OK,I’ll admit it. I’m done with the constant hand wringing about Martha Coakley not being liberal enough to deserve our support. What is wrong with this picture ?
Pogo said : “We have met the enemy and they are us.” Why can’t we see what’s happening here ? The Primary contest is over. By turning our back on our standard bearer thru silent indifference or ideological purity we undermine our cause by giving aid and comfort to our opponents. The Wall Street-backed, Charlie Baker one-percenters are licking their chops at the prospect of recapturing the corner office with their divide and conquer strategy.
It has been said that the problem with liberals is that they are afraid to take their own side in a fight. So when are we going to take off the gloves and start fighting for Main Street populist economic issues we believe in ? Raising progressive tax rates on the rich to pay for the New Deal/Great Society safety net for the middle class and those trying to get into it. Earned sick leave for ALL working families. Equal pay for women. World class public education. Infrastructure investment especially clean energy and public transportation. And the list goes on.
Yes, I know, we’re Democrats. We need to fall in love with our candidates. We’ve been courted and spoiled by the best of them ; Clinton, Obama, Patrick, Warren. Martha failed to kiss our collective ring. She doesn’t stroke our ruffled feathers and bruised egos. Well, guess what friends ? It’s time to GROW UP ! This ain’t beanbag, it’s hardball. Politics is warfare without bloodshed so put on your armor and join the fight. It’s not the critic who counts. It’s the man/woman who fights in the arena. The barbarians are at the gate. We have four weeks to get our act together. It’s all hands on deck time. Shame on us if we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We all agree that Martha is a flawed candidate but as FDR once said about a flawed ally : ” He may be a SOB but he’s OUR SOB.”
Strength and Honor, Martha ! And while you’re at it GIVE ‘EM HELL !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
P.S. And Martha’s imaginary response is : ” I don’t give ’em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.” đŸ™‚
I find it hard to believe that you seriously believe anyone who takes the trouble to read this diary is not voting for Martha. (I know there are a couple of exceptions, who have stated their positions.)
I object to the notion that we have asked Coakley to stroke our egos. There are substantial reasons to oppose her, and (in my view) better reasons to support her.
Triangulation might be too strong, but really, pretending it’s “the liberals” who have problems with Martha is not constructive. Preach to the unconverted, please.
Several of the comments on the other diary, and this diary, smack of protesting too much. I can understand the anxiety over the tightening polls, but I fail to see what’s gained by going after people here.
My friend used to like to quote this joke:
Democrat looks at a glass of water and sees it half empty.
Republican looks at the same glass and says “Who drank half my water?”
Water is a public utility. If the glass is half empty someone wasn’t paying their share to help people survive properly. What is your political affiliation anyway? Others may know, but I don’t. If you are a libertarian or conservative voter, Fred’s piece is not directed towards you. As for the bruised ego remark by jimc above, the gist of Fred’s view is missed. He is talking about people who were so invested in a candidate that lost, that they are acting like sore losers. He is not asking for Martha Coakley to assuage your pain, but rather, to vigorously support the standard bearer Democrats have chosen in a fair election. Fred’s points are on the mark, it’s time to get off our collective tushes and work for our chosen candidate.
Instead we get “liberals” in all caps.
Clintonism. I suppose we’ll never move on from it.
jimc told a joke and I told another one. it’s how normal people interact.
If you thought I was trying to make a point you really have your head somewhere it normally is not.
There is no humor section
nt
This passionate diary is all well and good, and is a stirring call to action — if only it pertained to our nominee.
Here’s the bit that most highlights the problem. The diarist opines:
“So when are we going to take off the gloves and start fighting for Main Street populist economic issues we believe in ?”
In case you haven’t noticed, my gloves are off. I *AM* fighting for “Main Street populist economic issues” I believe in. Issues like:
– Increasing gift/estate taxes on the very wealthy
– Increasing the capital gains taxes on the very wealthy
– Increasing the personal income tax rate, and increasing personal exemptions to protect all but the very wealthy
Issues that our nominee clearly DOES NOT believe in.
