Disclosure: I work for the United Independent Party as its field director
I’m proposing that progressives who care about getting a progressive statehouse join my party and give up on the local Democrats for awhile. After March 1st you won’t have another primary to worry about until September of 2018. By all means vote for president March 1st, but sign up with us after that. If you like your rep you can keep him or her, but if you’re tired of them consider us as an alternative and maybe run with us and be the alternative!
In my view primaries will continue to fail since they are low notice, low publicity, low turnout affairs by design that tend to attract older voters who likely have more contact with their incumbent who wins them over with constituent services rather than a progressive voting record.
The UIP has an assured spot on the much higher turnout November presidential ballot for 2016 and will for the gubernatorial 2018 with your help. We are getting 2,000 sign ups a month and have grown from 1,500 to 21,001* voters in under a year. If we can get into the six figures we will be in spitting distance of overtaking the Republicans as a second party in Massachusetts.
If we can win state rep seats and oust a few incumbents than we will be making the two parties stronger by forcing them to compete for seats. As big as they are, the Democrats have left a lot of unchallenged Republicans on the table, though not nearly as many as the GOP has. No rep should go without a challenger in a democracy.
Interestingly, many of these DINO occupied districts have had double digit turnout for no name protest candidates who didn’t run real campaigns. So I wouldn’t be so sure they are popular simply because they haven’t lost yet, it might just be because the system benefits incumbency, as do the current primaries, and they haven’t met a serious challenger yet. UIP provides the mechanism for a concerted progressive counter attack on the bad governance in both parties at the state level.
Now, I have no idea what’s going on in your hometown, what are the issues animating the conversations in the coffee shops and town meetings, nor do I know who that man or woman is who always shows up and has great ideas but hasn’t felt the urge to run before. I would love to find out! If you like your rep, you can keep him or her; but if you don’t, then let’s work together on an alternative. My email is jconway@unitedindependent.org
*thanks central mass dad!
Christopher says
…but to be honest I prefer reform from within and frankly I suspect you will ultimately suffer the same fate as other third party attempts. When I say primary incumbents I do mean with real campaigns and real effort. Plus we do have a state primary in September 2016 and possible specials. You say give up on local Dems, but there are still the state and national matters to attend to. In my particular case, and a few others here, I’m a DSC member so I’m certainly not going anywhere. As for my local representatives I fail to see how a third party general challenge will get much more traction than a primary challenge. I appreciate your trying a different tack and I hope you don’t take this as personal discouragement, but it is my honest assessment of the political facts on the ground.
jconway says
How many progressive challengers have beaten regressive incumbents? Steve Ultrino comes to mind, and he ended up voting for DeLeo. I can’t think of another prominent example since Carl Sciortino in 2004, and his successor also voted for DeLeo.
As a party we can raise $5,000 from individual contributors which is a higher cap than the cap for an individual candidate in a primary race. And that money can be distributed to any of our legislative candidates as we see fit. This enables a real cohesive statewide effort if we can get the resources to really go after bad incumbents and target them for defeat.
I love them to death, but I don’t see Progressive MA or any other outside pressure group getting that capability and I am not confident Tom McGee is interested in that role from within the state party apparatus. He is primarily interested in protecting the same supermajority that has failed to act in the long term interests of the state. Stay registered with the Democrats if you must, but don’t give the state party another dime for DeLeo to play with or McGee to sit on. Your money would really go farther and count more in the UIP.
You could vote in all of those races as an unenrolled voter, and then re-enroll in the UIP. Same for the presidential race. We aren’t on the presidential ballot and will not stop any of our members from voting for the Democratic nominee, as I suspect the vast majority of them will
how’s that worked out? Bobby DeLeo still vowing no new taxes, still running unopposed for life in his position, most progressive caucus members rolling over and enabling all of the above? Thanks. I sincerely wish your reform effort success, but actually think it’s a higher hill to climb than the admittedly high hill the UIP has to go. There is just no internal incentive for DeLeo to change short of a prosecutor removing him from power or a rebellion removing him from his position (odds are better there will be a UIP or Republican Speaker before that happens).
Realistically, if we can get to where the Vermont Progressive Party is today with 10 legislative seats in both chambers, a statewide officer, and a real shot at the Governor’s office than I would be satisfied with that. If all 40 members of the House progressive caucus joined with just 6 newly elected UIPers and the 35 Republicans in opposing DeLeo’s re-election we could defeat him and elect somebody better. So there is power in getting a new party into the chamber.
hesterprynne says
The General Laws provide that the state primary happens on the 7th Tuesday before the general election, which often means the day after Labor Day. For this year’s primary, the Legislature moved the date back to Thursday September 8.
Poll: did they do this to increase turnout (nobody is thinking about voting right after Labor Day), to decrease it (elections are never on Thursdays) or for some other reason?
Christopher says
That has been the reason some years.
TheBestDefense says
Not this year, but it has been an issue in the past.
centralmassdad says
“Will you pledge to support the Democratic primary nominee in the general election?”
Option A: Progressive candidate says “yes” and thus pledges support to a candidate with whom progressive candidate shares neither values, nor goals, nor agenda.
Option B: Progressive candidate says “no” and is therefore punished in various ways by the party because progressive candidate just broke the one rule that the party cares about: unquestioning unconditional loyalty at all times, regardless of whether that party makes any effort to reflect your priorities or values.
It is likely true that UIP’s effort is quixotic, but those quixotic odds are far better than the odds of “reform from within” because the mechanics of the MADem Party is deliberately structured to entrench the power of a right-wing minority at the expense of everyone else. 2014-16 has convinced me that it is beyond redemption absent some politically traumatic earthquake.
So, “Help us UIP, you’re our only hope.” (Can you tell what movie I saw and enjoyed recently?)
jconway says
Here’s a hypothetical to consider, by all accounts Dan Rizzo is a lousy mayor and the kind of hackish Democrat BMGers would be disinclined to support. I suspect he will likely win the Suffolk special election since he will turnout his base in Revere while progressives will be divided at least three ways between two woman of color from East Boston and a capable white progressive state representative from the tonier Beacon Hill/Cambridge part of the district.
I know plenty of people working for Ben and Lydia and they are going to do a great job, but that’s how I see the race play out. If the new guard together forms a majority, say 60% and we can pick one of them to run on our party line, will they have a shot at support? Or will they be attacked as ‘bad democrats’ by the very same people who were supporting them as the ‘most democratic’ candidate against a hack like Rizzo?
I have no idea, but there are several races where I see this dynamic in play and I think there is a real opportunity for the progressive candidate if they lose in such a scenario to run over to our side and be embraced as a UIPer. I am a little worried that some on this blog who concede that the state party is relatively weak at sanctioning someone like DeLeo and are rightly worried at the rightward drift of the party under his leadership are worried the UIP will somehow elect more Republicans. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. But I also know we won’t be taken seriously until we win more than just a city council race out in a part of the state most people forget about. So again-send me candidates!
Christopher says
…since the values, goals, and agenda, are still likely to be closer than the GOP candidate’s. The candidate can also conveniently become too busy to offer full-throttled support for the nominee. The party only prohibits openly supporting an opponent of the Dem nominee.
centralmassdad says
.
SomervilleTom says
I voted for Evan Falchuk in the last election, because I found the nominee of my party so offensive.
After that the disaster of the last gubernatorial election, and the predictable and predicted utter collapse of the MBTA in the winter of 2015, I’ve been embarrassed by the movement to make Mr. DeLeo speaker for life, combined with his increasingly Republican statements about taxes.
If I change my enrollment to the UIP, I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR to Christopher and some others here:
I am not leaving the Democratic Party. My party has left ME.
Christopher says
You’ve praised her many times, so I doubt your beef is with her and therefore aren’t likely to do what jconway seems to be suggesting of supporting someone else in the more local races.
SomervilleTom says
My party has left Ms. Provost, my senator (Pat Jehlen), my mayor Joe Curtatone, and my Rep. (Mike Capuano).
Who knows, perhaps some of them may be persuaded to change their affiliation.
The only thing my affiliation would change is my ability to vote in a primary. None of the above need my primary vote here in Somerville.
rcmauro says
… probably a factor for about 0.0001% of voters …
Also, if you publicly support a candidate running against a Democrat, there is a delay of two to four years before you can be a delegate to the state convention. So you can miss some fun in years where the convention nominates candidates. (What is the history of this rule and who was it aimed at? I would prefer leaving it up to the individual party member to choose which candidate most closely matches “Democratic” values.)
Christopher says
…but basically the rule guards against infiltration via Trojan Horse of people who aren’t really Democrats. Party members have the prerogative to decide who most closely matches Dem values DURING the nominating phase. If you really can’t stomach the nominee for one office you are always free to focus your energies on another race. You are correct that it caucus participation is a factor for extremely few voters, though I’d love to change that. My advice/hope is that people who are Dems remain so, but vote for UIP candidates on an ad hoc basis. Those who don’t care about convention can even publicly support them with no consequence. We do, however, have elected officials who run with the Ds and then endorse Rs and I do think it’s appropriate to keep them out of convention if they can’t make that basic commitment to our candidates in major races.
SomervilleTom says
Bob DeLeo has wreaked more havoc than any “trojan horse” I can think of.
The plain fact is that the current process has FAILED. We have a state government that is:
a) Overwhelmingly “Democratic”
b) Overwhelmingly regressive
The current party is destroying the state that I love.
The people that need to be kept out of convention are the people who call themselves Democrats and who talk like Republicans, run like Republicans, and VOTE like Republicans once in office.
Bob DeLeo is exhibit A.
Christopher says
…and as far as I know has always supported other Dems and votes the party much more often than not. I don’t see him as quite the boogey-man that you do.
kirth says
If it walks like an (R), looks like an (R), and quacks like an (R), having a (D) after its name is pretty useless, except to other crypto-(R)s.
Christopher says
…which is if you look at the totality of DeLeo’s record I’m not in fact convinced that he walks, looks, and quacks like an R as much as some seem to suggest.
petr says
… the totality of power in the hands of the speaker is the point. I would not want even the best Democrat, with the best will in the world, to have that much power. Nor would I expect the best Democrat, with the best will in the world to never vote R…
It is wrong not just because nothing happens, good or bad, without DeLeo’s say-so, but it has exposed the cowardice and feckless disregard for democracy of the other 159 elected representatives who are failing in their duty to represent by failing to challenge the Speaker.
Christopher says
I definitely agree that in general, the Speakership is too powerful.
TheBestDefense says
IIRC, the Democratic Party rule that limits participation by people who support candidates against a Democratic candidate only includes opposing candidates who sign a statement in support of the party platform. You might find details on the SoS website. Galvin has a long history in opposing allowing parties to exclude participation, including the Dem 15% rule. I have been out of this part of electioneering for decades and things may have changed but this should be easily discovered.
rcmauro says
Maybe I come for an exceptionally opinionated town, but any suggestion that the party limits their choices makes people furious around here. That is the main reason I’ve decided to support Sanders — I don’t get at all the argument that Clinton needs to wrap things up early to be competitive with the GOP.
jconway says
If anything a vigorous contest from Sanders will make her a better nominee, and if current polls hold up, he may be the stronger candidate*.
*not fully buying that myself, but in the year of Trump who knows?
Christopher says
Nobody is limiting anyone’s choices in the context of the presidential primary. At the state convention there is a 15% rule for ballot access, but there are also signature thresholds and your opinionated neighbors have every right in the world to register as Dems and participate in the caucus process. To TBD’s comment above there is no reference to a signed statement, just to being the Dem nominee. However, denial is not automatic and the person who may be affected is free to argue that the Dem nominee does not adhere to most of the platform anyway.
TheBestDefense says
The two major parties long ago conspired to protect their brand names in a clearly un-Constitutional manner. Here is one provision in the Democratic Party by-laws. Please note that the party acknowledges it sought the legislative imprimatur to violate the right to free speech :
Article XIII
Use of the Word “Democratic”
Under the authority of Chapter 56, section 40 of the General Laws, the Chairperson, with the advice of the Executive Committee, shall make a recommendation regarding any request to use the name and designation “Democratic” with reference to any organization in the Commonwealth, but only after examination of the By-laws of the proposed organization indicates that there shall be no endorsement by such organization of a candidate in a contested Democratic Primary. The Chairperson’s recommendation regarding any such request shall be reported to the full State Committee which shall vote to grant, withdraw, or deny such use. The failure to comply with the provisions of Article II, Section 3(c) shall be sufficient to justify the denial or withdrawal of permission to use the term “Democratic” and to forbid the further use of it by the organization in question.
It is bad enough that the two parties conspired to enact legislation to prohibit the formation of groups like a “Democratic Socialist Party” or a “Republican Tea Party.”
When the Democratic Party repeals this odious limitation on free speech from its rules, I might consider re-enrolling. I don’t even ask that either of the two parties spend any resources on lobbying the lege to repeal this garbage they jointly sought. Just fix your own rules please, MA Dems.
Christopher says
…than any number of products or services seeking to trademark their brand names? I have seen instances where groups have formed using the party name in a way that is deliberately misleading. As long as I have been on the DSC we have actually I think been pretty generous in granting permission and recognition to regional or constituency based subsets of the party who seek it and have the stated goal of advancing the party in their region or among their demographic.
merrimackguy says
which has similar rules.
The Mass Federation of Republican Women, which was a chapter of the National Federal of Republican Women, was forced last year to disband (which they did rather than change their name) by the Republican State Committee. Some local chapters of the MFRW continued under new names.
centralmassdad says
I had no idea about these rules. What is the mechanism that is used to force someone to disband? Is there a statute? Seems like something of a 1st Amendment issue, at least at first pass.
merrimackguy says
It could be a 1A issue, but then the organization would need to hire a lawyer. The NFRW declined to help them. Is it ultimately practical to fight the organization in theory you want to help?
Another possibility would be to work the political angle and try to influence (including getting a majority after SC elections) the SC. For MA Republicans there are only 80- a man and a woman from each Senate District. The MFRW had some influential adversaries on the SC though, so that was a difficult route.
TheBestDefense says
The words democratic and republican are concepts that far pre-dated the existence of either party in the US. They CANNOT be copyrighted or trademarked, so the state Dems and the Repubs jointly decided to squeeze out anybody else who wants a different interpretation of the concepts and subject them to a six month jail term if they do not genuflect in front of the hackerama of the two parties. If the public learned what you claim as your right, the number of unenrolled voters would grow.
I was a member of the Democratic Party before you were born. I quit the DSC when you were still in high school. And you think I need to depend upon your “generosity” if I wish to claim any parts of a tradition going back to Athens.
One of the better legacies of the Reagan years, after the Wall came down, was when Congress created a half dozen pro-democracy groups to work around the world. Do you really think the Congress needed your approval when it created the National DEMOCRATIC Institute or the International REPUBLICAN Institute, to help governments move towards democratic princeples? Or maybe they just acted on the obvious legal basis that a state law that violates the Constitutional right to free speech should not be even considered.
The next time you want to talk about putting a brand name on the words “democratic” or “republican” you should learn about legal branding, and maybe consider the history of the concepts.
stomv says
Lose your Wisdom of the Ancients logical fallacy and the rude behavior of dismissing another BMGer based on his age. christopher asked a logical question and followed it up with his perspective and experience in a respectful way. He deserves the same courteousy from you — and the rest of us do too. I’m interested in this topic, learning about it, and enjoying both sides making good arguments. Don’t undermine your point by being a jerk.
Christopher says
Glad someone else noticed.
TheBestDefense says
I understand you don’t like my attitude but there is no logical fallacy in my arguments. Show me in detail if you can.
Both parties conspired to enact a law that is clearly a violation of the free speech rights of all of the residents of this state by claiming “branding rights” as Christopher called it, clearly mistaken in his understanding of copyright and trademark law. That is just a mistake of ignorance.
Christopher was not responsible for the law as it pre-dates his tenure on the pathetic DSC but he defends it by claiming his cronies have right to own the concept of “Democratic.”
He said he and his cronies are “generous” in allowing some groups to use the thousands of years old concept of the concept “Democratic.” Again I say bull shit. That comment is a mistake built on his arrogance.
I cited two specific examples examples of where the Congress and the President made it clear they do not acknowledge the claims made by the poobahs in the Democratic and Republican parties of Massachusetts.
Let me add to those. Does the national organization known for decades as the Democratic Socialists of America have to beg the party for permission to use the word “Democratic?” If Bernie Sanders creates a Democratic Socialist Party, does he have to ask the state party for permission to use that title? State law and the state party say they do. I think both the state and national constitutions disagree. I have no doubt how either the SJC or the SCOTUS would rule but I would rather see the violators of the 1st amendment admit what they have done and repeal their offenses. I won’t be waiting for either Christopher or the DSC to acknowledge their offense.
I did not dismiss Christopher because of his age. I simply reject completely the attitude of anybody, regardless of their age, who says he gets to determine what the people I associate with call ourselves. I also defend the right of what people who are on the right get to call themselves.
I understand you are uncomfortable with my attitude. I am uncomfortable with people who violate the right to free speech because they don’t want political competition. Naww, I am not just uncomfortable with it, I am violently opposed to that brand of Democratic Party Unconstitutionalism. Oops I used the phrase Christopher claims he and his cronies own. My bad.
Christopher says
…I personally don’t have a strong opinion on the merits of this, but do understand the argument. Also, I acknowledge this may not neatly fit into the same category as most trademark law, but I do see the same logic and was only saying that our legislatures have the right to make these laws. If someone wants to bring it to SCOTUS I’d be interested in the result.
Christopher says
Classical history is very much in my wheelhouse having majored in both Classics and History and taken a lot of classes in ancient history. (For someone who likes to clobber us with your credentials you seem awfully quick to assume what credentials the rest of us may or may not have.) Congress created those groups and can make the laws protecting those terms or not. As you mentioned state law protects the party names. You can advocate for reversing state law and your arguments may even have some merit, but at the same time for reasons I have stated the law is not that unreasonable either. I see no first amendment protection for what you call your organization anymore than a company has any first amendment right to call their product or business by a name that has already been taken.
TheBestDefense says
I do not question your credentials, Christopher, merely your failed understanding of what constitutes the legal use of what you called branding. Your experience in ancient history might be interesting but it has absolutely nothing to do with branding, or more accurately trademarks, service marks, patents and copyrights. Concepts in use for hundreds of years cannot be covered under any of those forms of protections. . And of course neither of the two main political parties have any of those legal protections. There are hundreds of page on the web explaining why you are incorrect
So the two parties conspired to muscle out any competition by enacting an unconstitutional law. It really is pretty simple.
Christopher says
My reference to trademarks was a comparison that I thought made some sense. Laws are presumed to be constitutional until the courts say otherwise and I am not aware of a ruling on this matter. Not the first time you’ve taken something a bit too literally.
jconway says
Many of our members are really excited about being able to vote for Bernie Sanders, my suspicion is that the nomination will be sowed up by that point so I am inclined to register in my new party as soon as I am able to reestablish my Massachusetts residency.
But there is nothing stopping them or you from making your last vote as a Democrat, Republican or unenrolled voter on March 1st and then immediately registering online for the UIP. If you can maintain that registration it will count towards our party’s ability to maintain it’s ballot status for the 2018 race where we will have more opportunities to run viable alternative candidates for statewide office.
betsey says
I strongly disagree with you that the nomination will be sewn up by then, esp. if Bernie wins NH and IA! #feelthebern
jconway says
Then vote for Bernie on March 1st and join us right after!
Christopher says
You need to be a registered Dem to participate in national caucuses on that date. I reject the party doesn’t need you after March 1st premise. Party business and organizing is an ongoing proposition.
Christopher says
I looked at the What We Believe page and while it appears well thought out what is it’s source? Is it basically what Evan Falchuk believes? I also see no reference to developing a structure. There is encouragement to enroll with the party (which, again clearly has a set of beliefs and wants to support candidates so it shouldn’t presume to speak for the “independent majority”), but nothing about committees, convention, etc. As an aside I was hoping to see a staff photo directory since I like to have a mental picture of whom I correspond with:)
jconway says
We have a Western MA group and a Weymouth group that are both very active chapters and I’ve been contacted by folks in Newton, Brookline and Fitchburg about organizing there. We got some college chapters, interestingly all at community and state colleges. But having that info on the website would be a good start, and I’ll be sure to get a haircut before photo day!
spence says
Who do you actually work for, the entity of the Unity Independent Party or Evan Falchuk for Governor? To be clear, who you “work for”, as it usually is, is defined here as “the one who pays you” (or will pay you if you haven’t got paid yet). The reason I ask what may seem like a weird question is that if you look at the last couple months OCPF reports for the UIP and for Falchuk for Governor, people who identified themselves on Linkedin with the title of Executive Director, Political Director, and Deputy Director of Communications for the United Independent Party were or are all actually getting paid by Falchuk for Governor. In fact, according to the year-end reports the UIP spent about 45K in 2015 while Falchuk for Gov spent about 263K in 2015 (3 years from the nearest Gov. race). Orders of magnitude more, and mostly on what appears to be party expenses.
So, can you please clarify, regardless of job title, who are you working for?
Christopher says
…but jconway, I think this actually is a reasonable question to answer rather than downrate.
jconway says
I would note that the poster has made a total of ten posts here, 5 of them directed at me personally questioning something I wrote about Falchuk and the UIP, with some of these posts even predating my hire or involvement with the party.
With that observation out of the way, I know for my purposes that I will be on the party payroll as an employee of the party rather than as a 1099 contractor. I believe that answers this question and the editors have already confirmed that my disclosure is sufficient.
jconway says
Wouldn’t want to get my numbers wrong 😉
spence says
Not that it matters but I only see one post where I replied to you before you began posting officially for Falchuk/UIP…and that was to correct bad info you had about the results of the UIP candidate in Pittsfield, a correction you thanked me for (I thought sincerely) though you’re repeating that bad info again. And then there were two comments I made on your official posts in the last day. That makes three (not counting this one). I haven’t kept a log or anything, but there’s no doubt that there were times Falchuk/UIP had a way higher percentage of their public comments than 3/18 or 5/18 or even 5/10 devoted to the single matter of the Olympics- that has no bearing on the comments substance and doesn’t make them irrelevant. I’d also note you replied to something I said about Falchuk, and in that response called Falchuk a “centrist” which is different than “progressive.” Again, not sure what difference this all makes though.
Anyway, I’m sorry that you seem to think there is some personal thing here. There most definitely is not. To the extent that I know you from your posting I like you…but I do have some major concerns about Falchuk. I’ll reply later when I get the time to the more meaningful part of your response.
jconway says
It was a genuine accidental downrate, and I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot either. It was just an observation, not an accusation, much like your inquiry about the employment status. Look, we’re a new organization so I am going to celebrate the fact that we had a candidate run a good race, and fall short, and another candidate win a race. I would certainly like to do better and I suspect we will this cycle. But you can feel free not to support him and I don’t take it personally.
thebaker says
Did you mean to uprate his comment?
Your response didn’t sound like it was your intent was to uprate him. it sounded rather defensive. Were you trying to uprate a different comment?
spence says
I don’t doubt for a second that you believe what you’re saying, but I’ll be curious to see if that’s what happens- for the simple reason that you would not only be on the payroll, you would be the entire payroll. According to the OCPF filing there’s literally no one on it now and no UIP payroll has yet truly existed. I just scanned through the reports and there’s only one or two expenses that look like they could possibly be payroll over the entire year. Falchuk for Governor, on the other hand, is full of payroll payments to people and all of them I’ve seen (at least a half dozen) identify themselves on Linkedin and elsewhere as having jobs with the party at the time of their payroll payments.
As you accurately stated in another thread, there is a $5,000 per year limit on individual donations to a party- Falchuk spent hundreds of thousands in 2015 on apparent party activities. I have no idea if this is even legal or if there is some loophole that allows it. Regardless, it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law to have a single person funding a whole party out of their pocket to a six figure tune. And a person who does this can’t really be considered to have clean hands when it comes to the influence of $$$$ in politics. If there is some explanation on how this is not a shattering of the individual donation limit and/or how this doesn’t make the UIP a wholly owned subsidiary of Evan Falchuk Inc, I’d love to hear it.
thebaker says
I noticed the UIP website is plastered with Evan Falchuk, Evan Falchuk and MORE Evan Falchuk! Maybe he dropped that $$$ for advertisement? Gosh I do hope Evan Falchuk is on the up and up.
JimC says
I don’t know the ins and outs of Office of Campaign and Political Finance rules, but surely they distinguish between funds for candidates and funds for parties.
People who gave to Falchuck in 2014 were by definition not giving to UIP. UIP was not a recognized party at the time.
So even if Falchuk had a surplus from that campaign, is he allowed to roll those funds over to the now recognized UIP? Perhaps he is, but some clarification would be good.
jconway says
I would be remiss to mention it’s not even my first day yet 😉
spence says
There was no surplus & the gov campaign was almost entirely self-funded also. Falchuk has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to his Gov campaign account just in 2015 (candidates can give themselves unlimited amounts).
Bill Taylor says
Though I don’t know you yet personally, jconway, I wish you success with your new gig … I appreciate the fact that you have stated unequivocally these last few days that the UIP is, in fact, a progressive party. I was impressed with Falchuk’s gubernatorial campaign, and I voted for him, but I have felt some uncertainty about what the party stands for, exactly. “Fiscally sensible solutions” certainly has a broad rhetorical appeal, but that, of course, can mean different things to different people. (I do like what I see here: http://www.unitedindependent.org/whatwebelieve)
frankunderwood says
I’ll vote for them if Clinton wins the nomination. Her militarist foreign policy, racism, and homophobia make her a no go in my book.
fredrichlariccia says
As a lifelong Democratic LGBTQ and Civil Rights activist I take great offense at your baseless, slanderous attack on one of the world’s strongest and most outspoken advocates for human rights.
When, exactly, did Hillary Clinton become a homophobic racist ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
[comment edited for content. -ed.]
jconway says
The UIP will not be endorsing a presidential candidate in the upcoming primaries. We are focused on local legislative races this cycle.
David says
Third parties (e.g., Green-Rainbow) always make the “let’s run for president!” mistake, thereby consigning themselves to perpetual 1% irrelevance. Much smarter to start local.
stomv says
(I don’t know, I just have a sense that performing well enough is important to be a party instead of a designation, etc)
frankunderwood says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM
Christopher says
That video appears to be from the 2000 Senate race before even MA had marriage equality. Public opinion and lots of individual politicians have evolved since then. I assume you saw that the Human Rights Campaign just endorsed her and I further assume that it wasn’t just because they liked her initials.
frankunderwood says
?
frankunderwood says
Clinton “evolved” on gay rights sometime after public opinion did. I’m glad she did. I like the current Hillary Clinton better than the historical model.
But what if public opinion “evolves” to support discrimination?
What if discrimination against a different group (ie immigrants) becomes popular? Is her position on that going to “evolve” too? This is a double edged sword. Someone who is so dominated by the desire to be in office is too subject to every passing whim of the average voter (or perceived average voter).
I want a leader. I want someone who has ALWAYS recognized their fellow human beings as equals, and always will, no matter what is popular at the moment.
petr says
… then, did you choose a pseudonym like “frankunderwood”… the very epitome of bottomless ambition and absence of values??
No, I don’t think you do. Not if you choose that pseudonym.
frankunderwood says
My name is satire. And I like the show.
Perhaps you should also criticize the name choice because I’m not a natural-born citizen, and no matter how much I scheme, I can never be President. Or does my choosing the name transform me into a potential President?
petr says
… if your introduction here is based upon satire, (even not very good or trenchant satire), then you forfeit straightforwardness in the future. You can’t have it both ways.
So, yeah, I am making a serious point.
fredrichlariccia says
and by the way I have met her personally and had a meaningful conversation with her. She is kind, wise, and genuinely personable and friendly. And I would follow her to hell and back again.
And by the way, who is YOUR candidate ? Or don’t you want to say.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
frankunderwood says
And her fakeness shined through. She pretended like she knew me even though we had never met before.
petr says
… Claire says hi. Meechum wants to know when you’ll be home. He’s making soup.
Here’s a tip, just for you, if you prize honesty and integrity, don’t use a pseudonym that celebrates the exact opposite. Lest you be taken for a troll.
Whether Clinton be hero or villain is not for an anti-hero to say.
jconway says
Albeit a weaker show after the last two absurd seasons which haven’t lived up to the pacing and depravity of the first.
SomervilleTom says
The BBC original, with Ian Richardson as FU, as spectacular.
I’m trying to get through US remake, but it’s not nearly as good as the original.
sabutai says
I thought around halfway through the first season, the show gave up realism. It is basically a soap opera with government jargon thrown in.
jconway says
But kinda like Dexter, every subsequent season became reliant on the concept that every other character in the show was an idiot without any private motivations and that Frank was the only smart one left. I’ve been meaning to watch the UK version. I think the execution of the HOC plot makes a
more sense in a parliamentary system, and it is mercifully shorter rather than overpadded like the American version.
SomervilleTom says
but I couldn’t POSSIBLY comment.
JimC says
Some of us remember Frank Skeffington.
jconway says
It’s coming in the plane along with All the King’s Men. Two of my favorite studies of power.
JimC says
I teared up at the end.
But my link is not literal, I was just highlighting the reference, which is actually to great lost BMGer frankskeffington. He lost a bet and had to close his account.
Personally I hold out hope that frank, whoever he (she?) is, has gone on to be happier and more fulfilled.
johnk says
primary the DINOs, challenge their positions and votes, if Dems won’t do it. I don’t live in a district that’s impacted. But best of luck!
johnk says
..
Christopher says
They SHOULD be primarying DINOs rather than contest general elections.
jconway says
Inside and outside. I am very happy you are on the DSC and have the potential to work within the Democratic Party to make change. I don’t have the patience for that kind of work, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable.
For me, I think we can field a few good candidates this cycle and have them make a difference. But we aren’t going to be in the majority anytime soon, so it would be nice if the folks in the majority could get there act together, primary or not.
dave-from-hvad says
are they an irrelevant factor because they are likely only to vote for an “incumbent who wins them over with constituent services rather than a progressive voting record?” I would suggest that writing off a large bloc of voters like that will only tend to marginalize the UIP.
I know of at least some older voters who are actually still interested in progressive politics and not just whether their state rep can fix a SNAFU in getting their Social Security checks delivered. Btw, substitute Black or Gay or Jewish in that quoted sentence and you would get some serious blowback.
jconway says
And we take the role that our seniors and disabled citizens play in this process very seriously and want to advance their welfare and concerns with full equanimity. I strongly value your advocacy here and outside this blog on behalf of our most vulnerable and forgotten populations. But my comment, too broad and unfair as it was, stems from a kernel of truth formed at a young age. I was a 14 year old freshmen in high school when I joined the movement in Cambridge to lower the vote.
I had a city councilor say to my face he didn’t have a reason to take young people seriously and only listened to the elderly and only visited their senior centers since that’s where the voters were. He wasn’t convinced people my age cared and didn’t want to visit the high school where there weren’t voters. I retorted that we were here weren’t we? And we were his future employers.
Everything about that interaction shows that he took both demographics for granted. He assumed it was easy to pander to seniors and that’s all he needed to do to campaign and win. And he might as well have said “screw you kids” instead of meeting with us. That’s what happens in super low turnout elections, and my point was primaries are harder than generals since fewer young people and people of color vote in them which benefits establishment incumbents. We must do what we can to change that at the primary level, but until then, we give progressive leaning voters a choice through to November when the voters most likely to favor change are most likely to show up.
dave-from-hvad says
It sounds like you had a rough introduction to local politics when you were 14, but it seems more a case of a hack politician than uninformed voters. I’m glad the UIP is open to all because older voters can be a decisive bloc in a general election, not just a primary. You didn’t define older voters in your post, but I would think the UIP should take at least a page out of that city councilor’s book and visit the senior centers. The people in them may be more open to your message than you might think.
jconway says
My point was we won’t visit them to the exclusion of everywhere else-we will compete everywhere where they are voters eager to listen to our message and I agree there are many who will be receptive to it from all walks of life. But it was a friendly reminder to be more careful with my language now that I’m not just a venting blogger.