# Romney vs. Reilly



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Poll shows Romney lacks support here

Most say governor shouldn’t run for second term or for president

BY FRANK PHILLIPS THE BOSTON GLOBE







Reilly bests Romney 48 percent to 41 percent in a head-to-head matchup for governor.






A majority of Massachusetts adults said Gov. Mitt Romney should not run for president in 2008, according to a Boston Globe poll that also indicates Romney would face a tough battle if he seeks re-election to a second term as governor in 2006. 

Only 28 percent of those surveyed said Romney should seek the presidency, while 53 percent said he should not, with 19 percent saying they had no opinion. Forty-eight percent said he would not make a good president if elected, and 33 percent said he would. 

The poll also found Romney facing some serious political problems at home if he were to seek another term. Just 32 percent said he should be re-elected governor if he runs in 2006, while 50 percent said someone else should be elected. 

Democratic Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly bests Romney 48 percent to 41 percent in a head-to-head matchup for governor. 

Not surprisingly, Romney’s support is strongest among Republicans. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans surveyed said he should be re-elected, compared with just 12 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents. 

But his potential White House bid is not popular even among many Massachusetts Republicans, with 39 percent of Republicans saying he should not run for president and 35 percent saying he should. Andrew E. Smith, the director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll, attributed some of Romney’s problems to the sluggish Massachusetts economy. 

Forty-seven percent of those polled say the state is going in the right direction, and 40 percent said things are seriously off on the wrong track. 

The poll of 501 adults in Massachusetts was taken March 5 through 8. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent. 

It comes as Romney weighs whether to run for president or seek a second term as governor. He has made several well-publicized out-of-state political trips, where he portrayed himself as more of a social conservative than he does here, and used Massachusetts and its liberal political establishment as a foil. 

Romney can take heart in the survey’s finding that only 34 percent of Bay State residents said U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, who drew strong support here for his 2004 campaign for the White House, should launch another bid for president. Fifty-seven percent were opposed to another Kerry run for president. 

As for Romney’s future, Massachusetts residents appear eager for him to commit to either a run for governor or a run for president. Fifty-six percent said he should pledge to stay in office for four years if he runs for re-election as governor. Some respondents, on the other hand, said they would base their support of a presidential bid only if Romney did not seek re-election as governor. 

“I would support Romney if he runs for president, but only if he does not run for governor in 2006,” said Richard Martin, a retired MBTA employee and a Democrat from South Boston. He said he voted for Romney in the 2002 gubernatorial election. 

Only 25 percent in the poll said that if he runs for governor, Romney should leave open a run for president in 2008. 

But even some Republicans interviewed for the poll expressed concern over Romney mounting a bid for the GOP presidential nomination. One, Paul Grisham of Essex, said Romney’s run for the White House would be “a shade of a reach” because of his inexperience in handling complicated foreign policy issues. 

“I think he makes an excellent governor,” said Grisham, a 50-year-old clergyman with a nondenominational church. “But as a Republican, I think the party would be better served with someone with a more diverse and experienced background than Romney. It’s a very sharp learning curve for a governor.”


----------



## reno911_2004 (May 13, 2004)

Holy shite! The Boston Globe says the Democrat would beat the Republican?! But they're so unbiased! :roll:


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

*I'm not sure I love this guy either. And this from a guy further to the right than Barry Goldwater.
Now, "I" could never vote for a Dem (AKA Socialists & Communists),
but I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Romney.
This statement comes from a staunch conservative in NH that held a sign for him in Tewksbury on election day,
and had a Romney\Healy Sticker on his car...

My impression thus far is that he took the job solely to advance himself in the party;
most especially, a bid for Prez in 08.
And I understand how the game works, but still, he hasn't done squat for Mass as far as I can see, and less for LE folks. Especially the DOC folks.
After all, the DOC commissioner is HIS appointee.

Now I only work in Mass, so correct me if I'm under a false impression,
but as far as I'm concerned; Mitt aint itt. And my State Taxes really haven't gone down, soooo, wheres the beef???* :thumbdow:


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

I think Massachusetts would be well served with either man as governor. I voted for Romney in '02 and feel that he has done a pretty good job. However, I do not like the way he trash talks Massachusetts when he is visiting other states. I may not agree with everything that the Massachusetts legislature does, but as a politician, I would never "air out our dirty laundry" in another state. As for Reilly, he seems to be tough on crime and a no-nonsense type of guy.


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Hopefully with A.G. Reilly as Governor we will get a contract. Romney from what I understand has giving everybody nothing so far.I don't know of any state agency that has a contract. Imagine Romney having to walk one day of his pampered life in the shoes of the working people of the Commonwealth. Tom Reilly has supported us for a while and I think he understands L.E. more than the current Governor. As a Republican voter Tom Reilly has my vote.


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Family's Sick of Romney's Silence
Boston Herald (MA)
March 4, 2005


Peter Gelzinis 
Once in a great while politicians do the right thing because they have to. Tuesday night, Gov. Mitt Romney admitted he made a mistake . . . because he had to. 

A governor with national ambitions, who professes to hold the family unit sacred, can hardly be seen as the same bean counter who denied emergency sick bank time to a young state worker forced to care for his critically ill 16-month-old daughter.

