Grace Ross is a Democrat

When Grace Ross posted on BMG a few weeks back about contemplating a run for Governor, many people (including me) implored her to either run in the Democratic Primary or not run at all. We don't need to give Tim Cahill, Christy Mihos or Charley Baker any help in nudging Patrick from the Corner Office. So, that she decided to challenge Governor Patrick in the primary does not bother me. In fact, it's not only a good thing for Democracy, but ultimately a good thing for Governor Patrick.

All that said, she has a very, very steep hill to climb to even get on the ballot. With just days (literally) to convince longtime party members to mount a caucus effort (an almost impossible task given that she just became a Democrat and couldn't have a Democratic grassroots effort yet), she's going to need at least 15% of State Democratic Convention voters to endorse her candidacy at the convention to get her on the ballot. Caucuses take place in your local community between February 10-24 and any Democrat can run for it (check with your local paper, or contact your local ward/town/city chair, for specific times and locations).

Of course, Chris Gabrieli pulled off getting on the ballot way after that year's caucus meetings, but there was lots of backdoor dealings that few people without the pockets and clout of Chris Gabrieli could pull off -- and Patrick, despite having a masterful caucus strategy that won him a majority of supporters for the convention, was still a political newcomer that did not control the party apparatus at the time. So while Ross starts out a little sooner, she's actually much further behind than Gabrieli was to the 15% promised land.

I supported Governor Patrick in 2006 and will almost certainly do so again, enthusiastically. Given the economic realities of the past three years, he's done a remarkable job. From ending bad corporate loopholes, to passing the transportation bond bill in the nick of time (our state's own second stimulus), we've weathered the economic storm better than most and are poised to come out of it much stronger than most -- which runs counter to our history with economic recessions.

I could talk about a dozen other things -- marriage equality, environmental bills, pension and ethics reform -- but it's not going to change my mind: Grace Ross in the primary can't possibly hurt Governor Patrick's reelection efforts. In fact, it could help him. She was a breath of fresh air in 2006, very sharp in the debates, and will force Patrick to work that much harder for votes, that much sooner. Competitive primaries, more often than not, help candidates sharpen their message, grab lots of free media and build their ground efforts -- so when they get past the primary, they're best poised to win in the general. So, despite the fact that this blog will almost certainly oppose Grace Ross's candidacy, it certainly welcomes her heartily to the race.

Ra, Ra, Ra! Shish, Koom, Bah! Let's Go Casinos!

Well, the Globe's casino cheer leading again, this time featuring Representative Brian Dempsey. Nothing like a nice Dempsey press release to get the story moving -- and nudge the Commonwealth a little further to casinos, a fantastic potential ad revenue source for enterprising Globe sales reps. Whee!

I'm not even going to block quote any of the story. Suffice it to say, there's some interesting competing stories going on. The Globe and Dempsey suggest that "jobs" are leading some reps to rethink their position, while the Boston Phoenix and Herald make other allusions.

From the second Herald story:

With a proposal to expand gambling expected to hit the House floor within weeks, nearly two dozen casino developers, slot machine makers and gaming proponents spent a staggering $2.2 million to pay lobbyists and related expenses in 2009.

The Phoenix also notes that Suffolk, that lovely little horsey track sitting in Speaker Deleo's district (that wants slots way more than horseys), paid out over $780,000 in lobbying this past year -- second most of any organization in the state. No wonder DeLeo took in $5,000 in lobbyist cash from "about" two dozen industry peeps this past year (his Committee for a Democratic House took in another 10k). Murray - and her Committee for a Democratic Senate - actually matches those numbers. Oh, yeah, it's just about the jobs. And I just spotted a winged-pig in my backyard.

If politicians in this state want to be taken credibly, it's well past time that they joined with the Governor in supporting a comprehensive study to analyze all the pros and cons of casinos in this state -- what jobs they'll create, what jobs they'll destroy, what revenue they'll generate and what revenue they'll force us to spend and, perhaps most importantly of all, how they'd impact our communities near and far from potential casinos. If the Speaker and Senate President, not to mention Representative Dempsey, are so confident casinos will lead to a net increase of jobs, why won't they agree to this full-scale, comprehensive, non-partisan study?

Maybe, it's because they're not so confident in their job predictions -- given that history suggests casinos and slot parlors lead to a net loss of regional jobs.

