Covert Despots

Unacknowledged in the Occupy Boston/Greenway battle is yet another manifestation of autonomous agencies. The Rose F. Kennedy Greenway is just one of many organizations given terrific power in a narrow scope by government, one whose folk consider themselves legislators and constabulary.

In this particular, peculiar case, the chair of the organization cites their manufactured rules as de facto laws. It wants the city to enforce these by whatever force necessary, while claiming to want a gentle resolution.

Who died and made them king? Well, we all did and it's the American way. From nuclear regulation to professional baseball to physicians' associations among who knows how many examples, we cede authority and often pay many hidden costs.

Lackaday, good-hearted and pretty smart City Councilor Matt O'Malley got caught in this web spun by Greenway Chair Georgia Murray. In her open letter to Mayor Tom Menino, she asked to throw the bums out. She cited their rules, as though these were laws. She points to rules allowing only "passive enjoyment" of Dewey Square Park, prohibition on "overnight sleeping," and a permit for  "Any use of the park that requires set ups (sic) and anticipates crowds." Her letter reads in part, "We believe that the current use by Occupy Boston is not compatible with our obligation to ensure that everyone may enjoy the Greenway..."

As a pseudo-lawmaker, she tries to bolster her case with odd, vague justifications, including:

• The Conservancy abandoned plans to have a food festival on October 15 on Dewey Square Park (a permitted event) from public safety concerns.  We anticipated large crowds of attendees and there was inadequate space due to Occupy Boston.  Fifteen small businesses lost income they were counting on.  
• On our Farmer’s Market days, the farmers are experiencing a real reduction in income due to the noise, odors, and interference by the members of Occupy Boston and other protest groups. 
• Our neighbors are buffeted by noise and wary of aggressive confrontation when they are passing through the Dewey Square Park. 
• There are disturbing incidents of drug dealing. 
• Sanitary conditions are deteriorating significantly over time.  Although we do not currently have a rat infestation problem, it is only a matter of time given the current conditions. 

Or from other angles:

• Greenway folk did not adapt to the well-known Occupy encampment, by moving its festival to one of the several huge, open plazas short distances down the park.
• Unquantified hearsay about the markets is dubious, particularly the "noise, odors and interference" claim that reads like Thurston Howell III remarks. 
• Likewise, there's more hearsay about inconvenience to unspecified "neighbors."
• Assertions of drug dealing in a park well known from nighttime drug dealing long before Occupy.
• Unsubstantiated claims of deteriorating sanitary conditions, replete with a future fantasy about maybe rats, in a camp with continuous programs for cleaning, rubbish removal and more.

This junior-high level rhetoric did suck in O'Malley. The Herald tried to stir up some trouble in its ongoing anti-hippie mode. It got him to say what he surely thought might be fairly neutral lingo, "The Conservancy makes a strong case. Small businesses are hurting from this. It may be time to move them off the Greenway." They did pick up on his addendum that any eviction "should be done 'peaceably.'"

Matt's a great guy and a lot more free-speech oriented than the typical Herald winger. I bet he figured he was threading this political needle instead of getting a bunch of snotty comments, including from me, on his Facebook page.

The imperiousness of the Greenway people is predictable. First, they are volunteer do-gooders. As is typical of that group, they act like others should do what they want because they are so splendid in character and deed.

Beyond the typical volunteer syndrome, they also show the inherent problem of the quasi-autonomous groups. These have nominal power in restricted areas. In that process, they too often act as though their privately promulgated rules have the standing and power of laws produced through representative legislation.

Let's be plain.The Greenway Conservancy folk are not lawmakers and neither cops nor prosecutors.Their rules are guidelines, which they at least obliquely acknowledge by asking the mayor to ask the cops to do something. The letter does read as though their rules are laws, at the very least publicly discussed and approved regulations that might emerge from City Council.

We've experienced this from many agencies. Some are scary and dangerous, like the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Agency). Some should be benign, like the American Medical Association, which grew into regulatory powers over physicians, but all too often does not discipline or remove those needing it.

In the current, very local case, the Greenway Conservancy folk apparently stifled their Brahmin impulse until they popped. They saw the courts refuse to clear Occupy's camp and the mayor deciding to hang back. At least Menino has the political savvy to understand the peril of smothering protest in the town that fomented the American Revolution.

In contrast, the Conservancy board has decided whom they will classify as public and what activities they will allow. Now they are stomping their feet.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, Greenway, Conservancy, Occupy Boston, Menino, O'Malley

Pandora's Casino

All it takes now to open for once and forever the lid on casino and slot gambling here is Gov. Deval Patrick's signature on the disgraceful bill finalized yesterday. There's a tiny chance you can influence him with a call, email, visit or letter (go to the contacts page to pick your method[s]).

However, in a for-God's-sake-do-something economic panic, Patrick and the frequently sensible Senate President Therese Murray turned blind and stupid. Against all evidence, they are:

• Pretending that commonwealth will get big revenue gains from gambling
• Pretending that casino and slots money will come from out-of-state gamblers and from money our residents would spend elsewhere
• Pretending that there will be substantial increases in employment here short and longer term
• Pretending that huge increased costs for infrastructure and other state support will somehow not be huge
• Pretending that we alone will break the pattern of Atlantic City, Las Vegas, Mississippi and the other casino/slot destinations that have destroyed economies, elevated unemployment, and zombie-like addicted gamblers
• Pretending that the new joints won't destroy and cannibalize the existing lottery

---

Don't Rush

---

As it appears inevitable that we'll be starting the slide with the three casinos and the crack house slot parlor, those with any wits should do the best possible in that case. Just over a month ago, casino expert William Eadington was in town at a Rappaport Center session on this very subject. We are doing none, nada, zip of the best practices that minimize the damage and maximize the gains of gambling.

In the shortest form, what the few places that have managed this process well have done start with getting highly detailed proposals for any casino. Instead, we're doing the absolutely stupidest way of taking bids and looking for the one that promises the best return on only vague plans.

In contract, places like Singapore and Melbourne did it right, taking several years to evaluate full proposals and considering all the effects. They ended up with true destination resorts that attract tourists for a lot more than gambling and for a long longer stays (and more expenditure).

They also tightly control access by locals to minimize effects of addictive gambling. Known abusers are ID'ed and refused entry.

Even before this proposal stage, which should last several years, the government should be clear on what it expects. Then it can set up the operations to those aims. For example, Pennsylvania charges high taxes on winnings because its aim is increased tax revenue. Singapore charges very low taxes because it aims to create that destination resort, earning from non-gambling activities as well. In addition, its tax policy lures the highest rollers from far away.

We have not done that and apparently do not intend to do so. Instead, our legislators and the executive branch seem blindly digging into gambling mud, hoping to come up with some extra money.

The other key aspect Eadington noted gets snorts and guffaws from MA residents. The process for setting up and overseeing the casinos/slots has to be highly honorable and transparent (Pause to laugh loudly.)

We saw the opposite at its worst. As the cliché variously runs, Caesar's wife must be above reproach (or suspicion). Instead, we suspect dirty dealing by lawmakers even before the gambling passed. Instead of forbidding legislators' involvement in gambling ownership or operations forever, we dropped down to five years after leaving the General Court, then the already suspect lawmakers knocked that to a single year. Now even some of them are wailing about the onus of not being able to suckle on the gambling teats of this cow they have fed immediately.

This process has been dirty from the beginning and stinks more every time the legislature touches it.There's no way to shut the lid on this Pandora's box once Patrick makes the act into law with his signature.

He promised us long ago that if casinos came to MA, they would be only a small facet of his plan to develop various types of business. The model was economic development along the line of funding genetic engineering or other technologies.

Perhaps understandably, the deep and wide recession and its effects have washed away his resolve on this. That's no reason not to make it known to him that you don't want him to sign casinos/slots into law.

If that happens as it surely appears likely, the very least we should demand is first, clarification on what we expect from gambling income, and second, two to five years to receive detailed proposals on sites.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, casinos, gambling

Halfway Up Transgender Rights Trail

Today, the MA Senate will certainly join the House in passing the Transgender Equal Rights act. Stripped of public-accommodation protections, H.502/S.764 still puts into law strong protections for transgenders in housing and employment. Yesterday, the House vote was 95 to 58 in favor.

Bay Windows went to the good guys for comment. The most salient recap may be:

"We support this bill," said Jennifer Levi, director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project. "We want complete protections for transgender people -- including in public accommodations -- but also know that in order to get there, we cannot walk away from the legislature’s first step toward achieving those full protections."

Almost certainly, the plug uglies, including Massachusetts Family Institute got their Pyrrhic mini-victory though. Using disingenuous slogans and arguments, the public-accommodation aspect of the legislation will have to wait for another legislative session. It almost certainly will happen, but not this year.

Like other winger organizations, MFI has led the attack on equality with illogically reframing the issue and smearing the beneficiaries. In this case, this seminal bill to offer basic equality was plugged as special rights and the bathroom bill. Instead of admitting the overt discrimination faced by the estimated 33,000 transgender folk in the commonwealth, the opponents manufactured demons in the john. They trivialized the problems and pretended that this bill would mean men dressed as women would invade the women's room and girls' rooms everywhere.

The protect-your-daughters lie seemed to resonate with the confused and the anti-LGBT folk out and in the legislature. Of course, it's a red herring, but it did manage to delay full equality.

I'm betting the rest will happen next year, but meanwhile, yesterday was and today will be a good day for fairness and equal rights.

Morning Update: The MA Senate did approve the bill, by voice vote this morning.

Senate Seekers Not Quitting

Last evening's U.S. Senate debate-like-object with two candidates was a splendid chance to chat with, then hear two of them, Tom Conroy and Herb Robinson. Rhetorically, physically and in policy, contrasts between them were wonderfully stark. In a time and place of sameness, I think the couple dozen of us left with clear senses of what they are about, more than we have seen before.

This one was at Pine Manor College and driven by public policy consultant Pamela Julian. She's also a League of Women Voters member and wants that group to help sponsor more of these for this race.

Neither candidate as been a guest on Left Ahead. Several others, including folk who have dropped out have been, including Elizabeth Warren. I was not disappointed by meeting and listening to two of what Robinson used to refer to himself as low man on the totem pole. "I am in the lowest candidate in this race," he said. "We all know that."

He noted in his remarks that he doesn't have a lot of money, campaigns part time as a full-time engineer, and isn't given much of a shot. In contrast, while he managed to stifle it for much of his time at the podium, Conroy called out the "pundits and prognosticators" who had already given the Democratic nomination to Warren.

The two were as different in presentation as physically. Both were good company, although Robinson likely would make a better dinner or bar companion, with good stories and amiability. In profile, Conroy is a raptor, all edges and sinew. He was alert, loud and emphatic. The rotund, furry cheeked Robinson was clearly bright and terribly sincere. He was soft-spoken, even sleepy, but had specific goals and several innovative proposals. He also was not afraid to preach some doom about the economy and nuclear power.

Conroy started with matches to Warren's about-me routines and even captured a bit of the POTUS' calling out of prototypical Americans. On the up-from-tough-roots bio, he included such anecdotes as his parents with no spare money. "My mother at one point didn't even have a quarter to buy a subway token to take me to the hospital when I was so sick I couldn't eat," he said. He got to run a business and become a state rep through education and his parents' example of "hard word, dedication, with discipline and some smarts and some prayer and some help from people in the community, and a sense of service to others in need." Then we went to Terry, Jen and Michael whom he met as he walked 650-plus miles around the commonwealth. Each was a prototypical resident struggling.

Whew, there's a full basket.

In contrast, Robinson spoke of three goals — fixing the economy first, making "America a better place for all of us," and "do it safely." He had specific proposals, such as tying capital gains taxes to unemployment. For example, if the jobless rate is 6.5% or above, the tax rises and rich folk would get a break if it falls to 2.5% or below. He wants capital gains taxes as regular income, adjusted for inflation.

He didn't present any sob or inspirational stories. He's been an engineer for 30 years and thinks things through in detail, depth and width.

He noted that incumbent Sen. Scott Brown had no real proposals to fix the economy even after a year and one half in office. "I have two," he said, "and I'm doing this part-time." He said he can make better decisions than Brown and do it safely. He added that unlike the incumbent he "knows the difference between hairspray and nuclear fallout."

Both candidates answered moderator Julian's questions about education saying they were for more fully funding schools and loan programs. Robinson added that with Prop. 2½ limiting municipalities' tax growth rates, "over the long term, every city in Massachusetts is going to be in the same situation as Lawrence." He also noted that the nation spends far too much on the military and that he opposed the Iraq war well before it started.


For a sample of part of Conroy's polished stumped speech, click below for two and a half minutes of him on his game.

Let Loose the Dogs of TV

Let's pace ourselves. The ads for the 2012 Senate from MA race are just kindling in competing bonfires being heaped.

State and national GOP and wingers accept the now obvious, that Elizabeth Warren will go for the seat against incumbent Scott Brown. Following the Citizens United/Super PAC/money-is-free-speech boner, this is the election where will find out how stupid and destructive that SCOTUS decision was.

Both Brown and Warren already have support from well funded and often hidden snipers. There are tons of coverage on the new, nasty reality. You can also find lots of examples, which I won't bother to embed any of here. Head to YouTube and search for strings like Scott Brown oil or Elizabeth Warren OWS to find current ones. Fresh dirt for him is here and for her here.

Disclaimer: We chatted with Warren over at Left Ahead last month and the three of us liked her both personally and for her ideas and solutions.

Let's now consider what's likely to happen with attack ads for these candidates.

First note that Brown has been in office over a year and one-half. Voters, should they bother, can look to his votes and statements, his record. Having never held elective office, Warren has the advantage/disadvantage of presenting what she would have done and would do.

The advantage here definitely looks to be hers. Brown has been a showboat from the beginning. He bragged about being in a pivotal spot, able to block or allow to pass any bill. During his tenure, legislation has been cumbersome, ineffective, and with negative effects on the economy and other big areas. Instead, he could have picked a couple key issues, as wise Senators are wont to, and led bipartisan efforts. Then he could have fairly claimed leadership and national interest — very good reasons for reelection.

She is left with his weakness and her forte, ideas. He speaks in political clichés and generalities. She likely has 20 or 30 IQ points on him, but is no Utopian or limited theoretician. She has the decided advantage of conceiving of and bringing to life the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is much needed, very appreciated, and in strong contrast to anything Brown ever did on state or national levels.

Her weakness is not that she can be aligned with some aims of OWS. Rather, she so far has spoken largely of rescuing and revivifying the American middle-class. Those folk not coincidentally are the majority of us and of voters. On the trail, she'll have to respond to other themes, such as foreign policy.

So far, the winger attacks have seemed desperate. Now there is her statement that she set the intellectual foundation that helped spawn OWS. Previously, they failed in trying to portray her banter with me on Left Ahead about being called a hick in MA as some insult to rural voters. Well, that backfired. Not only was that self-depreciating bit plain to the 10K-plus who heard the YouTube outtakes, it clearly was not what they wanted to trick people into thinking. They also drove over 1,000 so far to listen to the whole show with her, quite likely getting her new supporters. She could use more attack-ad enemies that politically clumsy.

Warren has powerful, detailed solutions to big problems. Her introduction into the race suddenly elevated the dialog beyond any ability to propose or debate that Brown so far has exhibited.

However, Brown has a predictable winger strength. He speaks in those clichés and generalities. Like Presidents Reagan and Bush the Lesser, he offers reassuring, if disingenuous, messages that don't require voters to think. For those who want guns-and-butter and everything-will-be-OK messages, Brown will be ready.

Let's also not overlook the gender factor. MA is at the bottom of states in terms of electing women to statewide office, much less sending them to the U.S. Senate.

Moreover, even here in the allegedly liberal land, STRONG + SMART + FEMALE = SCARY CANDIDATE. Her election would mean a breakthrough for the commonwealth.

As these attack ads proliferate, one factor to watch is the local v. out-of-state one. Voters here are largely provincial. As Southerners are wont to ask, "Who are your people?," Bay Staters favor those born and raised and still living in one MA town. Likewise, they are quick to ask of candidates, "How much of the campaign money is local?"

The latter is kablooey for the first time now. Following the unlimited-money thingummy, we'll see ads and cash flowing largely from out there. You can be sure the MA GOP and wingers will whinge about her support, while they will be even more guilty of the perceived sin of out-of-state funding.

Here, the slight majority of voters are unenrolled in any party. They feign independence and love being wooed. The ads will be for them.

Even flat-out lies by Warren defamers are not likely to benefit Brown with the unenrolled and undecided. The wingers, self-identified social conservatives, Republicans, and even those who demand a man in office made up their minds. If they are swayed at all, it will come from the likely outcome of debates where the empty barn coat creaks and flaps like a barn door.

What a great use of technology in a science-fiction sense if we could go about our lives while fast forwarding all the attack ads until next fall's election. At this time, I'm more delighted than ever that I watch almost no TV.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead, U.S. Senate, Scott Brown, Citizens United, attack ads 

Same But Different Boston Councilors

No incumbent Boston Councilor lost yesterday, but several came close. The crowd favorites switched order. Southie's power comes into question. There was no revolution, yet the results have implications.

Right off, as someone who works the polls for the city, I was pleased that the turnout was just anemic and not the predicted terrible. At 18.1% of voters, you'd think it would mean keening and rending of garments by democracy advocates. However, our expectations have long lowered. Grumpy pundits thought this off-year election with no statewide, mayoral or congressional seats might mean as few as 6% of voters would do their do.

The polling place where I worked had over 28% turnout. Comparatively to expectations and the recent 13% in the last election makes that seem robust and involved. That written, as someone who never misses any election and as a poll warden who's invested, I don't see why we can't expect 60% or higher turnout. I can rant when anyone says, "I wasn't aware we had an election," or "I don't know anything about any of the candidates." Be warned.

---

Hub Shuffle

---

Here, Council results should provide sources for jokes among the winners, as well as offline planning for the next go in two years. The expected leaders trailed, and one at-large and one district councilor nearly got nipped. The pundit predictions going back at least six months were flat wrong in many cases.

The not-yet-certified-ergo-unofficial results for at-large run (informal names):

Ayanna PRESSLEY	21.42%
Felix ARROYO	20.26%
John CONNOLLY	18.74%
Steve MURPHY	15.26%
Michael FLAHERTY	14.73%
Will DORCENA	4.99%
Sean RYAN	4.21%

This list has two big punchlines. Among the four winners, Connolly and Murphy had topped the ticket last time and Arroyo and Pressley scraped into office for their first terms. So, the order dramatically shifted in unpredicted ways. The other biggy is that former council president and five-term at-large Councilor Michael Flaherty missed the cut this time.

Oh, experts, where art thine expertise?

Many broadcast, print and blog observers figured Arroyo and particularly Presssley as likely to lose to Flaherty. After all, they were finishing single terms, he is very well known, a skilled fund-raiser and connected, and council elections have long been friendly to Irish American men. Plus, his home of South Boston had the only open district seat, and therefore, more reason for voters to participate.

Here the wise guys weren't so wise.

When I arrived home at 9 PM from closing my poll, the first results from the city showed Flaherty ahead of Murphy and down in District 2, Suzanne Lee ahead of two-term incumbent Bill Linehan. The almost-real-time reporting on election nights is a super feature. I watched as results shifted quickly over the next hour. In the end, we got the above results and a less than 1% apparent win by Linehan; whether Lee requests and gets a recount is TBD.

---

Rethinking

---

So, as I'm wont to ask, what can we learn from this? 

First, it's a positive statement about diversity in town. Voters pushed the only Latino and first black woman ever to the top of the at-large reelection results. In a city with a growing minority population and a sorry history of racism and sexism in politics, that's good stuff.

Neither Arroyo nor Pressley won sole because of their race or gender. Both have championed good causes,  as well as delivered the requisite constituent services. Moreover, as Pressley told me recently, she knows identity politics can work for any candidate. In her case, she looks to voters of color, of her gender, and from her neighborhood to support her, and then she expands from there for the whole electorate.

More surprising is that two Irish-American male councilors slipped to three and four in the results. Both are popular. Each has considerable expertise — Connolly running education and Murphy the budget processes. Also Connolly is the acknowledged campaign-contribution king. 

His organization seems to have anticipated a strong showing by Pressley, despite the gloomy forecasts. Last night, about the time the results gelled, his folk sent out a press release. They took a good share of the credit for her success in Connolly's West Roxbury, where he introduced and campaigned with her. And, oh by the way, he has over $100,000 left in this campaign coffers, the release noted.

Murphy is surely less sanguine. He has not yet posted on his campaign site or Facebook pages. 

Disclaimer: I know and like Steve. We're neighbors, living only a couple of blocks away. 

In his Left Ahead podcast leading up to the election, he did agree that his financial expertise is not as high in profile as some on council. It's my feeling that he's a bit humble and needs to make voters aware that when his peers want to know what this or that big or small matter means in money terms, he's the one they turn to for the judgment. This close vote may inspire him to brag a bit, even if that's not natural for him.

For his part, Flaherty has pledged to work with the council in any way he can. Dorcena and Ryan have not posted on their Facebook pages or websites. 

Flaherty remains popular, has positioned himself as an opposition voice to Mayor Tom Menino and surely will not disappear. I suddenly recall many years ago when I ran into President Thomas Jones of the University of South Carolina as we crossed the historic horseshoe of the antebellum campus in opposite directions. He and I (student newspaper type and general agitator) had clashed many times and he considered me a royal pain. Yet we had a begrudging respect for each other. I knew he was being ousted following the student riots there and I told him I was sorry. He said he was like a rabbit with many tunnels and holes. He would reemerge. I'm sure Flaherty will too, after some consideration.

Dorcena, I hope, will not be discouraged. He got in late, with little money and no history of holding office. He chatted with us at Left Ahead as well. He's smart, he's charming and he has a detailed, broad series of issues and proposals. There must be a good place to draw on that energy and those ideas.

Ryan, of course, runs for office. He has low-key, lightly funded campaigns, depending largely on ringing doorbells and speaking at every possible forum. He is one candidate who may change nothing after this election.

At-Large Incumbents? Yes Indeed.

For the good, Boston's at-large City Council race has a relative plethora of solid candidates. Of course, it's musical desks with four for the seven running.

I've held off endorsements 1) to be close to the election on 11/8, and 2) to stock up Left Ahead's podcasts with candidate shows. One or two shows for six are available (look over the site archives). Sean Ryan promised several times to let us know when he was ready and he apparently never was.

Because I'm late to the gate, I am embarrassed to write that I'm with the Globe and Phoenix and other thoughtful pundit types in endorsing the four incumbents. Each has shown expertise, passion and accomplishment in areas unique to him or her. The city will be best served by building on what may be the best crop of at-large Councilors ever.

Vote Steve Murphy, Felix Arroyo, John Connolly and Ayanna Pressley.

Begrudgingly, I admit that the often-wrong Globe editorial board is spot on in its endorsement of these four. Unfortunately, their new paywall may prevent many from reading this essential piece. Fear not, the Phoenix came in ahead of us all with its similar analysis and conclusions last week.

Most local media seem to grok this. Bay Windows/South End News looks pretty silly, replacing Murphy with former at-large Councilor and body President Michael Flaherty. They fess up that who marches in South Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade is a heavy factor.

The short of it is that Murphy is the finance/budget master and thus essential, Connolly has the vision and perseverance to deal with contentious school money and reform issues, Pressley has brought big issues and solutions to such ignored areas as protecting women and girls as well as teen pregnancy, and Arroyo is a champion of youth, labor and housing issues.

The endorsements tend not to say why you should not vote for someone else. They should. In two of the three cases, that is tough. Ryan stands alone as a libertarian sort whose issues as vaguely defined on his website (fine use of social media and video though) are largely broad strokes painted on broad issues. Coupled with his lack of experience in public office, he is not getting a lot of support of any type.

Flaherty and Will Dorcena are different matters. They are both super guys, both very bright, charming and accomplished. Dorcena is new to elective politics, but understands the problems facing Bostonians and sets out a strong platform. Its a very tired local cliché that you have to introduce a bill four or five times before it becomes law and you have to run for Council at least three times. I for one hope he finds a fit in Boston government and is not disheartened by this race.

Erstwhile Councilor Flaherty is still the wild card. He quit to run against Mayor Tom Menino two years ago and wants back in the chamber. He pretty much claims the whole Council is a pack of lapdogs and they need someone like him to give them some vision and courage. Cynics are sure he just wants a platform to run for Menino's spot again.

He offers a Halloween-scary platform of what's dreadfully wrong in each aspect of Boston life. Unfortunately, it's very short on vision and solution components.

This election though may come down to reinforcing older Boston or looking for continued improvement. Flaherty's path back in will surely rely on the strength of zip-code voting and identity politics. Will his traditional appeal in largely Irish-American areas like Southie and Westie get enough folk to the polls? This certain-to-be low turnout off-year election should be a true test for the mettle of the locals.

I do admit that there's a sliver of irony here. In her most recent Left Ahead show, Pressley was bluntly realistic in noting that identity politics is always important here. She hopes that in addition to progressives, her candidacy inspires women, Bostonians of color, and residents of her neighborhood to go to the polls.

The boon Flaherty gets is that the District Council race features the do-little one-of-us Southie resident and incumbent Bill Linehan against firebrand Suzanne Lee. That race doubles down on the neighborhood vs. city interest bet. It should translate into higher votes in District 2, which includes Southie, Chinatown and the South End.

I can't call either the District race or the four at-large winners. I just tell you how to vote — the four at-large incumbents and Lee.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, City Council, District 2, Linehan, Suzanne Lee, at-large, Arroyo, Connolly, Flaherty, Murphy, Pressley, elections  

Live Free (Straight-Only) NH

What's amazing about the current generation of Republican legislators is how they disdain republican government and have no trouble subverting American principles. Take New Hampshire. Do take it and don't bring it back until it understands.

In the worst recent example, Tuesday, New Hampshire's GOP dominated House Judiciary Committee in the GOP dominated House advanced a bill to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. That would be the law that involved myriad public hearings and polling, a wrenching open statewide conversation about how sincere they were about equal rights and that live-free-or-die thing, and close votes in both houses. It passed two years ago and took effect last year.

Over 1700 homosexual couples are married there — to their advantage and to the harm of absolutely no one.

Key ideas for governance around this country include that republicanism. The supreme power of states and nation are supposed to reside in the people, who in turn choose their representatives to do the work of running the show. That has a counterbalance of courts to correct the occasional craziness and unconstitutionality, and roughly half the states have the flamethrower of populism, ballot initiatives or referenda. By the bye, NH has neither of those popular-vote traps.

After Tuesday's rejection of equality and liberty, the key guides to the state and nation, the crooked path lies ahead. The bill goes to the House for consideration. The Senate will duplicate the committee discussion and if it advances the bill, debate it as well.

As unbelievably un-American as it is, this process is advancing in the GOP majority legislature in Concord. The Republicans may well be willing to create unequal classes of citizens where there was one. They would regress to stripping existing rights from homosexuals, including writing in law permission to discriminate in housing and employment and otherwise by producing a lesser civil-union class than existed before marriage equality passed.

This seemingly vindictive anti-gay process would make a third class of adult citizen. Heterosexuals, who marry or not, can or do reproduce or not, divorce or not, are in one group. The married homosexual couples are in another, and so far at least, won't lose their status and many benefits of the married are in another. Then under the new version, the lesser civil unions have only the privileges that employers and others might graciously grant them...at least temporarily. Un-American? No bet!

Note the lunacy and illogic in the bills preamble, including:

The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

Straight couples who don't have kids or adopt or can give birth or some other very common circumstance are not punished. That's reserved for homosexuals. Let's not even get into the awful situations many two-parent families visit on their kids in terms of alcoholism, other drug problems, and abuse physical, sexual and psychological. Nice job, GOP law crafters.


It's all too cruel and stupid. Taking away existing rights from an entire class of people is a disgrace. It also turns NH's motto backward. They'll need a new one, one that says nothing about freedom.

MA GOP Scorching Itself

The clichéd 15 minutes of fame seemed to have been 1,500 pages of infamy instead. A huge number of right-wing media, including blogs, jumped on Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead and me following last Friday’s show and podcast. A search for “elizabeth warren” “hick” will turn up tens of thousands of fresh (in every sense) hits.

For anyone who hasn’t yet heard the very widely disseminated clips of her and me, it starts near the beginning of the 40-minute show. Click the player below to start it.

Cross-post: This originally appeared at Left Ahead. 

She and I share a few traits unusual and remarkable in these parts. We were both born in Oklahoma (I also spent much of my youth in West Virginia where my mother’s family was) and since moving to the Boston area (32 years ago for me and 17 for her), we’ve heard repeatedly that we were hicks for our backgrounds. I have also heard assertions that everyone in WV is a hick, hillbilly, toothless, dumb and likely the product of incest. Way to stay classy, Boston. On her part, I have been reading and hearing the no-win vise — she’s “not one of us” because she’s not a lifelong resident as well as from a hick state, and on the other hand, she and her husband have taught at Harvard for 17 years, so they are elitist snobs.

I opened the conversation with that dichotomy. She responded jovially, noting that she was aware of that Catch-22 game. She said that she must be a new category, “an elite hick.” Shortly after, she said to one of my comments about my background, “I’m going for the hick vote here. I just want you to know. Maybe we could start wearing stickers that say ‘HICKS FOR ELIZABETH’. Could we do that?”

After the absurd MA GOP and conservative responses, I might order up some of those shirt and bumper stickers. Feel free to beat me to doing that.

Surely no one is surprised that FOXnews and the like tried to hurt Warren with this. They are, after all, the same sources that excused Sen. Scott Brown’s denigration of her and even his daughters publicly as just humor. They don’t understand the fundamental difference between mild self-depreciation and knocking someone else down to appear clever.

Some of us were surprised though by the MA GOP’s effort to blow this into a big deal. Chair Jennifer Nassour is leaving. The release on it came from Communications Manager Tim Buckley, who had the unenviable task of playing the jerk in the release they emailed (not on the site yet). His paragraph before a link to a Politico piece on the podcast quotes himself as:

“Professor Warren’s insulting use of the word ‘hick’ offers a revealing prism into her elitist and arrogant worldview. Massachusetts voters deserve an explanation about just who Professor Warren was referring to when she spoke of winning the ‘hick vote.’”

Disclaimer: I have invited MA GOP head Jennifer Nassour on our show by email, voice mail, and twice face to face. Both times we chatted in person over the past year and one half, she pressed her card on me, took mine, said she’d love to do the show and to contact her office to arrange it. She or a handler seemed to have decided that was not a good idea, even knowing we’d had John Walsh, her Dem counterpart, on a couple of times. Now she’s announced she’s stepping down. I tried.

Sensible folk are ridiculing the winger/MassGOP efforts, as in Mediaite calling them humor-challenged and NECN’s Jim Braude saying their bluster was pathetic.

Lynne, Ryan and I have been kicking around the spasm of coverage. We each figure the craziness only helps her. I see a lot of traffic going to the show both on BlogTalkRadio and Left Ahead. Anyone who listens knows quickly that she was cool about the hick talk, reflecting on her and me only. Moreover with the many, many extra listens, people who otherwise were not aware of the show or her strong set of problem ID/solutions are now. As Lynne said, it looks like the MA GOP wants to help Warren as much a possible.

Being an anal-retentive, research-oriented type, I also went through even the right-wing news-like sites and blogs for comments. There, many said they’d never vote for her, but nothing lost. They typically indicated they hated Dems, progressives and liberals, and some even had harsh comments relating to women, lesbians and some coarse lingo for female body parts. Plus, quite a few made the point they were not from Massachusetts (with the thank God implied).

This appears to be a bungled effort from the right to smear Warren and likely do balancing damage control for Brown’s numerous public errors. Net, I figure they failed. A couple thousand extra MA voters and possible contributors here and elsewhere know Warren’s priorities. They can contrast an incumbent who says he doesn’t know the solutions to joblessness and such, with one providing solid proposals.

I still expect her presence in the Dem primary process and, should she advance the 2012 Senate race, will put ideas and solutions on the table and elevate the dialog. People here will get a choice.

---

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead, U.S. Senate, Left Ahead, MassGOP, hick

Chatting Up Elizabeth Warren

We had a good time with Elizabeth Warren on Left Ahead yesterday. That's odd in that we asked and she addressed nasty issues — unemployment, crumbling bridges, economic morass.

Go to enough debate-like events and speak to enough pols, then you surely will gravitate to those who seem like the best ones to share a meal or drink with. She's in that class, at once funny and insightful. She doesn't speak in clichés, doesn't constantly circle back to repeat herself, and doesn't go for generalities.

Her 40-minute show was one of our better one. I've been shilling it and shall put a player here too.

My comments on Left Ahead follow as teasers.

With a charming blend of confidence and self-effacement, U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren handled all the three of us could throw her way in a half hour. Listen with the player below or download and play for the whole show.

We tried to cover some areas we had not seen her run through in her many recent appearances on news shows and debate-like events. We did concentrate on economic issues and her seven priorities for rebuilding the American middle class.

She can be colorful and trotted out a few metaphors she uses in stump speeches. “The house is on fire,” she said of the U.S. economy and its effect on the lower and middle classes. She presented a variety of solutions. That is a clear distinction between her and other Dem and GOP candidates for next year’s election. She defines herself as “a straight-up-the-middle gal,” and makes strong proposals.

Listen in as she answers in the affirmative when asked whether we needed an NRA/WPA-style effort to restart the economy. She explained how setting unemployed American, both in construction and the education and municipal sectors, to work immediately can create cash flow to inspire business rebulding and expansion, as well as repairing our crumbling infrastructure.

Asked bluntly whether she saw herself as a new version of the lion of the Senate as the driven Edward Kennedy was, she almost repliled yes. She spoke of meeting Ted meaningfully for the first time and getting a commitment from him to propel major legislation, on top of his already massive commitments. She said that was an inspiration for her and she tries to live it.

She was never short of humor either. For one example, asked about being derided by opponents for being from Oklahoma and on the other hand spending the past 17 years teaching at Harvard, she said, “I’m a new category, an elite hick.”

Warren sees possibities for important legislation passing, even with the existing filibuster potential and GOP blocking. Listen in as she defines how she got her consumer finance legislation enacted over dire predictions of failure. She describes being clear on the message, describing the issues, and getting a lot of people to go with it. “When people get engaged, yes, the Senate can move,” she told us.

Short-term, she also sees tough challenges as well as such potential. For one, she describes he current effort to roll back health-care gains passed recently. That would include overturning prohibitions on pre-existing conditions and coverage for students under 26 on parents’ plan and annual wellness checks (physicals) for seniors.

Warren was plain that her deciding to run was not for the glory or power of being in the Senate. “I’m running because there are things I want to change.”

By the bye, I've also tried to invite other candidates for the seat, including Alan Khazei. His campaign has not yet responded to email or voice mail requests. Of course, his folk are under no obligation to yet another blogger/podcaster set. However, it is refreshing that Warren and another not-all-that-young woman candidate have.

Suzanne Lee, running for Boston City Council from District 2 was on and likewise held forth well. She also has very savvy with online use, including an excellent website and social media handling. We are not at a point where net presence makes or breaks elections, but we're getting there. Including such in a campaign speaks well of candidates' smarts, or at least those of their minions.

---

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, Left Ahead, U.S. Senate

Elizabeth Warren on Left Ahead 10/14

U.S. Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren talks populism, economy, Congress, politics, and well, Elizabeth Warren, with us tomorrow Friday, October 14th at 1 PM Eastern. If you can catch the show live go here.

Her conversation will be available afterward on demand to hear or download at that URL, at Left Ahead, or on iTunes.

We’ll talk her campaign, her platform, and whether she can pitch problem/solution candidacy in this era of sound bites and generalizations. She’s shooting like a meteor across a dark nation, state and time. Many in both major parties want her to burn out. We’ll ask about the pressures and promises.

Warren and Occupy Catch-22

As new as both are to public consciousness, the judgments of Elizabeth and Occupy Wall St. are rampant...and particularly hostile. I've avoided mentioning them because there's already so much in electrons and ink on each.

Though a common factor is that the open hostility is evident even among allegedly left-leaning media, including blogs. The desire to see Warren and OWS failures includes denials of their essences.

Warren.  Up here in the Boston area, her many detractors trip all over their tropes. Temporally alone, their arguments for her unworthiness leave her no winnable option. She's been here too long and simultaneously too short.

As in most provincial locales, the too-short argument starts with, "She's not from here." True enough, Warren's birthplace is Oklahoma. I don't find that in itself damning, perhaps because mine is as well. In her case, she went through high school there before getting degrees in public universities in several states.

Somehow the inference in not-born-here is she can't be one of us, can't understand us or our problems, and is an outsider trying to take a political job that should belong to a born-in-Boston-damn-it local.

At the same time, winger media and blogs are full of elitist slurs. Here, time factors as well, but on the other end of the seesaw of illogic. Because she and her husband have lived in Cambridge and taught at Harvard Law for 17 years, she's been there too long.

While there are those who might dare to say they want a Senator who is provably smart, Somehow, teaching at Harvard is supposed to disqualify Warren...from something unspecified.

Less than a lifetime here is not long enough. More than a few years at Harvard is too long.

OWS/Occupy Boston.  I was going to limit any comments about the Occupy folk to a couple of Left Ahead podcasts. The loonies just won't let it be though.

Go to literally any newspaper or broadcast outlet in the past couple of weeks to get the gist. A very informal and originally inchoate protest action emanating from occupywallst.org pissed off far more than corporate apologists and extremists on the right.

Here the Catch-22 is that the nascent, truly grassroots protest was not credible simply because it was not a highly organized, well stratified one with a list of specific demands and goals — think a major political party's platform after the convention process. Again, again and yet again, I'd read or hear the dismissive assertion that a formal structure and clearly agreed to position, OWS was chaotic, impotent and dilettantish.

That crazy talk is toning down considerably now, and not because there is an OWS manifesto held up by an elected leadership. Instead, there's an Occupy Boston and over 100 other similar protests. Suddenly it has become plain that this set of mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore folk are in fact a movement.

This long overdue reaction to the abuses of financial and other large business corporations is not aimless, formless and ephemeral. As it became increasingly clear that the protesters were not all young trust-fund types, rather veterans and seniors joined them, the inane dismissals dwindle. The Catch-22 folk are having to find other spurious claims to denigrate it.

One might think that the Tea Party folk, libertarians and others who assert paternal and interventionist government policies are evil incarnate would grok OWS. One would be wrong. That in part is likely due to NIH, not-invented-here, syndrome.

Likewise, one would suppose that those often self-righteous agitators would actively support OWS free speech and increasingly focused protest points. That should be singularly true in Boston, of the pre-Revolutionary War rabble-rousers like the Adams boys. Instead, our Mayor Tom Menino says he agrees with many of the OWS and Occupy Boston aims, but he still worked with the police to arrest and roust the encampment here with flaccid reasoning about costing the city money, hurting the Greenway plantings, and the mythical bugbears of a century ago, anarchists, plotting in the camps. Cut us a very thin slice of that baloney.

---

Fresh Noise

---

If you want real news, you apparently have to wait for the media, including most bloggers, to rouse themselves and begin thinking. The galumphing herd eager to smear Warren and the Occupiers has been terribly influential.

As Warren speaks in those debate-like performances of 60-second answers to clichéd and cutesy queries, we are hearing the unheard of — problems identified with solutions advanced. Likewise, as OWS and its dandelion-like spouts from its many seeds flourish, we hear with increasing clarity what is wrong and what will right it.

This has been a shameful period for the news, which became the noise. Let us hope that the press in all its forms emerges chastened a bit. Let us hope the papers, talking heads, and we feeble if vain bloggers are more observant after these stumbles.

The Incredible TBD Power of Southie

The allegedly politically monolithic South Boston neighborhood gets real contests next month. A district and at-large battle should show if zip-code voting is the most important factor.

Of course, South Boston is not the only provincial area of this city, commonwealth and region. It is special more in that it tends to have a higher than average voting rate and that many of its residents share color, culture and church. So, they are more likely to be a bloc for "one of us."

Understandably in a neighborhood that long had a lower family income and perceived status than much of town, there's pride in holding Congressional, General Court, and Council seats...forever and ever. Even as Southie became part of Council District 2, it retained the power. There simply are more voting residents than in the combined South End and Chinatown. Plus, those neighborhoods are more diverse and much less likely to do the zip-code and us-v.-them at election time.

When parochial pride battles evident self-interest, pride has almost always won here. This time though there are  two skirmishes that might break that pattern...at least with reinforcements from other neighborhoods.

---

So Don't I

---

So, there's District 2 incumbent Bill Linehan. He's the Irish American there, or just Irish, as those in Southie have it, against Chinese-American Suzanne Lee. She's had a long career as school principal and respected, effective avocation as community activist. He was a long-time manager in Parks and a bureaucrat for the city's COO before starting two terms as Councilor. He plugged in as replacement when Jim Kelly died.

There are major obvious differences. He believes in constituent services, but sits and waits for folk to call him; she would patrol the whole district looking for problems to ID and solve. You can learn all you need to know about what she's done and wants to accomplish from her campaign site; you could stare at his one-page placeholder and not know more about him than when you loaded the URL. She's all problem/solutions; he's a pleasant enough fellow.

This is identity politics at its plainest. For Southie, there's someone who looks like them and lives where they do versus someone born in China, who lives in the Asian-dominated part of the district.

Yet, this is also a choice of change and leadership and energy. Over at Left Ahead, we spoke with Lee, a show you can hear here. Voters who pay any attention at the forums to stump speeches and in media know he's pretty much a low-key paper pusher and she's, as the cliché goes, a change agent. Status quo lovers are not going to want Lee.

The two major local dailies have each run pieces suggesting that South Boston will be determined to hold onto this Council seat, and will turn out to do that. This conflicts with electoral history that predicts very low turnout for year with no mayoral, gubernatorial or congressional contests.

Political folk wisdom has it that shoe leather wins such races. Lee seems to have worn out many heels and soles in all parts of the district. As much as I'd like to think that willingness to propose solutions, eagerness to appear in public and in media, online presence including social media, and a history of doing good things for large number of residents would rule, it may or may not here. Lee has decided advantages in all those aspects, but she is not a life-long Southie resident and arrived in Boston from the wrong direction.

---

Muscle Test

---

That Michael Flaherty fellow is another matter. Sure, he's of Irish extraction and from South Boston, where he maintains a strong supporter base. He also proved himself a great fund-raiser when he was at-large Councilor and Council President. He's a connected lawyer and not unimportant, he's charming.

He also seems to have annoyed the devil out of Mayor Tom Menino for a long time and more recently the at-large incumbents. The former is particularly important in that Menino is extraordinarily popular, even in this day of hate-the-pols, and he has foot soldiers the inspire support, donations and GOTV.

After being unable to unseat Menino in the last mayoral, Flaherty wants back in. His entry would be one of the four incumbents. At Left Ahead, we spoke with him and the incumbents and shall try to squeeze in a couple related shows this month. You can go here for links to the at-large candidates' shows.

Back to conventional political wisdom, Flaherty's best shot supposedly would be to pick off one of the first-termers, Ayanna Pressley or Felix Arroyo. So far, he's doing a nice job raising money, but all four incumbents have base supporters and solid roles on Council. No one dislikes or distrusts any of the incumbents or feels underserved.

As in District 2, turnout more than shoe leather may make this race. There was no preliminary, just a truncated run for November 8th. The debate-like-events have only recently started. Because these slots are citywide, getting supporters to the polls is crucial and even harder than in a district race.

The great pro here, Menino, said that plainly last week when he introduced Pressley at a meet-and-greet for her at Townsend's in his and my shared neighborhood of Hyde Park. He asked people to volunteer for her "as a favor to me." He put it right out there with,"She's only been in office 20 months. She hasn't had time to build a machine. We gotta build a team for her."

That's very Boston and the kind of insight you expect from such a skilled pol. So for the two new at-large incumbents, the question may be whether their machines work well enough to overpower what may be a rusty version run by Flaherty.

District 2 and at-large are where the action will be on November 8th.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, City Council, District 2, Linehan, Suzanne Lee, at-large, Arroyo, Connolly, Flaherty, Murphy, Pressley, elections 

Love and Marriage in Iberia

I generally believe folk can find plenty of note on their own. So, I don't often point. I'll make an exception for Frank Bruni's NYT op-ed today.

He describes the quick evolution of same-sex marriage in Portugal. Not unusual is that among the nations with marriage equality, it too is a largely Roman Catholic one. It seems the leaders in such countries can take New Testament teachings of treating others with love and respect, as well as following the Golden Rule.

Predominately Christian inhabited nations from Norway to South Africa somehow evolved beyond Leviticus. They don't narrowly select Old Testament snippets to support very unChristian beliefs.

