U.S. Senate 2012: SO Angry To Get Started, Here We Go

The 2012 campaign season has begun, and the headliner in Massachusetts is a U.S. Senate race, as Scott Brown's seat is up this year and he's facing stiff competition from Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor best known for inventing the concept of the federal consumer protection bureau.

I have been out and about collecting signatures for Ms. Warren---As discussed previously on this blog the first step in an election here is to get a candidate on the ballot by collecting signatures on nomination petitions, or "papers," as they are called.

Some early observations:

1) You are either REALLY with Elizabeth Warren, or you're just fine with Scott Brown. I have met two types of voters this year. The first is so overly enthusiastic about Elizabeth Warren defeating Scott Brown that they stop in their tracks and rush over to sign my nomination papers. The second is just kind of like-- "I am fine with Scott Brown." People who are "fine" with someone can be swayed. While current polling shows Scott Brown ahead, I think that's because people don't care about the race yet and haven't thought about the differences between Senator Brown and Elizabeth Warren on the issues. The good news for the Warren camp is that pretty much everyone signing her papers is a supporter and is willing to do a lot more to help her get elected. Typically I find that the majority of people who sign nomination papers don't really have a strong opinion of the candidate but agree that everyone should have the chance to be on the ballot. That's not the case this year.

2) A lot of people are fine with Scott Brown. I was also surprised how in the liberal bastion of Beacon Hill within this liberal city of Boston so many voters are ok with Senator Brown. This early in an election season, voters think in line with favorability, and Senator Brown's favorability numbers are currently high. People like him, and for that reason there's no rush to instinctively vote for someone else.

3) The most enthusiastic Elizabeth Warren supporters are women. I guess this is not surprising, but compared to men, women in general were more likely to have a very negative impression of Senator Brown. As a group they also were better-read about Elizabeth Warren.

4) Why am I knocking on doors in January? Granted, I have not volunteered for a lot of campaigns, but I have never been a part of a campaign that has gotten started so early in the year. I was out knocking on doors in January, which is a little ridiculous. It's a long way from January to November, and that's a lot of time for voters to change their minds. So supporters in January-- well, who knows what they are thinking come November.

This is going to be a very tough fight for Elizabeth Warren, but based on initial impressions, there is a path to victory. The key for Warren supporters like me is to convince those who are towing the favorability line that Senator Brown's views are not good for the country. You might want to have a beer with the guy, but Elizabeth Warren's ideas are better for America. I also think a lot of voters who haven't yet started paying attention yet think Elizabeth Warren's personality is the same as Martha Coakley's (she ran against Senator Brown last time). I say this because, truth be told, Elizabeth Warren would be a cool person to have a beer with, too.

I have never been a part of a campaign that has assembled so many volunteers so early in the race. I have also never seen a group of volunteers so eager to do something and so angry that there really isn't anything to do, yet.

Strong Elizabeth Warren supporters should be resting up. Because come this summer, we're going to be speaking 24/7 to anyone who will listen (and even those who won't), explaining to them that Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant success story who has already successfully created policies that are in the best interests of us all. The more they hear, the more voters will be persuaded that liking Scott Brown is just not good enough.

Elizabeth Warren-- First Impressions

A pose with Elizabeth Warren

Hanover Street, Boston

October 9, 2011

U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren stopped by the North End in Boston yesterday, ahead of the annual Columbus Day parade. I got a chance to meet her and chat with her for a brief moment. I also saw her on the campaign trail. Some initial impressions are below.

-- She's a much better campaigner than Martha Coakley. No offense to our Attorney General, but Ms. Warren appears much more at ease with voters. She has a very casual manner that voters respond to. One example: We were flanking her, alerting people walking down the sidewalk to "meet Elizabeth Warren, candidate for U.S. Senate." One innocent walker turned around to look at us, and by the time he faced front, the candidate was right in front of him. "Well, I am right here, so you really don't have a choice," she said, while extending her hand.

-- She's very quick on her feet. I asked Ms. Warren her thoughts on the recent decision by Bank of America to charge fees for debit card use. "At the very least," she responded, "the banks need to be a lot more open about these changes so they can be held accountable." A fair point, and a good answer.

-- Her husband is fantastic. While Ms. Warren was working the crowd, a few volunteers and I chatted with her husband, Bruce Mann. For the rest of this campaign, I will refer to him as "The Man." He was incredibly personable, down to earth, and a great advocate for his wife. He told great stories about how he met Elizabeth and their professional pursuits.

Above all, I think the Warren-Mann team are likeable. I would want to sit down to chat with them about life over coffee, and I genuinely think they would be interested in such a conversation as well. That bodes very well for the long campaign ahead. Thank you, Ms. Warren, for running.

Scary Scott Brown: Episode 1

I did not vote for Senator Scott Brown, but I respect that he is the current junior Senator from Massachusetts, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. At first, I was ok with some of the moves he made. He voted to pass the jobs bill, proposed by the President and other Democrats, shortly after he took office. Better yet, he was authoritative about his vote, which he delivered early in that roll call.

But this week I saw a very scary side of Scott Brown. His latest proposal would allow the United States to strip citizenship from anyone, without a hearing, if it is believed that person is a terrorist or is aiding terrorists. It is one of the most ridiculous, anti-American proposals I have ever heard of. To put it in perspective, as "The Massachusetts Liberal" points out, even Glen Beck says the proposed law is unconstitutional.

Citizenship is a cherished right, and certainly it comes with responsibilities. However, there is a constitutionally outlined process that allows the U.S. government to strip someone of its citizenship. It's called treason, and it's punishable by death. However, in the spirit of our democracy, treason must be tried in federal court. The law proposed by Brown and his equally delusional counterpart, Sen. Joe Lieberman, would allow the government to strip citizenship without trial-- without a hearing, even.

Jim Braude provided a simple example of the law's ludicrous nature during yesterday's "Jim and Margery" Show on 96.9 WTKK-FM. As he put it, certainly in the past many Irish Boston residents supported the efforts of some of the groups in Northern Ireland who were pushing for independence from the U.K. By certain definitions, those groups were terrorist organizations, meaning under the law proposed by Scary Scott, contributors to the groups could be stripped of their U.S. citizenship.

What bothers me even more is that I think, deep down inside, both Sens. Brown and Lieberman know their law doesn't have a chance to pass Constitutional muster. They made the proposal for two reasons. First, they can tell their constituents they mean business. A caller to "Jim and Margery" yesterday said, "It's about time we grew some balls." Those callers are, of course, Scary Scott's base, and they can cry liberal foul when the law is challenged by the lefties.

Second, and this scares me the most, by proposing the law, Scary Scott can "compromise" by "settling" with a second proposal that is perhaps not nearly as aggressive--but still strips Americans of there liberties. The second proposal would be like a much more powerful Patriot Act. It may or may not pass the Constitutional test, but that doesn't matter to the New England Senators. At that point, they would have tried not once, but twice, to pass a law that "simply cracks down on those citizens whose actions would indicate they don't want their citizenship anyway."

Scary, scary stuff, people.

Why Scott Brown Won

Congratulations to Massachusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown. He is a smart, capable politician, and I hope he will be a great Senator.

For the past few days, I have been listening to many political pundits note how it took "the perfect storm" for Senator Brown to win. His opponent, Martha Coakley, had the institutional advantage. Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1. This is Massachusetts, for heaven's sake. There hasn't been a Republican Senator here since... well I can't remember. And finally, we're talking about Senator Kennedy's seat. Why would voters elect someone who would counter the late Senator's life-long mission---universal health care?

For the final debate of the campaign, held yards away from the Kennedy Library on the campus of UMASS Boston, organizers asked David Gergen, political strategist and former aide to Presidents both Republican and Democrat, to moderate. The choice seemed strange to me. Certainly Gergen is politically smart. I have listened to his wise commentary many a night on CNN. However, Gergen is a political insider. I doubt he spent time talking to large numbers of Massachusetts voters before the debate. Like other analysts (and on many occasions, me), he gets caught up in the political horse race at the expense of commenting on the pulse of the public.

David Gergen, in my opinion, sealed the victory for Scott Brown during the debate. At the very least, the moment encapsulated why Brown won.

In asking Brown a question about the health care debate in Washington, Gergen turned to face Brown and, rather incredulously, noted "you're talking opposing health care reform as a Senator from Massachusetts... [dramatic pause and with emphasis] Ted Kennedy's seat."

"With all due respect," Brown quickly retorted. "This is not Ted Kennedy's seat, nor anyone else's seat. This is the people's seat."

I admit that many Massachusetts Democrats feel safe on this side of the "Blue Curtain." We often speak with hubris about the Democratic majority here. And while I don't really think that hubris showed in this race (except perhaps breeding complacency), that hubris certainly was portrayed by the media.

Gergen's question was in some ways offensive to all Massachusetts voters. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't blind me in the ballot box. I would imagine most other Democrats are not similarly naive to the issues and debates of any given race. The days of the party lever are over. Better than 20-percent of Democrats voted for Scott Brown this past Tuesday. I bet many of them were swayed by Gergen's hubris; they might have voted for Brown to spite the moderator and all others who feel Democrats here are naive to the challenges facing our country.

Everyone is hurting right now. Democrats understand that as much as anyone. I haven't enjoyed reading stories in Newsweek and BusinessWeek that say workers in my generation should look forward to years of less and less benefits and longer and longer hours, without wage increases that match inflation. We are frustrated.

Enter into this environment an election in which everyone-- including David Gergen-- just assumes Ted Kennedy's seat will go to a Democrat. The populist frustration boiled over, among independents and many Democrats.

Enter into this environment a candidate, Martha Coakley, who until the final weekend just didn't really seem to be working very hard.

Enter into this environment a candidate, Scott Brown, who jammed his schedule---meeting with regular voters---and whose pick-up truck symbolized the common person.

The perfect storm in Massachusetts was created by universal frustration and a reaction to the conventional wisdom---that because Massachusetts is a blue state, it doesn't matter. That this election doesn't matter. That the voters don't matter.

Well, we matter. And even though I voted for Martha Coakley, there's no doubt the nation was listening even to me this past Tuesday. Fundamentally, it's just another example of how our democracy is indeed working.

My Choice is Martha Coakley

It's probably not a surprise to regular readers that I am voting for Martha Coakley on Tuesday to be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. Over the past week, the temperature in the race has risen many degrees. One cannot watch a local news program without encountering numerous ads for Coakley and her opponent.

I had originally not planned to write this post; but given how the race as turned out, I feel compelled to state my reasons for supporting the Attorney General, despite the fact that I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary last month.

1) Massachusetts universal health care is not enough. While we enjoy nearly universal health-care coverage in Massachusetts, we suffer from industry wide problems, including the uncontrollable rise in health-care costs. The most attractive provisions of the health-care bills in Congress protect all of us from loss of insurance if we get sick, and they forbid insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Those provisions are not a part of the Massachusetts heath care overhaul. A vote against Martha Coakley is a vote against health-care reform so desperately needed.

2) Martha Coakley agrees with many of my international priorities. Certainly there are still those in Afghanistan that mean us harm, but the fight against terrorism is not as black-and-white as simply targeting countries or regions. Coakley believes that the right answer isn't always to send in troops. The right answer is to target our efforts based on good intelligence and recognize that this effort is truly global in nature.

3) Martha Coakley is tough. As Attorney General she's represented Massachusetts, returned money to the state's taxpayers, and remained committed to her core values. This is not a party sock puppet. Martha Coakley will stand up for what she believes in.

Tuesday's election is serious. Many of my fellow Massachusetts residents are upset. But they should not let that anger cloud their judgement about what's best for the state. And what's best is to make Martha Coakley our next U.S. Senator.

Endorsement: Congressman Mike Capuano

Making a pick in a Democratic primary is hard. All of the candidates, in general, share my opinions on almost all of the key issues. Take Cape Wind. While I loved the late Senator Kennedy dearly, he and I disagreed on Cape Wind. I love the project, think it's a model of what we should support moving forward, and think construction on the offshore wind farm should begin right away. Senator Kennedy disagreed with me.

But that's not an issue in the upcoming primary, which will pick the Democrat vying for Senator Kennedy' s seat. All of the candidates support Cape Wind.

When candidates agree on the issues, the race is about personalities, and one's pick is, by definition, personal. Political journalist R.D. Sahl summarized this race quite appropriately earlier this week. Mike Capuano, he said, is too hot; Martha Coakley, too cold; Alan Khezei, too wonky; and Steve Pagliuca, too rich.

It would appear, in my case, that I like it hot. I am voting for Congressman Mike Capuano this coming Tuesday, December 8, in the Massachusetts special Democratic primary for the United States Senate.

Congressman Capuano has reached out to me the most in this race. I received two phone calls at home inviting me to live town hall conference calls with him. In one case I got to ask him a question. I was invited to a special conference call for Boston bloggers, and I ended up writing about my conversation.

But that attention is not the reason he's got my vote. I like a lot of what the Congressman has said:

-- He's levelheaded about Afghanistan and Pakistan. Congressman Capuano disagrees with the President's decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, as do all the candidates. But the Congressman has actually been to the region. He speaks with an authority on the topic that his opponents cannot match. He also has a sophisticated understanding of the reality inside Pakistan. As a Senator, he will be looked to for leadership on the issue.

-- He doesn't apologize for his principles. Calling him hot might be a bit of hyperbole, but the point is clear. Congressman Capuano stands for what he believes in. He's passionate. He's not afraid to break a sweat or have a hair out of place in pursuit of his goals. I like it when my politicians look like they are working hard. Capuano is working the hardest in this race, in my opinion.

-- He understands how Capitol Hill works. Legislation is a process. Congress moves slowly. While my U.S. Senator should hold steadfast to their core beliefs, Senator Kennedy's biggest achievements came from compromise. And compromise requires an understanding of the ins and outs of Washington. Congressman Capuano has been there and will be able to make an impact from day one. Some of the statements made by his opponents lead me to believe they don't understand the process as well as they should.

I can't believe Tuesday is the primary. The predicted low turnout brings into the question the concept of these special elections. Think about it-- a very small group of voters who bother to go to the polls on Tuesday will be picking the potential next United States Senator, and that Senator will likely hold the seat for a very long time. After careful consideration, Congressman Capuano is my pick. Regardless of who you choose, get out and vote!

A Chat With Congressman Capuano

Last night I sat in on a call with Congressman Mike Capuano, who is running in the special election to fill the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Senator Ted Kennedy.

That seat is currently held by Senator Paul Kirk, who was appointed by Mass. Governor Deval Patrick. However, he holds the seat only until the special election, which is scheduled for January 19, 2010. The primaries for the Republican and Democratic parties are set for December 8.

I have been pretty busy volunteering for the local races in Boston this year, and I have not paid attention to the U.S. Senate race. However, I could not pass up the chance to speak to Congressman Capuano.

The call was arranged by Congressman Capuano's campaign, and it was a casual conversation with a few local bloggers. I was on one of those free conference call dial-ins, along with Mike Ball of "Marry in Massachusetts" (it was great to meet him), and an anonymous blogger from KennedySeat.com. (He says he stays anonymous so as to not upset his boss.) Mike has posted his own entry based on the call.

One of my biggest issues federally is the Cape Wind project off the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. To summarize, a private developer wants to install windmills in the open water. I support the project. Numerous federally funded reports have proven the project will not impact the environment, shipping lanes, or anything else for that matter. Well, it will impact the site lines of many residents who live on the shores near the proposed site. Cutting to the end of the story, the windmills are not up yet.

Congressman Capuano said last night he supports Cape Wind. He said that given all the studies that have been done, he sees no reason for holding up the project. He noted that the project might change slightly (maybe there will be five or 10 less windmills), but it should move forward.

I also asked Congressman Capuano about Pakistan. This week, the White House has indicated it is focused on Al-Qaeda and not necessarily the Taliban (a position I support). For that reason, Al-Qaeda activity in Pakistan could be considered more important than meeting our objectives in Afghanistan.

Congressman Capuano said that the Pakistan government has recently stepped up to the plate and is doing what it needs to do to diminish the influence of Al-Qaeda in its country.

From a page-two perspective, the most interesting part of last night's call, in my opinion, was at the beginning. Congressman Capuano explained why he was running. As an analysis, it's fair to say he's not running because of the glamour of the Senate. He spoke as if House members and Senate members are pretty much the same and can accomplish similar things.

He noted that it would take a long time for him to achieve significant seniority in the House, and for that reason, he felt a move to the Senate would help him accomplish more effectively what he finds important.

I have not made up my mind yet in the U.S. Senate race, but I have to say Congressman Capuano has impressed me of late.

WCVB Introduces "On the Record"-- Ditch the Pop Quiz

Kudos to WCVB Channel 5 in Boston. Today they launched a new show, "On The Record," which is focused on local political issues. It aired right after national political program "This Week" at 10 a.m.

One of the main reasons there's a general decay in public interest in politics is because the media doesn't cover local politics. And when they do cover them, they tend to focus on the horse race and not on the issues that matter to the people.

WCVB's "On The Record" was refreshing. It's all about local politics, and the format kept a nice pace that should even be attractive to those who don't follow the subject 24/7. It's only a half-hour, and the content wasn't nearly as dry as other local political shows (which I don't even bother to watch).

In its first episode, the show covered the Mass. Senate race. Hosts Janet Wu and Ed Harding interviewed Senate candidate and U.S. Representative Mike Capuano (he did well). The roundtable discussion following the interview focused on other candidates, noting Steve "My ad is on every 10 minutes" Pagliuca and the fact that Martha Coakley, according to one panelist, started running for the seat before former Sen. Ted Kennedy passed away (but as another panelist pointed out, is still the front runner).

I do have one serious complaint. WCVB should never ever again put a pop quiz in front of one of its guests. They sprang one on Capuano, asking very esoteric questions that I would not expect my elected officials to know off the top of their heads. Pop quizzes are attractive because they make the politicians squirm; except they don't add to the debate. Plus, now that they've done one, it will cause any future candidate to second guess whether they want to come on the show.

Great job with the new program, WCVB. But ditch the pop quiz.