Hey, there! Log in / Register

We are not worthy: Curt Schilling could soon grace our ballots

Now that he no longer has to worry about running a company down in Rhode Island, Schilling tells his fans:

I am going to run, soon. ... State office first, white house in 8 years. :-). Or 4 if by some amazing illegal event this country elects another clinton.

Draft Curt Schilling for Congress.

Via Politico.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

Ortiz/Shilling for Mayor?

Their campaign could be, "This is our f*cking city!"

up
Voting closed 0

Born in Alaska,grew up in Arizona, lives in Medfield, MA

All he did was work in Boston a few years.

Schilling (like ortiz) was never a Bostonian.

Go Orioles!

- The Original SoBo Yuppie.

up
Voting closed 0

Ortiz isn't a Bostonian? Gtfoh. Maybe not born here but he certainly gets a pass.

up
Voting closed 0

He lives in Weston. Not Boston.

No pass.

up
Voting closed 0

Ahh, I see he is one of those Trumpers who think the only way Hillary will win is if the election is somehow rigged in her favor. Shouldn't be surprised he buys into this conspiracy theory. He is seriously nuts.

up
Voting closed 0

It's going to be very suspicious when swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan
Nevada and North Carolina
Indiana and Georgia
Montana and Tennessee suddenly show Clinton within striking distance.

up
Voting closed 0

has Clinton 50, Trump 37. The last time there was a spread that large, it was Reagan/Mondale, and Massachusetts went red. Mississippi is in play for the Democrats. Hilary is putting boots on the ground in TEXAS. That's how badly Trump is currently doing. But I'm sure it's all part of an elaborate electoral fraud.

up
Voting closed 0

I mean why bother voting. HRC is going to win.

up
Voting closed 0

I know Hillary is virtually a stone cold lock to win MA, but I still feel it's important to exercise my right to let it be known whom I feel is best qualified to run the country or Commonweath or city or whatever.

(FYI - I don't think it's the Donald either - I'm definitely one of those "pox on both houses" types who will be looking for someone else even remotely viable come November 8th - neither of them is IMO).

And, if nothing else, there's bound to be at least one ballot question where I'll have a strong opinion.

up
Voting closed 0

Some local things, ballot questions ... still worth voting even if you leave that part blank.

up
Voting closed 0

That was an awfully long-winded way to avoid saying that you're going to the polls so that you can get your reefers legally.

up
Voting closed 0

Really?

P.S. I've never smoked so much as a single cigarette, let alone marijuana.

up
Voting closed 0

I"m pretty fond of Nate Silver and his group at http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

up
Voting closed 0

Unfortunately statistics don't show crazy. He's been very very bad with respect to divining the polls around Trump since last summer. I still love the guy, but he doesn't know what the hell is going on with this election.

up
Voting closed 0

Nate Silver's data was pretty spot on. It got all but three of the primaries wrong (out of 100+ contests).

He was personally skeptical of Trump early on but if you just look at his election models (the graphs) they were accurate from the state. His problem is that he didn't belive his own data.

It's also worth noting he (and others like him) just use the poll data which is available to anyone. If Nate's model calls the election incorrectly it's because the polling data did too.

up
Voting closed 0

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwe...

We didn’t just get unlucky: We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.

The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates.3 And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things.

Like I said, I still love the guy, but he was very very wrong, and admitted as much.

up
Voting closed 0

And he's publicly acknowledged it. (NPR a couple of weeks ago)

One can still appreciate what his group does.

And the fact that they know now to factor in the crazy and/or point out the margin of error makes me like them more. Actually, it was the interview on NPR that made me appreciate this stuff.

up
Voting closed 0

The issue fivethirtyeight had was writers who didn't want to believe the polls, so they kept trying to come up with reasons why the polls were wrong about trump. The polls were right; the adjustments the analysts made as "educated guesses" were wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

If the GOP hadn't been engaging in wholesale voter suppression tactics in large areas of the united states, and paying their friends big money to install and run "electronic voting" machines that tend to vote all on their own, we wouldn't be worrying so much about "stealing" elections, now would we?

up
Voting closed 0

Basically, show him a right-wing conspiracy, and he's a believer.

A fervent one.

up
Voting closed 0

Ya so special!

up
Voting closed 0

He is assuming that he is a shoe in for state office.

up
Voting closed 0

Surely you meant sock in!

up
Voting closed 0

Now wants to Ruin run the country.

Trumpism 101 - Bankrupt yourself all the way to the top.

(While blaming everyone else for your failures)

up
Voting closed 0

Oh dear... another millionaire who screws over the little guy running for office: just what this country needs. And when is he going to repay Rhode Island taxpayers? { crickets }

up
Voting closed 0

As he so eloquently posts on Facebook, it was stupid voters who elected corrupt public officials who in turn stupidly voted him the money who are to blame for the fiasco. Maybe he can save us from turning into another Seattle, which he notes is basically "Canada South". (Canada being evil, apparently).

up
Voting closed 0

HL Mencken:

No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

up
Voting closed 0

One can only hope his platform consists of proposals that would prevent people like him and his company from ever receiving goverment funding.

Nothing makes me smile like people who rail on about the ills of goverment spending and then promptly ask for public funds.

up
Voting closed 0

Because America need more shitty businessmen with delusions of grandeur running for office.

He also threatened to punch my friend in the throat for criticizing Trump.

Class-freakin'-act.

up
Voting closed 0

Is the same guy who told him he could be a businessman telling him he can be a politician?

up
Voting closed 0

and he's a really nice guy in person. what he did for the red sox was epic. congress? I don't think so homie.

up
Voting closed 0

Thank goodness for the 2013 Red Sox, so I can watch Red Sox World Series highlights without having to look at his stupid fucking face.

up
Voting closed 0

..

up
Voting closed 0

Finally, a retort to those people who have asked me, "Why would anyone vote for you??"

"Well, you could do worse."

up
Voting closed 0

There's ALWAYS Doug Bennett.

He taped a bunch of fliers on our door the other day. Straight into the trash they went. And then I washed my hands.

up
Voting closed 0

You should've held on to them if so, Antique Roadshow 2099 here we come!

up
Voting closed 0

I think this is the first time I've seen the universal hub community agree on one single thing.

Get OFish in here and it might even be unanimous

up
Voting closed 0

I'm a big fan of democracy. If he thinks he can do a good job at whatever he is thinking about running for, he should go for it. Most people just like to gripe about government, but he wants to do something about it.

Now, the part of me that likes democracy also says that he has to explain why I should vote for him before I do so. I have a sneaky feeling that he won't be too successful, but who would have thought, on Thanksgiving 2009, that that state senator from Wrentham would have had a chance against any one of the heavyweight Democrats looking to succeed Ted Kennedy?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd prefer he'd get some experience at a slightly lower level first.

up
Voting closed 0

But something tells me his ego will get in the way.

up
Voting closed 0

If he had a lick of sense, he'd step aside so his wife could run. She's the one who knows how to do a the fund raising and foundation running stuff.

Then again, Shonda Schilling would actually be able to run things, and the GOP isn't terribly interested in running things - they are all about posturing and dictating as a substitute for governing.

up
Voting closed 0

Your sons were born after 1990, right? That means that for their whole lives the Commonwealth was governed by either a Republican or Deval Patrick. That's 20 out of 28 years (going out to 2018.) So yeah, the Massachusetts GOP does kind of like governing.

up
Voting closed 0

You know what: I actually canvassed for Weld! I even registered R so that I could help him get past Knuckledragger Pierce and take out Cowboy Satan Silber.

The modern GOP, however, is a shitshow of posturing, faith-based routines, and not doing shit. Exceptions like Baker are marginalized for being sensible about individual rights (while towing other lines) - even Weld was punished for being socially sensible.

I stand by my statements.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker, Romney, Swift, Cellucci, and, yes, the current Libertarian candidate for Vice-President were all Republicans that were the standard bearers for the GOP in Massachusetts and were voted in by the citizenry (except Swift.) Meanwhile, the Democrats were so gung ho about regaining the corner office that they put up Coakley (who once lost a primary for State Rep to a 20 something Martin Walsh), O'Brien (and her butt tattoo), Luther Scott Harshbarger, the One Armed Bandit from BU, and whoever Cellucci destroyed.

So yeah, the GOP certainly is on the ropes in Massachusetts, just ask Martha.

up
Voting closed 0

1990: Weld def. Silber
1994: Weld def. Mark Roosevelt
1998: Cellucci def. Harshbarger
2002: Romney def. O'Brien

up
Voting closed 0

And a relative of the First Lady of the Commonwealth whose then husband trounced him. Boy the bench was bare that year.

up
Voting closed 0

Scott Brown went to DC a moderate Republican.

He returned a blithering idiot foaming at the mouth, dragging his knuckles, pet boy Zombie of Karl Rove.

That's what you are missing: the GOP is full of blistering idiocy and obstruction. Just because a handful of MA GOPers get elected now and again means NOTHING in the face of such NUCLEAR BURNING STUPID.

Funny how you can't see beyond the borders of a tiny state to even notice that.

up
Voting closed 0

We are talking about someone running for office in Massachusetts. We could also have a discussion about the Democratic Party and officeholders from said party in West Virginia and Montana, but since we are on a website dedicated to local news discussing a local person theoretically running for a local post, I'm passing on that.

