Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Front Page Posts

Eldridge endorses L’Italien in #MA3

By 1 Comment

Can’t say I’m totally surprised by this: progressive fave Senator Jamie Eldridge endorsed Senate colleague Barbara L’Italien. This from his press release:

In thinking about the qualities I’d like to see in my next congresswoman, in the age of Donald Trump, a few priorities come to mind. We need a representative who has dedicated her life to fighting for the underdog, the people who are under the most attack by the Trump administration, and Republicans in Congress. This is Barbara’s entire life. Since her eldest son was diagnosed with autism, she has been a fierce advocate for Rudy, including passing landmark autism and special education laws at the State House. In our first term as state representatives, when same-sex marriage was made legal, she fought to protect marriage equality, even when her priest tried to remove her from her church. She has stood side by side with me in protecting our immigrant communities, and has dedicated her legislative career to helping seniors, even when she had to go up against corporate special interests. I want a congressperson who is always thinking of how protect this district’s most vulnerable constituents – Barbara has been doing that her entire public service career. Her endorsement from Mass-Care, the statewide single-payer organization, shows her commitment to guaranteeing basic rights to all Americans, including healthcare, including to those struggling in life.

Because of the flood of ostensibly qualified candidates, it’s been hard for anyone to get traction in this race. But this seems like an endorsement that may actually matter. I don’t have a good sense of sentiment within the district, but as someone who’s already been elected as State Rep and Senator, L’Italien comes to the primary with a base.

Granted too, she lost her Rep seat to the Tea Partying Jim Lyons in 2010, and was defeated again in 2012, before winning her Senate seat in 2014. But I’m going to guess that this year, the particular swing-y character of that Rep district, and the relatively moderate cast of the Third district in history, is not going to affect the results in November. (Incidentally, Lyons has an intriguing challenger in young lawyer Tram Nguyen.)

What do you think?

Baker spins on helicopters

By 19 Comments

Charlie Baker has now rescinded his offer of a couple of helicopters to assist in Donald Trump’s/Stephen Miller’s torment of immigrants and asylum seekers. The Boston Globe refers to his “change of heart” after hearing of the tearing away of children from their mommies and daddies. How inspiring! Like the Grinch, doubtless his heart grew three sizes that day.

Nonsense. The thing that brought Charlie Baker to cancel the helicopters-to-Trump lend-lease was sheer political pressure and shaming. That he ever approved it in the first place was a moral scandal. He knows that the internet has blown up over this. Even though Baker exhibits scant introspection himself on this, he knows that we recognize the pure evil and sadism at the heart of Trump’s immigration regime.

Baker’s initial decision to send the helicopters was morally obtuse. But this fits a pattern: As we’ve been saying, Baker has been using immigrants as a political punching bag and literal applause line since he took office. He heartlessly resisted taking in Syrian refugees (with the craven assistance of Mayor Walsh); he introduced legislation that would have allowed cops to hold on to people otherwise free to go, to give ICE a shot at them; he consistently tries to restrict eligibility for health benefits to immigrants — and so on. (Why is it good to have people go without health care?).

Xenophobia and racism are the animating principles of the Republican Party today. (As the kids say, don’t @ me; it is obvious as the sun rising in the east.) Charlie Baker polishes the fruit of the poison tree and gives it a wonky, “moderate” shine, hoping that his right flank still recognizes it as tempting.

What is courageous leadership in the face of inhuman police action against the most vulnerable? Let’s remember Deval Patrick’s actions after the New Beford raid in 2007:

It was not politically easy. But morally, it was clearly, bracingly right. It was leadership, and I’d hold that Governor Patrick helped mold an ideological consensus in Massachusetts that we still share, and to which Governor Baker has mostly acceded.

Baker, too, has a bully pulpit; his decision to withhold the helicopters was inconveniently mentioned to Sarah Huckabee Sanders just today. People notice. He could be a leader. He has a role to play, but he won’t take the stage. This is the fellow who didn’t recognize himself when he ran for governor in 2010, so maybe he’s just lost himself to ambition, again. Maybe.

But I do believe in repentance, and redemption. I believe in “hero moments.” People change their minds. Charlie Baker can fix this. He can pledge to sign the Safe Communities Act, which, stopping short of making Massachusetts a “sanctuary state”, will simply prevent police resources in Massachusetts from acting as ICE proxies:

  1. Focuses resources on local needs, not deportation
    State and local police should use their limited resources to fight crime, not immigrant community members and their families. The bill would bar police from arresting or detaining a person solely for federal immigration enforcement purposes, or participating in U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations or raids based solely on immigration status. It would also prohibit agreements to deputize state and local officers as federal immigration agents, co-opting and taking away resources from local communities. When police act as ICE agents, victims and witnesses of crime are afraid to call for help, which makes us all less safe.*

You can do it, Governor. You’ll have to be willing to disappoint those folks who cheered you at the MassGOP convention. But this is a moment where you can’t straddle; you’ve got to choose. Ya gotta have heart — all the time.

Standing up for Families this Father’s Day

By Leave a Comment

This weekend, I was blessed to spend precious time with my three beautiful children, relaxing in our neighborhood with our extended family and friends. For me, being a father and watching my children learn and grow has been the greatest joy of my adult life. It has changed me in ways I never could have anticipated, and it has profoundly shaped my priorities.

While I was enjoying time with those closest to me, I could not shake the images of other families being ripped apart by intentionally cruel immigration policies. Parents whose children have been taken from them, sometimes without knowing where their children are going or when they will be able to see each other again. Stories of parents being deported without their children.

We must stand up against this cruel policy of family separation. We cannot rest until decency is restored.

We must mobilize to elect leaders who will lead us along a different path. This cannot be who we are as a country. History will judge us by how we respond to these assaults on our American values.

But this isn’t just an issue in faraway Washington or on the US-Mexico border. There is important work to be done here in Massachusetts.

Recently, the Massachusetts Senate passed a budget amendment containing key parts of the Safe Communities Act. The measure ensures that Read More…

The Globe, like the rest of the press, can’t help but try to legitimize Trump

By 6 Comments

Even when they clearly disapprove of Donald Trump and his policies, members of the media can’t seem to keep themselves from trying to normalize his policies and provide them with a veneer of legitimacy.

The latest case I’ve seen of this is a piece this past weekend in The Boston Globe, which discusses a string of supposed “policy victories” of Trump’s.

The piece takes on a predictably depressing Trump-is-winning tone, even though it is clear that the writer does not agree with the policies on which Trump has supposedly been victorious.

But as I read the piece, the question occurred to me — wasn’t there an editor who might have questioned the premise of both the article and an accompanying sidebar, headlined “Trump’s trophy case,” which lists those supposed policy wins, including cutting taxes, exiting the Paris climate accord, backing out of the Iran deal, meeting with Kim Jong Un, weakening environmental regulations, eroding Obamacare, appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and the like?

It’s not that I think it’s wrong to list Trump’s executive actions, which I think the press has actually done too little of, given its overriding obsession with reporting on his intentionally disruptive tweets and divisive comments.

But the problem I have with the Globe piece lies in the second half of the opening sentence, which states: Read More…

Massachusetts Senate Unanimously Endorses a Bold Vision for Clean Transportation

By Leave a Comment

Cross-posting this from UCS’ blog the Equation. The need for new funding sources for clean transportation of course became all the more acute with today’s decision by the SJC rejecting the millionaire’s tax.

The Massachusetts Senate has unanimously passed an energy bill that promises to dramatically reshape the vehicles and fuels that power our transportation system.

If enacted, this legislation would make Massachusetts a national and even global leader in the deployment of electric vehicle technology. It would dramatically reduce our consumption of oil, and the pollution that comes from petroleum. It would save lives by significantly improving air quality, especially in urban areas. It would produce a stronger and more resilient modern grid that will provide ratepayers with greater efficiency and reliability. And it would produce long-term cost savings for Massachusetts drivers and transit agencies.

And I’m just talking about the provisions related to transportation. (See here for more about the provisions related to renewable energy and storage, en espanol aqui.)  But even a focus on just the implications for the transportation sector is meaty enough. Here’s why this bill is taking on transportation emissions and what the bill would do.

Transportation and climate goals

Let me start with a little background on transportation and Massachusetts climate policy. Read More…

The Fair Share Tax is OFF the ballot

By 19 Comments

A 5-2 decision (Justice Lenk concurring and Justices Budd and Gants dissenting).

From the majority opinion:

“We conclude that the initiative petition should not have been certified by the Attorney General as ‘in proper form for submission to the people,’ because, contrary to the certification, the petition does not contain only subjects ‘which are related or which are mutually dependent….

“It is immediately apparent…that the three provisions are not mutually dependent. As discussed, petitions seeking to impose a graduated tax rate or a tax on specific high-income earners previously have been presented to the voters of the Commonwealth as stand-alone initiatives. It is also evident that funds for ‘quality public education’ and ‘affordable public colleges and universities’ could be raised and provided to educational institutions separately from any expenditures on transportation, and that raising funds for ‘repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation’ could proceed without any expenditures on education, at any grade level.

“Although she certified the subjects as sufficiently related, the Attorney General has not articulated a common purpose between these spending priorities, beyond the abstract determination that both purposes are ‘broad areas of public concern.’ The interveners [advocating for the question to be on the ballot], for their part, assert that prioritizing spending for education and transportation will ‘strengthen[] the Massachusetts economy and set[] a foundation for inclusive growth.’ Some of the amici characterize the petition as intended “for economic advancement and social mobility” of specific groups within the Commonwealth. The difficulty the proponents have in stating the purported purpose of the initiative petition is itself telling.”

The opinion is here.

 

More Posts from this Category

Archives