I would like to propose that Blue Mass Group support David D’Arcangelo for Secretary of State.
I have been on BMG about ten years – long enough to absorb what is important to you (in a hive-mind way) and what you believe in. I don’t agree with some of your solutions to problems, but we often agree on what constitutes a problem. And your party’s Secretary of State falls into that category.
You are firm upholders of transparency and public access. Sec. Galvin is not. For example, every year private and non-profit corporations must file a list of the members of their Boards of Directors and pay $15 to the Secretary for the privilege. The forms – some handwritten – are scanned into the state database and are thus considered ‘disclosed’. Yet in a different state department, OCPF, you can look up an individual name and find each candidate donated to, what campaigns paid that individual, and so on. Why is there not such an interactive database in the Corporations Division? Yes, if you already KNOW that Fred Jones of Amalgamated Clothespin Devices also sits on the board of Clothespin Devices for the Needy, a 501-c-3 which grants Amalgamated a nice tax write-off for donated defective clothespins, you can find confirmation by checking the scanned records. But why why not have a truly searchable database of corporations? Because Sec. Galvin doesn’t feel the need to make public information accessible?
You have doubtless read in the Globe of the significant no-bid contracts that the Secretary gave to an out-of-state firm that also did his campaign work since there were no qualified companies in Massachusetts. D’Acangelo tried to bring this to the public’s attention months ago by making a public records request, but Galvin refused to comply or compile, demanding a figure north of $5,000 to produce the records which ostensibly belong to the public. Now, we know why – but how many other such arrangements lurk beneath the surface of the business in his office? By keeping records and documents inaccessible, the office has become a haven for shady practice.
D’Arcangelo has an Eleven Point Plan to update and streamline the Secretary of State’s office – you can read it on his web site. He has a real commitment to modern methods and technology, and is an honest and ethical person. His platform and ideas are ones that are very much in the BMG wheel-house, and you should support him.
What’s the Machiavellian part of this?
Well, in all these decades, you have never been able to mount a more progressive challenger against Galvin in a primary. I will presume that his is not due to fear of retribution from the Elections Division against candidates you might also support – we all know that kind of thing can never happen in Massachusetts, BUT – a first term Republican incumbent would be uniquely vulnerable to a progressive challenger in 4 years and BMG could then try to elect a Democrat more to their liking.
I am betting that David would in fact survive such a challenge as I think he will do that good a job, but either way – we would be shed of Sec. Galvin.
Come to the dark side just this once – it would be for the public good (and besides, we have cookies!)
Yr. Obedient Servant,
Peter Porcupine
JimC says
A fascinating thought.
I’m voting for Billy, I like him.
Peter Porcupine says
But not how he conducts his office. And after decades of secretiveness, his personality is no longer enough.
JimC says
I think Billy’s done a good job.
sabutai says
It’s an interesting idea — we need someone new, and that person, just by being new, is inherently better than who we have right now. It’s a very articulate reworking of “throw the bums out”.
But if it results in throwing a different bum in, what’s the point?
centralmassdad says
And neat summary of the mindset of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Stalwart.
1. The [incumbent/Democratic nominee] does not really reflect my values.
2. The alternative to the incumbent is (other than ego-trip flaky third parties) a Republican.
3. Republicans are Extremely Awful People in Every Way (if they were not Awful People, they would of course be registered Democrats).
4. The [incumbent/candidate] who does not reflect my values is the better candidate because the alternative is a Republican who is, by definition, an Extremely Awful Person.
5. I therefore vote straight-ticket Democratic Party at all times and under all circumstances. If pressed, I will make a speech about the lesser of two evils and maybe how a vote for a Republican for Secretary of State of Massachusetts might be disastrously interpreted by a blogger on Politico as an expression of direct or indirect support for the Ted Cruz for President campaign.
6. Occasionally, if I am feeling embarrassed because the Democratic Party has nominated a candidate that does not really support my values, I might stamp my feet and indignantly vote for the Green Party candidate, but only if victory by the Democratic Candidate who does not support my values is reasonably certain.
Thus the winning formula for Democratic candidates in Massachusetts, who don’t really appeal much to the Democratic Party base (other than by running as a Democrat rather than as an eggplant) is: OOGY BOOGY REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY EXTREMIST!!!
