Dodd-Peterson debate liveblog

Summary: The biggest change, the biggest difference between these candidates is not their beliefs, but their focus. Tim Dodd talked about people -- people with whom he's worked, people he's met on the campaign trail, people he's helped as selectmen. George Peterson talked about laws, bills, funds, taxes, budgets, and programs. It's an interesting take on their viewpoints. After 16 years of looking at line items and categories, that's what Peterson seems to see when he thinks of the 9th Worcester district. After years as a selectman and a teacher, Dodd sees the people next to him, with whom he works. He seems to want to represent the district, not facilitate it.

7:15 - It's a lot colder outside than it seemed on the way to the car. Standing in the cold holding a sign is proof.

7:30 - Dodd supporters outnumbering Peterson backers. Peterson sign-holders head in first. Small victory.

7:45 - Sheriff's debate starting first. Evangelides, the Republican sheriff candidate, couldn't be bothered to show up. Oops...it's a "prior commitment", which comes in second to "more time with his family" on the list of bulls--t political excuses. The Democrat (Foley) and the unenrolled candidate (Nicholas) came. Both are law enforcement professionals. I'm reluctant to comment further as someone unfamiliar with this race.

8:10 - Break time. Foley lays into Evangelides (not by name) for ducking the big issues by skipping the debate. Dodd and Peterson are up in a few. At least half the crowd leaves.

8:15 - Off we go! Peterson's up first with his opening which commences with the pre-Nixon days. He reads it from a paper in front of him. Peterson's been married for 34 years -- good for him! He's also got kids. I just have no idea why he's running for office.

Dodd's opening begins with thank yous to people in the debate, including Rep. Peterson. Calls himself a "citizen legislator" who wouldn't take per diems or a salary raise. Talks about the constituents in each of his four towns.

8:20 - First question asks "what kind of legislator would you be?" Dodd speaks about availability to constituents and would be a full-time legislator. He earned a doctorate while teaching. How many legislators do we have with doctorates? Methinks not enough. Rep. Peterson is full-time, and speaks about constituent services, constant meetings on constituent issues.

8:24 - "Name a concrete proposal you have to create jobs/implemented to create jobs". For Peterson, the answer -- surprise! -- is to cut taxes. The US Chamber of Commerce would be so proud. He's against the excise and income tax, and probably refuses to accept the "Poor Tax" Chance Card when he plays Monopoly. Dodd speaks about his proposal for a district-wide task force to bridge the 2 chambers of commerce in this district that would include local small business owners. Peterson protests that although Massachusetts unemployment has gone down, but we've lost jobs so don't think we aren't in a "terrible situation in this economy". DOOM!

8:26 - "Name a concrete proposal you would implement/have implemented to improve education...touch on a response to the Chapter 70 formula question". Peterson is proud to continue funding through the "Ed reform formula", even though they haven't followed through with the commitment. So, like all state legislators, he brags about how awesome they are at defending local aid. Peterson dodges the Chapter 70 question. This is an easy question for Dodd, as he's in the classroom every day. He knows this law inside and out, and talks about revisiting the charter school funding formula. This formula treats student dollars differently depending on which type of school to which the student transfers.

8:31 - Term limits and pensions. Dodd commits to a five-term/ten year limit of service. Constitutional term limits are "murky water", but he believes in citizen legislators. Defends the idea of hard-working people earning pensions, but continuing Governor Patrick's work against loopholes. Peterson does not, and did not support term limits. Rep. Peterson talks about unfunded pensions, but believes that anyone who pays into a pension system should get it back. Not much daylight between the two of them on this one.

8:35 - Position on ballot questions. Peterson says YES, NO, NO. Claims "double taxation" and dismisses the idea of using those funds for fighting addictions, which is a "gimmick". Calls for reform on Chapter 40B. Supports a sales tax rollback to 5%, but to 3% as per the question. Dodd says NO, NO, NO. People fighting alcohol addiction need the help. Peterson says that raising the sales tax gives these programs too much money.

8:42 - To Dodd...how can you have a "fresh perspective" if most legislators are Democrats? Dodd responds that being a selectman and a teacher gives him everyday contact with the issues, which has resulted in the plans mentioned on his website. To Peterson...three bills he proposed to help the district. Peterson doesn't/can't mention three bills. Everything is everyone else's fault. But government is bad, and there aren't enough Republicans. Oh, government is bad, except when I'm getting all sorts of money for the district -- government is bad when it helps other people, I guess.

8:45 - Peterson asks Dodd "what is the fresh perspective? Can you define it?" Dodd answers that it is not new issues, but rather new ideas. For him, it includes putting bottle bill redemption funds for teaching arts and physical education.

Dodd asks Peterson about Charlie Baker's term limits plan to limit legislators to ten years. Karyn Polito introduced 46 bills, George Peterson passed one bill to rename a road in Upton. So what idea do you have that you could actually done? Peterson talks about restoring the funding for the underground storage tank fund, but he's busy playing defense. Admits that as a legislator, he doesn't have a legislative record.

8:51 - Closing statements. Peterson comes out against taxes and spending, and calls for God to bless the district and America. Dodd again offers energy and experience as a "citizen legislator" bringing new ideas to the district.

Debate liveblog tomorrow

I will be blogging, hopefully live-blogging, the debate between Tim Dodd and George Peterson tomorrow in Grafton. In a contest between a motivated selectman and teacher, and a do-nothing Republican whip on the other, this is a clear choice for anyone who cares about education in the Commonwealth. I'll do it here, possibly on BMG, too.

