Our next quarterly meeting is Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at 7:30 pm in Room 230 of the Town Offices Building, 37 Shattuck St, Littleton, MA. We will be hosting Ruchelle Frazier, regional field organizer of Freedom for All, speaking on Yes on 3, defending nondiscrimination protections for transgender people.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Quarterly Meeting June 12
Democrats in Littleton will hold their quarterly meeting in Room 230 of the Town Offices Building, 37 Shattuck Street on June 12 at 7:30 pm. The meeting is open to all registered Democrats in Littleton.
Third Congressional District candidates Beej Das and Jeff Ballinger will be addressing our group.
Third Congressional District candidates Beej Das and Jeff Ballinger will be addressing our group.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Third Congressional District Candidate Forum in Littleton
The Littleton Town Democratic Committee in collaboration with Westford Indivisible recently held a forum in the Couper Room of the Reuben Hoar Library with three of the candidates running for the Third Congressional District to replace retiring Representative Niki Tsongas. The three candidates – Barbara L’Italien, Dan Koh, and Bopha Malone – are among thirteen Democratic candidates vying for this congressional seat by first winning the September 4thDemocratic Primary. The last time this district experienced such a large field of candidates was in 1976 when current Senator Ed Markey won the primary for representative in a 12-person field. Many of the current candidates cite the results of the 2016 election as the motivating force behind their decisions to run for office.
Since the end of last year the candidates have been appearing individually and in small forums in towns and cities around the Third District attempting to distinguish themselves from each other. The forum in Littleton was an opportunity for the audience of twenty-five to hear first-hand the views and proposals of the three candidates.
Dan Koh was a former chief of staff for Mayor Marty Walsh and left the position to run for office. He emphasized his success in addressing constituent concerns in the Walsh administration. He spoke about this country’s past in welcoming immigrants, such as those in his family, and the need to return to a nation of inclusiveness.
Whichever Democrat wins the prize on September 4th, he/she will face Republican Rick Green, a Pepperell businessman, in the general election in November 2018.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Littleton Democrats Elect Delegates to State Convention
Registered Democrats in Littleton recently participated in a caucus to elect delegates to the 2018 Massachusetts State Democratic Convention.
Caucus participants elected five delegates and four alternates, which included Helen Bailey, Katie Carruth, Rob Hueston, Anna Hueston, Grant Marley, Bartlett Harvey, Linda Taricano, Gretchen Webster and Mark Tervo. In addition, the chair of the Littleton Town Democratic Committee at the time of the convention will attend as an ex-officio delegate.
The Convention will be held at the DCU Center in Worcester on June 1st and 2nd where delegates will vote to determine which statewide candidates will be on the Democratic ticket in the 2018 Primary Election in September. This includes candidates for governor as well as other Constitutional officers such as secretary of the commonwealth, attorney general, treasurer and auditor. In each race the candidate receiving a majority vote of the Convention delegates will be the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party. Candidates receiving at least 15% of the delegates’ votes at the Convention also qualify to appear on the September primary ballot along with the endorsed candidate.
The caucus was well attended and included, in addition to the voting participants, several candidates and their surrogates seeking signatures for their nomination papers and the opportunity to introduce themselves to the attendees.
The Littleton Town Democratic Committee meets quarterly at the Town Offices Building with sub-committees meeting on an ad-hoc basis. For more information on the town committee please contact Jane Chrisfield at 978-486-4419 or check out the committee’s website at www.littleton-dems.org. For general information on the Convention, visit the Democratic State Party’s website at MassDems.org
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
February Quarterly Meeting 2/3/2018
The Democratic Town Committee will hold its quarterly meeting on 2/3/2018 in Room 103 of the Town Offices building, 37 Shattuck St., immediately following the end of the caucus at the same location.
Littleton to Elect Delegates to Democratic State Convention
Registered Democrats in Littleton will hold a caucus on 2/3/2018 at 1:00 PM in Room 103 of Town Offices Building, 37 Shattuck Street to elect delegates and alternates to the 2018 Massachusetts Democratic State Convention.
This year’s convention will be held June 1-2 at the DCU Center in Worcester, where thousands of Democrats from across the state will come together to endorse Democratic candidates for statewide office, including Constitutional Officers and governor.
The caucus is open to all registered and pre-registered Democrats in Littleton. Pre-registered Democrats who will be 18 by September 18, 2018 will be allowed to participate and run as a delegate or alternate. Littleton will elect 5 delegates and 4 alternates.
Youth, minorities, people with disabilities and LGBTQ individuals who are not elected as a delegate or alternate may apply to be an add-on delegate either at the caucus or at www.massdems.org.
Those interested in getting involved with the Littleton Town Democratic Committee should contact Jane Chrisfield at 978-486-4419 or visit the committee’s website atwww.littleton-dems.org.
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
December meeting 12/5
Our next meeting is Tuesday, 12/5 @ 7:30pm in Room 230 of Town Offices building. We will be having a guest, Donna Patalano, 2018 candidate for Middlesex District Attorney. Marion Ryan is current DA.
We are attempting to get candidates for Congress to show up too.
We are attempting to get candidates for Congress to show up too.
Monday, June 19, 2017
Town Committee meeting June 21
The Democratic Town Committee of Littleton will hold its quarterly meeting on June 21 at the Littleton Town offices. All are welcone.
Littleton Democrats Attend Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform Convention
On Saturday, June 3rd, a Littleton delegation of six traveled to the Democratic State Convention in Worcester MA, joining more than 3000 party activists to vote on the draft of the 2017 Massachusetts Democratic Party platform. The platform is a statement of the party values and vision, and serves as a guide and focus for the party’s priorities for the next four years. Littleton delegates to the convention were elected at a caucus last February and included Anna Hueston, Irene Jackson, Linda Taricano , and Gretchen Webster. Also included in the delegation were two ex-officio delegates, Jane Chrisfield, Chair of the Littleton Town Democratic Committee, and Alex Pratt, State Committee member.
This year’s draft platform was considered to be the most progressive in recent history, having been shaped by testimony at numerous official and unofficial platform hearings across the state prior to the convention, including a combined Littleton/Boxborough hearing in Littleton. The passage of four amendments to the platform introduced by the progressive arm of the party pushed the platform even further left. Among the issues addressed by the amendments: a call to end for-profit prisons, prohibition on candidates accepting political contributions from fossil-fuel companies, student loan forgiveness, rank choice voting, and an Election Day holiday.
Delegates were obviously energized by the need to take a bold, principled stand against the regressive, backward policies of the Trump administration. Party officials noted that among the delegates attending almost 30% were first-timers who had never before attended a Democratic convention.
Delegates also voted on the party charter, which functions as the party’s “Constitution”. Two proposed amendments to the charter, which dealt with lowering the threshold for amending the charter and increasing the number of State Committee seats, were defeated.
Voting on eleven proposed resolutions was the last item of business for the delegates. Due to the late hour of the day all the resolutions were tabled and sent to a sub-committee for consideration.
Before voting began a roster of Democratic officials addressed the delegates. Speakers included Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, Congressman Jim McGovern, Secretary of State Bill Galvin, Attorney General Maura Healey, Treasurer Deb Goldberg, Auditor Suzanne Bump, Chair of Massachusetts Democratic Party Gus Bickford, and the three declared Democratic candidates for Governor in 2018: Setti Warren, Bob Massie, and Jay Gonzalez.
The Littleton Town Democratic Committee (LTDC) meets quarterly in Room 230 of the Town Offices Building. It focuses activities on the election of Democratic candidates for state and federal offices and is an advocate for programs that further the values and vision of the party platform. For further information contact Jane Chrisfield, LTDC chair, at jchrisfield1@verizon.net.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
LITTLETON DEMOCRATS TO ELECT DELEGATES TO STATE CONVENTION on Saturday, February 11th
Registered Democrats in Littleton will hold their annual caucus in Room 103 of the Town Offices Building, 37 Shattuck Street, on Saturday, February 11th at 1:00 pm to elect 5 delegates and 4 alternates to the 2017 Massachusetts Democratic Convention, where Democrats from across Massachusetts will gather to adopt a new Party Platform. The Convention will be held on Saturday, June 3rd at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell.
“Our caucus is a great opportunity to come together and be involved in our shared Democratic values,” commented Jane Chrisfield, chair of the Littleton Town Democratic Committee. “This year, more than ever, we need people to participate to make a difference as we vote on our Party Platform at the Convention.”
