August 30, 2007 by patrick.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 2 Comments »

August 30, 2007 by patrick.

If anyone is experiencing problems with viewing the FirstGiving “widgets” to those charities for which I am fundraising, please use the links below to donate or view these pages directly. Meanwhile, the future of the campaign’s director of technology remains in the balance.

MERRIMACK VALLEY FOOD BANK

COMMUNITY TEAMWORK, INC.

VETERANS NORTHEAST OUTREACH CENTER

MERRIMACK RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL

MERRIMACK VALLEY YMCA

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 30, 2007 by Dan.

Well, judging by the turnout at last night’s whiffle ball tournament, candidates Eileen Donoghue, Jamie Eldridge, and Patrick Murphy will do just that. What happens when they swing is a different story–Patrick cleared the first pitch he saw over the high center field wall at Alumni Field.

Eileen, in the “primary” game, where her campaign took on Eldridge’s, pitched against Eldridge himself, and struck him out on three pitches. And while Jamie’s self-given title of Progressive Democrat may be apt, the “Hit Dog” or “Sultan of Swat” would not be.

A sly Eileen also may have thrown a curve at one point. And while she did not bat herself, she had what seemed to be the Lowell Little League all-stars playing for her. Her campaign took the primary game.

In the championship game, Patrick spotted our team to a 1-0 lead on the first pitch thrown. I singled afterwards, and it seemed, with the talent on our staff, we were headed for a rout. But, here come my excuses for a 4-2 loss–we came in cold. Eileen’s campaign was warmed up; I think they began drills at around 5pm for an 8pm start. Accusations of weighting the bat were also made. There were a lot of four and five footers running around jacking home runs out of the park. For decorum, I didn’t have them pee in a cup. But I have my doubts.

We were slightly redeemed in the consolation game, when we took on the Progessive Democrats. While they were dreaming about trade policy, we capitalized on their careless fielding and reigned in more runs than we could count.

All in all, we had a great night under the lights, on the fresh-cut grass, under a near full moon. We owe a lot of gratitude to the City of Lowell and Commissioner Tom Bellegarde for making this happen on relatively short notice. I also want to thank Eileen, Jamie, and their staffs for participating, and to some of Niki’s staff who showed up as well. It goes back to what Patrick said in his two minute remarks at the Phillips Academy debate:

Competition is a fact of life on this planet: from something as small as a political campaign to the wider realm of international relations and wider still, to the very survival of all species. But it is often misunderstood. There are those that believe our success must be gained through another’s loss, that competition must mean seeking the defeat of one’s competitors. Yet if we learned our etymological lessons, we would know that the word “competition” comes from the Latin “com-petere”, to strive with, to strive together. In other words, competition is more about cooperation in order to bring out the best in each other–not mutual destruction, not simply survival of the fittest, but mutual survival through striving to become fitter, and by learning how we may all-all people and all species-again fit and live in this world together.

Out of competition, many winners may be bourne. We certainly had a fun, stressless night.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 29, 2007 by patrick.

Thanks to the work of Tom Bellegarde, Commissioner of Lowell’s Parks and Recreation Department, and the groundskeeper Richie, we have secured Alumni Field as the site of tonight’s Congressional Whiffle Ball tournament.  Participating will be the campaigns of Jamie Eldridge, Niki Tsongas, Eileen Donoghue and myself.   The goal of this event has evolved from a random, offhand remark by Dan to a genuine effort to generate interest in the congressional race as the summer winds down, driving better turnout for the primaries.

First pitch under the lights is scheduled for 8PM.  Hope you can stop by.  Bring lawn chairs if you like.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 25, 2007 by Dan.

Patrick has stated from the start of this campaign that he would not accept any donations—large or small—thus asserting his belief that these funds are unnecessary for a campaign with a deep reserve of ideas. He will contribute no more money to his campaign than what an individual can contribute to another’s: $4,600 (though still no small sum). While others scramble to raise millions of dollars for their own campaigns, Patrick has chosen to work harder, sacrifice more, and to earn the privilege of representing his fellow citizens in Congress. This is the kind of public servant we can expect him to be if elected.

As we approach another election cycle in 2008 in which billions of dollars will be spent, Patrick believes the time is now to send a message that there are other, more important causes on which to spend that money and actually achieve the changes that politicians purport to support. In this spirit, Patrick asks that his supporters donate to these local organizations that work daily on some of the issues most important to him. We hope you can help our campaign for positive change in the lives of our people, and the life of this community. Thank you.

***Just to add to this post. We have chosen six different local charitable organizations worthy of your support. Patrick and I have at some point spent time on a few of these, and hope you choose one that addresses a concern most important to you. Any donation, from a dollar up, is helpful–though we know and acknowledge that many of the people that support our campaign, or who would support our campaign, are already altruistic by nature.***

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 24, 2007 by Dan.

Well, the video is not great, but the sound came through fairly well. This clip is of the two minutes the League of Women Voters would have us and you believe was generously given to Patrick–an offer that, one member told Patrick, the League, a non-partisan group, weren’t obligated to give. Well they were not. But if the League’s main aim and message is the spread of democracy to all the voiceless corners of society, their restrictions on Patrick’s speech in last night’s Phillips Academy debate are certainly not consistent with that goal. Since Patrick’s first speech in Acton, a speech that was unabashed in pointing to flaws in the League’s logic, we’ve had several conversations with members that were concerned we misunderstood the purpose of their debates. They assured us we would be given full time after the primary. We understood that well. We understand well, also, that inclusion later does not justify exclusion now. It’s a “tacit ratification” of the party system, and of two, non-public entities that together do not even hold a majority in this district. It creates a bias in the minds of those that attended, and those that have followed the debate and the race, that there is something peculiar, different, minor, about the candidates who were not able to speak. Well there is something different about Patrick, and it’s not a minor thing, it’s substantial, and I’m afraid it’ll be missed if organizations like the League misunderstand what turns the cogs of democracy–the speech of all its people.

The clip may be found on youtube.com.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 22, 2007 by Dan.

Last night Patrick attended a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Because of the institutionalized lunacy that voters must identify themselves as a member of a party to fully participate in democracy, the League gave Patrick, an “unenrolled” independent two minutes for a statement. My request for an extra minute was emphatically denied. If a rule was enforced–that no candidate may repeat a catch phrase, anecdote, charges baseless or otherwise, and commonplace things in general–the League could probably find a few more minutes, though there would hardly be a debate. Many people in attendance agreed that Patrick used these two minutes to great effect, questioning the self-proclaimed non-partisan organization and “saying more in that short time than many [party] candidates did all night.”

Patrick returns to his high school Phillips Academy in Andover for the second “debate” sponsored by the League, this time to address foreign policy. Stop by Cochran Chapel at 7:30PM this Thursday, August 23rd. It should be an interesting reunion, and a lively two minutes.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 16, 2007 by patrick.

In response to a term limits question from Billerica’s Mike Dempsey, only the most senior candidate (now in his 16th term at the State House) pledged to observe self-imposed term limits, presupposing of course that no other forces will do the imposing.

In Monday’s Democratic debate, candidate Barry Finegold answered that it’s important to realize that the next congressman will be “the low person on the totem pole.” His suggestion seemed to be met with unanimous, good-humored consent. At least two other candidates have used this very phrase “totem pole”, and even more echoed their perceived standing as 435^th out of 435. Finegold, in further response to the question of term limits, said, “I think the way things work in Washington, the more seniority you have, the more you can get done for your district.”

I think it is instructive that native Americans never intended totem poles to be hierarchical representations of people. Being at the bottom or top of the pole did not necessarily imply any distinction in status. So it was intended for Congress. Congressmen are elected to represent roughly the same number of people. If I did not believe that the people of my district should have an equal voice, if I believed that those citizens represented by a powerful chairman or more senior representative should have greater weight in the affairs of this country, I would be a very ineffective Congressman indeed. Instead, I will be one of 435 equal members, and in order to hurdle the legislative obstacles, the most active and vocal.

The point of term limits is less about electoral politics as the candidates suggested, and more about reforming the institution of Congress itself. With constant turnover, the very seniority Finegold cited would no longer be an issue. Frequent power shifts within the legislative body would force a fairer system in which to work. And rather than the sole concern of Congressmen being to keep their seat and benefits for as long as possible, they might actually try and get done, in the little time they have, as much as possible.

The Republican candidates last night were also asked about term limits. Both climbed out on the illogical limb of a qualified term limits pledge, complete with detailed formula. However, in a night filled with tortured reasoning, they said they will not keep their pledges unilaterally. Ignoring what that might mean for a moment, is it not worse to know what course you should take, and not take it—to wait and wait until a quorum has formed? Is this not a lack of leadership?

We need leaders who have some vision of where we ought to be going, and the ideas that would allow us to get there. You have my words. Here is my pledge: I will observe a four-term limit, honest injun.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »

August 16, 2007 by patrick.

Monday’s Democratic debate proved that if there is one issue on which all parties may agree, it is that $170,000 is the right salary for a United States Congressman.  The current Congress, which has failed to end the war, raise environmental standards, put a dent in our national debt, reform health care and education or even campaigns, has managed to pick but just the right number when it comes to their compensation.  After a taxing three-day work week, they seem to say, hey, I’m worth it.

The question that makes most candidates uncomfortable is about campaign accounts—the amounts of money, and from whom it is raised.  Answers require a certain moral and linguistic flexibility that only members of the legal profession possess.  One well self-financed candidate who lives in the district claimed the most donations from people within the district.  Another received nearly a million dollars from family and friends and those who bagged groceries with him as a kid.  One knew nothing of what groups her campaign would not take money from—that being an absurd notion—only the organizations from which it did raise money, and anyway individuals can almost donate as much as lobbyists.  Another has essentially refused to take money from organizations that would not give it.  The last candidate, usually blunt and unequivocal in his remarks, was unsure of whether he had taken money from utility companies, and may have gone home that night to an unlit house and a cold stove.

He’d steal a red-hot stove, my grandfather George B. Murphy used to say of various public officials.  Himself an honest politician, he made headlines at the Lowell Sun when he exposed someone who had attempted to bribe him for a vote.  That sort of bribery has now been legalized.  Our Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that money was a form of political speech and the lobbyists haven’t stopped talking since: through political action committees (PACs), groups of donors, or through the more traditional bag of unmarked political speech hidden in the freezer.

Some candidates conceded this was a problem. One suggested a system of public financing, but this fails to control the ridiculous costs of campaigns. Another suggested equal TV time might give candidates outside the establishment a fairer platform.  These are nice sentiments, but by continuing to participate in such a flawed system, candidates who raise so much money, who believe they are entitled to so much more than the average worker, only ensure that the unholy trinity of wealthy corporations, media conglomerates and the political class continues to operate, as they have, in their own interests.

The only way to effect campaign reform is to reform how we run them now.  If we wait until we step onto the House floor, it is too late.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 2 Comments »

August 14, 2007 by Dan.

Today, Patrick submitted more than the requisite number of signatures to be included on the October 16th General Election ballot. We’d like to thank the many volunteers, family, friends, and new friends who helped collect the signatures and talk with voters of the Fifth about Patrick’s candidacy. We are looking forward now to the next two months of campaigning and are planning some interesting things to gain a wider exposure. We hope you stay tuned.

For all of you who signed Patrick’s papers, thank you. Yours was both an affirmation of our democracy and an act of welcomed goodwill. Among the many signees, we’d like to especially thank Rep. Jamie Eldridge and Mrs. Cellucci, Paul’s mother, for proving that goodness knows no party lines.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | 1 Comment »