Josh Dawson and Jay Livingstone have put their lives on hold for the Boston residents of Beacon Hill, Back Bay and the West End. They are running to be the State Representative for those neighborhoods. A race that began in late January, with the resignation of the previous representative Marty Walz, reaches its presumptive end on May 28, when voters will pick either Livingstone and Dawson in a special primary.
The district they seek to represent at the State House, the 8th Suffolk, is heavily Democratic-- and both Livingstone and Dawson are Democrats. Whoever wins the primary on the 28th will ultimately win the final election on June 25.
All candidates say their races are important; most even say their elections are "the most important." It's a cliche. And I am not going to argue that this election on May 28 is more important than what might be going on Memorial Day weekend. However, elections without an incumbent are very rare in Massachusetts. The winner on May 28 may be our State Representative for a long time. So I am asking anyone reading this who lives in Beacon Hill, Back Bay or the West End in Boston to vote on May 28.
When I speak to voters, they express concerns about what is going on next door. Here on Beacon Hill, a major effort is under way to earn a local public school (even more local than the school proposed for a site near North Station). Residents also worry about local development; a relatively recent proposal to build a large structure where a garage is near City Hall met fierce opposition. Voters also worry about trash and safety. They care about the Esplanade and traffic created by construction on public road ways.
These are local concerns. Our local elected officials impact them. Which is why you should vote in your local elections, such as the special primary for the 8th Suffolk State Representative on May 28.
State Representatives vote on budgets that give money to local municipalities, helping them provide education, public safety and public services. They protect the pubic parks owned by the State. They make sure values the voters care about are reflected in state legislation.
If you live in the 8th Suffolk district, you might not know that your district has a long rich history of representation. Former Congressman Barney Frank held the seat. As did a man with the last name Roosevelt. It's considered an activist seat; it's owner is known for being particularly loud in representing its constituents. Representative Walz often spoke on issues that the State House doesn't even have jurisdiction over, including local education and development issues. Voters in the 8th Suffolk district have come to expect-- even demand-- to see their State Rep everywhere.
State Representatives matter. This Tuesday, May 21, the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee will host an event to talk about how they matter. The 7 p.m. panel at the Community Church of Boston at 565 Boylston Street will feature former State Rep Paul Demakis and current State Reps Aaron Michlewitz and Byron Rushing.
The polls will be open on May 28 from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. There won't be a line. Take a few minutes to review the websites for the two candidates, Josh Dawson and Jay Livingstone. They differ on key issues. Download a free voters' guide from the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee. Make a decision and get out there and exercise your right to vote.
Experts I have spoken to say the turnout on May 28 will be about 1500. That ridiculously small number will decide who represents the West End, Beacon Hill and Back Bay on what most voters say are their number one issues. That small number will pick the person who we will expect to be omnipresent in local affairs. That small number will help define the political feelings of this area in Boston for months to come. I urge you to be one among that small number.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
What the Governor Has in Common With Simpson/Bowles
You probably don't remember this, but long before the sequester there was the Simpson/Bowles Commission. The same agreement that created the sequester created the Commission. President Obama and the Republican leadership ended the debt ceiling debate during the summer of 2011 by asking the commission to come up with ways to reduce the debt, ideas that would be passed by Congress so that the cuts demanded by the sequester would not be needed.
Simpson/Bowles stands for former Senator Alan Simpson (a Republican) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (a Democrat). The commission they led submitted ideas late in 2011. The ideas were pretty universally derided. Why? Because they included things Republicans hate and things Democrats hate. So everyone pretty much hated it.
The Simpson/Bowles Commission recommendations included a lot of things I liked. They talked about changing the tax code, dramatically, so it would both be more progressive and would create more revenue. They talked about reforming many entitlement programs so they would last, without their being destroyed or ruled insolvent in the years ahead.
Defenestrated in 2011, almost everyone agrees now the Simpson/Bowles ideas were good ones.
Which brings me to this year's budget plan, proposed by Governor Deval Patrick, to raise revenue in Massachusetts. A lot of people don't like it, because the plan both raises taxes and reduces them. The plan lays bare the reality that to deal with transportation and infrastructure issues, the state needs money. And it goes about raising that money in a way that's fair.
I like the Governor's plan because it makes taxes fairer. It raises income taxes while lowering the sales tax. Everyone needs to buy things, so the sales tax universally benefits all residents and businesses. Meanwhile, the income tax is progressive, as you make more and experience more wealth, you are asked to contribute more. And in the end, those who make the least benefit the most, which makes sense as they have the least to give.
The initial reactions to the Governor's plan from many state legislators was pretty negative, because it includes ideas anathema to today's political discourse--namely taxes. I am hoping that, like with the ideas from the Simpson/Bowles Commission, time will ease initial passions, and the Governor's plan will ultimately pass.
Simpson/Bowles stands for former Senator Alan Simpson (a Republican) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (a Democrat). The commission they led submitted ideas late in 2011. The ideas were pretty universally derided. Why? Because they included things Republicans hate and things Democrats hate. So everyone pretty much hated it.
The Simpson/Bowles Commission recommendations included a lot of things I liked. They talked about changing the tax code, dramatically, so it would both be more progressive and would create more revenue. They talked about reforming many entitlement programs so they would last, without their being destroyed or ruled insolvent in the years ahead.
Defenestrated in 2011, almost everyone agrees now the Simpson/Bowles ideas were good ones.
Which brings me to this year's budget plan, proposed by Governor Deval Patrick, to raise revenue in Massachusetts. A lot of people don't like it, because the plan both raises taxes and reduces them. The plan lays bare the reality that to deal with transportation and infrastructure issues, the state needs money. And it goes about raising that money in a way that's fair.
I like the Governor's plan because it makes taxes fairer. It raises income taxes while lowering the sales tax. Everyone needs to buy things, so the sales tax universally benefits all residents and businesses. Meanwhile, the income tax is progressive, as you make more and experience more wealth, you are asked to contribute more. And in the end, those who make the least benefit the most, which makes sense as they have the least to give.
The initial reactions to the Governor's plan from many state legislators was pretty negative, because it includes ideas anathema to today's political discourse--namely taxes. I am hoping that, like with the ideas from the Simpson/Bowles Commission, time will ease initial passions, and the Governor's plan will ultimately pass.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Race to Fill The 8th Suffolk Seat-- Update
The sprint to fill former Representative Marty Walz's Massachusetts State House seat-- the 8th Suffolk-- is underway across Back Bay, Beacon Hill and the West End in Boston. Two of those neighborhoods-- Back Bay and Beacon Hill-- sit within Boston's Ward 5. This race could not get more local... or personal.
Ten days ago, the three announced candidates running for the seat-- Nils Tracy, Jay Livingstone and Josh Dawson, appeared before the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee. They each spoke for a few minutes in front of the committee.
Here are a few observations on the race, to this point:
It's a sprint, but it certainly feels like a long sprint.
The first step in the process of running for office in Massachusetts involves gathering signatures for a petition to place a candidate on the ballot. This process is well underway. However, only 150 certified signatures are required to get a candidate on the ballot (certified meaning the petition was signed by a registered voter living in the district [and for the appropriate party, as necessary for the primary]).
While gathering signatures is not easy (trust me), 150 is not a lot. By contrast, those running in the special senate race here need 10,000 certified signatures. Moreover, candidates still have well over a month to collect signatures. There still is plenty of time to decide to run.
The candidates are not shy about crossing the river.
All three declared candidates live in Boston (two on Beacon Hill and one in the Back Bay). The 8th Suffolk district includes a nice portion of Cambridge, including MIT and, fittingly, Cambridge's Ward 5. I have heard of the candidates making the trek across the river quite frequently. It not only makes sense from a standpoint of retail politics, but everyone is waiting to see if a Cambridge candidate emerges in the race.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a Republican.
The district is heavily Democratic, and in certain areas, it's very progressive. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the final election.
Discussions of issues have yet to emerge.
It's probably not worth dissecting the candidates stances on the issues. There will be time for that later in the race, and it's fair to give the candidates room to learn more about the district and to cement their own views.
It is fair to say at this point that no candidate has made one issue the central focus of their campaign. For example, no one is the "anti-casino" candidate. Of course, this could change as the campaign runs its course.
The special primary in the 8th Suffolk Representative race is scheduled for May 28, and the final election is scheduled for June 25.
NOTE: I have decided to stay publicly neutral in this race. Two of my close friends are running.
Ten days ago, the three announced candidates running for the seat-- Nils Tracy, Jay Livingstone and Josh Dawson, appeared before the Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee. They each spoke for a few minutes in front of the committee.
Here are a few observations on the race, to this point:
It's a sprint, but it certainly feels like a long sprint.
The first step in the process of running for office in Massachusetts involves gathering signatures for a petition to place a candidate on the ballot. This process is well underway. However, only 150 certified signatures are required to get a candidate on the ballot (certified meaning the petition was signed by a registered voter living in the district [and for the appropriate party, as necessary for the primary]).
While gathering signatures is not easy (trust me), 150 is not a lot. By contrast, those running in the special senate race here need 10,000 certified signatures. Moreover, candidates still have well over a month to collect signatures. There still is plenty of time to decide to run.
The candidates are not shy about crossing the river.
All three declared candidates live in Boston (two on Beacon Hill and one in the Back Bay). The 8th Suffolk district includes a nice portion of Cambridge, including MIT and, fittingly, Cambridge's Ward 5. I have heard of the candidates making the trek across the river quite frequently. It not only makes sense from a standpoint of retail politics, but everyone is waiting to see if a Cambridge candidate emerges in the race.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a Republican.
The district is heavily Democratic, and in certain areas, it's very progressive. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the final election.
Discussions of issues have yet to emerge.
It's probably not worth dissecting the candidates stances on the issues. There will be time for that later in the race, and it's fair to give the candidates room to learn more about the district and to cement their own views.
It is fair to say at this point that no candidate has made one issue the central focus of their campaign. For example, no one is the "anti-casino" candidate. Of course, this could change as the campaign runs its course.
The special primary in the 8th Suffolk Representative race is scheduled for May 28, and the final election is scheduled for June 25.
NOTE: I have decided to stay publicly neutral in this race. Two of my close friends are running.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Want State Rep. Marty Walz's Seat? Read Here First
Yesterday, my state representative, Marty Walz, resigned her seat to take a position with the Massachusetts Chapter of Planned Parenthood. To say this news was a surprise is a massive understatement. Representative Walz was re-elected just this past November, and as recently as earlier this week she was active on her Facebook page, posting data to support a cause she believes is right for her constituents.
But alas, Representative Walz's seat will be open soon, which means a special election to fill her seat. Numerous would-be successors are contemplating a run to replace her. Some of them are my friends, which will no doubt put me in an awkward situation very soon. And the issues the candidates will address are equally personal to me.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said, "All Politics is local," and the politics of a Boston state representative cannot get any more local. A state representative's district in Boston includes fewer constituents than any other elected office (including Boson City Councilor).
To those considering running for Representative Marty Walz's seat, here are the big issues needing your immediate attention. I apologize that these issues have such as Boston tilt, given the district includes part of Cambridge, but it's the reality based on where I live.
1) A downtown neighborhood school.
With the recent attention to Mayor Menino's school section reform committee, and competing initiatives from Councilor Connolly, the first question to any candidate for Rep. Walz's seat will be: "Do you support the need for a downtown neighborhood public school?" Heck, given how almost everyone downtown wants a neighborhood school, the follow-up question might end up being the first question: "How are you going to make a downtown neighborhood school happen?"
A few neighborhoods that currently do not have a public school, the West End, Back Bay and Beacon Hill, all fit nicely and neatly in Rep. Walz's district.
Merely advocating for a downtown school overlooks the far more complicated and important challenge of making Boston's schools better, which I agree is probably the City's number one priority. If you build a local school downtown, how do you decide who gets to go there? Certainly it cannot just be for kids living downtown. And how does the provincial issue of a downtown school address the need to make all of Boston's schools more community-centric?
While the issue of schools is primarily one for the City and not the state, the local state representative can use the position to be a strong advocate for the community.
2) Potential elimination of the BRA.
Many progressive voters in Rep. Walz's district don't like the Boston Redevelopment Authority. They will eagerly vote for a candidate supporting the BRA's destruction. But the BRA isn't going anywhere, and the popular answer overlooks the larger issue of transparency with regard to Boston development.
If you really ask people why they don't like the BRA, they tend to point to transparency. The irony of course is the BRA exists to make the development design process as transparent as it can be, given that no project will earn 100-percent support of all affected constituents.
3) The casino.
In my opinion, there hasn't been enough talk about how a casino built in East Boston will affect economic activity in Back Bay. I saw first hand how a casino can have a dramatic, negative impact on local business, based on my formative years growing up in Connecticut. Per state law, only East Boston gets to vote on whether a casino should be built there, which dramatically under-represents the impact the casino will have on other Boston neighborhoods. Large droves of would-be Newbury Street shoppers will go to the casino instead of downtown. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong. Therefore, downtown interests must be weighed within the casino debate, and the state representative for Back Bay and Beacon Hill needs to lead this advocacy.
4) Institutional expansion
Beacon Hill is surrounded by big entities hoping to get bigger. Suffolk University and Mass General are two examples. Some of my neighbors believe the mere presence of these institutions is detrimental to the neighborhood. Certainly left unchecked, their desires could run afoul to the best interests of residents. However, it would be equally detrimental if the institutions picked up and left. There has to be a balance.
***
I have been to many local political debates where the oratory stays high level. Candidates will uniformly talk about clean parks, safe streets and good schools. But in the upcoming special state representative race, the devil is in the details. Many voters will look for black and white answers to one or more of the issues above as a litmus test for their vote. I fear that many of my fellow residents will ignore the nuanced nature of each of issue, casting aside candidates who consider alternatives to a downtown public school, for example, or those who try to extend an olive branch to local organizations like Suffolk.
I admit it will be hard for me to vote for a candidate who supports the casino. But I will try to avoid a litmus test in this race. From what I am hearing so far, I might have several candidates to evaluate.
To the candidates, now is the time to study up.
But alas, Representative Walz's seat will be open soon, which means a special election to fill her seat. Numerous would-be successors are contemplating a run to replace her. Some of them are my friends, which will no doubt put me in an awkward situation very soon. And the issues the candidates will address are equally personal to me.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said, "All Politics is local," and the politics of a Boston state representative cannot get any more local. A state representative's district in Boston includes fewer constituents than any other elected office (including Boson City Councilor).
To those considering running for Representative Marty Walz's seat, here are the big issues needing your immediate attention. I apologize that these issues have such as Boston tilt, given the district includes part of Cambridge, but it's the reality based on where I live.
1) A downtown neighborhood school.
With the recent attention to Mayor Menino's school section reform committee, and competing initiatives from Councilor Connolly, the first question to any candidate for Rep. Walz's seat will be: "Do you support the need for a downtown neighborhood public school?" Heck, given how almost everyone downtown wants a neighborhood school, the follow-up question might end up being the first question: "How are you going to make a downtown neighborhood school happen?"
A few neighborhoods that currently do not have a public school, the West End, Back Bay and Beacon Hill, all fit nicely and neatly in Rep. Walz's district.
Merely advocating for a downtown school overlooks the far more complicated and important challenge of making Boston's schools better, which I agree is probably the City's number one priority. If you build a local school downtown, how do you decide who gets to go there? Certainly it cannot just be for kids living downtown. And how does the provincial issue of a downtown school address the need to make all of Boston's schools more community-centric?
While the issue of schools is primarily one for the City and not the state, the local state representative can use the position to be a strong advocate for the community.
2) Potential elimination of the BRA.
Many progressive voters in Rep. Walz's district don't like the Boston Redevelopment Authority. They will eagerly vote for a candidate supporting the BRA's destruction. But the BRA isn't going anywhere, and the popular answer overlooks the larger issue of transparency with regard to Boston development.
If you really ask people why they don't like the BRA, they tend to point to transparency. The irony of course is the BRA exists to make the development design process as transparent as it can be, given that no project will earn 100-percent support of all affected constituents.
3) The casino.
In my opinion, there hasn't been enough talk about how a casino built in East Boston will affect economic activity in Back Bay. I saw first hand how a casino can have a dramatic, negative impact on local business, based on my formative years growing up in Connecticut. Per state law, only East Boston gets to vote on whether a casino should be built there, which dramatically under-represents the impact the casino will have on other Boston neighborhoods. Large droves of would-be Newbury Street shoppers will go to the casino instead of downtown. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong. Therefore, downtown interests must be weighed within the casino debate, and the state representative for Back Bay and Beacon Hill needs to lead this advocacy.
4) Institutional expansion
Beacon Hill is surrounded by big entities hoping to get bigger. Suffolk University and Mass General are two examples. Some of my neighbors believe the mere presence of these institutions is detrimental to the neighborhood. Certainly left unchecked, their desires could run afoul to the best interests of residents. However, it would be equally detrimental if the institutions picked up and left. There has to be a balance.
***
I have been to many local political debates where the oratory stays high level. Candidates will uniformly talk about clean parks, safe streets and good schools. But in the upcoming special state representative race, the devil is in the details. Many voters will look for black and white answers to one or more of the issues above as a litmus test for their vote. I fear that many of my fellow residents will ignore the nuanced nature of each of issue, casting aside candidates who consider alternatives to a downtown public school, for example, or those who try to extend an olive branch to local organizations like Suffolk.
I admit it will be hard for me to vote for a candidate who supports the casino. But I will try to avoid a litmus test in this race. From what I am hearing so far, I might have several candidates to evaluate.
To the candidates, now is the time to study up.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
States With No Destination Cities
I am in Connecticut this week at the Levanto beach compound in South Lyme. Earlier this week, my college friend Lauren and I were discussing the bad rap that New Jersey gets (she's from there). I must admit I know New Jersey in two ways: The large oil and gas containers that are alongside the New Jersey turnpike on the way to D.C., and, of course "The Jersey Shore."
Lauren and I think that New Jersey's problem from a PR perspective is the state really doesn't have a "destination city," or a city that people associate in a positive way with the state. Massachusetts has Boston. Maine has Portland. What does New Jersey have? Newark? You don't hear excitement when someone says: "I am going to Trenton!" And let's face it, Atlantic City just doesn't cut the mustard here.
Of course, Connecticut has the same problem. Hartford isn't really high on the list of vacation hot spots, and few realize that Connecticut's largest city is actually Bridgeport, and you don't want to go there.
Yet there's nothing really wrong with Connecticut and New Jersey. They are fine states. And those from each will talk passionately about them. Lauren says the water in New Jersey creates exceptionally tasty pizza, so much so that certain restaurants have their water imported. As for Connecticut, I must say there are many days in Boston when what I really want is a nice large Italian grinder to go, from a grinder shop in Norwich. But they don't deliver to Boston.
Ironically enough, in my adult life, I have more connections to New Jersey than Connecticut. Which is why there will be a day when I travel there, and venture off the New Jersey turnpike into the real New Jersey. Let's hope Snooki and her baby are out of state.
Lauren and I think that New Jersey's problem from a PR perspective is the state really doesn't have a "destination city," or a city that people associate in a positive way with the state. Massachusetts has Boston. Maine has Portland. What does New Jersey have? Newark? You don't hear excitement when someone says: "I am going to Trenton!" And let's face it, Atlantic City just doesn't cut the mustard here.
Of course, Connecticut has the same problem. Hartford isn't really high on the list of vacation hot spots, and few realize that Connecticut's largest city is actually Bridgeport, and you don't want to go there.
Yet there's nothing really wrong with Connecticut and New Jersey. They are fine states. And those from each will talk passionately about them. Lauren says the water in New Jersey creates exceptionally tasty pizza, so much so that certain restaurants have their water imported. As for Connecticut, I must say there are many days in Boston when what I really want is a nice large Italian grinder to go, from a grinder shop in Norwich. But they don't deliver to Boston.
Ironically enough, in my adult life, I have more connections to New Jersey than Connecticut. Which is why there will be a day when I travel there, and venture off the New Jersey turnpike into the real New Jersey. Let's hope Snooki and her baby are out of state.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Mass. Primary September 6-- I already voted
As many of you know, I am off to Charlotte in about a week for the Democratic National Convention, where I am honored to serve as a delegate.
It a crazy twist of irony, while I am in Charlotte there will be an election in Massachusetts-- the state primary is scheduled for Thursday, September 6.
Now don't get me started on why the primary is on a Thursday. Long story short, many objected to holding the primary on September 11. The Tuesday before, is right after Labor Day, and waiting later than September 11 would interfere with religious holidays. [In case you're wondering, I think the election should be held on September 11; there's nothing more patriotic than voting!]
Since September 6 is the day President Barack Obama will address delegates in Charlotte, for the first time since moving to Massachusetts, I am voting in the primary by absentee ballot. I guess you could say it's part of my preparations for the trip to the convention.
Among the contested races on my Democratic ballot, here were my choices:
Clerk of Suffolk County, Civil Division
I voted for my friend Mike Dash, a fellow Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee member. Mike is a good guy and will be a fresh face for the office.
Clerk of Suffolk County, Criminal Division
As much as I hate to do it, I left this race blank. I don't know enough about the challenger to make a good judgement on the race.
Suffolk County Register of Probate
I voted for Sal LaMattina, the current Boston City Councilor. As many have pointed out, it's strange that this post is elected by the people, given it's not really a political office. However, I have known Councilor LaMattina for a long time as a hard working public servant. I believe he will do an excellent job in this role.
The other races on my ballot were uncontested, though for the record, I did cast a vote for Elizabeth Warren to be our next U.S. Senator.
Don't forget to vote on September 6!
It a crazy twist of irony, while I am in Charlotte there will be an election in Massachusetts-- the state primary is scheduled for Thursday, September 6.
Now don't get me started on why the primary is on a Thursday. Long story short, many objected to holding the primary on September 11. The Tuesday before, is right after Labor Day, and waiting later than September 11 would interfere with religious holidays. [In case you're wondering, I think the election should be held on September 11; there's nothing more patriotic than voting!]
Since September 6 is the day President Barack Obama will address delegates in Charlotte, for the first time since moving to Massachusetts, I am voting in the primary by absentee ballot. I guess you could say it's part of my preparations for the trip to the convention.
Among the contested races on my Democratic ballot, here were my choices:
Clerk of Suffolk County, Civil Division
I voted for my friend Mike Dash, a fellow Boston Ward 5 Democratic Committee member. Mike is a good guy and will be a fresh face for the office.
Clerk of Suffolk County, Criminal Division
As much as I hate to do it, I left this race blank. I don't know enough about the challenger to make a good judgement on the race.
Suffolk County Register of Probate
I voted for Sal LaMattina, the current Boston City Councilor. As many have pointed out, it's strange that this post is elected by the people, given it's not really a political office. However, I have known Councilor LaMattina for a long time as a hard working public servant. I believe he will do an excellent job in this role.
The other races on my ballot were uncontested, though for the record, I did cast a vote for Elizabeth Warren to be our next U.S. Senator.
Don't forget to vote on September 6!
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Endorsement: President Barack Obama
The funny thing is, before he ran for President the first time, I kind of liked Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. I did not vote for him when he ran for Governor here in 2002. But mid-way through his term, I was seriously considering voting for him when I assumed he would run for re-election in 2006 (which would have been my first vote for a Republican candidate, ever).
Governor Romney supported the rights of women and was pro-choice. He argued passionately for universal healthcare in Massachusetts, and he convinced me as to its merits. He was a moderate reformer who in many states would have been considered a Democrat.
Then Mitt decided to run for President. And ever since then, I have not been able to recognize the man. He's suddenly pro-life. He's suddenly closed off even to the idea of same-sex marriage. His universal healthcare law here is suddenly no longer the right prescription for the country's healthcare system.
Most of Mitt's changes on policy are not explainable. But his strategy from a PR perspective is to keep repeating his new, Republican-friendly policy positions until everyone will forget to ask why he's changed his mind---on all of them.
But we have not forgotten here in Massachusetts, and perhaps that's why Mitt trails President Obama here in polls by 20 points or more. Think about that. A Presidential candidate this year is not only going to lose his home state, he's going to lose in embarrassing fashion. Perhaps that's why, like on so many other issues, Romney waffles on which state is actually his home. It's Michigan ahead of the primary there. It's Utah when he's there. It's New Hampshire when he's interviewed on TV. But make no mistake, on election day, Mitt will have to travel to Belmont, Massachusetts to cast his own vote.
It baffles me that anyone would even consider voting for a man who has flip-flopped so much, who insulted world leaders on a recent trip abroad, and who claims to not even know when his own wife's participation in the Olympics will take place. Vice President Cheney was proud of his daughter's marriage to another women---even with the political consequences. But because his wife is associated with a sport that is positioned as elitist, Romney is programmed to not care about the sport, or his wife's involvement.
I would be laughing if it were not for the fact the polls are close. And that's why I will be working my butt off this Fall to earn re-election for President Barack Obama. I will be voting for President Obama in November. I will also be voting for him in early September when I serve as a delegate at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
Trust me, I am wary of some of the things the President has done. I wish he would have done more when he had the chance to pass climate change legislation, as an example. But when it comes to this election, and this time, there's just no question among the candidates who is better equipped to lead our country.
As the President would say, "so, let's review":
-- President Obama reformed our healthcare system, including codifying many rules that are just human: eliminating the proclivity of insurance companies to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, mandating coverage for young adults on their parents' policies, and eliminating lifetime caps on insurance benefits. This is NOT a government takeover of healthcare, and if you look at the monetary estimates, the law as written will reduce government spending. (I know, that's not what we've heard repeated many times from Republicans, who again believe if you say it enough times, people will assume it's true.)
-- President Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. He has been focused since day one on taking on those who wish to harm the United States where they are actually located (in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq).
-- President Obama fully supports equal protection under the law for all Americans, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. This is in lockstep with where our country is headed. We are a diverse, supportive bunch. As President Clinton famously said in the 90's, our diversity is our strength. We must embrace it and not go backwards. On women's rights, I was frankly embarrassed by some of the views Mitt Romney had to stand next to during his party's primary fight. No doubt he will change his views this summer. He has to, as the Republican stances are out of step with where the country needs to go.
The biggest criticism of the President from voters at large is his handling of the economy. The problem with the economy right now is uncertainty. The ironic truth is that the President has been certain in his prescription for the economy. However, since Congress is not doing anything, it's creating uncertainty. The further irony is that Mitt Romney has not said anything about how he would help the economy. If anything, his election would create more uncertainty for businesses of all sizes.
When I first thought to write this column, I was going to relate this year's election to that of 1996. Then, as now, a Democrat was seeking re-election. That Democrat had ideas that would move the country forward (remember "the bridge to the 21st century"?). His opponent was a respected Republican who preferred the nostalgia of the past. I was going to talk about how elections are not times for nostalgia; they are times to look forward.
Except comparing Bob Dole to Mitt Romney is an insult to Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is a caricature of a candidate, saying what he needs to say so people will like him. He said what he needed to say when he was my governor to potentially convince me to vote for him back in 2004. I urge you: Don't be fooled now.
Governor Romney supported the rights of women and was pro-choice. He argued passionately for universal healthcare in Massachusetts, and he convinced me as to its merits. He was a moderate reformer who in many states would have been considered a Democrat.
Then Mitt decided to run for President. And ever since then, I have not been able to recognize the man. He's suddenly pro-life. He's suddenly closed off even to the idea of same-sex marriage. His universal healthcare law here is suddenly no longer the right prescription for the country's healthcare system.
Most of Mitt's changes on policy are not explainable. But his strategy from a PR perspective is to keep repeating his new, Republican-friendly policy positions until everyone will forget to ask why he's changed his mind---on all of them.
But we have not forgotten here in Massachusetts, and perhaps that's why Mitt trails President Obama here in polls by 20 points or more. Think about that. A Presidential candidate this year is not only going to lose his home state, he's going to lose in embarrassing fashion. Perhaps that's why, like on so many other issues, Romney waffles on which state is actually his home. It's Michigan ahead of the primary there. It's Utah when he's there. It's New Hampshire when he's interviewed on TV. But make no mistake, on election day, Mitt will have to travel to Belmont, Massachusetts to cast his own vote.
It baffles me that anyone would even consider voting for a man who has flip-flopped so much, who insulted world leaders on a recent trip abroad, and who claims to not even know when his own wife's participation in the Olympics will take place. Vice President Cheney was proud of his daughter's marriage to another women---even with the political consequences. But because his wife is associated with a sport that is positioned as elitist, Romney is programmed to not care about the sport, or his wife's involvement.
I would be laughing if it were not for the fact the polls are close. And that's why I will be working my butt off this Fall to earn re-election for President Barack Obama. I will be voting for President Obama in November. I will also be voting for him in early September when I serve as a delegate at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
Trust me, I am wary of some of the things the President has done. I wish he would have done more when he had the chance to pass climate change legislation, as an example. But when it comes to this election, and this time, there's just no question among the candidates who is better equipped to lead our country.
As the President would say, "so, let's review":
-- President Obama reformed our healthcare system, including codifying many rules that are just human: eliminating the proclivity of insurance companies to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, mandating coverage for young adults on their parents' policies, and eliminating lifetime caps on insurance benefits. This is NOT a government takeover of healthcare, and if you look at the monetary estimates, the law as written will reduce government spending. (I know, that's not what we've heard repeated many times from Republicans, who again believe if you say it enough times, people will assume it's true.)
-- President Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. He has been focused since day one on taking on those who wish to harm the United States where they are actually located (in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq).
-- President Obama fully supports equal protection under the law for all Americans, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. This is in lockstep with where our country is headed. We are a diverse, supportive bunch. As President Clinton famously said in the 90's, our diversity is our strength. We must embrace it and not go backwards. On women's rights, I was frankly embarrassed by some of the views Mitt Romney had to stand next to during his party's primary fight. No doubt he will change his views this summer. He has to, as the Republican stances are out of step with where the country needs to go.
The biggest criticism of the President from voters at large is his handling of the economy. The problem with the economy right now is uncertainty. The ironic truth is that the President has been certain in his prescription for the economy. However, since Congress is not doing anything, it's creating uncertainty. The further irony is that Mitt Romney has not said anything about how he would help the economy. If anything, his election would create more uncertainty for businesses of all sizes.
When I first thought to write this column, I was going to relate this year's election to that of 1996. Then, as now, a Democrat was seeking re-election. That Democrat had ideas that would move the country forward (remember "the bridge to the 21st century"?). His opponent was a respected Republican who preferred the nostalgia of the past. I was going to talk about how elections are not times for nostalgia; they are times to look forward.
Except comparing Bob Dole to Mitt Romney is an insult to Bob Dole. Mitt Romney is a caricature of a candidate, saying what he needs to say so people will like him. He said what he needed to say when he was my governor to potentially convince me to vote for him back in 2004. I urge you: Don't be fooled now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
