Progressive Massachusetts didn’t endorse in the Boston Mayoral or City Council races. However, our JP Chapter did endorse some candidates. While they didn’t endorse Michelle Wu as an organization, many in and out of their leadership team actively supported her and worked for her in JP. Now they are extremely concerned about the choice Michelle Wu is making for City Council President – and they are asking for your help. If you supported Michelle – or live in Boston – read the email they sent (below) and help change Michelle Wu’s mind. Tell her it matters who so-called progressives support for leadership.
| Word is out that Bill Linehan, widely considered the most conservative Boston City Councilor, has the votes to be the next City Council President. But wait, it gets even worse! We’re hearing that three At Large City Councilors will be supporting him, including Michelle Wu, Steve Murphy and Michael Flaherty. Michelle Wu won Jamaica Plain, which voted for her because she told us she was a progressive.
Council President is a position of great influence. The President has the power to decide what issues come before the body for a vote. He decides chairmanships of critical committees. He sways votes on important issues. Do we really want a president who thought he should lead the St. Patrick’s Day Breakfast because “it’s a cultural thing”; who compared including LGBTQ groups in the parade to allowing the KKK to march; who attempted to use his position on the redistricting committee to protect himself, and reduce the power of communities of color? The JP Progressives endorsed his opponent, as did four of his colleagues. This the man who stands to be the next City Council President. But not if JP’s voice gets heard today! There is a progressive coalition supporting either JP’s very own Councilor Matt O’Malley, or our Roxbury neighbor Councilor Tito Jackson for Council President. Either would make a great president. Either would provide great service to the city, direct the City Council with strong progressive values, be a progressive partner with Mayor-Elect Walsh, and enhance the power of the communities of color and progressive neighborhoods. These are the kinds of voices we need to lead the Council. Please take 2 minutes today to send an email or make a phone call, to let Councilors Wu, Murphy and Flaherty know we need them to join the progressive coalition for Council President. Tell them that we cannot accept a vote for Bill Linehan.
A sample email or phone message can be as simple as: “Councilor X, I supported you because I believed you were going to stand up for progressive values on the Boston City Council. Now I hear you will be supporting Councilor Bill Linehan for Council President. That is just about the least progressive thing you can do. I urge you to reconsider that support, and instead back the progressive candidate, either Councilor O’Malley or Councilor Jackson. Thank you.” Like many of you, we were persuaded that Michelle Wu in particular was someone who was going to stand up for our values. Now she tells people she wants to be a ‘bridge between progressives and nonprogressives’. Voting for people who don’t share your values is no form of leadership, and is not building bridges. It is caving in. We need people who will stand up for what they believe, and this is the time for those who represent us to do just that. Here is how the rest of the City Council breaks down. We encourage you to reach out and thank the progressives, contact the others with the message above, and definitely pass this along to your friends around the city. Also In the Linehan Camp
In the Progressive Coalition
Uncommitted
Thank you for reading, and for taking action today. The JP Progressives, |
To paraphrase FDR’s first VP, the President of the Boston City Council is not worth a bucket of warm spit. Sure the get to set the agenda of the Council meetings, as you point out, but given the body has virtually no powers, what good is that.
One only has so many chits to use and it seems you’re using yours for a fairly meaningless fight.
It could also show clout that progressives won’t get their votes taken for granted. To have your first, largely symbolic vote, be a slap against progressives could be indicative of future behavior. It could also build pressure and summon phone calls and grassroots action for future votes of more importance. I’d largely agree with you that the position is not as influential as the poster is making it out to be though. But taking a firm stand now at the beginning of the term could set a good tone for the remainder.
is large, and is not good. And it’s not entirely true that the body has no powers, or the president has no clout within the body. The council can veto some things a mayor would like to do, and the president would be acting mayor if Walsh is away or anything happens (tempted by higher office, etc.)
JP Progressives neither endorsed her nor supported her. The first sentence of this post is misleading.
Sorry for any confusion. No intent to mislead. I have been updated by JP that many in and out of leadership team actively supported her and worked for her in JP. They are feeling betrayed.
I attended and testified at a hearing of the Committee on Economic Development and Planning chaired by Linehan some years. It was a hearing that Sam Yoon had called for after learning about a neighborhood that was being overrun by a developer and whose protests were ignored by the BRA. Residents’ testimony was factual and compelling, but it became clear that Linehan had called the hearing as a pro forma exercise and that it meant nothing. He all but winked at the head of the BRA.
His role in this hearing makes me think there’s more to who gets to be council pres than is apparent and that Linehan is not the guy I want.
There has been a steady flow of property and wealth to developers and rich non-profits in Boston under Menino. And I’m guessing that the developers that supported Michelle are playing their role in trying to influence who gets to be president and the other committee chairs that follow, especially Ways & Means.
And campaign finance reform has to start at the local level. It is shocking how many developers openly flaunt how much money they give to city councilors in Cambridge, I’d imagine it’s worse in Boston. Curtailing that would go along way towards eliminating conflicts of interest.
I think it’s terribly unfair to attack Michelle Wu and question her motives in what amounts to not all that significant a decision. So Linehan takes over as Council President…so what? Murphy was before him and he was certainly no bargain for progressives either.
Michelle Wu ran a compassionate, smart, detailed-oriented campaign, and the notion that we can question her core values based upon what amounts to an essentially procedural vote strikes me as goofy.
I agree that the initial post is a little over the top and personal. I think Wu deserves an opportunity to defend her vote and explain her reasoning. I am simultaneously impressed, however, with the quick and rapid fire response putting her feet to the fire. Doing this on issues of greater substance and taking a stand now, will ensure that we won’t be fooled again. It’s time for liberals to be taken seriously again.
Michelle Wu was elected by more than just progressive voters. She drew votes from across the city. And much like Elizabeth Warren who has worked to build relationship with Senators with different views, Councilor-elect Wu is working to build coalitions inside the Boston City Council. Good for her.
when Elizabeth Warren votes for Mark Pryor or Joe Manchin to be Majority Leader.
But then I believe the stage and stakes are far different in the Boston City Council than the US Senate. Building a coalition and bringing someone other than the usual suspects to the table is a worthwhile effort on Michelle’s part.
.. is at the table already. And he’s a usual suspect when it comes to Boston politics, no?
As a sitting City Councilor Bill Linehan is certainly a player and usual suspect for Boston politics. My take is that Councilor-elect Wu is attempting to bring Councilor Linehan to the progressive table. Linehan has a strong record on core worker issues (for city workers and workers who live in te city). If Wu can bring him to the overall progressive table (on even a small number of issues) with her vote then she is building a coaltion for the future.
This excuse of “bridge-building” strains credulity. Nobody but nobody is “building bridges” to Linehan. He knows exactly what and who he is, and nobody’s going to move him.
If Wu had a progressive agenda she wanted advanced, it would be advanced joining the coalition of Jackson, O’Malley, Pressley, Zakim, Baker and Yancey.
I give her credit for smarts. There is actually nothing written on anything of hers that says “progressive” that I can find, though in fairness she took down the endorsements page that had quotes from supporters about how progressive she is.
Linehan had a tough race for the last two cycles. He worked hard and hit a perfect storm of turnout in South Boston this November. But he knows he needs friends for the next cycle and I’m sure he reached out to Councilor-elect Wu because of that.
From reading this post it’s not clear Councilor Yancey is in the “progressive” grouping -he’s listed as undecided. As for the progressive creds of the progressive group all of them with the exception of Councilor O’Malley voted for the Suffolk Downs Casino Host Community Agreement ( I think i’ve read something on BMG about opposing gaming as a big time progressive yarddstick). But then they all voted for the Police Arbitration Award – now that I consider a progressive vote.
Councilor-elect Wu, like Mayor-elect Walsh, won with a broad-based coalition. Legislating requires the ability to work with those you have disagreements with. I don’t consider that an “excuse”. I consider it reality.
How did Linehan vote on the casino? And your point is O’Malley passed a crucial progressive litmus test disqualifying him from the presidency? So your argument is that Wu is really the kingmaker and Linehan will be indebted to her in this instance and will be a reliably progressive president because of that? Seems like a gamble on her part while O’Malley could be a sure thing. Also seems like we could just wait Linehan out-100 votes is hardly a mandate. I think Wu needs to make a direct case about why this makes the most sense for the progressive movement. I remember Obama giving Lieberman, who also narrowly got re-elected, the Homeland Security Chair and retaining seniority and getting bupkis in return and in fact empowering a major thorn in his side.
Sorry for the delay in responding directly. My point isn’t that O’Malley’s vote on the Host Community Agreement disqualified him for the Council Presidency. I was going in the other direction. I was raising the point that the members of the “progressive” group had votes that several would consider as going against the progressive position. I don’t believe that City Councilor can be painted into direct labels given the scope of the issues they handle. Example would be Felix Arroyo who took several pro-development votes and voted to remove Chuck Turner from the Council. Felix is clearly a progressive however he has votes that my progressive friends find had to accept.
So Wu is building a bridge (omg I said it again) with more traditional Council members while I suspect the progressive Council members will welcome her support and vote on issues going forward. Being able to talk with both camps is a plus.
And please – I have said more than once that Councilor Linehan isn’t going to become a hard core progressive because of Wu’s support. My expectation is Wu bringing him over a a few key issues over a three year period. And FYI, Linehan won by 1,100 not 100. Waiting out Linehan after he won by less than 70 votes last cycle didn’y work out so well. Perhaps working with him might have a better result.
If the initial poster, who I concede could be totally off base on the votes, indicates that Jackson or O’Malley could have the votes to be Council President and it’s well known their records on the issues are better, why not just have a truly progressive council bloc? I am all for pragmatism and cutting deals with the other side if it leads to a progressive outcome down the line, but if they have the votes to go forward with a better candidate how do we ‘win’ by reaching across the aisle in this instance? Aren’t we just diluting the strength of the coalition? I am honestly asking and differing to your knowledge of the players and situation.
It’s worth noting that the initial O’Malley coalition had the progressive members and also new councilor Tim McCarthy from Hyde Park. According to the Globe and others, McCarthy committed to O’Malley then switched his vote to Linehan this week. Yancey was never part of that coalition. It was O’Malley, Pressley, Jackson, Baker, Zakim, and McCarthy. Wu would have made it 7 votes and the presidency for O’Malley. If Wu committed to O’Malley, even with the McCarthy switch, Linehan cannot get to the 7 votes needed. And if Wu committed to O’Malley, maybe McCarthy never switches in the first place, who knows. Wu deserves criticism for this but McCarthy too, though I do not think he identifies as progressive unless I’m mistaken.
n/t
But I find the sight of a comment calling out ratings abuse accompanied by (0+/1-) too amusing to lose.
Bill Linehan represents Chinatown… and his people were Michelle’s people… She’s just like everybody else, though I wish she were different. So much for being supportive of diversity. This is payback. Disappointing, yes, not the first time, and certainly not the last time I am certain.
She owes him nothing in Chinatown.
what’d she get in Southie?
…but not much else…
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2013/11/how-to-win-in-boston-race-class-or-being-michelle-wu/
.
Which includes much of Southie (including the Seaport/Fort Point parts), she got 1,547 votes, good for fourth. She finished behind Flaherty (4,308), Murphy (2,520) and Jack Kelly (1,572). In Ward 7, most of which is Southie (it shades into Dorchester as well), she was third with 1,424 (Flaherty 3,699, Murphy 2,055). Wu was at the head of a group of four candidates (Wu, Essaibi George, Pressley, Kelly) bunched between 1,311 and 1,424 votes.
She did better elsewhere. In Wards 3, 4, 5 (5 includes much of Chinatown), and 8, she was first. Also first in Wards 18 (Mattapan, Hyde Park, Roslindale), 21 & 22 (Allston/Brighton). In Ward 9 (most of South End), she ran 17 votes behind Pressley for a strong second. In Ward 20 (Roslindale, W. Rox) she was only 5 votes behind Martin Keogh for first.
…what she gets from aligning now with Linehan, besides significant dismay from key supporters. It doesn’t seem like being aligned w/him during campaign season delivered much for her in Southie.
(FTR, I join w/ the others scoffing at the idea that Linehan can be turned into a Progressive and that’s the reason behind her support. Um, no.)
As I said below, I’m still hopeful that she can either convince progressives that this is really the best thing, or she will be convinced that it makes more sense to put power behind progressives, however “procedural” or “symbolic” it may/not be. Because symbols do matter.
If you don’t do well in a neighborhood (and the map geoffm33 linked to showed Southie as one of her weaker neighborhoods), you have two main options: you can do some work to improve your standing there, or you can write it off as not a major part of your coalition.
Maybe she has her eyes on the future and is going for Option 1. My own inclination would be to shore myself up a bit by working with the more progressive elements there, but not to go so far as to vote for a Linehan. Perhaps Wu has a different take, perhaps (as has been suggested) she’s not really all that “progressive” and everyone got played.
Upthread I said the Linehan pick was, at the least, symbolically bad, and in that comment I meant that symbols do matter. Perhaps particularly in Boston. I also think the post comes with some real power, and Linehan’s accession to it thanks to a new councillor who got there largely by support from people who don’t like Linehan is unfortunate.
