Open Thread if you want it to be!
Hopefully this will not appear to be jingoistic, but as a peacetime Marine Corps veteran (1978 – 1982) and as the son of a Korean War Era Air Force veteran (who passed away last year), I hope you have the opportunity to remember. Happy Memorial Day!

None of them had heard the “pond scum” comment, but when told of it, said they thought worse of Mr. Gomez.

Exactly. Appropriate, perhaps, when fronting a far-right anonymously funded 2012 attack group on President Obama like Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc. – Gomez’ last political claim to fame. But this is a race for a federal office in Massachusetts, not for senator of the Tea Party.

Next up, Little Boy Who Cried Wolf victimization:

Mr. Gomez … said that Mr. Markey had unfairly compared him to Bin Laden and that he had blamed him for the school shootings; neither Markey ad made such an assertion.

A meme grows in Cohasset: rage, weepy victimization, immaturity … you can fill in your own suggestions in the comments. Reality bites.

(Just realized Charley covered this interview this morning — sorry! Nonetheless, I find the “pond scum” remark noteworthy enough to get its own headline.)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. On Wednesday I posted about Gabriel Gomez’s new ad, which refers to “Dirty Ed Markey” and accuses Markey of “comparing” Gomez to Osama bin Laden and “blaming” Gomez for the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Yesterday, at the Needham-Newton Chamber of Commerce, Gomez spoke with a reporter and what he had to say was pretty astounding.

Transcript (best I could do):

Reporter: “You mentioned your ad, the campaign says it’s up and running now. There’s some Democrats talking about it’s a ‘sign of desperation,’ going after ‘Dirty Ed Markey’…”

Gomez (scoffing): “Ed Markey is ‘Dirty Ed Markey.’ Let me frame it this way: For a guy to come out with his first web video, to put me next to Osama bin Laden. A former Seal. Maybe he doesn’t understand, perhaps, who killed bin Laden. The Seals. All because I criticized the President. I was critical of him because they released so much classified information about that raid. And even Secretary Feinberg, uh, Senator Feinstein, came out and agreed with me. And it puts the troops in harm’s way. It not only puts the troops in harm’s way, but their families in harm’s way. Because now we know what unit conducted the raid, we know what kind of tactics, what kind of aircraft they flew in there. And even made a movie about it afterwards.”

Reporter: “So the offense was putting you side-by-side on the same screen?”

Gomez: “I don’t think there’s anything more… You know, I’ve got four young kids, and they’ve got to sit there and they’ve got to see an ad with their dad, who served honorably. Talk to anybody I served with, whether it was a pilot or as a Seal, or anybody I’ve worked with. And for him to be as dirty and low, pond scum, to…like…put me up there next to bin Laden, he’s just gotta be called what he is.”

Reporter: “And you say in the ad that he ‘blamed you’ for Newtown.”

Gomez: “Well, then he puts an ad up there, inferring basically, basically blaming me. Ed – Congressman Markey’s been around for 40 years. He knows exactly what he’s doing. OK, now he can hide behind all his lawyerly discussions about, ‘Well, I didn’t technically say this.’ It’s just like… Congressman Markey can’t defend the fact that he has not authored a single piece of legislation in the last 20 years that’s been signed by the President. But he comes back with these lawyerly explanations, you know, and all that. Well, he’s a lawyer. You see, he’s going to litigate everything. But the facts are, I’ve got the facts on my side.”

Reporter: “But the fact that he ‘blamed you’ for Newtown…”

Gomez: “Well, watch the ad.”

Reporter: “I know, I’ve seen the ad.”

Gomez: “You see that it infers it.”

Reporter: “He infers it by saying that you are against an assualt weapons…”

Gomez: “He knows what ads do. He knows, he knows what ads do. Congressman Markey’s been around for 40 years, and he knows what he’s doing.”

Reporter: “Is an assault weapons ban going to get…”

At this point another man, presumably from the campaign, says “You’re only supposed to get one question here” and Gomez walks away. The reporter asks for a follow-up and the second man tells the reporter she’s had three follow-ups and (I believe) suggests that she’s being hostile, which she disputes.

Let’s recap:

• Both the Globe and factcheck.org have said that Markey’s very even-handed ad (to which Gomez’s ad responds) is true, and Gomez’s allegations are false. Markey’s video did not “compare” Gomez to bin Laden, it showed him in a split screen with images of bin Laden that appeared in the anti-Obama video Gomez was hawking. It also showed him in a split screen with President Obama himself for an equal amount of time.
• Likewise, Markey’s ad on gun control simply showed Gomez on television, stating in his own words that he does not support a ban on high-capacity clips. “Like the one used” in the Sandy Hook massacre.
• Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute says Gomez’s assertion that Markey’s an ineffective legislator is baseless: “It’s, at best, a shaky attack. I’ve watched Markey since he came to the House and I’ve written many times before that he’s one of the most effective legislators” in Congress.
• Barack Obama just got 61% of the vote in Massachusetts in November, running against our former Governor, no less. His approval rating here is still in the same range. But Gomez wants to elaborate on his criticism of Obama for the way Osama bin Laden’s killing was handled. “Please proceed,” easement granter…
• Points deducted for confusing “infer” and “imply.”

But the real takeaway for me is that Gomez, while claiming he’s the victim of dirty campaign tactics, thinks it’s OK to call his opponent “pond scum.”

Stay classy, Massachusetts Republicans…

With apologies to those who aren’t interested in polls. Read no further…

The Emerson College Polling Society has a new survey, fielded this Monday to Wednesday (5/20 to 5/22), showing Ed Markey leading Gabriel Gomez in the U.S. Senate race, 44.8 percent to 33.1 percent, with 22.1 percent still undecided. That’s an improvement from their poll taken right after the primaries, which had Markey up by 6. I don’t believe I saw the first Emerson poll, but it fits well with PPP’s poll showing Markey up 4 just after the primary, and the subsequent polling showing him ahead by 7 or 8. Suffolk’s poll showing Markey with a 17-point lead (52-35) remains the outlier, though this new poll shows movement in that direction.

Read on for nuts and bolts…

The Emerson survey used two screening questions. First, “How likely are you to vote in the June 25 Special Election…?” Second, they asked if participants had voted in either primary. I don’t know, however, how they used the responses to construct their likely voter screen.

81% said they were “very likely” to vote on June 25 and another 8% “somewhat likely.” I’d love to see the day we get 89% turnout for a special election in June. 68.6% said they had voted in a primary (40% in the Democratic primary and 28.6% in the Republican primary). If true, that’s much higher than the turnout rate on April 30.

A full 98% now have heard of Markey (early in the primary season polls were showing a third unfamiliar with him). Markey is at 49.5% favorable, 35.6% unfavorable, 12.9% undecided. Only 6% said they’d never heard of Gomez. Gomez is at 41.1% favorable, 34.8% unfavorable (a big rise in unfavorable), and 18.1% undecided (a big decrease in undecided, suggesting people don’t like what they’ve learned). These results could reflect the more engaged sample, but that’s who will show up on June 25. What’s curious is that this poll seems to have more regular voters, but the share of undecided respondents is twice as large as in PPP’s latest poll.

Markey leads among Democrats 66-15 (Gomez pulled 12% of Dems in PPP’s poll last week). Gomez leads among Republicans 70-12 (PPP had a similar result). Gomez’s lead among unenrolled voters is 43-32, with 26% undecided. That’s lower than his lead in the prior Emerson poll or PPP’s polls, and less than he needs to win.

A third of respondents identified “jobs” as the most important issue facing the country. 19.4% named healthcare, 15.9% named education, 14.0% named the deficit, and only 4% named terrorism, a surprisingly low figure only a month after the Boston Marathon bombing. Perhaps learning more about the isolated nature of the Tsarnaev brothers has prevented a full-scale panic on terror.

Relatively little difference in the issues identified by those who voted in the Democratic primary and those who voted in the Republican primary. Nearly indentical percentages of each group named jobs (many) and terrorism (few). Democrats were slightly more likely to name healthcare. The big difference was more Democratic primary voters focusing on education (19% vs. 10%) (see that, Bob Neer?) and more GOP primary voters focused on the deficit (also 19% vs. 10%).

These disparties were much larger among self-identified Dems and Repubs as opposed to April 30 primary voters. 20.9% of self-identified Democrats said education is the most important issue, but only 6.6% of self-identified Republicans. 28.6% of Republicans named the deficit, compared to only 8.3% of Democrats. Just over a quarter of Gomez’s support (25.1%) comes from people who believe the deficit is the most important issue we face, compared to only 5.7% of Markey voters. Guess Fox News hasn’t started reporting that the deficit is largely under control, probably more than it should be in such a weak economy.

Some quibbles:

• The poll might oversample self-identified Democrats (44.6%) compared to Republicans (10.5%). Independents were 44.9% of those surveyed. Perhaps hard-right Republicans are not passing the likely voter screen.
• The self-identified Democrats were 54.5% men, 45.5% women. Seems like not enough Democratic women. Women were a large majority (57.6% vs. 42.4%) of the unenrolled voters surveyed.
• 42% of those polled were in the 60+ age group, a demographic that has been very friendly to Gomez in all the polling thus far. In this poll they favored Markey 42-34. Odd.
• Only 3.2% of respondents were age 18-29, and only 8.1% between 30 and 39. Perhaps a landline poll?
• A strange geographic breakdown. Not in terms of numbers (about which I don’t know enough to have an opinion), but in terms of process. They identify regions by area code. Just last week I was telling my wife that it’s crazy to have Salem in the same area code (978) as Dunstable and Ashburnham, but not as Marblehead. Lexington is 781, same area code as Marblehead or Scituate, while Concord is 978. 508 includes Sturbridge and Worcester, but also Nantucket. I find it odd to call 508 “Central/South Shore” when that’s not even a region, and the entire South Shore north of Plymouth is in 781. But I digress. My point is I wouldn’t use area codes to identify regions in Massachusetts.

I’m not going to rely too much on any poll, or even all the polls in this race averaged, but the trends continue to be favorable for Markey as we approach the halfway point of the general election season.

So I find it interesting that national Republicans are trying aggressively to nationalize this race.  Check out this email that landed in my inbox yesterday, ostensibly from Jerry Moran.  (Who?  I had to look him up too.  The junior Senator from Kansas, as it turns out, and the current chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.)

From: Senator Jerry Moran
Subject: Fire Reid
Date: May 23, 2013 12:59:54 PM EDT
To: blue@bluemassgroup.com
Reply-To: info@nrsc.org

Blue,

The Massachusetts Senate special election is heating up. This race is neck and neck, even the Democrats’ own polling shows just a few points between Republican Gabriel Gomez and Democrat Congressman Ed Markey.  We need your support to help us secure the resources necessary to win critical Senate races.