And hence the long stream of (1) not-particularly-liberal candidates for powerful political office dutifully supported by the self-described liberals, and (2) the steady stream of once-prominent and powerful Democratic elected officials, once supported by liberals, now serving time for corruption.
But that doesn’t matter because I voted for Jamie Eldridge and sent $50 to Sonia Chang Diaz that time. And anyways casinos are a reality and there isn’t much any elected official can do since it is a ballot question for the voters.
JimC says
You’ve lumped a lot of stuff in there.
Of course party loyalty is problematic at times (not in this case), but that doesn’t make us mindless sheep. As a liberal you’re better off being in the tent.
petr says
… That Charlie Baker is a good looking fella: Nothin’ awful about how he looks. He a tall handsome drink o’ water. I only got a problem with the silver spoon…
sabutai says
This is a classic attack ad in written form. Why should I vote for this guy — I’m told because he has a plan and filed a records request.
Maybe if peter had been able to say something more upbeat about her candidate, rather than attacking the incumbent, had written a post explaining why I should vote for someone, rather than against, I wouldn’t be so suspicious of Peters bearing gifts. But I must be a hack because I don’t throw Peter into the brier patch.
ryepower12 says
A lot of people on BMG would recognize a more competitive Republican Party wouldn’t be a bad thing. If more conservative democrats ran as Republicans, Democrats would still control strong majorities, but be ideologically further to the left within the democratic caucus and in a position to pass the progressive bills our state needs.
Bob Neer says
Well said, but many, even most according to some reports, BMG progressives are unenrolled, not Democrats. It is precisely because of the arguments you make that the Democratic Party in Massachusetts has lost so much support to independent voters over the last 20 years.
jconway says
I facebook friended David and have had a lot of great conversations with him, he is responsive, has a great backstory about overcoming disabilities, people I know in Malden seem to like him and he has a great plan to really revitalize the office. Not just in elections as Bonifaz pointed out during his quixotic primary run (talk about tilting at windmills!) but business registration, searchable databases, and ending a lot of the cronyism that has seeped in during this long and no longer distinguished tenure. If the 80 year old Jesse White can have a more responsive office and accessible website in Illinois-surely Galvin can get off his ass for once. We know he’s rather not-so time to boot the benchwarmer and put in the rookie Republican. If he sucks, Eldridge or someone like him will have a much easier time of it in the general. I think he’s worth taking a chance on!
Mark L. Bail says
perpetrated by Republican Secretaries of State across the country (think Ohio), I’m skeptical.
Bear in mind, I’m not saying D’Arcangelo would do this, just that I wouldn’t risk putting that kind of power in the hands of a Republican. Nor would I want to put a Republican in a position to promote himself in a way that would lead him to prominence in order to challenge a Democrat somewhere else. He might have some attractive planks in his platform, but he would be more than just a Secretary.
If all this sounds partisan, it is. On a municipal level, I don’t vote according to party. On a state and national level, I do. As I wrote in another post, politics is a team sport. I might support a serious candidate that challenges the Democratic Party from the left, but not the right. And that’s where GOP candidates, even the intelligent ones, come from.
Not to mention that he has no chance against Bill Galvin,
centralmassdad says
.
Mark L. Bail says
is specious, a sort of polite ad hominem. You caricature us well enough, though generally rather than specifically. Of course, you don’t actually rebut my or Sabutai’s arguments. I’m telling you what I am and why I am like that. My honesty doesn’t make me right, but you indirectly pat yourself on the back for being the practical, sensible, moderate, reasonable centrist who will cross party lines to vote for the candidate you think best. If you just want to take a shot, no problem. No harm, no foul. If you’re interested in discussing the costs and benefits of partisanship, you’re not doing very well.
jconway says
Tea party Republicans in Ohio pulled electoral shennanigans er go a moderate, well respected local municipal official in Malden will do the exact same thing because of the R next to his name. What has the D next to Galvins got progressives again? A state of the art, transparent and open election process? Higher voter turnout? Making it easier for working folks to vote?
I get that voter ID is a massive civil rights issue. It also isn’t an issue in our state. Nobody is proposing it in either party, Baker has come out against it as has David, as did Dan Winslow. I get that its a racist dog whistle, and I get that Baker is not above that (see welfare to work), but David has not engaged in that.
And Galvin has engaged in violations in the past, at present, and his office is a revolving door of no bid contracts for his cronies and intimidation used against his opponents. He is exactly the kind of bad Democrat we always bitch about here, and you guys are buying into the false narrative that every MA Republican is a tea party extremist so we gotta vote D. Not when the D gets us casinos, not when it gets us bad government and entrenched incumbents who influence peddle and do little to modernize their office.
If David were to be a high profile asshole Republican he would be voted out soundly in four years. Than we get Eldridge (who has talked of running for the post in the past, but understandably, not against Galvin). I would rather risk that than continue giving Galvin a life time job he isn’t doing all that well with no real check from the voters.
Look at the guys website and come back to me with some extremist ideas before you pigeonhole him as a tea party no nothing. The near religious level of righteous fury and purity we automatically have to have against Republicans here is sometimes astonishing. And its this exact mindset that keeps the DeLeos in charge. I would take a Winslow over a De Leo any day of the week, and it will take an inverted Finneran coalition of good government lefties and libertarian righties to end the mess. It could start here by taking out a DINO with a more progressive Republican.
Mark L. Bail says
Not interested. Not a fan of Galvin, but have enough windmills to tilt at already. And if you read what I wrote, you know I didn’t pigeon-hole him. I said I didn’t know if he could be included in that and wouldn’t take the chance. Call me out for inconsistency or logic, but I didn’t call him a teabagger. Nor did I suggest he was. Nor was that my only reason for not supporting him. I’m a partisan. If partisanship is wrong, let’s argue it.
My disagreement is not the black to your white. You’re making me into a straw man, inaccurately lumping me in with everyone else. I did my best to exterminate DFW, but I consistently support Merrimack and CMD on here. for example.
FWIW, I’m not offended if you, however, support him. I don’t think everyone should do what I do. It’s up to you to decide when you’re on the team and when you’re not. Not me. DeFranco’s choice to be on the team and bash it was wrong, and I called her out on it. You supporting a GOPer you think best is not the same. If there were a political cost—and there isn’t–you’d pay the price.
CMD’s comment was ad hominem. It was clever, but a caricature, not an argument.
And Winslow actually did support Voter ID. He was a co-sponsor on a Voter ID bill. And when that didn’t work, he proposed a bill, that, if I recall the details correctly, required people to show ID so we could see how many people had ID. I like Winslow as Republicans go. If I were in the legislature, which I never want to be, I wouldn’t have a problem working with him, but I don’t see how he makes things better in the legislature. I’ll ask around and see.
jconway says
I may have misread what you wrote and lumped in other arguments. And I forgot that about Winslow, he was bad on unions too. Talked like Arlen Specter but voted like Scott Walker. I do think he is better than a Miceli, Timilty, or O’Connell. I think if he and Jon Hecht could vote out the DeLeos in leadership we’d be better off.
Also it’s a two man race. I laid out the progressive case against Galvin and for David below. He is proposing the very same reforms John Bonifaz backed and has a better shot at dethroning the prince of darkness. It’s worth considering that if we want better Democrats we should start by voting against bad ones.
Mark L. Bail says
that Galvin’s nickname is the Prince of Darkness.
centralmassdad says
This entire thread is an exercise in closed-system thinking.
Liberals support transparency in government and elections, the encouragement of maximum voter participation, and access to the ballot through early voting by mail, among other things. Galvin does not support these things, but will nevertheless get liberal support because the Republican Secretary of State in Mississippi implemented a racially biased Voter ID law enacted by that state’s overwhelmingly Republican legislature and signed by its Republican governor.
It is precisely the same reason that you guys are about to elect Governor Patriot Act, and will pretend that this will be some great victory for liberalism.
Massachusetts liberals are dupes–perhaps even willing dupes, willing to exist merely as the lap-dog of the hack-a-thon Democratic machine, even though in this state the liberal wing of the party SHOULD wield enormous political power. Where is it?
Democrats have had absolute control of the government of the Commonwealth for 10 years, and veto-proof majorities in the legislature for nearly another decade before that. That’s nearly 20 years, and the great liberal achievements in this state during that time seem to be as follows: (1) the enactment of the Republican alternative to the 1990s health care reform; (2) the introduction of Corporate Casino gambling to the Commonwealth; and (3) that Massachusetts hasn’t morphed, politically, into Alabama. Congrats on that highly ambitious liberal political agenda.
You have had a genuine liberal in the governor’s office for 8 years, and the one time he took a shot at a legitimately liberal budget, it was torpedoed immediately by Democrats. Democrats who always get the support of liberals because, well, liberals support Democrats.
What good is having political control of the commonwealth if the primary thing that you seem to do with it is to get your elected officials’ buddies cushy jobs at the Probation Department?
But at least those elected officials aren’t Republican. Did you hear what that Scott Walker did in Wisconsin?
jconway says
And the analysis is spot on for this race and maybe some legislative ones. It doesn’t work for the gubernatorial race since there is no center-left option for disaffected Democrats to pick. On bread and butter issues Coakley is clearly better. On civil liberties I suspect they are both equally bad.
Green-Rainbow’s last fifteen years have shown the futility of third party organizing. Perhaps it’s just getting a bench and primarying DINOs and maybe continuing those runs as independents so their is still a choice in the general. But this is a cut be dry case of DINO v RINO. I’ll take the RINO
centralmassdad says
The third-party “protest” candidates are for the most part an opportunity to indulge in petulant foot-stamping, without any real consequences.
If liberals in the Commonwealth punched their weight, the message would be: “Without us, you lose.” And that message can only be received if candidates actually lose. But liberals don’t really have any issues that would be the hill they choose to die on, other than a few culture war issues that are no longer in doubt. That’s why AG Coakley can get support from liberals through adamant pro-choice and pro-LGBT positions, even though such positions are not under meaningful political threat in Massachusetts at this time.
Fanueil Hall, Election Year
Election Night
December Transition Period
January
Six Months In
One Year In
Two Years In
Three Years In
Election Year
jconway says
True at the national level too, save for the fact that the GOP is actively wrong on the cultural issues.
centralmassdad says
Because, nationally, you do have the Ted Cruzes to deal with, and those guys do have half, and soon more than half, of the Senate and control of the House.
It is hard to adopt liberal policies against a determined opposition when the opposition is the majority party.
But that is what is so jarring about Massachusetts: Dems govern and campaign as if Ted Cruz is there and controls the legislature, even though that is patently not true and they have no opposition at all. None.
Mark L. Bail says
and psychologically. Skipping cultural issues, there are plenty of Democrats that are fiscally conservative, or as Paul Krugman describes Obama, more like liberal Republicans. They are one reason Republicans are largely irrelevant in the state.
Democrats need not be liberals to be Democrats. And the Dems in power are not always liberal.
centralmassdad says
This is late October of a local election year. So this is roughly where I think you guys are, right now:
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Heck, why even take the dark Machiavellian turn? Elect the best candidate of the two, period. Partisanship is overrated, but I bet I won’t be making many friends on this or the RMG forum for saying that.
Is Galvin going soft? Boot him out. I don’t like being taken advantage of just because we’re in the same party.
Always vote the best candidate on the issues, not on the party membership.
Christopher says
There is a Green-Rainbow candidate, Danny Factor, for those looking for an alternative, but not GOP. However, a lot of his issues seem not to be within the purview of the Secretariat of the Commonwealth.
jconway says
We’ll see if he’s game. It’ll definitely be a cold day in hell before Galvin does.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
Coming to this forum entails risks. Some politicians don’t like that, especially when they run their campaign on name recognition.
Peter Porcupine says
.
dan-winslow says
But this would not be the first time that BMG endorsed a Republican over an incumbent Democrat fyi. The first time (and I’ll stand corrected by the editors if there was one before) was BMG’s endorsement of Republican Senate candidate Samiyah Diaz over incumbent Dianne Wilkerson. An endorsement, as it turned out, that was prescient if not influential.
Most unions, btw, would disagree with the comment that my legislative record was anti-union. And most civil libertarians would disagree with the comment that I stood in any way to diminish voting rights. But I’ll save that debate for my next foray.
bluewatch says
It’s an interesting suggestion, and I am thinking about it. I am nervous because I don’t trust republican Secretaries of State. But, then again, Galvin is basically a republican Secretary of State.
I am going to call D’Arcangelo tomorrow.
Christopher says
…this “Machiavellian Proposition” does seem more palatable than a “Modest Proposal“!:)
Mark L. Bail says
erithizon dorsatum for trying!
petr says
..
=-P
marthews says
Galvin is currently being sued (I think with good reason) for excluding a Green Party challenger to Mike Capuano:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-state.php?ID=731
Disclosure: I’ve met the challenger in question, JP Lowenthal, several times. He doesn’t seem like a bad guy, and I place considerable faith in his allegations.
It’s because of abuses like this that I have long thought that the best person to fill the role of Secretary of State, with authority over elections, should be an independent candidate. Factor, the Green candidate, seems to not even be bothering running on issues affecting the Secretary of State’s office (as other people have noted above).
D’Arcangelo seems to have some solid, sensible ideas for election reform that are actually relevant to the office. He has thought about it, which I appreciate.
Whether I’ll throw a vote his way? Eeech. It’s hard. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life. Porcupine is right that Galvin is not good for this state. If D’Arcangelo were running as an independent, it’d be a slam-dunk. But running as a Republican perpetuates the institutional problem here.
stomv says
and across the country the Republican playbook consists of making it harder for people to vote — people who, it just so happens, tend to be browner and poorer than the Republicans.
No. No I’m not voting for a Republican for Secretary of the Commonwealth. No, I’m not willing to put a fox in that chicken coop.
Oh, and speaking of transparency, I went to http://www.daveyin’14.ugh. Why is it he doesn’t transparently point out that he’s a Republican on his web page?
Sorry porc. I’m not picking up what you’re putting down.
whoaitsjoe says
He’s racist.
stomv says
That’s not my opinion. Is it yours?
whoaitsjoe says
Because his playbook consists of making it harder for black people to vote.
stomv says
I didn’t “say” anything — I don’t have to move my lips while I type. I didn’t write what you claim either though.
I didn’t claim anything about Mr. D’Arcangelo specifically, except:
* he’s a Republican, and
* he doesn’t claim that he’s a Republican on his web site.
I wrote that I’m not going to use my Sec of Comm vote on a member of a group for which it has become fashionable to game the mechanics of elections in ways that harm the other team, to hell with how it impacts any individual or group of American’s ability to exercise their fundamental and Constitutional right to vote. I can’t see the future, and I can’t see what is in Mr. D’A’s heart or mind. Maybe he’d act like those other jokers, maybe he wouldn’t. Given the actions of his could-be colleagues, I’m not willing to take that chance.
Is Galvin great? Nope. And while voting access has improved in MA, it’s not where I’d like it to be. Still, I’m not willing to risk backsliding, and how can I be convinced that we won’t take steps back with a Republican Sec of Comm, given the 2014 Republican playbook (post Shelby County v. Holder)?
whoaitsjoe says
why not call up this guy’s office and see what he is all about? It would be another matter if you thought Galvin was a fantastic Sec. and should be an automatic.
ykozlov says
If you wanted to challenge the incumbent Secretary, how would you do it? The electoral system is rigged for Republicans and Democrats. It’s much more difficult to run as an independent. I don’t know much about David — maybe he is a Republican as you say or maybe he is a RINO because that’s what gets you on the ballot. The fact that his website omits his party affiliation makes me think it’s the latter. Since there is no other Republican running, this seems like a good strategy.
However, I agree it would be better if he was running as an independent. We NEED an independent in the Secretary’s office. Independents and smaller parties have a vested interest in making the electoral process more fair. Democrats have an interest in keeping the status quo. Republicans don’t like the status quo in this state but they already enjoy many of the same electoral advantages that Democrats do and there is the fear that a Republican will use the same tactics as they are trying in other states. This is why I will be voting Factor for Secretary. His campaign materials may leave much to be desired but I know he and his party have an interest in more open and fair elections in this state.
fenway49 says
He won’t run as an independent because he’s not one.
He’s chaired the Malden Republican City Committee for a while now. He (along with “running mate” Dean Cavaretta, who was deputy manager of Karyn Polito’s 2010 run for Treasurer and challenged Jamie Eldridge in 2012) sought to become chair of the Mass. GOP in early 2013. Republican enough for you?
Christopher says
…that the Secretary of the Commonwealth should not be subject to a partisan nomination process.
Peter Porcupine says
On his front page are directions to the convention a while ago, but that’s it. And I really like his media segment(s) – a single film clip form 2009.
BTW – do you think it’s right to have a link to his Sec. of State web sites on his campaign web page? But then again,that IS where all his photos of himself are…
Christopher says
…from campaign to official page, but the other direction would be problematic.
petr says
… your attempts to appeal to whatever ‘Machiavellian’ nature you think we possess says more about you than it does about us. Any tendency towards a ‘machiavellian’ nature would have seen Don Berwick out the door well prior to the convention.
We, sir, are Democrats. As such we are neither organized nor insidious.
Bob Neer says
According to the last survey of registered users we did a few years ago. Might be time for another survey 🙂
petr says
…my reply was inaptly stated with a capital d but stated, nonetheless, in apposition to “differently winged”.
Unless you are prepared to defend the notion that the ‘unenrolled’ are flightless, I think my point stands. We are lefties. So, again, neither organized nor all that insidious.
jconway says
Almost as good as the Will Rogers quip “I’m a member of no organized political party, I’m a Democrat”
jconway says
He is basically a neutral technocrat with a lot of neat ideas on how to bring the office up to the 21st century. A few if then borrowed from the proposals Bonifaz and Stein failed to get when they ran. It’s a two party system. We have a hack that hates voting rights, hates early registration, hates same day registration, hates online registration, and sighs about low turnout without doing anything about it. He is apparently giving his friends kickbacks, is anti-choice and anti-gay rights, and has meddled with his political opponents. How is he not acting like a shady Republican already?
drjat42 says
To sink under it, he’d have to be trying to disenfranchise entire classes of Democratic-leaning voters.
Christopher says
…if a Secretary of the Commonwealth is anti-choice or anti-gay rights?
merrimackguy says
The whole system is based on the Party holding all the offices.
There is no possible case where more than a handful of people here vote for an R. It’s all D, all the time.
kbusch says
against his Democratic opponents, though.
Mark L. Bail says
This is a Democratic blog. We may be more reality-based than RMG (I don’t know for a fact), but we are partisans. If you are an unenrolled voter who leans Republican, you’ll find little joy here during campaign season.
Even as a partisan, these are not my favorite times. There’s a lot more posting, but reading people argue about who’s better (Coakley? Grossman?) is as dull and predicatable as it gets. The worst example was the 2004 primary when anyone who questioned Obama’s divinity was an apostate. The biggest problem is that people are trying to find rational reasons to support what is, in most cases, emotional preferences for a candidate in a situation where someone else will make the decision, i.e. voters. Two more weeks. If Baker wins, you’ll see a couple of posts on Coakley’s shortcomings. Some posts on how bad Baker will be. Some posts on the GOP taking over the Senate or not, and what it means. Then we’ll return to more interesting conversations.
Porcupine got front page attention for her candidate. That’s one reason for her post.
Christopher says
Obama ran in 2008. I would say Howard Dean was the comparable 2004 candidate.
JimC says
Or Teddy Roosevelt.
Then we’ll talk.
sabutai says
As if either of those would be Republicans today. My favorite Republicans, such as they are, aren’t Republicans anymore. Heck, Charlie Crist isn’t even a Republican anymore.
Trickle up says
this was going to be an argument for this guy.
kbusch says
The Secretary of State’s role is not to dispense love.
Mark L. Bail says
to take office, well, I’ll mark it down in my calendar.
JimC says
These are the last five press releases from our Secretary of State.
And there are more here (on the right).
jconway says
He is against same day voter registration as Cos pointed out, and sort of exudes an attitude that is despondent on people voting. In 2006 John Bonifaz charged Galvin with massive voting failures in four municipalities, trying to muscle him off the ballot, and refusing to debate his opponents. Today he is also refusing to debate David D’Arcangelo and charged a ridiculous $5,000 fee for a public records request he put through. Not to mention his recent pay to play problem, penchant for government secrecy, and clear disregard for campaigning fairly.
I strongly urge everyone to look at David’s common cause questionnaire responses. He backs public financing of elections, a sunset law for campaign warchests, same day registration, electronic voting, moving the state primaries to June-a move BMG editors have backed here, changing unenrolled back to independent, random lottery for ballot placement, removing the incumbent designation, streamlining business registration process, and making it easier for new residents and new citizens to vote.
These are the very same progressive election reforms John Bonifaz and Jill Stein ran on in 2006.
JimC says
I am too swamped to respond to the other stuff. But I figured I’d reply to the point you mentioned twice. 🙂
fenway49 says
This guy is not John Bonifaz. Of course he’s going to say he wants to do those things. His only chance is to pick off Democrats and D-leaning unenrolleds with a goo-goo bent who don’t love Galvin.
But D’Arcangelo ran for chair of the Mass. GOP. He’s founded a PAC to build the Republican Party in Massachusetts. He worked with Cellucci on tax cuts that contributed to our current condition of chronic underfunding. His agenda, largely speaking, is not mine. I have no desire to give him a statewide office as a platform.
CMD can say all he wants about people refusing to vote Republican. The Republican Party in my lifetime has earned fully my contempt and suspicion. I’m trying to work out how to improve the Mass. Democratic Party. I’m more than open to primary challenges in liberal districts (Chris Fallon was sent running for the hills, for one) and I’m OK with losing House seats in more conservative districts so long as a decent majority is retained. But I can say, after seeing Mitt Romney, Jane Swift, Paul Cellucci, Joe Malone, and Bill Weld, that Republicans in statewide office does not solve the problems with the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
ykozlov says
As I said in my other post above I don’t know much about D’Arcangelo and his website successfully leaves enough for the benefit of the doubt of his Republican credentials. Links please?
fenway49 says
Republican PAC
Ran for Mass. GOP Chair
Malden Republican City Committee (their website seems kaput but he’s listed as chair on the most recent OCPF filing)
ykozlov says
I have problems with a few of his answers to the common cause questionnaire, even though they look good on first glance, but this stands out for me:
There is no such thing as secure electronic voting.
Elections must have a paper trail.
I recognize that this isn’t specifically a problem with him or his party. Electronic voting is a popular bad idea even with some technical people.
jconway says
This is a reality based community and porcupine makes a rather reasoned argument, to which, all the replies are “he may have some good ideas but Republican” or “Galvin is awful, but he is a Democrat”.
This attitude is self-defeating. I’ve heard the line again and again that in most states many Democrats here would be Republicans. Galvin is certainly among them. I would even argue he would be a conservative Republican in comparison to David D’Arcangelo. He is not as progressive as Stein or Bknigaz but neither of those two had a realistic shot. Neither does D’Arcangelo in all likelihood-but he deserves this vote more than Galvin. It’s a binary choice between a challenger with a lot of good ideas and an incumbent who hasn’t had a new idea since 1990.
It’s hard to argue with porcupine or CMD in this pick. When they endorsed a Wilkerson challenger it’s because the incumbent was corrupt and there were no better progressive alternatives on the ballot. Same here. Fallon did run for the hills, but nobody has the courage to take on Galvin since 2006. The last challenger barely had a showing. He is taking the office seriously unlike the Green candidate who is emphasizes peace, love, understanding and everything but the purview of the SoC. Surely a Republican with a plan and some experience is a better protest vote than that guy. And surely he is better than blindly backing an incumbent who doesn’t give a damn about the voters.
ykozlov says
D’Arcangelo has an interview on his website with himself and Danny Factor where they are asked about the ballot questions. David gets them all wrong, but mistakenly urges people to vote NO on 1. Cynically hope he’s been sticking to that line!
On earned sick time D’Arcangelo says: “Where did this question even come from!?”
Danny is of course for NYYY.