It is hard to believe that all these months in the making are about to come to a final, definitive close. Alas, WMassP&I will lose one of its most cleverly titled serials.
As has been common before, endorsements will be issued over a series of days. If all goes according to plan, the endorsement for President will be posted no later than Sunday.
For now, we will only be offering endorsements for Ballot Questions and the few local offices in which there is in fact a race. For example, neither State Senator Stephen Buoniconti nor US Representative Richard Neal face opponents and in lieu of the gushing WMassP&I did two years ago, we humbly ask you to fill in the blank on their name as a show of support.
Second Hampden House District:
William G. Scibelli-R: Yes, this reliably pro-Democrat blog is supporting the Republican nominee and here's why. Mary Rogeness has served this district well despite the national taintedness of her party. Massachusetts, like all states need a two party system as dominance by one or the other can only lead to problems. Corruption and politics go hand in hand, but supermajorities can make it easier for it exist. Therefore, furthering that supermajority, especially when the district itself is incredibly right leaning anyway, only creates more infighting within the Democratic caucus and less action on Beacon Hill.
Fourth Hampden House District:
Don Humason-R: For mostly the same reason. Additionally, Humason has served his Westfield based district well and despite his Republican status been effective.
Tenth Hampden House District:
Chery Coakley-Rivera-D: Ugh. This blog has had many differences with this Springfield legislator. From trash to development, we have been on different sides. However, her worst trait, has usually been her mouthiness. For that we will not support her opponent. It is clear that she has the best of intentions and her advocacy for Springfield is sincere and usually effective as well. Her opponent, a virtual unknown with a shoddy record simply does not measure up.
Oooo, exciting. Now for some meaty stuff!
Question One-NO!!!!!
Repealing the state income tax is a wrong-way, budget busting, bankruptcy baiting, dangerous attempt to curp the state's spending habits. Is spending out of control? Quite a bit. Will this fix it? Yes, and create havoc, too. Not being a fan of havoc, it is a no-brainer, but if that is not enough for you how about this. One of two things will happen. Either health, local aid, highways, schooling, and more will deteriorate to the point that it makes the Longfellow Bridge in Boston looks brand new or simply newer more painful taxes will be introduced. Higher sales tax. Higher meals tax. A service tax, which Mass does not have. The list goes on. So if you like potholes and even worse failing schools or a 10% sales tax (hello Chicago, 10.5% sales tax) then vote yes. If you would like the state to have some money to deal with the financial crisis and keep things at worst the same and at best much much better, vote NO. Again VOTE NO!!!!
Question Two-Yes.
The policy on marijuana in Massachusetts, like the national policy has done little reduce actual drug use and has only channeled resources against an intoxicant that is no more dangerous that alcohol. Because marijuana can create for health and society legalization is bad policy. This question does not do that. It decriminalizes it, making it tantamount to a speeding ticket. No concern about court, however remote that possibility is. The opponents of the question, mostly District Attorneys are quick to point out that few if anybody goes to court and those that do face little if any penalty. That does not mean they stay out of CORI's crosshairs, but even if they didn't the Republican pointed out an important fact. The current DA's choose not to pursue these cases, but could if they wanted to. That mood could change with a newly elected chief prosecutor and more to the point, there is something chilling about DA's opting not to enforce certain laws. Leave the changing of laws to us. I would say leave it to the legislature, but they are too afraid of the issue to touch it. For shame. Vote Yes on 2.
Question 3-On your own.
Both sides offer a persuasive argument. The sport does employ several hundred workers and these jobs are needed in this shaky economy. However, a society is measured on how it treats its animals and greyhounds are not the best treated. Moreover, the sport is a dying industry anyway. This blog leans toward letting it die its own death, but feels that only people's conscious can make a good decision here.
Well, that's it for today. Stay tuned for important US senate races and the Prez endorsement. Come on, who do you think it's gonna be?
As has been common before, endorsements will be issued over a series of days. If all goes according to plan, the endorsement for President will be posted no later than Sunday.
For now, we will only be offering endorsements for Ballot Questions and the few local offices in which there is in fact a race. For example, neither State Senator Stephen Buoniconti nor US Representative Richard Neal face opponents and in lieu of the gushing WMassP&I did two years ago, we humbly ask you to fill in the blank on their name as a show of support.
Second Hampden House District:
William G. Scibelli-R: Yes, this reliably pro-Democrat blog is supporting the Republican nominee and here's why. Mary Rogeness has served this district well despite the national taintedness of her party. Massachusetts, like all states need a two party system as dominance by one or the other can only lead to problems. Corruption and politics go hand in hand, but supermajorities can make it easier for it exist. Therefore, furthering that supermajority, especially when the district itself is incredibly right leaning anyway, only creates more infighting within the Democratic caucus and less action on Beacon Hill.
Fourth Hampden House District:
Don Humason-R: For mostly the same reason. Additionally, Humason has served his Westfield based district well and despite his Republican status been effective.
Tenth Hampden House District:
Chery Coakley-Rivera-D: Ugh. This blog has had many differences with this Springfield legislator. From trash to development, we have been on different sides. However, her worst trait, has usually been her mouthiness. For that we will not support her opponent. It is clear that she has the best of intentions and her advocacy for Springfield is sincere and usually effective as well. Her opponent, a virtual unknown with a shoddy record simply does not measure up.
Oooo, exciting. Now for some meaty stuff!
Question One-NO!!!!!
Repealing the state income tax is a wrong-way, budget busting, bankruptcy baiting, dangerous attempt to curp the state's spending habits. Is spending out of control? Quite a bit. Will this fix it? Yes, and create havoc, too. Not being a fan of havoc, it is a no-brainer, but if that is not enough for you how about this. One of two things will happen. Either health, local aid, highways, schooling, and more will deteriorate to the point that it makes the Longfellow Bridge in Boston looks brand new or simply newer more painful taxes will be introduced. Higher sales tax. Higher meals tax. A service tax, which Mass does not have. The list goes on. So if you like potholes and even worse failing schools or a 10% sales tax (hello Chicago, 10.5% sales tax) then vote yes. If you would like the state to have some money to deal with the financial crisis and keep things at worst the same and at best much much better, vote NO. Again VOTE NO!!!!
Question Two-Yes.
The policy on marijuana in Massachusetts, like the national policy has done little reduce actual drug use and has only channeled resources against an intoxicant that is no more dangerous that alcohol. Because marijuana can create for health and society legalization is bad policy. This question does not do that. It decriminalizes it, making it tantamount to a speeding ticket. No concern about court, however remote that possibility is. The opponents of the question, mostly District Attorneys are quick to point out that few if anybody goes to court and those that do face little if any penalty. That does not mean they stay out of CORI's crosshairs, but even if they didn't the Republican pointed out an important fact. The current DA's choose not to pursue these cases, but could if they wanted to. That mood could change with a newly elected chief prosecutor and more to the point, there is something chilling about DA's opting not to enforce certain laws. Leave the changing of laws to us. I would say leave it to the legislature, but they are too afraid of the issue to touch it. For shame. Vote Yes on 2.
Question 3-On your own.
Both sides offer a persuasive argument. The sport does employ several hundred workers and these jobs are needed in this shaky economy. However, a society is measured on how it treats its animals and greyhounds are not the best treated. Moreover, the sport is a dying industry anyway. This blog leans toward letting it die its own death, but feels that only people's conscious can make a good decision here.
Well, that's it for today. Stay tuned for important US senate races and the Prez endorsement. Come on, who do you think it's gonna be?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment