Keller Cackles Antagonistic Sympathies

Anyone else a little suspicious when Jon Keller tries to give Democrats good advice? Ah, that concern trolling, it's one of Rightwingtopia's favorite hobbies. Apparently, Obama's New Hampshire loss wasn't his worst day, it was the day when John Kerry officially endorsed him. Anything you say, Jon.

This reminds me of a favorite movie scene: When the Wicked Witch of the West exploded onto the scene in Munckinland, Glinda told her, "you have no power here, be gone." If only Wicked Witches would listen to such sage advice.

Apparently, Keller Quoted Me in his Book

According to David, I'm one of the lucky winners who gets to be quoted in Jon Keller's upcoming novelization of Massachusetts politics. Hooray! One wonders what incredibly nefarious, communist, ebil left-wing thing I had to say to pull that off? People should have equal rights? Health care for all? So, will Keller's work of art be a complete and utter work of fiction? David seems to think so - and he was given an advance copy. Was Keller actually hoping for some favorable press?

Well, here's what a small portion of I-Don't-Think-So tastes like, courtesy of David Kravitz.

The book is an unwieldy amalgam of serious issues (e.g., waste and corruption on the Big Dig), Keller's personal pet peeves (is political correctness really responsible for crime in the cities?), and a smattering of right-wing talking points (remember the welfare queens?), all swirled together with little regard to what's a real problem and what just annoys Jon. Even more peculiar is Keller's willingness to ascribe just
about every one of these perceived problems to "liberals" -- even though, as I've already pointed out, many of the people Keller is complaining about are not, in fact, liberal. The tendency that I was concerned about by the time I got to page 11 -- conflating "Massachusetts Democrat" with "liberal" -- continues unabated throughout the book.

Peter Porcupine thinks I should read the book anyway - giving it the benefit of the doubt - but I say Keller's body of work is large enough as is to decide he's nothing but a pundit who'll say anything for attention and ratings. After all, he's an Important Man and what he says matters, just because he said it, dammit. But, I suppose now I'll be lured in with the prospect of catching just whatever he had to say about me and disproving it. But, hey, at least I know I'm past Ghandi's first stage - because I certainly wasn't ignored. But am I being laughed at - or is he using fighting words? I suppose I'll have to wait for the book, but in the end it doesn't matter - because we, as a progressive movement in Massachusetts, are already circling our prey for the win.

Jon Keller's Answer

Jon Keller posted a blog today on the similarities between Senator Obama and Governor Patrick.

What are the chances that two late-wave baby-boomer liberals – both trailblazing a kind of new-age political spin that markets vague policy nostrums by casting themselves as calming antidotes to boom-era strife – would use the very same term to dismiss effective criticism of their wobbly performances? We knew these two were friends and allies. Could it be they talk more than we know?

The answer? Who cares. Every politician has friends and allies - does anyone really care if they take advice, especially when the advice isn't coming from a paid lobbyist? Is it objectionable that Patrick and Obama would talk about certain common problems they have faced thus far? Heck, at the very least we know that's one less paid D.C. consultant giving Obama bad advice.

Finally, I hate to even ask this question, but if we were talking about two different politicians, especially from the other party, would we even be having this discussion right now? Heck, if Hillary gets Bill - no questions asked - at least Obama should be able to have Governor Patrick, if Patrick ends up choosing to back him.

Jon Keller's Arrogance: the People Don't Matter

That's essentially what he says. Deval Patrick can't possibly get his issues passed, because the legislature just doesn't care about people anymore.

I have news for the Patrick organization: if they think that rallies on the state house steps or global e-mail barrages are going to influence votes on Beacon Hill, they’re in for a nasty shock. The legislature has made it clear in recent years that they’re growing impervious to general public feedback.

Referendum questions approved by the voters are routinely ignored. Incumbents almost never lose. Why SHOULD they worry?

Keller's mad - just angry - that Deval Patrick's team won't be naming names on their website. While it may be helpful if his team did, it could just spark the kind of nasty battle that would be counterproductive. Patrick's supporters will know the names, rest assured Mr. Keller, they'll just get them from bloggers, friends and individual supporters on the website. After all, that's what the website is all about: the people. The people can easily name names. Right now, I'm naming Keller - a talking head who was very wrong yet again.

Update: David disagrees with much of my assessment - and he does have a point. Naming names could have a tremendous impact, but there is some risk. If Deval Patrick changes his mind, I'll run with it, though he risks further alienating people he is going to need to work with. It's a tough choice - that's why we put him in office. Ultimately, he's accountable for whatever he chooses. If Jon Keller were slightly less condescending toward democracy and focused more on that point, he may have convinced me.