Video Segments

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Josh Davis

A selection of video segments . . ..

Posted in Video | 1 Comment

From December 2012 — History Lessons

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Josh Davis

Abraham Lincoln is as big as it gets. He is a towering figure in our country’s history. Perhaps more than anyone else, he shaped our modern democracy. His words are known by most of us and repeated by many. Now, in 2012, both political parties lay competing claims to his legacy. Book after book endeavors to make sense of him and to help us understand not just what he did but who he was and how he did it. And, now, he is appearing at a local multiplex. I confess that I went to the movies last weekend with some trepidation and left feeling patriotic, sad and hopeful all at the same time.

Take yourself and your family to see Lincoln. Now. Steven Spielberg’s movie, with an amazing screenplay by Tony Kushner, is the best movie about politics I have ever seen. It is also one of the best movies about our country I have ever seen. And, finally, it features the best single performance by an actor I have ever seen. Daniel Day Lewis makes Abraham Lincoln real and approachable. Watching him you feel as if you are living (albeit briefly) in Lincoln’s world and that you are, like the others in Washington, watching, listening and trying to make sense of a leader who seems most of all to want to engage you in a conversation.

I am by no means a movie critic. And my hyperbolic praise should be suspect because I have not seen nearly enough movies to so confidently assign Lincoln a place in the pantheon. I do, however, spend a lot of time thinking about talking and persuasion and I can say with great confidence that Lewis’s Lincoln (like the man himself) has a great deal to teach about how to persuade and how to make change. He uses, in careful measure, story-telling, humor, pressure, reason, power, and passion. And he deploys these persuasive weapons deftly. Like the men he works to persuade, you fall under his spell. It’s a combination of warmth, honesty, and a rock hard underlying commitment to principle. Part of Lewis’s great art in this movie is the degree to which you can see Lincoln’s struggle and sorrow in his eyes. Lincoln is leading the country through its greatest test and it is, quite literally, tearing the great man apart. For a man who created opportunity for so many, he suffered greatly.

The sources of his suffering are apparent from the earliest moments of this film. In our now unified country it is easy to lose track of the cost, in lives and otherwise, of the Civil War. There are gruesome images of war, and reminders everywhere of how profoundly painful the conflict was for all concerned. It should — for many — end the debate about whether the Confederate flag means anything other than support for secession and deep, unending racial hatred. And it should also remind all of us in this time of deep division about the possibility of unity created by crisis. The movie offers an essential reminder of a particularly critical moment in our history. For some, it may be an introduction. No matter; it works either way.

A number of details caught my eye. Lincoln touching young men on the shoulder to say thank you. The ever-present Washington winter at a time before electricity and heat (Lincoln constantly wears a blanket). The citizens waiting at the White House for a chance to visit with the President. And the commitment and passion of many of the politicians who were not Lincoln. Men on both sides of history doing battle for their beliefs. From our moment in history, we watch the film knowing that unity emerged on the other side of the bitter divide Spielberg chronicles. As we approach the fiscal cliff, and hear the nasty rhetoric from politicians on both sides, this film offers hope.

Posted in Last year's blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tony Kushner deserved better (Oscars 2013)

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Josh Davis

The Oscars are not an election. That’s been my mantra today. America did not reject Abraham Lincoln last night. And again, unlike an election, the identity of the Oscar winners has absolutely no impact on my life or that of my family. We are not “in the industry” and, indeed, we really only manage to watch nominated movies every few years. Nevertheless, when the Oscar for best adapted screenplay was presented to Chris Terrio for Argo, and not Tony Kushner for Lincoln, I was furious. Here’s my effort to explain my feelings about this not particularly consequential moment in time.

I saw both Lincoln and Argo twice. They are terrific films. From one vantage point, its edge of the seat makes Argo a more accessible film than Lincoln. No matter how you look at it, however, it is more of a caper than an epic and its view, ultimately, is limited rather than sweeping. Lincoln is beautifully written and, as the Academy recognized, the acting is beyond compare. Daniel Day Lewis gives us each the opportunity to spend a couple of hours with one of our country’s greatest leaders. And the screenplay made Lincoln accessible, human and worthy of reverence. This is no small feat.

Lincoln begins with the President talking to soldiers as they prepare to head back to the front lines. The conversation ends with the soldiers walking away from the President reciting his words at Gettysburg. The scene is about inspiration and about the unique power of the words of this President from long ago. Kushner’s script, in which his conversation makes Gettysburg and other soaring moments of oratory seem obviously within Lincoln’s grasp, is the means by which generations will get to know Lincoln and his time. The notion that Terrio’s Argo is somehow a greater achievement than Kushner’s defies my understanding, and, in the end, that is the reason for my anger last night and today.

Listening is an essential component of advocacy and the cornerstone of democracy. As Kushner’s movie reveals, Lincoln was a careful listener. I aspire to do the same. So, as a supporter of gun control, I want to hear what gun owners think. As a supporter of President Obama, I wanted to hear why someone would vote for Mitt Romney. And, in listening to people who disagree with me, I learn about the strengths and weaknesses of my view. In response, I like to look for a middle ground – a place where we can agree. In conversations on the radio about gun control– universal background checks and some sort of mental health based constraints on ownership seemed to be places of overlap, where gun enthusiasts and I could agree on the need for change. In talking to people about Romney, I could share my frustration with the positional nature of Obama’s leadership without abandoning my support for the President. In matters of politics, I continue to think much unites us and that our leaders’ failure to seek those spaces of agreement is part of why we are all so frustrated with Washington.

Respectful dialogue, however, requires meaningful participation from both sides. Saying that Obama is a criminal who was born in Kenya is not argument — it’s nonsense, the kind of nonsense offered to cover up a failure to think and consider. Similar is the oft-repeated claim that our constitution just means we just get to have firearms designed to kill people in droves. People who make those statements are not engaged in meaningful consideration of the issues. They already know the answer and they don’t feel that they have any obligation to explain. Often, as in these examples, they are really very, very wrong.

And that’s the feeling I had last night. It was as if the Academy had simply decided that Argo would win. The only argument available for Terrio amounts to saying “his screenplay is better.” That’s not reasoned consideration; it’s a conclusion. Kushner’s words are considerably more beautiful. His characters describe and demonstrate real emotions, worries and concerns that transcend time and (even) the story itself. Terrio’s do not. Nevertheless, he won. And that’s why I’m frustrated today. It’s no longer anger. It’s just a feeling that a wrong thing happened for no supportable reason. It’s a lousy feeling and it is important, for me, to remember that it was not an election. Lincoln won his elections a long time ago, and we are all much better off as a consequence.

Posted in 2013 Blog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

One the weekend of the Oscars, last fall’s blog about the Emmys.

Posted on February 22, 2013 by Josh Davis

Last night, the Emmy Awards honored my two favorite television programs, Modern Family and Homeland. I have the deep impression that we (people) intersect with art (and I include television in my definition of “art”) to learn about ourselves. So, we choose to watch things not only to be entertained, but to try on feelings and to come to terms with difference in a safe way. All in the Family worked that way. At a point in time when the world was changing, Archie Bunker’s war with his meathead son-in-law let us all look at where we were in the comfort of laughter. Archie was ridiculous; he was also who we had been.

If I am right about that, then we should not only celebrate the artistry of last night’s winners, but wonder a little about what they say about where we are and where we are headed. Celebration first — both shows are terrifically written and acted. Modern Family gives us three different nuclear families headed by a father (in a second marriage) and his two children (one of whom is a gay man in a committed relationship raising a child). All three of the families illustrate the challenges of romantic relationships and child-rearing. The actors are great — the families seem real, and the show will make you laugh very hard. Our family is “modern,” by any standard and every week we all sit down and laugh together at this wonderful program.

If Modern Family’s genius is its reflection of the world of a family, Homeland helps us access our political world and its mystery. Artistry first; the show is terrifically acted. Claire Danes’s portrayal of a CIA agent struggling with bi-polar disorder is a singular achievement. If you haven’t seen it, you should (and it is a shame that is on Showtime and so less accessible). The show imagines a terrorist threat from the inside and a terrorist (the amazing Damien Lewis) so hard to spot that as a viewer, I am still not fully convinced of his willingness to do the country harm. The show moves with electric pace — it’s like 24 with better acting and writing. In our house, we sit on the edge of the couch clutching our pillows and hoping for the best.

Enough about how much I like these shows. What does their winning say about where we are as a country? Some have said that Cameron and Mitchell’s relationship on Modern Family (they are the gay couple) is the reason that a majority of us are now comfortable with marriage equality. I don’t doubt it. Watching them you see both the reality of a long-term romantic love between people of the same sex and the degree to which same-sex couples can easily co-exist with heterosexual couples. Cam and Mitch’s relationship adds to the richness of the television family; it does not denigrate Phil and Claire’s traditional marriage at all. When we watch and laugh, I think our worldview expands. Our affection for this show reveals our collective aspiration.

