Romney on the Stump

Absentee Governor Romney was in Utah yesterday, where he gave essentially the same speech he unveiled in front of South Carolina Republicans on Monday. Ostensibly, Mitt was there to raise money for the Salt Lake County Republican Party at their Lincoln Day Dinner. Unlike South Carolina, Utah's primary is generally a month into the process so it is less important for Mitt to boost his already high profile there. Mitt is also unlikely to get much money from donors in Utah should he run for president, at least according to Brigham Young University Law Professors.

What's becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Romney is practicing a stump speech in front of small groups of conservative Republicans -- possibly in preparation for the 2008 Presidential primary.

Here's how Romney's stump speech goes:

1. Introduction by local GOP chair who jokes about how terrible it must be to live in Massachusetts.
2. Joke by Romney about how he's never seen so many Republicans in one place before.
3. Romney takes credit for "turnaround" of the state economy.
4. Hero worship of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
5. Republican social red meat: Religion is awesome, stem cell research is bad, gay marriage is really really bad.

Of course, you have to wonder when Massachusetts Republicans are going to get tired of being the butt of Romney's out-of-state jokes. While the state GOP has to know that they are seriously outgunned, I'm sure they don't appreciate their titular leader having a laugh over it Missouri, South Carolina and Utah. There are already some signs that state Republicans are ready for Mitt to decide if he's serious about continuing as governor or wants to focus on his presidential ambitions. In a Globe article about possible GOP successors to Romney, James Rappaport, former chairman of the state Republican Party, had this to say:

[Rappaport] urged Romney to make up his mind sooner than later, preferably by the summer.

"The Republican electorate in the presidential primaries would never forgive him for hanging the Massachusetts Republican Party out to dry and forgo any chance for it to retain the governor's office," Rappaport said.

Of course, what Rappaport doesn't realize is that the national Republican electorate thinks that Romney, as a Republican from Massachusetts, is a novelty -- despite the fact that he's fourth in a line of Republican governors. So, if he bolts and the Democrats finally recapture the corner office, national Republicans will just think it's the natural order of things reasserting itself.

Twirling, Twirling, Twirling Toward 2008

Not satisfied with just spinning his new position on stem cell research, Romney has now started spinning his position on abortion rights. Yesterday's Herald Article on Mitt Romney's abrupt shift to the right had this quote by the chair of the Spartanburg County GOP:

"I had a meeting with him one-on-one and he told me he is definitely pro-life," Rick Beltram said. "He said he is personally against abortion but isn't going out to change the rules - that's a pro-life position."

Now, it seems to me that the operative phrase there is "change the rules". What Mr. Beltram doesn't seem to understand is that not trying to change the rules is actually the pro-choice position. It doesn't matter how one feels about abortion personally. I would wager that an overwhelmingly large percentage of Americans are personally against having an abortion, regardless of their interest in stopping others from having the right to have one. In fact, other conservatives have noted that "personally pro-life" is the same view on abortion that one John Kerry claimed to have. I don't think anyone from the Spartanburg, SC Republican party claimed he was pro-life.

For those interested in what Mitt has said about the abortion issue in the past, Ben over at Romney Is A Fraud has a great rundown of the Governor's record and rhetoric on choice.

So, let's review:

He was for stem cell research, but now he's against it. Or rather, he's for research on donated embryoes, as long as you don't clone them so you can actually do research on them.

He was pro-choice, but now he's 'personally pro-life'. Or rather, he's pro-life when it's personally beneficial for him to say he's pro-life.

He's against civil unions, but in favor of voting for civil unions since he doesn't actually have to cast that ballot himself.

He's pro-Massachusetts, except when he's out of state, when (near as I can tell) he's just pro-Romney.

Bus Rapid Transit is an Oxymoron

The Herald's front page story today about the Silver Line’s problems is worth reading if you're interested in transit. The article details several problems including dedicated bus lanes blocked by snowbanks, parked cars and regular street traffic.

