As usual, sco nails it on Deval Patrick’s next hurdle:
… I think Patrick could appeal to independents as much as, if notmore than, Reilly. (…) but at some point all thattalk is going to have to turn to action — even if it’s just takingleadership on one or two issues — and that will be when we’ll see themake-or-break moment in his campaign.
Yup. I’ve suggested wind power, or at least an ambitious renewable energy program … But I think health care might suit him even better. And health care is a hot issue in which early leadership will quickly distinguish him from the other candidates: Especially from Romney, and even from Beacon Hill and Travaglini.
Mr. Patrick, there are still great seats available on the Health Care Access and Affordability Act bandwagon — Care to climb aboard? The ride’s a little bumpy, but it may well get you where you want to go …
Patrick needs to idenmtify himself with a few issues and positions that are the opposite of what one would expect from a progrssive. Right now he can be attacked by just being another mouth piece of the same ole crap from dem state party. Perhaps charter schools or vouchers, or parental consent on abortions, partial and late term abortions.One or two of those issues show indepepndents that he will think for hiomself and isn’t afraid of going against this lame, weak, irrelevant state party. Until then, no matter how charismatic, or Black he is he won’t get the number of independent votes he needs to beat Healy or Baker
Oh for…Patrick should identify himself with what he believes in. None of this “oh, he needs to pretend to have a few issues where he’s not a progressive so he can appeal to the middle” shit. This is how we’ve lost the governor’s race over and over again. Pandering. If Patrick actually believes in a side of an issue that isn’t “same ole crap” as you put it, fine, let him stand strong on it, but for Pete’s sake, no pandering.School vouchers suck as an idea, as does backing down on women’s choice. There would be more people disappointed in his taking those positions (particularly if he doesn’t really believe them with conviction) than would applaud him. Patrick’s campaign depends on the grassroots – what the grassroots wants in return is a truthful, upstanding candidate with great leadership qualities. I don’t know if Patrick is that, it’s early in the game, but the quickest way to kill his campaign before it really gets started is to piss off the grassroots, who are trying to change the party, but not in the way you think it needs to change.I agree that same old state Dem politics as usual won’t, and shouldn’t, work, but I heartedly disagree that Patrick needs to stoop to not being who he is (which is, frankly, a progressive).
BTW, stomv: How many issues do you have to have as pet issues before they aren’t pets anymore? Because I consider both of high importance…health care because I have none and can’t afford it, and green energy because I really would hate to see Boston sink into the ocean.Isn’t it the case Patrick has already somewhat hitched his star to health care? Or am I mistaken?
It’s not pretend Lynne. I do not know 2 perople that agree on every little thing. However progressives believe that if people do not agree with them on everything then a person cannot be part of the democratic party. And they use social intimidation tactics.That is what I mean. I find the democratic party, especially in this state, the least welcoming and not at all inclusive. Its arrogance and the arrogance of many progressives will forwever cost it the governor’s office.But Lynne, public education is a sacred right in this country. The education programs we currently have are not. You fall right into the trap set by the teachers’ unions which control our party.Think for yourself Lynne.
Whoa, that’s a lotta accusations there. Why would being against vouchers mean I’m not thinking for myself?First, many pro-voucher types would like them to apply to private religious schools. That is right out. No public money for that, thanks. Separation of church and state. I don’t like tax money going to Kansas schools teaching creationism and I wouldn’t like it going to private schools teaching the same thing.Second, pulling money out of the failing schools damages them further. I can’t see how the math adds up. You take tax dollars to fund vouchers, there’s less for everyone else. The whole point to a public school system is to pool everyone’s money together, share the load and the rewards, and administer things en masse so that one can take advantage of economies of scale.I went through the public school system. I had good experiences and bad ones. However, at the very least I got an adequate education that I could use to further my own ambitions. At best, I had a spectacular education that propelled me into directions I wouldn’t have gone without it.I agree not everything a teachers’ union wants or demands is the right course of action. However, I know a bunch of teachers, all of whom spend their own hard-earned, low income on school supplies they don’t get reimbursed for so they can improve their classrooms. Class sizes are insane in some districts. Don’t you think we ought to look at more solutions than just “pull the money out and hand it to people as vouchers”? Vouchers are the glib answer to a serious problem. It doesn’t address the problem underlying it – it just expands and exacerbates the problem further and harms the students left behind.And you are right to some extent about the Democrats at the state level not being welcoming. You know what? If you want to see something changed, you gotta do it yourself. I know lots of people who are working within the structure to change it. Infiltrating the DTCs are a good start, joining local groups, etc. I’ve considered it myself but my energies have been going elsewhere (I volunteer a lot) and I don’t have time.But progressives have not cost the Dems the statehouse. Inside politics has. You can’t have it both ways – either it’s us outsider progressives (who by the way were not in power, at least, not until recently with the elections that have gotten some progressives in) or the insider state Dems.
I don’t particularly like vouchers either, FWIW. I do, however, think that charter schools are a good idea that the Dem establishment should be much more open to, and probably aren’t primarily because of teachers unions (and let me be clear: I suspect it’s the union leaders, not the rank and file teachers, who are leading this – I’m a union member myself and my union really pisses me off a lot of the time). The party has grudgingly gone along with charter schools in a limited sort of way, but really, I have a hard time seeing what the big worry about them is. That strikes me as something anyone looking to break with party orthodoxy might investigate.
To the original topic: there is a lack of leadership on ANY issue in our state right now. Mitt? Reilly? Travaglini? What are any of them doing about anything? Patrick could lead on the Big Dig, on healthcare, on education (mcas, public higher ed), on the loss of population, on the lack of entry level jobs, transportation, housing, energy…The problem is that none of the electeds are prepared to risk anything. These guys aren’t leaders, they’re politicians. The appeal of Patrick – and perhaps Baker or someone like Capuano – is that they might actually step up and do something about some of the issues in Massachusetts. Reilly, Romney, et al. are just playing the game, trying to rise as high up the power ladder as possible.If Patrick – or one of the others – can really show that they’re willing to actually get their hands dirty and make something happen, they’ll have my support. Even if their stance on an issue is different than mine, right now I just want a Governor who does something other than look for another job.
That is exactly the sentiment that our next governor, whoever it may be, is going to have to capture. It’s what I mean when I say that issue positions don’t really matter — people will cut you slack if they think you’re different than “politics as usual”.Once again, I ramble on and on and someone else says exactly what I wanted to say even better than I did đŸ˜‰
stomv, I don’t want to trivialize the energy issue — you know I feel strongly about it, too. But on health care, let’s fill up your half-empty glass:”If it gains momentum after he brings it up, he risks being accused of jumping on the winning horse.”I don’t care if he’s “accused” of being on the right side of the issue. We need progressives to be politically opportunistic. Like I say, plenty of room on the bandwagon. (Dueling metaphors — hyah!)”If — and far more likely if recent history is any guide — the health care push fizzles or fails to provide fundamental change, he’ll have tied his ambitions to a losing cause.”No way — the miserable reality of the health care situation is not going away. He could then say, “See — we need real leadership on health care! Clean up the mess on Beacon Hill!” etc etc.Everything is an opportunity.
Just to comment quickly back off topic (is that a record, off topic in two of my posts in a row?), charter schools, from what I remember hearing, aren’t doing all that well in the country on average. Individual ones shine like the sun and are marvelous, but in general, kids are faring worse in those schools than in public schools (which says a lot). I remember hearing this last year sometime, it might have been this broadcast on NPR’s All Things Considered.
I’m not sure one can fairly say that charter schools in general have lower levels of achievement than public schools in general – there are way too many variables. I thought this looked like a pretty good, not obviously biased summary of the issues surrounding charter schools.
The point being… that these issues (charter schools and vouchers) are worthy of debate within the party.Instead they are uised as a litmus test for progressive and therefore democratic credentials. Why? because the trachers unions have much control. Why? Because their memebrs organize and more importantly, have the time, especially during summer months, important campaign time.Give the Democratic Party back to the People, and stop it from being the personal political religion of the few (progressives)
One more thing.Why can I used food stamps for Trappest Monk Jams but not use vouchers for the christian academy, hebrew school, or catholic school where the education is good?
Troll,Simply as a matter of law, you actually can use vouchers for religious schools now. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that tuition vouchers going directly to the parents are constitutional, even if a large majority of parents then use those vouchers to send their children to parochial or otherwise religous schools. The Court largely rested its decision on the idea that it was solely due to the parents’ choice that the money was then spent for religious schooling, so it was not impermissible under the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment- much like someone choosing to buy Trappist jam with their foodstamps…although I don’t think the Supreme Court used that analogy.Now, whether this is a good political policy is a completely different question that the Supreme Court doesn’t have to worry about. But, as a matter of current constitutional law, it is perfectly constitutional to use vouchers at religious schools if those vouchers are sent directly to the parents and the parents then choose how to use them.
Thankjs Harry. I knew that. My poiint is this should not be a litmus test issue for progressives. What do u think about that harry?
