Boston and Beyond
By Kevin John Sowyrda
Madness has gripped the city. And Mayor Thomas Menino is at the center of it. Manny Rivera, the extra super superintendent of schools of Rochester, N.Y., was hired to replace retired Boston Schools Superintendent Thomas Payzant. Everyone was excited about the hire. Rivera is uber-qualified. But last week, he backed out to take a job in New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's administration.
Since then, a whispering campaign has blamed Rivera's decision not to come to Boston on School Committee Chairwoman Elizabeth Reilinger: Reilinger was making it hard to come to terms with Rivera on a contract. She was trying to make key hires for Rivera. Within seconds of this news breaking, At-Large City Councilor Michael Flaherty was calling for Reilinger's resignation. He was quickly joined by At-Large Councilor Felix Arroyo and District 6 Councilor John Tobin.
Don't buy it. This is nothing more than crude spin, which is so reminiscent of the Kevin White days that I'm having deja vu. Knowing what I know about Menino, his advisors and how they think, this has the fingerprints of Menino politburo chief Ed Jesser all over it. Yes, Menino has publicly defended Reilinger, but that's easy to do when your surrogates (hello Flaherty!) are out there doing your dirty work for you.
Let's step back for a moment and put this in a larger perspective. The Mayor had a terrible year last year. Let's call it his Annus Horribilus — not that Menino is a queen. But I digress.
How did things unravel so quickly for the "urban mechanic" who no longer has the ability to even sew up a contract with a perspective superintendent of schools? (Is Menino or anyone else in his administration familiar with the practice of having a high profile hire sign a memorandum of understanding that he or she will stop looking for other employment until a contract is signed?) I'm not sure. But evidence of the unraveling is everywhere.
Last year, Somerville — Somerville — beat Boston on crime stats. Crime was out of control because Menino thinks he has the competence to run the police department when it should be run by duly sworn professionals. That's why Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole departed for the Emerald Isle and that's why the crime fighting measures promulgated by the administration at City Hall were often comical in nature, if not out right, demented. That gun buy back program was just a smashing success, wasn't it? Those Target gift certificates were the ultimate enticement for the criminal element to surrender their lives to Jesus, weren't they? Please.
Then there's the no small matter of property taxes. Property taxes aren't simply stifling; they're fueling a Diaspora of middle class wage earners to locations outside the city limits. Here's a stat that's so obscene I hesitate to print it in a family newspaper: over the last four years, the average increase in property taxes for single family homes in Boston have increased 50 percent. No, that's not a typo. That information comes courtesy of Sam Tyler of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. Boston is the nation's ultimate municipality of extremes: A misled and mismanaged abode for the very rich, the very poor — and a decreasing element of working-two-jobs people squeezed in the middle, waiting for the real estate market to finally pick up so they can dump their flats for the best price and get out of town.
Other indignities: The grand tradition of Santa's Village was allowed to wither away. Menino said he hoped that to replace the tradition with a new one: Decorating the outside of City Hall with holiday lights instead. The demise of Tower Records — the building on the corner of Newbury Street and Massachusetts Avenue will become luxury condos.
Menino has tried to bounce back. He's apparently staying up late surfing Google to resurrect old ideas, even those he once ridiculed. Case in point would be the proposal to sell that pathetic excuse for a City Hall and relocate the Emperor's Court to better digs at the waterfront. Does this sound familiar? It should, since this ball was first thrown into the court of public consideration in 2004 when Tobin filed a formal order before the city council proposing basically the same idea. When he did so, he was viciously lambasted by Menino's then press secretary, Seth Gitell.
Lambaste it one day, put your signature on it the next, I suppose. You gotta love city politics.
But we're already seeing signs that 2007 is going to be just as difficult for Hizzoner as 2006 was. Say it with me now: City Council President Maureen Feeney. The district councilor is going to rock City Hall like as if it were sitting on the San Andreas Fault.
Feeney has been an anomaly in Boston for many years for the simple fact that she refuses to kiss Menino's toes every time he strolls the aisle. This absence of bad habit distinguishes her from the plethora of political and business sycophants who pollute this metropolis. Though Feeney's council is legally handicapped by a city charter in serious need of rewriting, it's nonetheless an elected body politic which can garner media attention, if, that is, it's run in a gutsy, independent way. Expect just that of Feeney.
The first sign of that is Feeney's refusal to sign on to the Reilinger bashing currently underway at City Hall. "President Feeney has full confidence in Dr. Reilinger's ability as chairwoman of the school committee," spokesman Justin Holmes told me this week.
Let's just hope this latest mess — and this is a mess, Boston needs an extra-super superintendent and I don't know where we're going to find one now — jumpstarts the 2009 mayor's race. Politicians smell blood better than sharks and they know a wounded and miserable political animal when they smell one. Should Menino run for reelection, it really doesn't matter. People are tuning him out. The heir apparents to the throne include Tobin. He can usually think out of the box, projects a refreshing level of blunt honesty and exhibits all the qualities of leadership lacking in the mayor's office today. (Though Tobin joining the chorus for Reilinger's resignation this week was a disappointment, but predictable — since when does the old boy network at City Hall tolerate strong-minded women?)
Add to the contender's list a very well financed At-Large Councilor Michael Flaherty, venture capitalist Chris Gabrieli — who I dare say has one last run left in him. And, with any luck, names we may not even imagine at this moment in time.
Susan Ryan Vollmer, editor of the South End News, contributed to and edited this column. Kevin John Sowyrda is a political writer and analyst. You can reach him at kevinsow@aol.com and check out his daily blog at www.thebostonmemo.blogspot.com
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Kelly was hard not to love
by Kevin John Sowyrda
Jimmy Kelly and I were living proof that sometimes you have to make an enemy to make a friend. Having roasted him like a baked potato in an admittedly scathing column I wrote on the colorful councilor back in the mid nineties or so, I didn't anticipate that at a later date we'd be breaking bread together at a posh Boston luncheon club; or that we'd cultivate a mutual admiration and a genuine friendship which I think we both valued greatly.
I'll admit Kelly won me over, as they might say in journalism. But he didn't do it the old, Boston way. Kelly was not the phony political gadfly who used fakery and thinly veiled charm to assuage his political opponents, as I once was. He hailed from the Joe Moakley school of politics where you had political opponents, not enemies. Like his mentor Moakley, Kelly could brawl with you on the front burner issues of the day and then grab dinner with you in a flash, sincerely inquiring about your family and how things were going in your life. That's what appealed to me about Jimmy Kelly the most, and it's why I wish he had lived for many more years.
Jimmy Kelley was hardly the embodiment of social enlightenment of our times. He was the scrapper from Southie - not a student of the Old School, but its stubborn and determined headmaster. He was convinced that the "good old days" were best kept in perpetuity.
But Jimmy Kelley, despite his workaholic ethic and his phenomenal passion, was fighting a torrent even more powerful that his indomitable spirit and his unquestionable love for the City of Boston. Jimmy Kelley was swimming against the tide of change, a supremely powerful force even more compelling than the veteran councilor's iron ideology. America is more socially progressive that the world Kelly knew and cherished in the 1970's, when he first achieved political stature in the Hub. As much as he may have wanted the clock to stop, or atleast slow down, it was not so inclined.
And now let's be blunt. I'm sure there's a temptation for more than just a phalanx of Bay Windows readers to privately view Kelly's death, though tragic, as a political blessing for a community which was diametrically opposed to the councilor on issues of pivotal importance. My retort is that if Jimmy Kelly was a homophobe, I pray on bended knees that the remaining homophobes in our little, American kingdom emulate Kelly's love for people. To put it quite simply, if the man truly was a bigot he was probably the only bigot in the world who never hated anyone, even though bigotry and hatred are usually a purely package deal. I can't help but thinking that he was Archie Bunker brought to life; uttering things that may have made us cringe from time to time but also exuding a humanity and a nature of simplicity which made him much more likeable than fearful.
In the South End Jimmy Kelly may have had enemies, but data from past elections prove he also had a fair crop of friends. When the Boston Globe rather shamelessly promoted Kelly's most recent election opponent as the inevitable dragon slayer, Kelly responded by doing what he does best - ignoring the Globe and campaigning full speed ahead. He was handily reelected, leaving the Globe with plenty of egg on its face. And many of Kelly's votes came from the South End; where there's apparently some tolerance for Southie Conservatives, atleast when they're hard working and real.
As for hard work, Kelly's diligence as a tireless ombudsman during the South End floods was prolific evidence that he embraced our neighborhood as much as his own. He may have rejected large components of the Gay Community's legislative aspirations, but it would be disingenuous to assert the he rejected the Gay neighborhood itself.
Is this ironic? Of course it is. That's because Jimmy Kelly was ironic. His ironies were as endless as they are intriguing to consider in retrospect. He didn't want us to march in his parade, but he'd march here at full speed to help us. He was hardly the city's champion for Gay marriage, but he will be mourned by more than just a few Gay men and women. He was the most conservative leader in city government, but its commonly known that many of his closer friends were Gay men and women whose company he cherished.
History may well remember Kelly as the unabashed conservative's conservative, who upon closer inspection was hard not to love - even by those who don't usually embrace conservatives.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political commentator and writer. You can read his daily blog at www.thebostonmemo.blogspot.com
Jimmy Kelly and I were living proof that sometimes you have to make an enemy to make a friend. Having roasted him like a baked potato in an admittedly scathing column I wrote on the colorful councilor back in the mid nineties or so, I didn't anticipate that at a later date we'd be breaking bread together at a posh Boston luncheon club; or that we'd cultivate a mutual admiration and a genuine friendship which I think we both valued greatly.
I'll admit Kelly won me over, as they might say in journalism. But he didn't do it the old, Boston way. Kelly was not the phony political gadfly who used fakery and thinly veiled charm to assuage his political opponents, as I once was. He hailed from the Joe Moakley school of politics where you had political opponents, not enemies. Like his mentor Moakley, Kelly could brawl with you on the front burner issues of the day and then grab dinner with you in a flash, sincerely inquiring about your family and how things were going in your life. That's what appealed to me about Jimmy Kelly the most, and it's why I wish he had lived for many more years.
Jimmy Kelley was hardly the embodiment of social enlightenment of our times. He was the scrapper from Southie - not a student of the Old School, but its stubborn and determined headmaster. He was convinced that the "good old days" were best kept in perpetuity.
But Jimmy Kelley, despite his workaholic ethic and his phenomenal passion, was fighting a torrent even more powerful that his indomitable spirit and his unquestionable love for the City of Boston. Jimmy Kelley was swimming against the tide of change, a supremely powerful force even more compelling than the veteran councilor's iron ideology. America is more socially progressive that the world Kelly knew and cherished in the 1970's, when he first achieved political stature in the Hub. As much as he may have wanted the clock to stop, or atleast slow down, it was not so inclined.
And now let's be blunt. I'm sure there's a temptation for more than just a phalanx of Bay Windows readers to privately view Kelly's death, though tragic, as a political blessing for a community which was diametrically opposed to the councilor on issues of pivotal importance. My retort is that if Jimmy Kelly was a homophobe, I pray on bended knees that the remaining homophobes in our little, American kingdom emulate Kelly's love for people. To put it quite simply, if the man truly was a bigot he was probably the only bigot in the world who never hated anyone, even though bigotry and hatred are usually a purely package deal. I can't help but thinking that he was Archie Bunker brought to life; uttering things that may have made us cringe from time to time but also exuding a humanity and a nature of simplicity which made him much more likeable than fearful.
In the South End Jimmy Kelly may have had enemies, but data from past elections prove he also had a fair crop of friends. When the Boston Globe rather shamelessly promoted Kelly's most recent election opponent as the inevitable dragon slayer, Kelly responded by doing what he does best - ignoring the Globe and campaigning full speed ahead. He was handily reelected, leaving the Globe with plenty of egg on its face. And many of Kelly's votes came from the South End; where there's apparently some tolerance for Southie Conservatives, atleast when they're hard working and real.
As for hard work, Kelly's diligence as a tireless ombudsman during the South End floods was prolific evidence that he embraced our neighborhood as much as his own. He may have rejected large components of the Gay Community's legislative aspirations, but it would be disingenuous to assert the he rejected the Gay neighborhood itself.
Is this ironic? Of course it is. That's because Jimmy Kelly was ironic. His ironies were as endless as they are intriguing to consider in retrospect. He didn't want us to march in his parade, but he'd march here at full speed to help us. He was hardly the city's champion for Gay marriage, but he will be mourned by more than just a few Gay men and women. He was the most conservative leader in city government, but its commonly known that many of his closer friends were Gay men and women whose company he cherished.
History may well remember Kelly as the unabashed conservative's conservative, who upon closer inspection was hard not to love - even by those who don't usually embrace conservatives.
Kevin John Sowyrda is a political commentator and writer. You can read his daily blog at www.thebostonmemo.blogspot.com
Monday, December 25, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
