Boston Globe just posted that Martha Coakley picked up nomination papers for a senate run this morning. It was noted that she had told associates that she would run even if a Kennedy is in the race. So at this point there is no signal of Joe Kennedy’s intentions.
As a side note Ed O’Reilly emailed the Globe to say that he’s seriously interested in a run. That should be a fun Jr. and Sr. Senator relationship: Kerry and O’Reilly.
Discuss
50 Comments . Leave a comment below.signal clear interest without falling for the Joe Kennedy trap. Maybe by doing so you scare him out of the race, or at least stall him for a while and get a head start while the other potential candidates wait to see what Joe Kennedy does.
As for Ed O'Reilly... I can't see him getting traction on Martha Coakley. I understand (though don't agree) with him getting folks who are disaffected with John Kerry, but I don't think Martha Coakley stirs that sort of sentiment with active Democrats in the Commonwealth.
Ed seemed like the primary message vote more than anything else. Every time I met him the first thing that came to my mind was that kind of looked like Joe Kennedy.
Someone had to be the first, could be a good move by Martha Coakley. Interested to see if others join in quickly now that someone took out papers.
...if only for it's "separated at birth?" quality:)
I still think O'Reilly should try for Bruce Tarr's seat in the state Senate.
Coakley is clearly putting the moxie in the phrase 'moxie crimefighter' with that move. In the words of my other state's former governor she clearly has 'testicular fortitude'. I would say that this single quote alone should be reason enough to vote for her. While all the Congressmen are meekly differing to Joe Kennedy, Coakley is saying she can take on all comers. I really like that attitude and this move alone might have moved me from the undecided column.
Also I like the Globes quote
It's as if it's implying that 31 percent is actually still his. Its not like Ed O'Reilly would ever get that vote if he didn't have Kerry to run against. If he runs I'd bet he polls around 3%, my advice to Eddie would be to try and get back on the Gloucester City Council before waste your time and money running for Senator-get out of the way and let the serious candidates run.
I'm interested to see how the field pans out.
Meehan Won't Run for Teddy's Seat Written by Jeremy Jacobs on September 01, 2009 Politics Magazine
"...according to two well-placed sources in Massachusetts...Meehan's office declined to comment for this report. WBZ-TV in Boston is reporting that Meehan is still considering a run ... His decision not to run is a possible indicator that a Kennedy is preparing to jump in the race."
"Of the rest of the field of potentials, Rep. Michael Capuano (D) is also considered unlikely to jump in the race if a Kennedy is in it. Same goes for Rep. Ed Markey (D)."
"Rep. Stephen Lynch (D) will likely also run whether or not a Kennedy jumps in the race. Lynch .. could benefit candidates splitting up the liberal block of the party in the December 8 primary ...Lynch will face a lot of opposition from members of the state Democratic Party because he is more conservative than the party activists."
Scott Harshbarger mentiond too.
the Chancellor kept his money for a reason. He currently has just under 5 million banked. If it's not for a Senate run then what is it for?
If not for this run, what for? If not now, when?
Tim Murray just sent out an email saying that he was not running. Here's the statement:
If Martha wins how is the AG vacancy filled?
Vacancies in a Constitutional office are filled by a majority the legislature in joint session unless they have prorogued, (officially voted to close down the session) which they haven't done in 20 years!
If the legislature is prorogued, the Governor appoints. ,
Link:
What's your authority for saying that the legislature fills vacant constitutional offices? When Weld and Cellucci resigned, there was never a replacement for the Lt. Gov.
while waiting for the legislature to vote on the AG's duly qualified successor.
on this "legislative appointment" thing.
"In case of a failure to elect either of said officers on the day in November aforesaid, or in case of the decease, in the meantime, of the person elected as such, such officer shall be chosen on or before the third Wednesday in January next thereafter, from the people at large, by joint ballot of the senators and representatives, in one room; and in case the office of secretary, or treasurer and receiver-general, or auditor, or attorney-general, shall become vacant, from any cause, during an annual or special session of the general court, such vacancy shall in like manner be filled by choice from the people at large; but if such vacancy shall occur at any other time, it shall be supplied by the governor by appointment, with the advice and consent of the council."
So joint session of the General Court if in session and Governor with the advice/consent of the Governor's Council if not. No automatic permanent succession and no special election.
Link, for the curious.
...that the Governor's Council could play a role!:)
But it will never happen. The legislature is always "in session" -- they never formally shut down the session, since otherwise they wouldn't get their per diems. As Judy mentioned upthread, they haven't prorogued (which is what would be required) in ages.
I believe this is why the Governor has the authority to call it back into session and can "pocket veto" bills if they adjourn before a specific number of days has elapsed. This particular section doesn't refer to proroguing.
I don't think so. The session of course expires of its own accord at the beginning of January in odd-numbered years. Nowadays, I think the pocket veto only works when the Gov doesn't act on a bill that is passed by the legislature fewer than ten days before that happens. Example.
I went perusing the rules of the two chambers and the joint rules. The joint rules do make one reference to proroguing, but of course this says nothing about actual practice. Most references to adjournment refered to day-to-day adjournment and the one reference I found to end-of-year adjournment says that the legislative status at the end of the first year carries over to start of the second year. I'm not making an argument either way at this point; I just find this stuff interesting.
My understanding is that, from the moment the reps are sworn in at the beginning of January following an election, the lege is in a never-ending "session" that ends exactly two years later. That, as I said, ensures that per diems are paid out for travel when the House and Senate are not meeting. It also avoids constitutional issues like the one we're discussing here -- obviously, the legislature would much prefer that it get to make the appointment rather than having the Gov do it.
is to learn about the lovely tradition of the legislature in joint session to fill a vacancy for a constitutional office (other than gov or lt gov) with the current sitting Speaker of the House (they do have the votes after all) That's how John Davoren got to be Secrtary of State in the late 60s and and how Bob Quinn got to be AG in the early 70s.
And that was why Tom Finneran's possible successors, looking for an exit strategy for Tom's increasing endangered career, were working for Scott Harshbarger to win the Governor's race.
hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
History repeats itself...again and again..thanks for the memory Judy!
At least, I can't imagine the General Court bothering to filling a 2-3 week vacancy that would exist between his becoming Governor the first week of January and Tom Reilly taking over the third week of January. I'm sure there's a deputy who could keep the office working during that time. Besides, that's also when the House reorganizes anyway, so if they wanted a new Speaker they could get themselves a new Speaker.
the necessity for finding a respectable exit strategy for Finneran, for finding a reason for Finneran to unleash local reps support for Harshbarger's campaign, and for giving existing House Leadership to get a chance to be in the Speaker's seat for almost 2 months (assuming Harbarger resigned right after the election.
Thus sayeth the rumor mongers at the time.
This guy? (couldn't find a bio on the AG's site).
Disclosure: Dave's a friend of mine.
Every statewide politician (save DeNucci) and district Congressman would have to have considered running for a seat that only opens up once in a lifetime (because no one has the sense to give up an office they consider "mine for life")
Murray, like Coakley and Galvin and Cahill have statewide organizations which are valuable in a statewide special...that's their advantage over a congressman who represents a fraction of the state.
Anyone who's paying attention knows that Tim Murray is the best thing about this administration and may in the end be able to save it next year. Eleven years older than EMK was when he ran. He is smart and politically savvy and well liked across the state. And he got elected statewide office on his own merits, not by family ties.
If Joe Kennedy were Joe Smith, his name would not be mentioned at all. I hope Joe has the guts to say no to the people who want the show to go on. He is happy with what he is doing and we should not expect him to give that up to keep the media and DC insiders happy.
have 10 years in Congress?
I love Tim Murray and he surely can handle some gentle ribbing about how his name has been dropped approximately 0 times in the press and he still felt he had to put out a statement to his supporter list.
He's ramped up his online presence a lot of late, and for that I have to give him a lot of credit.
With Coakley in the Senate he is our best chance to beat Governor Baker.
Massachusetts has never elected a woman to the U.S. Senate. It's long overdue, and what better woman to represent us than our strong, assertive and progressive Attorney General?
Voting for someone just because she's a woman rubs this feminist the wrong way.
That said, I like Martha and admire her a lot. I'll wait to see who else enters the race, but I could easily see myself getting behind her run.
Meanwhile, another one of my favorite politicians had a good day.
I would never vote for a candidate "just because she's a woman." Of course Jane Swift was not a better governor than Deval Patrick (or even Mitt Romney). But I will eagerly support a well-qualified woman to represent Massachusetts over a similarly well-qualified male candidate. I don't think it's wrong to consider the value of shattering that glass ceiling. Fortunately, in this case I think the point is moot because Martha has more ability, energy, and backbone than any of the other potential candidates.
...Martha...because she will do a great job, has terrific experience and is a progressive.
to represent us than our strong, assertive and progressive Attorney General?
A:One with experience in a legislative body preferably the US House of Representatives.
Why limit candidates to the most qualified woman? Why not look at the most qualified person? Heck, if were were looking only for the most qualified woman for Gov, we'd have Healey.
Being a lawyer and top law enforcement officer for the Commonwealth is surely good training for the Senate but serving as a US congressperson is surely better.
Meh. Maybe, maybe not. Congresspeople are, for instance, accustomed only to serving a small percentage of the state's population, whereas Coakley has had responsibility for the entire state since being elected AG. Plus, there's something to be said for not already being thoroughly encrusted with Washington insideriness.
with Therese Murray?
I don't see progressive credentials or leadership in Coakley. I continue to see safe and calculating, albeit smart. Every move is premeditated.
She has not done one thing to shake up the Boston lobbyists stranglehold on the statehouse. She is one of the good 'ole boys, just looks better.
She has not even done her duty to inform the Legislature and the citizens of the Commonwealth of the magnitude of increased crime with legalized slots; cost analysis to adminster the Economic Crime bill, aka "Merry Christmas, Therese bill"; cost analysis to administer predatory gambling regulations and the consumer rip-off product called slot machines.
Safe and calculating are characteristics of a politician not a principled advocate for the people.
Coakley runs the biggest law firm in the state. Her constituents are the Governor.
She's judged on keeping law and order and conviction rate. I think she has excellent political instincts but I don't think you can compare her experience as AG to the experience of being a Congressmen or Senator.
I'm not saying she wouldn't pick it up fast. I'm saying she would have to and we would be learning about her political positions on a variety of issues after we elected her.
Take Lynch, Capuano, McGovern, Meehan, Markey or even Joe Kennedy: we know their positions. That has to count for something. We know how good or bad they are at providing constituent services, how prolific and effective they are as legislators, their areas of expertise and the issues they care about.
Compare Kerry and Kennedy, for example; night and day.
We better choose an issue-driven prolific legislator with the skill to get laws signed because if we don't we can't rely on our senior senator to do it. It's a high bar, we should be looking at he records of a congresspersons.
We know far more about directly applicable issues when we chose a senator from a field of congressmen than from a field of Attorneys General.
there's also something to be said for having worked implementing the laws on the books, and thereby having a stronger understanding of just how those laws, as they're written, impact the interaction between citizens, law enforcement, and the court system.
Quite a few US Senators have served as attorneys general -- including Jeff Bingaman, Roland Burris, Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnell (fed Dep Asst AG), Mark Pryor, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, and Sheldon Whitehouse.
Of the Senators you list - Jeff Bingaman, Roland Burris, Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnell, Mark Pryor, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, and Sheldon Whitehouse - I would choose exactly one and only one as a Democratic candidate for senate in MA, Sheldon Whitehouse. The other seven are antithetical to progressive MA citizens' positions on the issues. By the way, Whitehouse was the US Attorney. And Martha Coakley is no Sheldon Whitehouse.
Make me choose between Coakley and Leiberman, and Coakley or Lynch, it's Coakley. But make me choose between Coakley and Capuano or McGovern or Meehan or Markey or even Joe Kennedy whose positions we know, whose legislative productivity we know, whose technical expertise we know and I'll give the non-Coakley candidate a thorough look and credit for their record. A record, that mans something.
The question is not just whether an AG can get elected as a US Senator it is also whether they're a good fit. My argument is that we know much more about a candidate - see the criteria in a post above - who has served as Congressmen.
Is there any else on that list you would choose? I concede that you can find a good candidate who has been the AG. I just think you're buying a pig in a poke.
How do we know this? Does she have to appear in person?
The story says "her campaign," so I'm guessing that means an aide. Does the person who pulls the papers have to say who they're for?
At least I feel slightly less dumb. :-!
Yuck. I do not care for her at all, and I would much prefer a candidate who has children. Hopefully, Capuano will run. I want someone who has legislative experience and has an understanding of the lives of the majority of the working class people in this Commonwealth as well. BTW, John Kerry is useless.
Sincerely, Wayne Wilson Roslindale
Gotta say, that is one of the stranger comments I've seen on BMG.
to not comment as I really didn't want to delve too deeply into the thinking that informs the comment. My first reaction is to wonder whether a female politician can't be supported unless she is parous, thus making her "whole" or something. Too icky to touch.
Allow me to elaborate. Who has more to gain or lose through the decisions made by a U.S. Senator? I believe that it is the children who will have to live with the choices made by that person long after many of the Blue Mass Group members today are gone.
As I am the father of three children, I would think that someone with that same vested interest would take the long term ramifications of their positions on issues into consideration moreso than someone without that interest. It may sound strange to you, but I am sure that there are many others outside this group who would agree with me.
Lastly, I firmly believe that this country has to make a serious commitment to rebuild our decaying infrastructure. According to experts, it will take a commitment of over three trillion dollars over the next five years to greatly improve this growing problem.
I hope that our next Senator will have the intestinal fortitude to make a stand on this issue and assure our economic viability for decades to come.
Sincerely, Wayne Wilson Roslindale
I will now reiterate: I think yours is one of the stranger comments I've ever seen on BMG.
So whether a person has actually had children of their own really doesn't have any direct relevance to whether they will be a good representative.
This mother of 5 and grandmother of 11 doesn't really care why you believe what you do..................
I'm just glad you believe it and are willing and able to support candidates who share those beliefs, even though they might not be a parent.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 2:49 PM