Massachusetts is a blue state. Edward Kennedy has held a seat in the US Senate since 1962. This seat was held by his brother John prior to being elected president. Ben Smith held the seat for two years between the Kennedy brothers. The second Senate seat from Massachusetts has been Democratically held since Paul Tsongas won in 1979. He was preceded by John Kerry. All ran for POTUS, interestingly.
Martha Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts. She’s a Democrat trying to fill the Senate seat vacated by Edward Kennedy who died last year. This should be a slam dunk win for her. Until recently, it was.
Why has the Brown v. Coakley race become so close?
She has had an embattled tenure as AG. She refuses to investigate the Mayor of Boston. She did not recommend to commute the sentence of a man thought to be innocent by most, and she did not reprimand District Attorneys who falsely testified about medical marijuana.
The other day Candidate Coakley stated during a debate with her opponent that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan.
Last evening Coakley was interviewed on a Boston radio station and stated that Curt Schilling, who has endorsed her opponent, was a Yankees fan.
For those who don’t know, Schilling is the pitcher who pitched famously for the Boston (Massachusetts) Red Sox in 2004 (remember the bloody sock?), who won the World Series for the first time since 1918 when Babe Ruth played for them.
Coakley is clearly flawed. So much so that President Obama is flying at taxpayer expense tomorrow to campaign for her. He has already released his endorsement on the ‘Net.
So, who’s her opponent? At this point, with the election just a few days away, it doesn’t much matter. Unfortunately, for those in Massachusetts, this election has escalated to a referendum on President Obama. It is no longer an election for representation of citizens. Barney Frank, also from Massachusetts, has even stated that is Coakley loses the race, Obama’s helathcare bill is sunk.
it’ll kill the health bill
This is how politics are fought these days. Representing constituencies is no longer the goal; rather, building national power within the federal government is the aim. Folks have conveniently forgotten that the federal government exists and has power solely because the states (and Commonwealths) ceded power in some specific areas. Healthcare wasn’t one of them.
I look forward to an ass-kicking a homerun on Tuesday to send a clear message (because folks have already forgotten the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia) that we are not going to accept the assault upon our rights that the Obama Administration is waging against the Constitution.
Just took a look at the Groundspeak fora. It’s good that consistency prevails. The cesspool discussion area thrives. A namecalling thread egged on by Mr. O’Connell makes elementary school look mature in comparison . . . It seems that despite property taxes rising more than 9% in Chicago this year, the Obama’s house will only see a rise of 1% in property taxes . . . The nearest unfound shutterspot to me is 177km. After this week, I hope the nearest one will be 322km . . . the latest New Jersey gubernatorial poll has Christie up 47-41 over Corzine. While that is good, I hope that does not provide comfort for those who want to vote their conscience for Daggett at the expense of Christie. I am not a diehard Christie fan, but it is important to remove Corzine from office . . . Alas, it does not look good for my Phillies. The bats have been too quiet. I’ll give the Yankees credit for that. Our pitching has not been spectacular either, but the bats are the main concern . . . FWIW, my children put such a smile on my face! I love you two . . .
eCache readers may recall my run-in at the polling place in June. I have been banned from taking photographs at the polling place. Of course, there is no law that prevents it. As far as I can tell, there is no ordinance, resolution, guideline, etc. that prevents it. What we have is a Board of Elections officer who has issued an edict and a vigilant pollster who enforces it. The best that can offered is that some lawyer wrote a letter to elections officer in Monmouth County six years ago. Of course, there is very little context provided in the letter that explains the “ruling”.
At a break during the 1 September Millville City Commission meeting I spoke with Matt Milam about this issue. He and his staff are looking into it. Milam was sympathetic to the issue. He asked me to follow up via e-mail. I did and shared the kinds of photographs I wanted to take. I also shared numerous photographs of New Jersey politicians and citizens at the polls.
Ever looking after her son, my mother e-mailed me a url this morning. The Polling Place Photo Project looks to be an outstanding project. The project is just what it sounds like: photographs taken at the polls. New Jersey is well-represented.
In today’s society where virtually every cellphone has a camera, banning photography at public events is not only impractical, but nonsensical.
