Is it really Tuesday?

Just when you thought is was going to over, you discover there is still one more act left.  Whether the final act is going to prove you guessed wrong as to the outcome remains to be seen.

There has been enough movement in the polls to the point where what was looking like a sure bet has everyone scratching their heads in the political pundit world.  The real worry will set in after Thursday night, if in fact there will be anything to worry about.

Why that long?

With new polls released everyday, with polls covering different tracking periods, it is going to take a week or so to see if the change is accurately reflected across the same time periods, and the "switch" is truly a change in thought, rather than an mood swing resulting from a specific event.

There has been a definite bump/shift/ change in the wind, what have you, after the debate.  

The Democrats attribute it to Romney being dishonest during the debate.  Truth be told, both sides have played pretty loose with the truth on various issues.  This is one fact the independent fact checker groups seem to agree on.

The Princeton economist being cited by the Obama campaign to disprove Romney's version of his tax cuts has come out and stated that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his work.  This could be a stumbling block in the argument against the "tax cut", especially as the economist has gone on record as saying there are in fact ways to do it i a revenue neutral manner.

The recent news on gas prices in California aren't going to help.  It won't change a thing on how the state will go.  It is a solid lock for Obama.  But the constant flashing of the pictures showing the prices in California do have an affect on people everywhere.  

I do get the fact that there are reasons for the bump in that state vs. the rest of the country, and the factors that influence gas prices everywhere are not easily reigned in or under government control.  It is nonetheless true that a pictures is worth a thousand words, and for many people the prospect of even the thought of $5.00 plus per gallon scares them a whole lot.

The news on the Libyan consulate attack is not helping the President any either.

It is still Obama's election to lose.  He took an unbelievable first step toward doing so last Thursday.  He hasn't thrown it away yet.  What he has done was make a race out of a contest that was all but over before the debate.

While the popular vote polls show an extremely tight race, the electoral college projection still indicate a very hard road for Romney to navigate.  Truth be told, looking at the map, I am not sure he can successfully find the right path.  But hey, it is only Tuesday.

While the main event has become a bit muddled, what is clearer is the debate is having some effect in the "trickle down" category, i.e. the House and Senate races.

It also places some emphasis on this week's V.P. debate on Thursday

Make no mistake over the fact that this could be a disaster for either side.  One major blunder by Biden or Ryan will send the pundits on a feeding frenzy  Not that it should.

Despite the "potential" for either individual to be a "heart beat" away from what is still the most powerful office in the world, these two people are where they are for the sole purpose of window dressing.  Should it be otherwise, perhaps. It is reality nonetheless.

They are on the ticket because of a certain appeal to certain voters. I seriously doubt that the primary, or even a top secondary reason for picking either one of them was that they would make a good president if the need arose.

The main thing with this debate is to make sure you don't sink the top guy on your ticket.

Another event on the debate circuit, Round III in the Brown/Warren Senate Race is scheduled for Wednesday night.  this one will be interesting.  While I feel from the debate perspective Brown has won the first two, winning a debate doesn't equate into winning the election.  What also has to be considered is while he may have won the first two debates, his opponent did a credible job in the debate also.  

Brown needs something more in this third debate.  He has to stop the harping on the ancestry issue, he has to stop hammering the "legal work".  He should at this point in fact be talking about his votes and explaining them.  He needs to get off the rehearsed lists of bullet points.

There was in mind mind a valid point to the original vote against the student loan interest rate bill.  There was in fact compromise that led to to the bill being passed.

He needs to point out the standard line from the Democrats majority leader in the Senate, "no amendments allowed".

He needs to point out that will there may be a desired end to a bill, there are most always adverse consequences tied to passage.  

The trickle down in today's piece brings us to local matters.  To clarify a point or two, let's start with the voc-tech expansion.  First, as someone pointed out to me, correctly, technically there does not have to be a special town meeting on the issue.  The regional school committee takes a formal vote, notifies the selectmen, and the selectmen can simply not call a town meeting to be held within 60 days of the vote and by doing nothing that will authorize the borrowing on Fairhaven's part.

Anyone out there seriously think that this should be what happens?

This option is one of the biggest gripes I have with these "regional" districts/regional entities.  These laws should not be written to require a member community to take action to disapprove anything.  If your elected officials could not make the decision on a matter solely affecting the town, they should not be able to make a similar decision on their own for a regional district.

It may well be that Town Meeting approves the project, rather than disapprove it.  But it should be Town Meeting that approves this project, as it would be Town Meeting that has to approve all such projects for the Town.

At some point, the reasons of the project will all be addressed before our selectmen, that is I assume they will.  I will get to the "tax burden" and "free money" arguments at some point.  Until that time, I end it here on that little example of how regional government works.

More about chairs, and the people who want to fill them

One that spins ...

Keating Refuses to debate on conservative's show is the headline on page A6 in today's Standard Times.  I got to tell you the stated reason as to why Keating will not debate Sam Sutter is classic spin doctor material.

