As a loyal Democrat, it was truly an honor to serve as a House of Representatives Page shortly after my party had taken back control of the House in 2006.  I was nominated by my then-Congressman Tom Allen to serve during the summer session, and I served a short term, lasting all of July and a brief part of August.

We had always been advised not to speak to members of Congress unless we were first spoken to.  For the most part, I abided by this rule, sometimes unable to control myself from wishing some like Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) a "good morning," or teasing blue dog Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana about his ranking in The Hill's best looking people on the hill.

One of my four roommates, Brandon, had served as a page during the first summer session, in the month preceding the opportunity I had to serve.  "If you ever meet Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania," Brandon told me, "be sure to call him sir.  Murtha once yelled at a staffer for a half-hour straight about why it was necessary to address him as 'sir.'"

Congressman Murtha was a larger-than-life figure, always sitting in the same place during a vote.  Of course, he was a fixture in Congress–but almost all of the young pages recognized Murtha from his courageous decision to call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  Murtha, a former Marine, was undoubtedly one of the biggest supporters of the military to walk the corridors of Congress–his very public change of mind on U.S. efforts in Iraq gave credibility and vindication to so many of us on the left who supported and will always support our troops–but opposed the War in Iraq.  

At a time when standing in opposition to an unnecessary war meant you were "unpatriotic," after John Kerry, a Vietnam War Hero, had been painted (along with the rest of the Democratic Party) as weak, John Murtha took a strong stance.

Most mornings, fellow pages and I would assemble for breakfast at the Longworth House Office Building Cafeteria.  After breakfast, my friend Greg and I decided to take the subway from the Rayburn building to the Capitol instead of our usual Longworth/Cannon tunnel route.  We saw Murtha ahead of us when we climbed aboard the train, and both assumed that he would be far ahead of us.

To our surprise, we would soon find ourselves in the same elevator as Congressman Murtha, and presumably, one of his staffers.  We were both very nervous–and I kept reminding myself, should a conversation ensue, to be sure to call him "sir" as Brandon had told me.

Congressman Murtha turned to Greg and I and asked where we were from.  I think that Greg went first–I told Murtha that I was from Maine, his assistant turned to be and said "Your Governor [Baldacci] is in town today."

"Maybe he's coming to see YOU," Murtha said to me.

I smiled and there was a brief moment of silence.  Seeing that the former Marine was not quite the angry fellow that Brandon and others had tried to scare me with, I turned to Murtha and asked him how he was.

"Good."

A woman in the elevator turned to me and said "he's rebuilding our military."

I nodded in support, thinking that it was largely because of Murtha's bravery that Democrats were able to take back the House in 2006, partially a referendum on Iraq.  A few weeks earlier I had sat in the House Gallery after my shift had ended to watch the House vote to withdraw troops from Iraq–symbolic of course, since the Senate would not agree, but a major step forward.

"We're going to have a new direction," Murtha said, walking out of the elevator.

Largely because of Congressman Murtha's leadership, today, combat troops are poised to come home from Iraq this summer.  Murtha stood up for what was right–and that "new direction" Murtha spoke of has made our country stronger at home and abroad.

Originally published at the Augusta Insider.

I need to find Levar Burton’s phone number.  I have a great piece to be featured on Reading Rainbow.

I’ve never really enjoyed works of fiction.  It probably stems back to the fact that my father used to read David McCullough’s Truman to me as a child.  Over Christmas break I did enjoy Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol, but it’s nowhere as entertaining as the recent news surrounding Jason Levesque’s scuffle with the Auburn Public Library.

Levesque is a telemarketer (I’ll save the Do Not Call puns for a future piece) from Auburn seeking the Republican Nomination to challenge Mike Michaud for Congress in Maine’s Second Congressional District.  On Janaury 29, Levesque planned a campaign Meet and Greet event at the Auburn Public Library–with a cover charge.  According to the Library’s meeting room reservation policy (PDF):

Meetings must be free of charge, and not held with the intention of generating revenue.  Closed meetings must pay full rental fee and comply with all other regulations.

The Library cancelled the event when it learned of Levesque’s plan to charge an admission fee–clearly in violation of the library’s reservation policies (not to mention that Levesque never actually signed the room reservation agreement).

But rather than simply quash the plan to charge a fee and hold the event at the library, Jason Levesque positioned himself to be the next Dan Brown–he made a story up!

Turning to Facebook, Levesque wrote:

The reason for the move was due to a very Liberal board member who after seeing me on TV Thursday decided to have the Library cancel my event

Not quite.  According to Robert on As Maine Goes:

After seeing the meeting posted on facebook, a former board member, who is a Republican, called someone to voice his concern about the fundraiser that violated the library’s rule.

Levesque was called and asked to come in, he said he would be down shortly. He never showed. Another call between the library and Levesque took place. I can’t remember who placed that call. Levesque supposedly got very abusive, and was told to contact the library’s board president. He was provided with a contact number. I don’t know if he ever called.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Tuesday’s vote was not a referendum on the Obama Presidency, nor was it a referendum on healthcare reform–at least in the idea that Bay State voters completely repudiated an Obama push for reform.  Scott Brown’s come-from-behind win was from a combination of factors.

Massachusetts voters already have universal healthcare.  In 2006, then-governor Mitt Romney and the Democratic legislature mandated healthcare reform at the state level.  We could have an endless debate as to the merits of a mandate, but for most Massachusetts voters, healthcare reform legislation as passed by the U.S. Senate on December 26 is a step down from the outstanding level of coverage that Bay State residents receive. In this regard, Tuesday’s vote was a referendum on healthcare.

Martha Coakley lost Massachusetts because she was a lackluster candidate who believed in the idea of Clintonesque inevitability. Because of a combination of two factors relating to Obama voters in Massachusetts–those who turned out and voted for Brown (18%), and those who stayed home, Scott Brown’s pickup truck crossed the finish line.

This is not to diminish Scott Brown’s transformational candidacy–the Wrentham lawyer is an exceptional candidate able to mask his extremist views championed by so-called “tea party protesters” largely because the media did not pay attention to Brown until he had begun to chip away at Coakley’s lead.  Coupled with ability to tap into populist anger, Brown was a lethal force in the bluest of the blue states.

Barack Obama’s base voters simply didn’t turn out–and nearly 20% of those voters who did turn out voted for Brown. In exit polling conducted by Research 2000, independents and Democrats who voted for Barack Obama overwhelmingly support approaches considered to be “more liberal” like the so-called government administered “public option” 0r expansion of medicare. Independents and Democrats oppose the current healthcare reform bill because it doesn’t go far enough. This polling is consistent with President Obama’s assertion that voters are frustrated with the “pace of change.”

Jim Hightower famously said that “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” He’s right. The White House’s continued courting of Olympia Snowe and infatuation with the political necessity of bipartisanship as opposed to politically risky parliamentary tactics like reconciliation, in the end, destroyed any hopes of reform with 60 votes.  Let’s be real–had President Obama and Congressional Democrats gone forward with reconciliation on a so-called “public option,” we may have seen a very different result in Massachusetts.

Voters hate inevitability, and Martha Coakley (and everyone else) greatly misunderstood the electorate. Voters want a compelling reason to vote. For the Obama voters who cast ballots for Scott Brown, I’m not suggesting each actually thought that a vote for Scott Brown would force reconciliation–they are frustrated with Democratic leadership’s hesitance to play hardball.

Let’s not dismiss Tip O’Neill’s great sentiment–from Sal DiMasi to Diane Wilkerson, as Scott Brown has acknowledged himself, Massachusetts voters are frustrated with corruption among state leaders. For all of these factors, we cannot take Scott Brown’s victory as a national lesson–we can only learn from Martha Coakley’s loss.

President Obama’s voters had a compelling reason to turn out in 2008. Organizing for America’s influence in turning out voters is nothing compared with the strategies Republicans have used in the past (i.e. gay marriage ballot initiatives in 2004) to ensure conservative voters head to the polls. Democrats stayed home (or voted in protest) because reforms did not go far enough.

Democrats have to build a coalition party, but unlike what Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh says, must cater to its base. Independents are necessary for victory–but let’s be clear–independents and Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the policy initiatives that President Obama campaigned on. Even if you are one of the folks that believe that voters didn’t understand what they were bargaining for–President Obama campaigned on reform with a public option.

President Obama just learned that familiar saying: elections have consequences. That should have been the message for months from the White House and Harry Reid. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it appears that it’s unfortunate that President Obama’s call for an end to partisan politics was not the empty rhetoric that his critics suggested. If it were, reconciliation would have been used ages ago. One can throw the argument that a few Republican votes, closed door meetings, etc. does not create a bipartisan environment–and that’s fine, but at the end of the day, President Obama must drop his fixation with bipartisanship. This does not mean that I am suggesting the President should be more liberal.

If Democrats can be elected by campaigning on real change–substantive change, we must deliver real and substantive change. Give the American people what they voted for before public opinion shifts. Republicans like Mitt Romney often decry the abandonment of conservative principles by the Grand Old Party–Democrats are on the verge of an identity crisis. Republicans didn’t necessarily fall into a trap by running to the center–they simply abandoned their core principles and failed to cater to their base. Republicans may have won the messaging on healthcare. It may simply be too late.

Gubernatorial candidates here in Maine have turned Brown’s narrative into a statement about the national mood. Sure, Democrats can take a lesson from a lackluster Coakley campaign, and it’s a safe assumption to say that this fall will represent a less than perfect environment for Democrats–but Scott Brown’s win is not automatically a win for every GOP candidate.  Let’s remember that Scott Brown ran an anti-establishment, insurgent candidacy, winning over independent voters that didn’t necessarily agree with Republican policy, but simply disagreed with the Democratic Party.

Pragmatism is just as important as centrism. Voters in Massachusetts still want change–but let’s be clear–they did not embrace the Republican agenda. Democrats should run middle of the road candidates, absolutely–but they need to be politically ruthless. At the very least, a process like reconciliation could be backed up by the fact that Democrats campaigned on significant change–if voters change their mind, Democrats are for something. The Republican Party needs to hurry up and offer substantive reform; it’s not enough to be just against the party in the majority.

One could argue that this creates an opening for an independent (or quasi-independent) like Eliot Cutler to come in and say that he is above the gridlock. Quite simply, the problem is not the system, it’s fear of using the tools that the system provides. Because Democrats campaigned so very heavily on changing the nature of politics and changing the country, the party is tethered.

We need to change the country before we can change Washington.

We must recognize Israel's achievements under difficult circumstances, even as we strive in a positive way to help Israel continue to improve its relations with its Arab populations, but we must not permit criticisms for improvement to stigmatize Israel. As I would have noted at Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but which is appropriate at any time of the year, I offer an Al Het for any words or deeds of mine that may have done so. (JTA)

President Carter has been deeply critical of Israel–going so far to accuse the Middle East's only democracy of "apartheid" policies in his controversial 2006 book.  Though it is claimed to be only a coincidence, Carter's apology comes at a time when his grandson, Jason Carter, is preparing to make a bid for state Senate in Georgia, representing a district with a supposedly vocal Jewish community.  

It's said that actions speak louder than words, and Carter's meetings with the  Hamas, classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, and others, is disgraceful.  Yes, Hamas controls a majority of the seats in the Palestinian Parliament–but for a former leader of the most powerful nation on earth to sit across the table from a terrorist organization founded for the purpose of the destruction of Israel–a group which uses children as human shields to increase casualty numbers, who continues to hold Gilad Shalit captive, and whose leaders have called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements on the Holocaust "courageous," is offensive. 

The existence of the Jewish people hinges on the existence of Israel–to give any credibility to a group that supports or has supported the elimination of Israel is disrespectful to all Jews, worldwide.

There's no doubt in my mind that President Carter is an honest and sincere man and I take him at his word that he is genuinely sorry for his "stigmatizing" of Israel.  Let's hope that his actions and words take a real and immediate shift toward supporting the strongest friend that America has.

As originally posted:

Two weeks ago, Second District Congressman Mike Michaud joined 63 members of his own party and 176 Republicans to vote for the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The amendment, offered by Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, forbid the “pay[ing] for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-jury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

Critics on the left have called the amendment co-sponsored by Blue Dog Democrats like Brad Ellsworth of Indiana a “major setback for women’s reproductive rights.” For the majority of Democrats who believe in a woman’s right to choose, Stupak/Pitts was nothing more than a return to the dark days of coat hangers and back alley abortions.

Pro-choice activists have a right to be disappointed with Congressman Michaud, and should push the lawmaker to vote with the majority of his party on similar legislation in the future–but they shouldn’t be surprised. Stupak/Pitts was perhaps an unnecessary evil that only reemphasized the tremendous coalition that the Democratic umbrella party has become.

The 2002 race to replace outgoing Congressman John Baldacci presented an interesting paradox for political observers. In Mike Michaud, Democrats had a pro-life veteran legislator in a relatively conservative district. In Kevin Raye, Republicans had a pro-choice Washington insider who received national support from reproductive rights groups. Michaud won in a tight race, one of only a few good stories during a tough cycle for Democrats.

Though Michaud was elected under Terry McAulliffe’s reign as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, many of the 64 Democrats to vote for Stupak/Pitts represent the broad coalition of the Democratic Party constructed by former Governor Howard Dean. At the end of the day, a Brad Ellsworth or a Heath Shuler must look at the big picture and the wishes of his or her constituency.

If a non-decisive vote for Stupak/Pitts can help to ensure Congressman Michaud’s vote for meaningful healthcare reform with a public option, so be it. As a Democrat, I’m incredibly disappointed with Congressman Michaud’s vote, but realize that there are consequences to being a part of a coalition party. At the end of the day, I’d rather have a coalition party in power than an extremist party in the minority.

Perhaps that’s a lesson that the GOP can learn from.

 

Watch WABI-TV's piece on the press conference here.