Friday, November 07, 2008

GOP Apologists Get It Wrong


The perpetually silly Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe that Sarah Palin "...demonstrated star power as she withstood with aplomb and good humor a vicious assault from the left." That is to laugh a hearty laugh, even by winger standards. Exhibiting Dan Quayle-style ignorance and dimness, she got nearly a free ride. Moreover, her treatment was in contrast to the real viciousness against Obama and Biden, by Palin, as well as Sean Hannity and numerous FOXnews professional liars.

We lefties can only hope that the Republican are so unrealistic as to advance her as the 2012 Presidential nominee. Even the dumbest and least educated GOP sorts would see her then as an empty miniskirt.

So, various fundy pundits say or write that the McCain ticket got punched because:
Media note: Pew had a clear wrap up of campaign coverage. McCain started with a free and positive ride, one he managed through campaigning hard to turn negative. For example, conisder his running from the economic collapse and slandering Obama. In contrast, Obama coverage was negative at the onset. As the MSM got to know the candidates, that reversed.
For the loss, how about:
  • Fair comparisons of McCain and Bush policies and platforms
  • Pretending that being locked up as a POW teaches anything about running our military
  • An emotionally unstable head of ticket
  • A dumb-as-lettuce, unqualified VP nominee
  • Figuring voters are so stupid that they support tax cuts for the rich and trick-down economics after repeated failures
  • Willingness even eagerness to spend thousands more lives and a trillion or so more dollars in Iraq
  • An economic recovery plan discredited even by winger analysts
Conservatives and apologists would have us believe that if any one factor (most commonly the economic collapse) had not been in play, McCain would have overcome that single-digit popular-vote shortfall. That's akin to pharma companies and doctors saying this drug or that will add five years to your life. With the absurd number of prescriptions we take (highest in the world), Americans should have a lifespan of 200 years or more then.

The assumption underlying most McCain apologies is that some single factor was the key problem. That if only that one were gone, Republicans would have won. Instead, American voters surely were not that granular. In short, we had the time and information to pile Obama and McCain differences on a balance scale.

Mene mene tekel upharsin, as I am sure you are wont to exclaim (handwriting on the wall from Daniel 5). No matter how many times American weighed McCain, he came up wanting.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Two Million Utes


I'm not at all convinced that the Dems did their homework or got their money's worth from the youth (18-29-y-o) voters this general election.

In our results jabbering, Lynne and I disagree on this. We often do; I see her as starting from the small details and expanding to bigger ideas, while I tend to start at the abstracts and work in. In our Left Ahead! podcast, Lynne buys into the blog/MSM meme that the two million new youngish voters means they were a big factor and likely to continue voting (and left).

Also see the Salon analysis of the relatively weak influence of this bloc.

To me:
  • They didn't even keep pace with the percentage of other age groups. Everyone grew, but the youth at a lower rate.
  • More shocking, the percentage and absolute increases in this group from 2000 to 2004 was higher. Moreover, a greater percentage voted — 19.4 of the total in 2004 and only 18% this time.
  • On the other hand, they went for the right guy much more — 66% for Obama this time and 54% for Kerry last.
With those and other factors, I concluded that first, the youth made a difference, but not the election difference. Second, they should have flooded the polls, outvoting us alter kakers. Even assuming some of those who voted will stay progressives as they grey and bald, we need more numbers to see the real effect. The stereotype that many youth are disengaged lives.

I put that to the Democratic Party, and any other party that looks to future elections. There's a clear and even trend to more conservative votes by age. This time, for example, the 60 and overs went 52% to 46% for McCain. They were also 23% of the vote. More telling, those on the cusp of this group, the 45 through 59s were split at 49% and made up the largest bloc by age, 30%.

Getting a relatively few younger voters to the polls was barely good enough and may not be in the next Presidential election. The Republicans will likely be mad and hungry.

Tags: , , ,

Obama's Cultural Duty

This is the primary economic and political fantasy that Americans love, that we can far outpace the rest of the world in military spending while borrowing for anything we want, while still meeting domestic obligations.

This seems like it should have been an episode in the 1950s TV show I Love Lucy. Imagine her not balancing her checkbook and draining the bank account. Ricky confronts her, "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!"

As a group, we voters do like to delude ourselves. It was a lot of years ago (1928) when Al Smith was the Democratic Presidential candidate. He said, "The American people never carry an umbrella. They prepare to walk in the eternal sunshine."

The huge 1984 win for Ronald Reagan — 525 electoral votes and 58.5% of the popular tally — spoke loudly for that befuddled version of hope. Borrow, borrow, borrow...spend, spend, spend... Then somehow, through trickle down economics, an endless growth spiral, and unlimited natural resources in the rest of the world, all will be swell. Smile, Ronnie, Smile.

Is the lotus-flower attraction of that wispy fantasy so enticing that we'll breath it deeply in four or even two years? The idea that Lucy or the nation can write infinite checks and stay solvent has recurred at least since Reagan.

For all its shortcomings, the Clinton years saw a return to fiscal responsibility that balanced the budget. Yet, as soon as the Republicans returned to power, the waft of the lotus put us to sleep again — following promises not to raise taxes, the wildly mis-titled fiscally conservative GOP borrowed to spend trillions of dollars that did not create jobs or wealth for the public. This was no NRA or WPA.

Despite the consistent and incontrovertible evidence that trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the wealthy don't, won't and can't work, Americans like the fantasy. So what will they do with even a tiny bit of sunshine?

Assume as I do that an Obama administration and a chastened and desperate Congress will redirect our economy successfully, at least starting in the right direction. Then, how strong is the drug of irresponsibility after these disasters? Will American voters fall back into an economic and political stupor?

Clearly, even a well-supported Obama cannot undo the damage in one or two terms. Given that, his secondary goal should be to create the structure to guide the next decade or two or more of Presidents and Congresses. It has been so painful as well as dull-witted to pretend that we can live like Bohemian students with rich parents, at play so long as there is a trust fund.

Look at any map of the electoral votes for President to see the sad implication of demography. It is really a tale of cities v. sticks. The most rural and the poorest, who like to call themselves the real Americans, the heartland and the salt of the earth, stuck with the fantasy. Those on farms and in factories, along with the working poor outside urban areas, are most harmed by the lotus spell that has so shifted real and absolute income upward. Still, they wanted to dream some more.

Yet the popular-vote spread was surprisingly high. At 6% down, McCain wasn't close. Obama's margin was the third highest of modern times, following the first Bush's 8% and the huge Reagan 18% in 1984. This time at least, Americans in toto (lotus reference intended) could not find the ray of sunshine in the failed Republican schemes.

As the Obama White House does not have a Department of Reality, the Democratic Party should create its equivalent immediately. In the next mid-term and following Presidential elections and those afterward, the wisdom and will of the nation will have crucial tests. If we forget the brutal lessons that enabled the Obama victory, I fear for the country even more than recently.

Tags: , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Filibuster Buster, Barack

Everyone here knows I think our Gov. Deval Patrick is peachy keen. His biggest shortcoming is only partially his.

He promised us a lot of improvements and change in government. He campaigned on his ability to get antithetical legislative and administrative characters to concur and achieve. He noted how he had effected just that a Coke and other places he had worked on been on the board.

