"I’m not a politician, and there will be times when folks will ask me questions about the inner working of politics that I don’t know about."

"I’m a quick study, I’ll figure all the political jargon out, but I’m not going to adopt it.

Says Gabriel Gomez, running for the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry.

Look at my training – serving my country, U.S. Naval Academy, Navy aircraft carrier pilot, Navy SEAL, successful private sector, business career.... I’m not saying governance or being a Senator is easy, nor am I saying I don’t have some things to learn – I am saying I am up to the task.  And let’s look in the other direction – maybe Washington has something to learn – they clearly need some new ideas and sending career politicians would be the same old same old. 

We'll see how well that pitch works in Massachusetts.

"Power-hungry Bay State Democrats — eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet..."

"... are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014."

... The move comes eight years after Democratic lawmakers stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his appointment powers in an effort to keep Republicans out of the office, and three years after they changed the law again to let Patrick appoint a temporary replacement.

Politico identifies "5 landmines" for the Democratic convention.

#1 is: Bill Clinton. 

I'd say Obama should not trust Bill Clinton. Hillary has too much to gain from an Obama loss.

The other 4 are:

2. "Rebuilding 'You didn’t build that.'" (Especially with Elizabeth Warren as a prime-time speaker. She's "a political novice who will be making her debut on the national stage," and whose personal goal is winning in Massachusetts, and thus in being much more liberal than the average American.)

3. "Actual class warfare." (The Occupy protesters, who might have once seemed to be boosting the Democratic Party, are taking it to the streets of Charlotte. What if there's something 1968-ish?! And then there's just the danger of various convention-goers saying something non-mainstream.)

4. "Not a sell-out audience." (And with extra tickets being given away, there's an unusual danger of hecklers and protesters.)

5. "Can Charlotte cut it?" It's pretty small and ill-equipped for a city hosting an event this size.

MIT researcher and undergrads figured out a way to win the lottery and — over 7 years — spent $40 million to win $48 million.

Daily Mail reports:

Officials at the Massachusetts state lottery knew one of their games had essentially been taken over by the group of highly-intelligent gamblers but did nothing because their syndicate generated $16million.

Their system became an almost full-time business as the sophisticated gamblers snapped up hundreds of thousands of lottery tickets at $2 each.

By 2005 they had essentially monopolised the game....

It is thought lottery officials found out about the loophole in 2010 - or maybe earlier - but did not act because it was bringing in so much money....

So much for the notion that the lottery is a "tax on stupidity"? Actually, it still was a tax on stupidity for everyone outside of this syndicate, and since it was draining money from the amount that would otherwise be distributed to the stupid people, the stupid people were being taxed at a higher rate than usual. And the lottery officials were negligent (in creating the loophole) and then knowing as they enjoyed getting the money that they raised taxing stupidity.

Mitt Romney says "The Supreme Court has the final word. And their final word is that Obamacare is a tax."

Interviewed by Jan Crawford, Romney takes the clear, straightforward separation-of-powers position. The judiciary has the work of saying what the law is:

So it is a tax and it's constitutional. That's -- that's the final word. That's what it is. Now, I agreed with the dissent. I would have taken a different course. But the dissent wasn't the majority. The majority has ruled. And their rule is final.

Crawford moves in with the challenge Romney will always have to deal with: You did the same thing in Massachusetts. It this was a tax, then that was a tax. And we expect him always to answer in about the same way: There's a difference between doing something at the federal level and doing it at the state level.

As a lawprof, I see the consistent separation-of-powers theme.
The Constitution gives the judiciary the power to interpret the law, and it gives Congress the power to make the law, but under our system of federalism, Congress's power to make law is limited to a set of enumerated powers. The Supreme Court case was about whether Congress could regulate and require people to buy health insurance, and the answer on that question was that Congress does not have that power. The only reason the Supreme Court appeared to uphold the mandate was that on closer inspection, the Chief Justice decided that there wasn't a requirement to buy insurance at all, despite what the people believed was happening when the law was passed — when the law squeaked by in Congress.

The Chief Justice, the deciding vote, looked and decided that there was no mandate at all, just an option that people were given: Either buy insurance, from a private insurance company, or pay an amount of money to the federal government, and the Chief Justice said that second option, if seen as a tax, could be upheld under the enumerated power that is the taxing power. That may seem awfully strange to people, but in Massachusetts, there was no need to think about it in a strange way like that, because the state's powers are different. The state legislature is not restricted to the Constitution's enumerated powers. The state legislature has the powers of government that are left after the Congress has gotten its set of enumerated powers. That is our system of federalism, and the more expansively the Supreme Court reads those enumerated powers, the less is left for the states, and that is an important rearrangement of constitutional powers.

But that's lawprof talk. Too long. Romney needs to make the federalism point in a convincing, snappy way, and he's got to do it with the interviewer coming at him with the you-raised-taxes challenge — as if the main thing people want to hear about is whether taxes will be raised. And in legal terms, that's just weird, because a penalty — the term used by Congress — is a harsher matter than a tax. The Chief Justice said the "penalty" could be seen as a tax because it was so little that it didn't amount to compulsion. In this view, Congress refrained from forcing people to buy insurance, and because of that, the law survived. But the word "tax" is a hot word in presidential politics, so what was milder ends up seeming more severe.

That's a lot to process in a media interview. You can't say all that. I think I put that in a clear and conversational way, but I know that in political discourse it would sound ridiculously blabby and didactic. And it is Romney's greatest point of vulnerability — his work on health care in Massachusetts. It's especially important that he avoid giving us the feeling that he's dancing around the truth and over-explaining. He says:

Actually, the -- chief justice, in his opinion, made it very clear that, at the state level -- states have the power to put in place mandates. They don't need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And -- and as a result, Massachusetts' mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.

Pretty good! He's denying that he raised taxes. The same thing, at the state level, isn't a tax, because not only was it not called a tax, but it didn't need to be relabeled a tax — "it stays as it was" — in order to make it constitutional. Relabeling was a special trick needed to conjure up federal power. We didn't need that trick to make it constitutional in Massachusetts.

That's enough to move Crawford on. She says: "Whatever it's called... it means that Americans, if they don't have insurance, are going to pay something, whatever they call it." What I'd jump on there is her use of the word "Americans." Romney was never involved in telling Americans what to do, only Massachusetters. Romney says:

You know, I made it very clear throughout my campaign and actually, while I was governor of Massachusetts, that the issue of the uninsured should be dealt with at the state level. And each state can create their own solutions to meet the needs of their people.

Think of the restraint it takes to stop there. Implied in that is: Hello? It was Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country. What was I supposed to do? I worked with these people to give them something that suited their preferences, as liberals. This is the genius of federalism, that policies are designed at the state level. Massachusetts got a Massachusetts-style policy, and that's not going to be what other states get. It's not one-size-fits-all when you take the federalism — leave-it-to-the-states — approach, which is what I'm talking about. The federal law that the Supreme Court upheld foisted the most liberal state's preference on all of the states. That's what I object to.

Now, that's what I'd be tempted to say, but you can't say all that. It's blabby and defensive, and it's technical and weird. But he essentially said that, didn't he? He can leave it to others to expand into the Massachusetts-specific material.

Crawford goes on to challenge him about he statement — which appears on his website — that he would choose Supreme Court Justices who are like John Roberts. Does he maybe want to change that? Romney says:

Well, I certainly wouldn't nominate someone who -- I knew -- was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with or vehemently, rather, disagreed with. 

(He disapproved of his use of the word "violently.")

And he reached a conclusion I think that was -- not accurate and not -- an appropriate conclusion. But -- that being said, he's a very bright person. And I -- I'd look for -- individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the constitution.

A very bland answer. (Except for the violence.)

Crawford brings up her own journalistic scoop — that Roberts supposedly "switched his vote." "He was initially with the conservatives to strike down the heart of the law, the individual mandate, and then changed his mind to join the liberals to uphold it?" Romney says:

Well, it -- it gives the impression that the decision was made not based upon constitutional -- foundation but instead -- political consideration about the -- relationship between the branches of government. But we won't really know the answers to those things until the justice himself speaks out -- maybe some time in history.

See what he did? He got in there and took his shot: Roberts yielded to political pressure. But the punch is pulled. We get an "impression," but we don't "really know," and blah blah blah... maybe someday... history....

He made the harsh criticism and left us feeling that he wasn't harsh, that he was moderate and thoughtful and disinclined to get ugly. And yet, he was ugly enough to hurt.

The veterans monument and the giant bunny statue.

"When the veterans want to do something, we allow them to do those things. Why can't the town of Dedham put the bunnies that show the spirit of Dedham where they want to go?"

"The Brown-Warren agreement does not seek to equalize spending between the two candidates, both of whom are well funded."

"It is a sort of suicide pact, providing... that the two 'donate to charity half the price of ads that are run in their name in the state.' Says Brown: 'By having 50 percent of that negative or positive ad buy go to charity of the other person's choice, it's an incentive to keep those groups out.'"

Brown is pandering to Massachusetts liberals who hate Citizens United and don't understand the underlying principles of free speech.

Massachusetts legislature passes a transgender civil rights bill.

But "it was not a total victory for advocates."

The bill does not include language to protect transgender people in public accommodations, which advocates had sought. They will continue to fight to expand transgender protections to include public accommodations, such as hotels, restaurants, and clubs, she said. Opponents had decried those proposals as “the bathroom bill,’’ arguing that they would enable biological men to demand access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

During the last episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska," TLC put up this teaser for its special "Kennedys' Home Movies."

Yes, they are both TLC shows, but why did TLC think the people watching a show about Sarah Palin and her family would be susceptible to a show about the Kennedys? (Meade raised this question in the comments to the post earlier today about "Sarah Palin's Alaska.")

Your first thought might be that it doesn't make much sense because liberals love the Kennedys and conservatives love the Palins. But let's assume TLC isn't run by idiots, that they know how to appeal to viewers. If you had to argue that a good chunk of the "Sarah Palin's Alaska" audience would like to watch "Kennedys' Home Movies," what would you argue?