Ed Markey’s career is a living testament to failed Washington policies. Throughout his 37-year career in Washington, the Congressman has voted to raise the debt ceiling 31 times and in favor of higher taxes 271 times. He was an architect of the Wall Street bailouts. He was involved in Congressional check bouncing scandals to the total of $63,000, and he has repeatedly voted to give himself pay raises with taxpayer dollars. To sum it up, Ed Markey isn’t needed in the Senate, but new leadership is.

The son of immigrants who received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, who became a decorated Navy SEAL and successful businessman, Gabriel Gomez is exactly the kind of new, results-oriented leader we need to fix Washington today.

Contribute $100, $50, $25, or whatever you can afford today to help us win on Election Day and build a new Republican majority in the Senate.

With your help, we can fire Harry Reid and put America back on course.

Thanks,

Senator Jerry Moran
Chairman, NRSC

This is a paid solicitation being sent by Brown for U.S. Senate, Inc. and is not an endorsement by Senator Brown and does not represent a contribution to any candidate or political committee. This message reflects the sole opinions and representations of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who is responsible for the contents of this message. You are receiving this message because you are a member of Scott Brown’s online community.

A couple of points jump out at me.  The big one, of course, is “Fire Harry Reid.”  That means only one thing: the GOP sees a Gomez win as a critical part of retaking control of the U.S. Senate, removing Harry Reid from the position of majority leader, and replacing him with a Republican – presumably Mitch McConnell.  So someone needs to ask Gomez post-haste whether, if elected, he will support McConnell for majority leader.

I also love the fact that the fine print declares that the email “is a paid solicitation being sent by Brown for U.S. Senate, Inc.”  Somehow, the zombie that is Scott Brown’s Senate campaign will not die, but rather continues to stagger mindlessly around the highways and byways of Massachusetts in search of brains, or failing that, campaign donations.  I wonder if Brown or his campaign committee is making any money off of the NRSC using his mailing list?

Relatedly, Roll Call reports that the NRSC has dispatched a handful of staffers to our fair state.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has committed at least four staffers to help nominee Gabriel Gomez in the final weeks of the June 25 contest…. Money remains a major hurdle for Gomez to overcome against the well-funded Markey. So the NRSC sent two fundraisers to help Gomez open some financial doors. Sarah Morgan, a regional political director, arrived Wednesday to organize volunteer efforts over the next few weeks. And Kevin McLaughlin, a senior adviser, is in Boston to assist with communications and general strategy.

Say, I thought Gomez was a new kind of politician who doesn’t care for the old Washington ways of doing things.  Since that’s true, I’m sure that he will promptly tell the NRSC “thanks but no thanks,” and send those DC hacks back to Washington where they belong.

Riiiiiiight.

So, there’s this. Gomez responds to Markey’s very normal, sober, and fair ads, with a flailing one of his own.

Today Gomez calls Markey — yes, this is true — “pond scum” for actually airing an ad based on Gomez’s attempted Swift-Boating of Obama with regard to the killing of Bin Laden. Yup, Gomez went there, wherever *there* is.

Now, let’s take a look at what Gomez really objects to: Purportedly, it’s that his face was shown opposite Osama Bin Laden’s in Markey’s web ad. I guess without seeing it, if you squint your brain really hard, you could entertain the possibility that there’s some kind of subliminal guilt-by-association going on there …

OK, but really. Look at the ad. LOOK AT IT.

Who shows up opposite Gomez’s face right before Bin Laden? The dude with a 61% approval rating in Massachusetts. For crying out loud, Markey might as well have had Gomez next to a picture of Ted freakin’ Williams and a case of Sam Adams. (You want a dirty Bin Laden juxtaposition? Try this one — never been surpassed.)

And in other events, David Bernstein notes the genius work from the Parachute Patrol at GOP HQ:

Eye-Roller of the Day

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) put out a release today screaming that “Ed Markey is the first to violate the “People’s Pledge.”” That would be the pledge that is not in effect, because Gabriel Gomez refused to sign it.

I mean, wow.

Here’s what it all boils down to: Gomez has a problem, kind of a Martha Coakley problem, actually: He’s got no particular reason to run. He doesn’t really know why he’s in this, except that gosh he’s a really swell guy with a nice resume (Navy SEAL – at least party true!) and he wants to be a Senator well just because it’s the next thing to do.

And so he’s attacking Markey for not signing something he himself refuses to sign. He’s making goofy, easily and widely disproved accusations. He attacks Markey for, well, a long and distinguished career in public service, by campaigning with another fellow with a long and occasionally-distinguished career in public service.

And so we have an utterly trivial campaign so far — at least as presented in the media. Markey goes around the state talking about the Brain State, climate, guns, innovation, yadda yadda and it’s all great — good sensible things I like to hear. And yet his opponent — who strategically needs to start a fight, in order to get attention — engages him on the level of such inanity. Imagine the campaign that we *could* have, as if ideas and policy actually mattered. But this goofiness exists because Gomez has so little to challenge Markey with.

Last January, I posted on Blue Mass Group “State Senate Votes Go Online” and I am pleased to post today that “State Senate Votes Are Online.” If you are following the Senate’s debate on the budget and on various amendments, the Legislature’s website posted votes online within 24 hours after votes were taken. Here is the link to view the votes. Unfortunately, as the Senate finally puts votes online in a timely manner, the Senate didn’t vote on a lot of the key votes that deserve an up or down roll call vote.

-Paul

At stake is a subsidized loan rate of 3.4 percent for more than 7.4 million students with Federal Direct Stafford Loans. That rate would jump to 6.8 percent if Congress fails to act; Democrats set the lower rate before Republicans swept to control of the House in 2011. Last June, Republicans buckled under political pressure and extended the subsidized rate for one year, just two days before its expiration.

This time, Republican leaders insist they will hold firm, but they face Senate Democrats who are dead set against their approach as well as a threatened White House veto.

“Who’s going to set interest rates, politicians here or the markets?” asked Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

By the same argument, why not abolish public education and replace it with private schools for everyone — “who’s going to set education budgets, politicians here or charter schools funded by vouchers plus cash from parents?”  That way lies a narrowing of educational opportunity, less effective use of our greatest resource, American minds, and increasingly direct competition with the world’s less educated workers. That is a fight we will lose: there are hundreds of millions of intelligent, disciplined people around the world willing to work for $5 a day. A primary factor of national differentiation for us is our superior and more widely distributed educational system.

I wonder what Gabriel Gomez thinks about this plan? Interestingly, he has no position on education issues, even though that sector is one of the largest employers in the state.

Is this ad from Gabriel Gomez coming soon to your TV? Gomez released the ad on YouTube yesterday; it was scheduled to start running on television statewide today. (I was able to see the ad a couple of hours ago but YouTube later said the video was unavailable; it remains up on Gomez’s campaign website.) In it, the narrator accuses “Dirty Ed Markey” of comparing Gomez to Osama bin Laden and blaming Gomez for Newtown. In other words, more baseless whining that should be transparent to anyone who understands the English language.

As discussed here, Markey’s recent ad does not “blame” Gomez for Newtown. It says that one of the proposed responses to the Newtown shooting and other massacres has been to limit high-capacity clips, “like the one” used in Newtown. And it shows Gomez, on television in his own words, saying he does not support such a proposal. That’s it.

Likewise, it has been shown that the bin Laden claim is absurd. It refers to Markey’s May 2 video criticizing Gomez for his 2012 swift-boating of President Obama. That video (which is kind of awkwardly done) showed Gomez for a moment in a split screen with bin Laden, but also showed him in a split screen with three separate images of President Obama and with a fellow guest on MSNBC. Gomez did not call Markey “despicable” for comparing him to the President or the fellow guest. It takes a Professional Whiner to turn that video into a “comparison” of Gomez and bin Laden. (Making this claim particularly rich is that the footage of bin Laden in Markey’s video actually was taken from…the video Gomez and his Tea Party friends made to criticize Obama.)

Seems Gomez is hoping that voters will recoil from “Dirty Ed Markey’s” dirty tactics without actually watching and evaluating the ads in question. But the Globe, which I’ve not hesitated to criticize, has called Gomez on his bullshit. A piece by Michael Levenson yesterday states, straight up:

Despite what the ad says, Markey has not blamed Gomez for the Newtown shooting. Markey has released an ad that highlights Gomez’s opposition to an assault weapons ban and to limits on high-capacity magazines, “like the ones used in the Newtown school shooting.”

Markey has also released an online video that shows an image of bin Laden next to an image of Gomez. The Gomez campaign has demanded that Markey take down the video, saying that the juxtaposition is a disgrace since Gomez is a former Navy Seal.

The Markey campaign has pushed back by pointing out that the bin Laden image comes from a video produced by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, a group that accused President Obama of trying to exploit the killing of bin Laden for political gain. Gomez was a supporter of the group, appearing on MSNBC in August 2012 to defend OPSEC and speaking to Reuters about its activities.

(emphasis added)

It is heartening to see the press, for once, doing its job rather than engaging in false equivalence and “he said-he said” with no attempt to identify the truth. Kudos to Mr. Levenson. (Sadly, no such critical evaluation from the Springfield Republican, which at least was nice enough to update its post to include the Markey campaign’s response to this new ad.)

Calling Gomez on his bullshit might become a trend on Morrissey Blvd. Levenson and Josh Miller also have a story in the Globe entitled “Markey hits back against Gomez attacks,” concerning the line (first tried by Steve Lynch in the last debate before the primary) that Gomez and his new pal John McCain have been peddling: that Markey’s soft on homeland security because he voted against resolutions to “honor the 9/11 victims” in 2004 and 2006.

In Gomez’s own words (uh oh, now I’ll be “Dirty Fenway49″ for quoting him):

“One thing that I just can’t understand is how my opponent, Congressman Markey, has voted more than once against a very basic Congressional resolution, to simply honor the victims of 9/11. To me it’s just unconscionable to have voted against something like that.”

The Globe piece allows Markey to rebut this absurd claim effectively:

Markey has emphasized that he voted for several similar resolutions commemorating the tragedy, but argues that those two attempted to politicize it.

“I voted eight times to honor the 9/11 ­victims,” Markey said. “When Dick Cheney and his allies sought to exploit a resolution by linking 9/11 to the war in Iraq, I voted no. And I would do it again.”

For a great takedown of this bullshit (sorry to keep using the word but no other applies), see David S. Bernstein in his new Boston Magazine gig. Bernstein takes no position on the resolutions, but he notes they were symbolic and voted on in “offered in the fall of highly contentious election years.” More importantly, he invites his readers to read them (noting that Gomez is always saying “read the bill”). Anyone who does so will see, in short order, that they were written less to “honor the 9/11 victims” than to cheerlead for the Bush-Cheney foreign policy and the pile of anti-terrorism legislation passed by the GOP Congress after the 2001 attack.

