Low Voter Turnout Predicted in MA – Lack of Absentee Ballots Cited - Mass. Has Wavier for New Absentee Ballot Law & Lower Enthusiasm among Democrats

An articlein the Attleboro Sun Chronicle notes that voter turnout is expected to be low – by “Town Officials”. The reasons: non-competitive primaries and:

"I don't believe there will be a large turnout. We haven't received a lot of absentee ballots," Plainville Clerk Ellen Robinson said.”

First, to say that the primaries are non-competitive, especially in Massachusetts, one has to have been living under a rock or in denial. The GOP has over 200 candidates vying for both state and federal offices, while either Progressives or other Democrat factions are actively challenging Moderate Democrats in several races (See Lynch (D), MA 9th, Capuano in the MA8th, both Democrats are being challenged, Lynch by an SEIU Labor Leader and Capuano by a Kennedy, no less. If one looks at the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) filing for 2010, one gets the picture as there is a literal sea of challengers in each of the Congressional District races. In addition both parties have primaries on the State Level.

As to the absentee ballots, one has to question that as well – specifically the military – recent waivers given to certain states, including Massachusetts, to comply with a new military voter’s access law. The Secretary of State’s website insists that the military members will be able to request these documents by email, however, they must be returned via snail mail a system that can take up to 45 days or more. This may be why there hasn’t been a deluge of absentee ballots, specifically from the military.

With the primary tomorrow, one has to look to voter enthusiasm, as the state’s primary is based on a two-party systems, with the two majority party’s showing a rather lopsided enrollment (more Democrats than Republicans), and Independents (or unenrolleds, able to vote, but only if they temporarily claim a political party), the turnout, based on voter enthusiasm may, for the first time, show equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans voting. Polls show that GOP enthusiasm is high, while the Democrats are not as interested in this year’s primary.

To ward off any appearance of a lack of enthusiasm, especially for certain incumbents (D) who are running unopposed, one can anticipate that the Democrat Party (aided by local unions) will have sign holders and rallies on Election Day. The theory goes; that the media will see those sign-holders and automatically conclude that there is a greater amount of support for the Democrat, rather than the Republicans who are actually holding a competitive primary in several districts. An email obtained by this blog here indicates this is the case in the Hampden 2nd, where Richard Neal is running unopposed, yet will have union support at polling places.
One has to assume the same would be true of all incumbents where the union agrees, Lynch being the exception.

One can anticipate more competition once the primaries decide who will be challenging whom in the upcoming election on November 2nd, but the question will remain, can the Democrat forces that now feel ownership of the Commonwealth, make a pre-Brown/Coakley comeback and staunch the anti-incumbent sentiment that is more pervasive today than on January 19th of 2010? Unlikely. One has to factor the unenrolleds who may be more inclined to vote in this primary and general election and are the majority of the Commonwealth's registered voters (51%).

Barney Frank 2010 Opponent - Republican Sean Bielat - “Outed” for Being a Democrat by Local News – Blames Barney Frank!?

Sean Bielat, candidate for the Massachusetts 4th Congressional Seat, has been running a scorched earth primary against the somewhat flawed Republican, Earl Sholley, in hopes of besting Sholley to gain the privilege of running against incumbent Barney Frank. The Bielat campaign put out a website, entitled: Decide for Yourself.org which includes Lexis Nexus court documents, and links to newspaper articles that appear damming to Mr. Sholley. It is clearly marked – clearly marked “paid for by Bielat for Congress.” In essence, one can agree or disagree with this tactic; however, it was apparently brought on by divisive remarks made by followers of the Sholley Campaign.


Decide for Yourself.org

That said, in a recent article on Wicked Local here the fact that Sean Bielat was a registered Democrat up until 2005, complete with copies of his voting records via Lexis Nexus, is thrown out at the district in the form of an “outing”.

The article also incorrectly states that Mr. Sholley has been a lifelong resident of the District, when, in fact, he had moved there in 2008, however, Sholley had been a resident of the Commonwealth, living in Holliston and Attleboro. It is not an uncommon practice for politicians and/or those seeking to become politicians to move to a district in order to run against an incumbent. Therefore, the carpetbagger charges being thrown by commenter’s on this article at both Sholley and Beilat should do some research on the practice.

Is it a problem that Mr. Beilat was a former Democrat? Hardly, that’s a cause for celebration – however, timing, as they say, is everything. Had Sean Bielat begun his campaign with: "I was a lifelong Democrat, who, after much soul searching found that I could no longer support the Party and its policies and became a Republican. I also decided that I had to make up for my previous faux pas and step up and stand up to one of the most egregious politician’s in the nation – Barney Frank – so I decided to run for Congress."

That narrative would have propelled Mr. Beilat into stardom, both in the district and in the eyes of the national press. There is nothing that Republicans love more than converts.

That did not happen.

Mr. Beilat did not mention he was a Democrat, and in response to the “Wicked Local” article, Bielat’s team posted a message on his website www.seanbielat.org, Entitled: Yes, I was a registered Democrat .


Bielat: Blames Barney

Unfortunately, not unlike the current occupant of the White House, Mr. Beilat chose to blame Barney Frank, of all people, for “outing” him as a Democrat. His heartfelt account of growing up in a Democrat family as well as his “seeing the light”, is ruined by his casting blame at Frank. He could have and should have used it to his advantage.


Scenario: "I was a Democrat at one time, but I chose the better party, and although I should have been upfront from the beginning about my affiliation, I felt that a) it was not relevant, b) I was embarrassed to admit I was a Democrat, c) I was afraid I would not be accepted" – anyone of those would have done, with the following: “and I apologize if I have offended anyone, it was obviously my mistake.”

This regardless of the allegations that Barney Frank is on some kind of a witch hunt to “out Beilat” so that Frank can hold onto his seat, the charge that Beilat makes in his post opening.
That allegation by the way may or may not be true. The wicked local author, most likely followed up on Google searches which landed on his blog posts regarding Mr. Bielat. The reason this sounds more plausible is that this blog began to receive search in February of 2009, immediately following Beilat’s announcement to run as a Republican. The screen shot below from tracking software is from North Carolina, additional searches came from Chicago Illinois, upstate New York and Los Angles.


Search for Sean Bielat Democrat from February 2009 - click to enlarge

As there is more than one Sean Bielat, (as was pointed out to this blog regarding a post incorrectly stating a place of marriage), it was dropped. Apparently, not by seasoned journalist, Tony Schinella, who, with Lexis Nexus at his disposal, easily found the supporting documents. As this is a non-for-profit blog, paying for extensive Lexis Nexus services (which can get pricey), does not happen.

So, to Mr. Beilat, Man up, and take responsibility (or have your campaign staff do it) quickly. Change the narrative, which should have been your narrative from the beginning. There are only two candidates on the Republican Ticket, and you have done your best to “out” Earl Sholley (who, in reality, most of what was outed was old news) in order to rise to the top (which appears a flaw of sorts). Congressman Frank could have been bested, now, thanks to you, it may still be doable, but it will be three times the uphill battle it was.

With that said, Congratulations are in order to Mr. Bielat on his conversion, (regardless of who announced the conversion) and for being a patriot who would take time out of his life, his work, and his family, to run against one of the most fiscally damaging politicians of our lifetime.

May the better man win the primary, and whoever does win, that man will need all the support they can handle to best Congressman Barney Frank. Therefore, the time for Mr. Sholley’s (supporters) and Mr. Beilat to begin to talk about issues, is now, and to talk about avidly supporting the winner, regardless of whom that may be.

On the issues:
Sean Bielat.org
Sholley for Congress.us

Democrat Governors Meeting In Boston Fear Election Backlash from Obama’s Suit Against Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law

The New York Timesreporting on the Governors Association Meeting in Boston reported that Democrat Governors met with Administration officials over the weekend in order to discuss the suit brought against the State of Arizona and its impact on 2010 elections. Apparently, several of the Democrat Governors feel that their chances of re-election, already slim, are not being helped by the Administration’s rift with Arizona. Arizona passed SB 1070 (Short, easy to read Bill here), which enforces existing federal law – something the Federal Government has failed to do for decades. The problem for Democrat governors appears to be the fact that the Arizona Law is extremely popular among voters, with a majority supporting the State of Arizona (Gallop Latest Poll article LA Times). The Governors feel the “timing” was not right, as far as the Administration’s decision to go forward with the suit, suggesting that Obama and Holder should have waited until after the 2010 election. The word used to describe the suit by one anonymous Democrat Governor – “Toxic”.

The topic of Illegal Immigration has been a thorn in the side of Presidents going back decades, with a majority of United States citizens supporting legal immigration, with no support for open border policies that have been in place, or programs allowing for amnesty, which have not worked due to the fact that the border remains extremely porous. After September 11, 2001, the issue of open borders became one of national security, but in recent months it has also become attached to the issue of the economy. With jobs scarce, and states going bankrupt with entitlement programs, the cost of health care going through the roof and increased crime associated with illegal immigrants (specifically those on the Border States such as Arizona where home invasions, murders, et. al, are out of control) have citizens fed up.

As the suits against Arizona pile up, perhaps Holder should look to Rhode Island and consider a similar suit – Rhode Island takes illegal immigration seriously, and has measure in place that are a bit tougher than Arizona’s. However, it may not be politically expedient to do so, as the President and his advisers apparently believe that this suit is a no-brain Hispanic vote-getter. A poll may be in order – United States Citizens of Hispanic descent might view the situation a bit differently than Obama and Company believes.

A side note: In the New York Times Article by Abby Goodnough, the following paragraph should, perhaps, explain the erroneous views of the current administration and the fallacy of Progressive Think as regards the issue of the borders of the United States and the Federal Laws concerning same:

"The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants."

To correct Ms. Goodnough and the administration, it is a crime to be an illegal immigrant in any of the 50 states that make up the United States of America. Illegal – by definition, implies that a crime has taken place. When one makes a decision to cross the U.S. Border without going through customs, and/or without documentation, one is indeed committing a crime, regardless of which border one crosses – be it Mexico, Canada or any coastal port.