Sorry but as a Union and personal supporter of Michelle Wu in the preliminary and final, I’m good with her vote for Councilor Linehan. Not disillisunioned in the least. Don’t lump those tens of thousands of Wu voters into the same category.
No one, least of all me, believes Bill Linehan will majically transform into a shinny new progressive version of himself. However, I’m up for buidling bridges not burning them. (painting them is good too)
among self-identified progressives who supported her candidacy.
but proudly progressive and proudly supporting Councilor-elect Wu nonetheless
The JP Progressives endorsed Suzanne Lee? What part Jamaica Plain is in that City Council district?
People have freedom of speech and it’s not so big a city that people in JP have no interest in a hotly-contested council race three miles east. It’s not like nobody’s ever endorsed in a neighboring district, town, even state. How much weight the endorsement carries is up to the voters in the district.
…my first thought was, “What did Rep. Bachmann say THIS time?”:)
Don’t be fooled by claims that Council President is irrelevant, or is merely procedural. It’s not the power of the Speaker of the House or Senate President on Beacon Hill. Obviously. And the city charter mandates a weak city council.
Nonetheless, the Council Presidency has great impact in a number of areas.
1. The power of chairmanships. The Committees for Government Operations, Public Safety, Education, Ways and Means and Economic Development have great power over what issues get hearings, what issues get votes, which corporations get tax breaks, how a hearing gets conducted, and can find ways to advocate for or kill any ordinances, home rule petitions, or even resolutions that can make an impact. (Yes, resolutions do have importance, for instance in showing the body’s support for critical legislation up at the State House.)
2. The President has the power to create the rules for the City Council, which can include anything from Council President term limits to how the body functions on a daily and weekly basis.
3. The President has the power of the gavel during meetings to shut down conversations, to push through bills quietly and quickly he doesn’t want unsuspecting councilors to fully understand, and even in past days to push through pay raises without much public notice.
4. The President has the power of advocacy. He is the second person quoted in most major city-related stories after the Mayor, so his opinion is often seen as representing the council as a whole. It was the Council President that took the lead in pushing back against paying firefighters for drug testing. It is the Council President who initiates an increase in technology for accessibility to the public. It is the Council President who gets to push how to handle a member who breaks the law. The President is the first person the Mayor goes to in budget negotiations with the Council.
No, this isn’t an all powerful position. But as far as the impact of the Boston City Council, the Presidency is the foundation for much of that power.
We know Bill Linehan well. He has certainly made a name for himself around the breakfast, the parade, and redistricting, most famously. The idea that he will be the leader of the council is very disappointing.
The idea that someone who touted her progressive cred as she ran for office would vote for him when there is a clear alternative is truly devastating to me and many of my friends.
If the role of City Council Pres is so terribly meaningless, why support the anachronistic and regressive Linehan? Why not take the insignificant procedural vote and go ahead and throw a symbolic (if “meaningless”) more progressive way forward for the Council body and Boston?
Here’s hoping that feedback from constituents and supporters will result in a change of course. There’s no shame at all in responding to voters’ concerns and course-correcting if that’s the right thing to do. Conversely, there’s no shame in sticking to guns and an unpopular choice if it’s the right thing to do. But Linehan really doesn’t look like the right choice to me.
It will be as interesting to see how MWu handles progressive pushback as how the vote turns out. I’m hopeful for the best.
and offered her my full support for her decision. There’s no clear united progressive pushback.
Michelle is not backing down. She is sticking with Linehan. So she jumps in with the establishment white guys…. wasn’t she the communities of color candidate? And so right out of the box, she’s not supporting those like Tito who were with her from the get go. More explanation needed Michelle.
n/t
Here.
Pretty clearly sticking with Linehan.
Thanks to fenway49 I had a chance to read Councilor-elect Wu’s statement. She said it so much better than I could.
Bridges can be built without elevating someone hostile to LGBT issues like Linehan. Councilors can and should work together, but there’s no need to elevate someone like Linehan to where he can set the agenda for the whole body. If Wu wants to build bridges, by all means do so on specific issues where it makes sense. But why put Linehan in this position when it’s not necessary at all? And when it blocks a progressive leader from holding the presidency. That’s the main issue here imho.
Aside from marching in and supporting the lack of inclusion in the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade, how else is he hostile to LGBT issues.
Thanks
Michelle Wu’s statement was a perfect encapsulation of her as a person and a political leader: gracious, thoughtful, dignified and, most of all, brave. She is sticking to what she believes, and she is not cowed by people who disagree with her. She’s clearly made of the same stuff as her mentor, Elizabeth Warren.