For example, the 2004 resolution reads, in part:

Whereas three years after September 11, 2001, the UnitedStates is fighting a Global War on Terrorism to protect America and her friends and allies; Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an

international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq…

* * *

Whereas to date United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself; Whereas the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people,

money, and supplies;

The 2006 resolution contains this language:

Whereas in the days subsequent to the brutal attacks on the Nation, the Government vowed never to be caught off guard again, to take the fight to the terrorists, and to take immediate measures to prepare and protect the Nation against a new type of faceless, inhuman, and amorphous enemy committed to the death and destruction of the American way of life;

Whereas Congress passed, and the President signed, numerous laws to assist victims, combat the forces of terrorism,protect the Homeland and support the members of the Armed Forces who defend American interests at home and abroad, including the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001and its 2006 reauthorization, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004;

Whereas the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, the SAFE Port Act of 2006, and the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006…

So, Gabe, you call that “a very basic Congressional resolution, to simply honor the victims of 9/11?” I’d have less respect for Ed Markey if he HAD voted in favor of this dreck.

Gabriel Gomez likes to claim he’s a new kind of Republican. But he seems like a standard-issue one to me: demagogue on terror and 9/11, get rich by outsourcing jobs to child labor in China, file sketchy tax returns, treat the “little people” like crap, and, now, play victim at every turn.

In a bit of a shell game, the Gomez camp release tax returns and called out Markey for not releasing his returns yet.

But the funny thing is, Gomez, just by chance I guess had his cutoff of tax returns released as 2006. Gomez made headlines with his questionable historic home $281,500 tax dodge in 2005. Funny how that worked out.

The best excuse that Gomez’s team could come up with is that a Senate term is 6 years, so he’s going to release 6 years of returns. See, he’s not trying to hide his bogus, slimy tax filings in 2005 at all.

Gomez did not release his tax return for 2005, a year in which he claimed a tax credit worth $281,500 for maintaining the façade of his historic home in Cohasset, as the Globe has previously reported. Gomez’s campaign aides said he had agreed to provide six years’ worth of tax returns, the duration of a Senate term.

That’s pretty weak.

If Gomez wants to show any credibility at all, he’s going to need to release his 2005 tax returns, playing the public for fools is not a good campaign strategy.

Fact Check: Gomez Claim On Markey’s Effectiveness Doesn’t Hold Up

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez made headlines Monday for attacking his opponent, Democratic U.S Rep. Edward Markey, on national security.

But he also dropped a line he’s offered up several times of late: Markey, he said, hasn’t sponsored a single bill in the last 20 years that became law.

It’s a sweeping claim, designed to undermine the central rationale for Markey’s candidacy: that with experience, the Democrat has developed into an effective legislator.

. . .

Independent observers say the argument doesn’t hold up.

“It’s, at best, a shaky attack,” says Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute and one of the country’s most respected Congressional observers. “I’ve watched Markey since he came to the House and I’ve written many times before that he’s one of the most effective legislators” in Congress.

Mr. Ornstein clearly needs a dose of unique perspective.

There are already 9 links “out there” that Lt. Gov. Murray will announce his resignation plans at 2:00 PM today.  Here is one such link.  I cannot speak for anyone else, but as for myself I understand that public life, its scrutiny, and the reality of lower pay then in the “royal tribe” of the CEO and private sector elite can be difficult with young children.  For myself, when I support someone for public office, I do so trusting them to serve, to stay the course, and to put the public interest first during their full term.  I can understand disagreeing as to what “the public interest” may be, and do not expect to dictate to those who are elected.  I have, however, been gravely disappointed by the large number walking away from elected office.

I am interested in a pledge from any candidate, before I support them, that if elected, they will serve out their full term.

Photo taken by me when Marc and I marched with a Patrick/Murray contingent in 2010.  As many know, Marc died in September of 2012.  At least he did not have to see so many of those he supported walk away from elected office to have a greater income.

The status quo is not working. “Something” has to be done. Generous direct “donations” from the Waltons and Koch Brothers, as well as strong support from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have helped “Citizens First” realize our goals. Truly, public safety is a civil right; we shall overcome.

CF proposes a national movement to ensure that no citizen be protected by a single union stifled Police Officer or Firefighter again. For too long the patrolman and firefighters unions have stifled innovation in our neediest municipalities. We need reform. We need to put citizens first, and not put the needs of adults before public safety.

Studies show that the US is not safe, and we rank near the bottom of international rankings as defined by the Public Safety Metric (PSM). Bold action needs to be taken.

CF, in conjunction with our affiliates at AEI, propose a trailblazing new vision of Public Safety Reform. Our lobbying networks have dubbed our reform efforts No Citizen Left Behind. Below is a synopsis of how our federal legislation will work to ensure national safety proficiency for all by 2025.

Firstly, we will track all police stations and fire stations in every municipality in the United States. We will collect public safety data and then grade all states, cities, towns, and municipal districts accordingly using our public safety metric (PSM) devised by public safety scientific experts. Underperforming police and fire stations will now be held accountable. As part of a “turnaround” plan these stations will receive a “fresh start”. All police officers and fire fighters will reapply for their positions. Department Chiefs at these stations will hire no more than 50% of the former staff. Certainly, accountability will shake up the status quo.

Through this “incubator of innovation”, new charter stations will rise from the ashes. These charter stations will create a board of directors, most notably bankers and politicians who have no experience in police work or fire. These stakeholders will create charters that will operate outside the jurisdiction of traditional stations. Police facilitators and Fire Stoppers will be non-union employees at will. Licenses, experience, pensions, and pertinent training will no longer be a barrier for stakeholders to create a culture of innovative transformation. The charter board of directors will ensure that the safety improvement plan is carried out. In this way real accountability will be realized on a national level.

In order that this bold, innovative, and trailblazing venture be realized a few earmarks must be incorporated into NCLB. Most notably a corporate enterprise tax credit must be adopted in order to stimulate reform “buy in”. Listen up hedge funders! After NCLB passes an enterprising tax loophole, which will benefit ALL citizens, will be enacted. Through venture philanthropy bankers can now raise money for their innovative charter stations. These monies can now be used as tax deductible donations for your “for profit” companies. Other benefits include real estate, building contracts, and inside knowledge of public safety buying trends. We encourage all police and fire related corporate enterprises to hop on board this gravy train. If you don’t, one of our subsidiaries certainly will and you may be on the short end of our free market! Remember, SAFETY FIRST!

PS: If this post doesn’t make any sense to you, research how education reform has “worked” since 2000. Hopefully, readers can make a connection.

On his website, Gomez falsely claims to be President of the Navy SEAL Foundation of New England. And it’s still up, three months after he got caught (screen-capped to avoid mischief). Add that to recent news of his financial dealings and his general willingness to put himself about principle, and it makes me wonder:

What else is he lying about in his biography? Was he ever really a Navy SEAL/pilot? Let’s see the proof before we believe it.

Gabriel Gomez has been doing a lot of whining and complaining about his most current positions being accurately described in ads. But what has been missed is that Gomez just a few short months ago stated that he would support the weapons ban.

This is Gomez defending his most recent position opposing the ban on assault weapons and limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines:

Gomez said he does not personally own guns but that he has a “unique perspective” on weapons, having fired many of them during his time as a Navy SEAL.

Gomez’s thoughts on the weapons ban in his letter to Deval Patrick just a few months ago requesting the interim appointment to the Senate:

Two main issues that will dominate the political discussion during this appointment will be Immigration Reform and Gun Control. Given my Latino and Navy SEAL background, I have credibility to contribute thoughtfully on these issues. I support the positions that President Obama has taken on these issues and you can be assured I will keep my word and work on these issues as I have promised.

Got it? Gomez has a “unique perspective” on weapons and opposes banning assault weapons, but he also has the credibility to contribute thoughtfully on the issue and supports Obama’s position to ban assault weapons.

Has Gomez addressed any question without talking out the side of his mouth?

I have some advice to Gomez, this is how you should address any question asked of you; Don’t know, don’t care. I just want to be appointed or elected to the Senate.

What I don’t understand, and what I didn’t understand in 2010, is why the Dems don’t make the GOP own every last rotten drop of their hostility to the uninsured, the sick, the less fortunate. The GOP voted against those who came up against “rescission”; those who went over their “lifetime limits” of coverage; those who had “pre-existing conditions”; those who couldn’t afford to see a doctor, and those who couldn’t buy insurance under any circumstances.

First of all … I know Obama has come to like the term “Obamacare”. Well, I don’t. People who think they don’t like Obama will not like the PPACA, even if they like what’s in it. It’s called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a reason: That’s us it’s talking about; that’s us it affects — not him.

At last year’s convention, the Dems did a quite decent job of playing to the obvious strengths of the Affordable Care Act: They showed off families who would have otherwise been in dire straits, who had already benefitted from its provisions. I mean, the Republicans have voted against these people 37 times.

Shall there be no political price for that? Do you think you could make a pretty damn tough, accurate, and richly deserved political attack ad with these families? Isn’t it political malpractice – practically immoral — not to do so?

It was thought by many Democrats that once the benefits of the Affordable Care Act – regulatory and monetary – started to flow and become palpable to many Americans, that it would become self-evident to many Americans who was looking out for them. That may well be the case in the places where the Affordable Care Act is not being actively sabotaged: Oregon and Washington, for instance, have implemented their health care marketplaces and are seeing real competition with big benefits to consumers.

And as for the purportedly “up for grabs” voting demographic of the moment, it turns out that most Latino voters are quite protective of the PPACA.

“This is going to hurt Republicans,” said Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”

HELLO. There is nothing essential about Latino descent that makes one value health care. If the pro-PPACA message is working with this demographic, then why not beyond?

But – there will be the states that have refused to expand Medicaid. There are the states trying to kneecap the exchanges — self-sabotage in the end, but still. And indeed, there will be real challenges of implementation, even with good faith involvement from policy makers. All these will be used by the saboteurs themselves — and the ignorant enablers in the press — that it’s failing somehow.

But the reasons for the PPACA’s existence aren’t going away. And if not, then the GOP has a lot to answer for.

Since the GOP has positioned itself against Patient Protection and Affordable Care, why should we not agree in the strongest possible terms? I anticipated in 2010 that we’d make the opponents pay a price. How can we not do so in 2014?

