A few weeks back, Charley and I sat down with Alan Khazei to talk about this year’s Senate race. We posted one excerpt from the interview right away, as it was particularly relevant to the debt ceiling crisis, which at the time was in full swing. My apologies for not getting to the rest earlier.
As you may recall, we endorsed Khazei last time around. Judging from our conversation, many of the same ideas that drove his last campaign are back this time around, though, he says, in a more streamlined and focused way. Overall, I’d say there are three big ideas: bringing a participatory approach to governing, encouraging economic growth, and calling out Scott Brown for failing to lead. More on the flip.
If there’s one thing Alan Khazei feels really strongly about (and, actually, there are many), I’d say it’s changing the paradigm for the way elected officials do their jobs. Here’s what we wrote in our endorsement in 2009, which I think is still accurate:
Khazei … has repeatedly talked about bringing the people — you, us, your friends and colleagues, everyone — directly into the process of making policy in the Senate. And Khazei … has a superb track record in this area on which to build. Khazei has told (many, many times) the story of organizing a coalition that successfully pushed back Tom DeLay’s move to gut AmeriCorps, and his work in moving the Kennedy Serve America Act through Congress. And in our interview with him, he explained at some length (it’s the first health care question) how he intended to “empower and support a citizen movement” on issues that he wants to advance… A more “people powered” Senate would surely be a good thing.
For this year’s race, I asked Khazei whether it was fair to say that what separates Khazei from the other candidates is not so much the issues, but a process question. Khazei said that was fair. He said that there would be differences on the issues (he favors charter schools and malpractice reform, for example), but he says that he has “a very different vision of what a United States Senator can do…. In the Senate today, there isn’t a single movement leader. I’ve been a movement leader.”
Khazei brought up two examples of how others have employed the strategies he is talking about. First, he mentioned the late MA Senator Paul Tsongas. Tsongas, he said, realized that sometimes people who are working on similar issues don’t talk to each other, but everybody talks to their Senator. So when it came to revitalizing Lowell, which was a particular passion of Tsongas’s, he brought together all the stakeholders and, essentially, forced them to talk to each other so that they could figure out where they had common ground and move forward from there. According to Khazei, the working group that grew out of those meetings is still active.
Khazei’s second example was how NY Governor Andrew Cuomo managed to get same-sex marriage legalized in New York. Cuomo, Khazei says, realized that the best way to move the issue forward was to bring together all the various interested groups (including funders) and get them to “sing out of the same songsheet” so that they could move forward collectively, rather than individually. This also involved strategizing about how best to bring the different groups’ contacts and resources to bear on individual legislators – particularly the handful of Republicans they needed – to ensure that they had the necessary votes. Khazei sees this strategy as very similar to how he went about spearheading the effort to get the Serve America Act passed.
In what is perhaps an ironic addendum to Khazei’s message in 2009, Khazei sees the Tea Party movement as, in some respects, an example of the kind of thing he is talking about. He says, “we need a citizen movement to take back Washington. We need a progressive alternative to the Tea Party.” He adds, “you can talk about the Koch brothers, and you can talk about Fox News, but the bottom line is, people turned out to vote, and they elected people. They also unelected people, and they scared the bejeesus out of the rest of the Republican party.” Our interview took place before the Occupy Wall Street protest began, but especially in light of his supportive comments at the UMass-Lowell debate, one imagines that that might be the sort of thing Khazei has in mind.
Charley wondered how to square the facts that large majorities of the country agree on, for example, ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and protecting the environment, and yet they keep getting steamrolled by special interests who oppose those things. Khazei’s answer was that “they haven’t risen up yet…. At the end of the day, you’ve got to organize, and you’ve got to elect people.” He added that “I have the skill set of understanding how to use that bully pulpit to organize people. And my strategy is to do what Andrew Cuomo did on gay marriage, but to do it in a variety of spheres…. It’s not about me. My job is to empower other people, and to use the bully pulpit and the assets you have as a Senator to mobilize people.”
Charley asked whether that message would resonate with people who are voters but not activists, and who don’t have time in their lives to devote to politics. Khazei answered that, first, his “number one focus as a Senator is growing the economy and putting people back to work…. You have to make it clear to people that you have an agenda … and I do, and I’m talking about that stuff.” But, he added, “I’m not a typical politician. I’m not out there saying, here’s what I’m going to do for you.” He referred back to being originally inspired by JFK, and lamented the transition from JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you” to Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off.” He thinks that people are ready for a message that says, “the problems are big, and it’s going to take all of us.” He added, “everybody can at least get out and vote…. Folks, at the end of the day, you’ve got to get involved. As one Senator, unless you have a citizen base behind you, the special interests are too powerful…. I think my job as a United States Senator is to empower the people who are most disempowered, and to be a champion and a voice for the people that are the most left out…. And I have a track record on that. This is not just rhetoric from me; I’ve been doing it my whole life.” He pointed to his work with the service movement as an example of successfully persuading people from all walks of life that they are needed, and making them feel part of something larger than themselves – something that he hopes to achieve on a larger scale as a Senator.
We then moved on to “the issues,” beginning with jobs, which everyone seems to agree is Topic #1 in this election. I could recount our discussion, but I think that would be redundant, since – as was the case last time around – Khazei has done an excellent job putting forth detailed substantive proposals on his website. So I’ll simply refer you there to see what he’s talking about. I do want to point out that one of his proposals – unemployment insurance “vouchers” that pay part of the salary of newly-hired workers (the idea being to encourage businesses to hire since with these vouchers it costs less to do so) – has been picked up by some national media.
Similarly, much of the rest of our “issues” discussion is covered more succinctly on the issues pages on Khazei’s website – which, by the way, feature a set of “Khazei Principles” that he intends to bring to bear on every issue. I do think it’s worth recounting Charley’s question about how to deal with Members of Congress from coal and oil states who, regardless of their party affiliation, seem remarkably uninterested in the global warming problem. Khazei’s answer was, in his words, rather “hedgehog”-ish: he has “one big idea, which is that citizen power is the key to everything,” including this issue. Khazei advocates for a “grasstops-grassroots” strategy on all these big issues, the “grasstops” being the big interest groups and opinion leaders. And he mentioned that Al Gore, despite his excellent work on global warming, made a “fundamental mistake” in that “his campaign was all grasstops…. Where was the grassroots? Where was the common agenda? What I’ve learned is that you need both.”
As was the case in 2009, Khazei in 2011 (Khazei 2.0?) is a passionate and energetic guy who has thought hard about the issues that matter, and who also brings an intriguing vision of how a Senator can most effectively use the office. Whoever your primary candidate is, Khazei’s ideas bring a lot to the conversation.
JimC says
That’s interesting. I tend to oppose it, but a lawyer I know made it sound pretty awful — essentially a bureaucratic money wash, with threatened suits paid out far more often than they’re litigated, because doing so is easier for the insurance company.
But I still think doctors are spoiled whiners, and I’d need to see some hard numbers before signing on to malpractice reform. The downside is too far down.
sue-kennedy says
does nothing to help doctors.
It is a big giveaway to the insurance companies that continue to raise premiums on malpractice insurance that do not reflect a similar increase in litigation or settlement amounts.
centralmassdad says
to reflect interest rates, not settlement amounts. When interest rates go up, the premiums will come down.
stomv says
What’s your left arm worth to you? I’ll gladly pay you $1,000,000.00 for it, plus cover all the medical work and pain killers, etc.
What? You don’t want to sell me your arm for $1,000,000? I don’t blame you. Then why would you support a cap limiting the dollar amount you could recover from the doctor’s insurance if they were negligent and it cost you your arm in a medical procedure?