Troll,I think we agree on this. I’m not sure if there’s any single issue that should ever be a litmus test for progressives or, for that matter, any political persuasion that’s trying to attract a critical mass of support. Therefore, although I am against vouchers (I’m not sure where I stand on Charter Schools), I don’t feel comfortable making that an all-or-nothing issue. I consider myself to be a progressive. I also imagine that I am on the progressive side of most of what progressives would consider to be important issues. For instance, it would be very difficult for me to support someone who supported reinstating the death penalty, wanted to reverse same-sex marriage, or was pro-life. However, I try (and sometimes I fail) to not give in to the selfishness of ideological purity, but rather stay open to supporting those who agree with me only 60% of the time. Indeed, I might even support someone who agrees with me 40% of the time if I thought that we agreed on those issues that were important to me. I refer to the selfishness of ideological purity not because I think people should abandon their beliefs, but because I think that serving the public is more important than getting everything I want out of a politician. Therefore, I’ll gladly support someone who’s with me 80% of the time and has an 80% chance of succeeding over someone who’s with me 100% of the time but only has a 30% chance of succeeding. Well, I might not do so “gladly,” but I’ll bite the bullet and support someone who can actually get something done. I want to win, and I want to see what a Dem can do in the corner office.
What about a local candidate or state rep who opposes gay marriage but accepts and won’t vote against it, will not change abortion laws, but not comfortable with abortion and will vote against partial birth and is for informed consent from parents, AND is great on constituent services and needs, always available, and not a bad guy/gal personally?
Plus..I like your points. I am taking your last comment over to MIT and having a formula devised.smiles
Troll,I appreciate that you’re trying to test an avowed progressive on how far I’ll go with this “no litmus test” approach. The only honest answer I can give to the hypothetical candidate you propose is that I’d need to know more information about him/her; indeed, it would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise. If I claim not to have a litmus test, then I should look beyond 1, 2, or even 5 issues. However, since that’s not terribly exciting for blog purposes, I’ll say that: (1) in general, I distrust people who say they are “personally” for or against something, but will vote for the status quo (this isn’t a knee-jerk reaction, I would just want to meet them before buying their story); (2) generally, the more local an election, the higher a premium I put on constituent services, (3) with particular regard to the hypothetical abortion stance, as the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned increases, I concentrate more and more on the particulars of state legislative candidates’ abortion positions, so I would put a lot of weight on a particular candidate’s stance on partial birth or parental notification. Since I am personally against both, that would be a strike in the negative column against that particular candidate. Finally, and unfortunately, perhaps the biggest factor will always be how any particular candidate compares to the other candidates in his/her field. Let me know if MIT comes back with a good formula.
Sorry harry, you don’t get off easy. You look at politics as a utopia but it is not. It is dealing with different constituencies. Including different constituencies within the party.Right now the dems will not allow many constituencies in who would be with them on many other issues. Important democratic issues that effect working poor and houising.It is the closed nature of the party run by progressives. That is why party will fail.
PS – it is settled that from a legal point of view Row v. Wade is flawed reasoning.
Troll,I’m not quite sure where you see our point of disagreement. I agree that politics is dealing with different constituencies from within and beyond the party. I also agree with you that issues like housing and poverty are largely ignored by BOTH parties, although I’m more ashamed of the fact that Dems largely ignore it. Finally, I even agree that progressives, at least recently, have often concentrated more on progressive “social” issues to the detriment of progressive “economic” issues, if such a division can be made. However, to say that such a concentration is bad from an ideological or theoretical view is hypocritical- indeed, it is to be expected that certain constituencies will care more about social issues over economic ones and vice versa. >From a strategic view, which is what I think you might be getting at, yes, I think it is unwise for Dems to shut out people who might disagree with them over the issues that certain constituencies care most about. For instance, I probably agree with about 90% of the DNC platform, but I am staunchly pro free trade- no one has shouted me out of the party. Bob Casey also agreed with about 90% of the DNC platform. Although I strongly disagreed with Casey’s pro-life beliefs, it was wrong for our party to lock him out. Wrong and, perhaps, strategically stupid.
Harry, Hellooooo,The party is very unwelcomeing and demonizes democrats who believe one or more of the following.1. Abortion is morally wrong, but should be legal.2. Gay marriage is wrong, but gay couples shoud have equal rights, not called marriage3. Charter Schools and vouchers are alternatives that should be persued4. Deat Penalty in certain situations.The above cannot come to the table at the party level. If the poilitician is Irish Catholic and from an urban area then he is demonized 10 fold.I have come to strongly believing this after years of observation and DENIAL. But the more I see the more see from these elitist bastards the more I believe it.So as a result people with common interests about working class issues and helping all people that literaaly can’t help themselves(walk through any urban area during the day and you see plenty of “poor bastards”) are kept from untiing for common working class and middle class issues.
Sorry Harry, I just saw your last line about Bob Casey. That is my point. Until that happens we are doomed.