Kerry Touts Watertown Battery-Maker

Watertown company A123 Systems has been all over the news lately promoting their new plug-in hybrid car technology. I have heard of people converting their hybrids to take power from a wall socket for some time now but this is the most attention I've seen the idea get in the news. Senator John Kerry today touted his support for plug-in hybrids after the Senate finance committee approved incentives for the production and purchase of such vehicles. Here's his statement:

"Plug-in car technology offers a blueprint for clean, efficient, affordable driving and it should be widely available to consumers very soon," Kerry said. "I don’t know of anyone who isn’t interested in getting 150 miles to the gallon with their car and that could soon be a reality. The American people are ready for advanced auto technologies, and companies like A123 Systems are ahead of the curve, giving hybrid drivers the option of actually running their cars on battery for the majority of their daily commute. This is exactly the type of technology that we will promote by passing strong CAFE standards this week in the energy bill."

In addition, Google recently announced that it was using A123 System batteries in a $10 million effort to get the company to use plug-in hybrids and NPR did a story on the company last week. Whoever's doing the public relations over there in the Arsenal is sure earning their salary.

Kerry in Natick on Saturday

Karen Schlosberg, Chair of the Natick Democratic Town Committee, writes in to announce the Metrowest Community Forum on Iraq with Senator John Kerry, this Saturday, June 16, 2007 at the Walnut Hill School in Natick. Senator Kerry will talk about the war and our future in Iraq and take questions from the audience. The doors will open at 3:30 and the program starts promptly at 4:00pm. It's free and open to the public. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on Saturday, but if you plan to go, they'd like it if you RSVP online.

It promises to be an interesting event. I'm sorry to have to miss it.

Watertown Native Challenging Kerry in '08

Yesterday's Boston Herald reported that Gloucester attorney Edward O’Reilly, a Watertown native, is planning to challenge Senator John Kerry in the 2008 Democratic primary for his Senate seat. O'Reilly's complaint about the Senator is his 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution, a vote that Kerry himself now even admits was a mistake.

O'Reilly described himself to the Herald as "no flash in the pan," but he faces high hurdles to even get on the 2008 ballot. He not only needs 10,000 signatures, but he'll need the vote of 15% of the delegates at the 2008 state convention. The latter is a feat that gubernatorial candidate Chris Gabrieli only barely pulled off last year. O'Reilly would likely have to accomplish that without the support of any institutional Democrat and without the benefit of a pre-convention advertising blitz. It seems doubtful that O'Reilly will make the ballot.

The article notes that O'Reilly will be at tomorrow's Democratic convention in Amherst. I'm also going, and perhaps I'll try to track him down and find out more.

Wednesday Morning Links

I don't have a whole lot of time this morning, so here are a few articles I found interesting this morning:

• In the Boston Herald, Brett Arends has a column about his conversation with Congressman Ed Markey (D-Malden) on energy independence. The Congressman notes that "If we improve fuel economy from 25 mpg to 35 mpg over the next 10 years, that backs out the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf."
• Also in the Herald is Margery Eagan's column about Diane Patrick's triumphant return to the spotlight.
• In the Boston Globe, Senator John Kerry has a piece on the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act he plans to introduce this week. The bill would reimburse companies for their health insurance costs for the most chronically ill employees, thereby driving down their expenses. His prediction is that health insurance premiums would go down 10% for everybody under his plan>
• Ever wonder what Mitt Romney's favorite novel is? Frankly, I'm more surprised that it's not one of the Left Behind novels, than the fact that it's by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology (via Universal Hub).

Conference Call with Senator Kerry

On Thursday, I participated in a blogger conference call with Senator John Kerry. David Eisenthal has a report on the call, and other participants included Susan from Beyond 495, Lynne from Left in Lowell and Andy formerly of Mass. Revolution Now, and currently of a new mysterious blog project. David's rundown is superb, so I won't go into too much more detail, and hopefully some of the other bloggers will give their reactions as well in the next few days (I'm surprised that more haven't, actually).

My question to the Senator was on Cape Wind. I have seen people on both sides of the issue try to claim lately that Kerry agrees with them, so I wanted to hear directly from him what his position was, particularly given his new book and recent focus on the environment. His answer likely would disappoint both those in favor and those against. He would not comment on the merits of the project, but only said that he supports wind energy in principle. He noted that those against he project have serious concerns about the siting and he's content to just let the permitting process work, and see what the Coast Guard has to say about it. On that, he asked "Does a developer have the right to just plunk down anywhere and say, 'here, I'm doing this here' or is there some sort of siting standard?" He noted that he has concerns whether the proposed site is the "number one prime location" or if another spot might be more effective and that only 6% of the country lends itself to wind use. The upshot seems to be that he won't work to stop it, but neither will he try to help it through.