And one more point for all of those folks who want to collapse in accusations about Michelle Wu’s “progressive” bona fides. During last week’s fast food strike in Grove Hall, Michelle Wu was out there proudly and full-throatedly speaking on behalf of working men and women who have no voice and who can’t make ends meet on the poverty wages paid by their employers. Michelle won the election comfortably, and she could easily have dodged that event and coasted until her swearing in in January.
She was there — and that tells me a lot about who she is and what she values. Just remember that before you give up on her.
How is this any different than the Tea Party? The JP Progressives are demanding ideological uniformity in all things, at all times, in spite of the big picture advantages to be gained from Wu’s cooperation with other, less progressive councillors.
That mentality sucks in Washington and it sucks in Boston.
It’s one thing to cooperate on particular policy issues. Another to take arguably the most conservative member of a 13-person council and make him its President for 2 years.
If Mike Capuano went to Congress and voted for Eric Cantor as speaker and his constituents got upset, would we want to hold our tongues because of “ideological uniformity?” This is the man who will lead the council. And nobody who knows anything about Bill Linehan believes that Wu or McCarthy or anyone else is going to build a bridge to him. Everyone who has attempted to build a bridge to him in the past has found that bridge burned down. That ship has sailed.
Wu and Linehan are both Democrats, and ultimately agree with each other far more often than not. Capuano and Cantor? Not so much. Try again.
Among the many ways Michelle’s vote for Bill Linehan disappointed her supporters (and more than just the “Progressive” ones) was her deafening silence in the 48 hours following the news. Not until this afternoon did Michelle address the issue or attempt to explain her decision. In my opinion, her letter to supporters is actually quite well crafted, trying to show her taking the high road as bridge builder, as many of her remaining supporters have pointed out.
The problem is that the disagreements and criticisms of Linehan aren’t really nuances of policy that can be hashed out over lunch at Amrhein’s on W. Broadway. The problem with Bill Linehan is that he’s a practicing bigot. You can’t debate the nuance of bigotry with people and come to some kind of “grand bargain” compromise between the two wings of the Council. Great, maybe she’ll soften his vehement anti-bike position. What about his track record of homophobia, misogyny, and racism? Whats the compromise there?
[To be fair, evidence provided of my criticism of Councilor Linehan: http://bit.ly/18EepXN | http://bit.ly/1hNGwsT | http://b.globe.com/19DnVrt ]
Lets see: didn’t endorse Wu in the election. Did endorse Matt o’malley, despite his history working for Peggy Davis Mullen. Far from a progressive vote. And of course Kantor doesn’t understand the important of building bridges after working for bill walczak, a guy who represents all that’s wrong with the typical attitudes of rich white people. Couldn’t even get along w the board that hired him well enough to keep his job at carney. Kantors endorsement is a net negative for me after that fiasco of a candidate, so now I’m happy to see Wu vote for Linehan. Previously I was just in the stupid thing to waste political capital over camp. Pogo was right on.
The org. requires 75% vote to endorse. O’Malley lives in the neighborhood and represents that district. He’s done a fine job on the council and won with 85% of the vote. No big surprise they endorsed him.
And are you saying that working for someone else (who was more of a mixed bag anyway) when he was 22 is disqualifying, depsite his own positions? O’Malley took positions that differed from Peggy Davis Mullen in his very first race.
Unless you’re looking to make a personal attack on Kantor, Bill Walczak (whom I didn’t much like as a politician) has nothing to do with it.
I would never work for Eric cantor, for example. I would argue that who you work for says a lot more about you than who you vote for in exchange for possible legislative favors. This is one vote on Wu’s part. Versus many, many acts to promote PDMs agenda. So if this makes her not a progressive, o’malley is REALLY not one. And Kantors lack of progressivism and support for temperamental candidates indicates he’s a source progressives should scrutinize carefully before listening to him.
Not meant to downvote either, but I liked your first two sentences and then you immediately disregarded them by defending the Wu move. Like striker you are someone I respect who is making a key procedural and logical mistake in comparing this vote to other situations.
We are not tea partiers, I do not begrudge people working with the other side. Ted Kennedy formed a lot of dynamic duos in his day with McCain and Hatch, Finegold with McCain, Shay with Meehan, etc. But Teddy wouldn’t vote those guys into the leadership, not if he could put his own majority in power instead. That is why this was a boneheaded move. If all Jackson or O’Malley could muster was four votes, then fine, back Linehan to save face and move on. But to be the decisive vote to put him in when you could’ve put someone better in strikes me as both a tactical and strategic blunder. Time will tell I guess.
