Person #6714: 15 Posts

Recommended: 26 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. (0 Replies)


  2. "I am Ed Markey" (0 Replies)

    Great post, Craig. Contra Lynch’s ad, “I am Ed Markey.” It’s a sign ‘o the times–and a positive one, for a change–when being a climate hawk isn’t a political liability, and you can actually go on the offensive on issues like Keystone.
    I’d point that organizations like Craig’s Better Future Project have played no small part in this development, especially here in MA. I’ve been really impressed with the work he and his team have done over the years.

  3. This is your big chance, BMG (2 Replies)

    Add an Arts & Culture section, start running movie reviews, and underwrite the restaurant reviews I’d be happy to provide….

    I haven’t lived here long enough to have seen The Phoenix in its much-vaunted glory days (I was weaned on the Village Voice), and I know some detractors have claimed it’s been all downhill for decades. I can tell you that it was a godsend for a newcomer to town 13 years ago. I definitely didn’t like the new format, and the merger with the horrorshow that was “Stuff@Night” didn’t bode well. On the other hand, I agree about Bernstein, and am glad, at least, that I’ll remain witness to his daily FB salvoes. I’d add to the list Chris Faraone; I thought at first he was working too hard at being the poor man’s HST, but he’s the real deal (see his lengthy expose on James O’Keefe and this terrific, and funny, article on “The Westborough Eight“); and climate-guy Wen Stephenson as well (check out Wen’s piece on The Globe andthe environment).

    Meaning no disrepect to either of them (I appreciate the coverage The Dig has provided some small events I’ve been part of), but “The city of Boston boasts a world-class daily in The Herald and a nationally recognized alternative paper, The Weekly Dig” doesn’t really do it for me.

  4. It's welcome relief (0 Replies)

    The “tool” headline was over the top. That said, I’ve seen other candidates addressed herein with more venom that EB3 has shown Markey to date.

    You have a gift here. How many other post-ers would generate this kind of heat? This is not your average troll. There’s flashes of real wit and more than a little artistry, especially in those lengthy multi-topic posts. I don’t care who he is–authenticity’s over-rated; or whether everything he spouts is factual; or even that the voice is become a bit of a shtick. I DO know that three of him would be overkill, but when he’s on, I’ll admit that I find his stuff entertaining as hell. Yeah, my tastes are running a little lowbrow these days. But I need a break from my own bleak earnestness.

  5. I'm not sweating this (0 Replies)

    There’s a logic to the Scott/CU comparison. But from a rhetorical standpoint, it’s simply never a good idea to compare anything to slavery, Nazis, or the Holocaust. There’s an element of obscenity, of sheer horror to those things that simply put them in another class entirely in most people’s eyes. Their reaction to slavery is visceral, to CU, more or less intellectual. Tarantino does slavery; Moyers, CU. CU is controversial–many folks applaud it, whereas no one that I can recall defends DS.

    That should be the real distinction from any candidate’s perspective. They’re third rails, and not without reason.

    As for knocking on doors and making the comparison–it’s pretty doubtful I’ll knock on any doors and mention Citizens United. I’m pretty certain it’s not a leading issue here in my town. Though I’ve tried to make it one. I’m glad the Congressman is talking it up on the stump–it’s a great excite-the-base issue–but I’m not even sure what percentage of the population has any idea what Dred Scott was all about, much less CU.

    This will blow over. If anything, the statement placed CU on a level it may not merit (sheer unmitigated cap-E Evil), rather than in any wise trivializing DS. A candidate who lets fly with an unfortunate analogy but who has a strong record on civil rights is in better standing than one who decries the analogy but lacks the record. As the Globe reported on 2/21, “None of the pastors interviewed thought the comments would damage Markey significantly in the black community, however. They said black clergy are looking for candidates who can show a long-term commitment on significant issues, includ­ing incarceration rates for people of color, urban violence, and education.” THAT’s the candidate’s response if this comes up in interviews or debates–rather than explaining away the analogy, use it to your own advantage, as an entree to cataloging all that he has done on behalf of communities of color. Make the opponent sorry he asked.

  6. I'm not buying the romance, Dan (1 Reply)

    Here’s a photo of my great grampa, on the right. The text underneath notes that as of that date, he’d been working in the coal mines (in and around Carbondale, PA, outside Scranton) for sixty-five years

    The copy includes these gems:

    These records show that age does not mean idleness but some new form of activity, and many who have experience, but no longer exuberant vigor, find opportunity and even distinction in minor bossing jobs inside or outside the mines, for the industry has no dead-end jobs nor jobs that end with a sudden jolt from relative comfort to a penurious jobless old age…. The active life is rough, it is true, but moving air in the mines is conducive to good health and vigor; so men of years are not few. The companies take pride in finding places suited to their declining years…

    Only a writer sitting in a comfy downtown office could write propagandistic drivel like that.
    Only someone who hasn’t worked in the mines would play the noble, [much-put-upon-but-nonetheless-proud]-savage card. You remind me of all those damn car and beer commercials I have to sit through during football season, all of which equate Real American-ism with brawny white guys doing something or other, as often as not involving cattle, in their mud-spattered pick-ups, or else celebrating the end of an honest day’s work sucking down some godawful excuse for beer in a honkey-tonk tended by bevies of suspiciously lovely and friendly barmaids.
    I think maybe you watch too much TV.

    My great-grandfather–who raised my dad–was apparently a pretty impressive guy. When he was done with his shift, he’d walk home and tend to what apparently a very serious garden. My dad recalls walking the streets with him with a barrow loaded with produce. He’d go to certain houses to give it away. I’m pretty sure, Dan, you can guess why.

    As for that moving air, my grandmother wound up collecting black lung payments for many years.

    My dad took a long, hard look at his prospects and decided that freezing his butt off on the East German border was preferable. And afterwards settling in New Jersey. I don’t think he ever had any regrets. Even about Jersey.

    What bothers me most about this post of yours, Dan, is your reducing a huge swath of America to a stereotype, Not necessarily a negative one, but completely reductive nonetheless. It doesn’t pay to glamorize either people or jobs.

    And you are just as reductive when it comes to Markey supporters with your malarkey about “throwing workers to the wolves.” For goddsake, re-read that paragraph I quoted above–these guys were wholly at the mercy of wolves (and a press that seemed to exist to justify the status quo)! And so are your miners today. But you are wrong to perpetuate myths about those of us who take the science seriously. I’ve insisted, over and again, to my activist friends that for every “no,” we need a “yes,” and that they need a viable plan in place to ensure the viability of a great many communities that are dependent on mining.

    In the meantime, here’s a nice slideshow which provides some clues as to exactly what you’re supporting in your pimping coal. It ain’t the workers.

  7. We just had TWO campaigns in which it was ignored; glad Markey isn't (0 Replies)

    Presidential and ’12 Senate.

    Not this time. I was intrigued to read, on the recent PPP survey summary, that

    “Markey’s support from environmental groups is likely to be a major asset for him… 81% of voters say they are more likely to vote for candidate with environmental backing [47% "strongly"] …

    (see more on crosstab 5).

    Congressman Markey talked it up this morning in Brockton (photos here): “there are no emergency rooms for planets.” He stuck with the parochial green-jobs-for-the innovation-economy-in MA line (stop allowing Kentucky coal and Oklahoma oil to call the shots). Wish he’d mentioned Keystone; based on those numbers, recent reports suggesting that the pipeline isn’t exactly a source of thousands of long-term jobs, and his and Congressman Lynch’s very different positions on the same, I think it’s a winner in MA.

    Albeit not nationally. The administration is going to catch holy hell no matter what its decision on Keystone.

    As for gas, I’m comfortable enough–for now–with “all of the above,” which Markey has been pitching. It’s only the fringe that doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of what somervilletom refers to as “transition source.”

    (As for pipes and martinis, I’m still mourning the loss of Mr PotatoHead’s pipe. I was almost suprised to see that the Stoughton Journal ran my photo of my snowman enjoying his corncob this week.)

    P.S.: Those of us who struggle with keyboards thank you for getting the Preview button working.

  8. They did succeed in getting noticed elsewhere (0 Replies)

    I do believe they got some good press. I was in Pittsburgh over the weekend and this morning the Tribune ran the story on page 2 (meanwhile, the Post-Gazette ran a story on Sunday about how the Marcellus shale was being underdeveloped–nat gas has become so cheap they lack the wherwithal to drill). Front page on LeMonde (ok, for what it”s worth) and maybe the WaPo as well? The NYT ran an editorial, and Obama’s FB page had a non-committal and somewhat oblique, albeit warm, response.

    Also of interest: in support of somervilletom’s point about storms turning into superstorms, USA Today actually talked some sense today about what “climate change” means–less snow, more blizzards.

    No idea why teh Globe is smitte dwith fracking, but as for cverage, not bad, all in all. I was jolted by how many folks showed up in Portland a few weeks ago=my clips here and here (@ 1:55) give you some idea–and this had 20x that. In fact, one activist frind of mine noted that she’d been to countless climate demos, and they were all less than 1/20 of this one. The key indicator isn’t necessarily size or press, but the explosive growth.

  9. She's winning me over, and quickly (2 Replies)

    I had my reservations about Senator Warren’s candidacy; felt she was too-much a one-issue candidate (… says the guy who’s smitten with Markey over climate alone…) and rather weak on the others.

    But she’s clearly willing to lead on this, and to witness her being this aggressive less than two months in is making those reservations disappear fast.

    From Huffpost:

    That set off angry responses to Politico’s Morning Money. “While Senator Warren had every right to ask pointed questions at today’s Senate Banking Committee hearing, her claim that ‘nobody believes’ that bank books are honest is just plain wrong,” emailed a “top executive” to the financial newsletter. ” Perhaps someone ought to remind the Senator that the campaign is over and she should act accordingly if she wants to be taken seriously.”

    Huh. Quite the opposite, sir–I just starting taking her a whole lot more seriously. And you can bet that a whole lotta people a whole lot more important than I am did too–and they’re a lot less happy about it than I am. I’m ready to say that we could have a hell of a team in place in the Senate pretty soon (meaning no disrespect to Sen Cowan).

  10. Seconding Tom on MA Episcopal Diocese (0 Replies)

    I won’t get into the details of this Irish-Catholic’s rather angsty divorce from the church to which his own family has supplied so many priests, nuns, and monsignors, except to say that I still find it odd that after many years in the wilderness, I’m now Senior Warden at my (Anglo-Catholic) Episcopal parish. That had everything to do with what I saw coming from the EC generally and, especially, from Tom Shaw and the leadership here in the Diocese of MA. I’m getting the best of both worlds–a liturgy that takes me right back to my youth, and at the same time a very American, very democratic, very 21st church (“all power to the vestries”).

    To my mind, the recent announcement of Bishop Shaw’s resignation is of far greater moment than that of Benedict. This clip I shot of Tom homilizing at a recent “Move Your Money Event” might help explain it:

    (Other parts of the events captured here; photostream here).

    Bishop Shaw also showed up at one of the most moving religious rites I attended–a service at Dewey Square October 2011.

    Oh, and here’s a shot of my suffragen Bishop, Gayle Harris, at a recent visit to my parish. Why the Catholic Church would deny a woman of this caliber this opportunity I do not understand.

  11. It's a strange kind of monarchy( and that matters) (0 Replies)

    The Pope is something of an absolute monarch, to be sure; in fact, he’s sorta the king of the world, as was made plain in the Bull Unum Samctam (Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff” (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

    However, he’s an elected monarch. And what gives me a lot of trouble is all the solemnity and gravitas with which all the major news media outlets will treat the conclave rather than expressing non-stop horror at the scandalous nature of the whole farce. Imagine that the Catholic Church were 50% people of color–nominally; in practice, let’s up the number to 65%. And yet it had, on the books, a canon declaring that no people of color were to be permitted to vote for the next Pope; that, in fact, a recent and much celebrated Pope had declared that the subject was not even open for discussion.
    CNN would be aghast, and the State Department would probably deliver a mild rebuke.
    And yet, that women are excluded from the process elicits a shrug.

