Massachusetts Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker has selected state Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei as his running mate in the 2010 election. As Boston Phoenix political reporter David Bernstein notes, “I think this pretty much makes this the most socially moderate Republican ticket in the history of ever. We’re well past the classic ‘Rockefeller Republicans’ here.”

This selection isn’t sitting well with everybody. Tisei certainly seems qualified and competent–far more competent than some past candidates for lieutenant governor, to be sure. However, one wonders if the controversy (such as it is) over Tisei’s personal life will be an issue in this campaign.

I will say this: Tisei on his worst day will likely be better than Tim Murray on his best day.

The Boston Phoenix reports that last December, the city of Boston paid $3.8 million dollars to a plaintiff who sued the city alleging that misconduct by the Boston Police Department resulted in his wrongful incarceration. This brings to $10 million the amount that Boston has paid to wrongfully convicted plaintiffs. This suggests that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has failed to address certain problems affecting the Boston Police Department–problems highlighted by the Phoenix over the past few years. Will Menino’s opponents in the 2009 mayoral race make an issue of the problems affecting the Boston Police Department? If the allegedly invulnerable Menino has one weakness, it would be this issue, no?

The impetus for this post originated with Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein. The bottom line: what do male Democrats have against their female counterparts?

A tip of the cap to Boston Phoenix writer David Bernstein on this one:

Congress passed a res. yesterday for 30th anniv of Thatcher becoming 1st female PM. Mass. delegation all voted no, except Tsongas.11:49 AM May 13th from web

Much of the activity that takes place on the floor of the United States Congress (ditto The US Senate and most political bodies) is irrelevant, trivial pursuit, people looking for ways to justify their existence (and our votes). So let me say before I get into the meat of this post, that I believe that this motion and others like it generally have no place. There are plenty of Constitutionally-mandated duties Congress should follow, and if it did, life in America would be a lot better. Nonetheless, pn May 12,2009, the House Roll Call 245 passed with 339 Ayes, 64 Nays, 24 Abstaining, and 6 Presents. (The vote tally is here.) Had I been a member, I would have abstained or voted present. Of the 64 Nays,  all were Democrats. Of the 174 Democrats who voted Aye, only one came from Massachusetts, not surprisingly, and the vote belonged to the Bay State’s sole female member: Niki Tsongas.  And thus arises the question: why only Tsongas and why Tsongas at all. Presumably she’s no fan of the Iron Lady’s pro-growth fiscal policies (as am I). As such, she would be well within her rights to vote Nay with her Democrat colleagues. Had she chosen to do so, no one would have noticed or cared. Moreover, had the entire delegation voted to Abstain or vote present, no one would have noticed or cared either. Is it possible that male Democrats are hostile to powerful women? Might not Hillary Clinton answer (secretly, off the record), in the affirmative. It’s an open secret that many female Massachusetts Democrats are still miffed at the lack of support shown for Hillary Clinton by their male counterparts. It seems, at least on the surface, that women have no place in the Democrat tent, unless it’s one of subservience. Only one female has won statewide elective office in Massachusetts; for that matter, Tsongas is only the second woman to represent Massachusetts at the Congressional level, after a 25 year drought. How can this be, given the prominence of women in the Democrat Party and the omnipresence of Democrats in Massachusetts. I have no answers for you in this regard, only questions and observations. What doYOU think?

Is hate speech merely in the ear of the listener?

In a bizarre editorial, the Boston Phoenix has called on Boston talk-radio station WTKK-FM (96.9) to consider ending its nearly ten-year association with afternoon radio host Jay Severin, who was recently suspended for hyperbolic comments about Mexico’s role in the spread of swine flu. While Severin’s rhetoric did go over the edge, the Phoenix may be going too far.

“Severin was being more than an advocate for his anti-immigrant point of view, more than provocative, more than even incendiary,” the editorial states. “In our opinion, he was being hateful, trying to deny the basic humanity of Mexicans so as to render them unworthy of being afforded rights.”

While Severin’s description of Mexico’s problems was, shall we say, intense, he was not attempting to “deny the basic humanity of Mexicans so as to render them unworthy of being afforded rights.” Over the years, Severin has been clear in his belief that those who (as he would put it) “break into the country” have no rights–not because they are Mexicans, but because they have arrived in the country illegally. (Note that the Phoenix characterizes Severin’s views as “anti-immigrant,” when his views are actually anti-illegal-immigrant.)

“…The Phoenix is close to being absolute in its defense of anyone’s right to say, write, or broadcast almost anything,” the editorial continues. “This paper affirms Severin’s constitutional right to say what he said. Likewise, we recognize WTKK’s right to broadcast Severin if the station so wishes. Still, WTKK should think twice about putting Severin back on the air. Does Severin’s right to hold noxious opinions, and his parallel right to express them using intemperate language, override the station’s right to hold itself to a higher standard? If WTKK thinks about the situation with any depth of conscience, it might realize that, though it profits handsomely from Severin, his on-air presence does nothing to enrich or elevate public debate.”

Who gives the Phoenix the right to determine what does or does not “enrich or elevate public debate?” If the station feels that a more civil Severin will in fact “enrich or elevate public debate,” then why not bring him back?

Then the editorial truly goes over the edge.

“Should WTKK management have any doubts on this matter, we suggest it compare Severin’s remarks about Mexicans with what Adolf Hitler wrote about Jews in Mein Kampf. History surely has taught that Hitler’s intentions were hideous, monstrous. But it’s uncomfortable to realize that Hitler, at least in his early days, used language to attack Jews that was more temperate, or at least more carefully measured, than what Severin said about Mexicans. Comparing anyone’s words to Hitler’s is a tricky exercise. Hitler, after all, did more than talk. He presided over the murder of approximately six million Jews, as many as 500,000 gypsies, at least 250,000 physically or mentally disabled people, and a smaller, undetermined number of homosexuals. We are not suggesting that, as foul as Severin was, he was advocating violence or murder —
on any scale. Still, denying the essential equality of any individual, or group of people, is often a step in establishing or maintaining the supposedly second-class status of the group into which that individual was born. Hitler and anti-Semites did and still do this to Jews, segregationists to African-Americans, homophobes to gays and lesbians, and nativists to immigrants — legal and illegal.”

The Phoenix says they’re not comparing Severin to Hitler. Oh, of course not!

The editorial goes on to state that “…Like all good civil libertarians, we support the right of neo-Nazis — or any other haters for that matter — to demonstrate, or publish, or communicate in any form they might choose. But just as we would defend WTKK’s right to have a neo-Nazi or a racist as a guest on one of its talk shows, so, too, would we question the wisdom of giving someone of such questionable sentiments a permanent soapbox as a talk-show host.

“Rather than give Severin back his radio platform, WTKK should exercise its countervailing right to broadcast something else. In other words, Severin’s right to say what he wants is trumped by WTKK’s right to broadcast as it sees fit. The Phoenix will be fast to congratulate the station if it does the right thing and tells Severin to peddle his views elsewhere. We’re under no delusion that he’ll not find a taker.”

In other words, the Phoenix evidently regards Severin as akin to a neo-Nazi or KKK member, when in reality Severin’s worst sin is his self-perceived need to copy Michael Savage’s act.

Look, Severin has a foul mouth, and his cartoonish remarks about Mexico’s problems aren’t pleasant, to say the least. However, the Phoenix is clearly advocating that Severin be tossed from the airwaves for crudely expressing unpopular (in their eyes) views. Why not encourage WTKK to bring Severin back, but keep him civil?

UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe.