethics Commission
• Waiting for one or more State Representatives to be indicted in the Dejavu affair

Last week the state held an orientation for the newly-elected state reps and senators.  Ethical content: one hour, with zero reference to the current ethical controversies.

There’s only one interpretation: they don’t think there is an ethical problem.

I’m not at all sorry to see her go.  I’ve been a critic of her for years.  She’s been a classic big-government legislator, voting for regulation and oversight at every turn.  But, she always seemed to think that she was above the law.  All of those election regulations she voted for, they apparently applied to other candidates, not to her.

As for the criminial implications, I have a couple of thoughts:

1. Will the charges inspire Mayor Menino or Councilors Charles Yancey, Sam Yoon, Stephen J. Murphy, and John Connolly to finally disavow Wilkerson and endorse the Democratic nominee Sonia Chiang Diaz?  Or will they consider to pretend that she’s a good representative for the City of Boston?
2. I was always very suspicious of Judge Bolden’s actions in 2006, during the last election cycle.  He “lost” the filing of a legal decision against Wilkerson, and didn’t “find” it until after she had won the close-fought primary.   It always looked shady.  If Wilkerson is convicted of accepting bribes, it will make Bolden look even worse.  I wonder if the AG will take another look at that episode?