Blue Mass. Group has MOVED!!

Pat Jehlen on health care, education, and transportation

A little while back, we sent a brief questionnaire to the four Democratic candidates for the vacant Second Middlesex Senate seat.  Pat Jehlen and Joe Mackey promised they would respond; no word so far from Paul Casey or Michael Callahan. 

Today we received Pat Jehlen's responses, and we are pleased to present them below.

But first, a reminder: the primary for this election is on August 30.  The primary is critically important, as it will determine which of the four Democrats listed above gets to beat take on the lone Republican in the race, Somerville alderman Bill White, in the Sept. 27 general election.  However, many residents of the district will likely be on their summer vacations on August 30.  If you will be out of town, be sure to secure an absentee ballot before you go.  (Not sure if you're in the district?  This site will tell you.)  Turnout is everything in special elections, so make sure you vote for your candidate!

Read on for Rep. Jehlen's answers...

Health care: do you support the Health Access and Affordability Act, which would move toward universal health insurance through a combination of employer mandates and expanding MassHealth, and would be funded by an increase in the tobacco tax along with other sources?  Other options on the table include Governor Romney’s individual mandate – would you support that approach?  Would you go even further than any of these proposals, and if so, how?

Just this week I talked to a woman who works in an insurance company.  She said individuals and small businesses are dropping their policies rapidly.  It’s just not affordable.  But the increase in uninsured people leads to poorer health as people defer treatment, and to higher costs as they use uncompensated care.

The Health Access and Affordability Act is the best of the incremental solutions, and I strongly support it.  It has the kind of organizational support that gives it a chance to pass and expand coverage.

I support expanding MassHealth and restoring benefits such as dental care. I am the lead sponsor of a bill to extend benefits to the elderly and disabled.

I certainly oppose the Governor's proposal to penalize those who cannot afford the exorbitant price of health insurance; his plan creates a lot more bureaucracy without addressing the real problems.

I have been a long time supporter of single payer universal healthcare, as proposed in the Mass. Health Care Trust bill.  Until care is truly universal, and paid for by broadly based, progressive taxes, we will continue to have people denied basic care that they need and deserve and our system will be unfair and inefficient. 

Finally, I support the constitutional amendment which would make access to affordable health care a constitutional, enforceable right.   If passed, this amendment would increase pressure on the legislature to adopt a comprehensive solution.

Education: do you see a way to continue to encourage the innovation that charter schools can bring without hampering the necessary process of improving the public schools?

My first commitment in public office has always been and will always be to adequate and equitable funding for public schools. The current charter school funding formula drains scarce resources away from our public schools. Until we come up with a formula that doesn’t unfairly penalize the children in district public schools, I will support (and have voted for) a cap of the creation of new charter schools.

The current Board of Education is too uncritical of the charter school experiment, and too unwilling to require evidence that there is real innovation and that it is shared with other public schools.

There are, however, ways to encourage innovation within the public schools. When I was a member of the Somerville School Committee, I started an alternative education program, within the school system, that is still going strong 20 years later.  Since then, Somerville has started a two-way bilingual program, UNIDOS.

Transportation: do you support extending the Green Line to Tufts?  To West Medford?  And what can the state do to avoid the kinds of mishaps and cost overruns in the Green Line extension that have plagued the Big Dig?

I am a strong supporter of the Green Line. I got money into the Transportation Bond Bill for the Green Line extension. This improvement in transportation will reduce traffic and reduce air pollution.

Where should the stops be and where should it end?  That’s still up for discussion.  I have been listening to the concerns of the folks in West Medford recently, who have differing views about the Green Line. I think we can have a solution that works for West Medford. This is a determination that needs to be made in collaboration with the community. As a State Senator, I will make sure that the State works closely with the affected communities.

In answer to the second question, I think that we need to stand strong against corruption and cronyism in the bidding process. Citizen involvement is important to safeguarding a fair and efficient process.

Anything else you’d care to add?

I am running for State Senate because I believe we need a voice for funding for our schools and health care for all. We need a Senator we can trust to always stand up for a woman’s right to choose and the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry.  I have 15 years of experience in the State House as a progressive legislator with an excellent record. I would love to have your support in bringing my principled leadership style to the State Senate.

Building capital

Rick Perlstein lays it down for the Democrats: Be what you are and what you were, proudly, gloriously:

The most glorious thing about congressional Democrats is that they have drawn the line and said: No further. Don't. Touch. Social. Security. It is a heroic stand. What's more, it's been enormously politically effective.

Now think about this: They are drawing on the capital of an entitlement passed 70 years ago.

They'll be drawing on the capital from Medicare 35 years from now. Congressional Democrats won't let them kill it. Because they understand: These programs make life in America fundamentally better. And because these gooses, Social Security, Medicare, lay golden eggs. They manufacture Democrats.

Now ... has George Bush ever done anything with capital -- political or otherwise -- except for taking it out back and lighting it on fire?

Building capital takes smarts, hard work and courage. Big promises, and big delivery.

Any takers?

(Thanks to Atrios.)

Health care: Finger to the wind

... Wherein health care is the weathervane of the governor's race ... or vice versa?

An interesting juxtaposition, from Left In Lowell's terrific Deval Patrick interview and Health Care for All's shiny new blog (now with comments! Be nice...):

Here's Patrick talking to Lynne @ LIL:

Of the [health care] proposals that are out there, there are three, you probably know. The governor has a proposal, the Senate president has a proposal, and then there’s a proposal from Health Care for All. Those are, I’d say, the most developed, the most concrete ideas that are on the table. I do think that the destination of health care for everyone is important. Even if we can’t get there in one step. The most ambitious of the proposals is the one that appeals to me the most, which is the Health Care for All proposal. I’m studying them all but I’m focusing on that one. [my emphasis]

Here's HCFA's John McDonough:

These days anyone who believes there's a chance the Gov. might run for re-election has a thing for the tooth fairy. The Gov's lame duck status is already a given and well factored into anyone's political equation, a fact of life ...

... No disrespect to the Gov. For health reform to happen, it must be bigger and more important than the Governor's personal, political agenda. Bottom line: it's up to all of us, not to him.

The more the governor removes himself from the mainstream of MA politics (and places himself into South Carolina's), the stronger the hand of those supporting a more ambitious, real-world solution.

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: And you may find yourself ...

Here's an article from the NYTimes -- front page of the Home and Garden section, no less -- which discusses families (pretty darned affluent ones at that) having made lots of paper equity on their homes in the last few years, and no place to spend it when they outgrow or out-desire their current places. So maybe they make 100% profit on their investment, but find they still can't afford an upgrade within their geographical areas.

I've been posting about the need to create more housing to soak up the high demand, but bubbles are immune to ordinary supply/demand patterns. The extra demand that creates the bubble is partly from speculation, which makes it tough on folks who actually want someplace to live for an extended period of time.

Really, one solution to the bubble is for other, less expensive places (Cleveland, Buffalo) to make themselves attractive somehow to people in the expensive areas, as with the couple in the article that moved to Montreal (a terrific place, by the way). Otherwise we may see the "Manhattanization" of entire markets like here and San Francisco, where folks pay higher and higher prices and hold lower and lower expectations because, well, they just have to live there. (After all, that's me.)

As David Byrne once said, "This is not my beautiful house... My God, how did I get here?"

Disgraced ex-aide to Hatch and Frist defends the Federalist Society, makes nice with former boss

Today's "Opinion Journal," the Wall Street Journal's on-line collection of far-right opinion pieces, contains a hilarious piece by Manuel Miranda.  It's about the Federalist Society, which as you may recall is the conservative legal group of which Supreme Court nominee John Roberts may or may not be a member, he can't seem to recall.  Miranda says that the White House should have defended the Federalist Society instead of trying to distance themselves from it, that the Society isn't really so bad, blah blah blah nobody cares.

Why is this so hilarious?  It's all about the context.  Let's recall who this Miranda guy is.  A couple of years ago, it became known that due to a "glitch" in Capitol Hill's computer systems, the Senate Democrats' strategy memos were readily available to Senate Republicans.  An aide to then-Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) of the Senate Judiciary Committee leaked some of those memos to the press as part of a strategy to counter the Senate Democrats' tactics with respect to some of Bush's judicial nominees.  The aide, who later joined Majority Leader Bill Frist's staff, was Manuel Miranda.  After the Senate's Sergeant-at-Arms investigated, Miranda was exposed and finally was forced to resign - by none other than his former boss Orrin Hatch.  Miranda was mightily pissed that he was forced out over this business, and published this piece in which he actually "challenge[d] Senator Hatch to debate me publicly on this issue."  Oh, right Manuel - like a sitting Senator is going to "debate" a former staffer over the screw-up that cost the staffer his job.  What a prick.

Anyway, fast-forward to today, when Miranda feels the need to defend his beloved Federalist Society in the WSJ's opinion pages.  No surprise there.  What's funny, though, is that Miranda goes out of his way to paint Senator Hatch (who, let's note, Miranda actually called a "hypocrite" when it comes to "ethics" in the piece linked above) as a profile in courage for standing up for the Federalist Society in a three-year-old speech.  The WSJ piece begins:

Three years ago Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) stood on the floor of the Senate and said: "Mr. President, I take the opportunity today to right a wrong.... [blah blah blah]."

* * *

[H]ere is a user-friendly defense of the Federalist Society: Again, the words are Orrin Hatch's. The Federalist Society stands for three propositions, he said: "[blah blah blah]."

As Orrin Hatch concluded in his speech three years ago: The Federalist Society is "not quite the vast right-wing conspiracy hobgoblin some [Democrats] would have the American people believe." And it's nothing that a Republican White House should appear to repudiate.

Translation:

Oooooh, kiss kiss kiss!  Please, Senator, don't be mad at me any more!  I'm sorry I screwed up with the memos and made you fire me and called you bad names, and you were right all along!  I was a bad, naughty, unethical Republican, but I'm making up for it now, huh?  Huh?

Like I said, hilarious.  For what it's worth, I actually think Miranda is right to say that it is the White House that has really screwed up this Federalist Society business - like I said before, no one would have been surprised to learn that Roberts was a member; the surprise was that he supposedly wasn't, and that the White House was so intent on demonstrating that that they called a bunch of reporters about it before they had all the facts, some of which have now bitten them firmly on the ass.  But only those who are much more in-the-know than I about who's mad at whom in Washington GOP circles would be able to say whether Miranda's piece is really about the Federalist Society, or whether it's more about trying to make up with his former boss.

Pleasing none of the people all of the time

You've just got to love Mitt Romney.  This is the guy who, just last year, undertook a concerted (if ultimately failed) effort to "rebuild" the state Republican party by recruiting and throwing his weight behind a bunch of Republican challengers to incumbent state reps and senators.  Mass. Republicans must have thought, hey, this is great, finally a Governor who is committed to turning the Republican party in Massachusetts into a real presence instead of a joke!

Well, the joke was on them.  No less a Mass. Republican party stalwart than Ginny Buckingham, who worked for years for Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci, is begging Romney not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out:

Hey Mitt, good luck. Really. Have a ball at all those Holiday Inns and Best Westerns. Just do us this one favor before you go? Don't take the Massachusetts Republican Party down the garden path with you.

Buckingham goes on to note that Romney was elected based on his "false assertion that he was just another moderate Republican, sour on taxes, sweet on social issues," and castigates Romney's hijacking of the state party apparatus to defend his veto of the morning-after pill bill, pointing out that "setting up the state party as an attack dog against the 'professional abortion lobby' may play well in South Carolina, but it's the kiss of death here."  It's hard to imagine the state GOP sinking further into irrelevance than it already is, but Buckingham is clearly scared that Romney will find a way.

