The Massachusetts Senate Race: Shame on the Democrats

All of a sudden there is a groundswell of Republicanism in Massachusetts seems to be the media slogan. This liberal bastion of Massachusetts is going to vote in a Republican. Oh, my God!!! This is of course, a pile of shit. Yes, it is true the position of Senator has been dominated by Kennedy and Kerry for quite a while and democrats actually since 1979. But, what most of the pundits fail to understand, Massachusetts is not a so-called liberal state. Boston is quite liberal and Cambridge is a bastion of left wingedness (a beautiful place, like Portland, Oregon and San Francisco). It is not etched in stone, however that Ma. will elect a statewide Democrat.

Ted Kennedy had the fight of his life in 1994 against Mitt Romney and nearly lost. Ted Kennedy had a conflicted relationship with Massachusetts, he was our favored son, but one we rebuked often and scorned, but always we decided he should represent us, instead of that fortunate son, Mitt Romney, the guy who was partly from Michigan and Utah, but certainly not Massachusetts. He is after all a carpetbagger, through and through. But, we accept that too, that is part of the political landscape. Even Kerry had a tough fight in his first re-election bid against Miles Rappaport and against Weld.

And up until Deval Patrick was elected the Governor of Massachusetts, it was dominated by Republicans, from 1990 to 2007. Campaigning statewide has never been a given for Democrats, even in Senate races. I grew up in Massachusetts and actually lived there for the majority of my first 28 years of life. I have viewed politics as an observer and as an activist. Massachusetts is not liberal, at all. Where I grew up, it is full of working class people who as Jimmy Barnes said: "Working hard to make a living...They believe in God and Elvis...have denim in their veins." Northeastern Massachusetts is similar to parts of the midwest, patriotic (which means "we fight and the limousine liberals complain"), socially conservative (abortion, divorce, gay marriage very much frowned upon), not many college graduates ("those lily livered, latte drinking Ivy leaguers won't tell me what to do!") and conventionally economically liberal (pro-union, think the rich get away with murder, etc.).

These voters voted heavily for Obama on his populist message, but also voted for Bush twice, probably voted for Clinton and gave Reagan his mandate, though the state decidedly went Democrat in those elections. But, these voters sway. And these voters get more conservative as you go out West toward New York. They also don't like when you lie to them as it is easily argued Obama lied about healthcare, Wall St, etc. These voters are weary of government, but also believe it is government's job to help, unlike say in Texas where the same voters would probably call this socialism. In Ma., it is not like that, the working class folks want relief from the government and healthcare reform (as in a public option, not the current bill that is designed to piss everyone off). So, they are pissed and in my opinion, rightly so. The democrats, though I hope win don't deserve this, at all.

Martha Coakley seems to be a bad candidate. She thought the seat was hers, didn't really want to work hard and Brown populism took over. He just may have enough in his tank. He is a good looking candidate, who doesn't have to say much, can contradict himself all over the place and not have to answer for it because he is riding a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment. But, Brown also has a ceiling. The democratic registration far outweighs a lot of the anti-incumbency. If the Dems get the vote out , they can win, period. If they don't it is going to be a nail biter.

I would have predicted Coakley a day or so ago, but it seems like a perfect storm and if I were a guessing man, I might lean Brown right now. Shame on the Democrats.

I'm Voting Republican

Clinton Gets Her Way and Still Wants to Appeal

Donna Brazile, formerly campaign manager of the Al Gore Campaign and political pundit and in my mind has done a lot this election cycle to represent the old democratic party, but to realize we are ushering in a new democratic party. She sums up how I feel towards the end of this exchange. "My Mama taught me to play by the rules...and when you don't it is called cheating."



I am sure many folks did not watch this thing like I did. But, the message from the Rules Committee was unity. We need to be unified. All agreed except the Hillary Clinton campaign. She was there (her campaing was) as well as Mr. Ickes, on the Rules Committee to change the rules and make them count as if these primaries mattered. It is disgusting. And she might as well be a Republican and as sore a loser as you can find.

They are now threatening to take this to the convention because she did not get exactly what she wanted. Though, the full delegates of Michigan and Florida are seated (with half votes each) and she netted about 30 delegates yesterday. If she is so concerned about the voters they just got what they wanted, seated delegates. Everyone knows the contests did not count! Remember?!

Regardless, the new magic numbers is 2118 for the nomination and Obama is 66 delegates away. See you on Tuesday.

Hillary Set to Win Tonight

Predictions:

Here are the latest polls for both Ohio and Texas. Hillary Clinton is surging after her fearmongering commercial, her endorsement of John McCain and the interruption by the Canadian government as well as the Rezko issue.

My predictions for tonight are as follows:

Rhode Island: 55-45 HRC

Vermont : 63-37 BO

Ohio: 54-46 HRC

Texas: 49-48 HRC

She still will not have enough delegates to even make a dent, in fact it is likely if Obama does not get the Texas primary he will get the caucus and will get more delegates. Hillary will have bragging rights after tonight, but that is all she will have. And it will be time for her to get out. But, her strategy is clear. Win tonight in Texas in Ohio (if she doesn't win both she has to get out), keep the pressure on Barack, keep pushing the fearmongering and keep pushing the Rezko issue, seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, win in Pennsylvania and then hope Obama makes some mistakes and loses his cool, grip or something else. Because even with her strategy going 100 percent in her favor, she still loses in pledged delegates.

But, believe it, she will go on after tonight no matter what happens. Daily Kos disagrees with me however and is giving Obama the nod by far. I am just not believing it.

The Stimulus Plan from Congress is Pathetic

I think all agree that an economic stimulus plan was needed for our failing economy. Because of all the political banter here and everywhere, the real issues in our lives are obscured, by who we think would sit in the oval office chair the best. So, last night I watched the Republican debate for as long as I could take it (about 13 minutes) and saw that basically all of the Republican candidates liked the stimulus package. They thought we should also rip the hearts out of poor people and give it to multinational corporations too, but felt overall it was not so bad. It got me to thinking if they liked it - it must be pretty pathetic. Along comes Paul Krugman to give the real story.

Here it is. "Aside from business tax breaks - which are an unhappy story for another column - the plan gives each worker making less than $75,000 a $300 check, plus additional amounts to people who make enough to pay substantial sums in income tax. This ensures that the bulk of the money would go to people who are doing O.K. financially - which misses the whole point."

So, the democrats caved once again to the staunch right wing agenda of this administration? What for? Is it because they think we are as stupid as Republicans? That anything that gets passed in Congress is at least doing something?

Just a few days ago the plans were focused "on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

Krugman also says: "there was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn."

The problem, Krugman says is this administration refuses to sign on to anything that does not qualify as a "tax cut." Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration's commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it's most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.

So, besides "some concessions" by the administration the Republicans got what they wanted. We get $300 that will do absolutely nothing for us as an economy and to get our economy moving in any direction.

It looks like it is going to be a long winter.

The Democratic Party: We. The. People.

This is the message I can get behind.

A Blank Check for W

The Democrats are preparing to give George W. Bush a blank check on Iraq. In 2006 Nancy Pelosi stood before us and said the days of a "do nothing" Congress are over along with her counterpart Harry Reid. The Democratic Congress has failed to stop the war effort by the Rethuglicans, but have at least promised no more blank check. Yet, Roll Call reports a blank check is exactly what may be given. Despite their rhetoric about not wanting to hand President Bush another “blank check” for the Iraq War, Democrats appear poised to give him exactly that — enough cash to keep the war going full steam for as long as six months, no strings attached.

Democratic leaders continue to fear GOP attacks that cutting off or slowing funds would hurt the troops, despite anger among the Democratic base over the party’s failure to use Congress’ power of the purse to end the war," reports the Capitol Hill newspaper's Steven T. Dennis.

As adamant as they say they are about tying war funding to deescalation timetables, Democratic leaders appear even more firmly against an overall cut-off of war funds, which critics say may be their only recourse to actually effect a draw-down of troops from Iraq.

"Sure we have the power on anything to stop the money ... but the thing we have to do is make sure we do it the right way," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on a liberal radio show last month. "It's not a question of all or nothing; it's a question of making sure we do the right thing."

Congress approved billions in extra funding and stopgap spending resolutions after Gen. David Petraeus' testimony on Capitol Hill in September. Next up is the regular Defense spending bill, which Democrats are crafting to allow funding to be diverted from regular Pentagon accounts to fund the war, according to Roll Call. Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) told the paper that the Defense Department would be able to maintain the war "until May or June" with the extra flexibility.

This says it best: "As long as leadership is not willing to challenge the way the president is hiding behind the troops," the aide said, "they're going to continue to get rolled." We were hoodwinked in November. There is no other way to say it. If we want this war to end the Democrats have proven they are not the messenger.

Political Courage

Barack Obama joined John Edwards on Monday in going after Hillary Clinton’s support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama said of Hillary that she voted in 2002 for the Iraq resolution (also written by Senator Lieberman) to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq. He said the Kyl-Lieberman amendment does virtually the same thing as to Iran. He said: “And her willingness to once again extend to the president the benefit of the doubt I think indicates that she hasn’t fully learned some of the lessons that we saw back in 2002.”

I tend to agree with him though, Obama never showed up for the vote. He said of that the vote was not close and while campaigning one has to make decisions on when he will show up for the vote. He said he put out a clear statement of his opposition to the amendment. Fair enough, though it sounds a little cunning and wanting it both ways, which quite frankly has been the criticism of Obama up to this point from progressives. Edwards on the other hand (who does not have the ability to vote) did oppose it from the inception and said: “You’ve got George Bush out there rattling his saber about going to war in Iran. The last thing we need to do is give that guy any authority on the first step to move forward. So, I do differ with Senator Clinton about this,” said Edwards on The Ed Schultz Radio Show.

All this talk reminded me of my political hero Paul Wellstone. Almost five years ago (October 25, 2002) Paul Wellstone was taken from us in a tragic plane crash (that took his wife and three others with them). Wellstone was a progressive maverick and to date some have said, "the only 1960's radical ever to be elected to the Senate." During the 2002 election season Wellstone was in the political fight of his life against now Senator Norm Coleman. Instead of caving to the saber rattling going on over Iraq and the inevitability of war, Wellstone stood up to the Senate in what he said "in politics, I believe it is always best to do what is right."

Below is a clip on the type of politician Wellstone was and a clip of a speech he makes on Iraq in October, 2002. He argues why we should not be giving President Bush the ability to go into Iraq (nevermind Iran) in the midst of a heated campaign. During this time I was recovering from a terrible car accident (on hiatus from law school) and thinking about joining Mr. Wellstone's campaign for the final two weeks, especially after hearing this speech. I planned on attending the anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday and then going to Minnesota by Monday, but I never got there. Wellstone died in a plane crash on Friday, the 25th, a day I will never forget. Politics is a dirty game, but Wellstone elevated it to what Bobby Kennedy called an "honorable profession." He was remarkeable and today (five years later) most of our elected officials cannot muster up this kind of courage though nearly the entire American apparatus supported this war. Where have you gone Paul Wellstone?

The Democrats in Search of...Here is Hoping They Find it

Thanks to Magda Flores