"This is not bus rapid transit," said Roxbury activist Bob Terrell, referring to the term T officials use to describe the Silver Line. "All they did was take a diesel bus, change the engine, paint it silver and run it down the street through traffic."

Now, I have never regularly driven to work in my life. I consider myself somewhat of a connoisseur of public transit, having weathered commutes by bus and subway not only in Boston, but also San Francisco and New York City. If there is one thing I have learned it is that buses suck in congested areas. Heck, sometimes it takes me a half-hour just to go the two miles from my house to Harvard Square on the 71. There may be places where bus rapid transit (BRT) can provide better service than regular buses, but it's not going to be in Boston where the rush hour traffic is always a nightmare, drivers don't particularly care about things like 'dedicated lanes', and the streets are too narrow to separate the transit traffic from the street traffic. It does not take a genius to figure this out.

Also in the article is this choice quote:

When the Silver Line was introduced, T officials promised to keep the dedicated lane clear with rigorous police patrols. But one bus driver on the route said he rarely sees officers issuing tickets.

"We try to get people to move and they just give us the finger," he said.

Well, MBTA, that's how we riders feel when you raise fares while simultaneously lowering the quality of the service. I can't say as I feel much sympathy.

UPDATE: BadTransit.com has a much more thorough post on the Silver Line mess. Check it out.

Romney's Southern Tour

Romney wasn't the only person to spend the long President's Day weekend travelling. On Saturday, The governor was in Missouri where he was the keynote speaker for a meeting of the state Republican party. On Monday, he was the keynote speaker for the President's Day Dinner in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

You can see his South Carolina remarks from C-SPAN (RealPlayer required). Romney's speech starts around 36:00. If you're curious, Katon Dawson (the chairman of the SC GOP) goes off on new DNC Chair Howard Dean at 26:40.

In the speech, Romney engaged in a verbal love-fest with the local GOP, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He also layed out what his sure to be his presidential theme. He's running as the lone voice of reason in a state populated by 'Liberal Democrats' and other irrational beasties. He claimed that he turned the state's economy around despite the objection of Massachusetts Democrats -- a GOP David to the Legislature's Goliath. Can Romney simultaneously win re-election here in Massachusetts in 2006 and run for president in 2008 positioning himself as being against the people whose votes he needs to continue as governor? The Rah-Rah Republican stuff may help him in a South Carolina primary, but it will be a liability here in Massachusetts, where less than 13% of registered voters are Republican, and the rest routinely vote for Democrats for nearly all other offices.

Of course, none of this will matter if the Mass. Dems can't find a candidate or an organizational scheme that can wrest the corner office from its streak of Republican occupants. The state Democrats are going to have to come up with something better than "We're Democrats! You like Democrats! Vote for us!" Unfortunately for Reilly, Patrick et al, I have yet to be convinced that they will. However, Romney may not be willing to gamble his political future on whether the Dems will finally get their act together, and some people have been speculating that he'll decline to run again.

Interestingly enough the local press focused as much on his religion as it did his views:

Concerns also were raised about his association with the Mormon church.

"Good luck," said Clemson's Woodard, a Republican and an evangelical. "I don't think that will play well at all."

Furman University analyst Don Aiesi, a Democrat, said, “This puts conservative Christians in the South in a real bind.”

So, Southern Republicans may be against Romney because, even though he is a Christian, he is the wrong kind of Christian. How can anyone say the GOP has a 'big tent' with a straight face?

Kennedy Wants to Go It Alone

Sunday's Globe has an interesting article about Senator Ted Kennedy's apparent desire to be unopposed in 2006. At first, I thought that was kind of tacky, but when you think about it, I'm sure every politican wants to run unopposed. Kennedy is just one of the few who has the money and the clout to make it happen. It won't be his decision, of course, but by raising more money than would ever be necessary for him to keep his seat, he can frighten off anyone who doesn't want to dump resources into a losing effort.