It was a little frustrating, then, to hear Kerry go on to talk favorably about small wind turbines people could put on their roof when asked a question about the decentralization of power generation. Where were his concerns about whether a rooftop turbine would be the number one prime location for generating power to a home? Why no talk of countless hoops a home wind user would have to go through? Yes, I understand there's a difference between putting up a single turbine on private property and putting over 100 on public land, but it seems incongruous to say on the one hand that you're worried about people putting up windmills willy-nilly and on the other that everyone should have their own.

That all said, Senator Kerry is exactly right on decentralized energy. He hoped that decentralized energy sources would be a big part of how we deal with energy problems. With the proper incentives, the marketplace will begin to provide more choices for consumers. He talked about putting tax credits or other programs in place to make putting up your own solar or other renewable energy system affordable, and he's looking personally to be on a "green grid".

One thing that David did not mention was how well briefed Senator Kerry was on all of us. I've done a bunch of blogger conference calls in the past and Kerry is so far the only one who had been at all prepped on all the participants.

Senator Kerry also was at an event this past weekend in Cambridge. He and his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry did a reading of their new book This Moment on Earth at the First Parish Church in Harvard Square. John Kerry's blog has a complete account of the event.

Mass GOP Gunning for Kerry

The Boston Herald has an article today on how the Massachusetts Republican Party thinks that now that he's announced he won't run for President, Senator John Kerry is "increasingly vulnerable" to defeat in his 2008 re-election campaign. Now, I'll concede that Senator Kerry's in-state approval ratings have not been too hot lately, but don't forget that this is the same person who got over 60% of the vote in Massachusetts just over two years ago. Of course, when I see what prominent Republicans have to say about challenging him, I'm encouraged. For example, here's what State Senator Scott Brown had to say:

"I think he'll get a challenge this time. I don't think he'll get a free ride," Brown (R-Wrentham) said. "His handling of himself during this Iraq situation has been outrageous. He needs to be held accountable."

If Scott Brown and the Massachusetts GOP think that running on the Iraq war is going to be a political winner in the Commonwealth in 2008, then it's no surprise their party is going extinct here. Now, I absolutely think that it's important for Bay State Republicans to run someone against Kerry. If they're going to come back, they need a high-profile race. But, if their standard-bearer is going to talk about how much they support the increasingly unpopular war and how much John Kerry is against it, they are going to further associate the Republican party with Iraq and hurt their candidates downballot.

Kerry Won't Run For President

The Boston Globe is reporting that John Kerry is not running for president. The article sites his now-infamous "botched joke" and good poll numbers by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as some factors that led Kerry to believe that he would have had a tough time winning the nomination. Instead, the Senator will seek re-election in 2008.

To be honest, I am disappointed but not surprised. I didn't think that Kerry had much chance of winning the nomination again, and I probably wouldn't have voted for him in the primary myself. Still, part of me was rooting for Kerry just so we'd have the free-for-all for his Senate seat here in Massachusetts. The domino effect would have been exciting as Congressmen ran for the Senate, state Senators ran for Congress, state reps run for state Senate, and so on down to school committee members. Just on a personal level, so many campaigns would have made for some good blogging!

Anyway, here is what he had to say in an email that just went out to his mailing list:

I sought the presidency to lead us on a different course. There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I've concluded this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign. It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the new Democratic majority in the Senate, to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security and our ability to fight the real war on terror.

The people of Massachusetts have given me an incredible privilege to serve in the Senate, to represent the birthplace of freedom, the cradle of liberty, and a state where in Faneuil Hall patriotic dissenters stood on principle. I want to continue representing Massachusetts, and that's why I am running for reelection so I can use my voice all day every day to end this war and galvanize grassroots action to force Washington and our Democratic Party to live up to its responsibility.

In addition, as is the trend nowadays, he's recorded a video with his message.

Buckingham Translated

I normally don't pay much attention to Boston Herald columnist Ginny Buckingham, but I just got my GOP Operative-to-English translator back from the shop (the poor thing fried itself trying to make sense of Tim O'Brien's meaningless babel last fall) and I decided I should test it out. Here's Buckingham's latest column on John Kerry, translated for your benefit:

Dear John Kerry,
   Please please please please run for President so you won't be able to run for re-election to the Senate. The Mass GOP is in some trouble and could use an open seat or two to run for in 2008.

Thanks for your consideration,
Ginny Buckingham

PS. I heard that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim! Pass it on!

