(Warning: Long post) So I finally got around to watching the archived video of the Gubernatorial Candidates’ Forum on disability issues (available with ASL interpretation at https://youtube/watch?v=EtoPuao6P3s). All seven current candidates showed up, which is better than I can say for the previous Forum on GLBT issues - both Republican candidates snubbed that one, although both were invited. It is worth noting, btw, that over 50% of Massachusetts voters are registered Independent. I know people think we’re all Democrats. I suspect part of this statistic is due to the fact that in Massachusetts you can only vote in your own party’s primary, so only Independent voters get to choose which ballot they want, but still, it’s a relevant fact. Anyway, I have Opinions. I’m sure you’re shocked. I think it’s great that everyone showed. It means we’re on the radar. I wish people had actually done their research on issues relevant to the disability community, such as it is. Seriously, when Charlie Baker is one of the better-educated candidates on disability lingo and issues, we are well and truly scrod. The candidates also have that issue where they’ve got hammers and everything else must be nails. We’re not electing an Attorney General or a CEO or a Head Geek (I wish!) - we’re electing a governor. Okay, we are also electing an Attorney General, but these weren’t the candidates for that position. I haven’t read the candidates’ web sites or campaign literature or anything like that, but here’s the impression I got of them based on this Forum: Evan Falchuk - (United Independent) - This guy is remarkably coherent for a guy running as a candidate for a party he just made up himself. I see the value of third-party candidates, and I’m not sure what his party’s platform is, but I’ll take him over the Massachusetts Libertarians any day. (I’m not going to debate “small l” libertarianism, but the Massachusetts “big L” Libertarian Party is a hot mess). He’s likable and well-spoken and supportive of issues important to people with disabilities. I do not think he’s electable, which is one of the unfortunate things keeping down third-party candidates. I also think he’d get eaten alive after six minutes as Governor. Don Berwick (Democrat) - Y’know, if Martha Coakley doesn’t get her act together, I could actually vote for this guy. Except I need to know more about his platform than the fact that he’s the only candidate running on the “single payer health care” platform. Single payer alone is almost worth my vote, but what else does he stand for? And he knows of what he speaks there, because he used to be the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), so it’s not like he’s completely talking out his ass. He also knows his disability activist lingo. He used to hang with ADAPT. I don’t expect everyone to know who ADAPT is, but I like it when a politician does, and I like it even better when he gets along with them. You like talking with radical disability activists? Awesome. Apparently, he first found out about them when Security at CMS tried to brief him about an upcoming “security issue” (read: an ADAPT protest), and he was all like, “Actually, we have to invite these guys in and talk with them.” Anyway, I like him, but he doesn’t have the name recognition of the other major candidates, and I mostly only know his opinions on health care. Think broader, please. Jeff McCormick (Independent) - He’s big on employment, which is vital for getting the disability vote. But he knows nearly nothing else about disability issues, and I’m not certain he’s even sure about his own platform. Lots of generalities, wants to do things differently, blah blah blah. He’s a venture capitalist, and we’re not trying to pitch a start-up here; we’re trying to run a state. Also, he didn’t know what Independent Living Centers were - if you’re a random guy on the street, that may be okay, but it doesn’t fly at a disability forum. Mark Fisher (Republican) - Gag me with a pitchfork. There is nothing on earth that could make me vote for this guy. (and apparently he sued to get on the ballot and demanded a million bucks to drop out - class act, eh?) I didn’t even know he was a Tea Partier, I just knew he was sanctimonious as hell. He went on for a while about how all life was sacred, even unborn life, and how this marvelous thing called fetal surgery could help people with disabilities. I’m curious as to how the people in the room were reacting to this, since I wasn’t there. So then someone asked him about how he would support parents of kids who, despite the wonders of fetal surgery, had disabilities and required round-the-clock care that precluded the parents holding down a job. Because if you want all the kids to be born, you’d better have the support there so they can, y’know, live. And he said that money wasn’t everything and love would prevail. Well, love doesn’t pay the rent, and when it does, that’s called something else. And I bet he’s not for that something else either. This guy gets a big ol’ Nopetopus. Charlie Baker (Republican) - I tell you what, I’m not voting for this guy, but he is damn slick. Because I live under a rock, I’d never actually seen him before (although I’d heard of him, of course), but he clearly put a lot of his dots into charisma, as the gamer kids say. He was the most personable and comfortable of all the candidates, AND he spoke the lingo. He used to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services for Massachusetts back in the day, so he knows the players and agencies in the disability world, he can say the right things, and he claims to dig the Independent Living Centers in a big way. He even schmoozed with the ASL interpreter (I hope she was okay with him putting his arm around her, but she did return his fist-bump). I don’t trust him any further than I can throw him (and my back is a mess), but he said a lot of the right things. I’d like to hear from someone who remembers when he actually worked for the state, because something feels wrong here. And like I said, if he was more in tune with the issues than most of the Democrats, we’ve got a problem. Steve Grossman (Democrat) - Of all the candidates, Steve Grossman is undoubtedly the most badass. I say this because at the GLBT Forum, HE PASSED AN ACTUAL KIDNEY STONE in front of everyone and NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT UNTIL AFTERWARDS. That is one tough man. That having been said, that isn’t how I choose my vote, and it shouldn’t be how you do either. He’s our State Treasurer, and he’s one of the candidates with the hammer/nail problem - he wants to run the state like a business. Money is what he knows about, so that’s how things will work. And a lot of the job is money, but not all of it is. And that’s important for a campaign, too, because voters do not respond just to business plans. Like I said, we’re not just electing a CEO. Speaking of money, he has a ton of it, and can spend Martha Coakley into the ground. Most tellingly, I think, he completely blew the assisted suicide question. I don’t know what his position is on that, and neither does he. I can deal with that. What I don’t like is that he didn’t bother to research - or even think about - why it was an important issue for the disability community. So he gave a weaselly answer, which would be fine if it were honest, but he assumed that the community would be for it, so he specifically said he was open to being for it. If he’d done his homework, he’d have known that half that room gave a crapload of time and money fighting against assisted suicide laws in this state. He doesn’t have to agree with them, but he needs to know why the question came up and why it’s relevant to this population. He had no clue, and that bothered me a lot. Martha Coakley - (Democrat) - Martha, I want to vote for you, but you need to get it together. You are no longer running for Attorney General, even if that’s what you currently are. You can’t handle everything like it’s a legal matter, even if a lot of it is. Yes, the legal system and civil rights are essential for the disability community. Yes, you know a lot of the issues and you’ve done a lot. But as far as anyone can tell, life for you in the Executive Branch would be all about legislation and judicial stuff. The law is powerful, but you can’t run a campaign on it. Even for people with disabilities. I have no idea what you’re doing that doesn’t involve a law or an executive order or a court. Sometimes you’ll have to run the state, not just lawyer it. Tell me how that’s going to happen, because I trust you more than the other viable Democrat (sorry, Don Berwick, even though I might vote for you in the primary, I don’t actually think you’re going to win), but I need you to step it up here. You’re scaring me. Dont do this a second time. I’d love to hear from folks who were actually at the Forum. But based on what I saw in the YouTube video, that’s where I am right now.
Posted on: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:37:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015