1) Inclusiveness.
Who usually gets to attend an inaugural ball? Isn’t it the top tier of the campaign organization and the fat cat donors? With a campaign organization the size of Deval’s, how would you decide who get’s invited and who doesn’t. This time around any citizen can buy a ticket to the main event for $50 or the regional events for $20. Someone asked about the lack of a mechanism for the free tickets to the Boston event. My understanding is that those are primarily targeted at campaign volunteers who couldn’t afford the $50 and will be distributed through the coordinators.
2) The Regional Events
Of course there are folks in the western part of the state or out on the Cape who won’t mind driving into Boston for the main event Thursday night, but I’m sure there are a lot of people outside 128 who are thrilled they can attend an event a little closer to home.
3) The Youth Inaugural
When I was in high school I would have loved to attend an event like this. How many kids have to be inspired by this event to get more involved in civic life for it to be worth every penny spent on it?
4) The Civic Engagement Events
The cynical among us will say that collecting socks and boots for needy children is just for show, but I doubt the kids who are helped by this will mind. In addition, each of the regional events is being asked to include a civic engagement aspect in their plans. Up on the North Shore we’re looking at inviting representative volunteer organizations in the area to come and participate in a volunteer opportunities fair. Hopefully a few ‘checked in’ folks will be inspired to get involved in something other than politics.
Being a ‘glass is half full’ kind of guy, I see a lot to like about the inauguration plans. The downside is that all of this inclusivenss and regional diversity does cost money. I’m just not sure I see a way to keep everthing I like about the plans without asking for some help to pay for it.
BTW, I hope Charlie realizes I was kidding about the progressive dinner.
Apparently Eliot Spitzer is using funds from his campaign fund. So Spitzer found a way to pay for his inauguration without asking for large donations from corporate interests.
Unfortunately, from what I hear there isn’t much.
Then have a small party. Deval doesn’t “deserve” a big party while he takes the oath, and if his supporters want to give him one, they can cough up the cash. Unless they just feel that it’s “their turn” at the public trough.
has a much more lenient campaign finance law in terms of donations, did Spitzer put limits on his contributions?
Although the plans to make sure everyone feels a part of the inauguration are commendable, it is troublesome that the plans include taking up to $50,000 from corporations, lobbyists and contractors. I thought most progressives were against such influence. Apparently, all it takes is being offered a party for us to forget that principle. BTW, I am sure there are other ways to hold an inauguration, be inclusive, and raise enough funds.
Until I have evidence that this got anyone anything in regards to access, I’ll reserve judgement for now.
<
p>
The problem is, that Deval’s history looks like bucking the corporate influence even while IN the corporate world…I know the standard op is that anyone taking money from corps for anything must be evil, but in a case-by-case basis, is that going to be true here?
<
p>
Honestly, I’m pretty sure it’s not. In this case. Or else I wouldn’t have worked myself to the bone to get him elected in the first place.
<
p>
Of course, if he proves me wrong once in office, people like me will be severely disillusioned and sad. But I think Deval knows that and actually cares.
Taking this a step further: Deval Patrick made it clear on the campaign that he wanted to build more productive partnerships with business and he wanted to attract business to the state. As progressives, of course, we’ve been suspicious of business. The Republican House of Representatives has been happy to turn the writing of laws over to lobbyists. (I mean this literally as in actual language from actual lobbyists.) Republicans have also entertained themselves with eroding the regulatory shield that keeps the stock market honest and the food market safe.
<
p>
That does not mean we should make the leap to regarding business people as ipso facto evil and to thinking that any contact with them is corrupting by definition. No governor will be able to get our economy moving without a lot of work with business people. And yes, some of those business people will have pushed or done bad things in the past. In some cases, we expect the state will go out of its way and help some actual, specific businesses.
<
p>
While this is happening, of course, I can expect Joan Vennochi and other professional hemmers and hawers to hem and haw. The goal of effective state government isn’t to build propsperity out of the pure gold of individual citizen engagement. It is to use power effectively to achieve good ends. That requires leaders of extraordinary skill and integrity. From progressive citizens, I think it requires a mix of vigilance on the one side against corruption and support for our own team in their attempts to do right.
I see a lot I like, too, but the cool kids have deemed the whole thing impure. Alas, I’m not that cynical by nature and am entirely willing to take Patrick at his word.
if this were anyone but Deval Patrick (including Kerry Healey), how would you feel? If the answer is that you would be troubled by the large donations from corporations, then you should be troubled by it under these circumstances as well.
<
p>
This is not about Patrick’s word or his integrity. I know they are both good. It is about the perception he is creating to all those people he wanted to check back into the political process. Throwing them a party (to which most of them probably will not go anyway) does not make it ok that he is accepting large donations from corporations and lobbyists to do so.
I hate it when conservatives tell me what I would do if it were their guy and I hate it just as much when liberals tell me the same.
<
p>
I’m glad, though, that you can see into my heart and tell me what I would think. Please let me know if there are any potential clogs that I should be worried about.
That is entirely up to you and your conscience. I do wonder about people who claim to believe in certain principles as long as the principles apply to everyone else.
This is so touching TheOpenSociety. Moving too is your ability to stay close to your two or three points and to answer anyone who thinks differently.
<
p>
By your unexampled generosity of retort, we know you will offer your gift to everyone. What a holiday tribute!
No need to warn when there is nothing to duck.
It went right over your head anyway.
You’re right, probably lots of people who get an invitation aren’t going to want to go. However, with over 7000 campaign volunteers, close to 30,000 individual donors, plus all of the people we’re trying to pull in now that the election is over, it wouldn’t take a very high response rate to overwhelm the usual inaugural ball arrangements. Should I tell all of the volunteers that worked the phone banks and canvassed the neighborhoods in my town that they can’t attend the inaugural because of somebody’s (I think) misguided perception that Gillette will get come kind of unfair advantage if they kick in some bucks to help pay for a more inclusive celebration? At least this way, everybody from the biggest campaign donor to the man on the street has a pretty much equal shot of getting in if they want to.
is to ask for large donations from corporations and lobbyists? If that is the case, I would rather make sure that the government remains inclusive and forget the inauguration. After all, wasn’t that what this election was all about?
I was at the same meeting on Tuesday that Lynne described in her ‘People Powered Inauguration’ thread. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out cheaper ways to do things, but in the end you run up against all kinds of requirements from the facilities, health regulations that prevent you from bringing in your own food, etc. So yea, the choices at this point are big, inclusive, and expensive, or small and exclusive. There’s no big pot of ethically pure funds to use to pay for this. Almost all of the campaign donations weren’t spent getting the new governor elected. I guess I’m a little disappointed that someone with an alias of ‘TheOpenSociety’ can’t get at least a little excited about how open this event is going to be.
The alias is from the title of two volume book called the Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper. My position on this issue is completely in agreement with many of the principles Popper talked about in his book.
<
p>
BTW I did not say the inauguration should not be open or inclusive. However, I would rather make sure we have a truly open society, then throw a party and simply proclaim that we do.
I don’t care about the “perception.” Let the corporations and lobbyists part with their money–who cares. Either you trust Patrick to have integrity or you don’t. I do. You don’t. c’est fini
of the grassroots? Did the “grassroots” elect you spokesperson? Are you the arbiter of what is proper and acceptable to the grassroots?
<
p>
Your sanctimony is stunning.
<
p>
Newsflash: you don’t speak or decide anything for the “grassroots.” The fact that you talk about the “grassroots” in such monolithic terms suggests your understanding of the term is misinformed at best and self-serving at worst.
I do not think this conclusion follows. Reading Senator Mitch McConnell’s opposition to campaign finance reform, you learn that he does not regard financial influence as bad at all. Conservatives have this view that to be financially successful, you must be self-disciplined, and, by being self-disciplined, you are good. We regard it as unconscionable to roll back OSHA standards or clean air standards. Those other-winged guys have a very different view and identify with the owners of the regulated business much more than we do. Yes, everyone can be corrupted, but not everyone sees his or her job in the same light.
<
p>
A number in the media have pointed out that it took the Republicans in the House only ten years to reach the same level of corrpution that the Democrats had achieved after forty years of controlling the House. There is a reason for this and it is an ideological reason that the media do not spell out.
<
p>
I’m certainly not saying, “He’s a liberal; he must be good.” I think every progressive on this blog is a bit suspicious about theses $50,000 contributions. I know I am. (That’s why it took forty years.) This diary and others have pointed out reasons why these contributions are a good thing.
<
p>
So let’s think about what do we do with that suspicion. I think the thing to do is to keep quiet about it for now. Let’s wait for Deval Patrick to do some actual governing. If he seems to be unduly influenced by some contributor or even if things get more suspicious, please, let’s raise some noise.
<
p>
But right now, this feels like a first course of circular firing squad thing followed by a cannabalistic salad.
As I said somewhere else in response to this same comment, I did not join Common Cause to be silent about one of its core issues; the effect of money on campaigns and politics. It is a nonpartisan issue and there are people in both parties who get it. (For example, McCain and Feingold.)
<
p>
As Pablo states in his diaries,
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” –Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I got that you are not going to be quiet about this. I got that. I have tried to communicate that sarcastically. Now, I’m communicating it directly. I got that.
<
p>
Do you care at any point to answer any of the other substantitive things anyone else has said about this other than an iteration of the importance of this issue to you?
<
p>
I have an extended, thought-out position on this. (1) It isn’t symmetric between liberals and conservatives and I described reasons why. (2) I weigh worrying about this against the good that Patrick could otherwise do. I point out lots of places how crucially important it is for us that liberals succeed; it’s not an idle game. (3) I talk about this in the context of the current liberal-devouring media environment. (4) Others have questioned the racial dynamics implicit in how people respond to Patrick and on this issue in particular. (5) Others have pointed out the logistical requirements of big parties and how expensive they are. (6) Others have also mentioned the positive side to the inauguration plans. (7) Others have pointed out the difference between using such contributions during the campaign and using them at an inauguration.
<
p>
In the face of all that, you have responded with a voluminous series of short comments some of them verging into neener-neener land and all of them reiterating to various degrees how Important this is to worry about. You’ve done so with a big helping of ad hominem. Let me assure you: you are not the only one here with a conscience and principles. What you’ve been doing is not advancing the discussion. You’ve been burdening it.
<
p>
Could you maybe take some of the other side of this question seriously? Pull up some facts that might change someone’s mind? Think about the different points of view? Actually, you know, engage in a dialog. You might even demonstrate how charming and gracious you can be disagreeing with someone.
This individual’s response to everyone who pushes back is a) you’re a sell out b) you don’t understand the grassroots like I do c) you’re projecting or d) any/all of the above in combination.
<
p>
I’m reminded, once again, that the left has its ideologues just like the right.
Well. Well. Look at all the panties in a bunch over being inclusive and all for the inaugural. Has anyone stopped to realize (used loosely) this is politics. For cripe sake wake up. You didn’t actually think the “rhetoric” was for real did you.
<
p>
Patrick will rightfully do what is in his best interest no different than any other politician. That is how he will succeed.
<
p>
The whining about cost and who can attend etc. Grow up and either pay the price to play and show your loyalty or go back to being anti-everything.
<
p>
Ya’ll can bring the whine to go with the cheese at the inaugural.
<
p>
And you think all the info collected from all these meetings is going to go anywhere. At the very best maybe 10% will and that’s only with Trav’s and Sal’s sign off.
<
p>
Yes subconciously, reality is creeping in here.
<
p>
I have a suggestion…take all this hot air, and bingo you can present the new Gov with an energy plan!
Uh…who’s complaining it’s not inclusive? Haven’t we all been saying that the whole point is that the cost of being inclusive is high, but we’re doing it, and in my opinion, doing it right.
<
p>
No wonder you’re a GOPer. You don’t like anyone.
What the hell am I going to do with all this casserole and Jell-O?
Do a glass exist if no one remembers it 6 months from now?
<
p>
Let the man have is party in peace.
If you can get a corporation to sponsor your party, go for it. If it’s good enough for Arnold Schwarzenegger….