Seriously, though, that whole "Obama went to a madrassa in Indonesia" thing that Buckingham oh-so-innocently brings up: it's a lie.

Jeff Jacoby: Wrong Again

Now, I know that if I had to post every time Jeff Jacoby was wrong about something, I'd probably end up spending more time in front of the computer. Still, I feel like I have to respond to his latest post on the Boston Globe's Thinking Politics -- their 'opinion blog' (whatever that means). Here's what Jacoby has to say:

Shouldn't John Kerry's new policy of "endorsing only candidates in contested primaries who are veterans," as the Globe's Rick Klein reported last week, be getting a bit more scrutiny? After all, a veterans-only rule would tend to rule out women, gays, and the handicapped.

The funniest part of this is that Kerry had, in fact, endorsed Tammy Duckworth for Congress in Illinois in her March primary (she won by 200 or so votes in a low-turnout election). Duckworth is not only a veteran, but also a woman, and she lost her legs in a helicopter explosion in Iraq. Maybe in Jacoby's world, there are no female veterans, and none are ever wounded in the course of their duty, but I've suspected for some time now that Jacoby does not live in the same reality that the rest of us inhabit.

You would think that someone who talks about how Kerry's primary endorsements should be getting 'more scrutiny' would bother to actually check who Kerry endorsed before complaining about how sexist and ableist the Senator might be.

Kerry on Net Neutrality Part II

Little did I know that when I wrote about Senator John Kerry's net neutrality support yesterday that I'd be doing it again so soon. Senator Kerry wrote a blog post of his own today at SaveTheInternet.com. Here's an excerpt:

Everyone says they don't want the new world we're living in to be marked by the digital divide -- the term is so cliched it's turned to mush -- but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?

Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they're born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service -- in the age of the information.

Without net neutrality, telecoms could turn the Internet into something resembling cable television, where the cost to entry is too huge for normal people to get the kind of reach they can have now. They could also enter into exclusivity agreements and control the kind of content that you're able to see. It seems like they want to go back to the days where you dialed in to something like AOL, which couldn't talk to Compuserve or Prodigy. The Internet has come too far for that to happen, and I hope that we can get net neutrality codified before it's too late.

Kerry on Net Neutrality

Matt Stoller of MyDD has the report from the Senate Commerce Committee Markup session and the debate on the Network Neutrality amendment to the Telecom bill. Stoller has some promising words from our own John Kerry.

John Kerry was the major surprise in the hearings. Ted Stevens was deeply angry about the bill, and said at one point that the net neutrality provision was a poison pill that would prevent the larger telecom reform bill from passing. "If we include net neutrality in the bill, we won't have 60 votes to pass the bill", he said, to which John Kerry responded with something along the lines of "If you don't put net neutrality in the bill, you won't have 60 votes to pass the bill either." Ouch. This was vintage kickass Kerry, the Kerry that showed up for the debates in 2004.

The net neutrality amendment failed on a tie, but it's nice to know that Kerry is fighting in favor of keeping a free and open Internet.

Insiders Higher on Romney

My anonymous source in Washington clued me into the newest version of the National Journal's 2008 Republican Insiders Poll. This time, they asked 100 Republican insiders -- Congressmen and other political types -- to rank potential candidates' chances of winning their party's presidential nomination. I commented on the April edition of the insiders poll, where our favorite Governor, Mitt Romney ranked fifth. This time, the gov jumped up to third, behind Senators George Allen and John McCain. Here are the top ten on the Republican side, according to those inside the Beltway, from the poll (PDF):

Rank	Candidate	Points	First-Place Votes
1.	George Allen	365	(39)
2.	John McCain	337	(38)
3.	Mitt Romney	168	(4)
4.	Rudy Giuliani	149	(7)
5.	Bill Frist	93	(1)
6.	Haley Barbour	92	(0)
7.	Condoleezza Rice	61	(4)
8.	George Pataki	39	(2)
9.	Newt Gingrich	37	(0)
10.	Chuck Hagel	35	(1)

Notice, however, that Romney jumped up in rank even though his point total actually decreased slightly from the last time. I think a lot of that might have to do with Senator Bill Frist's falling stock more than anything Romney himself has done. Hopefully, this won't all go to the Governor's head. The National Journal also reports that the most recent polling of Republicans voters has Mitt clocking in at a whopping 2% -- just below "Other" and "None". Here's what one insider had to say about the Governor:

"Regardless of his record, our base will wonder what in the heck he had to do to become governor of the Kennedy-Dukakis state."

