Are you familiar with Don Berwick? Do you know that he’s our progressive Democratic candidate for Governor, running in the primary against two career politicians?

Don Berwick is running for governor to continue to make Massachusetts “a beacon of light and hope”. We were the first state to recognize healthcare as a human right, and the first state to institute equal marriage. Don is ready to demonstrate that bold, progressive leadership can truly deliver for the people. I’m proud to have met him personally; he is a thoughtful listener whose positions evolve as he learns; he has compassion and is unafraid to speak his values.

Don Berwick is NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN, but a pediatrician and executive who’s been working to improve health care delivery and affordability for 30 years. He was tapped by President Obama to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, the largest agency in the federal government (with a budget larger than the Pentagon!). The Republicans in the Senate refused to confirm him, so his recess appointment ended after 18 months. Dr. Berwick describes himself as an “improver”, an optimist and a progressive. As with Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB, a federal agency nomination loss could once again be Massachusetts’ great gain!

Berwick has ambitious goals for creating jobs, eradicating poverty, improving our infrastructure, and protecting the environment, including being the first carbon-neutral state. He recognizes that climate change is the most pressing concern to the health of our planet and to future generations.

Here are some of Don Berwick’s positions:
- Would work to establish single payer healthcare (Medicare for All).
- Opposed to casinos (proven harmful to the communities in which they operate); would vote to repeal the law.
- Opposed to the Kinder-Morgan (fracking) pipeline proposed for Franklin County.
- Supports divestment from fossil fuels.
- Supports universal pre-school education and improving education at all levels.

Don Berwick has been endorsed by Progressive Massachusetts, Mass-Care, Progressive Democrats of Mass., Jamaica Plain Progressives, Senators Jamie Eldridge, Sonia Chang-Diaz, and Pat Jehlen, and numerous other state senators and representatives. His supporters are as passionate about him as Elizabeth Warren’s are about her.

Don Berwick is the best possible Democrat to beat Charlie Baker for Governor in the November election. Massachusetts voters have demonstrated that they often prefer a new leader with fresh ideas over an old-time politico when making a choice at the top of the ticket. A Democrat who is new to statewide office very often wins. The evidence is in 40 years of Massachusetts elections.

The Winners:
* * Ed Markey beats Gabriel Gomez for senator in 2013.
* * Elizabeth Warren beats Scott Brown for senator in 2012.
* * Deval Patrick beats Kerry Healy for governor in 2006.
* * John Kerry beats Ray Shamie for senator in 1984.
* * Paul Tsongas beats Ed Brooke for senator in 1978.
* * Ed King beats Frank Hatch for governor in 1978.
* * Michael Dukakis beats Frank Sargent for governor in 1974.

And The Losers:
* * Martha Coakley (then Attorney General) loses to Scott Brown for senator in 2010.
* * Shannon O’Brien (then State Treasurer) loses to Mitt Romney in 2002.
* * Scott Harshbarger (then Attorney General) loses to Paul Cellucci in 1998.

History suggests that either of the other two Democratic candidates, Martha Coakley or Steve Grossman, will follow in the footsteps of Coakley, O’Brien, and Harshbarger, and lose to the Republican gubernatorial nominee. Massachusetts voters want a new face with new ideas and a track record of success OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT. That person is Don Berwick. If Don is the Democratic nominee, he will beat Charlie Baker (another political “retread”) with his bold ideas and proven leadership. Let’s work to add Don Berwick to the list of winners in 2014. Please share this with friends across the state. And please vote for Don Berwick in the SEPTEMBER 6th PRIMARY. Thanks!

For more about Don Berwick’s vision, values, and record of accomplishments, visit these links
Website for his positions on many issues and to volunteer: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook...orGovernor?ref=br_tf
And Pioneer Valley FB: https://www.facebook...rValleyforDonBerwick
Convention speech (12 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKz3_w3HfV8
Amherst Media interview (30 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlmJ-Dcrqo&feature=youtu.be
AIM (Associated Industries of Mass.) interview (6 min.):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n59EzFrZP94
Endorsements: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/endorsements
Statement opposing Kinder Morgan pipeline: http://www.berwickfo...nder-morgan-pipeline
 

DON BERWICK IN GOVERNOR’S RACE FOR RIGHT REASONS: PUBLIC SERVICE
Opinion by Dr. Jonathan Klate:
Sunday, July 6, 2014 Gazette.com The Hampshire Gazette


AMHERST — In the race for the Democratic nomination for governor, Don Berwick is the compelling story now. Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman, established pols aspiring to higher office for years, are being challenged by a smart, mature, experienced, unabashed progressive who has surged into serious contention for all the right reasons.

I had the opportunity to talk with Berwick in a Northampton coffee shop recently. When was the last time you felt a progressive politician running for statewide office was honestly speaking his or her truth, and from a wise heart? I mean other than Sen. Elizabeth Warren?

And I do mean talk with Dr. Berwick, because conversation is supposed to be a two-way street, and this gentleman doesn’t just spout, he listens. He lets you finish and makes it clear by his responses where his thinking has been modified by the information you have provided, if you made sense.

These are the habits of a curious mind and the ethics of a lifelong learner, perhaps shaped by his clinical training as a doctor. He brings a cultivated scientific mentality to his analytic approach to public matters. He is genuinely reflective rather than ideologically reflexive.

Before Berwick was a doctor he was the child of one. His father was a family physician in a small town in Connecticut. Like many small town docs in the 1950s he delivered babies, took his own x-rays and was on call 24/7. What he rarely did was take a vacation.

Berwick’s mom was a leader in the struggle to get a new elementary school built in their hometown. She died when Don was 15. When the school got built they named the library after her. So, while coming to terms with the body blow of his mother’s death, his consciousness was imprinted by her public legacy to the community achieved through political activism.

Don sees his parents’ dedication to both their family and the needs of the community as a way of life. “I don’t think they would have identified it as some kind of nobility,” he says. “It was just the way you lived. It was a habit as much as a value system and that colors the roots of my own values.”

He came of age in the 60s and these core values blossomed into mature progressive political inclinations during the inspiring era of the Kennedy presidency, the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, the New Frontier, the Great Society, the peace movement and searing incidents like the Kent State massacre.

He learned that government, when animated by concern for human needs, is not necessarily the enemy. Structural poverty is. Underfunded and inequitable education is. Lack of substance abuse treatment is. Exclusion from quality health care due to low income is.

And without government to facilitate solutions like single-payer health care, for example, which he strongly supports, we can’t get the job done to improve the quality of life for all. It is fair to think of his principled mastery of health care policy as comparable to the expertise in the fields of banking and financial services of Sen. Warren.

He was president and CEO of a major not-for-profit organization with a mission to improve health care throughout the world. President Obama appointed him the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services and he ran the agency, overseeing an $800 billion budget, far bigger than the one he’d manage were he to be elected governor here.

It is unusual to find a systems thinker with tons of policy implementation experience who retains compassion for how well or poorly individuals’ needs are met. Through his decades in human and public service he has not succumbed to cynicism or narcissism. This is all too rare in public service.

This is not a person engaged in politics for personal aggrandizement. Can you look at his competitors and honestly say that?

If you think that Martha Coakley is the Democrat who matches up best against Republican Charlie Baker in the general election, you might want to recall what happened when her senatorial ambitions encountered Scott Brown.

Or, if you think just being a woman gives her an edge, maybe it’s time to recall Shannon O’Brien’s defeat by Mitt Romney.

Steve Grossman is a personable, centrist Democrat. But somewhere the Democratic Party has to stop muddling through, find its heart and be willing to have a principled fight. If not in Massachusetts, and now, with such a strong progressive candidate, then where and when?

Berwick can win, provided Democrats who see elections as meaningful agencies of democracy strongly support him.

“I think people are as tired as I am of mincing words and the failure to clarify a value system with a clear and unapologetic commitment to helping each other. I just think it’s wrong.” This guy doesn’t pander. He means it. Stand him next to his competition and it shows.

* * * * *
Jonathan Klate of Amherst writes about spirituality and political perspectives. His column appears the first Monday of the month. He can be reached at opinion@gazettenet.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Berwick
http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/
 

Hi Sam,
I appreciate your thinking about and commenting on what you feel is the left’s reaction to the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision. It’s good that, even when folks see things differently, they can still talk about their points of view with respect and openness.

I’ve thought about the case a lot, but also thought about how this 5/4 Court has ruled on a number of cases. While you and I may simply be coming from very different places, and yes, I am opinionated, I like to think that I don’t just “shoot from the hip” or that I’m an extremist; even when I feel strongly about issues, I think that facts matter.

The article you referred me to in the National Review had a certain hostile tone that made it difficult to take seriously. It didn’t engender a lot of openness on my part, starting with “The Left is FOAMING AT THE MOUTH over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision” and continued with “This is not just garbage. It’s an entire landfill on stilts.” Hyperbole, much? There are more than a few other straw man arguments – putting words and ideas in the mouths of pro-choicers that are ugly, incendiary, and non-representative.

So, I’ll just get to the points. Interestingly, I’ve read that Hobby Lobby paid for coverage of all 20 types of contraception prior to filing this case. One point the article makes is that the 4 out of 20 forms of contraceptive were singled out because they were abortifacients. They are NOT. Hobby Lobby “feels” that they are. However, the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) of the National Institute of Health reports that IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients. Hobby Lobby does not represent the thinking of science in this matter. Sadly, the right-wing regressives in this Court allowed for a religious definition of medical facts, not a scientific one! Political ideology, anyone?

The owners of Hobby Lobby are not doctors. They are not scientists. They are not ministers. They are employers. Their “mission” is to deal in products, services, and profits.

Additionally, the Greens, owners of Hobby Lobby, have a 401(k) employee retirement plan with over $70 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, AND DRUGS OFTEN USED IN ABORTIONS. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). They had no option to invest elsewhere? Some wonder if the owners have mostly a strong religious belief in earning their profits wherever they can. This egregious hypocrisy should have been a factor in the court case; I don't know why it wasn't. Will authentically religious Christians scream about it, or boycott them because of it? Doubtful.

Even if they WERE correct on the scientific merits (of abortifacients), the decision is still a slippery slope, recklessly decided. Once the Court allows the intrusion of the employer into alleged religious objections, we will see (we are already seeing!) companies which will religiously object to ALL forms of birth control, the hiring of the LGBT community, or Muslims, or any group with which they have an issue. See http://talkingpoints...t-hiring-hobby-lobby
They won’t even have to prove their sincerity! Groups could use a religious dodge as a cover for their monetary interests, to skirt civil rights laws, or to impose other forms of social control, if they can invoke religious imperative. Other businesses may wish to impose other restrictions on coverage based of their religious beliefs: no transfusions for Jehovah’s Witness? No anti-depressants for Scientologist companies? The religion of an individual should be freely practiced; it should not be imposed by the individual on others.

On another point, family planning, whether contraception, vasectomy, tubal ligation, morning after or emergency contraception, or termination of pregnancy, encompasses options which are both MEDICAL and LEGAL. Employees don’t get “free” birth control or medical care handed to them by the employer; employees pay for it, and health insurance coverage is one of several benefits as part of a package workers EARN, like vacation time, pensions, etc. HIPPA laws also should protect the patient’s privacy from anyone who is not their doctor; the employer has no business in the doctor’s office or the record room!

The owners of Hobby Lobby are either a for profit business (which they ARE), and are subject to offering their employees the benefits they’ve earned, or they are a church – a “for PROPHET”, if you will. I would understand a church not wanting to include some of these benefits in their package. But they are not a church. They do not have a place in controlling either the private lives or medical decisions of their employees. In her dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the point that “"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

Another point: some of us are profoundly concerned that the Court would give religious rights to a corporation which would trump the rights of workers. No matter how devout the Greens might be (and whether they are or not is moot), the rights of their “personhood”, that of religious freedom has been gifted to the corporation, while being taken from the employees. This Court has given supremacy to the corporation over workers. Interestingly, on the same day, they gave no such standing to unions when they allowed family caregivers who get union benefits to opt out of union dues.

It will be a better day for us all when we have single-payer health care, so that doctor-patient relationships will not be intruded upon by outside forces. I still remember with horror how members of Congress and Jeb Bush involved themselves with brain-dead Terry Schiavo’s medical situation, despite her husband’s legal authority. It will also be a better day when Citizens United is overturned, and when corporations find their proper, more humble, place in the life of this nation.