The article notes:

In a letter sent to Sutter's campaign Monday, Keating said it would not be wise for the two Democrats to debate the issues on a show hosted by Phil Paleologos, who has a radio show on WBSM in Fairhaven and is chairman of the New Bedford Republican City Committee. 

"Having him moderate a debate between us makes no sense," Keating wrote. "More importantly, doing such would be to turn a blind eye to all principles in which I — and my fellow Democrats — believe. I simply will not do that."

Seriously?  

I am neither a Keating or Sutter supporter.  I think I signed the nomination papers for both of them.  I have a philosophy that you should have a pretty strong reason to turn down signing a potential candidates papers.  For me that is an extremely short list of reasons, and one that I have used no more than two or three times since turning 18.  

Now I realize that for someone soon to turn only 39 for the 15th time, one might consider that a lot, but given the number of nomination papers I have signed, I guess it is well less than a 1% refusal rate.

But I digress.

Only the bluest of the blue democrat can buy into that excuse.  First of all, I have listened to Mr. Paleogos' show when he is moderating, or conducting interviews.  Whether he is a republican or democrat is irrelevant.  The question is and always should be whether he can do his job.  The answer is yes.

How does a debate between two democrats with a republican moderator violate the principals of a democrat?  How does turning down an opportunity to allow your fellow democrats to hear you constitute turning a blind eye to them?  If there is a bluer than New Bedford, and a listening area bluer than what WBSM has, let me know.  

People in this area vote more often than not simply based on the letter that follows the name.  

Are we now going to only have debates hosted and moderated by "acceptable" card carrying party faithful?  Wouldn't those be insightful?

We are talking about two candidates from the same party here.  If between them they couldn't defend the principals of the democratic party than maybe people should change their color spectrum from blue to red.

But I got to ask, just what principals would you be turning a blind eye on?

Seems like Thursday Sam Sutter will be debating an empty chair spinning wildly.

Filled Chairs ...

In all honesty, while the temptation is great to go on with the discussion of several matters pending before the three selectmen, the desire to do it isn't there today.  Absent the unexpected popping up over the next week, or a change in the weather, I will give them a rest for a day or two.

Other Notes ...

If you a traveling to Middleboro, make sure you watch your language.  I would hate to be the Town of Middleboro when the legal bill comes in for the first challenge to that by-law.  There is an article in the S-T about it, and it seems that enforcement isn't going to be a priority.  Quite frankly, it should be non-existent.  Not that I condone profanity in public, just that somebody is going to grab onto the "civil rights" "free speech" argument and run with it.  

Thought about doing something on the rent control matter in Acushnet.  Someone asked me about it, whether Fairhaven should look into it, and became a bit upset over my response. Want to see what rent control will do in a small town?  If the Acushnet by-law stands after A.G. review, you will find out in 5 to 10 years maximum.  Want to guess how many trailer parks will remain in Acushnet after that time span?

Limited seating, with a view

"Two kinds of government chair correspond with the two kinds of [official]: one sort folds up instantly and the other sort goes round and round in circles." (paraphrased from the British T.V. Comedy "Yes Minister")

Sound familiar.

First let me note the use of the quote came to mind based on the use of the same by a reader in a private e-mail sent to me on a very specific issue.  But extremely appropriate in many circumstances in which we see officials, at least the perception one is left with, as to how they address many issues.

Another type of seat ...

In the local daily newspaper, on Saturday I believe, was an article regarding the challenge issued by Bristol County D.A. Sam Sutter to Rep. William Keating to have nine (9) debates for the race to see who will represent the democrats in the general election for the newly formed 9th Congressional district.  While Keating is a sitting Congressional representative, he is not the incumbent.  His old district was essentially eliminated with the redrawn lines based on the latest census.

Politics being what it is, there is is long standing rule of thumb that you don't debate unless you need to.  Certainly there will be some debates.  It can't be avoided.  A few are expected.  But Keating is the "anointed" candidate for the seat.  The new "9th" contains many of the communities from his former district.  As of now, it appears he has the support of many of the powers that be, and indeed if one is a legitimate handicapper, leaving emotions and preferences out of the equation, is the favorite in the primary race.

His name recognition in Bristol County may be limited, however I doubt it is causing him to loose too much sleep, at least at this point in time.

Is Keatings' so far silence on the number of debates a "dodge" of Sutter.  Sure it is.  It is a smart one too.  Why give an opponent the opportunity to score points.  Everyday you take to respond reduces the time frame in which debates can be held.

Tomorrow's preview ...

I don't have one yet.  This is an off week for the selectmen.  Usually one can glean something worth writing about from the agenda.  In fact, more than once I have written the piece ahead of time based on my prognostication skills.  Haven't had to change the premise of the story yet. 

I suppose I can do some more on last week's meeting.  Let's face it, if the meetings were cannon fodder, the Hundred Years War would have made it to the ripe old age of at least 200.

What is on the horizon?

For today I will take the short-sighted approach and note that based on my present view, it is going to be one beautiful day.  Let's hope it remains that way.