Dan Winslow, candidate for state rep in the Ninth Norfolk District, debuted his first Youtube video today. The video is a spoof on Scott Brown’s Truck Ad and has some great footage from the district! If you enjoy the video, please pass it along!
http://www.youtube.com/user/wi…
For more information on Dan and his campaign, to get involved with the campaign, or contribute to the campaign please visit www.danwinslow.com.
Please share widely!
Very creative, Dan.
I’m not sure whether I will have a Democratic opponent for the seat, so I thought we’d mosey over to this side of the aisle to introduce the campaign video. Either way, I hope to attract the support of people who care about good government initiatives, transparency, accountability and reform. Glad you enjoyed it!
And I hope you’re serious about the bicycling… it’s yet another issue that only the Dems seem to push for at state and national levels, since bicycling issues always require funding.
<
p>Might I also recommend a helmet? The most valuable thing you own is your brain, and spending $60 on a helmet would seem to be a wise investment. It’s also a nice way to help encourage others to do the same.
Thanks. I’m completely serious about bicyling (it helps me fly door to door in the campaign) and I appreciate your concern about my brains. I usually do wear a helmet when riding, but Dukakis pretty much ruined the use of helmets in political videos. :0)
Stay tuned for an announcement in the coming weeks.
Why so shy? Don’t you think the Republican Party is a group worth supporting?
<
p>No mention of your Party affiliation on your website either, so far as I could see, or even the fact that the Governor you served was one Willard Mitt Romney.
<
p>Stand up for what you believe in, man, for God’s sake. Even the Republican Party and Mitt Romney have a case to make.
When we had our disagreements in the past (and we certainly had disagreements), it was like working to counter the energizer bunny – DAN was EVERYWHERE – must be all that bike riding. But yes – PLEASE wear a helmet.
I may not agree with Dan on his politics, but I was very impressed with his management style when he was Romney’s Chief Legal Counsel. He organized what were probably the first ever state-wide trainings for executive branch legal counsels, including one in Boston with Justice Cordy (SJC) as speaker and another at Tufts that included several interesting panels (and lunch!). I found him to be personable, approachable, and engaged. And he’s smart. These are qualities I think are important in a state rep, and if this ad is any indication, it could be a good campaign to watch.
<
p>Although his boss seemed to get off on vilifying state employees, I never found Dan to either engage in that sort of rhetoric or believe that the people doing the state’s business were anything other than dedicated public servants.
<
p>
He is the only Chief Legal Counsel in the years I have lived in Massachusetts and written to a Governor and to the Governor’s chief legal counsel who always called back, always answered letters apparently himself, and met with myself, and others like me who were not “stake holders”, not corporate executives,did not graduate from Harvard, and did not contribute big bucks. The discussions were always courteous, even when the disagreements were heated.
<
p>But, anyway, Dan made his e-mail available to the Sixth Amendment Bar, and always answered everyone I am aware of who contacted him.
<
p>He even conducted multiple pre-budget focus groups with quite a number of constituencies within the Judicial Branch and court system, which I thought to be both accessible and daring in terms of engaging with citizens he knew in advance did not agree with him at all.
<
p>If he is elected, and continues that tradition, that would make him a top notch representative, no matter what party elects him.
<
p>Also, he is likely to campaign 60 or more hours a week so if a “very strong Democratic candidate” does pull papers and join the fray, it will be a very engaged and high energy race.
I’m very well known as a Republican in the district, Bob, and every voter will know that I’m an “R” in the election. But party registration is not why I want people to vote for me (in this district, the R actually is an advantage fyi). Instead, as a new candidate for state level office, I want to introduce voters to my ideas for positive change in Massachusetts, my record of reform and results as a local official and as a former Judge and Romney’s Chief Legal Counsel during the last fiscal crisis, and to make the case for voters’ support for the person, not the Party. As a socially moderate, fiscally prudent, good government R, I hope to earn the support of voters across Party lines on my merits. That, plus hard work, will at least help me to present a good choice for voters on election day.
I applaud your support for socially moderate, fiscally prudent, good government Republicans because, as we have just seen after eight years of socially extremist, fiscally reckless, and inept (see: Katrina, hurricane) Republican leadership, such people are hard to find in the current party. Nonetheless, it strains credulity to imagine that altruism (“the R actually is an advantage fyi”) is the reason you have scrubbed your video and website of any mention, so far as I can tell, of your Republican affiliation or the name “Mitt Romney.”
<
p>Make the case for Republican leadership and the laudable characteristics, such as they may be, of your former boss. I suppose there must be some case to make. But don’t try to hide who you are. That strategy worked for Senator Brown in a special election during a time of economic collapse against an incompetent opponent, but I think it will be harder to execute here. Worst of all, it allows you to get drawn into unproductive exchanges with cheeky bloggers.
<
p>Good luck in your campaign!
Have a special place in my heart. What can I say? Thanks for the good wishes, and I’ll look forward to engaging in a spirited campaign with whomever steps up.
<
p>Me too. Good luck Mr Winslow.
I’ve been asked that question every once in a while, and I have no idea how to answer… my bike doesn’t have an odometer, and I don’t plan on installing one.
<
p>I’m just at my 1:30 exhaustion/caffeine buzz; I don’t mean to be off-putting.
Mr Winslow:
<
p>Folks who’ve got quite a positive reputation have said good things about your work ethic. If there’s one group of people I can’t stand, it’s people with a good work ethic who are working against my interests.
<
p>So, Mr. Winslow… given that the folks around here are of the liberal/progressive variety, and given that we too are not always happy with the Democratic leadership on Beacon Hill, what policies or areas do we have of agreement? MA GOP lege typically does fairly well on the environment (according to MLEV), where are you on environmental issues? What about transportation? Civil rights?
