Five Things to Remember this November

Every time I think of why people shouldn't vote for someone like Scott Brown, Mitt Romney or Richard Tisei, my mind immediately goes to great lengths to come up with things about complicated policy reasons people aren't going to remember. Sometimes, it's the simple things that count -- and will allude to the more complicated things anyway.

Here's five simple things that you should tell your friends, family and neighbors for this November. 

• If a candidate has a Swiss bank account, a Cayman Islands bank account and a bank account in Bermuda, one he kept secret while in office, you should probably vote for the other guy.
• For as much as Republicans politicians like to rail against government, it's amazing just how much they love it when it comes to extracting everything they from it for their Wall St. friends. Wars they can't pay for (or finish)? Check. Bailing out the banks and giving tax loopholes to Fortune 500 Companies? Check. Then, when all the money's gone, they'll try to use your Social Security funds to pay for it.
• If a candidate's entire campaign is based on how nice his family is, he doesn't have anything to to run on. If he does so while talking about how much time he spends with his family during the daytime as an office holder, that means he wasn't doing his job.
• If a candidate runs on being a moderate, but will vote for John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, he's lying.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics... and more Lies

So, if there's lies, damned lies and statistics... what do we call it when the statistics are baloney?

The state of the Tierney-Tisei campaign, from the Salem News, reveals this tidbit on the two campaigns' dueling polls:

Tierney's camp, however, said the GOP poll "has a double-digit Republican bias," noting that the same poll showed U.S. Sen. Scott Brown with "an implausible 24-point lead" over Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren. Statewide, the two are virtually tied. 

In fact, the GOP poll does have elevated Republican representation, GOP poll author John McLaughlin said in an email to The Salem News.

Now, I have no idea who is 'winning' this race, but when a campaign releases a poll that shows it's 'up' by doubling the size of Republicans in the poll, that's just making shit up.

Given how expensive polls are, there aren't likely to be many good polls in this race going forward, but it's always a good bet to take what the candidates have to say on the horse-race stuff with a grain of salt. Especially the media.

Podcast Central: Marriage Equality, John Walsh, the State Senate and More!

I've been seriously negligent on my LeftAhead promos here on RyansTake, so here's a batch of our last few.

• Interview with Boston City Councilor Steve Murphy. We chatted lots of Boston topics, but also focused in on the proposed Suffolk Downs casino. Here's your chance to see what the President of the Boston City Council thinks about that, including whether or not the entirety of Boston should be able to vote on it, or just East Boston. I'll spare folks my thoughts on that matter, because if you're here, you probably know it already.
• State Democratic Party Chairman John Walsh. We love having John Walsh on and it always makes for a great show. He went over the strategy for this year's elections and I loved his thoughts, toward the end of the show, on the brewing Tierney-Tisei congressional race, which promises to be a doozy. Let's just say Tisei, the 'moderate' got behind the Blunt amendment... 
• Mike and I on the Republican Reality TV Primary, especially Santorum and Romney. Mike's always amazed that our pundit-like shows often do as well as shows with good guests, but I'm not as surprised. We had a lot of fun with this one, and people like fun. Plus, we're totally better pundits than most of the bobble-heads from CNN and Fox News.
• Freedom to Marry Board Member, Rev John Buehrens. Buehrens brings a national perspective as a 9-year member of Freedom to Marry, one of the chief national organizations fighting for marriage equality across the country. He's also a local UU minister, who just so happened to chair the national organization for a while.
  
  He brought even more insight into the state-by-state battles going on in Maine, Washington, Maryland and elsewhere than I expected -- so if these are on your radar, definitely check it out. He also brought in a fascinating understanding of where marriage equality, partisan politics and religion intersect, and how that influences the battle. This show shouldn't be missed.
• State Senate Candidate Mara Dolan. Our show with Dolan today was great. She is clearly a very credible candidate, with a wide policy background, as well. I was very pleased to hear that she understands the fact that the "MBTA issue" is a Beacon Hill issue as much as anything else.
  
  If you're from the 3rd Middlesex District, this is a can't-miss show, and even if not, you should still check it out, because these races have impacts that are far more wide-sweeping than their own borders. 

Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

Mike has the full write-up at LeftAhead, but here's the general gist of today's jam-packed show.

The ever-intense MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz joined us today, centering on redistricting, transgender rights, and education. Not only is she a progressive leader in LGBT issues, she chairs the Joint Committee on education and is vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.

I was impressed with the Senator's ability to squeeze in a lot of details in such a short amount of time, never mind switching between three unrelated topics at the drop of a hat. Her intellect and energy is why she's quickly become one of the most effective senators out there, never mind one of the leaders in the Commonwealth's small-d movement of progressive politics.

Today's show ended up being more timely than I would have suspected, with Congressman Frank's retirement, but we managed to talk about redistricting at both the local and congressional levels, as well as talk about some of the meta that goes behind it -- such as the goals of the committee and the process behind it. We also have some frank discussion on the Transgender Rights bill, both the importance of getting this done and the fact that there's still a little unfinished business surrounding it, since public accommodation was left outside of the bill. On education, mainly focused on her bill tackling the state's drop out problem, in which 8,000 kids in Massachusetts are dropping out every year.

For people who want to skip to the parts of the show they're most interested in, redistricting was the first topic and then we got to the transgender rights bill at about 14:20. At 24:50, we finally got to education. We didn't have as much time as I would have liked to take on this issue, but even just the five minutes we had was enough to tackle some key aspects of her bill on how she thinks we could be better at getting kids to stay in school.

New Congressional Districts Look Solid

Without delving too deeply into the proposed districts, you have to at least admit that they look solid. If there's a lot of gerrymandering going on here, it's not visible on the surface. In fact, most of the obvious gerrymandering in the past will be fixed with this new effort. Let's look at some of the surface positives.

• The Cape and Islands have joined the South Coast to create a new district, a district that should have always existed, in a part of the state that's never had a proper district, at least serving those alive today, cohesively representing the community and culture there.
• John Tierney's district -- who politically looks like the weakest heading into the reelection cycle and therefore there was rampant speculation his district would be carved with an axe -- will remain intact. While this is my own district, so I have an vested interest in seeing it remain cohesive, it's also one of the least gerrymandered districts in the state, essentially fitting the county lines, linking together very similar communities, many coastal and blue collar. 
• On the same lines, Tsongas's district remains intact. There's a few more changes to her district than Tierney's, but the core of Greater Lowell and Lawrence is still there and the new district will be just as cohesive as the one at present.
• The absurdity of Barney Frank's district (it should be noted it was a district gerrymandered before he ever served in it) is cleaned up and will look totally different, along with McGovern's seat. The two swapped a lot of ground.
• The two western mass districts now look a lot more like a Western Mass and Central Mass district, as they should.
• To their credit, the politicians weren't afraid to rankle the congressmen serving in these districts. Frank lost very friendly territory in New Bedford and elsewhere, while Keating's house was redistricted right out of his district. Clearly, these districts weren't designed to "protect incumbents" and, in fact, go a long way toward creating cohesive, representative districts in this state. I'd go so far as saying that there's every possibility the changes made to these maps could cost a couple Democrats their seats in the coming election, as much as I hope that doesn't happen.
• Then again, even when politicians aren't afraid to rankle some feathers, that doesn't mean even more politics won't smooth things over. While Lynch lost a lot of ground to Keating and Frank, and would have had to face off against Keating in a district with more of Keating's voters in it, Keating's already capitulated that fight and will set up shop in his Cape residence to avoid the skirmish. It looks like these two owe at least some thanks to Olver for this, even if he's from the other part of the state. Now at least the numbers add up, so voters won't have the chance to see the battle of two incumbents pitted against each other.

It's hard to come up with a perfect set of districts -- and a lot of people, in a lot of states, would settle for districts that aren't historically bad. So, with that in mind, I think we'll at least be able to call these districts good. In another 10 years, even more changes will be called for, but these can and probably will serve well for the 2010s.

FWD: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

Daily Kos: News Flash: Republicans Don't Care About Weiner's Morals

Truer words were never spoken. Posted a reply to David on BMG for my thoughts on the matter, specifically about how our party reacted to it. Suffice it to say, in this high-stakes game (our lives), Republicans play for keeps... while Democrats continue to play in circular firing squads.

This episode of leadership forcing Weiner out has been brought to you by Charlie Sheen's idea of WINNING! Apparently, like Sheen, Obama, Pelosi, et al, think winning is a state of mind -- electoral politics, and the policy it drives, need not apply.

If We're Sane and Rational, Western Mass has 1 Congressperson

Western Mass is a beautiful, historic part of this state -- which just so happens to have a small population. The population of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden counties is 815,000 people, which in the new political map of our state (in which Congressional Districts must house roughly 770,000 people) is barely enough people to contain one congressional district, never mind two.

A few towns closest to Central Mass could easily be tucked in with a Worcester County-based district that makes far more sense than the maps do today, never mind how they'd looked in a warped future in which we protect two congresscritters over the people of this state -- who deserve districts that make geographic and demographic sense.

While all of the district lines across the state are going to have to change by more than 10% of their population, one of the districts is going to have to disappear. Turning Western Mass into one, strong congressional district will ensure its population has strong, Western-Mass focused leadership, while also allowing the rest of the state's congressional district borders to shift around a little bit and relieve some of the stress. It's not unfair to Western Mass, and it's the right thing to do for everyone.

A Penny for Your Thoughts: Redistricting

I got home a few hours ago from my Town Democratic Caucus tonight and one of the biggest subjects that came up was congressional redistricting. Swampscott is part of the 6th Congressional District, which is more or less the entire North Shore. The district's one of the most cohesive across the entire state, both in terms of geography and demographics, so of course it's one of the most likely to face outright contraction. At least, that's the speculation going on amongst the pundits -- and the chatter I keep hearing from people much closer to the process than I am. That got me to thinking about redistricting itself -- and what would make sense for the Commonwealth.

The problems of our current system of redistricting are really two-fold: First and foremost, we're held hostage by a reapportionment system dramatically redesigned in 1929 that no longer makes sense today. Back then, 435 Congresscritters decided to 'reform' the process, protecting their own jobs, but barring emerging immigrant communities in urban areas from gaining adequate representation. The result has been widespread corruption in the redistricting process, as well as drowning out voices among ever-larger congressional seats, which has led to vast increases in the power of corporations over regular people in our political process.

More pressing both in time and location is our state's flawed process of redistricting. Some states allow the judiciary to create the district lines, or a nonpartisan committee, but in most states -- including the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- it's done by the most powerful of politicians behind closed doors and has been the source of much corruption in this state and elsewhere.

In Massachusetts, where the Democratic Party is prominent, but wishy-washy, redistricting has generally been a tool to protect incumbents (even Republicans). In states like Florida and Texas, where party registration is traditionally a pretty equal mix, but one party has been much more successful in gaining electoral power, redistricting has been successfully used to hack at the minority in nearly every sense of the word. (So blatant was the corruption in Florida that its citizens actually just passed two constitutional amendments to rectify their problem, though their new Republican governor is trying to ignore it.)

This leaves us all with two fundamental problems: How do we deal with the immediate and local issues surrounding redistricting, and how do we address the long-term problem of the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Districts shouldn't be drawn as an incumbent protection racket here, or as a blunt-force weapon to attack minorities elsewhere. They should be drawn to make sense both in terms of geography and demographics, ensuring districts are representative of the people who live in them. And we shouldn't be beholden to the number 435 in a day and age when that number no longer makes any sense.

So, a penny for your thoughts: How do you think districts should be redrawn in Massachusetts, where we're going to lose a seat, and how do you think we should change our system of reappointment, both locally and nationally?

Murray should stay in State Senate

Representative Delahunt is talking about retiring -- and there's been some BMG discussion about Senator Therese Murray running, leader of the State Senate. Let's all hope she doesn't -- because that decision could be disastrous. She'd almost certainly win the primary if she ran (her very presence would scare away many competitors), but that's where her advantages run out.

Because of Murray's position as one of the two most powerful legislators (and figures) in this state, any Republican challenger could run against everything that's wrong with Beacon Hill. It wouldn't matter whether she should be held accountable for those problems or not, she could easily be scapegoated and blamed. After all, she's the boss.

Furthermore, this would undoubtedly be the first challenging race she's had in a very, very long time. It's difficult for powerful politicians who have held safe seats for a very long time to suddenly mount strong campaigns. Campaigning is ugly, tough work. Coakley's loss would almost certainly make Murray realize just how important it would be to really get out there and stay sharp, but there's a big difference between knowing you should do something and actually doing it. At the very least, Murray would need a strong primary challenge.

Democrats should plead with Delahunt to stay on. Not only is he a widely-respected politician with lots of seniority, but he's the best bet to hold the seat and would keep the Democrats from having to spread themselves that much thinner in this difficult election year. If he absolutely doesn't want to serve another term, primary voters should go for a sharp, active outsider candidate, who can't be pinned for Beacon Hill's problems, like Andrea Silbert.

A National Global Warming Solution

This is a serious piece of the puzzle, from Environment Massachusetts:

Boston, MA- A major draft bill released today by Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy & Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) sets the stage for Congress to pass historic energy and global warming legislation, according to Environment Massachusetts.

The draft bill uses a framework advanced by major U.S. businesses.

"This is a pragmatic bill that tries to balance a historic opportunity to unleash clean energy to rebuild our economy and stop the climate crisis, with the diversity of views on the Energy & Commerce Committee," said Environment Massachusetts Field Organizer Winston Vaughan.

The draft legislation released today in Washington D.C. follows in the footsteps of major bills passed last year by the Massachusetts legislature designed to tackle global warming emissions and boost state efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

"I commend Chairmen Markey and Waxman for their ongoing leadership in the area of global climate change, which is the most pressing environmental issue of our time." Said Representative Smizik (D-Brookline), Chair of the newly formed Global Warming Committee in the State House. "Last year in Massachusetts, we passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require the Commonwealth to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. A strong federal climate change program is critical to addressing this pollution problem and will help states like Massachusetts achieve their emissions reduction goals. I look forward to supporting Chairmen Markey and Waxman as they work to garner support from their colleagues in Congress."

Other Bay State Legislators also expressed their support "As we work to build Massachusetts' clean energy economy and put Bay Staters to work building solar panels and wind farms, we'll need a strong partnership with the federal government," said Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) Vice-Chair of the State Senate Environment Committee. "Today's bill from Chairmen Waxman and Markey is a great step in that direction."

The draft bill sets standards to repower America with clean energy, including a requirement that the nation obtain 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, like wind and solar power, by 2025. The draft bill also requires the United States to reduce its global warming emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 through a combination of domestic action and efforts to help stop tropical deforestation."

Smizik and Eldridge really make the critical important point: we did great work in Massachusetts passing a major bill that will reduce our emissions, but at the end of the day this is a global problem and therefore requires a global fix. America needs to lead on this issue - and the Markey/Waxman bill would be an absolutely amazing first step.

Congressman Tierney on Government

Pretty cool stuff.

More detailed stuff to come, this was just a fun video to start off with.

Real Ryan's Take Videos Coming!!

To a theatre youtube near you...

(Went to Congressman Tierney's public forum today in Lynn.... got some good stuff. Have one video edited now, will do a few more tonight. Breaking it up into individual questions for now, picking the best/most interesting ones.)

The Power of the Netroots: Incredible

Anyone else hear the crazy, whacko congresswoman on TV today?

No?

She makes Palin look kind.



Like I said, crazy.

Well... as it turns out, it wasn't such a good idea for Buchmann to provide a window for the world into her inner crazy. Just a few hours after the interview aired on TV, her Democratic opponent has raised over $30,000 on ActBlue. [Update: a few more hours later and ActBlue's raised more than $68,000 for her opponent. Anyone want to take any bets that it'll be over $120k by Sunday night?]

This was a candidate who had only raised $2,500 on ActBlue before Bachmann made a complete ass out of herself. This was a candidate that wasn't even on the netroots radar. Now, she just provided her opponent with an entire new outlet to raise hundreds of thousands in the waning days of this election - all in an incredibly close (less than 5 point) race. Oops.

Well, she did say she was a fool in pretty much the craziest and most inappropriate video ever (h/t) - one that lead to a cease and desist letter by the IRS.



Update:

Here's an anti-Buchmann ad that I think is just genius - not to mention amusing.



H/T

On Tuesday: Eldridge

I endorsed Jamie Eldridge in June, but tomorrow's the day that matters. For a reminder of why Congress needs Eldridge, it's all about leadership. It's one thing to say the right things, it's another to be bold enough to contribute to that goal. Eldridge has fought hard and accomplished much in his tenure at Beacon Hill and he ought to have a chance to fight for the same causes on the other Hill, the Capitol. Whether it's glbt rights or health care, Eldridge has fought the longest and hardest of all the candidates - he was a whip on the marriage equality vote in June and a college Dem fighting against Don't Ask, Don't Tell way before most people came to the realization that such a draconian policy is both bad for equal rights and bad for our military. On Iraq, Eldridge has been a cut above all the rest in his boldness on getting out - even if that means cutting military funding. On Health Care, he's the only sane candidate out there: this country needs Single Payer, where everyone has quality health care and it'd even cost less, and he'll fight the good fight to get us there.

We have an election tomorrow where the winner will almost certainly go on to win the general election; voters don't have to worry about questions such as "electability." All of the candidates vying for the Democratic Nomination can win. People of the Fifth should remember that and vote for the candidate who will do the most to ensure their children are out of Iraq, have adequate health care and have all of their civil rights intact. One candidate has a stronger record on all of those issues than his opponents. That candidate's name is Jamie Eldridge.

If/Then Statements

Anyone remember if/then statements from when you were a little tyke? Well, someone probably taught them to you at some point, like when you were first learning basic algebra. One of the neat things about if/then statements is that they have an official name - conditionals. It's a simple concept, which basically means that if something happens, then there's a subsequent cause or effect.