    I don’t take monarchs seriously, and I don’t take undemocratically elected heads-state as credible either.

    I have two daughters. I find the whole thing insulting.

    Hey, maybe it’s time to re-open the investiagtion into JP1′s demise

  12. Photo slideshow and brief video from yesterday's Markey event at the Malden Y (0 Replies)

    Here’s a brief bit of video and a photo slideshow from the event.

    I don’t understand why that web site hasn’t been fleshed out, either.

  13. Out-Browning Brown (0 Replies)

    Saw that Lynch noted last night that he, too, had a pick-up truck. This is gonna get weird.

    In re
    And for those “surprise” people who normally don’t volunteer but decide to do so because they are totally pumped up by the candidate: I don’t see them showing up in either case.

    … you could be be right, but I’m not so sure. There was a lot of talk about Markey on the bus to the Tar Sands demo in Portland; he might excite a good chunk of people who are perpetually dismayed at the lack of attention the subject gets (how many times did it come up in the Warren-Brown race?). I’m hoping he talks it up a-plenty: I don’t believe climate’s a turn-off for anyone but dyed-in-the-wool far right deniers, and it can serve to fuel some excitement among activists here in MA (I see one of my jobs this month as getting some of those passionate climate activists active on the electoral front).

    I don’t know the Congressman personally (Lynch is my rep), but I may well have more of a jump in my step than I did doing anything on behalf of the other three you cite. While I’m not thrilled with every vote he’s cast, I know where he stands on most everything, and it’s generally not too far from where I do.

    Hoping to see a good turnout at his kick-off in Malden tomorrow. At the YMCA, 99 Dartmouth St., 10 am.

  14. Possibly more than overfishing at play (0 Replies)

    The NYT ran this story over two pages. At the very end, this:

    But some fishermen and environmentalists said that overfishing was not the only reason for the paucity of cod, with some putting part of the blame on climate change.
    “We’re seeing a distinct ecosystem change,” Mr. Mirarchi said. “The water’s warmer. We’re seeing species that normally never come into the north lingering into the fall. Something else is going on besides just fishing.”

  15. One-issue voting (2 Replies)

    I’ve spent a lot of time over the years decrying one-issue voters. And candidates (one reason Candidate Warren made me nervous). But I sent Markey a contribution hours after he announced. Because Lynn is absolutely right. And too many Democrats are far too faint of heart.
    I’m aware of what I’m overlooking: votes on PATRIOT Act, war-authorization, etc. And I’d be pretty happy with Capuano myself. But a viable candidate who is as outspoken on climate as Markey is a rare and precious thing.
    Question, to my mind, will be: will Markey feel compelled to soft-pedal his hard line on enviro issue during the campaign? Or is this a winning issue across the commonwealth? He can create a very supportive base by touting his record on climate/environment … but how do you all feel this message plays overall statewide?

  16. Forgiven, if not fotten (2 Replies)

    Years ago–seems like forever ago, which is an unhappy reminder as to how long these wars have been dragging on–my dad (and my consigliere on all things political) told me, in an e-mail, that “I believe your feelings about the war have really clouded your judgment when it comes to the Democrats.” I’m quoting verbatim, because the line stuck in my memory. He was correct; I was prepared to throw more than a few babies out with the bathwater, and wandered in the wilderness for quite some time; but I was appalled and disdisgusted by the lack of wisdom, foresight, and spine. I lost a lot of both trust and respect for the Party as a whole and for more than a few individuals. It went beyond the simple matter of their vote; I too-vividly recall the Senator doing that painful “John Kerry reporting for duty” schtick and crowing about HE would have gotten Fallujah right the first time, which horrified me.

    I like to think many folks may have learned something from these debacles. I’m more than ready to blame it on a strange, sad time in our recent history–there was a sickness in the air post 9/11. I DO retain some special respect for those who DID vote against the authorization, but as for the others, I’m happy–make that content–to judge them on a raft of other issues.

    Markey has laregly refashioned himself as Mister Climate. I know he’s taken some heat from climate activists for championing the President’s “mixed use” energy policy, but the fact is I’m sitting in a nice warm room right now, and that warmth isn’t the product of wind turbines. When a ranking member of Congress comes out and says that the climate cliff is far more dangerous than the fiscal cliff, I’ve found myself a champion for a too-often neglected cause (for all her virtues, candidate Warren largely evaded the issue). That, combined with a sufficient voting record on most other matters, has me rejoicing that he’s in.

    I do wonder what the impact of the announcement will be on Capuano and my own uninspiring rep, Lynch (I really don’t see the latter gaining any state-wide traction in any case). In any case, and even in light of my abiding appreciation for the efforts of Massie and DiFranco, the slate of potential candidates right out of the gate is far stronger than it was before Senator Warren jumped into the previous race (I’m also seeing a number of references on Kos to the plans of the Clintons and others getting up here to work on behalf of the nominee). If Markey is going to continue to make climate change a cornerstone of his message–and I do believe that the way he couches it, in terms of a plus for jobs, can be a winner–I’ll probably wind up working on his behalf, but I’d be more than happy with Mike Capuano.

    I’m feeling pretty good about this. Not cocksure, but pretty good. I don’t care how far from the House either Brown or Weld are–make this race a referendum on the Republican Party per se.

  17. The Commander-in-Chief can't deliberately NOT lower the rIsk to his own soldiers (0 Replies)

    I think I see what you’re saying here: the lower the risk, the more likely we are to engage in the process? Makes sense, and it’s why I suppose some folks want to bring back the draft–make war risky for EVERY Family, and you’ll find a hell of a lot less support for it.

    It’s a logical conclusion.

    On the other hand, if I’m the CinC, my primary responsibility is to look out for the welfare of Americans. If I AM going to engage in “targeted assassination” (separate issue), I believe I’m obliged by the nature of my position to use whatever means necessary, technological and otherwise, to REDUCE the risk of “bombers crashing” or my own young soldiers.
    “becoming prey.” Really, I can’t imagine any elected official explaining to his constituents that he decided to UP the risk of their kids being killed.

    I realy don’t think that using bombers cruising at 25,000 feet really much changes the picture. And in case, we wouldn’t be using WW2 style ordinance, but rather, guided missiles–in either case, the crew is never likely come remotely face to face with the target. Willy nilly, computer-guided weaponry is the de facto standard.

    Interesting, of course, that Osama was taken out by a team of flesh and blood mortals armed with sidearms and knives. The original pan was to use a missile launched from a Stealth bomber–the plan was rejected because a) there would have been no definitive proof of O’s death and b) with another house in the vicinity, the civilian death toll would have been “too high.” IF we could have guaranteed that a missile woull have accomplished the same sans additional casualties, and been able to demonstrate that we “got him” in that way, would you have prefered that we risked the lives of SEALs?

    P.S. I didn’t much agonize over that particular targetted assassination.

  18. Relax. Nothing apocalyptic went down tonight (1 Reply)

    I’m seeing waves of panic all over the net. I’m not so worried ,leastways about the repercussions of this one-off.

    First, as some fo you have poined out, this was a snooze. If it were a hot’n sexy debate on who to bomb next, people would be jazzed.

    Second: I hear Democrats screaming that Obama should have been talking up progressive policy. No. Romney was all the poor and green energy, Obama was about responsible deficit cutting. Each is being his opposite number, appealling to his opponent’s more indie-minded potential supporters. This inning isn’t about firing up your base. Leave that stuff to the Greens. Late innings in campaigns are not the time for moral crusades. If you as a staunch Democrat/liberal aren’t hearing what you want to, it’s because it’s not about you. I’m not sure MSNBC gets that. If I’m an undecided somewhat in touch independent, tonight did NOTHING to help me make up my mind. In fact, I’m probably more confused than ever. That’s a draw, and I’m down with a draw right now.

