By Lee Harrison, member, Democratic State Committee
If you’re reading this, chances are pretty good that you voted for Elizabeth Warren last November. I’m proud to say I was part of that majority, and that’s part of the reason I’m supporting Ed Markey for U.S. Senate this year.
You see, a vote for anyone other than Ed Markey would be a vote to nullify a lot of Elizabeth Warren’s votes in the U.S. Senate – along with a lot of the work we did for nearly a year and a half to get her there.
First of all, every other candidate in this race (in both parties) opposed The Affordable Care Act, – what everyone calls Obamacare. While Medicare for All would have been a much better solution, Obamacare was huge step in the right direction. No more pre-existing conditions or caps on benefits. Insurers can’t drop you if you get sick, yet they must spend 80% of their premium dollars on serving you instead of fattening CEO salaries, and that includes offering preventive services to women. Oh yeah, now your kids can remain on your insurance until they’re 26, which is pretty handy in this job climate.
Obamacare will be the President’s crowning achievement. To vote for anyone who opposes it would not only go against the President’s agenda but would also violate our core Democratic principles.
Second, Ed Markey voted against the Iraq War; all his opponents supported it. That alone should guarantee him the support of most Massachusetts voters. That utterly shameful and unnecessary war has cost the U.S. nearly 5,000 dead and 32,000 injured. More than $800 billion has been squandered so far, but ongoing medical treatment for veteran heroes, replacement vehicles, etc., will push the total cost to more than $4 trillion. The nation should have listened to Ed Markey (along with Richie Neal and John Olver). Oh yeah, there were no WMD in Iraq, and there was no Al Qaida there either until we invaded.
Speaking of weapons of war, it’s time to get serious about eliminating assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from our communities. They have no place in 21st Century civil society, and Ed Markey knows it. This has been his position. He doesn’t flip-flop in an attempt to fool voters.
Women’s rights should be a major factor in this campaign, and Ed Markey is the only reliable Pro-Choice candidate in this race. Ask the other candidates their views, and you will get a lot of “ums,” “ers, and “ahs,” and some recent (pre-election?) conversions. Don’t believe it. Ed has been endorsed by NARAL and for good reason: He is a strong champion of a woman’s ability to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.
Markey is also a reliable tax reformer. Like Elizabeth he knows that since Ronald Reagan the tax burden has shifted away from corporations to individuals. To correct this abuse, Ed would stop companies from sheltering money overseas and would start taxing the incomes of investment fund managers like regular folks instead at the much lower capital gains rate. Markey would also reduce corporate tax deductions for stock options, jets and entertainment and would increase taxes on oil companies. For 30 years the game has been rigged against working people. Just like Elizabeth, Ed Markey knows it’s time we put the American Dream back within the reach of all Americans.
Ed is running to move President Obama’s agenda forward. He wants to protect Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. His 100% rating by the Human Rights Campaign underscores his support of gay rights, and he has one the strongest environmental records in Congress. He co-wrote the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He opposes the Keystone pipeline and supports legislation to repeal the $7 billion in annual handouts to the oil and gas industry.
So, when you vote in the April 30 Primary and the June 25 General Election, think about the work you did for Elizabeth Warren last year and all the reasons you voted for her. The same things apply this year, and that’s why I’m supporting Ed Markey. I hope you will, too.
###
I couldn’t agree more. Like you, I worked very hard for Elizabeth (in my case in Malden and surrounding communities). And I’m working hard for Ed Markey now, for all the reasons you cite.
I would only add one more. Ed Markey voted against the sequester, while his opponent in the Democratic primary voted for it. (Obviously none of the Republican candidates had the opportunity to vote on this, so it’s really only useful in evaluating differences between the Democratic candidates). This is a key difference. Like his vote against the Iraq War, voting against the sequester involved going against the WDC deficit-obsessed consensus and speaks well for Markey, just as Elizabeth’s consistent strong stand against corruption and crimes by the big banks speaks so well of her, especially because so often it involves taking on the Obama Administration and ruffling the feathers of the WDC establishment.
They will make a great team, working on our behalf and speaking out on issues (the struggling middle class and the climate crisis) that desperately need national champions.
Cheers
PS — It really is a point of great pride to look back at the Iraq War resolution vote and see every member of our House delegation, except one, voted no.
Markey initially voted for the war as did Meehan so the argument that he voted against the war is wrong, as is the argument that Lynch was the only member of the delegation to vote for it.
That said, Markey voted for the war for the same reason Joe Biden, John Kerry, and many others did to give Bush leverage to use the force against Saddam Hussein and allow the UN to do its job. They were not intending to give a blank check, and once seeing that, Markey became a vocal critic and proponent of bringing the troops home. So he eventually did the right thing and became a vocal leader of efforts to bring the troops home safely, which thanks to President Obama they have been. But let’s not rewrite history and get the facts wrong on the most important Congressional vote in the last two decades, right up there with the ACA vote, where Markey was on the right side of history.
Focusing on the initial vote of Ed Markey or any other representative or senator ignores the flagrantly manipulated context of that vote.
The Bush administration created a fabric of lies in order to assure a one-sided vote. Responsible legislators, like Ed Markey and John Kerry, were given a Hobson’s choice of either (a) calling the administration liars in the absence (at the time) of proof or (b) voting to support the war.
This, among other things, is why it was so important to prosecute the prior administration for their lies when the truth did, ultimately, come out. By failing to do so, we Democrats embarrassed America, ourselves, and history.
If any stones are to be cast, let them be cast at those Democrats who, in 2008, with full control of the White House, Senate, and House, nevertheless ignored the egregious crimes committed by the prior administration.
And said as much underneath, and I’ve said elsewhere that Markey gets a pass in my book like Biden does. That said the original poster claimed he voted against the war and was a consistent opponent and that is simply untrue. They also said Lynch was the only member of our delegation to vote for it which was also false since Markey and Meehan joined him. Important for the reality based community to use reality to support its candidates. And for the record you can refer to my post: Why I endorse Ed Markey for a fully fact based and entirely positive post on why he is a good vote.
Add Congressman James P. McGovern (D) of Massachusetts to the leaders of the vote against the war!
n/t
DFTT
I’m against it.
I haven’t made up my mind about my vote yet, but come on! Lynch and Warren would vote in step about 99% of the time. We should not be denigrating the work of Steve Lynch just because we might prefer Markey. The reality is Lynch and Markey have both been reliable Democratic votes for the overwhelming majority of their careers. As the political winds of the party have changed, they have both changed with it. Markey became liberal first, in all likelihood because he went to Washington, and therefore took on a leadership role first. They both started out in the same place. With the insanity of the majority of the the national GOP, acting like sending Steve Lynch to Washington is the equivalent of sending Mike Sullivan is incredibly insincere.
I am honestly not as apoplectic about Lynch as others. On abortion he will realistically be as bad as Casey or Manchin (aka not that bad), he has come around on gay marriage. What worries me most is the ACA vote and the blatant falsehoods surrounding it. He is also pro-Keystone while Markey has been THE climate change expert and leader in the House and will make that issue sexy in the Senate. He is also, Iraq vote withstanding, a solid civil liberties and foreign policy vote-not a blind hawk and occasional Islamophobe like Lynch. We still don’t know where Lynch is on guns, we know with Markey. Will he be better than Markey? No. Better than a Republican and a vote for Reid not McConnell? Sure.
and issues unlikely to come to the forefront in the Senate anytime soon. Again, I’m not arguing that Lynch is the progressive choice, BUT he’s committed to be on the right side on abortion rights and health care going forward. I think he has also learned his lesson with Iraq, as many prominent fellow Democrats have. To me economic issues are, and always will be the primary criteria to evaluate candidates on. He will be with Warren on most of these issues. The difference between his views and those of say a Scott Brown on economic issues are rightly (for Lynch’s sake) miles apart. To attempt to bury Lynch is akin to the nut jobs not inviting Chris Christie to their convention. To demand adherence to interest group preferences, with the consequence of failure to agree being purging from the party, is an electoral mistake. There should be room for his views within the party. Again, I’m not even saying I’d vote for him, but I’m not going to discount him because the DSCC tells me to.
And a Democratic Senator from a solidly blue state who supported it would give a ton of cover to swing state Senators to go against the President. Not something I want. Joe Manchins make sense for WV, not for MA. But yeah I’d take a Manchin over a union busting Republican any day of the week, ditto Lynch. But getting Markey nominated and elected lets me avoid either dilemma
The issue of healthcare is likely to come before the Senate again fairly soon. The Iraq authorization was a pretty clear indicator of who was and who was not inclined to accept the Executive’s agenda, even when that agenda is anti-progressive. That always has importance – witness the continued use of rendition, drone strikes, supporting banksters, etc.
it’s true that, on most issues, they’d vote exactly the same way. I also wouldn’t expect Lynch to be a pain in Reid’s neck.
HOWEVER, for me, climate change is issue number one. If we don’t get our arms around it, economic, social, and health issues will be immaterial because our standards will necessarily drop across the board as we start to feel the real effects of climate change. Markey is an expert, both in a technical sense and a political sense, with regard to climate change policy. Lynch, on the other hand, has demonstrated [even recently!] a remarkable propensity to choose immediate blue collar jobs over environmental policy which results in a larger net economic benefit. Keystone is the recent example; there are others.
For that reason, I prefer Lynch to any of the three GOP candidates, but I prefer Markey by a mile over Lynch.
I’m not replying to anyone in particular here, just responding to the idea, discussed upthread, that abortion rights is settled law and the assumption that Congressman Lynch will support abortion rights if elected to the US Senate, based on his (very) recent supposed conversion.
Forgive me, but that is weak tea and this is not settled. Just wait until the next confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice and we’ll see how “settled” abortion rights are. Heck, we’ll see how “settled” the right to contraception is. I honestly don’t trust Lynch on this issue. I trust Ed Markey on this issue.
There’s a reason Planned Parenthood just endorsed Markey.
I trust Ed Markey more on this issue as well, which is why I am glad Planned Parenthood endorsed him in the primary instead of staying neutral, and one of the many reasons he has my support. What I mean by that is, if we look at Sen. Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Pryor (D-AR) we see pro-life Democrats that have not voted against any of the President’s judicial nominations. Did they make a lot of noise and were they annoying during the Stupak debates and the ACA, sure, and again Massachusetts can and should do better with Markey. But I am confident if he is a Democratic Senator that Lynch will toe the line on Obama’s nominations, which is something we cannot say about any of his Republican opponents.
Is Lynch great on this issue? Is he great on most issues? No. Which is why I am proud to back Markey. But make no mistake Lynch is preferable to a ‘pro-choice’ Republican on these issues if it comes down to that since look at how ‘pro-choice moderate’ Brown voted on Kagan.
Markey clearly showed yesterday on how out of touch he is with his alarmist grandstanding at Logan Airport on the TSA decision about knives.
In Massuschetts we have a state law that says, it’s is illegal to carry a knife through Security in any airport in the State. No matter what the TSA decides the Mass Law will be enforced at Logan and at other Airports.
I don’t find this line of reasoning compelling. “let us not nullify” is a retrenchment on the one hand, and sorta paternalistic on the other: she’s not a passive actor here. I’m sufficiently impressed with Elizabeth Warrens acumen and her experience such that I think if far more likely that she will sway votes, either that of Markey or that of Lynch rather than the other way ’round… regardless, she’s not a wallflower and painting a victory for ‘anyone other than Ed Markey’ as nullification falls into the trap of depicting her as such.
The line of reasoning I find compelling against Lynch is this: he sees a door that was first opened by Scott Brown and wants to walk through it. In fact, he thinks he’s closer to the dis-affected Scott Brown voter than even Scott Brown was. I don’t think he is wrong on this and I think it is a shrewd read on the present state of the Massachusetts body politic. Of course, where Brown was rather feckless, indeed pliant, Lynch seems more cunning and… slippery… I have an innate distrust of this.
This, of course, is not a compelling reason to vote FOR Ed Markey. That case has yet to be presented.
Unfortunately, in this race we don’t get to pick someone who voted against the Iraq war. Ed Markey voted for it.
As the years passed, Markey became more and more of an opponent of the war, and voted in favor of limitations on it, and earlier troop withdrawals, so there’s a real contrast with Lynch, and I think that matters.
However, on the initial authorization to invade back in 2002, both Markey and Lynch voted yes.