It does not surprise me that the tagline for the Poor People’s Campaign is “a national call for moral revival.” In politics, given a choice between money and morality, you know which will win. It’s also no surprise that the demands of this campaign are not strictly economic but target racism, the environment, criminal justice, voter disenfranchisement, healthcare, foreign policy, militarism, budget priorities, and democratic institutions. The very existence of this movement is a clue that, for all their lofty platform planks, Democrats simply haven’t been listening to America’s most vulnerable people.

Tip O’Neill famously said that all politics is local. Perhaps. But local politics are now national. Dozens of Congressional primary races highlight the ideological wars being fought within the Democratic Party — viciously and with considerable help from out of state donors.

UMass Amherst political science professor Raymond LaRaja writes that, for all the Democratic Party’s disagreements, “if there is one thread that links party adherents today, it is a view of themselves as outsiders trying to gain for themselves and others a share of the fruits of American democracy and capitalism, which have been denied to them by social status.” But there any agreement ends.

In this authoritarian age a lot is at stake. Democratic Party centrists think they can tinker with and improve Capitalism, while progressives and socialists know that only radical change — and a stronger defense of democracy — will make life better for working families. These are irreconcilable philosophies that must eventually end in divorce. But for the moment — here we are together in a very odd bed.

Unlike Republicans, who abhor heterogeneity and tightly enforce party discipline, Democrats function more as a coalition than a party. LaRaja writes, “Coalitions do not make it easy to come up with coherent campaign slogans. But a more profound problem of Democratic pluralism is that the party can be biased toward a few moneyed and highly organized factions who do not reflect the broader rank-and-file. These factions include pro-environment groups, abortion rights organizations and public sector unions. They may champion important causes, but their dominance over the party’s agenda has a powerful impact on who runs for office as Democrats and what kinds of issues get pushed in government.”

No surprise, then, that the “moneyed and highly organized factions” run their political races differently too. Since their objective is to win and not necessarily fight for principles (either during or after an election), Democratic centrists run campaigns based on “viable candidates” while progressives are more interested in principles. Centrist Democrats won’t waste a dime on a candidate who can’t win, and they will look for one who can — even if he is barely distinguishable from a Republican.

Progressives, on the other hand, are willing to see their candidate go down in flames — if only for the chance to have her issues heard by voters or to keep the party from sliding even farther to the right. And progressives often have to fight the good fight with little or no support from Democratic Party institutions like the DNC or DCCC. This too is an irreconcileable difference that must eventually end in divorce.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) doesn’t yet have a Fifty State strategy but is trying to get there. It previously conceded elections in some states and put all its chips on “sure things” in others. The DCCC’s “Majority Makers” program is targeting dozens of Red districts thought to be winnable. The special Alabama Senate election of Doug Jones provided the party with new energy — but lowered the bar for its candidates. The DCCC doesn’t even conceal its bias toward Blue Dogs like Henry Cuellar over progressives and has even gone out of its way to sabotage the campaigns of progressives like Laura Moser. In the New York primary DNC Chair Tom Perez endorsed Andrew Cuomo, breaking a promise that the DNC would never again interfere in a primary election.

Last April I attended a meeting of Marching Forward in Dartmouth. The group was recruiting campaign volunteers after deciding to support four swing state Congressional candidates in the midterm elections. Three of their four candidates were DCCC “Majority Makers” — Andy Kim (NJ-03); Mikie Sherill (NJ-11); and Perry Gershon (NY-01). Volunteers would travel to these swing states and essentially take their marching orders from the DCCC.

It’s difficult to begrudge Marching Forward’s efforts. After all, each of their candidates is challenging an especially noxious Trump Republican. Each was chosen, like genes for therapeutic treatment, to target a specific defect in a specific Congressional district with precisely calibrated politics and personal attributes. Andy Kim, for example, is a former Defense Department analyst; Mikie Sherill is a decorated Navy helicopter pilot and “get-tough” federal prosecutor; and Perry Gershon is the Chief Investment Officer at Jefferies LoanCore Capital Markets LLC. None is what anyone would call a progressive. And the number of DCCC candidates waving military and national security resumes should worry everyone in post-911 America.

plugin:youtube

These candidates, to use LaRaja’s words, all want “peace, protecting the environment, separation of church and state, guarding the right to an abortion, and quality of life issues like eating locally-grown food.” But generally absent from the campaigns of these genetically-engineered DCCC candidates are issues important to brown, black, and poor people. Each represents the Clintonite wing of a Democratic Party that Thomas Frank describes in “Listen, Liberal” — gatekeepers, lawyers, entrepreneurs, prosecutors, the security establishment, technocrats.

Of course, the U.S. Congress is not the only battlefield. Republicans must be fought in state houses too. EveryDistrict has an approach similar to the DCCC’s, but aims to put more Democrats in state government, neglected for decades by the DNC. And who in their right mind would wish for EveryDistrict to fail? In 26 of 50 states Republicans have a trifecta — total control of both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office. In contrast, Democrats have only 8. EveryDistrict’s strategy is to pick horseraces it thinks it can win, and Democratic winners twill then make the state more liberal. At least that’s the theory.

The Bernie wing of the Democratic Party consists of idealists, progressives, and socialists. Funding their candidates are various PACs that endorse and support progressive campaigns and/or candidates of color — people with a serious personal stake in making real change. They include: Color of Change, Democracy for America, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, and The Collective PAC. They don’t take corporate money, they don’t have much support from the Democratic Party, and their campaigns are funded by individual donations. Sometimes even their campaign videos are self-produced, as in the case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is challenging Blue Dog Democrat Joe Crowley in the NY-14 Congressional primary.

plugin:youtube

Massachusetts primaries will be here in roughly 90 days. The primaries and the general election will provide more clues about the future and the soul of the Democratic Party. Last September I pondered where Democrats were headed:

It’s still a bit early to definitively answer the question of what kind of Democrat represents the future of the party, but we should know by the time the Democratic primaries come around. If Reagan Democrats like Keating remain unchallenged, and a slew of Baby Keatings appear on ballots, then we’ll know the party’s true character — regardless of whatever lofty language is written into the platform.

We are indeed knee deep in Manchins, Joneses, Heitkamps, Moultons, and Baby Keatings. But I no longer think the future of the Democratic Party can be divined so quickly or easily. The fight for the party’s soul could take a decade — after all, it took the Tea Party twelve years to turn the GOP into a bunch of goose-stepping kleptocrats. This fight will continue as America becomes browner and poorer — and as our democratic institutions struggle to recover from the shocks of years of authoritarianism.

If you compare the two videos in this post there are obvious differences between Democrats. The America I want to live in will not be led by PAC-reliant, flag-waving technocrats but by courageous working people with moral centers and very personal stakes in an inclusive democracy. But for now we may need the technocrats — and they us — to keep the Republic from sliding even further into the abyss.

Donald Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” has little to do with greatness — and his supporters damn well know it. In word and deed the GOP has become the party of white racism and xenophobia. You’d think Democrats would want to do a better job of standing up for multiculturalism and human decency.

That’s what you’d think.

So it’s difficult to understand why, nationally, so little has been done to help DACA recipients as they twist in the wind. Or why Massachusetts House Speaker Bob DeLeo has done everything he can to shelve the Safe Communities Act (SCA) — not to mention most progressive pieces of legislation. Even a compromise SCA bill, which gave assurances to law enforcement, has gone nowhere.

With hope fading for protections for our immigrant neighbors, sitting around doing nothing is not an option. There are several key pieces of Safe Communities legislation that can still make it into the state budget as amendments. These provisions have broad public support and give critical protections to all immigrants, regardless of status.

Stay tuned. Next week the Massachusetts Safe Communities Coalition will be calling upon everyone to take to the phone banks and call up state legislators to approve these amendments. I will be forwarding details.

Say yes to multiculturalism. Say yes to human decency.

Dartmouth (MA) Rep. Chris Markey’s Amendment #1174 to H4400 (the FY2019 budget) was written to broaden wiretapping in the Commonwealth because — he claims — rising crime rates make it necessary:

“The general court further finds that within the commonwealth there has been an increase in violence, with and without weapons, that has taken the lives of many. Such acts are not the product of highly organized and disciplined groups. […] Therefore, the general court finds that the use of [modern electronic surveillance devices] devices by law enforcement officials, as it relates to investigations of violent offenses, must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and without the need to prove that a highly organized and disciplined group committed such violent acts.”

But Markey’s amendment is based on fiction. Crime in Massachusetts is not increasing. It is actually falling and has been since about 1992. Last September the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety released figures from the FBI showing that, once again, Massachusetts crime had fallen by 6.3%. The MetroWest Daily News dug into the FBI’s figures and showed that, while violent crime has risen nationally, it remains static in Massachusetts with rates significantly lower than national averages. For example, the national murder rate is 5.3 per 100,000. In Massachusetts that number is 2.0. In 2016 the Commonwealth (with a population of almost 7 million) had 134 murders compared with 486 in Tennessee, a state with roughly the same population.

But worse than being dishonest with the public about crime rates, Markey’s amendment lowers the bar on legal requirements for wiretaps and electronic surveillance. Surveillance today rarely target only the suspected offender. Cell tower dumps, for example, compromise the privacy of everyone who has connected to the tower. Stingrays, WiFi and packet sniffing are also pretty indiscriminate.

Markey’s amendment, and Republican Bradley Jones’ companion amendment #515, are efforts to sneak bad legislation into the budget — legislation that police and district attorneys have long wanted. The ACLU notes that “prosecutors in Massachusetts can [ALREADY] obtain all of this information and more without any judicial oversight. And a recent ACLU investigation shows they’re using this power extensively, and largely in the dark.” Markey’s legislation does nothing to improve judicial oversight. But it makes surveillance much easier for prosecutors to abuse.

In filing his amendment, Markey reveals that his old law enforcement buddies are his true constituents — not the average citizen who is getting damn tired of having everyone from spy agencies to socal networks violating his privacy every minute of the day.

