The Democratic primary for the Massachusetts 5th Congressional District is close: September 4th. Our preference is Jamie Eldridge: he has the most progressive ideas, and an idealistic voice that cuts through the fog of vague campaign language.
The Democrats have a strong field in this race, but more than the other candidates, Eldridge understands that tough problems require bold thinking: the scale of one’s solutions must match the depth of the problems one seeks to address. This is refreshing in an era of political timidity on the Democratic side.
Eldridge’s positions on health care and campaign finance are especially worthy of applause. Single-payer health care (ie. “Medicare for All”) provides better overall health care for many other developed countries in the world at a fraction of the cost of our bloated dysfunctional monstrosity. It deserves aggressive advocacy in Congress. Eldridge will help push Congress to enact the rock-solid guarantee of health care every American deserves, and improve our economic productivity and competitiveness relative to other countries by reducing the administrative costs of our current system.
The current campaign finance system poisons democracy: elected officials are influenced disproportionately by their financial backers. Eldridge’s status as the only Clean Elections campaign winner in Massachusetts history makes him an appropriate successor to Marty Meehan, whose great accomplishment was the Shays/Meehan-McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law. He doesn’t just believe in reforming campaigns; he’s run and won a reformed campaign. He supports public financing of congressional campaigns. Eldridge will provide real leadership on this critical issue.
Eldridge’s legislative record is reassuring. He has consistently worked for progressive causes in the legislature, often on unglamorous but necessary legislation. He has been more workhorse than showboat. He opposed Tom Finneran in the House. One can easily see what kind of Congressman he would be, and we need more of them.
Finally, we support Eldridge’s progressive positions on social issues: for example, a woman’s right to choose, the death penalty, marriage, and constitutional rights.
Eldridge needs campaign funds; and even more importantly, volunteers to bang phones and walk districts. We are heading into the home stretch of this race, so if you’re going to act, do it now.
Here’s our ActBlue fundraising page for Jamie Eldridge. Here’s how to volunteer.
Thanks for the endorsement!
<
p>
You’ve made a great choice. Jamie is an outstanding candidate.
<
p>
You’ve joined a number of progressive organizations, Democracy for America (DFA), Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts and Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, who have endorsed Jamie.
<
p>
As “the editors” said, is you’re going to act, do it now.
<
p>
For those who are active in the progressive Democratic community, consider taking the day off on September 4 and volunteering with Jamie’s campaign. Jim Dean, DFA Chair; Tom Hughes, DFA Executive Director and Ilya Sheyman, DFA Community Organizer will all be here in the Fifth CD. Volunteering on Primary Election Day is great way to connect with other progressives throughout the state.
<
p>
We will have plenty of fun volunteer opportunities in the next DOZEN DAYS. You can contact me directly if you’d like to get involved. I can be reached at KateDonaghue@aol.com.
<
p>
Thanks again! Kate
another hundred because Jamie represents who I want to see in Congress (and because I have had to beg off on canvassing for three weeks in a row). I really do believe that groundwork is more important than dollars, but if I can’t be there, the next best choice in supporting a progressive candidate is with dollars.
But then, you knew I was going to say that, didn’t you? đŸ˜‰
<
p>
My blograiser for Jamie is still going – I have $230 in matching funds still left, make a donation in the ActBlue page linked in my sig line and I’ll match it, up to $230. And please do come and volunteer with us – we’re a fun group, and we’re always smiling ‘cuz we know we’re winning…
I’d just add that Jamie is also the most consistent candidate on the issue of ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. Not only was he against the war before it started, but in the candidates debate in Chelmsford on May 24, he was the only candidate who said he would vote against the bill giving Bush all the money he wanted with no strings attached. (Eileen Donoghue and Barry Finegold spoke but didn’t answer the question, and Niki Tsongas and Jim Micelli both said they would vote for the bill.) The next day the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill, along with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Jamie is the only candidate with courage and with the principles to go with it.
<
p>
A seat like this doesn’t open up often. This is really a historic occasion. It’s great to see progressive people coming together behind Jamie.
<
p>
I know it’s very late notice, but there’s a fund-raiser for Jamie tomorrow evening in Acton at the Powers Gallery, 144 Great Road at 7 PM. Come! Donate what you can, but come!
