Answers to the Questions

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

Your Vote Does Matter Tomorrow (…Well, Some of Them)

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 – 2^nd Worcester
Bruce Tarr – 1^st Essex and Middlesex
Mike Knapik – 2^nd 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 – 1^st District
Earl Sholley – 4^th District
Richard Baker – 6^th District
John Cunningham – 7^th 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.

What Soros’ Pot Committee Didn’t Want You To Know

The pro-marijuana group, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, is upset that the Boston Herald revealed that George Soros provides their funding and for suggesting their initiative has ulterior motives.

Backers of a ballot question to decriminalize some pot possession fired back at charges that their initiative is a gateway for weaker drug laws – and took aim at the Herald for uncovering who’s funding the movement.

“(The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy) does not support marijuana ‘legalization’ or endorse or condone marijuana use, as the Herald is well aware” wrote campaign manager Whitney Taylor in an e-mail.

Taylor, who would not be interviewed, also wrote: “The Herald’s effort to confuse Bay Staters into thinking Question 2 is about marijuana legalization is a disservice to voters.”

The Herald reported yesterday that the ballot committee received 30 percent of its money from the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C., group that promotes legal, over-the-counter sales of marijuana.

Overall, $400,000 – 63 percent – of the $635,000 it raised came from George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist. He is on the board of the Drug Policy Alliance Network, a New York group that backs legalization of marijuana.

What wrong with letting the public whose minds you’re trying to influence who is the financial backer of your group? Are they ashamed of George Soros or his money? Why are they so upset about this being reported? People like to know what lobbyists have a financial hold on politicians, why not advocacy groups, too? It’s only fair, seeing as all their money is coming from groups that support the legalization of marijuana, and they claim they don’t support that cause.

Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone said it’s fair to scrutinize the money behind the movement.

“The fact that Question 2 is being financed by activists who support over-the-counter marijuana is further evidence that they have a larger, pro-drug mission,” Leone said in a statement.

Exactly.

Patriots Get Randy Moss

In a move that’s been creating a lot of buzz, the New England Patriots will welcome Randy Moss to their roster.

In a stunning move, the Patriots traded a fourth-round draft pick to the Raiders for controversial wide receiver Randy Moss today.

Trade discussions picked up after the first day of the NFL draft and continued into this morning. The fourth-round pick traded to the Raiders had been acquired on Saturday from the 49ers. The Patriots traded their 2007 first-round pick (28th overall) to the 49ers for a 2008 first-round pick and 2007 fourth-round pick (110th).

Moss held a conference call with the New England media this afternoon.

“I don’t think you all understand how excited I am to be a part of this organization,” Moss told the media. “I think [New England's] record and what they’re about speaks massive volumes. I’m just very, very happy to find some happiness and getting back to what I love to do — that’s play football and going out there and [competing].”

There are mixed feelings about this acquisition.

“Where’s Bob? Where’s Myra? And who invaded Bill Belichick’s body over the weekend?” asks Dan Shaughnessy, citing Moss’ rap sheet that kept the Patriots from considering him years ago.

Moss’s rap sheet goes back to his teen years. He went to jail for 30 days when he was a high school senior after pleading guilty to an assault charge. A positive test for marijuana while he was in jail added 60 days to his sentence. In 1996 he was charged with domestic battery after an altercation with the mother of his two children, but the charges were dropped (as they so often are in those cases). Then there was the Minneapolis arrest for nudging and knocking down a female traffic agent with his car in 2002. There was a little weed in Randy’s vehicle, but we doubt it was his stuff. No big deal.

There’s also Moss’s multiple crimes against sport. He’s the guy who left the field in a game against the Redskins when there was still time remaining on the clock. Video inspection regularly reveals him taking plays off when he is not a primary option. He doesn’t like to block, and his “I play when I want to play” remark is not something you’d expect to hear from Rodney Harrison or Tedy Bruschi.

Will Moss behave now that he is with the Patriots, or will it be the same old hijinks? He’s already taken a huge pay cut to play in Foxborough, so anything is possible.

Keller: Smooth Moderator?

Part of the post debate discussion that went on this week was about the debate moderator, CBS4’s Jon Keller, and the debate format. The Boston Herald suggests that Keller’s performance “came out on top” over the previous debate’s moderators.

I don’t think so.

Of all of the debates to date, this one was the most stale. It had its moments, but overall, it was a snoozefest compared to previous debates, and Jon Keller did not do an admirable job at moderating (sorry Jon, I don’t believe in blogger brotherhood). The debate only got somewhat interesting after the first half, because the first 3 questions were largely a load of fluff. The Castle Doctrine? What charities have you given to? Decriminalization of marijuana? Why was our time wasted on those questions?

It seemed very clear that Keller did not have great control over the candidates, and lost time to finish the agenda of the evening. How any times were the supposed ten second responses more like 30 seconds? While watching the debate, it certainly seemed like some candidates were getting more time than others. Keller posted results from the “stopwatch test” from the debate, which show that Christy Mihos spoke almost half as long as the rest of the candidates, and surprisingly showed that Grace Ross came in second place (though this is because both she and Keller don’t know how long 10 seconds is).

Kerry Healey: 11 minutes six seconds
Grace Ross: 10 minutes 53 seconds
Deval Patrick: 10 minutes one second
Christy Mihos: 5 minutes 38 seconds

Christy, of course, is better off being as succinct as possible.

I would rule that Wednesday’s debate was the worst of them all. Maybe it’s because we had endured three already, but I think it had a lot to due with the complete lack of control of the moderator, and the poor choice of questions in the first half. Two thumbs way down. No deal. The price is wrong.