Progressive Massachusetts is asking voters to call or email state representatives to preserve the best — and reject the worst — of a lengthy list of proposed amendments to the FY2019 House Budget.

Most of the amendments are quite positive — funding for recently-passed criminal justice reforms, education, environment, and for the state’s most vulnerable citizens. Many amendments reflect policy changes needed in education, immigration, policing, transportation, the environment, and public assistance. You can find a full list of the amendments here.

But Republicans — and one Dartmouth state representative — have sneaked in policy amendments which either gut or damage civil rights and civil liberties protections:

• Amendments 113 (Lombardo), 227 (Diehl), and 347 (Lyons), which would would create even broader authority for police to detain immigrants or punish the 31 cities and towns that have adopted measures to limit police participation in immigration enforcement.
• Amendment 508 (Jones), which would attempt to pass Governor Baker’s unconstitutional proposal to overturn the Lunn decision via the budget.
• Amendments 515 (Jones) and 1174 (Markey), which would expand state wiretap powers to “listen in” on a wider range of personal communication.
• Amendment 979 (Howitt), which would curtail the right to free expression, namely the use of economic boycotts against foreign governments (recall the boycott movement against apartheid South Africa). This legislation was originally co-sponsored by several local state representatives who should be asked to repudiate their previous support for it.

Unfortunately Dartmouth Democratic Rep. Christopher Markey uniquely joins Republicans Diehl, Howitt, Jones, Lombardo, and Lyons in Progressive Massachusetts’ rogue’s gallery.

The House votes on the amendments next week — so it’s critical you call or email your representatives ASAP:

https://www.progressivemass.com/fy2019_house_budget

September 4th seems a long way off, but the Massachusetts Democratic primary will be here before we know it. Voters have a choice between three decent Democratic challengers and a Republican governor whose positions on taxes, criminal justice and immigration are squarely, and terribly, Republican.

From the sound of it the Democratic Governors Association has already conceded the November election to Baker, as an article by Joshua Miller at the Globe suggests. It also appears likely that the DGA will close its purse to whomever wins the Democratic gubernatorial primary. As if that were not bad enough, a recent statement from one of the challengers now threatens the criminal justice omnibus bill just passed by the legislature.

Last week former Newton Mayor Setti Warren wrote a piece in Blue Mass Group spelling out his objections to the omnibus bill now awaiting governor Baker’s signature: “I had to tell my friends in the legislature, many of whom I admire greatly, that I would have vetoed their bill if I were governor. I could not in good conscience sign any bill that creates new mandatory minimum sentences. They are discriminatory, ineffective, and lead to mass incarceration.”

Blogger “Hester Prynne” replied to Warren, “how would you intend that your veto be received by the overwhelming majorities who voted in its favor (including every member of the Democratic party) and who would say your veto throws the baby out with the bathwater?” — to which Warren replied, “I want people to know that there are some lines I just won’t cross in the name of ‘compromise.’ We know that mandatory minimums target black and brown people. Even though we are only ~20% of the population of Mass, black and brown people make up 73% of those sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences.”

Other responses to Warren’s posting included:

• “I have to admire the instinct that says, no. Really no more at all.”
• “No user is going to be selling 10 grams of fentanyl to other users, given the strength of fentanyl. This undermines Mayor Warren’s position that this mandatory minimum targets communities of color, as the person being targeted for this crime is selling a substance that, when cut, could kill hundreds of people suffering from a substance abuse disorder.”
• “It really does sound like you are getting the perfect in the way of the good. […] I fear more people will suffer under current mandatory minimum laws than [under] the proposed changes.”

A single dose of pure fentanyl is less than 2 milligrams and costs between $20 and $30. Ten grams represents 5,000 doses or $100,000. Even cut 10-to-1 or more, the number of doses would still be in the hundreds.

My own view of the controversy is that Warren is right about the evils of mandatory minimums — but he’s wrong to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Even with new minimums for a limited subset of fentanyl trafficking, the legislature’s criminal justice reforms address many current problems with sentencing, prisons, probation, young offenders, decriminalize offenses and raise the threshold for others, create diversion programs, and should result in a substantial net reduction in mass incarceration. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater was not just a bad call, but irresponsible, because Warren sent the Republican governor a message of support for a veto of long-awaited and much-needed reforms. And Baker is now signalling that he wants more law-and-order changes.

After meeting Warren last year, I really wanted to like the guy. But his positions, or rather, his “adaptability” in changing and holding conflicting positions, really makes it difficult. Warren has had consistently progressive views on civil rights, abortion, energy, education, immigration, and revenue. But raising revenue shouldn’t involve corporate giveaways — and in 2011 he supported permanent R&D tax credits and reductions in business taxes. Now, in 2017, he’s singing a different tune. In 2011 Warren, who never misses a chance to talk about his family’s relationship to the military, was all for throwing anything and everything at terrorism; in 2017 he’s in favor of drawing down the many U.S. wars of choice.

Warren endorsed 5 of 8 pieces of Our Revolution’s “People’s Platform” — single payer, free college, $15 minimum wage (minus the cost of living increases), abortion, and automatic voter registration — but Keith Ellison’s “Inclusive Prosperity Act,” a revenue tool which taxes Wall Street transactions and would raise $300 billion in revenue — that was a bridge too far. Likewise, Warren refused to support Jeff Merkley’s “Keep it in the Ground Act,” which prohibits coal and oil field giveaways. Most telling, Setti Warren refused to support Bernie Sanders’ “Justice is Not for Sale Act of 2015,” which would have disentangled the U.S. government from the private prison industry.

After all this, it’s only fair to ask — does Warren really support criminal justice reform or not?

For me, this latest kerfuffle is a symptom of the bad judgment that comes of trying to hold inconsistent views simultaneously. You can’t be a centrist and a progressive at the same time. Setti Warren is a case in point.

Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home.

Unfortunately, your home town doesn’t make it easy to participate in local elections. Did you know that your town election is in about a week? Can you find it listed prominently on your town’s website? Did a town clerk post a sample ballot? Do you even know who or what is on the ballot?

I can’t help you with much more than the dates, unfortunately. Call your town clerk for the rest.

• Acushnet – April 2, 2018
• Dartmouth – April 3, 2018
• Fairhaven – April 2, 2018
• Lakeville – April 2, 2018
• Marion – May 18, 2018
• Mattapoisett – May 22, 2018
• Rochester – April 11, 2018
• Somerset – April 9, 2018
• Westport – April 10, 2018

Massachusetts Democrats are getting ready for the 2018 convention in Worcester. The following information might be useful if you are thinking of jumping into the Blue pool.

The MassDems Convention

The 2018 Massachusetts Democratic convention is an Endorsing Convention — which means that state primary candidates will be vetted at the convention. To appear on the Democratic primary ballot on September 4th, candidates need 15% of the convention delegate vote, so you may have noticed that candidates are scrambling to contact party activists. This year’s convention is also considering charter amendments — changing the rules by which the state party operates. Action Together has a good writeup on what will go on at the convention:

• MA Civics 101: What happens at the 2018 Endorsing Convention?

Action Together also has a good summary of how you can jump in:

• 2018 MA Democratic Caucus & Convention Information

First things first

Start by attending your Democratic town caucus. You can’t be a delegate if you’re not attached to a local committee. Today was the first day of the caucuses. Check to see when yours is being held:

• 2018 Caucus Date List and Submission Center

A little light reading

The rules for delegates, alternates and “add-on” delegate selections will leave you with heartburn and a headache. In general, there are an equal number of male and female delegates and alternates. There are also a number of “add-on” delegates, also gender-balanced, who represent various identities: minority, gender, sexuality, disabled, etc.

You must be registered as a Democrat at the time of your town caucus to be elected as a delegate or alternate. Add-on delegates can register as Democrats at the caucuses. Delegates must be present at the caucuses unless they are serving in the military, and they must not have publicly supported non-Democrats within the last 2-4 years. There may be some exceptions for absences at the caucuses if prior notice has been given in writing to the local chair. Consult your local chair and familiarize yourself with the Convention documents and the various forms and registration deadlines. And don’t show up late for your caucus!

• 2018 Preliminary Call to Convention
• 2018 Delegate Allocation
• 2018 Convention Rules
• 2018 Method of Selecting Delegates
• 2018 Convention Online Applications
• 2018 Convention Add-On Application
• Youth Add-On Selection Procedure Explainer
• 2018 Convention Fee Waiver Application

In case you missed the email

You may find additional information in an email the MassDems sent to all town and city Chairpersons:

• Email Updates to Chairs of the Mass Democratic Party

Get on Richard’s list

Richard Drolet is a good guy to know if you’re a SouthCoast Democrat. He is the Chairperson of the New Bedford Democratic City Committee, which arranges a bus to the convention for Democrats from New Bedford and neighboring towns. Get on Richard’s email list to be advised of City committee meetings (which are open to members of neighboring towns) and plans for travel to the 2018 Convention in Worcester.

• Email Richard Drolet

Democrats:

You will be voting in Massachusetts primaries in 223 days and midterm elections in 286. If the Democratic Party really wants to win back the House and Senate, local Democratic town committees need to get up out of their recliners. Registering new voters, introducing primary candidates, getting out the vote, and giving the electorate a reason to show up on Election Day are what you do if you want to win. Just ask Alabamians.

Elections coming up this year include: U.S. Senator (Warren); U.S. Representative (9 Districts); Governor (challengers to Baker); Secretary of the Commonwealth (Galvin); Attorney General (Healey); Treasurer (Goldberg); Auditor (Bump); Governor’s Council (Ferreira); State Senator (Montigny); State Representative (Markey); County Commissioners (Kitchen, Mitchell); District Attorney (Quinn); Register of Deeds (Treadup); and Clerk of Courts (Santos).

The gubernatorial race and five of nine Congressional District races will actually have primary challengers this year. But so far only a handful of candidates have actually visited Southeastern Massachusetts.

Each Spring the Massachusetts Democratic Party holds its caucuses. This year’s have already been announced, among them the following towns and cities:

• Saturday, February 3 – Wareham & Brockton
• Wednesday, February 7 – Barnstable
• Saturday, February 10 – Fairhaven, Fall River, Taunton, Bridgewater, Somerset, Dartmouth
• Sunday, February 11 – Falmouth
• Thursday, February 15 – Seekonk
• Saturday, February 24 – Westport & Mattapoisett
• Sunday, February 25 – New Bedford
• Thursday, March 1 – Attleboro
• Saturday, March 3 – Plymouth & Middleboro

Last year I wrote about work town committees could easily do. But Democratic Party membership has been stagnant since about 2000 and too many Massachusetts town Democratic Committees are basically defunct. So it’s been up to political clubs and activist groups to do what MassDems ought to be doing themselves.

In Bristol County Democrats didn’t even bother to challenge a Joe Arpaio wannabe sheriff in the last election. For that matter, neither MassDems party chair Gus Bickford nor the huge Democratic State Committee seem worried by the trend toward pro-Trump sheriffs — in Bristol, Plymouth and (most recently) Barnstable counties — that signals the vulnerability of local Democratic Party institutions.

So, Democrats — show up for your town caucuses and get involved. Committees especially need younger, more diverse, and more progressive members willing and able to get things done.

Whatever the issue, Congressman William R. Keating is sure to disappoint. The most conservative of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, Keating is a product of Democratic complacency and Boston-centric politics which frequently neglects the rest of the state. Let’s take a close look at one of Massachusetts’ worst Democrats. Can’t we do better?

Democracy and Transparency

• Despite the tremendous amount of money now being spent on elections at all levels and ballot questions from 2012 and 2014 showing over 70% of Massachusetts voters supporting a Constitutional amendment to restrict rights to natural persons and to take money out of elections, Keating was not a co-sponsor of H.J.Res.48, which would address “Citizens United.”
• Other members of the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation — JIm McGovern and even Seth Moulton — co-signed Representatives Bill Pascrell and Debbie Dingell’s letter urging the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to ensure that the NAFTA renegotiation process remains open and transparent. Bill Keating did not.

Health Care

• One hundred and sixteen Democrats co-sponsored H.R.676, John Conyers’ Medicare for All Act. Keating was not one of them.
• Keating has not endorsed any other public healthcare option.

Worker’s Rights

• Keating did not support Worker Rights: H.R.15 – Raise the Wage Act.

Women’s Rights

• The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017, H.R.771, defends a woman’s right to choose. Keating did not support this.
• DNC chair Tom Perez and DCCC chair Ray Lujan, as well as some in the New Democrat Coalition, of which Keating and Seth Moulton are members, argue for “flexibility” on abortion and against abortion as a litmus test. But shouldn’t a woman’s most personal right to control her own body be a non-negotiable plank for Democrats?

Education

• Twenty-seven Democrats co-sponsored H.R.1880, the College for All Act. Keating was not one of them.

Taxation

• The Inclusive Prosperity Act, H.R. 1144, a Wall Street Speculation fee, is a fraction of a percent tax on stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives that can be used to fund public university tuition and would be offset by tax credits. Keating did not support this.

Consumer

• Keating voted YEA with Blue Dog Democrats on H.R. 3192, a Republican bill which reduces transparency for mortgage lending institutions. This bill was a hit with the American Bankers Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders lobby, but it prohibited consumers from suing mortgage lenders who violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau disclosure requirements under the Truth in Lending Act. Keating doesn’t believe in amnesty for immigrants. Why an amnesty for mortgage lenders?
• Keating also voted YEA with conservative Democrats on H.R. 1737, a Republican bill which neutered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s oversight of Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Keating and a minority of House Democrats broke with his own party to vote for Republican sponsored H.R.1737, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. This bill prohibited consumers – particularly minorities – from suing auto lenders who violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules against discrimination in lending. The bill takes the unusual step of preventing disclosures of violations with Freedom of Information Act requests. The NAACP, the Urban League, La Raza, the Consumers Union, and many others, were opposed.

Immigration

• Keating is a hard-liner on immigration. From “On the Issues”: “Bill Keating opposes amnesty. As a District Attorney, Bill Keating enforces our laws and believes that everyone must obey them. His office has prosecuted thousands of criminal cases that resulted in defendants being detained for immigration and deportation action. Bill believes that we must secure our borders, and wants to punish and stop corporations that hire workers here illegally. Bill does not support giving people who are here illegally access to state and federal benefits.”
• Keating and five other Democrats voted for H.R. 3009, the “Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act,” a Republican bill to withhold funding for states and municipalities with “sanctuary” policies.
• Keating and Blue Dog Democrats voted for H.R. 4038, the “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015.” The Republican bill adds additional obstacles to the already-onerous screening and vetting of Syrian refugees.
• Keating voted YEA on H.R. 3004, “Kate’s Law,” a Republican bill which expands indefinite detention of migrants who repeatedly cross the border. The bill will do nothing to prevent future actions by desperate people but it will increase the number of private prisons in the United States.
• During the January Shutdown, only Keating and Stephen Lynch voted for a stopgap spending bill that kept the military happy but threw Dreamers under the bus. The other seven Massachusetts congressman and both U.S. senators voted against it.

Civil Liberties

• Keating is no friend of the Fourth Amendment and gets only middling ratings: “Keating supported ‘cybersecurity’ legislation, and opposed defunding the government’s Section 702 surveillance programs (PRISM and Upstream); however, he supports banning backdoor searches on US persons.
• Keating voted for the USA FREEDOM Act, which reformed the small amount of government surveillance that occurs under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and continued to support it even after its reforms were watered down to the point where there was much debate about whether it would do more harm than good to pass it.”
• Keating refused to let PATRIOT Act extensions expire under “sunset” provisions, including this and this one.
• Voted for extending FISA in 2018 – https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/h16

Private Prisons

• The Justice is Not for Sale Act, H.R.3227, places restrictions on private prisons. At a time Republicans are trying to re-institute discredited justice and prison practices, and pushing privatization, including prisons, schools, and even the war in Afghanistan, Keating did not support this.

Voting Rights

• The Automatic Voter Registration Act, H.R. 2840, would make voter registration easier and automatic. Keating did not support this.

Militarism and Foreign Policy

• Keating voted NAY on a resolution to bar President Obama from using an AUMF to invade Libya. The resolution would have required Congress to declare war — per the U.S. Constitution. Keating did, however, vote YEA on ending the war in Afghanistan.
• Keating was reluctant to support Obama’s and Kerry’s Iran deal and has courted the MEK, an exile group which until 2012 was designated a terrorist organization seeking to overthrow and replace the Iranian government with its own “government-in-exile.” Thanks to Republican and Democratic hawks the designation was lifted.
• Keating is pro-Likud. He has fought international efforts to support a Two State Solution, advocated moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, opposed the use of the word “Palestine” and threatened to cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. and funding for U.N. refugee efforts because of the international body’s criticism of Israel’s land theft and occupation.
• Keating, along with Democratic hawks, sent a letter to Rex Tillerson affirming their support for Trump’s policies on NATO and for Tillerson’s office. Keating shares Republicans’ view that NATO needs to be stronger to oppose Russia.
• Keating cheered Donald Trump’s deployment of tomahawk missiles, which were in violation of both AUMF statements and the U.S. Constitution.

Weak Candidate

Aside from the fact that the Democratic Party didn’t offer primary voters alternatives in 2014 or 2016, Keating is not a particularly strong candidate. Even relatively unknown challengers have done reasonably well against him in both primaries and general elections:

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts%27_9th_Congressional_District

• 2010 Democratic Primary – Robert O’Leary got 48.7% of the vote
• 2010 General Election – Jeffrey Perry (R) got 42.4% of the vote
• 2012 Democratic Primary – Sam Sutter got 40.8% of the vote
• 2012 General Election – Christopher Sheldon (R) got 32.2% of the vote
• 2014 Democratic Primary – unopposed
• 2014 General Election – John Chapman (R) got 43.5% of the vote
• 2016 Democratic Primary – unopposed
• 2016 General Election – Mark Alliegro (R) got 38% of the vote

The Bigger Problem

Here in Massachusetts democracy has been in trouble for some time. Our state ranks last in competitiveness in political races. In the 2016 Democratic Primary there was not one challenger in all nine U.S. Congressional districts. At the state level half the candidates for the Governor’s Council ran unchallenged. In County Sheriff Democratic primary elections, six out of fourteen ran unopposed and two slots were never filled, including Bristol County where Joe-Arpaio-wannabe, Republican Tom Hodgson, won by default because of Democratic complacency. In almost half the state legislature primaries and in 29 out of 42 state senate races there was no challenger.

All three counties in our forgotten corner of the state — Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable — have anti-immigrant sheriffs who signed 287(g) agreements with the Trump administration. This should be a wake-up call to Democratic town and city committees — people, your counties are in danger of becoming Republican.

Researcher John Cass did a little digging and discovered that, while Rome burns, only 41% of Democratic Town Committees were spending any money. If you’re not spending anything on postage, flyers or web hosting, it’s a good sign that you’re not doing much. And if you’re not doing much, your town committee deserves the adjective “defunct.”

We often forget that we live 30 miles from an aging nuclear reactor that isn’t doing so well. Pilgrim Power Station has long been slated for decommissioning but was recently re-fueled. There is a highly radioactive dumpsite onsite. The ultimate costs and procedures for decommissioning the plant and disposing of radioactive materials should be decided by taxpayers and overseen by the state. Many Cape residents worry that the company’s Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel (NDCAP) will stick taxpayers with the bill and they worry about safe decommissioning.

Even if you don’t live on the Cape, consider this. In case of an emergency, everyone in a 50-mile radius of the Pilgrim plant will have to evacuate — that’s close to 5 million of us. And that almost certainly includes you. So please send an email in support of Senator Julian Cyr’s bill “An Act to Improve Oversight of the Closure of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,” S.2206.

The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy needs to hear from you ASAP (preferably today, but definitely before 2/7) asking them to report S.2206 favorably out of committee.

The Pilgrim Legislative Advisory Coalition has made it super easy to compose an email message to get Cyr’s bill out of committee. Click on this link. You can then customize or simply send the message, which will look something like this:

[SUBJECT:] I respectfully request your support for S.2206 [BODY:] As presently constituted, I believe that the Nuclear Decommissioning Advisory Panel is unlikely to achieve it’s goal. For the long-term well-being of the Town of Plymouth and the surrounding region, and for the economic interest of the Commonwealth and it’s taxpayers, please report S.2206 favorably out of committee. Thank you.

Additional details for your information or to help customize your message…

1. It will add the MA Attorney General to the Panel to provide expertise on some of the legal issues arising in the decommissioning process.
2. It will add the Inspector General to provide oversight of the financial aspects of decommissioning.
3. It will add a representative from Barnstable County with responsibility for emergency planning to help ensure that our interests are addressed.
4. Specifically, it will task the Panel with annually examining and making recommendations on the totality of the impacts of the decommissioning and closure of Pilgrim, including on issues such as workforce impacts, economic development, decreased or lost revenues to state agencies, emergency response, public safety, environmental impacts, municipal finance, job retraining and placement, land use, transport of spent fuel, the storage of hazardous waste and the duration of environmental monitoring activities.
5. Currently the Panel has no funding for hiring experts to help perform its highly technical work. This bill would provide a mechanism for funding the Panel from sources such as grants, Federal funds, donations or bequests; it does not provide any direct funding from the Commonwealth.

Thank you for taking a few minutes do this!

Visit the PLAC website — click here to join their mailing list — or email PLAC at: plac.leg.advis@gmail.com

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
— The Fourth Amendment

Democrats have their Munsingwear all in a knot about Donald Trump’s authoritarian playbook — his attacks on a free press, directing Jeff Sessions to act as his personal lawyer, the firing of Jonathan Comey, and the possibility he may do the same with Robert Mueller.

But recently, when it came time to walk the walk for Democracy instead of just talk the talk, it turned out that Democrats were mostly talk. Sixty-five Democratic U.S. Representatives and twenty-one Democratic Senators handed Trump and the Republican Party an easy victory by extending warrantless spying on Americans. It was a needless and spineless capitulation by Democratic Party centrists, but it was also nothing new from a party that traditionally votes like Republicans on military and security issues. Dammit, Democrats!

Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act extends and expands the ability of spy agencies to monitor your digital communications without a warrant. With Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelation, the public now knows that Section 702 has been used illegally. Millions of communications are vacuumed up and stored annually. The hundreds of thousands of foreign targets have never been approved individually by a court but are essentially retroactive dragnets that frequently involve wiretapping American citizens. This could have been fixed because even Tea Party Republicans wanted the change.

But on January 11th sixty-five House Democrats — including Massachusetts stealth Republicans Bill Keating and Seth Moulton — voted “Yea” on the bill. They were the “usual suspects”: Aguilar (CA), Bera (CA), Bishop (GA), Blunt Rochester (DE), Boyle (PA), Brown (MD), Brownley (CA), Bustos (IL), Carson (IN), Cartwright (PA), Castor (FL), Clyburn (SC), Cooper (TN), Costa (CA), Crist (FL), Cuellar (TX), Delaney (MD), Demings (FL), Deutch (FL), Foster (IL), Frankel (FL), Garamendi (CA), Gottheimer (NJ), Grisham (NM), Higgins (NY), Himes (CT), Hoyer (MD), Keating (MA), Krishnamoorthi (IL), Kuster (NH), Langevin (RI), Lawson (FL), Lipinski (IL), Loebsack (IA), Lowey (NY), Maloney (NY), McEachin (VA), Meeks (NY), Moulton (MA), Murphy (FL), Norcross (NJ), O’Halleran (AZ), Panetta (CA), Pelosi (CA), Perlmutter (CO), Peters (CA), Peterson (MN), Quigley (IL), Rice (NY), Rosen (NV), Ruiz (CA), Ruppersberger (MD), Schiff (CA), Schneider (IL), Scott (GA), Sewell (AL), Sinema (AZ), Sires (NJ), Slaughter (NY), Suozzi (NY), Swalwell (CA), Thompson (CA), Torres (CA), Veasey (TX), and Wasserman-Schultz (FL).

On January 18th twenty-one Senate Democrats voted “Yea” on the Senate version: Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Cortez Masto (NV), Donnelly (IN), Duckworth (IL), Feinstein (CA), Hassan (NH), Heitkamp (ND), Jones (AL), Kaine (VA), Klobuchar (MN), Manchin (WV), McCaskill (MO), Nelson (FL), Peters (MI), Reed (RI), Schumer (NY), Shaheen (NH), Stabenow (MI), Warner (VA), and Whitehouse (RI).

Both members of the Democratic leadership and the former head of the Democratic Party all approved the blanket surveillance. And New Guy Doug Jones. No doubt it’s a good thing the new Alabama Senator is on the job instead of an alleged pedophile. But Jones, who was supported by Democrats of all flavors — I even sent him $50 — just voted away the privacy of 330 million Americans in one of his first official acts. This was not exactly what I was hoping for.

So, while the president bribes porn stars and deals with Russian mafiosi, re-tweets fascists and spits out racist invective, we’re ignoring Congressional and Senate abuses by both parties — one of the worst the dismantling of our democracy.

When I was a boy one of the great crimes of the Soviet Union and Germany of then-recent memory was the practice of arbitrary stops and requiring the papers of citizens: “Papiere!” some thug would demand. Nothing like that could ever happen in the USA — or so we thought. But with the so-called “border exception” to the Fourth Amendment — sometimes known as the Constitution-free zone — The U.S. has snuggled up closer to authoritarian rule. Citizens in Arizona are now accustomed to being stopped by border agents demanding: “Papiere!” But now “Papiere!” has come to New England.

If some day you happen to be driving up to New Hampshire you just might run into the Customs and Border Protection service. Last Fall the New Hampshire Union Leader reported roadblocks on I-93 near Thornton, during which travelers were stopped, asked about their citizenship, and sometimes hauled off to unknown detention centers. In addition, drug-sniffing dogs netted arrests for marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. All without a warrant.

Likewise, the growing practice of demanding access to a traveler’s computer equipment is also a new feature of our gradual abandonment of the Fourth Amendment. The CATO Institute notes: “thanks to the ‘border exception’ to the Fourth Amendment, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers do not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search electronic devices at airports.” The Customs and Border Protection service reports that last year over 30,000 travelers had to fork over laptops, tablets, cellphones, and the passwords to everything in them. As the same statistics show, this practice was in full swing during the Obama administration.

At a time of daily revelations of corruption, incompetence and venality by a sitting president, the bar is admittedly pretty low for the rest of the political establishment. But it’s still worth prodding them to live up to expectations. I’m going to call both my U.S. Senators and thank them for opposing the FISA extension.

And then I’m going to have a long, loud conversation with one of Bill Keating’s staffers.

Well, we have a new tax plan. Despite the trillion dollar deficit it will add, Trump’s super-rich cronies and their cronies are delirious with joy. Like the imagined revival of Kentucky coal, trickle-down economics is going to save us. Or so the purveyors of snake oil tell us.

Reaganomics, Voodoo Economics, Supply-Side Economics, or Trickle-Down Economics. Like Satan it’s known by many names. But even if “trickle down” economics don’t quite work in practice, the description is surely apt if not unseemly. In fact, the meaning was not lost on New Zealand Labor Party MP Damien O’Connor who referred to it as “the rich pissing on the poor.”

Almost immediately after Reagan revived “trickle down” economics David Stockman, the chief architect of Reagan’s economic policies, disavowed it. Reagan’s eventual vice president George H.W. Bush called it voodoo economics. Countless economists have explained why the theory is (1) just plain wrong; (2) actually results in more misery for workers; or (3) is dishonest and deceptive. But facts haven’t stopped the GOP from trying to promote the scam. Repeatedly.

plugin:youtube

We are supposed to believe that when the super-rich stockpile cake we’ll get some crumbs. Most people know this fake economic theory from the 20th and 21st centuries but it actually had its origins in the 19th when it was called “horse and sparrow” theory. John Kenneth Galbraith explained delicately:

“If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”

The GOP has been shoveling horsepucky ever since. In an 1896 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago William Jennings Bryan alluded to the fundamental difference between the major political parties:

“There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.”

So take your choice of metaphorical excreta. This is what the GOP successfully unloaded on America last Friday at midnight, giving Senators only a hour to read 400+ pages of last-minute changes with scribbles.

At this very moment the Democratic Party should be rolling up their sleeves. Maybe even with Jennings Bryan in mind, the DNC needs to publish an economic policy ready to be implemented the second they regain the House and Senate. Everyone remembers Paul Ryan distributing copies of his “Better Way.” Well, Democrats, where’s your Better Better Way?

I’ll wager almost anything will be better than the GOP’s horsepucky.

While the 45th president of the United States has been busy trying to wreck the country, you probably missed what happened this week in the Democratic Party.

This week Donna Brazile published an explosive piece in POLITICO titled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.” In her article Brazile recounts how the DNC, sinking under $24 million of debt bequeathed by the Obama campaign, was bailed out by the Clinton machine’s financial backers. Not only that, but the party was literally turned over to Clinton to a degree that DNC officers like Brazile didn’t even know what was going on. The deal with the devil was this — the DNC would receive an “allowance” from Clinton’s Wall Street cronies and in return Clinton would control the party.

Speaking of Wall Street and Clinton, Douglas Schoen, a former Clinton advisor, penned a piece in the New York Times recently, arguing that the Democrats need Wall Street. And while it may be true that Clinton and her billionaire friends on Wall Street need each other, others would beg to differ.

Robert Borosage writes in the Nation that “the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party will always be with us. Its policies–on financial deregulation, trade, fiscal austerity, mass incarceration, and military intervention–have been ruinous. Its political aversion to populist appeals has been self-defeating. But Wall Street has the money, so it will always enjoy upholstered think tanks, perches on op-ed pages, and gaggles of politicians eager to peddle its proposals.” Borosage points to centrist Democrats’ latest project — New Democracy — as an effort designed to convince Americans that Wall Street’s interests are their own.

And if you’ve been wondering which way the Democratic Party is headed, look no further than our own state. Seth Moulton has apparently been identified as its new face. As a Slate article points out, “the Massachusetts congressman is a white, centrist, Harvard-educated war hero who wants to remake the Democratic Party. Too bad no one wants that.” The Democrats and their “Better Deal” are intended to appeal to white, monied voters. To hell with everyone else.

While Clinton — to this day — still blames everyone but herself for her 2016 loss, this week a group of progressive Democrats issued their own report discussing what happened and what needs to change: AUTOPSY: The Democratic Party in Crisis. If you want to skip to the bottom line, read the executive summary. But several important important takeaways must be mentioned:

• The Democratic National Committee and the party’s congressional leadership remain bent on prioritizing the chase for elusive Republican voters over the Democratic base: especially people of color, young people and working-class voters overall.
• After suffering from a falloff of turnout among people of color in the 2016 general election, the party appears to be losing ground with its most reliable voting bloc, African-American women. “The Democratic Party has experienced an 11 percent drop in support from black women according to one survey, while the percentage of black women who said neither party represents them went from 13 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in 2017.”
• One of the large groups with a voter-turnout issue is young people, “who encounter a toxic combination of a depressed economic reality, GOP efforts at voter suppression, and anemic messaging on the part of Democrats.”
• “Emerging sectors of the electorate are compelling the Democratic Party to come to terms with adamant grassroots rejection of economic injustice, institutionalized racism, gender inequality, environmental destruction and corporate domination. Siding with the people who constitute the base isn’t truly possible when party leaders seem to be afraid of them.”

Finally, if you are a progressive and still harbor the delusional hope that the Democratic “big tent” is big and broad enough to accommodate you, think again.

Last week the DNC purged Sanders surrogates from the party leadership. Only Keith Ellison remains but he is isolated and it’s anyone’s guess how long he will maintain the pretense of party unity.

Somebody needs to be fighting for the interests of struggling and working people. But it’s obviously not going to be the Democrats.

On August 30th Bill Keating came to the UMASS Law School for a meet and greet he didn’t want to call a Town Hall. In a previous post I suggested that Democrats like Keating are either the future of the Democratic Party or relics of its past. So on the 30th I was especially interested in how the audience responded to him.

The Democratic Representative from the Massachusetts 9th Congressional district answered a few questions, choosing instead to run out the clock on potentially tough ones and he ended by telling the crowd that he had to run: he had a dinner reservation with his mother-in law. Several people remarked that the entire performance was a waste of time and Keating was condescending and disrespectful – an opinion I shared.

But others were more generous to the congressman, a war hawk who has sided with extreme GOP positions on immigration, voted to neuter provisions in the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and who supports almost none of the progressive legislation now before Congress – legislation aligned with the new Massachusetts Democratic Party platform but legislation Democrats nevertheless seem conflicted about actually passing.

After the meet and greet I contacted several people chosen to put questions to the congressman and asked them how well he had done. I received four replies:

1. “Although I wasn’t impressed with all Rep. Keating’s answers the other night, I was satisfied with what he said to mine. He even thanked me for it as I passed him by.”

2. “My question was whether the congressman supported legislation to counter religious profiling, religious litmus tests and religious profiling of immigrants. I appreciate Representative Keating’s empathy and his referral to his own family’s encounter with discrimination as immigrant Irish Catholics. He noted that an attack on the civil rights of any minority is an attack on the civil rights of all of us.”

3. “I asked Bill Keating whether he thought, given the partisan politics in Washington today, the Republicans would join Democrats in seeking articles of impeachment if the evidence was strong enough. I think he ran with the question and spoke at length about his thoughts. I was happy with his answer. I think he answered my question, and expanded on it quite a bit. What I came away with was that, at the moment, he doesn’t think that we are quite there for a bipartisan effort.”

4. “As a general comment, I felt he didn’t directly address the question. He talked for 6 or 7 minutes about how he supports bills pushing for transparency in political donations, i.e. from whom donations are received. This, I feel, is a tepid and timid position which does not address the real problem…unregulated and unlimited amounts of money being funneled into the election process. Transparency will help, but will not do the job. I was quite disappointed in his response and it explains why he isn’t a co-sponsor.”

It’s still a bit early to definitively answer the question of what kind of Democrat represents the future of the party, but we should know by the time the Democratic primaries come around. If Reagan Democrats like Keating remain unchallenged, and a slew of Baby Keatings appear on ballots, then we’ll know the party’s true character – regardless of whatever lofty language is written into the platform.

Ultimately, though, it is voters who must push candidates to better positions, expect more, demand more, probe more. Keating’s meet and greet left me feeling discouraged that, for many Democrats, the bar is all too low. And that the party’s past is likely to be its future.

On August 30th at 6PM at the UMASS Law School in Dartmouth voters from the 9th Congressional District will have a chance to meet Congressman Bill Keating. As I have noted previously, Keating is not much of a Liberal and his views on immigration, healthcare, consumer protection, and foreign policy are substantially at odds with many Democrats and completely at odds with the new Massachusetts Democratic Party platform. In fact, on immigration especially, Bill Keating seems to go out of his way to vote with Republicans.

Yes, our Congressman has some explaining to do – not only his own voting record, but also the positions of the New Democrat Coalition, of which he is a member. This is one more new Democratic grouping resisting progressive legislation that has some membership overlap with the openly conservative Blue Dog Coalition.

Keating is either a relic of the Democratic Party’s past, or a symbol of its unchanged, and doomed, future.

The PDF in this link might be useful for anyone in the audience on August 30th with an opportunity to jump in line and ask Mr. Keating a question.

Voters need answers on:

• Immigration
  You have broken with Democrats to vote for several GOP anti-immigrant bills. H.R.3009 punishes Sanctuary Cities. H.R.4038, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act, restricts absorption of Syrian refugees. Most recently you voted for H.R.3004, “Kate’s Law,” which takes a harsh but largely symbolic stand against desperate people who re-enter the United States. The candidate statement on immigration you provided “On the Issues” sounds like it was written by Donald Trump or Jeff Sessions. Can you explain why your positions are so divergent from mainstream Democrats?

• Discriminatory Auto Financing
  You and a minority of House Democrats broke with your own party to vote for Republican sponsored H.R.1737, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. This bill prohibited consumers – particularly minorities – from suing auto lenders who violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules against discrimination in lending. The bill takes the unusual step of preventing disclosures of violations with Freedom of Information Act requests. The NAACP, the Urban League, La Raza, the Consumers Union, and many others, were opposed. Why did you vote to preserve and protect discrimination? And why did you vote against consumers?

• Medicare for All
  One hundred and sixteen Democrats, including your colleagues in the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, Katherine Clark, Jim McGovern, and Michael Capuano, have co-sponsored H.R.676, John Conyers’ Medicare for All Act. Why are you not a co-sponsor of this bill? And is there another plan to expand care to Americans that you WOULD support?

• College Tuition
  Twenty-seven Democrats, including your Rhode Island colleagues in the House, David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, have co-sponsored H.R.1880, Pramila Jaypal’s College for All Act. Why are you not a co-sponsor of this bill, one which puts into action what Massachusetts Democrats just voted into our platform last June?

• Private Prisons
  Two members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation – McGovern and Clark – support H.R.3227, Raul Grijalva’s Justice is Not for Sale Act. At a time Republicans are trying to re-institute discredited justice and prison practices, and pushing privatization, including prisons, schools, and even the war in Afghanistan, why won’t you support this bill – one that places restrictions on private prisons?

• Mortgage Lending
  You and 63 Democrats broke with your own party to vote for Republican sponsored H.R.3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act. This bill was a hit with the American Bankers Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Home Builders lobby, but it prohibited consumers from suing mortgage lenders who violated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau disclosure requirements under the Truth in Lending Act. You don’t believe in amnesty for immigrants. Why an amnesty for mortgage lenders?

• Abortion
  One hundred and twenty-one Democrats, including you, support H.R.771, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage. Thank you for that. However, DNC chair Tom Perez and DCCC chair Ray Lujan, as well as some in the New Democrat Coalition, of which you and Seth Moulton are members, argue for “flexibility” on abortion and against abortion as a litmus test. But shouldn’t abortion rights be a non-negotiable plank for Democrats? A litmus test, if you will?

• Citizens United
  In light of the tremendous amount of money now being spent on elections at all levels and ballot questions from 2012 and 2014 showing over 70% of Massachusetts voters supporting a Constitutional amendment to restrict rights to natural persons and to take money out of elections – why are you not a co-sponsor of H.J.Res.48, which would do precisely that?

• Automatic Voter Registration
  One hundred and sixteen Democrats, including four Massachusetts Representatives – McGovern, Tsongas, Neal, and Clark – support H.R.2840, David Cicilline’s Automatic Voter Registration Act. At a time when Republicans are making it more difficult, not easier to vote, what’s stopping you from supporting this bill?

• Taxing Wall Street Speculation
  Two members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation – McGovern and Clark – already support H.R.1144, Keith Ellison’s Inclusive Prosperity Act. This Wall Street Speculation fee is a fraction of a percent tax on stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives, will be used to fund public university tuition, and is offset by tax credits. Can we get you on record tonight as supporting this bill?

• NAFTA
  Two members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation – McGovern and Moulton – have co-signed Representatives Bill Pascrell and Debbie Dingell’s letter urging the U.S. Trade Representative’s office to ensure that the NAFTA renegotiation process remains open and transparent. – Why not you?

  ​

Leftovers, at best

While Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi think their Better Deal will be a tasty voter treat, it’s basically leftover Democratic meat loaf warmed up in the microwave – with an extra splosh of Worcester Sauce. It is the underwhelming work of a timid party trying to crawl back into a nonexistent center.

A Better Better Deal

Meanwhile, the Summer for Progress is a substantial portfolio of seven progressive bills covering wages, health care, education, taxation, voting rights, environmental protection and reproductive choice. The seven bills are supported by two dozen progressive organizations and represent a bold vision for the country.

More importantly, this is not a hodge-podge of neo-Liberal gimmicks but a comprehensive vision for what America could become. And it’s a vision of what kind of America we’ll need after the Trump administration finishes with their wrecking ball.

Think of the Summer for Progress as a better Better Deal.

But the legislation could use a lot more Congressional love. Despite a very progressive state Democratic Party platform that affirms almost everything in the Summer for Progress platform, very few Massachusetts Democrats actually support any of the legislation.

Well, this is their big chance to show that there’s more to Democrats than just empty rhetoric. Call your Democratic legislators and ask them why have not co-sponsored any of the seven bills.

If Democrats won’t even support their own platforms and are only prepared to serve voters unappetizing leftovers, how do you think the midterm elections are going to end?

The newly-announced Democratic strategy for 2018 will be neither good for progressives nor for centrist Democrats. A terminally ill party has chosen to forego a direction that might save it. It has chosen a strategy that justifiably skeptical voters will reject in the midterms, one sure to alienate progressives and Republicans alike, in the earnest conviction that walking straight down the middle of the road at midnight is the safest way to move forward. The new strategy also demonstrates that a marriage between party centrists and progressives is untenable.

Yesterday Senate minority leader Charles Schumer and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi stood in the sun in rural Virginia and announced the Democratic Party’s “Better Deal” for Americans. Their message was completely economic: “First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.”

The Democratic campaign was crafted by Madison Avenue but symbolically launched in Berryville, Virginia, population 4,185, 85% white, a Southern town where Hillary Clinton led in the 2016 election. The slogan actually reads: “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future” but GOP hecklers noted similarities with the Papa John’s slogan “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza” and brought their own pizza boxes ridiculing the Democrats. THEWEEK echoed skepticism of the campaign’s ham-handedness: “Congrats on getting a new slogan, Democrats. It might just be dumb enough to work.”

The Democrats’ new strategy seems to embrace the ideas of Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Andrew Stein, whose piece in the July 6th New York Times advised “Back to the Center, Democrats.” POLITICO noted that the new strategy “sidesteps” social issues, appearing to further reject so-called “identity politics,” a direction recommended to the DNC in a November 2016 op-ed in the New York Times by Mark Lilla, a Libertarian. Furthermore, the DNC now seems to be chasing rural white voters, a strategy Amanda Marcotte sees as doomed.

But the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune saw the launch as a smashing success, calming a “restive left” in the party’s ranks. David Atkins at Washington Monthly sounded a “mission accomplished” note by declaring that the party had learned its lessons and now the “healing” could begin. John Stoehr saw the party learning how to be “populists” again. McClatchy News claimed the announcement made progressives delirious with joy at the “left-leaning” agenda. Centrists, wrote the friendly pundits, had moved as far to the left as possible, and now love was in the air.

But when one parses the new economic strategy, it reads exactly like the old economic strategy: economic and wage adjustments, public-private partnerships, and training for the New Economy du jour. But, this time, with tax credits for employers doing the training. The New Republic argues that the DNC emphasis on worker retraining will resonate as poorly with those like the Carrier worker in Elkhart whom Obama lectured during a town hall last June. CUNY Political Scientist Corey Robin points out that public-private worker training schemes are rarely successes and observes that, if this is the best the DNC can come up with, it must have a death wish:

“It’s true that Schumer offers other proposals, including a $15 minimum wage, but for anyone with a memory, the devotion of one sentence, much less a paragraph, of precious column space to this synecdoche of the bipartisan political economy of the last four decades–well, it’s enough to make you think this is a party that wants to die but can’t pull the plug.”

Liberal WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson sees the new Democratic strategy as timid and uninspiring. “I’m still waiting to hear the”bold solutions” that Democrats promise. I can think of one possibility: Why not propose some version of truly universal single-payer health care?”

Writing on Bill Moyers & Company, UC Berkeley law professor Ian Haney Lopez wrote that the new Democratic strategy is everything that’s wrong with the party: Wall Street connections; an over-emphasis on marketing; a party turning its back on minorities by focusing now on whites; and a “boring party with limited ambitions.”

A list of twenty organizations including Our Revolution, Democracy for America, and Progressive Democrats of America wants Democrats to support seven pieces of progressive legislation. It’s been a remarkable litmus test for the party’s willingness to actually move in a progressive direction. Not surprisingly, Democrats have rejected the progressive agenda. Forget the Blue Dogs and Red State Democrats for a moment and look at the Massachusetts Congressional delegation.

Not one in the entire delegation supports the Massachusetts Democratic platform’s call for free college education. Only two are willing to tax investment income. Only two are willing to get rid of private prisons. Only three support healthcare as a human need and not a profit center. Only three support automatic voter registration (Democratic Secretary of State William F. Galvin is even appealing a State Judicial Court ruling that bars the state from forbidding people from voting unless they registered 20 days prior to an election).

It seems clear where all this is headed. Does anyone really expect hundreds of midnight conversions to progressive politics from Bay State Democrats? This is a party that has learned nothing from its loss in 2016. Democrats, both centrist and progressive, need to admit that efforts to reform the DNC have failed. There will be no new direction, no recalibration – only a further slide to the right as Democrats try even harder to play the Republican game.

Midterm elections will be here in fifteen months. Every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and a third of all Senate seats will be up for grabs. The state Democratic primaries will be here long before that, but nobody seems to be worried – except maybe the worry-warts and Cassandras who see disaster unfolding.

Democrats are divided on moving right or moving left, so instead the party has chosen “we’re against Trump” as its anthem. Massachusetts Democrats heard a five-hour preview of this song at the June 3rd convention in Worcester. But merely opposing Trump has limited appeal to Republicans, unenrolled voters, and progressives. Instead, voters are asking: What have you done for me lately? And: What do you really stand for?

Democratic leaders say they are working on something great (sounds like Trump) but they’re in no rush to let American voters in on their secret. When Democrats finally do come up with a new platform, as POLITICO points out, even if it is progressive, centrist Democrats say they’ll chart their own political course. Words are cheap. Platforms apparently are even cheaper.

Democrats face not only apathy and division but a demographic crisis. According to the non-partisan Voter Participation Center at Lake Research, the “Rising American Electorate” (millennials, unmarried women, and people of color) are more likely to stay home for 2018 midterm elections or remain unenrolled than in 2012. In Massachusetts the net loss is expected to be 12.7%, while in states like New Mexico it may be as high as 29.6%. A total of 40 million Americans will drop out of the electoral process. And unfortunately they won’t be Trump voters.

If Democrats cannot agree on a platform, they should at least make voting rights and voter registration a major effort. But so far it’s been radio silence from both the DNC and MassDems.

Among the races coming up in Massachusetts and our slice of the SouthCoast:

• Elizabeth Warren is up for re-election but her victory is far from assured.
• All nine U.S. Congressmen seem likely to run unopposed in the primaries as they did two years ago, although in 2012 Sam Sutter challenged Bill Keating (9th Congressional district) in the Democratic primary and got a surprising 40% of the vote.
• Republican Governor Charlie Baker is up for re-election and any Democrat who wants to take on the telegenic and personable (but nevertheless Republican) governor really needs to emerge as a strong challenger long before the March primaries.
• William Francis Galvin ran unopposed for Secretary of the Commonwealth in the 2014 primaries, and we’ll probably see a repeat of this in 2018.
• Popular Attorney General Maura Healey is clearly running an aggressive re-election campaign, taking no chances.
• Treasurer Deb Goldberg had two primary challengers in 2014 and squeaked by with 55% of the vote in the 2014 general election. Republicans will be gunning for her job again this year.
• Auditor Suzanne Bump won with 57% in the 2014 general election and ran unopposed in the primaries.
• Governor’s Council member Joseph C. Ferreira (1st district), who ran unopposed in both the 2014 and 2016 primaries and also unopposed in both general elections, will likely run for his campaigning-free $36K a year job.
• State Senator Mark Montigny (2nd Bristol and Plymouth), who has generally run unopposed in both primaries and general elections since 1992, will be up for re-election.
• State Representative Christopher Markey (9th Bristol) is up for re-election. Markey has had periodic challengers (Alan Garcia, Patrick Curran, Joe Michaud, Russel Protentis, Robert Tavares, Raymond Medeiros) but the conservative Democrat has somehow clung to his $75K part-time job.
• In 2014 Bristol County Commissioner John Saunders was challenged in the primaries by Daniel Dermody but ran unopposed in the general election.
• In 2014 Sam Sutter ran for Bristol County District Attorney and had no challengers in either the primary or the general election.
• In 2016 Thomas M. Quinn ran for Bristol County District Attorney and had no challengers in either the primary or the general election.
• A couple of bland part-time positions offer six-year terms, nice salaries, and generally few challengers:
• Mark J. Santos has run unopposed for the last 18 years as Bristol County Clerk of Courts. There have been no primary or general election challengers in all this time for his $110K job.
• In announcing his retirement last March, Mark Treadup, a former school board member, former city councilman, former state representative, former county treasurer, former county commissioner, and former member of the Governor’s Council, bequeathed his most recent job as Career Democrat to Susan A. Morris, but it was given instead to fomer New Bedford mayor Fred Kalisz to finish out Treadup’s term.

At this late date Democrats are unlikely to get their act together. Careerism, apathy, and division can’t be cured overnight. And voter trust remains the critical issue. A party’s actions will always speak louder than platforms and promises.

