- Jerold Duquette on Probation Mess: Go for the Jugular, Charlie
- Jim Walsh on Probation Mess: Go for the Jugular, Charlie
- Maurice T. Cunningham on Probation Mess: Go for the Jugular, Charlie
- Jim Walsh on Probation Mess: Go for the Jugular, Charlie
- Christopher on Probation Mess: Perception v. Strategic Reality in Guv’s Race
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
Author Archives: Maurice T. Cunningham
Yesterday my colleague Professor Duquette counseled Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker to forego attacks on the Democrats over corruption. Professor Duquette’s reasoning was that an attack on the leadership in the wake of the Probation Department verdict would incite legislative Democrats to deploy their mighty organizations against Baker; thus campaigning on Democratic corruption would backfire on Baker.
Professor Duquette is wrong. Here’s why.
Joanna Weiss began her column on immigrant children in powerful fashion the other day: “What if the Irish potato famine happened today?” We do have that history and I’ve always marveled at how it was summarized by my late friend the Boston College historian Thomas O’Connor in his book The Boston Irish: A Political History “If there had existed in the nineteenth century a computer able to digest all the appropriate data, it would have reported one city in the entire world where an Irish Catholic, under any circumstance, should never, ever, set foot. That city was Boston, Massachusetts.”
The long ordeal between US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and former Probation Commissioner John O’Brien ended its trial phase yesterday with a verdict in favor of the US Attorney. Both sides as well as defendants-by-proxy Speaker Robert DeLeo and the Massachusetts legislature came out considerably diminished. It’s hard to look upon the fraudulent conduct at the Probation Department as business as usual; it went beyond that. The US Attorney’s Office zealously pushing the limits in political prosecutions is business a usual, but unfortunately there is no Spotlight Team to stop them.
Governor Deval Patrick’s remarkable press conference announcing that Massachusetts would welcome unaccompanied immigrant children continues to reverberate through the commonwealth. His actions and remarks carry implications for how we think about religion and politics, for political philosophy, and for our political institutions.
Politicians from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have invoked John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” phrase for political effect but few have embodied the phrase in the manner of Governor Deval Patrick, who seemingly alone among America’s governors is willing to extend a welcome to immigrant children who have flooded across our Southern borders. Winthrop’s speech was much more than a memorable phrase; it was a Model of Christian Charity, a call for those who enjoy the blessings of life to care for the less well off. Deval Patrick is brave in his willingness to live up to the commonwealth’s foundational document.
The Democratic insider narrative on Martha Coakley has been great AG, awful campaigner, way ahead in the primary due to name recognition, but “she could unravel at any moment in a tough general election race.’’
Perhaps we’ll see about the general election but Democrats, give Coakley some credit: she can be a pretty sharp campaigner as she proved yesterday in response to misogynistic statements by a sports talk radio host.
I’m just back from a vacation to Alaska and family fun to a political scientist means you visit the State House. There on the walls were duplications of newspaper stories proudly recalling Alaska statehood in 1959 including photographs of one of the most important politicians in achieving statehood, Ernest Gruening.
That name may have faded from memory but it should be recalled and honored. Senator Ernest Gruening was one of only two United States Senators to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which permitted President Lyndon B. Johnson to escalate the War in Vietnam. Johnson’s case for war, by the way, was based on lies, if that should sound familiar at all.
Recently I’ve been working on an article on political cultures in Massachusetts and returned to the Yeomen, a group I’ve discussed here before. The small town Yeomen of years past are gone but the Tea Party carries on. I’ve compared the Tea Party to the Know-Nothings but that was very unfair to the Nineteenth Century Americanists. The Know-Nothings were actually forward looking on many policies in Massachusetts, including economic, women’s rights, and school integration.
In their Nativist dislike of immigrants however, the Know-Nothings and Tea Party are similar. And listen, who could have guessed that the Irish would turn out alright? But we had better keep the welcome mat out for Latino and Asian immigrants in Massachusetts; they are our future.
During the recent debate over the utility of the party conventions some critics like the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh criticized the conventions for excluding decent candidates like Juliette Kayyem, while Professor Ubertaccio and I defended the right of political parties to make their own nominating decisions. One columnist’s back-room insider is another professor’s dedicated party activist perhaps.
A more important issue though might be, who are those delegates anyway? And what do they represent?
Before and even after the recent state party nominating conventions my colleague Professor Ubertaccio and I engaged the Boston Globe’s Scot Lehigh in a friendly and spirited debate over the fifteen percent rule. Underlying the points we were making is a healthy respect for the role that political parties play in our democracy. Political parties are not popular with the public and some columnists but as Professor Duquette explained recently, they have many essential functions.
So I read with interest Jim Sullivan’s piece in Capital on June 27, The Republican Revolution Is Underway. Maybe.
Four million dollars in five years to help Republican state legislative candidates sounds pretty good. But the money isn’t going to the Republican State Committee, it’s going to a SuperPAC and affiliated non-profit that will operate outside of the state party framework. Is this any way to build a party?