First, the big news: another local blogger, Jesse Legg, has referred to the Massachusetts gubernatorial race as 'Mass Guber'. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I'm taking credit for that.

Title aside, Jesse's written an excellent post about the upcoming Gubernatorial debate an Faneuil Hall this Thursday. His breakdown of the candidates and what they need to accomplish in this debate is spot-on. And he, as a fellow Mihos supporter, hits it right on the nose when talking about the Mihos campaign:

Christy Mihos; I was so excited for him. I handed out bumper stickers and buttons. His commercials were spot on, clean and critical but not attack ads. My support continues but, as I blogged about last week, I’m mildly concerned for the campaign. He had a lot of momentum after the initial debate. I’m going to watch closely Thursday to make sure he isn’t giving up. Maybe he’s low on funds. Maybe he plans another blitz Friday morning. I hope for the latter. Just keep it clean and come out fighting.

I couldn't agree more. Mihos has an amazing energy and charisma that speaks to people, even people who wouldn't otherwise consider an independent candidate. On paper he is a fantastic candidate, his campaign has been well run, and his ads have been amazing. But in the last few weeks Christy Mihos has just sort of dropped off the radar. I haven't heard or seen anything about it. I hope it's just the calm before the storm and that the campaign will be gearing up following Thursday's debate to finish out the race with a bang. Mihos may still be polling in single digits, but if he can put on a good show at the remaining debates and campaign hard to get his name, face, and message out there, I still think he stands a chance. He will, at least, have my vote on November 7.

In other Mihos news, Peter Howe of the Boston Globe, has written an excellent article on Mihos. It touches on all the key points of Mihos' platform, but, most importantly, it talks about his stance on business, and particularly small businesses. I had previously written directly to the Mihos campaign about exactly this issue. Although I never got a reply directly on that question (I did get a persona reply, however), I consider this article to probably be better than just an email to me would have been. When asked what he would do for small businesses in Massachusetts (such as his own) he responds, 'The only thing a governor can do is take away the stress and burden that fall on my customers each and every day. Take away their fees, their fines, their taxes [and] just make it so that people that are coming in to see me are happy and can afford to live here'.

While on some level it would be nice to hear that he'd give aid specifically to small businesses or do something that would directly benefit me, in truth, this is, I think, the right position for him to take. It's not government's place to decide which businesses live and die, it's the place of the consumer. All government can and should do is stay out of the way as much as possible. Christy Mihos, as a small business owner, gets that, and I, as a small business owner, am glad that there's a candidate out there who does.

And, in other Mihos news, yet another blogger has come out as a Mihos supporter. Says Roger, of Mass Maddness:

Massachusetts needs a real-change candidate, a description that doesn't apply to either the Democrat or Republican candidate. But it does describe Christy Mihos -- too bad the voters, the media, and Beacon Hill write him off. But why is Mihos the right man for the job? Because he's open, he cares, and he (at least tries) to bridge any left-right babble.

On the Massachusetts state ballot there are three questions called, appropriately enough, Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3. Although in actuality, they are called Initiative Petition A, F, and H, respectively.

Question 3 is about childcare. I don't really know anything about the issue, and the phrasing of the ballot question itself is somewhat confusing, so I'm just going to ignore that one.

Question 1, however, is very interesting. The issue is whether or not to allow wine to be sold at food stores. 'The proposed law defines a “food store” as a retail vendor, such as a grocery store, supermarket, shop, club, outlet, or warehouse-type seller, that sells food to consumers to be eaten elsewhere (which must include meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, and other specified items), and that may sell other items usually found in grocery stores.' Any city or town can issue up to 5 licenses to food stores to sell wine for every 5,000 citizens of that city/town.

If you want to really get into it, I think that the proposal is bad in that it perpetuates an inherently flawed, unfair, and anti-competitive system. I think that anyone should be able to sell any beverage that they want, be it wine, beer, schapps, single malt whisky, or everclear, so long as they take sufficient steps to verify the age of the customer. (Technically I also support abolishing the minimum drinking age, but that's a whole nother issue and rather beyond the scope of this post.) That's how it works in California, and, to the best of my knowledge, alcoholism is not running rampant through the Golden State any more than it is here in the Bay State. However, as abstaining to vote on Question 1 will also leave aforementioned flawed, unfair, and anti-competitive system in place, I'll just stick with a yes or no on Question 1.

In that case, my vote is a resounding yes for Question 1. Under the current system wine is only sold in liquor stores, wine shops/galleries, and some speciality food stores (the Trader Joe's near us sells both wine and beer). However the store where we buy our grociers (Shaw's) can't, while the numerous liquor stores around Central Square can and do. The only arguments against Question 1 seem to be coming from the liquor stores themselves. Of course they don't want anyone else selling wine, if they have to compete their profit margins will most likely go down. Sadly, for them, that's the nature of a free market: competition leads to market efficiency and the consumer gets what they want for the best price. There is no good reason for the liquor stores to have a monopoly on wine (or beer or liquor for that matter), except, possibly, in the minds of the liquor store owners.

A yes on Question 1 means a restoration (partial though it may be) of the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts as consumers.

(Question 2 is also interesting, but I'll leave that for another post.)