Daniel Kurtzman:

“Since President Obama took office, the Democratic Party has lost nine governorships, 56 members of Congress, and two Senate seats. In his defense, Obama said, ‘Well, I did promise change.’” –Conan O’Brien

“Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents.” –Jon Stewart on the IRS scandal

“President Obama said in his last press conference that he wants to close Gitmo. Gitmo? How about closing Dodger Stadium? How many people are being tortured there night after night?” –Jay Leno

“NASA is taking applications for people who want to live on Mars. Now here are the requirements: You have to be between the ages of 18 and 40 and insane.” –David letterman

“Hooter’s is letting mothers eat for free on Mother’s Day. What better way to tell your mother that she raised a cheapskate and a perv?” –Conan O’Brien

Borowitz:

G.O.P. SPLIT OVER WHETHER TO WASTE TIME INVESTIGATING BENGHAZI OR REPEALING OBAMACARE

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A deep divide has emerged within the Republican Party over whether to waste Congress’s time investigating Benghazi talking points or repealing Obamacare, G.O.P. lawmakers confirmed today.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), sounded the first discordant note at a press briefing this morning, telling reporters, “The time for wasting day after day investigating Benghazi is over. The American people are counting us to waste our time repealing Obamacare yet again.”

Onion:

Sasha Obama Suspicious After Doing A Little Digging Around On Benghazi

WASHINGTON—Saying that none of the facts quite add up, first daughter Sasha Obama, 11, reported being “highly suspicious” today after poking around the details of the 2012 Benghazi attack. “I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense—first they blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration, but now we find out the CIA talking points were secretly revised?” said the sixth-grader, sitting in the darkened White House library intensely scrolling through pages of articles about the controversy and classified Pentagon briefings. “Obviously, someone’s hiding something: the poor security; the al-Qaeda link; the leaked emails. All I’m asking for here is a simple explanation from the State Department and the White House, and I’m not getting one. I mean, who are they protecting here? And why?” Sasha went on to tell reporters she felt even more suspicious after former defense secretary Leon Panetta failed to respond to any of her 24 voicemails.

It accurately states that Ed Markey supports an assault weapons ban and limiting the size of magazines, the “kind used in the Newtown shooting”; and that Gomez does not.

Gomez is now complaining, “Markey blames me for the horrific Newtown shooting”. Garbage. It does no such thing. The ad is as simple and decent as a contrast ad can be: “I believe this. My opponent believes that. You have a choice.”

It does amply demonstrate that Gomez holds an unpopular position among MA voters — and one whose consequences are unfortunately fresh in our memories.

You know, Mr. Gomez, no one is making you take that position. If you think that an accurate description of your position makes you look bad … well, only you can fix that.

We thought it would be a normal Marathon Monday at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). The Boston Marathon is always held on the third Monday in April and is a public holiday—Patriots Day. All state offices are closed, together with many businesses; but for hospitals, it is a regular working day. The MGH normally expects to receive about 15 to 20 marathon runners with hyponatremia and dehydration, many more are treated at the medical tents along the route of the marathon. For many this is a day that Bostonians look forward to each year as the unofficial start of spring.

It was not to be. At 2:50PM, an explosion rocked the area near the finish line, closely followed 11 seconds later by a second blast. Two minutes later, Boston EMS initiated a hospital ringdown; they contacted all of the Boston hospitals requesting disaster capability. Our answer is always the same; we have immediate capacity for 10 critical patients, 20 seriously injured, and we can accept unlimited “walking wounded.” I was paged as soon as the radio call came in; at this time we had no idea of the potential number of injured patients or of their severity. I looked at the current ED census—we were full and had one open stretcher bay in the entire department.

A key takeaway:

We worked with Boston EMS to hone our coordination and skills and performed numerous drills, often on a citywide basis. The simulated building collapse; the dirty bomb scenario at Logan airport and the repetitive activation of the MGH disaster response system—yes—on nights and weekends, all contributed to our learning and familiarity. This training and the iterative improvement in response by all involved made the difference on Marathon Monday. Our elected representatives who help fund these efforts have to be informed that this is money well-spent; this training made the difference and translated directly into lives saved.

Click here for the entire article.

PPP released their latest poll.

Markey 48
Gomez 41

Public Policy Polling’s newest survey of the US Senate election in Massachusetts finds Ed Markey’s lead over Gabriel Gomez growing to 7 points at 48/41, up from a 4 point margin right after the primary election 2 weeks ago

Gomez favorables are going south as well, down 6 points.

Hey BMG!  I mostly lurk here, but want to share something that I did yesterday with my friend Ken Ward from JP.  Ken and I, in our 50 year old wooden lobster boat named the Henry David T (get it?) took action to stop 40,000 tons of Appalachian coal from being delivered yesterday to the Brayton Point power station in Somerset.  We have such love for the world we have grown up in, and to bear its destruction without trying to stop it would be impossible for us.  So we put the Henry David T between the ship and the pier and dropped anchor.

You can find out more about the campaign at coalisstupid.org where there’s video archive of the beginning of the action and things you can do to help.  Also a good article from today’s Globe.  And find out more about upcoming Coal action that’ll be part of 350.org’s “Summer Heat”

Here’s our full statement below:

Our Statement: Coal is Stupid

Why we seek to close Brayton Point.

Ken Ward & Jay O’Hara

May 15, 2013 

“I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.”

-Genesis 9:15

God promised never another flood, and who would have thought we’d be stupid enough to do it to ourselves? We are breaking the first covenant — a three-part agreement, it should be remembered, between God, Noah and his descendants, and all living creatures.

Atmospheric carbon hit 400 ppm last Friday, May 13, 2013, at Manua Loa and global carbon emissions last year were nearly two-thirds above 1990. We are on track to achieve a temperature increase of 6°C / 11.8°F by 2100, at least, and on a steep upward trajectory thereafter. There is no question that without abrupt political change, a second flood of  biblical proportions will erase the conditions in which life remotely like that we know now is made possible.

The fact that we’re staring catastrophe in the face isn’t surprising. There have been plenty of warning signs that too much fruitfulness, especially in the rapacious manner which has been our practice, would prove impossible to sustain. What is surprising, is that we still aren’t talking about it publicly in any forthright and pragmatic way.

Decades of top notch PR work (bankrolled by a handful of people who value record profits above protecting their grandchildren from experiencing collapse first-hand) has a lot to do with the great silence on climate, but it isn’t the whole reason. The reality is so appalling that most everyone prefers to participate in a collective delusion that there is no problem.

And surely, who can blame anyone for that?

To lose the world on our watch is a miserable prospect. To lose the world when a solution is available is perverse. Denying outright that climate change exists is the most extreme response, but considering climate change to be anything other than the single most important matter facing humanity has the same effect.

What we need to do is relatively simple. Whether there is time to avoid the tipping point, we don’t know, but that shouldn’t prevent us from making the best possible effort.

First thing: stop burning coal.

We are doing exactly the opposite. Coal is experiencing a “renaissance,” increasing 5%, last year, to reach 30% of the global energy market. Coal emissions in the US have declined, it is true, but that isn’t because US coal is staying in the ground — exports broke previous records in 2012. Due to the natural gas bonanza brought about by fracking, existing US coal plants are being closed and few new plants are being built. Were natural gas prices to rise, coal might well experience a “renaissance” in the US, and some energy sector heavyweights, like Energy Capital Partners, the planned purchaser of Brayton Point, are betting heavily on this outcome.

As we said in our letter to Thomas F. Farrell II, President & CEO of Dominion Energy, current owners of Brayton Point, and Doug Kimmelman, Senior Partner, Energy Capital Partners, decisions which appear intelligent in a business context, such as the sale of Brayton Point, are actually quite stupid when viewed in the aggregate from a planetary perspective.

We are in uncharted territory, so far as global geo-physics goes, with new studies tumbling in almost daily delivering across-the-board dismal findings – increasing Antarctic temperatures, rising methane releases in peat bogs, rapid decline in snow cover, and so on. The only reasonable and ethical action is to call a halt to the ghastly fossil fuel experiment, starting with coal.

If Dominion Resources sells Brayton Point –– the single largest source of coal emissions in the Northeast – to Energy Capital Partners, the likelihood that this plant will continue operation is substantially strengthened. We don’t know the selling price, but market analysts, talking in terms of “fire sale” and “scrap value,” peg it around $100-200 million, peanuts compared with Dominion’s $1.5 billion investment, and so cheap that a well heeled outfit like Energy Capital Partners can afford to keeping it running for quite some time.

Nowhere in the decision-making process is there any means or mechanism by which the lunatic aspect of choosing to burn coal can even be raised, let alone factored into the decision. Not one of the measures taken (such as the Regional Green House Gas Initiative) and none of the measures contemplated (such as a carbon tax), has or would have any significant impact on the decision to keep coal plants like Brayton Point in operation. Nothing even remotely approaching the true costs of burning coal is included in the business calculus.

Yet Brayton Point should be shut down immediately – and by “immediately,” we mean today –– for more than one reason. First, every day of additional emissions is a terrible, immoral imposition on our children and, in ways we do not fully understand, on the other living things of God’s creation. Second, we do not need this power plant – efficiency measures alone can reduce demand by far more than the 6% of Massachusetts electricity generation supplied by the plant. Third, in order for the US to exert global leadership on climate, we must take decisive and difficult steps in the right direction for our own nation. The closure of all US coal plants, coupled with the sort of vigorous advancement of efficiencies and renewables that is much talked about but little acted upon, would create the political and moral basis for effective global leadership by the US, without which no global solution is possible.

We are faced with an imperative like none confronted by any previous generation; we are living in a society that is disavows responsibility for this greatest of crises, and lacks any process or means by which decisions, like that to extend the life of Brayton Point, might be affected. It is our choice to take direct, non-violent action – putting our bodies between the Brayton Point coal plant and its water-borne coal supply – in an attempt to achieve the outcome necessary for planetary survival; the immediate closure of Brayton Point Power Station.

Jay O’Hara and Ken Ward

From his new perch at Boston Magazine, David S. Bernstein reports that Gabriel Gomez (who apparently does not yet know his position on abortion and just can’t shake his shady tax deduction problem) has set up a “Victory Fund,” a joint venture between the Gomez campaign and the National Republican Senate Committee. As Bernstein writes:

It’s not a coincidence that this account was set up just before the upcoming fundraiser with John McCain, as reported by the Globe‘s Jim O’Sullivan. The top ask for that event is $37,600, which is an odd figure until you realize that the most one can give to Gomez is $2,600 and the most one can give to the NRSC PAC is $35,000. Apparently it’s too much to ask rich people to write the two separate checks, so the Victory Fund lets them write one…

The main advantage of this is that givers can feel certain that the NRSC will know to use that $35k on its campaign to get Gomez elected, rather than some other effort. Which, by the by, it can do because Gomez won’t sign the “People’s Pledge” to prohibit spending by outside groups.

The funny thing is that, when Deval Patrick set up a similar “Victory Fund” in 2009, on a much smaller scale (maximum contribution $5,500, less than 15% of the max one can give to Gomez’s fund), the Massachusetts Republican Party raised holy hell. Patrick and the Mass. Dems abandoned the idea, and the state legislature passed a bill banning such joint venture funds.

That ban, of course, applies only to state candidates. And so we’ve had the spectacle of Scott Brown setting up a Victory Fund in 2011, and Mitt Romney setting one up last year that gave almost $9.4 million to…the Mass. GOP.

Par for the course. The GOP howls about how corrupt the Democrats are. The Democrats cave, ceasing the activity in question and passing legislation to outlaw it (our state legislature is, after all, more than 80% Democratic). Then the Republicans do the same thing on a scale seven times bigger.

Republican Massachusetts Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez was sued by his plumber over unpaid toilet repairs from 2007, according to court records.

According to the plaintiff, Lundy Plumbing, the case was brought in 2008 in response to two attempts to get Gomez to pay for repairs to a leaky toilet in Gomez’s home. Lundy Plumbing alleged that Gomez was billed in January of 2008 to which he did not respond. Lundy Plumbing then says they sent another bill and called several times before bringing the case.

The case was settled out of court according to court records.

Honestly, who does that?  Stated otherwise, if he can’t manage his own bills, how can we trust him with America’s?

Now, to the point of this post, which is the Globe story reporting reaction to a City of Boston report on the causes of bicycle accidents and recommendations on what to do.  Apparently, advocates for cycling are upset about the following:

In an effort to make the city safer for cyclists, police will ­begin to hand out $20 citations to cyclists who run red lights; and the mayor’s office may push for a law requiring helmet use by bike riders of all ages.  “We’re still blaming the victim,” said Dahianna Lopez, a Harvard doctoral student who worked as a consultant compiling crash data for the Boston Police Department.

Cycling advocates have objected that (1) a helmet law won’t prevent accidents; and (2) a relatively small number of accidents (12%, per the report) are directly traceable to cyclists running red lights or stop signs – by contrast, “twenty-two percent of collisions between cars and cyclists occurred when a vehicle door opened unexpectedly on a ­cyclist. Eighteen percent ­occurred when a motorist did not see a cyclist, and 12 percent occurred when a cyclist rode ­into oncoming traffic.”

Regarding point 1, I’d say the objection is true but irrelevant.  The argument for helmets is precisely the same as the argument for seat belts: it’s a common-sense safety measure that will almost certainly prevent a good number of serious and perhaps fatal head injuries, thereby reducing the number of shattered lives and also keeping medical costs down.  I find it hard to see the contrary argument.  So I think this reaction is off-base:

David Watson, executive ­director of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition, a statewide bike advocacy organization, said he disagrees with the conclusions of city officials on bike helmets. Forcing helmets on the heads of cyclists won’t prevent accidents, Watson said.  “We need to focus on preventing a crash in the first place, not just providing protection when they crash,” he said.

Hey, here’s an idea: why not do both?

Point 2, on ticketing cyclists who run red lights, is more complicated.  Here’s a quote from the Globe story that I think is illuminating:

[Cyclist] Ira Kemp of Arlington said that cracking down on bike riders who run red lights, an ­offense that he admitted committing on occasion, would not address one of the biggest factors in bike crashes: the behavior of motorists.

“It’s a huge cultural issue,” Kemp said. “Most motorists don’t have an ounce of respect for people on bikes.”

In my view, Mr. Kemp is both exactly right and precisely wrong.  He’s right that many motorists don’t “respect” cyclists.  That is a problem that has to change for the city to become more bike-friendly.  But he is wrong that forcing cyclists to obey traffic laws won’t have any effect on that problem.  To the contrary, motorists – including myself – get frustrated with cyclists precisely because they routinely behave like scofflaws, darting in and out of traffic, running red lights and stop signs with barely a glance toward oncoming traffic, and so forth.  Be honest, now: how often have you seen a car intentionally run a red light?  It happens now and then, but it’s pretty rare.  In contrast, cyclists do it all the time.

Respect has to be earned.  If cyclists want it, they have to behave as though they deserve it.  And that means obeying the traffic laws.  Right now, too many of them don’t do that.  So a crackdown by law enforcement – in conjunction with other efforts, to be sure, such as the ongoing expansion of the city’s bike lanes and other efforts noted in the report – strikes me as an excellent idea.

Frank Phillips is reporting that not only did Gabriel Gomez use a shady historical home tax deduction agreeing not to alter the his home’s facade even though Cohasset already places similar restrictions on historical properties but Gomez also shopped around for the highest appraisal. It seems that Gomez rejected appraisals if he didn’t like the value, further still, Gomez didn’t even pay the bill for those appraisals.

When Republican US Senate nominee Gabriel E. Gomez was seeking a lucrative historical tax deduction for his Cohasset home, he rejected the first appraisal he received because it was too low and then refused to pay the appraiser’s bill, according to a claim filed this week.

That appraiser, Shaun Fitzgerald, said Gomez hired him in late 2005 to determine the amount he could deduct on his federal tax return in exchange for agreeing not to alter the home’s facade. But Fitzgerald said Gomez then failed to pay the $1,000 appraiser’s fee.

The appraisal amount? A measly $245,640.

Apparently, that’s not what Gomez was looking for. Note to appraisers you need to value the home exactly how Gomez wants you to value it or you don’t get paid.

After being granted the easement and tax deduction Gomez had work done on the exterior of the property anyway, it seems that the easement agreement for the tax deduction only covers areas that is visible from the street. Cohasset’s historical commission does get involved in the approval on any changes to the home. Gomez didn’t seemed to to have any issues getting approvals even though the renovation included the removal of “character-defining elements” of the historical home.

That construction included removal of a brick chimney, one of the two on the house. A survey commissioned by the Trust in August 2005 to evaluate the historic significance of the home had determined that the chimneys were “important character-defining elements’’ of the property.

Gomez’s wife Sarah serves on the Cohasset Historical Commission.

Celebrating the passage of Marriage Equality!

It’s time we looked at the rules for signature collection and ballot qualification.

I am calling on the Boston City Council to offer a Home Rule Petition to change the requirements regarding signature gathering to qualify for the ballot in municipal elections. As it now stands, candidates for Mayor must gather 3000 signatures, and any registered voter from Boston can sign as many nomination papers as they want, but only the first signature certified will count toward the potential candidate’s total.

That’s not right. It’s an unfair barrier to getting on the ballot, and it mostly affects candidates of color, candidates who aren’t as well funded as others, and candidates without networks that take years to build. If you can get 3000 valid signatures, you should be able to get on the ballot. Boston’s rules should be closer to the Commonwealth’s rules.

To that end, I pledge my legislative support to any Boston Home Rule Petition that makes its way to the Massachusetts House floor.

Marty Walsh

Author’s note: those interested in supporting YDM’s Emerge scholarship should visit our event page. I hope to see many of you tomorrow night!

BOSTON – The Young Democrats of Massachusetts (YDM) will present their 4th annual ‘Ladies in Blue’ awards at the Roosevelt After Dark fundraiser at Storyville on Thursday, May 16th from 8:30-11:00pm. This year’s honorees are Senator Elizabeth Warren as Woman of the Year, Representative Ellen Story as Legislator of the Year, and Dr. Harmony Wu as Activist of the Year. Half of the proceeds from the event will go towards a new scholarship for a YDM member to attend Emerge Massachusetts, a training program for women running for office.

Immediately following the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s Annual Roosevelt Awards, the Young Democrats traditionally host Roosevelt After Dark, a dessert and cocktail reception at which all are welcome. The event will also include the 4th annual ‘Ladies in Blue’ awards, which celebrate outstanding Democratic women named for their contributions to the Commonwealth. “This year YDM honors three remarkable women,” said Chair John H. Kleschinsky. “And I cannot think of a better way to honor them than with the establishment of YDM’s first scholarship program for young women interested in participating in the Emerge training program.”

For over 10 years, Emerge has recruited and trained Democratic women to run for office. Elizabeth Maynard, who is President of the Pioneer Valley chapter of YDM, graduated from Emerge in 2012. “Emerge Massachusetts is a program in which every woman leader who is considering a run for office should participate,” said Maynard. “The skills, tools, and confidence developed are invaluable resources for women with a desire to lead here in Massachusetts.” On the scholarship Emerge Executive Director, Taylor Woods-Gautier, commented, “Our goal is simple: to get more Democratic women elected. Thanks to the generosity of the Young Democrats of Massachusetts, we are thrilled to have this scholarship for young women to participate in our program.”

Who: Young Democrats of Massachusetts, interested members of the public. All are welcome.
Where: Storyville, 90 Exeter Street, Boston, MA 02116
When: May 16th, 2013 8:30-11:00pm

Host Committee: Barbara Lee, Evan England, Joe Caiazzo and Karen Cosmas of Knox Cannon Strategies LLC
Sponsors: Shawn Hartman, Josh Zakim, Harmony Wu, Suzanne Lee, Jay Livingstone

Tickets for this event are $20. Sponsors ($100), hosts ($250), and champions ($500) will be listed in the program. If you are interested in joining as a sponsor or host for this great event please contact YDM’s chair John Kleschinsky at jkleschinsky@ydma.org or (617) 544-7445.

The upcoming referendum on a Boston casino must be conducted in the most fair, open, and transparent manner possible.  I believe that the casino referendum should be citywide so that the voices of all the people of Boston can be heard.

The current law allowing a referendum to take place only in East Boston is potentially unconstitutional and could prove divisive.  While East Boston will undoubtedly feel the greatest impact of a casino, its impact will not be limited to that one neighborhood.  The Boston City Council should vote to authorize a citywide vote.

In order to avoid many of the problems of the past, I also believe that the City Council should use the opportunity before it to make clear that the referendum itself should be read to reflect the support of the city only if it wins a majority of the vote citywide and in the host neighborhood.  In so doing, the referendum gives the people of East Boston a position of primacy, an important protection against others potentially imposing a casino on a neighborhood that may or may not embrace one.  Conversely, this two-part threshold prevents a single neighborhood from setting a course for the entire city that is so potentially momentous.

Finally, we should take whatever steps we can to ensure that the referendum itself is conducted on a level playing field.  Casino interests are clearly in a position to spend millions to affect the outcome of the referendum.  A campaign spending cap would be ideal.  Short of this however, any contributions and expenditures made in the referendum campaign should be completely transparent and fully and publicly disclosed.

We are one city, with one shared future.  If this statement is to be a matter of fact, and not merely a slogan, then the referendum itself must be citywide and its results read to reflect our shared stake in it.

divestment is one thing, investment quite another…

… almost by definition =-)

Today, fossil fuel companies represent two of the ten largest investments in the both the Public Retiree Investment Trust (PRIT) fund’s $9.4b domestic and $8.2b international equity portfolios. An additional $780 million invested across three other portfolios means the Commonwealth invests around $1.3 billion in state assets in fossil fuels.

