by Aaron Margolis, November 13th, 2008 at 12:08am
Massachusetts GOP Chairman Peter Torkildsen will not be seeking reelection, according to a press release from the Massachusetts Republican Party.
The Honorable Peter Torkildsen, Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, issued the following statement today:
MassGOP Chairman Peter Torkildsen said, “Today, I informed members of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee that I will not be a candidate for re-election in January when my term as Chairman concludes. I greatly appreciate the many members of the State Committee who called during the past week to let me know of their support for my running again. After thinking about it for the past week, I decided I could not commit to serving for the full two year term, and therefore it would be best to announce my intentions early, and allow others considering a candidacy to step forward.”
“During the past two years, we did accomplish some significant steps. First, every Republican last week was re-elected. Second, during the past two years, we raised over $1.5 million, even though this was the first cycle in 16 years where we did not have the benefit of the Governor’s office being occupied by a Republican. And third, we conducted over 50 campaign schools, where we taught candidates and their volunteers the basics of running a campaign, raising money, using technology, and conducting voter identification and Election Day operations.”
“I am optimistic that our Party will regain the Governor’s office and increase seats in the legislature in 2010, as long as we put recriminations behind us, and recruit, train and support our best possible candidates. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve, and I look forward to continuing to work to build two-party competition in Massachusetts,” concluded Torkildsen.
MassGOP Chairman Peter Torkildsen has a long record of public service. He served as a State Representative from January 1985 to December of 1990. He went on to serve two terms in the United States Congress as a Representative of the 6th Congressional District from January of 1993 to January of 1997. He has been the Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party since January of 2007.
PolitckerMA.com is reporting that Daniel Winslow, veteran Republican strategist, is not interested in the chairmanship position.
Some Republican circles were speculating that Winslow, who was Mitt Romney’s chief legal counsel when he was governor, might run for the post if current chairman Peter Torkildsen did not seek re-election. But even with Torkildsen’s announcement on Wednesday that he is stepping down, Winslow told PolitickerMA.com that he isn’t interested.
“While I would relish the challenge of reinventing the Republican Party in Massachusetts, I am confident that our rising stars will step up to the task,” Winslow said. “For now, my focus is on my clients and in problem solving in public policy areas. I hope that my ideas, advice and energy can support two-party government in other ways.”
Tags: Daniel Winslow, Mass GOP, Massachusetts Republican Party, Peter Torkildsen
by Aaron Margolis, November 11th, 2008 at 12:08am
Governor Deval Patrick has this idea to “dismantle the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and cut all tolls west of Route 128 except at two state border crossings,” reports the Boston Herald.
Under the plan, expected to be unveiled later this week, Turnpike operations west of Route 128 would be folded into the Massachusetts Highway Department. Operations within Route 128, the so-called Metropolitan Highway System, would be folded into the Massachusetts Port Authority.
Massport already runs the Mystic Tobin Bridge and tunnels leading to and from Logan International Airport.
The plan is an attempt to improve efficiency and try to mollify public complaints amid talk of toll hikes necessary to repair aging infrastructure and pay off the debt of the nearly $15 billion Central Artery project, said the officials, both of whom demanded anonymity in advance of the governor’s formal announcement.
One said dismantling the Pike “would keep a promise to the taxpayers,” especially western Massachusetts drivers who have complained about being saddled with Big Dig costs despite long-broken promises that Pike tolls would be eliminated once the roadway’s original construction bonds were paid off.
According to the plan, tolls likely will be raised inside Route 128, whose drivers make the most use of the Central Artery and its underground system of highways and airport connections. One proposal discussed by the Turnpike board in September called for raising tunnel tolls by $5, from $3.50 to $8.50, and increasing tolls at the Allston-Brighton Turnpike interchange by $1, to $2.25.
Toll booths outside Route 128 will be eliminated, except in West Stockbridge near the New York border and in Sturbridge, close to Connecticut where Interstate 84 meets the Pike. Drivers in passenger cars have not had to pay tolls between Exit 1, in West Stockbridge, and Exit 6, in Springfield, since 1997.
The change would extend the non-tolling area from Exit 7, in Ludlow, through Weston and on to Exit 15 in Newton, where tolls currently are paid only by westbound drivers. It also would drop tolls not only on passenger cars but commercial vehicles in that zone.
I know I’ve heard this idea before…but where?
Oh, wait, now I remember…
[Turnpike] Board member Mary Connaughton, who was appointed by former Gov. Mitt Romney, said the plan “sounded very much like what Gov. Romney proposed two years ago.”
Amazing.
Tags: Boston Herald, broken promises, Deval Patrick, Mitt Romney
by Aaron Margolis, November 9th, 2008 at 01:33pm
An interesting editorial over at the Boston Globe about the love affair with Barack Obama.
THE STORYLINE goes something like this: America’s onetime popularity in the world was squandered by George W. Bush, whose belligerence and unilateralism after Sept. 11, 2001, alienated allies and engendered widespread anti-Americanism. But now, with the election of Barack Obama, America can restore its good name and regain the world’s goodwill.
One vigorous exponent of this narrative has been Obama himself. “The single most important issue that we’re facing in this election,” he said during the campaign, is choosing a leader “to repair all the damage that’s been done to America’s reputation overseas.” When I become president, he often told voters, “the world will look at America differently.”
Sure enough, much of the international reaction to Obama’s election has been ecstatic. “Legions of jubilant supporters set off firecrackers in El Salvador, danced in Liberia, and drank shots in Japan,” the Los Angeles Times reported. Kenya declared a national holiday. South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu exulted: “We have a new spring in our walk and our shoulders are straighter.” The Sun, Britain’s most popular newspaper, headlined its story “One Giant Leap for Mankind.”
For Obama, such worldwide jubilation must be gratifying. He should take it all with a healthy shake of salt, however. Because it isn’t going to last.
Antagonism to the United States is as old as the United States. It didn’t begin with the current president, unpopular though he is, or in response to American military action in Iraq. Nor is it going to vanish Jan. 20.
The worry we should all have is that Barack Obama, the “messiah,” will be treated a little too kindly because 52% of the voters felt the ultimate sigh of relief last week, and much like during the campaign trail, major goofs and blunders will be brushed under the rug. When it comes to the presidency, Affirmative Action has no place.
Popularity is nice, but it isn’t the goal of US foreign policy. Great nations have great interests in the world - interests that cannot always be secured through patient negotiation or Security Council resolutions. As the foremost military power, the United States must at times be “the world’s reluctant sheriff,” using force to maintain order or defend liberty. President Obama may speak more softly than his predecessor, but he will still be carrying a very big stick. Like other presidents, he will be loudly condemned when he uses it. As George W. Bush can tell him, the abuse goes with the job.
If we truly want to be a society that views everyone as equal, then the Obama Administration needs to be criticized when criticism is rightfully deserved. If we ignore his mistakes, and rest assured there will be plenty, Obama’s legacy as it will be recorded in history will be viewed upon less favorably than President Bush is now.
Tags: Barack Obama, Boston Globe, George W. Bush
by Aaron Margolis, November 6th, 2008 at 02:35pm
Last night I took a phone call from a member of the Boston Globe staff who was writing an article about post-election gloom amongst Massachusetts Republicans. Normally, I dislike these kinds of phone call interviews, but it’s hard to pass up sometimes.
The call was directly referring to my pre-election day post, specifically about my thoughts on Beacon Hill:
Beacon Hill is nearly 90% democrats. This is absurd. The reason why your vote on Question 1 is meaningless is because of the state legislature has shown time and time again your vote is bupkis–totally meaningless. The “party of choice” takes that choice away from you. You vote for change, and they take it away. Party of the people? Not quite. It’s only natural that we disapprove of the whole government body, but like our particular elected official…but people, please, look at the record of your elected officials. If they are not on your side, don’t give them the privilege of your vote. The only way to reign them in is to bring something resembling balance to Beacon Hill, and yes, that means electing some Republicans.
Right off the bat, I’m asked “so are you feeling a bit depressed right now?”
Why should I be depressed? I’m not walking around with my head down all ashamed of my political beliefs. Yes, we lost a few more seats on Beacon Hill, but does that change anything for Republicans in this state? No. I replied, “I’m not depressed; I’m disappointed, but not depressed.” We chatted for a few minutes. I elaborated a bit on my thoughts about the imbalance of power on Beacon Hill, and that was that.
Much to my surprise, I read the article on boston.com and find out that not only am I “depressed” but I apparently spoke on behalf of “other Republicans.”
Aaron Margolis, co-editor in chief of the conservative political blog hubpolitics.com, called the imbalance “absurd.”
“It’s frustrating when there’s that imbalance of power because one party is constantly being reinforced and [can become] power hungry,” he said. “Me and other Republicans feel disenfranchised and a little depressed about the whole situation.”
This is why I hate phone interviews. I did say that Republicans are no doubt feeling disenfranchised, but depressed? No. Whether the state legislature is 90% Democrat, or 100%, the voice of Republican Party (and the citizens of the Commonwealth, for that matter) is still ignored the same. Adding insult to injury, the paraphrasing of my words left little to be desired. Friends who know me best that have read the article agree that the last sentence doesn’t even sound like me. ‘Me and other Republicans’? No, no, no. First of all, it’s poor English. Second, I don’t speak on behalf of other Republicans; they can speak for themselves.
I was also asked if I would move out of Massachusetts. For the past six years, I knew I would not be able to move out (even if I wanted to) because I’ve been working towards earning my masters degree. But now, with two months left before I graduate, I can’t imagine moving out of Massachusetts just because of the dwindling number of Republicans in the State House. While reasons could come up that might tempt or require me to move, the last reason would be because Massachusetts is getting bluer. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats wonder what is wrong with the country when their party loses (and then threaten to move to Canada), while Republicans ask themselves what they did wrong and regroup to try to win next time. I am not going to retreat in defeat because of a lost battle. That is not what Republicans do. You can’t bury your head in the sand if you want change.
It seems likely this particular Boston Globe staff member had an agenda to get me to say I was “depressed” about the situation on Beacon Hill, but I was not biting. Nonetheless, words got put into my mouth. I guess we live and learn.
I’ll state for the record that I am not depressed–I am just extremely disappointed in what is happening to the Commonwealth. In the end we get the government we deserve, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Tags: Boston Globe
by Aaron Margolis, November 4th, 2008 at 10:39pm
From the Boston Herald…
QUESTION ONE: Eliminate the state’s 5.3 percent income tax?
Would eliminate the state’s 5.3 percent income tax, cutting it to 2.65 percent in January then killing it altogether in January 2010.
YES: 31% NO: 69%
QUESTION TWO: Decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana?
Would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in Massachusetts. Those caught would have to give up the pot and pay a $100 civil fine. Minors also would have to complete a drug awareness program within a year.
YES: 65% NO: 35%
QUESTION THREE: Ban any dog racing?
Would ban any dog racing that included betting or wagering, essentially putting out of business the state’s two greyhound racetracks as of Jan. 1, 2010.
YES: 57% NO: 43%
45% of precincts - Results as of 9:49pm
by Aaron Margolis, November 4th, 2008 at 08:30am
I cast my vote this morning. #264 in my precinct. From the moment I parked my car to the moment I got back in it to head to work took about 8 minutes.
This post is an open thread for election day discussion.
How was your polling place?
Local predictions?
National predictions?
Does your vote matter?
Tags: Election 2008
by Aaron Margolis, November 3rd, 2008 at 02:04pm
Massachusetts is written off by presidential candidates. It’s a sure thing.
But there are a series of state elections that your vote does matter…and can have a huge impact on state politics.
Here is my take on the three questions:
Question 1, to eliminate the income tax. Truthfully, how you vote on this is really about sending a message to Beacon Hill. If the citizens do vote to end the income tax, and I believe they will, the Democratic Legislature will just ignore the will of the people, as they have done many times in the recent past.
