Red Mass Group - Recommended Diaries

I'm Not A RINO, So Can It

JoeTS — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:13:52 GMT

There's been substantial posting lately over pro-gay marriage Republicans or Republicans who refuse to be anti-gay marriage. The phrase "RINO" is being used judiciously, along with exasperated posting over legislators who aren't 'doing enough' to stop the spread of gay marriage.

Well, I'm a pro-gun, pro-life, beer-drinking, cigar-smoking, illegal-immigrant-kickering-outering Republican. I'm also pro-gay marriage.

I am NOT a RINO.

Read on.
I used to be anti-gay marriage. I took this position out of my religious beliefs, being a practicing Catholic. I would have previously even gone as far as to say I was against civil unions.

However, I thought about it. Lots.

I came upon the realization that a homosexual marriage cannot remove the sanctity of the marriage I one day hope to have. What is going on is essentially two people of the same gender entering into a contract with each other. Fanfare and ceremony aside, this is essentially what they are doing. When I go to church and get married by a priest, I will be pledging myself before God and my family to another, in a ceremony that is ordained by God and binding at a level that the State can never touch upon.

So, how is two men getting hitched at City Hall going to de-sanctify that? It won't, because they are two different things. Call it a marriage, call it whatever, but what I would do and what two men would do are NOT the same. A person who opposes gay marriage on a religous basis is not only ignorant of the law -- you can't discriminate on who can enter into a contract and who can't on a gender basis -- and they are insulting their own faith. I refuse to believe that gay marriage is monumental enough to erase the sanctity of a marriage ordained by God.

Besides, it's none of my damned business what the gays are doing. If we're the party of small government, then we should be against this type of legislative behavior that would let the government have another issue to say "nuh uh, can't do that!" over.

I'm not pro-gay marriage because I hate America, hate God, love liberals or am pandering to the left or asking for money. Nobody I know who is pro-gay marriage is for those reasons.

I think it's monumentally ignorant for someone to call another a RINO over marriage equality. Some people want to clean the party up. Well, they should do young people like me a favor and shut their mouths with talk like that so I won't have to spend my adulthood putting a party back together that stupid assholes tore asunder over gay marriage.

Eldridge One of 15 Reps to Oppose Sales Tax Holiday

wavemaker — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:12:40 GMT

Steve Levy's campaign reports in an email blast that Democrat Jamie Eldridge, who is seeking Pam Resor's Senate seat, was one of only fifteen state reps to oppose the sales tax holiday in today's vote.

WAY TO GO JAMIE!! KEEP IT UP!!

Here is his email:

Friends,
Today I received a clear reminder about why I decided to run for the State Senate in the Middlesex & Worcester District. The Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a bill today that calls for the establishment of a temporary Sales Tax Holiday. I strongly support this measure and I'm happy our legislature finally got something right in passing it. It received near-unanimous support. There were, however, some Democrats who voted against it. Of the fifteen that opposed this worthy legislation, one of them ironically is the man who also wishes to be our next State Senator.
Today, in an act of callous disregard for the financial strain borne by Massachusetts residents, James Eldridge voted against the Sales Tax Holiday that would provide the people of Massachusetts some much needed tax relief and help stimulate our economy. As people in the Middlesex & Worcester District struggle with rising fuel and food costs, this tax holiday promises them some assistance and our retailers a boost in a difficult economy. Today our opponent voted against the people of this district... do we really want him to be our next State Senator?
We can stop that from happening though. Be sure to donate now so we can have the resources to let the people of this district know that James Eldridge DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR INTERESTS. People are unanimously in favor of the sales tax holiday. If we can get our message out and make people aware of our position in favor of tax relief and our opponent's consistent position against it, it will go a long way in helping us reach our goal of electing a Republican back to this State Senate seat. I need your help now so be sure to visit my website to donate so we can get the word out.
Please visit www.StevenLevy.org and click on the DONATE button.
Donating is not the only way you can help though. We need people who are willing to submit a "Letter to the Editor" to all of our local papers so the people of the Middlesex & Worcester District know who will best represent their interests come November. Here is a list of the local papers, make your position on the Sale Tax Holiday known NOW.
The Beacon(Acton and Boxborough) : Beacon@cnc.com
The Public Spirit(Ayer) : Editor@NashobaPub.com
The Harvard Hillside (Harvard) : Editor@NashobaPub.com
The Hudson Sun (Hudson) : CBuday@cnc.com
The Littleton Independent (Littleton) : Littleton@cnc.com
The Marlborough Enterprise (Marlborough) : CBuday@cnc.com
The Beacon Villager (Maynard and Stow) : Beacon-Villager@cnc.com
The North/South Villager (Northborough and Southborough) - GHazard@cnc.com
The Shirley Oracle (Shirley) - Editor@NashobaPub.com
The Shirley Volunteer (Shirley) - Publisher@TheShirleyVolunteer.org
The Sudbury Town Crier (Sudbury) - Sudbury@cnc.com
The Westborough News (Westborough) - Westboro@cnc.com
The Community Advocate - News@Community Advocate.com
Thank you all for your continued support and again I invite you to visit our website at www.StevenLevy.org.
Yours truly,
Steven Levy

Sen. Hedlund: Rollback the Income Tax and Stop Wasting Our Hard-Earned Tax Dollars

theoldright — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:48:04 GMT

Senator Hedlund had a very similar column to Rep. Jones' in my local paper. I have attached the text below... it's a very good read and really outlines how tough a shape the Commonwealth is in.

It also includes a nice section on the tax rollback!

Here is the column:

By Sen. Robert L. Hedlund
A good sign of whether the state is facing tough financial times is when budget negotiations start to stretch into July. It took the Legislature until July 3 this year to finally adopt a state budget for the fiscal year that began three days earlier - a sure sign that our chief budget writers are uncomfortable with how this year could play out.
To be sure, even though the House and Senate took the unusual step of meeting in formal sessions the day before a major holiday to pass the Commonwealth's $28 billion budget, there is a very good chance that this budget could still require some major reworking.
One major concern is whether the state's revenue growth projections will hold up. For example, Wall Street had a very poor month of June. If this develops into a trend, the state could see a significant drop in the amount of capital gains taxes we collect. But the biggest hinge point is whether the federal government will continue to grant the Commonwealth a crucial Medicaid waiver. If this waiver isn't approved, we could find ourselves having to cut anywhere between $200 and $800 million from the budget. To prevent this from happening, the Patrick Administration has been lobbying the federal government hard, and has even reached out to Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Andy Card in an attempt to secure the waiver.

Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, I remain adamant that any budgetary strain we may experience largely originates from the spending side of the ledger, not the revenue side. And it's for this reason that I joined my five Republican colleagues in voting against the budget.
The state budget has doubled over the past 20 years, and even by the most conservative estimates, state revenue is expected to grow by about 3.8 percent next year - a figure that doesn't include the more than $800 million in new taxes the Legislature has imposed over the past couple of weeks on business, smokers and homebuyers.
Back in May, I and my Republican colleagues commended the Senate for recognizing our fiscal situation and demonstrating some fiscal restraint in passing a budget that was $130 million less than the one approved by the House. However, the budget that was adopted by the Legislature on July 3 wasn't just more than what the Senate approved, but also $30 million more than what the House approved. According to reports, House Ways and Means Chairman Robert DeLeo, embroiled in an internal leadership battle, dug his heels in and refused to budge on many of the spending figures and earmarks. And unfortunately, my Senate colleagues gave in and signed off on the largest state budget in the history of the Commonwealth.
The final version of the budget also lacked many of the amendments that I co-sponsored that would have brought some responsibility to state spending, including prohibiting the use of tax dollars for sex-change surgeries, hormone therapies, or laser hair removal for prisoners.
Other successful amendments that I co-sponsored that were stripped from the budget included:
• A crack-down on the support network for illegal immigrants and require companies doing businesses with the state to verify the status of their employees;
• Allowing towns to grant excise tax abatements to residents on active military duty;
• Creating special license plates for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars;
• Establishing a special statewide commission to look at our water infrastructure needs, and;
• Banning the Lottery from giving away tickets to sporting events as rewards to well-connected and already well-compensated Lottery agents and employees.
There were also several other "good government" types of amendments that either I or my Republican colleagues sponsored that didn't even make it to the conference committee, including proposals to;
• reform our pension system by capping annual payouts and prohibiting state employees from having absurd allowances such as housing and parking spaces included in their pension calculations;
• strip the Lottery of its $10 million advertising budget, and;
• give state college students a $500 user fee tax credit.
And although it wasn't successful, I am proud to once again have pushed for the income tax rollback that my constituents - as well as the rest of the state - voted for back in 2000. Considering voters will be given the option this fall to vote to abolish the income tax altogether - a proposal that almost passed in 2002 - I argued that finally rolling back the income tax to 5 percent may defuse this potential political bomb. But only one Democrat, Sen. James Timilty of Walpole, was willing to vote in favor of the amendment.
Personally, I don't consider our budget debate over. My feeling is that either the Legislature or the Governor will be forced to face some unpleasant realities in coming months if revenues don't materialize like they are supposed to, or if the cost of our statewide health plan continues to grow unabated. This budget would have been a great opportunity to make some tough but necessary budgetary decisions. Now we may find ourselves debating some painful choices come January.

Rep. Brad Hill: "Too much spending, too little belt-tightening "

Karl Marx — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:34:47 GMT

Rep. Brad Hill signals a warning about the spendthrifts on Beacon Hill. From the Salem News

...corporate taxes are just the start of the problem. The commonwealth is essentially spending money it does not have, by counting on tax revenue, as well as the rainy-day fund, to make up the difference. An appropriation of $310 million from the state's rainy-day fund was used to balance this budget, putting our stabilization fund below the $2 billion figure that Treasurer Tim Cahill told the Legislature would be needed to help ensure our strong bond rating.
Additionally, the Legislature is counting on a waiver from the federal government that totals $600 million. The waiver period has expired, and we have been told by the federal government that this waiver may not be renewed. In essence, this budget is counting on $600 million that we do not have. Failure to receive these funds could cause a financial crisis.

The state legislature never learns. Even Deval, who is seeking 9C budget authority, knows the budget is a time bomb. It's time for the legislature to hear from fiscal conservatives from both parties.

Bech blasts Olver over call for federal heating aid boost: Says more oil drilling will help all

gopdaddy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:47:47 GMT

Bech blasts Olver over call for federal heating aid boost: Says more oil drilling will help all
22nd July 2008
By Richie Davis
Recorder Staff
Republican Congressional candidate Nathan Bech has criticized incumbent Rep. John Olver's call for an increase in federal heating assistance, and instead argued that allowing drilling for more oil will "provide relief for all."
The West Springfield GOP candidate comments came in response to last week's call by the Amherst Democrat and fellow members of the New England Congressional delegation for more funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program.
Bech also criticized Olver for opposing the drilling for oil offshore or in Alaskan Wildfire Refuge.
"Olver knows seniors and poor people will freeze this winter if we do nothing. He knows his plan won't work and still he pursues the same failing policies," said Bech.
Olver, in a Congressional speech Wednesday, said, " A whole new crisis looms as families face a price approaching $5 per gallon for heating oil for their homes - that is twice last winter's price. Last winter, in Massachusetts and New England alone, 350,000 low-income families used the LIHEAP program to get by, yet only one in four families eligible by income used the program."
In a press statement released Monday, Bech interpreted this to prove that three quarters of those eligible "refuse government handouts for heating oil."[Sic]
"The people of central and western Massachusetts do not want to be dependent on welfare to heat their home," Bech said. "We are self-sufficient and don't want to take handouts. We simply want government to get out of the way and let increased supply lower costs. If we allow new refineries to be built and if we allow off-shore drilling, energy prices will go down."
But an Olver aide said there may be several reasons why only one-quarter of those eligible have taken advantage of the program, including being unaware of the program or how to enroll, and the application process may also prove too overwhelming for some people.
Olver told Congress, "Many of those already eligible families will be in desperate need of help this winter, and many more middle-income families' budgets will be severely stressed by the doubled price of home heating oil."
He said, "Congress must end rampant speculation in crude oil futures, yet our Republican colleagues in both branches have consistently opposed such legislation."
Bech responded, "It is Economics 101, when action to increase supply is taken, the price of futures goes down and speculators leave the market place."
He noted that when President Bush moved the last week to lift an offshore drilling ban, "the price of crude went down $9 dollars a barrel within hours."
But Olver has called the current push for opening the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling "a thinly veined effort by Big Oil to lock up leases to as much public land as possible while the oil man from Dallas and the oil man from Houston are still in the White House." And he pointed out that 68 million acres of the 91 million "on and off-shore acres currently under lease by oil companies" are not currently producing oil.

Pay No Attention to the Media Bias behind the curtain

EaBo Clipper — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:14:15 GMT

Senator Kerry casually uses racist term while criticizing McCain

Ken Pittman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:59:59 GMT

You might want that one back John. Liberal or not, there are some tabboo things we are all supposed to banish from our tongues. John Kerry interviewed by MSNBC said McCain " is trying to throw that big tar baby out there." criticizing an explanation. I seem to recall that term getting some nasty backlash when last used by a candidate.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=136513

Why Mitt Romney will be the VP pick.

EaBo Clipper — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:35:53 GMT

Jonathan Martin says:

New poll numbers out from the Detroit News have the Michigan race between Obama and McCain very competitive with a chunk of voters still on the sidelines.
Obama is up 43-41, but 12% of voters said they're undecided

I don't think anybody needs any more reason that Mitt Romney will be the pick. If McCain flips MI and keeps NH he wins the election.

HT:Soren Dayton

State Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera Funds In-Law's Agency With YOUR $$$

BNCordeiro — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:38:22 GMT

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...

A Springfield lawmaker muscled through $200,000 for a social service agency where her brother-in-law is the $90,000-a-year director, even as penny-pinching legislators trimmed millions for health care, firefighters and public safety from the state budget, the Herald has learned.
Rep. Cheryl Coakley-Rivera - an up-and-coming member of House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi's leadership team - secured two $100,000 earmarks for the New North Citizens Council in Springfield.

State Republican Party spokesman Barney Keller said Rivera's earmarks highlight the Legislature's free-spending ways.
"Between continuing to pay (indicted) Sen. (James) Marzilli, hiking taxes and adding ridiculous new positions in the governor's office, one thing is for sure: It's Christmas in July up on Beacon Hill," Keller said.

New McCain Ad: Obama to Blame for High Gas Prices

EaBo Clipper — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:56:28 GMT

Brilliant ad, running in eleven swing states and on cable tv nationwide.

What Media bias? New York Times Becomes Parody of Itself!

EaBo Clipper — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:52:52 GMT

Yup we're crazy us neanderthal conservatives. We go looking for Media Bias when it obviously isn't there. Don't you know the evil corporations control the media and any bias is obviously slanted against "progressives". At least that's what the progressives would have you think.

Good for team McCain for showing just how blatantly biased the New York Times is. Drudge Reports:

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'
MORE
In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war�only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'
NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'
[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

So Bill Clinton's speechwriter deemed John McCain's response to Obama to not be Obamafied enough to be printed. WHAT?
Here is the full text of McCain's rejected piece:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City, actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be
very dangerous."
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war, only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Mass Ballot News

Patrick — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:51:22 GMT

According to Ballot Access News:

Ralph Nader has submitted 19,000 signatures in Massachusetts, to be on the ballot as an independent presidential candidate. 10,000 are required.

From an inquiry I made to the Massachusetts Libertarian Party:

As of this moment, nobody is on... However....

Read the whole thing. No Bob Barr unless litigation goes his way.

And below the fold, one surprising development that has nothing to do with Massachusetts.
California's Secretary of State says that Alan Keyes is on the ballot as the American Independent Party's presidential candidate.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2...