Ride the wave: Dodd and Cutler

I suppose we could play defense and say that 2010 is an anti-Democratic year. Try to keep what we can keep. Surrender. Alternatively, we could micro-analyze every warp and woof of the governor's race and ignore every other election slated for November. I think there's a better way.

I suspect that 2010 is an anti-people in charge year. Sure, that's a problem for many of us as most of the people in charge at the moment happen to Democrats. Rather than stop at fighting over whose fault is the economic downturn that began months before Obama took office, let's use the tide. Let's ride the wave. No need for Bennett, Murkowski, Crist, and Castle to be the only Republicans thrown out of office this year.

If people want to vote out incumbents, we have a couple Democrats working very hard to help them here in the Bay State. Tim Dodd and Josh Cutler. Two hard-working guys giving of themselves in a tough environment, while the Democratic Party runs its usual incumbent-protection racket. They deserve our help.

Is there an easier job on Beacon Hill than Republican whip? What does that entail -- keeping people awake so they can vote no? Well, Tim Dodd is looking to replace that piece of decorative furniture that is George Peterson. Dodd is a current selectman -- he knows what the towns are going through and how to improve laws to better people's lives. He's a teacher -- he knows how to reform education, not just perform a sound bite. He'll work with the state leadership, not just vote no and go home. And hustle? The guy's everywhere in that district -- and you should see his proposed schedule for district hours. It would make a lesser man keel over. Don't look for him at campaign HQ though, as he's knocking on doors.

Some Republicans offer a differing voice in the Legislature. Peterson offers his constituents indifferent service, and the rest of us a seat warmer. Dodd wants to change that. Smart work on budgets, education, environment, jobs. Far more than "not my fault, I said no" that typifies the incumbent. Unfortunately, the reactive ethics law in force prevents this candidate, pretty much alone on this, from asking for campaign donations. So I'm doing it for him -- give this guy some scratch. Ride the wave, and get someone who knows how to work, and wants to work, in the State House.


Josh Cutler has stepped up when so few would -- to take on a longtime incumbent in SE Massachusetts. To color blue a district largely surrounded by blue, and to add a voice to the Beacon Hill conversation whose vocabulary will extend beyond "no". He's been running hard for several months now, and unlike the current occupant -- he wants this job. He's a businessman who knows how to be responsible for his actions. Cutler knows how to get away from our over-reliance on capital gains taxes. Cutler knows 40B and Open Meeting Law have problems. He's willing to take positions...and fight for them. If the people in Webster's district want to get rid of the incumbent. It will be a real step up. Will you help?

15%

Well, this is a new spot in which to find oneself.

Grace Ross is going to run for governor as a Democrat, forcing a primary between her and Deval Patrick for the nomination. Mind you, she isn't a Democrat, or at least wasn't when she ran four years ago. She was the Green-Rainbow candidate. This blog post from two weeks ago implies she wasn't a Democrat as recently as the special election.

So I'm in no hurry to welcome somebody who just joined the Massachusetts Democratic Party to campaign for the most prestigious post for a member. I do hope she'll rush out a platform and agenda soon, to make clear where she's coming from. Right now, were I in the voting booth on primary day, I'd likely side with Deval (whose inexperience and idealism resulted in a disappointing tenure) over Ross (who I think would be even worse).

But...

But. I'm hoping to attend the Democratic convention as a delegate. And one of my strongest beliefs as a delegate is that any candidate that rises above LaRouche-level insanity should be on the ballot. The voters should decide, not party activists. To my knowledge, Grace Ross is a serious candidate. And to get on the ballot, a candidate must win 15% of the delegate votes.

So as I present myself as a candidate for delegate, I gotta decide. Do I promise to vote for Deval Patrick, the better candidate, or do I stand with Grace Ross, so the people of Massachusetts can decide.

Thoughts?

Reading elections: Lessons from Japan

Today, a note on how implacably elections are reduced to a single-issue frame so quickly and easily. Many Bay Staters are reasonably irritated that outsiders (especially those in Washington, DC) are taking Brown’s victory last week as a repudiation of the health care reform process underway in the nation’s capital. While health care was an issue in this election, it was not the only issue. Such a view ignores Brown’s skilled campaign, the Coakley implosion, Democratic over-confidence, and a number of other factors in the result. Worse still, it led to a short press to force House passage of the Senate health care bill, almost regardless of the bill’s contents.

Many bad effects of the special Senate election stem not from the results themselves, but a widespread inability to view an election result as having more than one cause. Just as the Brown victory was likely a combination of the factors listed above (see Nate Silver’s dissection) but has been reduced to a health-care referendum by DC Republicans, it has been simplified a populist surge among Bay State Republicans, and a poor Coakley campaign among most Democrats. However, this tendency to over-simplify election results is not necessarily ideological, nor is it restricted to the American press. One obvious example is the tendency to view every Israeli election as turning on relations with the Palestinian government(s). The fact that Netanyahu was largely elected on economic concerns rather than relations with Fatah and Hamas was almost ignored worldwide. A smaller example presents itself today in the BBC’s summary of the recent election for the mayoralty of Nago on the island of Okinawa. I choose the BBC as the high-water mark of thinking English-language journalism, and even that august organization has failed the test today.

This election occurred against the background of change in Japan. Recently elected prime minister Yukio Hatoyama has declared an interest in a more equitable relationship with the United States, and has been seeking allies within and without Japan on that score. Meanwhile, the US military was well into plans to move a large base on Okinawa (a source of great tension with the surrounding Japanese) per government request, when Hatoyama was elected. His activism on this issue has led to some arch tension between the two countries.

Anyway, let’s get into the story. The prospective new site of the base, the city of Nago on Okinawa, held a recent election wherein a candidate opposed to the base won election, beating the incumbent by a 53-47 margin. And universally, this election is being back-labeled as a referendum on the incoming American base. If the BBC is playing the role of FoxNews, Hatoyama is playing the role of the Republicans, trying furiously to spin a victory of a distant candidate who shares a belief on one issue as confirmation that the people are on his side.

But there are many things at play here (a partial list of issues from the subjective Stars and Stripes for example). Japanese frustration with incumbency has reached levels beyond even the American public and is narrowly targeted at the Liberal Democratic Party, that of the former mayor of Okinawa. The victor, Susumu Inamine, was kept at arm’s length by the government throughout the campaign, the actions of a popular party that wants to claim someone else’s victory of their own only after the fact. At the same time, the LDP is identified with the assimilation of the unique religious and cultural traditions and dialect of Okinawa into the larger Japanese culture, a trend that concerns many Okinawans. Add to this the ongoing problem of the economy – the main point of discussion about the base in Nago wasn’t about the cultural disruption of the American military, but the economic impact of it – not to mention the ground-level dynamics of the election, something that was a major factor in last week’s result for Brown.

The fact is that this election result was the sum of an array of elements, and not one issue -- you have a complex beast that’s being oversimplified by media from outside the electorate.

Kinda like our own Senate election. One wonders how many frustrated Okinawans today are having words put into their mouths by the Japanese prime minister and the worldwide media, just as is happening here in Massachusetts. Something to keep in mind next time we’re told why an election ended the way it did -- at home or abroad.

PS: Not at all related, but worth passing on; I present to you the most professional newscaster in Australia. That's the danger of using a live feed as a backdrop.

Thoughts going into the weekend...

• The Supreme Court is just making sh-t up with that "Citizens United" decision. I still don't see how money is speech (strange how the Canadian court can declare the exact opposite), or how corporations are persons. Next, the Supreme Court will decide that computers are actually trees. I think corporations should have to serve jury duty.
  
  
• This decision now makes unions more important as far as the left is concerned. I wonder if their input on bills will be accorded more weight. Considering their strong opposition to the middle class tax hike included in the Senate bill, that's another blow to the "pass a crap bill and call it reform" camp.
  
  
• If all this is true, anyone to the left of ExxonMobil's board of directors should be worried that union memberships in the private sector is shrinking -- by 10% this year.
  
  
• The best idea I've seen on health care in the Browned-out Senate is fixing the Senate bill already passed through the 51-vote process of reconciliation. That's smart, and smart is better than desperate.
  
  
• I'm thinking we have a tripartisan system -- Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the rest of the Democrats. This headline is pitch-perfect: "House doesn't trust White House or Senate on health care".
  
  
• I'm not saying it would have changed the result of Coakley-Brown, but I feel that if Chuck Schumer were still head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee rather than nobody Senator Bob Menendez. This doesn't augur well for November.
  
  
• If Republicans are electable in Massachusetts, and Deval has the market cornered on hope...what's left for Cahill? I predict he finishes below 20% on Election Day.
  
  
• With Norfolk County Treasurer Joe Connolly out, Steve Grossman stands unopposed for the Democratic nomination for Massachusetts treasurer. Of anyone on the November ballot, my vote for him and Barney Frank will likely be the most enthusiastic.
  
  
• Just how out of touch is the Obama White House? Their featured comic at the Correspondants' Dinner is...Jay Leno. As much as a bland comic can tick people off, he's done it. Why not just roll out Tiger Woods for some putting humor?
  
  
• An 84-year-old woman is found alive after 10 days in the Haitian earthquake rubble. In the wake of the calamity, when so many need so much and have so little, at least there is hope.
  
  
• After a half-hour of searching, I've found the text of the law named the "Education Reform Act of 2010" in some reports (PDF). I plan to be reviewing the text over the next few days.
  
  
• In other news, 11 Democrats are teaming up with the hate-driven Massachusetts Family Institute in a Texas-style cramming of religion down the throats of Massachusetts public school students. More on that next week.
  
  

Thoughts on the "day after"

• First off, everyone step away from the panic button. Just because the Democrats lost this special election doesn't mean that the entire agenda gets junked. Nor does it mean that we slap together a pile of cr-p, call it "health care reform" and pass it before Brown gets there (edit: or pass the crap that is the Senate bill through the House without even thinking). A morass that insists all Americans must funnel cash to a private industry is not going to help any Democrat on the campaign trail this summer and fall. Don't read too many implications into this odd election -- the last law passed in the midst of blind panic was the Patriot Act. Whoops.
  
  
• Politically, it's better to fail spectacularly at Republicans hands than fail incrementally with Democratic help. In policy terms, the best thing is for Reid to grow a pair, as he'll likely lose his re-election anyway. He may as well go out as the Senator who implemented real health care reform after junking the filibuster. Seriously -- if there's a legislative chamber that requires a 60% supermajority on all laws (as the Senate has over the last few years, suddenly) anywhere in the Western world, I've not heard of it. Nuke it.
  
  
• Moving on, there's plenty of blame for this loss to go around. Coakley, having forgotten about people like Weld and Romney, apparently felt that she didn't really need to earn anyone's vote in Massachusetts. Even the greats, Kennedy and Kerry, hustled against Romney and Weld for hard-won victories. She disappeared, and not just around Christmas but for several days in either direction.
  
  
• But it wasn't just her -- if you see your candidate screwing up, you're supposed to do something about it, I thought. There are people whose job it is to tell candidates to get over themselves and hustle for votes, often called the party "elders". They were snoozing as deep as Martha, whether it was the staties in Charlestown or the muckymucks in DC. Would it have killed them all for someone -- someone! -- to take a poll? At the end, Coakley owns the loss because her name was on the ballot, but Democrats who should know better were as complacent as her.
  
  
• Anyway, it's not all the Dems' fault. Brown came up with clever ads, got the help he needed across the state and nation, won every news cycle going away, courted the media smartly, interrupted any Coakley narrative, held his ground in the debates, and worked for the vote. You can be a Democrat with a sucky campaign and win -- just ask John Kerry after his victory over Beatty. Coakley gave Brown oxygen, and he used it in a way that connected with the electorate. Any Democrat who denies this is going to be caught unprepared as well.
  
  
• The electorate didn't change its mind from 2008...the electorate itself changed. People who would have helped Coakley in a regular election didn't vote -- turnout was under 40% in major cities. This gives me hope for 2012, but expecting the Democratic base to show up without being told why is a fool's game, as we saw last night. This to me is the grand lesson about preparing for November, and how to handle the agenda going forward.
  
  
• As to who takes on Brown in 2012, we'll have to wait and see. Here's what I expect: census indicates that some Congressperson must lose his/her seat. After some semi-public negotiation, one of them announces a run for Senate, and allows his/her seat to be re-districted out of existence out from under him/her.
  

Talk about the issues, Coakley

"How did it end up this close?" will be a question studied by academics and "pundits" for ages. There is no earthly reason that the typically measured electorate of Massachusetts would even be considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material, yet he's tied, perhaps leading, in the polls for Tuesday's election. So what's happening?

My answer is that the electorate of Massachusetts isn't considering Scott Brown as Senatorial material. They're not thinking of Coakley and Brown as possible Senators, but as celebrities.

Brown has masterfully guided this raise from any semblance of the issues, with a narrative-hungry media playing accomplice. When I call voters, they're not talking about health care, torture, or foreign policy. They're talking about the "negative tone" of the campaign and "it's the people's seat". This is a conversation where Brown has a shot, especially with his excellence at playing victim, and sending out his daughters to do the same. He's moved the question from who do you want doing the work of a Senator to who do you want to be Senator. It's a fine difference, but it allows him to move the conversation from the issues (where he loses) to random crap (where he does well). It may seem crazy, but George W Bush turned this strategy into two electoral victories.

The media, of course, has joined in, shelling Coakley with questions about the "negativity" of her campaign -- heaven forbid anyone point out what a nut Brown is -- and focusing on process stories. Unfortunately, bringing in Clinton and Obama makes it look that Coakley is playing down to Brown's level, hoping to borrow some charisma against his. Answering these silly questions rather that insisting that we talk about foreign policy or health care is a disastrous move. The race starting getting wobbly when the issues took a back-seat. The fact that Brown is too cheap and cruel to pitch in on his own employees' health care isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a regime where those employees don't have to rely on the goodwill of their bosses for affordable health-care. The fact that Brown breaks military policy by posing in his uniform for campaign materials isn't as important as the fact that Coakley supports a policy where the military isn't risking soldiers' lives by carrying out a dead-end mission in Afghanistan.

I personally find that the most effective thing in talking to voters is to stick to the issues. The message you send with your vote will be received that day. The consequences of your vote last two years. What consequences do you want?

Topic	Coakley	Brown
Placing any limits on US government use of torture	Yes	No
Women's medical needs override personal beliefs of doctors	Yes	No
Returning tax rates of the rich to Reagan/JFK-era levels	Yes	No
Expanding health care coverage of Americans	Yes	No
Respecting entirety of Roe v Wade	Yes	No
Preserving equality in marriage	Yes	No

The values of Attorney General Coakley are the values of the people of Massachusetts. This is the reality that Brown is trying to drown out with noise about his pickup truck and tender feelings. This is the reality that must be hammered home over the next 48 hours, top to bottom.

PS: Future studies of "what happened" would also do well to examine the decision to keep the Mass. Legislature in session over this period to discuss attempts to throttle labor rights in connection with Deval's education bill. Had all these folks been organizing, instead of defending the idea that contracts should be enforceable by law, how would things have gone differently?

I make the National Review!

For all the wrong reasons, of course. The Scott Brown subpage at National Review picked up my last post here (via BMG) as "When Massachusetts Democrats stop being polite and start getting real". My biggest exposure since DailyKos picked up on a sarcastic remark I made almost exactly one year ago. I guess I do my best writing in January.

I was pleased that the writer understood the tone I was attempting, although he indicated so with a dated cultural reference. Naturally, National Review was mendacious about what I said, claiming (without any supporting links) that the agenda promoted by Brown was prevailing public opinion. Of course, polling is against the excise tax on good health care plans and oppose the War in Iraq and believe we've done all we can there. But who reads NR for the truth.

The best part, of course, is in the last line. Unwilling to give anyone else the last word, the post ends with an attempt at flippancy:

With this kind of support for Coakely, who needs negative ads?

A tip to this guy: it's tough to condescend if you can't spell a candidate's name right.

PS: Andrew Sullivan quotes my title, too. This should be my last blog post...I'm peaking.

Suck it up: Vote Coakley

Let's get this out of the way. You might not want to vote for Martha Coakley. You might think she deserves what's she's getting after an absentee, self-satisfied campaign (why should I bail her out?). You likely want to send a message to everyone from the attorney general all the way to every Democratic official in Washington, DC. Odds are you didn't vote for her in the primary. And, you might be wondering if it'll make a difference who wins this Tuesday.

You got every reason to be pissed, but it needs to be clear: not voting for Coakley is the same as voting for Brown. And voting for Brown is a very, very bad thing.
sabutai :: Yes it sucks. Yes you have to vote Coakley.
Pissed? Me, too. Not just because I supported Mike Capuano. I'm frankly pissed about Washington, DC. Things are going very wrong -- President Obama was absent from the process as the public option was killed, and would rather tax public servants in the middle class with so-called "Cadillac health insurance" then ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Health care reform is heading toward a route where more money comes from the middle class, with about half going to people who need health care, and half going to the insurance companies. Oh, and Guantanamo is still open while American soldiers walk the streets in Baghdad and Kabul. Remember Employee Free Choice? Meanwhile, Harry Reid races to catch Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's farts on Capitol Hill.

But I don't think Senator Coakley wants to torture people, give the obscenely rich a tax refund, or tell a rape victim to hospital-shop until she can find the care she needs. Senator Brown does. And the right-wing, desperate to believe it's been forgotten how they ruthlessly dimmed America's power and pride over the last eight years, is pouring as much corporate money as possible onto our airwaves. Disciples of failure are already slavering over bullrushing one of their own into the Senate.

So suck it up and vote Coakley on Tuesday. If you stay home on Tuesday, and a smirking Jim DeMint puts his arm around Senator Brown next month, will you feel good about yourself? Will you take pride in your "message" when Tom Coburn assigns Scott Brown the task of maintaining the filibuster on any health care reform? When you see Scott Brown publicly wetting his pants over terrorists getting American justice, or the latest moron who fails in an inept plan to hurt our country, will you think "Yep, I'm the reason he's there to embarrass Massachusetts on the Senate floor."

I think some folks are already getting a message. The mortal scare the DC Dems are feeling this week about the voters of Massachusetts -- Massachusetts! -- considering walking away. They can read polls, and they realize what they've wrought. Maybe Reid, Nelson, heck even Obama needs a primary next time around, I don't know.

But nowhere on the ballot will be an option to send a message to DC. Your and my only choice is to send a Senator. And that Senator should be Martha Coakley.

(cross-posted on Blue Mass Group)

Collection of thoughts....

• It sure is strange to read high-profile blog posts and receive nationwide blast emails asking for help to move the vote in Massachusetts. After a lifetime of being taken for granted by American Democrats, it is a bit odd to be the receiver, not driver, of help. I'm not saying I want to be New Hampshire, where presidential candidates offer to scratch my a-- every day for two months, but it is nice.
  
  
• Fact is, though, Coakley's a rotten candidate. After accepting the primary victory, she (and her team) seem to have gone into hiding. I've gotten zero mail from her, and nothing on the phone. Then again, it says something for these high-charging political consultants that my cell number has been my sole number for over 5 years, and nobody in the political universe has gotten their hands on it yet.
  
  
• Obama lied to me. After promising not raise taxes on any family making under $250,000 Obama is backing a plan that would entail a tax hike. Obama backs a plan that would put a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac health care plans". My health care plan somehow qualifies, and my family makes less than a fifth of this $250,000 limit. Then again, my mistake must be in choosing public service that offers decent benefits to compensate for the low pay rate of qualified workers. I'd have been better off as one of those investment bankers who receive tender care from Obama.
  
  
• It's crap like that that's leaving Coakley on the ropes. That, and the whole not-campaigning thing.
  
  
• A local bank has come up with a cutesy campaign urging people to have a "game plan" for their retirement. The cutesy poster is accompanied by the traditional "x and o" format of a football play. Unfortunately for these geniuses, anyone the least bit versed in football recognizes the play as a Hail Mary -- the long-shot play you uncork only in desperate circumstances. Doesn't anyone in the banking world play Madden?
  

Cahill pulls a Boehner?

The last thing Cahill needs is to sound like a clueless DC Republican...and that's exactly what happened yesterday.

Boehner is the sad little man who is the Republicans' "leader" in the House of Representatives in DC. Earlier, he remarked "I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option". This obvious hyperbole/lie promptly garnered responses from constituents, and even a poll indicating that Boehner indeed has many Americans in his own district who favor a public option.

Well, Tim Cahill sounded an awful lot like Boehner yesterday:

Cahill said he does not know of a single state employee who has been laid off.

To help out the Timster, I would ask a member of his campaign team to print out the following webpage: Regional and Area Offices Directory of the Office of Health and Human Services. Drive him to one of the addresses there listed, and ask around.

If Cahill wants to say that we haven't laid off sufficient state workers, well, I guess he's welcome to make that point. But to claim that none have been laid off, when it is so easy, convenient, and quick to disprove, is simply ridiculous. He isn't sounding pennywise on this one...he's just sounding foolish.

Would be treasurer: gambling expansion "imminent"

After the Senatorial race concludes, the next notable Democratic primaries figure to be for treasurer (Steve Grossman and Joe Connolly are in, possibly to be joined by others), and for attorney general should Martha Coakley win that Senatorial election.

It is on the question of treasurer that I'd like to dwell today, particularly Steve Grossman. Grossman was a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. He was also Howard Dean's campaign chair, meaning that the gentleman has many good friends.

What concerns me is a passage on Grossman's printed campaign literature. It's bad enough that he calls one section "gambling and local aid" as if the two have any link, but worse still he says:

It is crucial that the Treasurer be a part of the imminent expansion in gaming.

This tells me that Grossman -- a man I respect for many reasons as a pro-labor, pro-solution, pro-Dean Democrat -- not only wants more gambling in this state, but is treating it as a fait accompli. More gambling will happen and soon. It's imminent. I don't much like the idea of the state finding new ways to abscond with the money of Massachusetts citizens, and I really don't like how Grossman seems to think that any debate on the question is beside the point. Let's hope he changes his tune over the course of the campaign; pro-gambling, isn't as bad as anti-debate.

Deval's town hall in Wareham

Managed to make it to the governor's "town hall" meeting in Wareham. The schedule is on his official site and of course the state police are in evidence, and his campaign committee is collecting contact information at the events. I'm not sure what the funding model is. Regardless, the governor is organizing several such events around the state to, in his words, "answer questions and welcome advice".

The event was moved inside to the Middle School auditorium from the location of Memorial Park due to possible rain -- the fact that the announced rain venue of Town Hall wasn't used may have depressed turnout to about 160 persons. To be clear, I think this is more reflective of the community -- a faithful supporter of Republican lightweight state representative Susan Williams-Gifford -- than anything else. There were a few people devoted to Deval there in 2006 delegate clothing, but the majority seemed to be interested citizens. It was a mix of political operatives, would-be political operatives, local officials, local nutjobs, and a good smattering of private but active citizens.

The governor showed up only about 10 minutes late, which is sparkling for such an event. People with clipboards urged attendees to sign in, and circulated during the event to take down contact information for any unresolved questions. After a short set of remarks, the governor invited questions, with staff numbering attendees and delivering microphones to the citizens.

I was glad to see that the dominant topic of the town hall was education. A school committee member, a teacher in another town, and a university professor all asked about these topics (I had the chance to speak with the governor in my capacity as a teacher and union member before the event). The governor heard a lot about the end-arounds for which charters are infamous, such as skimming off the best student to raise their scores and leaving district public schools with a greater proportion of students who require the most resources to educate.

While admitting the inequities in charter education, Deval repeatedly sought to move quickly off of the current charter model onto the idea of his proposed "Readiness Schools", a new and different kind of charter. He emphasized the fact that teachers could "take over" a school in this format as one of three ways to turn a public school into a "Readiness school", though any group of citizens can form a "Readiness school" to act out their issues with the local school as well.

My personal take (more on this later) would be that if the governor would be willing to mandate in law that (charter schools + readiness schools =< X) to ensure that we aren't exacerbating and enhancing the charter dodge, but are instead replacing it with an accountable and equitable model, I could be interested.

The governor also answered questions on stimulus funds and bottlenecks ranging from simple to complex, as well as addressing patronage, agriculture and water pollution industries, and funding for towns with a seasonally variable population, such as Wareham.

The governor is a clever, quick-witted, and charming man, and that was on full display during the town hall. The crowd liked him because frankly he's a likable guy. His charm survived even the press of the "fathers' rights" advocates vocalizing their issue. They did get two of 10 questions, which were repeats of questions they've asked elsewhere (one questioner drove down from Roxbury), a good show. However, this quickly moved into shouting imprecations and questions from the crowd, and spontaneously standing up and delivering speeches while the governor was trying to talk. My feeling is that I would likely agree with their beliefs, but their passion/stridency may well drown out the strengths of their argument. Deval dealt with them well -- I rather suspect he's had lots of practice -- but the points the advocates were making quickly were overwhelmed by the rudeness with which they made them.

Taxes, gambling, and health care were not raised as subjects of concern by citizens at the forum.

The governor has been approachable as long as I've known him, and he certainly works well in small crowds. I can't say that I agree with him as often as I wish I could, but he comes across very well in this format -- no wonder he's using it so much. I can see why somebody would come away more supportive of the governor after an evening such as this.

That great Cabinet

Isn't it great that Janet Napolitano is touring an Olympics Center while Kathleen Sebelius is ... saying things...on the health bill? I mean, they are contributing so much more right now to the nation as Cabinet secretaries than they would as two governors and probable Senators as of January 2011.

Sheesh.

Romney is to Bush as Weld to...

Charlie Baker, perhaps aware of how unknown he is to people (63% have no opinion of him in the recent Globe poll), is out of the gate in an effort to define himself. This video below is his first foray...




The production values are horrid, I think we can all agree. The green screen is obvious, and the body language and speech pacing are horrible. These are the mistakes you make at a stage between memorizing the lines and final take -- no way this should be a final take.

This video is also a preview of what we'll be hearing for the next several months, and it's an echo of McCain's campaign. Like McCain, Baker can be expected to dodge any connection to the last Republican to hold this office (Romney in Baker's case, Bush in McCain's). We can also expect similar invocations of an idealized Republican leader in the past -- Baker will talk about Weld with all the adoration that McCain spoke of Reagan.

The 2010 election is going to be reduced to Obama's Understudy vs. Weld Redux. (Does that make Cahill our Ross Perot?)

Coakley leagues beyond others in Globe poll

As you probably have already read, the Boston Globe commissioned a poll. The rather misleading headline reads that "Patrick support plummets", though this is the third straight one that showed Deval Patrick is murky waters coming up on re-election.

The head-to-head numbers are fun, but I wanted to instead focus on voters' impressions of the main figures in the state. I assembled a list of all the statewide officeholders showing their net favorability (that is, % of total respondents with a positive view of a candidate, minus the % with a negative view). Next to that net favorability is a number in parentheses which shows the percentage of respondents with no opinion of the person mentioned.

Generally, you want a high net favorability (which means people like you) with a low number of people with no opinion (which means that people know you and like you).

Some observations are below...

The Executives
Deval Patrick -16 net (3% no opinion)
Tim Murray +22 (48%)

Of all the persons surveyed by the Globe, nobody is liked less than Deval Patrick, and nobody is as strongly defined. Somebody so poorly liked, and with such little room to grow is vulnerable, regardless of the dynamics of the race. Patrick can try to bring up these numbers, but it looks that Deval's main hope may be that he isn't as bad as anyone else on the ballot -- a hope I personally think has a good chance of being fulfilled. Tim Murray, meanwhile, is fundraising at a strong clip and is enough out of the limelight that he is generally well liked.

The Legislative Leaders
Robert DeLeo -4% (49%)
Therese Murray +1% (54%)

Not too bad for the legislative leaders, considering how vilified they often become, especially after passing a sales tax. Despite all the internecine struggles, they seem to have come out of it the better -- both are more popular than the governor. Oddly enough, Murray is less known as a quantity even though I seem to see her on the screen more. Most strangely (and granted, margin of error grows at this point), Murray elicits no stronger an opinion in her home territory of SE Mass than anywhere else -- not much of a homebase.

The Other Guys
Charlie Baker +2% (63%)
Christy Mihos -12% (29%)
Tim Cahill +24% (32%)

I am astounded by Tim Cahill's net positives. More amazingly, he is held in esteem by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, Republicans most of all. He's also notably liked among the wealthy. This is the first time I've seen anything to make me think that Cahill has a shot, but he's in great position on the start line.

I think Mihos is pretty much dead in the water. He used up all his goodwill the first time around, and he has net negative favorability among Republicans.

As for Baker, well, he's a blank slate. If I were him, I'd be getting ads ready for the fall to introduce myself to voters, to beat the others guys to the punch. Baker has lots of potential to sell himself in a positive way, at least as much as a Republican chief of an HMO is able. I maintain the words "Republican chief of an HMO" doom him in this race, no matter how much money he has.

The Future
Martha Coakley +39 (21%)

Nobody is in her league on this poll. She has a +17 among Republicans, and an incredible +48 among women -- Deval's weaker group. In age demographics, she has a great lead among older voters, again the mirror image of Deval.

Right now, it looks as if she could write her own ticket.

How to primary Deval...

I'm talking about challenging the governor within the Democratic primary today. I don't think anybody will do it successfully, much less do it at all. However, if Tim Cahill can launch a quixotic fizzle of an independent campaign, then I get to engage in far less expensive dreams as well.

To get far against Deval in a primary, I think a candidate would need three things:

1. A claim on being taken seriously;
   
2. A platform that would attract many progressives;
   
3. A willingness to move outside Deval's orbit.
   

A claim on being taken seriously

This doesn't mean that you have to be a person of significant electoral success in the past, or even notable experience in government. Deval Patrick fit neither of those criteria, and he went from being a corporate executive to governor. Heck, Obama's president on a thinner elected resume than any we saw in years and he's doing a fairly good job as prez to boot. So while the natural instinct is to look at accomplished Democrats in our Commonwealth's government, Deval (like Arnold Schwarzenegger) has proven that there are other routes to a governor's seat.

The reason you need to be taken seriously is to attract talent and votes eventually. You'd need to attract some talent within the Commonwealth to build a campaign, or you may already have it "in-house". True, the governor has a lot of political talent in the Bay State wrapped up, but he also is staffing from Obama's shop and thus leaves more unemployed hacks than normal out there. Plus, I imagine some good folks in the Legislative branch could lend you their rolodex as well. Of course, Deval had a head start here, as he enjoyed a great deal of talent on loan from a certain freshman Illinois Senator who was looking to conduct a practice drill of his own future campaign.

Talent and votes are attracted by money. And to claim that they should be taken seriously, this person would need money. Whether from corporate sources (Deval), the fiscal resources of a wealthy candidate (Gabrieli), or the established fundraising networks of an established politician (say, Coakley). Money tells talent that you are for real, and it attracts more money. It puts in place the ability to seem serious by coordinating a presence at different events, signs on lawns, bumper stickers on cars. The upfront costs of such a campaign will not be handled by supporters independently coming to you -- you need to find a way to cover them. To go from nobody on the public radar screen without finding a way to quickly access cash is difficult, which tends to restrict the list of possibles.

2. A platform that would attract many progressives
Believe it or not, this is the easy part of challenging the governor in a Democratic primary. His choices have often been moderate or even conservative, and there remains a long list of positions that could appeal to self-defined progressives. To wit:

• No further promotion of gambling beyond the already extensive presence of the Massachusetts lottery. No slots, no "racinos", no "resort" casinos (as Deval and Cahill support);
• Support of public schools through respect of local democracy and opposition to the privatization/charter scheme (of which Deval is an enthusiastic backer);
• Raising the corporate income tax (Deval blinked on this);
• Implementing a graduated income tax so that the wealthy pay their share (He's staying out of this fight);
• Reining in profligate spending and breaks on privileged sectors of the economy, such as "life sciences" and making Hollywood movies. (Billions of spending right there)
• A commitment to campaign finance reform, even Clean Elections. (Deval circumvents the law already)

Granted, the population of persuadable voters who hold all six of these positions may not be large, but I suspect that the number of persuadables who hold 4 or 5 of them is large enough to get the ball rolling.


3-A willingness to move outside Deval's orbit.

This is the trickiest one. Many people with progressive bona fides and a network of donors (Jamie Eldridge, for instance) are deeply enmeshed with Deval already. Others with bright futures may content themselves to wait out Deval's moment and hope for an inside track on the next open primary (Martha Coakley, for instance). Of course, the last two candidates who tried to slide from one executive department to the other can tell you it isn't that easy. This narrows the list considerably as there are few people with fiscal backing who seem at all interested in taking on the governor.

The only real possibility is a rare Massachusetts politician who hasn't folded into Deval Patrick completely -- Therese Murray and Thomas Menino spring to mind, but both would be losing power in such a move -- or a thorough dark horse who can tap into money quickly.

I think the ideological opportunity is there, and is sadly the easiest to reach. I think such a candidate would get the 15% at the state party convention, because seeing a strong legitimate candidate flame out at an activists' meeting would do severe damage to the wide appeal to any eventual nominee (and Deval's people know that). There is a tremendous amount of "issue space" unoccupied in this race -- Mihos has the right, and Baker is chasing the center right. Cahill is laying claim to a sliver of the middle, and Deval sits in the center while profiting from a dubious claim on the left. If a candidate laid question to that claim, we would learn who is the real Deval, and who is the real Democratic Party -- and both would be the richer for it.

Not that I expect this to happen, but it's fun to think about.

RGA: Baker doesn't need your help

Proving how little national Republicans understand Massachusetts, Nick Ayers, the Executive Director of the Republican Governors' Association offers this assessment of Charlie Baker:

My belief is that a well-run governor’s race isn’t overtly partisan as much as it is about hiring the right CEO. And that’s especially true of the Northeast, where there’s more big business and people are very familiar with the roles of CEOs. We think if we can field better candidates who fit the job description of CEO and deal with a budget situation, that we’ll have a great opportunity in places like New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and even Maine.

A great example of that is a candidate who announced last week, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts. He’s a CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, has done a lot of nonprofit work in the healthcare, and is a brilliant business man and someone who I believe can cut beyond party and racial lines and say, “I’m willing to bring my experience from the private sector to help solve Massachusetts’ budget issues.” I think Charlie is the kind of ideal candidate that we’ve been looking for. We spent five months recruiting him, so we were very excited to see him get in the race there.

Basically, the strategy is to tell people he'd be another Dubya or Mitt Romney.

I'd love it if Baker took this advice, but I think he's more attuned to voters' suspicion of CEOs this day than our friend in DC apparently is.

Anti-casino voters not at home among Dems

David makes a good point in his addendum over at BMG. Basically, that anti-gambling voters are not going to be interested in voting for any current or former Democrats running for governor unless they are pushed in that direction by an egregious Republican candidate...

• Cahill loves gambling and would station slot machines inside elementary schools if he thought he could get away with it.
• Deval Patrick "only" wants at least one resort casino in Mass.

Of course, the issue is that Republicans often present themselves as neolithics against marriage equality, any abortion, and basically on the losing side of mid-90s culture war issues. If Massachusetts Republicans can avoid that, then anti-gambling folks might give them a listen.

Now, living in a town that may end up hosting such a casino does tend to focus the mind greatly on gambling, and people distant to the issue may not realize how quickly it rises up the priority list for such a voter. I suspect that gambling may be an issue that is either nearly irrelevant to picking a candidate, or very relevant -- not in between. However, anyone who cares deeply about gambling is going to be hard-pressed to give Cahill or Patrick his/her trust on the matter.

If Mihos or Baker can minimize hot-button issues from the past (abortion, gay marriage) and collect those anti-gambling voters, that would be the foundation to a strong coalition. Mihos has come out against casinos, but favors slots at racing tracks, something that makes him a real player in my neighborhood of SE Mass. I would also note that Mihos has taken my advice and is labeling himself an "Independent Republican" for governor on his website.

In 2007, a poll found that about 1/3 of unenrolled voters and 1/3 of Democrats were against Deval's proposal. About 1/5 of those groups are strongly against the proposal. If Baker or Mihos can neutralize the hot-button issues while coming out strongly and smartly against gambling, they would be the natural candidate for that 20% of the electorate -- including people who may have been with Deval in 2006.

PS: Another nugget from the poll -- Martha Coakley had +66 net favorability among Democrats, +29 net favorability among unenrolled, and +9 favorability among Republicans. That would drop in any race, but I really have to believe this woman has a future in this state.