Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Snark-Infested Waters by Mike Bailey

Subscribe  |  Share    |  Print

Follow me on Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

The week in politics

Friday, February 19th, 2010

I hardly know where to begin this week!

Well, a coin toss decided I should start with the news that Republican Thomas F. Keyes of Sandwich has taken what I’d consider a very bold move and announced he plans to run for State Senator of the Plymouth and Barnstable district – which could put him on the ballot against Senate President Therese M. Murray (D – Plymouth).

Why is this a bold move? Consider, first of all, that Sen. Murray is one of the three top dogs in state government, and while I hate to invoke the whole “clout” issue, let’s be realistic: it would be bad for the Cape to lose that kind of leverage in the Senate.

Sen. Murray has also personally spearheaded two major government reform initiatives over the past four years, one aimed at health care and the other, launched last week, at economic development. To really put that one in perspective: Sen. Murray’s “Sunshine Act” legislation seeks to, in one fell swoop, reduce wasteful government practices and improve economic development efforts, two of this year’s hot talking points.

Then there’s the money. Sen. Murray ended 2009 with more than $140,000 sitting in the war chest, and she knows how to generate campaign funding. Gripe as you will about money in politics, it’s a harsh reality Mr. Keyes would have to face should he join Sen. Murray on the ballot in November.

What does Mr. Keyes bring to the table? He is a former two-term Sandwich selectman, a former member of the Sandwich Economic Development Council, and is in the middle of his first elected term on the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates (he is currently the deputy speaker).

That’s a thin résumé to put up next to Sen. Murray’s curriculum vitae, and I don’t care what the mood of the electorate is, you can only play the “government outsider” card to limited effect against such a strong incumbent candidate.

Is this an insurmountable challenge? No. Is it an uphill battle? Oh, yeah…call it a direct assault on the sheer vertical face of Mount Murray.

Ah, but there is one thing that could yet radically chance the complexion of this brewing race, which leads me to the next big news…

***

…which is the growing speculation that Congressman William D. Delahunt (D) is not going to run for re-election this year. The Boston Globe reported last week that Rep. Delahunt is considering retiring from life as an elected official, but the congressman said this was all part of his biennial deliberations over whether to run again.

“Every election cycle, I take my time, I think it through, and I think, not about whether I can win or lose, but: ‘Am I in a position to make a difference?’ ”Rep. Delahunt told the Globe. “Can I achieve what I want to achieve outside of public life?” He insisted that his decision would not be influenced one way or the other by US Senator Scott P. Brown’s victory last month, which continues to reverberate throughout the Massachusetts political scene.

A formal announcement is coming next month, and two big names have already emerged as possible torchbearers for the Democratic Party should Rep. Delahunt bow out: Conan O’Brien look-alike Joseph P. Kennedy III…

I think it's a damn shame they're giving your show back to Leno...

I think it's a damn shame they're giving your show back to Leno...

…and — wait for it — Sen. Murray.

Sen. Murray told the Globe she thought Rep. Delahunt would come back to run again (and win again, she predicted), but if he doesn’t run? Her tune could change very quickly.

More on this situation as it develops, but one word of warning: anyone who thinks that sticking a Kennedy in this race would produce a sure-fire win for the Democrats is fooling themselves.

***

One last random note on the brewing 10th Congressional district situation: there’s been some talk that Doug Meehan, who grew up on the Cape and was recently let go from his gig as WFXT/Fox 25’s helicopter reporter, would throw his hat into the increasingly crowded ring as a Republican.

A Republican working for Fox News? I’ve never heard of such a thing!

There are already three confirmed GOP candidates: State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry (R – Sandwich), Ray Kasperowicz of Cohasset, and Donald A. Hussey of Hingham. Joseph D. Malone of Scituate, a former two-term Massachusetts state treasurer and candidate in the 1998 gubernatorial race, and State Senator Robert L. Hedlund (R – Weymouth) have expressed an interest in running but have not yet made formal commitments.

Peter A. White of Mashpee is also in the race as an unenrolled candidate.

***

A couple reminders for upcoming campaign events: Rep. Perry officially launches his congressional campaign on Friday, March 5 at the Cape Codder Resort in Hyannis starting at 7 PM.

Republican Randy Hunt of Sandwich, who is hoping to succeed Rep. Perry in the Legislature, has his campaign kickoff event on Tuesday, March 9 at the Sandwich Hollows Golf Course from 5 PM to 7 PM. Rep. Perry will be the evening’s guest speaker.

***

Rep. Perry, by the way, will be opening his Cape-area campaign office tomorrow at 10 AM. It’s located at Heritage Plaza (337 Cotuit Road, Building B) in Sandwich, so swing by for the 10:30 AM ribbon-cutting to meet the candidate and pick up your signs, bumper stickers, and other Perry-phernalia.

(Rep. Perry, you’ll owe me a quarter every time you use that one.)

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net

The Clean Election Pledge

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Well, the special election has totally soured me on politics.

That is not a statement about the results, but rather the process — more specifically, the tactics both the major candidates resorted to throughout the campaign. Forget for a minute who cast the first stone and focus on the fact both Martha Coakley and Scott Brown engaged in negative campaigning (yes, Brown supporters — it happened), disseminated misleading and sometimes entirely false information about each other’s credentials and positions, and allowed outside parties to only exacerbate the situation by tacitly supporting their aggressive and at time borderline slanderous ads (in that neither candidate did anything to renounce ads taken out on their behalf but without their express consent). (more…)

The week in politics

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

And the winner is…State Senator Scott P. Brown (R- Wrentham)!

And I gotta tell you, I’m not surprised to be writing this. Martha Coakley made some disastrous missteps in the later weeks of the campaign: tossing out the first harshly negative TV ad; passing on local campaigning to attend functions in DC; and bringing in the President, which absolutely smacked of desperation, just to name a few.

In short, this was Martha Coakley’s race to lose, and she did, spectacularly. Her complacency and garden-variety weak campaigning cost her what I think was, very early on, a sure-fire victory.

Whether Sen. Brown now lives up to his promises to be an independent voice in the US Senate is the big question now, but if he proves just another party loyalist, expect the Dems to make a major push to reclaim the seat in 2012.

Meanwhile, the immediate repercussions of Coakley’s loss could be significant. For a Republican to defeat a Democrat to claim the late Ted Kenney’s seat in Blue State Massachusetts could serve as a HUGE rallying cry for the GOP in the coming regular election cycle, and we could see a major party resurgence this year after several years of foundering.

Was Senator-elect Brown’s victory a mandate by the voters? Debatable; a five percent margin of victory in and of itself is hardly a mandate, but considering the surrounding circumstances, it’s clear voters were sending a message.

Was that message in essence a repudiation of the Obama Administration? Hardly; one man does not a repudiation make, and I’m sorry, while Obama hasn’t been as aggressive in making his much-ballyhooed changes as he said he’d be, it’s unrealistic to expect eight years of damage by the Bush Administration to be magically fixed in a year.

Nevertheless, every Massachusetts Democrat now has a target on their backs, and it should be interesting to see who goes gunning for whom.

As for Coakley herself, her post as Massachusetts Attorney General is now very vulnerable. Her blood is in the water, and the GOP would be remiss not to capitalize on it.

Look for detailed coverage of the special election elsewhere in this section, and in the front section of the Enterprise for town-by-town results.

***

As if on cue: we have a possible race for a local legislative seat!

Last week David T. Vieira of Falmouth said he was considering running against State Representative Matthew C. Patrick (D – Falmouth) this year. Mr. Vieira, who oversees the Cape’s Triad programs through the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Department and is finishing his 10th year as Falmouth’s town moderator, has filed his paperwork Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance and expects to make a final decision on his candidacy soon.

I’m hopeful he’ll go for it. I expect Mr. Vieira would run a solid campaign against Rep. Patrick, now in his fifth term, and a robust campaign is always a good thing (particularly for voters, who would actually have to give some serious thought about who to vote for).