The caucus is open to all registered and pre-registered Democrats in Littleton and the Democratic Committee welcomes participation. Pre-registered Democrats who will be age 18 by September 11, 2018, the anticipated date of the primary, will be able to participate in the caucus and run for delegate. Delegates will be divided equally between men and women, and all ballots will be written and secret.
In the spirit of inclusion, youth, minorities, and people with disabilities, who are not elected as delegates or alternates, may apply to be add-on delegates, either at the caucus or online at www.massdems.org.
For more information on the Littleton caucus or the Littleton Town Democratic Committee, please contact Jane Chrisfield at jchrisfield1@verizon.net / 978-486-4419
“Our caucus is a great opportunity to come together and be involved in our shared Democratic values,” commented Jane Chrisfield, chair of the Littleton Town Democratic Committee. “This year, more than ever, we need people to participate to make a difference as we vote on our Party Platform at the Convention.”
The caucus is open to all registered and pre-registered Democrats in Littleton and the Democratic Committee welcomes participation. Pre-registered Democrats who will be age 18 by September 11, 2018, the anticipated date of the primary, will be able to participate in the caucus and run for delegate. Delegates will be divided equally between men and women, and all ballots will be written and secret.
In the spirit of inclusion, youth, minorities, and people with disabilities, who are not elected as delegates or alternates, may apply to be add-on delegates, either at the caucus or online at www.massdems.org.
For more information on the Littleton caucus or the Littleton Town Democratic Committee, please contact Jane Chrisfield at jchrisfield1@verizon.net / 978-486-4419
Monday, September 28, 2015
Littleton Democrats call for a price on carbon
At their September quarterly meeting, The Littleton Town Democratic Committee endorsed a
ground-breaking proposal by State Senator Mike Barrett, D-Lexington to tackle
climate change. Barrett addressed the meeting on his submitted legislation, “An Act Combating Climate
Change” that places a charge on dirty fuel emissions that contribute to
global warming and then returns the money -- in direct rebates -- to residents,
businesses, and non-profits.
“Right before our eyes, in our own time, we’re seeing
extreme temperatures, rising oceans, wilder storms, and worsening droughts,”
Barrett said. “A statewide carbon fee is
the most ambitious step state government can take to combat the problem.”
Barrett’s proposal draws on the
success of British Columbia, the Canadian province whose right-of-center party
instituted revenue-neutral carbon pricing in 2008. “Emissions are down, provincial GDP is up,
and public opinion polls show high voter satisfaction. That’s a win-win-win,” Barrett said.
Carbon fees mean higher prices
initially to incorporate downstream environmental and health costs. Higher prices motivate consumers to cut back
when they can. Later, fee proceeds are
sent back in equal shares to individuals and businesses. If a family conserves, it can collect more in
rebates than it pays in fees. Because
all money is returned, the bill does not put an unfair burden on the poor or on
small business.
In addition to lowering
pollution, carbon fees in energy-importing states like Massachusetts mean less money goes to supporting
jobs in fossil fuel-producing places like North Dakota, Oklahoma, and the
Middle East. But the decline in
out-of-state expenditures keeps more money in Massachusetts, where it’s
eventually spent, creating jobs here -- 4,000 - 10,000 of them, according to a
recent analysis. “The carbon
fee-and-rebate approach is job-positive,” Barrett said.
Barrett
added that the work of community groups such as the Littleton Town Democratic
Committee is crucial to the bill’s success.
“Tip of the hat to community leaders,” Barrett said. He added that a revenue-neutral approach has
much to offer conservatives, too. The
proposal isn’t about growing the size of government. It doesn’t involve direct regulation. “This is an idea that should appeal not only
to Democrats but to Republicans and Independents.”
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Friday, July 20, 2012
Letter to a devout Republican
When we lived in Belmont
my kids went trick-or-treating on Halloween and knocked on Romney's door.
He handed out toothbrushes. The man is clueless. If he didn't want to play he
should have turned out his lights. He is also responsible for ramming the
Mormon temple down the throat of the town. He is despised in Belmont, a mostly
Republican town.