It’s a small city with 13 councillors. You’re a kid right out of college who’s interested in getting involved. Someone knows someone, a call or two is made, and you go to work with someone you agree with on some issues and disagree with on others. Later you run yourself, on your own values.
It can’t possibly be disqualifying for life that, at the age of 22, you worked for someone who gets some issues wrong, especially when your whole argument is that it’s not disqualifying in the least to vote such a person into the city council presidency.
I’m not turning against Wu by any means but I find this an unfortunate turn of events, regardless of the deal cut, and think it worth saying so. And Rueben Kantor really is not the point. He’s hardly the only one with eyebrows raised at this.
O’Malley sold out on the issues for personal gain. Wu sold out on a ceremonial post for gain on the issues. I care about the issues, so I’m all for the bargain she made, but O’Malley’s deal stinks.
…and I can assure you he is both progressive and has a lot of integrity. I don’t know what you mean by selling out and I’d love for you to back that up. I have both interned for State Rep. Colleen Garry and volunteered on her campaigns despite our differences of which she is fully aware. I think you are a bit too quick to judge.
Sold out on issues? O’Malley has as solid a progressive track record as there is on that council. He’s the only one who stood up for a citywide vote on the casino issue, just one recent example. He used to work for MassEquality promoting LGBT rights and marriage equality. So he worked/interned for a councilor many years ago who was more conservative than he is, that’s a disqualifier now? I guess according to you but no one else? Wu is elevating a conservative councilor with very questionable credentials towards the LGBT community into a position of power. Nowhere remotely close to the same thing, but keep trying to troll and deflect here.
According to me. But if you go by the standards “progressives” are applying to Wu, it is very much a disqualifier. So let’s cut the double standard bs. This is why we can’t have nice things. How Wu votes on Linehan has nothing to do with how she’ll vote on the issues. It gives Linehan a fancy new title but no real power. When you’re employed by a conservative, you actually have to work to advance conservative principles.
They were right. Wu can win even without “progressives”. So real progressives need to save our energy for policy fights, not stupid stuff. Do you want to win a meaningless title or do you want to win on the issues? That’s what this boils down to. I want to win on the issues, so I’m not going to waste political capital bashing her over something meaningless.
I can only hope this reflects only her husband’s losing his cool in a moment of anger and not her own calculus. Anyone who decides they don’t need “progressives” any more because of some criticism over a move like this wasn’t really with us to begin with.
I’m all for winning on the issues. The argument raised by a number of people is that it’s not a completely meaningless title and, on net, the move sets us back on the issues.
The guy took a job with someone with whom he didn’t agree on everything when he was 22. And that’s selling out on the issues? Jeez.
Bill Linehan openly supported and campaigned for Scott Brown against Elizabeth Warren. Michelle Wu never misses a chance to mention she worked for Warren and it was a central point of her campaign. Davis-Mullen hasn’t been relevant to Boston politics in over a decade but you think that’s an issue against a guy who was just out of college at the time? How about Wu tying herself at the hip to Warren but as soon as she’s in turning around to elevate a guy who badmouthed her to the presidency? What does that say?
For realzies?
Wow. That’s … um… WTF?
Let’s say Scott or Gomez beat Markey, Liz should totally work with our new Senator even if he was a Republican. But for majority leader? No effin way. Ditto here. Nuff said.
Technically, Linehan never endorsed Brown (or Warren) as far as I know and therefore didn’t officially campaign (poor word choice above). But it’s not hard to read between the lines of where his support was here:
And just in case there was any doubt, this should settle it from the 2012 St. Patrick’s Day breakfast (Joan Vennochi pay-walled column):
Not hard to imagine what was going on here….
That’s pretty clear. Wow.
He joked at the breakfast that it would help Scott Brown if Deval Patrick or Barney Frank tried to campaign for Warren in Southie:
He then advised Brown to keep Romney away too.
Searched JPP site though I still could be wrong. The JPP only endorsed 3 candidates in 2013 municipal races– Ayanna Pressley, Suzanne Lee, and Marty Walsh (only mayoral candidate of 13 to march in 2013 Southie parade; Wu didn’t march of course). They did not endorse O’Malley (despite he representing JP’s district) or Jackson or any other incumbent who was facing a challenger.
http://www.jpprogressives.com/2013/10/jp-progressives-2-0-better-than-ever/
http://www.jpprogressives.com/2013/10/seven-days-out/