Covering Cambridge MA Lightly

Covering Cambridge MA Lightly

[This letter was published in the Boston Phoenix on September 14, 2007.]

In two weeks of articles about Mass politics David Bernstein leaves us
bewildered about what candidates think. (DAVID S. BERNSTEIN, "Cambridge
vs. Anthony Galluccio," Boston Phoenix, Aug 31 2007; and "Taking the Fifth," Aug
24 2007) He says, "It's not clear that voters are paying attention to the race
[for
Meehan's seat]" But even if they are paying attention he provides no information
about three of the Democratic candidates and nothing about the two Republicans.
He reveals the identity of the two women Democrats, i.e. they are women,
but little else. Bernstein helps keep the voters educated how?
Regarding Anthony Galluccio, he dwells on allegations of a motor vehicle
charge, which he calls, "serious accusations," and "his drunk driving charges."
Then he states "a clerk magistrate ruled in April 2006, that evidence was
insufficient for a DUI charge." So why is this an issue for Galluccio? If
Bernstein does not believe what the clerk ruled, isn't that an issue for the
courts? Why blame Galluccio? For Bernstein, no charge is a charge? Not helpful
at all.
He compares the degrees of Galluccio and Flaherty not to Ross or
Nowicki two other candidates but to Birmingham who is not running. This helps
how?
He reveals a conviction of Flaherty's father. Does Bernstein hold the sins
of the father against the son?
Bernstein says, "Barrios pummeled Galluccio [in 2002]." Huh? Barrios got
48 percent of the primary vote. Galluccio (32) and DeMaria (20) shared 52
percent.
Bernstein's analysis is spin for Barrios rather than reality.
Bernstein confuses the import of two facts. Rent control was repealed. He
appears to be unaware that the demographics of Cambridge changed. There is
little opposition left in Cambridge to Harvard. Most of Galluccio's supporters
moved out due to increased rents and taxes.
For press starved Mass voters these reports distort political information
"keeping the herd bewildered" as Chomsky says. What a waste of good newsprint.

Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM

Cambridge vs. Anthony Galluccio
Will Brattle Street torpedo him again?
By: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN
Boston Phoenix, News
Aug 31 2007 2:56:34 PM


LEAST FAVORITE SON: Cambridge’s 02138 voters haven’t forgotten Anthony
Galluccio’s tough races against Alice Wolf and Jarrett Barrios.

Cambridge city councilor Anthony Galluccio is still working to fulfill the
promise he showed 10 years ago, when Boston magazine named him one of its “40
most powerful under 40 years old.” Now, after almost continuously chasing higher
office since 1994, unsuccessfully, he is considered by many to be the
front-runner for the State Senate seat vacated by Jarrett Barrios, who resigned
in July to become president of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Foundation.

More than a decade of campaigning — including two previous shots in the
gerrymandered Senate district that includes portions of Boston, Cambridge,
Everett, Somerville, Revere, Chelsea, and Saugus — has given Galluccio strong
name recognition, political organization, and fundraising ability, which may
help him to finally achieve his thus-far elusive victory.

But his repeated campaign efforts also have created bad blood in a city that
takes its politics very seriously, all the more so since Galluccio has dared to
run against two of Cambridge’s favorite politicians: Barrios, and
former-mayor-turned-state-representative Alice Wolf.

Galluccio is exactly the kind of hands-on, bread-and-butter, shoe-leather son of
immigrants preferred by voters in much of the working-class Senate district, say
current and former officeholders in the area. Yet for all his potential success
in Everett, Saugus, and Charlestown, his campaign’s weak link may lie in his
home base of Cambridge. Running for council, he has been able to draw from the
city’s working-class, relatively moderate neighborhoods. But those are not the
portions of Cambridge contained in Barrios’s former Senate district. Instead,
Galluccio is looking smack at the heart of 02138 land, the Harvard-dominated
center of liberal intelligencia. Of the 13 Cambridge precincts voting in the
September 11 State Senate election, nine are represented by Wolf.

To make matters worse, the perennial candidate has been saddled with serious
accusations of drunk driving that won’t go away.

As the election approaches, Galluccio now finds himself stalked by three
competitors, including Tim Flaherty, a Cambridge attorney with a famous
political name, solid liberal credentials, at least as much funding as
Galluccio, and the tacit backing of Wolf. The Cambridge lefties, it seems, are
not going to let Galluccio win without yet another fight.

Schizophrenic district
Galluccio’s trouble with Cambridge liberals dates back to his strong support for
ending rent control in the 1990s, a position which he defends as an attempt to
work out a pragmatic solution, rather than turn it into a black-and-white issue.
In the end, the state’s voters killed the policy altogether through a 1994
ballot initiative. Thirteen years later, though, Cambridge residents still
remember Galluccio as being on the “wrong” side in that battle.

Galluccio was also slow to support gay marriage and in-state tuition for
immigrants, two articles of liberal faith, evolving on both between his 2002
Senate campaign and this year’s. And his attempts to work with Harvard on its
expansion plans have drawn criticism from those who want a harder line of
opposition against the university, none of which might endear him to liberal
Cantabrigians.

Still, Galluccio can claim to have helped form the Cambridge Health Alliance and
Energy Alliance. And in his literature targeted to Cambridge voters, the word
“progressive” appears prominently; readers are told of his support for Cape
Wind, marriage equality, reproductive freedom, “progressive tax reforms,”
closing corporate tax loopholes, and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

Galluccio has even landed endorsements from two progressive groups: Mass
Alliance and Progressive Democrats of Cambridge. But his opponents are
downplaying the importance, and even the liberal bone fides of those groups.

Often, however, this animosity from the left seems more personal than
ideological — due, in part, to the fact that many have simply never forgiven him
for running against Wolf in 1996, when Wolf, the city’s former mayor, prevailed
against Galluccio to first become a state representative.

“The left doesn’t like him, because he ran against Queen Alice,” says one
elected official who is remaining neutral in the race.

In fact, Galluccio not only ran, he ran tough and aggressively — dirty, some
still say. Then he ran another tough campaign against Barrios in 2002, for the
open State Senate seat. Barrios pummeled Galluccio in the Cambridge precincts by
a two-to-one margin, and won that race.

For his part, Galluccio attributes his 2002 loss to his concentration on other
areas of the district where he had never before run. “I let Jarrett roam free in
Cambridge,” he says. “And you can never, never, let Jarrett roam free. He’s too
good.”

But the other candidates running against Galluccio this time suggest that he
simply isn’t popular in the Senate district’s portion of Cambridge.

The question is: do Cantabrigians have another Barrios to vote for instead?

That is, can another candidate appeal to the Harvard Square set, while also
drawing in voters from Everett and Chelsea? Could another candidate “connect
02138 with the blue-collar communities north of Boston,” as Galluccio puts it?

That’s where Flaherty comes in.

Sources close to both Flaherty and Barrios say that Wolf, along with progressive
activists Avi Green, Mark Puleo, and others, encouraged Flaherty to enter the
race. (Wolf, who is on vacation, could not be reached for comment.)

Flaherty, whose father represented Cambridge and served as Speaker of the House
on Beacon Hill in the early 1990s, describes himself as a liberal,
well-educated, regular guy from a blue-collar background. That’s the ideal
profile for the district, and an excellent description of the two men who have
held the seat since it was re-shaped through redistricting: Barrios and Tom
Birmingham.

It also fits Galluccio; in fact, Flaherty and Galluccio, just a year apart in
age, are remarkably similar on paper. While Flaherty pursued his triple-Eagle
education — BC High, Boston College, and BC Law — Galluccio was attending
Cambridge Rindge and Latin, Providence College, and Suffolk Law. (Neither,
however, can quite match the educational pedigree of Birmingham, a Rhodes
Scholar with degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Law, or Barrios, who
studied at Harvard and Georgetown Law.)

There is one major difference between the two candidates, though. While
Galluccio has been a regular candidate for office, and never misses a chance to
mix and mingle to raise his profile, Flaherty has kept a low public profile
aside from his one other campaign, in 1998, when he lost the Middlesex District
Attorney race to Martha Coakley.

“I like to be the guy who shows up at the graduation the year he isn’t running,”
says Galluccio, who says voters in the district expect to meet and get to know
candidates personally.

Flaherty argues that his years spent as a Norfolk County prosecutor and running
his own private law practice mean more to voters than glad-handing. He has
helped people professionally and personally, out of genuine concern, “not just
because I was trying to get elected,” he says.

Will it get dirty?
Many local political observers suspect that Galluccio holds the advantage,
exactly because of those repeated visits to every corner of the district. “I
think the people of Everett think Galluccio lives in Everett,” says one pol in
that city, where Galluccio has gained the support of Mayor John Hanley, and
former mayor David Ragucci.

“This is a district you win by shoe leather,” says Barrios. “The candidate who
meets the most voters, knocks on the most doors, will be the winner.”

“If I was giving free advice to candidates, I would say spend all your time in
Everett knocking on doors,” Birmingham says. Personal contact, not issues,
matter most in the city, he adds. “In Everett, politics is not an amateur sport
— it’s very, very serious.”

No surprise then that Everett is seen by many as the battleground in the race.
Of the other candidates running for Barrios’s vacated seat, Paul Nowicki, a
long-time Chelsea city councilor, is expected to do well in his home base, in
Revere, and in Charlestown. And Jeff Ross, a Cambridge immigration attorney,
could draw a number of votes from the left. Nobody in the race can claim Everett
as his own — and with roughly 30 percent of the district’s vote count, that city
is the big prize for the taking.

Galluccio, who made his announcement speech in Everett, is certainly aware of
this, and is working the city doggedly. “Nobody will outwork Anthony in this
race,” says one neutral pol in the district.

But hard work might not be what decides the race. After all, it is pretty clear
— one need only skim the Blue Mass Group Web site for evidence — that the
anti-Galluccio progressives will make sure his drunk-driving charges follow him.

That scandal, which broke in February 2006, occurred when Galluccio was running
for this same State Senate seat (at the time, Barrios was running for Middlesex
District Attorney rather than re-election.) WCVB-TV’s Janet Wu reported that
three witnesses described Galluccio as drunk when he caused a four-car collision
in downtown Boston at 2 am the previous December 18. Galluccio had not, however,
been charged with any alcohol-related offense.

In light of Wu’s evidence, Boston police re-opened the investigation, and a
clerk-magistrate ruled in April 2006 that evidence was insufficient for a DUI
charge. It was less than a complete exoneration, however: the court found that
Galluccio had been drinking, which Galluccio had strongly denied; an emergency
medical technician testified that Galluccio showed some signs of intoxication;
and police officers said that they had to put him in restraints at the hospital.

Perhaps most important, reporting of the incident revived consideration of
Galluccio’s two previous DUI convictions, one pardoned by Governor William Weld
in 1993, and another in 1997.

Galluccio ultimately withdrew from the race and endorsed Barrios, in a
face-saving public appearance arranged by then–senate president Robert
Travaglini, another former Galluccio supporter now noticeably quiet about the
race.

Galluccio tells the Phoenix that going through the media grinder on the
drunk-driving charge this past year was “one of my most horrible and meaningful
experiences.” But he is not going the Patrick Kennedy admission-apology-rehab
route. Galluccio insists that he did nothing wrong, and has no demons to work
through.

Still, he is noticeably lacking the public support of a number of pols who had
formerly championed him — most notably, US Congressman Michael Capuano and
former State Senate president Robert Travaglini. He’s not quite toxic, but it’s
as if high-profile officials want to keep some distance from Galluccio — in case
there’s another shoe yet to drop.

The other candidates in the race, including Flaherty, are straining to avoid
discussion of the drunk-driving issue. They — and perhaps Flaherty more than the
others — don’t want to be the one throwing the stones. After all, Flaherty’s
father left office in a swirl of scandal, pleading guilty to federal criminal
charges of tax evasion.

That, and the fact that Flaherty’s father is now a high-powered lobbyist to the
very legislature he is seeking to join, have so far been taboo subjects on the
campaign trail. And Flaherty would like to keep it that way.

Family aside, Flaherty still faces an uphill battle. In addition to Galluccio’s
other advantages, he has a well-organized, district-wide operation to identify
and bring out his voters — an organization boosted further by the recent
endorsement of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

The importance of the campaigns’ get-out-the-vote organizations is one thing
everyone agrees on, with voter turnout expected to be low in this special
election. “The hard thing in a race like this is getting people to the polls,”
says Shea.

But Flaherty might have a wild card in his pocket: Alice Wolf.

Wolf has not endorsed in the race — yet — but several well-connected Cambridge
political insiders tell the Phoenix that she wants Flaherty to win. She may yet
endorse him publicly, if he shows that he has a real chance of success. After
all, Wolf represents nine of the 13 Cambridge precincts in the State Senate
district, and some observers believe she could single-handedly cause Galluccio
to lose the city.

Even if that isn’t enough to give Flaherty the victory, it might hand Galluccio
the defeat for which many in Cambridge seem eager. Then again, Galluccio might
get the votes he needs in the rest of the district to finally reach the next
level — with or without his home town’s help.


Taking the Fifth
The race for Marty Meehan’s congressionalseat is running below the radar, but it
could hold the answers to a couple of burning political questions
By: DAVID S. BERNSTEIN
Aug 24 2007 3:02:12 PM
Boston Phoenix
[Pictures] Donoghue, Tsongas, Eldridge, Finegold, Miceli

LEADING LADIES
Signs would certainly suggest that, on the national stage, a political family
heritage is as valuable as ever (see: George W. Bush), and that women can
successfully exploit the connections. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose
father was a congressman from Maryland, is one of four daughters of former
members of Congress now serving. Four widows of former members are also in
Congress. And of course, Hillary Clinton became a US senator, and may become
president.

But in Massachusetts, the last two women elected to Congress — Margaret Heckler,
who served from 1967 until 1983, and Louise Day Hicks, who served one term
beginning in 1971 — made their own names. The same is true of other prominent
elected women in the state, including Senate President Therese Murray and
Attorney General Martha Coakley.
The upcoming special election to determine a successor to Marty Meehan — who,
after 15 years in Congress, is leaving to become chancellor of UMass Lowell —
may lack the glitz of the Clinton vs. Obama showdown and the nastiness of the
Romney/McCain/Giuliani brawl. But the September 4 Democratic primary does have
compelling interest beyond the borders of the Fifth Congressional District,
since front-runner Niki Tsongas, the widow of the late senator and one-time
presidential aspirant Paul Tsongas, may serve as a litmus test for two
developing political uncertainties:

1) Whether American politics will continue to take on a royalist flavor — with
the likes of the Kennedys, Bushes, Cuomos, and Clintons besting those who lack
recognizable names. And,

2) Is Tsongas — who, if she were to win, would become just the fourth woman that
Massachusetts has ever sent to Washington — part of a rise in female power
within the Democratic Party, along with stars such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy
Pelosi?

Tsongas’s four opponents for the Democratic nomination complain that her name
recognition alone shouldn’t decide the race. And that’s a reasonable, but
futile, point to make in a state that for 200 years has swooned over the scions
of Adams, Davis, Everett, Lodge, and O’Neill.

On the other hand, this is not your grandfather’s Massachusetts, and none of the
state’s leaders — including Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese
Murray, and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi — was born with a silver gavel in his
or her hand.

Congressman Barney Frank, a Tsongas supporter (who, coincidentally, defeated the
last woman to represent Massachusetts in Congress, Margaret Heckler, when their
districts were combined after the 1980 Census cost the state a seat), has said
that this race will capture national attention as a referendum on the Iraq War
and the 2006-elected Democratic Congress. But so far, the attention has settled
on two decidedly different issues: Tsongas’s late husband and her gender.

Careful references
Tsongas is unabashed about playing the gender card, even though one of her chief
rivals is Eileen Donoghue, a former mayor of Lowell. (The other Democrats
running are state representatives Jamie Eldridge, Barry Finegold, and Jim
Miceli.)

Despite Donoghue’s presence, Tsongas has gained the endorsement and fundraising
support of EMILY’s List, which backs female candidates nationally, and the
Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus. Many of the most prominent women in
Massachusetts political circles also have endorsed Tsongas, including Kitty
Dukakis, Patricia McGovern, Swanee Hunt, Evelyn Murphy, Cheryl Jacques, Angela
Menino, Barbara Lee, Lois Pines, Margaret Xifaras, and Andrea Silbert, as well
as three state senators and five state representatives.

In June, her campaign gathered 350 women in support of Tsongas, including
businesswomen and community activists. There are “Tsisters for Tsongas” events.
And the Lowell headquarters of her campaign feature prominent reminders that the
state has had more than two decades of exclusively male representation.

Tsongas’s campaign is, however, far more discreet about referring directly to
her late husband. He is mentioned in few materials, and his instantly
recognizable, cherubic Greek face is nearly absent. The TV ad she’s been airing
speaks of her father, a World War II hero, more than her late husband.

But indirect references are constant. Tsongas is actively trading on Paul’s
popularity, boasting of the Washington connections she made during his time in
office and while he ran for president in 1992. She paints herself as his
political partner — one campaign promo piece even says that, in 1978, “Paul and
Niki won” the election for US Senate. And she took some grief for a comment made
during a recent debate, which some have interpreted as her claiming to have, as
Paul’s wife, represented the district and then the state in Washington, DC.

But today’s Democratic Party, which is rallying behind Clinton, has largely
accepted the legitimacy of the “political spouse” experience. Political partners
such as Elizabeth Edwards are becoming the norm; spouses disengaged from their
husband’s work, such as Dr. Judy Dean (wife of Howard), are a rare curiosity.

Given the party’s attitudes toward Clinton and George W. Bush, it’s fair to
guess that “wife of” is given more credence than “son of” in contemporary
Democratic politics. The power of American political royalty has not diminished,
but it may have found a different path of succession.

Bingo!
If any Democrat is going to beat Tsongas, it is likely to be former Lowell mayor
Donoghue, who neutralizes the gender issue and would seem to perfectly counter
Tsongas’s perceived weaknesses: her lack of experience in elected office, and
her cozy relationship with “insider” Washington politicos.

Donoghue hit on both themes in an interview with the Phoenix this past Thursday,
in which she insisted that chalking up actual accomplishments in an elected
political office is different than talking about “what you read in a briefing
paper.” Tsongas is supported by “the establishment and insiders,” says Donoghue,
who have “decided there really isn’t a need for an election here.”

“The notion that people outside the district should choose the next
congressperson,” says Donoghue, “is not only presumptuous but even offensive to
people in the district.”

But Tsongas is not so easy to dismiss, and neither are the endorsements of
dozens of high-profile pols. She has been active in the Lowell community, and
can, at times, speak insightfully about the public–private collaborations that
are transforming the city.

She and her supporters are well-practiced at reciting her involvement with the
Tsongas Arena Commission, the Lowell Plan, the Fallon Community Health Plan, a
foundation for children of 9/11 victims, and her current job as dean of external
affairs at Middlesex Community College.

“It’s all been public without necessarily being political,” says Brian Martin,
former Lowell city manager, of Tsongas’s experience.

“She’ll hit the ground running,” promises Ellen Murphy Meehan — the
congressman’s wife, and Tsongas’s campaign chair.

In any event, it’s not clear that voters are paying enough attention to the race
to care about any of that — or anything beyond the recognizable name. In
Haverhill, where Donoghue chatted up senior citizens before their bingo game
this past week, several of them mistook her for her opponent.

Diverse district, similar candidates
The upcoming primary is scheduled for Tuesday, September 4, the day after Labor
Day. Which means that the campaign is taking place in the doldrums of summer,
with voting occurring on a day when families are also shuttling their children
off to their first day of school. Thus, turnout is expected to be low — possibly
fewer than 10 percent of the district’s 800,000 registered voters.

That could be a good thing for the front-runner. Low turnout and low interest,
many believe, will work to the advantage of the best-known name on the ballot —
that is, Tsongas. In fact, it’s been widely speculated that this schedule,
precipitated by the timing of Meehan’s departure, was set up by the congressman
and state Democratic insiders to help ensure Tsongas’s election.

The other candidates, unable to buy widespread name recognition in this race,
are trying to cobble together winning totals from small slivers of the
electorate and aggressive get-out-the-vote efforts.

Tsongas starts with most voters holding the pen over her name — she merely needs
to reassure them that there’s no reason to vote against her. That is a much
easier task, and one she appears to be achieving.

On the Web
David Bernstein's Talking Politics blog:
http://www.thephoenix.com/talkingpolitics