A Third Moment

Deval Patrick: “Be Angry, but Channel it in a Positive Direction.”

2010-01-22T07:37:00.002-05:00

“Be angry, but channel it in a positive direction. It’s easy to be against things. It takes tough-mindedness and courage to be for something.’’ So said Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in his State of the Commonwealth address last night.

With these words Patrick seemed to be offering his analysis on Senator-Elect Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s special election, the results of which were less than 48 hours old as Patrick took the podium. Patrick’s speech also sought to woo the electorate to his agenda and to portray himself as an agent of change.

But if Patrick is, as his words suggest, saying that Tuesday’s results amount to little more than an amorphous “No,” cried out in frustration, he is sadly mistaken.

Patrick’s remarks indicate he doesn’t understand that Scott Brown articulated an agenda. Brown took stands on a variety of issues in this election and he was loud and clear about his beliefs. Brown also displayed “tough-mindedness” by not reacting to the barrage of negative campaigning against him. Instead, he remained focused, positive, and on message. On Tuesday, the majority of the voters endorsed Brown’s “positive direction.”

To suggest that the voters who elected Brown are little more than an angry mob that didn’t understand what they were doing when they pulled the lever for Brown is insulting to the citizens and is just the latest example of the political tin ear that Patrick has displayed during his first three years in office.

For Patrick’s sake, let’s hope that his words are simply a linguistic ploy designed to save face and to avoid saying “I get it and I’ll change.” He could say what he’s saying and still adjust his own approach to government to reflect the more open, moderate, and bipartisan approach articulated by Brown.

Perhaps, however, the Governor really is missing the point. Perhaps he is making the mistake of missing the message simply because he doesn’t like what it said.

If Patrick really thinks that Brown and those that voted for him just two days earlier are just angry, clueless, and solely “against things,” then the Governor may be in for a very tough campaign of his own this year.

“Be angry, but channel it in a positive direction.” That’s exactly what the voters did on Tuesday, Governor.

So How Did I Do? (Part II)

2010-01-20T11:55:00.005-05:00

On this morning after the election, there is plenty of analysis going on, and while some ardent but tangential supporters of the political Left are holding on to the idea that Martha Coakley’s loss was all about her, the political professionals and professional analysts seem to understand that something bigger may be afoot. They need not read further than a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll for evidence that Scott Brown’s win yesterday is a symptom, not a cause, of concerns this morning for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. The President would do well to spend some time on this, his first anniversary in office, reflecting on how he wishes to govern for the next three years.

Here at A Third Moment, it’s time to look back at yesterday’s post and ask the ever-important question, how close were my predictions to the results?

Here are the predictions I published yesterday morning, soon after the polls opened in Massachusetts (see previous post):

Voter Turnout: “Right around the 50% mark.”

Brown: 51%
Coakley: 46%
Kennedy: 3%

The actual results are as follows:

Voter Turnout: 54%

Brown: 51.94%
Coakley: 47.07%
Kennedy: 0.99%

Pretty darn close – even better than my primary predictions, I say with all due humility! While my turnout estimate was admittedly rough, I heard a report yesterday that the Massachusetts Secretary of State was predicting a far higher turnout number, so I think my estimate had his (and many others that ranged as high as 70%) beat.

As far as the candidates, I had the 5% margin of victory exactly right and was just a touch off on the actual percentages. My mistake was over-estimating Joe Kennedy’s vote. Frankly, I should have known better, but thought that there would be a higher percentage of voters who logged “protest votes” by selecting neither of the major party candidates. Again, I should have known better in a special election!

The Scott Heard 'Round the World

2010-01-19T21:47:00.002-05:00

The numbers are in, and they add up to the biggest election story in Massachusetts in at least 18 years, and a huge national story, to boot.

Scott Brown has won a seat in the United States Senate, the first Massachusetts Republican to do so since 1972. That's 37 years, but who's counting?

When driving past a polling place today, I saw the sign pictured above; that image, to me, captures what happened in this race. Over the past two weeks, particularly, average voters realized that their vote mattered and that they could "send a message" to Democrats, to the President, to every incumbent, and to all of Washington. Citizens who had never been involved got out, voted, and volunteered. Someone made the sign above. I wonder, did they try to get an "official" and professionally printed Brown sign? Was the Brown campaign out of signs? Or did that someone just hit on last minute inspiration to get involved? Whatever the answers, they were good news for Scott Brown.

So, let the analysis begin, and there will be a great deal of it. There are, to be sure, lessons to be learned.

Certainly I suggest that Democrats should learn that "not being George Bush" isn't enough to win. They have to have an agenda, and it must be an agenda the people support. The only Democrat agenda in this race was that of Barack Obama, and its support has dwindled. Martha Coakley failed to communicate a single positive message about her vision. Scott Brown did so articulately and well. Voters chose the clear vision and agenda over the candidate who only seemed to run negative ads about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin.

As if getting run over by the Brown Freight Train isn't bad enough, Martha Coakley had better be ready to be thrown under the bus by Washington Democrats, who will not want the race to be seen as a negative referendum on them or their agenda.

Amid rumors that the administration and Congressional leadership had already been discussing a "Plan B" in the event of a Brown victory, President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, today signaled that Obama will distance himself from Coakley and look to blame the candidate, not the political environment created by his agenda.

In an Associated Press story published by the New York Post, when Gibbs was "asked by CBS News correspondent Chip Reid whether the president had expressed any surprise or frustration about the closeness of the race in Massachusetts, Gibbs admitted that Obama was not happy with the current state of play in the Bay state. 'Yes. He was both surprised and frustrated,' Gibbs told the assembled reporters at the daily White House briefing. Asked if the president was angry, Gibbs replied: 'He’s not pleased.'”

That's too bad. Obama and the Democrats would be well served to look at the results of this race and discover what they might learn; how they might adjust to serve the people who elected them. If Massachusetts voters are disenchanted enough to elect a Republican Senator to succeed Ted Kennedy, then any Democrat currently "serving" in Washington can be defeated. They would all do well to listen and adapt, rather then blame Coakley individually for a bad campaign and arrogantly push through whatever they please.

This is not to say that Martha Coakley ran a good campaign. She didn't. Democrats would do well, however, to realize that failure, like success, has lots of parents, and the Obama Agenda and Washington Democrats all had a hand in this loss.

Republicans, too, could learn from this. Scott Brown worked hard and ran a fine campaign. He also benefited from timing, in that voters were ready for his message, but he created some of that openness, too. Brown's victory does not mean that any Republican can win in 2010 or 2012; what it means is that an intelligent, good Republican candidate can win by working hard and earning the victory.

There will be plenty of time for analysis. But tonight, for those who are paying attention, there has been a Scott heard 'round the world.

Election Day: Analysis and Predictions

2010-01-19T08:17:00.002-05:00

Here it is: Election Day in the special election for US Senate in Massachusetts. If you are in Massachusetts, you cannot avoid this race as TV ads, Web ads, and phone calls are blanketing the state even more so than the snowfall. Turnout should be high, particularly for this, a special general election held in January.

As I have held throughout the election, voter turnout is key, as each candidate has enough support to win, if they turn their votes out and the other does not. It appears (see Boston Globe story here) that both campaigns are working feverishly to get their voters out, as anyone who has received multiple phone calls may attest. People have reported receiving recorded GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) calls from the candidates, from President Obama, Curt Schilling, and others as well as live calls from anonymous phone bank staff.

