Grace Ross, who ran in 2006 as the Green Party’s candidate for governor of Massachusetts, is now running in the Democratic primary for the same office, against incumbent governor Deval Patrick. “I wasn’t planning to run again,” stated Ross, “but things got worse. Things got worse for regular people.”
Jan 20 2010
You know, being politicians and all, you’d think the Institutional Democratic Party could READ A FUCKING POLL!
DEMOCRATS LEARNING WRONG LESSON FROM MASSACHUSETTS?
EVEN SCOTT BROWN VOTERS WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION, WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
“In an election between Scott Brown and the public option, the public option would have won.”
– Charles Chamberlain, political director of Democracy for America
HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”
- by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
- by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home
(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)
VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION
- 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
- 86% of Obama voters who stayed home
OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER
- 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
- 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home
PLUS: Obama voters overwhelming want bold economic populism from Democrats in 2010.
Morons, assholes, or sell-outs.
Take your pick.
Jan 20 2010
Seeking dedicated individual. Interest in Drug Policy reform and Constitutional Rights a must.
Applicant must LIKE meeting people, be willing to shake hands in front of Fenway Park.
Massachusetts Law License required, Criminal Defense experience preferred.
Good pay, great benefits
Applicant must defeat an incumbent in the Democratic Primary, shouldn’t be difficult, as she hates to campaign.
Application (Declaration of Candidacy) due by Feb. 4th, 2010. Employment commences Jan. 2011
Jan 20 2010
Well, what did you expect? The best analysis I’ve read so far is from John Aravosis–
Massachusetts, that kept Ted Kennedy in office for decades because he promised to provide affordable health care to every American, thinks President Obama is going too far by passing legislation that is, at best, half a loaf of what Kennedy had been proposing. Got that?
What other “far left” agenda could Bayh be talking about? Gay rights perhaps? First off, not much of an agenda in this White House, but in any case, we’re to believe that liberal views on social issues are ticking off a state that was the first in the country to have gay marriage? Seriously? How about abortion – Kennedy was pro-choice, never hurt him, and in any case, Obama is hardly God’s gift to choicers.
So it’s not health care reform or social issues, maybe it’s economic issues. Was it the Wall Street bailout? Not very liberal there. Maybe defense issues. Perhaps the mini-surge of additional troops in Afghanistan? Again, no liberal to be found.
So what exactly is Evan Bayh talking about when he says that our government has lurched too far to the left of Massachusetts? What part of President Obama’s agenda wasn’t Massachusetts familiar with when they voted for him over John McCain last November by double digits? And the irony is that Obama has never moved farther to the left in office than he promised on the campaign trail — he’s only moved to the right.
Jan 19 2010
We all know Coakley sucks. She crusaded against the Massachusetts decrim initiative in 2008, and after it passed with 65% of the vote urged municipal governments to circumvent it with local ordinances. She then refused to pursue charges against the District Attorneys who illegally used government resources to campaign against the initiative.
So why do I want you to vote for her?
Simple. Brown in the Senate will be just as bad on the issue, but by sending Coakley to Washinhgton we get her nasty ass out of the Attorney General’s office, while Brown remaining in the State Senate will have little impact.
Jan 18 2010
As many of you have been doing, I am nervously monitoring the special election for Massachusetts senator. By now, one would hope that no one needs reminding of the repercussions and consequences a defeat would portend both for the short term and for the long term, but one would hope also that its instantaneous impact would spur many to make long-deferred reforms. To wit, Coakley’s defeat would make a powerful statement to residents in even the bluest of blue states. To wit, liberalism must self-monitor and must fortify itself against a desire to snooze and slumber. Nothing is owed to us in this world and a person is only as successful as his or her last triumph. This realization can be applied well beyond the Democratic party and all the concentric circles of influence and power that feed into it. Indeed, the ripple effects if Scott Brown wins will be felt across the country and will spawn a thousand prophets in the publication wilderness, each proclaiming that the end is nigh for a Democratic majority.
Constipated activist organizations now tapping out a panicked SOS are profuse, but as is my want, I’d like to single out one in particular. One can only hope that if, God forbid, Coakley were to lose, the mainstream Feminist™ organizations currently pushing for her election might be forced to concede that their strategies are out of date and their larger influence is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Coakley’s detached Front Porch Campaign did not resonate well with voters inclined to distrust and thus to be turned off by on candidates who seem above kissing babies, shaking hands, and being highly visible to the prospective voter. Though I do not welcome the sense of helplessness that might reverberate through many workplaces come tomorrow night, I know that sometimes people have to learn their lessons the hard way. And in so doing, they have to sometimes have to learn them more than once. Still, how many times do some have to be on the losing end of easily preventable catastrophes before they recognize that the problem is with themselves, not with external factors?
Sloth and entitlement are usually fatal flaws in politics and activism, and at least one recent harsh blogosphere attack against the established players of Feminism™ was penned in an effort to shake them out of their old ways. These organizations do have a function and I’m not advocating that they need to be dismantled, but they do need to step into the times and embrace new realities. The true tragedy is that there are any number of highly qualified women who could be enlisted for the cause and be convinced to run for any number of high elective offices. Instead, someone decides to earmark and denote a particular legislative office for a Female™ and then feels obligated to advance a candidate with the highest possible degree of name-recognition, regardless of whether she is a good fit for the office. In addition to being bad policy, this is tokenism writ large. Tokenism has never truly advanced anyone’s noble imperative. What it has done is appease someone’s guilt and in so doing serve as a temporary concession rather than a desire to completely integrate women actively into the political process. If we were really committed to the idea of equality, then such decisions would be a matter of course, not a conscious effort towards appeasement.
In this same regard, a prior school of political theory and general leadership philosophy believed that in order to be taken seriously and to survive in a man’s world, women in positions of authority ought to strive to be as tough and as masculine as their male counterparts. In effect, as the theory goes, they ought to adopt the pose and guise of a man for fear of seeming weak or being summarily discounted as ineffectual and ineffective as a leader. One would think that thirty or forty years of this would have given us the ability to recognize that sexist and misogynistic attacks come from everywhere, at any time, for any reason. Women who make no apology for “encroaching” into traditionally male spaces will find themselves insulted for any reason at all, really. For example, in the past few days, Coakley has found herself the target of a bizarre remark implying that someone ought to sodomize her with an electrical appliance. One can’t get away from the offensive voices, unfortunately, but one can advance the authenticity of self as an excellent counter-weight to push back against the name-callers and childish smears.
I still recall how Hillary Clinton shed tears at a campaign stop shortly before the New Hampshire primary, showing not just a very human, vulnerable side, but also a very feminine side as well. In so doing, she transformed what was expected to be a sound drubbing into an improbable win that gave her campaign new life. Women voters related heavily with the gesture and cast their ballots accordingly; I’m not entirely dissuaded from the notion that some men might have been taken aback in a good way, recognizing that there was more to the candidate the icy, calculating stereotype that made her seem supremely unlikeable and at times threatening to the male voter. If we are ever to live in a world where the content of our character is more important than both the color of our skin and our reproductive organs, we will reach the point that no one ever feels the compulsion to pass, assimilate, or modify one’s authentic self to seem more fitting to majority norms. Humanity and with it authenticity is what voters crave more than anything. Policy wonkery and strategy are lost on the average voter who seeks to identify himself or herself personally with the latest slate of candidates for elective office. When we can see ourselves clearly in those who run, then we are compelled to pull a lever for them on Election Day.
I voted, in part, for Barack Obama because I saw parallels between his life story and my own. In particular, the description of his mother closely mirrors my own—a woman passionately devoted to a cause beyond herself who sought to see the world through an optimistic lens, even though many criticized her desire as foolish and a trifle naïve. Others saw their own dreams mirrored in his rhetoric and the possibility of what he represented. Though a year later reality has set in and we are far less enthralled with the President then we were then, we continue to find his policies more objectionable than who he is as a person. Personality has limitations, but it can go a long way. A politician who is disliked as a person must rely on the political atmosphere around him or her, and sometimes only maintains power when his or her opposition is reviled even more.
Competence goes a long way, too, and I know that, speaking from a strictly women’s rights perspective, we can’t expect to not have reproductive rights compromised for the sake of passing a massive reform act if we are unable to break free from the scourge of tokenism. Victories are won with a collection of smaller successes that, linked together, move closer towards ultimate triumph. An occasional arm-twist, guilt-trip or, worse yet, established tradition of being granted an occasional “favor” in exchange for unwavering support are not going to get us where we need to be. No one would ever confuse that for complete integration and total parity. We should know instinctively what it will take to get there, but the question remains if we are willing to do the hard work on the ground to actualize it. The ivory tower might be cushy and familiar, but it is a universe in and of itself, one wholly removed from any semblance of the actual lives of working people. We have in front of us an opportunity to learn from what will be a debacle whether victory is won or lost. Let’s not ignore it.
Jan 16 2010
So just after 5 pm here on the Left Coast, I get this email:
Subject: We Want Our Money Back
From: “Vice President Joe Biden”
To: (my name, aka “Sucker”)
Yesterday, President Obama announced our proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility
Fee on the country’s largest banks:
“My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed. And my
determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive
profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued
existence to the American people… We want our money back, and we’re going to get
The fee would recover every penny loaned to Wall Street during the financial crisis
and stop the reckless abuses and excesses that nearly caused the collapse of our
financial system in the first place.
But the banking industry — among the most powerful lobbies in Washington — is
already launching attacks to stop Congress from enacting the proposal.
Barack and I aren’t backing down. But to win, we’ll need the American people to add
their voice right away.
Thankfully, OFA supporters are already signing on to a bold statement of support:
“We want our money back — and we stand with President Obama to make sure we get
it.” You can add your name by clicking here:
The proposal is expected to recoup billions from the big banks, most of it from the
ten largest. As the President said, “If these companies are in good enough shape to
afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back
every penny to taxpayers.”
There is much more work to do to reform the financial system and create a new era of
accountability. But the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee is a crucial step. And
with the banks already working to tear it down, I hope that I can count on you to
speak out to show that Americans stand with us as we take them on.
Click here to add your name to the statement:
Change isn’t easy, but it’s certainly worth fighting for. I’m glad you’re in this
fight with us.
Thank you for making it possible,
Vice President Joe Biden
Please donate: https://donate.barackobama.com…
Jan 15 2010
A new analysis of independent exit polls conducted in L.A. County at the November 2008 election indicates significant likelihood that the official vote counts are incorrect. It is indeed possible that the California state constitution was amended to strip marriage rights of some of the state’s people as a result of vote counts that were incorrect and possibly even fraudulent.
A “no” vote for Prop 8 meant that you wanted marriage equality. In some places in Los Angeles, the difference between the official vote totals and this study were a not so alarming 2%, but in other places they approached a shocking 18%. Just to clarify, this study is saying that in some places the actual votes that people cast differed from what was recorded by the state by nearly 18%. And Prop 8 passed by a margin of less than 5% of the vote.
Mar 12 2008
On Monday, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released its 2007 Congressional Poverty Scorecard. The President of the Center, John Bouman, noted that in states with the highest poverty rates, their congressional delegations tended to score the worst.
“Poverty is everywhere in America, but it is interesting that in states with the highest concentrations of poverty, the Congressional delegations seem least interested in supporting initiatives that fight poverty,” said John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, which released the study. “This appears deeper than simply opposing spending. A member could have opposed any of the measures we analyzed that called for new spending and still could have voted to support half of the poverty-fighting measures on our list.”
Former presidential candidate John Edwards was also on the center’s conference call with reporters.
“We can get the national leadership and we can get the congressional leadership we need,” Edwards said. “But first voters need to be educated as to who is doing the work and who is not.”
Mar 10 2008
Jan 20 2008
Wifey and I had a dilemma — we wanted to get out and have fun, but didn’t want to go into Boston and deal with traffic, parking, headaches and lunatics.
We hit “teh Google” and surfed the Intertubes, and found a comedy club that wasn’t far from our home — it’s in Randolph, MA, inside a Holiday Inn.
Dick’s Beantown Comedy Escape @ the Holiday Inn, inside Zack’s Restaurant.
No problem parking.
We’ve already met comedian John Turco, and also on the bill tonight are Greg Howell and Kris Norton.