The fact that state constitutional provisions were utilized to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to legalize gambling activities (and thereby experiment once again with a classic "boom and bust" economic cycle) lends substantial credence to arguments that both historically and currently, the legalization of gambling activities eventually causes: (1) increased taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social-welfare costs for society in general and government agencies in particular. For example, two studies of the riverboat casinos in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by the riverboats, most of the surrounding communities probably lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses (Grinols 1994; Grinols and Omorov 1995).

In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated.

So, will Speaker Deleo, Senator Murray and Representative Dempsey put their money where their mouth is and have the state fund the study to see if they're right about something that would so drastically change this state -- or will they continue to allow voters of this state to question the honesty and integrity of its elected leadership?

Deval Patrick Podcast

LeftAhead Internet Radio, a podcast I'm a co-host of, had Governor Patrick on yesterday. Lots of interesting and frank talk occurred -- including some new themes that, I hope, will be appearing frequently on the campaign trail. We focused on budgetary issues and the (sometimes heated) dynamics of Beacon Hill between the Governor and legislative bodies, as well as what the Governor plans to do should he be reelected for a second term. Patrick was on for the first half hour of the show, then the co-hosts discussed the upcoming race.

Readers can listen in on this site's sidebar, at the LeftAhead link up above, on iTunes (searching for LeftAhead) or at www.blogtalkradio.com/lefties.

Mass Pols "Cash in with Casino Bill"

As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. From today's Herald:

Lobbyists have placed their biggest wagers on the State House’s very own pit bosses - Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo - who each got roughly $5,000 in 2009 from about two dozen lobbyists representing casinos.

Their political action committees cashed in even bigger, with DeLeo’s Committee for a Democratic House and Murray’s Committee for a Democratic Senate raking in nearly $10,000 each from pro-gambling lobbyists and a handful of proponents of racinos.

Is it any wonder these two politicians have pushed so hard for slots?

What does it all amount to? In 2009, industry lobbyists spent $2.2 million in Massachusetts to push for slots.

Still, there's no comprehensive study of all the cons and benefits on the casino issue. Should anyone be surprised?

Deval Patrick to appear on LeftAhead podcast this Tuesday

He'll be coming on LeftAhead this Tuesday to take questions from Lynne, Mike and myself. We haven't pinned down the exact time, but it'll probably be an hour or two earlier than our normal 2:30 start time. As always, when we're finished doing the live show, the recording will be available on LeftAhead.com and iTunes to listen or download, or on this site's sidebar.

If any readers have questions they'd like asked, I will consider them, but they have to be serious and respectful in phrase. Mere partisan attacks are obviously unacceptable.

Hypocrisy, Terrorism and Phone Tapping

If four young democrats dressed up as phone repairmen and tried to install wiretaps to Senator Mitch McConnell's office (R), they'd be off to Guantanamo, with cries of terrorism, and water-boarded by now. Or close to it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the national GOP would be all over it, foaming at the mouth. The rest of cable and network news would follow suit.

Instead, they were college republicans and one of their daddies is a US attorney, so it's just some goofy stunt. Still won't keep at least some of them out of federal prison (no doubt they'll all try to backstab each other as they try to make plea bargains, realizing they may actually be held accountable for their actions). At least there's that.

Who wants to take a guess that these four were not alone? Someone funded them. Did that person also put them up to something like this? Who knew what and when?

Krugman: "This looks like pure disaster."

Krugman speaks out about what he thinks of Obama's newest, most idiotic idea yet.

The message this sends is far more damaging than the policy -- it's essentially a surrender on trying to fix the economy and growing jobs, while a complete validation of the deeply flawed Republican world view. Does anyone possibly think we'll get a jobs bill with the president pushing policies like this?

Still waiting optimistically for a primary challenge -- who will have the courage to take Obama on?

Rachel Maddow

Watch it over here - with a blog that really puts the President's proposal into perspective (and calls for a primary against him).

Once you factor in inflation, what the president will be proposing is actually a reduction in government spending. You might recall that John McCain ran for and lost the presidency on the idea of answering economic calamity with a spending freeze, since that's the kind of strategy that Herbert Hoover used in the 30s to make the depression great.

Emphasis not mine.