Before munching Bruni's offering, click on the graphic to pop up the three-tiered world of gay relations. A teaser of it is here to inspire you.

It includes the 10 nations with marriage equality (of course, to our disgrace, we are not yet among them). It also includes those places where gay male relationships bring a 10-year or greater prison sentence, and those where being homosexual still means a death sentence.

How's civilized in this shared world?

Bruni came away from his conversations and more academic look at Portugal believing that the legalization means "same-sex marriage became a badge of sophistication, affirming their country as an enlightened place."

Brown Could Use a Helper

Sen. Scott Brown's only-the-latest crass sexist blunder is disquieting. He's certainly not the only federal legislator who runs down women or some other group so long as he can make a puerile joke. Yuck yuck.

Heck, various Senators and Representatives as well as Governors and other pols do much the same. 

Brown would like to be known as the deal maker-or-breaker in the Senate. Instead, the first associations will such as insulting a middle-aged woman's looks and offering his daughters to anyone interested. Just joking, ha ha ha ha, he said. In the case of his daughters, both they and his wife seemed used to such deprecating humor from their reactions in the vid.

Let's set aside whether he is a hard-body-only guy or thinks unmarried women are chattel. Instead, what about his executive function, you know, the key role of the mature brain that governs our thoughts and actions? As adults, we normally develop a cause-and-effect understanding that keeps us from, among other misdeeds, social blunders.

He doesn't appear to have a ripe one.

Long ago, in puberty in fact, I lost patience with the insulters. Those who say cruel and malicious comments about and in the presence of others — including but not limited to slurs on race, sexual orientation, gender or religion. Often then they'll grin and say something like, "Oh, I don't mean nothing by it." 

The aw shucks disclaimer didn't cut it when I was a teen and still doesn't. Get a grip on your base impulses!

U.S.Senators often serve decades. Everything they say and do publicly is likely news. If Brown's brain can't control itself, perhaps he needs to find another job.

---

Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, insults, Brown, U.S. Senate

Pressley Does Hyde Park

The end of the out-in-the-world day for most of us was another stop without rest for the at-large Boston Councilors. Last evening at Townsend's City Hall machers showed to tease each other and praise Ayanna Pressley. Then for her and Steve Murphy, it was immediately careering from one to two to three candidate forums.

As Murphy told me, the various neighborhood groups generally don't communicate or coordinate and end up cannibalizing each other's events. The seven at-large for the four spots race to as many of these as they can. Mayor Tom Menino had advice for them last night — "Drive fast!"

It's no surprise that other Councilors call for Pressley's reelection. Last night, District 5's Rob Consalvo, of course, showed as Hyde Park is his turf. He led in layering on Ayanna's virtues, followed by Murphy and Menino.

The surprise is that so far there's no every-pol-for-self mentality. Conventional wisdom was that with four incumbents and three challengers for the four desks, there'd be divisions. Moreover, former Council President Michael Flaherty wants back in and the same punditry would have him trying to knock off one of the two first-termers, Pressley or Felix Arroyo.

Without a preliminary and going straight for a November 8th final, this race has been quiet. That's over and the next five weeks should exhaust all of them.

The sweetness that pleased the crowd was not the peer praise though. Pressley described to me and then to the room of maybe 100 that she was moved that a young fan had her mother bring her. A 7-year-old girl had interviewed her for her school newspaper and in doing it proved the worth of Pressley's efforts to inspire. The girl now figures she has a goal and a good shot at it. Pressley noted that the mother had groomed the girl for the interview, including braided hair. Then after the young reporter saw her, she announced to her mother than she too wanted big hair, like Pressley's. She had it last night, surely not the only aspect of her idol she'll emulate.

I think I've atoned enough for questioning whether Pressley could make her transition from big-issue, national politicking to the city level. As the trio of praising pols said last night, she does constituent issues but has brought in major concerns, most obviously in starting a Council committee, Women & Healthy Communities. As her Council page puts it, "The committee is primarily concerned with adequate delivery of city services and programming for youth, families, seniors and new Bostonians, with particular focus on girls and women. Some of the issues the committee plans to address over the next two years include domestic and sexual violence, child abuse and neglect, bullying, substance abuse, mentoring, hunger and homelessness." As is her style, that does not substitute for regular tasks. She just piles those on top.

---

Tag Team Lauding

---

The floor show was good last night. It ran from fast-talking Consalvo (Menino teased him as still being in his auctioneer mode from the Y fundraiser) to self-effacing Murphy to the quipping Mayor. Consalvo captured the salient points: 1) She hit the ground running, 2) She tackles the tough issues, 3) She's a great team member. Then Murphy got right to the point, alluding to the peril of a first termer, He called for everyone in the room to work for Pressley's reelection.

Menino was candid as ever too. He introduced her and set it up with "She's only been in office 20 months. She hasn't had time to build a machine. We gotta build a team for her." He asked for people to put in as much time as they could, even if it was only a few hours, "as a favor to me."

Recurring themes among the three Pressley praisers included how the Council, and particularly the at-large members, acted as a team and worked through their disagreements. From my perspective of 30 some years, I agree that this Council as a group is smarter and far less zip-code and voter-identity stifled than I was used to seeing.

So far, none of the at-large incumbents is making any break with this unofficial slate for reelection. That may be in part because each has a personal record and emphasis. Murphy is the money wiz, John Connolly does schools, Arroyo is housing and unions, and Pressley women/girls, violence and poverty (big and complex). Unlike the overt and not too effective Team Unity of a few years ago when all the Councilors of color sort of worked on a few things together, these at-larges seem to be cooperators instead of collaborators. Their working together and public respect may well last five more weeks and beyond.

---

Matured Campaigner

---

When Pressley spoke, she held the floor better than anyone. I've seen and heard her a few times, but must say that she's fully come into her own with her stump speech. She could persuade nearly any voter who hears her in person.(Gosh, it's been two years since she first joined us on Left Ahead. She was convincing then, but is much more confident and powerful now. She discussed this pending race four months ago.)

She stood straight and gesticulated almost like a t'ai chi master as she spoke to the lessons she carried forward from her recently deceased mother. She was totally believable when saying, "I love what I do. I get to actualize my values every day."

As far as she's concerned "Municipal government is not the lowest rung of power." She's been applying city resources and acts on those big concerns, like poverty and violence. To her, a key rhetorical question is, "Who has the monopoly on big-heart issues?"

---

Tags: massmarrier, Boston, City Council, Pressley, at-large, Menino, Consalvo, Murphy