While “investing” in fossil fuels often carries with it less risk of loss of principle, and increased chance of returns and dividends, and thus makes it a good “investment”, when seen from a purely mercenary point of view, it really isn’t “investment” in the sense I think you mean: buying stock in Exxon is buying stock in the churn of drill, refine, burn, gasp and, you’re not really making anything better. In addition, there is unlikely to be any sort of multiplier. You might help Exxon pump crude out of the ground faster. You might fund another, bigger, tanker that’ll (hopefully safely) get the crude to the refinery). But you’re not investing in much progress. If anything, you’re working against the present state of things where most modes of conveyance, cars, boats, airplanes and trains are in a race to become more fuel efficient. The actual process of turning crude into petrol isn’t all that different from the cracking processes first invented in the 1890′s and refined in the 1920′s. It’s an industry in stasis and unlikely to change. The only thing that will change is the amount of crude available. I had hopes when British Petroleum tried to change it’s name to “Beyond Petroleum” but they suffer, distinctly, from the same issue described here: the lure of easy cash returns rather than real progress.

But specifically investing in renewables is specifically investing in progress: things will need to be built, problems solved, infrastructures built and maintained, and energy delivered. As such, it’s a real investment and, bonus, likely to have a more potent multiplier and a much longer shelf life. Personally, and for those reasons, I’d like to see that 1.3b spent chasing progress, perhaps even eventually being chased by it, rather than simply chasing more bucks in an ever diminishing spiral of diminishing returns. But I don’t think of it as ‘divestment’ in fossil fuels but ‘investment’ in progress.

Yeah. If you’re running the state’s investment fund and investing in fossil fuels, you’re betting against the state’s interests. You could invest that money elsewhere and get a decent return without directly hastening catastrophe. As a candidate Steve Grossman talked about using the state’s funds to invest in Massachusetts itself; we should keep this frame of reference in mind.

Via ABC News

Gabriel Gomez’s incoherence on climate science and energy policy makes a lot more sense once you take a deeper dive into his personal finances, as Joshua Israel did at ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress review of Gomez’s personal financial disclosure filings reveals that a significant amount of his own money is invested, directly or indirectly, in dirty energy stocks and bonds. These include investments of between $1,000 and $15,000 each in:

1. Emerson Electric Co., which automates oil and gas operations for energy companies.
2. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company.
3. Occidental Petroleum Corp., an international oil and gas exploration and production company.
4. Schlumberger Ltd., a the world’s largest supplier of technology and project management services for the oil and gas industry worldwide.
5. Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., a deepwater drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.
6. DTE Energy Co., a Detroit-based electric and gas utility.
7. Dominion Resources, a Richmond-based electric utility.
8. Xcel Energy Inc., a Minneapolis-based electric and gas utility.
9. Gulf Power Co., a Florida-based electric utility.
10. Southern California Edison, a California-based electric utility.
11. Entergy Louisiana, a Louisiana-based electric utility

By doing the dirty work of his out-of-state polluting investments, Gomez is turning his back on the more than 71,000 people who work in Massachusetts’ booming clean energy industry. He’s also ignoring the impacts that climate change is already having on Massachusetts – stronger storms like Sandy, rising sea levels, deeper droughts, and deadlier summer heat waves.

As I’m knocking on doors for Ed Markey in the weeks ahead, this story speaks to the one thing I’ll be telling undecided voters: Gomez is so beholden to big money – polluters, national Republicans, shady tax breaks – that we just can’t trust the guy to do what’s right for Massachusetts.

The Huffington Post is reporting that Minnasota Senate Passes Gay Marriage, Governor to Sign. That is immediately after a sometimes bitter fight over their constitution last fall.

<

That’s 25% of the Country. Y’ALL. (Technically 24%, but what is a rounding error between “Friends”)
Hurray for Lake Wobegon!

When this story broke, I expected someone from BMG to write a post by now, condemning the actions of how the IRS profiled Tea Party groups for additional scrutiny, akin to what the New Jersey police did when profiling certain drivers on their highways, back in the day. Perhaps it was just a busy few days for everyone, here is hoping this will be my first post promoted by one of the Big 3.

Apparently, IRS officials in Cincinnati, responsible for reviewing applications for tax-exempt status, subjected certain groups with further investigations, that included words like “tea party”, “patriots” or stated issues included government spending, debt, or taxes.  IRS Director Lois Lerner has stated that only low-level employees were involved……..

Anyway, how would BMG’s feel if the IRS, under a Republican POTUS, targeted groups with the names that included “progressive”, or “brotherhood”, or “reproductive rights” or even “blue”?  I believe there would be an outrage, as there should be.

“The Tea Party groups were seeking tax-exempt status under a provision of the tax code for social welfare groups — so called 501(c)(4) organizations. Unlike other charities, these groups are allowed to engage in political advocacy as long as it’s not their primary purpose. ”  For instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is recognized by the IRS under this section.

The additional information requested of Tea Party groups often included requests for donor lists, which the IRS later admitted was inappropriate and “troubling.” Tea Party groups who protested were told they didn’t have to submit the information, and those donor lists that were submitted have been destroyed,(que pic of Dr Evil above) IRS officials told the inspector general.

The Washington Post wrote an editorial, which said

“A BEDROCK principle of U.S. democracy is that the coercive powers of government are never used for partisan purpose. The law is blind to political viewpoint, and so are its enforcers, most especially the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of this principle threatens the trust and the voluntary cooperation of citizens upon which this democracy depends.

“So it was appalling to learn Friday that the IRS had improperly targeted conservative groups for scrutiny. It was almost as disturbing that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have not personally apologized to the American people and promised a full investigation.”  I concur with the Washington Post Editorial Board and hope you do as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/11/irs-tea-party-investigation-timeline/2153007/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

Daniel Kurtman compiles Mark Sanford:

“I remind all you conservative Christians celebrating Mark Sanford’s win that Leviticus commands you to stone adulterers.” -John Fugelsang

“Congratulations to newly elected Rep. Mark Sanford. Finally, the Congress will have an expert on foreign affairs.” -The Capitol Steps

“According to exit polls, Mr. Sanford held a three-to-one lead among voters who described themselves as liars, cheaters, or sleazebags.” -Andy Borowitz

“According to exit polls, voters felt that Mr. Sanford’s opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, did not have the lying experience necessary to serve in Congress.” -Andy Borowitz

Daniel Kurtzman:

Obama at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner:

“Some folks still don’t think I spend enough time with Congress. ‘Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?’ they ask. Really? Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?”

On the sequester: “Republicans fell in love with this thing, and now they can’t stop talking about how much they hate it. It’s like we’re trapped in a Taylor Swift album.”

On MSNBC: “Some of my former advisers have switched over to the dark side. For example, David Axelrod now works for MSNBC, which is a nice change of pace since MSNBC used to work for David Axelrod.”

On his charm offensive: “I’m taking my charm offensive on the road — a Texas barbeque with Ted Cruz, a Kentucky bluegrass concert with Rand Paul, and a book-burning with Michele Bachmann.”

On plans for the Obama Library: “Some have suggested that we put it in my birthplace, but I’d rather keep it in the United States. Did anybody not see that joke coming? Show of hands. Only Gallup? Maybe Dick Morris?”

Conan O’Brien’s Best Jokes from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

On Fox News: “My prior experience has taught me how these dinners work. If the President laughs, everyone laughs. And if the Fox News table laughs, a little girl just fell off her bike.”

On print media: “The print media are here for two very good reasons: food and shelter.”

On Chris Christie: “I’d like to acknowledge that earlier this evening, there was some confusion with the seating chart. For a moment, someone accidentally sat Governor Chris Christie with the Republicans. That was awkward, and I apologize.”

On Marco Rubio: “The Republican Party has a new rising star, Marco Rubio, or as he’s known in the Republican Party, our black guy.”

Thanks to a robust and forward-thinking partnership amongst the Patrick Administration, Legislature, municipalities, environmental advocates and utilities, Massachusetts has taken the lead on combating climate change. By investing in clean energy and energy efficiency, we are showing the nation that we can reduce our impact on the climate while also creating jobs. Unfortunately, Washington hasn’t seen the wisdom of our ways. Our national energy policy is stuck in a debate about who can promote fossil fuels more.

Given that, we have more to do here in Massachusetts – but what more can we do? I propose we need to stop investing in oil, coal and other fossil fuels with our public pension funds. We need to follow the call of college students on campuses nationwide, the faith community, progressive cities and towns, and others by divesting from fossil fuels. I’ve filed legislation to do this (S. 1225) and I hope you’ll lend your support to make Massachusetts a leader in this effort.

 

Chapter 6, Verse 21 of the Gospel of Matthew says “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” While, we are making historic  investments in clean energy, energy efficiency and conservation, we have maintained major investments in fossil fuels. Today, fossil fuel companies represent two of the ten largest investments in the both the Public Retiree Investment Trust (PRIT) fund’s $9.4b domestic and $8.2b international equity portfolios. An additional $780 million invested across three other portfolios means the Commonwealth invests around $1.3 billion in state assets in fossil fuels.

At the same time, Massachusetts has invested nearly $2 billion in energy efficiency improvements through the 3-year efficiency plans and reached unprecedented levels of investment in incentives and credits to promote clean energy installation. We’ve been recognized by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) as the top state for energy efficiency. We’ve hit our ambitious solar energy production goals (a 125X increase) 4 years early and have embarked on a significant new goal. However, our heart is split in two, because our wealth is split in two. Maybe more importantly, the success of our efforts around efficiency, conservation and clean energy is stunted, by continued investment of pension funds in companies whose profits depend on continued greenhouse gas emissions.

At some level, divestment of pension funds from the fossil fuel industry is imminent.  No matter how stagnated, if not backward, the politics of climate currently are in Washington, the impacts of climate change – more severe, unpredictable weather events – will necessitate action.  Bill McKibben & others have rightly labeled this the “Carbon Bubble.” For as long as we invest in fossil fuels and ignore the science of climate, we will enable the bubble to grow. It will pop and when it does, the pain it produces is entirely dependent on how fast we act.

Perhaps the most egregious part of our current investment in fossil fuels is this – they don’t need the money. In 2012, Exxon Mobil nearly set a company, and by extension world, record for profit. Earnings of $44.9 billion fell $300 million short of the 2008 record of $45.2 billion set by the company. Personally, I don’t begrudge them. We have failed to change our policy priorities to the degree necessary to combat climate change. Exxon Mobil is just responding to the market as it currently exists (while admittedly joining with most other fossil companies in seeking to keep it that way through political lobbying and influence peddling). That is why, more so than ever before, it is incumbent on us – those who care deeply about the future of our communities and this planet – to do everything in our power to change the market, the politics and the dynamic of our current debate about climate.

I, like many others, have watched the increased activism on climate since the 2012 elections with great hope and promise. Seeing 40,000 marchers of diverse backgrounds gather in Washington, D.C. to call on the Obama Administration to reject Keystone XL, along with countless other protests, has given me hope that our national leaders will no longer turn a blind eye to the challenge our of times. However, if we have learned anything from the recent past, it is that we cannot wait for Washington to act.  That is why I chose to file this legislation. As Bill McKibben notes regularly in his recent speeches, at least now we will be able to tell future generations we did not go down without a fight. My hope is we will be able to tell them, this is where we started to stem the tide. I hope you’ll join me in this portion of that effort.

Divestment Campaigns

Here are a couple of the highlights – these are direct quotes from Hiller:

It isn’t clear whether Gomez broke the law, but it’s crystal clear he got a giant tax break that doesn’t pass the smell test….

Memo to Gabriel Gomez: this is not something to be proud of, if you’re running for political office.
Why?
Because it makes you look like a rich person taking advantage of tax laws very few people know about.
Because it can make voters wonder about your values and ethics.
And because it sounds like a scam, even if it’s not.

Oof. Add to that the ongoing hilarity of Gomez’s refusing to release any information about how much financial benefit this tax break gave him, and you’ve got a serious political problem brewing. Why won’t he release the information from his 2005 tax return? Because “I have nothing to hide.” Aha.

Newbie candidates like Gomez never seem to believe that the old “cover-up is worse than the crime” maxim (and no, nobody’s alleging a “crime” here, it’s just an expression so lighten up) applies to them, just like it does to everyone else. But it does. If Gomez had any sense, he would immediately (a) release the information showing how much the deduction benefited him, and (b) request that the IRS review the details of his deduction, and promise that if they found it improper, he would repay the benefit plus interest. He can afford it, and it’s the right thing to do.

Our state budget describes not only what we want to do together as a Commonwealth in the coming year but also longer-term investments to strengthen our communities, create high-wage jobs, and ensure the future vibrancy of our economy.

In recent months, the Senate, the House, and the Governor have all committed to raising various amounts of new revenue to support some new investments. “Comparing Revenue Proposals for Transportation, Education, and Other Investments” outlines the differences between their plans—both for next year and for FY 2018, when the plans are fully phased in.

• The House and Senate proposals focus largely on transportation, particularly in later years. This is in contrast to the Governor’s plan, which raises significantly more revenue to increase funding for college scholarship programs and to expand access to high-quality early education & care, among other things.
• By FY 2018, the House and Senate would devote less money to fixing and repairing our roads, buses, bridges and other transportation networks than the Governor’s proposal.
• The House and Senate proposals would raise comparable amounts of new revenue, and both count on similar funding support from transportation agencies (likely including user fee increases). The two proposals differ in that: 1) the Senate version includes an additional $38 million in new revenue and; 2) the Senate dedicates $77 million to transportation that the House would leave unrestricted.

“Comparing Revenue Proposals for Transportation, Education, and Other Investments” is part of a series of MassBudget briefs analyzing key elements in the budget proposals for FY 2014.

That’s the only way I can explain why this story didn’t come out during the GOP primary.

Republican US Senate nominee Gabriel E. Gomez claimed a $281,500 income tax deduction in 2005 for pledging not to make any visible changes to the facade of his 112-year-old Cohasset home, a concession so valuable that it is classified as a charitable contribution under a federal law designed to protect historic homes.

But Gomez and his wife, Sarah, were already barred from making any changes to the exterior of their home under the bylaws of the local Historical Commission, raising the question as to whether their donation — the price of which is based on the loss of value in their real estate — had any monetary worth.

The Gomezes, whose 59 Highland Ave. home is located within the Cohasset Common Historic District, gave the historical easement to the National Architectural Trust, a Washington-based organization whose marketing of tax-deductible easements to homeowners has been targeted by the US Department of Justice.

Five weeks after the Gomezes claimed the deduction, the Internal Revenue Service listed programs such as this — that involve the “contribution of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization” — as one of its “Dirty Dozen tax scams.”

…

One specialist in conservation easement law, Scott Knott, a tax partner in The Ferraro Law Firm in Washington, D.C., said that if easements mandated by local laws are already in place, homeowners have nothing to claim as a tax deduction.

“The key is the valuation of the easement and if there is already a restriction on the property, the value is not diminished by the easement,” said Knott. “The value of any easement that has the same restriction already in place is zero.”

…

Dean Zerbe, former senior counsel for the Senate Finance Committee, who investigated abusive tax breaks, asserts the deduction for facade easements is “unconscionable” because it is almost exclusively for the “one percent…. It is wealthy people playing fast and loose.”

…

A Senate Finance Committee inquiry, which led to some reforms in 2006 in the program and tightened up procedures, prompted criticism on Capitol Hill of the nonprofit historic preservation firms that were marketing the tax deduction.

“It is very discouraging to find yet another example of snake oil salesmen misusing tax-exempt status and abusing the tax laws intended to encourage charitable giving, all for the purpose of making a fast buck,” [Republican Senator Charles] Grassley, then chairman of the Committee on Finance, said in a December 2004 press release.

Of course, the notion that someone should receive a tax deduction of nearly $300,000 for promising not to do what they can’t do anyway is absurd on its face, and that’s why the IRS targeted this particular tax scam as one of its “dirty dozen.”  And the fact that Republicans like Chuck Grassley hate this particular deduction is further evidence of how sleazy it is.

Mike Sullivan and Dan Winslow must be kicking themselves over this.

Take this with a biiiiig grain of salt: Suffolk is showing Markey with a 52-35 lead over Gomez. Not sure what to make of that, since PPP just showed Ed up by 4.

Maybe it means that polls don’t mean much between two candidates that haven’t been thoroughly introduced to the general public yet – particularly Gomez. Or perhaps it reflects the difference in enthusiasm and unity between the Dems and GOP at this point.

In any event, better to be up than down. Now we gotta do the grunt work – as does Ed.

The Massachusetts Democrat introduced a bill Tuesday which would let students pay the same interest rate on their government loans as banks.

Student loan interest rates are set to jump from 3.4 to 6.8 percent in July. Warren said banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve at an interest rate of less than 1 percent.

The degree to which our political culture, business culture, and educational culture has abandoned young adults is just obscene. Banks know they’re an easy mark. Politicians have left them with austerity budgets and an austerity economy.

Colleges jack up prices, leveraging the dream that an – their extra-premium education – is worth any cost; and use their financial aid to attract the wealthy rather than the best qualified:

U.S. colleges such as Boston University are using financial aid to lure rich students while shortchanging the poor, forcing those most in need to take on heavy debt, a report found.

…

The research analyzing U.S. Education Department data for the 2010-2011 school year undercuts the claims of many wealthy colleges that financial-aid practices make their institutions affordable, said Stephen Burd, the report’s author. He singled out schools — including Boston University and George Washington University — that appear especially pricey for poor families.

Thanks to our new Senator for starting to chip away at this corrupt edifice of student finance.

Later this afternoon Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Steve Tolman will kickoff Labor’s 2013 US Senate Campaign. The downtown Boston event will bring local union activists and leaders together with Congressman Markey . . . and Congressman Stephen Lynch. Since last Tuesday’s election Congressman Lynch has been a class act making sure his supporters know he is supporting Ed Markey on June 25th.

In case you missed Dan Winslow’s very pointed Primary night remarks – Dan attempted to reachout to Lynch supporters and sway them to Gomez. Winslow said the Democratic Party leaders in Washington DC “sole” this election from Steve Lynch and encouraged Lynch supporters to jump on the Gomez bandwagon.

To Steve Lynch’s credit he stood with Ed Markey the morning of the Unity event and will stand with Markey again today to encourage the core of Lynch’s support – Organized Labor – to vote for Ed Markey on June 25th.

In about seven short weeks, Massachusetts voters will head to the polls to elect our next U.S. Senator. The race is close between Ed Markey and Gabriel Gomez and it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of that. We will NOT let a Republican like Gabriel Gomez go down to Washington and cancel out Elizabeth Warren’s votes, which is why we need to fully execute our grassroots strategy and start talking to voters across the state.

During the last election cycle, the Mass Dems started the Dem Doors Diaries. Democrats win when we organize precinct by precinct, knocking on our neighbor’s doors, which is why every weekend Democrats disperse around Massachusetts to make personal contacts with voters and discuss the issues that really matter. Dem Doors Diaries is a way for canvassers to share their thoughts and the experiences they had while knocking on doors and talking to voters.

By sharing your experiences, you push others to start canvassing and help new organizers feel more comfortable about going out on their own or with a friend! Don’t forget to tweet and use the hashtag #DemDoors! Spread the word and make the excitement about canvassing last beyond the weekend!

Chairman Walsh’s new sneakers are broken in and ready for canvassing and he will be joining Democrats across the state to knock on doors for Ed Markey! He’s more ready than ever so hopefully you’re ready to join him!

If you wrote about your experience and would like to share, please email me early in the week at shooper@massdems.org.

June 25th is much closer than you think so let’s get to work!

Thank you,

Samantha

Gabby Gomez wants this race to be about anything but policy.  He wants to smile, talk about his military cred and your many years in a failed Washington – despite the fact that you actually worked in Washington when it worked, before the Tea Party took it hostage.  He does not want to talk about issues or his ever changeable and evolving views.  Like Scott Brown before him, he wants a beauty contest, not a contest of ideas – and with a short calendar, he hopes he can skate by and pick off a low turnout victory.

The conventional wisdom in campaigns is often that policy doesn’t matter – message does.  Keeping policy meat off the table is the safe route forward.  But while such wisdom may work for a policy-lite newcomer like Gabby Gomez, it will not work for a long-term experienced Congressman like you.  Your strength is policy so you have to make the race about it.

The way to do this is by calling him out – every morning – holding a press conference in a different city or town in the Commonwealth – and asking “what does Gabby believe?” You start each morning off with a different policy theme.  You state where you stand, your record and you ask Gabby where he stands, for his solutions, relentlessly for the next few weeks through May.  The goal of such an exercise would be to expose Gabby Gomez for 1) not being clear about what he believes and 2) believing things that most people in Massachusetts find anathema.

So for example, how about tomorrow you go down to Quincy (which you need to focus on given you got destroyed there by Lynch) and you speak about education and the sequester cuts that are devastating education programs across the country – cuts that will result in 70,000 kids being kicked out of Head Start programs, and how programs on the South Shore are being effected.  You tell local and Boston press that you want these cuts overturned immediately and that you would pay for it by ending tax breaks that allow hedge fund managers to pay less in tax on their income than everyone else.  Then you ask – what does Gabby believe?  What is he going to do about these cuts?  Would he do anything?  How would he pay for it? Is he for his hedge fund private equity buddies keeping their tax breaks at the expense of these kids?

Because you know what you are talking about – you know how things get done – and you have ideas about fixing problems because you have fixed problems in Washington, you should expose Gabby Gomez as not only a lightweight on policy, but also a confused and conflicted light weight. Every time you raise a different issue – the assault weapons ban, choice, corporate tax breaks, the minimum wage, labor laws, funding for infrastructure, climate change – you force Gomez to respond or look empty.  Call him out and he will be put on the defensive and have to answer – but his answers will be vague and shaddy because Republicans in Massachusetts have to find some way of saying what they believe without scaring people – and that will further drive the “Gabby is Empty” meme.

The more you ask “What does Gabby believe” – the more the press and people will too.  The more the issues come out, the more press and people will remember why this election matters.  The more the base hears you talking about the issues, the more it will rally to your cause.  The more you are clear and detailed about where you stand and your strong record – the more people will understand there is only one real choice to represent Massachusetts in the Senate – you!

The best candidates focus on their strengths as a means of overcoming their flip-side weaknesses.  You can do that by making the race a contest of ideas and experience – not running from yours but embracing it and calling the other guy out for having none.

Good luck – we will be out there with you – backing you on the issues.  I mean “What does Gabby believe” anyway?

We did, after all, manage to bury Lee Harvey Oswald. Had Timothy McVeigh not been cremated, we’d have buried him too. This fiasco makes our so-called leaders look inept and ridiculous.

So we have protestors saying that the body should be dragged around for dogs to eat, as if we were in Mogadishu or Falluja. There’s a public health prescription for you.

Sorry, Governor, but yeah it is your job to do something with a dead body that no one wants. And the washing of hands by you, Cambridge City Manager Healey, Ed Markey and everyone else is not punishment for the dead bomber. It’s punishing the people who have tried to do the right thing: Funeral director Peter Stefan and Uncle Ruslan.

None of this not-my-problem attitude is going to bring back the dead victims, or punish the perpetrators. It’s not going to help a single bombing victim.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead. Bury the body. Honor the dead and help the living. Step up and stop acting like children.

Good ideas and thoughts here from WBUR.

There are SEVEN weekends between now and the June 25th election. This is a critical race for Massachusetts and the U. S. Senate and the polls are way too close for my comfort.

Now is the time to start blocking out time to help. Build volunteer time into your schedule now. Don’t think of it as something you do when you don’t have anything else to do.

A good plan is to block out one afternoon or evening every week, and a few hours on either Saturday or Sunday to help. Make this a priority. Is going to the gym taking up your time? Canvassing is an exercise in Democracy with the emphasis on EXERCISE. You need to spend some time with friends? Invite them to join you and then go out afterwards.

Some people may not be in a position to block off time to volunteer twice a week, but for seven weeks you can make it a priority to block off ONCE a week to help out. Something might come up causing you to cancel once or twice. Try to makeup the day. When someone calls me to cancel a volunteer gig, I ask when do you want to make up this time. More often than not, people will.

Think of how people felt when we lost the U. S. Senate seat back in 2010. We don’t want that to happen again.

Contact your local leader or call the campaign at 617-286-4147. I’ve had good luck reaching people at this number. If for any reason you have difficulty reaching someone, try again or call me at 508-404-8531.

So Clear Channel Media Holdings (owned by Bain Capital), the folks who signed a $400 million 8 year deal with Rush Limbaugh four years ago, are having an absolutely terrible time lately, posting a $200 million loss in their Q1 earnings report. While not entirely due to the actions of the Flush Rush organization, their success in eliminating over 2,600 sponsors from Limbaugh’s hate-filled show is certainly having an impact. There’s a great post at DKos today summarizing the mess Clear Channel finds itself in, you can read it here:

StopRush Contributes to Worst Drop in Advertising in Radio History

These foks have set up an easy web-based database to use for finding Rush’s sponsors in your area – just type in your zip code and a search radius on this page and you’ll find a list of advertisers and several easy contact methods:

StopRush Database Search

I found 12 advertisers within 25 miles of my zip code, so I clicked through to their Facebook pages and posted this on their walls:

Did you know your ads are playing on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on WRKO? Did you know he made pressure cooker jokes on the air the day after the Boston Marathon bombings? Are you ok with your brand being associated with the hateful invective Rush spouts on the air every single day? Please contact WRKO and tell them to pull your ads from Limbaugh’s brand of hate radio.

I also sent it to them through the Facebook message system, to make sure they see it. Some of the advertisers had removed their Facebook pages, but the database provided a customer service email address, so I sent the message that way. All in all, it took me about ten minutes, and I felt a whole lot better after I did it!

Here’s some more links if you’d like to join the effort to defund Rush Limbaugh:

Join: The Flush Rush Facebook community
Visit: The StopRush sponsor database
Tweet: #stoprush Twitter campaign
Fact Check: Limbaugh Lie Debunking Site
Install: ThinkContext StopRush browser extension–notifies you as you browse which companies advertise on Rush

There is one factor that heavily favors Gabriel Gomez among some independent voters: he isn’t a Democrat.  While it’s impossible for most Massachusetts Democrats to understand, there are people who are just sick of seeing us win all the time.  They don’t vote for the Republican just because they believe that having another perspective, any other perspective, makes for better government (and they really do think that), they also vote for the Republican because they want the Democrat to lose.

Like watching Susan Lucci lose year after year on the Daytime Emmy Awards, they watch the Republicans lose elections.  They think it just doesn’t seem fair.  All those Democrats, marching in lock step.  It’s the Machine!, they think.  The God-damned machine has done it again!

But the Massachusetts Democrats are not some machine with a switch you can flick to elect people.  If it were, Martha Coakley would be a United States Senator.  Unlike  the Yankees, who really do suck and who really do just buy their victories, the Massachusetts Democrats win for two reasons: we’re right on the issues, and we work harder.

We start by listening, and understanding the concerns of most Massachusetts voters, like jobs, education, health care, transportation, climate change, and campaign finance reform.  Then we develop evidence-based policy to address those issues.  We send our people to knock on doors armed with the facts, and explain what we stand for and how our candidates will make a difference when elected.

Gabriel Gomez hasn’t done any of that. He’s a one percenter who equates speaking English as a second language with growing up underprivileged.  He thinks deregulation will create jobs, even though there is no evidence to support that, and Mitt Romney just lost big time trying to pitch that one.

But as long as the Democrats keep listening, using facts and evidence to build their case, and the Republicans don’t, we’ll keep winning even if we don’t spend the most money.  Why am I not worried about giving away all the tricks of the trade to the Republicans?  Because if they really listened to the voters of Massachusetts, and developed evidence-based policies to address their concerns, they’d turn into Democrats.

Mara Dolan is the host of “Twilight Talk” on WCAP and the Co-Chair of the Policy Committee of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee.  Follow me on Twitter @MaraDolan

Gomez is starting out as a pretty popular candidate, with 41% of voters rating him favorably to 27% with an unfavorable opinion. Beyond having good numbers with Republicans he’s at 42/24 with independents, and actually seen narrowly positively even by Democrats at 33/32. Voters meanwhile are more divided on Markey, with 44% holding a positive view of him to 41% with a negative one. He’s at 31/50 with independents….

The good news for Markey in the poll beyond the obvious fact that he’s in the lead is that Barack Obama remains pretty popular in the state. He has a 53/41 approval rating. Obama was at only 44/43 when Brown won in 2010 and the President’s lack of popularity was a big contributor to the upset. He’s in a much better position this time around. The pool of undecided voters also sets up well for Markey- they voted for Obama by 18 points in November, 32% are liberals compared to only 25% who are conservatives, and 61% of them are women. Those are all demographics that ought to end up favorable to him in the end.

As I said a couple days after Gomez won, he will be the flavor of the week for a while, and that is IMHO almost certainly reflected in these poll numbers – particularly with Lynch voters who may need a while to shake off the primary campaign.  But make no mistake: at least at first glance, Gomez is an appealing guy and must be taken seriously.  Here’s hoping the media actually do their job, which in this case I’d say is to force the candidates to explain what they actually think about things, rather than letting them get away with the usual bromides.  If they do that, it seems unlikely to go well for Gomez.

Gabriel Gomez, the Republican opponent of Democrat Ed Markey in the U.S. Senate special election to fill John Kerry’s seat in Massachusetts, is working hard to be all things to all people, and nowhere is that more evident than his positions truthiness on climate and energy policy:

Climate change is real. However, while science says climate change is real, addressing the problem must be done rationally. Unfortunately, many solutions offered by politicians in Washington are not rational, and would put America at a competitive disadvantage. We need a serious energy agenda that promotes private sector innovation in both the United States and in other countries around the world.

Oh, I get it. He supports confronting climate change with a national policy to spur clean energy projects like Cape Wind, right? Not exactly:

Gomez, however, said [Cape Wind] is an issue that should be decided at the local level, and that the local authorities have been pretty much excluded from the process. Gomez made it clear his is opposed to Cape Wind.

So, local control all the way! Then he must oppose Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because of strong local opposition, right? Wrong again:

The Obama administration is wrong in stopping the Keystone pipeline, a project that will create jobs, drive down our energy costs, and help us to become energy independent.

Worth noting: Gabriel Gomez thinks that for some reason TransCanada is dramatically lowballing the benefits of its own Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. TransCanada doesn’t say Keystone will drive down energy costs – it knows Keystone won’t lower gas prices anywhere in America and would actually raise gas prices in the Midwest. TransCanada doesn’t say Keystone will make America energy independent – it knows Keystone is an export pipeline that’s being built to get tar sands to the Gulf Coast and the international market so Canada doesn’t have to dump tar sands oil in the Midwest anymore.

To sum up, Gabriel Gomez says he understands climate change is threatening Massachusetts with extreme weather like superstorm Sandy, rising sea levels, and deadly summer heat waves – he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. And Gomez thinks we need a national energy policy, except in cases where the mansion views of Republican donors are threatened, or if those donors really want a polluting project built even if it’s not in America’s national interest.

What’s the reason for Gomez’s incoherence? With the U.S. Senate’s antiquated disclosure laws, we don’t know yet where Gomez is getting his money. But given his refusal to sign the people’s pledge to reject big-spending special interests, I’d suspect he personally knows exactly what climate change means, but he knows the implications of that truth are far too inconvenient for today’s fossil fuel money-addicted Republican Party.

Cross-posted from The Green Miles