Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Weld (Republican) - pro-choice and pro-2nd_Amendment. Ya gotta like
    a candidate with philosophical consistency.

    
    could we extend this to lt. gov too?  or should i start a new
    note?  I don't know ANYTHING about ANY of lt. gov candidates,
    and would like some info!
    
    d

    re:  .1


    Weld is only pro-choice AFTER hooking up with his running mate who
    has a LONG history of supporting a woman's option to decide what
    to do with her own body.  Thank Paul Cellucci for that stance.

    Cellucci also gives Weld the "down-homer" background.....WELD is
    MONEY and doesn't/can't even relate to the "real" people of MA.
    Cellucci gives him that too......Paul lives in the "real" world
    on a busy corner of a "real" blue-collar community.  

    justme....jacqui

    p.s.  I think I am going to check off Evelyn Murphy in the Primary.
    	  Reserving my choice for the general election til later.

    .4 presumes that Weld will beat Pierce in the Republican
    primary. I wouldn't bet the lunch money on that.

re:  .6

    Based on Paul Cellucci's liberal Republicanism off-setting Weld's
    silver-spoon outlook, Weld might be a better choice than Pierce
    as Weld/Cellucci are running as a team.  

    I did so want Evelyn Murphy!

    justme....jacqui

    Weld. Bright, moderate, and pro rights.
    
    Kate

	re: Kate

	I agree.  What I do know about Weld, I like very much, like

	-  Pro-choice (definitively)
	-  For sex education in high schools  (and distribution of condoms)
	-  For company-provided day care
    	-  He prosecuted some graft in gov't as DA  (sounds gutsy)
    
	Not to mention he was by far the most impressive at the women's
	issues debate, in my opinion.
  	
							nancy b.

    re .9 > So why is Weld a _republican_?
    
    Fastidious ?

    re .9 > So why is Weld a _republican_?
    
    Fastidious ?

**************************************************

    No, silver-spoonism!!!   Party of the haves.

    justme....jacqui

    re .11 One could as easily say that the other party is that of
    the envious.

Who saw the debate between Bellotti and Silber last night?

I thought Bellotti did a terrible job. He seemed like he had
a hard time focusing on the questions and on his answers.
He seemed as though it was real work to finish expressing a thought. He
had sweat streaming down his face through the whole debate. I thought
he did so poorly that I wondered if maybe he was sick.

Silber, on the other hand, seemed poised, articulate, and
very there. (And I'm definitely not a Silber supporter!)
All in all, I thought Silber probably did a better job of
winning over undecided voters than Bellotti did.

But on the way in to work this morning, I heard a short spot on
NPR that said Silber had gone into the debate needing to show that
he's not as divisive as he's been made out to be. The report
said he blew that when he was asked why he's never given a major
speech in Roxbury. (He said he hadn't given one there because those
weren't the people who needed to hear it. Then he went on to say
something about drug addicts in Roxbury.... Silber said he speaks
where it does the most good: and in the case of the violence in Roxbury,
the front of the State House was the appropriate setting for his
speech. And he slammed the press for not covering that speech.)

If you saw the debate, what was your assessment? Who do you think
did the better job of presenting himself to undecided voters?

Kathy

    I watched for a few minutes, but as more and more spots of mud got
    plastered over the camera lens it got harder and harder to see, so I
    gave up.

    
    
    I agree with Kathy.  I thought Bellotti looked and sounded awful.  I'm
    not sure it's fair to focus on looks, but he was sweating so much at
    one point I thought he might pass out right then and there.  But those
    stage and TV lights are hot..
    
    I thought Bellotti babbled.  Reminded me of some Reagan press
    conferences.  I suppose he might just have stage fright.  (I'm trying
    to be generous here because I know that I'm still very bitter about
    Evelyn.)  Silber's presentation skills are much better than Bellotti's,
    and I worry when he starts to sound reasonable.  But I think the
    comment he made about why he doesn't give speeches in black
    neighborhoods ("I'm not  going to waste my time giving speeches to
    drug addicts" -- loose quotation) will keep progressives from thinking
    that he's someone to consider.  
    
    Watching the debate was painful for me, because Evelyn wasn't there. 
    And I kept asking myself, "People really think these two guys are
    better than her?"  I will probably cast a symbolic vote for Evelyn in
    the primary.  And I don't think that that amounts to a vote for Silber,
    because only a small % of democrats will do that, and I really think
    that Bellotti has the democratic nomination sewn up.
    
    About Weld, he has impressed me.  He's personable and warm, and he
    seems to be pro-choice.  He did say that he opposed the gay rights
    legislation because he thought it was "unnecessary," though.  That's
    what a lot of men have said about the ERA.  We already have civil
    rights.  We don't need special rights.  So that makes me worry that he
    might proclaim support for gay and women's rights but not ACT to
    protect those rights.  Both Weld and Pierce support the CLT petition, 
    so that makes Weld less attractive to me.  If the CLT passes, the 
    deficit in this state will be much worse, and important services will have 
    to be cut.  So I will vote for Evelyn in the primary, and then in the 
    general....  I may decide in the booth.
    
