I expect those who think they know what is important about being a candidate to be judgmental. I am sharing the following anyway, knowing that some of you know why my perspective is important:
The issue for all Democratic candidates this fall is going to be the volatile combination of the anger on the ground and the influx of national right wing money ($30 million) we have not experienced before in Massachusetts.
The widespread anger on the ground is about real practical bread-and-butter issues – not some psychological malaise. For decades, most people have been losing economic ground, our economy slowing and the contrast sharpening with the vastly increasing wealth of a smaller and smaller number at the top. And government policies contributed to these realities. With the ever-widening foreclosure crisis, the market crash and the huge job losses, regular people know they are not alone. The economic downturn is taking us and everyone we know into a continuing downward spiral.
In the Special US Senate election, we got the feel of 16 million right wing dollars contributed to the Scott Brown campaign. We also got our first taste in-state of the Rovian playbook: pre-filled in ballots even in just a few locations, robo-calls to Latino voters threatening undocumented family members with deportation if they vote, etc. For those of us who have done extensive election protection nationally and as one of the leaders who built the campaign to secure the filing of an objection to the Ohio vote count from 2004, I can tell you that is the barest beginning.
And the political landscape has changed dramatically: the foreclosure crisis meant a loss of about $58 billion from our state economy in the last two years; the healthcare crisis – while we are much closer to universal coverage – does not mean affordability or access no matter how many times that is repeated; and of course, loss of jobs – especially good paying jobs – totaling some 325 thousand at most recent count. These core issues are determining the reality for the vast majority of the state. Say what you will: concrete solutions to these issues are what voters want to hear about – not platitudes about waiting or “shared pain”, not promises, not the same old policies of bail out the rich and jobs will come.
You want increased tea party activity? Ignore or spin these issues, or make government seem useless or ineffective on them, and that is what we will get. And these strategies are mostly what we are experiencing so far.
So folks can take my voice seriously – the voice of someone with extensive policy experience, someone who is also not the typical wealthy candidate who can hire lots of staff to get signatures or purchase the signatures directly – or you can ignore or belittle me.
Be aware that when any of us do the latter, you are also belittling the urgent needs and concerns of the vast swath of voters out there.
I have been leading the statewide anti-foreclosure coalition for 2 ½ years – only recently stepping off of that to run for governor. I coordinated 65 organizations, working at all levels of the crisis – representing some 550,000 members. Less than two weeks ago, we/they achieved a unanimous vote in the State Senate on a pretty good, broad anti-foreclosure piece of legislation. As one Senator with over 2 decades of experience said to me: “it’s not that unanimous votes never happen but they are extremely rare”!
Do you think saying you’ve brought in stimulus money but then have not spent it – that that will satisfy voters? They have not seen the impact. They cannot afford to wait. By delaying, the present administration undermines the entire point of stimulus – which is to spend it quickly. And that only reinforces the sense that government is at best useless and at worst, wasting tax money most of us barely feel we can afford to pay in the first place.
That is only one example of many failures to prioritize the urgent needs of the vast majority of us.
For the folks who worry that my presence may undermine the chance of Deval Patrick winning again in November – it is not my presence that is the challenge. If I raise issues now, we may be prepared come September. Because they are not my issues. They are the issues of the vast majority of voters in Massachusetts.
Simply put: these issues are ignored, spun or postponed to the peril of all populist and progressive forces in our state.
<
p>If you don’t make it to 10,000 signatures … whose fault is that?
Take a deep breath and read your own comment again …………………….
I’m still confused.
<
p>Look, I go to as many supermarket parking lots as anyone else, and I never saw a single signature-gatherer for Grace Ross. I would have happily signed if I did. But they were nowhere to be seen. Ross’s post sounds like she’s preparing to blame her failure to get on the ballot (not certain yet, but apparently fairly likely) on people who didn’t “take her voice seriously,” whatever that means. Well, sorry, but that’s not how it works. If she had gotten her signatures but been denied a spot on the ballot by the convention delegates, then sure, there’s a case to be made. But getting signatures is no one’s responsibility but the candidate’s. We all laughed at Jim Ogonowski when he failed to file enough signatures to run for Senate against John Kerry. I’m not sure why such a different response is appropriate here.
Maybe that’s the correct answer?
<
p>Or perhaps since, as I recall, Jim Ogonowski thought he had the right number of signatures but, in fact, did not, in that case the suggestion was not only that his campaign was incompetent, but also that it couldn’t count.
<
p>It will be interesting to see how many signatures the Ross campaign actually collected.
<
p>Separately, I wonder about the basis for the assertion “They are the issues of the vast majority of voters in Massachusetts.” Opinion polls? Common sense? Bald assertion? Just curious.
Ross is beginning to introduce herself to the electorate while waiting for the signatures to be counted. Ross felt the need to write the post to caution people from snidely dismissing her based on a quick read of the race.
<
p>You quickly read her post then snidely dismissed her.
The signature results will presumably be in soon. If she didn’t make 10,000, then she’s out, and “dismissing her from the race” is the correct thing to do, since she won’t be part of it. If she does make her signatures, then she can start taking people to task for not talking her seriously despite having gathered 10,000 signatures.
<
p>So that’s why I’m confused. I don’t understand why the post is up now, when we don’t know whether she will make it but signs suggest that she won’t.
Politics is a complicated chess game, David. You need to factor in whatever Frank Phillips may be thinking, the Globe’s agenda, the price of wheat in China and the value of the Euro. Lasthorseman, where are you in our hour of need.
The articles you quote say that Ross has no guarantee that she gathered enough extra signatures, and if she doesn’t get on the ballot, Deval would lose campaign money. You turn that into “signs suggest that she won’t”.
<
p>Wait for permission to say something? Mention her biography after gaining leave to do so from the gatekeepers? This is the purest punditry — focus like a laser on the format and timing of the message, and stridently ignore the message itself. Engage in inside jokes with other gatekeepers. It’s like a local version of Politico.
The point is that if she didn’t gather enough signatures – which will be her fault and no one else’s if it comes to that – her “message itself” will not be heard, because she failed the most basic requirement of running for office. Sorry to be harsh, but politics ain’t beanbag, and if you want to play, you have to step up. If she filed enough sigs, great – let’s have the debate. If she didn’t, let’s not pretend it’s anyone else’s fault.
<
p>And don’t give me this bullshit about “gatekeepers.” First, I’ve been as loud-mouthed as anyone about the crappy 15% rule at the convention. But I do think it’s entirely reasonable that a candidate show support in the form of signatures. If she can’t do that, well, like I said in my first comment, whose fault is that?
And talking about your hypotheticals. I’m talking about what Ms. Ross said, not what she might’ve said.
<
p>Will you address her record that she detailed in the post?
Do you think she has a point that Deval’s mixed record on progressive issues has demoralized progressives in Mass.?
Do you stand by your characterization of the news articles that you linked?
it is you who are talking past me. I made a specific point about one part of the post, as well as its timing (why now rather than the day after the signature results are in?), and raised a question about what she meant. So far, nobody has satisfactorily explained why it isn’t what it seems to me to be, namely, a proactive attempt to blame what seems likely to be a failure to make the ballot on someone else. That’s what I asked about. And you’re off on something else.
<
p>Regardless, I will answer your questions.
<
p>1. Her record? Look, I like Grace – I always have. I think she brought a lot to the 2006 Gov’s race, and I hope she makes the ballot this time around, because I think primaries are good for the candidate who ultimately emerges. I’m not sure what I’m supposed to “address” beyond that.
<
p>2. The point is overstated, but the general notion is hardly unique to her. Of course some of Deval’s positions — well, one specifically, namely, casinos — hurt him with his base, as we have been saying here on BMG for months now. He’s still working on repairing that, and I think making good progress.
<
p>3. Yup. I have no idea how many signatures the Ross campaign actually filed. I’m simply going on what she herself told the Globe.
<
p>
<
p>When the candidate herself is hedging like that, it sure sounds like it’s up in the air to me.
I don’t want someone as governor who can’t plan ahead enough to give him or herself enough time to get the campaign rolling to make caucus/signature requirements.
<
p>A campaign is the first opportunity to see how well someone makes an executive decision. Do they get the right folks on staff? Do they inspire people? Can they make a comprehensive plan to accomplish a complicated task and stick to it?
<
p>If not, I don’t want to waste my time!
For “getting it”. What a relief it is to have someone who knows what the problem is.
<
p>
<
p>I hope your signature count is positive. If it is, you have my vote at the convention.
The substance appears to address why people should support you, possibly addressed to delegates who may want to support you at least at the convention stage to get you on the ballot. The title sounds more like a message not to prematurely count you off the ballot based on signature results. The deadline has passed for collections so now just certification awaits.
No matter how this turns out. As to what it takes to get 10,000 signatures, it takes 14,000 signatures and that means at elast 700 petitions out there. Kind of a “do the math” issue. If you figure a minimum of 1 and 1/2 human being hours per petition, you get up to 1000 man hours – so there should be preplanning, and a “Signature gathers” event or three if there is not an organization to build on.
<
p>Again, do the math. Wishful thinking doesn’t cut it on the ground.
<
p>As to the economic issues and the unravelling of the middle class, yes, I get it. I would love to see stores that specialize in “Made in Massachusetts” or even “Made in the USA” – I find it very disquieting that I cannot find a single bandaid – and almost no clothing – made in this country.
<
p>The “what ifs” are NOT pretty. And that is way more disquieting to me than speculating on whether Grace Ross was organized enough to get enough signatures to get on the ballot.
I think Ross makes important points here but I find the timing bizarre. As a reader, I did feel like she was blaming me, a Democratic party activist, for the fact that she might not have enough signatures to get on the ballot. I think these points could be made, and have more meaningful context, after we know whether or not she is on the ballot.
for doing a better job than I did of making the point I was trying to make! 🙂
I think she is sharing a warning that whether or not she makes it on the ballot, the electorate will still be angry and volatile. So the important thing here is that instead of questioning Grace’s motives, we should be addressing the issues she brings to the post. That would be why the electorate is angry and volatile and what we can do about it. I think what Grace is saying is that “Happy Talk” by our elected officials is not cutting it. Ignoring that truth is not going help any Democrat win.
and frankly, unnecessary as we’ve been feeling that for a year now.
<
p>However, I wish the messenger would deliver a productive message instead of preattacking people who aren’t even attacking her.
I posted exactly what I meant –
– We don’t know if we will have enough signatures to get certified or not. And with Special Elections etc., not all the Clerk offices have even gotten to begin certifying them.
<
p>In the meantime, YES, we need to address the anger. No Democrat can get elected this fall without addressing the real live issues driving that anger. Look at the backlash many of our most courageous politicians are facing for saying the AZ law is bad? Or have you not talked to the folks getting deluged by hate mail and even threats?
<
p>Where is the statesmanship getting out front on that issue and framing the political debate?
<
p>I posted to BMG because many of you will be working in campaigns from here to November and you need to think about this. You need to demand leadership that stands against this onslaught – we are going to have to stand strong and get in there early in the political dialogue. And strong provisions need to be passed now so our candidates have a strong record to stand on.
<
p>Those of you who decided this post was about whether I get on the ballot or not are not listening to your neighbors or addressing the real challenges ahead of all of us.
<
p>Millionaires can always get on the ballot – because dump enough money and you can get your signatures. And if they are all who run, then they are who will get elected.
<
p>The issue is whether government serves the rest of us. And if it does not do so visibly right now, that is what will determine our political climate for the coming time – regardless of who holds the corner office. And it is on track right now to get uglier…
Is this the kind of leadership you mean?
<
p>
<
p>I hope you make the ballot Grace, because I respect you and I think your voice would add something to the upcoming debate.
<
p>But I’m interested in a different kind of leadership.
Thanks for the good wishes about ballot access.
<
p>What I specifically talked about is that this is casino bill is a bad formulation. How do we know? Because it pits legitimate needs for jobs against those who are accurate that resort casinos hurt local businesses, don’t provide a net gain in jobs and have bad social consequences.
<
p>If the present administration was not sitting on expedited bridge repair money, 10s of millions in construction bonding like the monies for building and rebuilding on public colleges and universities, there would be literally thousands more trades workers working. Our state economy would be beginning to turn now – not waiting for some economist’s predicted rebound. Instead we are near the bottom on stimulus spending and we have jobs not being contracted from millions of bond money already legislated.
<
p>And housing starts took a major dive before the foreclosure crisis crashed the market. Where has been the turn around initiatives from the state? With a commitment to prevailing wage jobs as we rebuild our housing stock? And a commitment to stopping spiraling homelessness at the same time?
<
p>We need to match our opposition to resort casinos with an outcry and organizing for real jobs for thousands of families without income because trades jobs are being purposefully held back by this administration. And I have been working to get those working on these issues to take this approach.
<
p>Then we work together for a real economic turn around – and good jobs and labor is not pitted against bad local economic and social policies.
<
p>To paraphrase, we have to work together, or surely we will work apart. And we know the anger and distrust the present strategies are opening the way for…
<
p>Real leadership will keep its eyes on the larger goals and help craft and insist on better proposals – he wanted a yes or no on the present one; that was not a real answer.
Just so I understand your position …
<
p>You say that the “casino bill is a bad formulation” and refer to “our opposition to resort casinos.”
<
p>Yet according to the Globe you are “neither for nor against the current bill.”
<
p>Leadership is about making decisions. In the legislature, you vote YES or NO. As Governor, you sign or veto.
<
p>As Governor, would you veto the casino bill that was passed by the House? That’s a simple question.
“If the present administration was not sitting on expedited bridge repair money, 10s of millions in construction bonding like the monies for building and rebuilding on public colleges and universities, there would be literally thousands more trades workers working.”
<
p>Where’s the evidence for that accusation? Thanks to the Patrick/Murray Administration’s commitment to transparency, I can go online and check where our dollars are going. I see more public sector construction going on all around the Commonwealth than ever before — bridges, roads, higher ed — there is an amazing amount of public sector construction going on right now.
<
p>And when Governor Patrick reports to us that “The Commonwealth obligated all $438 million of our ARRA highway funding this past February, a full month ahead of the federal deadline”, how is he “lagging” as you claim on your website?
<
p>Where are your facts, Grace?
<
p>There are also many millionaires who do that … and many do not. I don’t believe Deval Patrick paid for signatures, or Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry.
<
p>I think the governor has some real questions that need answering in many domains, and I’m desperate to believe that you’re the one to do it. But generalizations that imply things that aren’t true make me question that.
“Where is the statesmanship getting out front on that issue and framing the political debate?”
<
p>Did you see the Boston Globe today, Grace? Page 1, top of the fold — “Patrick Blasts Immigration Crackdowns.”
<
p>Does that meet your statesmanship test? Is Governor Patrick out front enough on that issue for you? Is he doing his best to frame the political debate? Is Governor Patrick now one of “our most courageous politicians”?
<
p>I’m sorry that you may not have gotten sufficient signatures to get on the ballot, but don’t lecture me about voter anger and suggest that you are the only person who understands it. I listen to Governor Patrick, and I have no doubt but that he gets it. I don’t have to demand leadership to stand up against the right-wing onslaught because I already have it, in the person of Governor Deval Patrick. And no one had to pay me to collect signatures for him either.
“I expect those who think they know what is important about being a candidate to be judgmental.”
<
p>Ya know, I was prepared to read this with an open mind and hoping that you had good news about your campaign and sig drive, as I am a sucker for a good debate and primary despite the fact I support your opponent.
<
p>However, that first line of yours just turned me right the heck off from the get-go. I mean, defending yourself from an attack is one thing, especially if it’s unfair, but being defensive against percieved possible attacks before anyone has a chance to respond is just, well, unprofessional.
<
p>You what to know why people are angry at Patrick and the poll numbers aren’t great? Because any incumbent, even the best, most beloved, has trouble in a bad economy when people are getting laid off, even if they are doing the best they can with the yuck circumstances they were given (let’s face it, if you start blaming Patrick for the Bush economy, you’ve jumped the shark).
<
p>People are angry, yes, but I’m not sure they are sure what they should be angry about. Addressing that knowledge gap is going to be the job of the Patrick administration, and I guess attacking him as some sort of Bushie might be yours…
<
p>And yes, it is about malaise – about bread and butter issues. Perception is reality in politics. I’ve had the best personal economy of my adult life in this downturn, but I see my friends laid off and it hurts – and I slow my discretionary spending too in worrying about it. That doesn’t mitigate the very real, very terrible pain of those in this economy who’ve lost homes, jobs, and seen their retirement go up in smoke. However, the locus of control for much of this rests above the state level at the federal level, and I look forward to hearing what you think could have been done differently on the state level to do any better these last two years, as I really am wondering what that is.
“Addressing that knowledge gap is going to be the job of the Patrick campaign“…
Dear Grace Ross, you are asking the right questions. The collapse in living standards for the middle class is the big issue for the next election. Democrats cannot address it because they can’t look like they are talking down the economy. Republicans are in the bag with big finance, while Dems are still trying to support the huge part of our economy living on tax money.
<
p>Because candidates post here with some personal attention, I and others have tried to reach them with a different perspective, and in my case a certain desperation as this economy is killing me. But usually they are here on blue mass to get to the same professional activists everybody else wants.
<
p>You are playing to this crowd by seeking more revenue to save their ineffective jobs and prop up their lifestyles. I have offered candidates like you a new perspective but these other candidates refused even to reply. Even so they still went down to the embarrassing defeat you are headed for. Will you be different?
Just where will those folks who work with their hands, and make things, find jobs?
<
p>Not everyone is a born “knowledge worker” and guess what, knowledge workers still need clothes made by those who make clothing, bandaids, etc.
<
p>As a country, we cannot “use” more than we “create” without becoming, ultimately, bankrupt.
Amber, don’t forget that the conditions we are in now are the results of specific actions and preferences by our government over the past 40 years. It’s obvious that people haven’t stopped buying stuff — there’s more of it than ever. The benefits and even necessity of physical creation become more apparent all the time: the physical aspect of mistake, evaluation and correction is crucial to learning and all forms of higher concept thinking, including knowledge work.
<
p>Knowledge workers above all should understand that they will not escape the transformation of their output into another hyper-commodity as transferable as any other derivative.
<
p>It comes down to this: the physical was devalued in our economy for the benefit of a small class of financial conceptualizers. This was done positively and deliberately. These financial people can benefit far more from the swings in corn prices than the farmer ever does from the growing and consuming of the corn itself.