Worcester County Freedom Trail

In last week’s debate, Deval Patrick nearly slipped up and referred to illegal aliens as illegal aliens.  But he caught himself halfway through and said “Illegal – er – Undocumented workers”.  Why doesn’t he understand that illegal means illegal?  Which laws are mandatory and which are merely “suggestions”?

Just for fun, I took the liberty of performing a quick search on the MA DEP website, and specifically, I took a look at the enforcement actions.  Here’s an excerpt from an interesting one that I found:

7/14/06: MassDEP entered into a Consent Order with a $19,575 Penalty involving VA Boston Healthcare System of West Roxbury for Solid Waste violations. The VA Hospital contracted with a solid-waste transporter to pick up waste; the transporter was not licensed to handle infectious waste, nor did the VA Hospital notify the transporter of the infectious waste. An accident enroute to a transfer station caused the transporter to release infectious waste – including IV bags, needle holders, medical packaging and soaked gauze – to scatter along approx. 200 feet of the VFW Parkway in West Roxbury.

Now, the transporter was clearly in the business of transporting, right?  They just lacked the proper documentation (license) to allow them to handle infectious waste.  In this case, they are rightfully being fined because they have exposed the public to infectious materials.  The documentation (licensing) process is in place for a reason – to protect the public interest.

How are immigration laws any different?  Does documentation matter, or not?

I hope the VA Hospital requests a refund of their penalty if Deval Patrick gets elected.  It wasn’t an illegal transporter they used, just an “undocumented” one.

Lots of stuff I want to report today regarding the lead Democrats enjoy in the polls nationwide, and why the polls are inaccurate…possibly very inaccurate.

But first, I just have to report on one of my favorite candidates, who is really going to upset the Dems on election day, Maryland’s Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for US Senate. From Mary Katharine Ham:

Fred Barnes called him the upset this weekend on Beltway Boys:

“Did you see that debate on television between….in the Maryland Senate race between the Republican Michael Steele and the Democrat Ben Cardin? Steele ate Cardin alive! Ate him for lunch! And as a result, Cardin didn’t show up for a debate the next day.

The truth is Steele is may be the best Republican candidate of the year. He’s an underdog. My upset prediction is Michael Steele wins the Senate race in Maryland.”

Here’s that first debate. And, Sunday’s debate on Meet the Press.

OK, now about the polls and how they have a built-in skew toward Democrats, and don’t believe it’s going to be as bad as the polls show. First up, critically-important, must-read, is Michael Barone’s column today. Some excerpts of his observations:

At this stage of the campaign, pollsters try to screen their respondents and report only those who answer a series of questions in ways that suggest they are actually going to vote. Many polls find that a higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans pass the screen. Others find similar proportions do. But pollsters of both parties will admit that polls do a poor job at projecting turnout.

That was particularly true in 2004, when both parties conducted massive turnout drives. John Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore had in 2000. George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes than he had in 2000.

Fewer people vote in off-year elections than in presidential years. In 2002, 75 million people voted. In 2004, 122 million did. My hunch is that people who identify themselves as independents are substantially less likely to vote this year than people who identify as Republicans or Democrats — which would be good news for Republicans, since independents give Bush low job ratings. Another hunch is that the Republican turnout apparatus, with which the Democrats haven’t yet caught up, will boost Republican turnout as it did in 2004, and that the resulting electorate will be more evenly divided in party identification than the electorates shown in most of the public polls.

Serious pollsters concede that there are some problems with polling. Americans have fewer landline phones than they used to, and the random digit dialing most pollsters use does not include cell-phone numbers. Larger and larger percentages of those called are declining to be interviewed.

Interviewers can inject bias in the results. The late Warren Mitofsky, who conducted the 2004 NEP exit poll, went back and found that the greatest difference between actual results in exit poll precincts and the reports phoned in to NEP came where the interviewers were female graduate students — and almost all the discrepancies favored the Democrats.

Next, Dean Barnett speculates on one possible cause of the polls inaccurate skew to the Democrats in recent years. He notes that while conservative comments on lefty blogs (e.g., DailyKos) are pretty much non-existent, lefty comments on conservative blogs are rampant. He points out that

The [Dixie] Chicks are indicative of a trend in modern liberalism. I defy you to come up with a conservative celebrity who’s an example of the same phenomenon. I could probably rattle off the top of my head 30 liberal celebrities who constantly consider it a matter of national urgency that the country become aware of their political thoughts, but I can’t think of a single conservative celebrity who falls into the same category.

Dean then says that while

conservatives have become increasingly wary of sharing their views in public, liberals have become increasingly enamored with the idea of seizing any platform anyplace to celebrate their insights. This likely has a profound effect on polling. Where conservatives decline to even participate in polls, I bet the average liberal over-participates.

Finally, even if the polls are dead-on, a bit of perspective from Hugh Hewitt. The Washington Post is going on about how this election will disgrace Bush & Rove in political history. But, polls show the most likely outcome is for Republicans to retain the national Senate, barely, and lose the house by about 3 seats (loss of 15 seats). That compares to the following mid-term elections in a President’s second term:

* 1986 election (Ronald Reagan, President): Democrats gained 8 seats in the Senate and took control from the Republicans with a 55-45 majority. The Dems added 5 House seats to increase their majority to a 258 to 177.

* 1974 election (Richard Nix….oops! Gerald Ford, President): Democrats gained 4 seats in the Senate, for a total of 60 Democrats.  Democrats added 49 seats in the House for 291 to 144 majority.

* 1958 election (Dwight D. Eisenhower, President): Democrats added 14 seats in the Senate for a 65-35 Democrat majority. Democrats added 48 seats in the House for a 283 to 153 majority.

* 1938 election: (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President): Democrats lost 76 House in 1938, and six Senate seats.

If Bush and his policies in Iraq were as unpopular as the left (including MSM) says they are, the GOP would be facing numbers like those in ‘86, ‘74, and ‘58, or even ‘38.

That the GOP’s candidates and operations are in fact in reach of holding both bodies 10 days out speaks volumes about the president, Karl Rove, and the MSM’s ignorance of history.

Election night is going to be much fun.  And remember, the early exit polls will show every Republican losing.  It is just the way MSM works.

All in all, I don’t think the MSM is going to celebrating quite so much the day after election day as they think they will be.

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette has endorsed the following candidates in the November 7, 2006 mid-term elections:

- 37th Middlesex: Voters in this district stretching from Lancaster to Acton would do well to elect Shirley Republican KEVIN C. HAYES SR. A small businessman, he supports the income tax rollback, opposes driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, and has a variety of solid ideas for streamlining government, creating jobs, and stimulating economic growth.

- 1st Worcester: Energetic, effective, and independent, Rep. LEWIS G. EVANGELIDIS, R-Holden, focuses on such issues as housing, supporting changes to make the state’s affordable housing law fairer. He also favors making the school aid formula more reflective of community need. He chairs the regional school caucus, which is grappling with school transportation funding issues.

- 6th Worcester: Charlton Republican DAVID M. SINGER, a small businessman who has served as town moderator, seeks reforms of the state school aid forumla. He favors GPS tracking and longer sentences for sex offenders, auto insurance reforms, and a more equitable school aid formula.

- 10th Worcester: ROBERT BURNS, a thoughtful Hopedale Republican with roots in all three district towns, wants state government to “make sense.” To reduce government waste he would seek annual audits of all agencies and work to remove the one-size-fits-all elements of the affordable housing law. He favors rolling back the income tax rate, calling taxpayers his only “special interest group.”

Did anyone happen to catch yet another sign as to just how separated Deval Patrick is from reality at tonight’s debate?  When he was asked by Kerry Healey what percentage of state revenues made their way back to towns in the form of local aid, Patrick answered “23 or 24 percent”.

The answer is 19.5 percent, or more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS off of Patrick’s answer.

Sheesh – the guy throws a billion dollars around like it’s a penny in the jar next to the cash register.  With all the talk of local aid prompted by Christy’s pipedream Proposition One, you’d think Patrick would have at least once taken a look at the current level of aid.

But I guess that’s too much to expect from a gubernatorial candidate who couldn’t remember how or even if he voted on the tax rollback, and couldn’t remember writing a $5000 check to a convict he never met. 

From Massachusett’s conservative blogger, Dean Barnett. Dean blogs at www.townhall.com/blog/. Dean lives in the Boston area and has Cystic Fibrosis.  At 39, he has now outlived his life expectancy by 3 years.

This has nothing to do with politics, but I have to say Dean’s entire column on Cystic Fibrosis is really worth reading. But if you don’t read anything else, read this:

THE SIGNATURE annual event of the Joey Fund is a Boston area film premiere held in Joey’s honor. Unlike most charity events, this one is a blast. The food is great, the movie is usually good, and since it’s a premiere you get to see it before anyone else on your block. But the most impressive thing about the event is the list of attendees. Politicians, athletes, business tycoons – they’re all there.

(For people who might be interested in attending the Joey O’Donnell Film Premiere, it’s on November 19 in Chestnut Hill, MA. If you send me an email, I’ll make sure you get an invitation. And I’ll hope to see you there.)

From Dean Barnett at Townhall:

I must say a word about the Massachusetts gubernatorial race. The debates have all involved the Republican Lieutenant Governor, the Democratic nominee and, for no apparent reason, two other shmos.

 

You might think “shmos” is a needlessly personal putdown of the non-mainstream candidates who participate in the debates, but trust me, in this case it’s charitable. One of the third party candidates is Christy Mihos, the owner of a chain of convenience stores who was a one-time ally of the Romney administration but who about a year ago morphed into its bitter enemy. Candidly, my choice of phrase implies a sense of equality that isn’t there. Mihos is a bitter enemy of the Romney administration the same way a bug is a bitter enemy of the shoe that squashes it.

 

Inarticulate and buffoonish, Mihos’ candidacy has become an embarrassment to the Bay State. And having had Ted Kennedy’s service for over 4 decades, we don’t blush easily. Stuck in the low single digits in the polls, any sensible citizen must wonder why he gets to participate in these debates.

 

The other fringe candidate oddly included in the debates, Grace Ross, represents the Green Party and has yet to even reach single digit support. Personally, I enjoy Ross’s presence at the debates much more than Mihos’. Unlike Mihos, she is personable and articulate.

 

But the reason I really like her is she is a Green Party candidate sent right from central casting. Short, stubby and gap-toothed, it’s safe to say that if she were by some miracle ever elected president, Ms. Ross would never hold up air traffic around Los Angeles while receiving a $300 haircut on the tarmac.

 

Ross is also full of silly Green ideas like doubling the minimum wage which she passionately insists would have only salubrious effects on the state’s economy. Like I said, it’s as if she were sent by central casting.

 

The reason she and Mihos are present at these confabs is that the Democratic candidate, Deval Patrick, seems to for some reason fear a mano a mano conflict with Republican Kerry Healey. Healey keeps beseeching Patrick to meet her in a one-on-one duel. Patrick keep saying these fringe candidates have a rightful seat at the table.

 

Such is the nature of Bay State politics, Patrick is actually able to get away with this. Maybe the Healey campaign should consider having Patrick trailed by one of those guys in a chicken suit. It would make for some nice political theatre, and the tactic would have the irrefutable defense of being based in truth.

Toe the politically correct adminstration’s line at Holy Cross College, or else.

Holy Cross Professor David Lewis Schaefer reports in this article:

Unfortunately, over the last two years, [Holy Cross] has suffered from the effort of a determinedly partisan administration to stifle open debate on campus. The culmination of the administration’s endeavor in this direction — which has included attempting to close down the college’s alternative conservative student newspaper, the Fenwick Review; and the removal by the president, Michael McFarland, S.J., of the faculty adviser (me) to the college’s public-affairs lecture committee on the ground that the committee had been inviting too many Republicans — was a systematic effort to uproot from the campus the so-called “climate of hate,” understood as any mockery of the college’s “diversity” (i.e., race- and ethnicity-based) programming, or of the gay-rights agenda.

And:

[I]n response to Sheehy’s contention that a college committed to liberal education should offer no less protection to those who express what the college administration (albeit not the Catholic Church) regards as heterodox views on matters of sex and marriage, or who challenge the college’s PC race-based programming, than it does to other “minorities,” McFarland responds that conservatives or other dissenters from the college’s orthodoxies simply are not entitled to the special concern afforded to those who allegedly suffer from a “marginal status.”

Tell that one to Mia Martinez, Holy Cross ’08. Because of her Spanish surname, Mia qualifies as an officially defined “minority” student — hence deserving (according to McFarland) of more protection than your average, “privileged” student. But after Mia wrote a column last spring for Holy Cross’s official student newspaper, the Crusader, criticizing the college’s pre-freshman program for minority students as engendering self-segregation on the part of those students once classes began (since entering students at a college far from home naturally tend to stick to the friends they have already made), she was ordered to appear at the office of one of the college’s numerous “diversity” administrators, where she received an hour-long, and quite nasty, tongue-lashing (precisely the sort of “personal” attack that the president wrongly accused Shawn Sheehy of engaging in). And when Mia subsequently published another Crusader column reporting, and objecting to, the treatment she had received from the administrator, he then threatened (in writing) to sue her for libel. (A couple of calls to the college counsel ended that threat, though McFarland never apologized for it.)

Readers of this blog, ESPECIALLY HOLY CROSS ALUMS, are welcome to post ideas for how to let Holy Cross know that its behavior is unacceptable. And feel free to email President Michael McFarland, S.J., at MMCFARLA@holycross.edu to let him know what you think. Don’t be rude, but don’t be shy, either.

A recent Pew study (September 21 – October 4, 2006) found that while roughly similar numbers of Republicans (41%) and Democrats (39%) are “regular” voters, more Republicans (25%) than Democrats (20%) vote intermittently. This means there are more of our voters for us to turn out in the midterm elections. Furthermore, Democrats (20%) are substantially more likely than Republicans (14) to not be registered to vote at all.

In terms of motivation, a Cook/RT Strategies poll (October 8-10, 2006) shows that GOP “voter motivation” is higher than Democratic motivation in 19 of 32 competitive House races, in some cases by as much as a full point on a 1 to 9 scale. Democratic intensity is higher in the remaining 13, and in none of those races is the difference higher than 2/3 of a point.

Watch the RNC’s new ad on the stakes involved in this year’s election in terms of global terrorism at http://www.gop.com. It will get your attention.

Lt. Gov Kerry Healey’s getting attention locally with her Deval Patrick ads. See the controversial garage ad at http://www.healeycommittee.com/video-ad_garage.html.

Paul Ferro always has interesting quotes in his emails. Here’s a great one that I received today:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

– Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz), from The Conscience of a Conservative

This was written 45 years ago. Imagine what Goldwater would think about the unchecked growth of government since then. He must be turning over in his grave!