Newton Mayor David Cohen announced today that he will not be seeking reelection to a fourth term next year. As discussed here just last week, Cohen has seen his popularity plummet recently in the wake of the Newton North High School construction project.
This announcement brings a number of questions to mind:
1) What effect will this have on the hotly contested override vote scheduled for May 20th? Is it more likely to pass now that people know he is not running, and thus perhaps voters feel less urgency to send him a message by voting against it?
2) Two candidates have already declared an interest in running for mayor: US Navy Intelligence Specialist Setti Warren and Alderman Ken Parker. Which one benefits more from an open seat?
3) What caused him to make this decision? Did he finally realize that his popularity was simply too low to gain a fourth term?
In any event, this is another interesting development in what is shaping up to be quite a busy year and a half in Newton politics, leading up to next year's mayoral election.
(Thanks EaBo -- We can always count on our GOP friends for a dig at Hillary ...
Seriously, this is it. A nasty little swan-song for what could have been a terrific campaign, but lacked in vision, organization, energy, trust, and optimism. And the Clinton campaign will end not with a bang but a whimper, and not a moment too soon.
I really did not mean to sound like Andrew Sullivan. But there it is.
Where are our superdelegates on endorsements? Are all accounted for? - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
I have said time and time again that Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win the presidency. Including race baiting. Don't believe me, well can you tell me who, "hard-working Americans, white Americans" are?
She will do anything. I'm just waiting for the July surprise when the Clinton campaign goes nuclear. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Hoo lordy, this is just plain desperate: As part of the health care cost-control plan, Sen. President Murray has proposed to eliminate pharma companies' bribes gifties to doctors. And now WAAAAATCH OUT! Glaxo's gonna pull up stakes and ship right out!
It's so obvious: Our health care waste-spending is someone else's revenue stream. But make no mistake -- this jacked-up threat is a sign of Glaxo's weakness. The threat is such that it exposes how little a case Glaxo has on the merits. Just a straight-up power play, but it's just got to be a bluff. Glaxo's got all of 115 jobs here; we've got a huge pot-sweetener on the way in the biotech bill (as Glaxo's CEO even acknowledges), and we've got the inherent brainpower advantages that we've always had. Life sciences are cookin' in MA -- who doesn't want some of that action?
Furthermore, their complaints about what the bill does and doesn't do are straight-up FUD -- in other words, horsehockey. Docs can still talk to reps. Docs can still even work for pharma co's. They just can't take those nifty gifties. Clear as day.
The response by Patrick and DiMasi's spokespeople has been very very weak tea indeed:
A spokeswoman for DiMasi said the speaker opposes “criminalization” of gift giving, though wouldn’t comment further.
A spokesman for Patrick said Murray’s bill contains “really good ideas” but the governor is still reviewing the gift-ban provision.
Lame. Not exactly Profiles in Courage time -- particularly surprising from DiMasi, seeing as he's the man most responsible for Chapter 58, which law's very existence is threatened by rising health care costs.
If you want to contain costs, you gotta piss some people off. Massachusetts' immense strengths in the biotech mean a hell of a lot more than banning their right to (legally) bribe docs.
Call the bluff, everyone. (There are a lot more to come.)
Jay Tea at Wizbang has prompted me finally to do something I should have done a week-and-a-half ago -- to thank Wavemaker (former state rep Peter Morin) for having EaBoClipper, Jay Tea and myself to talk to his blogging/politics class at Tufts. Lots of fun -- terrific, probing, and unexpected questions from the class and Peter ... and that's not even to mention the pizza, the NH doughnuts (courtesy of Jay Tea) and the super-nifty and thoughtful door prizes. (These are really awesome -- thanks Peter.)
Jay accurately recounts an exchange we had towards the beginning of class. Jay was recounting the Most Glorious Scalp-History (Dan Rather, et al) of the right-wing blogosphere. He ran down the Jamil Hussein/Burned Alive saga, about which I frankly knew little. (To make a long story short: In late 2006, right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin questioned the existence of AP's source in a story on atrocities in Baghdad, and the extent of the atrocities reported.)
But I find the emphasis on refuting one event in the context of a massive catastrophe to be akin to fiddling while people burn. So while Jay was speaking, I was rude, and snapped --
[Charley:] "are you saying that atrocities aren't happening over there?"
[Jay:] I answered so quickly that I didn't even realize what I'd said: "if there are so many, why do people have to make them up?"
That off-the-cuff response has been rattling around in the back of my mind, collecting debris and detritus, until it snowballed into a full-blown thesis:
When did "fake but accurate" become an accepted standard? Especially in politics?
Damn good question. And maybe it's because people don't see what's in front of their faces.
I'm glad to have inspired such a heartfelt post in praise of such noble ideals. It's just damned ironic to hear a cheerleader for the "greatest strategic disaster in American history" deliver us a lecture meditation about "chosen fables."
This Saturday, May 10, Jason Lewis is opening up his campaign office here in Stoneham. We've just moved into the office here and I want to invite the BMG community to the grand opening.
This will be a chance to talk to Jason, check out the new office, meet the staff, have some food and refreshments, and hear about how the campaign is going.
We'll begin the festivities with a ribbon cutting ceremony at 1pm and later we'll make some staff introductions and hear from Jason.
It will be a lot of fun, so I hope you all can make it.
To RSVP please e-mail info@electjasonlewis.com or you can call our office at 781-572-3045.
See you there!
Full disclosure: I'm now the Deputy Campaign Manager for the Jason Lewis campaign.
Rep. Jamie Eldridge invites you to join him, Governor Patrick, Senator Pam Resor and former Senator Bob Durand in Hudson on Monday, May 12. Jamie is kicking off his campaign for State Senate.
The Kick-off begins at 6:30 PM at the Hudson Portuguese Club at 13 Port Street. This should be a fun event and a chance to hear our Governor and a great candidate. In addition to the free event, there is a private reception immediately preceding from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM at $200/ticket. To attend this event contact Mat Helman at RSVP@JamieEldridge.com or call our campaign headquarters at 978-929-2975.
Jamie is familiar to the denizens of BMG. He was our endorsed candidate last summer and we had a great BMG volunteer day and party around his campaign. You can consider his kickoff to be another BMG Party!
Jamie is very much a part of the blogger community. He attended the BlogLeft event up at Lynne's last month. It would be great to have a good crowd on Monday for Jamie and for the Governor.
I look forward to seeing you on Monday. And if Governor Patrick, Jamie Eldridge, Senator Pam Resor and Senator Bob Durand are not enough to get you there, this is a chance to meet ME, Kate Donaghue. What else can I say? I mean I do have BMG personID number 134. If that doesn't get you there, what will?
(A controversial and provocative idea! - promoted by David)
I've been contemplating the possibility of taxing private college endowments since I read an article in the WSJ last year about how elite college endowments are now being managed like hedge funds. Simply, this is not behavior fitting for a non-profit tax entity.
So I'm pleasantly surprised to read today what the House is up to :
Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.
Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5 percent annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions. The proposal, which higher education specialists believe is the first of its kind across the country, drew surprising support at a debate on the State House budget last week and is attracting attention in higher education circles nationally.
I think this beats cigarette taxes and casinos. I also think a significant portion of the revenue should go to the UMass system and community colleges. What are your thoughts?
I don't hate the conservative Pioneer Institute, I really don't. I've quoted their stuff here liberally. They've done interesting work on housing vis-a-vis zoning, did a nice report on crumbling bridges ... all fine and well and interesting.
Unfortunately, the two bigwigs at Pioneer, Charles Chieppo and Jim Stergios, recently wrote a tendentious and uninformative piece for Weekly Standard, with the already dull riff that "Obama:Prez::Patrick:Gov; and that's real bad!". (This was followed up by a similar piece bythe so totally not partisan Jon Keller for ... the Wall Street Journal op-ed page.)
You might think things are going pretty well here, with the laughable lengths they go to to make the Governor look bad. The name-calling ("Patrick has proven to be little more than a machine politician") should be a tip-off that they really don't have much to work with. First, they criticize a supposedly Patrick-packed Board of Ed for turning down a (ie. one, "1") charter school application, and then this:
Even the Boston Globe, which enthusiastically endorsed Patrick, is losing patience. In February, it published an editorial calling on the administration to support charter schools and to reject the "pre-1993 state of flat expectations, phony promotions, and torpid teaching."
"Losing patience?" Here's the op-ed. The Globe advocates for a position, sure, but our Pioneer friends are flatly mischaracterizing its tone:
THE PATRICK administration's education priorities should come into focus with the spring release of its 10-year strategic plan - the so-called Readiness Project - for classroom improvements. Until then, one reliable way to judge the administration's commitment to innovation is to track its willingness to expand charter schools.
Acting Commissioner of Education Jeff Nellhaus has recommended that the state Board of Education approve four new charter schools at its Tuesday meeting. [...]
Governor Patrick expressed unequivocal support for the MCAS test in a recent interview at the Globe. His support for the new charter school applications would also show that he wants no part of any retreat to the pre-1993 state of flat expectations, phony promotions, and torpid teaching.
So here's the kicker: The Board of Ed approved three of the four charter school proposals, turning down the application that even the Globe admitted would be "contentious". Not everything the Globe wanted, to be sure; but wouldn't that information have been useful to Weekly Standard readers?
Well, as they say in Italy, Se non e vero, e ben trovato ... Unfortunately, there's a dissonance between the useful, empirical stuff they often do, and the willful distortions of the WS piece. Too bad, really.
A panel investigating the safety of a controversial research laboratory being built by Boston University will hold a public meeting next week at the State House. The panel, commissioned by the director of the National Institutes of Health, will meet from 9 a.m. till noon May 16 in Gardner Auditorium. Members of the public will be able to address the scientists. The panel was convened after the National Research Council, an independent board of scientists, issued a report in November sharply critical of NIH's earlier safety reviews of the project.
That meeting is probably your last, best chance to give your views to the people making important decisions about the biolab.
The SJC heard arguments in two interesting cases today: Flomenbaum v. Commonwealth, in which the SJC considers whether the Governor had the authority to fire the state's chief medical examiner after learning that his office lost track of a body that ended up in the wrong grave (surely the answer should be "yes," but in the past the SJC has shown an IMHO distressing willingness to intrude into decisions that should be committed to the executive branch); and Carney v. Attorney General, in which the owner of one of the state's two dog-racing tracks will try to invalidate the proposed 2008 ballot question that would ban dog racing.
Paul Reville, Governor Patrick's Chair of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, came out in favor of a form of merit pay for teachers. The Globe reports:
Governor Deval Patrick's top education adviser came out in favor yesterday of changing the way public school teachers are paid - backing higher salaries for those who take posts in the most challenging schools; who teach hard-to-staff subjects such as math, science, and special education; and who work in schools with dramatically improved performance....
Patrick opposes merit pay for individual teachers but supports rewarding all teachers in a school that raised test scores.
Reville's more detailed comments are in line with this general philosophy, which Patrick outlined during his campaign, according to Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan.
That's what I remember from the campaign too -- awarding merit pay not teacher by teacher, but school by school. I like Reville's idea. The teachers' union, however, does not:
The concept of rewarding individual teachers for improved test scores has long been supported by reformers, but drawn the ire of unions, which was the case again yesterday.
Anne Wass, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the largest teachers union in the state and a strong Patrick supporter, rejected any merit pay based on students' test scores - even if given to all teachers at a school....
The only changes the union would support, she said, are increasing the salaries of all those in high-poverty, low-performing schools as an incentive for teachers to work there.
But that seems far too limited. Nothing wrong with encouraging teachers to work in difficult schools -- and Reville's idea includes that. But if students at a school are improving, obviously the teachers are doing a good job, and they should be rewarded. Hard to see what's objectionable about that.
You'd think the likes of Jon Keller and the Pioneer Institute, who have gleefully trashed Patrick's education policies in general -- and Reville in particular -- would be pleased by this development. So far, no reaction, beyond a snippy post from the Pioneer gang who were apparently annoyed that the Gov himself didn't greet US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings (update: which Pioneer has had to recant -- turns out it was Spellings who was the no-show). Whatever. We'll keep you posted. UPDATE: Pioneer responds here -- they like it! Hey Mikey!
The Mayor of Newton, David Cohen, who has been under fire lately for the $200 million high school among other things, has suggested a 28% pay raise for himself. His current pay is about $98,000. Good luck with that, Mr. Mayor.
What is all this nonsense about the ban on tipping American Airlines' skycaps at Logan Airport? What is the big deal? If people want to tip the skycaps a buck or two for checking their bags at the curbside, why shouldn't they? And it's hard to see American's new policy banning tips as anything other than obvious retaliation against the skycaps for winning their lawsuit against American. The AG is looking into the retaliation issue; let's hope they resolve it quickly.
The split mirrors statewide trends so far in asking voters to override the state's property tax cap of 2.5 percent a year. Overrides for operating budgets, prior to yesterday's votes, had passed in five communities (pending a recount in one), and failed in five others, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
The association expects about 30 cities and towns to ask voters to raise property taxes this year to support municipal and school budgets, prompted by lower-than-expected increases in state aid, falling property values, and diminishing excise tax receipts.
(The critical minutia of the Massachusetts Democratic Party's internal procedures -- buried in darkness and obscurity for most practical purposes since the Bronze Age, or earlier -- finally start to see some sunlight. Read on to the comments, be enlightened. - promoted by Bob)
On Saturday, May 10th members of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee will gather to elect delegates to the Democratic National Convention. I hope that members will consider my involvement in state party and allow me to earn their support
(Hurray! The blogosphere's plan for world domination takes another step forward. - promoted by Bob)
I was elected yesterday to the West Brookfield Board of Selectmen.
On a beautiful spring day, 621 of West Brookfield's 2,159 registered voters, about 28 percent of the total, went to the polls - a very impressive turnout for a local election in which there was one race to be decided. I received 400 votes, or 64.4 percent of the total. My opponent, former Quaboag Regional School Committee member Diane S. Vayda, received 219 votes, or 35.3 percent.
True enough, but even though we can't be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow morning until it actually does, we can be reasonably confident that it will in fact come up.
Similarly, the laws of electoral physics suggest that, with his big win tonight in North Carolina, and Senator Clinton's inability to beat him by a wide margin in Indiana -- perhaps her inability to beat him there at all -- following her failure to win in PA by a wide enough margin fundamentally to alter the calculus of delegate math, tonight may have been the night when Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination.
In any event, enough fulminating from me. People read this blog to see what you have to say. Here is an open thread for tonight's primaries. What's your take?
... to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce this past weekend. I heard it Sunday night on 'BUR ... and it's pretty good. Here's the link ...
And I really believe we must think of this as a shift in age, not merely a shift in resource. The Stone Age didn't end, as someone said, because we ran out of stone; it ended because humankind had a better idea. Clean energy is a better idea - better for our pocketbooks, better for the planet, and better for our economy, as well.
Massachusetts has what it takes to lead a clean energy economy -- because in the age of clean power, will be power not from fossil fuels, but from technology, innovation and skill. Those are resources we have in abundance - here in Massachusetts and they are infinitely renewable.
Patrick talks utility rate "decoupling", getting rid of the gas tax for cellulosic (ie. good) biofuels, a little about wind, etc.
This kind of thing is very encouraging, because it brings the moral good, our interests, and our strengths as a state all together. We can save the earth and make money and jobs doing it. And there's plenty of political credit to go around -- not least to Speaker DiMasi. This ought to be a big win for everyone ... when it seems that everyone needs it.
Well, maybe not "all." But they did tell People (to the great annoyance of the rest of the MSM) that:
they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes - his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.
They also went into some detail about what they liked and didn't like about each candidate:
Mrs. Edwards didn't hesitate: "I like Hillary's health care plan."
What doesn't she like about the senator from New York and former first lady? "The lobbyist money," she adds.
On Obama, she says: "The fact that he has motivated so many young people to be involved, I think is fantastic."
But, she adds: "I don't like his health care plan or his advertising on health care, which I think is misleading." ...
[John said] "I like something different about Hillary. I think her tenacity shows a real strength that's inside her."
What doesn't he like about Clinton? "Um, still a lot of the old politics," John Edwards said.
As for Obama, he says: "Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric."
But he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: "One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it's a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president."
And here's the best line, immediately following John's "symbolic thing" comment:
At that, Mrs. Edwards rolled her eyes and, gripping the arms of her kitchen chair with some exaggeration, seemed about to lunge from her seat. "What about the great symbolic thing about a woman ..."
"It's important. It's important," her husband said. "I know it."
A lot of folks here on BMG seem dissatisfied with the performance of the legislature of late - particularly the House - and with good reason. Whether its the insider-dealing, late-night intimidation or leadership power-mongering, we all seem a bit unsatisfied with the seemingly anti-democratic culture that is still pervasive on Beacon Hill. The conventional wisdom here, throughout the media and among the public seems set - that the legislature is, if not irredemably flawed, than profoundly broken and anachronistic. This despite some of the remarkable reforms accomplished there - from health care to marriage equality.
I have a great deal of respect for those who toil in the legislative fishbowl that is Beacon Hill. But I can't help but feel that the legislature could be so much more than it is - that its potential is largely unfulfilled and that too much talent there is left untapped.
In short, the legislature needs to wipe off the dust of tradition, open its doors and embrace change by becoming:
MORE EMPOWERING
MORE INNOVATIVE
MORE DEMOCRATIC; and
MORE ACCOUNTABLE/TRANSPARENT
Today's Globe brings us further developments on ... let's see, what shall we call it? ThreatGate? Drop your suggestions in the comments.
Anyway, the news is that Sal DiMasi has asked the House Ethics Committee (not to be confused with the State Ethics Commission, an independent entity) to look into the incident. Apparently, such a request is quite unusual, and results are even rarer -- the Globe could identify only three instances going back to 1962 in which the House Ethics Committee took action against a rep, and none since 1991. Membership of the House Ethics Committee includes Thomas Petrolati, Lida Harkins, and Eugene O'Flaherty; James Fagan is the chair. Could be interesting.
Also, the Globe has posted the audio of Rep. Callahan's recounting of the alleged threat on the House floor, along with the Speaker's gaveling the House into a recess before she could say much about it.
The Globe's Andrea Estes has sources identifying the rep who made the offending statements to Rep. Callahan:
Two Democratic lawmakers said Callahan told them the colleague who made the remarks was James E. Vallee, a Democrat from Franklin, who is assistant vice chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Vallee is a key backer of Ways and Means chairman Robert DeLeo, who is vying with majority leader John H. Rogers to succeed DiMasi if he should leave.
Maybe she talked to Ernie, who's been reporting on BMG since Saturday that Vallee was the guy.
(Where is the line between power and promotion. - promoted by Bob)
I noticed a piece in the Globe by the recently returned (after maternity leave) columnist Yvonne Abraham over the weekend, imploring Senate President Therese Murray to make more of an impact on Beacon Hill as a counterpoint to the Governor and Speaker. Here from the piece, which I think is well off base.
...while nature might abhor a vacuum, Murray seems quite friendly with it. Her profile has been distressingly low since she assumed the presidency just over a year ago.
After press conferences or Monday afternoon leadership meetings, Patrick and DiMasi tend to stick around to answer reporters' questions. Most often, Murray scurries to her office.
If you ask me, Murray's desire not to be made into a media darling and eventually into a whipping boy (or girl in her case) is not a failing. Of course, reporters want their copy, they want to find ways to bring out dissension or conflict (something newsworthy) - they want to build you up when your fresh only to rip you down when you become entrenched. That Murray chooses to just get on with the job versus seeking headlines is a strength not a weakness. Here is more:
While Patrick and DiMasi were battling over casinos, Murray was nowhere to be seen. The biggest single issue facing the state this legislative session, and the president of the Senate is in the wings? Instead, after the smoke had cleared, Murray privately urged the governor and the speaker to join her on transportation legislation to show they could work together.
Murray wasn't stupid or scared or outmaneuvered here. I think she knew that DiMasi could and would most likely kill the casino bill. Why get involved in a pissing contest for a bill going nowhere? I think she knew not to expend political capital on something when she had plenty of other issues to focus on, such as health care cost control and transportation reform. Just because the media made casinos the biggest issue of the year, doesn't mean it was the only matter of importance up there.
Surely the whole discussion on "elitism" finally jumped the shark this weekend: Economists unanimously judged Hillary's Clinton's gas tax holiday a dog-ass dumb idea -- a consensus Clinton dismissed as "elite". We can hope that the justifiable mockery Clinton is enduring clarifies a difference between actual "anti-elitist" sentiment from "celebrating ignorance."
But I've been thinking ... who are the "elite?" Are they (we) the well-educated with cultivated (even bizarre) tastes and habits -- the latte-sipping, sushi-eating liberals in Berkeley and Cambridge? Are you one such? Do you feel "elite"? Or are the "elite" the hedge-fund managers, the Fortune 500 CEOs; in other words those that control vast wealth, who buy and enjoy access to the powerful? Which of these groups has more in common with "the common man" -- if such a creature exists?
So to state the obvious, we need to separate out two different concepts: The educational/cultural elite and the money/power elite. When members of the overwhelmingly liberal cultural elite think of those who hold power, they clearly mean the money/power elite.
Many people I know fall pretty neatly into the former group. Many of us have advanced degrees. Many have disposable income. But many of us are lucky if we make the area's median income, and struggle with the cost of housing and health care. There are any number of lavishly-educated folks in the fields of education, the arts, government, publishing, non-profits, or who are entrepreneurs -- who cannot possibly be thought of as "elite" in money/power terms. We may patronize Starbucks. (Starbucks is vast enough that surely it must serve some "non-elites".) We may well read the New York Times -- even while being revolted by that paper's slavish devotion to the concerns and obsessions of a tiny elite that can afford them. (Hello Style or Eating Out sections.)
But among this group is a sense of powerlessness over the course of government action at both the local and national levels. We certainly don't feel that government is working on our behalf when it gives enormous tax breaks to oil companies, or bails out sub-prime lenders, or maintains Verizon's massive tax loophole, doles out expensive contracts to the well-connected at the expense of Katrina victims. We don't support John McCain's mortgaging of our future to maintain tax breaks for the wealthiest. How are these things not elitist? The word can't possibly bear any meaning if the nakedly anti-democratic (small d) thrust of these actions is not called elitist.
Now, Barack Obama got into some trouble with his remarks that people cling to guns and religion in the absence of a government responsive to their needs. The trouble arose from his conflation of the streams of culture- and money/power-elitism. Culture is culture; money is money; power is power. It is indeed reductionist and clumsy (yeah, even quasi-Marxist) to just shake them up in a bag and say that downward mobility has a clear and predictable cultural impact. For Obama to be successful in the general, he would do well to keep his critique of money/power elitism relatively free from cultural static.
When Hillary Clinton calls the consensus of economists "elite opinion", she's right, of course, but it's a red herring; she's talking about the wrong elite. Expert opinion is by definition "elite."
So there's nothing wrong with the word "elitist", or even that it's being thrown around with such zest. In fact, it needs to be reclaimed. McCain's tax cuts for the rich? Elitist! A health care system that leaves47 million uninsured? Elitist! An economy where inequality grows and median income drops? Elitist! The press is picking up on the word, like dogs picking up the scent of steak. Hell, give 'em what they want! Let's just define our terms clearly and well.