We've seen a lot less of that than we hoped and expected.

The primary reason for diminished accomplishment is obviously the obstructionist lawmakers, particularly Speaker of the House Salvatore F. DiMasi. Unlike company management, the political structure makes it much harder to get rid of the satraps and other power hording pols. Too many in the House have too much influence and present or future cash at risk here. They have parceled out the good programs and laws Patrick proposed and kept their bags of goodies.

Besides being a buddy of Patrick's, Obama has made very similar promises. Most Americans are likely to expect him to do what's necessary to right the economy, disengage us from stupid, wasteful wars that kill our citizens and drain our finances, and to, well, make changes and get good laws.

In addition to his keen abilities and the advisers he'll gather, he has another advantage over Patrick. The whole nation is watching the highest-stakes job. They won't want self-important lawmakers stopping progress.

The foolish-consistency folk were clucking like rasorial birds...in a bunch...in a bunch. Democrats didn't get the 60-vote majority in the Senate that would let them stop filibusters. The archaic U.S. Senate rules basically let 40 or more senators prevent discussion and passage of laws. With 60 votes instead of anything less, assuming the Dems all fall in line on a bill, they could discuss and vote on what they wanted without the games.

Many post-election analyses have included woe-is-Barack because of his not having 60 Senate Dems. It's glib to say that that isn't necessary. It would make things easier, but like Patrick, Obama has promised to make the right and righteous happen.

Senate Dems haven't been able to invoke cloture for many years. Thus, the Senate has been pretty impotent on any issue not advanced by the Bush administration. Even with the relatively aggressive Majority Leader Harry Reid, they have let the threat or even the shadow of filibuster make them sit in their own sweat.

So, truth and knowledge for the new President is set a new tone. The Senate will never, ever give up this puerile power. So, make 'em do it.

When a big bill is up for discussion in the Senate and the votes aren't there, push it. Make the public see who is blocking the bill that will provide veterans' benefits, or properly regulate the financial industry, or provide WPA-style jobs to put Americans to work. Don't let the Republicans hide behind filibuster like a punk who has his hand in his pocket and says, "Give me your wallet. I have a gun."

If the GOP Senators want to hinder and harm our recovery and growth, make 'em do it publicly. This is the brave and honest kind of shaming.

If they want to goof on America, people need to know that. It may well be that Obama can get the kind of persuasive reputation that Lyndon Johnson had. I suspect Obama would never use the kind of private blackmail Johnson would, but he shouldn't have to. Johnson also was famous for telling holdouts that they need to consider that their constituents would think if their holdup was public.

I bet it wouldn't be hard to get three or five or ten Senators who step up and do the right thing.

It's long past time. Democrats have to show some moxie to go with their bluster.

Tags: , , , , ,

Ensorsements Click, for Once

Yesterday's results are surely a singular occurrence for me. I have held high the losing slate many, oh so many, times. This cycle had my endorsements and predictions across the board. I guess I should just enjoy the moment, and record it.

To start, the flat-out endorsements included:
  • Top of the ballot, Obama/Biden
  • U.S. Senate, Kerry
  • State Senate, Chang-Díaz
  • Question 1, no
  • Question 2, yes
  • Question 3, yes
Up until around 10 last night as McCain's nose submerged under the truth, I feared the Obama slot. I have been wrong up top so many times.

For the ballot questions, the stodgy and narrowly focused didn't grok 2 and 3. The non-progressives at places like the Boston Globe put up a lead editorial calling for no votes on all three ballot questions. The very socially conservative views of 2 and 3 don't do them credit.

Alas, as Ryan recaps, out in California, Proposition 8 halting same-sex marriages is virtually certain to pass. That will set back but not stop marriage equality. I was not in a position to endorse on that one and knew it was unpredictable.

Now it is up to California to fight court battles over existing SSMs, as it is to New York and New Jersey to set up and complete their transition to equality.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sonia, Then Barack


Ululations, long, loud and high, had the Alchemist's heavily tattooed barkeep palming her ears. When Sonia Chang-Díaz won the September primary, the same pint puller confessed to all that she really didn't like like high volume celebrations.

I'm am sure that big Obama supporter Chang-Díaz didn't mind in the slightest that her resounding victory in the Second Suffolk Senate race was suddenly old news. Somehow her becoming a reform and change winner was only good to the great. At 11:07 when CNN projected that Barack Obama would win the presidency, the tongue trilling wails of joy resounded.

Earlier in the day, I ran into Sonia's mother as she left the polling place where I worked. Out on the street, we had a brief exchange. I told her that I had visited both her daughter's and Dianne Wilkerson's campaign headquarters on Monday. I said I had wished Sonia a big win, like 85% or even low 90s, but Sonia said she'd be happy with just a win. Her mother said she wanted a large victory too.

There were stickers and write-ins, but it Chang-Díaz did come heavy. The early results had her up about 93% to 5% for Socialist Workers Party candidate William Leonard and a few for Wilkerson. That was before Dianne-heavy precincts started coming in.

At my polling place in JP, the counts were 987 for Chang-Díaz, 59 for Leonard and 13 write-ins. The sticker and write-in ballots spit into a separate slot in the voting machines and require hand tabulation and recording. Probably when it is fully settled Chang-Díaz will end up with 80% or more.

A good symbol for Wilkerson's political coma and Chang-Díaz' awakening is that state Rep. Byron Rushing was at the Alchemist. He had been a long-term Wilkerson supporter and endorser, until September's primary. Then like the governor, senate president and speaker of the house, he joined in endorsing Chang-Díaz.

Now Obama has that absurd and hugely unenviable task of trying to fix eight years of dull-witted, mean-spirited incompetence that has been the Bush administration. Chang-Díaz has a very scaled-down set of challenges. She doesn't have to confront gigantic economic problems, just big ones, and people don't look to her as the chief fixer.

Sonia really has two jobs as senator-elect. The hardest will start even before she announces staff or agenda. She has to go back to those neighborhoods and their leaders she has visited so many times in both her 2006 and the current campaign. Many want more face time and ear time with her. She's going to have to take a lot of notes, hear their side, give hers and go for understanding.

For a subset in some precincts, Chang-Díaz doesn't get the benefit of a clean slate. I bet there going to be quickly surprised. I bet that Chang-Díaz works better and more effectively with other legislators in both chambers and the district wins quickly and regularly.

Wilkerson's most vocal supporters like to call her our queen. They're going to like swapping an aristocratic authority figure for a politically and socially savvy senator with the right positions.

Tags: , , , , ,

Monday, November 03, 2008

Ever Say Di, 2nd Suffolk End Game


Marva's Hair Salon had a lot more action than the Dianne Wilkerson HQ next door today in Roxbury. A few miles South in JP, there were more people and a lot more smiles at Sonia Chang-Díaz' version.

I dropped by both Wilkerson and Chang-Díaz HQs on election eve day. I found both the expected and a few surprises.

Over in the Roxse, the door was locked and the curtains closed. Through the signs taped to the door, a man was visible sitting on a dinette-style chair with an open flip phone on his left thigh.

When I tapped on the glass, he opened the door and waited for me to speak. Behind him were piles and layers of Wilkerson signs, likely ready to be mobilized for polling places, had she not stopped her sticker campaign for Second Suffolk Senate. I asked if there were any stickers.

He greeted me then. I think he was political consultant Louis Elisa. He was tall and good looking, distinguished with graying hair including thick mustache. He offered a hand and said there were stickers. Then he called to a second person in the back, asking for some.

It took a couple of minutes and a second request for the other man to locate some. I wondered whether they were already in trash bags or recycling bins. In that time, he said wistfully, "She's already given up, but some of us are just diehards."

Take Tremont less than a block until it turns into Columbus and then follow it to Washington. Down on the right just below Green is the Chang-Díaz center. It's low-key and plain inside and out.

She's still perking along, after winning the primary and recount. Only Socialist Workers Party candidate William Leonard is on the ballot with her and surely some voters will write in or use the stickers for Wilkerson.

Chang-Díaz was a surprise find at her HQ. I figured she'd be walking and ringing today. She said it was always a judgement call and there was computer and other work to do at the office.

It also surprised me that she is not hoping for a huge victory, just a win. She said she knows and respects how disappointed some Wilkerson supporters are. She also exhibited no malice for all the nasty things some Wilkerson supporters have said about her recently and earlier.

While several workers used the phones or recorded poll-worker assignments, she was calm. You'd expect that of an almost certain winner, but I have never seen her otherwise. The closest to flustered I've seen her was in her happiness at the post-primary party at the Alchemist in September.

She agreed that it would take some time to overcome the repeated chant of some Wilkerson supporters that she was not well enough known and was not attune to constituents' needs. She said that for months as she walked through Wilkerson turf in Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester, people were pleased to meet her and often told her that she had already visited relatives or friends, so they knew of her.

Chang-Díaz figures it is a small, vocal minority who resents her. So she doesn't think it will be much extra work to make people feel comfortable with her.

Down on Washington Street, everyone seemed confident but not cocky. Up on Tremont, resignation was the mood of the day. Perhaps that's the wrong term to use with a legislator who may in fact resign her office on Wednesday. Wilkerson's leaving behind some faithful and now doleful minions. Chang-Díaz is planning her election-night party, again at the Alchemist. There was no talk of parties uptown.

Tags: , , ,

Give it up, Sal

This is super-bad. Today's Boston Globe reports that our speaker of the house is stonewalling his ethics investigation. He has apparently refused to cooperate, as in handing over his emails and documents related to conflict-of-interest questions.

Contemporary with Sen. Dianne Wilkerson's protracted disgrace — and her unwillingness to live in the same world of laws and consequences as most of us — Salvatore F. DiMasi is likely blowing up his on scandal in the making.

So far, DiMasi has refused to cooperate with a summons from the commonwealth's Ethics Commission. That's the same as not responding to a subpoena and can lead to contempt charges at the state level. Meanwhile Attorney General Martha Coakley is snooping around on her own on the same issues. The questions resolve pretty much to a single one — Did the speaker help ensure that his chums got rich on government contracts?

Some of the ancillary details include the possibility, the strong possibility, that DiMasi took meals, trips and other perks on the way. The value of any of those are the hundreds of dollars, not the many thousands alleged in the contracts, but would still absolutely violate laws.

The two-legged mice in that chamber are not screaming for his compliance. Most won't comment. The strongest statement the Globe had was about not cooperating with the investigation. House Minority Leader Brad Jones (D-20th Middlesex) squeaked,"It would be a cause for concern."

DiMasi need look for farther than the Senate to see the price of prolonged arrogance and stupidity. He needs to give it up, let the Ethics Commission do its do, and make his best explanations and defenses...now. Smarten up, Sal.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Can Obama Victory Beat Back Demons?


At least from Ronald Reagan, GOP administrations have enabled demons. After post-WWII through the civil-rights era, America had seemed determined to overcome its bigotry, foster egalitarianism, accommodate races, cultures and gender, and, well, be small d democratic.

Then the long tenures of Republican Presidents and Congresses lifted the lids on the secret doors. Aided by an overly pragmatic Bill Clinton, Congress instituted the blatantly theocratic Defense of Marriage Act. Muttering, fringe evangelicals and their ilk rushed to claim their share of policy. The Presidents Bush reinforced devils with honorifics of Reverend to attend public and private meetings. Hundreds of winger groups who had stifled their addled distrust and even hate of homosexuals, leftists of all sorts and those who would live Jesus' commandments to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and love all as we love ourselves were empowered.

It seems the most malicious of these groups were on both coasts. Befuddled Virginia doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be nice or nasty. More riven states are California and Massachusetts. Each has a large concentration of well-educated and open lefties, but each also harbors some of the strangest and most hostile demons of all.

From here, it seems like egalitarianism and democracy are just too much, too fast for some Americans. The resentment of such national reactionaries as Focus on the Family reminds me of my childhood that saw integration of schools and eventually most of the country. Then it was, "We let the Negroes vote. What else do they want?" Similarly today, even in states with gay-rights laws that forbid employment and housing discrimination, there's the same spite over same-sex marriage. Somehow, some Americans refuse to understand that equality is just that.

So here in New England, we have the tepidly hateful and unequal, like the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In fairness to our Cardinal and some bishops, they operate in a military-style structure. Their very old-school boss does not invite discussion.

We also have splinter and fringe cells and cliques who have been feeling very right and righteous, particularly for the past eight years. Here, we can look at:
Each of these has done its damnedest to stymie gay rights and overturn Massachusetts same-sex marriage. Yet, they seem to have had their sad, sorry, strange days. Some of their fellow travelers, like lawyers C.J. Doyle and Chester Darling, have already faded from their stentorial bluster, either by age or lack of support, into muttering. The nasty Catholic Action League — really just a couple of guys with some Knights of Columbus funds — went poof.

Only a few years ago, when these characters were trying in the courts and legislature and at the ballot to overturn the Goodridge decision, they were the winger touchstones. If the Globe or Herald did a piece on SSM or any GLBT issue, they'd visit the crypts, lift the lids and get a moan from one of these guys.

A funny thing happened on the way to marriage equality. The more evident it was that these extremists' predictions of doom and chaos was just that much crap, the fewer people called the crazies. The fewer dollars came in to support their raving. The fewer nodding seniors and loners protested or gathered signatures or even came to meetings.

If the intent of these groups was not so malicious and against American principles, they might deserve pity for how they have fallen — how far and how quickly. Unfortunately for them, far too many of us see them clearly now in their meanness and dishonesty.

Now November fourth is likely to be yet another milestone for these demons. We already look squarely into an army of troubles, particularly financial disaster and turmoil, largely the legacy of winger economic fantasies. It is relatively meaningless for people to distract themselves with thoughts of hampering and harming homosexuals when their livelihoods and futures are at risk.

Hate requires either a mob mentality or leisure. An isolated individual and fester on his own, but consolidated action is not for those busy with other pressing concerns. So we must wonder what an Obama victory, particularly one coupled with a Democratic Senate of 60 or more seats could mean.

Nationwide, several well-funded anti-gay, anti-democracy groups also flourished and have done their best to sweep back the tides of equality and fairness. There are the dreadful Liberty Counsel and Alliance Defense Fund. Their cudgel is the lawsuit and the ballot initiative. The very tools that they disdain pro-equality folk for using are how they attack the advances of us lefties.

They deplore court decisions that favor gay rights, same-sex marriage and separation of church and state. They slur the justices as activist judges and call legislating from the bench. Of course, for any decision that reinforces their positions, they point to the absolute proof of their righteousness.

The demons who would take rights from others are understandably in a panic this week. Their top candidate is likely to lose, and with him, the support they have seen for at least the last eight years for repression from the top. At the same several states (notably Arizona and Florida) want to add DOMA-style amendments or revisions to their constitutions.

Yet, the real battleground for pro- and anti-equality forces is California. Proposition 8 would stop the recently court-legalized same-sex marriage. The legislature had twice legalized SSM, only to have their law vetoed by the governor. However, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has repeatedly said he'd stand by the court's decision and has, although he has not campaigned against 8.

Tens of millions of dollars have fluttered into California for both sides to try to influence the vote outcome. It could go either way still. That speaks to the basic social conservatism and slowness to advance of most Americans. We get there, just after the rest of the industrialized and civilized world.

Prop. 8 is huge for both sides. The anti-equality forces decidedly don't want the largest state to have beaten back the final effort to forbid SSM. On the other side, while waiting for New York and New Jersey to get around to sealing the deal, the pro-equality side wants both coasts to have outposts of marriage sanity and fairness.

Some days, I allow myself to consider an Obama victory and on some of those some days, I go onto a solid Democratic Senate majority. Beyond trying to repair our bleeding economy after the Republican fantasies' failures, we have much to do and undo.

All Americans' civil rights have been breached and redefined by those Bush demons and their imps. The freedoms most of us grew up with and our soldiers fought and died for were shelved , particularly since 9/11/01. Of course, it is bitterly funny that a Republican party that claim to be so American and so freedom-oriented would do that unapologetically. It is what it is and that is what an Obama administration would inherit and have to fix.

That worked after Reagan and Bush the elder. Bill Clinton then had to and did reverse the disastrous failings of the unworkable trickle-down economics and related tripe. He had a so-so record on GLBT issues, but he was fabulous on economic issues and policies.

Again, after a prolonged period of incompetent fiscal policies, we all seem aware of the need for very new, very different and very clear-eyed leadership. We can be positive that an Obama administration would have to deal with these issues as high priorities even before officially taking office. Already, John McCain's campaign has derided Obama for speaking with potential cabinet-level candidates. I say that Obama would be a fool not to begin such planning in the anticipate of the terrible conditions he would inherit and be expected to fix.

Back to the demons, the dirty tricks and schadenfreude by those who want to punish homosexuals and prevent them from full equality seem relatively trivial to many now. Even though who only recently concerned themselves with the marital right or sexual activities of fellow Americans have important considerations now.


Somewhere someone was having fun and it had to stop.



So, the Dark Side has DOMA laws, amendments or both in many states. There's Clinton's disgrace, DOMA, on the federal books. Also, only a small subset of states offer SSM, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

While the trend continues slowly, embarrassingly slowly, toward marriage equality, that will take decades. Under our federalist government, marriage is and will surely remain under per-state regulation. The 40-plus states with firm DOMA-restrictions will dig in and change glacially. Perhaps 8 or 10 others will institute SSM before too long. In fact, I expect that we'll end up with a gay-friendly thumb in the eye of the country right here in New England. That's where our drive for freedom from colonialism began, after all (apologies to Patrick Henry).

So what will that mean to the anti-equality/anti-gay demons? We can immediately think of the joke about Puritanism meaning that they were afraid that somewhere someone was having fun and it had to stop. Likewise, those show despise homosexuality, those who want to impose their personal religious beliefs on all Americans, and those who want to narrow families and marriage as much as possible will still be unhappy. Somewhere out there in places like Boston and Sacramento, same-sex couples are marrying, having or adopting children, being protected by state and eventually federal laws, and yes, being happy and having fun.

As Massachusetts citizens and those in our neighboring states learned after Goodridge, nothing bad and much good happens with SSM. The more years pass after marriage equality, the more accepting the public is and stronger society becomes.

Meanwhile, the distraction of the worldwide economic disasters are crippling to the anti-equality groups. They had their time when we felt pretty secure and their supporters could spare time to harm, hamper and hinder strangers in groups. Now, they have real things to be concerned with and don't have the time and emotional energy for the pettiness.

I predict continued dwindling of those in the demon groups. I predict fewer donations of money and time. I predict that an Obama victory coupled with a real Democratic majority will restore some humanity and reason to federal policy.

That process will not flip the huge majority of states with one-man/one-woman marriage laws. Make no mistake by thinking Americans will suddenly become expansively free and open.

On the other hand, the anti-equality demons who would torture others for their own nefarious reasons can easily become too few and too weak to cause much if any damage. A big victory for the good guys next week can do a lot more than set the economic engine in the right direction.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Friday, October 31, 2008

Ethnic's Ethics on Beacon Hill


It was the Deval and Sonia show at the State House today. Each came at ethics from one angle. First in his office, Gov. Deval Patrick announced a voter placation task force to scramble for ethics and lobbying reform measures for January's legislative session. An hour later, almost certain Second Suffolk Senate winner Sonia Chang-Díaz got to be gracious about her disgraced write-in opponent, incumbent Dianne Wilkerson.

Individually, these press events were fine. Together, they frame the current and lingering public concerns well. Assuming that the resulting legislation Patrick wants to file and have passed in the first 30 days of the new session have substance and penalties, it could be an ethics boost. Diogenes knows, we could use honesty and ethics around here.

Patrick remains as always attuned to public perception. He said dramatically that "I do think there's some air to be let in this building and some light that needs to be shone..." He also attempted to distance himself and the legislature from what he repeatedly referred to a few who cast a pall on the many good ones.

Then in response to a question about transparency and open meetings, Patrick added, "I do think there's some air that needs to be let in this building, some light that needs to be shone on our work.

Perhaps his best line was in response to another question implying that Wilkerson needed swift and full punishment. He said that "being a leader is not leading a mob." He would not be backed into scapegoating Wilkerson.

More rules with harder penalties

The task force will have until New Year's (a two-month drill?) to produce a package for Patrick. The idea is to examine existing ones, fill in the gaps, and make sure the penalties are nasty enough to prevent evil doing.

The bipartisan group will have Ben Clements as head. He is Patrick's legal counsel and has been a federal prosecutor. He served four years in the Public Corruption and Special Prosecutions Unit among other tenures. Patrick did not announce the rest of the panel, describing them only as "experts and other distinguished participants."

That panel seems to be an effort to distance the administration from the likes of Senators Dianne Wilkerson and Jim Marzelli, as well as allegations that Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi is loose getting and giving favors. Interestingly enough, Patrick was slick in not naming names. However, some press members were quick to bring in all three of those and ask Patrick if he had to bear responsibility for their alleged actions. It wasn't hard for him to brush those aside with a no or two or three.

Surprise in the box

What caught everyone's attention was an ancillary proposal for reforming home rule. Of course, here that oxymoronic phrase means the opposite, that cities and towns have to beg the state for permission to rule themselves per case.

From his statement on this, Patrick's refreshing take on this is:
The current home rule structure dates from the 1960s and guarantees that the Legislature and the Executive spend an inordinate amount of time deciding when and how localities can tax, borrow, regulate private and, and make rules for municipal elections. Forty percent of all legislation passed over the last two years was local laws that affect only one community. Sponsors of home rule bills are often forced to expend a great deal of time and political capital to get non-controversial, purely local matters moving and enacted, rather than working on matters of broader concern.
Governors have been loath to give up such childish power. Yet, Patrick noted that we need to be about the business of enabling economic development as well as streamlining government. He's willing to let municipalities get on with it, or so he claims. I hope that's straight and it happens. He said accurately and candidly that home-rule petitions presently are bargaining chips that the State House and various city halls play. It's time to stop.

Civility's back in town

Following Sen. Wilkerson's disgrace, the Senate's vote to ask her to resign, and her subsequent stoppage of her sticker campaign, Chang-Díaz must have felt like she was on a carnival ride, whiplash. She hit the well in front of the big steps to the State House all conciliatory and sweet.

She does need to mix up her phrasing a bit. Much of her message was in the same words of the campaign — like the voters shouldn't have to choose between progressive politics and responsible representation. On the other hand, she's four days from victory and is wary of appearing to change anything.

She hit the perfect tones, including:
  • She was shocked and saddened by "the events of the last few days." She didn't accuse Wilkerson of anything nor blame her.
  • She praised Wilkerson for deciding to announce she was stopping her write-in/sticker campaign. "Today, Senator Wilkerson did act with the best interests of our community at heart, setting us on the path to rebuilding confidence, and for that I thank her."
  • She reached out to disappointed and confused Wilkerson people. "I want to take one moment to speak especially to the voters and activists who've supported Senator Wilkerson over the years. I want to ask for your partnership too. We've all worked so hard on both sides of this election because we all feel keenly the needs of our community and are moved to be part of the solution rather than bystanders. I salute your activism and I ask for your help, your expertise, your experience, your agenda in the weeks and months to come."
Surely it must have been tempting to stick a thumb in the eye of the Wilkerson people who have accused Chang-Díaz of not being dark enough skinned, or those delusional types who want to believe that Wilkerson was framed. I hope it lasts because right now Chang-Díaz is a earnest progressive voice with social skills we rarely see around here.

At question time, the broadcast types around her were gentler than the print types upstairs at Patrick's show. One fellow (coincidentally the only black man in the corps) did remind Chang-Díaz that regardless of Wilkerson's statement, people would be writing her in or using stickers. She responded that she took nothing for granted and would be campaigning right up to the election. In fact, she was combining trick or treating and campaign doorbell ringing this evening.

As for Patrick, a couple of self-important reporters asked ethics question that were as subtle as a Fung Wah bus coming at him from across the parking lot. Did he bear responsibility for DiMasi's allegations or Wilkerson's charges and such. Of course, he sidestepped those with negative responses as easily as though he were avoiding that big old bus.

Now it seems to fall to us. First, we can watch the reforms Patrick will introduce, weigh them and see if they make a difference. He concluded his remarks with his standard fare of calling for involvement. This time, he asked citizens to:
  • Run for office locally or at the state level
  • Tell their officials what they want and hold them accountable otherwise
  • Vote
He turned all high minded, claiming he expected and welcomed challengers in 2010. He said officials all have to earn their office each election. Also, as a sideline in response to a question, he said he definitely would not be headed to D.C. if his friend Barack Obama becomes president elect next week.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Haters Can't Work the Mall

The dwindling party that is MassResistance blew it big time again. They (maybe just Brian Camenker) couldn't work the clipboards and card tables well enough to gather the sigs to advance a petition to reinstate those anti-gay marriage laws from 1913.

Over at BayWindows, Ethan Jacobs reports on the latest MR failure. After getting approval to gather signatures, MR had until October 29th to collect 33,297 for the next stage. Actually and realistically the number would be 40,000 or so to accommodate fake and uncertifiable sigs. Instead, it was about 10,500 — about a quarter or a third of what MR needed.

You may recall that other anti-same-sex marriage and anti-gay groups like Mass. Family Institute punked out on this one. Lining up with MR for other ballot initiatives sapped their resources and colored them with the same loser stencil.

BW reports:
"The fact is this is a huge relief," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "It’s not that we were afraid we’d lose the ballot question, it’s that it would have taken so many resources, so much money and time and effort to defeat it, it would have been all-consuming, and it would have taken those resources from other issues."
So, there's something pro- and anti-equality types have in common. A combination of fringe groups and ballot initiative can drain an organization.

This failure is another arrow pointing the way to voter fatigue with such alarmists as MR. I figure their counterpart in Maine, the formerly Christian Civic League (now wearing Main Family Policy Council clothes) is in similar straits. SSM supporters and GLBT groups hesitate to ease off on the haters. I'm willing to consider them impotent if not totally gone.

Meanwhile, over at MR, there's not one word on what Brian's known for weeks about this failure. He also hasn't mentioned the disgrace of a stripping staffer who was apparently caught photographing kids at middle school for an MR documentary, as he put it.

I guess you just can't get good help anymore.


Afternoon Follow-up: After the BW report, MR did finally 'fess up. Even with what Brian claims was 300 helpers, they apparently ran out of fingers and toes and were surprised at how few sigs they had. He characterized it as the most difficult initiative ever, being based on principle only, having no effect on commonwealth residents. That didn't stop him from kvetching mightily — harrassed by gay activists, the public terrorized that their names would be public reocrd, no help from the R.C. Church or MFI, and not enough out-of-state money. That last one's right, "...we were counting on out-of-state donors to help with funding," he wrote, although that is the number one slam against GLBT organizations here, true or not.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Atlas Shuddered At Last

Dead for 26 years, Alisa Rosenbaum who transformed herself into Ayn Rand has had an astonishing presence in Washington and New York power circles. I know from my own youth how enticing and intoxicating her ideas are — from unfettered capitalism to heady sexuality.

From cabinet members to the Cato Institute to former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, Randists abound. Many libertarians identify as such as well. Surely the most powerful of the set was Greenspan, who largely directed our economy for four decades.

Greenspan recently admitted to a Congressional committee that his model of 40 years was flawed (of course, not that he was). Most telling was his almost-confession at the end of his testimony — "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

That is in fact a backdoor repudiation of the most essential tenet of Randist philosophy and literature. Even President Ronald Reagan used a variation in his trickle-down economics lie. We had also heard that during the Robber Baron period and earlier in slavery and feudal periods. Trust those in charge of an economy to do what is best for even the lowliest of the underlings. They are wealthy and powerful because they are wiser than ordinary schmucks.

Greenspan's mealy mouthed admission that unregulated capitalism failed the nation and the world will not change the minds and hearts of other Randists. Those who don't know the Who is John Galt? question and who have never read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged are missing essential concepts that work in our society and government. Even if you disdain Rand's cry for laisse-faire capitalism, you should know what's at work.

I write this knowing that if the Reason maggy folk run across the post, they are likely to leave, shall we say vivid, comments here and in their own forum. The Randist sorts tend to what Emerson called a foolish consistency. Like too many academicians, no nit is too small to pick and no moot point is above being named the major sin of a false premise.

That's okay. I've been there and been that person.

I was 15 and just entering 10th grade in a new city in a new state when I picked up my mother's copies of Rand's two major works. I loved them. I played the characters. I found girlfriends as eager to be my submissives. I found a level of self-righteousness previously unknown. From what I hear from high-school classmates, I was right obnoxious.

The time to grok Randism is when you are immature and when you have a high need for absolutes. Ayn Rand didn't do ambiguity. As she made clear in her writings and lectures, unsureness is weakness.

An English teacher whom I respected greatly pulled me aside to discuss Rand at the end of one school day. She told me that she too had been enamored of the philosophy and its absolute clarity, down to personal relationships. By the time she got to the you'll-outgrow-it remarks, I was very irritated. I had found what was true and what worked. She clearly had aged badly and was now weak.

A great benefit from Randism for a high-school student is the clarity of interpersonal dealings. A dated several girls who were into the same books and ideas. Each joined me in the theater of the ideas. I got to play the heroic, manly anti-collectivist guy. They were strong with others, would debate me, but in the end yielded to my masculinity. It was sweet all around, particularly as other teens foundered in insecurity in ill-defined relationships. Randism flourishes where it can override and eliminate ambiguity.

In college, I met grad students who came to Randism late in life. I even interviewed a group (let's not say collective) of them as a Radicals for Capitalism "club," replete with a silly dollar-sign flag. They were sort of sad and not a little comical. It is far better to come into this at 15 and then outgrow or refine it rather than become a true believer as an adult.

While I think I moved beyond all that, they made it clear they retained access to truth while surrounded by moral weaklings. For me, I think of an example of a folk song my friend Joel Blumert used to sing in the basement club, Leon's, in North Plainfield, New Jersey. Mitch Greenhill's Won't You Tell Me includes:
I'm just trying, momma
I'm just trying, momma
Trying, trying to be a man
You can have it, if you understand
My Randist self first heard those lyrics and knew immediately that they were cowardly and unmanly. I was positive that we make our own way, our own selves.

I came over years, as my mother did, to see as plainly that life is not that simple or absolute. Sometimes happenstance, good or bad luck and the intervention of others determines how you fare. That's where that nasty ambiguity intrudes, make you reevaluate and adjust. You're still in charge, sort of.

I have a lot of differences with libertarians and specifically Randists. Yet, I have this history and have felt the related extremely powerful emotions that I conflated with pure reason. I would neither denigrate them nor underestimate them.

The most annoying trait of Randists is one you can hear in public question periods and debates, particularly in colleges. They are wont to interrupt a speaker, even one answering their questions, to pick what seems to others as the smallest nit. The concept is that if a single statement, premise in their lingo, is wrong, then the entire position or argument is totally worthless. In contrast, those who can deal better with ambiguity and complexity can assess an entire argument to decide its merit in its entirety.

Those are vastly different ways of reasoning. That makes compromise and agreement nearly impossible.

Those who have never felt the strong tug of the Randist gravitational field can be taken aback by such absolutism. Yet, in the least, be aware that there are many such in think tanks, government service and political parties — libertarian of course, but also Republican.

Greenspan was not the only Randist in a powerful position, just the most powerful of them. You can have your Greenspan, while I stick with Greenhill.

Tags: , , , , ,

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Nov. 4th, Let Me Drive


How did I wait so long to tell people what to do? Could it be that I assume readers have paid a little attention and know my picks for next Tuesday?

Just in case, the obligatory command is to vote, even if for some unfathomable reason you don't concur 100% with me.

From that base:

President: Obama and Biden. There's no contest here, even with six teams running. We have barely survived GOP fantasies and blunders.

U.S. Senator: John Kerry. Jeff Beatty is beady eyed and just plain nasty. Kerry has been so inspired by his competitors this year, any complaints of his shortcomings no longer hold.

Question 1: No to state personal income tax repeal. It's a silly game that would just shift taxes to local property ones, meanwhile stripping social services while returning maybe $300 to middle-class families and benefiting the richest with big bucks.

Question 2: Yes on changing possession of an ounce or less of pot to a fine instead of jail. Dealers are still up up for hard time and the courts and jails shouldn't have to spend lots of money for victimless crimes.

Question 3: Yes on stopping greyhound racing. It's a cruel sport that will disappear of its own boredom in a few years. Meanwhile, why torture the dogs? The track owners now are only in it in hope of gaining casino rights. Tell 'em to take a hike or to chase a mechanical rabbit.

Second Suffolk Senate: Sonia Chang-Díaz. Don't be a total fool by using a sticker for Dianne Wilkerson. William Leonard seems like a swell fellow, but he has a very narrow range of interest in a job that requires a broad one.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Wilkerson's Anchor Sinks

It's been all I can do to keep my fingers from twitching. Everyone, his brother, aunt and neighbor has been talking and writing about Dianne Wilkerson's final decent into political hell. There's no need for me to pile on, particularly as much as I have written about her, starting in 2006.

It's very safe to say that there's far more than enough evidence of corruption to put her in federal prison for decades. It's likely though that she'll do as she has in one set of crimes after another — cut a plea deal. In this case, she's likely to trade testimony against others as part of that. Even her most irrational and emotional supporters will have to scramble to find any honor or justification in that.

The shock and disappointment (and dread of association) of her public supporters, like Tom Menino and Deval Patrick, are widespread. However, the local papers had little problem finding constituents eager to say she is being punished because of her race. The most poignant comments came from her mother in North Carolina, from where by phone she advanced circular reasoning that Dianne didn't take bribes because she wouldn't take bribes.

Surely though, the accurate gauge of opinion in the black community is in today's Bay State Banner. The very faithful, sometimes mindless so, paper withdrew its repeated endorsement. It seems too much is finally enough.

The editorial tries to cover the Banner's butt a bit, but gives it up at the end:

...The Bay State Banner has always endorsed Wilkerson’s achievements, even though her administrative irregularities were troubling....The Banner viewed these charges as unfortunate blemishes on an otherwise productive career...The photographic evidence in support of these (most recent) charges is compelling; investigators also claim to have audio and video recordings of Wilkerson’s misdeeds. It is evident that Wilkerson has breached the public trust. Consequently, the Banner can no longer support Wilkerson for public office.

Except for their previously unflagging support for Wilkerson, the Millers over at the Banner have been pretty traditionally moralistic and socially conservative. They frequently editorialize about those in the black community getting a fair shake, but taking responsibility for their own efforts. The amount of abuse of trust that Wilkerson has had to pile up to drive the Banner to today's decision is weighty indeed.

Any pleasure I felt over seeing Wilkerson driving herself to the edge of hell and then insisting on diving into the fiery lake is long gone. The tedium of watching the arrogant destroy themselves is in the end only boring and annoying.

In her first campaign, the one to replace Sen. Bill Owens, her catchphrase was "We can do better." In the current one, it has been "This district is not for sale." She put the lie to both of those so many times that she finally has run out of others to blame.

I have no doubt that Chang-Díaz will be that better Senator. She'll do well and do the right thing by all constituents, black ones included.

The sense of ownership of that seat has taken a big hit though. Wilkerson robbed the district of their black Senator. We certainly need more legislators of color, but honest and honorable ones.

It's likely time to consider better ways of increasing to fairer representation in both houses of the General Court. The single "reservation-style" districting for a black Senator may not be the only or best approach. After Wilkerson proved to be a single point of failure, and one who failed, the tenuousness of that strategy is obvious. As we have seen and heard from myriad comments about Chang-Díaz not being dark enough to suit some pols and some voters, Boston doesn't seem ready for any post-racial world. It appears to be time to revisit the options for fair representation.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Kerry's Path Out of Economic Hell

"Now, (as during the New Deal time), we need fundamental change — not bit sized ideas that are poll tested, sound-bite ready and destined to be mere footnotes to the times we live in," U.S. Sen. John Kerry said yesterday. "It's time we end the era of inncrementalism and begin a bold new age in progressive politics."

Regular readers don't click here for newspaper-style full speech coverage. More often when I attend a political speech, I get snippets and the gist, as in Kerry's address last week at Tufts' Fletcher School.

That was one bookend of a pair. Designed as the foreign-policy/security portion, it was as much an Obama rallying cry as Kerry's ideas. In contrast, this economics address was the real thing. After the opening oral glad handing, it was all Kerry and all significant.

I didn't see the dailies in Lynn in the North Shore Community College's gym, nor do today's papers carry Kerry coverage. They truly missed out and will have to get with the program. Fortunately, Kerry's people sent the text of the speech around by email.

Our junior Senator is a key player here. Assuming an Obama victory and maybe even a 60-seat/filibuster resistant Senate majority, we can expect progressives to begin fixing the economic failures.

Podcast note: Over at Left Ahead!, we didn't do our usual Tuesday podcast, so the three of us could attend this one and get a 10-minute interview after it. We're still hoping for the real thing, but that's a start.

In Lynne, Kerry stepped up to the mic with everyone likely thinking, "Bailout. Okay. What now?" After buffeting us with a grim recounting of our national and local troubles, and how they came to visit us, he laid it out.

Kerry doesn't do folksy all that well. He started by saying "I didn't come her to be the skunk at the party" in describing the economic chaos and wall of challenges. He later roasted that chestnut about the man not sending his brother who thinks he's a chicken to a mental institution — because we need the eggs — as a metaphor for financial institutions' fantasies about the many billions of dollars of instruments that failed. The latter trope served to muddle the serious subject rather than distract from it.

What he does well is reasoned strategy and tactics. He is the candid and complete strategist that current GOP nominee and Prez pretend to be be.

His address was on national needs and solutions, but he didn't spare the local details. A home somewhere is foreclosed on every 10 seconds and 160,000 lost U.S. jobs last month (over 4,000 in Massachusetts). Also, here home values continuing to drop, recently by 9%, and five metropolitan areas in the nation's top 100 foreclosure locales.

Even in the years leading to the current crisis, "as the Dow reached an all-time high, average real income stayed flat while the cost of health card, education, food, gas and home heating oil have soared," he said, adding "I all that 'Bushonomics' (which) may be felt for some time to come."

Bitter Shot, Hope Chaser

The I-am-not-the-skunk still iterated what he said at Tufts, that the worst of the economic collapse continues. More people will lose jobs, more companies and banks will fail, and in general, we are looking at only the beginning of the recovery.

Like a true progressive though, Kerry said he was excited out the upside on the other side of this mess. That is because we have a chance, and really no option, but to fix the fundamentals. That includes finally paying the bill for our crumbling national infrastructure, much as President Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal. We can also reverse the absurd and untenable transfer of wealth from the middle class and small businesses to the top tiny percentage of people and corporations.

As my own comment not and not Kerry's, it is three decades past time to call Randist free-market scheme as practiced under Alan Greenspan, as well Reaganomics and the Bush/Bush variations for the unworkable lies they are. The crazy, irrational and often disproved trickle-down theory doesn't, hasn't and won't work. The wealthiest companies and pseudo-aristocrats almost to a one do not let their money help the plebes. It wasn't true in the 1890 or the 1990s or now.

Instead, Kerry calls for:
  • Meaningful financial-industry regulation. The GOP strategy of deregulation led to, among many defects, banks and brokerages having up to 44:1 leverage on investment, impossible to pay back when called. The crisis reflects "a profound failure to govern the market," said Kerry.
  • Bailout mandates. "(W)e still need to do more to get this right and make sure banks don’t just take taxpayer dollars—but keep their promise to lend it back to hardworking people."
  • Bailout repayment. Our now breathtaking national debt is, on paper, in for the bailout. Kerry joins the call to buy those bad assets at 10¢ to 30¢ on the original dollar. He anticipates that they will appreciate in a few years to 60¢ to 80¢ and when the government resells the mortgages and other securities, the relative profit goes back in to reduce that national obligation.
  • Infrastructure overhaul and improvement. At least $100 billion to bring efficiencies and new jobs through energy, transportation and technology is sort of a new New Deal.
  • Small biz boost. Temporarily eliminate small-business stock capital-gains taxes and providing better lines of credit for these companies. A corollary to that is eliminating tax breaks for companies who send U.S. jobs off shore.
  • Help for the poor. Costs for the poorest are up while income is steady or down. Kerry proposed temporarily increasing Earned Income Tax Credits by $300.
  • More jobs now and soon. A WPA-style set of transportation projects (59 totalling over $180 million in this state ready to go right now if funded) would put more people to work and more money in the economy
  • Help for states. Half the states already have deficits (we are looking at over $1 billion this time here). "Washington needs to send $25 billion to states for health care, education and basic social services."
The infrastructure aspect was particularly keen for Kerry both in Somerville and Lynn. Central to the program would be massive investments — through deficits if necessary (likely) — to invest in energy technologies. This would have two major aims: 1) virtually eliminating the need for petroleum fuels by innovating in solar, thermal, wind and other clean, renewable forms and 2) creating millions of new, sustainable U.S. jobs and making America the sources for licensing and leading as it used to be in computers and software. Along the ways, the hundreds of billions of dollars a year that go overseas would stay here.

Beyond the financial institution bailout, the other components make up the larger economic stimulus Kerry sees at steps to a stable future. Drawing comparisons to Roosevelt's recovery plans, he added "...in tough economic times, the government needs to step up and do what it takes to keep the lights on. Now, as then, crisis brings with it an opportunity to invest in rebuilding America. And if we’re living in the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, why not respond with the greatest national rebuilding since the New Deal?"

Kerry said it will be a slow slog out the mess that took so many so long to produce. As he put it, "This won't happen overnight, but it will happen much faster if we invest today and drive innovation in a way we haven't seen since FDR first brought electricity to million s of homes across America. " At Tufts too, he said we can't drill our way out of trouble, but we can invent our way out. I'd add that this is an economic strategy that, unlike trickle-down theor, has reason and history behind it.

He concluded with a rousing call:
History gives us moments. It’s up to us to decide what to do with them. Let’s use this one to make hardworking America more secure in the short run, stronger in the long run, and ready to make the 21st century an American century.
I actually preferred what I see as a great conclusion earlier in the address — "We don't need leaders who will tell voters, 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong.' We need leaders who will make them strong!"


Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Wilkerson Completes Self-Destruction

Legally bruised and morally bleeding, Sen. Dianne Wilkerson finished her final plunge today, with a shove from the FBI. There's little for even her faithful to do other than revile her and despair of their own naivete.

I come not to chasten the fallen former hope of Boston's black community. Let us bury her career and perhaps learn from this prolonged theater of misdoing.

Temporal Note: I had arrived in Lynn for Sen. John Kerry's speech when Wilkerson's arrest became public. I had lots of time and took a lunch rather than try to post quickly.

After numerous posts on this site (search above for Wilkerson if you must), I was ready to combine my findings with more research. It turns out that a very definitive piece that pivots on her is out there. In 2003, Commonwealth published the Michael Jonas piece Black power: Why are African-Americans still struggling to get ahead in Boston politics?

It covers:
  • The political manufacture of a minority Senate district.
  • The extreme hopes for the bright and ambitious Wilkerson.
  • The several high-profile black men and women who chose not to run for various high offices.
  • The role of various mayors and how the School Committee is chosen.
  • Wilkerson's first ignoble fall in a tax scandal.
Black, Latino and Asian constituents are nowhere near represented in the General Court, City Council or the mayoralty. Jonas described the compromises that led to a black Senate seat as well as the demographic and cultural limits on expanding representation.

We do have a smattering of minority brains on Beacon Hill and a somewhat fair Council. In total, this may not be as segregated as parts of Boston or the rest of the commonwealth, but it's pretty 19th Century.

Between scandals, Wilkerson had pledged to help increase members of color in the General Court. That seemed more bluster than action. Similarly, she had come to power by defeating ex-convict Bill Owens with the high-minded call of "We can do better. I know we can."

She was a week short of a thumping by a new reformer, Sonia Chang-Díaz. Now we'll surely never know how accurate my predictions of a big loss would have been. You would have to pretty much spit on democracy and decent government to use a sticker or write in the candidate caught on file and tape taking repeated bribes to taint her office and subvert the legislative process.

Instead, the Senate will still have a woman of color, but still only one. Yet how bitter that must be for Wilkerson supporters, even those who have been accusing Chang-Díaz of not being dark skinned enough to suit them. There, in the end, is only one person to point at for the loss of the black voice in the Senate.

We do have several black and Latino members of the House and there is a Massachusetts Black Legislative Caucus. What there doesn't seem to be is any form of effective development and mentoring to increase representation.

Jonas notes in his article that potential legislators and other pols need first to be identified and then recruited. I'd hold that in the middle, even before getting an agreement to run, they would need existing or even past lawmakers to act as mentors and to sponsor them. There's no reason the legislators need to be of the same race or culture, particularly as there are a lot more white men and women available to help.

Someone is sure to do a definitive piece or maybe even a book on Wilkerson's promise, rise and repeated stumbles, staggers and falls. That process could well reveal that there were too many expectations and pressures on the then hungry, young standard bearer. On the other hand, the understory might be that she was arrogant and without a moral compass. Regardless, it would be useful to understand why things went wrong. Yet the word that strongly comes to mind is pathetic.

As to what needs to go right, that is much plainer. Eastern Massachusetts has numerous bright, accomplished and honorable minority adults. Exactly who is willing to steer them to public service and be their sponsors or find those sponsors is another matter entirely.

Wilkerson's wipe-out is surely a bitter disappointment to many. It need not impede the overdue development of other legislators of color. It may even be reasonable for each state lawmaker to groom one or two candidates for office. That's a long process and some would drop out before running, but students and young professionals should know that making laws and representing their constituents is an option, one that it is both desirable and possible.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 27, 2008

Barney Tweaks the Twit on Marriage


Reversing their political positions, Earl Sholley is left and Barney Frank is right here. Their marriage-equality posts were plainly occupied Sunday when they debated in Wellesley.

The best coverage was in PolitickerMA. While ostensibly the three-way debate (Dem. Frank, GOP Sholley and Ind. Susan Allen, all on ballot) was about big issues, same-sex marriage provided the pop and snap.

Of course, they got to bailout differences and Allen centers on the gutlessness of Congress in not confronting the Bush administration on illegal wars, wiretapping and the like. Near the end of their hour though, the moderator asked about SSM.

I'm sorry I was not there for the theatre. Sholley unabashedly holds 19th Century positions couched in current winger terms. Frank is as strong a supporter of GLBT issues, including marriage equality. Allen turns out to go with Frank on this topic, although she has not campaigned on any related planks.

Apparently, she didn't join in the fight. She simply said, "I am pro choice when it comes to marriage. Each person has a right to marry whomever they most dearly love."

In contrast, Sholley:
  • Believes that "having gay marriage diminishes the value of the instituteion of marriage...a sacred pact between a man and a woman and it is so ordained by God."
  • States that SSM "isn't a civil rights issue."
  • Claims that homosexuality is a choice.
  • Said, "There is no gay gene."
He apparently let it out, including, "In fact, there is a lot of evidence to indicate...I believe that it's obsessive compulsive behavior it's been estimated that 80% of homosexuals were sexually abused as children. I think we should be helping these people."

For his part, Frank elicited audience cheers by calling the gay-by-abuse canard "nonexistent." He also pointed out the obvious about our years of SSM here not harming marriage at all.

Sholley had brought the frequent chant of anti-SSM types that commonwealth voters had been denied the chance to be heard on the issue. As PolitckerMA quotes Frank's response:

As far as putting the issue to a vote, Frank noted that in both the 2004 and 2006 Massachusetts statewide elections, gay marriage was a central issue on which every candidate was asked to take a side. And, Frank said, Bay State voters elected a legislature "that voted by about 77 percent in favor of same-sex marriage."

"I believe the voters do know what they are doing and I believe the voters showed their choice," he said.

A quick Net tour of Sholley citations shows his political roots and tracks. He does not fear running against established lefties. For example, he got his hat handed to him in 2000 and 2002 by state Sen. Cheryl Jacques.

In those races, he fired the full range of winger weapons, from tax-and-spend liberal to feminist agenda. He wasn't even subtle about his anti-gay angle on the openly out Jacques. "Many people don't like her lifestyle choice. She came out of the closet almost flaunting it and saying this is who I am and if you don't like it, then too bad. Her whole attitude is that she thinks that women are superior to men. This is problematic when raising children. She thinks that she can be a father and she can raise two boys and they don't have to know how they originated and who their father was. How is that going to make them feel when they get to the age of reason?"

He also divorced and became active in The Fatherhood Coalition. Men are screwed over by courts, and like that. As spokesman for the group, he seemed willing to blame a man murdering his wife and severely injuring their two daughters on not getting custody of the kids.

Nowadays, he's big on state and federal DOMA (one-man/one-woman marriage) laws. He uses MassResistance-style phrases to describe the Goodridge decision — "The judges who gave us gay marriage should be in jail or impeached at the very least. It is not their job to make law from the bench. " He has similar sentiments for the General Court — The vote "to deny the People the right to vote (reverse SSM by initiative) was elitist, arrogant, and tyrannical. It was a disgrace and a sham... most of the legislature should be voted out of office. "

When they confronted each other on SSM in Wellesley, Sholley had the disadvantage of speaking from emotion and counter to the evidence. For his part, Frank stated the obvious, "Same-sex marriage is of no concern to anyone who does not choose to enter into one."


Tags: , , , , , , ,