<
p>I’m not in your district, but you do intrigue me… and I’d love to be convinced to support a Republican. Convince me — or at least make sure I think to myself “well, it wouldn’t be so bad if he wins… I’d be better off focusing my efforts elsewhere where the difference between candidates is stark”
Myself, I threw my hat in as a Democrat when you former boss vetoed funds from 0321-1510 and I haven’t looked back since 2003 (but even I was an unenrolled voter from 1993 or 1994 until 2003) so I second Stomv’s request – substance as well a style, please.
OK, at the risk of getting reeled in, I’ll bite (Bob predicted this):
<
p>First of all, BMG has endorsed good government Republicans in the past, most notably State Senate candidate Samiyah Diaz, for whom I volunteered as an advisor. But I’d at least settle for a “Welcome to BMG” from the editors since this is my first official series of posts.
<
p>Second, I’ll be posting throughout the campaign detailed policy papers on my website, http://www.danwinslow.com, so I don’t want to get ahead of my campaign. In the spirit of public policy dialogue, however, I’ll be surprised if there is not consensus from our blue and red-minded friends on three points that I’ll be proposing in the campaign:
<
p>1. Campaign finance and election reform. We have the lowest rate (well, actually, we compete with South Carolina for last place) of contested legislative elections in the United States. I believe that competition is good for democracy. I will propose a package of legislative reforms, collectively labelled the “Fair Elections Law”, that will include provisions to make our campaign process more competitive, open and fair. For example, I believe we should adopt a “use it or lose it” provision consistent with constitutional requirements that eliminates the ability of incumbents to hoard a huge treasury to ward off potential challengers. I will be a vigorous advocate for use of the Internet to improve real-time transparency of campaign finance reporting. I also will be making a proposal next week regarding reform of primary elections as a path to the general election, so stay tuned;
<
p>2. Personnel reform. In the post-Ward Commission era, Massachusetts embraced procurement reform for contracts because of rampant corruption. Ironically, we spend more money each year on personnel contracts/costs that have no similar protections in terms of who gets hired and how. The federal government utilizes the Internet, http://www.usajob.gov, to assure that minimum qualifications are met, that all public sector job applicants have an equal shot at employment based on merit, and that there is complete transparency in the process. Interestingly, usajobs.gov is administered by a Massachusetts company–monster.com–yet we do not have any similar capability for all public sector employment in the Bay State. We should. And I will propose it.
<
p>3. Restorative Justice in Bullying Cases: Last week, I proposed that the legislative conference committee embrace restorative justice as an option in bullying cases as part of a criminal disposition option. See my website for more details on that.
<
p>I understand that the entrenched majority, your team btw, would never consider significant reforms that make elections competitive or cut into patronage perqs, but I’m a big believer in the power of ideas as a means to move society forward. I’ll end my filibuster here, with apologies for going on, and I’ll reserve further details for my campaign in due course, but those are examples of ideas that have neither D nor R characteristics (so far as I can tell) and for which I believe good people should care enough to stand up for good people running for the House and Senate regardless of Party stripe.
<
p>OK, now I’ll return to my side of the aisle, hop on my bike, and prepare to knock on more doors.
Unenrolled is the most popular political affiliation in Massachusetts.
of eliminating campaign warchests that carry over from election to election. IMHO that is the single best campaign finance reform idea out there. Public financing is IMHO a pipe dream at least in the short term. This reform costs taxpayers nothing while pretty much guaranteeing more contested races. Everyone should back this idea, and unfortunately you are correct that “our team” will probably stop at nothing to kill it.
<
p>Looking forward to hearing more.
I floated this idea quite some time ago!
A few questions/ideas:
<
p>1. Where would the money go? If you couldn’t sit on a war chest, it would get spent on the election or transferred to state/national political parties, no?
<
p>2. And if you’re going to hurry up and spend every last dime (or damned close), then doesn’t it suggest that there may be some hanky-panky going on with that money. After all, if I’m sitting on $10,000 2 days before the election, I don’t have much to spend it on… so I might as well use it to grease the palm of some businessman or something, right?
<
p>3. Is it legal to put a “tax” on political donations, so that for example 10% of all political donation receipts must go into the public financing kitty?
<
p>2. Well … I think we can trust our candidates to adhere to the letter as well as the spirit of the law. 😉
<
p>3. Interesting question. I don’t know that it has ever been tried. It would certainly be challenged in court. My guess is that it would be held unconstitutional, since the right of individuals to support the candidates they want without interference is pretty strongly protected.
a. “Clean elections” are legal — using public funds to support candidates.
<
p>b. Taxes are legal, to be sure.
<
p>c. If requiring that the money goes to charity is kosher, why wouldn’t requiring it go to clean elections also be legal?
<
p>As you know, IANAL. I just don’t see how to square your response to (3) with both (a) and (b).
By all means, require the war chests to go to the clean elections kitty – althought it would ideally be a diminishing resource. And what happens when a candidate (like Obama) refuses to join an opponent in abiding by clean elections guidelines?
<
p>As far as the tax goes – the money was taxed when earned. It is not tax deductible in any way as a donation.
<
p>Why would taxing a donation not be a free speech issue? You aren’t taxed on buying an ad – although you ARE taxed if you buy a button or sign….true??
is not airtight. Example:
<
p>a. Christian churches are legal.
<
p>b. Taxes are legal.
<
p>But it doesn’t follow that using taxes to fund Christian churches is legal.
<
p>Like I said, I don’t know how the case about your proposed tax would come out. It would be interesting, that’s for sure. I would simply say that the public financing of elections is a controversial subject about which reasonable people disagree.