When a bill allowing Sean Glennon's colleagues to donate sick days to him landed on Romney's desk before Christmas, it effectively died there. When the Glennons' adorable daughter, Avery, appeared on the front page of Wednesday's paper, Romney's flacks were suddenly saying, "Oh, we didn't know anything about the baby." 

Thomas F. Sweeney Jr., 46, his wife JoAnn and their four children are still waiting to hear from Mitt Romney. They've been waiting since September of last year. That's when Senate Bill No. 2333 landed on his desk. It asked Romney to approve a sick bank that fellow correction officers wanted to create for Tom Sweeney. He ignored it. And because the Legislature was in session, the bill was automatically enacted into law 10 days later. 

But that was cold comfort for JoAnn Sweeney. You see, she has this crazy idea that Mitt should've at least responded with a simple "I'm sorry, but . . ." 

"I was very, very angry. I'm STILL angry," JoAnn said yesterday. "Those days in September were some of the darkest in our family's life. Tom was undergoing aggressive chemotherapy and stem cell treatments for his lymphoma. They had already taken out his spleen, which was full of cancer. On top of all that, of course, he's an insulin-dependent diabetic. 

"At one point, I thought I was going to have to give up my job as a personal care attendant," she said, "or have my daughters take time off from their schooling to work for me. 

"I just felt like I was carrying this tremendous load all by myself, and I hoped that he (Romney) would have the compassion to ease some of that load. But he just couldn't be bothered." 

Tom Sweeney works as a guard at the North Central Correctional Institute in Gardner. His union president, Steve Kenneway, says that despite chronic illness, Tom Sweeney has sought to return to work as fast as possible. 

As president of the Mass. Correction Officers Federated Union, Kenneway asked Romney in writing to explain why Tom Sweeney's request was unworthy of consideration. 

"Tom's (10) years of service to this Commonwealth, doing the most difficult job in law enforcement, deserves a better response than what you have provided," Kenneway wrote. "We would respectfully request that time sensitive bills such as this be treated with more compassion and urgency than demonstrated by you . . ." 

I asked Kenneway if Mitt's answered him. "Responding to unions is beneath Mitt Romney," Kenneway said. "Just as responding to the needs of flesh-and-blood families is beneath him." 

"There's just one thing I'd like to ask Gov. Romney," JoAnn Sweeney said. "I'd like to know what he would do if he had to live paycheck to paycheck and then had to deal, God forbid, with a catastrophic illness hitting a member of his family. 

"Doesn't he have any idea, any feeling, for where people are coming from?" she asked. "Or does he think everyone is looking to put something over on him. Real life gets messy and hard sometimes . . . real hard. Most people know that and want to help. We weren't doing this just for Tom." 

Oh, by the way, if you want to know why Tom Sweeney's wife answered all the questions, that's simple. Tom Sweeney could lose his state correction job for going public with his story.


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

Similar to the Presidential Election, I will be forced to vote for the Republican candidate only because the only other choice thus far is from the communist/socialist arena. I think Pat Buchanan should move to Mass and run for Gov.


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

AG Reilly is hardly a communist/socialist, he is a member of the law enforcement community. Secondly, both parties have their good points as well as their bad. Most people can thank the so called "liberals" for the 8-hour work day/40-hour work week, minimum wage and the right to have a union, which most police officer's gladly take advantage of. Also remember those same "communist Democrats" were at the helm when we won WWI, WWII, and the Cuban Missile Crises. I personally vote for the person not the party.


----------



## frapmpd24 (Sep 3, 2004)

Time for Romney to go... he comes across too aloof and out of touch with ordinary citizens. :2c:


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Romney already sees himself in the oval office. Every decision he makes is geared toward the White House. He should have been smart and had taken a cabinet job with President Bush. We will probably see the Republican version of John Kerry and thats only if he makes it by the other candidates.


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

Don't forget the dems are also responsible for federal income tax. They also boast William Jefferson Clinton, whose highlights include an impeachment, getting involved in the Balkans and Somalia and not giving the troops proper equipment (I am sure you have all seen Black Hawk Down), and letting Osama Bin Laden escape because it wasn't a "priority". Lastly, the bottom line is, if you are a white-heterosexual-Christian-male whose first language is English, you WILL be the last in line to receive anything from the democratic party.


----------



## HousingCop (May 14, 2004)

DVET1979, 
Right on brother! Herr Klinton was an inept boob who couldn't keep his fly zipped. He made the USA a national embarrassment with his shenanigans. He comes from an ass backward, shotgun toting state, 49th at the poverty level & 50th in education level and is the best the DemocRATs can put up. They'd still vote for that jack-ass if they could.

Now Tom "Saint" Reilly on the other hand................... FedCop seems to think that he's part of the LE community. I say no. Just like the elected Sheriff or District Attorney is in the LE community. Again, no. Maybe most of those who work under the AG, Sheriff, District Attorney are bona-fide LE professionals, yes. I hardly see some glad handing politician in the same league as us. No, never.

How can we vote for a guy who has never even owned a piece of property? Guy still lives in an apartment for Chrissakes. Always has & always will I guess. He'd be the first Guv to make a move to have a Governors Mansion I bet so he could save his first & last & security deposit. No way would I vote for that gun hating, law changing, liberal, self serving, *HACK*.


----------



## Gil (Jun 15, 1998)

I voted republican across the board but Mitt won't be getting another vote from me as gov. If it's him or a dem I will vote (none of the above) or write in HousingCop


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

My Final thoughts on this subject---

DVET- As a veteran of Mogadishu, Somalia, I know first hand of the events of October 3 &amp; 4, 1993. I also know that it was George H.W. Bush who sent us there in 1992 with minimal equipment, because it was deemed a UN mission! As we all know Clinton didn't do any better. I am not sure I understand your comment about the Balkans. That mission was a huge success; we bombed the serbs to the negotiating table, Slobadon Milosevic is rotting in a jail cell and the country is recovering. 
As for the income tax comment, you are absolutely right, but what is the alternative? The federal government needs to have revenue to pay for the judicial, executive and the legislative branches of government as well as the military. Anyone who studied history, knows that this country almost went bankrupt under the Continental Congress, because of a lack of money. Ah, impeachment, everyone remembers Richard M. Nixon (R), the first president to ever resign, because of the threat of impeachment .

HOUSING COP- Your comments about Arkansas are right on, brother, but remember, the Republicans can't win the White House without those southern states----how ironic. 

I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican, my whole point in these comments is to highlight the hypocrisy of both political parties. These people do not represent average Americans, they represent the elites. Both parties are equally corrupt, they just work for different special interest groups.


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

If you want, you can have our Gov. But she's already doing less then Romney did for you guys. Rell has got back so much money from LE I can't take it. During her budget speech she "guarenteed" another SP academy class this year....but last week it got pushed back until at least Jan. 06. Call me insensitive, but because she had breast cancer everyone thinks she's doing ok for not doing much. Personally I think she's horrible...But that's just my two cents. 


It seems Romney is going to be forced out whether he realizes it or not. Call Rudy Giuliani, he'll fix you all up


----------



## stm4710 (Jul 6, 2004)

I am a proud _*conservative republican *_that will _*not*_ endorse or vote for Mitt Romney.


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

stm4710";p="60047 said:


> I am a proud _*conservative republican *_that will _*not*_ endorse or vote for Mitt Romney.


I am the same. stm


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

FEDCOP-I am a veteran of the Balkans and the whole situation was a mess from day one. We sat up in the mountains and froze the entire time I was there amongst many other logistical problems we encountered, mainly due to lack of equipment. I too, am neither democrat or republican and frankly not a big fan of the bi-partisan system on the whole. It is sad in most cases when you only have two choices-one to the left and one right down the middle. There arent too many candidates who are really to the "right". Naturally the left-controlled media will not give serious coverage to any candidate to the right.


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

DVET1979- Right on, I'll drink to that. This country is in dire need of a third party.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

A third party is not a viable option: it can only act as a "spoiler". Remember Ross Perot and all the geniuses that voted for him? I know several guys in the LE community that voted for that nut (and I never let them forget it, either). 

The only option is to pick a party and try to push it in the direction you prefer. So for conservatives, the republicans are the only game in town. As an example: George H. W. Bush is "pragmatic"...which means "pink" in my book (or go along to get along). After the dismal performance of his first term, I voted for Pat Buchanan during the primary, hoping others would as well and give H. W. a wake-up call. Whether it would have or not we'll never know. And don't think W is any great conservative. He's spending money like a drunken sailor and refuses to secure our borders. :shock: 

Hopefully the republicans can come up with better choices than Giulianni/McCain/Romney for '08...or we can look forward to Queen Hillary. :evil:


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

dcs2244- I know that we would have to change our election system from a "winner take all" to parlimentary representation, to actually have a strong third party. However, I do not think that will happen anytime soon. We almost did change it though, by doing away with the Electoral College, in 1969 after George Wallace gave Richard Nixon a run for his money in the '68 presidential race. The spoiler role can be good for highlighting certain issues that the two major parties refuse to talk about, such as when Ross Perot beat Bush I and Clinton like a drum on budget deficits....and 6 years later we had balanced budgets. That is until this current fiscal liberal was elected.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Unfortunately, FedCop, given the events of 911, deficits were pretty much unavoidable. However, that does not mean that they need to be as large as they are. Too, when taken as a percentage of the GDP, they aren't that bad...but if the economy heads south...

In any event, we need to drag the GOP (kicking and screaming if need be) back to the world of fiscal responsibility. That means finding the right people...and I don't think Rudi and Co. are up to the challenge.


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

FEDCOP-I agree with the fact that you said the 3rd party candidates talk about issues that the dems or the G.O.P. refuse to talk about. For example; Ralph Nader (I would never consider voting for him) was bold enough to say that the United States caters to Isreal too much by giving them support in terms of armament and leaning towards their direction in the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. Not to be anti-semetic but by stating the fact that most of American news media outlets are controlled by Jewish sources, it seems they naturally would be Pro-Isreali and not unbiased as they should be. The bottom line is that if this country wasnt so supportive of Isreali interests, there wouldn't be nearly as much anti-American sentiment throught the Arab world


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

God forbid at the national level in the next presidental election with a choice of
Mitt Romney verses John Kerry.


