It appears there are a few things that Leland Cheung conveniently leaves off his official biography.
Seems he was a Virginia Republican. Not just a Republican, but the 2005 GOP candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates representing the 38th district (Falls Church). The Washington Post described Mr. Cheung as a “space tourism entrepreneur” who worked for “Space Adventures Ltd., a firm that reached an agreement with the Russian government enabling private citizens to pay top dollar to go to space.”
Here’s a brief exchange on the topic of the Virginia gas tax.
(Incumbent Delegate Robert) Hull supports a 5.5-cent increase in the gas tax to pay for road maintenance. The growing costs of fixing roads are eating away at the state’s ability to build new ones, he said, adding that raising the tax would keep Virginia in line with what neighboring states charge. The tax hasn’t been increased in nearly two decades, he said.
Cheung opposes the increase. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize we’re currently being overtaxed,” he said, citing the state’s large budget surplus.
OurCampaigns.com offers this biography for Leland Cheung:
Benjamin Leland Cheung graduated from Stanford University at the top of his class with a Masters degree in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, a Bachelors of Science in Physics, and a Bachelors of Art in Economics from Stanford University
Leland is a visionary entrepreneur who has dedicated his professional life to opening up the frontier of commercial human space exploration. In 2000, he joined the firm Space Adventures, Ltd. that later went on to pioneer the space tourism industry. In 2001, he was a part of the team that brokered a historic agreement with the Federal Space Agency of the Russian Federation to send private, paying clients to the International Space Station. Since that time, Leland has continued to work on opening up the frontier of space for the benefit of all humanity.
Leland is a leader who has the future in mind. He has not been content to watch the future unfold but has worked hard to define it. He is a creative problem solver who is prepared to lead in a technology driven economy. He will work to ensure that high-tech jobs return to Virginia, that our students have the quality education they need to succeed in a rapidly changing world, and that our communities are safe and secure.
It is time for people with fresh ideas to go to Richmond to fight for the future. Leland looks forward to fighting for our children’s future so that they have the tools they need to reach for the stars.
According to vafree.com, Leland Cheung’s top three priorities for Virginia were:
- Capping and Lowering taxes for Virginia residents and businesses, Returning the budget surplus to taxpayers, etc.
- Traffic – Putting in place simple measures to start addressing our traffic problems today. HOT Lanes, Regional Transit Authorities, proper use of the Transportation Trust Fund, Private Public Partnerships, etc.
- Keeping our economy growing – supporting the Virginia Advanced Research Alliance, providing incentives to new and existing businesses that create high paying jobs, continuous improvement of our educational system, etc.
Leland Cheung’s answers to the issue of funding transportation were:
- Do you agree that the Commonwealth of Virginia is experiencing a transportation crisis? A for Strongly agree
- Do you agree that the development of a long-term, dedicated, sustainable funding source for Virginia’s transportation programs is important? A for Strongly agree
- If you answered “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to question 7 above, what new revenue sources would you support for increased transportation funding?
- Fuel tax increase (each one cent provides $40 million per year): No
- Sales tax increase (each one-half cent provides $400 million per year): No
- Increased motor vehicle license fees (1$ provides $8.5 million): No
- Tolls where applicable: No
- Other sources: Proper use of existing funds. We’re NOT trying to tax people out of driving.
- Do you support the Commonwealth allowing existing state or interstate roads to be converted into tollroads to fund improvements to those roads? Yes
- Would you support legislative action to protect Transportation Trust Fund monies from being diverted to non-transportation purposes? A for Strongly support
Oh, and here’s Leland Cheung’s answer on the topic of Right to Work:
- Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: ‘I support Virginia’s Right to Work law that ensures that no Virginian must join or pay dues to a union to get or keep a job, and I will oppose legislation to weaken or modify that law.’ A for Strongly agree
The Washington Post endorsement in this race was sharp and concise:
District 38: Robert D. Hull (D), who has held the seat since 1994, faces token opposition from B. Leland Cheung (R). Mr. Hull is well prepared; Mr. Cheung, an engineer, is a novice with no substantial record of community involvement.
Just nine years later, Leland Cheung is selling himself as a progressive and he is trying to get the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor.
He has also explained his Republican past multiple times on the campaign trail. At the risk of sounding like a broken record try writing a diary about whom you support and why.
I haven’t heard these explanations, nor have I seen them referenced on the web. As an active Democrat from a neighboring municipality, I never knew about this.
Perhaps Mr. Cheung’s explanation could be posted publicly and prominently.
…and I have worked with him on Young Dems and the DSC and he has always struck me as very progressive. He’s not going to advertise in a Dem primary that he was once a Republican, but when asked he has always answered in a way that comes across as forthright. If you are suggesting he is some sort of GOP Trojan Horse I think that is quite inaccurate.
I don’t think he is a trojan horse, but one can question the depth of his commitment to progressive causes. Even if he isn’t an opportunist, chameleon, or wether vane, there are other candidates with a more consistent record of progressive ideas and actions.
Both have advertised their past republican affiliations and not only not been hurt by it, but have used it as key parts of their messages in what they do.
Note: I’m not saying anything about Cheung here, just referencing your point.
Candidates should always talk about something like this, get it out there, and explain how either the Republican Party left them or their worldviews changed (and why) or both. If they successfully do that, this type of story won’t hurt them and could help. But if it’s ignored, it will linger.
say that he wanted to get involved in public service, family were Republicans, lived in a Republican area, didn’t know too much about the parties, didn’t agree with anything the local GOP crew wanted him to adopt as a position, got out of GOP.
Of course he wouldn’t run as a Republican in Cambridge. His record in Cambridge has been fine, but the positions above are not progressive. Question is whether they were really his positions or the ones the local Republican apparatus “made” him have. And, if the latter, why he didn’t pull the plug on that sooner. Plus how on earth he got to be a candidate for office in his 30s and still had that level of cluelessness about today’s Republican Party and what it stands for.
I’m all for getting past it but there are some things that don’t make sense.
He got 25% of the vote in what appears to be a heavily Democratic district.
He said, if I recall correctly (which I may not), that most of the people surrounding him at that time of his life were Republicans. The area had a GOP Congressman for the longest time, though a U.S. House district obviously covers a lot more ground.
Bush carried the district by a whisker the year before. In true blue northern Virginia, the 38th is pretty much a coin toss.
back before Elizabeth Warren joined the race, grassroots Dems were knocked on doors to let people who had voted for Brown know how Brown had voted against the interests and values of Bay State voters. Leland is progressive.
Yes, he grew up in a Republican family–and there are a lot of Asian immigrants who are Republican because their families know just how brutal communism is, and the Republican rhetoric against strong government appeals to them. I asked Leland about it, and he told me straight up that as the Republicans started being more and more anti-immigrant, he realized that Republicans were trying freeze out people like his father, an immigrant. Leland realized that progressive values were his values, and he became a Democrat. He’s a Democrat who gets out there and canvasses, talks with people and listens to them. He’s good!
How does someone run for office before realizing something like this?
That didn’t happen before three degrees from Stanford and five years working? The “I didn’t know what I was getting into” answer is entirely satisfactory to me.
I don’t dispute that Cheung has been a progressive and effective city councilor (he has), but I still wonder about the level of commitment and the depth of those values.
Was he involved in progressive causes before he ran for city council? I can’t find much public evidence, but I would be very interested in knowing about something like that.
I know lots of kids in their 20s with multiple degrees and a handful of years work experience with no clue about politics. It happens. To be sure, none of the folks I knew ran for a state house seat.
That should have been “isn’t” not “is.”
I also know a lot of people in their mid-20s with no clue, and similarly none of them ran for office. People I’ve known who have run for office before they hit 30 have been political leaders and policy wonks since they were in high school.
Would those kids get your vote for LG?
If not, then why is this relevant? Why is youthful naivete a good thing in a supposedly progressive candidate?
No, kids in their mid-20s with no clue should not get votes for LC. Luckily, we don’t have any mid-20s kids with no clue running for LG. The notion of someone in his mid-20s trying to get involved in civic engagement in the most readily apparent way is relevant in explaining the root of this alarmist hit piece.
What’s relevant in terms of who gets your vote for LG is his extensive record as a public servant in Cambridge and to the state party.
Please see my other comments in the thread, including Cheung’s council order record on the Cambridge City Council and his actions at the most recent City Council inauguration.
I’m supporting another in the LG race. But, this diary makes me nauseous.
Cheung is a good person. That makes him a good politician. I think it makes him a good Democrat?
Litmus tests suck!
Is a party switch really a litmus test?
Nine years ago was 2005; three years before Team Obama decided it could (and did) swing Virginia.
I could probably overlook this in a case of clear preference, but I don’t have one in this race, and this is a big strike against Cheung.
Without data, it is hard to say. But, ordinarily, NVA is more blue. So, maybe the R came from a different motive. Seems this was vetted by Cambridge voters. No?
This should be a foot note. Cheung has a track record in Cambridge. That SHOULD be paramount.
As for grubby political tactics, if I was going to try to damage Cheung, this is exactly the type of thing I would put out, at exactly this time. #LooksLikeADuck
But … how old is this guy? He came here and decided he was a Democrat?
Because he was elected by Cambridge residents and voted well enough to keep their support for 2 reelections.
Maybe he was a RINO? ;v)
You win with 1/9th of the vote.
And local elections are nonpartisan.
I’m not sure I agree with the tone of this diary (though like Pablo I’m surprised by the information), but have always found the notion of going from Cambridge city council to statewide office less than compelling.
That didn’t really come up much in his first or subsequent races. The Cambridge City Council race is a blend of 20 or so candidates, little media coverage, instant runoff voting, and no party affiliation. The candidates don’t really run against each other, so there are very few attacks (except against some incumbents). The name of the game is meeting as many people and going after certain constituencies. Cheung did that very well. His history of running as an R was not really known. Cambridge voters, including very informed voters, did not know about it. Still don’t.
Cheung has a track record in Cambridge. That SHOULD be paramount.
Sure should! Here are his council orders from 2013—he spent most of his time sending out congratulations to various citizens and supporters.
…is my political home away from home. Very close to DC it has been blue for a long time, and that blueness has now made Fairfax County very competitive and is even bleeding into Loudoun and Prince William Counties. Falls Church is competitive, but I think the most likely answer is that he just still identified as R at that point.
… use to staff for Warren.
I don’t think Norm just fell off the turnip truck.
But if he surges, I’ll keep an open mind.
…of working for Dems who used to be registered R’s. Warren and Cheung, both made the switch from R to D. Anyone know of any other former R’s who have been elected in MASS as Dems?
Q: Did Hillary Clinton work for Goldwater?
A: She was a high-school Young Republican and “Goldwater Girl” in 1964 but swung to supporting Democrat Eugene McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s in 1972.
A week before the election. By 1968 was a college senior 800 miles from home. A more plausible time for such an evolution than in one’s mid-thirties.
Well into her mid 30s…
In my opinion. Warren was from Oklahoma. On some issues Oklahoma Republicans pre-1980 were to the left of the dominant Dixiecrats. Her bankruptcy research dates from the early 80s and she concluded a lot of people in bankruptcy were being scapegoated. She soon ditched the Reagan GOP. Not the same as running for office as a Republican after the Iraq war started and three 2004 election.
He was recruited by Tom Davis, who also gave him the biggest donor check, and that is a figure who, like Cellucci or Weld, represented a far more moderate strain of the GOP than Bush did.
I strongly feel that Cheung should elaborate on his reasoning, perhaps cut a video about it, or at least address it directly on his website. He has addressed it here, and it seems there may are other more relevant aspects of his record, positive and negative alike, we can talk about.
Of course he didn’t—Norm knows a prolific fundraiser when he sees one, and more to the point, he saw no way to break in on Kerrigan’s team. Norm gets to run a “dark horse” campaign, and if he wins, he’s a genius, and if he doesn’t, well, he fought a good fight and no one expected him to win anyway. He’ll be paid well for the cycle, with a whole lot of upside risk and almost zero downside risk.
You’re not actually under the impression that statewide CMs are doing it for their candidates’ policies—are you?
I was the first person to ‘break the story’ of his campaign on BMG and discussed his Republican past in that very post. I also asked him myself in a separate thread and Leland Cheung has already answered it. Like the Tolman controversy, if you really are uncomfortable and want to make your vote based on one factor of a candidates record, than that is up to you. Personally, I feel it is important to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses compared to the competition.
I am backing Mike Lake for a few reasons. First, he announced earlier than Cheung and I publicly endorsed him here. I am not going to retract that, even if a candidate I also respected was running against him. Secondly, I backed Lake since he impressed me during his Auditor run with an early backing against casinos, he has had a strong record on social justice and equality issues, strong environmental commitment, and the strongest commitment to serving as a municipal ambassador between the Corner Office and Gateway Cities-a role that Tim Murray did an excellent job in and the next LG has an obligation to continue. I am more than comfortable with voting for Cheung on a Democratic ticket, and am confident he will serve the agenda of our nominee and party-certainly not the GOP.
This story has been pitched in each of his races for council and I’m not surprised to see it come up again as slung mud two weeks before the convention. He’s addressed it here on BMG in the comments section of this post after someone asked him about it: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2014/02/making-the-innovation-economy-work-for-everyone/
That;s a nice explanation, but in Google terms it is highly obscure. It would be most helpful if this explanation were prominently placed on his website.
Also the comments on that post are worth reading. I was going to point out that after marinating in all that math and science a few blocks away from the Hoover Institution, it might take a while to discover your inner progressive. But tominsomerville said it a lot better than me.
If this is a hit job it is backfiring, as it might make me consider Cheung for LG! Very impressive background.
He replied to my question in that diary. It was the first time I ever saw it addressed publicly. I should have followed up with more questions.
It’s an answer and someone could search for it or maybe see it if they read BMG a lot, but in addition to not being well-known, it is also not that compelling to me. He ran for office before he had any well-developed positions? He ran as a Repub during the second Bush admin without knowing what the party stood for? That’s not exactly encouraging.
That said, his record as Cambridge City Councilor has been outstanding. His history before running, however, is certainly questionable. It’s an issue of trust. I’d love to see some evidence, any evidence at all, of a commitment to progressive values before running for elected office in a city in which it pays to be progressive and is the only way to get attention beyond the city.
I have trouble with the notion that, on a partisan site, pointing out that someone was a Republican is a hit job. It’s background, and it’s relevant.
And for the record Cheung’s explanation is woefully inadequate.
Should we break that down?
“Many,” OK; I’d quibble if he said most. And my background is why I’m a Democrat, so fair enough.
Possible. But it seems like an uninvolved person would do some due diligence at that point on the two parties.
This was 2005! Three years into the Iraq War. The Republicans in the Senate were threatening to take away the filibuster. This is like a minor league player saying he didn’t know who was in the World Series that year — it’s possible, but it’s a stretch, and it says volumes about the person involved.
My conclusion: opportunism. Which is not a deal breaker, politicians are opportunistic by nature. I’m glad he ended up on our side, but he doesn’t get a pass on this. Strike one.
My man Jim. You know that this element of Cheung’s biography was known to savvy operatives BEFORE he pulled papers. Top notch campaign ninjas don’t miss anything. Once Cheung started circling the rubber chicken circuit, Teh Google went into to overdrive.
So, for months this is out there, if not years. Yet, mums the word until 10 days before convention? When scraping delegates is the difference between 15% or being an ‘also ran.’
But the fact is what’s most damning, not its timing.
One question: will this really filter through to delegates? I doubt it.
Motives for putting it out there are one thing. Whether it should give delegates pause is another.
Who is Leland Cheung? From my perch a mile from Cambridge, he is a Harvard student who got elected to the Cambridge City Council. It was a big deal for a Harvard student to get elected to the council, so he made a name for himself when he was elected.
Harvard student? I certainly didn’t think there was much of anything before Harvard. I wouldn’t think to look for important elements of the biography before Harvard. Leland’s biography on his campaign website reinforces this image:
Under the topic of Why I’m Running, he reinforces this story:
That’s why I was surprised, shocked, and inspired to communicate my findings when my Google exploration revealed the GOP campaign in Virginia.
Now, let’s look at the issue of campaign operatives, campaign managers, and the “bombshell” two weeks before the convention.
I am an uncommitted delegate. I watched Leland Cheung on On The Record yesterday morning. Based on what I saw on Channel 5, I wanted to take a closer look.
I was not expecting to find that he was selling space travel to millionaires while running as a GOP candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates before he got to Harvard. I had no clue. The official biography starts at Harvard. Harvard student gets elected to the Cambridge city council, and nothing important happened before Harvard.
If I am advising Leland Cheung, and I don’t want this dropped into the discourse before the convention, there is one and only one successful strategy. Get the story out early, boldly, and publicly. Make big statements about growing up in a Republican family. Tell the story of chasing venture capital and running as a Republican in Virginia. Tell the story of the epiphany, the religious conversion. Make it the story of a venture capital Republican who found public policy, common good, and progressive ideals. Tell the story of someone who abandoned big bucks to go to graduate school energized by newfound progressive values. That’s the winning strategy.
Covering it up, making reference in an obscure response on a BMG diary, that’s not a winning strategy. That’s an invitation for the thing you don’t want in public to be circulating two weeks before the convention.
This could have been a minor story in January that is baked into the calculations in June, but only if Leland’s campaign chose to do the strategically correct thing for the candidate. If this is a big deal and a surprise on June 1, don’t blame me. Blame the Leland Chueng campaign.
He certainly did this on the thread cited earlier, and others have chimed in saying he addresses it at the forums he attends. Again, I think they are legitimate criticisms that his website implies he has consistently lived in MA (though so does Sonia Chang Diaz’s and those of other people we respect, who have not always consistently lived here), and perhaps it should address the fact that he is a former Republican (though I don’t think Warren addressed that on her website, she does mention it in her books).
I think the bigger reasons not to elect Cheung as one’s first choice, in my view, is the fact that Mike Lake has far more experience dealing with municipal issues from a policy standpoint at a statewide scale. His non-profit has been focused extensively on these big, more global scale municipal initiatives, and that brings a great perspective to the LG’s office and it’s role. Again, as I’ve harped on like a dead horse now, if we had IRV these campaigns would be far more positive and allow us to choose between multiple candidates.
I have been impressed seeing James Arena-DeRosa emerge on the scene, to me he has the least conventional experience for an LG position, but also has fairly progressive votes on the issues and an outside the box perspective. The candidate I’ve been impressed by least is Steve Kerrigan, who has never posted here, isn’t engaging with the grassroots, and apparently wants casinos. And sadly, according to Bernstein and others, he is the supposed frontrunner for the endorsement and the nomination. If we had IRV I would likely rank them thusly:
1) Lake 2)Cheung 3) Arena-DeRosa 4)Kerrigan.
Since we don’t, I feel that Mike Lake having started earlier and having done well in a prior statewide primary, is our best and most viable choice to stop Steve Kerrigan and we should coalesce around him. That’s a debate worth having. This one doesn’t seem to be.
big or bold or getting something out there at the scale of a campaign.
As many readers as BMG has, it’s a small fraction of the party and the fraction of the party who reads and remembers comments is downright minuscule.
A BMG comment is much more like having a conversation with a small room full of voters at a coffee hour.
Leland hasn’t done anything wrong. Lots of Democrats — including elected Democrats — were once Republicans who came to the same realizations as Leland has.
But smart campaigning puts it out there as Pablo says and not only gets ahead of the story, but takes advantage of the narrative it opens up, making a key part of a campaign story a lot of people could relate to.
If I were Leland, I’d at the very least 1) make a youtube video about this incorporating it into his campaign narrative and 2) make sure to include it in his convention speech. Otherwise, he doesn’t have control over his message and risks it spreading as whispers, as if there was something to hide when there shouldn’t be.
Would get in front of this issue, and if I were his campaign manager those video responses would have been up day 1 alongside a blurb about it on his website. It would be powerful testimony for his candidacy if done the right way.
What I dislike about this post is that the OP, and a few others, are ascribing motivations and insinuating he has kept this secret or that this is some bombshell discovery when that is not the case at all. Cheung apparently discusses this at every forum he attends. We have discussed this extensively in the past on BMG, and I brought it up in my thread ‘breaking’ the story to BMG when I saw on Cambridge Day he had taken out the papers.
Cambridge voters are well acquainted with this issue and he has already responded to this throughout his tenure there, and as a Cambridge voter until last year, I strongly resent the implication that we were so stupid we elected a Republican from Virginia that some seem to be making. Or that longtime grassroots activists like my former teacher and precinct captain Joel Patterson were somehow duped. This is simply not the case. And the OP frankly should retract the allegations that Cheung was keeping this a secret or hiding it from us, when those articles are in plain site and I’ve commented on them in the past, and the candidate already addressed it here in the past.
That statement is simply untrue, since he has discussed that race at length on BMG already.
Before I was circumsized (tinuli), I was uncircumsized (supot). Republicans for many years have been using sleazy means of getting people to register, vote and run as Republicans. In an armory, a first sergeant may illegally campaign in military uniform for soldiers to register as Republicans just because Harvard Republican students cut the unit a check as small as a studio’s rent for one single month…. whereas Congressional Republicans wipe out funding veterans, their chow allowance (i.e., SNAP or food stamps) and embassy security. Or a base commander in a fort, speaking before fresh privates, may bash our American President Clinton (who himself had been his and our whole army’s commander-in-chief) and praise the pop-and-son Bushes.
The GOPolitburo gets Irish-Catholics and Latinos (such as my co-workers) energized as Republicans by keeping them hateful of choice (“Aborto, Nao!” was a Latino song sung in my town).
I object to this Jean Valjean 2-4-6-0-1’ing the City Councilor. I don’t want us MassachusettS to be the miserable slipping in our world’s innovation economy, because haters want to pull a piece of foreskin out of the closet.
If our Commonwealth had Cheung as a statewide leader, public education may reach greater heights and underemployment of us college graduates may cease, as tech and other business startups pursue candidates for employment of software engineers and other skilled laborers.
Leland, Leland.
He’s as Democrat as Cleveland.
I am only angry at the city councilor for Cambridge restaurants requiring cryptex or cryptices to use their bathrooms (except for Atomic Bean Cafe).
To everyone who buys Cheung’s line about being “naive,” I have a bridge to Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.
Take a good hard look at Virginia’s 38th House of Delegates district back in 2005. Take a good hard look at how the district voted in the Presidential election the year before Cheung ran (hint: Kerry didn’t win it). Take a look at which House of Delegates district contains Northern Virginia’s only Koreatown (hint: it’s the one Leland somehow magically found himself running in). Take a good hard look at the rhetoric Cheung employed when he was a supposedly ill-informed Republican, then compare that to the rhetoric he employed in his runs for the Cambridge City Council.
To all the commenters who’ve decided that Cheung is “a progressive and effective city councilor” in Cambridge, take a look at his actual council orders. In 2013, 300 of Cheung’s 426 council orders were “Congratulations, get-well wishes, birthdays, naming of street corners, etc.” and I know that’s the kind of courageous stance-taking leadership Massachusetts progressives crave. Leland’s congratulatory Council Orders comprised 39.6% of the nine-person Council’s congratulatory orders. That, and fundraising, were where he spent most of his time. Ask now-Rep. Decker how she felt when Leland started calling her donors…
Was it a coincidence that Cheung was running as a Republican in a district George W. Bush had carried the year before? Did those big bad Republicans really just get one over on poor lil’ Leland—and if they did, is that really something you see as a *positive* quality in a progressive candidate?
Grow up, guys. Cheung is an opportunist of the first order; he’s just as committed to a progressive policy agenda as he was to the Republican cause in 2005. Leland’s #1 issue is, was, and will always be the betterment of B. Leland Cheung. The facts on this Republican-in-progressive’s-clothing are pretty clear.
The vast majority of Council orders of of that kind. Sad to say, until we switch to a Plan B government, the City Manager calls the shots in Cambridge. A debate for another time and place (the Cambridge Civic Forum or Cambridge Day for example), but the current council mostly concerns itself with those kinds of issues. It’s funny you mention Decker since she used to lead the council in symbolic resolutions discussing national and foreign policy questions, and was once critiqued for not focusing enough on the local issues.
Perhaps Cheung overcompensated, but he was easily accessible via email when my brother and I had concerns we wanted to discuss. He was instrumental, along with Craig Kelley (a personal friend/mentor offiste along with Marc McGovern and Joel Patterson) with getting broadband access back on the agenda. I will give you this-I agree he has a bit of a light record to run on for LG (admittedly an office with a light portfolio), and I am backing Mike Lake who has a more ambitious plan and a better record of achievement to enact it. But I think these attacks don’t really educate the voters or help us make a smart decision.
FWIW, the district ended up electing the Democratic incumbent by nearly 60%, and it seems Cheung had the backing of the more moderate factions in the VA GOP-so not sure where the district info or George W Bush guilt by association is coming from. I respect Republicans like Tom Davis, and I wish Republicans like him followed Cheung into the Democratic tent.
The vast majority of Council orders of of that kind.
Very true! And yet Leland alone accounted for nearly 40% of the Council’s congratulatory orders.
Sad to say, until we switch to a Plan B government, the City Manager calls the shots in Cambridge.
Doesn’t that undercut the idea that he’s been an effective City Councilor?
It’s funny you mention Decker…
That’s exactly why I mentioned Rep. Decker. More to the point, those meaningless foreign policy/nuke-free zone resolutions are also broken out on the page I linked to, and guess who’s taken up Rep. Decker’s mantle? What do you know, it’s Leland Cheung, who was responsible for fully half of the Council’s foreign/national policy orders in 2013!
not sure where the district info or George W Bush guilt by association is coming from
It’s not guilt by association. I’m asking you to put yourself in Leland’s shoes in 2005. You’re a young, politically ambitious person, and you live in a district that was basically a coin flip in the last Presidential election. Do you go with the party that won that coin flip, or the party that lost that coin flip?
You go with your values. Period. If political ambition and winning is the driving factor for his public service, then I don’t want to vote for him for anything.
If political ambition and winning is the driving factor for his public service, then I don’t want to vote for him for anything.
Then I think he’s lost your vote.
If you want to see that ambition in action, watch him try to bait Denise Simmons into running for Mayor (and breaking a campaign pledge) at Cambridge’s most recent City Council inauguration. The fun starts at about the 45-minute mark here. Watch Simmons not take the bait, watch Leland insist that this is really about what’s best for the people of Cambridge, even as he’s making it clear that he wants the job…
Eight days after the inauguration in which Cheung lost the Cambridge mayorship, he was announcing his plan to run for LG. If that’s not a clear signal of personal ambition being the driving force behind Leland’s political career, I don’t know what is.
I had never seen that video of the mayor vote. It’s pretty gross, and also reflects very poorly on two new members, and I was particularly disappointed to see Nadeem Mazen be part of it.
But it reflects fairly poorly on that entire process, at least it didn’t take four or five months of backstabbing to reach a selection like it has in the past. For a city as politically active as Cambridge, we have incredibly low turnout local elections thanks in no small part to an arcane and outdated method of election that was never properly taught to anyone in the public schools, let alone to the general public.
And for a city of over 100,000 to still have an unelected all powerful City Manager, a weak Mayor elected by his or her peers rather than the voters, and a City Council that has very limited ability in practice to shape the direction of the city beyond the budget process (usually acrimonious) and selection of City Manager, which lately only occurs every 25 years or so, is rather preposterous. Somerville is making leaps and strides above Cambridge at every turn, in part, due to it’s vigorous leadership of a strong mayor in the form of Joe Curtatone who will have my support if he ever runs for higher office. We are still stuck in the past.
But that’s the process, and I am not gonna stop supporting Michael Sullivan for DA now since his Mayoral ambitions caused one of those longer impasses in the past. It’s the system we have. In a better system, at least like the modified Plan E Worcester has, Leland could compete in a second round of voting for Mayor against the councilors who also want that position, and the voters could decide. I’ve been proposing such a reform since I was a teenager, and welcome a renewed effort to achieve it.
It’s an incredibly bad and increasingly dumb system. The “mayor” also makes 50% more than the city councillors for substantially the same work, so people will really want the job just for that reason.
That said, Cheung’s tactics were terrible – in intention, optics, and outcome.
Eliminate the ‘vice mayor’ which is not even in the City Charter, and keep the Mayor as it but eliminate all the perks, or just rotate it based on seniority. All would be better than the FUBAR of an election we currently have. Cheung forget the cardinal Walter Sullivan rule “you show me your four, I’ll show you my five”.
Same as the old boss!
We have a weak mayor-weak council system that puts a lot of the actual administrative power in the hands of the in-elected City Manager. It sucks, IMO, but has no bearing on the effectiveness of a councilor or not. By that standard all the councilors are ineffective since the system is stupid. Again, an argument I’ve often made and one of the big areas of contention I’ve had with Robert Winters, going back a decade now.
Cheung’s most controversial vote of consequence was his protest vote against the most recent school budget which reasonable people can disagree about. Robert Winters-whose site you keep citing-is an independent who consistently rates Cheung as one of the more effective councilors. He started a lot of cross collaboration with his Boston counterparts and creates a way for our two cities to jointly handle corporation headquartering collaboratively instead of in the historic adversarial manner-which ended up benefitting the winning business more than the winning city (race to the bottom on incentives, etc.)
Those kinds of things may not make a better sound bite than “Oh noze a Republican”, but they show a mind dedicated to complex policy solutions and collaboration. To the extent that this work is small fish, dull, and includes a lot of minutiae like curb cuts and honorary ways-than that is proof he needs more statewide experience in the legislature or elsewhere. A valid critique I happen to share-one of the reasons I’m still a Lake supporter. It doesn’t prove he is a Republican or a conservative today, or a progressive in wolfs clothing as some have suggested.
We nominated and elected Tim Murray who was a councilor and mayor under the same Plan E Charter with little real power. And he worked out just fine.
By that standard all the councilors are ineffective since the system is stupid.
Yes.
Robert Winters-whose site you keep citing-is an independent who consistently rates Cheung as one of the more effective councilors.
I get that you’re a fan of Leland, I really do. I don’t understand why you are, but if you want to talk to Bob Winters about what he likes about Leland, feel free.
He started a lot of cross collaboration with his Boston counterparts
And the manifestation of that “cross collaboration” has been campaign appearances with Tito Jackson and Mike Ross. If you know of any actual accomplishment that came as a result of his “cross collaboration” with the folks across the river, I’m all ears.
creates a way for our two cities to jointly handle corporation headquartering collaboratively
Seriously?? Tell that to any business that’s been wooed by both Kendall Square and the Innovation District. Heck, tell that to the tenants at Assembly Square up in Somerville.
It doesn’t prove he is a Republican or a conservative today, or a progressive in wolfs clothing as some have suggested.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting that Leland’s first order of business is the advancement of Leland’s career. It explains why he ran as a Republican in a district Bush carried the year before, and it explains why he rebranded himself as a progressive in one of the bluest parts of the country.
You clearly got an axe to grind and I won’t get in the way. I am stating that your reasons are starting to get a little inconsistent. First it’s that he is a Republican, then it’s that he is not an effective city councilor, and then it’s that his collaborations have been part of campaign events. You have also critiqued his association with Major Decker, who was probably the most left leaning councilor during her tenure, and is one of the most left leaning members of the House. Why would she associate with someone who is a closet conservative? Is he a closet conservative, incompetent, or a shady Machiavellian Kevin Spacey character? These three depictions, which you alternate from, are internally inconsistent.
I am not a big fan, in fact I expressed the same skepticism over the Republican past in my own thread which I posted months ago during his candidacy, in that same thread I also expressed skepticism he has the experience to be our best LG candidate. And in fact I have never voted for Leland at the Cambridge level and I plan on voting for Mike Lake in this primary. So do not mischaracterize me as a “fan” or supporter of his, since I have never been.
What I am is someone who finds baseless attacks, whether about the stake Tolman sold, or about Dan Wolf’s conflict of interest, or about Steve Grossman’s labor record, or about Leland Cheung’s Republican past, to distract us from the issues and to prevent us from making evidence and reality based conclusions about our candidates. I just watched Boogie Man, a documentary on Lee Atwater, and feel that his hardball politics has made our country worse and concerns our races with trivialities about whether Hillary really endured sniper fire, what did Obama’s preacher say at what date, and who fears a flag pin and says the pledge. The more we focus on those things and feed the media cycle that fuels those fires, the less we can focus on what our public officials can actually do, the less we focus on the issues they can fight for. And it then attracts the Atwater or Underwood types to public service instead of people who view it as a noble calling. Our Congress sucks so much right now because it attracts the flame throwers instead of the law makers. And these kinds of attacks are the reason why.
First it’s that he is a Republican, then it’s that he is not an effective city councilor, and then it’s that his collaborations have been part of campaign events.
He was a Republican. That’s not up for debate.
He hasn’t been a particularly effective city councilor, in large part because none of the Cambridge city councilors has much power.
His “collaborations” weren’t a campaign event—he flew to D.C. on official business and ran a fundraiser there, completely separate from the actual conference he was supposed to be attending. If that’s the kind of ethics you’re looking for in your next LG, then I completely understand why you’re a fan of Tim Murray…
You have also critiqued his association with Major Decker
No I didn’t. Go back and re-read what I wrote.
Why would she associate with someone who is a closet conservative?
Again, go back and re-read what I wrote. Cheung hit up Decker’s donors. Decker was not asked about this ahead of time, and was not pleased about it.
Is he a closet conservative, incompetent, or a shady Machiavellian Kevin Spacey character?
The third one. I’ve been pretty clear about that.
I just watched Boogie Man
Great documentary.
And it then attracts the Atwater or Underwood types to public service instead of people who view it as a noble calling.
In the case of Leland Cheung, I couldn’t agree more.
And was shocked to find out about it, and to be fair it was NOT something he openly discussed during my interactions with him during his runs for the City Council. That said, I trust the councilors I have worked with who have argued that he is a collaborative legislator on the council, my apolitical brother was impressed with Cheung’s knowledge of broadband issues effecting Cambridge, and his commitment to labor included joining my friend and fellow Councilor Marc McGovern in a boycott of the Harvard commencement to sustain the picket line Double Tree workers were walking. I also trust that my friend Joel Patterson, very active in my old ward in Cambridge who I campaigned with door to door for Deval with, wouldn’t be campaigning with someone who was a some kind of secret Republican or subversive Democrat.
I also won’t take issue with the ‘many Asians are Republicans’ comment since it was certainly the case until recent years that they leaned more Republican, particularly within the Chinese and Filipino communities I am most familiar with (on account of friendships in Cambridge and my engagement to a Chicago bred Filipina). My future in-laws will never forgive Reagan for bailing out Marcos who ‘disappeared’ so many of their friends, but they are in the minority among Filipinos in the Chicago area who tend to lean center-right. A lot of it is due to anti-communism and anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage religious influence.
I am committed myself to Mike Lake early and feel Cheung still has some room to grow before he runs statewide, and it is certainly germane to ask this question and since it is naturally troubling to learn about this information, but like the issue with Tolman’s gaming interests-it has been asked and answered repeatedly and the candidate has answered it sufficiently in my book. Let’s discuss the actual issues where there is a divergence on experience and priorities and the vision the candidates have for the office.
And that is open for debate. I would even say asking him about his approach to policy questions as a Republican vs how he views them now is appropriate. To me, what is inappropriate, is to insinuate as the OP does, that he has been actively hiding this or that it’s a secret that was suddenly revealed.
Obviously, he won’t be starting his campaign pitch with ‘as a former Republican’-but my post ‘breaking’ the story on BMG included a line about Cambridge voter’s apprehensions about this past and that he largely allayed them. I also found the same blog sites and info on his past that the OP quotes from, and choose not to run with it since it didn’t seem all that significant. The same Post article where he has the rocket scientist quote (which I also posted about previously), also included this snippet
Clearly an early interest in municipal government,grassroots campaigning, and public transit. We should be celebrating the fact that he realized those interests only align with one party these days-the Democrats. Also clearly a novice campaigner who had no idea what he was getting himself into.
The only big money donation he got was from Tom Davis, a pro-choice, moderate Republican who has been commenting on the need for the GOP to change.
I am proudly backing Mike Lake, and while I feel that Cheung had a solid record as a councilor, he has not achieved all he set out to do in that role and may need more experience before running statewide. But I do not doubt his membership or commitment to the Democratic party or it’s principles at present. It’s worth asking why he switched, and how he is different from that first campaign, but I don’t see the need to disqualify him over this Republican past. We would be disqualifying a lot of Democratic leaders with that test (Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Jim Webb, and Charlie Crist come to mind).
Have we discussed the fundraiser Leland held in D.C. while he was in town on the taxpayer’s dime for the National League of Cities Conference?
I should also point out that I’m not a delegate, nor am I a Kerrigan or Lake supporter (they’re both fine, IMO). I simply have seen Leland up close and personal, and I think I have a decent idea of how he works.
http://www.jpprogressives.com/2014-races/lieutenant-governors-race/cheung/
At around 12:55
It may not persuade me to vote for him, but it was persuasive enough that it made me feel like it was a nonissue.
I have personally heard this story time and time again, and am not particularlly not moved by hearing it again. Leland’s past as a Republican is frankly not earth shattering news. Even within our party, it’s not the biggest deal that someone was once a Republican (Hillary Clinton was once one, for example, and she served as a Dem Secretary of State). Leland has the political freedom to change parties as much as anyone else.
I’m just saying…
No one is saying he can’t change parties. That’s fine. Evolving politically is normal and something I like to see.
The question is whether he has a real commitment to progressive values given his history (which, btw, is very recent). I think that is very much still an issue.
As far as the other former Republicans, did any of them run for office? Did any of them run for office and then run for office as ideological opposites within about 3 years? I think the answers are clear. Moreover, there is a big difference between being a registered member of a party and running for office with that party.
“Moreover, there is a big difference between being a registered member of a party and running for office with that party.”
The difference being?
“Did any of them run for office and then run for office as ideological opposites within about 3 years?”
When is it the appropriate time to change parties and run? Why is 3 years OK, but not 2? Why not insist on 10 years minimum as a security measure? Why was it OK for Barbara Grey? I’m just curious about that.
I’m not sure “ideological opposites” is a correct term.
As for the first thing about party member v. running, I think running demonstrates a much higher level of activity and commitment to the party – although in Cheung’s case apparently it didn’t. And if it didn’t, the question is – why was he running at all? Maybe the “dumb and young” answer satisfies you, but it doesn’t satisfy me.
A VA Republican, even a moderate one, is pretty far from a Cambridge progressive on the ideological spectrum. Sure, it’s not Tea Party Republican to Cambridge Green Party candidate, but it’s closer to that then a switch from very liberal Republican to socially liberal/fiscal conservative leaning Dem (like Gray).
Also, Gray didn’t really change her positions, she switched to the party that more aligned with those positions – the Republican party abandoned it’s liberal Massachusetts-style wing during her tenure in public life. The Republican party of the 70s was not the same party in the 90s.
There’s no time limit on political evolution, but when it is short and significant, it makes me wonder about the commitment of that candidate and what his or her true values are.
Cheung can do whatever he wants, but when he does certain things in the public, he should expect questions and criticism.
I’ve lived in Cambridge for the past 8 years and never seen this issue answered thoroughly in public until questions have come up during this race, so I never experienced the “time and time again” nature of it that you have. I’ve been asking my Cambridge friends and the majority never knew of this. If it was that well-known, I’d suspect more of a record than the scant Google results that basically just cover BMG results and some news from his VA race – not much in local press from the past 5 years.
Yes, running versus memberships denotes a higher level of activity, but our Founding Fathers originally created the system so any citizen could feasibly run for office. I do not have a problem with Leland running for LG, or serving as a City Councilor for my hometown of Cambridge. The voters in Cambridge have made it clear that they like him, and that is fine with me.
I do not require an explination from Leland on his past, anymore than Leland should demand an explination from me regarding events of my past, because I currently work with YDM, and he used to. That simply isn’t the case at all. There is no excuse for that.
The Democratic Party, both nationally and locally is a diverse party. We have Conservative Democrats like Congressman Stephen Lynch, Congresswoman Krysten Sinema, and Representative Chris Fallon, and very Progressive Democrats like Senator Eldridge, and Congressman Mike Capuano. As well as many, many, many in between, depending upon which issue we may be discussing.
I am deeply saddened that anyone should bring Rep Decker into this. She is a faithful public servant to Cambridge and a good friend of mine. She has only been connected to Leland through their equal public service on the Council to Cambridge, and has nothing to do with Leland’s past outside of that. Please keep Decker out of the conversation in regards to Leland’s past, it’s not fair to her and what she has done for the city, and will continue to do as a Representative.
It should be noted that Leland is always present at the Mayor’s Pride Brunch, that fmr Councilor and Mayor Ken Reeves had the support of Leland, and that he had involvement with getting Ed Markey elected to as a US Senator.
This is really confusing the conversation.
As I’ve said, Cheung can do what he wants, but since he is in the public he should expect questions.
That really makes no sense. A public official’s background is absolutely an issue. Again, though, it is not really the previous jobs he held that matter – what matters is his values. His background raises questions about his values and commitment to those values.
What does a diverse party have to do with anything?
I didn’t bring up Decker. I don’t like her except how she votes, but I didn’t bring her up.
So what? He’s been a smart councillor and has taken progressive positions. I’ve never said he hasn’t, and neither has anyone else in these comments. What I want to know is whether he is a progressive deep down or whether he is progressive because it helps advance his career?
Yes, running versus memberships denotes a higher level of activity, but our Founding Fathers originally created the system so any citizen could feasibly run for office.
How in the world is this relevant to the discussion at hand? Literally no one has said that Leland shouldn’t be allowed to run for LG. The question that’s been raised is, Should he earn the Democratic Party’s nomination?, and I don’t recall the Founders saying much on that subject.
I am deeply saddened that anyone should bring Rep Decker into this.
I think I was the first person to mention Rep. Decker, and I don’t see how anything that I said denigrated her or her record. If she is indeed a good friend of yours, then you can ask her for yourself whether or not Leland called her donors.
First, as others have mentioned, it isn’t some insane, unheard of concept for a person’s views to evolve over time, and do so later than their college years or their mid-20s. If we’re attacking Cheung for being a Republican at some point in his life, then I hope you’ll join in attacking Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Tim Kane, and probably thousands of other good Democrats with Republican pasts. Turns out most of them don’t make it a primary talking point, and it shouldn’t be. This whole conversation seems like some sort of purity test for who we’ll accept as “real” Democrats, and that’s dangerous. This party, at least the one that I’m proud to be a part of, wins by being on the right side of the issues, not shadowy character assassination, and we should welcome people coming in from the outside, not shun them. Are the votes of judges or legislators supporting LGBT rights less valid if those individuals at one point weren’t supporters? Cheung is not making it a secret, and he isn’t dodging the question. He shouldn’t have to shout from the top of Mount Greylock that he used to be a Republican and beg forgiveness from every BMG commenter hiding behind the name of a Governor who’s been dead for 50 years. He should be able to point to his record, not just on the council, but in going out of his way to stand with labor, advocate moving toward a single payer system, and spend every chance he gets talking about spreading economic opportunity.
Second, if you’re questioning whether or not Cheung is a “true” progressive, what you’re really doing is insulting the intelligence and commitment to Democratic principles of not just the voters of Cambridge, strange as their system may be, but also Governor Patrick for appointing him to the board of the Mass Tech Collaborative, the Democratic State Committee membership, the Young Dems of MA he used to be an active part of before hitting the age max, the Democratic Municipal Officials association, of which he’s on the national board and MA State Chair, the activists standing around me who were pumped up by his remarks at a Unite Here rally at the Harvard Doubletree, and everyone who has ever worked for or with him toward progressive goals.
Finally, and this is really just a formality, but look at what we’re so afraid of in a barely fleshed out position from a decade ago: lowering tax burdens, which isn’t exactly controversial for someone just getting into politics to support, addressing traffic problems through things like RTAs, bringing high paying jobs into the state, and improving the education system. Seriously? That’s what certain people in this thread are so riled up about?
So let’s review:
1. You’re only allowed to be a good progressive if you’ve ALWAYS been a progressive, and otherwise you shouldn’t get elected or you’re just lying for personal gain (great message to send to all those undecided general election voters, by the way). Views can’t change.
2. A whole hell of a lot of people, including our Governor and state party, labor activists, and people who work in politics for a living are all idiots who can’t tell a Republican from a “true” progressive.
3. Things like RTAs and programs incentivizing businesses to create good local jobs are bad and outweigh a long record of actions.
This is a manufactured hack controversy. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cheung took some time at the convention that could otherwise be spent talking about issues that matter to briefly address this Republican question that should never have been an issue in the first place. I’m pretty sure that’s exactly why it was posted less than 2 weeks before the convention in the first place. Now let’s focus on something that really matters….. like this whole People’s Pledge ridiculousness 😉
After arguing for paragraphs that bygones should be bygones, and quality above partisanship or some such, you call this “a Republican question.” Fine, let it be that — I stand by what I wrote above.
This hack controversy manufactured by shadowy character assassins might, MIGHT, be relevant to the committed, duly elected Democratic delegates who are going to trek their sorry asses to beautiful Worcester on a weekend in June.
Party affiliation means nothing to you? Fine. Vive la difference. But if want to sway party activists, stop calling us hacks. (Or at least smile when you say it.)
It seems in focusing on that last line, you missed the broader points I was making. You certainly didn’t do anything to respond to them, and I’d appreciate if you’re bothering to respond at all that you at least give some treatment to the bulk of what I said without some ridiculous question about party affiliation. This would also help shake the hackishness of your overall tenor. 🙂
To sum up the primary thrust of the post: this is a bad question with bad implications (which are spelled out clearly) that looks likely to have been posed in bad faith.
And it’s mere coincidence that I picked up your phrase about shadowy character assassination.
I’m actually not required to respond to your entire comment. But I’ll admit I considered doing so, because I disagree with nearly every point you made. In the guise of high-mindedness … you erred, in my view.
I think a quote from this Herald article sums it up best:
“When Leland was young and stupid, he was young and stupid,” spokesman Frank Perullo told the Herald when asked if Cheung ever used cocaine, heroin or marijuana.