The state Republicans, I'm sure, are having a tough time trying to find someone who will get no money to fight a battle they won't win. In fact, the article touches on the fact that a well-funded and motivated Kennedy organization is probably the last thing the state GOP wants their slate of legislature candidates to have to contend with downticket. Of course, if state Republicans would benefit from leaving Kennedy without opposition, out of state Republicans will pay the price. Kennedy's millions will likely go to Democratic Senate candidates in places like Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Rhode Island if he doesn't have to spend it on himself. Of course, Mitt's the one who needs to win favor with the national Republicans, so the Mass GOP probably won't be taking that into account.

On the other hand, I'm sure the state Democrats would love to get their hands on some of Kennedy's money. They may even get some of it, but what they won't get if Kennedy has no Republican opponent is any organizational help for the gubernatorial race. A motivated Kennedy, who already has a bone to pick with Romney, could only help to bring Democratic partisans to the polls in the mid-year. Getting people out may be the Democrats' biggest problem in '06 as the most likely candidates are either moderately uninspiring (Reilly and Galvin) or politically inexperienced (Patrick).

The other thing Republicans should factor in when weighing a run against Kennedy is the race for Governor in 2010. Even if Mitt wins his next election and stays for the whole term, I can't see him running for a third. He barely seems interested in his first, and if it can't get him to the presidency, he just may pack it back up to Utah. An aspiring Republican with a decent personal finance (Chris Egan?) could use the race against Kennedy to boost his or her name recognition in preparation for a future race, the way Mitt himself did in 1994 (unintentionally, I'm sure). Of course, Romney is still showing signs of bailing on his '06 race, so perhaps it's best for GOP aspirants to sit back and wait for things to unfold.

You're History!

The Watertown Town Council and Historical Commision are currently reviewing a plan to allow the town to designate landmarks and neighborhood conservation districts.

In the proposal's current outline, 10 residents could request the Historical Commission to designate a building or neighborhood as a landmark or neighborhood conservation district. A neighborhood could be as small as two houses or as large as a street. The Town Council would have the final vote on whether to create the district or landmark.

Should the council approve the designation, additional restrictions would be placed on the owners' ability do demolish or add external additions to their property. Personally, I think that this sounds like a great way for residents to take the initiative to prevent neighborhoods from radically changing around them as older one-family houses get torn down and replaced with townhouses or condos.

I was actually at a meeting of the Historical Commission when they issued their first moratorium. It seemed to me that veryone was struck with the futility of the measure. People asked what happened after the one year had passed, and the answer was nothing. After the year was up development could begin without a second hearing. Indeed, even if the building was designated a national historical building, we were told, all that would mean was that after the year, no federal funds could be spent to destroy the house. If this ordinance can help residents have more control over their neighborhoods, it will probably be a positive thing for Watertown.

Oh, and in case you were curious, there's nothing historical about my house. Unless, of course, you count the fact that it was built back before the minimum lot size was raised to 6,000 square feet. That's about 1.72 times the size of my property, for those keeping score.

Purple Massachusetts II

As a follow-up to my previous post with a county-level map of the 2002 gubernatorial election, I took the state's city and town map and did the same thing:



Click on the picture for a bigger version. I think from this map, it's clear to see where O'Brien's problems were. Romney won almost all of the suburbs outside of 128. In Worcester county, O'Brien only won the city of Worcester, and barely at that. In Plymouth county, O'Brien was only able to win a majority in Brockton. It's clear, if it wasn't already, that winning big margins in the cities is not enough for Democrats to win the governorship. If the Democrats are serious about beating Romney, they will have to not only hold the cities, but also make inroads into the suburbs and central Mass. There is no reason that the Democrats can't do well in Middlesex county, if only though GOTV efforts in the southern part of the county (Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Watertown and Arlington). O'Brien also only won Lowell by a handful of votes whereas Kerry won the city by a margin of two to one.

While Plymouth county is trending more Republican recently, if the Democrats can be competitive in Worcester county, win Middlesex County and hold the rest of the state to 2002 levels, they should be successful. Some of this will be a function of the candidate -- Can Reilly or Patrick appeal to voters in these areas? Reilly's geographical base is in Middlesex County. Patrick's is harder to judge given his status as an outsider, but he should at least be able to win his home of Milton (which went to Romney in '02), something that I would not expect Reilly to be able to do. No matter who the candidate is, however, the state Democrats will have to organize in the suburbs if they want to convince voters that it's worth it for them to abandon their preference for divided government and finally elect a Democratic governor.

Coastal Watertown?

The always informative folks at Blue Mass Group have a link to a new global warming report commissioned by the EPA, and focused on the impact of climate change in the Greater Boston area. They predict $94 billion dollars in coastal flooding damage here, including emergency services but excluding residual costs like higher cooling bills due to hotter temperatures, lost time due to road and transit flooding, and the obvious cost in human lives.

On the plus side, I have to imagine my house price can only improve in newly coastal Watertown. When you only have less than 1/12th of an acre of land, you've got to wring as much value out of the property as you can.

Seriously, though check out their list of Major Impacts.

Higher sea levels of just 12 inches or more could give a typical 10-year storm the intensity of the present 100-year storm; similarly, a 100-year storm would hit with the intensity of the present 500-year storm
[...]
During and immediately after extreme weather events, motorists could spend an estimated 80% more hours on the road due to traffic delays; likewise, 82% more trips could be cancelled because of road flooding.

Even without taking coastal flooding into account, the increase in storm intensity due to climate change will be really serious for everybody. If you don't think road flooding is a problem now, just wait -- in a decade or so we'll all need hovercrafts just to get down Storrow Drive.

On second thought... Hovercrafts are pretty cool. Do they still make that hairspray with the CFCs? Let's make this happen, people!

Special Elections & IRV

Frederick Clarkson has a great roundup of the three special elections that will be held this spring. I have been following the race for the 18th Suffolk fairly closely, as the district is just across the Charles from me. I know that people there have been trying to get rid of Golden for years. Who would have thought that Romney would have been the one to do it by luring him away? Clarkson seems to think that Tim Schofield is in the drivers seat -- good news for progressives, however with Michael Moran getting the endorsement from the Greater Boston Central Labor Council and the state AFL-CIO, I wonder if the progressive/labor votes will be split allowing Brian Golden's handpicked successor, Greg Glennon, to get the plurality. Golden's boy is a chip off the old block, a very culturally conservative Democrat and in fact a recent 'convert' from Republicanism.

The special elections, though give us in the state a reason to talk about the Instant Runoff Voting bills that have been filed on Beacon Hill recently. It seems to me that IRV is a perfect fit for these special elections with crowded fields and low turnout. Some people tend to think that IRV is too complicated for the average (or at least below-average) voter. I don't think that you can say this, though, about voters in a primary. At the very least, they show enough initiative to not only register for a party, but generally they'd have to search all the harder for information since primary candidates are often the most obscure. If they're investing extra time anyway, I don't see why, for primaries at least, they can't be trusted to rank candidates rather than just select one.

Of course, any measure on Beacon Hill will come too late for the March primaries. Here on the sidelines, we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed for the progressives.

Advice to State Republicans

Far be it from me to offer unsolicited advice to people I disagree with almost habitually, but that seems to be all the rage these days with right-wing pundits all trying to tell the DNC who is best suited to run their organization. I won't comment on that particular situation as I'm trying to limit this blog to state matters, but I will say that I am cautiously optimistic.

Now, in an article on Tom Reilly's recent announcement that he is in favor of equal marriage rights, the Globe reported the following:

Tim O'Brien, the executive director of the state Republican Party, accused Reilly of having "completely flip-flopped" on the issue because he needs to answer to a special-interest group within the Democratic Party.

It seems to me that if Mr. O'Brien doesn't want the state GOP to slide into complete irrelevancy, he should probably avoid making the job of state Democrats to link Governor Romney with George W. Bush and the national Republican party any easier. While Bay Staters are relatively satisfied with the Governor, the President enjoys only a 35% approval rating here (2005 Bay State Poll - PDF). Grabbing on to one of his major campaign themes in support of Romney is, in all likelihood, going to be counter-productive.

The Democrats, by the way, are already showing signs of linking Mitt and W. In a statement commenting on Mitt's recent conversion to Republican stem-cell orthodoxy, State Democratic Party Chair Philip Johnston called the position the Bush/Romney stem cell research policy. Get used to hearing the phrase "Bush/Romney" so often in the next two years, you'll think Mitt changed his first name.

Speaking of stem cells and flip-flops, note what then-candidate Romney had to say in 2002:

"I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," [Romney] said, adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch."

Gosh, If I didn't know better, I'd think he was guilty of completely reversing his position for political expediency!

Compare that to what Tom Reilly wrote about the gay marriage ban in 2003:

The measure would also prohibit basic and humane benefits to same-sex couples, like the ability as a matter of right to visit a hospitalized sick or injured partner or to take bereavement leave of the same length as a married spouse in the event of that partner's death. It is unthinkable to me, that in defense of marriage, we would deny these basic and humane benefits to same-sex partners. Simply put, House 4840 sweeps broadly to deprive the children and dependents of same-sex relationships as less worthy of our protection, less worthy of our gratitude when their parents or partners are killed in service to us, and less worthy of our empathy in time of personal hardship and loss. House 4840, rather than strengthening the bonds of marriage, tears at the fabric of our community and divides us. For this reason alone, the measure should be rejected.

So, the Governor was in favor of stem-cell research in 2002, but he's against it now. Reilly was against the gay marriage amendment in '03 and he's against it today. Now, who's the flip-flopper again?

Is Ian Bayne Up to Something?

Reading through the news blurbs on Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey's recent traffic avoidence problem, I came across this article in the Herald. I didn't think anything of it at the time, and perhaps I'm making too much of it now, but the article contains this quote:

Republican Ian Bayne of Natick, who ran against Healey when she served as chairwoman of the state Republican Party in 2001, said Healey's ride is comparable to former Gov. Jane M. Swift's use of a state police helicopter to beat traffic home in 1999. Bayne said "government resources (were used) to get the lieutenant governor from Point A to Point B."

Ian Bayne just so happens to be the man behind the now-defunct Massachusetts Republican Society, which rankled the state GOP so much they revoked its charter. He's also credited as the the driving force to dump Jane Swift on the Republican ticket and bring Mitt Romney back 'home' to run for Governor. You can read an old American Spectator puff piece on him here.

So, the man responsible for saddling us with Governor Hairdo is making comparisons between Healey and Swift. It could be that he's just speaking out for the sake of getting his name back in the paper, but I wonder if he's not trying to maneuver himself into a position of being a potential Lieutenant Governor in case Kerry Healey becomes a liability in a campaign where one of the central themes will be continuity of government should Romney bolt for DC in or before '08. He's young and he's ambitious and the shortest path to Governor right now is to be the number 2 whenever Romney decides to step down. If his plan is to pick off a second female Lieutenant Governor, look for more noise from Bayne in the next few months. Otherwise, put another tick in the 'Paranoid Internet Conspiracy Theory' column.

More fun with polls

Suffolk University has another poll out with a whole wealth of information on state matters. Here's a sample:

If the Final election was held today and the candidates were [NAME] toward whom would you lean?

	Challenger	Romney	Undecided
Chris Gabrieli	35%	50%	15%
Bill Galvin	38%	45%	17%
Deval Patrick	28%	50%	23%
Tom Reilly	45%	41%	14%

Favorability Ratings/Name Recognition:

Candidate	Never Heard of	Favorable	Unfavorable	Heard of Undecided
Mitt Romney	1%	54%	33%	13%
Bill Galvin	27%	37%	9%	27%
Martha Coakley	32%	35%	10%	23%
Joe DeNucci	30%	31%	10%	29%
Kerry Healey	24%	32%	23%	21%
Tom Reilly	15%	55%	11%	18%
Chris Gabrieli	47%	15%	6%	32%
Tim Cahill	38%	24%	7%	31%
Tom Menino	7%	64%	14%	15%
Deval Patrick	68%	6%	5%	21%
Michael O'Halloran	60%	7%	5%	28%

So, the moral of the story is at this early date, Reilly is the best bet the state Democrats have. Of course, Patrick has a year or so to turn that 68% 'never heard of him' number around. More troubling to me, though, is that half the survey respondents would vote for Romney over Patrick versus remaining undecided -- despite the fact that so few have ever heard of him. I feel like those numbers have a lot of room to change in the next two years, but if he's serious about running, he had better start campaigning today.

It's also interesting how Tom Reilly has the highest favorability rating of any politician in the poll aside from Menino. Expect Mitt and the state GOP to work to hammer that rating down with a negative campaign as we get closer to '06.

"Hey, Look What I Found"

From the Globe:

Radioactive material lost about four months ago by Texas-based Halliburton Energy Services surfaced in was discovered Thursday in Boston, after federal homeland security and enforcement authorities launched a massive search.
[...]
According to the report, two radioactive sources of the element Americium were imported from Russia by Halliburton Energy Services. The shipment went through Amsterdam to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on October 9, and then disappeared until Wednesday when it turned up in Boston.

So, Halliburton loses nuclear material from Russia for four months -- sending it to Boston instead of Texas. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission didn't know anything about it during that time, but they say they're "going to be pressing them as to why the notification was not more timely." Yeah, I'm sure Cheney will make sure they're right on top of that.

Feel safer yet?

Purple Massachusetts

Just for fun, I took a crude map of Massachusetts and drew in the 2002 election returns in a style similar to the Purple America map that was floating around after the November election. I wanted to have a clear picture of where the Democrats where weak that year. It turns out that they were weak pretty much everywhere east of Springfield, apart from Boston. Take a look:

Romney vs. O'Brien 2002

Click on the map for a bigger version of the same. From the map, it's clear that O'Brien was strong in Berkshire, Hampshire and Franklin counties (where nobody lives) as well as Suffolk county (which is bigger than the other three combined). Romney was strongest in Worcester, Plymouth, Essex, Norfolk and Barnstable, though he won all the rest of Massachusetts as well.

Compare that showing with the 2004 election:

Bush vs. Kerry 2004

Now, as the UMass poll indicated, the people of Massachusetts draw a distiction between who they want as President and who they want as Governor. Still, the contrast is stark. Kerry won every county, but you can still see the purple areas of this map correspond to the reddest areas of the 2002 map. This suggests to me the ceiling that any Democratic candidate for office can be expected to reach in Massachusetts when running against a credible challenger. If the Democrats can leverage their Kerry turnout organization, they could overwhelm Romney no matter who the candidate is. Of course, getting every Kerry voter to a) come out in '06 and b) vote for the Democrat is a bit of wishful thinking. Even so, support for Democrats in general is high in Massachusetts and if the party gives the voters a compelling reason to discard their preference for divided government, Romney could be in trouble.

The Poll

A lot is being made of this UMass poll showing Attorney General Tom Reilly with a 45%/41% (14% undecided) lead over Mitt Romney in a hypothetical (if likely) 2006 race. Kos says that Romney's well under that 50 percent "incumbent danger" line, although he said the same thing about our incumbent president and we all know how that turned out. Keep in mind, too, that in 2002 Shannon O'Brien was 12 points ahead of Romney as late as three weeks before election day. That didn't turn out so great for her either.

There are some questions in the poll that are worth talking about:

If he runs for re-election, does Romney need to give an ironclad promise not to seek higher office in 2008 or can he leave the door open for a presidential run?

