Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

First BMG PAC recipient: Rep. Lori Ehrlich!

By

Yes, that moment is finally here to designate the first recipient of BMG PAC funds.  We've had in mind several role-model legislators, the kinds of folks we'd like to support with our PAC. As our organizing document says,

“This PAC will support progressive candidates who represent ethics, effectiveness, transparency and efficiency in all areas of government.”

And we might have also mentioned “compassion.”

To wit:

Whether you agree 100% with all of these stands, they clearly demonstrate principle, rock-solid integrity, and independence.

As mentioned above, Lori is a former blogger herself. Lori gets the power of the netroots to disseminate information, to find allies, and to test ideas. She's a professional, earnest, responsive and open-minded person. In short, she's the very antithesis of a “hack.”

We're proud to max out and give Lori's campaign the full legal donation of $500 from BMG PAC. Congrats Lori, and keep up the good work.

—– 

Help BMG PAC support more progressive candidates! The “Support BMG PAC” box in the left-hand sidebar will happily take your donations.  ðŸ™‚

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • She understands the GAL issue as well.  You have my support on this one.

      <

      p>Sadly, my core issues as to guardians ad litem, child welfare kids and their needs including to have parents whose teeth don’t fall out, and indigent defense are once again orphans as far as the Executive goes.

  2. All three of you? Hmmm. What about me. The PAC was my idea. I expect $50.00 from you Lori. That’s 10% kick back for facilitating this backroom-cigar-smoking-move-money-around-deal.

    <

    p>Okay. I don’t have to go to the fundraiser. But you three combined should be allowed to eat only one person’s portions of scallops wrapped in bacon.

      • There. I feel like I’ve been holding that in for hours today while in formal session and unable to get to my computer. I’m deeply moved by the honor of your selection and the contribution that goes with it. But mostly I’m truly thankful for everyone’s engagement. I read you all at least daily and have faithfully done so since just after BMG was born. (and, btw, I’m not the only one in the State House with a BMG habit…) Ah, those were the not so good ole days of hrefs and the frustration of sharing a busted Soapblox server.

        <

        p>Hey Ernie, if you’re willing to show up in 3D at one of my fundraisers, I will gladly comp you 100% — your appearance would no doubt turn out a crowd! (10% duly noted.)

        <

        p>These are tough times to raise money and I have heard that I do have at least one challenger so please know that your faith and expenditure will go to good use. If I don’t end up with one, I’ll look forward to bumping into all of you on campaigns of others.

        <

        p>I am deeply grateful. Thanks, guys. Thanks to all who contributed. Viva the Netroots!

        <

        p>Lori  

  4. Maybe soon you could give unlimited amounts to anyone you want! Hell, if the corporations do it, why not the grassroots progressive PACs.

    <

    p>But on a note of seriousness, I like what I’ve seen from Lori, and she is exactly the kind of progressive smart and “clean” pol we need at the state house.

  5. As incumbent legislators go, I’ve always seen Lori as one of the best of the best. She is in my opinion absolutely deserving of our support.

    <

    p>However-

    <

    p>Don’t you think that the BMG PAC could have a little more wallop for the dollar if it endorsed and donated to progressive candidates in tough races? Races like, say, Rep. Jen Benson’s re-election campaign against nutso Indi-turned-Republican Kurt Hayes, Rep. Danielle Gregoire’s hypercompetitive battle to keep her seat against Marlboro City Councilor Steve Levy, or a great progressive Democrat running for any of the open State Senate seats in Galluchio’s or Brown’s former districts, or Tisei’s soon-to-be-former district?

    <

    p>Does Lori even have any opponents this year? If not, perhaps the $500 check could have gone to an equally awesome progressive who is not running unopposed…

    <

    p>Just my two cents.

    • that Lori will likely be opposed.

      <

      p>That said, we of course also want to help out with races like the ones you describe.  What’s the best way to help us do that?  That’s right — donate to BMG PAC!  ðŸ™‚  The “Support BMG PAC” box in the left-hand sidebar tells you everything you need to know.

        • I still haven’t gotten around to sending in a check, or even a cheque (do they take pounds?).  I feel quite guilty about that.

  8. I like most of what she’s done, but the bullet point about her opposition to appointing an interim Senator made me do a double take. Legislation shouldn’t be based on what’s politically expedient. Great, how much political courage did she have to muster to come up with that soundbite?

    <

    p>People have bad motives for supporting legislation all the time; that’s how legislatibe bodies work. Do I care that Ben Nelson is only supporting HCR because he got a nice handout for his state? As long as HCR still makes the world a better place on balance, no, I don’t. Do I care that Joe Cao only voted for it because he’s a Republican in a really liberal district and it’s the only way to save his hide? No, I don’t. What matters is whether it’s good policy.

    <

    p>The interim Senator was good policy. Perhaps some people disagree on that. Voting against it because it was bad policy is a principled position; voting against it because it also happened to be politically expedient is an insane position, and perhaps a grandstanding, unprincipled one as well.  

    • which is far more than a soundbite. After quite a bit of outreach, research and discussions with constituents I agonized over this decision. As I mentioned in my piece linked above, there were important principles in both a “yay” or “nay” vote, a point on which we agree. While it wasn’t an easy vote, I stand by it and feel that above all else, it was good policy.

      • Consent of the governed favors the interim appointment. If the proposal was to go back to a Gubernatorial appointment filling out the rest of the term, a nay vote would be supported by concerns about consent of the governed. But when I voted for Ted Kennedy, I consented to him being my Senator. I didn’t consent to Pauk Kirk being Senator, but I DEFINITELY did not consent to being denied equal representation in the Senate. Paul Kirk is closer to what I voted for than an empty seat is.

        <

        p>The most democratic way to deal with a vacancy would be a special election, with an interim appointment required to be of the same party as the deceased/former Senator. The 2004 change was a big step in that direction; the 2009 change was another step toward it. So I still don’t see anything but a lot of big talk about political expediency, and a vote that can’t be explained by anything but political expediency.  

    • official who does things your way 100% of the time.
      I think she gave it a lot of thought, considered the
      feedback from her constituents, and made her best decision.

      <

      p>Not donating to BMG because of this one decision that you disagree with is a little narrow-minded.  I am still going to donate again even though they endorsed Alan Khasei when my guy was Mike Capuano.  I could see you getting a little disappointmented if you can’t agree after maybe five or ten BMG endorsements/contributions, but really, the first one and your going to cave?  

      • I’m reluctant to give to PACs in the first place because of precisely this issue. Unless the PAC’s decisionmakers share the same values and have significantly better information than me, it makes more sense to find candidates on my own. So part of my objection here is to giving to PACs in general, not BMG specifically.

        <

        p>In a tough re-election against a Republican or conservaDem, would I give Rep Ehrlich my money? Perhaps. If I lived in her district in that scenario, I’d definitely vote for her. But unlike voting, I can give money in any district I want. But I can’t afford to give in every one and wouldn’t be allowed to even if I could. So I’m going to seek the highest probability I can that my values will be promoted, in terms of ideological difference between the candidates in a particular race and chance that my donation will make a difference in the final outcome. And pretending that the voters consented to not having full representation in the US Senate is a big difference, perhaps a fundamental one.

        <

        p>I tend to weight votes on procedural changes more heavily than votes on substantive law because procedure has far-reaching implications on who has power and thus on what becomes substantive law, while a substantive law is just one law (see: filibuster). Those who voted against the interim gave the finger to their constituents and the democratic process, and I find it particularly insulting when they do, present no principled reason for their position, and then talk about how the other side is focused on “political expediency”.  

        • during campaigns I give to the candidate of my choice too.
          (trust me, I’m not a huge contributor. I’m very much in the middle of the working/middle class trap that a lot of people are in.)

          <

          p>The reason why I understand Rep Ehrlich’s vote on the interem Senate seat is because that was when some people were starting to boil over about it being called Teddy’s seat.  The whole incident of that vote, as well as appointing a long time Kennedy friend could very well have begun the process of riling up independents who don’t feel a particular allegiance to the Kennedys – or the the Democrats.  Perhaps she was getting mail that was expressing that and had genuine concerns of the impact. Who knows.  In any case, that vote didn’t really bring us any closer to health insurance reform anyway, in a concrete sense.

          <

          p>As far as giving to BMG PAC, it’s also a show of support to the Editors who give us a forum to express our views.
          We are not inhibited to give our opinions in any way.
          I’ve commented on other sites where your remarks are
          “moderated” and only make it through if they follow the same values of the moderators. Dissension is not allowed.
          That’s not the case here.  This is a truly valuable forum to come to say what you think, hear what others think,
          and learn about just how different we all are, even those of us in the same party.  It’s a gift really, and free too!

          <

          p>But if it’s something that really irks you enough to say you won’t contribute then, it is what is.  I know I’ve been that irked too, probably not here, but on other websites and for other reasons.

  9. the entire column, linked above, that contained that “soundbite”. The column ran in both local papers in her district and goes through her rationale. I was published immediately after the vote took place.

    • my response, instead of just giving a 3 to everything you disagree with. The column does not present a principled reason for voting against the interim, unless she was confused and thought it was a vote to eliminate the special election.  

    • Thanks for the sweet comment.

      <

      p>God I love our Republican commenters, especially one who looks to Calvin Coolidge for inspiration.

    • Most BMGers who have weighed in say “great move!”  The RMGer says “bad move!”  That’s all the confirmation I need.  ðŸ™‚

      • …that you’re giving your precious, limited PAC funds to someone with almost $22,000 cash-on-hand as of 3 weeks ago in a seat where the last Republican  state rep. candidate got what?  33%?

        <

        p>I’m delighted that you need to blow your money not on trying to change the legislature, but propping up a candidate who has nearly zero chance of losing!

        <

        p>You could never have used that money to support some “Progressive” primary challenger against a Conservative Democrat, nor could you have used it to fight for the half-dozen or so GOP open seats we’ll have this year!

        <

        p>Yup.  Giving it to some lefty in a safe seat totally was the better call.  You guys are so on the ball!

        <

        p>Please, keep it up.  Don’t make me beg!

          • If MA allowed candidates to give substantial funds to other candidates it would make sense on the grounds that a safe incumbent who shares one’s views is the best judge of how to best promote them through redistribution of campaign funds. That’s kind of the idea behind leadership PACS at the federal level (from a principle-motivated donor’s viewpoint anyway). As it stands, the only incumbent state politicians I can think of who need donations are the Gov and LG.  

  11. She’d diligent, smart and responsive.

    <

    p>Massacusetts (and the Democratic Party) needs more Lori Ehrlichs.

    <

    p>John Walsh, Chair
    Massachusetts Democratic Party

  12. and I hope you’ll put Jamie Eldridge on your list as well. He’s always been very visible in his district, and an energetic campaigner, both for himself and others. With his recent physical problems, I imagine campaigning will be tougher for him. And as a first term senator, he’s going to need all of the help he can get.  

  13. Lori is great**

    <

    p>Going forward, I would say that I’d like to see BMG PAC also support progressive challengers to some of the more hack-tastic D reps.  Incumbents have easy access to fundraising, which is why defeating the entrenched reps is so difficult.  Maybe the special election in Brown’s senate seat is the place to start?

    <

    p>** Though I wish she had voted against the sales tax and forced consideration of the governor’s much better revenue proposals… but hey, no “progressive” in the House came through on that order…

    • of doing exactly that!

      <

      p>Of course, we need your help … the BMG PAC donation box is conveniently located in the left-hand sidebar!  ðŸ™‚

Archives