Sadly, I actually missed a big chunk of the debate because I was called away by work. On the plus side, I’m getting enough work that it actually pulled me away from the debate. I did, however, see enough to address the four points that I wanted addressed.

First: Healey’s performance
I though Healey did a much better job than in the last debate in terms of simply presenting herself well. She had obviously been coached much more extensively this time and was much more on top of her game. The biggest effect of this, I think, was that she actually acknowledged that there were more than two candidates in the race. Unfortunately she forgot that fact again in her closing remarks. Overall I thought her performance was still pretty disappointing. She represents the status quo that people don’t want, and she knows it, so she does little other than point out why (she think) her opponents’ (really, just Patrick’s) positions are even worse than hers. She also keeps harping on and on about how horrible it would be to have Democrats in control of both the governor’s office and the legislature. I agree with her, that it’s, in general, not a very good idea, but it’s also not really a position you can run on. If the race were closely contested and she and Patrick were neck and neck, then it might become a valid point to campaign on, but when she’s trailing by as much as she is in the polls she really needs to point out her positives not Patrick’s negatives.

Second: Patrick’s performace
I still don’t think that Patrick lived up to his reputation in this regard, but he, like Healey, gave a much better performance than in the last debate. I was, as usual, somewhat disappointed on his actual policy, but I still think that he would, politics aside, make an excellent governor. I also really liked the way that he addressed the Cape Wind question, and I think that his rationale for not supporting the income tax rollback is a good one: yes it would be great to cut that .3% on everyone’s income tax, and yes the people voted for it, but before we can do it we need to cut spending by that much. I also approve of his statement that it’s more important to cut property taxes first.

Third: Ross’ performance
Sadly, Ross did not pick up any hints in terms of wardrobe or makeup. She wore the same blue …thing that she wore last time and looked more like she should be a shopkeeper on Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley than a gubernatorial candidate. She did, however, display an amazing improvement in terms of speaking. Her statements were much clearer and more organized, she spent less time trying to identify herself as part of the ‘lower 60%’ (although she did mention it at least once), and she consistently gave intelligent, coherent, and well thought out responses. Listening to her speak, and watching her demeanor, she actually gave me the impression that she could do a good job as governor. I’m still not going to vote for her for a number of reasons, but I was very impressed with her performance tonight.

Fourth: Mihos’ performance
Mihos, I think, may have actually done a little worse in this debate than in the previous one. He didn’t seem quite as on top of things and fantastically coherent as in the last debate, and he had lost some of the general charm that he displayed before. I think part of that may have been the lighting… He did still do a good job though, and he, and Ross, surprisingly, both drew a lot of applause and laughter from the audience (For which they were sternly admonished by the moderator. The audience, that is. Amusingly enough, Healey got by far the least reaction from the crowd, if any at all.) He did, I think, focus less on attacking Healey (at least in the parts that I saw), and instead focused more on the Republican party in general. That aside, I think he did an excellent job of answering the questions posed, though if he brought up the small business issues I had hoped he would, he did it while I was working.

Moving on from the actual debate, another local blogger and Mihos supporter Jesse Legg had a very insightful post earlier today. He talked about how the candidates are not doing a very good job of leveraging the internet. As Howard Dean showed two years ago, the internet can be a very effective tool in campaigning. He suggested using YouTube as a medium for debate, with each candidate offering their answers to the questions in separate videos. I think this is an excellent idea, and would do a lot, not only for the candidates, but for the state political blogging. How much improved would a blog be if you could embed YouTube videos of the candidates speaking on an issue in the paragraph in which you talked about their position on that issue? Short of recording, digitizing, and editing the debates yourself, this really isn’t a possibility right now.

Amusingly enough, this is actually one of the issues I brought up in my letter to Christy Mihos. His last ad has an amazing presence on the web. It’s become a viral video and has brought national awareness to Mihos and his campaign. As Jessi can tell you, virals can be a very effective marketing mechanism, and anything that works for marketing can be adapted to campaigning. I also really think that candidates should maintain their own blogs, or at least offer something to bloggers. In 2004, Gary Nolan, one of the candidates for the Libertarian nomination (and the man I wanted to vote for) maintained a blog and provided web banners for his supporters to put on their websites. I would love to be able to put a Christy Mihos banner on my blog, but one simply isn’t available. None of the other candidates are offering anything like it either. In addition to simply spreading awareness, it obviously will also act as a distinguisher; never a bad thing. I anxiously await a reply from the Mihos campaign to my email, and hope they’ll be able to provide a good perspective on this (and maybe even start taking advantage of it).

