Calter sign holding
Before the recent Middleboro town meeting, I took part in a sign holding for Rep. Tom Calter. I brought the kids along since they had karate class right next door at the YMCA. The kids had a great time and got a little too enthusiastic – running on the grass next to cars waving their Calter signs and shouting “vote for Tom Calter”.
.
I had attended Calter’s campaign kick off and signed up for sign holdings and other low key stuff. I’m supporting Calter because I’ve found him to be accessible and honest with his positions – most of which I share. I really like that he doesn’t shirk from his position or try to tell you what you want to hear. He has also responded to me every time I’ve contacted his office – and I just can’t ask for much more than that from a representative. Plus he bought me a diet coke and a bowl of soup once. Actually it was not the free lunch that impressed me but that he set up a one-on-one meeting to discuss an idea I floated to him via email. I only wish I had that sort of responsiveness from my selectmen. While Rullo and McKinnon have been accessible, Spataro, Brunelle, and Duphily have never responded to any communication I’ve sent either directly to them or as correspondence to the BOS. But I digress. Calter is upfront, responsive, and is getting my vote.
Themocracy
Bumpkin, can you please ask Rep Calter why he voted against amendment 327 – an amendment which would ban casinos from marketing to the people who put themselves on the casino’s own self-exclusion lists? I have not been able to get an answer from my own rep, and since you note that Calter has been responsive to you, it may be my best hope for some insight. If he doesn’t answer you, it would be telling.
I will ask him.
I hadn’t asked him because I believe that I know what he’ll say: That he doesn’t want non-Mass casinos to have a competitive advantage. I think he is generally in the “let the market decide” camp w/regards to siting and other details. Note that I am disappointed in his vote on that amendment and his support of casinos in general but still support him for the totality of his positions.
Thank you for asking. Please let me know what his answer is.
Frankly, I find it uneasily ironic to imagine people like you and other anti’s holding signs for Calter – throwing your support behind him. By voting against that amendment, Calter was showing that he didn’t support his own constituents.
Most people don’t even like having telemarketers calling them after they’ve placed themselves on the do not call list. But to feel it’s acceptable for billionaire casino interests to contact those who’ve recognized their own gambling problems, perhaps even after losing savings, hurting family and friends, contemplating suicide or any of the other myriad effects of problem or pathological gambling, and asked NOT to be contacted – well that is a disconnect that is totally at odds with a person in a leadership position, voting on important legislation.
People may admire Calter’s affectation of business prowess, and he talks a good game, but let’s face it, when when you take ethics, the controls and humanity out of business, you end up with predatory lending, Toyota, BP (insert your favorite example of corporate greed) – and it’s the consumers, the voters, the little guy, who end up paying for it.
In Calter’s case, this will be the problem gambler, his or her family, friends, employer and community.
I admit, I’m disappointed by your support of Calter. His vote, despite your personal contact with him, was indicative of his true political character. Better to encourage and support good candidates than to allow average or bad ones to continue to misrepresent voters in the House. The House debate on gambling showed how truly clueless and in the pocket of unions and the gambling industry our regional politicians are.
Better to tell a candidate that you like him and support him on most issues, but cannot in good conscience support him for re-election because of his role in inflicting another predatory industry on the poor and middle class.
I only say this Bumpkin because people in my district supported Dave Flynn for years, for the same reasons you support Calter. In the end, he only supported his financial backers and special interests, and became impossibly entrenched in office.
I understand your position Gladys and felt the same about your support of Scott Brown. He is a heavily pro-casino candidate that is very non-responsive in my experience and doesn’t appear to be very bright to boot. Calter at least has been responsive to me and is very opposed to the Middleboro casino. With the people running for that seat, that’s about as good as I get.