We’ll see what Milam turns up before the November election. I’ll be certain to document it in photographs.
Last evening when I arrived home there were two e-mail messages that caught my eye. One was from the Levoy Theatre organization and another from a local. Both asked to come to tonight’s City Commission meeting to support the Levoy Theatre. The wording made me think more money is being asked for.
The Levoy needs you to come and show your support publicly at the Millville City Commission meeting, Tuesday September 15th, at 6:30 p.m at City Hall.
The City of Millville will be making critical funding decisions with regards to the Levoy project, and we need to show that we have the support of the community.
Good intents and best wishes are not enough – we need you to come out in person.
Please Email Lauren at lauren@vanembden.com or Amanda at apage@levoy.org and let us know that YOU WILL BE THERE.
Ms. Van Embden is currently running for Cumberland County Clerk as well as heading the restoration of the Levoy. I e-mailed and asked,
Ms. Van Embden,
What funding issue is the City Commission considering tomorrow evening? At the last meeting on 1 September 2009, the City Commission approved an increase of $375,000 for the Levoy Theatre.
Is the Levoy asking for more money? I would welcome more details about this.
Thank you kindly.
All the best,
Robert Owens
Ms. Van Embden did not return my e-mail. The Levoy group also posted this on their Facebook page. I asked there as well. No response from Ms. Van Embden.
It wasn’t until just now that I read the local paper that I found out that indeed the Levoy is asking for more money.
The City Commission tonight is expected to vote to provide a $375,000 loan from the Revenue Allocation District and a $300,000 loan from the Grow Millville Fund to the Levoy Theatre Preservation Society.
That would bring the city’s contribution to the project to $4 million. It already had committed a $3.325 million Urban Enterprise Zone grant to renovate and reopen the long-shuttered High Street theater.
Two weeks ago Ms. Van Embden’s group pleaded for another $375,000 from Millville.
There is no way to contact my city officials. No agenda is posted on the city web site. No e-mail addresses of the commissioners is available. I work and will not be able to call prior to the meeting. It is likely this will be a resolution that will be passed prior to the public comment session of the meeting. So, another few hundred thousands of dollars will be given to this group without citizen input. Four of the commissioners stated “whatever it takes” for the Levoy.
What keeps Ms. Van Embden coming back in October for more money? What will keep Shannon, Quinn, Derella, and Finch from keep funding this boondoggle?
What is the percentage of privately raised funds to public dollars is this public-private project?
Remember Ms. Van Embden’s money grab come Election Day. This is not how government is supposed to work!
Longtime eCache readers have seen the photograph of the family at the polling place each election that I post here. Election Day is considered a celebration in our house. Our children have yet to miss an election. I am proud of that statistic. Tonight they saw their first election issue.
We live in a digital age. Even my mother now carries a cellphone. It may not have a camera on it, but it certainly isn’t a surprise to note that many phones do. I am too cheap to pay to download the images or buy the cable to transfer it myself. I carry a small point-and-shoot. It also takes video.
Today was the gubernatorial primary in New Jersey. I am an independent, so I had no plans on voting, but my wife was. The children came along for the experience. This is the video I shot. Watch it, please.
You see that it was cut off. I stopped taping when the pollster started in on me.
Uh, you’ve been told about it before.
Indeed, I have. This finger-pointer scolded me previously for taking a photograph (three or four years ago). She then went onto tell me I could not take a picture. I was up for the challenge today. I asked why I couldn’t take a photograph of a public event. Just not allowed, I was told. I asked to see the regulation. There was none, of course. She then told me she was instructed by the Board of Elections not to permit photographs. I again asked to see this in writing. Nothing was produced.
At that point, other pollsters came over to help. They found a cellphone (presumably on loan to call the Board should there be any problems). Then there was a search for the telephone number. Gert left the building with the children at this point.
The call was placed. The nice lady who made the call was asked to ask me what kind of camera I had. Frustrated, I gave them the specifics. Why would that make any difference? I explained that I wanted a photograph of my family in front of the booth. No dice from the inside people; the folks on the phone still had not answered.
Then the finger-pointing pollster asked what reason I had for wanting the photograph. I responded by asking, “Do I need a reason to take a photograph in a public place?”
We waited and waited. Eventually, Gert leaned in to share that Beetle needed to go potty. Such is the life of a four-year old. Civic challenges can’t wait. I asked the nice lady to let the finger-pointer know the outcome of the decision but that I had to leave.
Once home, I called the Board of Elections myself. Eleanor passed me off to Liz who put me on hold for a long time. She came back and put me on hold once again. Eventually, Harry Peek got on the horn with me. Mr. Peek is the Cumberland County Board of Elections Chairman.
I explained who I was and my issue. He explained that the polling place had called and that the Board had ruled no photographs. I asked why I couldn’t take photographs of a public event. He said it was the law. I asked which law. He stated Title 19:18-5. And then he proceeded to read it to me. It began:
No person shall be allowed or permitted to be present in the polling place or polling room during the progress of the election except the officers connected with the election . . .
There was a clause he read that stated photography was prohibited. I asked if this was state code. It is. I stated I should be able to find that online. He thought I would, but did not know for certain. I thanked him for his time and hung up.
19:15-8. a. No person shall be allowed or permitted to be present in the polling place or polling room during the progress of the election except the officers connected with the election, persons connected with the operation of a simulated election for minors as described in subsection b. of this section, the several candidates, the duly authorized challengers, such voters as are present for the purpose of voting and their dependent children, minors present for the purpose of voting in a simulated election, and such officers as may be duly detailed to be present, pursuant to this title, for preserving the peace or enforcing the provisions hereof.
b.A county board of elections may authorize a simulated election for minors at a polling place, provided the simulated election does not interfere with the orderly conduct of the official voting process.
Amended 1994, c.154; s.1; 2000, c.173, s.1.
You note there is nothing at all about photography in this at all. I called Mr. Peek back.
I shared with him that the law as presented on the state site does not mention photography in 19:18-5. Part of me thought perhaps he quoted the wrong piece of code.
Unbelievable. He changed his story. It wasn’t in code, it was in a letter. And he read something from a letter he said he had. I didn’t get the credentials of the letter writer. Mr. Peek explained that it was a ruling by someone because this question comes up every year.
I responded that it wasn’t law then that forbids a photograph from being taken, but rather it was a rule imposed. Mr. Peek held it was law.
I am no lawyer, but I do not think Mr. Peek is either. I kept explaining that the law he pointed me to did not say what he stated it did.
Mr. Peek then changed tactics again. He said it was a right to privacy. Huh? I stated I was trying to take a photograph of my wife and two children. Still a privacy issue.
I retorted that there could be no harm then of me taking a photograph of myself. Mr. Peek had worn thin of my debate. He made that clear.
Fine. I asked him to forward me a copy of this letter. It is dated 2003, which makes me question how frequently this question arises.
My Concerns
I should not be restricted from taking a photograph of my family in the hall of a church in my neighborhood during an election.
Polling places should have the stated regulations on site to share with voters.
If law is going to be stated, what is read better be the actual law.
I suspect somewhere in Title 19 is a clause that grants Boards of Elections the freedom to draft regulations that ensure a secure and safe election. Frankly, I think any restrictions should be in code, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant there may be something a county board may regulate on its own. But if there is, it better be on file somewhere. This is where I suspect Cumberland County has run amok.
Mr. Peek when challenged switched into “we want this” and “we don’t want that” mode. It was very dictatorial. This is an election. Their charge is to gather ballots. Given the finger-pointing pollster added 69 and 33 and came up with 82 (the number of voters in our precinct) , it’s a good thing we have electronic booths. Whether I snap a photograph or not, does not jeopardize that in the least.
It will be interesting what a 2003 letter restricts. I was told not to take picture/photograph. I debated about taking a photograph. I took video, which is a little different than a picture. I wonder if the letter is specific or general . . . or existent at all.
Whatever this letter states, you can be damned certain that my state senator, Jeff “I Sponsor Every Bill” Van Drew, will hear about this. This is exactly the kind of bill he sponsors (it exists). There is no need in this digital age we live in to forbid photographs of a public event that taxpayers fund.
Just so we are clear, this is the kind of shot I want to be able to take:
