Idealism Without Illusions

Graduation Madness.

2006-03-16T18:19:00.000-05:00

Ok, so it isn't the most pressing public polciy argument of our time, but it makes sense, combines politics, basketball, and school, so ... Just do it.

Check it out here ... Graduation Madness.

Russ is Wrong.

2006-03-15T07:52:00.000-05:00

Calling for censure of President Bush (or for impeachment) is a fools errand that will only do the Democrats who choose to pursue it more political harm, than good.

I admire Senator Feingold. He's a committed progressive, a principled leader, and he's shown he can win in a state that's increasingly unfriendly to Democrats. And while I think a little bit much has been made of his "only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act and Iraq War standing" (remember, there were 37 members of the House of Representatives who did the same), he certainly has a voting record that more often resembles someone "sailing against the wind" than someone who's chief hobby is sailing with the wind. But on this count he has sorely miscalculated the public will, the political climate, and the pitfalls of his actions.

In eight months, Americans will go to the polls. Up for election will be every member of the House and many of Feingold's fellow Senators. Despite some stumbles, DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel and DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer have managed to field an impressive slate of candidates that very well could capitalize on the public's desire for change, progress and reform. However, the call for censure does nothing to help their efforts, and may in fact hinder it. Take for example Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). Mr. Nelson's home state gave President Bush 33% more support than Senator Kerry. No one will claim Sen. Nelson is progressive, but he is one vote closer to a Democratic majority. So how does the call for censure affect him? It's probably too early to tell and Nelson has largely inoculated himself from the national party in the past, but still, it's another hurdle to clear. Sen. Nelson is facing a well financed challenger, why jeopardize his success? Why force candidates in Florida, Ohio, Montana, Arizona, and West Virginia, to take about a procedural, Beltway maneuver, when they should be talking about raising the minimum wage, expanding health care coverage, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil? And perhaps more importantly, why feed the conservative noise machine?

Leadership and principle are important. Sen. Feingold has shown both in the past, but in this case he has shown the same type of tone deafness that the Bush administration has exhibited in recent months. The American people don't want their Congress engaged in "blame games" (as the censure is bound to be framed), but they do want them doing something about the budget, the debt, and the growing costs of living and declining quality of life.

Sen. Feingold would do well to remember one of my personal favorites: What do you call a leader with no one following him? A guy taking a walk.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum of Political Animal probably does better at saying what I was getting at in the above post. And for the pro-censure argument, Andy and Charley at BMG have that covered in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

UPDATE II: Just one last thing on all this ... the "Senator X voted to censure President Clinton, so he/she should have no problem voting to censure President Bush on an issue of national security" argument ignores absolutely everything else that was going on in 1997/1998 and now. The censure of Clinton was a (successful) attempt to derail the impeachment crusade that Gingrich, et. al. were leading. Censure now, would be a step up in the intensity, not a dial down as it was then. Apples and oranges friends.

The Three Musketeers

2006-03-10T17:11:00.000-05:00

If there is one positive to the 24/7/365 circus the mass media has become, its that public officials rarely escape scrutiny. While there is plenty of room to debate how scrutinized one politician or group may be in comparison to another, nobody gets away without what Chuck Schumer would refer to as a "cursory review." Accepting this, it's somewhat surprising that the local media has yet to raise any commotion over the refusal by three candidates for the highest office in the state to release their income tax records.

Let me state this clearly, I am by no means alleging any wrongdoing by Mr. Patrick, Mr. Mihos, or LG Healey. However, by refusing to make their records public, they cast a needless shadow of doubt over their respective candidacies. What's to hide? Refusing to release something as innocuous as income tax records only perpetuates the idea that office seekers are calculating and self-interested, instead of good-willed and public spirited. The Three Musketeers would do well to follow the lead of AG Reilly, release their records and dispel any notion that this campaign will be waged behind closed doors, as opposed to out in the open, where the people deserve.

Like Mayor Richard daley said, "Good government is good politics"

Numbers Don't Lie

2006-03-06T23:03:00.000-05:00

Here's the new CBS4/SurveyUSA Poll. Blue Mass Group has a good general breakdown of the numbers, although I'd beg to differ on their lumping of AG Reilly and Patrick together. Like I've said before, and we're all entitled to our opinions, but it seems to me that the Reilly ship has been righted, and these numbers would bear that out. AG Reilly beats LG Healey by 5% and Mr. Patrick loses to LG Healey by 5% (although I think we'd all agree that Mihos numbers will come down, specifically as he continues to open his mouth and insert his foot). Thats a 10% swing, no matter how you cut it.

There were a couple of numbers within the polling that are extremely interesting, with implications for both the Democratic primary and the general. First, with AG Reilly wins 54% of the African American vote in the general, while Deval Patrick wins only 46%. This suggests the AG has been able to garner support in a community that was supposed to be a strength for Mr. Patrick (admittedly, it is not a comparison of how African American voters would act in the Democratic primary, but it is still informative for the general election prospects of the candidates). Second, in both scenarios Independent voters favor LG Healey, but the difference between Healey and Reilly is only 3% (32-29), as opposed to the 16% (35-19) difference between Healey and Patrick. In both cases, Mihos wins 28% of the Independent vote. Finally, when broken down based on ideology, AG Reilly defeats Mr. Patrick in all categories (conservative, moderate, and note sure) accept for voters who identify themselves as "liberal" and in this case Mr. Patrick only wins by 1% (49-48).

Overall the poll is good news for the Reilly Campaign, should be somewhat troubling (although by no means alarming) to the Patrick campaign, and Christy Mihos should enjoy it while he can and before people realize just who he is and what he stands for. As for Lt. Gov. Healey, she might want to tell the current Chairman of the RGA to focus on the race in his "home state," otherwise it could get ugly for the Republican Party real fast.

Millionaires Only

2006-03-03T14:06:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, Attorney General Tom Reilly was not allowed to sit at the exclusive "Millionaires Only" Table at Wednesday's Mass BioTech Council Forum. (Great idea Adam)

The Laziest Congress Money Can Buy

2006-03-01T09:03:00.000-05:00

Starting today, each week Congress is "in session" we'll be posting a run down for what the "people's body" has scheduled for floor debate. Knowing full well members of both parties are busy with fundraising (ahem), committee hearings, and re-election efforts, the floor schedule is the best measure available to the general public to determine what the House of Representatives (or as Republicans should call it, "The House the Hammer Built") is doing with their time. So, without further adu:

Monday - February 27 - The House is not in session

Tuesday - February 28 - The House meets at 2PM for legislative business, votes will be held on 7 suspension bills (non controversial bills supported by at least 3/4 of the House) including: the French Colonial National Historic Site Study Act and An Act Commemorating LITE (Lifetime Innovations of Thomas Edison)

Wednesday - March 1 - The House will meet at 10AM for legislative business, including votes of 4 suspension bills (including one which establishes January 2006, a month passed already, as "National Stalking Awareness Month") and consideration of HR 4167 - the National Uniformity for Food Act (NOTE: House is also in a Joint Session to hear Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi speak)

Thursday - March 2 - Whatever they don't get around to from Wednesday (really).

Friday - March 3 - The House is not in session.

So, the current government spends more than any other, does less than any other, and shows no signs of changing course. Where's Harry Truman when you need him.

Moving Massachusetts Forward

2006-02-28T17:41:00.000-05:00

After a quiet couple of weeks, it looks like the Reilly campaign has regrouped, rebounded, and is ready to answer alot of the questions that have been asked of it. One recurring question I've heard from some is "what's Attorney General Reilly's vision for the Commonwealth?" Fair question, and it looks like the answer is here.

Thus far, the AG had been fairly quiet on policy proposals, but thats no longer the case. The S.M.A.R.T. Initiative seems like the level headed, pragmatic proposal we'd expect from Reilly (further highlighting that January and February were an aberration). Before Patrick supporters jump, I know Deval Patrick has his own education plan, and it's just fine too. The point here, is that, in a rush to pile on in previous months, many have wrongly claimed that AG Reilly was running for the Corner Office just to run, and not because he had new ideas to get Massachusetts moving in the right direction ... forward. This plan, and the others that are to follow show thats not the case at all. Personally, it seems pretty S.M.A.R.T. to me.

The 'Cause I Can Candidacy ...

2006-02-24T13:53:00.000-05:00

Many things can be forgiven in politics, except for being petty. Which is why Chris Gabrieli is making a serious mistake trying to line up the necessary delegates to appear on the Democratic ballot this fall.

If it had been Gabrieli's intention all along to run for the Corner Office, I would not characterize his actions as such. Rather, his entrance in to the race would have been welcomed. His past experience, although entirely unsuccessful, would make him a formidable opponent and his finances would ensure that if all else fails his message would have been heard and his face would have been seen across the Commonwealth.

However, its quite clear that Gabrieli's intentions, perhaps since as early as December 2005, as rumored by David Eisenthal, were to use his financial clout to secure a spot on a Democratic ticket with AG Reilly. When that failed, Gabrieli seemed to take it personally. I can see why ... our current LG never proved the ability to win even a State Rep's race, why should he be held to a higher standard?

Gabrieli's "campaign," if it amounts to that, is the culmination of much of whats wrong with politics, especially in Massachusetts. A campaign for the highest office in the state should be neither an afterthought, nor a vendetta. Gabrieli's is both. Further, the main argument in support of his candidacy is "Patrick can't win and Reilly slipped up." Well, Deval Patrick has proven he deserves more respect than that and last time I checked Chris Gabrieli's human too, so I'd simply say, "people in glass houses" Chris. Finally, lets try and follow the logic of the Gabrieli candidacy, "Patrick can't win and Reilly slipped up, THEREFORE ... I can" Anyone else notice the leap.

C'mon Chris, you're better than that, you're better than this. You've worked for good causes and done a lot of good for the party in this past, don't tarnish all that with a petty campaign that could eventually cost us our best shot at the Corner Office since I've been able to walk and talk.

A Co-Equal Branch

2006-02-23T14:51:00.000-05:00

Karl von Clausewitz was a Prussian general who lived from the late eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. He held many important positions in the Prussian military, from aide-de-camp, to chief of staff, ending his career as a major general. While von Clausewitz participated in many important battles, he is best known for his military treatise On War. The Prussian general famously wrote that "War is the continuation of politics by other means;" herein is the lesson.

One of the great cliches of the post-Vietnam era in American politics is that when the U.S. military is in conflict, it must be supported wholeheartedly. Were I a betting man, I'd have no problem wagering my life savings on the proposition that every member of congress has made some statement to this effect. In one sense, I have to agree with them: if you're going to vote to send military forces into battle, you ought to be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to make that battle successful. However, the belief that inquiry and investigation into military policy is somehow unpatriotic reveals just how neutered the once-proud people's branch has become.

If one accepts von Clausewitz' notion that war is politics using other means, why ought the politicians abdicate their responsibilities to participate in this process? A general from one of the most war-oriented states since Sparta ought to be a relatively good source for understanding warfare's implications. That isn't to say that Joe Q. Representative should be calling special-ops command demanding that they change their priorities, but blind acceptance of the requests and strategies of military leaders is a dangerous notion. Political leaders from the legislative branch have a duty to look toward military policy with a critical eye. The question then is why they fail to do so.

Congress does not exactly have a reputation for benevolent power sharing. If there is power to be had, and Congress has the means, you can count on them aquiring it. Why then do so many members, Republican and Democrat alike, blindly accept that once at war, questioning military leaders is inappropriate? The answer is an old one, the military industrial complex. No less a general and leader than Dwight Eisenhower warned us about it nearly fifty years ago. It was a concern great enough for him to mention in his last message to the American people, and it has certainly not abated.

The story is all too familiar, defense officials moving to positions as defense contractors, defense contractors appointed as defense officials. It is an incestuous world that few have access to. A cursory glance at the campaign finance reports of members who sit on the defense subcommittees of both the senate and house appropriations committees bears out the influence of the defense industry.

I doubt none of this is new to anyone, which is quite sad. It's a reality we seem to have resigned ourselves to. The solutions to these problems are difficult: campaign finance reform combined with competitive house districts to weaken the advantages of incumbency. A new attitude about war as a sign not of our national might, but the failure of our power to work with other countries.

War is politics. The men and women we elect have a substantive role in it. That role ought to reflect a diversity of constituent opinions to include those defense contractors who employ thousands, but more importantly reflect the views of those who don't stand to profit, and the feelings of those who might have to risk their lives.

The legislature is a co-equal branch and it's time they began to act like it.

What DCCC Really Stands For

2006-02-23T07:58:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Congressional Coulda (Woulda, Shoulda) Committee.

Why might you ask? Because unless State Senator Charlie Wilson finds a loophole that no one has found yet, he won't be on the ballot this fall (via Hotline). The magic number just bumped up to 16 for the House to flip. Wilson was seeking the seat vacated by Rep. Ted Strickland (D -OH-6), who is a cadidate for Governor. It's a district that leans Democratic ... if it has a candidate. C'mon Rahm, who's running the show down there?

And if you think I'm disappointed, I've got nothing on the national media, who probably had the "Charlie Wilson goes to War Again" headlines ready (explanation here).

When Speech Isn't Speech

2006-02-20T15:37:00.000-05:00

"There is a cancer on the body politic: money" - former Senator and Governor Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC)

Money hasn't always been an issue in politics, but it has always been an issue in modern politics. Over the past century, money has grown from one of many issues to consider when running a campaign to the issue to consider when running a campaign, when thinking about running a campaign, and when wanting your consideration about said campaign to be taken seriously. This isn't what the founders wanted and its nothing they could have had the foresight to prepare the Republic for. There's was a time when candidates were put up for office by others, then stepped aside as they were campaigned for and against. Ideas and arguments won campaigns, not individuals and bank accounts.

However, nostalgia will not solve our problems. To address the pervasive, negative influence money has on our political process elected officials of all stripes must come together around a simple idea: our political process is enhanced, not detracted from, when the playing field is leveled and elected officials are less concerned with the size of their campaign accounts and PAC contributions. Certainly, debate over campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and perhaps even how legislators use their personal PACs to win seats on "select" committees, will lead to heated debate and solutions that do not entirely satisfy some, but the dissatisfaction of a few is far superior to the continued destruction and decay of our political process for all.

Now if only we had a leader capable of striking the right balance, able to allay the concerns of those on either side, and ensure the legitimacy of our democracy. Paging the junior Senator from Illinois.

Count the Ways ...

2006-02-17T15:23:00.000-05:00

The crew over at Under the Golden Dome have a great post up that caught my eye as I was scanning the blog-wire pre-gym. And in the best tradition of lazy fridays, I decided to put off the gym for a bit and tackle a topic I've been thinking about a lot lately - Why am I a Democrat and What's right with the Democratic party.

I'll admit, I've been thinking about the topic on and off since college, but refocused after watching former Governor Mark Warner give his patented "Why I am a Democrat" speech the other week in Manchester, NH. Read it, listen to it, and if you don't get chills, or at least get inspired to think about why you're a Democrat, you should probably double check your pulse.

So why am I a Democrat? I'm a Democrat because the Democratic party is the only party that can play to society's highest ideals instead of its lowest common denominator and push our nation forward, together.

I'm a Democrat because thanks to a polio stricken President, a determined First Lady, and a batch of Southern populists who I'd more often fight against than agree with, millions of senior citizens were lifted out of abject, isolated poverty, and have stayed out of it since.

I'm a Democrat because it was a Democratic president that said "we shall overcome" and made sure we did - - signing the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, all while waging a War on Poverty.

I'm a Democrat because "the cause endures, the hope lives on and the dream shall never die."

I'm a Democrat because The Peace Corps reaffirmed our commitment to service worldwide, Americorps reaffirmed our commitment to those less fortunate within our borders, and the good work of the thousands who have volunteered in these programs started as a ripple, but became a mighty current.

I'm a Democrat because government isn't always the answer, but it is part of the equation if we want to move toward the more perfect Union that we all hold as our common goal.

I'm a Democrat because in a world of imperfections, no one can expect a party to be perfect, but we can demand that a party constantly work for to improve the lot of those who have been left behind, never forget those who came before, and always think of those who will come later. That is the mission that drives our party and we must never forget it.

Finally, I'm a Democrat because no matter how many statistics, figures, or proofs you show me for why one path is better than the other, none of those matter half as much as the look on the face of grateful student, the smile on the face of a newly employed father, or the relief of a mother who's child has returned home from protecting their nation in these dangerous times. So long as those faces are among us, in their sundry forms, it is our solemn duty to serve them, and I think we'd all agree that the Democratic party is the best vehicle to do just that.

New Equilibrium?