If he runs, Mr. Vieira would be the third Republican to challenge a Democratic incumbent in the Cape delegation; folks have already popped up to challenge State Representatives Cleon H. Turner (D – Dennis) and Sarah K. Peake (D – Provincetown).

I want to see the trend continue, until we have a chock-a-block full ballot. That said, I don’t expect anyone to announce a run against Senate President Therese Murray (D – Plymouth). She has some crazy cash in her war chest – she ended 2008 with more than $150,000 – and from a strategic standpoint, losing her would greatly diminish the region’s clout in the State House, and the Cape and Islands cannot afford that (literally or figuratively).

Who is the most vulnerable to the GOP? That would be State Representative Timothy R. Madden (D – Nantucket). First-term legislators are generally good targets because it’s easy to claim they haven’t done anything of substance. While this is technically true – precious few freshman lawmakers get anything huge accomplished in their first outing – it’s also a bit disingenuous for the same reason.

***

Now that the US Senate special election has wrapped, expect the race for governor of Massachusetts to take center stage as The Big Race. There are five people in the mix right now: incumbent Deval L. Patrick; Timothy P. Cahill, the state treasurer, who is running as an independent; and Republicans Christy P. Mihos and Charlie D. Baker Jr.

Number five is Jill E. Stein of the Green-Rainbow Party, who announced her candidacy earlier this month. Dr. Stein ran for secretary of the Commonwealth in 2006 and for governor in 2002 (and got trounced in both races).

While Mr. Mihos has been a bit more active than his Republican rival in the early days of the campaign, it looks like Mr. Baker has been quietly building a well-financed support base. The Boston Herald reported last week that Smilin’ Charlie Baker raised $1.85 million in the last five months of 2009—twice the amount Gov. Patrick raised over the course of the entire year.

If Mr. Baker can put some substance behind the spending and put in some solid work into getting his name and message out to voters, he could be the man to beat in the primary and—dare I say it?—in the general election. Despite its widespread Blueness, Massachusetts has never been hesitant to put a Republican in the Corner Office; 20 of the state’s 34 governors since 1900 have been Republicans.

However, a recent poll by the Boston Globe suggests that neither GOP hopeful will prevail in a three-way race against Gov. Patrick and Mr. Cahill. About a third of those surveyed currently back the incumbent, despite his low approval ratings, with Mr. Cahill coming in second. Regardless of who represented the GOP, that man came in third.

I can’t take this poll seriously, not this early in the process. If this had come out, say, in October, I’d say the Republicans are in deep trouble, but a lot can change over the next 10 months.

***

Speaking of our treasurer (part the first), a fellow by the name of Brian J. Herr has filed his paperwork with the OCPF as a candidate for state treasurer. Mr. Herr, a Republican, is currently a selectman in the town of Hopkinton. He was elected to that post in 2007 and this year is the board’s chairman.

He joins Democratic candidate Steve Grossman.

***

Speaking of our treasurer (part the second), Mr. Cahill has chosen his running mate: former state representative Paul Loscocco. “As a former Republican, Loscocco makes the ticket truly bipartisan and independent, helping the campaign represent the 51 percent of Massachusetts voters who are not affiliated with either major political party,” read a press release from Cahill’s camp.

***

So with AG Coakley not going anywhere, where does that leave Democrat William Keating, Norfolk County district attorney and a former state senator? The man who threw the state Senate in a tizzy back in 1994 when he challenged William M. Bulger for the Senate presidency he’d held for 15 years announced his candidacy recently, but will that change with Coakley potentially staying put?

His campaign website is up at www.billkeating.org.

***

Over in the surprisingly active race for state auditor – five candidates so far! – Republican Earle Stroll has launched his campaign website at http://stroll2010.com, and Democrat Michael E. Lake has his site up at www.electmikelake.com.

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net

For more political commentary, visit Michael’s blog “Snark-Infested Waters” at http://capenews.net/blogs/snark-infested_waters/

The week in politics – special editior director’s cut

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Happy New Year, everyone!

Normally I would only now be welcoming everyone to the triumphant return of my weekly political column, but thanks to the US Senate special election this puppy has been rolling for a few months now. Yet, in about two and a half weeks that election will be over and, hopefully, the state and local races will start to pick up.

And this year stands to be fairly active as all our constitutional officers – governor and lieutenant governor, secretary of the Commonwealth, attorney general, treasurer, and auditor – are up for re-election along with all state legislators. More locally, the positions of Barnstable County sheriff and Cape & Islands district attorney are up for grabs, along with one seat on the Barnstable County Board of County Commissioners. (more…)

The week in politics

Friday, December 11th, 2009

I’ve gone into detail elsewhere in this section, but in case you’re the type who jumps right to this column so you can groove to my wit and wisdom, Attorney General Martha Coakley and State Senator Scott P. Brown (R – Wrentham) won Tuesday’s primary race and will now face off in the January 19 special election for the seat previous held by the late US Senator Edward W. Kennedy.

As a wise parrot once said, I could have a heart attack and die from not surprise over the results.

Now, to address pieces of business old and new. The old business: after last week’s issue I heard from a few people who wondered why Stephen G. Pagliuca and Alan A. Khazei got the full interview treatment while everyone else got mini-profiles.

It’s very simple: if they bothered to return my phone calls and made time for me, they got interviewed; if they blew me off, they didn’t.

The exception to this rule is Sen. Brown. By mutual agreement we’d planned to get together after the primary election since, at the time, he was the only Republican running — then Jack E. Robinson popped up at the 11th hour. After speaking with him about this, he said he was cool following our original game plan and we will be getting together soon.

Presumptuous, you say? In principle, yes, but it’s hard to hold it against him in light of his opponent; Robinson simply was not a viable candidate, especially when he appears in the race at the 11th hour and apparently goes out of his way not to make himself especially visible.

Or maybe Sen. Brown has a low-grade precognitive ability and predicted Robinson’s defeat, along with AG Coakley’s win; the day before the election, Sen. Brown issued a press release challenging the Democratic candidate to “tell the special interests to stay out of the Massachusetts special election.”

Sen. Brown was referring specifically to a $214,000 radio ad campaign funded by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in support of AG Coakley.

“It reinforces the perception that she is the candidate of the status quo who will protect big government spending programs at the expense of taxpayers,” Sen. Brown said in a press release. “Martha Coakley needs to tell the big government unions to stop trying to buy this election. This election can’t be bought and we should let the people decide without any outside interference. We should be looking out for the people’s interests and not the special interests.”

Uh, Sen. Brown? Question over here. The SEIU represents (as per their website): “nurses, LPNs, doctors, lab technicians, nursing home workers, home care workers…local and state government workers, public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers…workers who protect and clean commercial and residential office buildings, and…private security officers and public safety personnel.”

Are you saying the SEIU is a big government union – slash – special interest and not looking out for “people’s interests”? They seem pretty people-interest-oriented to me. Just sayin’.

Follow-up question: will you be returning the $1,000 donation from the United Services Automobile Association Employee PAC, which represents employees of the USAA, which provides insurance and financial services to military personnel? Or the $4,500 from Mitt Romney’s “Free and Strong America PAC,” which supports candidates who conform to an arch-conservative platform? Or are those not big government unions and/or special interests?

And what about the PAC money you received in your 2008 state senatorial campaign? Will you be returning any donations from the PACs representing Bank of America, the Mass. Credit Union League, the FMR LLC (Fidelity), MA Correction Officers Federated Union, the MBTA Police Association, the Association of Builders and Contractors, the Fraternal Order of Police, Insurance Agents and Brokers of Massachusetts, the Mass. Association of Realtors, the Mass. Hospital Association…

Again: just sayin’.

(FYI: the above lists provided courtesy of, respectively, the Federal Election Commission and the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.)

Now, I’m not trying to insinuate that AG Coakey’s campaign is free of PAC influence because it sure ain’t – 27 PAC donations and counting! – but if Sen. Brown is going to play the “refuse special interests money” card, he should play by the same rules.

Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net

The GOP is looking for a few good drones!

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Lookee what I found online: a new proposed doctrine from Jim Bopp Jr., a member of the Republican National Committee, which is officially entitled the “RNC Resolution on [Ronald] Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates.” More direct sorts have dubbed it the “Republican Purity Test” since Mr. Bopp is proposing that GOP candidates for elected office check off which of 10 statements they agree with, knowing that failure to agree to at least eight will disqualify them from any RNC support, financial or otherwise.

The 10 points are:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

No no no. Too wordy. Let me pare that down a bit, make it leaner and meaner:

1) We agree to abandon our common sense, individual wills, and desire to do what is best for the American public, and mindlessly follow RNC leadership on every issue; and, when in doubt, automatically oppose anything a Democrat says, does, or proposes..especially if it’s that Obama guy.

The Irony Fairy obviously tapped this document with her magic wand, since there is also a passage that reads:

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views…

Diverse views? You welcome them? Really?

I think this is a good point for this…

Interesting that this should pop up so soon after the GOP royally blew what should have been a slam-dunk victory in the recent special election for the New York 23rd Congressional seat by backing a third-party candidate over the registered Republican because the latter was not conservative enough (she then left the race and endorsed the Democrat). Shout-outs by the usual suspects (Rush, Palin, etc.) weren’t enough to buoy the non-resident non-interesting conservative-but-not-Republican candidate to victory over the Democrat, who captured a seat that had been held by the GOP for 160 years.

One hundred sixty years.

All flushed down the bog because the Republican wasn’t Republican enough by the RNC’s increasingly narrow standards.

That’s talent.

What’s particularly bothersome about this Republican Purity Test is not how it asks candidates to be good little cookie-cutter drones, but how it asks them to voluntarily reinforce the attitude that is impeding the country’s ability to move forward effectively on anything. If anything is steering the country in the wrong direction — to borrow a favorite GOP euphemism for “We’re bitter because we’re not leading the parade anymore” — it’s our elected officials’ slavish loyalty to party dogma and the entailing knee-jerk opposition to anything coming out of the…well, opposition.

(And yes, I am applying that to the Democrats too. They’re every bit as bad.)

I would like to offer up my own resolution for politicians to review, and my stipulation: if you can’t agree to every single one of these statements, you have no business in public service.

1 ) I support a government that is responsive to its constituents and honors the will of the voter, even if that will is contrary to my personal opinions

2 ) I will do my best to communicate the intricacies of an issue, in a clear and factually accurate manner that does not reflect my own subjective opinions, to my constituents so they may make informed decisions, and will actively seek their input before acting on a matter to ensure my vote reflects their will

3 ) I support a government that engages in efficient and responsible spending, and if faced with a choice between making personal sacrifices and placing additional financial burden on the public, I will make any and all reasonable sacrifices first

4 ) I will base my decisions on hard data, common sense, and above all, on what is in the best interests of all people; I will not automatically oppose an idea based on the party affiliation of the individual(s) proposing it and/or its disagreement with my own party’s philosophies

5 ) I will disregard any outside influence on my decisions by lobbyists, special interests, and the leadership within my own government; only my constituents may influence my vote

6 ) I will not hesitate to speak out against my own party — its leadership or its members — if I honestly believe they are not acting in the public interest

7 ) If I ever abuse the public trust and act in a manner unbecoming of my station, I will immediately accept full responsibility for my actions by resigning my office and relinquishing all claim to any perks or benefits I would otherwise be entitled to

8 ) If defeated in an election, I will honor the voice of the voters and gracefully accept that defeat; I will not re-enter the race under legally valid and ethically dubious conditions in the selfish interest of keeping my job

9 ) I will endeavor to recognize when and if I become ineffectual as a legislator, and when that time comes I will voluntarily bow out of the next election to make way for someone with new energy and ideas

Got any you’d like to add?

Other blogs

Follow us on Facebook

Advertisement