No doubt Donald J. Trump’s antics consume a lot of your attention. But the Trump administration isn’t alone in trying to dismantle American democracy. While you weren’t looking – or maybe you were just looking the other way – Republicans and Democrats were trying to take your rights away from you.

ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing group funded by the Koch brothers and devoted to taking your rights away from you, has really done it this time.

Today ALEC will be considering the following:

Originally, the U.S. Constitution provided for U.S. Senators to be selected by state legislatures however the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1914 upended 124 years of precedent calling for direct election of U.S. Senators. This change heralded many unintended consequences including greater federal overreach and Senate campaigns that are so costly that U.S. Senators become unduly beholden to special interests. This model policy urges the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, that’s right. You’re not hallucinating. ALEC wants to take away your right to directly elect your U.S. Senator by overturning the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution. And if it succeeds, well, why not the 15th and the 19th too? Gilead plus the Confederacy would really make a lot of Republicans happy.

* * *

It pains me to say this, but there are a bunch of Democrats trying to destroy democracy with a different wrecking ball.

43 Senators – 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats – want to criminalize free speech by making criticism of Israel a felony punishable by a $250,000 fine or 20 years in prison.

The bill, S. 720, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, is co-sponsored by the following Democratic senators: Michael F. Bennet (CO), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Maria Cantwell (WA), Christopher A. Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Kirsten E. Gillibrand (NY), Margaret Wood Hassan (NH), Joe Manchin III (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Robert Menendez (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Gary C. Peters (MI), Charles E. Schumer (NY) and Ron Wyden (OR).

The House version, H. 1697, has 237 co-sponsors, but 63 Democratic representatives decided to trash the First Amendment too: Pete Aguilar (CA), Nanette Diaz Barragan (CA), Joyce Beatty (OH), Sanford D. Bishop (GA), Robert A. Brady (PA), Anthony G. Brown (MD), Tony Cardenas (CA), Kathy Castor (FL), J. Luis Correa (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John K. Delaney (MD), Theodore E. Deutch (FL), Eliot L. Engel (NY), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Gene Green (TX), Colleen Hanabusa (HI), Alcee L. Hastings (FL), Brian Higgins (NY), Steny H. Hoyer (MD), Hakeem S. Jeffries (NY), Joseph P. Kennedy (MA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Rick Larsen (WA), John B. Larson (CT), Sander M. Levin (MI), Ted Lieu (CA), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Nita M. Lowey (NY), Carolyn B. Maloney (NY), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY), A. Donald McEachin (VA), Grace Meng (NY), Grace F. Napolitano (CA), Richard E. Neal (MA), Donald Norcross (NJ), Tom O’Halleran (AZ), Frank Pallone (NJ), Jimmy Panetta (CA), Collin C. Peterson (MN), Kathleen M. Rice (NY), Jacky Rosen (NV), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), John P. Sarbanes (MD), Adam B. Schiff (CA), Bradley Scott Schneider (IL), Kurt Schrader (OR), David Scott (GA), Brad Sherman (CA), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Albio Sires (NJ), Adam Smith (WA), Darren Soto (FL), Thomas R. Suozzi (NY), Eric Swalwell (CA), Dina Titus (NV), Juan Vargas (CA), Marc A. Veasey (TX), Filemon Vela (TX), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL).

Section 5 of the bill specifically identifies Israel boycotts as political acts to be criminalized.

If this passes, what sorts of political acts and opinion will be criminalized next?

Many of the Democratic senators supporting the bill often cross the aisle to vote for extreme Republican legislation, but it was shocking that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer chose to join them. And Ron Wyden, for all his great work defending the Fourth Amendment, turned his back on the First. Among the Massachusetts congressional delegation, Joseph Kennedy III (4th Congressional district) won’t be winning his family’s “profiles in courage” award for his betrayal of the Constitution, nor will Richard Neal (1st). I suppose I should be grateful that Bill Keating (9th) – at least for the moment – hasn’t co-sponsored the House version.

Democrats. I’m really trying to like you, but why do you make it so damned hard?

I’ve done a little preliminary research on Bill Keating’s voting record in preparation for his Town Hall at Dartmouth High School on August 30th.

Not progressive

Progressive organizations are urging support for eight bills:

• Medicare for All: H.R. 676 Medicare For All Act

• Free College Tuition: H.R. 1880 College for All Act of 2017

• Worker Rights: H.R.15 – Raise the Wage Act

• Women’s Rights: H.R.771 – Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017

• Voting Rights: H.R. 2840 – Automatic Voter Registration Act

• Environmental Justice: Climate Change Bill – Renewable Energy

• Criminal Justice and Immigrant Rights: H.R.3543 – Justice is Not For Sale Act of 2017

• Taxing Wall Street: H.R. 1144 – Inclusive Prosperity Act

Bill Keating has not co-sponsored any of them.

Consumer

Keating voted YEA with Blue Dog Democrats on H.R. 3192, a Republican bill which reduces transparency for mortgage lending institutions.

Keating also voted YEA with conservative Democrats on H.R. 1737, a Republican bill which neutered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s oversight of Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Immigration

Keating is a hard-liner on immigration.

Keating and five other Democrats voted for H.R. 3009, the “Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act,” a Republican bill to withhold funding for states and municipalities with “sanctuary” policies.

Keating and Blue Dog Democrats voted for H.R. 4038, the “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015.” The Republican bill adds additional obstacles to the already-onerous screening and vetting of Syrian refugees.

Keating voted YEA on H.R. 3004, “Kate’s Law,” a Republican bill which expands indefinite detention of migrants who repeatedly cross the border. The bill will do nothing to prevent future actions by desperate people but it will increase the number of private prisons in the United States.

Civil Liberties

Keating gets good grades on civil liberties for women’s and LGBTQ issues. However, when it comes to surveillance and Fourth Amendment issues, Keating is no friend and he gets only middling ones: “Keating supported ‘cybersecurity’ legislation, and opposed defunding the government’s Section 702 surveillance programs (PRISM and Upstream); however, he supports banning backdoor searches on US persons. He voted for the USA FREEDOM Act, which purportedly reformed the small amount of government surveillance that occurs under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and continued to support it even after its reforms were watered down to the point where there was much debate about whether it would do more harm than good to pass it.” Keating also refused to let PATRIOT Act extensions expire under “sunset” provisions, including this and this one.

Militarism and Foreign Policy

Keating voted NAY on a resolution to bar President Obama from using an AUMF to invade Libya. The resolution would have required Congress to declare war — per the U.S. Constitution. Keating did, however, vote YEA on ending the war in Afghanistan.

Keating was reluctant to support Obama’s and Kerry’s Iran deal and has courted the MEK, an exile group which until 2012 was designated a terrorist organization seeking to overthrow and replace the Iranian government with its own “government-in-exile.” Thanks to Republican and Democratic hawks the designation was lifted.

Keating is pro-Likud. He has fought international efforts to support a Two State Solution, advocated moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, opposed the use of the word “Palestine” and threatened to cut off U.S. contributions to the U.N. and funding for U.N. refugee efforts because of the international body’s criticism of Israel’s land theft and occupation.

Keating, along with Democratic hawks, sent a letter to Rex Tillerson affirming their support for Trump’s policies on NATO and for Tillerson’s office. Keating shares Republicans’ view that NATO needs to be stronger to oppose Russia.

Keating cheered Donald Trump’s deployment of tomahawk missiles, which were in violation of both AUMF statements and the U.S. Constitution.

At every turn Bill Keating is a huge disappointment – healthcare, foreign policy, cheerleading Trump’s Tomahawk missile attack on Syria. The list of betrayals by the Massachusetts 9th Congressional District representative grows daily.

This week Keating and 23 other turncoats parted with fellow Democrats and voted for H.R.3004, Kate’s Law, which the Friends Committee on National Legislation describes this way:

“H.R. 3004 would expand grounds for indefinite detention and decrease legal opportunities for certain migrants challenging their removal. […] Criminalizing entire immigrant communities based on the senseless actions of a few individuals tears at the moral fabric of our society and will not make our communities safer. H.R. 3004 could prevent migrants from adequately accessing asylum and would increase family hardship through separation by offering no meaningful opportunity for family members to pursue a legal route when seeking reunification across borders. These provisions will only fuel the brokenness of our system, which is already heavy-handed on indefinite detention and dangerous deportations at great expense to U.S. taxpayers and our collective moral conscience.”

As the FCNL points out, slapping even longer detentions and a felony label on desperate people crossing the border accomplishes nothing except to show how cruel Americans can be and drives up prison costs.

But this is not the first time that Keating has supported Republican anti-immigration legislation. In the last Congressional session, Keating again joined with Democratic traitors in supporting H.R.4038, the Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015. The bill, written by Republican Michael McCaul (TX), now keeps Syrian refugees out of the United States – many of whom the United States made homeless by its thinly-disguised war to depose Bashar al-Assad.

If Democrats act and vote like Republicans, American voters must be forgiven for wondering just what the Democratic Party actually stands for – and what logic there is in voting for a mean-spirited Democrat when Republicans can do it so much better. And the DNC had better get it through their thick, thick skulls that voting with the enemy deprives voters of a choice.

I hope a progressive Democrat will emerge to challenge this DINO representative. The Greens, and even Libertarian foreign policy critics, could offer voters in the Massachusetts 9th Congressional District a needed alternative to bi-partisan warmongering and immigrant bashing. Win or lose, split vote or not, no third party could “spoil” this Congressional seat any more than Keating has already soiled it himself.

On Monday, June 26th Mardee Xifaras graciously hosted a Meet and Greet for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Setti Warren at her law offices in New Bedford. Warren spoke to a group of roughly twenty-five visitors about his two terms as mayor of Newton, his military service, Newton’s budget surplus, its improved AAA bond rating, and educational improvements under his administration. Warren referred to two of his governing principles several times: transparency and outcomes-based decision-making.