    Justine
     ps thanks to all of you who have offered your condolences to me here
    and in MAIL. I really appreciate it.

    On the channel 5 news this morning, Silber repeated his statements
    about "area B" (Roxbury?) being just drug addicts. He also made a
    direct offer to channel 5 to go down there and give his speech on
    camera. He said that we would see a bunch of drug addicts. Channel 5
    plans to take him up on his offer. Watch the news tonight to see if he
    comes through.
    
    Thank the creator, I live in N.H. and don't have to help choose the
    Mass. gov. Weld is the only one left who looks any good to me. I wish
    he'd move up here and then I could vote for him and against the current
    regime.
    
    Phil

    "...the common man...."?

    I watched the debate from the beginning (almost) to the end.  I must
    say that Silbur did a good job on this.  Silbur succeeded in sending
    the message:  "Yea, I am a loud mouth, but at least I don't quibble,
    and you know damn well what I meant about 'drug addicts" in Roxbury-- 
    At least I am a competent manager--and I am as pro-choice as the next
    guy."  Incidentally, Belottie used to be pro-life (at least from what I
    heard).  Nothing wrong with that, but I guess that may be politically
    incorrect around here.  :-)
    
    I tend to agree that Weld is probably a better choice.
    
    Alf  
      

    
    I'm a Libertarian Republican and I'm voting for Weld because he's
    fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  If Weld doesn't beat Pierce,
    I'll either vote for a Democrat, abstain for write in Weld.  I refuse
    to vote for a person who wants to make abortion illegal.  I know the 
    governor doesn't make the laws but they sure can influence them!  (Take
    Bush for example)
    
    Rachael
    

          "    So why Bill Weld?  Weld is intelligent and independent, and
          he has done his homework.  He recognizes the anger of the people
          and not only supports the CLT petition but also articulates a
          series of complex but well-thought-out steps to achieve almost a
          billion dollars in cuts without seriously damaging social
          programs.  He is a quick and serious student of state government
          with a prosecutor's grasp of facts and statistics.  And he brings
          a prosecutor's zeal for reforming state government.

               Weld can be tough.  Witness his six years as United States
          Attorney in Boston and his two years as assistant attorney
          general, the number three man in the U.S. Justice Department.

               Weld knows what will turn this state around.  He has
          traveled to New York to talk to members of the financial
          community.  He would not tinker with line items as Pierce would;
          Weld would start from scratch, "sunsetting" every program, every
          employee.  He would computerize the state's accounts receivable,
          recouping $100 million to $600 million a year in lost revenues.
          He would save $187 million by ending the state's dubious
          distinction as the only one in the nation to promise hospitals
          state funding for the difference between Medicare reimbursements
          and actual costs.  He would cut the state payroll (158 state
          employees for every 10,000 residents) to bring it into line with
          other industrial states (Illinois at 103, Pennsylvania at 106,
          and California at 108).

               Weld's other positions show a compassionate side to match
          his self-described "murderous zeal" for reform.  He is pro-
          choice, favors optional distribution of condoms in high schools,
          and is a defender of the environment.  His lawsuits helped clean-
          up state harbors.

               In a year of undistinguished candidates and rancorous
          campaigning, Weld stands out as a fresh, intelligent, zealous
          individual who deserves a crack at one of the toughest state
          houses in the nation.  He can do the job.   ... "


          From "The Tab" editorial -  Sept 11, 1990

          "    Republican Steven Pierce is neither cerebral nor
          independent.  He is an ambitious but undistinguished career
          politician whose voting record is uninspiring.  Pierce failed to
          get a single substantive bill passed in his 12 years in the
          legislature.  His environmental voting record is the second
          lowest in the state, the AIDS and teen-age pregnancy epidemics
          with "values curriculums" and little else.  He has waffled on his
          support for the CLT petition and offers no specific plans for
          coping with its cuts.  Pierce's suggestion that the state might
          be better off to declare bankruptcy and be placed in court
          receivership is at best thoughtless and at worst seriously
          damaging to an already bloodied state reputation.  Pierce's
          opposition to abortion and his labeling of the National
          Organization for Woman as a "radical feminist group" puts him
          somewhere back in the 1950s, a worrisome place to be as we
          approach the year 2000."

          "... None of the other candidates -- Democrat or Republican --
          has both the intelligence and the independence Weld brings.

               Democrat John Silber clearly has the intelligence and he
          picked up on the voters' angry mood early.  However, he is one of
          the most mean-spirited, arrogant men in the state.  And he owes
          too much to Senate President William Bulger to plausibly portray
          himself as a reformer.