The National Journal also polled Democratic insiderts, and among them the Bay State's other 2008 Presidential contender, Senator John Kerry, fared less well, dropping from fifth last time to eighth in this incarnation of the poll. Predictably, among the insiders, Senator Hillary Clinton towers over the rest of the Democratic field.

Senatorial Approval Ratings

Following up to their gubernatorial approval ratings last month, SUSA has compiled polls on all 100 Senators. You can find the full results for our Massachusetts senators here. After yesterday's discussion about how Massachusetts politicians can appeal to Independents, I thought it would be interesting to see how self-described Moderates and Independents viewed our two Senators.

	Moderates		Independents
	Approve	Disapprove	Approve	Disapprove
Ted Kennedy	64%	30%	56%	39%
John Kerry	56%	40%	50%	44%

It's interesting to note that both Moderates and Independents not only prefer Kennedy to Kerry, but also disapprove of him less. It might just be because he's a Kennedy, and Kerry is coming of a losing presidential race, but it might be because you at least always know where Kennedy stands. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Speaking of Senator Kennedy, it looks like the state GOP still can't find anyone to run against him. GOP consultant Charley Manning was practically begging ambitious Republicans to challenge the Senator to build on a future run. Still, that hasn't stopped Kennedy's team from jumping all over the Wall Street Journal Op/Ed which advised Governor Mitt Romney himself to take on Kennedy. From a Kennedy fundraising e-mail:

[Romney] wants to run for President in 2008. But along the way, he has a decision in 2006 -- whether to run for governor again, or take on Senator Kennedy.

As Romney plots his rise, conservative commentators say that if he can "defeat the brother of JFK," he will have done more to "add momentum to a run for the presidency than anything he could accomplish as governor." That's the empty ambition of Republicans like Romney. A race against Kennedy would be, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, to "gain political capital" for a White House run.

It's only fair -- after all Romney has been using Kennedy's name in fundraising letters for months (probably years) now and Romney's popularity among Massachusetts Democrats is not getting any higher with the Governor's recent rhetoric.

Kerry Fallout

Here's a roundup of reaction to Senator Kerry's recent comments regarding the presence of language supporting equal marriage rights in the Massachusetts Democratic party's platform.

Eileen McNamara in Sunday's Globe:

It is a shame Kerry could not fit a stop at the Tsongas Arena on his cross-country tour. He would discover what the 3,000 delegates to the convention already know. He could bring the news to the rest of the nation. The earth did not tilt off its axis one year ago when same-sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts. The demonstrations are over. Massachusetts has moved on.

Kristen from The Fray:

And while I could be convinced this is what Kerry believes -- that civil unions are preferable to same-sex marriages -- it just reads like politics to me.

From Noho Missives:

I've not heard one sound policy reason to not allow gays to marry. Even Kerry does not give a reason -- just that it doesn't "reflect the broad view" of others -- that's not a reason. The default view should be freedom to marry -- the burden to provide a reason to stop a marriage falls on the government.

Charley from Blue Mass Group:

[S]ometimes you have to stand on principle, and make the most eloquent, compassionate, and dignified case you can in defense of a minority position. I'm sure that we're right in insisting on civilized attitudes towards gays and lesbians. I'm not going to give up on my gay friends, colleagues, and neighbors because it's politically inconvenient for John Kerry in the short term.

Continued...From Cape Cod Works:

Look here, John ... [Y]ou've got about as much chance of being nominated for president in 2008 as I do to be abducted by aliens. So, how 'bout you settle back and just be Senator from Massachusetts? How 'bout being John Kerry, reporting for duty, in Massachusetts? Be one of us.

From Jamaica Plain Confidential:

I still find it hard to believe that [Kerry] is against gay marriage. It’s the same problem he has always had. He doesn’t know if he is against it or not, really. He knows that nationally it doesn’t play well, so maybe if we curl ourselves up into the fetal position a little more the Republicans will stop nipping at us—but he's wrong about that. The tighter we curl, the more vicious their attacks will grow. We have to stand up and fight the right, and yet again, Kerry is not the man to do it. Step back Senator Kerry. Let real liberals with real convictions take the helm.

Marry in Massachusetts offers up these bullet points:

• The Dems here are differentiating themselves from rightwingers and reactionaries.
• What may not play in Oklahoma works here.
• The state Democrats are committed to diversity and inclusion, and they'll support same-sex marriage even if the national party does not.
• Kerry is cowardly, again and still.
• Republicans profit when Democrats waffle.

From what I've read of the right-wing blogs, responses generally fall into two camps. The first don't believe Kerry and accuse him of trying to camouflage his liberal leanings by taking a more conservative stand. The second take him at his word and see this as evidence that Massachusetts Democrats (and by extention anyone who favors gay marriage) are so far out of the mainstream that even liberal John Kerry thinks they're nuts. Notice how neither response helps either Senator Kerry's political prospects or Kerry's gay constituents (who, after all, are legally allowed to marry at present).

Kerry could have learned from Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) who also disagrees with equal marriage rights. While she did criticize the state party leadership, she also had This to say:

“To be honest, I don't go by the Democratic party platform. I go by the people of my district,” Garry said. “I'm a Democrat, but I look at each issue and how the people of my district would like me to vote.”

Though I disagree with Garry on this particular issue, I believe that she has the right perspective on the party platform. If Senator Kerry was not too busy playing in front of a national audience, maybe he would spend some time trying to figure out how his constituency would like him to vote.

Kerry Already Preparing for 2008

Senator John Kerry came out today against the marriage equality plank that the Massachusetts Democrats plan to include in their platform at their convention next week. It seems clear to me that by inserting himself in this debate, he is seeking to distance himself from those here in Massachusetts who want to keep gay marriage legal -- perhaps to further his 2008 ambitions. As we all know, that strategy worked so well for him in 2004. From the Globe:

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

"I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. "I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

Now, I have not been in politics as long as Senator Kerry, but if there's one thing I know it's that Democrats disagree on how to handle just about every issue. That's one of the defining characteristics of Democrats, particularly if you believe Will Rogers. Seriously, though, he could have said the same thing about reproductive choice, about the death penalty, about the Iraq war, about taxes, and so on. And as for the broad view of Democrats in Massachusetts, well, the Senator has been playing to a national audience for so long now, that I'm not sure he's the best person to speak about how we feel here. Kerry, according to the article, is not even going to bother to show up at the convention where this decision is going to be finalized.

I am going to be a delegate at the platform convention next weekend, and I support the inclusion of the marriage rights plank for the following reasons.

• Platform positions are non-binding. If someone wants to run as a Democrat on the other side of this issue (or any other in the platform) no one is going to stop them. Heck, Tom Reilly's running for governor on the opposite side of the death penalty plank. At least three Massachusetts Congressmen are pro-life, also in opposition to the party platform. The actual platform just not a big deal -- if more than a handful of people even read it I'd be surprised.
• According to polls, a vast majority (71% in a March Globe poll) of Democrats support equal marriage rights. In other recent polls, a small majority or plurality of Massachusetts residents also supported these rights. I can only imagine that support for gay marriage will increase as time goes on and more marriages are performed.
• This is the state party platform, not the national platform. Is a voter in Ohio really going to vote for Republicans because the Massachusetts Democrats support gay marriage, even if the Ohio Democrats do not? Is it really our responsibility to further the Party beyond the Commonwealth at the expense of the rights of some of our residents?
• I, personally, believe that it's the right thing to do and I will vote my conscience rather than vote for something I think other people might be more comfortable with. If these hypothetical other Democrats cared so much about the party platform, they should have gone to their party caucuses and gotten elected to go to the convention. If I could do it, anyone could have.

I suppose what really burns me up is this:

[In 2004,] Kerry came out against the Bush-supported federal constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, saying that individual states should be allowed to settle the issue on their own.

Sure, but individual state parties? They should do whatever's best for the guy who wants to run for president again. I imagine that 90% of the people going to the convention in Lowell a week from now worked their tails off for Senator Kerry. For him to go out of his way to chastise them is a shame. It would have been just as easy for him to disagree with the position, but allow that if a majority of Democrats in Massachusetts want it, they're free to do so without it effecting his own stance whatsoever.

Kristen from The Fray has more.

Romney vs Kerry?

Scot Lehigh wonders aloud if the 2008 Presidential election will bring us a matchup of Romney vs Kerry. Personally, I put the odds of that happening to around 300 to 1, and if it does turnout will be much lighter than last November. Think of a Bay State version of the 2000 Yankees/Mets World Series -- really exciting ifor the locals; not so much for everyone else. I think a Romney-Kerry matchup would produce nothing but snoozes outside of the Commonwealth, which may even help out a third-party candidate achieve relevancy.

I have a feeling, though, that the real Romney vs Kerry fight we're going to see will be in '06. Not that Kerry would give up his seat to run for governor, but from what I've heard he's itching for paypack on Romney who slammed him personally not only at the RNC, but in campaign stops in New Hampshire and Michigan. My educated guess is that he will push hard for the Democratic nominee in '06 and I have my suspicions that it might of been Kerry who nudged Deval Patrick into thinking about running. At this point Kerry is certainly more well known in Massachusetts than anyone the Democrats could put forward for governor and his help could go a long way.