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald. He didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright. "They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”
Romney is not the creator of jobs he claims. Take Staples, for example, When Staples started they were a warehouse store, cheap and with every conceivable stationary item. They paid well and trained their staff well ... and they lost money. That is until they put all the mom and pop stationary stores out of business. Then they stopped being the warehouse store they started out to be (they reduced their SKU's from over 100,000 items to under 10,000 ) and stopped most of their employee training and began paying McDonald's wages. If, for example, go into a staples today and ask for log-linear chart paper and you'll only get a dumb stare. Look in the catalog and you won't find it there either. Some economists have estimated that Staples alone is responsible for the net loss of over 20,000 median income jobs. Romney did a splendid job of feathering his own nest at the expense of others. That is, of course, his right and one could say his duty to his stockholders as a businessman (he was the sole stockholder at Bain) but that is not the job of a president.
Romney is not your friend. Romney's stated policies would eliminate as much of the safety net. He would reduce or eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment, etc., as well as remove regulation from the financial industry and industry in general like ending the EPA, etc., while furthering the benefits to the very rich. American incomes have (adjusted for inflation) largely remained flat for almost 30 years (thanks to policies begun by Richard Nixon) while American productivity has more than doubled. Where has that added wealth gone? It has gone to the top 1% who have increased their income by 400% over that same 30 years. The taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they have been in 85 years yet Romney wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and the corporate income tax.
Romney is not your friend. When he was Governor his stated reason for "Romneycare" was to save the state money. He has no interest in you or me. He just didn't want the state to pay for people going to the emergency rooms when they had nowhere else to go so he mandated that everyone had to buy insurance or pay a fine. What a nice Republican. He's against "Obamacare" simply because he thinks it will get him votes, no other reason. He is a man without convictions, without a moral center despite (or because of?) his Mormonism.
I can honestly say that I'd enjoy sitting down with any of the Bushes for a chat (or a beer), as well as Ronald Reagan and perhaps even Richard Nixon in his later years but I get the feeling that any "conversation" with Romney would quickly sink into a lecture about how father knows best. He is clueless both about policy (he doesn't have any except whatever he or his minions think will get votes) and the plight of the common man. His presidency would be one of the greatest disaster to befall the United States. I can easily imagine the United States devolving into a third world nation where the rich live in their isolated enclaves and the rest of us live in unsanitary slums. This is not the America I want to see, not the America my forefathers fought for, not the America my forefathers pledged their lives , their fortunes and their sacred honor for.
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald. He didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant, at least in part, was that many of the very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright. "They think, deep down, that they are better than we are.”
Romney is not the creator of jobs he claims. Take Staples, for example, When Staples started they were a warehouse store, cheap and with every conceivable stationary item. They paid well and trained their staff well ... and they lost money. That is until they put all the mom and pop stationary stores out of business. Then they stopped being the warehouse store they started out to be (they reduced their SKU's from over 100,000 items to under 10,000 ) and stopped most of their employee training and began paying McDonald's wages. If, for example, go into a staples today and ask for log-linear chart paper and you'll only get a dumb stare. Look in the catalog and you won't find it there either. Some economists have estimated that Staples alone is responsible for the net loss of over 20,000 median income jobs. Romney did a splendid job of feathering his own nest at the expense of others. That is, of course, his right and one could say his duty to his stockholders as a businessman (he was the sole stockholder at Bain) but that is not the job of a president.
Romney is not your friend. Romney's stated policies would eliminate as much of the safety net. He would reduce or eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unemployment, etc., as well as remove regulation from the financial industry and industry in general like ending the EPA, etc., while furthering the benefits to the very rich. American incomes have (adjusted for inflation) largely remained flat for almost 30 years (thanks to policies begun by Richard Nixon) while American productivity has more than doubled. Where has that added wealth gone? It has gone to the top 1% who have increased their income by 400% over that same 30 years. The taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they have been in 85 years yet Romney wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and the corporate income tax.
Romney is not your friend. When he was Governor his stated reason for "Romneycare" was to save the state money. He has no interest in you or me. He just didn't want the state to pay for people going to the emergency rooms when they had nowhere else to go so he mandated that everyone had to buy insurance or pay a fine. What a nice Republican. He's against "Obamacare" simply because he thinks it will get him votes, no other reason. He is a man without convictions, without a moral center despite (or because of?) his Mormonism.
I can honestly say that I'd enjoy sitting down with any of the Bushes for a chat (or a beer), as well as Ronald Reagan and perhaps even Richard Nixon in his later years but I get the feeling that any "conversation" with Romney would quickly sink into a lecture about how father knows best. He is clueless both about policy (he doesn't have any except whatever he or his minions think will get votes) and the plight of the common man. His presidency would be one of the greatest disaster to befall the United States. I can easily imagine the United States devolving into a third world nation where the rich live in their isolated enclaves and the rest of us live in unsanitary slums. This is not the America I want to see, not the America my forefathers fought for, not the America my forefathers pledged their lives , their fortunes and their sacred honor for.
- Steve Glines
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity’ Resolution for Candidates
The Republicans have recently come up with a set of 10 positions that the faithful must take to be considered "pure". I wrote a rebuttal of these in an email to Paul Avella a Littleton Republican and a past and future candidate for State Rep. and a member of the Littleton Rotary Club.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Glines
To: Paul Avella
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:54:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: G.O.P. Considers 'Purity' Resolution for Candidates – The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
So now I know what you stand for. ;)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/
----- Reply Message -----
Paul Avella wrote:
And which of the ten do you disagree with?
Cheers,
PJ
----- Reply Message -----
Steve Glines wrote:
PJ - Here are MY thoughts:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Calling it Obama's bill is a pushing it a bit. Everyone wanted it. If McCain had been elected he would have done exactly the same. Democrat and Republican economists gave exactly the same advice - pure Keynesian economics. Heck even Nixon once said, "We're all Keynesian now."
Obama was very conservative. Real Keynesian theory would have dictated almost $3 trillion in spending (the GDP deficit) but since the Fed created $3 trillion in new money to prop up friends of the Republican party (wall St.) Obama and friends restrained themselves. Besides it would have been hard to spend that much short of creating another war. Bush/Cheaney would have created another war (Pakistan? Korea?) which is one of the reasons why I think Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
Why not support the 1960's style Blue Cross/ Blue shield system (which worked very well) where each state had only one non-profit monopoly. More to the point I believe that it's the function of government to provide (or at least regulate) those things we can't provide for ourselves. I think government should run (or heavily regulate) our education system, our "Public Works" - water & sewage, our communications systems, our roads, railroads and even the airline industry, our defense (including police) and, yes, our health care system.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
If global warning is real and CO2 is the problem then how would you propose solving the problem ... within a market economy of course? Cap and trade worked very well with CFC's in a market economy.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
Absolutely so long as the ballot really is secret and organizers are allowed access to the employees and companies aren't allowed to manufacture artificial, temporary workers.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Well, they are here and they aren't going home. Since most of them are working, paying taxes and contributing to society (and we obviously need them as workers) why not acknowledge that fact and give those working to earn the American Dream a way into American Citizenship., After all most of us are immigrants and I'll bet not all of us started out as completely legal immigrants.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
I may differ from most of my colleges in at least partially agreeing with you. The fact is we're there and we made a mess of Iraq so are honor bound to clean it up. As to Afghanistan I'm inclined to simply nuke it enough to get Bin Laden then declare victory and leave. If the Afghans can't get it together then to heck with them. Al qaeda is the enemy not a bunch of foolish religious nuts that are happy living in 1400. But then I'm not the president … thank god you're thinking.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Containment certainly but containment without engagement is a long term loosing proposition. Neither of the nut cases will be around forever and we must be in the position to take advantage of a change in leadership to bring those countries back into the international fold. Obama knows this but I get the impression that most Republicans don't. Bush and Chaney certainly didn't think that far ahead.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
When I was running for school committee in Belmont a lady asked me what I thought of abortions. My answer was that it was none of my business. As far as I was concerned the abortion issue was a very private matter between a woman, her doctor and her conscience/religion and that since it was none of my business, by extension, it was none of the states business either. I would say the choice of domestic partner falls into the same category.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;
Yikes you've got to be kidding, health care is rationed today and not providing a public non-profit option is a death sentence to many. The health care ration available to the indigent, low income and unemployed is limited to the suggestion that they take an aspirin and the advise that they get a job. That's not acceptable. The health care bill working its way through congress is designed to insure that health care is available to all regardless of economic status. There will always be some kind of health care rationing lets just not define it by income.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I've always read both clauses as forming a single sentence. If there were two thoughts the use of a coma would have been replaced by a period. As a single thought the first phrase frames the rest:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In other words each town is allowed to have and manage its own police force (militia) and there is nothing the state or the federal government can say about it. To me that also says that the police (the well regulated militia) as controlled by the local government has the right to regulate all private arms within its jurisdiction. Of course, all citizens are part of the militia by default whether they are armed or not. I suspect most police would not necessarily like my interpretation any more than they like the Republican interpretation which permits a greater chance of being shot at.