2006-02-16T11:42:00.000-05:00

Personally, I thought last week's state house news poll was going to be as far as AG Reilly would drop, post-Caucus, post-St. Fleur (or "Fleuriasco" as BMG has dubbed it), apparently, I was wrong. A quick look at the numbers seems to say that Patrick picked up the 14% of undecideds who made a decisions between September 2005 and February 2006, which is impressive to say the least. Further, if Patrick did get all 14%, he still had to gain another 8%, meaning virtually all of the support that AG Reilly lost had no qualms supporting Patrick. If you're Chris Garbielli, this has to be the last thing you wanted to see. Your candidacy, if there even is one, or ever was, was based largely on the theory that Reilly supporters would be looking for non-Patrick option. Based on these numbers, this constituency doesn't seem to be forming.

More later.

UPDATE: I've been thinking about this poll all day, trying to figure out what it means. There's a few conclusions I've come to. First, there's no more campaigning solely against Kerry Healey. The remaining undecideds are not going to be won over easily and they will not be won over merely by a laundry list of whats been done wrong since 2002. The facts they know, now they want to see what AG Reilly and Patrick have to offer, and apparently, they haven't been sold by either yet. Like I said earlier, I don't think they necessarily want an alternative (Gabrielli), but they do want a compelling reason why either candidate will break the Republican hold on the corner office and move Massachusetts forward. Second, despite the best efforts of Andy, Lynne, and others, I think we've seen the last of the caucus bounce. For good or for ill, we're in a little bit of a dry period in the campaign now. Odds are both candidates will take the following month(s) to flesh out their visions, make themselves known, reintroduce themselves to voters and prepare for the conventions. If this poll means nothing else, it means we're in for a real fight over the next few months, one that can only make us stronger going into November.

Knowing What We Know Now ...

2006-02-15T07:42:00.000-05:00

You've got to feel bad for Harry Whittington's family. Here's hoping he has a speedy recovery ... so we can really laugh.

Best quote by a bald faux-news reporter on the whole situation:

Everyone believed there were quail in the brush and while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he would still have shot Mr. Whittington in the face.
—"Vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst," Rob Corddry (The Daily Show)

The Real Deal

2006-02-14T17:28:00.000-05:00

If I were a Republican, and yes, thats about as big an "if" as there is out there (followed only by, "if I was a Yankees fan" and "if I could just give up on the Celtics"), I'd be doing everything I could to get my party to nominate Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in 2008. I've always had a soft spot for Hagel, if for no other reason than because he's more consistent in his beliefs than any other member of his party and has no problem speaking up to the Administration (as he's done on Iraq, Climate Change, and the deficit), but Joseph Lelyveld's mammoth bio ("The Heartland Dissident") on the Senator in Sunday's New York Times Magazine sealed the deal.

Think: McCain - Ego - baggage = Interesting candidate.

Then again, it seems the current GOP likes big names and small thoughts (see: Allen). It's a pity. Of course, Hagel would make a great Ambassador to the UN or Special Envoy to the Middle East in a Democratic Administration. Let's make sure he gets that chance.

Leading by Example

2006-02-14T07:46:00.000-05:00

It's tough for me to not write about sports more often in these pages. For as long as I can remember, sports have been a gigantic part of my life. Whether it was a short lived little league career, a club soccer trip across the pond, or a mid-summer game in Fenway, sports have been a part of my life so long as I can remember. While the people I would describe as my heroes are no longer athletes, there is one athlete who has broken through and I had never even heard his name until I woke up this morning.

Joey Cheek is a 26 year old, gold medal winning, Olympic speed skater. And after 70 seconds of brilliance on the ice in Torino, Cheek took his moment in the limelight point out the ongoing suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan. Cheek did so, not in an incriminating fashion, but in an unassuming, humble, and thoughtful way. In the ultimate moment of personal vindication, individual triumph, and personal success, Cheek chose to look outside himself. During his post-victory press conference, Cheek announced he'd be donating his bonus ($25,000 from the USOC, which a speed skater could surely use) to a group working with refugees in Chad. Shortly thereafter, Nike came forward and said they'd be matching Cheek's donation and would be working with him on the venture, and I'd hazard a guess that they won't be the last Olympic sponsor to jump on the feel good story.

But before this snowball becomes an avalanche of cross-training shoes, shorts, and t-shirts headed for war torn West Africa, lets remember how it all started. A single young man took the greatest opportunity of his life, perhaps the one time the spotlight will be on him, and instead of soaking it all in and getting all he could, Joey Cheek chose to give back. As Cheek himself said, "The best way to thank someone is by helping someone else." Thank you Joey Cheek, you're an example to us all, and a reminder of how sports can bring out the best in all of us.

Irrational Exuberance

2006-02-12T13:16:00.000-05:00

In a recent poll concerning Massachusetts' 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary, one candidate was supported by 39% of voters, one was supported by 30%, and 31% of Democratic voters were as yet undecided. The poll raised a few eyebrows and for good reason. The frontrunner dropped by 19% and his challenger jumped up 12%.

So, what does it all mean? Well, we're about a week removed from the LG/tax/financial mess and AG Reilly is still, yes still, 9% ahead of Deval Patrick. Imagine a worse month for the Reilly Campaign. Can't do it? Neither can I. But here's the flip side, imagine a better month for Deval Patrick to make inroads. Imagine a month where he could have had everything break his way. Can't do that either? I thought so. This is informative. Prior to the St. Fleur mess, 24% of Democratic voters were undecided, after the incident, 31% were undecided. This means that not only did a 19% drop for Reilly only equate to a 12% bump for Patrick, but it also meant that the original 24% either paid no mind to the mess, felt it didn't matter, or didn't think it mattered enough for them to choose to support Mr. Patrick.

Before others raise their dissent, as I am sure they will, let me say that I am in no way arguing that bad news of weeks past is not pertinent, salient, or in anyway "good" for AG Reilly's prospects, but I am saying that maybe, just maybe, Mr. Patrick's supporters were making a little much of it. Yes, Mr. Patrick did do better than AG Reilly in the caucuses, but the 35,000 participants in the town and city caucuses make up (and someone correct me if my numbers are off here) roughly 5% of voters in the Democratic primary (based on 2002 turn out). So before we write candidates off, claim candidates are flawed, or make prognostications that would make the Bush budget seem modest, lets take a step back and see the whole picture. It's a long way to September, let alone November.

Creativity, Innovation, Progress and Reform: It's Do or Die Time for the Donkey

2006-02-12T09:34:00.000-05:00

Much has been said, and will continue to be said, about the future of the Democratic Party. This ongoing dialogue is a good one, if for no other reason, because it promotes the kind of thoughtful debate and discussion which is needed to address the many failings of the Democratic party over the past 12 years. Since John Kerry's 2004 election loss, many "single bullet" theories have been proposed, claiming to explain away the Democratic woes with one fell swoop. Thankfully, the shortcomings of these theories have been exposed. There is no single fix-all for the Democratic party, but there are many good starting points (most of which serve as the foundation for those fix-alls).

Yes, Democrats do need to better articulate an alternative national security strategy to that of the current administration. As Senator Evan Bayh has rightly pointed out, "Educating our children, providing quality health care and securing retirement are all critical challenges -- but the American people will not trust us on any of those issues if they don't first trust us with their lives." However, the desire to look "tough" has too often left Democrats supporting or backing down to the current administration's foolhardy foreign policy misadventures.

Yes, Democrats do need to frame issues better and to avoid using Republican frames that force us to play on "their turf." As George Lakoff says in the introduction to Don't Think of an Elephant, "our job is to frame our own values, vision, and mission, and avoid attacking theirs, because if we do, it only keeps their ideas in the forefront." However, Lakoff's theories and lessons are a dangerous elixir for Democrats, telling them, "just learn how to talk different and you'll be fine." Certainly, framing matters, but what are we framing, what are the values, what is the vision?

Understanding that the way forward for the Democratic party is not necessarily a clear one, with many competing interests vying for prominence within the party, it is vital for the leaders of the Democratic party and the rank & file, to adopt a message and vision that appeals to the widest possible swath of the voting public. Perhaps the only message that can bring together the disparate interests within the Democratic party and help them move forward together under a common banner is a simple message: Reform and Progress.

Why Reform? First, every progressive, liberal, moderate, centrist, and blue dog Democrat can agree that the past 12 years of Republican control of Congress and especially the last 6 years of Republican control of EVERYTHING has left our government in shambles at all levels. If you are a Democrat whose chief concern is the environment, look at what the Republicans have done to the EPA, Interior, Energy, and our environmental regulations. If health care is your thing, well, do I even need to get into it. And if you consider yourself a "national security" Democrat, wouldn't you like to fix the Armed Forces that the current majority party has stretched thin, failed to modernize, and forced to rely on more out of date weapons systems? Why Reform? Because we all agree its necessary, because it can apply to everything, and because no matter what the final product of reform is, its got to be better than the current state of things.

Why Progress? For good or for ill, part of the great American story has been a sense of continuing progress in our nation's history. While the "progress paradigm" ignores many of the gritty details of our nation's history, it is deeply embedded in who we are as a people and as such, must be tapped for electoral success and in developing public support for policy. Having spent the past 2 years as an aide on Capitol Hill, I know full well the bunker mentality that House Democrats have been forced to take. When everything you believe in, or have worked to build, is under attack, the first and proper reaction is do everything in your power to hold the line. However, such a defensive posture, although necessary, places Democrats on the wrong side of the progress paradigm. Karl Rove even went so far as to declare that Conservatism had won a victory in the Social Security reform (small "r" when the reform is useless, regressive, and doesn't fix the fiscal underpinnings) because Democrats appeared to "be obstructionist, oppositional, and wedded to the past instead of the future - and thats not a good place to be in American politics." Clearly, Democrats were right to block the President's Social Security proposal, and in this case, it looks like Rove was wrong, but his thoughts shed light on an important political reality.

If it's clear "Why Reform?" and "Why Progress?" and we can debate "what Reform is" that leaves one major question, "What is Progress?" This is where the FUTURE of the Democratic party will be determined. In the next 7 months, the Democratic leaders and candidates need to articulate what their first principles and values are, and how those principles and values build a foundation for their vision of American progress in the 21st century. I would argue that the most important driving forces behind any proposals put forth by the Democratic party must be creativity and innovation in government. Gov. Tom Vilsack has started to hit on this point, and in so doing, he has inoculated himself from some of the predictable criticisms of Rove & Co. Emphasizing creativity and innovation helps Democrats break free of the past and become the party of progress, idealism, and a better future; a "more perfect Union" as Lincoln said, and Clinton repeated, time after time. Speaking of creativity and innovation forces Democrats to their money where there mouth is, as Senator Barack Obama and Representative Jay Inslee have done with their "Health Care for Hybrids Act."

Rhetoric, such as that used by Gov. Vilsack, and ideas, such as those put forth by Sen. Obama and Rep. Inslee, are just the start. If the Democratic party is to gain control of Congress and the White House, it must dedicate itself to both a consistent defense of its principles, which I think we all believe are the foundational principles of the American experience, and a consistent campaign for progress, reform, creativity, or innovation. If the party leans to much towards the offense it will fall prey to attacks, and if leans too much towards the defense, it will become the party of the past. Balance is key in all things, but it is a necessity if the Democratic party is to become the governing majority in this country in the coming years.

Gulf Coast Update

2006-02-10T09:35:00.000-05:00

I've decided that at least once a week, I'm going to try and do a post focused on the Gulf Coast recovery, if for no other reason than because I feel a deep and abiding obligation to the people of the region. Ideally, there will be some good news mixed in with analysis of how things are going, but based on the papers this week, and especially today, it might be a stretch to promise anything.

"The supply of trailers is not the issue; we have plenty of trailers" - Nicol Andrews, FEMA spokesperson.

If you haven't clicked on the link above, please do. Now, if you haven't punched a hole in your computer monitor, or spilled coffee all over your keyboard after slamming your desk, congratulations.

Now this ...

Apparently, then FEMA Director Michael Brown and DHS Sec Chertoff's Chief of Staff both knew by the night of August 29th that, "(conditions) far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting. Finding extensive flooding and more stranded people than they had thought Â also a number of fires."

Alright, first things first. RE: FEMA trailers. According to the article, some 135,000 trailer requests have been made and roughly about 50% of those request have been filled. Even if Ms. Andrews is correct, which is suspect considering the article mentions only 19,000 unclaimed trailers thus far, that does not make the bureaucratic mess and lack of inaction any better. There are people who want to move back, want to get on with their lives, and need a trailer to do so (Note: this isn't a luxury trailer. From personal experience, I can say, the trailers at Spartan at best, cramped & barely livable at worst). It's time to cut through the red tape and stop the bickering between federal, state and local officials. They need trailers, you've got trailers, in the spirit of the region, "get 'er done." Now. (A little leadership would help ... say, maybe more then 146 words in a 5,000 word speech)

Moving on to the investigations into the inept immediate response to the disaster... if the findings of the investigators and the committee are true, and the White House knew of the gravity of the situation, but it "did not register" - - well, not that the excuses worked the first time around, but they certainly don't carry ANY weight any more. The President felt the region had "dodged a bullet" and Sec. Chertoff (who I had thought would be the best of the second term cabinet) kept his regularly scheduled briefing on the avian flu, in Atlanta.

This most recent revelation (and what should be its public airing at the Senate hearings today) puts a further dent in the White House message that "mistakes were made at all levels." Yes, they were, but leadership was absent at the mostimportantt level. That's what this really points to, a lack of leadership. Ultimately, the White House did respond, but it was only after severe public criticism and public outrage over the images from a ravaged New Orleans. Leadership isn't reactive, its pro-active.

The Gulf Coast region will rebuild and it will rebound, but in order for it to do so in the most equitable, fair, and democratic fashion, its the responsibility of all to scrutinize the process, push it forward, and hold leaders at all levels accountable. The residents of the region wouldn't have it any other way.

Empty Earmark Evangelism

2006-02-09T07:52:00.000-05:00

Somehow, most of the debate around lobbying reform and the culture of corruption in Washington, D.C. has shifted to earmarks. Earmarks, for those who ignore John McCain or his followers, are literally legislative language inserted into spending bills that directs or "earmarks" federal funds for specific projects in a Representative's home district or a Senator's home state. While the debate around earmarks seems to be an all-or-nothing one, let me explain why I don't think its all that simple.

The logic that says the increase in earmarks is due to the increased power and influence of lobbyists is spurious. In this sense, the Republican spin on Abramoff is, and this is only by accident, true. Abramoff's ability to pile up large sums of money, thanks to his direct and unfettered access to former Majority Leader Tom Delay and his staff, was an aberration. For the most part, lobbyists are lucky if they can get their clients in to see the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committees which control their desired pot of gold. Further, even when they do get in to see these powerful members, normally meaning those on the bodies Appropriations committee, that does not guarantee support of their project or cause.

How though, you might ask, could a member of congress afford to ignore the influence and desires of a powerful lobbyist, what with the lunches they offer, and the box seats to the Nationals, Wizards, and Redskins game. It's pretty easy and simple actually. The federal budget is the scarcest of scarce resources. 99.9% of members would never waste their precious few earmarks (members of the house, especially more freshman members who sit on relatively unimportant committees especially get few, if any, earmarks) on "pork." Now, that leads to a legitimate debate over what precisely pork is. Looking at a list of earmarked projects, I could quite easily assume a project in South Dakota is pork, but I don't know that, and neither does the federal bureaucracy. Deference, with regards to the interests and needs of a local district, is paid to that districts representative, as it should be.

Which leads to the most intriguing part of the earmark debate. Those who crusade against earmarks are reliably conservative lawmakers, who are looking for some piece of the reform mantle to call their own. Some, like Representative Flake and Senator McCain have been calling for the removal of earmarks for some time now and their desire for change is not being questioned. However, I do question what their final goal is. If the power to direct spending, to earmark, is taken from Congress, those earmarked funds would not go to offset the deficit, rather, they would go directly to the federal agency charged with overseeing the program out of which the earmarks have been removed. In other words, lets take the decision-making process out of the hands of elected officials and give it to bureaucrats. Personally, I don't have a big problem with it, but it seems to go directly against the conservative dogma of less control to Washington.

As bogus as some of them are, earmarks are here to stay. Yes, the presence of earmarks will continue, as will, to some degree, the role of lobbyists in government. But here's another secret of the earmark trade that lobbyists probably don't want you to here ... lobbyists, for the most part, don't matter. Sure, they might get you in the door and they might rack of a big bill, but in the end, if the project doesn't serve a compelling local interest, its not going to cut muster. Just remember what Tip said, "all politics is local" ... whether it takes place in Washington, on K Street, or in your congressional district.