Question 2, decriminalizing pot possession of 1 oz. or less. Anyone caught with said amount will have to “give up pot” and pay a $100 civil fine. Does anyone think telling someone they have to give up pot is going to work? It’s already an illegal substance. $100 fine is beans. This question sucks. A vote yes sends the wrong message, and it paves the way for the complete decriminalization of marijuana. I predict it will be close, but will pass, even though it shouldn’t.
Question 3, seeks to ban dog racing and betting. The pro-Question 3 effort is spearheaded by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I have not been able to pay attention to the ad campaign to see who make the most compelling argument. That said, I don’t lose any sleep at night if a greyhound gets hurt on a racetrack. Racetrack owners who are leading the opposition argue the animals are well cared for, and that 1,000 jobs would be lost if this question wins. Sorry, but people are more important than animals. Vote no.
Where your votes can make the most difference is Beacon Hill.
Beacon Hill is nearly 90% democrats. This is absurd. The reason why your vote on Question 1 is meaningless is because of the state legislature has shown time and time again your vote is bupkis–totally meaningless. The “party of choice” takes that choice away from you. You vote for change, and they take it away. Party of the people? Not quite. It’s only natural that we disapprove of the whole government body, but like our particular elected official…but people, please, look at the record of your elected officials. If they are not on your side, don’t give them the privilege of your vote. The only way to reign them in is to bring something resembling balance to Beacon Hill, and yes, that means electing some Republicans. Here is a list of candidates running for election and reelection:
State Senate
Jon Rockwood – Bristol and Norfolk
Brion Cangiamila - Fourth Middlesex
Keith McCormic – Hampshire and Franklin
Sandra “Sandi” Martinez – Third Middlesex
Richard Tisei – Middlesex and Essex
Steve Levy – Middlesex and Worcester
Scott Brown – Norfolk, Bristol and Plymouth
Robert Hedlund – Plymouth and Norfolk
John Lebeaux – 2nd Worcester
Bruce Tarr – 1st Essex and Middlesex
Mike Knapik – 2nd Hampden and Hampshire
State Representative
Don Howell - Barnstable 4
Jeff Perry - Barnstable 5
Fred Barrows - Bristol 1
George Ross - Bristol 2
C.J. Ferry - Bristol 7
Elizabeth Poirier - Bristol 14
Brad Hill - Essex 4
John Blaisdell - Essex 8
Lawrence Brennan - Essex 18
Robert Parks - Franklin 2
William Scibelli - Hampden 2
George Vazquez - Hampden 10
Paul Avella - Middlesex 2
Sonny Parente - Middlesex 3
Arthur Vigeant - Middlesex 4
Dan Haley - Middlesex 8
Susan Pope - Middlesex 13
Brad Jones - Middlesex 20
Anthony Lucacio - Middlesex 22
Jeffrey Bilezikian - Middlesex 29
Brian O’Connor - Middlesex 31
Kurt Hayes - Middlesex 37
Bob Thomas - Norfolk 4
Richard Ross - Norfolk 9
Vinny DeMacedo - Plymouth 1
Susan Gifford - Plymouth 2
Dan Webster - Plymouth 6
Lewis Evangelidis - Worcester 1
Stephen Comtois - Worcester 5
Ronald Chernisky - Worcester 6
Paul Frost - Worcester 7
Kevin Kuros - Worcester 8
George Peterson - Worcester 9
Karyn Polito - Worcester 11
Capitol Hill suffers from a similar problem… but our delegation is 100% Democrats.
US Senate
Jeff Beatty
US Congress
Nathan Bech – 1st District
Earl Sholley – 4th District
Richard Baker – 6th District
John Cunningham – 7th District
Bottom line, electing mostly or all Democrats is failing this state. If you want change, the answer is clear: send the Democrats packing. If you choose to accept the current state of Massachusetts politics as it is, don’t be surprise if at the next national election we’ll have end up sending a few less congressional representatives to sit in the Capitol.
by Aaron Margolis, November 1st, 2008 at 11:20am
Barack Obama’s aunt, recently found living in a South Boston slum, is living in the United States illegally.
Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as “Aunti Zeituni” in Obama’s memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango’s case.
Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a federal law enforcment official. The information they made available is known to officials in the federal government, but the AP could not establish whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
Onyango’s refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, non-criminal violation of U.S. immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system. Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the United States.
The AP could not reach Onyango immediately for comment. No one answered the telephone number listed in her name late Friday. It was unclear why her request for asylum was rejected in 2004.
Perhaps Obama should visit Aunti Zeituni before her trip back home.
Tags: Barack Obama
by Aaron Margolis, October 31st, 2008 at 12:46pm
As if losing the primary wasn’t enough, or being arrested by the FBI, or a unanimous senate resolution urging her to step down… soon-to-be former Senator Dianne Wilkerson is finally, at the very least, suspending her reelection campaign.
A solemn state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson announced today she is ending her reelection campaign following a chorus of calls for her to resign.
Her decision comes after a morning meeting with members of the city’s Ten Point Coalition and Black Ministerial Alliance who were asking the eight-term state senator to quit as she confronts corruption charges levied against her.
The clergy groups even gave Wilkerson a 15-minute deadline today to either side with them in a joint statement or face them walking out on the talks. Wilkerson ultimately agreed to end her defiant run for reelection.
“I am withdrawing from the race. We will not be doing any work on the sticker campaign,” said Wilkerson outside the Charles Street AME Church in Roxbury at about noon.
Wilkerson refused to answer any questions from the media.
Her campaign manager, Boyce Slayman, said the decision was reached for the good of the Roxbury community Wilkerson represents and for the 53-year-old senator’s family.
“This is a very difficult time for her. The decision was made … primarily for the community,” Slayman told the dozens of media members outside the church.
Primarily for the community.
It wasn’t long ago Wilkerson vowed to stick around because she is “committed to do what is in the best interest of the residents of this district.” Today, she suspends her campaign, effectively ending her career in the senate, “for the community.”
What a change of heart.
Tags: corruption, Dianne Wilkerson
by Aaron Margolis, October 30th, 2008 at 02:08pm
The State Senate wants Dianne Wilkerson to resign…today.
The state Senate passed a unanimous resolution this afternoon asking Democratic Senator Dianne Wilkerson to resign immediately following her arrest on charges she accepted eight bribes worth $23,500.
Lawmakers also stripped Wilkerson of her chairmanship of the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight and her committee assignments and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to explore the accusations made by the FBI after an 18-month corruption probe.
This morning before the vote, Wilkerson sent a letter to Senate President Therese Murray saying she would follow the will of the Senate. Wilkerson has not issued a public statement today, but on Wednesday she vowed to continue her write-in campaign to save the seat she has held for 15 years.
“These are very serious allegations against the senator,” Murray told reporters after the vote. “We are all upset about the taint and shadow of doubt cast upon the Senate and its members based on the allegations of one person. I want to assure the people of the Commonwealth that we are fully cooperating with law enforcement in this ongoing investigation. I’m comfortable and confident that the integrity of the senate, and my own integrity, will remain intact at the end of this ordeal.”
Fair enough, or is it?
The Massachusetts Republican Party is wondering why Jim Marzilli still gets to keep his job, and keeps receiving a paycheck.
“Today, the taxpayers of Massachusetts paid Jim Marzilli $180.10,” said MassGOP Executive Director Rob Willington.
Note: The MassGOP Called on the State Senate to expel Jim Marzilli on July 1st.
Days elapsed since Marzilli’s indictment: 121
Days until Marzilli’s pension increases: 63
Cost of Senator Marzilli per day: $180.10
Total taxpayer cost since indictment: $21,792.10
For More information, visit MarzilliWatch.com
Tags: corruption, Dianne Wilkerson, Jim Marzilli, Massachusetts Republican Party, MassGOP, Rob Willington, Senate Ethics Committee, Therese Murray
Newer Posts
Older Posts