In related news, State House News Service's weekly round-up starts out by announcing that "now, no one expects" Romney to run for re-election.  There's also a new poll out (I will leave the number-crunching to others), and the non-partisan pollster who conducted it (Gerry Chervinsky) had this to say about Romney's veto and his accompanying anti-Roe op-ed: "This is a major, major statement as Romney remakes himself into a right-wing conservative with appeal to Republican primary voters nationwide."  (The poll predated the veto and op-ed, so expect Romney's reported favorability numbers to decline since, as State House News notes, Romney's position is "out of synch with Massachusetts voters.")

So.  Massachusetts Democrats and Independents hate Romney because he snookered some of them into voting for him on false pretenses.  Massachusetts Republicans hate him because he's sacrificing what's left of their party on the altar of his presidential ambitions.  And who, exactly, is supposed to be the "base" upon which Romney launches his presidential campaign?  See, the trouble with only being out for yourself for all these years is that when it comes time to call upon your legions of long-time devotees to launch a major bid for national office, all you hear in response is crickets chirping.

Race you to the bottom!

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Association reports that health care costs are eating up municipal budgets like beetles through bark. Apparently, it's partly because contracts are negotiated somewhat differently for those unions than those with state employees. Still, it's not good news that cities and towns are in the same position as, say, GM, in paying ever-exploding health care costs.

On one hand, there's a place for groups like the Group Insurance Commission, which as the Globe suggests, acts as an honest broker for reasonable benefits for state employees. It's good that there's something like that for those state workers -- and us taxpayers.

But for companies like GM who are facing similar problems, I don't necessarily share some folks' optimism that they have to choose between 1. skyrocketing health costs, or 2. higher taxes and an increased government role in health coverage. There's a third choice: neither. If business interests completely reject the idea that they have any responsibility for health care at all, either in the form of benefits or tax support, that's bad news for all of us. Sure, we all want low low prices, but we may only get that at the expense of our own health.

Luckily, the labor marketplace doesn't seem to necessarily want to race to the bottom quite so fast: Toyota just opened a plant in Canada, famously choosing it over the states because of our rising health care costs.

Massachusetts seems to be having competitiveness problems of its own: New England just recently dropped to a spot to number three on the list of areas getting the most venture capital. Now, there are reasons to think this was just a blip. But it's foolish to think that job growth and economic expansion are just a matter of having Wal-Mart wages and benefits: we need to think about what kind of jobs we want, and have the government take an active role in attracting them.

For instance, decent public education, investing in a smart and capable workforce: Toyota cited the, er, difficulties in training workers in Alabama as a reason to move to Canada. We do reasonably well at that in Massachusetts compared to the rest of the country. Creating -- and just as importantly, allowing the creation of -- more affordable housing is one thing government could do. What if we were able to bring down the cost of health care in MA, through re-insurance, increased pooling, or using the buying power of the government to bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals?

As Paul Krugman pointed out recently, providing decent, affordable health care could be our competitive advantage, if we decide to take up the challenge.

The LA Times gets it

You should read today's outstanding editorial in the LA Times on Novak-Plame-Rove-Libby-gate.  It's called "Operation Coverup" - a promising beginning.  And remember, we're not talking lefty wackos over at Daily Kos here - this is as mainstream as the mainstream media gets.  Some choice quotes:

[P]eople in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.

It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath....Perjury is your classic coverup method, and still is used when other methods have failed....

The coverup, in short, is going well.

Tough stuff.  All of it true.  The line about the howling that would be coming from Republicans and their shills on Fox News and in right blogistan if this had happened under Clinton rings particularly true.  The hypocrisy is truly staggering.

On the same topic, today's WaPo has an interesting rundown of the wider-than-previously-known range of people that the special prosecutor has interviewed.

Romney calls for Roe v. Wade to be overruled

Mitt Romney, in a Boston Globe op-ed explaining his decision to veto a bill that would increase availability of the "morning-after pill," has called for nothing less than the overruling of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that declared unconstitutional certain restrictions on abortion.

Neither the word "overrule" nor the word "Roe" ever appears in the op-ed, but the message is crystal clear.  First, Romney unequivocally equates "life" with "conception."  But he goes well beyond that.  Here is what he says:

• I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
• The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
• We will never have peace on the abortion issue, much less a consensus of conscience, until democracy is allowed to work its way.

The only way in which the states can "determine their own abortion laws" is if Roe is overruled, because the right at the heart of Roe is what creates some limitations on the extent to which states can regulate abortion.  Ergo, Romney wants Roe v. Wade off the books, which would pave the way for the "federalist approach" (i.e., every state having different laws, some probably not changing much from today, others maybe outlawing it all together) that he seems to think would bring "peace on the abortion issue."

If there was any doubt before today that Romney is not running for reelection in 2006, it is gone now.  You simply cannot be elected Governor of this state on a "Roe must go" platform.  Moreover, if Romney was publishing this op-ed just to explain his veto of the "morning after pill" bill, there was no need to go into an explanation of why states rather than courts should decide the limits on abortion restrictions - that is simply a non-issue with respect to this bill, since no one is claiming that requiring a prescription to dispense the morning after pill is unconstitutional.  Once again, Romney has hijacked Massachusetts politics and media to play to the Republican primary voters of South Carolina and elsewhere who will determine whether he gets to run for President in 2008.

Mr. Romney: your pants are on fire

After stating publicly that he would not do so, Mitt Romney has vetoed the bill that would increase the availability of the "morning after pill."  This pill, which is NOT RU-486, can prevent a pregnancy from occurring for up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. 

Romney, in his 2002 campaign, supported increased availability of this pill.  But that was before he decided he needed to bow and scrape before the altar of the loons that control the Republican primary process.  So now he's claiming that he was honor-bound to veto this law because it changes the state's abortion laws, and he promised not to do that.

                

                  

                        

Luckily for Romney, the legislature will override this veto, allowing Romney to pander to the right wing of his party without actually accomplishing anything. 

Oh, and one more thing.  House Speaker Sal DiMasi gets it exactly wrong when he says: "The governor misunderstands the effects of this medication and regrettably misinterprets how this bill's provisions would apply to existing state abortion laws." 

Wrong, Sal.  The Governor fully understands what this medication does, just like he did in 2002, and he fully understands the impact this bill has on the state's abortion laws.  It's just that his priorities are different now than they were then.  He no longer cares what he told the people of this state in 2002, or, really, ever - he's not running for reelection, and this state isn't going to vote for him in the 2008 presidential election anyway.

Maybe Roberts isn't a slam-dunk confirm after all

Jonathan Turley in the LA Times has picked up on something that, if true [see the Updates below for more on that], does actually call into question whether John Roberts can effectively serve as a Supreme Court Justice - or, really, as a judge of any court.

According to sources present in Roberts' courtesy call chit-chat with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Durbin asked what Roberts would do if the law called for a ruling that, according to the dictates of Roberts' faith, was immoral. 

Let's pause for a moment and note that the "right" answer, of course, is: "Well, Senator, matters of faith are personal and quite distinct from my duties as a judge.  Of course I would vote to uphold the law regardless of the Church's view on a particular moral question.  Part of being a good judge is being able to recognize that the law sometimes requires a result that may run contrary to the judge's personal beliefs, and to rule accordingly in those instances."

Roberts, however, took quite a different approach.  His answer: he would have to recuse himself.

Whoa - stop the presses.  If he's serious about that, it seems to mean that Roberts would have to recuse himself:

• every time the law demanded that the death penalty be imposed.
• every time the law demanded that an abortion restriction be struck down.
• every time the law demanded that a sodomy law be struck down.
• every time the law demanded that a restriction on embryonic stem-cell research be invalidated.

I could go on, but the point is clear enough.  The Catholic Church, of which Roberts is reportedly a devout member, has taken strong positions on a lot of issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court.  If Roberts cannot participate in those cases, he simply cannot do the job for which he has been nominated. 

This development should seriously trouble those on the right as well as the left - no one wants a bunch of 4-4 votes, with Justice Roberts not participating, on these issues.  Turley notes that Justice Scalia has taken the view that "the choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty," and it's hard to argue with that.

Finally, the Senate really has something to ask Roberts about!

Hat tip: DavidNYC at dKos.

UPDATE: Scott McLellan was asked about this at the White House daily briefing, but, predictably, punted.

FURTHER UPDATE: Reuters is now reporting that a spokesperson for Sen. Durbin has said that Turley's account of their conversation is wrong.  So this may be a big "never mind." But see below.

FURTHER FURTHER UPDATE: According to the NYT, Turley is sticking to his story and claims that it's Durbin himself who relayed the conversation.  Stay tuned.

Is it too early to call it "FederalistSocietyGate"?

Curiouser and curiouser.  Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts' apparent non-membership in the Federalist Society (the conservative networking group for lawyers, membership in which has become de rigueur for right-leaning lawyers who want to get ahead) has raised eyebrows on both the left and the right.  Everyone assumed he was a member; then the White House started calling reporters to insist that he wasn't; and no one really knows why he didn't join.

Now, however, the WaPo reports that Roberts is listed as a member of the steering committee of the Federalist Society's Washington DC chapter in 1997-98, when he was still a partner at Hogan & Hartson.  Oh, no problem, says a FedSoc VP - formal membership in the organization is not required in order to serve on a steering committee.  But of course, the FedSoc regards its membership rolls as confidential, so they won't say whether he ever actually joined.

What in the hell is going on here?  Before this all began, no one would have been surprised to learn that Roberts was a FedSoc member - in fact, everyone assumed he was, which is why the fact that he supposedly isn't and never has been made the news.  But it's passing strange to see him listed as a member of a steering committee of a group that he was supposedly never a member of.  It's even stranger, IMHO, for him never to have shelled out the $50 to join a group whose activities he found sufficiently important that he agreed to serve on its steering committee.  It's not like a Hogan & Hartson partner pulling in a salary in the high six figures couldn't afford it.

And so I demand that the administration answer, with respect to this urgently pressing matter: WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

OK, kidding.  Still, it's weird, don't you think?

Will he ever return?

I hereby apologize to every reader of this blog. Here goes:

(To the tune of "The Ship That Never Returned"/"Charley on the MTA")

1. Let me tell you the story
Of a man named Romney
On a tragic and fateful day
He put a dollar in his pocket,
Brought his high-priced handlers,
Went to ride on the M(B)TA.

Romney handed in his dollar
At the Park Street Station
And got off at Downtown Cross-aing
When he got there the reporters told him,
"One more quarter."
Romney could not get off that train.

Chorus:
Did he ever return,
No he never returned
You know, it's not his "regular commute" (oh no Romney)
They don’t take Visa Platinum
for a 14-second ride,
No, the guv’nor never returned.

2. Now all night long
Romney rides through the tunnels
Saying, "What will become of me?
How can I afford to see
My wife in Belmont
Instead of dealing with the cat lady?"

Now his handlers go down
To the Park Street station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window
They hand Romney a canape
As the train comes rumblin' through.

Chorus

3. As his train rolled on
Through Greater Boston
Romney looked around and moaned,
"Well, I'm not a T ridah --
I’m goin’ back to Carolina
Where they made me feel right at home."

Now you citizens of Boston,
Don't you think it's a scandal
That the Guv’nor has to pay and pay
If you see him riding,
Flip the poor man a quarter,
Get poor Romney off the MTA.

Chorus:
So that he'll never return,
No he'll never return
And his fate will be unlearned
He may ride forever
on his mower in Belmont
He's the man (Who's the man)
He's the man (We can plan)
He's the man who never returned.

(Inspired -- if you can call it that -- by sco.)

Who cares about the internets?

As you are undoubtedly well aware, Deval Patrick recently undertook a massive blog outreach effort, giving interviews to .08, Eisenthal, and the three of us here at BMG.  His campaign also approached Left in Lowell and Cape Ann Dem, and possibly others, and we look forward to seeing the results of those interviews as well.

We wondered whether other campaigns might be interested in doing the same thing - after all, Howard Dean does seem to have shown that you can generate a lot of money and a lot of interest by undertaking a sophisticated internet-based campaign, and the phenomenon of internet-based activism, whether via blogging or otherwise, is only going to grow in importance.  So we sent an invitation to Tom Reilly's campaign a couple of weeks ago wondering whether he might be interested in holding a similar conversation.  So far, nothing.  [cue crickets chirping]

In addition, in an effort to find out more about the candidates for the Second Middlesex Senate seat, earlier this week we sent a brief questionnaire to the four major Democratic candidates (Pat Jehlen, Paul Casey, Michael Callahan, and Joe Mackey) asking them to elaborate on three issues important to the "progressive" community (health care, education, and transportation).  Jehlen's campaign responded promptly and promised she would answer [UPDATE: and Mackey's campaign has said he would answer as well].  Nothing from the others so far.  (To be fair to Callahan, I had to snail mail his since I could not find an email address for him, so he's probably only receiving the questionnaire now.)

I very much hope that we get a response from Reilly and from the Senate candidates, since I welcome any opportunity to find out more about where the various candidates stand on "the issues."  But I also think that a campaign's decision as to whether or not to respond at all says quite a lot about how that campaign intends to operate, and who it sees as a possible source for voters.  So far, Patrick and Jehlen [UPDATE: and Mackey] have indicated that they think Howard Dean was really onto something (I don't care what you think about Dean on the merits - his biggest accomplishment in the '04 campaign was on process, including raising a ton of money, not on substance).  The others, as of yet, not so much.

Maybe the traditionalists are right.  After all, George Bush won in 2004 despite the Dems thinking that they had learned what made Dean's campaign tick.  And Mike Moran won the Allston/Brighton/Brookline special election despite Tim Schofield's more aggressive outreach to the "progressive" internet-based community.  But Schofield came really close (64 votes) - a lot closer than he would have come otherwise, given Moran's lifelong roots in the community and his endorsements from both the Globe and the Phoenix.  And, it is said, Schofield's strong presence in the race pushed Moran to adopt more "progressive" positions on certain issues (including but not limited to gay marriage) than he otherwise might have.

So a sophisticated internet operation may or may not be outcome-determinative in these kinds of races, but I think there's little doubt that the internet matters, and that it will matter increasingly as time goes on.  Seems to me that the candidates who get that now will be better positioned in the future than those who don't.

Excuse me.... is this strawman organic?

Cookbook author Julie Powell writes an op-ed in the Times decrying the supposed gastronomic and class snobbery of those who buy organic food, finding herself "uncomfortable" in Whole Foods and "longing for the nonjudgemental aisles of low-end supermarkets".

While acknowledging that buying organic food is a reasonable and ethical if expensive choice, she claims that those who buy it are snobs, with this pivoting statement: "When you wed money to decency, you come perilously close to equating penury with immorality."

Well, no. (Going back to high school math-class logic, that's the inverse error, i.e. If buying organic food is good, then not buying organic food is not good. FALSE.)

I wonder if Powell has friends who cluck their tongues at her "Honduran family at the discount grocery" buying what they can afford. If so, she needs to get new friends. If she doesn't know real people who feel that way, she should stop making up bogus arguments to rail against.

Luckily, even organic food doesn't necessarily cost more than ordinary supermarket stuff: We have a "share" (that we then share with another couple) in a Community Supported Agriculture farm in Lincoln called The Food Project. You pay your money and get fresh organic vegetables for about five months: June through October. For our part it comes out to about $15-$20 a week for all the vegetables we can eat; for the amount of food it doesn't seem expensive to me. In addition, The Food Project (a non-profit) has programs for area youth, they give food to local shelters, and so forth. It's a good deal: good food, organic, very reasonable price, and a clear conscience -- clear even of pernicious foodie classism.

You can't handle the truth!

And while we're on the subject of petroleum-based reality... Congressman Joe Barton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a fully-owned subsidiary of the oil lobby has requested the congressional equivalent of a police raid from Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who created the influential "hockey stick" model of global warming six years ago. Here is part of Rep. Barton's request, which gives you an idea of what kind of witch hunt this is:

To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or before July 11, 2005:

1. Your curriculum vitae, including, but not limited to, a list of all studies relating to climate change research for which you were an author or co-author and the source of funding for those studies.
2. List all financial support you have received related to your research, including, but not limited to, all private, state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or honoraria.
3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding support under which you were a recipient of funding or principal investigator, provide all agreements relating to those underlying grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions, adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the dissemination and sharing of research results.

... It goes on. Way on.

Scientists are naturally outraged. Congress does indeed fund reports, but they don't get to dictate the results, any more than they can legislate the value of Pi or outlaw gravity. But when all else fails, blame the messenger!

Who knows, maybe there should be hearings. I'd love to see the scientists go up against Barton face-to-face. Good times...

The tiger that's a red herring

ExxonMobil seems to be feeling the heat of its own making: A coalition of environmental groups have called for a boycott of the most stubborn, recalcitrant global-warming-profiteering company out there. ExxonMobil finances "pay-to-play" propaganda studies questioning global warming.

So naturally, ExxonMobil would like to draw your attention to their cute mascot, a "charismatic mega-fauna", the tiger. Their usual "op-ad" on the NY Times op-ed page a few days ago says they're sponsoring a campaign to save tigers in India. Great. What about saving our skins?

I harbor no animus for the local owners of ExxonMobil stations. But I'm not going to buy their products. ExxonMobil as a corporation may only be one of the worst of the bunch, but they richly deserve their embarrassment. I hope the boycott works, and sooner rather than later.

Mitt Romney, meet your fellow one-termer George H.W. Bush

Both the Globe and the Herald are reporting Mitt Romney's howlingly funny PR disaster of trying to reassure T riders that public transit in Boston is still safe by taking the 14-second Red Line ride from Park Street to Downtown Crossing (yeah, I'm sure that really reassured the riders who spend 45 minutes on three different lines twice a day).  First, asked by reporters how much a token costs, Romney got it wrong.  He said it costs "a buck."  Oops.  That was your T board that raised it to $1.25, Guv.  Informed of his error, Romney apparently flipped a quarter into the crowd, as if to say, "a buck, a buck and a quarter, who cares?  The extra 25 cents really doesn't make any difference to a rich guy like me.  I flush quarters down the toilet every day as a way to keep my mansion's plumbing running smoothly - it's like roughage for pipes."

Anyway, to add insult to injury, the crazy cat lady then started harassing Romney, screaming that he had killed her cats.  And asked when the last time he had actually ridden the T was, he came up with this gem:

''Let's see it was, we did it with the Charlie card and then also the . . . it was with [Senate] President [Robert E.] Travaglini -- I'm trying to recall," he said, asking aloud, ''We were at a station, what was it . . . Ashmont station? Ashmont station, it was Ashmont station . . . It's not my regular commute."

"Not my regular commute."  Kinda says it all.

The obvious historical reference here is George H.W. Bush's infamous gaffe at a supermarket where he expressed wonderment at the remarkable "scanner" technology.  (Some say that story was overblown, but the legend does live on.)  Romney has become so disengaged from Massachusetts that he's forgotten how much it costs to ride the T.  If he lived in Northampton, that'd be one thing.  But he lives in the Boston area, and he works up the hill from the Park Street T stop - and it's not like the fare hike flew below radar when it happened.  It was a big deal.  Governors are supposed to be aware of stuff like this.  Maybe presidential candidates aren't.

OK, that was fun. Now back to the important stuff.

Well, all this John Roberts for the Supreme Court business has been interesting.  But let's face it - he's going to be confirmed, and probably in a walk.  The requisite interest groups will make the requisite loud noises about it, and Senators will ask some tough questions, but at the end of the day, he's in.  And he's not as bad as some of the others on Bush's short list, so let's count our pathetic blessings, such as they are, and move on.  (Move on - get it?  Heh.)

To what, you ask?  To this, for example: Bloomberg will run this story tonight reporting that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are both under investigation for having given false testimony to the Novak-Plame-gate grand jury.  Which would mean, of course, that both of them are candidates for perjury or obstruction of justice indictments. 

Mmmm...indictments....

               

Anyway, as I was saying, word on the street is that Bush rushed his announcement of Roberts because the heat on Rove was becoming unbearable.  And sure enough, Novak-Plame-gate (which I should maybe rename Rovegate) has been out of the papers for a couple of days.  Well, it's time for that little vacation to end.  With Rove and Libby (and probably others) likely having given false testimony, and with rumors swirling about who had access to the mysterious secret State Department memo that mentioned Plame's identity (also discussed in the Bloomberg story), the shit is hitting the fan on this one, and all the world needs to know about it.

So stop worrying about Roberts.  He may not be the guy we'd choose, but he's a perfectly defensible pick for a Republican president.  What is NOT in any way shape or form defensible is this administration's willingness to compromise national security by leaking the identity of a CIA agent to the press for political purposes, possibly breaking laws in the course either of the leak itself or of covering it up.  THAT's the big story, folks, and THAT's where everyone's attention should be.

UPDATE: Slate.com's Mickey Kaus agrees with the sentiments expressed here in a post called "OK, he'll do. Now back to Plame!"  (I promise I hadn't seen his post before I wrote mine.)

Second Middlesex Senate race update

We interrupt our wall-to-wall John Roberts coverage to remind you (and ourselves) that other important stories continue to percolate along.

The field in the Second Middlesex Senate race has narrowed considerably.  What looked for a while like a free-for-all is now down to four major Democratic candidates, Rep. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville), ex-Rep. Joe Mackey (D-Somerville), Rep. Paul Casey (D-Winchester), and Governor's Councillor Michael J. Callahan (D-Medford), along with Bob Publicover about whom I know nothing.  Today's Globe has this interesting piece on Mackey's innovative use of technology - a CD containing a brief movie about him - in his campaign.  Also on the technology beat, Mackey and Pat Jehlen both have set up spiffy websites; Casey and Callahan have not, though Casey told the Globe he's planning to (Callahan was mum on his technology plans).

It's shaping up to be a very interesting race.  Jehlen, of course, has lined up a slew of endorsements from "progressive" interest groups, liberal-ish unions like SEIU and the Teachers' Union, and left-leaning individuals, and is clearly banking on that crowd's ability to get out the lefty vote.  Mackey has also positioned himself as a "progressive" candidate, though he hasn't had the success with obtaining endorsements that Jehlen has, perhaps relying instead on a combination of his fancy CDs and shoe-leather.  At the opposite end of the spectrum appears to be Callahan, who is taking the more traditional Democratic approach - lining up endorsements from conservative-ish unions like the police and NAGE, and local elected officials like Medford's popular and long-serving Mayor Michael J. McGlynn and Woburn Mayor John Curran.  Callahan, too, will no doubt be hitting the bricks this summer.

Of course, everyone recognizes that a special election campaign like this one is all about turnout.  And it seems fair to say that both the "progressive" Dem crowd and the "traditional" Dem crowd are well represented in Somerville, Medford, Woburn, and Winchester.  In a totally unscientific survey of a small corner of Medford, I saw a smattering of Callahan lawn signs, along with a couple of Mackeys and Jehlens (in case you're wondering, a "smattering" is more than a "couple").  But there are plenty of voters out there for all of these candidates.  Who can get them to show up on August 30?

Roberts NOT a Federalist Society member!

The Federalist Society has become the pre-eminent legal fraternity for conservatives and libertarians.  It has pretensions to being a think-tank, but really, it's a gigantic networking club - and it has been incredibly successful.  From its humble beginnings as a law school debating group in the late 1970s, it has grown to encompass thousands of members, and has been enviously described by lefties as "the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country."  Justices Scalia and Thomas are members, as are numerous right-leaning appellate and district court judges, Senators, law professors, well-connected D.C. lawyers, and law students.

John Roberts fits into a lot of those categories, and so everyone pretty much assumed that OBVIOUSLY he was a member. 

But, as it turns out, they were all wrong.  Roberts is not, and apparently never has been, a member of the Federalist Society, although he has addressed the groups' gatherings on more than one occasion (which says nothing - lots of liberal luminaries have addressed their meetings too).

What to make of this?  Was not joining a strategic move by Roberts, in anticipation of the possibility that he might someday be nominated to a federal judgeship and that it might be easier at that point not to have been a member so that he wouldn't be asked about it?  Frankly, that seems a bit far-fetched to me - the FedSoc hasn't always been the intensely connected, political organization that it seems today to have become, nor has Roberts always been on the track to the federal bench (after all, there was a time when Democrats won elections).  And the FedSoc has lots of members who are, and who want to be, federal judges.  Roberts' 2003 Judiciary Committee forms list the Republican National Lawyers Association and the legal advisory board of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest (a right-leaning think tank though with some left-leaning members on its advisory board) as groups of which he is a member, and he was also a "member" but "did not have any substantive responsibilities" with the lawyers groups supporting the Bush-Quayle '88 and Bush-Cheney 2000 campaigns.  So it's not like he has always shied away from membership in groups that could conceivably cause controversy down the road.

Is there something that bugs him about the Federalist Society?  (If so, it'd be great to know what it is.)  Did he just never get around to sending in his fifty bucks?  Hard to say.  But his non-membership does carry just a hint of a suggestion of the possibility that he's not the hard-core, team player, belt-and-suspenders right-wing activist that the Dobsonites so desperately want on the Supreme Court.

We're baaaaack!

Well, after being unceremoniously dumped from Google News a few weeks back, it looks like we're back in!  I received an email today passing along the good news.  Might take a couple of weeks, but pretty soon we should be searchable through the Google News continuous web-crawl, as well as Google's less frequent one.

I wonder whether they're letting all the other blogs back in, or whether my artful appeal (which was basically "hey, we're not a 'single individual' site - there are three of us!") was what did it.

John Roberts, day 2

SCOTUSblog has this summary of John Roberts' significant opinions (such as they are) on the D.C. Circuit.  Not a whole lot to learn there, I'm afraid.  His paper trail as an advocate is much longer, but discerning meaning from litigation papers is greatly complicated by the fact that he was advocating for his clients, and he therefore can (and will) credibly claim that the positions taken represent not his own views but those of clients, presented in as forceful a manner as he could think of.

Also, I've already received a MoveOn email frantically announcing a campaign to oppose the nomination.  Well, let me ask you this, guys: who did you think we were going to get?  This President is simply not going to nominate another Ginsburg or Breyer, and this idea that there is another nominee out there who is "in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor" is silly - she is unique for many reasons.  Will Roberts tilt the Court to the right?  Maybe.  But from what I know so far, I doubt that he will do so in a dramatic way.  As Lyle Denniston explains in this interesting post, Roberts is more likely to find his place as the right-most member of a centrist alliance than as a Scalia/Thomas clone. 

Frankly, at this point I'd rather see the Democrats playing nice - and making the Dobsonites really nervous in the process.  It's interesting that the Dobsonites have come out cheering, claiming that they got exactly what they wanted.  I don't believe them for a second - they got someone whose entire career has been devoted to the institution of the Supreme Court, and I believe that kind of institutional devotion will translate into way more respect for the institution than those guys have ever had.  What they wanted was a bomb-thrower.  What they got was a careful conservative.  The Dobsonites are trying to put the best face on what I suspect is a disappointment for them - not as bad as Gonzales would have been, but not what they were hoping for either.

John Roberts is nominated for the Supreme Court

The President is currently announcing his nomination of Judge John Roberts, now of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I don't know a whole lot about Roberts as a judge; he hasn't been on the D.C. Circuit for that long.  But what I hear from people who know him, or know more about him than I do, is that yes, he's a conservative - but he's a real conservative, not a radical.  I also take some comfort in the fact that the more wingnuttish participants on this thread don't like him - a "squish," in the words of one commenter.

My guess: an easy confirmation.  Some of the interest groups may try to raise a ruckus (he did sign a brief urging that Roe v. Wade be overruled while he worked in the Solicitor General's office, but that was official policy at the time).  But I doubt that the Senate Democrats will see this as a call to battle, and I think they'd be foolish to try to turn it into one.  Particularly since any move to filibuster would require getting Dems in the Gang of 14 to consider a Roberts nomination an "extraordinary circumstance," I just don't think it's going to happen.  There will be the requisite tough questions, but at the end of the day I could easily see Roberts getting 80, 90, even 100 votes to confirm.  Realistically, he's probably the best the Democrats could hope for.

Tonight's the night

The White House has said that President Bush will announce his nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor tonight at 9 pm in a televised address.  Rumors are swirling fast and furious that his choice is Edith Brown Clement, a Louisiana-based judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Never heard of her?  Neither has anyone else.  Here is her official bio.

If the rumors prove true, it's most interesting that George W. Bush is, in a way, following in the footsteps of his father, George H.W. Bush, who of course appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court.  Bush the First was promised by those that knew him that Souter was a reliable conservative.  That turned out to be wildly incorrect.  Yet here is another nominee with very little track record on the issues that matter the most to Bush the Second's "base."

What do we know about her?  The invaluable SCOTUSblog has provided this list (constantly being updated) of summaries of significant opinions that Judge Clement either wrote or signed on to.  Based on an extremely quick read of the summaries: Judge Clement favors the rights of criminals over the rights of victims, is insensitive to people with AIDS, and doesn't think that the estate of a mother and daughter killed when an 18-wheeler slammed into their car are entitled to any pain and suffering damages, presumably because their lives were snuffed out too quickly rewards negligent truck drivers for killing their victims quickly rather than just injuring them. (Better than my first version, isn't it?)  Or, Judge Clement is a reasonable judge who takes each criminal case as it comes based on the particular facts, understands that AIDS is a serious disease but recognizes that people with AIDS can continue to live productive lives for many years after being diagnosed, and is the kind of judge who is able to apply the law even-handedly even when the result may tug at the emotional heartstrings.  Take your pick.

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog is backing off the Edith Clement predictions.  Sounds like no one who really knows anything was behind the rumors.  Let's all just wait 'til 9 pm.  It's not that long from now.

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: We're number one!

...And weeeee'll keep on buying -- till the end ... Boston is the #1 bubblicious-est housing market in the country, says Kiplingers Personal Finance (at  Yahoo). And our soft job market is part of the reason for concern:

The problem, says Lawrence Yun, regional economist for the National Association of Realtors (NAR), is that the Boston area has lost 200,000 jobs since 2000 and that housing prices remain high, with a median home selling for $398,000.

It's a chicken-and-omelette situation: high housing prices make the area unattractive for workers and jobs, which makes it impossible to keep up the bubble.

But there's a silver lining, folks... Here's your Brit Hume Schadenfreude moment of the day:

But David Lindahl, a veteran real estate buyer who runs a local investors' club, looks at the bright side of a possible price decline in Boston. That would mean, he says, "buying opportunities in the foreclosure market."

Ugh. Good news for people who love bad news, as they say.

Cell phones - one more thing

OK, here's the last word on cell phones, at least for now.

Seen yesterday while driving in Belmont: an older man riding his bicycle, not wearing a helmet, talking on his cell phone.

Discuss.

DFA Endorses Jehlen

DFA has endorsed Pat Jehlen for Massachusetts State Senate: "Jehlen has the experience, vision, and determination to stand up for all families of the 2nd Middlesex District. During her fourteen years as a state representative, she has fought for education funding, universal health care, marriage equality and the needs of working people and families. In the wake of State Senator Charlie Shannon's death, Pat Jehlen has vowed to continue the presence of a strong, progressive voice in the Massachusetts State Senate. Jehlen has also received the endorsement of the Cambridge-Area Democracy for America. The primary election is August 30, 2005 and the general election is September 27, 2005.
http://www.patjehlen.org."

It takes a moron

Hillary's village seems to have found its idiot: Here's a sweet review of Rick Santorum's new book, which includes these pearls:

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

"But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

"Respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders' war on the traditional family and radical feminism's misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect."

Mm hm ... thanks for clearing all that up, Rick.

Also, do check out the reader reviews at Amazon. My favorite is simply entitled "Political Suicide".

And no, I haven't read it ... fairness will have to wait until it comes to Buck-a-Book.

(Thanks to Political Wire.)

Lehigh (with a little help from my friends)

Whatever he's on, I want some... Scot Lehigh seems really impressed that Mitt's still acting like he's the governor and stuff. Last week's tonguebath of Our Guv included this wisdom (my emphasis):

Although it is stances struck with an obvious eye to national politics that have grabbed public attention, Romney is also pushing thoughtful plans on a number of important state issues.

One is his proposal to expand healthcare by facilitating more affordable basic health insurance and then require individuals to buy coverage, with generous subsidies for those of modest means. Considerable skepticism remains about whether Romney can accomplish that with existing healthcare dollars, as he hopes. Still, healthcare experts credit him with crafting a creative and intriguing proposal, one that could be the basis of legislation.

Wow... like, it could be the basis of legislation! Do governors actually do that kind of stuff? Sure, considerable skepticism exists about the funding... just like the skepticism that exists about me flapping my arms -- thoughtfully, of course -- and getting to Pluto.

Well, I'll show them...

(Yeah, this is a little old, but since .08 and The Little Blog That Cried have commented on it, I felt left out...)

Death Penalty vs. Keeping people alive

So Our Guv had a hearing on his new "flawless" death penalty plan. David has already dealt with the issue of its expense, which would be enormous. The bill's prospects for passage are dim. But there's also a convergence of philosophical issues and fiscal issues that's really at stake: What's the purpose of the death penalty? And what's the best use of the state's money?

First, even the Governor admits that 100% certainty regarding guilt is unrealistic. If the state takes one innocent life through this program, that is too many.

Second: Most people feel that certain criminals deserve death. I find it hard to argue against that: What does the BTK killer (for instance) really deserve? A penalty that is equal to his crimes is almost impossible to imagine, and certainly not contemplated by our Constitution. There used to be such penalties in the Middle Ages, and I think that most of us do not want to go back to that.

So in death penalty situations, we are already in a position of permanent loss. With robbery, you can restore property and pay a fine; but with murder, there is no restoration -- we can't bring people back to life.

However, we do have the possibility of prevention, which would be a much better use of the scarce resources that Romney plans to spend on killing people who are already in prison. The death penalty's efficacy as a deterrent is doubtful, to say the least. Better ways to spend the money were suggested in Friday's 'BUR report, and we can all probably think of a few:

• Fund the crime lab adequately
• More community policing
• Drug rehab
• Battered women's shelters
• Anti-gang activities: Jobs and after-school activities for at-risk kids
• Adequate homeland security funding

etc. etc. etc. Each of these is a better way to spend the money that would otherwise go to sticking a needle in someone who is in a supermax prison anyway.

So, Romney has had his opportunity to present a plan that is probably DOA (sorry) in the legislature. Besides providing him an opportunity to burnish his tough-guy credentials, maybe it's also an opportunity for everyone else to think about what we can do to keep people from becoming victims in the first place. The ball's in our court.

But what does he MEAN by that?

President Bush, in his radio address today, spoke of his approach to nominating Sandra Day O'Connor's successor as follows:

My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values.

He said a bunch of other stuff too, but none of it had any content.  This one sentence, however, is interesting - the "mainstream" of "American law."  If he really means that, it's actually a pretty big signal.  Alberto Gonzales, I think it's fair to say, is within the "mainstream" of American law.  So is ex-Solicitor General Ted Olsen, and probably D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts.  On the other hand, Janice Rogers Brown, for example, is not - like her or not, she is on the far edge on numerous important issues, and cannot be considered a "mainstream" judge if words retain any meaning.

Is Bush sending a signal?  Is he laying the groundwork to disappoint his far-right minions by, say, nominating someone he actually likes (Gonzales) rather than someone who might steer the Court well to the right?  Or is this just happy-talk without any real content?

Maybe we'll find out this week.