I’m currently sitting in front of the tv watching PBS waiting for the second gubernatorial debate of the ‘06 Massachusetts gubernatorial race. No, I’m not going to get tired of saying gubernatorial. I’m considering ‘liveblogging’ it, but we’ll see. At any rate, going into it, I’m interested to see a couple things: 1) if Healey is able to give more than the lackluster performance of the first ebate, 2) if Patrick can, this time, live up to his reputation as an excellent speaker, 3) if Ross has maybe picked up a few hints since the last debate and can present herself as more of a serious candidate, 4) if Mihos will spend a little less time criticizing Healey and more time voicing his own opinions in a more objective context. Also, a couple days ago I sent an email to the Mihos campaign asking them about Mihos’ position on small businesses and sole proprietorships and if he had any thoughts or plans on what he could do for those businesses. I’m sure it’s a long shot, but it would be great if he brought it up during the debate.

I’ve been meaning to write about this for a while, but never actually got around to it. On September 15 the Boston Business Journal ran an article entitled Report: Mass. ignores small business segment. As a small business owner, this obviously caught my attention.

According to the article ’small businesses are undercounted in Massachusetts and that is hurting them’. Apparently the state of Massachusetts, when compiling statewide employment data does not count sole-proprietorships, of which, in 2004, there were over 424,000—17% of all jobs in Massachusetts.

What does this actually mean for sole proprietors such as myself? Well, it means that the state does not offer any economic incentives for the development of my business. There are no tax cuts, subsidies, or any other sort of aid that I can take advantage of as a sole proprietor. To be honest, I would generally consider this a good thing. Why should the government give me preferential treatment over your ordinary private citizen? Government subsidies are, in my opinion, a stagnating force serving largely to preserve inefficiencies in our economy and, in general, doing more harm than good. Tax cuts, which I approve of in general, would be better, I think, if applied to individuals rather than businesses. Politically, I just don’t think there’s any good reason to give me or other sole proprietors (or any business, for that matter) preferential treatment of any kind.

That, of course, is a purely ideological position. In truth, you probably wouldn’t hear me complain too much about policies that resulted in me paying fewer taxes or getting free money in the name of ‘economic stimulation’; as long as the current state of things is unfair, it may as well be unfair in my favor. And, again from an ideological standpoint and ignoring the fact that I fit into this category, I think that, if you are going to be favoring any businesses anyway, sole-proprietorships and other small businesses are where you want the aid to go as it will have a more direct effect on the individuals that make up the company.

Also, there is a lot to be said for encouraging the growth of small businesses. Small businesses are, in my opinion, an important part of any economy. In the event of massive economic upheaval (of which there are many sorts that could occur, I don’t think there’s much need to enumerate them), small business are much more agile and able to adapt to those changes. While a large business will be more likely to weather the storm and survive due to their own economic inertia, a small business will actually be able to change the way they work to suit the new situation thus providing a far more dynamic, resilient, and efficient economy. Some would argue that small businesses are also more risky, as, if they fail to adapt as advertised, they’ll generally be forced to just go out of businesses as they lack the reserves to keep them going in a rough spot. That, I’d say, doesn’t really indicate any sort of inferiority, however, as large businesses will usually go through rounds of layoffs while weathering a storm resulting, probably, in an equivalent number of lost jobs.

Given Massachusetts’ current predicament of declining population as businesses and individuals flee the high cost of living and business, enacting policies to attract new business would go a long way to invigorating the economy and reverse the flow of the ‘Mass Exodus’. And there can be little doubt that it would be best for the Massachusetts economy if business expansion in the state were the result of new Massachusetts-based companies springing up and keeping their earning here in Massachusetts rather than large, national companies opening offices and then dispersing their profits throughout the country. In other words, Massachusetts should be working to specifically encourage the starting of small and home businesses and sole proprietorships throughout the state. It’s good for the citizens of Massachusetts, it’s good for the people who want to do business here, it’s good for the Massachusetts economy, and it’s good for the state.

This issue is, of course, quite relevant given the ongoing gubernatorial race (which I’d really like to see other people start calling Mass Guber ‘06 too). Sadly, although all of the candidates mention the need to attract new people and businesses to the state, none of them say a thing, that I’ve been able to find, about small businesses specifically—although Patrick’s proposed increase of the minimum wage would hurt small businesses, and Healey’s proposed reduction in unemployment insurance costs would help them. This is another one of the reasons that I support Christy Mihos. As the owner of a local, Massachusetts-based business himself, I trust him to keep local businesses in mind when shaping economic policy, and not sell out the interests of small businesses in favor of large national and multi-national corporations.

Usually I can’t stand campaign ads, but this one is just hilarious:

I love the word gubernatorial. Especially when combined with my old governor Arnold ‘the governator’ Schwarzenegger; I much prefer calling him ‘the gubernator’. Anyway….

Last night was the first debate in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race. I watched it, or at least thought I had. Now that I’ve read some of the responses to it (one from Hub Politics, and one from Hub Blog for starters), I’m not so sure. Everyone seems to be proclaiming that either Patrick wiped the floor with Healey, or vice versa. I don’t particularly recall either of those things happening. About the only thing I recognize from the accounts that I’ve read is that Mihos really went after Healey, that Ross was fairly ineffectual, and that Healey consistently attempted to frame the debate as being solely between herself and Patrick.

Beyond that, here’s what I saw (and it doesn’t seem to be what most people saw):
Healey, despite her experience and current position as Lieutenant Governor, seemed to have a tough time with the debate. She was not particularly well-spoken and, in my opinion, didn’t do a very good job of presenting herself. From what I’ve read since, this is fairly normal for her (Although many Republicans seem to think that she somehow transcended that last night and did a wonderful job. I suppose that when you set the bar low, it’s not hard to surpass it…) Ignoring her somewhat lackluster performance, she didn’t present herself very well. I got the impression that she was nothing but a politician, and had none of the qualities required of a true statesman and leader.

Patrick also was not as well spoken as I expected him to be, but from what I understand this is not the norm for him, and I still think he did a better job than Healey. He did, however, despite that do an excellent job of presenting himself. I got the impression from his performance that he really is an excellent statesman. He knew his stuff, and was on top of his answers. He did an excellent job, I think, of addressing the questions directed at him given the constraints of the format (a timed debate is not the setting in which to expound on the details of your position). He also managed to be courteous and respectful to all involved even when disagreeing with or criticizing them. Truth be told, I think he would make an excellent governor. I just don’t agree with his politics.

Ross performed much better than I expected her to. She did a decently good job, but she is clearly not a politician. She also could use a wardrobe assistant and a good stylist if she ever wants to come off well on television. Who shows up to a debate against three seasoned politicians in black suits wearing …whatever it was that she was wearing? And those huge, highly reflective glasses just don’t work in studio lighting. Beyond her obvious lack of experience, however, I thought she did a very good job of making her points and ensuring that she got her position out there. I don’t think she had the best timing or tact, and it was quite clear that she supports Patrick over herself to be governor, but she comported herself well.

Mihos remains my favorite, and I thought he did an excellent job. Although I think he performed better in the first half than the second. Of the four candidates, he was by far the best spoken. He had his answers down, knew his stuff, and phrased it well. His business experience really came through here as he handled the debate like a sales pitch to the people of Massachusetts. And I think he sold himself pretty well. But it was also quite clear that he really has it in for Healey. He went after her at every opportunity, criticized her on everything, and was very clearly interested in hurting her campaign. To some extent this is a good move for him, as he really needs to take as many Republican voters as possible. He especially needs to take the Republican voters who already aren’t happy with Romney and Healey, and I think his performance was calculated to do just that. He spared very little time for Patrick or Ross, which makes sense. If he has any chance of winning he’s going to have to do it by winning the Republican votes that currently seem to be going to Patrick. He needs to paint himself as a rational and effective moderate-conservative, and so far he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.

My overall impression of the whole thing was that the strongest weapons in both Mihos’ and Patrick’s arsenals are their extensive business experience. They know how to get things done, they understand the relationship between money and results, and they understand how to speak to customers constituents. Ross, I don’t really know why she’s in the race. She clearly is a Patrick supporter, but I guess just wanted to make sure her issues were on the table. Healey is, as so many have already stated, struggling against the Romney legacy. People don’t like where things are now, and she’s part of that. I’m not even going to try and claim that there was a winner, because I don’t think there was. But Patrick really raised himself in my estimation last night, Mihos did an excellent job as well, Ross met and slightly exceeded my expectations, and Healey was somewhat disappointing.

Staying in the political vein for now, I had a few thoughts on the Cape Wind project. When looking into the candidates, it didn’t take long to realize that their thoughts on this project revealed a lot about their general policy. Really, it should have appeal to members of both parties. It involves the privatization of public land, favors business, reduces (albeit slightly) our dependency on foreign oil, stimulates the economy, and lowers cost of living at the same time for the Republicans. For the Democrats it’s good for the environment, helps establish America’s support for alternative energies, and stimulates the economy, all important Democratic talking points.

When you think about it, there’s no reasonable objection to it. Republicans should like it for the free market approach towards solving several issues at once, and Democrats should like it for the vapid, buzzword-compliant environmental-friendliness. Me? I like it for all of the above reasons; it’s just a good idea all around. The only people who don’t like it are the NIMBY crowd. So this issue really provides an excellent test as to the general political alignment of the candidates above and beyond the broad stroke of party. In a broad stroke of my own, I think it’s fair to say that those who support it are, in general, interested in the issues more, and those who are against are mostly just courting the vote of the, generally wealthy, Cape Coders (most of whom are probably snowbirds anyway); no one really objects on any grounds other than aesthetic. At least that’s the feeling that I got from reading the various candidates’ positions on the project.

It did, however, occur to me while reading up on Cape Wind that there were other alternatives. For example, tidal generators could generate power from the tidal fluctuations of Cape Cod, Buzzard Bay, even Boston Harbor. This could easily be used to augment, or even, in a state with as much coast as Massachusetts, replace the wind farm without infringing on people’s views from their vacation homes (and how dare anyone consider besmirching that 1/2 vertical inch of horizon).

It appears that I’m not the only one who thinks this way, as I read this morning that tidal power generation is being seriously considered for implementation in the San Francisco Bay. Now, to be fair, the San Francisco Bay has extremely strong currents and so is especially well suited to such methods and, even so, will only be generating 38 MW, whereas the Cape Wind project is projected to generate 420 MW (An increase in global wind power generation of over 700%!). The San Francisco proposal seems to be putting the turbines under the Golden Gate Bridge, approximately 19 acres of seabed, whereas Cape Wind will cover approximately 15 acres. This does suggest that wind power is significantly more efficient than tidal generation (1,400% more efficient, even), if more visually obtrusive. The difference is significant enough that I find it unlikely that any errors in estimation on my part cause much of a deviation from the actual fact.

So really, the only possible argument against the Cape Wind project (assuming it’s economically viable, which, really, it must be or no company would propose it and the various wind farms that exist all over the world wouldn’t exist), is that some people might not like how it looks. And, having been to a number of places that have wind power, I have to say that argument doesn’t hold much water; wind farms actually look pretty cool. So, as a measurement of general character as well as environmental friendliness, I find support, or lack thereof, of the Cape Wind project to be a pretty effective test of whether I like a candidate or not. So, if this were the only issue I were looking at, my rankings would probably be Patrick, Ross, Mihos, Healey. However my other important issues are economic policy, gay marriage / equal rights, and general commitment to basic freedoms. Taking those in mind (either weighted or unweighted) it comes out Mihos, Patrick, Ross, Healey.

Sigh, politics are annoying.

Are very strange indeed. To my ‘foreign’ eye it would seem that the candidates range from Democrat to very Democrat—even the Republicans would be considered America-hating liberals in some parts of the country. And I use liberal here, of course, in the popular sense of the word rather than the traditional.

With the primary elections today, I finally decided this morning to take a look at the candidates and see what I thought. Based solely on the information presented on Boston.com this is the order in which I decided I liked the candidates (keep in mind this was before the primaries): Gabrieli (D), Mihos (I), Healey (R), Patrick (D), Reilly (D), Ross (GR—Green-Rainbow …yeah, I don’t know either. I actually kind of like Ross, but she hasn’t voiced opinions on enough of the issues for me to really know). The primaries being over, my choices are now Mihos, Healy, Patrick, and Ross. I’ve taken some time to look a little more closely at their platforms now and thus far my ranking remains about the same. But before I get into any specifics, I just have to say: how cool is it that Ross has a Hatian-Creole translation of her site?

Anyway, as I was saying, I’ve been taking a closer look at the candidates now. And, as I suspected, I like Mihos. I agree with him on pretty much all the issues he lists on his platform. We do, however, disagree on the death penalty (I’m against it), gambling (I’m for it), the cape wind project (I’m for it… tentatively), and gay marriage (we’re both for it, but he supports putting it on the ballot whereas I think it should be a given based on the Constitution). On pretty much everything else, we agree.

As for Healey and Patrick, I really can’t decide which I’d prefer. Taking the issues as presented by Boston.com and not weighting them based on which issues I actually care about, I’d give Healey an 8/12 and Patrick a 5/12. Giving a weighted score is difficult because in both cases the some of the issues I disagree with them on are ones I care about (environment, gay marriage, and civil rights for Healey, fiscal strategy, gambling, health care, and again civil rights for Patrick). Basically to choose between the two of them I’m forced to choose either a fiscally conservative and socially liberal Republican or a fiscally liberal and socially conservative Democrat: the basic political question of American politics. It’s not an easy choice to make, as I would consider myself fiscally and socially conservative (where conservative means keeping government and legislation out). Fortunately there’s Christy Mihos who’s fiscally conservative and socially centrist. Really I think they come out about even. This is why I’m a big proponent of a four-party system, it covers all the possible permutations of opinion in an essentially two-issue political arena.

Here’s a chart I drew out while studying the candidates initially to help me keep track of who I did and didn’t like and why. Os are good, Xs are bad, and blank spaces are, well, blank.