Blue Mass Group

The Phoenix posted an editorial today, entitled “Scott Brown, Crazy Person,” on Scott Brown co-sponsoring legislation that allows employers to restrict contraception coverage. Brown has also move from a moderate position within the Massachusetts legislature to a hard right position as the Obama compromise is in essence what we have been doing in Massachusetts.

When Massachusetts junior senator Scott Brown last week signed on to support a Republican initiative to nullify President Barack Obama’s birth-control compromise, Brown joined the vast and growing right-wing war on women.

Brown’s new archconservative position on birth control stands in contrast to the stance he took 10 years ago when, as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Brown favored legislation requiring all health-care providers to offer contraception coverage.

That law provided a narrow exclusion for churches or “church-controlled organizations,” but it was benign when compared to the pending Republican anti-birth-control legislation. In fact, since 2002, Massachusetts has been operating under what is essentially the Obama compromise.

The GOP scheme would allow any business, not just those allied with a religion, to opt out of providing insurance coverage for birth control if the business deemed contraception to conflict with its moral or religious beliefs.

Another interesting point is that Scott Brown left the usual group of moderates in the Republican caucus behind, both Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will not support Blunt/Brown, even when hedging support on the compromise.

Brown’s fellow Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, may not have found Obama’s birth-control compromise perfect, but they have said, in effect, that it is perfectly workable.

In case anyone, Republican, Democrat or Independent believes that Brown is taking a moderate position, he’s not, centrist Republicans have abandoned him.

I’m Kate Donaghue and I am running for re-election to the Democratic State Committee. I am not unopposed and I need votes on Tuesday, March 6.  The district where I am running, ably represented by Senator Jamie Eldridge,  includes  Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Harvard, Hudson, Littleton, Marlborough, Maynard, Northborough (partial), Shirley, Southborough, Stow, Sudbury (partial), and Westborough.

Long time readers of BMG may know me. I’ve blogged on BMG since the early days and I’m proud of having user number 134! A few years ago, Sue Kennedy wrote, “Kate plays an important role here on BMG, always available to answer questions about arcane Democratic Party processes.”

As a DSC member, I take my role very seriously, working with the town and ward committees that I was elected to represent. I spend most of my free time volunteering for the Democratic Party, our candidates, issues and organizations.

Usually when I am here I am asking for help for other candidates. This time I am asking for help for me.

1) If you live in the district, please vote for me on Tuesday, March 6 on the presidential primary ballot. Please bring a friend. If you are not in the district, please ask a friend to vote for me.

2) If you are on facebook, please “like” my re-election page. Share the link with friends.

3) If you want to volunteer, please contact me at 508-404-8531 or KateDonaghue AT aol DOT com.  I can use help, especially on Tuesday, March 6.

4) If you are so inclined, please send a donation. There are expenses associated with this campaign and with my work as a DSC member. Checks payable to Kate Donaghue Committee, 17 Gary Circle, Westborough, MA 01581.

Many thanks to all who are interested in supporting my candidacy.

Last week Scott Brown proudly announced he would lead the charge for an extreme measure being considered in the U.S. Senate that would allow employers and insurance companies to deny medical coverage.

The “Blunt amendment” that Brown is pushing goes so far beyond religious institutions and birth control that a Boston Globe columnist wondered if Brown had wandered off in to “crazyland” and a columnist for the Boston Herald said he had “sided with the nuts.”

And for good reason.

Under Brown’s plan, employers and insurance companies can refuse to cover ANY treatment for ANY person.

This measure is a threat to women…and everyone else.

Spread the word by sharing this image in your Facebook timeline.

Imagine CEOs in board rooms looming over doctors offices, deciding which medical care they will let you have – it sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, but the bill Scott Brown has endorsed could make this your reality.

President Obama’s health care reform does not require any religious institution to cover contraception. This is yet another issue where the Republicans have created controversy out of thin air to change the subject from their anti-middle class agenda.

We can only stop Scott Brown if we make sure the truth gets out – that’s why we need your help.

Let your friends know by visiting our Facebook page and clicking “share” underneath the image.

If you don’t have a Facebook account, you can also help by emailing this to 5 friends. I know you can come up with five people in your life that would be affected by this legislation because everyone could be affected by it. Send this along to make sure they have the facts.

Clare Kelly

Executive Director

Massachusetts Democratic Party

SNL takes on the Party of Santorum. Funny:

If SNL is any indication of the conventional wisdom … it’s gonna be a blowout this year.

Eugene Robinson wrote today in The Washington Post that Rick Santorum could take Republicans down with him. These days, any place that you can find left-leaning commentary has something rightfully slagging Santorum and his extremist ideologies.  There is a treasure trove of low-hanging Santorum fruit that we tee up and rip apart, and I don’t like it one bit.

If Santorum is indeed the Francesco Schettino of the 2012 GOP, then let’s sit back, grab some pop corn, and enjoy watching the good captain run this capsizing ship into the beach. Save the heavy ammunition in case he makes it to the general election, for when after the GOP chooses a candidate more difficult to elect than Romney. Don’t do any heavy lifting for Mitt.

MA Dem Party Chair John Walsh is always funny, always fun and scary smart. He joined us today at Left Ahead to talk strategy and prospects for the 2012 elections, but he won’t ever forget early 2010.

He led the commonwealth Dems to sweeping victory in November 2012 while the rest of the nation was awash in GOP fervor. In no small part, that was because he learned from the special-election loss at the start of the year that saw Republican Scott Brown edge Dem Martha Coakley for the US Senate seat. He continues to build on the lessons he learned after that, including conversations with Dem activists and pols.

Chief among those are:

• start early
• put resources in the hands of the locals and listen to their judgment

There’s an old saying: “Anybody who calls themselves a realist is steeling themselves to do something of which they are secretly ashamed…”

On Scott Browns Campaign Website there are to be seen many iterations of the words “independent” and “moderate”. There are even some allusions to “opponents” clearly of the Democratic stripe. But startlingly few allusions to Scott Brown as a member of the REPUBLICAN party. Is he ashamed? Why would there be so very little mention of the political party Scott Brown has long been affiliated with… Not even his “Bio” pages refers to the party that supported him as a state senator and then, later, as a Senate candidate. (note bene: it was in just this Senate Candidacy when Scott Brown was heard to say “it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.” Even then, it appears, he had trouble admitting to a party affiliation.)

But the entire website reads like a denaturated mime (it will act it out, but it won’t say it) of Karl Roves id: a congerie of Republican talking points, anti-democratic venom, faux-populist sloganeering, vividly vague pronouncements about “Obamacare” and “border protection”, braggadocia about never having voted for a tax increase, and gripes about ‘partisan bickering’ where only one partisan does any bickering.

One is left to wonder exactly whom it is that Scott Brown and his supposedly brilliant tactical staff thinks they are fooling? Who is that they think will swallow this notion of lopsided independence without question?

Republicans? One can imagine a few Republicans who are mercenary enough to overlook subtle attempts at subterfuge like the occasional reference to “independents” and “moderate” Any Republican, however, worth his/her salt can’t be too comfortable with this level of head-in-the-sand: after all, if it’s a superior orthodoxy it can’t possibly hurt to trumpet the good news far and wide…Right? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, right? I can’t imagine it can be all that easy for his campaign staff, many of whom are, sheepish grin, admitted Republicans. And will hard-core Republican donors pony up the cash for somebody who’s, at least publicly, a little squishy about where they might stand? How does That conversation go…?

Independents? It’s hard to square the notion of ‘independents’ and ‘moderation’ with a relentless trumpet of ‘democratic opposition’ and denuded Republican talking points. Does the Brown brain trust think that true independents are that easily fooled? I’ve often thought that many independents are those most sensitive to the notion that the parties are manipulative and are declaring ‘independence’ from just this sort of manipulation. It that’s the case then Scott Browns naked manipulation, in concert with his denial of his own Republicanism, probably won’t sit to will with those independents. And even those independents willing to give the benefit of the doubt… how will they know to trust him when he does, or doesn’t, act independently? Is there a base posture from which deviations can be measured? Is he merely a political sand-dune, washed to and fro? Is he really just mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy? Where does he truly stand, if he can’t self-identify with a party? What if he does, quite clearly, self-identify with the Republican party… but doesn’t trust the independents with that information? What about him is truly ‘independent’ rather than simply entropic?

And if he is truly independent, why doesn’t he just run against Elizabeth Warren (or whomever) in the Democratic primary? If he really is not a Republican, then what does it matter?

Is he trying to soften up Democrats? Well, in the only thing close to an admission of party affiliation, Brown brags several times of “reaching across the aisle” (why don’t you start by describing which particular side of the aisle from which you are reaching, hmm, Senator…?) in an effort, the only real effort, to entice Democrats. It’s a small ray of hope in an otherwise dismally partisan, in act if not in speech, website: a well polished turd trying to sell itself as a ‘gem quality’ stone.

Scott Brown won’t even say who he is. He won’t even say “this is what I believe and where I stand. All my choices will reflect this somehow” Instead he opts for a process independence withal spreading a caricature of a Democratic bogey-man and passive-aggressively trumpeting all but the most blatantly Right-Wing talking points… without ever feeling the need to say “I am a Republican”. It’s patently obvious to all but the meanest intelligence. Maybe he is just ashamed.

He ought to be, in any case…

Santorum & the right to privacy.

Student loans – the next bubble of derivatives to burst?  Up to one trillion – and as for newly minted attorneys – only 68% can find jobs in law, at an average salary of $63,000 for those with jobs.  How will they pay back loans of $150,000 – $200,000?  Only the top 10% earn what folks think attorneys earn.

Oh – and this one sums up my view of today’s Republican Party.  That may explain why, as unhappy as I am with much about the Democratic Party, I stay involved in the fight for it’s political “soul”.

I know – its not Friday so the normal joke and cartoon list was a few days ago, but these were too poignant not to share.

Check out this comedy gold email, just in from Team Brown:

Frankly, I don’t trust any poll

. . . because I know I am the underdog in this race.

Every poll that comes out, they use it to raise money from their national supporters. So will you answer my call for help? Your generous online support of $10 – $50 will get us there. Every seat in Congress is “the People’s Seat,” so don’t let the ultra-liberal special interests buy this one.

Matched up against Professor Elizabeth Warren, we know these five things:

The race will be close
She’ll have money to burn
I’m the underdog
We’re going to win because
We’ve got the best supporters

…

But we must run harder and work longer to win this race because that’s what underdogs must do. Your online contribution of $10 – $50 will help us beat the odds.

Reality check here, folks.  Scott Brown closed 2011 with almost $13 million in the bank – the second-highest tally of any candidate for Senate in the entire United States.  And, as of that time, Brown had better than a 2-1 advantage over Elizabeth Warren in terms of cash-on-hand (for the record, Warren’s total ranked 10th in the country among Senate candidates – not bad).  Combine that with the obvious fact that he’s the incumbent, and it’s awfully hard to see him as the “underdog” – no matter how many times he repeats that word in his fundraising emails (three, in this case).

I do love the extent to which Brown’s consultants are enamored of the “Professor” moniker.  They seem absolutely certain that every time they remind voters that Warren is, well, smart, they flip a voter into the Brown column.  I don’t believe it.

Yes you.  The Massachusetts House Rules concentrate power in the hands of a few key players who determine which legislation makes it to the floor and which will die in committee.  For over 10 years, for example, the updated bottle bill (which PIRG claims is supported by a majority of the members of the House) never has made it to the floor for debate and a vote.  The amount of debate has diminished considerably compared to 20 and 30 years ago.  Transparency has suffered as amendments are “consolidated” behind closed doors and a majority of the House meets in private before every important formal session to determine the outcome of legislation before debate.  (And yes, Amberpaw, I support application of the OML and public records law to the legislative process).

This is where you come in.  Please contact your Representative and urge him or her to join the Rule 28 Coalition.  You can see who has joined to date here:  http://www.rule28.com.  The leadership’s talking points warn rank and file Democrats not to join because the Coalition is an “election year Republican ploy” to increase debate, transparency and accountability.  If that’s the ploy, perhaps more Democrats should be part of it.  The proposal has received support from the Metrowest Daily News, http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x1085184647/Editorial-Letting-the-state-reps-vote, and The Boston Globe, http://rule28.com/news/globe-for-livelier-debate-over-ideas-house-must-get-bills-on-floor/1241/, two publications not known for their complicity in Republican plots.

Your Representatives need to hear from you and not just the warning shot that was sent over their bows by the Democratic leadership.  All the Rule 28 Coalition requires is a vote to discharge legislation from committee to the floor for debate.  Members are not required to support any bill on the floor and are free to argue and vote for or against any legislation.  But there’d be a debate, a vote and the ability for voters to see whether their Representative represents their interests.  The danger (as we sadly have seen in the recent past) is that a top-down system allows one lobbyist or interest group to convince a handful of leaders to shut down the progress of any particular bill.  That’s not healthy and it’s certainly not democratic.

Please post your Representative’s responses here.  Or better yet, let’s have some Representatives join the discussion.  At least we’re free to debate on BMG.

This just seems crazy to me.  Gloucester Times:

The state’s full congressional delegation, with the exception of Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, has written to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services backing a Massachusetts Fishing Partnership application for a three-year, $4 million grant for a project aimed at helping fishermen find their best fit for health insurance….

Brown declined due to the program’s funding source — “Obamacare,” Brown’s press secretary, John Donnelly, told the Times on Thursday…. According to Fishing Partnership statistics, the community outreach-based model and collective prevention efforts — whose “navigators” include Angela Sanfilippo of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association — has helped reduce the rate of uninsured fishermen from 43 percent to 13 percent.

Yeah, it sure would be terrible to get Obamacare-tainted money to find health insurance for fishermen.  Because God knows those guys are living high on the hog these days without a care in the world.  Thank goodness we’ve got Scott Brown to stand on principle on things like this.

Onion:

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct

WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.

According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.

“Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate,” said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. “Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus.” …

“Last week we shot Gov. Mitch Daniels with a tranquilizer dart from a blind we’d set up near the Indiana Capitol, and we plan on mating him very soon with a senator we trapped up in Maine,” said IPPM reproductive expert Gabriel Burke, adding that forced breeding of centrist Republicans in captivity is a humane, carefully regulated procedure designed to simulate mating in the wild. “While captive specimens tend to be wary around each other at first, once they sense they’re both opponents of labor unions yet also willing to make tough compromises on collective bargaining rights, the sexual ritual begins almost instantly.”

Borowitz:

Fact That No One Likes Him May Be Hurting Romney

DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night’s Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him. …

Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, “I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I’ve never heard of who goes around in sweater vests.”

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, “I support the rights of the unborn child until it’s born and wants a gay marriage.”

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: “I don’t care about all the people who didn’t vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up and die, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva.”

Kurtzman:

“They announced the winner of the Westminster Dog Show, and tomorrow the winning dog gets to ride on the roof of Mitt Romney’s car.” –David Letterman

“Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are both against gay marriage. Really, against gay marriage? I tell you, the problem with this is they’d make such a cute couple.” –David letterman

“The vice president of China showed up at the White House today. That’s what happens when you get behind on the rent. The landlord shows up, starts looking around.” –Jay Leno

“Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He got an honorary Grammy for best spoken word for being able to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.” –Jay Leno