The rematch?

Oh my. Matt Viser floats the possibility:

Scott Brown hasn’t ruled out a 2014 run for governor, meaning there’s an outside chance he and Martha Coakley could face off once again.

— Matt Viser (@mviser) June 28, 2013

OK, so I know your first reaction:

OK, OK, me too … But squint really hard and think … what if Governor is actually much closer to her skill set? Governor might be better suited to someone more technocratic, more wonky — more so than Senator, which tends to be a more glam, media-heavy kind of gig for a movement figure. (Which explains the media’s boredom with Ed Markey. I think of him as a climate movement figure, but apparently I’m lonely that way.)

And what if she learned something from her previous defeat? Has Scott Brown learned anything from his? Seriously, put them next to each other again … How bad is it? Real bad?

Recommended by alexwill.



Discuss

29 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. I really hope not

    Yeah, she’s a great champion of LGBT equality and womens’ rights. So was Dianne Wilkerson. We can do better.

    Martha Coakley remains a cheerleader for the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, “fusion centers”, the prison industrial complex, and locking people up regardless of what they did. Chief executive is really not where I want to see her go.

    • I'm good with Coakley staying AG ...

      They are floating her name out there to see what reaction it would get, a little test run if you will. I don’t think people will be falling all over themselves asking her to run.

  2. How bad is it? Real bad.

    In her interminable public career, I see no evidence of a positive vision for the Commonwealth. I see no evidence of any vision at all, in fact. I see no commitment to any value system besides working her way up the party ladder.

    In her current office, I see no enthusiasm for pursuing any but the obvious scapegoats — child pornographers, “terrorists”, various bad guys (but never when they are well-connected in the party establishment or powerful business circles), and of course drug dealers.

    I see no indication that she would move the Commonwealth forward in any positive direction. She is, in my view, well past her sell-by date.

    Surely we can do better.

  3. EMILY's List rIdes again

    Flushed with the success of their last effort here in the Bay State no doubt.

    • EMILY's List

      has annoyed a lot of people by supporting the more conservative candidate in Hawaii, who is running in a primary against the recently-appointed incumbent progressive Democratic Senator, apparently simply because she is a woman and he is not.

      • EMILY's list favors women over politics

        They are a single-interest group and say so themselves: “EMILY’s List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.” So long as the candidate is a woman, pro-choice, and Democratic their requirement is met, even if the same woman is regressive in every other respect and her opponent is progressive, pro-choice, Democratic … and male.

        • So does

          Barbara Lee. When did we decide it was a good idea to let Barbara Lee decide who our nominee should be? I guess I must have been out of the room.

  4. Before there is a governor

    there is a candidate.

  5. Say it ain't so

    I think she is a terrible candidate for exactly the reasons you highlight as good ones. The Executive branch and pulpit is not best served by someone “more technocratic, more wonky”, it’s best served by someone with vision and work ethic.

    We have a lot of great candidates for Governor on the Democratic side, but Coakley wouldn’t be anywhere near my list. We got a taste of what real progressive leadership looks like with Warren, we can’t go backwards now.

  6. When you're on the bench ...

    … and you get called into a very important game to help hold onto a title that your team has held for decades, and you freeze in the klieg lights and miss your free throws, and let the guy you’re guarding score layup after layup, you go back onto the bench. And you stay there.
    Speaking of the bench, I am hoping there’s more players there than I’ve heard mentioned so far, because none of the names floated to date seem capable of inspiring the type of passion that will be needed to motivate the (worn and weary) troops to keep the corner office blue.

  7. You know who would be a great candidate and governor?

    Lisa Wong, she is the mayor of Fitchburg. She has done tremendous things for her city through difficult times, I like her a lot. Check her out BMG.

    I wish the parties embraced new people, not the next in line like Grossman or Coakley.

    • A rumor I have heard...

      …is that she is considering a bid for Treasurer. I like her too, though I already have candidates in mind for both of those offices.

  8. qualified candidate/terrible campaigner

    PLEASE GOD, NO!!! (Unless she’s going to campaign like it’s serious business this time.

  9. I can't support Coakley.

    Her career as a prosecutor makes me queasy. Here’s a good synopsis from 2010:
    “Is Martha Coakley committed to Justice?”

  10. Who was the last AG to make a successful run for Governor?

    The skill and personality set to reach AG doesn’t seem to transfer to Gov, and there’s always the female issue, although we should hope that Elizabeth Warren put an end to that. Besides a possible rematch with Scott Brown, there is the possible rematch with Michael Capuano in the primary. While I wouldn’t mind her as Governor, I’m gun shy of another go around.

  11. Brown's an even worse candidate now than 2012

    “We don’t really know Scott Brown like we thought we did” was my line to voters while door knocking for E-Dubs last fall, citing his votes for big money & against MA. And since then, he’s become a Wall Street lobbyist AND flirted with moving to New Hampshire to run for Senate there. I say bring him on.

    • Brown snuck in before most voters realized who he was,

      and what a Senator Brown would mean for the Commonwealth, and the country. He also rode the tea party wave, which was just cresting. Voters know Brown, there is no mystery to what kind of elected official he would be. The tea party wave have crested, crashed ashore, and receded. It won’t be there to help him this time around. It wasn’t there for him against Elizabeth Warren.

  12. Huh

    How does Coakley get through a primary? That was my first reaction to the column.

    sabutai   @   Fri 28 Jun 1:31 PM
  13. MA voters have moved on ...

    … from our 2010 embarrassment. Does anyone need a reminder of all the trouble that election caused the state? The nation? Do we want to risk a repeat? So, thanks, but no thanks, Martha. Stay where you are; you’re doing fine.

  14. Majority of MA voters still Red Sox fans

    Which pretty much puts a stop light on her candidacy from the start:

    The interviewer, Dan Rea, said, “Yeah, but now Scott Brown has Curt Schilling, OK?’’ To which Ms. Coakley replied, “And another Yankee fan.’’ “Schilling?’’ Mr. Rea pressed. “Yes,’’ she said. “Curt Schilling a Yankee fan?’’ he persisted. “No, all right, I’m wrong on my, I’m wrong,’’ she said.

    Unelectable.

    • Not a Fan

      I cannot stand voters who would be stupid enough to base their vote on whether a candidate is fluent in stupid sports TRIVIA (From the word Trivial).

      From the Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 3:

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

      Elevating the Red Sox or any sports nonsense to a level equivalent to a religion should similarly apply.

      • That's a majority of voters in the Commonwealth

        In my opinion. I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs, I’m just saying that Coakley ended any serious candidacy for the US Senate in her race against Brown with that interview.

        To argue that the Red Sox are a religion takes the discussion to an entirely different, albeit fascinating, level. I don’t think the team holds that kind of significance for most people, but I do think it defines community membership to a significant degree for many voters.

  15. Coakley Made A Big Mistake This Year

    She sued NOAA/Federal Government over fishing regulations, reinforcing conservative ideas that regulation is bad.
    But the fisheries have been depleted by market forces, and if Coakley had a progressive, reality-based worldview she would have collaborated with the scientists at NOAA, not wasted a bunch of money making a big case out of it.
    Back in the 1930s the unregulated agricultural market over-farmed the Plains, creating the Dust Bowl disaster. When a progressive, reality-based President established regulations limiting the farming, the Dust Bowl stopped, and the poverty and misery it created were alleviated. If unregulated, these fishermen (who are in a bind) might drive the fish populations to zero in a tragedy of the commons, leading to even more poverty and misery for them.
    After starting this lawsuit, I do not trust AG Coakley to do the right thing for the environment, and the next generation in the Bay State. And preserving the environment for all in the next generation is a pillar of progressive belief.

    • Ouch

      That does speak to the question of what is Coakley’s vision — well, beyond Coakley. It’s difficult to say someone is a progressive who doesn’t understand government’s role in avoiding tragedies of the commons.

      Not just 2010 but 1988: the 1988 Dukakis Presidential campaign seemed to lack any message beyond how spectacularly competent the nominee was.

  16. Utterly terrible idea

    N/t

  17. better idea than senate

    I always thought she’d be a far better governor than senator. And given the other names I’ve heard floated, its hard to see anyone better yet.

    And taking Mass. v EPA to the Roverts’ Court and winning on greenhouse gasses in 2007 was a huge victory, even if Reilly started it, and it’s taken 6 years to even get a president talking about complying with it.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 29 Aug 8:25 PM