<
p>
(And by the way, you can donate on-line at http://www.jamieforcongress.com)
<
p> –Carl Offner
Guys,
<
p>
I just got home from the League of Women Voters debate in Andover and read your endorsement of my candidacy.
<
p>
Thank you very much for the endorsement, it means a lot to me to have the state’s leading Democratic blog in support of my campaign.
<
p>
Since the day I began running for this seat, my goal has been to unite progressives across the state in support of my campaign for Congress, and participating and having a presence on BMG has been an extremely effective way to get out my progressive message to activists and Democrats, and discuss issues that are important to voters.
<
p>
– Jamie
Good luck! Go get ’em!
Best of luck, Jamie!
“elected officials are influenced disproportionately by their financial backers” followed shortly by “Here’s our ActBlue fundraising page for Jamie Eldridge.” Looks like you’ve got yourselves a cuddley toy, enjoy it.
It is a funny juxtaposition, and completely ironic that in order to elect pro-public-finance candidates, we have to raise enough money for them to compete with corporate- and PAC-funded candidates. I totally feel ya, and I devoutly wish it weren’t necessary.
<
p>
But this is the system we have, and we’d better start getting used to it. We’re not going to unilaterally disarm — campaigns need money, and it’s us vs. the moneyed special interests. Luckily, there are people like Marty Meehan, Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, Arlen Specter, John McCain, and Jamie Eldridge, who at least understand that our current system is completely corrupt.
<
p>
You’re right, and I don’t like it either.
than Fallon Health Care and thousands from big, corporate PACs.
And it only means they’ll just have to give her more. Clearly we need limits on expenditures, especially for congressional races. Spending should be taxed at something like 300%, so that every dollar a campaign spends costs the campaign four dollars, and we get three. A logarithmic scale would work great, so the first few thousand aren’t taxed much, but the hundredth thousand is taxed huge, effectively capping campaign spending. It shouldn’t cost millions to present yourself to the voters of one congressional district, not when there are already newspapers and blogs that ought to be serving the public. Endorsements are fine, but you should also be sure to be educating the public about all the candidates, so they don’t have to spend so much money to get their message out.
Tax donations… brilliant. I bet it would be constitutional too. I wouldn’t tax until someone gave at least $500 in total, but then off to the horses. What I like even better is it’s the perfect way to fund an optional public financing system that may actually be able to give candidates the ability to run against highly financed opponents at any level, from school committee to the US Senate. The people running on public financing could recieve excess tax dollars from the taxed donations given to their competitors, up to an amount matching their opponents total funds.
<
p>
There’s a lot of interesting ideas that could be brought forth here, while it wouldn’t hurt anyone’s ability to give small donations to those they want to win most, while even large donations wouldn’t necessarily hurt opponents – especially when the larger donors are taxed at even higher rates than the donation themself.
<
p>
The one problem is what would you do with self-financed candidates? While I wouldn’t be shocked if taxing donations could be constitutional, taxing a candidate’s donation to him or herself may be a more difficult case.
We were thinking of taxing campaign expenditures rather than contributions, so donors would have to guess what percentage of their contribution went to television ads and what was taxed and spent by the government however the legislature divies it up. Perhaps there should be some sort of real time tax calculator that tells the donor how much the candidate has already taken in, so they can know if they’re giving it to the candidate or to the government.
<
p>
It does sound good to earmark all of the revenue for subsidizing lesser-known candidates, but there are two problems with that: First of all, revenue is revenue, and earmarks are smoke and mirrors bullshit anyway; and if we need to spend that money to paint the Tobin Bridge before it rusts apart, then that’s what we should spend the money on. And the lesser known candidates don’t need any subsidy, because they aren’t going to have their earliest donations taxed at all, so they’ll get to spend all of the money they scrape up from neighbors and family on some bumper stickers, a website and an internet connection, and then they’re off to the races with everyone else. All they need is the right words on their website, and suddenly they’ll be right there with the front-runners. The horse-race of who’s got the most money won’t be the whole story anymore, because they won’t be able to spend all that money on anything except taxes. We’ll stop electing machines, and start electing representatives.
<
p>
Another use of logarithmic taxation would be health care, where the rich are allowed to buy themselves the latest and greatest and most expensive healthcare, but it costs them double or triple or quadruple, and that tax revenue goes back in the coffers, where it can pay for a hundred or a thousand people to get dental care, before their teeth need to be pulled out. That allows the rich to get the elegant operation they want, but it makes them maybe choose between that and a Mercedes. Every knee-replaced Mercedes-driving guatemalan-adopting Eldridge-donating corporate beneficiary driving past a person with a painful toothache that dentists won’t see is someone we need to shake down, hard. Those days should be over.
<
p>
It’s funny how backwards this concept sounds at first: tax healthcare, tax campaign spending…isn’t the mantra that taxes those things should be subsidized, not taxed? Well, not with logarithmic taxes, where the rich can pay an infinite amount and not much more than the poor get, but the poor finally get what they pay for.
I could have written that…glad very few folks read or care about this…Apparently the fact that he cheated on the “Clean Elections, and was made to pay back funds does not bother you..Giving away needles, abortions for minors without parental consent..
NOT funding Americans while in harms way…I’m sure he will get the Military and Veteran Vote. An OUTSTANDING Choice…Looking forward to the strong 4th place finish!!!
Then again this was expected and proves the point the Democratic party has been kidnapped by the extreme left, Sad day for Blue collar, hard working, Union type Dems. But it is not as if THIS endorsement will sway one vote.
Funny you should mention:
<
p>
<
p>
Eldridge is running as a big pro-labor candidate, with justification.
Also worth adding that those blue collar union types are really going to be pleased with how Niki’s “changing the tone in Washington” is going to put food on their families’ plates, clothes on their backs, and provide them health coverage.
Niki wins. I suppose you will all continue to log on and bash her so that the republican who supports George Bush’s war in Iraq and the other miserable failings of this administration will win…….That is why sometimes liberal Democrats, like conservative republicans eat their own….what it has been reduced to is really who eats more that the other. I like Jamie Eldridge and if I thought he had a chance in hell of winning I would support him, but he doesn’t. It is not his politics (others share that), and it is not that he doesn’t have money (he has raised alot like Deval Patrick from the grassroots)…..it is geography in this case and the fact that he has built no substantial campaign in the eastern part of the District (I assume Lowell is split between the Tsongas and Donoghue camps) He should have practically moved to Lawrence, Methuen and Haverhill which have no one running in the race and he has not done that, and that is why he will get trounced and the winner will be determined there.
this race presents an embarrassment of riches for the Democratic Party…several good, qualified and progressive candidates, including Tsongas, Eldridge, Finegold. I may not agree with any of them on everything, but they are all excellent candidates.
<
p>
I hope we Democrats are not going to “eat our own” here…if any of the above three win this race, it will be a good thing…let’s just hope everyone rallies around the winner.
…that when the Democratic Party takes over Niki’s campaign on September 5, that she might actually discover some real stands on some real issues. But even if not, don’t worry, I don’t think you’ll find many Jamie supporters not willing to support and work for Niki. Why, wouldn’t Niki supporters do the same for Jamie, Eilleen, or Barry?
Don’t you know there’s a difference?
They will NOT respond to you…that is EXACTLY what I said, a listing of “unions” is not Blue collar union types…The UNION HEADS are not blue collar workers. I noticed they list the Prison Guards Union..in 2006 this was a “top priority” for Eldridge, to get them a contract..it has now been over 3 years without a contract..How’d the Blue Collar hard working union folks feel with Eldridges “Top priority”?
It is almost a waste to argue with Progressives, they make fun of style, format, etc…At least the person who listed “All the union support” for Jamie tried to make an arguement, mostly here they just attack. Nice “progressive” party. “We loose on info, but by god will get you on style, grammer, spelling, etc..etc” makes us feel good!
<
p>
What I need to do is FIND the original sourse of all the talking points the progressives get, it becomes truth when they say it long enough, often enough etc..
1. Eldridge has “Union” Support
2. Eldridge can win
3. 47 million americans uninsured
4. We are 37th in Health care in the world
5. Duval is not liberal
6. Ogonwski is a Republican
<
p>
love the bull
Much as They and Truthteller would like to believe otherwise, polling in the last several election cycles has shown that 63-68% of union members vote for candidates endorsed by their union. Add to that the 50% of other members of union households that vote for the candidate endorsed by the union representing the household. Finally, union members make up between 24-26% of the total number of voters who turnout in elections.
<
p>
My union hasn’t endorsed in this race but we know Jamie very well. A large part of his progressive politics are economic issues that concern working families – increasing the minimum wage, stopping cuts in unemployment insurance and standing with workers on job creation issues. Do union members vote just on these issues -no they don’t. But Unions take the time to educate members about candidates on economic issues and post election polling shows that it is effective.
<
p>
The reality for many unions -as it was for many other groups – was that several of the candidates in this race have records of support on issues that concern them. That Jamie has received this many Union endorsements shows he has been working long term with these organizations.
<
p>
And that unlike Emily’s List, the fact that Jamie’s union supporters highlight what he has achieved rather than attacking other candidates, speaks well of Jamie’s character.
<
p>
P.S. the vast majority of union leaders move up through the rank-and-file. They have to win votes from the women and men they have worked beside for years.
Canvassed for Jamie (3x), phoned for him (2x), contributed to him (2x). The only thing I can’t do is vote for him (since his district starts one town away from mine).
<
p>
Hey, “The Editors”, you did a nice job of lining up the reasons to support him!
It is interesting that my comment (below) seemed to “dissappear” under this heading. Do you edit out the views of those who disagree?
<
p>
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN………………. (0.00 / 0)
Niki wins. I suppose you will all continue to log on and bash her so that the republican who supports George Bush’s war in Iraq and the other miserable failings of this administration will win…….That is why sometimes liberal Democrats, like conservative republicans eat their own….what it has been reduced to is really who eats more that the other. I like Jamie Eldridge and if I thought he had a chance in hell of winning I would support him, but he doesn’t. It is not his politics (others share that), and it is not that he doesn’t have money (he has raised alot like Deval Patrick from the grassroots)…..it is geography in this case and the fact that he has built no substantial campaign in the eastern part of the District (I assume Lowell is split between the Tsongas and Donoghue camps) He should have practically moved to Lawrence, Methuen and Haverhill which have no one running in the race and he has not done that, and that is why he will get trounced and the winner will be determined there.
<
p>
<
p>
by: DEMHAV @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 23:17:24 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply ]
<
p>
My feelings exacly… (0.00 / 0)
this race presents an embarrassment of riches for the Democratic Party…several good, qualified and progressive candidates, including Tsongas, Eldridge, Finegold. I may not agree with any of them on everything, but they are all excellent candidates.
I hope we Democrats are not going to “eat our own” here…if any of the above three win this race, it will be a good thing…let’s just hope everyone rallies around the winner.
<
p>
<
p>
by: bluetoo @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 07:32:14 AM EDT
<
p>
we welcome views that diverge from ours. It’s one of the things that makes this an interesting site. What happened above is that a comment by “truthteller” was “hidden” because it received a large number of “0” ratings (“0” ratings are not be used for divergent opinions, but are reserved for comments that contain personal attacks, unsupported statements, or otherwise violate the rules). When a comment is hidden, all comments that are part of the response to that comment’s thread are also hidden, and your original comments were part of that thread.
<
p>
More details on the site’s operation can be found here. Welcome to BMG.
David,
<
p>
Thank you…..I didn’t think that was the case but I did wonder and you answered my question. I appreciate that and it is one of the reasons I really like this site………….
Shouldn’t it be against the rules, then, to give zero ratings for comments that only express divergent opinion? There oughta be some punishment, maybe a little dunce cap icon would appear next to their names if they’ve zeroed comments that don’t break the rules? Of course, then you’d have to review each zero rating, but there wouldn’t be so may of them if people thought they’d get a dunce cap icon.
“we welcome views that diverge from ours” is, in fact, an unsupported statement. :-p
The post itself supports the claim that you welcome divergent views, and was excellent. (though the claim that this is an interesting site is dubious)