I was in a liqour store buying beer, and as I was waiting for my credit card to go through, I read the note taped to the cash register.

DON’T BE FOOLED! PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN!

I immediately thought of Helen Lovejoy on the Simpson’s. She’s the reverend’s wife, and it’s her role to beg the town to consider the welfare of children. It doesn’t matter if the issue is gambling, potholes, or zombies, she’s there to plaintively wail “Will somone please think of the children!” The running gag is that the issue she’s wailing about really has nothing to do with children – she’s just using a fictional threat to win the debate.

The poster I saw was demanding “no” votes on Question 1, on whether to permit wine sales in grocery stores. The poster went on to claim that every convenience store, many drug stores, and many gasoline stores would start selling wine if Question 1 passes. This wine would be available on every street corner and be “easily accessible” to teenagers. Helen Lovejoy would be pround of this poster.

When you read the Yes on 1 and No on 1 websites, you can see which side is making arguments and which side is fear-mongering. The Yes site promiently posts the text of the initiative and explains how it will work. The No site posts inferred statistics (“190 deaths per year”) and says that under the law, Arlington will have 13 new wine licenses. Can you name 13 locations in Arlington that “must carry fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items”? Of course you can’t – the 13 license claim is another attempt to spread fear, unknown, and doubt without regard to the facts.

I argued half-heartedly with the guy behind the counter. I asked him if he really believed any of the stuff on the sheet. He defended it for a bit, then said “We have to post that stuff. If grocery stores start selling wine, we’ll lose the business.” I’m not sure his boss wanted him to say this, but the real issue was finally on the table.

When you read the text of the law you understand that there won’t be alcohol on every corner and there won’t be wine at gas stations, convenience stores, and drug stores. This isn’t a fight about child safety. It’s a fight about whether or not the current liquor stores can retain control of the wine sales revenue stream. Ironically, it’s a posting on the “no” site that highlights this best: “The independent package store owners will be hurt by this proposed law, and many will be put out of business. Such a cost is not worth the 50 cents per $10 bottle of wine.”

I will be voting “yes” on Question 1 in November. I think the children of Massachusetts will be just fine, and that wine will be cheaper.

UPDATE: The Patriot Ledger has a great right-hand sidebar showing donors for and against Question 1. Who would have thought that package stores love children so much?

Barbara Anderson (of the Citizens for Limited Taxation) is not a Republican, and neither is Christy Mihos. They are both unenrolled voters. And, they share a dislike of higher taxes.

Unfortunately, despite their shared beleifs, Barbara Anderson has launched several attacks on Christy Mihos. Since the state primary CLT has written four Mihos attack pieces, but only one against Deval Patrick. Anderson thinks that Mihos is a threat to Kerry Healey and thinks that Healey is the one that should win the governor’s office.

Ronald Reagan wrote the 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” He was right, as far as he went, but he should have gone farther. I’m not bold enough to write a commandment, but I’m willing to suggest a corollary: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another taxcutter.”

I believe that Anderson is doing herself and her cause a disservice. Her attacks on Mihos weaken her own positions by proxy. I hope she returns to doing what she does well: advocating for a smaller government.

(I’m fully aware that this post runs the risk of violating my own advice. The thing is, I often agree with CLT and have supported them in the past. I’m hoping that these words find the sweet spot of constructive criticism while avoiding the nasty side effects of an attack.)

Earlier this week, Kerry Healey called for the removal of Christy Mihos and Grace Ross from future debates. Her motive is pretty obvious: she stands to lose more votes to Mihos than Patrick does to Ross. By removing Mihos from the debate, she can marginalize him and maximize her votes.

The hypocrisy here is glaring. As the Globe reports, “In April, Healey sent letters to all the gubernatorial candidates, including Mihos, urging them to commit to the four general election debates.” She thought debates were a great idea then, but has changed her mind when faced with polling data. I deplore her actions, but I can’t say that I’m surprised.

Hypocrisy aside, what about the merits of the proposal? The Globe quotes Healey: “I think it’s pretty clear that either Deval Patrick or I am going to be the next governor of this state, and when people go to the polls, they deserve to know where we stand.”

It’s easy to agree that when people go to the polls, the voters should know where the candidates stand. But, even if you concede that Patrick or she will be the next governor, I disagree that the voters will learn more if they are the only two at the table.

When you only have two participants, they can avoid topics that make them look both look bad. In this case, both voices represent long-entrenched political interests. You won’t hear either of them talk about patronage. They won’t talk about ballot access controls. They won’t talk about real campaign finance reform. And, of course, they won’t talk about the Big Dig.

This is what Mihos and Ross bring to the process. They break the silence and talk about ideas that the leading candidates find uncomfortable. At this point of the electoral process it doesn’t matter who the next governor will be. At this point, the important thing is to get all of the ideas and all of the opinions and all of the plans out in the open.
I sincerely hope that Healey’s call for a 2-person debate falls on deaf ears, while her earlier call for full debates is heard by all.

Last week I drafted an analysis of the primary results, but it wasn’t gelling, and I didn’t publish it. I’m very glad I didn’t. I would have been put to shame by the excellent analysis by Robert David Sullivan at MassINC.

His analysis backs up the common wisdom that it’s Deval Patrick’s race to lose. The primary showed that Patrick has the ability to get Democrats and unenrolled (independant) voters to the ballot box. Patrick got more of each of those than any candidate in quite a while. The question is, of course, what the rest of the electorate will do. Can Patrick convert the ones that voted against him, and the ones that didn’t vote at all, to his side? Can he get them to the polls?

If turnout equals that of 2002, and Patrick holds on to his primary supporters, he only has to win 37 percent of those who haven’t voted for him already in order to capture a majority in November — and if independent Christy Mihos and Green Party candidate Grace Ross capture a meaningful portion of the vote between them, the share he needs will be even lower. Healey, on the other hand, will have to win about 63 percent of the voters who voted for one of Patrick’s opponents or sat out the Democratic primary in order to match Romney’s 50 percent total. By comparison, Shannon O’Brien’s primary total in 2002 represented 11.1 percent of the total vote in the fall — meaning that Mitt Romney only had to win about 56 percent of the voters who were up for grabs after the primary.

I’m also struck by the list of towns that he thinks are Healey’s key to victory: “Billerica, Revere, Saugus, Tewksbury, and Woburn.” Those are cities that, at least so far, have been immune to Patrick’s message. Compare that to the list of towns represented by Senator Havern: Woburn, Arlington, Billerica, Burlington and Lexington. Arlington and Lexington went for Patrick in a big way, but Woburn, Billerica, and Burlington were bigger fans of Reilly or Gabrieli. Someday, there is going to be a very interesting race for that seat.

I reviewed Gabrieli’s campaign spending on the OCPF website. It looks like he spent $9.4 million in his primary campaign. He got 248,000 votes. That works out to $37.93 per vote. Winning, of course, makes you look good: Patrick spent $4.9 million to get 452,000 votes, or $10.80 per vote. That’s still a lot of money, but it went farther.

What does this mean? For one thing, it shows that “buying an election” is easier said than done. This doesn’t disprove that money matters, but it shows that money isn’t the only thing that matters. If money was the only factor, Gabrieli would have walked away with 50% of the vote, not Patrick. The next time you read an editorial compaining about the role of money in elections, remember to check the numbers once the dust has settled a bit.

Did you read this information in the mainstream press? Not too likely. It’s after the fact, there’s no one to give a sound bite, and that makes it boring. Check out the Globe’s political finance page. Last update? Last month.