I am surprised this morning that television ads are continuing. The two campaigns (as well as third party organizations) clearly have more money on hand than they could spend prior to Election Day, when campaign ads traditionally “go dark” and vanish. Between the two candidates and the third parties, they seem to have bought up every available time slot. In my own TV watching of the past couple of days I saw entire commercial breaks with no ads other than those about this race. The saturation of the campaign messages is remarkable.

In an ordinary election, candidates must compete for time slots not only with non-political ads but also with candidates for other races, ballot questions, etc. In this election season, the ads have been all Coakley and Brown, all the time, and to the extent Martha Coakley’s ads have focused more on Scott Brown than on herself, it’s been all Brown, all the time.

To me, the most striking thing about the ads is not just that they have continued into Election Day, but that the Coakley campaign has continued its negative campaign against Brown into Election Day. Conventional wisdom is that you want to finish with only a positive message so that the voters’ last impressions of you are positive. You do not want them remembering that you were slinging mud. Either the Coakley campaign is re-writing the election playbook or their polls show them continuing to lose ground and to run behind Brown. I’m betting it’s the latter.

All the polls in the closing days (see story here) have had Brown continuing to surge; he’s now leading Coakley in just about every poll. My eye test tells me the same thing: lots of Brown lawn-signs out there, not too many for Coakley. Even in their campaigning yesterday, Brown’s body-language seemed confident and energized, Coakley’s stiff and tired. They said the same things, more or less, about the polls: that the one that matters is today. Yet the nuances of their language gave hints of their insider knowledge. Brown said they were taking nothing for granted, Coakley said she didn’t believe the polls. They’ve seen the numbers, both those we’re seeing and their own internal polls, too.

So, what’s going to happen tonight when the ballots are counted?

First, I think turnout will be high, despite the snow that is falling today. My guess is that we’ll be right around the 50% mark. That’s high, and very high given the paltry turnout in the primary and the date on the calendar.

Second, and I’m still at some level shocked to be writing this, but I think we’ll see a Brown win tonight. I’m not writing this with my heart but with my head. The signs are all there as Brown appears to be ahead and surging, doing all the right things while Coakley is running the campaign of someone who is behind. I know; I’ve been on both sides!

More difficult to predict are the results in this race. Conventional wisdom holds that higher turnout benefits Brown, and I believe that’s true. Each side will, it seems, get its hardcore support out. Just by sheer numbers of activists, that will favor Coakley. That hardcore support will get “watered-down,” however, as more casual, independent voters turn out and (at least according to polling) favor Brown. Brown holds a huge lead in polls among Unenrolled (commonly referred to as “Independent”) voters, and the more of them that vote, the better for him. If this were an insider-dominated, small-turnout election with 30% or less voting, Coakley would be a good bet. With 50% turnout (and I’ve heard predictions of much higher turnout than that), this race should go to Brown.

So, as I did in the primary election in a previous post, I will stick my neck out and take a shot at the percentages. Brown will win with 51% of the vote, Coakley finishing with 46%, and Joseph (middle name: “no relation”) Kennedy getting 3%. In Massachusetts, against all odds, this would represent a huge win for Brown.

Starting tomorrow, no matter the outcome, there will be plenty of stories about “what happened” and how it happened; doubtless I’ll take part, once I’ve seen the actual numbers. I will also get a head start on that analysis now.

Regardless of the outcome, Scott Brown has run a tremendous campaign, and deserves credit for that. He has casual voters and political professionals (of both parties) alike believing that a Republican can win in Massachusetts, and that’s a very good thing for us all. Most, if not all, Bay State voters have said, at one time or another, “my vote doesn’t count” because we knew what the outcome would be. That’s not the case in this election. My vote counts. Your vote counts. We’re going to have to wait until all the ballots are counted tonight before we know the result in this race.

Similarly, national campaigns and candidates have routinely skipped Massachusetts because the results were never in doubt. Republicans don’t bother with the Commonwealth and Democrats take it for granted. Wouldn’t it be nice if candidates for President thought they needed to campaign in Massachusetts and our citizens actually got to see and hear them in our neighborhoods?

To the extent this is now a reality regardless of the result, Scott Brown has genuinely done a good thing for Massachusetts. It would be a shame if he were to come up short of winning and people were to think, “Wow, that was close, but in the end, predictable” rather than “Wow, this changes our old perceptions.”

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, has not run a good general election campaign. Initially she herself seemed to take victory for granted, then once she realized the race could be close, has run a negative campaign mostly focused on her opponent rather than on herself. Further, the negative ads run by her campaign and her supporters have been, in my view, not accurate. For instance, one closing message is that Brown would be the deciding vote against healthcare. While Brown has made no secret of his opposition to President Obama’s healthcare plans, he would not, as the “41st” vote against it, stop it. That takes 51 votes, by my math. Forty-one votes against the plan means that the Democrats have to be forthcoming about what they are doing and actually debate and discuss it. They can still pass something, they just have to defend it in the light of day. Why wouldn’t Martha Coakley want that? Food for thought as we all head to the polls.

Unsolicited Advice for Martha Coakley: Don’t Be A Bully

2010-01-14T13:47:00.006-05:00

Image: Associated Press

You’re Martha Coakley and you’re running for the United States Senate. You didn’t ask me for my opinions or my advice, but I’m going to give them to you anyway. The first opinion, and I’ll give it to you straight: you’re having a bad week.

Last week was a bad week, too, what with that annoying poll result showing that you had a race on your hands. Your advisors probably even started telling you that you actually had to campaign!

You likely hoped this week would be better but while some polls showed better numbers, others showed the race getting even tighter and one actually had you running behind Scott Brown!

You were, I’m sure, hoping that Monday’s debate might turn things for you, but instead it was the start of another difficult week.

To be fair, some (if not most) of the week’s headaches for you and your campaign are self-inflicted. During the debate on Monday, you said something very ill-advised. You actually said that al Qaeda terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan. "They're gone," you said. "They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan." (If you don’t believe me, Martha, cnn.com has the story here.)

Then, right after the debate, your negative attack ads went on the air. Nasty, misleading and inaccurate ads, if you ask me. You didn’t ask, but that’s my opinion. As the week has gone on, your ads have seemed to me to be more desperate, nastier, and frankly, out-of-touch. If you want to be a Senator in 2010, it’s time to stop running against George Bush and Dick Cheney; that so 2008. And Rush Limbaugh? You’ve got to be kidding; you’re running for the US Senate, not trying to get a radio talk show! You seem to want to run against everyone (or at least all Republicans, as your radio ad derisively says) except Scott Brown. But again, you didn’t ask me!

The kicker was that in your first attack ad, your campaign misspelled Massachusetts! “Massachusettes?” I’m sorry, Martha, are you running for Senator from Indiana? (My apologies to Dan Quayle, I just couldn’t resist, but if the former Vice President had spelled Massachusetts the way the Coakley campaign did, it would have been a bigger story.)

Then, Martha, you made another incomprehensible decision by going to Washington DC for a fund-raiser, I’m betting with lots of lobbyists, on the day after the debate. Who needs to campaign for votes when there’s a week left in the election, right? This decision just dumbfounds me. The Washington donor crowd is a rather professional donor group. I bet that if you explained to these fat-cats that you should stay in state and show that you want the seat by actually campaigning for it, they would have understood and donated anyway!

While you were in DC, things got even worse for you. A reporter had the gall to show up and ask you about your “no terrorists in Afghanistan” assertion from the night before! I know you’re probably used to getting away with these kinds of crazy statements at Democrat Town Committee meetings where no one challenges you, or in the Democrat Primary debates when you need to appease the Far Left Wing of your party. You probably didn’t expect someone to ask you to defend your position, so the exchange went as follows, according to the reporter who asked you the question, and as published in The Weekly Standard:

Reporter: “Attorney General Coakley, you said last night that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan--that they're all in Yemen and Pakistan. Do you stand by that remark?”

Martha Coakley: “I'm sorry, did someone else have a question?”

Again, just my advice, Martha, but ignoring a reporter like that doesn’t tend to generate positive, soft coverage when you need it the most!

This nastiness with the reporter wasn’t even done yet. I know, Martha, you don’t know all the facts of what happened next, although pictures (see AP photo above) and video appear to put you at the scene. The Weekly Standard reporter wound up on the ground, and now an aide of yours has conceded (see story in the Boston Herald), “I was a little too aggressive in trying to help the attorney general get to her car.”

As I say, Martha, I know you don’t know all the details. The Herald quotes you as saying the following: “I know there were people following, including two from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking. I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts.”

Help me understand this, Martha. Are you saying brutish behavior is justified if there are “people” from your opponent’s campaign in the area? Is it justified if the “something occurs,” but only to your opponent’s “people?”

I know you didn’t ask me for my opinion, Martha, but I’d say you need to turn things around, and quickly. This week my perception of your campaign has gone from one that was indifferent and taking the election for granted to one that is desperately trying to keep the wheels from coming off your political wagon. Since Monday (in the debate) I have not heard a single positive message about what you would do in the Senate, but only what’s wrong with a variety of Republicans, including Sarah Palin, for crying out loud!

Meanwhile, Scott Brown has remained calm, cool, and collected, all the while seeming to be a pretty nice guy. People like to vote for nice people, by the way.

I have argued throughout the campaign that this election will come down to turnout, and I still believe that will be the case. No matter what has happened this week or what happens over the next few days, you and Scott Brown each have enough support to get elected, depending on who does a better job turning out your vote.

The problem, Martha, is that, win or lose, I humbly suggest that you don’t want people to think of you as a bully, and this week, in my opinion, that’s exactly what you appear to be.

Yes, We Can

2010-01-13T16:54:00.002-05:00

There is less than a week left in the special election for US Senate from Massachusetts, and for the first time in my memory, the Bay State has a competitive final election for a Senate seat.

This in itself is remarkable news. Who would have thought this race would be so tight? After all, this election will determine who succeeds Ted Kennedy, the 37-year veteran of the Senate, who in his nine (yes, nine!) elections to the Senate never won by fewer than 17 percentage points (the closets being his 17-point win over Mitt Romney in 1994).

Until Kennedy’s death last summer, John Kerry was Massachusetts’ “Junior” Senator, having served a mere 26 years in his seat, and having succeeded another Democrat, the late Paul Tsongas.

Edward Brooke was the last Republican elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts (and, incidentally, he was also the first African American from any state to be elected to the US Senate), having been last elected in 1972. To have voted in that election one would have had to have been born 18 years earlier, in 1954. This means that today no one in Massachusetts under the age of 55 has actually participated in an election that resulted in the election of a Republican US Senator. Amazing.

Many of my partisan friends from the Left will respond “Good,” and wish to hold onto the seat for the Democrats. I challenge those folks who think that way to answer honestly, were you among those who said during the presidency of George W. Bush that things were too “partisan?” If so, I ask you to open your own mind and to consider what it might be like if we actually elected Scott Brown this coming Tuesday, putting a Republican in the Senate representing Massachusetts.

Having bi-partisan representation in the Senate would change the view Massachusetts voters have of our political parties and of government. We would hear, with equal spin and credibility, the policy views of each side of the aisle, rather than one being dominant and the other routinely discounted, if heard at all. We would see that there are some issues on which philosophy (or, put cynically, partisan politics) wins out, and on which our two Senators would disagree, but amicably. We would also see that on some issues, what is truly good for Massachusetts would win out, and we would see our Senators from each side of the aisle working together for our Commonwealth. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Having bi-partisan Senate representation might also change the way our Senators (and other elected officials) view their jobs, as well. Neither Republican nor Democrat Senator could hide behind partisan smokescreens on an issue of true importance to Massachusetts. If the two Senators genuinely disagreed, it would be great for the citizens of Massachusetts to hear that conversation, and to do some real thinking of their own as to what they actually believe and think. Wouldn’t that be something?

Note that I referred to a hypothetical disagreement between our Senators as a “conversation,” not a “debate.” Elections are tough ordeals, with harsh words and serious charges often exchanged. Governing well, however, calls for bi-partisan work, and a willingness to come together in discussion around what is truly important. One of the hallmarks of Ted Kennedy’s career was his ability to befriend those across the political aisle, including Senator Orrin Hatch (R – Utah), among others. I have no reason to suspect that John Kerry and Scott Brown couldn’t have a very positive, respectful relationship focused on what is good for Massachusetts, and wouldn’t that be great for our political climate?

I know some will argue that because there is currently a Democrat in the White House Massachusetts is better off with another Democrat Senator. To those folks I offer the reminder that President Obama is up for election in two years, and if a Republican can win in Massachusetts, no seat is safe! We don’t know who will be in the White House in 2013 and beyond; why not hedge our bets and have a Senator from each party?

Most importantly, having Senators from the two major parties will force each to the middle. John Kerry could not afford to be too Liberal, nor could Scott Brown afford to be too Conservative. They would each have to pull their own voting record toward the great middle and, most importantly, the position on each issue that best serves Massachusetts.

So set aside the concerns about party. Set aside all the talk about “the 60th vote for health care” and “the 41st vote against Obama-care;” this is an opportunity to focus our state’s two votes solely on what is good for Massachusetts.

Scott Brown himself is trying out the line that this election would be a “test-drive,” of sorts. He correctly observes that whoever is elected next week will be up for election again in 2012. “Try me out,” he’s saying.

I must say, I’d like to see a little bi-partisan representation.

Our state hasn’t seen it in the US Senate since Ed Brooke.

If you’re under 55, you’ve never really seen it.

Next week, we might all see it.

Best of all, it’s up to us.

We can make it happen.

To borrow a phrase, “Yes, We Can.”

US Senate Debate: Brown-Coakley-Kennedy

2010-01-11T22:52:00.003-05:00

In a feisty hour-long debate, the candidates for US Senate from Massachusetts wrangled tonight on issues including terrorism, taxes, healthcare, and abortion.

In the end, lots of heat, but little light, were generated. Particularly in a low-turnout special election, there are very few undecided votes still to be won. Few, if any, minds changed tonight.

Scott Brown and Martha Coakley each criticized the other while defending themselves. Coakley, in particular, found herself often on the defensive and sounding like an Obama Administration spokesperson. For example, Coakley stated early on that health care reform would be “budget-neutral” before conceding, later on, that even the Congressional Budget Office says it would be at least ten years before that might be the case. In another exchange, Coakley supported Obama’s pledge of no new taxes on couples making less than $250,000. The problem with that is that Obama has already broken that pledge.

The only time Coakley split from Obama was over Afghanistan, going so far as to suggest that the US cannot succeed in that war. As Scott Brown was visibly agitated, moderator David Gergen hammered Coakley to make clear her views. This was the most uncomfortable moment of the debate.

It was not the only uncomfortable moment, however. Brown’s attempts to sidestep his past statements on climate change were just as awkward as Coakley’s efforts to sound supportive of the death penalty before conceding her opposition to it.

For her part, Coakley began the debate trying to tie Brown to the Bush-Cheney Administration. She eventually backed off of this effort once Brown said “You’re not running against them, you’re running against me.”

The best moments? There were a few. For Brown, he sounded statesman-like when he said “There’s plenty of blame to go around. I’m not going to be working on the mistakes of the past. I’m looking to address the mistakes of today.”

Brown struck a solid blow against Beltway-insider arrogance. When David Gergen referred to “Teddy Kennedy’s seat,” Brown shot back, “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.” This was the best moment of the debate, and I wanted to stand and cheer.

Coakley had her moments, too. In a self-deprecating moment she told Gergen, “I can be funny, believe it or not!” As if to prove that point, her other high point came when she offered faint praise of Brown, saying, “I think he understands what constitutional rights are about.” That was the funniest line in the whole debate. Well done, Madame Attorney General!

There was a third candidate in the debate, and Joseph Kennedy certainly held his own. While I'm not in agreement with his positions, I daresay he is the most articulate Kennedy to run for US Senate from Massachusetts during my lifetime. Kennedy seemed particularly well spoken when compared side-by-side with Brown, who was so eager to attack Coakley that he stumbled over his words and seemed less than fully articulate, and Coakley, who seemed not to believe her own strained defenses of her party’s credibility.

There is one week to go in the race, and it’s going to come down to who turns out their vote. It’s still a horserace, and tonight’s debate was fun, if not in the least bit decisive.

Scott Brown Picks Up State Police Endorsement, Martha Coakley Goes Negative

2010-01-11T15:28:00.003-05:00

In advance of tonight's final debate of the US Senate race, Scott Brown has been endorsed by the State Police Association of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, Martha Coakley has today "gone negative" on Brown.

Several polls have come out over the past days showing the race anywhere from a one-point Brown lead to a fifteen-point Coakley lead. Conventional wisdom says you go negative when you're behind, but not when you're ahead, so the guessing here at A Third Moment is that Coakley's internal polls show her in some trouble, either behind or, at the very least, rapidly losing ground to Brown.

Check back here later for some post-debate analysis, but in the meantime, here's the story on Coakley's criticism of Brown:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/coakley_goes_on.html

Victoria Reggie Kennedy Endorses Martha Coakley

2010-01-07T08:24:00.000-05:00

Martha Coakley is attempting to blunt Scott Brown’s recent momentum with the first significant campaign event I can recall her having since the Democrat unity event the day after the primary. She has also returned to the airwaves with her first general election television ads, with less than two weeks to go in the race.

In an announcement that should surprise no one, Victoria Reggie Kennedy is today endorsing Coakley’s bid for the US Senate. It’s a nice event that is an easy, positive media story for Coakley.

Just because this announcement is not a surprise doesn’t mean it’s not newsworthy. It simply doesn’t rise to the level of a “major endorsement,” given that we’ve known all along that the Kennedy clan would be with the Democrat nominee, whoever that person turned out to be. Acknowledging their active support does not change the underlying dynamics of this race, however.

A few have gone so far as to suggest the endorsement could be a negative factor, spinning this as a sign that “the Washington establishment” is behind Coakley at a time when incumbents are running scared. This argument is absurd. Any time the widow of a long-serving member of Congress offers you her endorsement to succeed her husband, you take the endorsement. I worked a special election campaign in 1991 to succeed US Rep. Silvio Conte and we happily accepted his widow’s endorsement although there was little surprise there, either. By the way, we used “no one can fill his shoes, only walk in his footsteps” back then!

The bottom line, as I’ve argued in previous posts, is that this election remains about turnout. An endorsement such as this one would potentially be more significant in a regularly-scheduled general election when casual voters participate in high numbers; casual voters might be swayed by this type of association. This election, however, will be dominated by hard-core committed voters on both sides, many of whom have long known for whom they would vote. This endorsement won’t sway any of them.

What this might do is give Coakley a reprieve from the negative press of the past couple of days (see previous post here) and instead give her a day or so of nice soft, news stories. Then she needs to get to work identifying and turning out her vote. What this week’s Rasmussen poll showed was that Brown and Coakley each have enough support to win, depending on whose voters go to the polls on January 19.

What Martha Coakley’s Friends Are Saying

2010-01-06T13:51:00.003-05:00

The special election campaign for US Senate in Massachusetts has gotten significantly more interesting over the past 24 hours. First, news of a poll that puts the race closer than many believed (see previous post here) and now, a column by Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe that calls Democrat Martha Coakley out on her attempts to avoid debates with her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, and thereby deny Massachusetts voters a full airing of the issues and the candidates’ stances.

McGrory’s piece is worth a full read as he really lets Coakley have it (and also gives a whack to my hometown along the way). Snippets include the following:

“Coakley's overriding strategy is to quietly back into the job, to have you, the voter, know less about the major candidates rather than more…She's counting on voters, knowledgeable or not, to reflexively pull the Democratic lever….The Volvo drivers from Lincoln and Concord lap this stuff up with a spoon…This is all part of a Coakley pattern.”

For the Globe, long a left-leaning editorial paper, to publish this, says a lot. As the old saying goes, “With friends like these…”

Here is a link to the full piece:

McGrory: Where's Martha Coakley? - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

The Homestretch in the US Senate Election, and We’ve Got a Race

2010-01-05T15:18:00.004-05:00

Welcome to visitors from Facebook. Please bookmark the site and come back again!

A poll conducted yesterday of voters likely to vote in Massachusetts’ special election for US Senate (to be held on January 19) puts the race closer than many would have expected. With two weeks remaining in the campaign, the poll has Republican State Senator Scott Brown trailing Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley by only nine points, 50-41.

Web stories on the poll have been run today by both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.

Nine points may sound like a big lead and this may not seem to be a big story to some, but in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, having a Republican that close to the Democrat two weeks out is newsworthy, particularly in a special election.

This election will hinge on turnout. According the Globe story, the pollster stated that among those individuals “absolutely certain” to vote, the numbers were even tighter, and suggested a lower turnout favored Brown. I’m not so sure about that. It really will come down to who votes rather than how many people vote. If Brown has spent time these past couple of months building a voter turnout machine that successfully gets his vote out, he could have a shot at this.

The good news for Coakley is, of course, being ahead, but also being at 50%. Conventional wisdom states that once a candidate breaks the 50% barrier, they are hard to beat as that entails “peeling away” some of their support. Again, however, that is for a normally scheduled regular election. Coakley still has to turn out her own vote for these numbers to materialize.

The bottom line? We’ve got a real race here for these next two weeks. It should be fun to watch!

Sunday Morning Roundtable V

2010-01-03T10:28:00.003-05:00

This week I'm trying something a little different with the roundtable. Instead of putting out a topic for readers' opinions without giving my own opinion, I'll let you know my view first, and then whether you agree, disagree, or think I'm crazy, have at it!

This week the heat increased on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for her comments in the aftermath of the Christmas Day attempted bombing of a plane heading for Detroit. The controversy began when Napolitano stated that "the system worked" in the (thankfully) botched bombing incident.

I say it's time for Janet Napolitano to go. What "worked" in this incident was the American people who were on Board the Northwest flight on Christmas Day. If the system worked, the accused terrorist never would have boarded the plane. Napolitano's failure to understand that is a failure to understand her job.

Napolitano was previously most infamous for her suggestion that the word "terrorism" be replaced with "man-caused disasters." This, too, shows, a complete lack of understanding of her role. Leave political correctness to the President (if he must). It's the job of the Homeland Security Secretary to speak plainly, directly, and honestly in assessing threats and protecting Americans. It's time for a new Secretary who can do that. There's a lot of work to be done to improve communications in our security infrastructure and it will take a serious and capable Secretary to lead the effort.

What do you think?

Caught with His Hand in the Cookie Jar

2010-01-02T15:06:00.006-05:00

Thirteen state Attorneys General are threatening to file suit over the constitutionality of the US Senate's "health care" bill. At issue is the provision added to get the 60th Democrat, Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska), on board. The provision exempts only the state of Nebraska from Medicaid payments totaling $100 million. Who pays Nebraska's tab? The US taxpayers, of course.

Bravo to these thirteen AGs. This bit of pork is Washington at its worst; the Senate Democrat "leadership" using taxpayer money to buy the vote it needed to cut off debate and ram through their bad bill.

What's sad is that only Republican Attorneys General are on board with this potential lawsuit. Democrat AGs are more loyal to their party than to their taxpayers or to common sense, apparently.

One Democrat that should join the suit is Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley. Coakley could make some Good Government/Outsider points in her US Senate race by standing up to this outrageous Pork Provision. She'll never do that, however. She already has learned to play the Washington game, as discussed in a previous post.

It's also worth noting that Nelson, with his hand caught in the cookie jar, can only come up with a defense of "it wasn't my idea." That, if true (as reported in the linked story below), is sad. Whether his idea or not, this Medicaid provision is deplorable and every Washington Democrat that supports it should be ashamed of themself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/02/senate-dem-asks-south-carolinas-attorney-dogs/?test=latestnews

New Year's Day

2010-01-01T10:19:00.002-05:00

Of the various songs titled (or about) New Year’s Day, this one is my favorite. Just some C&W fun:

New Year’s Day
Music and lyrics by Charlie Robison

Well, I woke up early Sunday morning

Had myself a piece of toast
Had fifty dollars in my pocket
Gonna chase myself a ghost

Went down Camino Espinoza
Gonna get me a divorce
Gonna split with all my money
See that girl who loves a horse

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day

I met them boys there from O'Connor
Cowboy like you never seen
They're up for anything you want to
Live on steak and refried beans
They bought up half of southern Texas
It's why they act the way they do
When them boys meet me in Laredo
They think they own Laredo too

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day

I know a girl here in Laredo,
Her name's Pussy Willow Rose
She got that ring around the collar
Got that ring stuck through her nose
She works there at the Dallas Cowboys
But she's got no in between
Like all them other boys in dresses
They ain't every cowboy's dream

It's New Years Day here on the border
And it's always been this way
I never do the things I oughta
Think I'll stay its New Year's Day

Listen to the song here

Sunday Morning Roundtable IV

2009-12-27T18:43:00.002-05:00

As 2009 closes, it’s time to grade the President on his first year. As discussed in a previous post, President Obama recently gave his own performance a “good, solid B-plus.”

Some on the left are disappointed in the President’s lack of progress on the environment or on getting health care reform completed (while the Senate and House have each passed a version of the bill, there is no final law until the two houses of Congress work out their differences).

Those on the right, who naturally are more aligned with the President’s increase of forces in Afghanistan, are unhappy with the President’s domestic agenda as shown in his health care priorities. Meanwhile, the economy remains sluggish.

So, perhaps there is something there for everyone to like, but also something for everyone to dislike. What do you think? How has Obama Year One been?

Merry Christmas

2009-12-24T09:18:00.005-05:00

The Rebel Jesus
music and lyrics by Jackson Browne

Now the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants' windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
Will be gathering around the hearths and tables
Giving thanks for God's graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus

They call him by the "Prince of Peace"
And they call him by "The Savior"
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
And they fill his churches with their pride and gold
As their faith in him increases
But they've turned the nature that I worship in
From a temple to a robber's den
In the words of the rebel Jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why there are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But pardon me if I have seemed
To take the tone of judgment
For I've no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure and I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

Listen to the song here.

Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)

2009-12-23T15:07:00.004-05:00

In 1963 Phil Spector released A Christmas Gift for You, an album of mostly secular Christmas standards. The enduring song, in my mind, is “Christmas (Baby Please Come Home),” recorded by Darlene Love.

For several years, David Letterman has brought Love onto his program just prior to Christmas to sing this song. She’s on the show tonight (11:35pm CBS) and the annual Christmas show, which also always features Jay Thomas, is appointment viewing in my house. Several years of episodes are also on the DVR.

Here is Love’s 2005 performance. Check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXVcrWO5FCg

At Dusk on The Shortest Day of The Year

2009-12-21T17:04:00.003-05:00

The Christmas Revels is an annual performance held in Cambridge, Massachusetts and several other cities, with each year's performance celebrating the holiday traditions of a specific culture. There are elements that recur each year, including the final poem, which is as follows:

The Shortest Day
By Susan Cooper

And so the Shortest Day came and the year died
And everywhere down the centuries of the snow-white world
Came people singing, dancing,
To drive the dark away.
They lighted candles in the winter trees;
They hung their homes with evergreen;
They burned beseeching fires all night long
To keep the year alive.
And when the new year’s sunshine blazed awake
They shouted, revelling.
Through all the frosty ages you can hear them
Echoing behind us – listen!
All the long echoes, sing the same delight,
This Shortest Day,
As promise wakens in the sleeping land:
They carol, feast, give thanks,
And dearly love their friends,
And hope for peace.
And now so do we, here, now,
This year and every year.

Welcome Yule!

She's Just One of the Boys...

2009-12-21T07:40:00.001-05:00

Photo: masslive.com

Martha Coakley, Democrat Nominee for the special election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, has flip-flopped on her support of health care legislation.

Previously, Coakley had said she would not support a health care bill that restricted federal funding of abortion as does the current Senate bill. In fact, she used the issue to pummel her primary opponent, Rep. Mike Capuano. Quoting from The Boston Globe, Coakley said the following during her primary campaign:

“Let’s be clear on what’s principled here. If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’

We should now ask the same of Martha Coakley.

Again quoting from The Globe, just last week Coakley was asked “whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage,” and Coakley responded, “Yes, that’s right.’’

Yet here we are a week later, and she has changed her position. What happened?

One development was that Senator Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) came on board to support the Senate health care bill, meaning not only that all 60 Senate Democrats were together on the issue, but that they had their filibuster–proof majority with or without Coakley.

Prior to Nelson supporting the bill, Coakley may have thought she could go in to the Senate as the potential 60th vote, in which case she could demand some concession for her support. Instead, she would now (assuming victory on Jan. 19) arrive in Washington as the most junior of Senators (albeit in the majority), unwilling to buck the entirety of her party’s caucus on this legislation.

What does Coakley’s about-face tell us about the timing of the bill, however? What it tells me is that despite predictions of finishing health care by year’s end, Coakley thinks the issue could still be hot when she would potentially arrive in the Senate in January. Why else would she switch positions? If she thought the bill would be finished and gone, she could still oppose the version under consideration and then, upon arrival in the Senate, explain to her new colleagues that her opposition was a campaign necessity and there would be no harm to her position since the bill was already passed. Instead, Coakley apparently believes she may need to take a vote on the issue and doesn’t want to get off on the wrong foot with her potential new colleagues.

So what we have here is nothing principled, but a demonstration instead that Coakley is perhaps all-too prepared for the horse-trading and currying of favor that happens in Washington. She seems to understand that such partisan politics is a victimless crime, unless you count principles that get sacrificed along the way.

More Thoughts on Christmas

2009-12-20T17:51:00.000-05:00

National Public Radio’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty recently published a wonderful piece on Washington’s National Cathedral Boy Choristers. The written story, with an audio link, is located here.

The Story focuses largely on a 12 year old choir member, Nick Bairatchnyi, who offers this perspective on Christmas:

"When you're little, you always think Christmas is about presents. But then as you grow up, you really figure out what it means to celebrate Christmas — especially when you're singing in the choir," he says. "It's really about ... I don't want to say 'giving,' because that will sound really corny. But I mean, it is about giving and about being thankful for what you have, and pretty much thanking God for saving humanity."

Sunday Morning Roundtable III

2009-12-20T09:14:00.001-05:00

After an all night session, the parties at the Climate Conference came away with, essentially, an agreement in principal. Critics complain that it is not enforceable but others (who are, ironically, often the President’s critics) point out that President Obama held the line on another financial “bailout,” this time handing millions to other countries.

What happened in Copenhagan and is it good or bad for the United States?

Nine Days 'til Christmas. Are You ready?

2009-12-16T06:56:00.000-05:00

It's Christmas Eve.
It's the one night of the year when we all act a little nicer.
We smile a little easier. We share a little more.
For a couple of hours out of the whole year we are the people that we always hoped we would be.

It's a miracle; it’s really a sort of a miracle, because it happens every Christmas Eve,
and if you waste that miracle, you're going to burn for it. I know what I’m talking about.

You have to do something. You have to take a chance; you do have to get involved. There are people that are having trouble making their miracle happen.
There are people that don't have enough to eat; there are people that are cold.
You can go and say hello to these people.
Take an old blanket out of the closet and say “Here.”
You can make them a sandwich and say, "Oh, by the way, here."
I get it now!

If you give, then it can happen, then the miracle can happen to you.
It’s not just the poor and the hungry, it’s everybody who’s got to have this miracle, and it can happen tonight for all of you!
If you believe in this, the miracle will happen and you'll want it to happen again tomorrow!

You won't be one of those people that say, "Christmas is once a year and it's a fraud."
It's not! It can happen every day. You've just got to want that feeling!
And if you like it and you want it you’ll get greedy for it!
You'll want it every day of your life, and it can happen to you!
I believe in it now.
I believe it's going to happen to me, now. I'm ready for it!
And it's great. It's a good feeling.
It's really better than I've felt in a long time.

I'm ready. Have a Merry Christmas, everybody.

- From the movie Scrooged, written by Mitch Glazer and Michael O’Donoghue

President Grades His First 11 Months

2009-12-14T07:31:00.000-05:00

photo: New York Daily News

On a show broadcast on Sunday, President Obama graded his first eleven months in the White House. Speaking to Oprah Winfrey, he gave himself a “good, solid B-plus."

When the President said that passage of Health Care Reform would improve that grade, he missed the point. If Healthcare is one of the major (if not the major) initiatives of his Presidency, doesn’t failure to pass it at this point constitute a failure? It could pass, of course, and that will change the situation, but until such time, doesn’t he deserve at best an “Incomplete” on Healthcare?

Further, with President Obama’s commitment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, it is fair to say (and it has been said) that this war now becomes “his,” and this major initiative also remains Incomplete.

Eleven months into his term, I would argue that everything is now “his.” No more blaming the previous administration for bills in the bottom drawer or mistaken policy decisions. The buck stops with Obama.

Once upon a time, the President taught at the University of Chicago, and I can’t imagine Professor Obama would objectively reward 10% unemployment with a B+. If so, I wish I had taken his course!

I can’t help but wonder if the President’s ego and/or enthusiasm is getting the better of him. Just as the Nobel committee rewarded him for promise and potential, he seems to be grading himself on his hopes and dreams for America rather than on actual accomplishment. As Dr. Curt Connors said to Peter Parker in the movie Spider-Man 2, “Planning is not a major at this university.”

Speaking politically, it was foolish of the President to give himself a high grade with the economy the way it is. He just handed fodder to his opponents. He would have been better off tacitly acknowledging that Americans are worried, hurting, and concerned. He could have said “You know, Oprah, some of the things we’re doing take time. I’ll grade myself after a full term, not just one year.” In this case, Mr. President, a humble “Incomplete” would have been the path to choose.

Sunday Morning Roundtable II

2009-12-13T18:26:00.003-05:00

Each Sunday we take a cue from the Sunday morning political talk shows and encourage discussion and debate on a topic (usually political) from the week. This week’s topic for your commentary:

The next presidential election is still three years away and so it’s time for all kinds of speculation! With a first-term Democrat in the White House, most of the speculation is, of course, on the Republican side.

There was a recent story on cnn.com about an effort to draft Dick Cheney to run for president. I have also heard speculation about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as potential candidates. Of course, Mitt Romney could run a second time or there could be first-time presidential runs by other Republicans such as Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. Sarah Palin is out there, too.

Maybe my imagination isn’t creative enough, but I have a hard time envisioning Beck, Limbaugh, or Cheney ever running, let alone having any chance of success. Am I wrong on this? Do you think any of these three could put together serious campaigns? Would you vote for them?

Where No Man Has Gone Before...

2009-12-12T14:04:00.015-05:00

Image: startrek.com

Hero Complex recently posted excerpts from a Minnesota Daily article that, in part, told the story of a linguist’s endeavor to teach his newborn son a language other than his (the linguist’s) own native tongue.

The linguist, d’Armond Speers, spoke one language and one language only to his son from the time of his birth until the son was three years old.

Why am I telling you this story, you wonder? Because the language the linguist spoke exclusively to his son was Klingon, the language of the fictional alien race of the same name from Star Trek.

From the original article by Tara Bannow:

“I was interested in the question of whether my son, going through his first language acquisition process, would acquire it like any human language,” Speers said. “He was definitely starting to learn it.”

I am pleased to report that the story has a happy ending, because, as Bannow writes:

“His son is now in high school and doesn’t speak a word of Klingon.”

I wonder how the kid’s Romulan is coming along?

A Concord Carpenter Contest

2009-12-11T21:11:00.005-05:00

There’s something interesting going on over at A Concord Carpenter Comments. The Concord Carpenter has come up with an innovative way to drive site traffic, gain followers, and appear on other blogs. He’s giving away a socket set and readers of his blog earn entries into the contest by following his blog, posting about his contest on their own blogs (this post earns me two entries!), Tweeting, and emailing others about it.

As readers of Concord Carpenter’s blog know, he’s one creative guy, and I’ve got to hand it to him on this. What a great idea!

As I learn more and more about life around the blogosphere, this is one marketing effort I’ll keep in mind for my own promotional toolbox.

Check out this contest, and while you’re there, look around Concord Carpenter’s blog. As he says, he’s not only a Carpenter; he’s also a Cop and a Character, and all elements of his personality are on display on his blog.

Welcome!

2009-12-11T11:32:00.007-05:00

Welcome to the visitors coming over from A Concord Pastor Comments, A Concord Carpenter Comments, and I Ain’t No Oprah! I’ve been an avid reader and fan of each of these blogs for a while. They each represent different corners of the blogosphere and I will be linking to them all at times as their material is excellent. If you’ve arrived here some other way than through their links, you should know that they are each worth a long look!

Particular thanks to the Concord Pastor for a post last night and to the Concord Carpenter for a post this morning, each about this blog. In his post, Concord Carpenter mentioned that this blog was already up to the number four position in Google search for “A Third Moment.” I just checked and, thanks to links from these two blogs, we’re now at the number one position. Thanks, guys!

A Quarter for Your Thoughts

2009-12-10T06:57:00.000-05:00

In 1976 the U.S. Quarter received a temporary makeover, with the traditional year under the image of George Washington’s profile becoming “1776 – 1976” and the eagle on the reverse side replaced by a colonial drummer.

This version of the quarter lasted only a single year in celebration of the nation’s bicentennial, with the traditional layout returning in 1977. Something about the design, however, struck a chord with my father, who set about collecting ’76 Quarters. He stored the coins in (what became) dozens and dozens of old film containers, which were just the right size for this purpose. My father didn’t have a lot of collections, certainly not at that time, and being a dutiful 11 year old son, I set aside these coins anytime I came across them, which was quite often, of course, in the early years.

As the years passed, I continued to put aside ’76 Quarters when I saw them, and when returning home from college or later on, when visiting my parents, I would hand my father five, ten, or however many I had recently removed from circulation. The frequency of finding these coins became less and less with each passing year, but each time I encountered one I would think, “I can’t wait to surprise Dad.” Every time I would add to his collection, he would thank me, beaming at the joy of a shared hunt with cherished prizes.

My father passed away in 2004, some 28 years after starting his collection. Without him there as the keeper of the collection, I have continued to set aside ’76 Quarters when I find them. However, my collection is different than my father’s. Whereas he put his coins carefully away in film containers, I position my ’76 Quarters around the corners of my life: in my car, on my desk at work, in a few locations at home, in my pocket. All places where I will see and touch the coins on a daily basis, and by so doing, remain in touch with my Dad.

My experience tells me that relatively few ’76 Quarters remain in circulation currently. Even coins wear out, although more slowly than bills. I also know that other people collect these coins and so I am not alone in removing them from circulation. So it is with less and less frequency that I encounter a ’76 Quarter, but I did today. It was in the holder in which I put change in my car, sitting right on top and staring up at me. As I always do when a coin of my heart’s realm finds its way to me, I smiled and thought of my Dad, because he was with me again in that instant, the memories of so many happy moments coming back to me.

So How Did I Do?

2009-12-09T07:09:00.005-05:00

So four candidates go home, and two go on to battle in the final election for a seat in the U.S. Senate, but the most important question remains: how close were my predictions to the results?

Here are the predictions I published seven hours before the polls opened in Massachusetts (see previous post):

Coakley: 44%
Capuano: 35%
Pagliuca: 12%
Khazei: 9%

The actual results are as follows:

Coakley: 47%
Capuano: 28%
Khazei: 13%
Pagliuca: 12%

Not bad, if I do say so myself! I was not far off on the Coakley number, and I had the Pagliuca number spot on. Boy, if Steve paid me a couple hundred grand to tell him how he’d do, he could have saved a lot of money and we’d both be better off!

The real surprise to me was Khazei outperforming my expectations and Capuano underperforming them. A quick look at Khazei’s numbers looks as if he had pretty consistent strength with some particular strength in some of the suburbs.

On the Republican side, there is no surprise in Scott Brown winning big. Now he faces the challenge of the general election, with the Holiday Season taking voters’ attention away combined with the usual institutional advantages favoring any Democrat. Add in the potential for a snowstorm like that which Greater Boston had this morning, and the turnout could be abysmally low, as it was yesterday with less than 15% of the electorate participating in these primaries. That would all add up to another day at the polls dominated by the political machine and a big win for Coakley.

Political Crystal Ball

2009-12-08T00:08:00.003-05:00

As I write, we’re just hours away from the polls opening for the Democrat and Republican primaries to nominate candidates for the open U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts. In 24 hours, every media outlet will tell you what happened. Tonight, I’m telling you what will happen.

First, as a special election, these races are all about turnout. These are the kinds of elections that turn on the strength of the candidates’ field operations. Money means less than in most elections, particularly when the money is spent on saturation advertizing (that means you, Steve Pagliuca). The air cover of ads is important in normally scheduled races when casual voters are accustomed to turning out, but in special elections paid ads are secondary to a professional Get-Out-the-Vote effort.

This means a significant edge for Martha Coakley, who has the support of organized labor in this race. She’ll have the needed machinery with built-in targeted voter lists and her vote will get out.

Mike Capuano will also have a base that he can turn out from his Congressional district. The machines from the communities he already represents will turn out a heavy vote, but unfortunately for him, his base is one-tenth of the statewide electorate while Coakley’s will have broader reach.

Steve Pagliuca has succeeded in making himself a household name to many with his saturation advertising, but unless he spent even more money on voter ID efforts and a voter turnout effort for tomorrow, he’ll finish well behind the two professional politicians in the race.

Lastly, Alan Khazei seems like a likable first-time candidate who is learning on the job. An endorsement from The Boston Globe sounds nice and is an achievement, but I’m betting The Globe’s Editorial Board won’t be driving anyone other than themselves to the polls tomorrow.

On the Republican side, the party is solidly behind State Senator Scott Brown. If he doesn’t trounce Jack E. Robinson, it speaks volumes about Brown’s campaign and he’s in even bigger trouble in January than I already thought. Turnout in the Republican primary will be light, making the exact margin of victory unpredictable, but Brown should win big.

On the Democrat side, here’s the finish: Coakley 44%, Capuano 35%, Pagliuca 12%, Khazei 9%.

As We Seated and Were Darkened

2009-12-06T10:04:00.003-05:00

The other night I was out in the car with my son and we decided to drive by a house that we have driven past every year at this time, in order to see its over the top, fairly outrageous, holiday light display.

As we approached, I reminded my son, “You can see the lights from blocks away,” but we saw nothing. As we got closer, still dark. Then, we came upon the house. No lights whatsoever.

This was a surprising and deflating end to our impromptu quest. This house has for years had lights, statues, and inflatables all over the lawn. It was one of those houses that had multiple cars slowed to a stop in front of it every evening during December. I was truly surprised to see nothing but empty lawn and darkened windows.

Then, we wondered, what happened here? Is this formerly bright display, which brought light to many, a victim of the economy? Had the house changed hands? Had the Producer of this Holiday Display taken ill or passed away?

These questions will remain unanswered. We live several towns away from the display and don’t know any of the neighbors (such was the grandeur of this display that it drew us, and others, I’m sure, from miles away). We have no way of knowing why the lights are out this year. Perhaps they will return, and I’ll check back next year to see, just in case. For now, however, our questions remain. What happened and why?

There are, of course, many bigger and broader issues that beg the questions “what happened and why,” but the “littler” issues ones count, often very deeply, in our heart. I wonder about this house and the person who wanted to display his/her holiday spirit in such a visible, public fashion. Do they know their display and the light they shared is missed? I’m sure we weren’t the only car to drive by with its occupants deflated that night, and there will be many more in the nights to come. We will not be alone in our unanswered question, what happened?

All I can do for the Master of the Display is hope and pray for the best. If the economy crippled their financial ability to light up the night, I hope for better times ahead. If illness or death has interrupted or ceased the tradition, I pray for health or repose of their soul. If they simply moved to another home from which to display their Holiday Spirit, I wish them and their new audience all the best, and I can only hope to stumble upon their next display, or another like it, as I did this one some eleven years ago.

For me, while disappointing, this was an interesting journey with an unexpected twist at the end. It is a trip that I will remember every bit as much, if not more, than the journeys that ended with a view of the lights. I’m glad I shared this trip with my son, one more memory for each of us from his childhood. As I ponder the questions of what happened to the display and why, I am keenly aware that any of the possible explanations of why could be the situation here, and anything can happen to any of us at any time. I cherish each view of the lights, and each enjoyable moment with my sons.

We didn’t see Christmas lights that night, but I had one of the lights of my own life beside me for the whole ride home.

Sunday Morning Roundtable

2009-12-06T09:53:00.005-05:00

Each Sunday I’ll take a cue from the Sunday morning political talk shows and encourage discussion and debate on a topic (usually political) from the week. No spin, no point of view from me, at least not initially, just a question for your commentary. This week’s topic:

President Obama this week announced the increase of US troops into Afghanistan, alienating many of his supporters on the Left. At the same time, he announced a time table for withdrawal, aggravating the Right. Was this a failed attempt by the President to please everyone which will instead result in satisfying no one? Or is this the President displaying leadership by defining a bold course no one thought about prior?

(More than) Seven Dirty Words

2009-12-06T09:45:00.005-05:00

Another comedy routine that has been playing out before us for years is George Carlin’s line that “my stuff is stuff; your stuff is crap.” I can practically hear him saying “My politician is a good guy and everyone should admit it. Your politician is a dope.” Just about every day I hear someone complain that “Some people are too harshly critical of Obama; we all need to support the President.” Many of these same folks, of course, still spew the hate speech that George W. Bush is “an idiot.”

At the same time, many Republicans that complained about such treatment of Bush were none too kind about Bill Clinton, either. My point here is not to try to trace this pattern of hypocrisy to some root or to prove who did it first. Rather, just to point out the negative tenor of alleged “political debate.”

Bottom-line: name-calling is not political debate. Those that stoop to the lowest common denominator in this regard (even if light-heartedly) add nothing to the debate and quickly lose my attention and respect. If one actually engages in substantive debate, I listen and might even evolve my views. If you’re just expressing hate, I’ve got lots better things to do with my time than listen.

Yada, Yada

2009-12-06T09:35:00.007-05:00

Some years ago Jerry Seinfeld observed that, in the age of free agency, fans of professional sports these days were doing little more than rooting for laundry.

He was right, of course. In the earlier days of pro sports, fans could freely attach themselves to players and teams simultaneously. One could root for Ted Williams and the Red Sox, knowing that, barring a league-shattering trade, the former would certainly be back with the latter year after year.

These days, with player movement as frequent as it is, it is a dicey proposition indeed to give one’s loyalty to a player, who may be gone from the home-town team at any time. Even players that seemed to be the cornerstones of their franchises are sometimes traded. Beloved his first few years with the Red Sox, Nomar Garciaparra was gone at the trading deadline in 2004. Those of us who cheer for the Sox, however, were able to adjust. Similarly, a year or so later when Johnny Damon left the Sox for the Yankees, he became the hardball equivalent of Benedict Arnold, and, incidentally, inspired the classic line “Johnny Damon: looks like Jesus, acts like Judas, throws like Mary!”

Now, why do I bring this up? Because Jerry Seinfeld, instead of observing the landscape of modern professional sports, could just as easily been making political commentary. Parties and politicians now routinely find themselves switching sides of political issues and many, whether elected officials or rank-and-file party registrants and adherents, blindly follow along.

A recent example was the manner in which the Massachusetts Legislature dealt with the appointment of a U.S. Senator in the event of a vacancy. In 2004, when John Kerry seemed actually capable of winning the presidency, Massachusetts Democrats successfully pushed through a change in the law so that the Governor (then Republican Mitt Romney) could not appoint an interim-Senator. The Democrats argued that this important matter should be left solely to the citizens, not to other politicians. Republicans, in the hope of having a U.S. Senator appointed from their party, argued that the Governor should appoint someone so that the Commonwealth was fully represented on the issues of the day.

Five years later, with a Senate seat from Massachusetts vacant and a Democrat Governor, Massachusetts Democrats decided that the Commonwealth needed full representation in the Senate and again pushed through a change in the law, this time giving the power to appoint back to the (now Democrat) Governor. Republicans argued that the naming of a U.S. Senator should be up to the people, not another politician.

This is just a recent and easy example of politicians’ positions being situational rather than deeply-held. It’s not an isolated event, by any stretch. Did you ever notice how many politicians’ views on the federal line-item veto depended on whether their party held the White House?

Now, for the politicians themselves, at some level this is all just business. It may be about trust in the President since he shares your party affiliation, or it may be about currying favor with one’s party leadership. Whatever the root cause, my guess is that the change in most politicians’ positions is highly calculated and reached very consciously. The farther we move from the principals involved, however, the less conscious the change in position. We all know people who blindly follow a party or a politician, regardless of changes in position. They blissfully ignore changes in position or, at the most, offer a tepid explanation such as “He said what he had to say to get elected” as if that is a virtue, or “Give him a chance” while making it obvious that there is no limit to their own patience since, you know, “their” politician is on the “right” team.

Leading Off

2009-12-06T09:24:00.006-05:00

Why 'blog? Well, after over a year of posting on Facebook, my hope is that the forum of a ‘blog will allow for better and more detailed posts. Trying to be pithy and succinct sometimes prohibits complete exposition. So, hopefully this forum will allow for a more complete discussion as ideas are fleshed out more completely and debate is more robust.

What’s the title all about? The idea of A Third Moment comes from the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel described a first moment, or Thesis, as a proposition, or idea. This is followed by a second moment, or Antithesis, which negates the thesis. Hegel’s third moment is the Synthesis, which resolves the conflict between the first two moments.

To the extent this ‘blog helps me to work through thoughts and ideas, it will create synthetic moments. Sometimes such synthesis will come in the preparation of a post, sometimes it may come from the interaction of post, comment, and further comment. This means, of course, that comments are encouraged, whether in agreement or disagreement to the initial post.

The idea of synthesis implies change. I may change my mind and I hope you are open to doing so, too!