Mike Capuano: A Sure Bet, A Liberal Lion

The primary of the decade shook out to an embarrassment of riches before us in Massachusetts: three unabashed liberals are running for the Senate. Attorney General Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei, and Congressman Mike Capuano are united in holding mature, articulated liberal policies and a record of public involvement. Democrats in many states would love to have any one of these as a serious candidate for a Senate seat. In Massachusetts, we have the luxury of knowing that two of them will continue to live out their values in creating policy as public officials, and the hope that the third will join them. This wonderful choice has led to indecision -- how to pick between so many great choices? Many well-informed voters still shift between these choices because they're so good.

I can only speak for myself. I'm the type of guy who, on "Let's Make A Deal", will take the luxury automobile on offer, rather than the off chance that there may be two luxury automobiles behind curtain number two. I like a sure bet. I'll gamble when I must, and I'll pick the most likely of two unsure bets. I was willing when I supported Ed O'Reilly over John Kerry. But this time, I don't have to gamble. I'll have a sure thing on the ballot next Tuesday. A lock.

If there is a sure bet in politics, it's that Mike Capuano will stand up for liberal, progressive values. Why is this a sure bet? Because he already has, even when such a stand stood to cost him. Capuano stood for civil liberties against a full-court bullying for the Patriot Act. A hysterical media and Beltway screamed that the Constitution had to be shredded and anyone who disagreed was not really American. Capuano stood for smart and successful public education against a full-court bullying for the No Child Left Behind Act. A President Bush desperate for a domestic policy achievement threw the kitchen sink at it and anyone who disagreed hated children. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for our values. Capuano stood for a wise foreign policy against a full-court bullying for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We were told to trust the president and anyone who disagreed loved terrorists. Capuano stood for our values.

Capuano was the rare leader who lifted the flame of liberalism when the media and the GOP wielded an extinguisher and most Democrats dove for the shadows. He stood for Democratic values when so few would. Capuano didn't do this at dinner parties or private conversations away from sight, but in the unblinking eye of the media. Over this campaign, Capuano hasn't had to explain what he woulda done...he merely has to point to what he did. He's a sure bet.

Capuano roared loud for the beliefs of Massachusetts progressives in the bleakest times. He still does. As did Ted Kennedy, Capuano is immovable for what is right, unbending on what is wise, and forthright -- too forthright for Lieberman delicates -- for the values we have as Democrats.

A liberal vote in the Senate? We have three decent choices. But another liberal lion in the Senate? Mike Capuano's a sure bet.

Capuano is a liberal lion. He has earned the lion's seat.

Wanted: Outsider for State Auditor

Fed up with the Democrats running Beacon Hill? Want to keep Democratic values alive while working for the citizens and not the hacks?

Do you really mean it?

If so, you're in luck. Let's face it, Massachusetts has not been hurting for office-seekers who proclaim that a small cabal of Democrats ("hacks") is running the government in the wrong direction. Some of these folks are Republicans running against Democrats (and into a brick wall), but many others are Democrats running in a primary against other Democrats. Sadly, we've seen many such good Democrats run for a high-profile position in a primary, just to lose and exit elected politics. It's hard to start at the top in any field, and our state would be better off if some of these candidates pivoted into a state legislature race for a second shot. Or even better, ran for state auditor.

Because several years after accepting the role of "highest-ranking warm body in state government", Joe DeNucci is retiring.

Call me crazy, but if the Big Dig is allowed to go as wrong as it did, whoever was State Auditor was not doing his job. Other than repeating the same 80s-era tv ad showing DeNucci at a desk the two weeks previous to every election, I'm not sure DeNucci had any real impact on the state. So this is a chance to break up that insider cabal on Beacon Hill.

A chance that several people in the past have claimed they're awaiting. In a one-party state such as Massachusetts, if there is any position that cries out for an "outsider" it's the auditor, but so far all I hear are the same old insider names. Often people I respect, but neck-deep in Beacon Hill dealings already. If there's one place where an "outsider Democrat" would be a plus, rather than code for "hoping to learn on the job", it's state auditor.

Frankly, I'd love to see the Democrats who have run against disappointing incumbents and insiders in previous campaigns (John Dunkelbarger, Alan Khazei, John Bonifaz, or Ed O'Reilly) take a shot at this race. It's not as glorious as going to Washington, DC, but if any of these gentlemen were serious about trying to bring change to the Democratic Party, they should take a close look at this race. This is a real chance to change how business is done in Massachusetts. Of course, the downside is that this is a race that's actually winnable, so the day may well come when the outsider has to back up their words with actions.

Let's see what these four were made of -- serious about changing politics for Bay Staters? Run for auditor.

Get 'em on the record

As we speed toward the convention, one thought occurs to me...we don't know how the leaders of the Commonwealth feel. Sure, we know how the leaders of the Party feel -- John Walsh was upfront about his desire to radically change the direction of the platform, and 3 separate members of the Democratic State Committee have told me it was written by a paid staffer of the governor's. They've made their intentions known.

And on a daily basis, it becomes clearer how progressive activists in our Commonwealth feel...hence the fury of organization on this issue.

But we don't know how the elected officials of Massachusetts will vote. They are Democrats, after all, and on Saturday many of them will be in the Convention Hall. Why not find your state representative or senator, and call said rep or senator to see how they plan to vote on this "platform"? You can email me what you learned or leave it in comments here.

Persons (in and out of the Legislature) whose plans particularly are of interest to me would include:

• Martha Coakley
• Tim Cahill
• Therese Murray
• Robert DeLeo
• Sonia Chang-Diaz
• Jamie Eldridge
• Ed O'Reilly
• Thomas Menino

I have asked representatives of two of these figures, and have yet to receive a response...

Ed O'Reilly for Senator. Our Senator.

So this guy puts his life on hold. He sells a successful legal business, one in which he was regarded by his colleagues as "passionate", "impressive", "quick-witted", "effective", and "amazing". He puts about half a million dollars of his money into the campaign so he can talk to middle-class voters, not upper-class fundraisers. Not easy for a guy who got all that by working hard, paying off student loans, and earning every bit. He hits one, two, three...four events in a day all over the state despite the hostility of the power-brokers of the party. He lives in Gloucester, and he's visited my town of Middleborough at least thrice. A Republican town, at that.

And a lot of people (even a pro-Kerry commenter on my previous post) want to tell you that it's all in service of a lie. That he won't do what he says he'll do. Hope stops here, and cynicism is back in vogue. Cheering is out, sneering is in.

When a sane person looks at what Ed O'Reilly has done to get to Primary Day this Tuesday, such a claim is laughable. He has worked too hard for too long, at too great a cost, for too little a chance for reward.

A man only works that hard if he believes in the truth of his actions. O'Reilly has burned a lot of bridges, and he is following up his pedigree as a stalwart 2004 supporter of the man who stood for a moral domestic policy, and a smart foreign policy. When that didn't work out, he donated the maximum contribution to John Kerry.

• When Ed O'Reilly says that he stands with our Democratic Party and the principles of this country in favor of equality in marriage, it is the truth.
  
  
• When Ed O'Reilly says that he favors an approach to education cognizant of the failures of No Child Left Behind and the necessity to return the control of children's education to the people who know them best, it is the truth.
  
  
• When Ed O'Reilly says that he will get us out of Iraq now -- not wait for the latest polls on the subject -- and focus on Afghanistan, it is the truth.
  
  

On issues from the economy to the environment, Ed O'Reilly stands with me. In fact, he will be the only Senate candidate on a Massachusetts ballot this year whose platform is also that of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

Our platform doesn't play well in Ohio or Florida. Thank goodness, this isn't the Senate seat for Ohio and Florida. This is the Senate seat for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the state that sends people like Ted Kennedy, Ed Markey, and Barney Frank to Washington, DC. A state that is a leader on marriage equality and education, regardless of what swing states think of us. And it's high time both our Senators reflected that.

I am aware that Senator Kennedy has chosen to endorse his friend and longtime partner John Kerry. I don't blame him for that. Many politicians would do the same -- it's probably not going to wind up a close race, and why make for an uncomfortable atmosphere with your partner in the Senate? Heck, it's not uncommon for same-state Senators from different parties to play nice during an election.

But when I look at Senator Kennedy's fights, I see Ed O'Reilly as a guy who will fight alongside him. And let's face it, when you've spent years fighting fires, legislation isn't scary. Neither are polls.

Yes. It is a risk to replace what we know with what we don't. We don't know how good constituency service will be from Ed O'Reilly. Nothing guarantees 100% how Ed O'Reilly would vote. We don't know how effective he will be in the Senate corridors.

But a man doesn't put himself on the line the way O'Reilly has for nothing. And there is no motivation for O'Reilly to put himself on the line for a lie. And there is no motivation to fight like hell to get in, without fighting like hell every day. There are no pretensions here, no plays for higher office. This is a man who will be a fearsome United States Senator, because he wants to be a United States Senator.

The truth is, if Ed O'Reilly wins on Tuesday, the absolute worst we'll get is more of the same. Non-responsive constituency services, vague positions to the right of the people and Democratic Party of Massachusetts, an ineffective legislator missing at key moments. That is the absolute worst.

But we can expect much, much better than more of the same from Ed O'Reilly. This isn't hope and promises, this is a clear-eyed view of the situation. Odds say that we almost have to get better from O'Reilly, and more often.

We're lucky to have in Ted Kennedy one of about 10 Senators who see themselves as Senators, not Presidents or Vice Presidents in waiting. Let's make it 2 of 10. With enough votes from regular Democrats like you and me that will happen.

I ask you to join me in voting for Ed O'Reilly on Tuesday for Senator. Most importantly to vote Ed O'Reilly for Senator from Massachusetts, for a man who will act, speak, work, fight, and vote like a Senator from Massachusetts, for Massachusetts.

Don't be bullied

If you see John Kerry's people buying a kitchen sink today at Home Depot, feel free to ask him when it's going to be thrown at Ed O'Reilly.

Because Campaign Kerry thrown everything else at him. The Dirty Tricks Cupboard is bare. Stuff that I never expected a sitting Senator to do in a general campaign, Kerry and Kerry's people have done.

Where to start? Where to start in this story of an attorney who never posed a threat, being buried under a mountain of personal attacks from every direction possible? Where to start in this story of sneering at the voters?

In fact, we're lucky we have a choice at all. Kerry didn't want the inconvenience of O'Reilly on the ballot. He blew an enormous bankroll on swag and fliers, on throwing enough stuff with the Kerry name on it. Why not -- he had plenty of money left over from his presidential run to spend this guy into submission. Whips stalked the floor of the Democratic convention in Lowell, and were not inclined to take no for an answer. His campaign engaged in some brutish tactics to make things go their way. By happenstance, Kerry got all the time he wanted for his convention speech, rules be damned. Kerry failed -- democrats and Democrats wanted a choice. They wanted their questions answered.

So phase two kicked in, with lining up the pressure groups, against their interests and state platform, to endorse him -- everyone from the teachers' unionsto gay rights activist groups got in line. To endorse a man who stands against marriage equality, and stands against a constitutional approach to education policy.

Posters suddenly showed up online attacking anybody who dared question John Kerry. when I explored Kerry's failure to support his fellow Senators, it was dismissed as "voodoo math" -- with no justification. Professional-quality posts with extensive archival quotations showed up by people who never feigned interest in anything else affecting the Democratic Party.

And they were the same offline. A woman in front of me at a recent Obama fundraiser lit into me out of nowhere when she saw my O'Reilly button -- "the Democratic Party would be better off without people like you" I was told. This from somebody who two minutes before was complaining about the horror of actually attending an event, as she prefers just to send money. Heck, if you want organized events that run on time, the Democratic Party is not for you. And anybody with any experience working with, not just funding, the party knows that. It's part of the fun.

Kerry ducked a debate for months, before finally consenting to a 20-minute farce. At one point, Peter Vickery in his role as a Kerry surrogate opined that Kerry's presence was too necessary for the democratic process in swing states to sacrifice even a night in service of the democratic process in his home state. The "Senator from Massachusetts" had much better things to do than...be in Massachusetts.

Phrase Three came with the Chair of the Democratic Party abandoning any pretense at neutrality, and issuing a baseless press release in Kerry's favor after the farcical debate. This was followed quite soon by leaks claiming O'Reilly's brother is under federal investigation.

It's a sad, sad story. A great debater with decades in the Capitol could have won easily via the high road. But John Kerry chose not to take the high road. This isn't an endorsement of Ed O'Reilly. I will be discussing the many reasons why Ed O'Reilly has earned every vote he receives on Tuesday, including mine. But I think that as Democrats and democrats, we need to ask how seriously people like these take the democratic process when they short-circuit it at every turn.

Personally, I don't think this is about O'Reilly. I think this is about any person who thinks that they have the right ask serious questions about entrenched incumbents. This is about any Democrat who believes not just in elections, but re-elections. Who wants accountability for all, not just Republicans.

The message from Kerry and his friends to us is simple enough:
Shut up.

What's your response?

I miss Phil Johnston

Did you know that John Kerry has a primary challenger this year? You do? Well, that won't make Kerry very happy. You see, Mr. Kerry tried very hard to keep O'Reilly off the ballot. He tried very hard to browbeat delegates at the state party convention this spring to keep O'Reilly under the 15% threshold necessary to get on the ballot. He spent an ungodly sum of money. Kerry got all the time he wanted for his speech (no time limits for incumbents!) because Massachusetts Democratic Party Chair John Walsh was, as he excused himself, "distracted" .

See, some sweet folks were happy when Walsh became Chair of the Democratic Party. The previous chair, Phil Johnston, was disliked due to his history of protecting incumbents. Mind you, he did an amazing job turning back Mitt Romney's attempt to buy himself more Republicans in the State Legislature in 2002, and even increased the Democrats' margin in those same bodies in 2004. In 2006, he was instrumental in electing Deval Patrick governor.

Job accomplished, Johnston rode off into the sunset, and his post was taken by Deval Patrick's campaign manager, John Walsh. Whereas much of Patrick's staff immediately packed up for Chicago to use the lessons learned during their Massachusetts trial run to get Barack Obama elected president, Walsh stayed behind to helm the Democratic Party.

And, surprise, surprise, Walsh turns out to be not that different that Johnston. Kerry is apparently having a hard time of it, despite the unthinking support of Democratic-leaning issue groups. My favorite moment thus far is when Walsh waded into the 20-minute "debate" in which Kerry grudgingly stooped to participate only when his refusal grew too embarrassing. Ed O'Reilly said that Kerry had not given much of a proportion of his massive campaign warchest to fellow Democrats. I doubt that Mr. O'Reilly based that accusation on the humble work-up I posted here, but I was rather proud of it, given that it used numbers and all. Keep in mind that much of that money is "left over" when Kerry decided to hoard some of his cash from his 2004 run for president.

Well, Incumbency Enforcer Walsh decided to press his thumb further down on the scales by firing off a press release that calls O'Reilly statement "just plain, flat, untrue. ... I know from talking with my colleagues at state parties across the country that Sen. Kerry's support of Democrats is well known to them."

Needless to say, Walsh doesn't provide any numbers. Zero proof. Hopefully his candidates are offering more substance to their critiques than Walsh does. If Massachusetts Democrats pattern their arguments and reasoning after Walsh, we're screwed. The idea that "talking to my colleagues" is to be taken seriously is beyond ridicule.

I miss you, Phil. At the least, you had style.

MTA Endorsements Keep Getting Worse

I earlier mentioned how "my" union, the Massachusetts Teachers' Association, chose privilege over principle by endorsing John Kerry over Ed O'Reilly in the upcoming Senate primary. Kerry is almost definitely going to win, albeit on a platform far less supportive of public education than O'Reilly's. So rather than stand up for their putative beliefs, the union leadership went to preserve access...to a guy who supports No Child Left Behind. Why so many organizations and regions are trying so hard to cotton up to a Senator clearly ignorant of his own state, a man constantly mentioned as seeking an appointment from Barack Obama, I don't know. No surprise, but a disappointment.

However, I was surprised to find out that the MTA has further endorsed Dianne Wilkerson and Michael Brady for state representative. Wilkerson is an incumbent with, er, ethical lapses, and is furthermore lagging according to the internal polling of her opponent, Sonia Chang-Diaz. This wouldn't surprise me, given Wilkerson's record of flouting election law that is simply astounding. Wilkerson has been ducking substantive discussion of her record (again, like John Kerry). Not sure why the MTA waded into a race so hotly contested, when both candidates are pro-education...and one doesn't have a criminal record. But when you travel in the same circles, etc...

We also have Michael Brady endorsed in the three-way primary for Democratic nominee for state representative for the seat that takes up much of Brockton. Brady is a nice fellow who goes to the same functions as all Democratic insiders including Wilkerson and Kerry. A decent guy, though he doesn't mention issues on his website, and is sadly ignorant of the education issue (more on that later this week).

The MTA seems to pick their endorsees with the deliberation and sense that John McCain picks running mates.

PS: I'm rather disappointed in my neighbors in Wareham, Carver,and Bourne, for not finding somebody to run against Republican rubber-stamp Susan Williams Gifford this year, given that in 2006 is was a 57-43 race.

MTA: For Cocktail Parties

The Massachusetts Teachers' Association is an eeeevul teachers' union. You know, we can't be trusted. So here's the eeeevil teachers' union on federal regulation of education under "No Child Left Behind":

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has produced many unintended and unfavorable consequences for students, parents and educators across the country. Six years of experience with NCLB demonstrate the law's complexity and the vital need to take the time to carefully consider and fully understand how each proposed change will affect our nation's schools and students.

So...the overarching regulatory act on education, of which the MTA is at least deeply suspicious, believing the law is in need of "more significant changes". John Kerry might agree or something, but I can't really tell. You see, John Kerry doesn't really have an issues page, just a brag page of things that he's said about issues...if he hasn't given a good speech on an issue, it's ignored. Education isn't mentioned. However, we know that he voted for the law, and may have flip-flopped since then...but he hasn't really taken a definitive stand. So it's pretty much a "get back to you on that" kind of stance.

So on one hand, we have Ed O'Reilly who knows education and would repeal this odious broach of the principle of federalism that calls itself a law...and then we have John Kerry. One might expect the MTA to stand with other education stakeholders with O'Reilly, or at least excuse itself from this primary. But standing for principles isn't nearly as wicked as the access you get by kissing up to the right people, and it looks like the MTA brass doesn't want the cool cocktail parties to be the sole turf of other progressive issue groups who've sold out their members. So they've gone ahead and endorsed John Kerry, a man who (at least for the moment) stands for the single biggest impediment to its members doing their jobs well. Maybe a good choice for the "MTA", but not one for Massachusetts teachers. Thanks for nothing, guys.

PS: As usual, Mark Begich shows what leadership is, this time on education. Six months from now, Alaska will have a more nuanced, populist, accomplished, progressive, Senator than Massachusetts.

Geez I love this guy

There are two Democrats who've captivated me this cycle. At home, it's Ed O'Reilly, who shares my values on questions such as foreign intervention, education, and marriage equality. I've written about him extensively.

But my favorite candidate this year is my man, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. I was a huge fan, but after this email, I'm ready to start a club...

My son Jacob is six years old and like any parent his future is never far from my mind.

That's why yesterday I unveiled my plan to bring local control back to Alaska families and make sure that Jacob and all other young Alaskans are given the skills to compete in a global economy.

But I can't get the job done all alone and that's why I need your help.

Will you sign up as a citizen co-sponsor to my education plan?

Our children represent our state's most important resource and that's why I am putting forward an education plan which pays for better teachers, better schools, and a better future for our children.

The change we need starts with getting rid of No Child Left Behind, a bill that has been a disaster for Alaska. Alaska doesn't fit the cookie-cutter approach from Washington and it's time to return local control to our communities.

We must provide universal access to Pre-K, invest in high-quality curriculum material, make college affordable, and Native Alaskan educational opportunities at all levels.

These are just a few things that I lay out in my education policy.

Join me in bringing change to education in Alaska.

The future of our state and our country lies in the kind of education we give our children.

Help me ensure that Jacob and all Alaskan children have the top notch education they deserve by becoming a co-sponsor to my education plan and inviting your family and friends to do the same.

http://action.begich.com/educationplan

Thanks for your support,

He's marking education as a key issue, and he's got the right stand on it. The future of the party is bright.

Kerry Not Doing His Part for Democrats in the Senate

As readers are fully aware, John Kerry is doing his best to ignore democratic (and Democratic) fundamentals by ducking a debate with fellow Democrat Ed O'Reilly. While there is no real excuse for this for someone interested in true citizenship, some of Kerry's supporters (example, example) are implying that Kerry's time as an Obama surrogate is so precious, that not one evening can be spared for treating his constituents with that basic respect. This rationalization is shaky, in my eyes -- voters demonstrated a lack of interest in Kerry's opinions about what a president should do -- but it's the only one I've seen.

So, one might be forgiven for coming away with the impression that John Kerry is focused like a laser on Democratic success in 2008. Difficult, then, to square that away with this data, courtesy of a meticulous diary on MyDD. The writer plods through finance reports to report on sitting Democratic Senators' financial situation, and the amount they and their PAC have donated to Democratic candidates for the Senate, their PACs, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is based on the well-regarded 2006 "Use It or Lose It" campaign to ensure safe Democrats do their part by sharing their financial chests with candidates who could put it to better use than collecting interest and waiting for someone a level up to retire.

My first step was to pare sitting Democratic Senators not up for re-election in this cycle. Frankly, they can't fairly be expected to have as much Cash on Hand as their fundraising is in a low gear, and should definitely be generously aiding their current and would-be colleagues in their drive for more Democrats. So just looking at the 2008 candidates, this is some of what we learn:

Kerry is flush with cash. Largely due to his decision to reserve himself about $16 million of donors' money from his presidential run, Kerry has more money than any senator running in 2008. Twice as much as red-state Democrats such as Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu. So, given his relatively easy path to re-election, Kerry should be freely giving his money in for his colleagues, right? Hah!

Kerry is miserly. Despite his huge advantage, most Democrats have given more to ensure a Democratic Senate than Kerry. Despite an easy path in the general, Kerry is holding on to his money tightly; he has given less than all but four candidates. Biden spent much of his cash running for president, no doubt, and I am willing to grant extenuating circumstances to Tim Johnson. Lautenberg (who had a strongly contested primary against a sitting Congressman), Levin, and Kerry have absolutely no excuses. Shame. Even Mary Landrieu, the only Democrat who at one point appeared to face a real contest, is doing more than Kerry.



Bad as this is, things are even worse when contrasting Kerry's almsgiving with his cash advantage. I made another chart expressing Senators' giving as a percentage of their cash on hand to neutralize fundraising differences. Senators Baucus and Rockefeller continue to impress, as do Pryor and Reed. And, all things considered, Biden comes off a far sight better. Here's is the result:



Kerry gives less than 1% of his cash on hand to Democrats who are in far tougher races than he is. Max Baucus, a Democratic Senator from Montana, has been 30 times as generous as John Kerry. The constituents of Senators Levin and especially Lautenberg have some questions to ask. But I have some questions for my Senator.

If Kerry can't bother to debate a fellow Democrat...if he can't bother to respect the voters of Massachusetts...can't he at least do the bare minimum to give us a Senate working for America? Isn't $6 million enough?

He'll vote for you but doesn't want you to win

Worcester County Sheriff Guy Glodis on Ed O'Reilly:

Jim O'Sullivan of the State House News Service first reported Wednesday that Guy Glodis has chosen to support O'Reilly (D-Gloucester) over Kerry (D-Boston), becoming the first major Democratic politician in the state to do so.

Asked to confirm the report, Glodis told PolitickerMA.com, "Absolutely. I am looking forward to voting for him."

Glodis emphasized, however, that he is not endorsing O'Reilly. "Let me just say this," he said, "I have not endorsed him and do not plan on endorsing him.

I know there's a narrow semantic difference between voting for him and endorsing him, what with machines and alliances, etc. But happy as I have him to have some Democratic stand up for the party's platform, I think this isn't the smoothest I've seen Glodis look.

HRC Chooses Safety over Advocacy, Endorses Kerry

Someone explain this one to me. The Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocacy group for equal respect and treatments for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation, endorsed John Kerry in his race against Ed O'Reilly.

The single most prominent issue in this arena is that of marriage equality, and Massachusetts is the American leader on it. John Kerry is against marriage equality. O'Reilly is for it.

We'll be stuck with watery Democrats until progressive groups show the backbone to demand better. But the good news is, HRC muckymucks still get to go to the cool cocktail parties.

Tell John Kerry to debate the issues

For a campaign trying to project confidence, John Kerry seems reluctant to debate his primary opponent Gloucester firefighter Ed O'Reilly. I'm not really sure why a man who mopped the floor with his last debate opponent is so reluctant, but by all means tell him that he should at least go through the motions of defending his record to his constituents. You may want to use the volunteer link...looking at his website, it seems that Kerry is only interested in your time and/or money...there's no way to actually talk to the campaign. While the 7-10 debates that O'Reilly proposes seem excessive, surely 1 or 2 wouldn't hurt the incumbent, right?

And for the slight majority of people on this online poll who think he shouldn't debate, shame on them. I'm eager to see polling on this race, as none exists out there.

More good news for Mark Begich

More good news for Mark Begich, Democratic candidate for US Senate in Alaska. A poll paid for by DailyKos shows him leading his opponent, incumbent Ted Stevens:

If 2008 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Mark Begich, the Democrat, and Ted Stevens, the Republican?

Stevens (R) 43 (41)
Begich (D) 48 (47)

Undecideds seem to be breaking, and Begich is essentially maintaining his lead. I'm an admirer of his because I like people with executive experience in the legislature and White House (Begich is mayor of Anchorage), and Begich, along with Jon Tester, represent a new kind of "Western Democrat" who is at the forefront of coutnering Republican framing by explaining our values in terms consistent with discourse out there.

My political donations this year will be going heavily toward Ed O'Reilly here in Massachusetts, and Mark Begich out in Alaska. Doesn't mean that you can't go to this nifty Obama fundraiser featuring and organized by the good folks at BMG.

On the other hand...

...the money that was destined for Obama's campaign is now available to deserving folks such as Americans United, Ed O'Reilly, and Mark Begich. So it all works out.

The attack machine turns on

One thing I learned in 2004 is that John Kerry loves to play dirty against Democrats just as much as he loathes to grapple with Republicans. After seeing unspeakable crap pulled in Iowa and New Hampshire against Dean with my own eyes, I saw Kerry play punching bag during the general campaign.

Nice to see that things haven't changed. We're dealing with a new thread by our hibernating friends over at BMG who only wake up to defend all things Kerry, and attack all things Not-Kerry. Like Democratic candidate Ed O'Reilly. Apparently, some no-name columnist sympathetic to the right said good things about O'Reilly which makes him teh sux! While most campaigns would ignore a challenger to a strong incumbent (as did Bill Galvin in 2006), the Kerry operation is going full blast with arm-twisting, gaming the system, and full-scale attacks. Failing that, they're telling people that Kerry shouldn't have to defend his record.

They don't want to debate the issues.

Let me say that again. The John Kerry campaign wants to do anything -- anything -- but debate the issues.

They don't want to explain why Kerry has notoriously poor constituent services.

They don't want to explain why Kerry voted for FISA and the Patriot Act.

They don't want to explain why Kerry opposes marriage equality.

They don't want to explain why Kerry okayed the invasion of Iraq.

They don't want to explain why Kerry voted for an unconstitutional education policy.

They don't want to explain why Kerry claims to have "led" the fight against Justice Alito...after he phoned in his "leadership" while away in Switzerland.