The nominee you ask me to rally behind has spent an entire campaign — and a political career before that — ducking, dodging, and dancing to avoid these practical and immediate steps we could take.
Instead, she continues to offer evasive platitudes like “I’m open to exploring that”.
I’ve spent the last FORTY YEARS watching my adopted home state deteriorate into third-world squalor while politicians mouth good liberal slogans like you offer. When I moved to Boston in 1974, the highways in Massachusetts were among the best and most well-maintained in country. Our subway system had gleaming new cars on the Red Line. The Red Line extension was being planned. People moved to Massachusetts because our public schools were widely known as among the nation’s best. The REASON our housing market skyrocketed was that PEOPLE WANTED TO LIVE HERE.
We’ve shit-canned all of that in favor of just this kind of empty rah-rah cheerleading for mediocre hacks, and spend our collective money on Globe$ox regalia while whining about “Taxachusetts”.
In particular, I’m DONE with horse manure about “Raising progressive tax rates on the rich” during campaign season.
Here’s my challenge to YOU and to the Coakley team:
If Martha Coakley steps forward, LOUDLY embraces the budget proposal that Deval Patrick put forward in 2013, LOUDLY points the finger at Bob DeLeo, and says “It’s time for party turncoats like Mr. DeLeo to step aside so that others (pointing at, for example, Denise Provost) may LEAD”, then I’ll publicly eat my hat here and vote for her.
We both know that’s NOT going to happen.
No matter how much we want to believe, Martha Coakley is NOT the “people’s champion” you ask us to elect.
for half as much year after year, that’s what happens. I share your frustration.
Sorry, somervilletom, I too would love to live in some sort of utopia where LOUDLY embracing a $2 billion income tax increase would be a feasible position in a Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign. But history show otherwise.
Indeed, Governor Patrick himself ran in 2010 saying “I don’t have any plans for broad-based tax increases.” Every time Charlie Baker suggested otherwise, he fought back vigorously. Not, as you (and I) would clearly prefer, with a full-throated defense of the need for new, progressive revenue sources. But with equivocation, denial, and obfuscation.
To expect more that the “I believe we need to explore every proposal that would make our tax system more progressive, and fairer, for everyone in the Commonwealth” answer we have already heard time and time again from candidate Coakley is simply to expect the impossible.
Welcome to politics.
The defining position of “progressive” is tax the wealthy. Elizabeth Warren gets it. Martha Coakley does not (no matter what Ms. Warren says in her enthusiastic endorsement).
The diarist calls us to support “Raising progressive tax rates on the rich to pay for the New Deal/Great Society safety net for the middle class and those trying to get into it.”
The mealy-mouthed evasions of Martha Coakley that you cite don’t do that.
At least that’s how I recall it.
If we RAISED taxes on the very wealthy, we could CUT taxes on the rest of us, including property taxes. As I recall, that was the context of Governor Patrick’s desire to reduce property taxes.
If we RAISED taxes on the very wealthy, and put that money in consumer’s pockets, we could RAISE tax revenues by growing the economy — without new broad-based taxes on the rest of us.
So long as we Democrats keep ducking the need to tax the wealthy and the very wealthy, we are going to lose the society we all want.
Call me cynical, but I think the current tax posture of the Democrats — especially the lie that “raising taxes” is bad politics — has a much to do with protecting deep-pocketed DEMOCRATIC party contributors as with any political calculus.
Why was Obama against raising the capital gains tax? Because he had a lot of support in Silicon Valley and that’s where they make their money. You start hitting the wealthy supporters with some tax increases and they’ll take it out of their political contributions.
Canvass Wakefield at 3pm, second floor above Greenwood Pizza on Main Street. Ring 40 door bells.
The coordinated campaign wants a strong turnout!
Do something to help Martha win votes in the suburbs or do nothing and complain about the government.