Homeland — loved by President Obama and Elizabeth Warren — says something different. First, it lets us face our fear of terrorism in the safety of our living room. Watching what scares us helps us feel safer, I think (it’s why kids love horror movies). But there’s more to Homeland — we are urged to care for and trust a mentally-ill heroine. Here’s what I think: watching Claire Danes’s Carrie, we are forced to see the pain of invisible illness and the complexities it causes for friends and colleagues. Sure, it is on a grand scale, but accepting mental illness and learning how to respond to it is one of our cultural challenges. Part of Homeland’s appeal is the degree to which it gets that and helps us see and feel more completely.

That Modern Family and Homeland won says a lot that is good about where we are headed. Not only are they flat-out great television, but they show our willingness to engage with things that are hard and important. As much as I care about such issues, I really just can’t wait for the new seasons to start. The premieres are just days away . . ..

Posted in Last year's blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What the Pope’s decision teaches us about aging

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Josh Davis

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2013/02/19/benedict-xvi-josh-davis

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From September 2012 — Travels with Emerson

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Josh Davis

My oldest son likes drama.  When he was very young, he had horrible asthma.  Too many times, I’d look at him and worry that he was done breathing.  Always, with the care of doctors and emergency room nurses, he made it.  In his early years at school, he displayed brilliance and an amazing imagination.  Sometimes, his imagination would take him in, and it would seem that he was living in the world he created.  I always wondered about where that imagination would take him, at the same time that I tried to persuade him that it was worth the effort to shower every day and do his homework.

At some point in time, when he was about 12 or 13, he told me that I needed to understand that he was not “the guy,” but was just “a guy.”  At that point, I felt I knew what he meant.  So much attention as a first son and first grandchild, so many adults hinging on his every word — not as much room as he needed to figure out who he was — to come, as it were, to grips with being Emerson.  I tried to hear him and to make room for his explorations.  After all, he managed to live through mine (divorce, remarriage, stepsiblings).  His adaptability ultimately proving one of his great qualities even though the way through all of this was nowhere near easy for him or for any of us.

He discovered things he loved to do.  And among those things, acting was (and is) at the top of the list.  He has played serious roles, humorous ones, large and small ones.  In each, I have seen him dig somewhere into his life of experience and find a character and then make that character real.  In one instance, he found playing a part so intense that he was tired and down for the whole week of the show.  In another, hyper because the character was that too.  All of these pieces of him coming out through his art — and merging in my understanding of my son.  I am not going to tell you how talented he is.  I am just going to say that seeing such expression by someone you remember as a baby defies explanation.

Tomorrow, we are going to visit colleges.  In each instance, he has selected schools that combine liberal arts excellence and serious theater.  I can tell that he is a little nervous about it.  I am looking forward to the long drive, to the time in the car in which we will talk — aware that another step looms and aware as well that the steps leading up to this point, while not always taken in order and while not always without pain, make this next one possible.  And, quietly, I hang on to my sense that each of these schools will see what I do.  My son is not “the guy,” but he is not “a guy” either.  He is Emerson — the combination of his own experiences and imagination and vision.

So, as we head off on this next step of the journey, I want to take a moment to write about the essential wonder of being a father.  I am, in so many respects, a very lucky man.

2/17/2013 — Emerson will be a member of the class of 2017 at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania.  It’s a lucky school.

Posted in Last year's blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

From 11/15/2012 — Obama and Sorkin

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Josh Davis

I am an Aaron Sorkin fan.  I particularly like his two dramas focused on the American Presidency.  One, The American President, features Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd.  The other, The West Wing, features Martin Sheen as President Josiah Bartlet.  Both men are liberal democrats.  And, both men have what our Governor would call a backbone.  Yesterday, at his first post-election press conference, President Barack Obama sounded like nothing so much as a Sorkin character and demonstrated, during his impassioned defense of Susan Rice, his backbone.  It was great to see.

Susan Rice is the United States’s ambassador to the United Nations.  On the Sunday morning after the tragic events in Benghazi, she appeared on various talk shows.  On those programs, she linked the attacks in Benghazi to a You Tube film depicting Muhammad in a very disrespectful way.  Time has proven her analysis wrong and many contend that her comments on those programs were deliberately misleading.  Indeed, for some, her comments are evidence of a vast conspiracy that they think will take the administration down.

There are recent suggestions that Ambassador Rice is President Obama’s choice to be Secretary of State (replacing Hillary Clinton).  Yesterday, Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham reacted loudly to these suggestions.  Senator McCain called her “unqualified” and said that he and Senator Graham would work to block any such nomination.  When confronted with these comments, our typically mild-mannered President responded with force.  He said:  “If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. . . . And I am happy to have that discussion with them.”  He called their comments “outrageous.”  Said differently, he made very clear that he was ready to fight for his people and his ideals.

This is not, in manner or tone, the President we watched during the last four years.  That President didn’t manage directness.  That President did not call out the opposition and suggest that he was ready for a debate.  Instead, during his first term, President Obama stayed above (or maybe more accurately, beside) the fray.  As a consequence, he appeared imperious and unwilling to compromise.  The absence of backbone in his public presentation made it very easy for the other side to treat him with disdain and to focus on electoral politics rather than government.  It will be much harder for the GOP to block forward progress if the administration is actually in the fight.

In The American President, President Shepherd has an aloofness problem.  He does not seem to understand that politics requires engagement and that a President who hides in the White House can get hit from all sides.  His nemesis is played by Richard Dreyfus who, in all seriousness, looks a little like a combination of McCain and Dick Cheney.  For much of the movie, the opposition candidate takes shot after shot at Shepherd without meaningful response.  Finally, he makes a nasty comment about the President’s girlfriend.  And this wakes Shepherd up — he walks into the press room and talks to the press:  “You want a character debate?  Fine, but you better stick with me, ’cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.”  His intensity increases as he summarizes his goals (“[y]ou cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns”) and then he concludes — “My name’s Andrew Shepherd and I am the President.”

That’s what happened yesterday (watch the movie and the press conference back to back and see if you disagree).  Barack Obama reminded us that he is the President (and that he knows it).  It’s as if he found his backbone somewhere on the campaign trail and that he is now ready to stand up and say what he feels and believes.  Here’s hoping we see more of this intensity from him over the next four years.  It is, after all, part of why we elected him in the first place.

2/17/2013 — John Kerry is Secretary of State.  Susan Rice is not.  Think about that.

Posted in Last year's blog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Nemo’s Coming

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Josh Davis

It’s the anniversary of the Blizzard of ’78 (day 2 of the storm) and of the release of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours album.  In 1978, I was 13 years old.  My two brothers were (as they are now) younger.  One was 10; the other was 6.  We lived in Newton on a suburban street that was, as a result of the storm, all but closed for a week.  Hard as it is to imagine, the storm happened before email, the internet, twitter and fax machines.  When there was power we had television and a stereo that played 8-track tapes.  All of which is to say that (at least to a 13 year-old) the amount of information available in advance of the storm did nothing to prepare me for the degree to which it would interrupt the pace of our lives.  Whatever this next storm, called Nemo, brings us, it is unlikely to stop us for as long or as completely as the 1978 storm did.

I remember impossible amounts of snow.  My brothers and I were able to tunnel under it, as if we were in (we told ourselves) Antarctica.  There was something mystical about the plows not making it to our street for some number of days.  Also, my father didn’t go to work — which was a remarkable turn of events.  Instead, we sat in the house.  I remember lots of Monopoly, Backgammon, and other board games.  And I remember the Fleetwood Mac album playing again and again.  All of this, with the time that has passed, seems wonderful.  The forced togetherness somehow binding and lasting.  We were “making the best of it,” but it didn’t seem like a hardship.  The time the world stopped for the snow is among the most powerful of my memories of childhood.

Our experience of the storm was safe — sweaters, a fire, music, games.  We walked to the town center pulling a sled.  We did not get stuck in a car on Route 128.  We didn’t face pounding surf.  Our home wasn’t damaged.  Images on television and elsewhere this week tell that story of the Blizzard.  Looking at them now I still can’t understand the stranded cars on the highway.  Part of it is the absence of the computers and communication systems we now have; part of it is our deep, human belief that we can somehow keep going no matter what nature throws at us.  The latter part is as much a threat now as it was then.  Those pictures, it seems to me, are a reminder to be smart tomorrow and in the days that follow.

Now, preparing for Nemo, we have so much information.  I know from the internet (and the radio) that there are different models for this storm.  In some, we get as much as 3 feet of snow and we face hurricane force winds for hours.  In others, the storm tracks farther out to sea and it is a moderate event for the region.  Computers and all notwithstanding, we won’t know which version we get until we get it.  And so, the stores are packed, people are buying batteries and milk and getting ready to hunker down.

I am thinking that the next few days might be a good time to move away from the technology.  Time maybe to teach our kids some board games.  Time maybe to let nature make some distance between us and our work and our computers and our day -to-day busy-ness.  Time to grab a book and sit in a chair for a while.  We learn from what has come before and I know how much that span of days in February 1978 meant to me.  Any time I hear Fleetwood Mac, a part of me is on the floor of my parents’ living room, in pajamas, trying very hard not to lose at an important game of Monopoly.  Those memories tell me that the next few days are an opportunity as much as a challenge.

Now — I have a brother in California and another in Newton.  We are lucky to share holidays and conversations together.  It’s the order of things that we are never going to dig in the snow together again, but it is the wonder of time and memory that a forecast of a major storm in February can make that all feel as though it was just yesterday.  Stay safe.

Posted in 2013 Blog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

From November 2012 — Hypocrisy (Time for change at the Boy Scouts)

Posted on February 6, 2013 by Josh Davis

When he was six years old, Ryan Andersen joined the Boy Scouts.  When he was 17 years old, he completed the final project necessary to attain the rank of Eagle Scout.  He constructed a 288-tile “Wall of Tolerance” for a middle school near his home in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Shortly after he submitted his paperwork to obtain his Eagle Scout designation, Ryan’s Scoutmaster told him that he was ineligible for the rank because of his sexual orientation.  Ryan, it turns out, is gay.  The Boy Scouts will not permit boys who are openly gay to be Scouts, let alone Eagle Scouts.  Ryan is heartbroken, and says that his scoutmaster knew about his sexual orientation and told him they would get past it.  Ryan’s father resigned as an assistant scoutmaster and his mother has let people know how upset she is.  It’s outrageous that a young man who devotes 11 years of his life to attaining a level of personal achievement is denied that honor because of his sexual orientation.  Whether or not such discrimination is legal, and it is, it is wrong.

In a Huffington Post blog piece, Geof Stone, of the University of Chicago Law School, urges parents to pull their kids out of the Boy Scouts.  He thinks, with good reason, that tomorrow’s adults will be part of a more open generation than ours and that they will not forgive parents who let them participate in an openly bigoted organization like the Scouts.  In addition to that, I think we can help teach tolerance by acting as Professor Stone suggests.  Boys who learn, at age 9 or so, that avoiding organizations that condone hatred on the basis of sexual orientation is a way to make change will grow up to be better citizens and will make our society better through their actions.

The more I’ve thought about this, the more angry I am about the injustice Ryan has suffered.  It occurred to me yesterday that this warranted some communication with the people who run the Boy Scouts.  When I tried to figure out who those people are, I was stunned to learn that the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts is the President of the United States.  This President supports civil rights for all and supports marriage equality.  He is unequivocally opposed, he claims, to discrimination of every form.  As a consequence, it makes no sense that he would accept any position with the Boy Scouts.  His decision to maintain that honorary title shows that he has not learned Stone’s lesson about affiliation.

The more closely I look at this, the worse it gets.  Last August, the Boy Scouts reaffirmed their principle of exclusion, making clear that they would not allow young gay men to be Scouts.  The President was confronted with this decision.  So was Mitt Romney.  Both of them said they opposed the exclusionary practice.  The President, however, expressly reaffirmed his willingness to serve as the honorary leader of this organization.  The White House explained:  “The President believes that the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century.  He also opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”  Seriously?  Teaching hatred (which is what discrimination really is) is never right.  Endorsing it by conduct while condemning it with words is called hypocrisy.  By choosing to affiliate with the Boy Scouts, the President is condoning their discriminatory policies, no matter what he says.

President Obama needs to hear Ryan Andersen’s story and he needs to honor it.  He should immediately step down as Honorary President of the Boy Scouts.  His continued affiliation with the Scouts calls into question the seriousness of his commitment to civil rights, and is an embarrassment to all of us.  No one should be denied any achievement because of their sexual orientation.  It’s time for things to change and for this President to lead.

2/6/2013 — The President has called for change at the Boy Scouts, but he has not renounced his title.  He should set a deadline for change and, if the Scouts fail to change the rules, he should end any affiliation with the organization.  We need to end the quiet acceptance of bigotry.

Posted in Last year's blog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Time to worry about the Senate race (or Winslow should run)

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Josh Davis

Last Friday brought the news that Scott Brown will not run in the special election to fill John Kerry’s Senate seat.  Brown followed his announcement (by text to the Herald) with an explanation that was: one part I’m tired; one part the political world is too partisan; and one part it’s time to make some money.  Republicans scrambled for a candidate; Middlesex DA Gerry Leone started rethinking his withdraw from elective politics; and Steve Lynch and Ed Markey spent the weekend campaigning.  Meanwhile, plenty of GOP voices argued that Brown was wise to not run because it is (apparently) impossible for a Republican to be elected in Massachusetts.  Today brings the news that former Gov. William Weld will not be a candidate and that Tagg Romney is thinking that he might run.  I take issue with two ideas that occupied too much of our political attention this weekend: (1) that partisanship in politics means that it is not worth pursuing; and (2) that a Republican cannot be elected in Massachusetts.

First, Scott Brown’s claim that increased partisanship means he shouldn’t run makes no sense to me.  You can’t fix institutions if you refuse to participate in them.  If it’s right (and it may be) that the House and Senate are broken, it’s up to good people to run, win and change them.  I am sure, as Brown and others have said, that this is not a fun job.  The stakes, however, justify the effort.  The past few years show the price we pay for a broken Congress.  Battles over the debt ceiling; the sequester; the inability to confirm judges (both those nominated by Bush and those nominated by Obama); and the character of the debate itself (caustic instead of reasoned).  From where I sit, a credible basis for a candidacy would be a refusal to engage in such behavior and a belief that reasoned debate (even from a deeply ideological position) is itself a value that a candidate could bring with them to Washington.

I think that’s the campaign Scott Brown ran the time he won, and not the time he lost.  In his race against Elizabeth Warren, Brown took an aggressively combative approach that focused on issues he said went to character, rather than on what kind of Senator he had been or would be if elected to a full term.  I have argued before that he lost the race, at least in part, because of his decision to confront now-Senator Warren at a level that had very little (if anything) to do with ideas.  Brown’s last race shows that the voters of the Commonwealth are not going to elect someone on the basis of image (think barn jacket and truck) and labels (think independent).  Instead, as Warren’s campaign shows, it’s about substance.  Massachusetts voters listen.  They listen and then they decide.

Second, our collective willingness to listen and decide is exactly why the notion that only Democrats can win here is wrong.  It’s too easy to say that Scott Brown proves that point.  But you just need to look at our history to see that he is one of many points of reference.  We elected Brown, Mitt Romney, Weld, Paul Celluci and Ed Brooke.  Sure, Democrats have an edge.  That’s about policy, though, and not machine.  If a deeply conservative Republican were to say that she was not going to run statewide because she could not win, she would probably be right.  A well-financed, principled moderate, however, might well have a chance.  It’s just not as clear-cut as despairing Republicans make it seem.

So, what does that mean for the special election.  I think it means that there is a real opportunity for the GOP.  It’s clear that Lynch will give Markey everything he can handle.  If Leone gets in, it’s hard to see who is the favorite (assume it is Markey if Leone stays out).  Whatever the ultimate composition of the field, the race will leave bruises and political bruises are opportunities for the other party.  That should tempt Dan Winslow to run.  Winslow, a state representative and Governor Weld’s former counsel, can credibly claim to be the kind of politician whose voice could help end the gridlock in Washington.  He is very much in the mold of the GOP leaders Massachusetts has embraced in the past and he is dedicated and engaged in a way that suggests he will part of the conversation going forward for some time.  Rather than giving up on this race, GOP leaders should be urging Winslow to get in.  Then, Winslow can study, prepare, and build while the Democrats fight with one another.

I’m a Democrat and I expect that Kerry’s successor will be as well.  At the same time, I love the level of politics possible in this Commonwealth and I think a Winslow candidacy would give us the kind of Senate race we all want and deserve.  His candidacy would demonstrate that partisanship in politics is not a barrier to entry for potentially gifted leaders, and, at the very least, that a Republican (who is not Scott Brown) can mount a serious campaign for Senate.

Posted in 2013 Blog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment