For a supposedly vulnerable incumbent, Ed Markey is taking care of business, racking up endorsements. This is not too surprising for someone who has been in office as long as he has.
But some of his strongest support comes from insurgent progressive voices — not those who line up with what we think of as the Establishment. So maybe we should define “Establishment” more carefully — or maybe it’s not actually an important demarcation! And perhaps Markey is just what he always has been: A remarkably independent, informed, effective, and progressive public servant — one who has amazingly not been swallowed up by the special-interest money machine, nor conventional-wisdom centrism.
Markey brought out a big endorsement to cement his reputation among progressives: Our senior Senator, Presidential candidate, and establishment-poking sensation Elizabeth Warren.
In addition, local environmental leaders Craig Altemose of 350Mass, Deb Pasternak of the Sierra Club MA, and Varshini Prakash of the youthful Sunrise Movement, stirringly came to Markey’s defense:
RECENT NEWS REPORTS have suggested that US Rep. Joe Kennedy III is seriously considering challenging Sen. Ed Markey in the Democratic primary. We are writing to say, in no uncertain terms, and in no disrespect to the congressman, that this is the wrong time for an intra-party challenge.
First off, it has been clear that Markey has been a pivotal leader when it comes to climate change, and arguably has one of the most important roles to play in a very narrow window of time to advance climate action. The next six years will likely determine whether and how our nation rises to the occasion on climate change. Do we mobilize fully to address this challenge head-on through policies like the Green New Deal that Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez filed? Or do we continue on a path of death-by-gradualism, where we fail to provide a bold and comprehensive solution to climate change?
It would be a devastating defeat to a burgeoning climate movement, and a terrible signal to send to our political culture, to take out one of the architects of the Green New Deal.
“A challenger needs to make the case that there’s some issue that hasn’t been addressed and some urgency that’s lacking,” said Jonathan Cohn, chairman of the issues committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a grass-roots advocacy group. If there’s such a case to be made against Markey, he said, “I haven’t heard it.”
So the Pressley/Capuano model, however exciting that was, doesn’t fit this race. This is partly because Kennedy is no Pressley, who was seen as a rising star for years on Boston City Council. But as Gabrielle Gurley also points out, this breakdown isn’t along the normal generational lines. Markey’s leadership on the Green New Deal makes him vital — rather more so than the unapologetic insider Capuano, and decidedly hipper than young Kennedy, who has been slow even to entertain legalized marijuana. If anything, older voters might be prone to vote out of Kennedy nostalgia, while younger voters are motivated by the climate crisis — which has spurred Markey since before many of those voters were born.
Let’s also remember Markey’s leadership on Net Neutrality; on toxics (yes, which are still a really big deal); on countless consumer issues that may not get big headlines but have a noticeable effect on the public — set-top boxes, for example. (How much hay could a D candidate make campaigning against cable companies, or cell phone carriers, e.g.?)
And this is the Catch-22 of Markey’s career: The very strengths that make him an indispensable leader make him fly under the radar politically. He led on these issues and protected the public interest, whether or not anyone was looking; whether or not there was a massive grassroots movement backing him up; whether or not the issue was “sexy” at the time. This is, in fact, what representative democracy is all about: Congressional leaders deal with low-profile issues on behalf of their constituents all the time — but sometimes those low-profile issues blow up in the public consciousness.
On the other hand, there are indeed listless, stale-as-last-week’s-Triscuit establishment figures in our Massachusetts Congressional delegation. They would be Richard Neal and Stephen Lynch. If we think the Democrat-held US House is a disappointment in holding Trump accountable, we’ve got two of Trump’s lawn-boys right in our own backyard. They both have challengers. More on them later.
But for this race, I echo Charlie Pierce’s sentiments:
There is no good policy reason I can see to vote for Joe Kennedy over Ed Markey. Everything else is smoke.
Amen.
Those who demand term limits, instinctively prefer neophytes to incumbents, and who despise government in general are better suited to candidates on the Red side of the aisle.
This well-written piece succinctly reminds us that positions and policies rightly matter more than “identity”, no matter how hip or fashionable the claimed identity.
Ed Markey is THE progressive REAL DEAL and has been his whole life. It’s time for progressives to wake up and GET REAL!
The waking up part is why a competitive primary is a good thing. So while I won’t endorse Kennedy over Markey, I do welcome the opportunity for a debate that highlights these issues and activates progressive voters locally. Shipping us to NH is not the only way we can be useful, there’s a lot of downballot races in September that would benefit from a marquee Senate primary.
Including the very viable Alex Morse challenging Richard Neal.
Competitive primaries are NOT a good thing when there is NO reason to compete in the first place.
Why can’t progressive intellectuals understand that?
Stupid primary challenges are a WASTE of limited human and financial resources.
Kennedy will have a chance to lay out his specific reasons for this speech race. They may well be stupid, but the main reason they are generally good is that it drives progressives to the polls for what would normally be low turnout affairs. It forces progressive incumbents, even ones we like, to run on their records. This allows our issues to be debated and to drive the local political conversation instead of right wing talking points.
40% of voters presently have no opinion of Ed Markey, they will once he starts having to campaign and air ads. They will once he debates Kennedy, and I’m confident he could hold his own. Most younger voters I’ve spoken to about this primary had no idea Markey worked with AOC on the GND, this will give him a national forum to highlight they work and defend the Green New Deal.
This will make it easier for progressive primary challengers down ballot like Alex Morse running against Richard Neal and the candidates running against Seth Moulton to get their voters to the polls. It’ll make it easier to primary DeLeo lieutenants as the Pressley-Capuano race already shows. Primaries are how we grease the wheels of democracy Fred.
THERE IS NO INTRINSIC VALUE IN PRIMARIES UNLESS THEY HAVE A PURPOSE GREATER THAN JUICING TURNOUT !!!!!!!
And they might. We don’t know yet. How about you take a deep breath and let Ed and Joe make their case to the voters? Isn’t that what debates and elections are for? Trump is the one trying to cancel primaries, we shouldn’t emulate him.
I’ll pick democracy and elections over all caps and multiple exclamation points.
I think it’s that arrogance that people are tired of. People no longer feel incumbents are entitled to lifetime seats and the no longer want coronations instead of primaries.
Do you know Ed Markey?
The Ed Markey I know is NOT arrogant. In fact, if Joe Kennedy is anything like the rest of his family, then a voter who dislikes arrogance should stay as far away from anybody named “Kennedy” as possible.
Nobody is talking about a “coronation”.
I was not calling Ed Markey arrogant. I am calling the presumption that a primary challenge to Ed Markey is unnecessary arrogant. It is an argument that you know better than the voters.
I actually want to single out Markey for praise in taking this challenge and the other challengers seriously and campaigning to keep his seat and welcoming Joe to the fight. That’s exactly what he should do.
It’s his supporters who are arguing he is entitled to the seat who are echoing the same arguments that Trump is making about cancelling the Republican primary that bother me. Actually voters get to make these decisions, not candidates. It’s not up to you to say democracy is important in theory, but it’s a waste of time when it leads to outcomes you dislike. That is Trumpian logic, not democratic.
@ supporters and arrogance:
I am not asserting that anybody is “entitled” to Mr. Markey’s seat — that’s your language and it’s unnecessarily polarizing.
I’ve not argued that the primary should be cancelled, that anyone should be excluded from running, or anything like that.
I’m instead saying that I wish Mr. Kennedy would choose a different race. Since nobody has yet offered any reasons at all beyond his last name, I’m saying that I wish Mr. Kennedy and his supporters would get over their infatuation with some imagined “Camelot”. There is no magic in the name “Kennedy”.
There is nothing undemocratic about my having a negative opinion of a primary run by Mr. Kennedy. There is nothing arrogant about my saying so.
I do not claim to know better than “the voters”. The time when “the voters” make their choice is when there is something to choose from. I do have a different opinion from the small group of supporters who are apparently urging Mr. Kennedy to take on Mr. Markey in the upcoming primary. It is no more “arrogant” for me to disagree with them than it is for them to assert that Mr. Markey is no longer right for the job.
It is Trumpian for somebody to say “the primary should be cancelled in order to prevent anyone from running”. It is not Trumpian for anyone to say “I don’t like the guy who is contemplating a run.”
Democracy is not a spectator sport Tom. I totally disagree with the notion it is bad for our party that this primary happens and I strongly disagree with the notion that Ed Markey does not “deserve” a primary challenge. Nobody deserves an uncontested senate seat. Not in a democracy and not in America. They should all have to run and campaign to earn it. To Markey’s credit he is not sitting on his bottom but getting out there and starting to take credit for his record.
You and the other opponents of term limits always gripe that long time incumbency is a good thing and the voters are our best term limits. Okay-the voters will now have a real choice about Markey’s term this fall. That’s an entirely good thing. You like him vote for him, you don’t like him vote for the other guy or the woman running. That’s democracy. Let’s have the debate and have the primary and stop the whining.
One more time: I haven’t said that it’s bad for our party that this primary happens. I’ve said that I think Joe Kennedy shouldn’t challenge Mr. Markey in 2020. Those are different statements.
I’m not making a blanket statement about primaries. I’m not proposing to cancel the primary. I’m not proposing to make any sort of institutional effort to block Mr. Kennedy from running.
I’m saying that I think replacing Ed Markey with Joe Kennedy in 2021 would be a giant step backwards.
I have not said that anybody deserves an uncontested primary seat. If there are no prospective candidates that are better for the position than the incumbent, then I think it is better for those prospective candidates to find another race than to run in spite of their lower quality. I’ve always said that if there is a better candidate, then that candidate should run.
I’m still waiting for any of the supporters of this Kennedy campaign to offer a reason other than “pedigree” and age why Mr. Kennedy is a better choice.
I don’t argue that “long-term incumbency is a good thing”, I think you must be confusing me with somebody else. I argue instead that I think that the criteria that should be applied every election cycle is “Who is the best person for this office?”
An argument like “Mary Blow should run against Ed Markey because she’s done a/b/c and proposes d/e/f far more persuasive than “Mary Blow should run against Ed Markey because primaries are always good.”
The latter argument sounds primarily like a pitch for job security for campaign consultants and campaign finance bundlers to me.
Then vote for Markey in the primary, Tom.
Oh, so that’s it. You want us to start a crazy Senate interparty civil war to benefit your favored down ballot challengers.
That’s the most INSANE rationale to start a fight.
“Interparty civil war” is a bit of an extreme way to characterize a primary. How is this any different than the open seat primary Markey ran against Lynch last time? They still work together and it did not cause a civil war. Lynch regularly draws primary challengers to begin with. The only big difference is that way more voters will be interested in this primary than those ones and they will pay attention. It will trickle down the ballot as it has elsewhere.
In a one party state without ranked choice voting, marquee races at the top of the ballot are the only way to generate high progressive turnout to change our legislature. That’s worth it, and the idea that a more competitive Senate race here negatively effects Senate races in other parts of the country is the crazy one. Most active donors donate to multiple candidates already and the kind of hardcore volunteers who would go to ME or NH still will. This race benefits the locally active people who want to make change in Massachusetts.
JESUM CROW !!!! You’re comparing apples and oranges when you conflate an interparty civil war against an INCUMBENT PROGRESSIVE CHAMPION TO AN OPEN SEAT PRIMARY COMPETITION !!!!!!!
Take your head out of your butt and GET REAL!
Not a fan of the personal attacks Fred and they make me less likely to support your candidate, whom I already said upthread, seems to have both the advantage against the challenger and will likely earn my support. You’re the one making this into a civil war.
To be clear I am not endorsing Kennedy, I do support his right to run and am not going apoplectic over the idea that the September Democratic state primary might actually be democratic for a change.
We cannot simultaneously attack Trump’s authoritarian tendencies while acting like apparatchiks when our favored candidates are threatened.
Because there is not yet even a hint of a candidate who will in any way be a better Senator than the incumbent.
That’s your opinion. One I probably share, but fortunately in a democracy we have a multitude of opinions to choose from. We cannot bemoan authoritarian regimes abroad or authoritarian tendencies at home while insinuating that it’s treasonous for incumbents to be challenged by members of their own party. That’s now how democracy works.
@ “treasonous”
Jeesh, your language is as intemperate as Fred’s. Deep breaths! Deep breaths!
I haven’t said anything about treasonous.
I think Joe Kennedy fares so badly in the comparison to Ed Markey that I think it’s foolish for him to run, and I think Mr. Markey has better things to do with his time between now and November of 2020.
That’s just my opinion. I’m not insinuating treason or anything else. I’ll very explicitly say that I think Mr. Kennedy has a greatly inflated opinion of himself. I strongly suspect that Mr. Kennedy suffers from a malady that seems hereditary — the idea that because of his last name, his destiny is to be a high-ranking public official. I’m not insinuating “treason” or anything remotely comparable. I’m flat out accusing Mr. Kennedy of having an inflated ego.
There is nothing anti-American, authoritarian, or anti-democratic about saying that a Kennedy — especially this Kennedy — has an inflated ego.
Please get back to me when Mr. Kennedy offers even the first example of something he proposes to do better than Mr. Markey.
The first difference between this and the contest between Mr. Markey and Mr. Lynch is that in that case, neither candidate had been a Senator before. The second is that Mr. Markey’s record in the House was SIGNIFICANTLY more progressive than Mr. Lynch’s. The third is that neither Mr. Markey nor Mr. Lynch were invoking some magical power based on their last name.
In short — Mr. Kennedy’s contemplated contest of Mr. Markey’s seat serves NO visible purpose except to provide excuses for people and pundits to repeat vicious and empty attacks on Mr. Markey — attacks that will be used by the GOP for years afterward.
I don’t share your enthusiasm for a meaningless “marquee” race at the top of the ticket. I, frankly, think you’re mistaken about any effect on the state legislature. I don’t think an empty, silly and senseless challenge of Mr. Markey will cause more progressive candidates to step forward in a state primary. I think currently active primary voters are more likely to be informed about actual issues that matter than people who can’t be bothered to show up unless there’s a fight.
I think the best thing that might happen is a strong and effective progressive leader will have spent the rest of 2019 and first part of 2020 fighting a primary challenge rather than advancing the progressive agenda at a time when it needs every available contributor. I think that the worst thing that might happen is that we elevate a wishy-washy sort-of-this-and-sort-of-that back-bencher with a famous last name just as we enter the key innings of the Senate game.
If an impeachment resolution passes the House and is being debated in the Senate in January of 2021, which person do you think is more likely to be persuasive in changing Republican votes — the seasoned Ed Markey (known for his wonkery and stability) or the rookie Joe Kennedy, who is about to throw his first major-league pitches?
I agree with Fred and the thread-starter that this is not the time for a primary challenge from Joe Kennedy. I share your impatience with the intemperate commentary from Fred — my guess is that he’ll walk them back before too long.
We don’t know if it’s meaningless yet. For the 40% of voters who have not heard of Ed Markey it’s a great opportunity for him to introduce himself and his record and an opportunity to contrast that with another candidate. That sounds like democracy to me. I do not see why we should be selective in supporting it.
BTW, I intended the following comment to appear here, where it makes sense and answers the question implied by your last sentence ( “I do not see why we should be selective in supporting it.”):
For an open seat, the more the merrier IMO, but once you have that set you need a really good reason to change horses midstream or even bother to try.
This was a very well written post Charley and you do your candidate proud with a succinct and witty tour of his virtues for why he should get re-elected rather than questioning the wisdom of a challenge itself.
Charley also makes a good point that on some issues Joe is an old persons idea of a young person (particularly on drug and criminal justice reform). I lean Markey but I’ll give them both a fair hearing if they run.
Lastly, a reminder that if we had multi member districts with ranked choice voting we could have theoretically added Pressley at the expense of Lynch without having to remove Capuano. First past the post and single member geographically based districts really put progressives at a disadvantage when we cluster in urban areas. A lot of ramifications for climate and gun policy, just to name a few.
Absolutely do not want multi-member congressional districts. MOCs should come from distinct regions where they live to represent IMO.
Electeds from multi-member districts come from distinct etc., just as much, so what is the issue?
But not necessarily as distinctly as I would like. If we were, for example to create two MA districts, one eastern and one western with the former having 5 members and the latter having 4, there is a chance all 5 eastern Reps will come from Boston rather than making sure we have one from the Merrimack Valley, or the North Shore, or the Southeast, or Metro West. I think spreading the geographic wealth is important.
Fred — without putting words into his mouth, I’ll just say that John Walsh is the smartest political guy I know, and he was mostly supportive of “rock ‘em/sock ‘em” primaries, because they hold incumbents accountable and refine the party’s message and strengths. I don’t necessarily support Kennedy’s particular run, but I’m definitely supportive of them in principle — particularly in a state where one party holds such structural advantages.
I think and hope Markey will win; and in making his case, he’ll make a fine case for what I consider to be an admirable way of doing business as a legislator and public servant.
Yes, that matters in fighting Trump and Trumpism — the opposite of which is good faith, fact-based, compassionate, public-minded policy. We’ve got to hold up positive examples of the right way to do it; and ironically, a fight might be the best way to get attention for that. (At the least, it gives me an opportunity to showcase what Markey does well and why he matters.)
I don’t want to sound too sanguine — this could get stupid really fast — but we can hope for the best.
I agree with Charley 100%. With Jay Inslee out of the race, it would also help to have another nationally visible primary devoted to climate change. One that’s actually about who has the better plan to stop it rather than whether it’s real or not which is what the general will devolve to against Trump.
For the record I am an early and strong supporter of Ed Markey’s Green New Deal and it’s the single best reason to vote for him. I am only defending Kennedy’s right to run and try to offer something better.
A great deal of what makes the web and net good today is the direct result of Ed Markey’s leadership in areas like net neutrality, encryption, and censorship.
Net neutrality in particular is again under SERIOUS attack from big business and corporate interests, and they are making serious inroads against it.
It would have been utter foolishness to replace General Eisenhower with an untested recruit a few days before D-Day.
Joe Kennedy is a buck-Private next to Ed Markey on a host of serious policy decisions involving communication technology, the media, and the web.
I think Ed Markey’s biggest liability is that he is a bit of a shy person and not one to brag about his accomplishments. This race will force him out of his comfort zone and come back home more frequently to make his case. Not enough people know about his work on net neutrality, clean elections, and the Green New Deal and this primary will offer him an opportunity to introduce himself to a new generation of voters. He has welcomed that opportunity with open arms, his supporters should too instead of attacking democracy.
Oh. My. God. And, to think, just upstream you inveighed against arrogance. now you’re saying that Markey’s ‘liability‘ is that he’s not arrogant enough.
Why in the hell should Sen Markey have to tell anyone he’s better at being a Senator than he is at campaigning for the Senate? Or, put another way, what makes you so sure they can’t figure that out for themselves?
Why should the Senator have to ‘make his case’? Why in all the blue CommonWealth can’t the electorate look at the job he’s doing and… you know… make an actual and real assessment of the Senator? It’s not like it’s a secret or anything that only Markey can divulge to the electorate.
It’s not like Big Papi had to brag about all the home runs he hit, every time his contract was up for renewal…
This new generation of voters has all the same access to Markey’s Senate record, including speeches and positions, as all the other generations before. Nobody handed the answers to the previous generations and they’re not about to start doing so now.
Because that’s literally his job? The one he has to actually, you know, campaign for it in order to keep. This entire comment section reminds me of Martha Coakley’s Marie Antoinette routine where she asked why she has to bother greeting voters outside Fenway in the cold. It’s good for Ed Markey he is not listening to his arrogant supporters and taking this race far more seriously than they are.
Vote for him in the primary if you like his record. 40% of voters say they haven’t heard of him, after 45 years in politics it’s hard to argue that’s their fault and not his. He seems to be working double time to rectify this. Primaries are good for voters and good for democracy. Your point only serves to validate why this one is necessary.
@Because that’s literally his job? :
NO. No no no. That is NOT his job.
Ed Markey’s JOB is to govern.
The responsibility for deciding what is important to a voter and how to get the information about candidates based on those decisions is the responsibility of the voter.
It is not the job of the media or of the candidates to spoon-feed the voters in bite-sized easy-to-understand morsels. That is the kind of infantilization that demeans the entire culture.
I do not need or want a weather reporter to tell me to wear a raincoat when a storm is forecast. I do not need or want a Senator to spend the last two years of every term reminding me of all the great things he’s done.
We have already passed the point where Representatives literally spend ALL their time fundraising for their next campaign. One of the reasons frequently cited by retiring Representatives is that they literally have no time to govern.
The job of our elected officials is to govern.
The things somebody does to get a job are different from the things they do ON the job.
I’ve seen surveys that say that 60% of voters don’t know that heavy and light objects fall at the same rate. Similar percentages of voters think that Chicago is a state. Well over sixty percent of my neighbors who voted for Ms. Pressley don’t know who Joe Curtatone is. The job of society is to make needed information available to its members. The responsibility for internalizing that information is on each person.
I profoundly disagree with the worldview you assert in this comment.
In a republic, the responsibility for making wise choices lies with each person. It is NOT the responsibility of government, schools, churches, or anybody else to tell people which officials are good and which are not.
Voter ignorance is a failure of the voter.
I think it’s far more infantilizing to argue that Tom, Fred, Petr, Paul, or James knows better than the Democratic primary voters of the commonwealth. They will make the choice. I think they are far more likely to get informed when there are debates, coverage of the issues, and ads reminding them of an election and the candidates in the primary.
If you think Markey is an awesome Senator than you shouldn’t be afraid that a primary challenge is happening and should in fact stop arguing with me about whether Kennedy should run and get out there and knock on some doors for Markey.
The world is chock-full of cockamamie ideas and candidates whose earnest proponents passionately believe ought to be “presented to the voters”. Most of those are rubbish.
There is nothing wrong, anti-democratic, arrogant, or anything else about expecting the political process to somehow filter at least some of those.
So far as I know, neither Tom, Fred, Petr, Paul, or James is proposing that Mr. Kennedy run in this primary. We are instead expression an opinion about whoever it is that IS proposing this. I’d like to know who is funding this nascent campaign. If we want to talk about transparency and information, there’s a good starting point.
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m saying only that I think Mr. Kennedy would be a terrible choice to replace Mr. Markey.
I hope that Mr. Kennedy decides against running. I hope that if he runs, he loses in a landslide. I think that if Mr. Kennedy cared more about Democratic values and principles, he would stay in his current seat and devote his energy to building an impeachment case against Donald Trump and working with Ms. Warren and Mr. Markey to find and present evidence that will be persuasive to at least 14 GOP Senators.
You sound like Tom, Fred, Petr, Paul and James are separate and apart from the Democratic primary voters of the CommonWealth.
Not so.
Abraham Lincoln never campaigned a day in his life. Did you know that? He belonged to a time that knew the job was different than the campaigning of it and that surrogates were the ones to get him the job.
It is not Ed Markey’s job to toot his own horn. His job is to show up in the Senate and make speeches and vote on legislation. That’s his job. He has no other. And it’s not up to him to goose the electorate into action: they have agency and can find out all they need to know about him by a very little amount of research.
Really? That’s your argument?
40% of voters who don’t know the name of one of only two Senators is not the problem of either of the two Senators. It is, in fact, altogether TOO easy to argue that it is, in fact, their fault: Wholly, completely and comprehensively. It is entirely a problem of an un=informed and, frankly, thoroughly entitled electorate. To the devil with them, sideways. And twice on Sundays.
If they can’t be bothered to learn the names of their elected officials then they shouldn’t expect the franchise to bother to fellate them.
Anything else is entitlement.
In a democracy, voters are entitled, officeholders are not.
Entitled to what? To be spoon fed the name of the Senator?
Listen to yourself. You defend someone who watches a weather report that predicts rain and then leaves the house without an umbrella only to complain about how drenched they got.
That’s entitlement.
Not what? Not free to exploit the laziness of the electorate? Why not? Voters are not entitled to a happy ending massage each and every election day.
Voters are entitled to choose their representatives, Lord Petr, which means that there should be as many contested races as possible. Office holders are not entitled to run unopposed.
“Happy ending massage” ? “fellate”? They give me a little sticker that says “I voted” when I leave the polls, and sometimes there is a bowl of hard candy, but that’s about it. I must be missing out.
Maybe your Lordship had a different experience.
The fact that voters are entitled to choose their own representatives does not imply that each and every person who fantasizes about holding office should be able to appear on the ballot.
