October 13, 2011
Dear Friends,
Who is the best candidate that the Democratic Party could put forward in this race to defeat Scott Brown and win this election?
That remains the key question, and consequently, I remain optimistic, despite all of the recent polling and fundraising announcements. It’s still very early, with nearly a year to go until the Democratic primary election. And these races can be very unpredictable.
Let’s reflect for a moment on recent history here in Massachusetts. During the last U.S. Senate race, the early money, the pundits, and the prognosticators all lined up behind Attorney General Martha Coakley. She raised the most money. She won the primary. And we know what happened next.
Many people now look at that race and say that if we had put forth the best candidate to match up against Scott Brown, we would have won. And that candidate was a public servant that I admire and respect: Mike Capuano. But Mike had trouble getting past the Attorney General’s status as the one who “should” get that nomination.
What’s the lesson? Money makes mistakes. Money frequently does not pick the best candidate. And most important: Money doesn’t win elections. Votes win elections. We have to earn every vote and we have to earn votes not just from the party faithful, but from the majority of voters in this state, the 51% who are unenrolled.
If early money and early support from the party faithful were enough to identify the best candidate, then Tom Reilly would today be our governor, and Hillary Clinton would be our president.
Our campaign strategy last quarter was to get grounded in the realities and day-to-day challenges facing the people of Massachusetts. As many of you know, I walked throughout the state over 650 miles to over 125 cities and towns, meeting with thousands of voters, hearing their concerns, hopes, and aspirations for more job opportunities and a better America. Our campaign was focused on listening to voters, and building grass roots support, knowing that the Democratic primary was more than a year away.
The fruits of the walk are reflected in our rise in recent polls, from “not included” in June, to second place in one of the most recent polls. While two candidates have dropped out in recent weeks in part due to a lack of support, we have been on an upward trajectory.
Everywhere I go, I’m getting positive feedback and words of support from the people I meet. Voters appreciate that I’m listening to them, that I understand the different regional economies of our state, and that I am offering real solutions to their very real challenges. They respect my background, which includes my progressive voting record and job-creation achievements as a state representative in the Massachusetts legislature, my national security and foreign policy work in the U.S. Senate for Senator Barbara Mikulski, my 16 years of business experience here in Massachusetts, and my work helping refugees, widows, foster children, and the poor.
So as the people of Massachusetts consider over the next year who matches up best against Scott Brown, I am optimistic that they will consider the following questions and ultimately choose the best Democratic candidate to win in November 2012:
- Doesn’t it make sense to choose a candidate who has been tested, who has run year-long campaigns for elected office and won already, and who has a track record of defeating an incumbent Republican?
- Doesn’t it make sense to choose a nominee who can defuse Brown’s Tea Party base, rather than energize it?
- And don’t we also want a candidate who can win back all those Democratic leaning voters in Worcester and Lowell and Taunton — the guys who defected to Brown last time? Don’t we want a candidate who can relate to them, who knows what it means to be unemployed, who has met them on the street and in their fire stations and front porches on a walk to the four corners of this state, and demonstrated his commitment to being with everyday people?
- Doesn’t it make sense to choose a candidate who has worked for years and offered solutions on the broad range of critical issues facing our state and our nation — strengthening our economy, creating new jobs, improving our schools, protecting our environment, controlling health care costs — rather than just one narrow area of expertise?
- Isn’t the smart choice a candidate who has good working relationships in both government and the business community, who has taken the best of both to write new laws that are helping create jobs in Massachusetts right now?
I believe that I’m the Democratic Party’s best hope to win this election, the smart choice to defeat Scott Brown, and the U.S. Senator who can give voice to the vast majority of the people of Massachusetts.
Let’s continue to work together to win this election and lead our communities, our commonwealth and country on a winning path forward. Your support today would be much appreciated. www.tomconroy.org
Cheers,
Tom.
P.S. Have a look at this segment of the Emily Rooney Show, Greater Boston, where, last night, I described how and why I will beat Scott Brown:
http://www.wgbh.org/includes/playerPop.cfm?section=1&featureid=%2032204
Anybody can be for all those things, creating jobs, the economy etc, Scott Brown is for them too. Are you doing this besides taxing money away and spending it on government jobs, or taxing money away and giving it away to green companies, because that’s what Elizabeth Warren will do, except she’s louder about it. If I was a liberal Democrat, I would want the candidate who is louder and more assertive.
Her glass jaw is that she is a woman and she is way too liberal. Her ideas are either from the New Deal or some good time back in the Clinton era when the two-earner family was a “problem”. Now we would beg to have two jobs for each family.
Are you different or just a quieter, less inspiring version.
Ah yes, the bad old days of Bill Clinton, when the stock market soared, unemployment was low, and government ran a surplus.
Seven thumbs up, David, except her book is about how that soaring stock market (love how it’s useful except when OWS is the subject) and low unemployment just led to mommies taking jobs and bidding up house prices in suburban school districts.
When he was running for Lt. Governor with Kerry Healey against Deval Patrick. WickedLocal 11 July 2006:
It didn’t seem to be a compelling electoral argument in that election, and arguably isn’t even a very just use of time since it assigns equal importance to the smallest towns and largest cities even though our electoral system is based on the principle of “one person one vote” not “one town one vote.” If every person counts the same, then a candidate should spend time where the people are, not where the towns are, as it were. But no doubt Rep. Conroy does that, too.
…and his legendary ride through the state in the 2002 gov primary. What do Conroy, Birmingham, and Hillman have in common? They came up politically through the State House, and used campaigned techniques that were honed in legislative district races. This I walk/rode everywhere, knocked on 10,000 doors, wore out 20 pairs of shoes schtick works well in a district race…but doesn’t really work as the backbone of a message state-wide.
The fact that Rep. Conroy brings up his walk at every single opportunity (must have mentioned in 15 times in the debate), shows (if anything) that he’s not ready for state-wide and cuts against the argument he’s trying to make here.
a publicity stunt.
Nothing wrong with a publicity stunt to draw attention to a message, but a stunt is no substitute for a message.
In my view, your attempted and failed conflation of Elizabeth Warren and Martha Coakley significantly detracts from my positive impression of you. Echoing the GOP attacks on Elizabeth Warren further erodes whatever was left of your credibility.
Until this latest missive from you, I might have supported you in another campaign in another year. Your misguided and churlish assault on Ms. Warren makes your task of someday winning my future support far more difficult.
You are in a hole, Mr. Conroy. If this letter is the best you can do, then I suggest you stop digging.
sometimes it’s best to cut your losses and pack your tent, simply based on facts in the field. If you have something groundbreaking to offer, stay in the race. Otherwise, drop out, get back to normalcy and content yourself with knowing you made a good effort. I’ve been there, dude. Life goes on. Enjoy it.
Mike Capuano also had trouble getting past the actual Attorney General who beat him handily, fair and square, garnering near on 50% in a four way primary. In case your actual math is as dismal as your electoral calculus let me spell that out for you: Martha Coakley had nearly TWICE as many votes as Mike Capuano. Mike Capuano would have had to SWEEP the entire vote for Khazei and Pagliuca in order to NARROWLY defeat Coakley. The only way Capuano could have won that race is if Coakley wasn’t in it.
If you go back and watch the election night ‘victory’ speech by Scott Brown you’ll note one salient fact: not even HE expected to win and nobody was more surprised than he…
He did get my vote in the primary and he has been an extraordinarily able legislator, but he has also had some off and on troubles with message discipline.
It could even be right (though polls say otherwise). But who is the target of this message? People who do not prefer you? Better to give them a solid reason to prefer you, not this 5th-dimensional-chess strategic voting stuff.
I understand that you have to position yourself against the Democratic field, but there must be better ways to do that. Suggestion: Position yourself against the quitters, as the guy who stays the course and is in the race to beat Scott Brown.
I do not see anything out of bounds, but attributing Warren’s popularity to “money” or comparing her to Coakley even obliquely comes off as pretty out-of-touch.
Whoever wins the primary will have been “tested” by a waging a “year-long campaign,” and may the best person win.
The responses are instructive–stay away from mentioning Coakley because some seem determined to find a Warren comparison even when there isn’t any. The Warren supporters are identifying with her so strongly that they are prone to form highly negative opinions very quickly about other candidates. It would be best for all the other candidates to run hard to the point where the media begins to treat the primary campaign like a real contest.
All due respect, of course Conroy is making a Coakley/Warren comparison. He’s saying that last time, we nominated the “wrong” candidate, and look what happened. This time, at least based on where the early fundraising is, we’re threatening to do the same thing again. How is that not an attempt to link Coakley and Warren?
And I strongly agree. He has a broad background, not limited to just one area.
I have pointed out before on this blog that Warren seems to only talk about one issue, and have invited others to post links or other references that prove me wrong. None of the Warren supporters have done so.
I will certainly support and vote for Warren if she is our nominee, but I strongly disagree with the notion, promoted by some, that only one issue can and should be our focus. U.S. Senators confirm judges (including Supreme Court Justices), ratify treaties, and, of course, pass or block legislation. Our freedoms, including the right of the accused to a fair trial (not a military tribunal) have been under threat for some time, as we add to the ever growing list of evil doers whose rights need not be respected, and for whom the rule of law can be ignored.
Tom has spoken out and voted in the legislature on these issues. He was one of a minority who vocally opposed predatory gambling, while somehow maintaining good relations with the legislative leadership. He has worked overseas in Thailand and Haiti (the latter for the Clinton administration), and advised U.S. Senators on foreign policy.
and decided to do so before I ever heard of Tom Conroy. However, this is a a good comment. He needs more people doing what you’re doing, Michael.
Exactly. It’s the fundamental issue facing us, from which all the other problems spring, and Warren sees it and calls it. Thank God Elizabeth isn’t wasting time and diverting attention from the real crisis by talking about judges, treaties and bills.
how EW would vote on treaties and judges. Do you remember Citizens United? What kind of “liberal” (if that’s what you pretend to be) would not be concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court?
And don’t you care that global warming may devastate our environment, and in the process, inflict even more damage to our economy than the lawless bankers and Wall Street gamblers? (No, I am not defending these rogues).
I guess I need to spell it out: The influence of wealthy individuals and corporations, like Wall Street and its minions placed in government positions have now distorted the U.S. democratic process to such an extent that little gets accomplished in a way that prioritizes the needs of the majority of Americans – the 99%, to use an apt new term. It is the first priority and Elizabeth Warren is focusing like a laser on it. She is a brilliant woman who obviously can and will engage on the range of issues you cite. The only ray of sunshine that I see for Congress, however, is the precious few senators and reps, who would, like Elizabeth Warren, work to reign in Wall Street and reduce the corrupting influence of Big Money. Her candidacy and voice and the limited range of issues she is talking about is what gives me some hope again.
The fact that a candidate focuses on a root cause and continues to take effective action to correct it makes that candidate more, rather than less, effective in addressing the consequences of that root cause.
The Senate already has a majority of traditional Democrats, and that majority is paralyzed and powerless to do anything about the topics you raise. The House had a majority of traditional Democrats between 2008 and 2010, the power of the 1% was increased, and we ended up moving backwards on global warming, the EPA, and the economy. Instead of health care reform, we got a health insurance industry support bill.
It is the lawless bankers, Wall Street gamblers, and the rest of the 1% who currently own this government that is driving the issues you cite. In my view, an Elizabeth Warren kind of liberal will have a far more beneficial effect on the direction of the Supreme Court than any of the other candidates, including a freshman Senator Tom Conroy.
…is that your bullet points seem to point toward an Obama-style, diffuse the partisanship and work together attitude which, while matching my own natural inclination has unfortunately shown not to work very well recently. Part of me prefers energizing our side even at the risk of energizing the “Tea Party” so we can have a knock-down drag-out, settle this once and for all, honest fight over philosophy of governance.
Your posts say over and over again that people should vote for you, that you’re the candidate who can beat Scott Brown — but never suggest why, exactly, in specific detail, why anyone should vote for you or why you are best able to defeat Scott Brown. Where’s the beef? Where’s the facts?
I’m glad that you may believe you’re the best option against Scott Brown, but you’ve done nothing to make me — as a voter — believe that. In fact, these posts you’ve written on BMG smack of desperation, begging and pleading for people to give you a look.
That’s not the way I’m going to give a candidate a look. If you just posted details about what you believe in and what you’ve accomplished I would have been much more likely to take a look. Instead, your pieces seem to be passive-aggressive attacks on Elizabeth Warren, without mentioning her by name. This piece makes it seem like you’re trying to say she can’t win because she’s a woman, and I really, really don’t like that.
I’ve never been one to say that candidates shouldn’t go after their opponents a little bit, but for heaven’s sake, if you’re going to say you’re the best candidate to take on Brown, you better come armed with specific examples and *facts* as to why that’s the case and point out real flaws with your opponents (again — they better be real things and facts). Remember, just because you say something, doesn’t make it true…. no matter how many times you repeat it.
I’ll acknowledge at the outset that I am as ardent an Elizabeth Warren supporter as anyone will find anywhere. I plan to canvass for her, to caucus for her, to support her financially and to vote for her in November 2012. My biases are therefore clear. Having set that forth, let me now make the case why Tom Conroy’s comparison of Elizabeth Warren to Martha Coakley is the most fuzzy-headed, shallow and off-putting comment I’ve heard lately.
Anyone who actually heard Martha Coakley speak from Labor Day 2009 to and through the Democratic Primary knew we were potentially headed for disaster. Her speaking style was flat, metallic and she often sounded like she was from North Dakota or some other “away” location. She was given to using profoundly uninspiring rhetoric, such as “viable public option” to describe her positions on pressing issues. She didn’t even speak compellingly about the terrific work she did as attorney general in the areas of wage enforcement and combating mortgage fraud. Quite simply, she couldn’t sell herself, even in the primary, but she nonetheless won the Democratic contest convincingly — a fact that no one can take away from her. She had undeniable institutional support and three white guys running against her who all more or less looked and sounded the same (Mike Capuano’s admirable pugnacity notwithstanding).
Now let’s talk about Elizabeth Warren. I have been in and around liberal politics my whole life, grew up in the labor movement, have worked in Democratic politics and consider myself a junkie of the first and highest order. I say without reservation that there is no public figure anywhere today who speaks more clearly, forcefully, persuasively and with greater moral authority on class and economic issues than Elizabeth Warren. She engenders deep and genuine respect and affection because she is focused like a laser beam on the essential problem confronting America today: corporations and financial elites have way, way, way too much power and influence. Her TARP cross-examination of Geithner, that handmaiden to the financial industry, was relentless and brave; her advocacy for the CFPB — in particular highlighting mortgage companies that target American soldiers serving overseas with shoddy, fraudulent mortgages and loans — was uncommonly effective and heartbreaking; her viral video about class warfare put front and center the kind of fiery, passionate economic populism that every unapologetic liberal has been hoping to see again since Ted Kennedy’s 1980 concession speech. Elizabeth Warren has become such a phenomenon for a reason: no one else is doing what she’s doing.
As the foregoing should make clear, Martha Coakley and Elizabeth Warren aren’t in the same solar system, and only a clownish jackanapes like Scott Brown would make the comparison. Prior to reading his letter, I would have preferred to think Tom Conroy was better than that. I guess not.
As one can plainly see from the comments here. Hasn’t he gotten the call to get out of the race yet?
It will be good for everyone.
We’ve seen cases where debate within blogs rapidly leads to vitriolic attacks, not only against, actual political opponents, but against those who are actually quite similar. Some of the comments in this thread point in that direction. Anyone angered by the slightest hint of criticism of Elizabeth Warren should remember that the Democratic candidate will face real competiton in the general election, and it will not be posible to shout down that competiton.
I’d like to be clear that criticism of any candidate is always welcome, including Elizabeth Warren. But what’s not welcome are dumb tropes, inapt comparisons and faulty logic ripped from the mouths of Republicans: “Coakley was a frontrunner. Coakley ultimately lost. Elizabeth Warren is a frontrunner. Ergo…”
You wnat to engage on substance? Great. You want to engage in sheep-like post hoc ergo propter hoc, not okay.
And I don’t think the Coakley/Warren comparison is fair at all in terms of the two individuals involved.
Coakley seemed flabbergasted at the notion of meeting people, and her campaign had to be one of the single worst run ever. Talking 2011 Red Sox epic collapse there. Coakley also was put on a pedestal for being the first serious female senate candidate, and got early publicity from Emily’s List, etc. The women of MA were [probably rightfully] pissed about the gender representation inequality, and so Coakley was good enough, because she was a woman in many cases I heard first hand.
Warren is a captivating public speaker, and isn’t allergic to crowds. She has much better advisors, and a timely message. Of course, as others have pointed out, I’d like to hear more about her ideas on other subjects, but I think that will come in time. Warren also has much better cross-gender appeal than Coakley, and I honestly don’t feel she’s getting a huge boost from being a woman in this race. It’s Doug Rubin sending out the fundraising emails from her, not Emily’s List.
Hate to say it, as I like Tom Conroy, but this somewhat comes off as “comparing Warren to Coakley because they’re both women,” which fails for the reasons I’ve pointed out. While I understand and respect Conroy’s need to attack at Warren, this is simply not the right way to do it, and it makes me like Conroy a little less in the process.