Ironclad promise:	35%
Leave door open:	57%
Don't know/refused:	9%

Personally, I would have thought that more than 35% of Bay Staters would care that Romney intends to abandon Massachusetts even if reelected. This is particularly disturbing since the Democrats have long been criticizing Mitt on his absenteeism, his ambition and his commitment to state government -- in fact Dem party chair Phil Johnston responded to this poll by saying "Voters now understand that Gov. Romney considers Massachusetts just a weigh station on the road to the White House." If this poll is to be believed, voters may not find that line of attack compelling.

Also, compare the results of these two questions:

What is your opinion of Mitt Romney?

Very or somewhat favorable:	62%
Not favorable:	36%
Don't know:	2%

If Romney runs for president of the United States in 2008, would you:

Strongly or somewhat support him:	36%
Somewhat or strongly oppose him:	50%
Don't know/refused:	14%

So, in other words, the voters like him, but don't like him like him.

So Who Will Make Decisions in '08?

Lost in the euphoria of another Patriots win was this story, from the Boston Globe:

[Lt. Gov Kerry] Healey was en route to an appearance in Newton last Wednesday when her car hit stop-and-go traffic on Route 128 in Burlington. Her state police chauffeur used his emergency lights to force other motorists out of the way.

"In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to be using the blue lights in a non-emergency situation," Healey told WBZ-AM Monday at an event in Worcester.

Tsk tsk. One of Tip O'Neil's old rules of politics was to never cut to the front of a line. I assume that also applies to lines of traffic.

In her defense, Healey said that the decision to use the emergency lights was made by her driver -- the classic GOP responsibility dodge. Of course, one has to wonder, should Lt. Governor Healey become Acting Governor Healey in 2008, what other decisions will she avoid making?

Ed Markey on Social Security

Via the folks at Blue Mass Group:

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.: "The Bush administration's so-called 'Social Security crisis' is a worthy successor to the so-called 'Iraq nuclear weapons crisis.' WMD used to stand for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Under President Bush's Social Security privatization plan, WMD now stands for "Watch your Money Disappear."

In January, Markey was also on a panel in Revere where he gave a little history lesson on the GOP's stormy relationship with Social Security:

Such a successful program for the many has, nevertheless, generated an assault from some in the Republican party, led by George W. Bush, the President of the United States. The President has concluded that it is time to phase out (he would say "save") Social Security, the most universal, most popular and most enduring government program ever. The President is returning to an old Republican theme, that Social Security is a form of socialism. Henry Ford said it threatened freedom. Alf Landon called it a "cruel hoax." Barry Goldwater sought its repeal. Milton Friedman said it undermined personal liberty. Ronald Reagan’s budget director David Stockman called it a "monster," and now President Bush calls it "bankrupt" and inconsistent with his vision of an "ownership society." One of the gurus of the "ownership society," Stephen Moore, recently put it this way: "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state...If you can jab a spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

Read his full remarks here. (PDF)

Only 21 More Months of This to Go!

State Attorney General and potential Democratic challenger Tom Reilly had some comments for Mitt regarding his recent PAC Activity:

"I wish there'd be more attention and more emphasis paid on what's happening in South Boston, where Gillette is headquartered, than what's happening in South Carolina," Reilly said, referring to a key presidential primary state where Romney is scheduled to speak to a local county Republican Party organization later this month. "You can't have your mind in two places."

So it seems that Reilly has focused in on Romney's ambition as a campaign theme. This is a good supplimental theme in so much as if people are willing to believe that Mitt wants to be president, they'll be more likely to believe that he's not really interested in being governor, but rather using that position as a stepping stone, leaving the Commonwealth in the lurch with Acting Governor Kerry Healey. The recent history of GOP Governors bolting Massachusetts as soon as something better comes up certainly has to help whichever Democratic candidate ends up being the nominee.

Reilly also touched on this theme last night on WGBH's Greater Boston. When asked about his recent takeover of Big Dig cost recovery, he contrasted his willingness to "do the work" with the Governor's willingness to duck responsibility for a political football. As Reilly's campaign kicks into full gear we'll probably hear more phrases like "willing to do the work" or "get his hands dirty" or "put in the hours" coming from him. It's probably better for him to position himself as the "serious" candidate because if he tries to be the "exciting" candidate, it will doubtless end up sounding forced. I could be underestimating the Attorney General, but judging from his performance last night and at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce last month, he's not particularly a bundle of raw charisma.

Also in the Globe article, Mitt's obsequious mouthpiece Eric Fehrnstrom invokes the classic right-wing "but Democrats do it too!" regarding the Commonwealth PAC expenditures by pointing at John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. The difference, which Fehrnstrom of course never mentions, is that Kerry and Kennedy are Federal figures. If they spend money to help Democrats in South Carolina, Iowa or New Hampshire it's with the goal of increasing Democratic membership in the Senate -- in fact Kennedy's PAC is even called the Committee for a Democratic Majority. The more Democrats in the Senate, the more power Kennedy and Kerry have to affect legislation and deliver for Massachusetts. On the other hand, what do we in Massachusetts care about county-level Republican parties in South Carolina? Does a strong Republican party in Kentucky make Mitt a more effective governor? I can't imagine it would, especially since it seems increasingly clear he's got one foot out of the door already.

State of the Union

Well, the President saw his shadow. I guess that means four more years of incompetent adminstration.

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.

The Birth of a Campaign

So it would seem that (Willard) Mitt Romney's campaign for President in '08 has begun in earnest with The Commonwealth PAC dumping money into early primary states:

Friends and supporters of Governor Mitt Romney have established a political action committee that has lavished more than $250,000 on Republican candidates and county GOP organizations across the nation since July, apparently laying the groundwork for a potential presidential run for the Massachusetts politician in 2008.

The Commonwealth PAC has pumped more than $35,000 into the campaign coffers of Republican candidates for the US House and Senate in 17 states and has created state subsidiaries that have distributed tens of thousands more in four key states: Iowa, South Carolina, Michigan, and Arizona.

So, Mitt's buddies are pumping cash into early primary states like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire. I'm sure that has nothing to do with Mitt's presidential ambitions. It's probably just that Judd Gregg really needed that extra grand to squeak by 97 year old Doris Haddock 66 to 34. Certainly they're not trying to curry favor with the South Carolina GOP by funneling money to Jim DeMint. They probably just agree that single mothers shouldn't be public school teachers. Good to see them standing up for fine conservative principles.

Of course, Mitt's obsequious mouthpiece, Eric Fehrnstrom claims that Mitt himself has no control over what Commonwealth PAC does with its money. And why not? It's not like Commonwealth PAC's donors are Mitt's old friends from Bain Capital. Why would they listen to Mitt at all?

Commonwealth PAC director, Trent Wisecup also knows something about being an obsequious mouthpiece. He was, after all Ronna Romney's (Mitt's ex-sister-in-law) spokesman for her two Senate runs in Michigan (in '94 and '96). I'm sure if Mitt cared enough to dispel rumors that he intends to strand Massachusetts with Acting Governor Kerry Healey in '08, he could pick up the phone and tell Wisecup to keep his spending closer to home. Home being Massachusetts, of course, not Utah or Michigan or DC -- with Romney it's hard to keep up sometimes.

Wisecup, by the way is the same person who managed to insert a few lines shilling for his client Walmart in a Weekly Standard Op-Ed. I guess we should expect more shilling for his client Mitt as we get closer to the GOP primary season.

Just Who Do You Think You Are Anyway?

My name is Steve Owens, and I live on a .08 acre plot of land in Watertown, Massachusetts with my wife and newborn son. I have a dual degree in Computer Science and Political Science from Brown University. I currently make my living as a data analyst/consultant for a non-political consulting company and write this blog in my spare time.

No one has ever paid me for writing anything on this blog, and I will never accept any money to publish a favorable (or unfavorable) opinion. In 2006, I was the Watertown town coordinator for Deval Patrick's campaign for governor and in 2008 I was elected the chair of the Watertown Democratic Town Committee. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the position of that campaign or any other organization I am affiliated with.