OT: Finneran pleads guilty

[MBS]

MH, MA politicis is better than most states; on the other hand, the former MA house speaker/dictator-wannabe Democrat-in-name-only Thomas Finneran does compete pretty well with some of the outofo-state political characters many of us out-of-staters know all too well. This week, Finneran pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice (with regard to his outrageous redistricting plan for the MA house, in which he cynically squeezed his political enemies out of their old districts?. This was a plea bargain, in return for which the feds dropped 3 counts of perjury and reduced his sentence to 18 months "unsupervised probation" and $25,000 fine. He also agreed not to run for state, federal, ,or municipal office for 5 years (I should hope so!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Big headline in yesterday's paper that his "biotech lobbying post" could be in jeopardy, as his contract allows him to "be terminated for cause if convicted of a crime."

Here is a rich sentence in his public statement" "It is important to note that in 26 years of public life and public service, including today, there has never been a hint or allegation of impropriety or self-interest in any of my actions. Rather.. . the advancement of public interest and protection of the public purse were always paramount in every decision I made.". .

Oh, wow. There's just nothing more you can say to that.

As a newcomer, I'm sure I'm missed many of the nuances in this case. I'd love to be educated by the natives. But, for whatever it's worth, I've got Finneran up there in the political dirt-and-slime index.
I wonder what kind of plea bargains there will be for members of the Bush administration. On that topic, Scooter Libby's trial begins next week, and Firedog Lake will be there to report on Fitzgerald's doings there.

[Mass]

1. I do not know too much about the nuances of this case, but Finnenan

seems to be one of those who gives bad reputation to Boston politics here in Western Mass (my weekend residence as we visit my in-laws about every weekend (93 and 87).

I saw the images of Patrick's first visit here in Springfield as governor. It certainly meant a lot to people here that he visited this part of the state in his second day in office (and Pittsfield as well). The event were crowded here as well.

And, talking about MA politicians, I am still mad at Travaglini to have voted to put the gay marriage amendment on the ballot. I cannot help thinking that he could have avoided that if he wanted. Do not tell me he could not influence a few of those Democrats who voted YES.

My rant on local politics. And I also want to see our tall Senator out in the media. What is he doing?

[MH1]

3. Hmmm, I am torn on the ballot question.

It seems to me - after only a cursory review - that the question should be on the ballot, due to the laws of the state. Not that I would want it to pass! (does it ban domestic partnerships, too, or just marriage?)

But, I read that it would be on the 2008 ballot. BIG "wtf?" on that one. Why isn't it on the next statewide ballot, which I would presume would be the 2007 primary? That is how it is done in PA. It brings up turnout for the muni elections when we have a ballot question, so it isn't all bad.

But putting it on the 2008 ballot does seem political and inappropriate.

Do I have some facts wrong here, I hope?

[rox63]

4. Civil rights issues should never be put to a vote

Imagine what would have happened if the Civil Rights Act had been put to a vote? It would have lost, because it was very unpopular in some parts of the country. Imagine this bill with a slight change, saying that marriages between people of different races would be banned? Wouldn't it be outrageous to have a question like than on the ballot? Same thing with banning marriages between people of the same gender. I think it's outrageous that bans like that have already been passed in lots of other states.

Some day, it will be "no big deal" to most people if people of the same gender get married. Just like marriages between people of different races are no big deal anymore in much of the country. But obviously, we aren't there yet on the issue of same-sex marriage. So for now, I think the question should stay in the hands of the courts, and not the voters.

</rant over> :rant:

[Mass]

5. It does not have to be. The Constitutional Convention had to vote and it needed 50 votes for it

to be on the ballot.

In addition, the question would mean take away rights that people currently have. Contrarely to other states, it is not an question that takes out rights that people have not exercised. In MA, there are married same-sex couple.

As for the date, it cannot be on the ballot earlier than 2008, because the amendment HAS to be voted in the same terms by 50 legislators on 2 different years before it can be put on the ballot.

[rox63]

6. Yep, there are already over 8,000 married same-sex couples in MA

I hope some more move here and get married, so they can help vote out some of the anti-equal-marriage folks in the legislature. Besides, we've been losing population for the last several years, and are in danger of losing a Congress-critter or two after the next census in 2010. So the more, the merrier, I say.

[MH1]

8. So Travaglini, voted for it in the Constitutional Convention?

Then I think I might agree with you.

I guess I'm just confused on the whole thing.

Does it have to get 50 votes again in 2007, then? If so, can the ballot question still be avoided?

[MH1]

2. Thanks for the ray of hope!

Sometimes the slimy ones do get caught, huh? Even if the sentence is just "unsupervised probation". (wtf is the point of that, anyway?)

Follow-up on the PA House debacle: neither of the well-known slimy ones were elected to Speaker. It ended up that the slimy Dem didn't have the votes so he nominated an allegedly not-slimy R named Dennis O'Brien, who won the vote against the slimy R Perzel (but not by much). The move is widely lauded around here as the best that could be made of a pathetic situation brought on the Dems themselves by their leadership's support of the pay-raise debacle in 2005.

Hopefully we can get people to start paying better attention to who they are voting for and we can stop electing these bums.

[rox63]

7. And if you want to talk corrupt Massachusetts politicians...

There's always the Bulger brothers.