UPDATE: After I wrote this, I got to thinking about ways that Democrats could use the debate over earmarks in the 2006 campaign. Thankfully, before I got too frustrated, something came ot me. Democrats should call for the removal of all earmakrs from the Department of Defense, Department of State, and any other national security related agency. Further, Democrats should insist that the Department of Homeland Security's budget remain free of earmarks (under a gentleman's agreement between the House and Senate, earmarking the DHS budget has been taboo thus far). There is no room for pork when it comes to national security ... I'd like to see the Republicans run against that.

Federal Budget 101

2006-02-07T07:31:00.000-05:00

Having spent much of my two years after college and before grad school parsing through the federal budget, I take a certain type of sick joy in listening to the spins surrounding the President's budget. Will the President's budget cut the deficit in half before he leaves office? The answer is "yes" if you're Josh Bolten, OMB Director at the White House, and "no" if you're the Congressional Budget Office. Both are right, and neither make their predictions based on anything approaching political reality. This is just the type of beltway dilemma that leaves more people with headaches, than with any idea of how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent. While the mainstream media enjoys pointing out specific cuts, and trust me, there's enough specific cuts to keep the articles rolling 'til the House and Senate vote on their packages, very little attention is paid to the overall budget picture. Appreciating this, I thought I'd take a run at cutting through some of the budget-speak, Washington-lingo, and flat out spin, to see where we really are. Or in "blogosphereic" terms, its some reality-based commentary on our current fiscal woes.

The first, and most glaring, misunderstanding in the general public, focuses on the role the President plays in the budget process. Since the 1974 Budget Act (see: good bedtime reading if you are having trouble sleeping) was signed into law, the President's role in the budget process has been a guiding one. He/she submits a budget proposal to Congress and the proper committees in both bodies act on that submission. Within the President's budget are a host of legislative, regulatory, and other assumptions (Ex. drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is said to raise $4 billion, up from last years assumed total thanks to the spike in oil prices). These assumptions are the President's wishlist for the year. The final numbers administration officials are using now (claims surrounding what the President's budget would do to the deficit) are based on Congressional approval of ALL of the President's proposals. This includes, but is not limited to, moving control of the Community Development Block Grant to the Dept. of Commerce, closing down the National Civilian Community Corps, and cutting some 100 other programs (as the Presidents budget claimed to do last year also). One tiny problem there ... most of those proposals, many of which Bolten, et. al rely on to chip away at the deficit are DOA at the Hill.

Which brings us to important point #2, which is really the correlate of point #1. If the President only guides, or makes suggestions and proposals to, the budget, who is really pulling the strings? Congress. Yes, the same people that brought you Abramoff, Delay, Terri Schiavo, and turned a $236 billion surplus (for as far as anyone's budget forecast could see) into yearly deficits in excess of $400 billion and a national debt of $8.3 trillion (oh yeah, the debt limit will get raised in the next few months too ... and all of us in Massachusetts thought Marie St. Fleur was bad!). Congressional control of the federal budget has its positive and negative aspects. Long time committee chairs and ranking members are loathe to see programs within their jurisdiction slashed. While Republicans have been able to demand loyalty in the Delay era, there is little reason to believe that post-Delay, in an election year, and in dire need of good news, there will be 100% party loyalty. For individual programs, this is good news. Find the right ear, and you might just live to see FY 2008. Overall, though, Congressional failure to enact some of the President's proposals, only worsens budget forecasts and our current fiscal standing. This is where the Congressional Budget Office's work is informative.

CBO has a legislative mandate to produce budget predictions based only on current laws. While OMB assumes everything (and right they should, since they are the President's budget men and not the budget watch dog for the legislative branch), CBO assumes nothing. For this reason, you will see many of the Democratic leaders on the budget refer to CBO baselines and projections. Additionally, Republicans and Democrats who fear the crush the retire of the baby-boom generation will put on our federal entitlements (see: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid ... also referred to as non-discretionary spending, since their spending levels are not controlled by Congress, but are tied to demographic indicators), will refer to CBOs projections for those programs, since they give us a fair look at where this spending will head if nothing is done.

So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, as so often is the case in Washington, truth is neither black or white. Like Mac Bundy, NSC Director of JFK and LBJ said, "Gray is the color of truth." Some of the President's proposals will be adopted, but their total effect on our current deficit and debt will be miniscule at best. While President Bush is right to warn of the effect the baby-boom generation will have on non-discretionary spending, his warnings ring hollow considering the opportunity he had in 2000 to secure retirement of this generation, reform these programs, and erase the federal debt. Instead, we are back where we were in the early 1990s.

After a decade of "voodoo economics," Americans are being rudely awaken from the dreamy slumber of "have-your-cake-and-eat-it- too" conservatism. The federal budget, no matter how you parse it, analyze it, or spin it, is a statement of our nation's priorities and values. In the proposal President Bush has put forward, which will be largely mirrored by Congressional Republicans, the only priority is political expedience. Instead of leading Americans, of all political leanings, to a better future, President Bush has chosen to lead our nation down a perilous path, the end of which cannot be seen, but the ramifications of which will be felt for years.

Mumbles Mumbles

2006-02-05T08:19:00.000-05:00

Dear Mayor Menino,

Let me first say, I'm a fan. I like the work you've done in Boston. And, although I'd like to see you more actively addressing violent crime, I think you've got a good chance to go down as one of the better Mayors the Hub has seen in this half of the century. One of your strongest suits, I thought, was loyalty and your "buck stops here attitude." Apparently, I was wrong.

Now, I completely agree with your assessment that the St. Fleur choice was Tom Reilly's "alone." However, attempting to wash your hands of a situation that has your finger prints all over it looks petty and supremely disloyal. Since you announced your support for the Reilly campaign it's been quite clear that you have a say in the major decisions being made. And while you may claim you were "never lobbying" for your close friend Marie St. Fleur, well, that dog won't hunt Mr. Mayor.

Whether politics is your strong suit or not, we all know that there are few people you can trust in this business. If you're a real friend to the AG, Mr. Mayor, and you want to see him nominated and elected to the corner office, you'd be much better served saying you were disappointed Marie St. Fleur couldn't take advantage of an incredible opportunity for personal reasons, etc. Not too tough, right? Sure, you might not come out pristine, but this is politics, not ballroom dancing. If anyone should know that, you should.

Here's hoping those Boston delegates are a bit more steady in their support than their leader has appeared to be.

Sincerely,

Your friends on the other side of the Charles

Candidate Strangelove (or How I learned to stop worrying and turned around a campaign)

2006-02-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

Strange or surreal would probably be the best way to describe what the past 2 days have been like for the Reilly for Massachusetts campaign. All campaigns have peaks and valleys, some have mortal spins. This isn't the latter, yet, and to make sure it doesn't become that, here's what I would do, if I ran the show.

(1) Get out on Caucus day and work like you never have before. No big busses, nothing planned other than a rented van, a few staffers, some Dunkin Donuts coffee and the most comfortable shoes you can find. Hit every town caucus you can find. Shake every hand thats extended (including those with Deval Patrick stickers). Offer to sit down and talk to people about the past month, explain to them that you know mistakes were made, but thats behind you now, you've learned from it, and you're a better leader for it. Reach out. Listen to everyone. Be the Tom Reilly they voted for to be their top law enforcement official in the state, twice in a row.

(2) Work to repair relationships with the 4 candidates for Lieutenant Governor. They're pissed, you're bruised and battered. Meet with each of them, hear them out, explain the process you went through, why you did it, and what you've learned. Humility is key, especially with these 4. You had the upper hand, now, in a lot of ways, they do. Offer to work with each and schedule events with each, all across the state. Fundraisers, coffee hours at their neighbors place, pulling BINGO numbers at the Local Elks Club (c'mon, its politics, its fun).

(3) Get with the ex-officios and elected officials EVERYWHERE. Their organization is your organization, and an organization without a fire lit under it does no good when it comes to getting the votes out (see: Menino and Finneran holding back the horses on Harshbarger). Same as with the LGs, hear them out. They've got a lot of griping to do, some warranted, some not, but most importantly, they want to be reassured. They don't need to hear your bio, but they do need to see that the ship has been righted, the course has been set, and the worst is behind them.

(4) Become the underdog. No, not the cartoon. How does Bill Belicheck get the Patriots to keep winning (forget about this season for a second)? He convinces them that nobody thinks they can do it, nobody thinks they have the most talent, the best players. He gets them mad. Now, I assume you're probably mad right now, but don't let that become self-loathing anger. Use it to fuel the comeback. Get out there and tell everyone that you know that Deval Patrick is the front runner now, that you know some people are thinking about jumping ship, but thats not going to stop you from working to earn the vote of every Massachusetts citizen from Pittsfield to Provincetown, Montague to Marblehead, Williamstown to Wellesley. Tell them you know the Republicans are laughing now, but they won't be laughing so hard come November, when we've sent them packing from the Corner Office and started running the Commonwealth in the interests of the greater good, not the special interests.

(5) Finally, don't forget anything you've learned the past month. Mistakes have been made and they can either be hidden in a closet, or used as lessons. Real people make mistakes all the time, real people understand mistakes. What they don't understand is political posturing, what they don't understand is backroom deals, and what they don't understand are candidates who care more about fundraising numbers than their problems. Meet real people everywhere you can, on the way to an event, get out, get a coffee and talk to the people in line, ask them what they care about, what they need, what bothers them. Each time you get up to speak, remember their voices, their desires, and their dreams for the Commonwealth. Do that, and in November, we'll be looking back on January and February like most New Englanders do, saying, "what a dark dreary winter that was."

I think you can do it. I think you think you can do it, so get out there and prove us right.

Ask Not

2006-02-01T09:51:00.000-05:00

History isn't about opportunities missed, its about opportunities taken, and for that reason alone, our 43rd President won't be considered in the company of the greats who have had the privilege to lead this nation. Last night, again, President Bush missed an opportunity to bring together a country that is painfully seeking unity, progress, and a better, safer tomorrow.

The power of rhetoric, combined with leadership, to inspire and drive nations to great heights has been proven throughout the course of history. Lincoln's steady hand and words preserved a Union that seemed bent on self destruction. Roosevelt's rhetoric inspired a nation to come out of its isolationist past and respond to the threat of totalitarian fascism in Europe. Kennedy's rhetoric drew multitudes to service for the greater good, in belief of something beyond themselves. While President Bush may wish to be remember in the same breath as these great leaders, he has missed what may be his last great chance.

It would have been foolish for anyone to expect the President to stand up at last nights State of the Union and call for universal health care or a new war on poverty, but there was a great deal the President chose not to say, or only pay lip service to, that he could have said. On energy independence, President Bush is uniquely positioned to call for sacrifice from the oil industry, auto industry, and American people alike. His background, much like that of LBJ in the push for civil rights, gives him credibility with these important players and provides him room to help our nation break free of what the he has now admitted is an "addiction to oil." Instead of calling for stricter CAFE standards or a new "freedom tax" on gas/SUVs/anything that indirectly supports radical Islamic regimes, President Bush took the easy route, talking about technology and possibilities for the future. Offend no one, challenge no one, ask nothing of a great nation that is ready to give.

There are other examples of missed opportunities, but they'll be documented throughout the mainstream media and in the blogosphere (left and right alike). President Bush was right when he said one thing, "the state of the union is strong." However, our union is strong, not because of its leadership, not because of the policies of this administration, and not because of our fiscal or moral standing in the world. The state of our union is strong because the spirit, will, and determination of the American people is absolutely unassailable and resolute. The strength of America rests not in its institutions, traditions, or position in the world. Rather, our strength is derived from the hardworking people in the Gulf Coast who are trying to rebuild their communities. The strength of our union comes from the Mom and Dad who are taking the overtime shifts to make sure their kid can afford to go to college. The strength of our union is drawn from the family farmers, small business owners, and teachers, who get up each day, go to work, and try and provide for their families and maybe, if they get the chance, make the world a better place.

The strength of our union has never been in question. But that strength has not been tapped by our current leadership, for one simple, obvious reason: they never asked.

Don't Blink

2006-01-30T21:03:00.000-05:00

You'd figure I couldn't miss too much in the way of Democratic Gubernatorial primary news by going to a few classes on a Monday, then you have a day like this.

First, you have Chris Gabrieli remove himself from consideration for a spot on the ticket. Then word comes that AG Reilly has selected State Rep. Marie St. Fleur (D-Dorchester) to join him on a ticket.

Lots of questions come from all of this, so lets try to provide a few answers.

(1) Did Reilly ever offer Gabrieli a spot on the ticket? NO. Gabrieli's own words on this one say it all, ''But those discussions, though extensive, serious and productive, never turned into a formal offer to ticket." Was it implied, alluded to, and debated. Probably, but no formal offer, means no offer. This is politics, not horseshoes or hand grenades, so close doesn't count for anything.

(2) What does this mean for Rep. St. Fleur? As far as my knowledge of the process extends, and I profess lots of limitations here, St. Fleur will have to run against the four other candidates and give up her State House seat (opening a Ways and Means seat for go-getters under the Golden Dome). Nothing "undemocratic" about that at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure thats democracy in action. May the best candidate win.

(3) What does the selection mean for Reilly? I'm reticent to attribute too much weight to the role a ticket, or any candidate for LG, can play in the race for the corner office. St. Fleur will be a great partner for AG Reilly (or any democratic nominee for that matter), that goes without saying. And the selection, for good or for ill, has created a buzz over at Blue Mass Group, thats for sure.

Overall, I think the selection gives the Reilly camp some good news to roll into the town caucuses. While the blogosphere will throw up some righteous ire, the story throughout the mainstream media will be about the strengths of Rep. St. Fleur and her prospects, part of a ticket or not, in the crowded, exciting, and interesting race for LG.

Point of Clarification

2006-01-29T13:59:00.000-05:00

Looking back on my post about the current debate surrounding running as a ticket, Reilly/Gabrieli, and my preference for LG, I realized that I was guilty of a pretty unfair judgment of Chris Gabrieli.

Gabrieli is a good Democrat, with a record of supporting progressive causes and progressive government. While he wouldn't light the world on fire, he would make a fine LG. In fact, I think any of the candidates, announced or otherwise, would serve well as a #2, whoever the Democratic nominee for the top spot may be. It's easy to stand on the sidelines, or behind a computer screen, and dissect the actions, motives, and machinations of elected officials and candidates for public office, but it is much harder to throw your hat in the ring and your beliefs on the line. As one of my favorite president's said,

It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or when the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worth cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat

Here's hoping that Gabrieli gets in the race (in one form or another). The more good Democrats we have seeking office and serving the public, the better off we, and the Commonwealth, are.

Never Forget

2006-01-28T14:24:00.000-05:00

The Catastrophe is Not Over.

Words do not do justice to the yeoman's work being done throughout the Gulf Coast region, by thousands of volunteers, professionals, and residents. Honor their work by never forgetting and doing what you can to help.

Rumors, Whispers, and Theories ... oh my!

2006-01-27T15:05:00.000-05:00

It seems the Bay State Blogosphere is all up in arms over the Boston Globe's report that AG Reilly is contemplating asking Chris Gabrieli to join a ticket to run for the Democratic nomination. This is, mind you, the same rumor that others (like David Eisenthal) have reported as early as December. In other words, its not a surprise, so the righteous furor of some, is a little bit misplaced.

This is not a defense of Gabrieli or the practice of running as a ticket (although there are arguments for and against, it's never right to change the rules in the middle of the game), rather, its a call for everyone to take a step back, take a deep breath, and get some perspective. Trial balloons aren't real balloons for a reason. In fact, Adam Reilly of Talking Politics, has a statement from the Reilly camp, seeking to clarify the AG's position. While it's not a denial, it makes it clear that any selection is far from imminent or automatic.

As to Gabrieli more generally ... well, I think underwhelming is the NICEST thing you can say about the guy. If I had my druthers, I'd be casting my ballot for the Reilly/Murray ticket come November. Sure, Mayor Murray may not have the access to money that consummate (loser) Chris has, but if Gabrieli has proven anything in his career, its that access to deep pockets can still leave your support skin deep when the going gets tough.

Money matters in politics, but its not the be all and the end all, even if that is the conventional wisdom. As eminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith (who coined the phrase "conventional wisdom") said, "We associate truth with convenience." It's a lesson we should all heed, whether it pertains to rumors, whispers, or theories.

Don't Call It a Comeback ...

2006-01-25T10:25:00.000-05:00

Tom Reilly is not going to be compared to John Kennedy, or Bobby Kennedy, or Ted Kennedy for that matter. He is not a great orator, he is not the smoothest politician in the Commonwealth, but he is the best fighter, the most determined and the most relentless in his pursuit of what is good for the citizens of this great state.

There are times in every campaign, especially when you have professed support for a candidate, when you might question your decision. However, there are also times when it all clicks, when you hear the candidate speak, and others speak on his behalf. When it all comes together "like it should." Goosebumps moments. The moments that remind you why you follow and get involved in politics.

Last night, I had the privelege of attending the Reilly for Massachusetts kickoff and open house in Boston. Returning from a similair event in his hometown of Springfield, I expected the AG to be drained by the emotional return home, but was presented with the exact opposite. Maybe it was something in the Western Mass air or a renewed sense of purpose and energy derived from a return to his roots, but whatever it was, it worked.

Following the remarks of Mayor Menino, Reilly gave an impassioned call for leadership, vision, and determination. He spoke from the heart about his desire to move Massachusetts forward together. Not just as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, but as fellow citizens of this great Commonwealth.

I'm sure supporters of Deval Patrick have had similair moments, and have come away with similair highs. It's a great feeling to believe in politics and the possibility of a better future for all, no matter how dark the storm clouds may seem somedays.

Harry Truman and My Trip to Mississippi

2006-01-20T13:19:00.000-05:00

On Harry Truman's historic 1948 campaign, more than once during stump speeches, Truman supporters would yell, "give 'em hell Harry!" and he'd reply, "I never gave them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." In the spirit of one of my favorite Presidents and Americans, my first post-Mississippi post will be straight truth. No spin, no politics, nothing but what I saw, what I felt, and what needs to be done.

Simply put, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi is destroyed. Standing in the middle of "Beach Highway" (Rte 90) and looking east towards New Orleans, one is presented with an eerie dichotomy. To the left is the gorgeous Gulf of Mexico, with its incredible sunsets and pristine, sparkling seas. To the right, as far as the eye can see, is 150 -200 yards in land of complete destruction. Concrete slabs where hotels, restaurants, and houses once stood. Large chunks of sidewalk thrown nearly half a mile. Cars on top of cars, on top of more cars. Trees covered with debris from the storm that changed the course of history in this region, and this nation, nearly 5 months ago.

Wind damage from Katrina is evident 100 miles inland from the coast. Small, rural towns like Wiggins, Mississippi, sustained incredible wind damage, and are just now digging out of isolation. FEMA trailers are more common than kids on bikes and a blue tarp roof is the norm, not the exception in most neighborhoods. The magnificent coast town of Pass Christian, MS, has been reduced to rubble and replaced by a Tent City, erected by the Navy Seabees, maintained by the good work and dedicated staff of AmeriCorps. Churches, like the St. James Baptist Church of Gulfport, who we had the privilege of working with, are just now starting to rebuild, thanks to the efforts and faith of their congregates.

If you were to go to Mississippi today, you would think that the storm had occurred yesterday, not last summer. This, in large part, was due to the overwhelming need for resources in New Orleans. However, it does not excuse gross negligence in the relief and recovery efforts, at all levels and by members of all parties. Over the course of 7 days in Mississippi, I was not once asked my party affiliation, or who I voted for in the 2004 election. While I was exposed to a drastically different culture from that of New England, or even Washington, DC, I never once was made to feel unwelcome or unwanted. Rather, immediately after mentioning why I was in the area, I was repeatedly thanked and often told stories of how individuals had survived the storm, what they had lost, and how they planned on moving forward. The impressions these stories made on me will stay with me forever because they were so raw, so moving, and so free of any pretension or purpose. People just wanted to share and explain.

No matter the reasons for what happened in the Gulf, be they man made mistakes (the levees in New Orleans, erosion throughout the region due to development of wetlands) or almost purely natural phenomena (as was most of the Mississippi destruction), we, as a nation, are not doing enough for our fellow Americans in need. Throughout the Gulf their are good people, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Jews of all types, young and old, working each day to help the region move forward and find a new sense of normalcy. These efforts, be they faith-based (as much of the work in the region currently is) or secular, need support from other parts of the country where we have been fortunate enough to be spared such suffering.

The images of days and weeks following Katrina, whether you watched them on CNN, Fox, or ABC, were burned into the conscience of the American public. Unfortunately, those images have been pushed to the background and have dropped out of the news cycle. While there may not be a way to maintain the level of coverage we saw in the wake of the event, the level of support must be.

In the coffee shops, bars, and fast food restaurants of the Gulf Coast, folks talk about just about every topic from A-Z. Despite this diversity, there is one question, one thought, that never comes up, and that is, "will the Gulf Coast ever be rebuilt?" Why wouldn't this seemingly central question be brought up, because the answer is so obvious. Yes. The Coast will be rebuilt. While there is room to debate how, there is no room to debate if. Even the most bungled, horrific, pathetic response to a disaster this nation has ever seen could not dampen the will of Gulf Coasters. Their spirit is a shining example of all that is right with America, and it should inspire us all to provide them with everything they need to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their region.

Idealism Without the Internet

2006-01-09T17:41:00.000-05:00

I'll be in Jackson and Gulfport, Mississippi for the next week or so, doing a volunteer service project with some non-profits in the Gulf Region. No posts for a while, which is a good thing, when it comes to keeping perspective.

As for the Reilly/Conte/Southborough/Social Host episode, well, Brian McGrory gets paid to write and he says it a lot better than I could, "the public knows better."

Cartoon Culture of Corruption

2006-01-06T17:58:00.000-05:00

Abramoff, Reform, and the Next Step

2006-01-05T13:27:00.000-05:00

At this time last year, I was sitting in a Capitol Hill office wondering aloud with my co-workers about what the upcoming year would bring. To say we were pessimistic about the immediate future of the Democratic party would be an understatement. However, now, one year later, and a semester of grad school behind me, I can say, with only slight hesitancy, that the trajectory of the Democratic party is an upward one (then again, when you can't go much lower ... well you get the point).

Democrats, progressives, independents, and disaffected Republicans, have an incredible opportunity in the next nine months. Thanks to the now cliche "culture of corruption" in Washington, D.C., more and more voters are looking for an alternate to the current governing party. They are looking for a Congress that puts principle before campaign accounts and leadership that puts the interests of all Americans before ideology.

While it would be easy for the Democratic message in the 2006 elections to become a laundry list of complaints, misdeeds, and outright lies of the Republican party, we cannot let this be the case. The American people are sick of petty politics and extreme partisanship. The American people understand that arguments and debate are necessary, but they don't believe that our differences are irreconcilable or that pragmatic progress is impossible to achieve.

So while the Beltway is abuzz over Casino Jack, Michael Scanlon, Ralph Reed, Bob Ney, and Tom Delay, the progressive community must define a positive vision for America. While certain groups and elements will want their issues at the fore, the more important aspect, the overarching theme, should be easy to agree on: REFORM. Education your big issue, we'll reform it and invest more in public schools at all levels. Taxes got you down, we'll reform the tax code too. No more loopholes for lobbyists. We want a tax code that rewards work and levels the playing field for all. Frightened about the mess at DHS. Yep, we thought it up, so we'll reform it. Make FEMA an independent agency, promote career professionals over partisans and appoint individuals with real expertise, not political ties, to run the show.

Much has been said, predicted, or prognosticated about what the 2006 Midterms could, should, might, and will be. But words, like faith, without deeds, are empty. Democrats must take up the mantle of reform and idealism. We must talk about just how great American can and will be. If anything, the Abramoff scandal has shown us that Republicans will take care of the rest.

New Year, Same Old (Flawed) Arguments

2006-01-02T20:48:00.000-05:00

Since Tom Reilly announced his intention to seek the Governor's office there has been one argument against his candidacy (and success) that has absolutely baffled me. The argument, made by both supporters of Deval Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, goes something like this "Tom Reilly is an insider, just like Shannon O'Brien. Insiders lose, so candidate X should/will win." Fairly tight logic, if Tom Reilly were at all an insider. Problem is, he isn't.

The "insider argument," most recently (to my knowledge) cited by Ken of Dirty Water in his endorsement of Deval Patrick, would make sense if AG Reilly had served in the State Legislature. But he hasn't. Is he a career public servant? Yes, obviously. I don't think those who cite the "insider argument" would disqualify all career public servants from seeking higher office (and specifically the corner office), but thats where the logic leads.

Further, the "insider argument" cites the need for a gubernatorial candidate to appear/be independent from the Democrat controlled/dominated State House. Well, both AG Reilly and Deval Patrick have actively sought the endorsements of members of the legislature, so neither can claim complete independence. And Healey is wedded to the last 3 years for good, but mostly for ill, by the nature of her office. So the argument becomes a matter of degrees, not absolutes. Who is more independent? In this case, you have to go to the candidates' records, experience, and statements to try and predict what type of governor they'd be. It's clear that Healey would do as the higher ups in the Republican party said, as she always has, and with Patrick, his lack of experience as an elected official makes it a guessing game. As for the AG, he's shown the ability to stand up the vested interests (see: Church scandal, auto insurance and taking control of the big dig investigation, etc.) and act in the best interest of the Commonwealth. That's the definition of independence, which I agree with those who cite the "insider argument" is crucial to the electoral success of any candidate for the corner office. In the end, it's not the argument that baffles me, so much as the logic and the conclusions drawn by those who cite it.

Every Great Offense Starts With a Good Defense

2005-12-28T18:11:00.000-05:00

Like most, I've got a pile of new reading material post-Christmas. Thanks to a few days in the Berkshires, I have been able to put a dent in some of it, and in so doing came across an article of real importance and salience to progressives of all shades.

One of the many great articles in The Best American Political Writing - 2005 is a piece by John Heilemann of New York magazine. In King Karl, the author examines the political machinations, motivations, and intellect of none other than White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Political Advisor Karl Rove. Although Rove's power(s) and abilities have grown to myth-like status, especially in Democratic circles, his ability to think and plan strategically have to be admired by politicians across the spectrum.

Heilemann makes the important point that, although Rove is generally lumped in with the "true believers" (i.e. the President, Ashcroft, Cheney, etc.) with in the GOP, he is actually much more of a pragmatic thinker and actor than most residents of Blue states would like to believe. For example, on Social Security, although Rove was obviously disappointed the President's ideas have failed, he recognizes that by virtually forcing the Democrats to unite against the proposal, he has "wedded (Democrats) to the past instead of the future - and that's not a good place to be in American politics."

So what's the lesson? It's obviously not that Democrats should have allowed the President to go forward with the dismantling of social security. Rather, it's that now that Democrats have won, for all intensive purposes, the battle on social security, we must build a positive vision for the future and retake the "mantle of idealism" that Rove claims the Republican party has stolen away. This vision cannot be a laundry list of different policies, which can easily be dismissed as "more of the same." If it is, we fail. Instead, it should be a broadly outlined "opportunity society" where each individual, no matter their race, sexual orientation, class, or creed, has a real opportunity to succeed. It should be a society in which the playing field is level for all and competition in pursuit of the greater good is promoted.

Beating back the President's plan for dismantling Social Security provided Democrats with an incredible opportunity to present the country with a new vision for our new united future. However, that opportunity will have been lost if our leaders continue to defend the past, without speaking to the future, to the ideal, to what American could and should be.

I Have Great Hair, and You Don't Play Fair ...

2005-12-22T08:09:00.000-05:00

While I plan on focusing most of my future critiques on the candidate for governor who couldn't win a race for State Rep, there is no way I'm letting the current resident of the corner office get away with this one scotch free. Apparently, Mitt went into the RNC's closet of talking points before his most recent sit down with the local reports and came out with the classic "blame the liberal media for all my flaws" routine.

If the last five years have proven anything, its that the media is adversarial at best, capitulating at worst, and nowhere near liberal ... just ask Eric Alterman, he wrote the book on it. So why would the Governor choose now to complain? Maybe a few bad Op-Eds help him prove he's conservative when he goes to Iowa and NH. Maybe he's thought this the whole time (just like he was pro-life the whole time, against RGGI the whole time, and running for President ... the whole time). Maybe the Governor needs a built in excuse for what is bound to be a lackluster legislative year. Honestly, I haven't the foggiest on this one. All I know is, I cannot wait until November 2006 when we have a real leader in the Corner office who will make a difference and not just excuses.

Road To Nowhere ...

2005-12-21T08:05:00.000-05:00

Forget about the nuclear option, today is the zero hour in our nation's capital. All eyes are focused on the Senate, where several highly contentious pieces of legislation will either take the next step to becoming law or be pushed off 'til 2006. Here's to hoping just about nothing gets done.

For those who have been focused on the Massachusetts political scene, here's what's up for grabs today in the august body that is the United States Senate.

(1) Patriot Act Reauthorization - Andy over at Mass Revolution Now! has been on top of this one, since's it's his boy who is leading the bipartisan charge against further erosion of our civil liberties. More and more, Feingold is really impressing me. The Patrick Henry quote, in response to Sen Cornyn, was especially nice. Personally, I would have gone with, "those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither," but either way, the White House's refusals to back down, and their illogical defense in the NSA episode (heightened by the resignation of a FISA judge), make this an even tougher fight for Senate Republicans.

(2) ANWR - Despicable, deplorable, and downright unAmerican. Let me set the situation for you, for the past 5 years Congressional Conservatives have tried to attached ANWR to EVERYTHING. Budgets, noncontroversial bills, very controversial bills, but NEVER to a bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone a bill that also contains billions for Gulf Coast recovery. So what did they do this time, just that. Senator Ted Stevens (R-OIL), Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, attached ANWR to the conference report of the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations. Why? Because it would be political suicide for many Democrats to vote against it, and because he could. The lesson, if you can't win playing by the rules, break them.

(3) Budget/Deficit Reduction - According to the NY Times and the WaPo, the VPOTUS cut short his trip to the Middle East and Central Asia to possibly be the tie breaking vote on a bill that will cut $40 billion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Mind you, the deficit is over $400 billion and the last time it was that big Clinton had us running surpluses after 6 years, so not only does the bill not go far enough, but the steps it does take are so regressive and absurd (cutting student loans, making the welfare to work requirements stricter, etc.) that a 50-50 vote is a real possibility.

None of these matters are settled, and even if they are voted down, they'll rear their ugly heads next year, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting against. Who knows, maybe after today we'll have some new things to be thankful for as we ring in the New Year.

UPDATE - Vice President Cheney performed his only constitutional duty today and broke a deadlocked Senate vote. Budget reconciliation passed 51-50. Good news on the ANWR front as Democrats were joined by 2 Republicans (Chafee and Dewine, Frist's no vote was for procedural reasons) and the Senate's lone independent (retiring Vermont Senator James Jeffords).

To Your Corners, and Come Out Swinging ...

2005-12-16T07:52:00.000-05:00

Everyone knew the Romney announcement would mark the real beginning of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign. But I don't think anyone thought all of the candidates would come out swinging from day 1. Personally, I think it's great. There's a lot of different campaigns going on, on a lot of different levels, each with it's own strengths and weaknesses. Before anybody lands the first big punch, I figured I'd take a shot and summing up the Democratic field, what I think they are running on, running from, and what their chances really are. (Quick point - I'm not making predictions, just giving my general reaction to the candidates and how the race is shaping up. As I've said before, I'm a Reilly supporter, but I'm looking at the entire field in this one).

Candidates (alphabetical order, no favoritism here)

Deval Patrick - very strong bio. Everybody who is reading this knows Patrick's story and everybody who has heard it, and heard him tell it, comes away impressed. His time in the Clinton Administration, as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, gives him the public service bona fides and his time after, at Coca Cola and a few other places, gives him credibility with the private sector

Strengths - Patrick is a great speaker who feels at ease in a crowd of 5 - 500. He speaks with a passion and commitment that is both impressive and refreshing in politics today. As a fresh face on the Massachusetts political scene he carries little baggage of past races and clashes. Patrick is a big picture type candidate, preferring to offer visions as opposed to details. Finally, his biggest strength is his support from the base of the state party - activists, small donors, dedication (can't be underestimate or undervalued - I mean when they start organizing Sandisfield, MA you know they are dedicated).
Weaknesses - The flip-side of being a fresh face is being a political neophyte. Despite his past public service, Patrick has never run for office before. No matter how you spin it, any first time candidate is bound to make mistakes (ask Clinton and Obama about their first run at the House of Reps). While Patrick has the backing of many activists, the Democratic nominee will have to woo some (numbers vary) independent voters. Patrick has shown the ability to talk to the base, can he be as as successful with independents (especially considering the predictable attacks of the Right)? Money - I hate talking money, I wish it was nowhere near the political picture, but it is, and as long as it is, it plays an important role. Although Patrick's fundraising has kicked up, his "burn rate" has stayed near 100%, can this be sustained? I'm not sure, but I'd hazard a guess that rate would come down significantly between January and March when his name ID comes up with the public.

Tom Reilly - incumbent Attorney General of the Commonwealth. Also, a very strong bio. Son immigrants, worked his way through college and law school, into the Middlesex DA's office and ultimately to AG. Career public servant and resident of Massachusetts.

Strengths - Reilly has a wide network of supporters, especially elected officials, whose support will be key for caucuses, organizing, and getting out the vote. Reilly's campaign will be based on experience and his record. A record that is particularly strong in the areas of public safety, environmental protection, labor rights, and consumer rights. Reilly, although comfortable in all settings, is much more at home in the face-to-face world of retail politics. Finally, Reilly's biggest strength is his ability to appeal beyond party lines, to independents and moderate Republicans who are sick of their candidates jumping ship.
Weakness - Reilly's support from elected officials and the big money raisers of the Democratic party leaves him open to the argument that he's "more of the same" - a reference to the Dems inability to capture the corner office since the Duke left. Where Patrick has to prove he can woo independents, Reilly has to prove he can hold the base. Finally, Reilly has to become more comfortable with the big crowds, with talking about his vision for the future of the Commonwealth. It's not just, as Dukakis famously said in 1988, about competence, its about moving forward, as a commonwealth, together.

While there's been a flurry of activity since Mitt decided that the RGA is more important than healthcare, the economic stimulus, the supplemental, or well, anything else, most likely there will be a cooling off period between now and the New Year, and then the marathon begins. I hope the campaign is a great one, not just a good one. Because the people of Massachusetts deserve it. As Democrats, we should be proud that we have two very capable, dedicated, and devoted candidates. I look forward to their debates, to debates with my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth's blogosphere, and I look forward to November 2006, when we will put a Democrat where we haven't in 16 years - the corner office.

Here's hoping it's my guy.

Mitt - We Hardly Knew Yee ...

2005-12-14T17:15:00.000-05:00

Tonight, Governor Romney will make it official. He's out. One could debate about whether he was ever really in, but for now, thats neither here nor there.

This makes things interesting on the Republican side of the race. LG Healey is in, Mihos might be (either as an Indepdent or a Republican), and who knows who else may jump in. I don't think the announcement has much of an effect of AG Reilly or Deval Patrick. If anything, it may turn the campaign inward, especially post-holidays, as both camps prepare for the June convention, the primary, and the big enchilada next November.

Talking Taxes

2005-12-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Few issues highlight the divide between the two major parties in the United States and the Commonwealth as clearly as tax policy. The divide is based largely on what the parties, and the individuals who make up those parties, consider a civilized society. Conservative Republicans tend to argue that decreased taxation increases personal freedom and promotes, through market forces, societal improvement. Progressive Democrats would generally counter that taxes allow the government to promote the greater good through investment in a variety of sectors - services, infrastructure, innovation, etc.

These stark differences explain why when a member of either party espouses a policy generally associated with the other, heads turn and questions are raised. This was the case in the early 1960's when President Kennedy called for a tax cut to spur the economy, as it was with President Clinton in the early 1990s (during the 1992 campaign Clinton called for a middle class tax cut, which he later abandoned when the full scope of the Reagan/Bush deficit was made public), and it's the case now in the Commonwealth with Attorney General Reilly's public endorsement of a reduction in income tax rates.

While Kennedy's endorsement of tax cuts is from a bygone era (the top federal income tax bracket was 71% in 1961, while is 33.5% - or so - now), Clinton's attempted, and aborted, plan is informative for those in the chattering class who would jump on the AG. First, the AG, like Clinton, made support of a cut conditional. In the AG's case, (and although some may argue this is nitpicking, it is an important distinction) he said he supported the rollback, "If revenues hold up." Well, according to today's Boston Globe thats not going to be the case. I would assume this would mean a backing off from this stance by the Attorney General. Just as Clinton had to back off his plan to cut taxes for working families.

I don't profess a keen understanding of economics, beyond my own checkbook (which is a whole other matter), but I do know that tax rates and macroeconomic policy are not set in stone for a reason. To sound Yogi Berra-esque, change is the only thing you can predict with 100% certainty. So I'd have to disagree with those who argue that this turn of events makes the AG look "foolish." If anything, it makes him look like someone who can't predict the future.

Personally, I do not agree with the stance taken by the AG, but Michael over at wonk Not! makes an important point. Both candidates, in the debate over the proper tax rate, missed an opportunity. While Michael believes the opportunity was to talk about taxes as "investments," I think the real opportunity was to talk about tax reform. Democrats on the national level have begun to talk about the issue, rightly seeing it as a way to simultaneously turn the tables on the issue and promote a more progressive, equitable, and fair tax system. The Center for American Progress has been leading the charge in Washington, now its time for a progressive answer at the state level to refute the Norquist-ite Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Calling for tax reform moves progressives from a defensive stance to an offensive, proactive position. It plays to our strengths - innovation and creativity - and helps expand appeal of progressive policies. While its important to talk about taxes as investments, its also important to be proactive and offer new, innovative solutions to a tax system that is off, for and by the special interests, not the people.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society, but shouldn't we pay that price in the most fair, equitable, and just manner possible? I think every progressive, democrat, or independent would answer a resounding "Yes" to that.

Fighting the Good Fight - Part II

2005-12-09T09:51:00.000-05:00

Looks like AG Reilly and NSTAR have agreed to a plan by which NSTAR would cut their rates by some $20 million as of January 1, 2006. That's real savings for lots of working families, struggling to keep up with the cost of home heating in tight budgetary times. It might be more steak than sizzle, but that's fine by me.

It's (Not) the Military Stupid

2005-12-09T09:12:00.001-05:00

The folks over at Democracy Arsenal, from their inception, have been making some pretty convincing arguments that the Right's hijacking of the military is especially absurd, considering the progressive values - service, sacrifice, and the greater good - that are at the core of the military. While the military's position on certain issues is anything but progressive, its beyond important for progressives to learn to talk about the military in a positive way and articulate a clear alternative national security strategy to pre-emption.

Clearly, articulating an entire national security strategy will take some time. It will also require the Democratic party to win back some control of the government. However, in the mean time, progressives can take important, smart steps towards building their pro-military bonafides. One would be supporting military recruiters access to institutions of higher education. The best thing for the military would be increased diversity, both in demographics and viewpoints. Further, I don't think the military would be hurt by having a few more of the best and the brightest chiming in on their legality of their practices, especially regarding international law.

During his abruptly ended 1968 Presidential campaign, Robert F. Kennedy called for the end to draft deferments as a crucial step to bridging the growing gap between civilian and military. Progressives could stake a similar step, cast aside past differences with military policies, and aim to make the military the proud progressive institution it has been and should continue to be.

Infamy

2005-12-07T08:16:00.000-05:00

Everybody loves to quote the opening salvo in FDR's Address to the Nation on Pearl Harbor, and while that may be the line history remembers, I've always been partial to closing. It's especially pertinent for those on Center-Left who believe that Iraq was a mistake, not because Saddam Hussein was not a threat, as he was, but because the Iraq war has diverted time, energy, and resources from the War against Islamic Terrorism, or as the military has taken to calling it, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (G-SAVE).

FDR's closing remarks remind us, no matter our thoughts on Iraq, what the message should be with regards to Bin Laden and his network.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

Fighting the Good Fight

2005-12-05T15:42:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, a panel of 7 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected an appeal of an EPA ruling made by Attorney General Tom Reilly, representatives from 10 other states, several territories, and environmental advocacy groups, including the Sierra Club. The appeal came in response to EPA's August 2003 rejection of "a petition for rulemaking that had sought the regulation of the emission of greenhouse gases."

While I profess no ability to give a thoughtful legal analysis of the case, I can say I'm proud that AG Reilly is continuing to press forward on what may be the most important environmental issue of our time. AG Reilly's work stands in stark contrast to Governor Romney's last second decision to pull the Commonwealth out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The Governor's decision might bring cheers from special interests who have lobbied against RGGI and other initiatives, but it does so at a cost. Instead of being seen as a independent leader, beholden only to his oath of office to promote the general welfare, the Governor will be seen (and rightfully so) as a calculating politician. Leadership isn't about easy decisions, or popular decisions, its about the right decisions. Too bad we don't have a resident of the corner office who knows the difference.

If We Are Wrong ...

2005-12-05T07:48:00.000-05:00

If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong, God almighty is wrong.
- - Martin Luther King, Jr. 12/5/1955

Turning Point, Any Point ...

2005-12-04T22:28:00.000-05:00

I've purposely stayed away from the debate over withdrawal from Iraq for a lot of reasons. Having opposed the war from the outset, I fully understand the frustration and aggravation of those who call for immediate withdrawal. Personally, I find it insanely infuriating that Osama Bin Laden (no matter his daily role in Al Qaeda's operations), the mastermind behind the death of 3,000 innocent Americans, still walks this Earth a free man. However, I also understand thoughtful arguments made by Senators Biden, Obama, Clinton, Reed, and others, calling for strategic change, benchmarks for progress, and troop redeployment. No matter the revelations and the turns in public opinion, it's clear that the Iraq war will be a point of much friction for the national Democratic party for some time.

Despite this, I think progressives of all shades can agree that the war and it's aftermath have been horribly mismanaged, that the American public has not been dealt with in an open and honest manner, and that the current majority party has, more than once, put politics ahead of national security. These critiques are important because they are a debate about the future, not the past.

Focusing on the future in Iraq and of Iraq, allows progressives to set the parameters for the debate and hold the majority party accountable. While the Bush Administration can attempt to deflect criticism and define the debate with a major address and a publication shorter than your average grad school thesis, progressives can define the debate by focusing on reality facing our troops and setting the table for their drawn down, in the most responsible and efficient manner possible.

As for major address, I think the speech President Kennedy was never able to make said it best:

I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.

Speeches don't make history, leaders do. And right now we are a nation in desperate need of honest leadership.

Dropping Quicker than the Temperature

2005-11-27T21:26:00.000-05:00

.08 Acres has a great breakdown of the newest Statehouse News Poll. More of the same for Governor Romney and LG Healey. Whether their poor performance is attributed to events reflecting negatively on Republicans nationwide or to state issues, it's clear that that residents of the Bay State are ready for real, attentive leadership.

Clear It With the Chamber ...

2005-11-26T10:50:00.000-05:00

One of the mantras of Republicans towards the end FDR's Presidency was "clear it with Sidney." Chanted in jeering reference to FDR's order to clear the Democratic ticket, filled by Senator Harry S. Truman, with Sidney Hillman, head of the CIO-PAC, it was meant show how the Democratic party was beholden to big Labor. Well maybe it's time to start chanting, "clear it with the Chamber" when our current Governor proposes a new initiative.

Normally, there is one issue that moderate Republicans won't balk on, and that's the environment. While I'd like to think that this is due to an understanding that the environment is the linchpin for development and progress, it's more likely because environmental issues resonate deeply with soccer moms and other swing voters that are necessary to win election, especially when running statewide. Understanding this, I was disappointed, and confused by Governor Romney's (R-Salt Lake City, Iowa, South Carolina, Michigan, etc.) last second reluctance to agree to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Governor Romney need not sell the business community on his "pro-business" bonafides. He is the self proclaimed CEO of the Commonwealth, even if he is an absentee executive at that. However, balking at environmental initiatives would seem to hurt Romney if he were to run for re-election in Massachusetts (please, keep the laughter to a minimum) or if he were to pitch his appeal to independents either in the Republican presidential primary or in the Vice Presidential nominee search process. More than anything, Romney's foot dragging on RGGI looks like a calculated political move. Something that will reassure his base (the Corporate Conservatives) and reaffirm the belief of many independents and centrists that the Governor is just another politician.

Perhaps the most striking comment in the Globe's reporting of the delay, was the quote from a Romney spokesperson, who stated, ''Governor Romney believes we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but we need to make sure that we do not harm the energy-consuming businesses in Massachusetts." I'm pretty sure every business, let alone every individual, consumes a decent amount of energy. It's time the Commonwealth, the region, and the Nation, moved beyond the false dichotomies that have held back progress on important initiatives, like RGGI. Those who argue that market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions would do irreparable damage to businesses, anywhere, assume that businesses are stagnant organizations that cannot adapt to changing climates. I would challenge that assumption, and if Governor Romney had any backbone he would too.

279 days.

Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T09:05:00.000-05:00

"Let us remember that, as much has been given us, much will be expected from us, and that true homage comes from the heart as well as from the lips, and shows itself in deeds."—Theodore Roosevelt, 1901

"The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. "It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union." -- Abraham Lincoln, October 3, 1863

The Other Side of the Coin ...

2005-11-23T13:08:00.000-05:00

Recently, there was a brush up in the mainstream press when Bill Clinton had some harsh words about the Iraq War and President Bush's handling thereof. 42's critique, which was tepid in comparison to the recent attacks launched by Mean Jean Schmidt and VPOTUS, came as Senator Hillary Clinton remained relatively quiet on Iraq. This isn't the first time the Clinton's have played both sides of the coin. When they were residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, it was commonly held that Hillary was the liberal lion of the family and would make sure that deficit reduction didn't cut to deep, after all, she was the former head of the Children's Defense Fund.

Well, the Clinton's weren't the first political family to play both sides of the coin. We here in Massachusetts know what family invented that game, and they continue to play it perfectly today ... the Kennedys. Back in the 1960s, Bobby, Jack and their father assuaged Southern conservatives, while ensuring Northeastern liberals they were truly "one of them." It may not be the most morally pure move, but it got JFK elected and would have gotten RFK elected.

While much was lost when JFK and RFK were taken from us, the Kennedys, despite all the bumps and bruises, never lost the ability to play the game. Their political acumen was on clear display when Citizen's Energy CEO Joe Kennedy came out, somewhat equivocally, in favor of the Cape Wind project, a project his Uncle, the Senator, opposes. Personally, I'm not sure where I fall on Cape Wind, although I'm inclined to support it. That being said, watching the Kennedy's and the Clinton's play politics is watching poetry in motion. Some got it, some don't.

The Idealist Without Illusions

2005-11-22T10:27:00.000-05:00

So much has been said and so much has been written on the incalculable loss of the future that America suffered on this day, 42 years ago, that it is beyond this humble resident of the Commonwealth to add anything new or pertinent. Let me rather say this, before giving way to JFK's own words, each day, I run 1.5 miles down Mass Ave to JFK Park and pause briefly to read the late President's own words, which have been engraved on several posts throughout the green space. It may be a silly ritual, but in a world where our leaders seem bent on dividing the nation instead of uniting it, it's a necessary ritual. Necessary to remember that leaders can inspire and necessary to remember that progress is possible if our leaders provide a clear moral vision for our nation. With that, I give way to some of my favorite JFK quotes

"Our aim should not be 'states dissevered, discordant, or belligerent; but one country, one constitution, one destiny'" - paraphrasing Daniel Webster on the Senate floor

"The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine where we use power, or power uses us" - October 1963, Amherst College

"The most single powerful force in the world today is man's eternal desire to be free and independent." - July 1957

"To sum it all up: we seek peace, but we shall not surrender"

"Let us pray that there will be no veterans of any further war - not because all shall have perished but because all shall have learned to live together in peace" November 11, 1961

"While maintaining our readiness for war, let us exhaust every avenue for peace" - October 1963, Amherst College

"In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself." - Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

A Southern Drawl Says It All ...

2005-11-22T03:37:00.000-05:00

Reading E.J. Dionne's Op-Ed today, I was reminded of one of my favorite members of Congress, Representative Gene Taylor (D-Gulfport, Mississippi). Gene Taylor isn't liberal, at all. He's a conservative, southern, populist Democrat. He'd probably disagree with me, just as much as I'd disagree with some Republicans, but when it really matters, he stands up for whats right and is never afraid to speak moral truth to power. And if you have never heard a Southern Democrat speak passionately on the House floor, well, you are missing out. Below is the full text of Representative Taylor's floor statement, read it.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in south Mississippi tonight, the people who have electricity, who might be at a VFW hall or a parish church hall, who are living in two- and three-man igloo tents waiting for Congress to do something, have absolutely got to think this place has lost their minds. The same Congress that voted to give the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans tax breaks every time. Every time. Without a tax break. Out of the goodness of their hearts, no? To help their big contributors.
Who is kidding who? The same America that are spending 4 to $6 billion a month in Iraq where, by the way, 4,000 Mississippians are fighting tonight, 15 have already come home dead, a dozen more have been to Walter Reed, who never asked the Iraqis for an offset are suddenly saying in the name of the poor folks in Mississippi who lost their houses, poor folks in New Orleans whose houses were flooded, we can't do this unless we have to hurt some other Americans to help some Americans? Suddenly after taking care of those who had the most, we have got to hurt the least. To help the folks in Mississippi?
Folks, this is insane. I have sat here. I remember the vote. May 9, 2001. I remember a President who said he could cut taxes, increase spending and pay down the debt. We are $2.4 trillion deeper in debt than that night. I did not vote for that. Almost all of you did. I did not vote to tell the folks who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year, you deserve a tax break. You did. I voted for offsets for the war in Iraq because, yes, we went to war. My goodness, kids from Mississippi are dying there. I have got a kid who lost both legs volunteering in my office to answer the phone to help folks who were hurt in Katrina. Mississippi has paid their dues. Why should they have to pay their dues twice?
This is an emergency. The one time you borrow money is when you go to war and for an emergency. And so, now you have to have an offset? Don't tell me you are being fiscally responsible. I sat here for 5 years and watched you take a budget surplus and run it into $2.5 trillion of new debt. So let's put these things in perspective. Yes, I was told the Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction and they are getting ready to use them.
Yes, I was told that you could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. But this is the cruelest lie of all, that the only way you can help the people who have lost everything is by hurting somebody else.

The Inescapable Dynamic

2005-11-21T11:20:00.000-05:00

There is a single reality that any Democratic candidate for the Corner Office must address if he/she is to be considered a legitimate candidate. The reality is that although voters trust their local Democrats, they don't trust the Legislature as a whole, or at least they don't trust the Legislature enough to pass over complete control of the Commonwealth's government to the Democratic Party. My hometown paper, the Berkshire Eagle, tried to make this point in an editorial today, and did so, albeit in a muddled and somewhat confusing manner.

While the Eagle theorizes that the inability of AG Reilly or Mr. Patrick to pull away from the Governor is the result of their inability to stand up to "special interests," I'd have to disagree. They specifically cite the "influential insurance companies" as a special interest that Democrats have not stood up against. I guess the Globe didn't make deliveries out to Pittsfield last week, because if it did, the editors would have known that AG Reilly has been standing up to just those interests. That omission aside, I believe the lack of a larger gap (no matter how the Eagle paints it, a 4 point lead is a 4 lead for the AG) in the polling numbers reflects a lack of focus by Commonwealth voters on the 2006 Race, and for good reason. Working families are more concerned with how they are going to keep warm, keep food on the table, and afford healthcare. They're more concerned with providing for their kids come Christmas, than they are with politics. And for good reason.

While the Eagle is right to point out that voters are looking for a Governor who will stand up to special interests, they should be careful in their analysis. The current polling numbers aren't a reflection on either of the two Democratic candidates, so much as they are a reflection on the lack of attention being paid to the race right now. Come late winter and early spring, I think we'll see those undecideds (about 22%) start breaking ... and I think I know who they'll break towards.

A Little Help for LiHEAP

2005-11-20T03:58:00.000-05:00

Although I might disagree with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, especially in how he chooses to critique the Bush Administration, I have to give him his due when he's right. One of those occassions is now, as the eccentric Venezuelan has brokered a deal to ship 12 million gallons of home heating oil to Massachusetts next month. The deal, arranged by Representative William Delahunt and Citizen Energy CEO Joe Kennedy, will ensure that 45,000 low-income families can afford to keep their homes warm in the coming New England winter.

It doesn't take a degree in economics to realize that home heating prices, especially in the Northeast and Midwest, put a cramp on working families' budgets. Although LiHEAP (Low Income Heat Energy Assistance Program) has bipartisan, regional support, deals such as this show how states truly can serve as progressive laboratories. Unfortunately, due to chronic underfunding, this deal won't expand coverage to more families in the Commonwealth, but it will ensure that more families aren't left out in the cold come the holidays.

Moving Forward Together: A Rejoinder

2005-11-19T04:42:00.000-05:00

Before I address a few of the thoughtful points that Andy brought up in response to my post about the direction of the Democratic party I have to admit, I love debates and I love ideas. Quite possibly the best book I've read since undergrad follows the development of the major ideas that shaped modern American thought. In The Metaphysical Club, Oliver Wendell Holmes states, "the best test of truth is the power of that thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market" (the quote is excerpted from Holmes historic dissent in Abrams vs. United States). Aside from being an incredibly powerful sentiment, Holmes words are relevant to the debate going on in the Democratic party, in our country today, and on a much smaller scale between Andy and I.

First, Andy rightly corrects me that fiscal responsibility and budgetary discipline isn't a matter of one's political leanings. To clarify my position, I would argue that the priority given to fiscal responsibility and discipline, and the steps one would be willing to take to achieve budget surpluses (again) are generally indicative of where one may lie on the simplistic political spectrum. As much as I would like to think we could restore all of the progressivity that has been stripped from tax code over the past 25 years over night, realistically its impossible.

Second, on the issue of abortion ... I in no way meant that the left should cede the right to privacy. Rather, I believe that the Democratic party needs to more carefully and thoughtfully address the concerns of individuals who are opposed to abortion, especially for religious reasons. President Clinton did this by starting the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and more recently, Senator Clinton addressed the issue in her remarks on the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade decision. Neither the President, nor the Senator felt the Democratic party should renounce its stand on choice, but they did believe that we should and could speak directly to the concerns that many have with the issue. Constructive dialogue never hurt anyone, and it does far more to build a governing progressive majority, than attack ads and heated rhetoric.

Finally, on elections and the nature of any party, but especially the Democratic party, Andy and I, by my estimation, are going to have to agree to disagree. I'll admit, I'm more pragmatic than I am idealistic on this issue. We are the minority party, we are out of power, and we have lost every election since 1996's presidential and 1998's midterm congressional (and those gains were minimal at best). The Republican party was in much the same position after 1964 trouncing of Senator Barry Goldwater by LBJ. Looking at how the Republicans won elections, it was by capturing the vote of those who felt the Democratic party had abandoned them. The current Republican party has ignored and abandoned not only their traditional supporters, but also Independents, and the country as a whole. The Democratic party has an incredible opportunity to capture the support of these voters and build a progressive, responsible governing majority in the 21st century. Now we just need to make sure it doesn't pass us bye. The first step in doing just that is conversations like this, about moving forward together.

Open Question ...

2005-11-17T00:52:00.000-05:00

Having just taken a look at the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization's analysis of the House and Senate passed Healthcare Reform plans, and clearly preferring the House version, I came back to a thought I had before ... what does this mean for the 2006 Governor's campaign? Specifically, what does it mean for the general election? Does this success on the part of DiMasi and Traviligni defuse an important issue for the Dem nominee? (Note: I am in no way saying health care should be shelved until after 2006, that would be a moral abomination) Or even in the best case scenario (passage of the a mainly unchanged House bill) is there enough room for improvement that health care reform can continue to be an issue?

As before, I continue to profess an ignorance on health care, aside from the general politics and my personal view that it should be universal, so this is less a post and more an open thread. Any thoughts on the political implications of the health care reform debate in the Commonwealth would be highly appreciated

P.S. Congrats to Governor Rod Blagojevich. Nothing is more important to us than our kids.

Move to the Center? No. Move to the Left? No. Move Forward Together? Yes.

2005-11-16T10:57:00.000-05:00

Until Democrats win back at least one body of the Congress, or the White House, and probably after that, we will continue what I believe is a self-defeating debate. The debate, which began in earnest after the failed 1988 candidacy of Governor Dukakis, but has its roots in the turmoil of the late 1960's, has done more to divide Democrats and ensure Republican control of the government, than it has to find solutions to what ails the Donkey.

The debate has always struck an odd chord with me, as I felt myself pulled in both directions. On the "Move to the center"side, I see the strategic argument for repositioning of the party in order to win elections. After all, a party exists to win elections, and if it doesn't do that, it is useless. Further, the argument for fiscal responsibility, deficit, and debt elimination, are personally appealing to me, and good politics. Finally, as a graduate of Catholic schools on a variety of levels, I believe that Democrats need to be more open to pro-life members in the party, speak more clearly about how faith informs their values, and address the concerns of socially moderate voters.

However, I do not believe that in addressing these issues the Democratic Party should, or can, abandon its commitment to the least fortunate in our society. We must, as Robert Kennedy so eloquently said after the assassination of MLK, "dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world." While we will have differences over how to do so, we must work continuously to ensure that the American Dream is an achievable reality and not a pie-in-the sky myth. This means increasing the minimum wage, improving our schools, expanding health care, and improving public transportation and housing. To often to "move to the center" crowd has ignored the implications of their policy proposals and sought to castigate the Left to earn credibility with the perceived center-Right. Cutting of your nose to spite your face never did anyone any good.

So what is the solution? Move forward together. Three simple words, but I think they were they are the heart and soul of what Senator Barack Obama was talking about when he wrote "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party." Americans are wary of labels, wary of false choices, and wary of loaded rhetoric. However, they are also wary of crumbling schools, deteriorating roads, and an environment that is repeatedly abused and rarely defended. It has often been said, in cases of division in any form of society, that "there is far more than unites us than there is that divides us." Democrats must take this message to heart. The overriding goal for the Party should be crafting a message of progress for America and a vision for the future. This message and vision should be a unifying one. A message that appeals to a broad swath of voters, but does not abandon our core values. It can be done, it should be done, and it must be done.

Faith With Deeds?

2005-11-16T01:09:00.000-05:00

The post election debate about "values" and the need for the Democratic party to more frequently, clearly, and thoughtfully speak of the important role that faith plays in their lives, in their communities, and in their societies, has been equal parts interesting, confusing, and overwhelming.

The most recent chapter of this story has focused on the role that faith played in the election of Lt. Governor Tim Kaine, a Catholic, to succeed Governor Mark Warner, in the bright red state of Virginia. While I believe that the election is more a sign of Warner's popularity than it was of anything Kaine did, it was impressive how comfortable and genuine Kaine was, in the face of Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore's incessant attacks.

The Governor-elect's comfort with public expressions of his personal faith comes in direct contrast to a recent Presidential candidate, who sounded like he was giving a Theology 101 lecture in the few times he addressed faith on the campaign trail. While the junior Senator from the Commonwealth has trouble stating anything succinctly, in the case of his personal faith, values, and belief, I have always thought it was less a lack of conviction and more a belief that promoting or professing his convictions was taboo. Well, this article from the Ideas section of the Sunday Boston Globe would seem to support my hypothesis.

John Kerry author of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, or WRFA. Who knew? Not me, and I would assume none of the voters who claimed that "values" were decisive in casting their ballots (I would like to know what else would inform how one votes). The point isn't that I believe Kerry authoring this legislation should have been enough to win the election. The point is HE NEVER MENTIONED IT. Why not? There's a chance he didn't want to tick off many liberals who fear the legislation, arguing it would allow doctors, nurses, et. al to refuse to provide reproductive care of various types (even though Senator Kerry specifically made sure it would not, see the article). But that couldn't be it. Not to be curt, but who else would have NARAL, etc. supported? Exactly. So it could only be one thing, Kerry either wasn't comfortable discussing his personal faith, or his advisors felt it would only do more harm than good.

Sure its easy to pickapart the KE '04 after the fact, but it's infuriating to think that either a candidate or a campaign, felt that faith was untouchable, irrelevant, or at worst, a negative. Progressives must become more comfortable speaking about how their faith/values informs their decisions and positions. No matter the role it played, Lt. Governor Kaine defended his positions and beliefs, while defusing the cultural/social wedge issues that extreme conservatives have used for years to win campaigns. It's time to stand up for what we believe, not hide from who we are.

A Cut Too Deep

2005-11-10T19:53:00.000-05:00

While there was some good news today, with reports out of the Capital that Republican leaders in the House pulled the budget reconciliation bill that would mean $55 billion in cuts from a variety of poverty reduction and social investments, the odds are that the bill will still go through. For Progressives, in the current environment (no matter how sweet the VA and NJ wins were), it can be tough to ramp uo for every fight with the extreme Right, considering political realities and their track record. However, I can't stand silent on what I believe to be the most egregious cut proposed.

The House Agriculture Committee, in looking for ways to save cash, decided to look past the gigantic subsidies they pay argibusiness each year and target Food Stamps, to the tune of $844 billion. A cut of this proportion would mean between 350,000 and 450,000 households, mostly working poor, would no longer receive benefits. It would most likely mean an increase in hunger in the United States, would definitely mean an increase in households experiencing food insecurity, and would further increase the load of social welfare that states, muncipalities, and community/faith-based organizations would be expected to carry.

Although the absurd nature of this cut, considering the options available, needs little highlighting, the logic behind it was further discredited by a recent Department of Agriculture (USDA) report. According to "Household Food Security in the United States, 2004," the percentage of households experiencing food insecurity in the United States increased last year, fro, 11.2 to 11.9 percent. Now forget about the percentage points, and remember, this is working families we are talking about. And that .7 percent, actually means about 400,000 MORE are going to experience food insecurity in the next year (this does not account for the effect of the proposal currently being debated in the House). I'm not sure if there's ever been a time where politics was rational, or policymaking made sense, but if there was, the leaders from that time would be cringing if they saw what had become of their trade.

I don't pretend to assume that the Food Stamp program will be spared in the coming months and weeks. Like most parts of the social safety net, it's been unfairly stigmatized, unrelentlessly attacked, and severely diminished since the days of Sen. McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. But I do believe, that in the coming years, leaders who tackle supposedly "intractable" issues (like hunger, persistent poverty, climate change, nuclear proliferation, corruption in government, etc.) in an earnest and open way, will be rewarded. That's the reason I voted for former Senator John Edwards in the primaries and it's the reason he'll have my vote in 2008. I only hope that more of our leaders will look to speak not merely about the issues their pollsters deem signficant. It's time of the real leaders to stand up, stand out, and help move us forward.

How Sweep It Is?

2005-11-09T00:41:00.000-05:00

Washington Post political blogger Chris Cilliza and the AP are both reporting that Democrats have swept the two off year Gubenatorials.

The sound you hear is the steam being gather by the "Draft Mark Warner" Movement.

Health Care Reform ... What Will it Mean in Practice?

2005-11-09T00:30:00.000-05:00

Now that midterms at Tufts have passed, I've got a little bit of free time. Unfortunately for the blog, I've spent most of time trying to stay updated on the big gubenatorials in Virginia and New Jersey. As most know, Virginia's election could have serious implications for the 2008 Presidential, as soon to be former Democratic Governor Mark Warner is expected to be a candidate for the Democratic nomination. And lest we forget, the last two democrats win Presidentials were red state Governors.

Anyways, since I've been less than prolific lately, I decided to bring in some fresh blood. Below is an analysis of how the current healthcare proposals would effect the Commonwealth's community hospitals. It's the work of a friend who is currently a Project Manager at Cape Cod Healthcare. As much as I agree with Michael on the importance of clarity of message, I think it's also important to see how reform will play out day-to-day. While Jay's work isn't cummulative, it does add an important piece to the debate.

Just a little FYI before the article. Cape Cod Health restricts Jay's internet access, so any comments might take a while to get back to, as they will go through me to him and back. Anyways, here we go

Legislative effort should help community hospitals across the state

If any one of the healthcare overhaul plans under consideration on Beacon Hill passes in tact, it will help our community hospitals financially under the simple premise “something is better than nothing.”

With a half million people in Massachusetts without health insurance, the community hospital emergency room has become a safety net. Emergency rooms treat the very sick who have nowhere else to turn, get expensive care and as a result, drive up hospital costs. The proposed coverage of 500,000 state residents with high deductibles will certainly help community hospitals in Massachusetts who face slim operating margins while balancing quality measures and heavy government regulation.

The proposed legislation is clearly a shift of the burden of responsibility on to the people of Massachusetts instead of the employers and community hospitals as in year’s past. Before community hospital’s can rejoice in what appears to be a “win,” it is worth noting the impact of high deductible plans. Currently, about 60,000 people have such insurance in Massachusetts, fewer than 1 percent. Nationwide, 1 million to 2 million are enrolled in high deductible plans according to industry estimates. Under Romney’s plan, the uninsured would have a high deductible plan that would require them to pay the first $250 to $1,000 of their annual healthcare bills. The benefit to people would be lower monthly premiums.

What does this mean for a community hospital and the people they serve? One benefit would be the emergency room serving its original purpose of treating true “emergencies.” The uninsured would certainly think twice about showing up at the doors of the emergency room with a sporadic cough with the cost now coming from their very own pocket. Emergency rooms across the state would see a decrease in patient waiting times and greater care would be given to those who actually need it. However, critics of the proposed legislation of higher out-of-pocket expenses say it will encourage people to forgo routine doctor visits and preventive care, like pap smears and mammograms. They claim that patients will head to their community hospital only when they are extremely sick and it will result in higher costs for all stakeholders involved.

The decision to come to one of our community hospitals in a care setting is a personal choice. Preventative care saves lives and money. A high deductible plan that provides coverage for preventative care would not only benefit the patient, but the community hospital as well. The proposed legislation would give 500,000 people health insurance in Massachusetts that currently show up at our doors with nothing at all.

Common sense in the Commonwealth

2005-11-02T10:25:00.000-05:00

The American immigration system needs complete and total reform. What it does not need is partisan "solutions" to illegal immigration. For years, arch conservatives have been offering up simple, sweeping, and illogical plans to reform the system. Generally, these plans ignore the human lives that have become entangled in the bureaucratic mess of INS, BCIS, DHS, or whatever alphabet soup is charged with enforcing immigration law this week, all under the auspices of "cracking down." Thankfully, the Commonwealth has been managed to keep it's own debate about immigration policy on a higher plane ... until recently.

It seems, Lt. Governor Kerry Healey (R - Palatial estates of Beverly) has decided that it's time to step out from the shadow of Governor Romney. Yesterday, Healey came out against legislation being debated in the State House that would allow children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at Massachusetts' public institutes of higher education. Healey's position on the legislation was not the real surprise. What was truly surprising was her lack of compassion for the plight of such immigrants and her insistence that "they should go to private schools" (Quick aside: in state tuition and fees at UMass is $9,300. Cost of a private, four year college is $23,00/year). Attorney General Tom Reilly was right to say that even President Bush has a "more compassionate, more understanding, and, frankly, a more realistic view" of immigration reform.

No matter your views on immigration policy, it is clear that the children of undocumented immigrants, for too long, have been pawns in a political chess game. They have been born in a nation that they cannot truly call home, yet they know no other land. Further, the political climate surrounding immigration politics rarely permits itself to common sense deliberations, solutions, and progress. Attorney General Tom Reilly, and the supporters of the bill in the House and Senate, realize this and by putting their political capital behind this common sense, compassionate reform, they help Massachusetts take an important step forward in ensuring that all born in the Commonwealth truly have a shot at the American Dream.

The Leaderless Nation

2005-11-01T07:59:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, depending on the outcome of the Alito nomination, may be a day that political junkies remember for years. It will be for me, but for all the wrong reasons. The only other nation to which I bare an allegiance, the Red Sox Nation, has lost it's leader. We had wandered in the desert for 86 years and he delivered us to the Promised Land. The Red Sox Nation should be grateful to Theo for his service, and we should be mindful that his loss leaves us without a real leader. It's a beautiful late fall day in Boston, but there's something missing.

The UnAmerican Nature of Conservatism

2005-10-29T14:29:00.000-04:00

Every good progressive could give a laundry list of what's wrong with conservatism, but too often these points don't get to the core of the problem. Conservatives, on the other hand, have been consistent, outspoken, and clear in arguing that liberalism is inconsistent with American values. They've published books that claim "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and say we've committed "Treason" when our standard bearer commits adultery. We call them "Liars" when they distort highly classified national security and intelligence matters. Me thinks theres it's time for progressives, liberals, or whatever you choose to call yourself, to start settling the score. Too often, progressive thinkers castigate elected officials for capitulating, or moving to the center, but who are we to speak if we allow our values to be labeled as treasonous?

So, to steal a turn of phrase from Thomas Frank, what's the matter with conservatism? Everything. Conservatism, at it's core, is the death of the American dream. Conservatism does not believe that everyone should, or can, have the opportunity to improve their lot in the world, and in doing so, leave their children a little better off than they were. Conservatism rejects the idea of community and rejoices in the unattached, uninhibited, unemotional rational actor. Conservatism sees the state of your bank account as the ultimate measure of happiness and the determining factor of "success" in this world. Conservatism rejects the idea of any public good, hiding behind the facade of the free market and a distorted view of Adam Smith's economic theory. Conservatism tells the American public to forget "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," and "ask what you can do for yourself." Conservatism distorts the definition of liberty to mean the "freedom to exploit all others in a race toward the golden calf of profit margin," no matter the costs that cannot be calculated in accounting sheets. And, perhaps most important, Conservatism rejects the golden rule, to do unto others as you have them do unto you.

Many who call themselves conservatives would cringe if asked to join up with a lot that espoused such positions. Unfortunately, the Conservative Movement realized this from day 1, and has unceasingly worked to set the terms of the debate in their favor. But the terms of any debate are malleable, and progressives must work to shift them in our favor. In doing so, we must not attack all "conservatives," but rather Conservatism and the Conservative Movement. Exposing the ugly underbelly of Conservatism is the first step in developing a progressive governing majority for the 21st century. The choice is a clear one, it is our job to make sure we define it ... day in and day out.

Fumbling the handoff ...

2005-10-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

If there was one thing the Republican party in Massachusetts did have going for it, it was that there was little evidence, beyond their inept and unknown party chairman, they could be tied into the national Democratic message of 2006 - - "Republicans have created a culture of corruption and cronyism. It's time to bring back integrity, and bring about reform, and change." Unfortunately, when Quarterback Mitt handed-off the ball to second stringer Healey, things got a little interesting. It seem LG Healey's been using what little political capital she has to lock up state economic development tax credits for her husbands asset management firm. While this might seem only relatively scandalous, assuming the tax credits were used to develop areas in economic need, one need only look just below the surface to see how incredulous this influence peddling was.

First, it wasn't petty cash. Sean Healey and Affiliated Mananger's Group received $1.2 million in tax credits. These economic development tax credits were not for new projects, work or programs. Essentially, the state was paying AMG, whose VP and CFO served as the state Republican party chair (hand chosen by Mitt Romney), to stay in the Commonwealth. Not job creation, merely job retention. Second, where the state was paying to keep AMG is of significant interest. All other absurdities aside, I could almost convince myself this was a worth investment, if AMG was moving their operation to an area where they could serve as an anchor for further economic development and a pillar of the community. Unfortunately, AMG wanted to move to Beverly Prides Crossing section of Beverly Farms-Prides. Now I do not doubt AMG would be a pillar of the community, and Mr. Healey would be close to his family's palatial home, but the idea that state economic development tax credits should be used to make all this happen is ridiculous.

Thus, the Healey campaign fumbled on the first play. Now it's the Democrats job, no matter who you support in the primary, to recover the fumble, and call for a cleaning out of the Corner office. Republicans, after 16 years, have become entrenched in their ways. They have used the office to line the pockets of campaign donors instead of improve the lives of the Commonwealth's citizens. They have ignored the public interests, but responded to special interests. Make it an election about ending corruption and cronyism, and bringing progressive change and government reform.

Beltway Breeze

2005-10-28T10:49:00.000-04:00

Howard Fineman, of Newsweek, recently said something to the effect that "Washington is a political blender, spinning furiously, and we have no idea what the result will be when it stops." This is a fact that ALL progressives need to remember. Too often, in the past week, I have heard fellow Democrats gleefully talk of the imminent demise of the conservative, Republican majority. While the current climate is one that is ripe for a sea change in the Congress, that change will only come if Democrats make themselves the party of change, the party of reform, and the party that will extricate our government from the special interest morass it finds itself in today.

In this sense, the Miers withdrawal is both a blessing and a curse. It is a curse because Ms. Miers was not an ideologue. Ms. Miers was a conservative lawyer, with conservative leanings, socially and legally. However, she was not a "movement conservative," and thus was rejected by the conservative movement. While progressives may have strongly disagreed with many of the positions Ms. Miers would have taken if confirmed, she undoubtedly would have been a more moderate justice than the next nominee is bound to be. Should the next nominee be confirmed, the Supreme Court could take a sharp conservative turn for the next generation.

Negatives aside, the Miers withdrawal does serve a purpose for progressives. Windowdressing rational aside, the withdrawal reinforces the hold that the extreme Right has on the White House and the Congressional Leadership. The Miers withdrawal has set an "ideological purity" litmus test, outside of the mainstream of American legal and political thought. Further, the withdrawal reinforces the need for reform and change of leadership in Washington. President Bush, once the steady leader who dismisses polls, has become the ultimate "finger to the wind commander-in-chief." However, the President only feels the breeze created by the howling of his base.

Not appearing on his radar, are the calls by American's nationwide for a new direction. In every state, Americans want a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people ... not the vested interests. They want a government that is responsible, accountable, and responsive. They want change, and progressives can give it to them. But simply smiling at the plight of the Right won't get us there. We must take the next year to present the public with a choice, a choice for change.

Heroes in the Gulf

2005-10-25T07:56:00.000-04:00

The list of individuals, groups, and communities that could be described as heroes for their efforts in the rebuilding and relief efforts in the Gulf Coast region goes on for miles, but I'd like to take a chance to point out a specific group that holds a special place with this humble blogger. Americorps is probably one of the only governmental programs that Conservatives and Progressives can lend their common support and not question the motives of the other. Volunteerism, I surmise, was actually a word invented, so that opposing partisans could point to a single word on which they agree.

All kidding aside, we should all keep the young volunteers of Americorps in mind when we think of the massive relief efforts in the Gulf Region. I'm proud to say my younger sister, a recent graduate of Trinity College (Hartford, CT), has joined with over 12,000 other volunteers from across the country to help their fellow Americans begin to rebuild their lives. Many of these volunteers are recent college graduates who were merely looking to participate in various volunteer projects before moving on to grad school or the workforce. Instead, these brave, dedicated young souls have been thrust into one of the great disasters of our time. They have accepted the challenge, and by all accounts have done remarkable work.

So as the debate around how to rebuild the Gulf Coast moves forward and arguments are made, remember, some answers are already being provided by the heroic volunteers of Americorps.

Politics as Usual

2005-10-23T15:49:00.000-04:00

I have to admit something, I didn't vote for John Kerry ... at least I didn't vote for him in Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary. I voted for John Edwards. There were many reasons I decided to cast my ballot for the former Senator from North Carolina, but the main reason was that Senator Edwards represented something different in politics. He spoke about the politics of hope and consistently refused to attack his opponents. Senator Edwards displayed a type of leadership by example that is rarely seen in politics today.

So why do I mention this now? What drove me to make this confession? Checking my email this morning, I was made aware of a disturbing letter to the editor in the Arlington Advocate. The letter, which was written by a member of the "Deval Patrick Media Team," claimed to be a letter in support of Mr. Patrick, but was essentially a personal attack on Attorney General Tom Reilly.

The most disappointing aspect of the letter was not the rhetoric or even the misrepresentation of AG Reilly's positions (the AG's positions on gay rights and steam cell research couldn't be further from the Governor's), rather it was abandonment of the "politics of hope" by one of it's purported champions. Mr. Patrick claims to be a "different kind of leader," but it seems his campaign is just about politics as usual. How a campaign carries itself reflects directly on its candidate, and this letter does not reflect well on the Mr. Patrick.

Now I have been a consistent supporter of the AG, but I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Patrick. His record and accomplishments are impressive, but a dark shadow is cast over them when his name is attached to an attack of this nature. If Mr. Patrick truly believes in the "politics of hope" he will denounce this mean spirited letter and it's distortions of AG Reilly's positions and record.

Hometown Pride ...

2005-10-20T19:18:00.000-04:00

There are few things that aggravate me more than when extreme conservatives take to bashing Massachusetts. As a born and raised resident of the Commonwealth, with brief stops in Providence and Washington, D.C., I take great pride in my home state. Massachusetts is the seat of liberty, the birthplace of democracy, and the state that brought our nation such leaders as the John Quincy Adams, Tip O'Neil, and JFK, among others.

That being said, I was obviously dismayed (and not the least bit surprised) a few months back when Pennsylvania junior Senator, and the 3rd ranking Republican leader, Rick Santorum made the following incendiary statements on the tragic subject of priests abusing children

Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm

For his part, the current (part-time) Governor of Massachusetts, all but ignored the comments. However, one leader in the Commonwealth had the political courage to stand up for Massachusetts and demand that Santorum be held accountable. AG Reilly's demand for an apology carries with it extra weight considering that no leader in Massachusetts has done more for the victims of these heinous crimes than he. His dogged pursuit, despite pressure from the Church to allow for an internal investigation and handling, of wrongdoers may not have won him any political points, but it was yet another example of the kind of political leadership he would bring to the Corner Office.

The citizens of Massachusetts deserve a Governor who will lead by independent conviction, not by poll or interest group demand. Through his career AG Reilly has proved himself to be that kind of leader. The kind of leader that won't let Massachusetts be disparaged, but will allow Massachusetts to lead the nation, like it always has.

Roadblock?

2005-10-19T22:33:00.000-04:00

One of the perks of having worked in DC is that I still have a password for an online subscription to Roll Call one of the two daily Capitol Hill political papers. I check the website fairly regularly, normally only to find the political gossip of the day, but tonight was a little bit different. It seems the extreme conservatives leading the GOP in the House are having trouble getting their amendment to the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget resolution passed. The article pasted below contains most of the details, so I'll let it do the talking. But it's good to see the remaining few moderates (lead by Rep. Castle (R-DE) and Rep. Shays (R-CT)) in the Republican Conference aren't going along with this fiasco.

House GOP Delays Vote on Budget Amendment
By Ben Pershing Roll Call Staff
Wednesday, Oct. 19; 06:54pm

Realizing that they did not yet have enough support for passage of their budget amendment, House GOP leaders decided Wednesday to postpone the vote on the cost-cutting legislation until next week.

Republican leaders emerged from a meeting in Speaker Dennis Hastert’s (R-Ill.) office just after 6 p.m. Wednesday to announce their decision after a long day of attempting to rally the troops for a possible Thursday vote on an amendment to the fiscal 2006 budget resolution.

In addition to their previously stated plan to bump the level of mandatory spending cuts via reconciliation to $50 billion, GOP leaders now also plan to include some type of across-the-board discretionary spending cut in the budget amendment. That idea had initially been scuttled earlier in the week following the objections of appropriators, but the leadership soon found that removing that provision cost them more votes than it gained.

“I think our Members want to be sure we’re going beyond mandatory” spending cuts to include discretionary cuts, said Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). In addition to the mandatory and discretionary cuts, the leaders also plan to further expand the budget amendment by including the “deprogramming” of previously authorized programs and, possibly, rescissions of previously appropriated spending.

“Members would rather have a resolution that would have all four of those points,” Blunt said.
As was the case during a similar gathering Tuesday evening, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) participated in the leadership meeting despite the fact that he no longer serves as Majority Leader.

On the Horizon ...

2005-10-17T10:59:00.000-04:00

It's quite clear that the development practices of the 20th century have produced a mix bag of results. While the awesome advances of the time have increased opportunity and spread wealth across a greater swath of the general population than in anytime before, the practices of the recent past have done incalculable damage to our shared environment and ecosystems. As we all know, hindsight is 20/20, but forsight does not need to be blind. If we are to build a more just society in the 21st century, it is essential that development, in all arenas, take into account the environmental impacts of any action.

Understanding this reality, New Ecology, Inc. is hosting its 6th Annual Regional Sustainable Development Forum. Using a set of workshops, lectures, and networking exercises, NEI is bringing a wide variety of people together to discuss the challenges and opportunities for developing a more environmental just and sustainable society. Clearly, the task of reorienting our society is a daunting one. While the actions of NEI and it's partners are important, real answers to systemic development problems will require action from elected officials at all levels and especially at the highest levels.

Local solutions to global problems are a start, but they will not bring about the necessary solutions. In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the American public will be presented with a clear choice. While political consultants generally argue that environmental issues are non-starters, progressives should not take this as an excuse to tack right or fail to address the massive challenges that face us. Sustainable development is not just a good idea, it's a necessary reality whose time has come.

What Do We Need to Lead?

2005-10-14T16:29:00.000-04:00

Thats the question that MA State Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams) wants an answer to. Bosley is sponsoring legislation that would establish an advisory board to examine current economic trends and state spending (specifically in job training and workforce development), to determine what, if any steps should be taken to ensure that the Commonwealth is doing its fair share in preparing it's citizens to enter the workforce and sustain themselves. Ultimately, the board will determine if there is a gap between what is being provided and what is needed, and if it determines there is a gap it will make recommendations on how to close it.