----------



## Foxracingmtnridr (Feb 23, 2003)

Maybe Mitt will run against Kennedy again 

Scott :rock:


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

Reilly=ANTI-GUN Liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck and never forget
:shock:


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

kwflatbed";p="60166 said:


> God forbid at the national level in the next presidental election with a choice of
> Mitt Romney verses John Kerry.


That is a scary thought now isn't it.......I would move to Canada.LOL


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

mpd61";p="60255 said:


> Reilly=ANTI-GUN Liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Good luck and never forget
> :shock:


mpd , How are you today?I know Reilly is anti-gun but Romney is anti-union and wants to eliminate organized labor. Romney has done nothing for L.E.. I am Republican but if Romney does not take a job with President Bush I will forced to vote for the Democrat. Someone posted earlier about other party's I would look at that option too. I can not re-elect a guy that is trying to take my job and who's actions jeopardize the lives and well being of my colleagues.
This is how the staffing issue was addressed by his administration by putting criminals back on the streets.
"They're looking for job security, and I'm saying we need fewer prison guards and fewer cells, so I'm not surprised that the union is not on board with this," Lt. Gov. Healey said.

Stay safe. JGH


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

It is just to bad that the Libertairian (SP) party
with thier out look on guns and gun ownership
was not stronger I don't agree with all of thier policies but I would be tempted to give them my vote if push comes to shove.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Both the state and national elections are scary: it remains to be seen if the republicans can produce reliable conservative candidates. As to the "Jewish question", media may be controlled by those citizens: it's a free country, anyone with the financial backing can be involved or control any enterprise.

That said, my problem with our support of Israel is that they pursued a socialist agenda. We "propped-up" their false economy. This has changed during the last couple of years...their economy is stronger. If they were to revert to their Marxist ways, however, I would favor removing economic support while still providing military support.

Regardless of our support for Israel, the Arabs would still hate us and all we stand for. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, the world-wide hatred and envy of the US would be unchanged. :evil:


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

dcs2244-if you give all kinds of support to someone who is enemies with someone else-then you become enemies as well


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

JGH 7223- You are absolutely right about Romney and the union issue. I am formerly a member of the Republican Party, but realized that although I support most of their social positions, they do not represent the "little guy" on economic issues. I worked for George Pataki's first campaign for governor in late 1994, and one of his aides admitted that the Republican Party cannot compete with the Democrats on economic issues, which is why the Republicans always use social issues (gun rights, abortion and religion) in their advertisements. Yes, I like my guns and I attend church every Sunday, but those things are not going to feed my family. I currently work for the Department of Defense, where unfortunately, Bush, Rumsfeld and the belt-way boys are planning to strip away my civil service union rights, starting in July of this year. Those same rules have already been legislated away in the Department of Homeboy Security. I can't help but feel that I have been duped by the party that I have supported for so long.


----------



## Officer Dunngeon (Aug 16, 2002)

JGH_7223";p="60263 said:


> kwflatbed";p="60166 said:
> 
> 
> > God forbid at the national level in the next presidental election with a choice of
> ...


Is the thought really THAT bad? That's like moving to Cambridge. Damn Canadians. :francais:


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

DVET, the whole "we-hate-you-because-you-support-Israel" is a red herring (  ): they hate us because of our lifestyle, wealth and the fact that we are not muslims. Like I said, if Israel disappeared tomorrow, the arabs would still hate us. ](*,) 

FedCop, I remember the wonderful economy that existed when that peanut-picker from the Peach State was president. Double digit inflation and 21% interest...not on credit cards: that was higher...the 21% was on home loans. I consider myself a "little guy" and I did much better when Ronny took over. My union is having trouble getting a contract, due in part to the communists at General Court spending money like crazy back when things were good...oh, look! They are democrats! I think the republicans are better on both the economy and social issues. As for Governor Pataki: he's about as republican as Dick Gebhardt! He is a Bill Weld, without the charisma! Unfortunately, that is the only kind of republican that can win in the Peoples Democratic Republic of New York or Red Massachusetts! :evil:


----------



## FedCop (Sep 26, 2004)

dcs2244-What about the economy of the '90's, I suppose that was just a mirage. How about the economy under Herbert Hoover? Yes, Reagan cut taxes, but he raised them later on in his administration. He had too those "supply-siders" never met a deficit they didn't hike! Where is the conservatism? Where is the outrage?


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

Excuse me for making a unquallified statement here...

_*Ronald Regan was the best President ever to have graced the White House with his presence...*_

Okay, you can go back what you were saying.


----------



## stm4710 (Jul 6, 2004)

> Both the state and national elections are scary: it remains to be seen if the republicans can produce reliable conservative candidates. As to the "Jewish question", media may be controlled by those citizens: it's a free country, anyone with the financial backing can be involved or control any enterprise.
> 
> That said, my problem with our support of Israel is that they pursued a socialist agenda. We "propped-up" their false economy. This has changed during the last couple of years...their economy is stronger. If they were to revert to their Marxist ways, however, I would favor removing economic support while still providing military support.
> 
> Regardless of our support for Israel, the Arabs would still hate us and all we stand for. If Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, the world-wide hatred and envy of the US would be unchanged.


Funny how we consider the palistines terrorists for trying to get what was theirs back, but the Jews are freedom fighters cause we give them the guns. :roll:


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, STM, the Jews never left the middle east. They have been there since before Mohammad decided it was okay to enslave women and crash stuff into buildings. Death to babies and women...what heroes those Islamic creatures are ( I apologize for the insult to creatures everywhere.  ). The Jews have been there since Moses brought them there. Period. They did not leave. 

Sure, we can talk about the "diaspora" which continued with the destruction of the temple in 77 AD...by the Romans (after the 'occupation' by the Babylonians...). It may have been "theirs (Arab or Canaan)" 5000 years ago...but not now. You may as well say the same about the American Indian. The Jews didn't do anything there (after Moses) that we didn't here...condemn them, and condemn us.

There was never a "State of Palestine"...they are a creation of the French and British after the World War, Part One. The "Palestinians" are the "poor-white-trash" of the Muslim world...nobody (Arabic nations) wants them! By the way, Palestine is Roman for Philistine...


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

FedCop, I apologize, I didn't mean to leave you out: the economy of the '90's was due to a republican congress and a democratic president who knew better than to mess with what Reagan wrought...unlike his republican predecessor...the fact that President Clinton left President Reagan's guy in charge of the Fed speaks volumes. Like him or hate him, WJC was the consummate politician. 8)


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

FedCop";p="60404 said:


> JGH 7223- You are absolutely right about Romney and the union issue. I am formerly a member of the Republican Party, but realized that although I support most of their social positions, they do not represent the "little guy" on economic issues. I worked for George Pataki's first campaign for governor in late 1994, and one of his aides admitted that the Republican Party cannot compete with the Democrats on economic issues, which is why the Republicans always use social issues (gun rights, abortion and religion) in their advertisements. Yes, I like my guns and I attend church every Sunday, but those things are not going to feed my family. I currently work for the Department of Defense, where unfortunately, Bush, Rumsfeld and the belt-way boys are planning to strip away my civil service union rights, starting in July of this year. Those same rules have already been legislated away in the Department of Homeboy Security. I can't help but feel that I have been duped by the party that I have supported for so long.


FedCop,
I am a Republican, a veteran that served with Ronald Reagan as President. I more or less vote for the candidate. I am also a gun owner. As Attorney General Mr. Reilly as a elected official to that office has to do what is in the best interest of the people. Yesterday a kid shoots up a school out west and kills ten people. He did us (gun owners) no favor. As the A.G. Mr. Reilly especially in this liberal state of Massachusetts is forced to do something pertaining to gun control. I am not happy with the restrictions on guns now, but I don't blame Mr. Reilly for his actions. We need a Governor that will back L.E. officers in this Commonwealth and give them the benefits and pay they rightly deserve for the dangerous job they do day to day. Any day you could lose your life. I got to run now stay safe FedCop. JGH


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

Sounds like a holy war is about to erupt in this forum.....
The bottom line is this-George Washington warned us to stay out of the affairs of independent nations unless they directly affect those of the United States. This nation, or government I should say, has repeatedly ignored President Washington's statement and sent thousands upon thousands of Americans to their deaths because of it. I feel as a Veteran that I am more than entitled to say that. I am no tree hugging hippe, and I do believe that war is necessary sometimes, but as far as giving support to Isreal, I say forget it, what have they done for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? -ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING!!!!!!


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

DVET1979";p="60685 said:


> ...I am no tree hugging hippe, and I do believe that war is necessary sometimes, but as far as giving support to Isreal, I say forget it, what have they done for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? -ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING!!!!!!


Well, without the Israelis, Commander McGonagle wouldn't have earned his Medal of Honor.  But since 1967 was a LONG time ago, I'd offer that Israel is the most free nation in that region and that if supporting them means we are supporting a nation surrounded by people (and I use that term loosely) who would kill us for being infidels, I say support 'em. If one-tenth of one percent of my tax dollar goes to buying, lending or leasing a weapon for a freedom loving nation defending itself, then I'm all for it. After all, nobody's advocating sending armed American troops to go walk the line with the IDF.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 29, 2004)

Reilly is a publicity hound. He will raise taxes with a vengeance - typical liberal Democrat. He is no friend of the police or those that work for a living. Romney could have accomplished so much more if the voters in this state would vote out the obstructionist, commiecrats that dominate the House and Senate. They try to thwart him from getting Massachusetts back on track because they are don't want a Republican (aka: a person who thinks) to look good. Democrats/liberals/whiners/parasites = same thing.


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

joninNh- I dont see any Isreali troops walking the American-Mexican border.........


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

I said,


> After all, nobody's advocating sending armed American troops to go walk the line with the IDF.


You said,


> joninNh- I dont see any Isreali troops walking the American-Mexican border.........


Neither do I. But I don't see American troops marching alongside IDF troops either, or helping them drive bulldozers thru the homicide bombers livingrooms. When Congress authorizes an expendature that puts a battalion of infantry on the ground patroling with the IDF, then I might have a problem. As for our defense contractors making a few dollars supplying our Jewish friends in the mideast, I am all for that.


----------



## DVET1979 (Aug 4, 2004)

Well, the way I see it, the department of homeland security, the U.S. military, and every other government agency should concerned with defending the U.S. border first, and then everyone else second. That is what our tax dollars should go to support.


----------



## JoninNH (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree that we need to do something more to secure our borders. Hell, my plan would be to STOP imigration for anyone other then politcal refugees and people who have skills/traits we need here. I'd do alot to strengthen the border... and burn alot of bridges in the process.

But what I'm saying here is simply, I don't think that we're detracting from the national defense or border patrol by supplying, helping, aiding, or supporting one of the few pro-American governments in the region.

:sb: I'll get off my soap box.


----------



## Jasper (Dec 29, 2004)

MS 13 losers are threatening to "teach a lesson to" the Minutemen Volunteers that are going to monitor the Mexican border for illegal aliens sneaking in to the USA according to todays Drudge report - www.drudgereport.com - my $$ is on the Minutemen. Gang members are cowardly punks with big mouths that need to hide in a group . My bet would be that Reilly would be like Dukakis and Clinton and would relish the opportunity to commute the sentences of punks like them if he becomes Govenor.. He is only a "crime fighter" when he can get publicity for it...a real phoney who will absolutely raise taxes on you and your family so he can give it away to the layabouts.


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Monday, March 21, 2005 

Romney, Big Dig draw fire at St. Pat’s breakfast

By Mike Kunzelman THE ASSOCIATED PRESS











BOSTON— Gov. Mitt Romney good-naturedly got and gave his share of Irish blarney yesterday as politicians and community leaders roasted him, the Big Dig, and one another at South Boston’s annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast. 

Romney’s out-of-state travels for speeches to Republican gatherings and his rumored 2008 presidential aspirations made for favorite punch lines at the popular gathering, held for the first time on at the Boston Convention &amp; Exhibition Center near the South Boston waterfront. 

“It’s great to be here in Iowa this morning,” Romney said, to laughter from the audience. “Oops, wrong speech. Sorry about that.” 

Romney, who’s taken fire from Democrats for his travels, also trained his comedic sights on leaks in the Big Dig tunnels, stem cell research and gay marriage, which he opposes. 

“I have to admit, that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman,” he said. 

Like many of the other speakers, the event host, state Sen. Jack Hart, a Boston Democrat, used Romney as the butt of jokes, ribbing Romney about his opposition to therapeutic cloning, or creating embryos, for stem cell research. 

“I don’t know if the governor understands its advantages. He could run for governor and president at the same time. Then, if he were to run for president, he could choose his perfect running mate — himself,” Hart said. 

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who made light of his Italian heritage to the largely Irish-American audience, also lit into Romney for his travels, asking if he’d had trouble finding his way from the airport. 

“Are those tickets in your pocket?” he asked. “I don’t want to keep you too long. You can leave any time you want.” 

Romney responded, “I’ll be here ’til you get funny.” 

Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, who are expected to be opponents in the state’s 2006 gubernatorial race, traded good-natured insults. Romney said that Reilly must be jealous of his New York counterpart, Eliot Spitzer, for all the press Spitzer has received for high-profile prosecutions of corporate leaders. 

“Some people call it ‘subpoena envy,’ ” Romney said. 

Reilly, in turn, took a swipe at his presumptive opponent, sarcastically thanking him for not drawing a state salary as governor. 

“Sometimes you get what you pay for,” Reilly said. 

The Big Dig, the massive $14.6 billion highway project that has recently been in the news on a near-daily basis because of tunnel leaks, was a topic in its own right, despite the absence of Turnpike Authority Chairman Matthew J. Amorello. Romney has been trying to force Amorello from his position as head of the authority. 

U.S. Rep Stephen F. Lynch, D-Boston, said he’d had to assure his colleagues in Washington that the Big Dig tunnels are safe, despite the leaks. 

“With all that water, you should probably wait at least an hour after you’ve had something to eat before you drive through the tunnels,” he said. 

“Matt Amorello said he’s trying to make it look like Venice.” 

Mayor Thomas M. Menino offered Amorello a toast: “May the water in the road rise to meet you, may the ceiling tiles fall behind your back, may the fireproofing shine warmth on your face, and may the retirement papers be certified a half-hour before the governor knows you’re gone,” he said.


----------



## JGH_7223 (Jan 11, 2005)

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Workers say state AG is slack on labor cases

'You lose out even more if you have to pursue it yourself'

By Gerard F. Russell TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]

Most of the time at 'show cause' hearings, it would be settled, and the really bad actors we would go after criminally. The focus was on restitution, getting money into people's pockets through the courts.

John Gatti Jr.,
A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Attached files: 
» Labor law enforcement

Pipe fitter Russell Brown of Worcester says he thinks the attorney general's office could have done more for him. He says he was cheated out of $13,000 by a former employer.

Clinton Christian of Whitinsville says he is owed $19,000 by the same employer, Suburban Fire Protection Inc. of Northboro.

At least 18 former employees of the defunct company say they were not paid the state's prevailing wage to work on public construction projects. Despite that, they were told by the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly that if they wanted to get their money, they would have to hire a lawyer on their own and go to court themselves.

Moreover, the attorney general refused to prosecute criminal charges against the owners of the company.

The case highlights a trend in the attorney general's office in how it deals with cases in which workers get shortchanged, either in nonpayment of wages, prevailing wages or child labor cases and then get "private right of action" letters from the attorney general's office. The letters tell workers to hire a lawyer. Hundreds of these letters are sent out each year by the attorney general's office. Few cases are ever prosecuted criminally.

No criminal charges were ever filed in this case, according to a spokesman for the attorney general.

"I just think criminal charges could have been pushed a long time ago," Mr. Brown said about his former employer.

Mr. Brown said he was told by the attorney general's office, "We will go as far as we can and then you have to get a lawyer."

A decision to pursue a former boss in court has its risks in time lost from work, lawyer fees and court costs, among others.

"You lose out even more if you have to pursue it yourself," Mr. Christian said.

Several of the pipe fitters who worked for the Northboro company, including Mr. Brown and Mr. Christian, hired a lawyer. They filed a lawsuit in Central District Court. The case is pending. To complicate matters, the company filed bankruptcy.

Although the attorney general's office issued press releases last summer announcing that the company was prohibited from bidding and working on public works projects, was ordered to pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines and more than $103,000 in back wages, the employees say they never got a nickel. The attorney general's office confirmed no money was paid.

A former inspector in the attorney general's office and a local union leader say the average worker in the state is getting little protection from the attorney general in recent years in protecting their rights. The attorney general's office is failing to use the criminal courts as another tool to help workers, they said.

Leaving to the workers the job of collecting their money can present a hardship for many hourly wage earners. Hiring a lawyer can be expensive. Court fees and delays can often serve as a deterrent for someone who is not familiar with the legal system.

Mr. Reilly's predecessor, Scott Harshbarger, and his predecessors pursued violators in the courts and sought restitution for workers using criminal complaints in district courts.

The practice of sending the private right of action letters began about 1998, according to John Gatti Jr., a former employee of the attorney general's office. He was an inspector in the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division and former director for the Department of Labor and Industries. Before 1998, the attorney general's office prosecuted cases in district courts.

"It was an efficient system because everything was done locally in the district courts," he said.

Many cases were settled at that level, he said.

Now, such cases hardly ever end up in the district courts.

Thomas J. Noonan, clerk magistrate in Central District Court in Worcester, says it has been quite a while since he has seen an assistant attorney general in his court to prosecute a prevailing wage, nonpayment of wages or child labor violation case.

"We used to see them quite often," he noted.

However, such cases are not being taken by the attorney general to the district courts.

"I have not seen one in a very long time. To my personal knowledge, I have not been approached by an assistant attorney general to handle any one of those cases," Mr. Noonan said.

He added, "I would stand corrected if somebody can tell me if somebody might have been here and I was not in the shop."

Likewise, Thomas X. Cotter, clerk magistrate of the Westboro District Court, said it has been a long time since he has seen the attorney general's office prosecute a labor case.

"It should be done. It is not being done," he said of criminal prosecutions for alleged violations of labor law. In fact, he said he was told by an employee of the attorney general's office that it is office policy not to seek criminal charges in such cases, Mr. Cotter said.

Although the attorney general's office does issue citations for labor law violations, it can also pursue criminal charges, Mr. Cotter said.

"One does not preclude the other," he said.

Mr. Gatti said the district courts were an effective forum for the cases and can still be effective if they are used.

"Most of the time at 'show cause' hearings, it would be settled, and the really bad actors we would go after criminally. The focus was on restitution, getting money into people's pockets through the courts. If they defaulted, the Probation Department would chase them down," Mr. Gatti said.

The task of handling prevailing wage and nonpayment of wage cases, among other labor cases, fell to the attorney general's office in 1993 after the Secretary of Labor in the Department of Labor and Industries was abolished. Also, the Division of Administrative Law Appeals was instituted to levy civil penalties in the cases. DALA was intended to be an additional enforcement tool in the hands of the government, not the sole remedy.

"It has turned out to be a failure, for the most part," Mr. Gatti said.

Cases can go to DALA after citations are issued by the attorney general's office. Some cases are referred to DALA. Other complainants get the private right of action letters, or "kiss-off letter," as Mr. Gatti calls it.

The decision on how to handle a case sometimes hinges on publicity, Mr. Gatti charges.

"That's not the purpose of any labor department in this country to tell employees, hey, you go to court on your own because you are not a high-impact case," Mr. Gatti said.

However, Nicholas J. Messuri, chief of the Business and Labor Protection Bureau in the attorney general's office, defends the attorney general's record and stresses that limited resources require they be used efficiently.

The division's task is to ensure compliance with Massachusetts wage and hour, child labor, workplace safety, public construction and bidding laws.

Unlike Mr. Gatti, Mr. Messuri does not look back to district courts as a panacea. He argues that a lot of criminal cases in the past ended up being dismissed. That is an "embarrassment," he said.

"So what we're trying to do is bring criminal cases that mean something," he said.

Mr. Messuri acknowledges, however, that the number of criminal cases in recent years brought by the attorney general's office is only a handful each year. Last year, for example, only three criminal cases were prosecuted for such cases, according to a spokesman for the office.

The current system of issuing civil violations builds a case toward "debarment," which Mr. Messuri said is a powerful tool to keep the bad companies from working on public works projects. While criminal charges are a strong tool, he said, the criminal system moves slowly.

"Suburban is one of those cases where the guy beat us and went out of business," he said.

Mr. Gatti said he warned co-workers and superiors of the trend before he retired. In a Jan. 13, 2003, e-mail to inspectors in the attorney general's office's Fair Labor and Business Practices Division, Mr. Gatti said the division was working with 40 percent fewer inspectors "despite the commitment to increase the level number by 50 percent."

"This lack of follow-through has resulted in the lowest number of inspectors ever," he said.

In another memo to fellow employees in the attorney general's office that month, Mr. Gatti also warned of a similar "lack of commitment of allocated resources" to enforcing child labor laws.

In an e-mail in October 2002 to a former supervisor in the attorney general's office, Mr. Gatti wrote that the new policy was to send a letter to the alleged violator and then a private right of action letter to the victim telling them they can sue to collect the money owed them, "unless the case is a so-called HIGH IMPACT CASE."

"Imagine telling someone who is owed 80 hours' wages at seven dollars an hour ... go to small claims court or hire your own lawyer. &#8230; It is difficult to tell complainants that &#8230; Especially when someone is owed money to pay for food, rent or medicine and never sought government help before," he said in the e-mail.

At the time, Mr. Gatti was the oldest inspector and nearing the end of his career. He retired in October 2003 with kudos from the attorney general for his long record of public service. Mr. Gatti is the architect of the Massachusetts Public Employee Whistleblower Law. He spent more than a decade as a legislative advocate before the Massachusetts Legislature for the State Employee Organization of Engineers, Scientists and Technicians.

State Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, who was chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee in 1993 when enforcement responsibilities were shifted to the attorney general's office, says workers now should not be left to fend for themselves.

"They should not be told you are on your own," he said.

The genesis, Mr. Bosley said, is a lack of funding for the attorney general's office.

"The same thing is happening in a lot of areas in government over the past decade. We moved a lot of consumer protection and labor programs into the attorney general's office in the early '90s because they were not being taken care of in other agencies. Unfortunately, everything happened in the '90s and we have not kept pace with funding with the things we need to do. That is something we have to rectify," Mr. Bosley said.

In his fiscal 2006 budget proposal, Mr. Reilly is asking for an additional $1.2 million for new positions, including some in the Fair Labor and Business Practice Division.

In a letter last month to Sen. Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, who heads the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Reilly asked for more money for the labor division.

"On average, the division receives 5,000 written complaints, over 53,000 calls and annually generates over 1.8 million dollars back to workers. Additional funding would be used to hire two AAGs, three inspectors and one information officer. The total collective bargaining salaries for those employees would be approximately $241,000," he said.

A local union leader has been outspoken in his criticism of the number of inspectors working for the attorney general's office. Michael Coonan, business agent and president of the Worcester, Fitchburg Building and Construction and Trades Council. He represents about 7,000 members in the region.

"The civil penalties is a joke to me. It's not the right way to go. I thought we were better off going to court. Now they try to put liens on people. If they have no money, nothing is done. If they are out of state, they let them get a way with it. If they appeal it, they cut the penalty in half," Mr. Coonan complained.

Mr. Coonan remains adamant that dozens of public works projects in cities and towns around the state, such as new schools, libraries and public safety buildings, are not getting the oversight they deserve because of few or no inspections by the attorney general's office.

Only a handful of inspectors operate out of Central Massachusetts, a fact that rankles Mr. Coonan because he said he and other union leaders were influential in getting $500,000 from the Legislature in 2000-01 to hire more inspectors, but none was hired with the money, he said.

The attorney general's office argues Worcester gets its fair share of personnel and that every complaint is investigated.

"The amount of activity in Boston is through the roof," Mr. Messuri said. "You could make an argument to put all inspectors in Boston."

Mr. Messuri points to the successes his office has had in collecting money in recent years for workers. Mr. Gatti says the numbers are small, given the size of the state.

For Mr. Messuri it is a question of placing resources where they will do the most good. He said he is not in favor of having inspectors just out there riding around the state. But Mr. Coonan said the attorney general's office should be out inspecting every taxpayer-funded construction project to make sure the state's labor laws are being followed.

"Every city and town has jobs. There are no inspections being done. No one's out there watching the henhouse," Mr. Coonan said.

Former and current employees say these are not isolated instances of problems in the attorney general's office - rather, they point to a disturbing trend.

In 2002, nine corporations that operate 28 Dunkin' Donuts stores in the Springfield area agreed to pay $150,000 in civil penalties to settle charges that they violated state child labor and wage and hours laws. At the time, a press release sent out by the attorney general's office quoted Mr. Reilly as saying, "These children signed up to gain some valuable work experience and make a little money."

The children were 14 to 17 years old. More than 2,500 violations were found.

"Instead, the experience they gained was being forced to work long hours, paying fines and having their tips stolen. Those who choose to exploit children in the workplace should take note, my office will continue to fight for the rights of the workers," Mr. Reilly said in the press release.

The two-year investigation by the attorney general's office found that the owner had seized the employees' tips and levied fines against employees for minor infractions, not wearing uniforms correctly or not rotating stock. Mr. Gatti says none of the 150 children involved in the case at the time got any money as a result of the attorney general's case.

Mr. Gatti, who was employed by the attorney general's office at the time, said that staffers who handled the case were upset there was no criminal prosecution and that the children did not get paid their lost wages.

"It makes the office look like a toothless tiger," Mr. Gatti said.


----------