For example, if I woke up late today, then I didn't get a blog out nice and early for all your morning readers. Or, if the plant is dead, then no one watered it. Better yet, if Ryan lives in the North Shore, then he lives North of Boston. (Don't worry, no if p, then q... and I'll skip the conserve for later.)

Unfortunately, sometimes conditionals aren't really conditionals. For example, if President Bush is in contempt of congress, then he'd be impeached. Since we know that he'll almost certainly not be impeached, it's sadly not a conditional statement. Here's one, though: if we had Republicans in Congress who observed the same morals they preached, then they'd vote to impeach President Bush for being in contempt of Congress. Therefore, we know we don't have Republicans in Congress who observe the morals they preach, because they aren't going to vote to remove a law-breaking liar from office. (Oops, I promised not to get into the converse statements.) The only conditional we know as true regarding impeachment is this: If a Democrat got a blow job in the Oval Office, then he'd be impeached - because that's what Republicans really care about.

Tingly Feelings of Goodness

I have to say waking up and reading something like this sure makes me feel good.

WASHINGTON -- After more than a decade of government inaction, gay-rights proponents in Congress have gotten several major bills moving through the Democratic-controlled chambers, a development that could result in the greatest expansion of federal protections for gays and lesbians in US history.

For far too long, Democrats have just expected support from the gay community - with very little to show for it. Part of that fact was the Democrats were out of power, but there were still things they could have done, but weren't willing to do. For example, they could have stood up for gay people, instead of often joining in the neo-con fun and games. It's high past time to see Democrats advance gay rights - and good on them for finally doing it. It's more than a decade too late, but society has shifted position on gay rights and is now overwhelmingly in favor of it - so Dems have no more excuses. Thus, the sea change in D.C.

There are two bills that look to be fast tracked in DC: the first is a hate crimes expansion, the second is a bill that protects from workplace discrimination. Passing both bills is beyond obvious, so let's hope they win with overwhelming support and President Bush doesn't foolishly veto them. While some people say "a crime is a crime," the fact remains that many people in that camp - Christian Conservatives - didn't feel that way the last time hate crimes went through. Then, they demanded religious intolerance be deemed a hate crime - and for good reason. The fact that they then went and blocked a glbt addition to the hate crimes law was just that much more hypocritical.

The second piece of legislation is even more important. While hopefully increasing tolerance, education and a shifting attitude in society to a more welcoming, liberal place will have a huge impact on reducing hate crimes, workplace discrimination is a scary reality. Gay people only have workplace protections in states that deem it worthy to protect them. Currently, in many states - because of a lack of a federal statute - it's legal to fire someone just because they're glbt - a fact most people don't realize. How could discrimination of that magnitude be legal in this country? Hopefully, it won't be for much longer.

Kudos to the National Dems for being the change that they want. Protecting this country's vulnerable minorities is one of the most important things it can do.

A Deadline Has Been Set!

By the House, now the Senate just needs to pass it. Of course, President Bush will likely veto, but he will do so at his own peril.

Vennochi: End the War. Now!

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to actually lead on this issue, she says. She does ignore two teensy problems facing Democrats, though: a Senate filibuster and a Presidential veto. Even so, she's right. Democrats need to continue to step up and demand out of Iraq - ASAP. At the very least, the House's current proposed August 2008 pullout is a price too steep.

Vennochi's words:

Lawmakers are galvanized by the firing of eight federal prosecutors who worked under Gonzales. They are demanding public testimony from White House aides, including Karl Rove. The White House is resisting, setting up a showdown over executive privilege.The political sideshow proceeds with gusto, with all parties committed to their usual roles.

When it comes to ending a war that has taken 3,223 American lives since it began four years ago, Congress is paralyzed, not galvanized, even with Democrats in control.

In other words, it's time to get tough on the toughest issue facing America: the war in Iraq.

Marty Meehan's Left Overs

So, now that it looks like Marty Meehan is definitely gone, what does that mean for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" As many readers probably know, Marty Meehan is spearheading the efforts to repeal one of the most vagrant violations of human equality left in the military - the right to serve regardless of sexual orientation. For the first time in a long time, it looked like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was on its way out. Yet, if this nation loses one of its most important leaders on the effort, I really have no idea what will happen. Anyone care to haphazard a guess?

Let's hope Marty Meehan leaves no left overs when he becomes the Chancellor of UMASS Lowell. As important as that University is - and as admirably I'm sure Meehan will serve there - Don't Ask, Don't Tell is almost as important as marriage rights in terms of glbt equality. Literally over a million gay people have served in the army, yet they were forced to remain in the closet in permanent fear of being dishonorably discharged (or worse). Marty Meehan needs to get the job done before he goes home.