I'd say: Not all American TV-watchers are strongly grounded in one political party or the other. These people are not cemented to abstract ideology. They may feel their way into politics through personalities. Or they may not care that much about politics at all and simply enjoy peering into the family lives of celebrities, and politicians are a special, elite breed of celebrity, like royalty. The Kennedys have been, for many people, America's royalty, and the Palins may be the new royal family that people who like that sort of thing like.

Obviously, there are differences. The Kennedys posed as European-style aristocracy, and the Palins present themselves as working-class Americans. But both are very much big, colorful families with a strong sense of geographical place — Massachusetts/Alaska — and a mesmerizingly beautiful and feminine woman to fascinate us. Both families have a lot of children who we get to see looking robust and active in outdoor settings — especially boats.

There's a romanticism of the family about it all. I'm not saying that's good. It's a point of entry by which political opinion seeps into a certain very common type of American brain. And it happens through television. Pay attention.

***

By the way, what do you think of the crazy culture clash that is Johnny Cash singing the Beatles ("In My Life") over home movies of the Kennedys?

Transgender bathroom rights in New England.

The Act Relative to Gender Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes bill.

It is one thing for a person born as a man who has been surgically altered to become a woman to be allowed to use the women's bathroom. It is something else entirely to allow a man who has had nothing altered, but simply claims he "identifies" as a woman, to use the women's bathroom.

That is a recipe for embarrassment, fear and even confrontation — the kind of things most legislators would probably say they want to prevent. The New Hampshire House of Representatives, which passed a similar law recently, may find it has been hasty....

[T[he various definitions of transgender are so amorphous and broad. According to one, it is "a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies that diverge from the normative role (man or woman) commonly, but not always, assigned at birth, as well as the role traditionally held by society."...

In short, it can mean virtually anything that doesn't fit so-called "normative" gender roles....

"I calculated that every time I have a Medicare patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave."

"I never went into medicine to get rich, but I never expected to feel as disrespected as I feel. Where is the incentive for a practice like ours?"

The political desire for more "preventive" health care for everyone meets the shortage of primary health care providers.

Do you think maybe the problem people are having with Mitt Romney is that he's too...

Massachusettsy?

Think about it: John Kerry, Michael Dukakis.... Is there a Massachusetts demeanor that just doesn't feel natural and normal to Americans in other regions? Something that seems cold or haughty or insubstantial? I mean no disrespect to Massachusettans — what the hell is the word for people from Massachusetts? — I'm quite serious. Massachusetts seems to produce a lot of candidates or near-candidates, and then when Americans take a closer look at them, they experience a strange revulsion.

IN THE COMMENTS: Theo Boehm writes:

I'm originally from California, but I've lived most of my adult life in Massachusetts. I can tell you categorically that the problem with Mitt Romney is NOT that he is "from" Massachusetts. I've been here about as long as he has, and, believe me, you're never "from" Massachusetts until your people have been here...oh...five or six generations. The kittens may have been born in the oven; that doesn't make them muffins.

Mitt Romney doesn't sound like he's from anywhere in Massachusetts; he doesn't have the body language or manner of someone from Eastern Massachusetts; and his religion and Western origins are seriously weird around here.

No, if you find Mitt Romney offputting, it's not because of Massachusetts. It's because he's an uninspiring, stiff bore. They grow those anywhere.

Michael Dukakis was an echt Massachusetts type: a well-tamed little nerdy Brookline doctor's son. Dukakis is, to Massachusetts connoisseurs, from Central Casting. Romney is from Not Around Here. The differences may be subtle to outsiders, but to Massachustts people, they're glaring.

John Kerry is a special case. He's not so much distinctly from Massachusetts, as he is a generic New England preppie. Those types range all over the Northeast landscape, but tend to have been fledged in places like Andover, Exeter, Yale, Dartmouth, and Harvard. They may wind up in New York or Massachusetts, but they usually have little local affinity. Bill Weld was another one of this type—a vastly more amusing and decent human being than Kerry, but very much of Kerry's class.

Of course the Kennedys are from Massachusetts, but they are a weird and nearly extinct breed: Irish who aped the accents and manners of the old Yankee codfish aristocracy. There are no old Yankee aristocrats to ape any more, and the Kennedy accent is dead as a doornail. You'll notice the younger Kennedy generation doesn't sound at all like Uncle Ted or the late, sainted JFK.

Massachusetts is halfway to England: You can tell where someone is from within a small area, what their socioeconomic status is, and what their ethnicity is as soon as they open their mouths. It's fading a bit, but it's still here. And, believe me, if you're from anywhere else in the country, you'll never figure it out.

I remember being at a dinner party soon after I got here, where someone pointed to another guest and said, "Lynn!" The other guest reacted in mock horror and said, "Oh no! WEST Lynn!" All the other guests were laughing their heads off. If you don't know what that was about, well, you're not from around here, are you?

No, neither Mitt nor I are From Here, and we never will be. You can blame Massachusetts for a lot, but please, don't blame it for Mitt Romney.