Cheers
Steve Glines
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Glines
To: Paul Avella
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 5:54:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: G.O.P. Considers 'Purity' Resolution for Candidates – The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
So now I know what you stand for. ;)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/
----- Reply Message -----
Paul Avella wrote:
And which of the ten do you disagree with?
Cheers,
PJ
----- Reply Message -----
Steve Glines wrote:
PJ - Here are MY thoughts:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
Calling it Obama's bill is a pushing it a bit. Everyone wanted it. If McCain had been elected he would have done exactly the same. Democrat and Republican economists gave exactly the same advice - pure Keynesian economics. Heck even Nixon once said, "We're all Keynesian now."
Obama was very conservative. Real Keynesian theory would have dictated almost $3 trillion in spending (the GDP deficit) but since the Fed created $3 trillion in new money to prop up friends of the Republican party (wall St.) Obama and friends restrained themselves. Besides it would have been hard to spend that much short of creating another war. Bush/Cheaney would have created another war (Pakistan? Korea?) which is one of the reasons why I think Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
Why not support the 1960's style Blue Cross/ Blue shield system (which worked very well) where each state had only one non-profit monopoly. More to the point I believe that it's the function of government to provide (or at least regulate) those things we can't provide for ourselves. I think government should run (or heavily regulate) our education system, our "Public Works" - water & sewage, our communications systems, our roads, railroads and even the airline industry, our defense (including police) and, yes, our health care system.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
If global warning is real and CO2 is the problem then how would you propose solving the problem ... within a market economy of course? Cap and trade worked very well with CFC's in a market economy.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
Absolutely so long as the ballot really is secret and organizers are allowed access to the employees and companies aren't allowed to manufacture artificial, temporary workers.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Well, they are here and they aren't going home. Since most of them are working, paying taxes and contributing to society (and we obviously need them as workers) why not acknowledge that fact and give those working to earn the American Dream a way into American Citizenship., After all most of us are immigrants and I'll bet not all of us started out as completely legal immigrants.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
I may differ from most of my colleges in at least partially agreeing with you. The fact is we're there and we made a mess of Iraq so are honor bound to clean it up. As to Afghanistan I'm inclined to simply nuke it enough to get Bin Laden then declare victory and leave. If the Afghans can't get it together then to heck with them. Al qaeda is the enemy not a bunch of foolish religious nuts that are happy living in 1400. But then I'm not the president … thank god you're thinking.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Containment certainly but containment without engagement is a long term loosing proposition. Neither of the nut cases will be around forever and we must be in the position to take advantage of a change in leadership to bring those countries back into the international fold. Obama knows this but I get the impression that most Republicans don't. Bush and Chaney certainly didn't think that far ahead.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
When I was running for school committee in Belmont a lady asked me what I thought of abortions. My answer was that it was none of my business. As far as I was concerned the abortion issue was a very private matter between a woman, her doctor and her conscience/religion and that since it was none of my business, by extension, it was none of the states business either. I would say the choice of domestic partner falls into the same category.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion;
Yikes you've got to be kidding, health care is rationed today and not providing a public non-profit option is a death sentence to many. The health care ration available to the indigent, low income and unemployed is limited to the suggestion that they take an aspirin and the advise that they get a job. That's not acceptable. The health care bill working its way through congress is designed to insure that health care is available to all regardless of economic status. There will always be some kind of health care rationing lets just not define it by income.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I've always read both clauses as forming a single sentence. If there were two thoughts the use of a coma would have been replaced by a period. As a single thought the first phrase frames the rest:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In other words each town is allowed to have and manage its own police force (militia) and there is nothing the state or the federal government can say about it. To me that also says that the police (the well regulated militia) as controlled by the local government has the right to regulate all private arms within its jurisdiction. Of course, all citizens are part of the militia by default whether they are armed or not. I suspect most police would not necessarily like my interpretation any more than they like the Republican interpretation which permits a greater chance of being shot at.
Cheers
Steve Glines
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)