In general, the calls for malpractice reform include capping the awards. The problem I have with this is that the awards are amazingly low. If you wouldn’t sell your arm for a million bucks, don’t limit somebody else’s compensation to a million when that person’s arm is taken from him or her.
David says
as I understand it, most of these reform proposals would cap punitive damages, but not compensatory damages. In other words, if losing your arm legitimately cost you a million bucks in lost earnings or what have you, you get a million bucks, just as you would in any other tort case. But you can’t get an additional fifty million in punitive damages because the jury got really mad at the doctor.
Also, I’m not at all sure that Khazei’s proposed reform (“Disclose, Apologize & Offer”) involves any sort of cap, but I don’t know details beyond what’s on his website.
long2024 says
Let’s say the economic value of your left arm is essentially 0. You work in an office and can rely on your right arm and your secretary (who you would employ anyway) to get all your writing done.
Does this mean you’ll let me cut your arm off for $100 plus medical expenses? It’s a hundred smackeroos of pure profit. Or does your arm have non-economic value to you? Compensatory damages pay for your medical costs and your job-related losses, but they won’t pay for the value of having your arm.
David says
by my lawyer’s shorthand. Sorry about that. Compensatory damages, generally, is what gives you the dollar value of your injury. Inability to work is one aspect, but there are many others. Punitive damages is exactly what it sounds like: to punish the wrongdoer, independently of trying to make the injured person whole. That’s what is generally capped in malpractice reform proposals.
long2024 says
Malpractice reform proposals generally cap non-economic compensatory damages as well as punitive damages.\
See, e.g. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/news-analysis/bipartisan-malpractice-reform-bill-introduced-in-house.html
David says
However, as I noted earlier, I don’t see any indication that the proposal that Khazei backs involves a cap.
lspinti says
While Alan Khazei does have some good ideas and clearly something important to contribute to the conversation, a couple things trouble me about his campaign.
First the fact that he attacked Elizabeth Warren right out of the box by implying that taking PAC money including PAC money from women and progressives is the same as taking money from corporate lobbyists which it certainly is not. This was a straw man that most folks could see through, heck even Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, Russell Feingold has formed a PAC called “Progressives United,” in an effort to help progressives compete with corporate money.
Secondly in a September 30 article from the National Journal entitled, “Khazei Preaches Pragmatism in Bid to Upset Warren,” he cast himself in a light that makes me question his progressive credentials such as glib talk about all the entitlement programs being on the table for cutting and was said to be trying to cast Elizabeth Warren as an “intractable partisan,” which in my view clearly is untrue and will not resonate. Actually the Brown campaign has been trying this and so far it has been laughable.
stomv says
Khazei refused PAC money last go-round too. That he’s doing it again has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren. Mr. Khazei’s stance against PAC money is a principled one, and he’s called out plenty of other candidates on the issue.
sue-kennedy says
The principle behind PAC money is to help less funded causes, to compete with the big money interests that have dominated our political debate. So that environmental and social justice groups can have a seat at the table with banks, insurance companies and big oil.
Khazie’s donor list is full of corporate execs. The contributions connected to Bain execs, their wives and student children for example are similar to the amount Elizabeth Warren received from Bold Progressive Dems collected through mostly low dollar individual contributions.
If required to choose a candidate based on their donor list, I would feel more comfortable with the Elizabeth Warren’s donors, that they were more likely to support the causes I believe in.
lynne says
had an awful answer at the debate with regards to not taking reform of entitlements off the table in solving budget woes.
He needs to clarify THAT one posthaste.
lspinti says
So he did this just for principle you say — and that it had nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren?
Well let’s see hmmm…. at his website he has placed prominently the following quote from a Globe article:
“Alan Khazei, the co-founder of a national service program and the leading fundraiser on the Democratic side, offered a direct challenge to Warren today to match her populist rhetoric and reject corporate lobbyist and political action committee money, a pledge he said he is making himself.”
This clearly seems to underscore my point.
What I wish that Alan would do and indeed hope that all of the remaining Democratic candidates do going forward is to promote their own ideas and make their best case to the voters and not attack one another. This would be so refreshing.
Pablo says
Not an effective education policy. From Alan Khazei’s web page:
Privatization: Increase the federal charter school investment to support expansion of high-quality charter schools but insist that states focus on quality and accountability to help more charter schools become models for other public schools and share lessons learned.
Against public governance (school committees) and for union-busting: Make similar investments over the next five years to expand other high-quality public schools and l ink funding to districts and state commitment to provide meaningful autonomy to those schools over staffing, budgets, school schedules, and professional development – and help participating schools share lessons learned with other public schools.
I didn’t like Khazei in 2009. I don’t like him in 2011. Fortunately, when you have 87% of the primary voters deciding NOT to vote for Khazei in 2009, it’s hard to convert that to a win in 2011.
lynne says
That and the entitlement thing takes him RIGHT off the table for me. Charter schools and expanding them for me is a big no-no.
Progressive my ass. At this point I am beginning to wonder…
I didn’t like him in 2009 either, particularly in watching the debates and seeing him dodge a couple of questions in order to answer irrelevant (to the US Senate race) unasked questions about casinos, which struck at a minimum of being “not ready for prime time” and at worse burnishing his liberal creds on a hotbutton issue of the day to earn votes despite having NO control or ability to affect state casino outcomes as a US Senator.
Kevin L says
Fool me twice…uh, Can’t get fooled again.
I did like Khazei in 2009, but that’s because I knew Coakley was going to be a paper tiger, I didn’t necessarily trust Capuano (even though he has a solid voting record), and well, Pags was only good on one issue. I did like him back then, because he organized the coalition back in 2003 that saved my VISTA position.
Even then, I did have some doubts, because I’d heard a bit of people considering him anti-union (this is probably why the Globe endorsed him). He also promoted himself as a strong supporter of the Obama administration’s education policy. I’ve also seen that he now collects large donations and awards from the hedge fund manager backed group “Democrats for Education Reform”.
So I’d say he’s pretty much an Obama democrat, who thinks that there are still reasonable people left in the GOP. On the national level, I can probably count those on one hand about now.
lynne says
I appreciated his passionate opposition to casinos, but it was highly inappropriate for the moment.
long2024 says
Maybe he should start by changing the paradigm for the way candidates do their jobs. Disingenuous attacks against your opponents, claiming that money from a PAC that takes mostly small-dollar donations= special interests while finance execs and the law firms that lobby for them=jes’ folks? Same dirty politics we’ve always had.
hesterprynne says
I was surprised to see that Mr. Khazei is not acknowledging that what he calls “unemployment vouchers” have already been around for few years. While the specifics may differ, the general idea of these proposals is that unemployed workers can obtain work by offering to help pay for it themselves by using their unemployment benefits.
“Georgia Works,” that state’s variation on the idea, has been in place for several years. And President Obama has included “Bridge to Work,” a similar program in his jobs bill in an effort to attract Republican support.
While (of course) withholding their support for Obama’s jobs bill as a whole, Republicans, including not only faux-moderate Scott Brown but even arch-Randian Paul Ryan, really like this idea. What could please the Job Creator class more than free labor?
A program like this may have some virtues, such as helping unemployed workers get new skills or simply ensuring that they don’t lose their former skills – or their minds — during this period of protracted joblessness.
But among its other drawbacks, it creates downward pressure on employee wages. It’s not clear that Mr. Khazei understands this. Here’s his explanation of the program:
The problem is that if you’re entitled to $15K in unemployment benefits, that means that your prior job paid around $50K. Looking for a $30K job with an unemployment voucher means that you’re subsidizing the employer twice – once with your voucher and once by accepting a much lower wage.
long2024 says
That you’re driving down wages for everyone else by taking the job for $15k. For that kind of deal, it’s insane to employ anyone except people entitled to a bunch of unemployment benefits. So why not fire all your workers and rehire them at a little over half the price in a week?
If anyone else wants to get hired, they have to accept a huge pay cut to compete with the unemployment voucher people.
SomervilleTom says
The top 1% (actually the top 0.5%) have taken so much wealth out of the rest of the economy that there is no money to consume with.
The banking crisis of 2008 is a solvency crisis. A huge number of companies took (and spent) debt secured by assets that have turned out to be worthless (thank you, S&P). Their balance sheets are therefore negative — they are bankrupt or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy — even though their business is strong. So what do they do? They stop spending. They stop taking on new debt. Consumers are doing the same.
When consumers and businesses stop spending and stop borrowing, and instead use whatever cash they have to pay down existing debt, then the economy deflates. Prices go down. Wages go down. Income goes down. Anyone who isn’t terrified by that should look at Japan at the 1990s and America during the Great Depression.
Minor tweaking of tax policies will not fix this. “Austerity” will not fix this. Unemployment vouchers will not fix this.
The crisis we are in demands full-bore revolutionary (as in pissing off people with money and power) approaches — nationalizing banks, dismantling the health insurance industry, eliminating (not narrowing) the distinction between capital gains and “ordinary” income.
The crisis demands representatives who understand that the problem is class warfare, and who are able, willing, and eager to (finally) join the battle.
cousy says
I find it hilarious that Alan doesn’t accept PAC money. A quick review of his donor list, groaning with venture capitalists, management consultants and charter school funders, tells the story of where Alan’s allegiances lay.
The reality is that although Alan has talent and ideas, he would be a disaster in the Senate. He has never worked at an entity not of his own creation, and would chafe at the deliberative legislative process. The culture of the Senate, in which respect for seniority trumps interest in ideas, is not suited to Alan’s temperment or experience.
kokoty says
I feel personally insulted by the Warren bandwagon progressives who put their lobbyists on a pedestal when it comes to campaign contributions, when they benefit from the same rigged system that corporate interests do. They seem to have forgotten that issue advocacy and grassroots organizing are the powerful and democratic ideals these groups were originally designed to pursue, not out-bribing politicians. Alan Khazei is running the most transparent campaign possible, the fact that you can go into his records and know exactly who gave him how much is proof his challenge is a success, not evidence against it.
Also I would check yourself before you criticize Khazei on education. In the face of decades worth of spending cuts he mobilized 17,000 college students to dedicate a year of their life to doing everything and anything possible to improve the education of over a million of the worst served students in the country. Who’s done more? You can monday-morning quarterback his policies all you want, but Alan Khazei’s entrepreneurial approach to liberal issues is going to be the future of the Democratic Party with or without him.
SomervilleTom says
In my view, the “entrepreneurial approach to liberal issues” has failed miserably. We’ve been doing that since 2008, and we’ve lost far more ground than we’ve gained.
In case you hadn’t noticed, we are in a revolution. The right wing has been strangling us for decades, and 17,000 college students working on a program about education — as good and laudable as that program no doubt is — DOESN’T MATTER.
Millions of households are losing their homes. The entire baby-boom is danger of losing whatever was left of its retirement security. Tens of millions of households are losing their health care.
I have no complaint with Alan Khazei. Nevertheless, his campaign offers no substantive response to what is happening all around us. Mr. Khazei — and you — are offering analytic intellectual arguments in a situation that demands action. He is offering talk, and it is time to FIGHT.
It could be that, with luck and perseverance now, we will be fortunate enough to have a future where we can try Mr. Khazei’s “entrepreneurial approach to liberal issues” in a less hostile, less toxic larger environment.
For now, my gut, head, and heart tell me that Elizabeth Warren is the better candidate for this seat in this election.
kokoty says
By “entrepreneurial approach to liberal issues” I’m trying to describe exactly the kind of action based politics you (somervilletome) are talking about. While Elizabeth Warren has taken 1 policy position during the entire campaign, Alan Khazei has 1) decided to lessen special interest money in politics by leading by example, 2) explored the organizations on the ground in communities that are actually solving problems, such as Soldier On in Pittsfield, and the Woodshole Unemployment Office, and 3) used his volunteer network to give back to the community by actually performing community service as part of the campaign. I think Alan Khazei represents the future of the democratic party, because while both parties have been stuck on repeat hashing out this “Government versus Business” dichotomy that has become less and less applicable to what’s actually going on the ground, Alan Khazei has been a pioneering the non-profit sector which has actually been implementing the solutions to global warming, education, and joblessness on the local level. Now we need politicians like Khazei, who aren’t running for office for their first chance to give back, but for a greater platform from which to bring some of these proven local solutions to the state and national level. I’m not sure how the Democratic party has been employing this since 2008, but I sense our disagreement is based in semantics.
brudolf says
“Elizabeth Warren has taken 1 policy position during the entire campaign.” Aside from being inaccurate, this statement highlights the counterproductive frustration I’m picking up from Khazei and his supporters. Elizabeth Warren has been officially campaigning for little more than a month. To Khazei, the “entire campaign” means the more than two years he’s invested already. I understand being frustrated by a new candidate who sucks up all the energy and media attention, but venting that frustration won’t get Khazei anywhere.
cousy says
Kokoty –
Alan is very good at getting people to believe in him. I see that you have been inspired by his passion and his action-oriented personality.
But I must warn you – you get disenchanted at some point. Note that almost everyone who led his campaign last time is no longer with him (and this happened before Elizabeth got into the race). Note that he has been unable to get his latest non-profit venture off the ground, since he can’t get good people to work for him. Note that his last campaign was mired in debt, because he always spends more than he raises on the hope that it will all work out in the end (it rarely does).
Don’t get me wrong – Alan is really smart and has a real role to play in public life. But as I mentioned in my earlier post, he is tempermentally unsuited to the Senate. He would get frustrated immediately by the pace and the pattern of the institution. He would be over-confident with all the wrong people at all the wrong times. To say it kindly, Alan lacks the Kennedy touch.
kokoty says
I wasn’t plugged in to 2009, but I’ve volunteered for Khazei this time around, and my experience has been fantastic. I’m not sure what caused your disillusionment after 2009, but $750,000 cash on hand in 2011 is nothing to shake a stick at, although yes, others have more. But how could you possibly say that he lacks the “Kennedy Touch”!? He’s the only candidate in this race who has built coalitions to pass bipartisan bills during the Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama administrations! Yes he lacks a lot of the narcissistic qualities that help people get elected, but given his record on the grassroots level and in DC, I see that as a good thing.
Pablo says
kokoty
Person #7290: 0 Posts
Recommended: 0 times
New user, four comments, all pushing Khazei in this thread. Who are you, really?
Bob Neer says
Seems pretty clear that kokoty is a Khazei volunteer! That’s not astroturf, that’s a supporter identified as such making a comment.
long2024 says
I doubt it’s a real volunteer. Whoever it is, they’re remarkably on-message with the Khazei campaign’s false attacks against Warren which previous astroturf posters have made here.
Pablo says
The question is, why did he all-of-a-sudden pop up on BMG? If this was written by a local activist, you would expect some participation in this forum before now.
It looks like astroturf.
It smells like astroturf.
It tastes like astroturf.
The probability it isn’t astroturf is incredibly small.
SomervilleTom says
I’m with Bob on this one.
I welcome folks who are passionate about a candidate they like and say so. I may disagree about the candidate — so what, that’s what a community like BMG is for.
Pablo says
In my mind, there is a big difference between an enthusiastic volunteer and a cynical staffer turning BMG into an astroturf farm.