               The other Democrat Frank Belotti is intelligent but is also
          part of the past.  Bellotti may be attractive to those of the
          "Stop Silber" mentality, but that's no reason to elect someone.
          Without Silber, Bellotti is just another old politician with some
          new ideas and a lot of baggage.

               All [two] Democrats are ostrich-like, thrusting their heads
          into the sands of denial, stating incredibly that to even discuss
          how they owuld cope iwth a CLT law would somehow give credence to
          the petition. "

    
    
    	"The Tab" had the following to say about their endorsement of Weld:
    
    	"  Unusual times require unusual actions.  Since out founding 11
    	years ago, The Tab has never endorsed a candidate.  Never before,
    	however, have we faced a crisis of the proportions Massachusetts
    	faces today.  We make our first endorsement hoping it will spark
    	spirited debate and confince readers to vote for an excellent
    	governor.  
    
    	Bill Weld should be governor.  Next Tuesday, every Republican and
    	Independent voter should ask for a Republican ballot and vote for
    	Weld.  For many of our Independent readrs, to vote Republican
    	might be a unique and, perhaps, difficult thing to do.  But we
    	think this Republican is a man worth breaking habits for.  
    

    
    	Wow. Thanks for entering that!
    
    	As someone who has heard little about Weld, this helped me get a
    	better picture of him. My only other previous image of him was
    	someone who is just recently pro-choice and semi-liberal because he
    	read the political tide well. This was another view.
    
    	My I ask what publication the "Tab" is, and who it is affiliated
    	with (right-wing, republican, religious, conservative, etc)?
    
    	Thanks for posting those!
    
    	-Erik (a fiscally conservative liberal aka Pat Schroeder of CO)

    	re. Why would Evelyn Murphy supporters go for Weld instead of
    	Belotti?  My opinion of the democrats are, well they won't fix
    	the state's financial problems(-), but it is worth it becasue they 
    	are socially progressive(+).  The republicans are fiscally
    	conservative (+) but usually socially conservative as well (-).
    	Comparing Weld to Bellotti, I feel Bellotti is not socially
    	progressive enough to make up for being unlikely to get Mass.
    	out of the financial disaster it is in.  Weld is pro-choice
    	and does not actively pursue the moral majority agenda.  I plan
    	to vote for Bellotti in the dem primary, hope Weld gets his
    	party nomination, and will listen carefully to the two candidates
    	over the upcoming weeks.
		Linda
    

    
    
    	re: .25 (Erik Debriae)
    
    	hmmm...  The Tab comes to people's residences free (it does
    	to mine anyway...). There are issues of the Tab for many
    	of the towns in the greater Boston area, but the content
    	of them are somewhat different because they cover news
    	specific to the town.
    
    	So to answer your question about what linkages it has...
    
    	I'm not sure.  The paper (to me) does not have a "conservative"
    	bent to it at all, though I don't know if I'd call it 
    	"progressive liberal" either...  
    
    	Does anybody know who owns the Tab?  Is it Beacon Communications?
    
    						nancy b.
    

    
    > There are issues of the Tab for many of the towns in the greater
    > Boston area
    
    	I guess that's one of the downers of living in the Metro-west area
    	- our free papers only have stories about Sudbury's largest beet
    	farmer or Ms. Frumplekin's Marlboro kindergarten class sending
    	letters to an actual senator.  :-) 
    
    	-Erik (sometimes wishing he was more local to all the action and
    	       living in Cambridge) 

    Weld doesn't think illiterate prisoners should be taught how to
    read and write. I wouldn't call that socially progressive. And
    Evelyn Murphy is supporting Bellotti, not Weld.
    
    Eileen

Tomorrow's primary day in Massachusetts! Don't forget to vote, folks.

Kathy

    Its near 10:00 pm here in mass..
    Weld has won over >Pierce in the Rep prim Cellucia (sp) is picked to
    win the Lt. Gov. race.
    Silber and Bellotia (sp) is too close to cal Marg Clapprude (sp)
    is pick to win the LT. Gov race..
    
    REK

    
    Silber won over Belotti and Claprood won the Lt. G'vner's slot.
    
    CQ, up too late cleaning closets

    
    
    	Just heard a Ch. 5 analyst say that for Silber to win, the
    	democratic party must distance him from Claprood, who 
    	represents the "old" and "big spending".
    
    	I wonder if he would treat her like Dukakis did Murphy?
    
    	The analyst said it would have to be a Silber-Silber ticket.
    
    	Justine,  wasn't it you who nudged me during the debate and
    	said that Silber probably got votes for comparing Gloriea Steinem
    	to Farakhan(sp?) ?
    							nancy b.
    

    
    
    	Also heard that even with the number of independents now
    	registered in MA, there are still _2.5_ times as many 
    	democrats as republicans.
    
    	What a worrisome thought (how many will vote the party line?)
    
    	And, could someone please described Silber's stand on Choice
    	again?
    
    							nancy b.
    

    
    amazing. i vowed i'd never vote republican and i vowed i'd never
    vote for silber. i must lead a charmed life.
    

    re .35 >I vowed I'd never vote Republican and I vowed I'd 
           >never vote for Silber.
    
    In this instance putting on 'party' blinders could result in
    Mass. having a genuine nightmare in the Governor's office.
    Which Silber is, IMHO.

re:-1 
>    could result in
>    Mass. having a genuine nightmare in the Governor's office.
>    Which Silber is, IMHO.
    
    
    John Silber is a younger George Wallace. I'm a Democrat. I believe in
    the ideals of the Democratic party. That doesn't necessarily mean that
    a the old 1 party system is good for the state right now. Because I am
    a Democrat does not mean that I can't see the corruption. John Silber's 
    ideals are not, in my opinion, the ideals of MY party. His sexism and
    racism give him, in my book, the nickname,"the candidate-from-hell".
    
    Go Bill go! Go Bill go!
    
    Kate

    re:.37
    
    I'm with you on this one. I'm solidly Democrat, but I'm perfectly
    willing to back a Republican if it's a better choice (it's just
    so seldom the better choice :-)). Hell, the best Guv we've had
    in this state -- at least while I've been alive -- was Sargent,
    a Republican.
    
    --- jerry

    Claprood and Silber are the most unlikely running mates.  From what
    I have heard of her, she isn't one to stay in the background.
    	Linda

Alright, so how many of you Independents voted for Weld because you were
so sure that Belotti was a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination?

D!

    
    Not me.
    
    I am, however, seriously considering writing in the Diceman...

    
    	Not me but I very nearly did. If I had been able to vote for Weld
    	*and* Claprood I would have since I was sure it was going to be
    	Weld/Peirce (the close one) vs Belotti. Luckily I voted Democratic
    	or else I'd be writing Belotti an apology....
    
    	I'm still in utter shock that Belotti lost to hi-ho Silber.
    
    	The people I talked to who voted Sibler were just angry and voted
    	on that anger for the candidate who was the most angry. They didn't
    	think or review the issues. "He's angry and I am too. Shake them
    	gov't bastards up finally."
    
    	I never thought I'd be voting Republican in *Massachusetts*!! 
    
    	-Erik 

    I heard on NPR this morning that two thirds of the people who voted for
    Belotti said that they would not vote for Silber in the general
    election.
    
    -- Mike

.40> Alright, so how many of you Independents voted for Weld because you were
.40> so sure that Belotti was a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination?

    I'm not sure that's a bad thing, actually: would a Bellotti vs. Pierce
    lineup really have been better given all the polls showing either
    Republican nominee able to beat either Democratic nominee?

    (Not, of course, that the Mass. election pollsters are developing a
    reputation for blinding accuracy ;-)

	Sharon

    I'm another Democrat who will be voting Republican this time.
    
    re .38, Jerry, I agree with you about Frank Sargent, too.  In fact I've
    heard him referred to as "the best Democratic governor Massachusetts
    has ever had" (and of course he was a Republican).
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I'm confused. What's wrong with a Weld/Silber race?
    
    I like Weld. Is there something wrong with him that I haven't heard
    about yet?  Do people have a big problem with voting Republican?

    A long way back somebody asked why people were down on Belotti.
    You have to go back a few years for the answer, to the early 1970's
    (almost 20 years ago!) when the Duke ran for guv the the first time.
    He was running on a "clean government" platform, against the entrenched
    patronage machine.
    
    The incumbent he ran against (and won) was Belotti.

    RE .48, no, Bellotti was never Governor!  He ran before but he was
    never elected!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Is it possible to vote for a Republican governor and a Democratic
    lieutenant governor, or do you have to vote for them as a same-party
    pair?
    
    D.

    Did anyone catch the commentator on ch. 5 last night? (I forget his
    name, but he appeared as the second commentator with Mike Barnicle.)
    
    When asked what he thought of a Silber/Clapprood ticket, he commented
    he thought it would be a good pairing as she knew how to step into
    the background and be (quote) "a nice little Lt. Governor"....
    
    Edd

    What concerns  me  about  Weld?  His  support  for abortion rights
    (which  he  reiterated last night) is relatively new if I remember
    correctly.  I'm  very impressed with his resigning in protest over
    Ed Meese, and think he's reasonably good environmentally.

    I don't like his embracing the CLT petition so whole-heartedly, as
    I don't see how the state can function if it passes.

    I'm not  really  pleased with either candidate, and will do a fair
    bit  of  looking for information before making up my mind. I think
    I'm leaning towards Weld right now.

--David

    >Is it possible to vote for a Republican governor and a Democratic
    >lieutenant governor, or do you have to vote for them as a same-party
    >pair?
    
    	It is in the final election (which is run by the state) but not in
    	the primary (which is run by the two parties) where the goal is to
   	pick which people will represent that particular party.
    
    	I was also surprised that in order to vote last night, I had to
    	change from Independent to Democrat/Republican. Right now I am a
    	registered Democrat and in order to be an Independent again (not
    	that I ever wanted to be anything else), I have to mail in a
    	"Request to Change Political Offiliation" form to the Town Hall.
    	Otherwise I remain a Democrat (against my wishes).
    
    	Sometimes it's so confusing trying to follow their logic behind how
    	this voting system actually works...
    
    	-Erik
    

    RE: .52 (about Weld)
    
    	Those are my exact same feelings about Weld as well. Just wait and
    	see what he really stands for... 
    
    	-Erik

    
    re . 53  
    
    	Our town had forms right at the voting place so as soon as you
    turned in your ballot, you could reregister to an Independent
    (or unenrolled).
    
    

    > Our town had forms right at the voting place so as soon as you
    > turned in your ballot, you could reregister to an Independent
    > (or unenrolled).
    
    	That is the way most towns handle it I think. For some reason
    	Marlboro wouldn't accept the forms and said you have to send it
    	in to an address they give you for City Hall.
    
    	It's not that it's that much of a hassle (just 25 cents), the whole
    	idea of Independents having to become something else is what I find
    	interesting. Why not 'one person, one vote' and the independents
    	can vote *as* independents in the selection of one party's
    	candidates. There must be a reason for it... even though this *is*
    	government we're talking about here. :-) 
    
    	-Erik

    CELLUCCI is the reason behind WELD being more liberal.  I would
    point out that Paul has been known politically as a liberal Republican.
    He has proven this time and time again.

    Anyone with thoughts and ideas for making sure the WELD/CELLUCCI ticket
    is the one to prevail on Election Day in November please send me E-mail
    and I will pass it on to Election Central.  I think Silber is going to
    be a tough one on Election Day....he will be drawing out a large portion
    of the MA voting community that votes with its GUTS!!!  Remember that!!!
    

    justme....jacqui

    Massachusetts is   rare   in  allowing  independants  to  vote  in
    primaries.  The  idea  of  a  primary is that it allows a party to
    select  the  person  to represent it in the general election. From
    that,  it's  not  clear why independants should be able to vote in
    primaries  at  all.  Given  that primaries are party elections, it
    makes  perfect  sense to require a person to join a party in order
    to vote in the primary.

--David

>        <<< Note 367.51 by WEFXEM::COTE "To play, turn bottom up..." >>>
>                  -< Could little Margie get us some coffee? >-
>
>    Did anyone catch the commentator on ch. 5 last night? (I forget his
>    name, but he appeared as the second commentator with Mike Barnicle.)
    
  That was David Brudnoy.

                                   Atlant

  I'll certainly second .58's reply.  As far as I'm concerned, if
  you don't like the two major parties, just form your own.  But
  don't come to my party and sink a perfectly viable candidate in
  favor of an a**hole who a year ago couldn't decide if he was
  a Democrat or a Republican.

  (By the way, according to one of those little pop-ups on Channel
  5, Weld won among REAL Republicans and among "Independents",
  whereas Belotti was the clear favorite among REAL Democrats
  and Silber the clear favorite among "Independents".)

                                   Atlant

    Well, I think allowing Independents to vote in primaries is a fantastic 
    idea.  Although I see the argument put forth in .58, allowing 
    independents to vote in primaries allows those whose vision of "how 
    things should be" doesn't fit neatly into the platform of either 
    party to voice their views at the point where many races are *really* 
    decided.

    As far as forming your own party, that's not likely to be very
    effective in the US political system, and most people know that.
    I don't agree with the view that Independents are mean-hearted
    people who come to primaries to "sink" candidates; rather, they are
    those who can in good conscience fully embrace neither party.
    Why give them less of a vote by not allowing them to vote in the
    primaries, but only in the general election when they're stuck,
    realistically speaking, with a choice between a Democrat, a
    Republican, and a throwaway vote?

    What, Atlant, is a "REAL Republican" or a "REAL Democrat" anyway?
    People who regularly pull the party levers without first considering 
    the options?  Is that what "representative government" is all about?
    I've been an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican.  I am no more 
    or less "REAL" for the transformations; my views have remained 
    relatively unchanged the entire time, and my typical ballot in the 
    general election shows a mix of candidates from both parties.

    The reason I've joined political parties is to vote in primaries.
    Period.  In Mass, I was an Independent.  In Pennsylvania, I became
    a Democrat, because in Pennsylvania Independents can't vote in
    primaries.  Then I became an Independent in NH, voted in the Republican
    primary, and ergo became a Republican (you have to wait 24 hours before
    changing back in NH, and I never got around to it).  And, even with
    my "heretical" views, nobody ever objected to my joining "their" party.
    Nobody presented me with an ideological purity test, and no primary
    candidate begged me to abstain from voting in their race because of
    my un"REAL"ness.  Even Atlant himself posted a note reminding me of
    the deadline to switch parties before the primary election were I
    inclined to do so!

    Let's say, to oversimplify the situation to a ridiculous degree, that
    you have a population that is 25% ultra-conservative, registered
    Republican, and 25% ultra-liberal, registered Democrat.  The other
    50% are middle-of-the-road, and split across parties: 10% in each of
    the two major parties, and 30% Independents.  Clearly, the independents
    have the power to sway the elections.  But in their doing so the most
    electable candidates are chosen.  The legacy of Independents not being 
    allowed to vote in primaries: A Republican candidate who is very 
    conservative, a Democratic candidate who is very liberal, and a lot 
    of voters who hate both, and so don't bother to show up for the
    general election.  Democracy in action.  Oh, wow.

    Atlant, I sincerely doubt that most Independents sit at home the night
    before the primaries deciding how to best decimate the best candidate
    in one party or the other.  I think that most Independents vote for the
    candidate they'd support if the election were a general election.  Or,
    if they don't, they vote for the opponent of the candidate they fear
    most (a lot of people do this in general elections too).  SO WHAT?  Do
    you *really* think that, in the above example, the centrists - fully
    50% of the population - should *consistently* lose to a candidate that
    only 25% of the population actually agrees with?

    Of course, it won't happen anyway - the bulk of the Independents will 
    just register one way or the other.  Allowing Independents to vote in
    primaries is why Mass. has so many Independents anyway, so any measure
    of "REAL" Republicans or "REAL" Democrats (a meaningless exercise in
    the first place) carries less meaning in Massachusetts.

	Sharon

>    amazing. i vowed i'd never vote republican and i vowed i'd never
    
    	Really done on people who judge candidates on their merits aren't
    you! Great attitude. I'm impressed.
    
    RE: the primary
    
    It seems as if there was a real push to the middle. The more rightist
    democrat and leftist republican. My guess is that weld will get it.
    People seem to want a change and a Democrat doesn't fit that too well.
    And atleast people who are pro-choice don't have to vote for a pro-life
    person to vote republican. that's what it will take to win in MA.
    
    		Alfred

    
    it is naive to think that party affiliations are irrelevent
    

> <<< Note 367.61 by COBWEB::SWALKER "lean, green, and at the screen" >>>

  By my own simplistic definition, "REAL" Democrats are people who
  are willing to maintain party affiliation, being registered as
  members of that party and possibly contributing either money or
  time to the party and its candidates.

  That same for "REAL" Republicans.

  Now, as far as voters who vote in the primary merely to sink
  that party's chances -- You may not think it occurs or may not
  think it occurs much, but here in NH, it occurs to Democratic
  candidates with great frequency.  You needn't look any further
  than CNOTES::NEW_HAMPSHIRE to find people crowing of how they
  vote for "the worst possible candidate" in the Democratic pri-
  mary and then *ALWAYS* vote Republican in the general election.

  Such people are sleeze, pure and simple.  It would be hard to
  design an electoral system to prevent their actions (and yet
  still be fair) but we certainly don't need to *ENCOURAGE* this
  sort of thing.

  I honestly don't think my suggestion that folks register Independent
  so they could vote for Christo falls into this category -- He was a
  highly competent candidate, certainly as well qualified as Bob Smith
  and probably more so.  And he certainly could have won the general
  election -- On the other hand, I'll make you a wager right now that
  Silber is absolutely vaporized in the general election.  And, by the
  way, I didn't act on my own suggestion because the polling data
  showed Christo too far out and the Democratic races too close.

                                   Atlant

    
    re 367.64 (Atlant)
    >> On the other hand, I'll make you a wager right now that
    >>Silber is absolutely vaporized in the general election.  
    
    I wish I agreed with you, but I think there is an excellent choice that
    Silber will win.  I have never knowingly voted Republican before, but
    I will be voting for Weld this time, and I hope lots and lots of folks 
    like me will do the same.  
    
    
    Still reeling,
    
    Justine

    I'll be voting Republican for the second time in my life (the first was
    against Michigan Senator Don Riegal, who had just been identified as a
    adulterer when a *audio tape* Riegal recorded with his mistress fell
    into the hands of a *journalist* [immoral + dumb!]).
    
    The qualm is Weld's position on the CLT proposal: he's for, I believe,
    and I believe the CLT rollback would be a disaster for MA.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .66 I predict that Weld will adopt the same stance on the CLT
    proposition that Silbur has - 'good idea, but too inflexible, 
    "Vote for me and I'll do something about it."'
    

================================================================================
Note 132.25                        John Silber                         25 of 211
BETHE::LICEA_KANE                                   106 lines   3-JAN-1990 09:27
                     -< Silber in The New York Times.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following is an op-ed piece published in The New York Times today
    by John Silber.  There are numerous reports this week that John Silber
    has asked for a leave from BU to run for Governor of Massachusetts.
    He is expected to formally announce soon.
    
    NOTE ---  *I* think that the abortion debate belongs elsewhere.
    I enter this only because of its obvious political implications.
    Quite clearly, this does not read like an op-ed article, but like
    a political position paper, or even a political speech.
    
    								-mr. bill
    
    -----
    
    The New York Times, Wednesday, January 3, 1990, Page A19
    
    Don't Roll Back "Roe"
    By John R. Silber
    
    
    The public debate over abortion, already bitter, is likely to become
    even more so.  Indeed, with state legislatures debating new
    restrictions made possible by the Suprreme Court's decision in
    Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, consensus looks further away
    every day.
    
    This bitter debate grows out of widespread confusion between legal
    issues and moral ones, between religious issues and political ones.
    We cannot develop a clear understanding of these difficult issues
    without considering the legal and ethical points of view.
    
    I would oppose any law prohibiting abortion in the first two
    trimesters.  That is, I believe that the states should retain the
    standard set by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade even though Webster
    allows them to restrict it.
    
    It is very doubtful, considering past experience, that restrictive
    legislation would do more than make presently legal abortions illegal.
    Some of these abortions, involving technology that enable laymen to
    perform abortions safely, would be different from current abortions
    only in their illegality.  Others, performed with coat hangers in back
    alleys, will be fatal.  I could not in conscience recommend legislation
    having these effects.
    
    But this is not the same as the "pro-choice" position.  It is possible
    to believe that abortion ought to be legal without believing that it is
    an unconditional right, or even that it is morally justified in more
    than a limited number of cases.
    
    Nor is the belief that many abortions are immoral the same as the
    "pro-life" position.  There are instances when the taking of human
    life is justifiable, legally and morally.
    
    Homicide is not equivalent to murder:  Some homicides are entirely
    justified, especially those involving self-defense.  A woman whose
    life is threatened by a pregnancy is justified in terminating the
    pregnancy that might kill or severely injure her.
    
    So, too, when a woman is raped she is under no obligation morally, and
    should be under no obligation legally, to accept the consequences of an
    act of sexual intercourse in which she did not voluntarily participate.
    She has a right to protect herself from the consequences of assault.
    
    But this does not lead me to conclude that abortions are morally
    justified when the pregnancy does not threaten the life of the mother
    and follows from sexual intercourse in which she voluntarily
    participated.  Indiscriminate use of abortion is wrong because the
    indiscriminate taking of human life is wrong.
    
    If abortion were not a supercharged issue, it would be apparent to all
    parties that a fertilized ovum is, in fact, a living human.  Obviously
    it is not a complete human being.  But neither is a fetus in the third
    trimester, or, for that matter, a newborn infant or a child of one or
    two years of age.  The value of the life of an infant is based on its
    potential to become a fullfilled human being, and that potential exists
    from the time of conception.
    
    Believing firmly as I do in this moral view of abortion, I think it
    would be a disastrous error to write it into the statute book.
    
    A free society cannot maintain its unity and order unless there is a
    tolerance of diverse opinions on which consensus has not been achieved.
    Without religious toleration, for example, the unity of the 13 Colonies
    would have been torn asunder by religious wars of the sort that plauged
    Europe for centuries.  The abortion issue is for many individuals a
    religious issue, and on such issues we should scrupulously observer the
    separation of church and state.
    
    By tolerating contrary vies, we accept an imporatant fact that is too
    often overlooked.  The instruments of the state and its legal
    institutions are far too crude and inexact to be used in deciding
    highly complex issues of personal morality on which persons of good
    will fundamentally disagree.  It is proper to leave such important
    moral and religious issues to individual moral agents and religious
    believers.
    
    On the issue of abortion, there is no political, philosophical, moral
    or religious concensus.  And even though I believe that abortion is,
    in general, morally wrong, I also believe that the state should not
    enact laws to restrict abortion further.  This is an issue that cries
    out for toleration.
    
    ---
    
    John R. Silber is president of Boston University

    

re .67

I disagree.  I don't think Weld will not "soften" his position because he knows 
that MA citizens are fed up. I think CLT will pass and the next administration 
will have to deal with it no matter who's elected guv. 

IMO,

-Hamp

Re: .56 by CYCLST::DEBRIAE 


   >>  Our town had forms right at the voting place so as soon as you
   >>  turned in your ballot, you could reregister to an Independent
   >> (or unenrolled).
    
   > 	That is the way most towns handle it I think. For some reason
   > 	Marlboro wouldn't accept the forms and said you have to send it
   > 	in to an address they give you for City Hall.
    
This is weird.  I voted in Marlboro and filled out and turned in
a form at the polling place. 

Maybe you should call the City Clerk for clarification?

Maryellen

    RE: last
    
    	That's strange... maybe it was just our ward 1, precinct 1 area who
    	voted at the Hosmer St grade school. My roommate voted in the
    	morning and was told to mail his form in too. In the evening I
    	asked and they repeated the mail-in requirement. A lot of people
    	there were surprised by the procedure too. Maybe we're not in the
    	'preferred resident' section of town. :-)
    
    	I'll double-check with City Hall. Thanks...
    
    	-Erik

    My sad experience tells that simply filling out the form at the polling
    place isn't enough.  I've always been an independent.  I generally vote
    Democrat in the primary.  I've always returned my registration to
    independent at the earliest possible date.  In the olden days that meant
    making a trip to city hall several days after the primary.  Now-a-days
    it means filling out the form at the polling place after voting.
    
    Alas, somehow my registration didn't get changed back after the last 
    primary.  When I went to vote on Tuesday, I discovered I was a 
    registered Democrat (my father would absolutely DIE if he ever knew!).  
    In spite of protests on my part, I had to accept the Democratic ballot 
    or go away without voting.
    
    Next time I'm going to call city hall before the close of voter
    registration and make sure my change form has hit the books.
    
    Karen

    Last poll shows:
    
                   Weld--- 43%
                 Silber--- 42%
    
    TOOoo close for comfort.
    
    Kate

    Well, Silber's fate is sealed as far as I am concerned.  Former 
    governor Ed King just endorsed him.  If Silber's good enough for King,
    Weld is good enough for me!
    
    E Grace

My understanding from reading my local (Maynard) paper is that

1.  Weld supported abortion rights in 1988, opposed them in 1989 and now
    supports them.  Silber has consistently supported abortions rights.

2.  Weld supports #3, the Citizens for Limited Taxation initiative.  Silber 
    opposes it.

3.  Weld favors the death penalty.  Silber opposes it.

There were other things...  with Weld and Silber similarly in opposition.  It
sounded like Weld was your standard Republican...  with the exception that
Weld CURRENTLY happens to be supporting abortion rights.

I have heard some of Silber's bomb shells...  but it is clear to me that things
taken out of context can be very misleading.  For instance, I heard it said
that Silber says "Abortion == Homicide."  And, from his article listed in this
string, that is what he thinks -- but he also clearly states why he is NOT in
favor of outlawing abortions -- and his record indicates he has been consistent
in his views!   

I once heard him speak (riding home one evening, he was on NPR) on his view of
welfare...  And, it was amazing...  he was discussing the cycle of poverty and
how it MUST be broken...  that government can help via various
programs/education of the poor etc.  etc.  NOT standard welfare.  Education
leading to work with childcare available...It has been a while since I heard
the speech, but I was very impressed.

Other than his "bombshells", and the stated facts that he is arrogant (which
does not disturb me, I only want someone to be COMPETENT; I don't care if they
are humble) -- why are people virulently opposed to Silber?

-Tamar

    I am opposed to Silber because I think he is a very dangerous
    individual and I do not trust him with power.  I base this on
    the things he did when he frist became President of BU (20 years ago?)
    I went to BU to grad. school and he came into power there shortly after
    I left.  He did terrible things in a heavry-handed way to faculty.
    He was a real tyrant and in battle with the trustees a lot in the
    beginning if I remember correctly.
    
    Some of his "intellectual ideas" -- even some of his "shockers" -- *do*
    make sense.  But I would rather (in this case) have a humane person
    with whom I disagree on a lot of issues than to have a mini-dictator!
    The legislature can counter-balance a Weld, but I am not sure that
    *ANYONE* can counter-balance Silber!  He scares me! 
    
    Nancy

    I heard the last half of the Claprood/Cellucci debate. She kicked his
    butt! What a powderkeg she is.WOW! Too bad she has to run with Silber.
    
    You know I'm beginning to think a woman has the advantage in a forum
    like that. Cellucci, whom I like and respect, was interrupted about
    50 times. If he had been as caustic he'd probably have been given the
    impression of a bully or a sexist. 
    
    Kate (Who really likes Cellucci and Claprood.)

    
    > Kate (Who really likes Cellucci and Claprood.) 
    
    	You know, after watching their debate I realized that I liked
    	both Cellucci AND Claprood much, much better than I like either
    	Weld or (obviously) Silber.
    
    	Can we do something to make this a real option? 
    	[only a partial ':-)']
    
    	-Erik
        

    Whether your for or against Silber, remember that he served on Reagan's
    Commission on Central America (or whatever it was caused) that advised
    the President on policy in Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.

    Looks like Weld and Celucci have taken it.

    Double sigh of relief!
    
    Kate

    
    	Congrats to friends in Massachusetts for Weld's victory!
    
    	(Special congrats to a friend who told me about Weld on the
    	phone last week - she told me this while Weld was lagging 
    	in the polls!  Way to go!!!!)