Warren identified Income Inequality as the #1 challenge for Massachusetts. He supports a number of economic justice issues: Single-Payer Healthcare; Free Public College; the Fair Share Amendment; Paid Family Leave; and a $15/hour minimum wage. In short order Warren managed to check off a few boxes from Progressive Massachusetts 2017 Legislative Priorities, though many were not discussed.

Warren is an unapologetic advocate of raising revenue. He talked about setting reasonable goals and then backing into the funding. It requires considerable guts nowadays to argue that government has a function, that the function is to help people, and that these functions require adequate budgets. But after the Meet and Greet I stood out on the sidewalk comparing notes with two other visitors and they expressed concern that, if not handled cautiously, this could easily sink a candidate.

The economic and budget questioning went on for a while. Neither community policing, judicial reform, decriminalization of poverty, immigration, civil liberties, regional transportation, nor the governor’s relationship with the House leader ever came up in conversation. It was a friendly first meeting and Warren didn’t really get any hardball questions.

Sitting as we were in an office in New Bedford, I asked Warren what he as governor would do about rogue sheriffs. At first he wanted to talk about Safe Communities, which he as mayor brought to Newton. I clarified that I was interested in the discretion a governor had over the fourteen county sheriffs in the Commonwealth. I reminded Warren that Duval Patrick had once curtailed Tom Hodgson’s budget and cited the June 25th Boston Globe editorial on Hodgson’s recklessness in Bristol County. Warren acknowledged that it’s an important issue to local voters, promised to look into what a governor could do, and an aide said he’d follow up with me.

I would have liked to ask Warren – who campaigns on his service in Iraq, on his father’s service in Korea, and his grandfather’s service during the Battle of the Bulge – what he thinks of our perpetual wars or what he thinks of Clinton’s and Kerry’s records on militarism and foreign policy. If this ambitious politician is on his way up the food chain, I’d like to know now – not when he runs for U.S. Senate or a higher office – what he thinks of the U.S. military budget, our foreign policy, or the DHS Fusion centers that operate in the Commonwealth. Would Warren crack down on state police spying on citizens? Would Warren as governor follow New York Democratic governor Cuomo’s example and impose a blacklist on the BDS movement or continue leading trade delegations to Israel, as Charlie Baker does? What kind of relationship would Warren have with Massachusetts defense contractors? The ACLU? Black Lives Matter?

For that matter I’d like all the Democratic contenders to weigh in on these issues. Despite what the Massachusetts Democratic Party thinks, there is no artificial division between foreign policy and domestic policy. Not when 68% of our discretionary budget goes for war. Not when state Democrats regularly wade into national issues.

Setti Warren’s resume follows a familiar pattern: high school class president; university; politics; law school; political appointments; fundraising; political consulting; military intelligence; a failed bid for the Senate; a successful run as mayor; and now the governor’s office. Warren’s father Joseph was a Dukakis advisor and Warren himself has held positions on political campaigns and in government under Bill Clinton and John Kerry.

If there is one thing that nags at me it’s that his is the profile of an ambitious career Democrat. Contrast Warren’s resume with Paul Feeney’s background, for example. Everything about Setti Warren’s speech at the June convention in Worcester came across as well-engineered, maybe even a tad slick. After three decades of non-stop war I find appeals to military patriotism distasteful, but this is apparently a national strategy designed to make the Democratic Party more appealing to the Right. But, in an informal setting where visitors sat around a law office conference table and fielded questions, Warren came off as genuine and answered credibly.

A few visitors have already praised Warren, but love doesn’t normally happen on a first date. Democrats ought to be cautious: an affable, telegenic Republican already owns the governor’s office and Massachusetts Democrats are notoriously complacent. The Democrat to beat Baker had better be damned good and they’d better be a progressive. And progressives should be wary: this race in the Blue Heart of America may say a lot about where the Democratic Party is really headed.

Warren, Gonzalez, and Massey each will have an opportunity to present their vision for the state, answer tough questions, and convince us of their sincerity and electability.

But it’s early. It’s one down and two more candidates to go.

The Intercept has an excellent tour down Bad Memory Lane in an interview with Ralph Nader. Nader outlines the series of missteps and betrayals that disgraced the Democratic Party and brought it to its present state of abject powerlessness. The Israelites had nothing on the Democratic Party; they were only lost in the desert for 40 years. Nader makes the case that it’s been downhill for Democrats considerably longer.

With Democrats flip-flopping on single-payer, holding undemocratic elections, proving to be able lobbyists for Republican interests, and ready to throw Pelosi under the bus for someone more palatable to the Right, nobody has any idea where the DNC is headed. Tom Perez hasn’t been much of a Moses to guide the DNC to the Promised Land. But, truth be told, Keith Ellison would have been just as ineffective. A party that has disgraced itself for decades doesn’t earn the electorate’s trust again in just a year. Ask any ex-con.

I’ve been telling people – mostly myself – that the Democratic Party is the only thing standing between total destruction of the United States and the Republicans. But by doing what? And using what power? In the case of the AHCA it’s now five freaked-out Republicans who block the way of Republican Senate colleagues acting as a death panel for their own constituents, not a totally emasculated Democratic Party. And it was Republican corruption, not Democratic opposition, that led to the downfall of several cabinet appointments.

It’s a year and a half from midterm elections and the same Democrats who presided over disaster and disgrace are still running the show. We still don’t have any idea where the Democratic Party is headed on internal democracy, donors, PACs, centrism, globalism, or if the party even has a 50 state strategy for backing and funding candidates – and what kind they’ll run. I see a proliferation of progressive platform planks but, really, not much else is changing.

Even a change of faces may accomplish nothing if the Democratic Party has ultimately lost the confidence of American working people and has no clear path back to power. Nader again:

“There are some people who think the Democratic Party can be reformed from within by changing the personnel. I say good luck to that. What’s happened in the last twenty years? They’ve gotten more entrenched. Get rid of Pelosi, you get Steny Hoyer. You get rid of Harry Reid, you get [Charles] Schumer. Good luck.

Unfortunately, to put it in one phrase, the Democrats are unable to defend the United States of America from the most vicious, ignorant, corporate-indentured, militaristic, anti-union, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-posterity [Republican Party] in history.

End of lecture.”

And those new faces Nader mentions – the “new personnel” – that includes even those of us who have stepped into empty local political committees, pledged to work in and revive the party, and fought for platform amendments. But in many ways it feels like a fool’s errand.

For all the new energy, the fresh new faces and good intentions, it may well be that the empty vessel we thought we could fill is just too riddled with chips and cracks. The moment is truly only months away when we may have to face the bitter reality – that it may be time to start from scratch and create a new, credible, and genuine, party of the people.

White House apparatchik/ consiglieri/ mouthpiece Kellyanne Conway doesn’t think Trump’s famous economic “carnage” is bad enough to throw a Medicaid lifeline to the working poor.

Sounding as out-of-touch and cruel as Marie Antoinette, Conway appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and said that jobless Medicaid recipients should just go out and get a job. “If they are able-bodied and they want to work, then they’ll have employer-sponsored benefits like you and I do.”

Yeah, you lazy slackers. Why didn’t you think of that? Go get a job with her benefits.

For a political party that has so aggressively courted the poor white vote, this is a slap in the face to the very people who tipped the election in Trump’s favor. Of course, the working poor includes both Trump and non-Trump voters alike, and millions of minorities, but very few get medical and retirement benefits. Just ask Walmart workers who quality for food stamps and Medicaid because they work for unlivable wages. Kellyanne Conway’s suggestion would be laughable if it were not so callous.

Conway, who once ran a SuperPAC for billionaire hedge fund manager Robert Mercer and recently bought an $8 million mansion in suburban Washington D.C., spins steer manure for a living. But she doesn’t even have to believe it. For every lie she tells Conway is paid handsomely. And the medical benefits are great.

* * *

Now certainly the Democratic Party is guilty of turning its back on American workers. But out in the woodshed Democrats are taking a much more savage beating than the GOP, which is now doing the cruelest damage to the working class. And yet Trump & Company continue to receive applause for “promises kept” from this base.

It may take four years for Trump voters to realize the severity of their mistake – some people only learn things the hard way. But when American voters finally realize what the GOP has done to them, and to whom Trump’s promises were actually made, they’re not going to like Marie Antoinette and her boss at all.

Democrats often complain that Bernie Sanders should either join the Democratic Party or knock off the criticism. I even hear this from people who admire the direction Sanders is trying to move the party.

But they forget that the Democratic Party includes many Senators much less reliable on liberal and progressive issues. In the House the party even winks at a faction known as the Blue Dog Coalition which proudly votes conservative. Call them mavericks or traitors, the Democratic Party never knows whether any of these “wildcards” are going to be assets or liabilities. But it’s had a reliable friend in Sanders.

The Senate has 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Of the 46 Democrats, 8 are conservatives and most are centrists. Though it often invokes the memory of the New Deal, the Civil Rights and Labor movements, and Camelot, this is a party that has put a lot of distance between itself and its most cherished values. The corporate-friendly entity that exists today is little more than a fundraising machine. And Democrats, though the memories are sweet, may never be able to come home.

* * *

Democratic Senate Conservatives:

• Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
• Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri
• Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey
• Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota
• Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana
• Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
• Sen. Jon Tester of Montana
• Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia

Democratic House Conservatives (Blue Dogs):

• Rep. Brad Ashford of Nebraska
• Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois
• Rep. Charlie Crist of Florida
• Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota
• Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois
• Rep. David Scott of Georgia
• Rep. Filemon Vela of Texas
• Rep. Gwen Graham of Florida
• Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas
• Rep. J. Luis Correa of California
• Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee
• Rep. Jim Costa of California
• Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey
• Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon
• Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona
• Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California
• Rep. Mike Thompson of California
• Rep. Sanford Bishop of Georgia
• Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida
• Rep. Tom O’Halleran of Arizona
• Rep. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas