I can hear you asking now, "What are we doing in Massachusetts?  This is the pre-eminent liberal state in the union.  Surely ARP-type centrism has no place here?"

    Well, you would be wrong.  There are, in fact, two philosophical strains in this state, strong liberalism and strong pragmatic centrism.  The former is represented by the long-standing power of the Kennedy family, one of the icons of American liberalism.  The latter is represented not only by the almost equally strong tradition of Republican moderation, as exemplified by such nationally known figures as ex-Governor William Weld, not only by the relatively strong showings of Perot and other third-party/independent presidential candidates in 92 and 96, but also by the extraordinarily large percentage of people registered here with third parties or as independents, -- an absolutely whopping 48%.  While the power and entrenchment of the Democrats is formidable and we therefore cannot expect many outright victories here, it will, I believe, be a relatively simple matter to coalesce a constituency solid enough and large enough to hold the winning totals of incumbents to uncomfortably narrow margins.  Furthermore, there are only three congressional districts in this state which I believe we should contest at all.

    Massachusetts' senior Senator, Edward Kennedy, Democrat, is one of the titans of American liberalism.  Brother of a martyred President and another who almost made it, he has for years been viewed as a sort of crown prince of a robust ADA-style liberalism which found its most dramatic expression in the post-Watergate era, when the Senator saw his philosophy dramatically ensonced in majority status both in the Senate and the House in the post-Watergate era.  That philosophy has been under siege for some two decades now yet somehow Kennedy marches on and survives, carving out coalitions with such unlikely allies as Orrin Hatch and Phil Gramm as he strives to keep the hope alive and the liberal dream from dying, as he so eloquently put it in his 1980 concession speech at his party's presidential nominating convention.

    It is presumptuous to think of knocking off this left-wing giant in 2000, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.  He got into trouble early in his last campaign against Mitt Romney but quickly recovered in time to win by a 58% to 41% margin.  However, it is clear both from the victories of Republicans like Weld and the dramatic voter registration figures that the tide of history is running against him in this state.  I believe his hold on this state is based more and more these days on personal popularity rather than ideology.  I suggest we reach out to William Weld.  There is no love lost between him and his GOP, primarily as a result of the way they went along with Jesse Helms' refusal to let the Senate consider him for the post of ambassador to Mexico.  I believe, considering the third-party/independent trend in this state, that a risk-taker like Weld might be intrigued at the prospect of changing the equation here by running as our candidate.  Of course, Weld is not without political baggage.  He has already run for the Senate once against Kennedy's junior colleague, John Kerry, and lost by not so narrow a margin as was expected.  However, despite the media's impression to the contrary, I believe Kerry was a more formidable opponent than Kennedy would prove to be.  Kerry has been widely speculated for years to be contemplating a presidential run, and his popularity and roots here run deep.  Kennedy, on the other hand, though held in personal affection, is somewhat more of a has-been and therefore more vulnerable than his junior colleague, I believe.  Besides, I believe Weld's boldness in running as the ARP candidate rather than the GOP candidate would help create the excitement needed to mobilize the sort of coalition that brought Jesse Ventura political success.  He has always been simpatico with the younger crowd, he is a Dead-head, and the bottom line is that he represents the political future in this state whereas Teddy represents the past.  It's a major gamble but I believe it's worth it.

    Massachusetts' junior Senator, John Kerry, is a traditional Democratic liberal.  His politics, nevertheless, are not so overtly liberal as is that of the more famous senior Senator, which means that he enjoys both a broader and a thinner constituency than the eldest surviving scion of Camelot.  In 1996, he was challenged by a potential ARP ally, fomer Governor William Weld (R).  The press ballyhooed it as a battle of giants, and much was made of Kerry's victory at the time.  In truth, it was both less spectacular and less surprising than some believed at the time.  This state has not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke, and Kerry, as the incumbent, was both better organized and more entrenched than was Weld.  So much for a surprise victory.  Now for its lack of spectacle:  In fact, Weld did not do badly in absolute terms; he cut Kerry's winning margin almost in half from 1990, from 14% to only 8%.  I believe the trend is still in the favor of centrism.  I furthermore believe that if Weld were to try again in 2002, particularly if he were to do so as an ARPer or independent rather than as a Republican, he would do much better.  The fact is that, in Massachusetts, anyone carrying the pachyderm mascot comes into the arena with two strikes against him.  If Weld were to walk away from the GOP trunk it might actually increase the level of his support.  And even if Weld were to lose such a race, I am fairly confident that his personal popularity would net him a larger margin than the hapless GOP nominee, assuring him, and whatever group he allied himself with, further room to grow in this state in the future.  There is a wild card here:  Kerry is seriously considering a run for the presidency.  If that happens, and he should be victorious, or parlay it into the second spot on the Democratic ticket, or, failing both of those, simply lose interest in the Senate, 2002 could see a spirited open contest, where Weld's credentials would emerge even more impressively.
 

    This district gave 25% of its vote to Perot in 92, and a combined total of 14% of its vote to Perot and other third party presidential candidates in 96.  Moreover, the current incumbent, the very liberal Democrat John Olver, has a history of winning by unimpressive margins in the low fifties.  In 96, for example, he won by only 53% over a GOP moderate, Jane Swift.  In 98 he did much better, probably because of the negative fallout over impeachment.  It is my belief, however, that if the anti-GOP impeachment fervor dies down, Olver could once again find himself hanging on by a thread.  I suggest we either persuade Swift to run as our candidate (we need women to carry our standard) or, failing that, be prepared to help her in a rematch as a Republican against Olver.
 

    This district has shown above average sentiment in favor of third-party/independent presidential candidates, and its House incumbents are used to winning by narrow margins in the fifties.  From 1992 to 1996, this district was represented by a moderate Republican, Peter Blute, who was in almost every respect sympathetic to ARP positions.  He opposed NAFTA and tax cuts, and supported term limits, the line-item veto, and the balanced budget amendment.  Unfortunately, in 96 he was defeated by a traditional liberal Democrat, James McGovern, though again by a narrow margin.  He chose not to run in 98, which may have been a good idea considering the anti-Republican tides running through this state at that time.  In any event, I believe ARP should simply urge Blute to try again and support his comeback in 2000.
 

    This district is friendly to third-party/independent presidential candidates.  It is also the home of one of the poster boys of campaign finance reform, Democrat Marty Meehan, who co-authored the Shays-Meehan bill which ARP is already on record as supporting.  Just as I believe ARP should be sympathetically disposed toward both conservative Linda Smith and liberal Russell Feingold for that reason I also believe that ARP should be similarly supportive of this liberal Democrat.  He is independent as well as liberal.  He voted for this year's Blue Dog budget, supports the balanced budget amendment and term limits, and has introduced a bill which starts means-testing for Social Security and Medicare.  Those are all courageous stands for a Democrat.  In fact, the last stance is one that would mark ANY politician as having courage.

    Initially Meehan committed to only four terms; however the House Race Hotline is now reporting he has changed his mind which means that we may have him potentially in our corner in 2000.  I do not believe that he would be interested in running against Kennedy as an alternative at that time; his ties to liberal Democrats just run too deep.
 

    Currently this district is represented by traditional liberal Democrat Joe Moakley.  It is the conclusion of the CSSC that it would be logical to run a flag-planting campaign here.  In connection with such a campaign, there is a centrist group headquartered here who call themselves United for a Fair Economy.  They might be useful as an organizing point around which to rally our flag-planting campaign.