David says
there’s no evidence – zero – that kokoty is a staffer. This is campaign season, and as a result new people get signed up – that’s how it’s supposed to work. A few of them discover, or are directed to, BMG. That’s great too – no problem at all. Of course, we want staffers to disclose, and of course we can’t catch all the ones who don’t, but just because someone is an enthusiastic supporter of someone who isn’t your candidate doesn’t mean he or she is an astroturfer.
long2024 says
That could at least point us in the right direction. If this person is posting from the same IP address as all the previous Khazei sock puppets that’s a pretty good sign they’re one too.
Also, I don’t think a legitimate supporter would feel the need to lie, as kokoty has. Khazei’s campaign likes to claim, “Elizabeth Warren has taken 1 policy position during the entire campaign.” But that’s false.
See, for example, her LeftAhead interview: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/2/432/show_2432657.mp3
This person is clearly well-informed about Khazei’s talking points. The post reads like one written by staff, and at minimum indicates this person is too knowledgeable to have simply missed the fact that Elizabeth Warren is not a one-issue candidate, and is making a deliberate attempt to misinform.
SomervilleTom says
I fear that your hostile response causes far more damage than whatever you think you’re protecting you or us from. I found Martha Coakley’s several fully-disclosed drive-by postings of standard campaign drivel far more offensive, primarily because she offered NO response to subsequent comments. I really just don’t see ANY problem here; at least kokoty takes the time to respond.
If the participant is a paid staffer (of which, as David points, there is ZERO evidence), then at worst we’ll see a few months of passionately pro-Khazei commentary — no harm, no foul.
More likely, the participant is a passionate Khazei supporter to whom you, and by implication we, are being inexcusably rude.
David says
but you’re busted. Kobi (kokoty) is not staff. And I’m familiar with IP address tracking. I do check them, but no, we will not be publicizing them for any reason.
Pablo says
I am still undecided. I want to see this thing unfold. However, the moment this race turns into Warren v. Khazei, Elizabeth’s bumper sticker is on my car the next day.
kate says
Alan is one of two candidates speaking at a forum in Westborough at the Tatnuck Bookseller at 18 Lyman Street on Tuesday, October 18. The forum starts at 7 PM. The other candidate speaking is James Coyne King. Please stop by. Drinks afterwards.
kokoty says
My name is Kobi Tirey, I’m a Dartmouth Student from Winchester and I’ve been volunteering for the Khazei campaign this quarter before I go back to school in January. I used to read Blue Mass Group in the summer of 2008 when I was volunteering for Jason Lewis’ first campaign (Democratic State Rep for Winchester and most of Stoneham), but never bothered to sign up for an account, and only checked in sporadically before I started volunteering for Khazei.
The reason I was compelled to sign up and start commenting now is exactly because of some the knee jerk hostility exemplified by this comment thread. I haven’t listened to the Left Ahead interview, I promise I will, but I’ve been really disappointed by the lack of substantive policy proposals that her campaign has made. This is the greatest consumer advocate in our nation’s history, and yet instead of a “policy” section on her website she has “priorities” without establishing a clear framework for achieving those priorities. Alan Khazei’s website, campaign, and platform has that substance, and any attacks on those proposals are the beginnings of constructive debates we can have about how the government might best solve the severe problems were facing right now. At the end of the day, this day this election is going to be about jobs, and how government, business, and the nonprofit sector are going to work together to create them. Alan has a innovative and concrete jobs plan that pursues short, medium, long term goals while addressing the 21st century problems that are actually occurring on the ground. My challenge to Elizabeth Warren and her supporters is: What’s your jobs plan?
kokoty says
for the typos
Pablo says
I am glad you introduced yourself. And, please, join in on some non-Senate diaries.
SomervilleTom says
I want to apologize on behalf of some of our more rude members here for the extraordinarily hostile reaction you’ve received. While you and I may disagree about our respective candidates in this primary, I’m delighted that you’ve joined us and I welcome your commentary and continued participation.
Welcome aboard!
SomervilleTom says
.
kokoty says
I appreciate it.