Left In Lowell

Ohohoboy, the best part about following the national 2008 race is watching the public vet the Republicans. Frankly, I am loving our chances against any of them, be it Flippity-Floppity Mitt, Taxpaid Cheater Rudy, or *yyyyyyaaaaaaawn* Put ‘Em’ta Sleep Fred. The only one I was worried about (a bit) was Huckabee, who’s been surging in the polls and actually has his wits about him when he talks (though he’s deeply, deeply religious-conservative).

Well, I fear no more. I relish him winning, in fact. Because Huckabee is insane. The latest group who will be appalled (should he win his way into the general election) will be any woman who, well, isn’t submissive. So, the majority of us. Specifically, he signed on to an ad agreeing with the statement, “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” Got that?

For a list of other amazingly unattractive things about Huckabee, this is a great top ten list. I can only say, if you have not seen his “my rising poll numbers are due to God” speech, it’s creepy as all get-out - and all over the internets.

Then there’s his “AIDs victims should be quarantined” thought pattern…long after it was well known how AIDs spreads and doesn’t spread (hint: it’s not from a toilet seat). *sniff, sniff.* I think I smell very well done toast.

It’s also real fun watching him backpedal lamely. 2008 will be so much fun! No matter what Republican gets the nomination, there’s just so much ammo, I could cry from the sheer entertainment value. The blog posts write practically write themselves…

Every so often, the internets with their innovations cause consternation with the Rules. In this case, ActBlue, an online mechanism for allowing individuals to create a “fundraiser” page for any Democract running for state or national office, is facing a ruling that would cause donations via ActBlue to not be eligible for public matching funds (because Edwards has asked for a clarification of those rules). Public matching funds are intended for donations made by individuals, to keep “big money” from having too much influence, so anything related to a PAC is ineligible. The FEC has proposed calling ActBlue a PAC, and so donations would be ineligible.

But ActBlue lists any Democratic candidate running for state or local office, without picking or choosing, or endorsing. As such, they really are not acting like a PAC. In fact, ActBlue has been instrumental in jumpstarting more individual contributions, hence more widespread participation in the ever-present and very corrupt money game. This is only a good thing for democracy.

Kos has more, and also advises that the FEC is taking comments in regards to this ruling. They are often swayed by public comment when an argument can be made, but the more emails sent, the better. You can send public comment to Mary Dove at mdove@fec.gov.

I myself sent the following email:

Hi,

I am registering my opposition to considering ActBlue a PAC for purposes of public matching funds.

ActBlue literally is just a mechanism for any Dem candidate to set up online fundraising. The rules governing public matching funds are intended to keep “big money” out of politics and keep “small donors” important. I agree with that completely. However, ActBlue has the effect in campaigns of encouraging small donors, by allowing individuals, be they bloggers, or just Joe down the street, to set up a place for people to send the same sort of individual donation that you might do directly through a candidate’s website or by sending them a check.

By ruling them ineligible for matching funds, you would be stifling small donor participation in the process of donations. In regards to the fact that ActBlue only allows one political party to participate, there is nothing stopping any other party from setting up the same mechanism online, and I believe they should be accorded the same ruling.

Please allow ActBlue donations to count towards public matching funds. I say this as a voter who has not even made up my mind about which Democrat to support in the primary, so I have no reason to want Senator Edwards (who is as I understand the impetus for clarifying this rule) to gain a serious advantage by getting this money. I just believe in fairness and want to ensure that the rules governing our elections encourage instead of discourage public participation…as the rules were intended to do. ActBlue is a poster child for the spirit of democratic participation. Please do not let your ruling stifle that.

Thank you,

Lynne

Although tomorrow night’s City Council meeting has a very light agenda, I expect CC Rodney Elliott’s motion requesting that the “Law Department Develop an Ordinance to Prohibit Hunting in the State Forest” will draw some interest.

In case you have not heard, last week a dog was shot by a hunter (presumably)while the canine, accompanied by his owner, was running around the Lowell-Dracut-Tyngsboro State Forest.

Although I knew that deer hunting season is around this time, I never knew you could do it in Lowell. I have nothing against hunting, it is not something I ever have done nor will ever do but I understand that some people enjoy it. I also accept that hunting does control the wild life population and I really do not want deers and wild turkeys walking down Varnum Avenue. But I just do not want hunting in a city like Lowell, even if it is with a bow and arrow. We are the largest City in Massachusetts that has hunting within its boundaries.

So if we can convince the State to further restrict hunting in that forest, that is limit it to the Dracut and Tyngsboro side for example, then everyone wins; that includes dogs, hunters, outdoor-lovers, and most importantly residents of Pawtucketville.

One more thing, I do not want to offend canine lovers, now that is one activist group that I do not want to get angry at me, but shouldn’t the dog who got shot been on a leash? And if you want to read more about this issue, here is the link to the Mike Lafleur article in Friday’s Sun.

If State Representative David Nangle (17th Middlesex) is still being considered or is still considering to become the new Sergeant at Arms of the Massachusetts Legislature, he should ask Sal DiMasi to make a decision within the next 24 hours. If not, he should remove himself from running for the position.

It was back in late October that Hilary Chabot of the Sun broke the story (cannot link it; it has already been archived) that Nangle was in the running for the $82,000/year somewhat ceremonial position. Then the Sun reported that he was not interested in the position, then he was rethinking, then, no he was interested. When we last left the saga, the job description may be expanded and DiMasi was still thinking about his nomination/selection.

So, who knows what is going on among DiMasi, Nangle and the other powers that be? A few cynical friends of mine keep insisting that the behind the scene maneuvering is aimed at assuring that a Nangle ally has the inside track to replace him.

A few weeks back I had lamented on the high cost of special elections and a lot of the comments were in dissatisfied with what they believed to be my anti-democratic position. The simple fact is that if he does not resign within forty eight hours, we will not be able to have the primary election in conjunction with the February 5th Presidential Primary.

So if Nangle does not announce within the next two days, I would expect him to finish his term and not burden the residents of Lowell with yet another special election. As I had previously mentioned both Lynne and I live in this district; so we have a direct interest in what is happening with that seat.