    Third: the ground game is going to be more important than the televised debates. From everything I’m reading, Obama’s, though not what it was in ’08, is stronger than Romney’s. Though some of you may know better. Still, Romney took a few days off the stump to prepare. What he might have won here he loses there.

    Fourth: you want attack dog mode on the 47%? Not Obama’s style. That’s OUR job. Guy can’t bring himself not to take the high road. Ultimately it allowed him to prevail over Hillary. No small thing.
    I want red meat too. But I’ve learned to trust his and his team’s acumen. Not on every play. But over the course of the season, yeah.

    Fourth: that said, sure, it wasn’t Obama’s best night. He had his lapses during that great series of debates with Hillary, too, remember. But as you know, debates are rarely game-changers. I’ll be suprised if this results in a significant long-term bounce. Still, if the results suggest he was lax, didn’t sufficiently defend himself against some of Romney’s lies and charges, I expect you’ll see something feistier next time around.

    I wached this with my DTC over beers, so I might be overly sanguine, and I’ll probably re-watch the whole damn thing tomorrow, but I don’t have as bad a feeling as many do about this.

  19. It's not enough to be right (0 Replies)

    Here’s the thing, dward.

    One of two things if going to occur in November. You know what they are.

    No matter which of those things ocur, a slew of things are going to proceed as they have (SNAFU. maybe even FUBAR). Troops are goingto be maintained across the globe. The “defense” budget will remain an unsustainable drain on the budget. Climate change won’t be addressed in even a remotely necessary way. The drug war will continue apace. Etc etc etc. Voting for Romney, Obama or Stein won’t change a damn thing in those, or so many other, regards.

    Voting for Stein will, of course, result in nothing, period. Not even in having your voice heard: and that’s for teh best, because the only message sent by garnering 1.4% of the vote is NOT the one you want to send. As in at all. That’s what JS received in her latest gubernatorial run–here in MA, where she has some name recognition, where she got her pic on the front page of the Globe and was in two televised debates. You might recall those debates. I do. I was in Stein’s green room with my head in my hands. The only effect voting for Stein will have is on you. You’ll feel good, and smug, and maybe defiant. But it will be as though you hadn’t bothered.

    So a lotta crap won’t change; and voting for Stein won’t change anything; so what can a poor boy do? Use the voting booth for what it CAN achieve and actually have a real and positive effect on real peoples’ lives. Like mine. People with two kids in college, with a grown-up daughter who really needs to be on her parents heath insurance plan and who because of it got a very expensive exploratory treatment yesterday, who have collected extended unemployment benefits, whose town like so many others across the Commonwealth held onto its teachers thanks to the stimulus.

    That’s real, and that’s concrete. Too many people who vote alterna–or espouse the “don’t vote, it only supports a corrupt system blah blah blah” line have an unreal and far too idealistic view of what the voting both can do. It’s not a bulldozer; it’s not going to raze capitalism and transform our agricultural and transportation systems. But it is a VERY GOOD hammer–with it, you can keep the basement from flooding, patch a hole in the roof.

    And that’s what many of us need right now. The provision in NDAA–and it’s just one line, so I wish folks would stop calling what they object to “NDAA” as though the whole thing is one long abridgement of civil liberties–strikes me as open to abuse. It’s complicated–not even the reps who voted on it agreed as to what they voted on; over the past few days, one court struck it down, another upheld it. It has a way to go. But here’s the thing. People here in Stoughton, they really don’t much care about it. They are way more concerned with the local constabulary getting some very bad people off the streets than they are with cops reading their e-mails and confiscating their Engels.

    It’s great that Stein takes a loud and clear position on these and other issues. She’s relatively articulate, and we need people like her. What we adamantly do not need is people like her running on nothing but venomous and illogical tirades against the Democrats, spewing primae facie canards like “there’s no meaningful difference between the two parties,” and potentially risking critical votes in key states by adopting a strategy that amounts to little more than attempting to strip away Democrats like yourself and enrolling them in a children’s crusade that, to be blunt, for all it’s noble intentions, threatens my children’s well-being.

    Stein said last month, tacitly addressing for the first time the possibility of playing spoiler, that, hey, a Romney would be better than an Obama win. Because under Romney, everyone would “rise up.” Like they did under GWB,presumably. I found that comment repellent. Because it means well-off radicals, whose lives won’t change no matter who is elected, building their revolution on the backs of those who canNOT afford it. No, Dr.Stein, life under Romney will not be better, not in any conceivable way, shape or form.

    Meanwhile, her campaign theme song literally compares Democratics to “obedient Nazis”–you read that right, if I’m hearing it a-right–and her web site is issuing pronouncements that read like the Onion: “In a new CNN/ORC poll released Monday afternoon, a remarkable 2% of registered voters said they would vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein over Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States.” Puzzled by that ambiguous adjective? Me too. Greens want to be in teh debates; to be taken seriously. But for that to occur, you have to take yoursef seriously.

    Until we get to IRV, alterna parties won’t succeed. It’s that simple. Meanwhile, Greens COULD run for any of the, what, 200 or so legislative and senate seats open here in MA, especially challenging Democrats runninguncontested. They are running one one. (Oh, actually two, because as a result of gaining ballot status on ’08, some conservative swooped in in Holyoke and got enough folks to write him in as the Green candidate that he’s on the party line on that district’s ballot; Sec Gavin’s office show down the complaint). A Stein could run for Select Board, Legislature, etc, maybe spend some time on the Hill even, develop relationships–in other words, work her way up, develop a resume, demonstrate some ability at governing before taking on running a multi-trillion business.

    “Real change” ain”t going to happen by dint of voting. I had few to any illusions about Obama–nor do I feel he was dissembling–I felt people heard what they wanted to hear. I wasn’t that thrilled with what I was hearing in’08. Maybe because I had such low expectations, I am one of the very, very few who has actually, over the years, found Obama’s team to be capable of more than I’d hoped. Healthcare reform–and I’m ardently pro single payer–was freaking huge. Years from now people will recognize just what an accomplishment it was–it’s no accident that geting rid of it is a cornerstone of the GOP agenda. Foreign policy has been close to masterful–there have been numerous occasions upn which to overreach, over-react, blow hot air. These folks have been GOOD.

    Plenty of people share your disappointment. Tom Frank has a terrific piece in this month’s Harpers making it very clear that it is more than okay to feel disapointed–but to do the right thing, the difficult thing, the thing that doesn’t make you feel warm and fuzzy, but the disciplined, adult thing.

    Dward, I hope you continue in your activitism, especially with 350.org. And I wouldn’t be so condescending as to ask that you ardently support Democratic candidates (and, sure, here in MA, you can vote for Stein without worrying much). But I do hope that you’ll vote for Elizabeth Warren, and I do hope that in talking with your friends in other states you’ll explain to them that people you know, they really need Democrats in office. Incuding, if not especially, the White House.

  20. "Occupy" and "common sense" are NOT mutually exclusive (0 Replies)

    My own guess is that Occupy is saying what Warren and Obama would say if they could. I hope it is, anyway.

    Not talking at all about climate change is not common sense.
    Opposing the legalization of marijuana is the furthest thing from common sense imaginable.
    Not wishing to curtail the expansion of US bases abroad is not common sense.

    It’s POLITICAL good sense, to be sure, and I don’t begrudge a candidate adopting it for the selfsame reason. But there are a hell of lot of us out here who actually don’t believe that big money in politics is a capital idea, nor do we believe that eliminating the same is a radical idea. And if you’ve been paying any attention to Occupy, you’d realize that that’s at the very heart of it.

    I’m way too busy these days explaining to Occupiers why Warren had to create some distance, much as I felt let down by her in December. But the rest of us don’t.