Democrats Still Divided After Bitter Primary

Ever since Scott Brown won the People’s Seat, Democrats all across the country seem to be getting nervous-maybe even a little crazy. Take for instance last week’s special state Senate primary for the seat formerly held by Scott Brown, where Rep. Harkins is being a bit of a sore loser.

Rep. Lida Harkins, defeated in a special state Senate primary last week, ripped former opponent Peter Smulowitz as “slanderous” and accused party officials of not refereeing the Democratic contest.

Harkins, a longtime House leader who was back-benched by Speaker Robert DeLeo, said Smulowitz, a Needham physician, painted her as a criminal by implicating her as beholden to three former speakers accused of violating federal law. Smulowitz now faces off with GOP Rep. Richard Ross, vying to take the seat opened by Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate.

“He not only went negative, he went slanderous,” Harkins said.

“Losing is easy. Restoring your reputation is not,” Harkins told the News Service. “He went out of his way to destroy my reputation, to make me sound like Dianne Wilkerson.”

Smulowitz beat Harkins by fewer than 200 votes, after linking her to former House speakers Salvatore DiMasi, Thomas Finneran, and Charles Flaherty all of whom left office amid criminal investigations. Flaherty pleaded guilty to tax evasion. Finneran pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice after testifying in a redistricting case. DiMasi has pleaded not guilty to federal corruption charges.

Smulowitz knocked Harkins during the campaign for accepting political donations from “corrupt politicians,” including the former speakers. Smulowitz circulated a flier that Harkins said damaged her outside her Needham power base. At Saturday’s committee meeting, Harkins read a list of other Democratic officeholders who had received money from the speakers.

Legislative leaders maintain campaign accounts to fund candidates from their own party.

“I do not think that my opponent played very fair,” Harkins said. “I’m not really thrilled with the tactics.”

I’m not sure what her problem is, or if she understands that she’s in the world of politics. Seems to me she’s being nothing but a sore loser, and giving a poor impression of the state of the Massachusetts Democratic Party being far from a unified front heading into general election. Compare this to the ‘beer summit’ between Charlie Baker and Christy Mihos, and you can see a huge difference. Republicans are showing class, and Rep. Harkins is making herself, and her party, look really, really bad.

Does it mean anything? Maybe not… but with Rep. Harkins claiming her former opponent was slanderous, and bashing the Democrat Party for letting her opponent a big mean bully, well, I’m not impressed. Get over yourself. Just because you’re a Democrat doesn’t mean you are entitled to anything…even in Massachusetts (remember January 19th?).

Is this a sign of Post-Scott Brown Special Election Derangement Syndrome (more popularly known as PSBSEDS)?

Baker-Tisei Takes The Convention

It comes as no surprise that Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei were victorious at the Massachusetts GOP Convention today.

Today at the Massachusetts Republican Party Convention in Worcester, Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei overwhelmingly received the Republican Party endorsement. With over 2800 delegates in attendance, Baker won by an overwhelming margin of 89 – 11 over Christy Mihos.

“No candidate in modern Republican Convention history has trounced his opponent like this,” said Baker-Tisei Convention Chair and House Minority Leader Brad Jones. “It was a wipeout.”

“To receive the endorsement of the Republican Party is truly an honor,” said Baker. “As I have campaigned across Massachusetts, a consistent theme has been apparent, people are extremely worried about out-of-control spending from the insiders running Beacon Hill. Today marks the start of change.”

I do find it odd that only 4 years ago, the Massachusetts Republican Party was begging Christy Mihos to run as a Republican, and spoke often about the benefits of having a Republican Primary. Mihos’ 11% ensures no primary battle, and that is unfortunate. Why didn’t the Party make sure Christy got 15% so we could have a primary? What’s different now than 4 years ago? It’s just as important this year, if not more, than it was last time around…

Well, I suppose there’s no use wasting any words on pondering the issue.

Congratulations to Team Baker-Tisei. Let’s make it happen.

Good Grief, Charlie Baker

Charlie Baker is going to have to do some serious spin on this on…

As Republican Charles Baker seeks to capture the independent vote that bolstered U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s win, a Herald review shows Harvard Pilgrim tripled the former CEO’s annual salary as it hit consumers with a 150 percent increase in premiums.

Brown rode to victory as an independent voice on health care, a position critics say Baker will have a tough time following with those numbers.

Baker defends his record and argues that Gov. Deval Patrick is late to the health-care discussion. He said he’s been “shouting from the rooftops” about the need for hospitals and medical providers to make the cost of health care more transparent, and pushing for legislation that would control costs.

“My salary’s been a matter of public record for 20 years, and I’m probably the only candidate,” for whom that’s the case, Baker said. Baker’s salary as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim surged from $548,351 in 1999 to a high of $1.7 million in 2008. He earned $1.3 million in seven months in 2009 before he resigned to run for governor last summer, filings with the state Attorney General show.

Over the same period, premiums at Harvard Pilgrim went up by 100 to 200 percent.

When Baker took the reins in 1999, rates on Harvard Pilgrim’s most popular plans ranged from about $166 to $187 a month per member. Those rates soared to $425 to $483 a month, as of April, according to filings with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

Two months ago, the Commonwealth elected a Republican to the Senate due in part to his promise to be the 41st vote against the health care bill. With health care being at the front line of today’s political battleground, will those same voters ignore the fact that Charlie Baker was “part of the problem” with the health care industry?

“You have to look at him as the incumbent in terms of health-care costs,” said Democratic operative Michael P. Shea. “If you look at his salary and the increases that people are paying now, how can he say he did a good job? It’s absolutely fair to pin this on him. He hasn’t shown he’s part of the solution, he’s part of the problem.”

Patrick is expected to keep the focus on health care – and keep the heat on Baker – as he proposes a so-called soft cap on premium increases. His plan pits him squarely against health insurers in an intensifying three-way race that also features unenrolled candidate Tim Cahill, the state treasurer.

Baker said Patrick is trying to shift the focus.

“This probably beats talking about spending and taxes and unemployment if you’re him,” Baker said. “I’ve supported a lot of things that would put my organization and my industry at risk. I have no idea if it’s going to be good or bad for my company or my industry, but it’s the right thing to do for the people of Massachusetts. I got a lot of grief from people for doing that.”

Sooner or later, he will have to address the real issue, rather than playing the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument, just Deval Patrick will have to answer to his criticisms too. A guy making nearly $2 million a year, while us regular people are paying painfully high health care premiums…maybe, according to Harvard Pilgrim, he did deserve the salary bump…but anyone who didn’t see their salaries triple may think differently.

Who’s the “Party of the Rich” Now?

The special election for U.S. Senate last week revealed some intriguing demographic trends in Massachusetts that present a unique opportunity for the state Republican Party.

Take a look at this map showing margins of victory by town in last week’s election. Notably, Scott Brown generally performed better in exurban towns and less affluent suburbs such as North Andover, Canton, and Reading than in the wealthiest suburbs west of Boston such as Wellesley, Belmont, and Needham. Brown’s margins in many largely middle-class towns were greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2002, which is the last year there was a truly competitive statewide race in Massachusetts. However, Romney performed better than Brown in the upscale western suburbs. What explains this apparent paradox?

These results reflect a larger shift in the demographic makeup of both major political parties, which has been taking place across the country in recent years, culminating in 2008. The Obama coalition that year was formed of three basic demographic elements. The first element was made up of those with the least money in the country; Obama beat out McCain by 48 points among those earning less than $15,000 a year. The second element was made up of many of the wealthiest Americans.

The first element’s support for Obama is not entirely surprising. However, the Democrats’ gains among affluent Americans are somewhat of a surprise, especially given that Republicans have long held a lock on the wealthy vote. For example, as recently as 2004, President Bush won those Americans earning more than $100,000 a year by 17 points, and won those earning more than $200,000 a year by 28 points. In 2008, Obama beat out McCain by 6 points among those earning more than $100,000 a year, a 23 point turnaround in just four years. And Obama tied for the votes of those earning more than $200,000 a year, a 28 point gain from the previous presidential election.

The third element of the Obama coalition was made up of a large number of Americans in between the income extremes, many of whom likely believed he would fulfill his campaign promise to unite Americans by launching a pragmatic, “postpartisan” political era. Indeed, while Bush tied for the votes of those Americans earning in between $30,000-$50,000 a year in 2004, Obama won this group by 12 points in 2008. And while in 2004 Bush won those earning in between $50,000-$75,000 a year by 13 points, Obama tied for the votes of this group four years later. These middle-class voters make up much of the population of the swing districts/states that were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008, mostly in the middle of the country or in non-coastal sections of coastal states. And they are the same voters who have abandoned Obama in droves over the last year as his campaign promises of bipartisanship have been revealed to be mostly hollow.

One explanation for the migration of wealthy Americans to the Democrats in recent years has its roots in the boom of the technology and financial sectors between 1995-2008, which resulted in the rapid acquisition of great wealth among many Americans. This argument holds that such quick accumulation of wealth has weakened the connection for many affluent Americans between wealth and the policies that encourage success (i.e. low tax rates), which held more salience in the years when wealth was acquired as a result of many years of hard work. Among the new elite, social issues and environmental causes apparently trump economic self-interest. This is especially true among the very wealthy. For them, the impact of the recession has been minimal and the tax consequences of grandiose policy schemes are of little concern.

I would argue that the change is also generational. Newly wealthy members of the younger generations who have never known the days of tax rates as high as 90% in the early 1960s may not be aware of the possible long-term consequences of supporting Democrats. I imagine some of these wealthy Americans may begin to shift their party allegiances as those consequences (i.e. tax increases) become more clear in the coming years.

One definitive consequence of this demographic shift is the change in the power base of the Democratic Party. While still powerful, blue collar constituencies such as unions, already weakened because of declining membership, have lost ground to special interest groups funded by wealthy donors like George Soros, such as Moveon.org. And increasing numbers of Democratic candidates come from the ranks of the very wealthy, with the likes of Jon Corzine, Ned Lamont, and Maria Cantwell, among others, spending millions to fund their own campaigns.

These trends are also evident in Massachusetts, which last week’s election showed is not as ideologically homogenous as some pundits would lead us to believe. Indeed, the state Democratic Party here mirrors the national party in that it is an awkward coalition of conservative and liberal factions. In recent years, the wealthy liberal faction has taken over the leadership of the state Democratic party in Massachusetts, as evidenced by the nomination of Deval Patrick and the ascension of his top supporters into state party leadership. However, these changes have not taken place without some public dissatisfaction from conservative Democrats.

In a wise move, Scott Brown took advantage of this intraparty split by making a specific (and successful) appeal to conservative Democrats tired of the obvious elitism of their party leaders. In doing so, he laid out a political blueprint that may serve other Bay State Republicans well this fall.

Indeed, the intraparty split among Democrats is an important development that could be crucial towards making some serious Republican gains in November. It certainly should be eagerly exploited by state Republican leaders, who should take advantage of this dynamic by recruiting candidates from among the ranks of the middle-class “Brown Majority,” especially conservative Democrats and independents. These candidates could, like Scott Brown, begin to represent a new perception of the Republican brand in this state, and attract conservative Democrats as well as large numbers of middle-class independents who are fed up with the arrogance of state and national Democrats. Let’s hope our state Republican leaders take advantage of this unique opportunity. Their decision to do so could be crucial towards exponentially increasing Republican power from the local level on up this fall.

Who Isn’t An Insider?

State Senator Richard Tisei is being labeled an “insider” by critics of his selection to be Charlie Baker’s running mate.

Gubernatorial rivals yesterday pounced on Republican candidate Charles Baker’s choice of Sen. Richard Tisei as his running mate, painting the GOP minority leader as an entrenched insider who has strayed from the party’s anti-tax gospel.

Republican Christy Mihos said Baker’s pick means more of the same for tax-weary Bay State voters. “You can’t paint yourself as an outsider if you’ve worked on Beacon Hill for more than two decades,” Mihos told the Herald.

You know who wasn’t an “insider,” and was supposed to be the savior of the Commonwealth back when he was elected Governor in 2006? Sorry folks, but being an alleged “outsider” isn’t a guarantee of success either.

So what does Lt. Governor Tim Murray, an insider, have to say about it?

Said Democrat Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray: “Sen. Tisei is a 25-year State House insider who typifies the Republican establishment elite that created record levels of debt and deferred maintenance. I was a quarterback on my high school football team when Sen. Tisei started serving in the Legislature.”

Excuse me, Lt. Governor, but who is responsible for the record levels of debt and deferred maintenance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? It isn’t the Republicans…

So if being an “insider” is such a terrible thing, where is legislation for term limits? The State House is running rampant with insiders…

No way am I going to buy the argument that being an “insider” is more of a bad thing than being an outsider. The fact is, the minute you start serving elected office, you are an insider.

Being an outsider is a wonderful campaign slogan, and being an insider is a great label to throw around, but it doesn’t mean a thing. The people of the Commonwealth are repeatedly reelecting insiders that are doing a lousy job…and electing outsiders who are doing lousy jobs.

Insider? Outsider? Who cares? Everyone is an insider.