Swirly made some generalizations about the Massachusetts Republican party. I was pointing out some holes in her theory. The fact that for 5 of the last 7 gubernatorial elections the GOP has won is somehow lost on people, but it is a fact.

up
Voting closed 0

Baker is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, elected by the voters, just like Deval Patrick, Willard Mitt Romney, Jane Swift (sort of), Argeo Paul Cellucci, and William Weld before him.

The political and economic connections of any of these people is immaterial. It's still 5 for 7 for the GOP in Massachusetts.

up
Voting closed 0

We could use more elected conservatives in this state. There needs to be balance.

up
Voting closed 0

They're called Democrats. Just need to look at their policy positions do see the capital C Conservative they adhere to.

up
Voting closed 0

Take the bathroom bill for instance. It's outrageous there wasn't more opposition to that.

up
Voting closed 0

Please explain how this possibly effects you, other than through nosiness and myth-based fear.

up
Voting closed 0

Philosophical objection to a policy that enables people who don't feel comfortable with the skin they're born into rather than helping them to become at peace with themselves as they are.

Please go ahead and tell me exactly how that's atavistic, inhuman, and bigoted.

up
Voting closed 0

Your belief that transgendered people are "uncomfortable in their own skin" and the suggestion that you know better than they who they "truly are" and that they need to and can be cured is bigoted and inhuman. It's too early in the day for me to tackle "atavistic", but the "own skin" reference suggests underlying primitive fears about "otherness", etc.

up
Voting closed 0

for a condemnation against assuming you know better than other people what's going on in their heads, this sounds an awful lot like assuming you know better than me what's going on in my head.

But yeah, in my assessment as a thinking human being, I do come to the conclusion that people who elect to live their lives under a gender identity different from their biological one have some reason to do so.

I also infer (from the advocates of these bathroom bills, no less!) that the people whom these laws are meant to benefit would not be comfortable (weasel word!) living their lives with the gender they were born with. So which is it: are these folks doing it for shits and giggles or are they doing it for what they perceive to be their own psychological well-being, that is to say, would they feel uncomfortable continuing to live as their birth gender?

Moving on, I'll skip over the fact that I did not use a single instance of the word 'cure,' and the fact that past what I just said, I did not claim to know who "they" 'truly are'. I'll skip right on to how I'm a little puzzled about how you got to 'underlying primitive fears' from 'own skin,' which is as far as I know is an innocent metaphor for the actual measurable state of things (then again, if a white lady in a kimono is racist, who know...).

Unless of course you were going to call me primitive and fearful no matter what I wrote in there, given that it wasn't a full-throated endorsement of gender fluidity. Then I understand completely.

up
Voting closed 0

That might not encompass nosiness or myth-based fear. Just ignorance and callousness.

up
Voting closed 0

and callousness to whom?

This is a big boy/girl/whatever forum. Don't just lob word-bombs. Back them up with something.

up
Voting closed 0

Learn to mind your own business.

What people do in their bedrooms - none of your business.

What people's medical or mental health issues are - none of your business.

Who uses which bathroom using what equipment to pee - none of your business.

I was in the stalls at work, and a woman came in and used the stall next to me. She was standing up, and wearing a dress, and raised the seat.

What was up with that? None of my business. Was I curious? Yes. That's natural. Was I going to ascribe pathology to this, when I'm not a physician or a psych? No. It is none of my business.

See how this works?

Now go mind your own business. I know that is difficult for the modern nanny-state-in-your-pants "conservative", but you'd best learn soon. You don't sound very mentally healthy to me, but that's your business so long as you and the law stay out of mine.

up
Voting closed 0

right after you learn to stop telling me and everyone who doesn't make Jill Stein look like Ronald Reagan what is and what isn't our business.

I don't give a shit who uses the bathroom stall next to mine (pun intended), but you know, it just might be possible for me to simultaneously object to a biological female in the men's locker room and vice versa without also wanting to send all gays to re-education camp.

up
Voting closed 0

modern nanny-state-in-your-pants "conservative"

I <3 this anon!

up
Voting closed 0

that cyclist/anon affections are a cultural taboo in some third world craphole that I just made up, so out of cultural sensitivity, I'm going to have to ask you to report to Self-Criticism a few minutes early tomorrow for an extra dose of back-pedalling (get it...bikes, pedalling...oh what's the use?)

up
Voting closed 0

It is a serious drought year. Let us know if you find water.

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 0

Def myth based fear.

up
Voting closed 0

Tell him to put a bloody sock in it.

up
Voting closed 0

his heroic World Series performance -- by being the Comonwealth's most egregious example of a government-sucking Republican hypocrite and all-around loud-mouthed, empathy-challenged, dim-bulb rightie douchebag -- since 2005.

A key role-player in the greatest moment of my life as a Boston sports fan. But what an awful human being.

up
Voting closed 0