Being from western Massachusetts originally, this is just the type of measured, solid approach we are used to from Bosley. Never one to have his hair catch on fire, Bosley knows what he believes, but he also knows the best way to achieve certain goals. Establishing this board, which he refers to as a "diagnostic tool," will help progressives in the state legislature make their argument for investing more in Massachusetts. By specifically focusing on job training and workforce development, Bosley shows his political acumen (he is the Chair of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies) and a true understanding of where Massachusetts economy is headed. Gone are the days of the GE's and Phizer's (as the residents of the Berkshires know), but here are the days of emerging technologies, creative new industries, and R & D that supports them.

Bosley's bill is a smart step to determining what social safety net is needed to ensure that no working citizen of the commonwealth is left behind. But we must also remember, it's only the first step. If Massachusetts is to lead in the 21st century, we need to be on the cutting edge in all areas: sustainable development, research and technology, and quality of life, etc.

Have-You-Cake-Eat-It-Too Conservatism

2005-10-13T07:32:00.000-04:00

Scott Lehigh hit's the nail on the heard this morning. Hypocrisy might make good politics in the short run, but when the bills come due, some one is going to have to pay.

R.I.P Compassionate Conservatism - We Hardly Knew Yee

2005-10-12T07:48:00.000-04:00

The life and death of an ideology can be an interesting thing to observe. Depending on your personal leanings, one could argue for the death or rebirth of American conservatism or liberalism seemingly every day. This argument is generally fueled by partisans, seeking to push a defeated opponent further down or seeking to knock the current ruling party from their pedestal.

However, some moments so clearly signal the end of an era that they are accepted by individuals across the political spectrum. When we retrospectively examine the politics of the early 21st century, I believe that the post-Katrina era will mark the death of compassionate conservatism in the United States. While some debate whether compassionate conservatism was ever born, or ever produced any results, George W. Bush will be remembered in the history books as a "compassionate conservative." Just what this means, though, has yet to be defined.

If the President was truly compassionate, no matter his political philosophy, he would reject the plans, reported by Jason Deparle in yesterday's New York Times, to pay for Katrina reconstruction efforts by slashing programs that directly benefit the poor in our country. I'll admit, I was somewhat hopeful that the incredible travesty that has left the Gulf Region in utter disrepair would lead to a new debate about how we can alleviate and eradicate poverty in the United States.

Unfortunately, the extreme Republican party that has control of Washington, D.C. took this national tragedy as a chance to push a partisan agenda. Days after Hurricane Katrina, while FEMA held press conferences and the President continued his vacation, conservative pundits had started chirping the line that poverty in New Orleans was the direct result of the Great Society War on Poverty lead by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. No, they were not arguing that LBJ's programs were underfunded (as they were considering they're massive mission), rather they argued that public programs of this sort fostered a culture of dependency in New Orleans and throughout the country.

Now let me be the first to say, that for all his quirks, mistakes, and flaws, I've always been a fan of LBJ. He did more to address the issues of racism, poverty, and inequality in the United States than any President since FDR himself. And while there were a great many flaws with the Great Society, it's administration, and it's application, the efforts of that era did NOT create any "culture of dependency." The individuals who had their homes ravaged in New Orleans, and throughout the region, were not dependent, they were struggling to survive. They did not live glamorous lives thanks to welfare checks, they spent each day hoping to have enough to eat and looking for a job in an economy that has all but abandoned workers with less than a college education.

There will always be bad seeds in a crowd, even if it is a crowd of good, hard working people. Even the most compassionate efforts will be abused. But blaming well intentioned efforts to help those who need it the most in our society does nothing but divide our country, when we should be coming together.

So good riddance compassionate conservatism. We hardly knew yee.

One Year Out ...

2005-10-08T21:49:00.000-04:00

No matter what Republican strategists, loyalists, or supporters say, if the Congressional midterm elections were held this coming November the powers that be on the Hill could be in for a rude awakening. The confluents of events that has left the Administration and it's party in tatters has been well documented, now, it's the responsibility of Democrats, both in office and perspective candidates, to push a positive reform agenda. No Democrat should open their mouth in the next year without reform on the minds and at the tip of their tongues.

The "leadership gap" created by the White House's disconnect with everyday Americans, was highlighted in the most recent CBS poll, which has the President plummeting on all issues, even those too often cited in the mainstream media as his strengths. It's times like these when I am glad that Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) is running the DCCC. Polling numbers of this variety signify an environment in which old maxims and theories of "safe seats" can be tossed aside. The possibility for a sea change in both the House and the Senate is there, and it is real.

But, as with all things, potential means nothing unless it is realized. Democrats and progressives must continually push a positive change agenda. Rahm did this on "Meet the Press" last week when Tim Russert brought up the bogus, "Democrats have no ideas" mantra. Each and every progressive should take it as their duty to promote a positive agenda for the country, otherwise, we'll be talking about the opportunity we missed as opposed to celebrating the change we created.

He Talked the Talk, and they Walked

2005-10-05T17:09:00.000-04:00

So let me give you the news. Massachusetts is investing in the future; we're investing ... To create more good jobs. - Governor Mitt Romney, Manchester, NH, June 3, 2005

When the citizens of the Commonwealth heard those words from their Governor, or read about them in their morning paper (along with the speculation that their Governor was focused on national ambition instead of his job at hand), they must have felt good. Unfortunately, what the Governor failed to mention was that he was creating jobs not in the Commonwealth that had elected him, but in it's neighbor to the North.

If you check out Sunday's Nashua Telegraph you see that while the Governor has been off making light about Massachusetts politics, businessmen in the commonwealth have been leaving from his own back yard. More important though, the jobs lost in Belmont are high-tech jobs of the technology economy which Massachusetts should be fostering an environment for and promoting the creation of.

If this had been a one time occurrence, irony aside, the Governor could be excused. If the Romney Administration was working day in and day out to create more jobs, the Governor could be excused. But the lack of attention that the Romney administration has paid to Commonwealth businesses is appalling, especially for self proclaimed chief salesman of the state. Whether it's Gillette or Medical Equipment Exchange, the Romney administration has neglected one of its top priorities: economic development.

The contrast between the energy, efforts and actions of the two Chief Executives involved in this story, Gov. Lynch of NH and Romney, couldn't be any starker. Massachusetts deserves a Chief Executive who will fight to keep jobs in the state, work to create jobs throughout the state, and will foster an environment where the jobs of the new economy will grow and flourish. The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve a Governor who will talk the talk AND walk the walk. That's the news Governor.

The Moral Mandate

2005-10-05T10:53:00.000-04:00

As we become more and more removed from the dramatic images of the hours, days, and weeks following Hurricane Katrina, and to a lesser effect Hurricane Rita, we must not forget that our fellow countrymen in the Gulf are still suffering. In the past week, CNN has run a wide array of stories showing how people are attempting to move on and move forward with their lives. The spirit and drive of these individuals is incredible. It must be the moral mandate of the federal, state, and local governments where these individuals decide to relocate (whether it is within the Gulf region or not) to ensure that they are granted every opportunity to begin life anew. Additionally, it should be the mandate of the same group of leaders to ensure that New Orleans, the surrounding areas, and the entire region is reconstructed in the most fair, equitable and sustainable manner possible.

In today's Boston Globe Xavier de Souza Briggs, of MIT, and Margery Austin Turner, of the Urban Institute, spelled out a guideline of sorts for the equitable redevelopment of the region. Briggs and Turner's guideline echoes many of the pleas being made by progressives throughout the country. These voices see the silver lining on the cloud of Katrina being the possibility to address issues of systemic inequity through urban planning and community redevelopment. Not only is this a laudable goal, it is a goal, we would assume, that all members of our society could support. In fact, the guideline put forth in this article seems to directly echo John Rawl's theory of Justice as Fairness, as espoused in A Theory in Justice.

Unfortunately, it seems that instead of directly addressing the issues that Briggs, Turner and others have mentioned, the current Administration seems bent on handing out no-bid contracts and creating a zone free of any regulation of big business whatsoever. Instead of addressing the conditions that allowed for thousands of toxins to be spilled into surrounding water sources, the White House has floated the idea of curtailing the safeguards which had slowed the proliferation of chemical plants throughout the region. Instead of directing federal resources and energies towards a genuine poverty alleviation effort, press conferences were held and assurances were given.

In the period directly after Hurricane Katrina we came together as a country in an incredible manner. The American public was clearly ready and willing for its government to address the persistent issues of poverty and racial inequity. It should be the duty of progressives everywhere to continue to raise these issues and refuse to allow the victims of Katrina to fade into the background. Briggs and Turner's guideline is a good start, but more most be done, and more must de demanded of our leaders, at all levels.

The Proof is in the Pudding

2005-10-04T10:48:00.000-04:00

The UMASS Fall 2005 Survey is out, and the results look promising for a change in the Commonwealth. Voters are through with Governor (when it's convenient for him) Mitt Romney and are unimpressed with Lt. Governor Kerry Healy. Additionally, there is one candidate who consistently defeats any and all Republican challengers.

It's still a long way off before the convention and the primaries, but the numbers are promising and the opportunity is there. Now it's up to progressives to unite in commonn cause to put Massachusetts back on the right track, leading the nation in the early 21st century.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

2005-10-03T11:11:00.000-04:00

Too often, progressives find themselves on the defensive in campaigns and in the court of public opinion. By allowing conservative voices to define the parameters of debates, progressives cede many advantages they posses. The issue on which this is most brutally clear is taxes and tax policy. Whether its the estate tax (as they would call it, the death tax) or tax cuts for multimillionaires (as they would call it, tax relief), conservatives have consistently been on the offensive, leaving progressives in a weak, defensive position.

Understanding this political reality, Attorney General and Gubernatorial candidate Tom Reilly aggressively came out for an 18 percent decrease in auto insurance rates for Bay State drivers. Now, I know that auto insurance isn't necessarily a "tax" by definition, but to drivers throughout the Bay State it certainly feels like one. Auto insurance in Massachusetts has long been kept at ridiculously high levels, mostly thanks to Republican administration's coziness with the industry. These high rates are felt most harshly by those in our Commonwealth who have the least to spare, especially in our current economic environment. But most importantly, the AG's stance forces the Romney/Healy Administration to take an unpopular stand. Even if they were to come out for a 17 percent decrease, progressives can paint the Administration as unresponsive to the needs of working families and responsive to the needs of an unpopular industry.

Progressives throughout the Bay State, and the country, would do well to take a lesson from the AG. In political campaigns, the best defense is a good offense. If progressives allow conservatives to determine what questions will be debated in elections, we will be forced to try build a majority on their turf. While this is not impossible it is much more difficult than building a majority on our own terms.

Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable

2005-10-02T20:55:00.000-04:00

When then state Senator Barack Obama gave his speech at the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004, many believed we were witnessing the beginning of something special. Since his election to the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has done much to support and little, if anything, to challenge this initial impression. At no point has this been more clear than the end of last week when the junior Senator from Illinois took his turn at analyzing the current state of the Democratic party and what must be done to build a progressive majority in the United States.

Looking through the lens of the Roberts appointment and confirmation, the Senator's thoughtful insight should be required reading for progressives of all shades. For my entire lifetime, and I'm sure much longer, there has been a debate about the future of the Democratic party. This debate was first the result of the party's inability to consistently win Presidential elections, but was magnified as a result of Bill Clinton's election in 1992 as a "new Democrat" and the Republican congressional takeover of 1994. On the whole, the debate is healthy, necessary, and should be welcomed by progressives, independents, and centrists. Unfortunately, the debate has too often drifted from well-intentioned, passionate disagreement to pointless petty squabbling.

If we are to successfully build a progressive majority in the United States, the Senator argues (and I would tend to agree) that the Democratic party must truly be a big tent. Labels should be cast aside and litmus tests should not be applied to individuals who share a majority of our principles and values. Senator Obama then goes on to cite several specific examples of cases where the tenor and tone of disagreements within the party has actually hampered the ability of the Democratic party to build a majority. All of which are extremely prescient, considering the rare and important opportunity that Democrats have now.

More than anything else, the thoughts of Senator Obama are welcome for their ability to address a sensitive topic in an articulate manner. Instead of stirring the pot further, the Senator gave perspective to on ongoing discussion that is vital to the future of our country, the Democratic party, and the progressive community. His remarks and actions exemplify what it means to be an idealist without illusions, and they place him in company with some of the great leaders of the Democratic party throughout the years. Here's to hoping that someday we can look back on the Obama Presidency and think about the amazing, creative and innovative accomplishments that came with it.

There's Nothin' Left to do but Smile, Smile, Smile ...

2005-09-29T07:42:00.000-04:00

Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay Indicted on Corruption Charges

For anyone who has spent anytime in Republican controlled Washington, D.C., especially in the past 5 years, the news that former House Majority Leader Tom "the Hammer" Delay was indicted on several counts of criminal conspiracy had to illicit a wide smile.

The man who has called the Environmental Protection Agency the "Gestapo of the federal government" and has run roughshod over our democratic processes and traditions truly ruled by the Machiavellian theory that it is better to be feared than loved. Unfortunately for Mr. Delay, the rule of law still exists outside of the chambers of the House of Representatives. District Attorney Ronnie Earle has a history of prosecuting corrupt elected officials of both parties (12 of his 15 indictments have been of Democrats) and fighting against abuses of power. Rest assured, the extremist Republicans of Washington will attempt to paint Mr. Earle as a partisan with an ideological agenda. But the American public is above such manipulations of the truth and will only stand for the pot calling the kettle black so many times.

As for the question, "what should progressives, independents, Democrats do in reaction to this news?" I say we should turn to an unlikely source of wisdom ... Jerry Garcia, the late leader of the Grateful Dead, used to sing "there's nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile." That sounds like a fine strategy by me.

The Corner Office

2005-09-28T21:18:00.000-04:00

For too long, the office of the Governor of Massachusetts has served as a stepping stone for politicians who have focused their gaze beyond the problems of the Commonwealth that elected them. This trend must stop. Massachusetts is too great a state, with too deep a tradition of inspirational progressive leaders, to continue to serve as a jumping off point for politicians, who promise one thing to the voters and deliver another, if anything at all.

In the 2006 gubenatorial election, the voters of Massachusetts will be presented with a choice between two candidates. It is the belief of this humble citizen of the Commonwealth that the best candidate to represent the Democratic party in that contest, and win, is Attorney General Tom Reilly.

Since graduating from Boston College Law School in 1970, Mr. Reilly has dedicated himself to public service and speaking out for those in our society who lack a voice. Whether it was as a young graduate working for South Boston legal services, or taking innovative steps to promote community based solutions to crime as Middlesex District Attorney and Massachusetts Attorney General, Mr. Reilly has continually shown his commitment to the greater good of the Commonwealth.

The praise for Mr. Reilly, especially in his time as Attorney General, has been wide and far ranging, but that is not what impresses and inspires those who have chosen to support his candidacy. Mr. Reilly, despite his electoral success and well deserved praise, has maintained a modest and humble demeanor. Unlike the current resident of the corner office (and his heir apparent), Mr. Reilly understands the strains that working men, women and families throughout the Commonwealth feel. He understands that the good, hard working people of the Commonwealth are not asking for the world, but they are asking for a Governor who can relate to their lives and respond to their needs.

Attorney General Tom Reilly has dedicated his life to the best interests of the Commonwealth. He is a man of unquestionable integrity, unshakeable resolve, and unmatched commitment to the values we citizens of the Commonwealth cherish. If we are to move Massachusetts forward in a progressive manner, Mr. Reilly should be the Democratic nominee and ultimately the Governor of Massachusetts.

Leadership

2005-09-28T19:45:00.000-04:00

Idealism without illusions is about leadership. It is about dedication to public service and commitment to the common good above all else. It is about making decisions that will be unpopular from time to time, both with supporters and with the opposition, but holding to that course because it is in the best interest of the community, the commonwealth, or the nation.

Too often, in our current political environment, "leaders" put their finger in the air to determine their values. They test the polls and talk to the interest groups, to avoid a misstep. This is not leadership, it is timidity.

If we are to move forward in progressive manner, our leaders must be able to make tough choices and take difficult stances. FDR pushed through the New Deal, while conservative voices in Congress told him government intervention would make things worse. Harry Truman gave the first speech by an American president to the NAACP, saying full civil rights and freedom must be guaranteed for all Americans, much to the chagrin of Southerners in both parties. And LBJ pushed through comprehensive civil rights, voting rights, housing and poverty legislation, all to the dismay of those who believed that social inequity was natural and could not be alleviated by government action.

Leadership, especially at the highest levels, has the ability to move society in a more fair and just direction. Leadership also acknowledges that the movement towards a more just society does not happen over night. It requires vision, commitment, effort and dedication. This is the type of leadership we need from our elected officials today, and we must demand it.