Issue Date: 12/21/2006, Posted On: 12/18/2006
Political intelligence
Kevin John Sowyrda
The hoof prints are still on the faces of anxious New Hampshire residents who flocked to touch and gawk at the very junior U.S. Senator Barak Obama, who visited the first-in-the-nation primary state Dec. 10. People were trampling each other to get a glimpse, to nail down a photo or actually touch the personage himself. You'd have thought Elvis was back in the building.
Obama hails from the Land of Lincoln and his strategy, thus far, is hardly as noble as his state's namesake. His playbook seems to have three themes: to not be Hillary Clinton, to not be Hillary Clinton and, last, to not be Hillary Clinton.
So what's behind this simplistic strategy of not being that other senator — from New York? And what's behind the suit, the pretty face, the distinctive, baritone voice and the half-way decent communication skills? Glad you asked. Behind it all is very young and overanxious progressive-on-not-all-issues who lacks the integrity and conviction and intestinal fortitude to take a brave stand on whether same-sex couples should get the civil right to marry. Obama is publicly opposed to such rights and first said so when he successfully ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996 (the year that the federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed by then-President Clinton). Let me drive this point home. Before you donate your hard earn green backs to the draft Obama web page, consider the fact that the man who preaches freedom and justice for all believes in a proviso that you and I get the entire package of 'rights-Americana,' except that chunk of the package called marriage. This tells me one thing about Obama: Like most other politicians, he makes his policy decisions with the help of a wet finger to the wind. Those afflicted with Obama-mania, which is the belief that Obama is a new kind of politician, one who speaks truth to power while honoring and respecting all sides of a debate (not to mention, um, the fact that desperate Democratic politicos believe that Obama can connect with evangelicals), fail to realize that he’s no different than every other pol. He listens to political consultants. "Your abortion views are going to cost you enough problems in the South and the Rust Belt," I can imagine them chirping in his ear. "But if you champion causes like the Marshall Ruling in Massachusetts, legalizing gay marriage, it will drive too many moderates away for you to have a chance in a general election."
Had I just five minutes of face time with Obama, I’d advise him against making decisions based on conventional polling data. Many people appear to be strongly opposed to gay marriage until you follow the question with two others — how important do you rank this issue and do you want your gay friends and family members to experience prejudice? Second, I'd ask Obama to do what he says he wants to do — lead! Leadership is about saying the things other people are afraid to say. Leadership is about putting it all on the table. A real leader would put this issue in the context in which it belongs and pose the question this way: With one of out two marriages ending in divorce, does anyone seriously believe that letting same-sex couples marry will make things worse?
But none of this will happen. Obama's pre-campaign is about the proverbial dog and pony show. Look great. Say very little. And ride the wave of adulatory mainstream coverage by boomer political reporters who are dying to prove that they’re color-blind by, well, injecting color into the 2008 presidential race. A prime example of this, by the way, can be found in the current issue of Newsweek.
The cover story of the Dec. 25 issue, titled “Is America Ready for Hillary or Obama?” deals with the issues of gender and race in American presidential politics. But writer Jonathan Alter inexplicably failed to include the results of a Newsweek poll, which I found via PR Newswire, showing Clinton kicking Obama’s ass 50 percent to 32 percent. But that’s not all. The survey of 1000 adults, age 18 and over, on Dec. 6 and 7 showed that in a match up of Clinton versus Sen. John McCain, those polled prefer Clinton 50 percent to McCain’s 43 percent. The same goes for Clinton versus former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (48 to 47). She stomps our own Mitt Romney 58 percent to 32 percent.
Obama doesn’t fare nearly as well. Those polled prefer McCain over Obama 45 percent to 43 percent and Giuliani over Obama 47 percent to 44 percent. The only candidate Obama can beat in this poll is, you guessed it, Romney: 55 percent to 25 percent.
You’d think Alter would have found this relevant to his story. But think again.
Unlike Obama, Clinton says that marriage should be a state’s rights issue. She recently softened her opposition to civil marriage rights for same-sex couples by saying that she would support a gay marriage bill in New York, should the state legislature pass one. That distinguishes her, by the way, from the third big foot in the Democratic presidential follies coming soon to New Hampshire hamlets — our way our own Sen. John Kerry, who believes that the Massachusetts constitution should be amended to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
So for Democrats in 08 the choice is clear: Clinton over Obama (and Kerry). But if Giuliani should win the GOP nomination, all bets are off. He supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry. And when his marriage finally disintegrated, where did he go? He moved in with his gay friends, of course. A loving couple, by the way, who are currently prohibited from marrying.
So if by some phenomenal act of fate Giuliani is the GOP nominee come November 08, gay voters and their friends will have a big reason to vote Republican.
Stay tuned.
My editor, Susan Ryan Vollmer of the South End News/Baywindows, contributed to this article.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Barney has a plan
Frankenomics.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
A long time ago I attended a banquet where I was seated next to Paul Levy, now a hospital executive in the Longwood District and at the time the absolute wunder kidd of the fledgling Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, charged with just the tiny task of cleaning up the most filthy harbor this side of Bangladesh. When you fly over Boston today and see those egg-like structures at Deer Island, you should send a mental telepathy thank you to Levy, who made the sewer treatment plant there a reality. Those 'eggs', or digesters as the engineers call them, have miraculously cleaned our waterfront using state of the art technology, bringing Boston Harbor back to life, literally.
As Levy and I broke bread together he made some observations of his recent trip to Washington, as the federal government was a key player in the harbor cleanup project. It was the Eighties and Levy was mesmerized by the parliamentary genius of a guy named Congressman Barney Frank, who he carefully observed while watching the House from the vantage point of a visiting dignitary. He told me the Republicans were scared to death to debate Frank and his second observation was the most compelling. "He'll be Speaker some day," said Levy with conviction; still respected today as one of the best policy wonks Massachusetts has ever employed, and maybe a man who has a crystal ball. Today, Frank is proving his abilities to lead with a proposal which is already making front page news across the country and may become the most significant economic plan to come out of Washington in decades.
Thus far, Levy's prediction is on trajectory for achieving reality. Frank is the chairman-apparent of the ever-powerful House Finance Committee, poised to become one of the most powerful men in the United States, directing legislative oversight of everything from banks to the New York Stock Exchange. I think that will also make him the most powerful Gay man, that I know of, anywhere on the planet.
As we observe a Gay Man transiting to tremendous temporal power it's not only historic but mesmerizing to watch Barney in action. It's ironically occurring in the era of an ADD electorate with thirty second appetites. But Frank won't accommodate on that point. As the Boston Globe first reported on Sunday he's engaging in high level conversations with the nation's business elite on a huge contract between they and government which resembles something which may have been jointly authored by Franklin Roosevelt and William F. Buckley. "I've been talking about this for sometime," Frank told me in an interview this week.
Frank's theory is nothing less than fantastic and revolutionary. He proposes a new deal between corporate America and working America. Frank proposes that business be given measurable breaks in regulatory burdens in exchange for their commitment to seriously improve workers' wages and benefits - this including support for an increase of the minimum wage, which is a key election promise the Democrats must deliver on to hold the House in two years.
What's going on here? The man who was vilified by Vice President Dick Cheney as a Marxist Leninist poised to nationalize everything from GM to McDonald's (yes, I'm embellishing Cheney's bombastic campaign season rhetoric), and further vilified by a now defeated Republican congressman from Indiana as the man who was only interested in the "Homesexual agenda," has turned out to be a little bit Ronald Reagan in crafting a completely Jack Kemp-esque economic agenda that may see American business and labor coexist - actually coexist peacefully - for the first time since before Eugene Debs was pounding the pavement screaming "union forever!".
Frank's plan is honorably quid pro quo. Should business rally behind the minimum wage increase and shelter employees from the negative impact of trade agreements, the new chairman will deliver to business things they covet; such as blessing free trade deals and adopting the business community's plans for alternations to the immigration laws.
Frankenomics proves true what I've always observed from my conversations with the congressman. He's a populist pragmatist; and he would be categorized as a liberal devotee only if one is to be lethargic in their observation techniques.
A more studious view of all things Barney reveals a complexity which is beyond the limited sensibilities of the Dick Cheneys of the world, and a desperate Indiana congressman.
Barney has shown that he's no more 'far left' than he is 'far right'. Populist pragmatist seems to do him better justice, as he tries to bring the working class more justice by using a carrot without much stick approach with business. Frankenomics may be a controversial philosophical crock pot, with ingredients that are both appetizing and unappealing to all who partake; but it's refreshing in its approach because it bears no resemblance to partisanship and every resemblance to bold leadership. "There are somethings about which I'm not prepared to be conciliatory, such as human rights, but bi-partisanship means real compromises," Frank told me. "The time has come to either work together or we can stay deadlocked."
The leadership comes none to soon, as the country is finally noticing the canyon which divides working America from those who seem to control America.
"Essentially, I think Barney Frank is turning to corporate America and is saying you've been making money hand over fist, the gap between you and workers has expanded exponentially during the Bush years, and it's enough already," said Democrat Susan Tracy, president of the Strategy Group in Boston. "But what's of great note is that he's not coming in there with some crazy proposal. It's a thoughtful plan that asks for a fair contribution from a class of people that has seen their wealth grow at record levels where as the 'average Joe' has seen wages dramatically decrease. it really has been the rich getting richer," said Tracy. "Others are raising the issue but Barney has an answer to deal with it."
I predict that Frank will be speaker of the new House of Representatives before this decade ends. I see Nancy Pelosi, Frank's protege, as poised for success but not destined for a destined for a lengthy grip. It's no secret that Pelosi already relies on Frank heavily, for the same reasons that most members of his caucus do. Frank is amazingly focused, highly ethical (a survey of chiefs of staff voted him as such) and quite literally the most brilliant man in Congress. Of even greater note, he says exactly what he thinks and believes - that personal ethos being sufficient reason to consider him a political anomaly in modern America.
When I spoke with Barney Frank this week I heard someone whose enjoying every moment of the new challenges before him. But he's also conscious of the burden of leadership as he told me about the difference between being in the minority and moving to the majority. "Getting people to say no is easy, but you have to put them together to say yes."
My money says Frankenomics will trump Reaganomics in the history books.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and you can reach him at kevinsow@aol.com
by Kevin John Sowyrda
A long time ago I attended a banquet where I was seated next to Paul Levy, now a hospital executive in the Longwood District and at the time the absolute wunder kidd of the fledgling Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, charged with just the tiny task of cleaning up the most filthy harbor this side of Bangladesh. When you fly over Boston today and see those egg-like structures at Deer Island, you should send a mental telepathy thank you to Levy, who made the sewer treatment plant there a reality. Those 'eggs', or digesters as the engineers call them, have miraculously cleaned our waterfront using state of the art technology, bringing Boston Harbor back to life, literally.
As Levy and I broke bread together he made some observations of his recent trip to Washington, as the federal government was a key player in the harbor cleanup project. It was the Eighties and Levy was mesmerized by the parliamentary genius of a guy named Congressman Barney Frank, who he carefully observed while watching the House from the vantage point of a visiting dignitary. He told me the Republicans were scared to death to debate Frank and his second observation was the most compelling. "He'll be Speaker some day," said Levy with conviction; still respected today as one of the best policy wonks Massachusetts has ever employed, and maybe a man who has a crystal ball. Today, Frank is proving his abilities to lead with a proposal which is already making front page news across the country and may become the most significant economic plan to come out of Washington in decades.
Thus far, Levy's prediction is on trajectory for achieving reality. Frank is the chairman-apparent of the ever-powerful House Finance Committee, poised to become one of the most powerful men in the United States, directing legislative oversight of everything from banks to the New York Stock Exchange. I think that will also make him the most powerful Gay man, that I know of, anywhere on the planet.
As we observe a Gay Man transiting to tremendous temporal power it's not only historic but mesmerizing to watch Barney in action. It's ironically occurring in the era of an ADD electorate with thirty second appetites. But Frank won't accommodate on that point. As the Boston Globe first reported on Sunday he's engaging in high level conversations with the nation's business elite on a huge contract between they and government which resembles something which may have been jointly authored by Franklin Roosevelt and William F. Buckley. "I've been talking about this for sometime," Frank told me in an interview this week.
Frank's theory is nothing less than fantastic and revolutionary. He proposes a new deal between corporate America and working America. Frank proposes that business be given measurable breaks in regulatory burdens in exchange for their commitment to seriously improve workers' wages and benefits - this including support for an increase of the minimum wage, which is a key election promise the Democrats must deliver on to hold the House in two years.
What's going on here? The man who was vilified by Vice President Dick Cheney as a Marxist Leninist poised to nationalize everything from GM to McDonald's (yes, I'm embellishing Cheney's bombastic campaign season rhetoric), and further vilified by a now defeated Republican congressman from Indiana as the man who was only interested in the "Homesexual agenda," has turned out to be a little bit Ronald Reagan in crafting a completely Jack Kemp-esque economic agenda that may see American business and labor coexist - actually coexist peacefully - for the first time since before Eugene Debs was pounding the pavement screaming "union forever!".
Frank's plan is honorably quid pro quo. Should business rally behind the minimum wage increase and shelter employees from the negative impact of trade agreements, the new chairman will deliver to business things they covet; such as blessing free trade deals and adopting the business community's plans for alternations to the immigration laws.
Frankenomics proves true what I've always observed from my conversations with the congressman. He's a populist pragmatist; and he would be categorized as a liberal devotee only if one is to be lethargic in their observation techniques.
A more studious view of all things Barney reveals a complexity which is beyond the limited sensibilities of the Dick Cheneys of the world, and a desperate Indiana congressman.
Barney has shown that he's no more 'far left' than he is 'far right'. Populist pragmatist seems to do him better justice, as he tries to bring the working class more justice by using a carrot without much stick approach with business. Frankenomics may be a controversial philosophical crock pot, with ingredients that are both appetizing and unappealing to all who partake; but it's refreshing in its approach because it bears no resemblance to partisanship and every resemblance to bold leadership. "There are somethings about which I'm not prepared to be conciliatory, such as human rights, but bi-partisanship means real compromises," Frank told me. "The time has come to either work together or we can stay deadlocked."
The leadership comes none to soon, as the country is finally noticing the canyon which divides working America from those who seem to control America.
"Essentially, I think Barney Frank is turning to corporate America and is saying you've been making money hand over fist, the gap between you and workers has expanded exponentially during the Bush years, and it's enough already," said Democrat Susan Tracy, president of the Strategy Group in Boston. "But what's of great note is that he's not coming in there with some crazy proposal. It's a thoughtful plan that asks for a fair contribution from a class of people that has seen their wealth grow at record levels where as the 'average Joe' has seen wages dramatically decrease. it really has been the rich getting richer," said Tracy. "Others are raising the issue but Barney has an answer to deal with it."
I predict that Frank will be speaker of the new House of Representatives before this decade ends. I see Nancy Pelosi, Frank's protege, as poised for success but not destined for a destined for a lengthy grip. It's no secret that Pelosi already relies on Frank heavily, for the same reasons that most members of his caucus do. Frank is amazingly focused, highly ethical (a survey of chiefs of staff voted him as such) and quite literally the most brilliant man in Congress. Of even greater note, he says exactly what he thinks and believes - that personal ethos being sufficient reason to consider him a political anomaly in modern America.
When I spoke with Barney Frank this week I heard someone whose enjoying every moment of the new challenges before him. But he's also conscious of the burden of leadership as he told me about the difference between being in the minority and moving to the majority. "Getting people to say no is easy, but you have to put them together to say yes."
My money says Frankenomics will trump Reaganomics in the history books.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and you can reach him at kevinsow@aol.com
Friday, November 03, 2006
Christy Mihos deserves a thank you from Progressive Community voters.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Watching Christy Mihos is a lot like eating Chinese Food. He's delicious, he fills me up rather quickly, but about an hour after the event I'm simply starving and looking for another meal.
The convenience store magnate and Republican Party defector - turned independent candidate for governor - will no more be elected next week than will I. But he's made this campaign interesting, he's had an impact as the unofficial official dope slapper of the lt. governor, and what he lacks in depth and philosophical prowess he's more than compensated for with a rare sincerity and a very noticeable commitment to civil rights for Gay men and women.
I'm sorry to put Mihos on the same table with the pork fried rice and boneless spare ribs, but the analogy does fit. Despite millions in campaign expenditures and proof positive that he blew the whistle on Big Dig corruption when no one else could find the whistle, the voters have simply not taken to Mihos' bid for the highest office in the Commonwealth. He just doesn't meet our appetite needs for now, and I suspect the reasons are as follows.
First, and God knows I hate this word but it does fit so perfectly here, Mihos seems to lack gravitas. A vote for governor is a "vote up" as a congressman once described it to me, meaning candidates like Mihos need to better verbalize their message and must also project a polished image if they're to succeed in the endeavor for leadership of a state. I love that Mihos talks like the "regular guy" but even the "regular guy" doesn't want a leader who talks like himself. We're looking for more, and Mihos often communicates like a slendor Mayor Menino, with just a slightly better level of dictum.
Second, though it's been nothing less than free entertainment to watch Mihos regularly eat Kerry Healey for breakfast at the many debates, at the end of the day it's done nothing for his campaign and everything for Patrick's. Since I'm very fond of Patrick I've no beef on that point, but why spend millions to get anybody but yourself into the corner office? Could the answer be a vendetta against the Republican establishment for the tawdry way Mihos was treated while a member of the board which oversees the Big Dig? I think not, but the perception is there nonetheless; and voters rarely vote for candidates who appear to have too big an ax to grind.
Third, Mihos' ads have been perfect.......were he to be running for state senator. For governor, they're unacceptable because they lack maturity and have in one case been over the top. Mihos has been poorly advised and used by advertising pros who see him more as a cash cow than a real contender, which is ironic given the fact that he "coulda been a contendaa", as Marlon Brando once exclaimed.
Which leads to me speculate that a well financed independent candidate, who toiled on the campaign trail for as long as Deval Patrick did, might be a more threatening challenger in today's contest. But Mihos hasn't spent the shoe leather and 'went dark' as political strategists put it; meaning he was no where on television until very late - too late - in the campaign season. In fact, Mihos' ads are presently invisible. He sees the writing on the wall and even the sale of more than 100 Christy stores to the 7-11 corporation doesn't make your pockets bottomless. In other words, he's not spending any more of the family fortune on a lost cause.
Fourth, Mihos never should have run as an independent. As Maine goes, so does not go Massachusetts. Though our neighbors to the north did the independent governor thing, the Bay state, despite a flock of un enrolled voters, is too accustomed to the hierarchical traditions of the two party system to vote 'I' in November in such large numbers. I dare say that Kerry Healey's political roots are so not-deep, even in her own party, that Mihos had every reason to hope for a Republican party victory had he challenged her in the primary. Detached from Romney's ball and chain affect and immune to the anti-incumbent fervor so evident since the Big Dig scandal escalated, Imagine how Mihos as the Republican nominee would have changed the dynamics of the present contest?
Finally, some soul out there owes Mihos a thank you, maybe even something more than a little editorial about what a nice guy he is, which he is. What's impressed me most about Mihos, besides the ten thousand spicy hot dogs I've purchased from his retail chain over too many years gone by, is that under the truth telling klieg lights he's exhibited a genuine love for and kindness towards the Massachusetts Gay community. While one of the lower tier candidates in this race has pretty much kept her sexuality in the race a dirty, little secret, Mihos talks about Gay people as if he tends bar at Club Cafe every Thursday night. I mean, his obvious comfort level with Gay marriage and Gay issues is so Weldian (remember that tall, redheaded guy who first took the governor's office for the G.O.P. in 1990?) that I wish members of the Gay community could cast one vote for Patrick, and then an honorable mention vote for Mihos.
Christy's day in the sun is almost over. His fifteen weeks of fame have cost him a pretty penny, though his debate performances have atleast made him memorable, in a mostly positive way. But wouldn't it be great if he finished second on Tuesday night, a message from socially progressive voters across the spectrum that Christy said a lot of things that his former party used to say but stopped saying under Mitt Romney's misguided leadership, which was so stupidly piggish on the conservative social agenda.
Tuesday night the Romney-ites will discover what Barry Goldwater and other Republicans were warned about by Nelson Rockefeller about a generation ago. When the G.O.P. goes too far to the right they lose. Goldwater never listened and Romney has been no different.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Watching Christy Mihos is a lot like eating Chinese Food. He's delicious, he fills me up rather quickly, but about an hour after the event I'm simply starving and looking for another meal.
The convenience store magnate and Republican Party defector - turned independent candidate for governor - will no more be elected next week than will I. But he's made this campaign interesting, he's had an impact as the unofficial official dope slapper of the lt. governor, and what he lacks in depth and philosophical prowess he's more than compensated for with a rare sincerity and a very noticeable commitment to civil rights for Gay men and women.
I'm sorry to put Mihos on the same table with the pork fried rice and boneless spare ribs, but the analogy does fit. Despite millions in campaign expenditures and proof positive that he blew the whistle on Big Dig corruption when no one else could find the whistle, the voters have simply not taken to Mihos' bid for the highest office in the Commonwealth. He just doesn't meet our appetite needs for now, and I suspect the reasons are as follows.
First, and God knows I hate this word but it does fit so perfectly here, Mihos seems to lack gravitas. A vote for governor is a "vote up" as a congressman once described it to me, meaning candidates like Mihos need to better verbalize their message and must also project a polished image if they're to succeed in the endeavor for leadership of a state. I love that Mihos talks like the "regular guy" but even the "regular guy" doesn't want a leader who talks like himself. We're looking for more, and Mihos often communicates like a slendor Mayor Menino, with just a slightly better level of dictum.
Second, though it's been nothing less than free entertainment to watch Mihos regularly eat Kerry Healey for breakfast at the many debates, at the end of the day it's done nothing for his campaign and everything for Patrick's. Since I'm very fond of Patrick I've no beef on that point, but why spend millions to get anybody but yourself into the corner office? Could the answer be a vendetta against the Republican establishment for the tawdry way Mihos was treated while a member of the board which oversees the Big Dig? I think not, but the perception is there nonetheless; and voters rarely vote for candidates who appear to have too big an ax to grind.
Third, Mihos' ads have been perfect.......were he to be running for state senator. For governor, they're unacceptable because they lack maturity and have in one case been over the top. Mihos has been poorly advised and used by advertising pros who see him more as a cash cow than a real contender, which is ironic given the fact that he "coulda been a contendaa", as Marlon Brando once exclaimed.
Which leads to me speculate that a well financed independent candidate, who toiled on the campaign trail for as long as Deval Patrick did, might be a more threatening challenger in today's contest. But Mihos hasn't spent the shoe leather and 'went dark' as political strategists put it; meaning he was no where on television until very late - too late - in the campaign season. In fact, Mihos' ads are presently invisible. He sees the writing on the wall and even the sale of more than 100 Christy stores to the 7-11 corporation doesn't make your pockets bottomless. In other words, he's not spending any more of the family fortune on a lost cause.
Fourth, Mihos never should have run as an independent. As Maine goes, so does not go Massachusetts. Though our neighbors to the north did the independent governor thing, the Bay state, despite a flock of un enrolled voters, is too accustomed to the hierarchical traditions of the two party system to vote 'I' in November in such large numbers. I dare say that Kerry Healey's political roots are so not-deep, even in her own party, that Mihos had every reason to hope for a Republican party victory had he challenged her in the primary. Detached from Romney's ball and chain affect and immune to the anti-incumbent fervor so evident since the Big Dig scandal escalated, Imagine how Mihos as the Republican nominee would have changed the dynamics of the present contest?
Finally, some soul out there owes Mihos a thank you, maybe even something more than a little editorial about what a nice guy he is, which he is. What's impressed me most about Mihos, besides the ten thousand spicy hot dogs I've purchased from his retail chain over too many years gone by, is that under the truth telling klieg lights he's exhibited a genuine love for and kindness towards the Massachusetts Gay community. While one of the lower tier candidates in this race has pretty much kept her sexuality in the race a dirty, little secret, Mihos talks about Gay people as if he tends bar at Club Cafe every Thursday night. I mean, his obvious comfort level with Gay marriage and Gay issues is so Weldian (remember that tall, redheaded guy who first took the governor's office for the G.O.P. in 1990?) that I wish members of the Gay community could cast one vote for Patrick, and then an honorable mention vote for Mihos.
Christy's day in the sun is almost over. His fifteen weeks of fame have cost him a pretty penny, though his debate performances have atleast made him memorable, in a mostly positive way. But wouldn't it be great if he finished second on Tuesday night, a message from socially progressive voters across the spectrum that Christy said a lot of things that his former party used to say but stopped saying under Mitt Romney's misguided leadership, which was so stupidly piggish on the conservative social agenda.
Tuesday night the Romney-ites will discover what Barry Goldwater and other Republicans were warned about by Nelson Rockefeller about a generation ago. When the G.O.P. goes too far to the right they lose. Goldwater never listened and Romney has been no different.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Getting down to the wire.......and Holly Conflict
Too many mistakes.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Should Deval Patrick assume the seals of office in November, the Commonwealth will slip into an abyss of government-sponsored criminal enterprises, where the office of His Excellency coddles the perpetrators of heinous, unspeakable acts of violence and succors them, just as Romulus and Remus were nurtured by a she-wolf.......or so the advertisements of Republican aspirant Kerry Healey would have us believe.
Unfortunately for Healey, there are two endemic problems inflicting her bid for high office, to say nothing of the fact that most people shouldn't care who Romulus and Remus were (Romulus killed Remus and then founded Rome. For further information just rent the 'I Claudius' DVD box set.). First, the citizenry is no more apt to buy Healey's commercials than they're lined up with cash at the spinach aisle. Second, Healey's campaign has been one of the worst produced, orchestrated and executed political events in state G.O.P. history; for the following very specific reasons.
First, Healey's in the wrong race. She should be the Republican roasting Ted Kennedy now, who instead faces some mouse of a candidate who won't break seventeen percent. One must admit that it's time for Old Ted to face another Joe Malone, somebody who gets him back on his toes and actually makes him defend some of his economic policies which apparently haven't been too gloriously successful, unless you refuse to glance at cities like Lawrence, Holyoke and Springfield.
Had Healey run a highly positive effort against the man embraced by Democrats and considered anathema by most Republicans, inevitable defeat aside, she would have made a national name for herself and in a few months would be deputy secretary for such and such for the last two years of the Bush Administration, which beats the future she's looking at today - a lot of free time for High Tea at Myopia.
Second, Healey's time is so incredibly off cue, one wonders who can possibly be advising this woman. Anyone putting their finger to the wind even a year ago would have seen the growing anti incumbent sentiment and the fact that it was simply going to be the 'Democrats' turn' this cycle.
Third, we need not wonder whose advising the lieutenant governor because we know his name is Rob Gray. You can't discuss Kerry Healey absent a mention of Rob Gray, anymore than you can analyze the Bush Presidency without studying Karl Rove. Gray is Healey's Rove, with more the bravado and ten times the venom. I was speaking at length Tuesday morning with one of the best known Republican officials in Massachusetts, a man with years of experience in G.O.P. politics. He agreed that Gray's "go for the throat" campaign tactics have not only destroyed Healey's chances for victory but that the stratagem is a throw back, an antiquated plan for victory that no longer works in an era when voters have become immune to negative advertising - to such an extent that its effectiveness is already being questioned by the more savvy strategists on both sides of the aisle.
Fourth, Healey does not know how to answer questions. If I didn't know better I'd swear her debate coaching came from the same crew that ill prepared Shannon O'Brien four years ago. Healey's debate performances rate poorly because even when handed a softball she still can't hit it out of the park. Take this querie from that pathetic - more on this later - debate at Fanueil Hall last week. New England Cable News reporter Allison King asked one of the few decent questions of the night when she nailed Healey on Romney's adnauseum use of Massachusetts political culture as a one liner on the Republican fundraising circuit in the Midwest and other regions. Healey could have played it sharp and to the point, without throwing the old man under the buss. "Mitt Romney will always be my friend, but he's campaigning for president right now in a way I wish he would not." The crowd would have cheered, though to no avail long-term.
Last, but not least, Healey has violated one of the most basic tenets in big-time American politics. You don't go nuclear on the T. V. ad thematics until you've first identified yourself to the electorate; in the process establishing a base of support and a reservoir of respect. I think Healey's 'who am I' ads lasted about a fortnight before she started behaving like North Korean dictator Kim IL Jung, a bomb tosser without much of a cause.
And now for just a little bit more on that political debate last week, which reminded me of Winston Churchill's famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the rest." Last week, David Gergen had me convinced that it's really "the worst" on such occasions as that. Am I the only person who, having watched this man try to moderate for one hour, can no longer fathom how or why leaders of the free world ever sought his advice and counsel.
As for the questions, my reaction was to call CVS to see if they'd get me some quick cyanide. Would it have been so unnatural for someone to ask Grace Ross, "As the first Gay woman to run for governor of Massachusetts what is your opinion of this administration's statements regarding Gay citizens and what do you have to say to the lieutenant governor this evening that might change her mind as to your right to marry in Massachusetts?"
The losers in this race will hardly be just Ross, Healey and Mihos. The press has lost credibility. Take this week's edition of the Boston Herald featuring G.O.P. strategist - a strategist is a consultant with no clients - Holly Robichaud. For the umpteenth time she shredded Christy Mihos in her analysis sidebar which is featured regularly in the tabloid. God forbid that the paper disclose (and it never has) that until recently Robichaud was on the Mihos payroll as a highly paid consultant until the Mihos people fired her for what one top Mihos commandant told me was "erratic behavior." Nothing like a strategist scorned.
The election clock ticks and Patrick's lead surges. But the race might have been atleast close had Healey relied on some real, adult advice from savvy players instead of yielding to those who can't fathom the new times we live in.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and commentator. You can email him at kevinsow@aol.com and read his daily blog at www.thebostonmemo.blogspot.com
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Should Deval Patrick assume the seals of office in November, the Commonwealth will slip into an abyss of government-sponsored criminal enterprises, where the office of His Excellency coddles the perpetrators of heinous, unspeakable acts of violence and succors them, just as Romulus and Remus were nurtured by a she-wolf.......or so the advertisements of Republican aspirant Kerry Healey would have us believe.
Unfortunately for Healey, there are two endemic problems inflicting her bid for high office, to say nothing of the fact that most people shouldn't care who Romulus and Remus were (Romulus killed Remus and then founded Rome. For further information just rent the 'I Claudius' DVD box set.). First, the citizenry is no more apt to buy Healey's commercials than they're lined up with cash at the spinach aisle. Second, Healey's campaign has been one of the worst produced, orchestrated and executed political events in state G.O.P. history; for the following very specific reasons.
First, Healey's in the wrong race. She should be the Republican roasting Ted Kennedy now, who instead faces some mouse of a candidate who won't break seventeen percent. One must admit that it's time for Old Ted to face another Joe Malone, somebody who gets him back on his toes and actually makes him defend some of his economic policies which apparently haven't been too gloriously successful, unless you refuse to glance at cities like Lawrence, Holyoke and Springfield.
Had Healey run a highly positive effort against the man embraced by Democrats and considered anathema by most Republicans, inevitable defeat aside, she would have made a national name for herself and in a few months would be deputy secretary for such and such for the last two years of the Bush Administration, which beats the future she's looking at today - a lot of free time for High Tea at Myopia.
Second, Healey's time is so incredibly off cue, one wonders who can possibly be advising this woman. Anyone putting their finger to the wind even a year ago would have seen the growing anti incumbent sentiment and the fact that it was simply going to be the 'Democrats' turn' this cycle.
Third, we need not wonder whose advising the lieutenant governor because we know his name is Rob Gray. You can't discuss Kerry Healey absent a mention of Rob Gray, anymore than you can analyze the Bush Presidency without studying Karl Rove. Gray is Healey's Rove, with more the bravado and ten times the venom. I was speaking at length Tuesday morning with one of the best known Republican officials in Massachusetts, a man with years of experience in G.O.P. politics. He agreed that Gray's "go for the throat" campaign tactics have not only destroyed Healey's chances for victory but that the stratagem is a throw back, an antiquated plan for victory that no longer works in an era when voters have become immune to negative advertising - to such an extent that its effectiveness is already being questioned by the more savvy strategists on both sides of the aisle.
Fourth, Healey does not know how to answer questions. If I didn't know better I'd swear her debate coaching came from the same crew that ill prepared Shannon O'Brien four years ago. Healey's debate performances rate poorly because even when handed a softball she still can't hit it out of the park. Take this querie from that pathetic - more on this later - debate at Fanueil Hall last week. New England Cable News reporter Allison King asked one of the few decent questions of the night when she nailed Healey on Romney's adnauseum use of Massachusetts political culture as a one liner on the Republican fundraising circuit in the Midwest and other regions. Healey could have played it sharp and to the point, without throwing the old man under the buss. "Mitt Romney will always be my friend, but he's campaigning for president right now in a way I wish he would not." The crowd would have cheered, though to no avail long-term.
Last, but not least, Healey has violated one of the most basic tenets in big-time American politics. You don't go nuclear on the T. V. ad thematics until you've first identified yourself to the electorate; in the process establishing a base of support and a reservoir of respect. I think Healey's 'who am I' ads lasted about a fortnight before she started behaving like North Korean dictator Kim IL Jung, a bomb tosser without much of a cause.
And now for just a little bit more on that political debate last week, which reminded me of Winston Churchill's famous quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the rest." Last week, David Gergen had me convinced that it's really "the worst" on such occasions as that. Am I the only person who, having watched this man try to moderate for one hour, can no longer fathom how or why leaders of the free world ever sought his advice and counsel.
As for the questions, my reaction was to call CVS to see if they'd get me some quick cyanide. Would it have been so unnatural for someone to ask Grace Ross, "As the first Gay woman to run for governor of Massachusetts what is your opinion of this administration's statements regarding Gay citizens and what do you have to say to the lieutenant governor this evening that might change her mind as to your right to marry in Massachusetts?"
The losers in this race will hardly be just Ross, Healey and Mihos. The press has lost credibility. Take this week's edition of the Boston Herald featuring G.O.P. strategist - a strategist is a consultant with no clients - Holly Robichaud. For the umpteenth time she shredded Christy Mihos in her analysis sidebar which is featured regularly in the tabloid. God forbid that the paper disclose (and it never has) that until recently Robichaud was on the Mihos payroll as a highly paid consultant until the Mihos people fired her for what one top Mihos commandant told me was "erratic behavior." Nothing like a strategist scorned.
The election clock ticks and Patrick's lead surges. But the race might have been atleast close had Healey relied on some real, adult advice from savvy players instead of yielding to those who can't fathom the new times we live in.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and commentator. You can email him at kevinsow@aol.com and read his daily blog at www.thebostonmemo.blogspot.com
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Grace Ross is disconnected.
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Somewhere deep in the bowels of the Geneva Convention, is a clause or two regarding the humane treatment of gubernatorial aspirants and the acceptable methodology for torture versus those techniques which cross the line of even Bush Republican acceptability. One expects those seeking fortune in the plebiscite to suffer the pummeling of unearthly questioning from Boston 'journalists' who have yet to hear from their dentists that they're definitely too long in the tooth. Candidates must also endure the ignominy of the proverbial nasty political ads and the danger that most people will swallow anything if it's fed to them in sufficient quantity on the television set. But do these candidates really deserve Grace Ross?
Henri Dunant is one of the men who inspired the Geneva Convention, first convened in 1864. But now that I ponder it further even he, the greatest humanitarian I've ever studied, could not have forseen Green-Rainbow Party candidate for governor Grace Ross, who would look more natural in a Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream commercial than she has ever appeared to be on the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate stage. If Dunant were alive today he'd agree that two of the candidates who lose this race are due reparations for having to endure this 1968 throwback; that's presuming that the winner will forgo reparations in lieu of winning the corner office.
It's just too much to bear. Here you are, a Christy Mihos, a Deval Patrick and a Kerry Healey, all polling at least significant numbers, and your opportunity to engage and go at it Lincoln-Douglas style is atleast waned by a "who the heck is she" whose yet to measure a nano-point of support in any poll outside that little concrete enclave at Harvard Square by the magazine store; where they still smoke the funny stuff until the Harvard University cops get too close for comfort.
The fact that Grace has been given entry to a dimension properly and ethically reserved, atleast before now, to those who exhibited legitimacy through their past practices and potential for success is one of a plethora of examples proving the ongoing mental retardation of the Boston media establishment. Yeah, she got the ten thousand signatures to get on the ballot. Big, fat, hairy deal. One of these days a neo Nazi is going to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean we'll prop them up, elevate their stature and give them the bully pulpit they never deserved.
No, I've yet to see Grace doing the Goose Step, and the comparison is purely theoretical. It's just for the past many weeks, as I've observed Grace utter generalities broader than Arnold Schwarzenegger's shoulders and some one liners that are more childish than actually funny, I've wondered what she does to elevate the debate, improve the substance or show me the beef. After serious consideration I've come to the same conclusion as you have, according to the most recent poll, and that is that she has been a complete waste of everyone's time and would be better situated as a candidate for the board of selectmen in Athol. And that's being very rude to Athol.
Did you ever watch Hogan's Heroes. If Major Hockstedder were here he'd exclaim, "Vut is dis vooman doing here!"
She's here because the Boston media doesn't want Kerry Healey to win, or atleast you'd think so. If only Nixon could go to China, only I can throw this bone to Healey. My missives on this administration have been of such a demeanor that I should hire those body guards Wilkerson used should I ever venture near the office of His and Her Excellency at Beacon Hill. But fair is fair and I'm beginning to have my suspicions, because any half sober political novice will agree that the over crowded debate formats have made the Republican nominee's position tenuous at best - though for the record her debate negotiators were sufficiently masochistic to agree to it in the first place.
How Healey stands it, I'll never know. I'm wondering if Alfred Lord Tennyson had visions of Healey when he wrote The Charge of the Light Brigade, "cannon to left of them, cannon to right of them," and all that sort of stuff. Healey shows up on stage and sustains body blows from Christy Mihos on one flank and the irritating sarcasm of Ross on the other. "Boldly they rode and well into the jaws of Death. . .," yeah, that's been Healey under this absurd debate format which might be fine and dandy for Patrick but nonetheless intellectually dishonest on the part of the debate sponsors.
Why is it dishonest. Flash back with me to the Democratic Primary race for president when national media titans felt oddly compelled to include the Rev. (I use the title Rev. loosely here) Al Sharpton in the televised debates. It was an absurdity only journalist Lawrence O'Donnell would speak out against. You've seen him on the McGlaughlin Group and know him better as one of the creators of the NBC series, 'The West Wing.' Larry took his colleagues to task when he talked about debate segregation being perfectly acceptable, meaning that you don't let just anyone on the stage. There's got to be an elevated bar, and if you don't reach that point of distinction and credibility you should be home watching the debate like the rest of us, not faking it on stage like Ross has gotten away with here in Massachusetts.
Ross doesn't irritate me just because she's frumpy and could use about eighteen months of counseling from Queer Eyes for the Straight Guys, or just because her Green-Rainbow Party is so horrifically far to the left that the party's platform would scare the hair off Karl Marx. What gets me is that she has absolutely, positively nothing to say; and maybe that's exactly why the Boston media has cozied to her so much, because most of the time they have nothing to say either. Birds of a feather, as they say.
The race for governor is almost over, but not the suffering and humiliation for some. Grace Ross is like the bad cold that won't go away and there's no zinc cough drops that will make her disappear. The candidates will have to share the stage with her again on October 19 and then again on November 1. She's gotten more than her fifteen minutes of fame while what we've gotten is a diluted debate series that was great for Ross's cell of supporters and negative for the democratic process, which should not allow every Tom, Dick and Harry and Grace to get on stage and babble.
Finally, Ross's media exposure has apparently not translated into a bulging campaign war chest. I called her campaign headquarters for comment on Tuesday night using the number 508 754 3505 as displayed on the candidates web page. But the number was disconnected, just like the candidate will be in a few, short days; thank God.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and commentator.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of the Geneva Convention, is a clause or two regarding the humane treatment of gubernatorial aspirants and the acceptable methodology for torture versus those techniques which cross the line of even Bush Republican acceptability. One expects those seeking fortune in the plebiscite to suffer the pummeling of unearthly questioning from Boston 'journalists' who have yet to hear from their dentists that they're definitely too long in the tooth. Candidates must also endure the ignominy of the proverbial nasty political ads and the danger that most people will swallow anything if it's fed to them in sufficient quantity on the television set. But do these candidates really deserve Grace Ross?
Henri Dunant is one of the men who inspired the Geneva Convention, first convened in 1864. But now that I ponder it further even he, the greatest humanitarian I've ever studied, could not have forseen Green-Rainbow Party candidate for governor Grace Ross, who would look more natural in a Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream commercial than she has ever appeared to be on the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate stage. If Dunant were alive today he'd agree that two of the candidates who lose this race are due reparations for having to endure this 1968 throwback; that's presuming that the winner will forgo reparations in lieu of winning the corner office.
It's just too much to bear. Here you are, a Christy Mihos, a Deval Patrick and a Kerry Healey, all polling at least significant numbers, and your opportunity to engage and go at it Lincoln-Douglas style is atleast waned by a "who the heck is she" whose yet to measure a nano-point of support in any poll outside that little concrete enclave at Harvard Square by the magazine store; where they still smoke the funny stuff until the Harvard University cops get too close for comfort.
The fact that Grace has been given entry to a dimension properly and ethically reserved, atleast before now, to those who exhibited legitimacy through their past practices and potential for success is one of a plethora of examples proving the ongoing mental retardation of the Boston media establishment. Yeah, she got the ten thousand signatures to get on the ballot. Big, fat, hairy deal. One of these days a neo Nazi is going to do the same thing, but that doesn't mean we'll prop them up, elevate their stature and give them the bully pulpit they never deserved.
No, I've yet to see Grace doing the Goose Step, and the comparison is purely theoretical. It's just for the past many weeks, as I've observed Grace utter generalities broader than Arnold Schwarzenegger's shoulders and some one liners that are more childish than actually funny, I've wondered what she does to elevate the debate, improve the substance or show me the beef. After serious consideration I've come to the same conclusion as you have, according to the most recent poll, and that is that she has been a complete waste of everyone's time and would be better situated as a candidate for the board of selectmen in Athol. And that's being very rude to Athol.
Did you ever watch Hogan's Heroes. If Major Hockstedder were here he'd exclaim, "Vut is dis vooman doing here!"
She's here because the Boston media doesn't want Kerry Healey to win, or atleast you'd think so. If only Nixon could go to China, only I can throw this bone to Healey. My missives on this administration have been of such a demeanor that I should hire those body guards Wilkerson used should I ever venture near the office of His and Her Excellency at Beacon Hill. But fair is fair and I'm beginning to have my suspicions, because any half sober political novice will agree that the over crowded debate formats have made the Republican nominee's position tenuous at best - though for the record her debate negotiators were sufficiently masochistic to agree to it in the first place.
How Healey stands it, I'll never know. I'm wondering if Alfred Lord Tennyson had visions of Healey when he wrote The Charge of the Light Brigade, "cannon to left of them, cannon to right of them," and all that sort of stuff. Healey shows up on stage and sustains body blows from Christy Mihos on one flank and the irritating sarcasm of Ross on the other. "Boldly they rode and well into the jaws of Death. . .," yeah, that's been Healey under this absurd debate format which might be fine and dandy for Patrick but nonetheless intellectually dishonest on the part of the debate sponsors.
Why is it dishonest. Flash back with me to the Democratic Primary race for president when national media titans felt oddly compelled to include the Rev. (I use the title Rev. loosely here) Al Sharpton in the televised debates. It was an absurdity only journalist Lawrence O'Donnell would speak out against. You've seen him on the McGlaughlin Group and know him better as one of the creators of the NBC series, 'The West Wing.' Larry took his colleagues to task when he talked about debate segregation being perfectly acceptable, meaning that you don't let just anyone on the stage. There's got to be an elevated bar, and if you don't reach that point of distinction and credibility you should be home watching the debate like the rest of us, not faking it on stage like Ross has gotten away with here in Massachusetts.
Ross doesn't irritate me just because she's frumpy and could use about eighteen months of counseling from Queer Eyes for the Straight Guys, or just because her Green-Rainbow Party is so horrifically far to the left that the party's platform would scare the hair off Karl Marx. What gets me is that she has absolutely, positively nothing to say; and maybe that's exactly why the Boston media has cozied to her so much, because most of the time they have nothing to say either. Birds of a feather, as they say.
The race for governor is almost over, but not the suffering and humiliation for some. Grace Ross is like the bad cold that won't go away and there's no zinc cough drops that will make her disappear. The candidates will have to share the stage with her again on October 19 and then again on November 1. She's gotten more than her fifteen minutes of fame while what we've gotten is a diluted debate series that was great for Ross's cell of supporters and negative for the democratic process, which should not allow every Tom, Dick and Harry and Grace to get on stage and babble.
Finally, Ross's media exposure has apparently not translated into a bulging campaign war chest. I called her campaign headquarters for comment on Tuesday night using the number 508 754 3505 as displayed on the candidates web page. But the number was disconnected, just like the candidate will be in a few, short days; thank God.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and commentator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
