Desk Clearing

I just wanted to get a couple of items off of my desk before I post about the convention, otherwise I'd never get around to posting them.

From the Phoenix:
The Boston Phoenix has an interesting article on Democracy for America Boston, and the other progressive groups that have sprung up around the Commonwealth in the past few years. At one point they wonder if this is going to be the new face of machine politics in Boston, but I don't think that can happen. For one thing, there's too much overlap -- at least ideologically -- with good-government organizations (like Common Cause, for example) for progressive groups to ever really consolidate power and dole out patronage. In addition, the whole point of these groups, in my opinion, is to give people who are on the outside a chance to feel like they have some influence. If it gets to the point where they are perceived as "insider" or "special interest" groups, I think they end up losing their appeal.

From the Herald:
Herald reporter Dave Wedge, who by the way was found guilty of committing libel earlier this year, had an article criticizing Deval Patrick on his stance on affirmative action. To show how extreme Patrick was, he quoted Clint Bolick of the Institute for Justice -- a "libertarian" law firm funded by the same right-wing billionaires that bring you the Cato Institute. The problem, though, is that Bolick is an anti-affirmative action zealot. It was like asking PETA for their opinion on my eating a roast beef sandwich for lunch. There's more on the Institute from RightWatch.

The day before, of course, Wedge had an article about Patrick's opposition to the Death Penalty that even the conservative, pro-death penalty Carpundit thought was unfair.

From the blogs:
According to Marry in Massachusetts, Jarrett Barrios of all people has proposed a bill that would both ban gay marriages and civil unions in Massachusetts. Barrios, of course, married his longtime same-sex partner in November. This would seem a gambit on Barrios's part to keep conservatives who are both against gay marriage and civil unions from voting in favor of the civil union amendment at the Constitutional Convention this fall. Last year, if you recall, a number of conservatives voted against the amendment and supporters of equal marriage rights are not counting on their votes this time around. Barrios is gambling that legislators who oppose civil unions will vote for this bill and against the civil union amendment (and as such, in favor of the status quo), but that the more restrictive bill will not pass.