Nobody has suggested that office holders are or should be entitled to run unopposed.
By your argument we should strike down signature requirements. We should remove the restriction that only registered Democrats may compete in the Democratic primary. We should remove age restrictions. We should remove any date requirements so long as the request to appear on the ballot appears before the ballots are printed.
Your argument is based on an absurdity (unless you indeed argue that any person of any age and any party should be able to compete in any primary without any restrictions).
Underneath your insulting and hostile commentary is a fundamental flaw in logic. It has been my experience that insulting and hostile commentary is frequently associated with such fundamentally flawed reasoning.
SCORE! John Walsh, my long time friend, announced today that he is proudly joining Team Markey as the senator’s top campaign aide.
John is the former Chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee and was campaign manager to former Governor Deval Patrick.
“Democracy is the thing that ensures that we get no better than we deserve.” George Bernard Shaw
Line up the straw men,, Tom. I am arguing for none of the things in your list. As far as your “experience” is concerned, what is your experience with endless bloviating?
@ None of the things in my list:
No, of course not. You, in your great wisdom, have decreed that the only restrictions that should be applied are those you agree with. Anybody who disagrees is subject to your insults and hostility.
@ endless bloviating:
I don’t know about “endless bloviating”. I do know that the insult density is nearly 100% in your commentary, especially towards anybody who differs from your opinion in even the slightest manner.
Not my experience. The last couple of times I’ve seen Markey the ONLY thing he talked about were his accomplishments.
Good! He should come back to MA as often as possible to inform us what he’s doing. I’m glad this contested election is being contested.
Walsh just signed up with Markey’s campaign, and the times I’ve heard him praise primaries it was when he was working for Deval Patrick’s and Setti Warren’s gubernatorial campaigns, both of which were in the context of open nominations.
One way Markey sorta kinda feels like Capuano to me is that every time I’ve seen Markey speak it’s a litany of “I did this, I did that, I did the other thing…” which he sorta kinda has to do but it grates on me and sounds egotistical. Not as egotistical as Capuano presented in his last terms or abortive run for Senate but still there. That leaves an opening for a challenger.
Markey might want to do a little less of “I did this…” and a little more of “Tell me what you need and I’ll tell you how I’ll get it for you.”
PS: Term limits ensures that institutional memory goes to the bureaucrats or, more likely, the lobbyists.
One of the assertions here is that burden is on each elected official to “inform” voters of why that official is better suited for the office than any and each prospective challenger. If that’s “egotistical”, then perhaps you can suggest a better mechanism for informing voters. My own preference is to expect voters to inform themselves.
I agree with your last paragraph.
As much as I would love voters to inform themselves, I think that assumption has been Dems’ Achilles heal. At the federal level our lack of tooting our own horn has elected GOP Congresses.
Now that John Walsh has been hired to lead the campaign team for Ed Markey, it seems that Joe Kennedy’s primary challenge is more than trial balloon.
It is clear that this is great news for political consultants like Mr. Walsh, since 2020 was shaping up to be a slow year in local races and 2022 is a long way away. Two years is an eternity for any consultant in any field. I like and respect Mr. Walsh and I agree that he is among the best in the business. I wish him and Mr. Markey well.
It remains unclear to me that this is good news for anybody else. I hope it’s a no-brainer that Mr. Markey wins in a landslide.
Since some here are so enthusiastic about anybody and everybody running for every primary, I hope I get support from each of you in my suggestion that we aggressively recruit a progressive primary opponent for Mr. Kennedy’s CD-4 seat.
It seems to me that replacing Mr. Kennedy with a genuine full-throated progressive leader in CD-4 is the best possible way to ensure that the rest of us benefit from Mr. Kennedy’s decision to challenge Mr. Markey. If it’s good to distract Mr. Markey with a primary challenge, surely it is even better to similarly distract his challenger.
Finding an up-and-coming progressive Democrat to run for Congress in CD-4 sounds like a MUCH easier task than showing that Joe Kennedy will be a better senator than Ed Markey.
With any luck we might get a two-fer — another real progressive in the House, and the continuing stellar leadership of Mr. Markey in the Senate. Maybe we even get a trifecta if Ms. Warren wins the general and we are able to elevate yet another progressive in the resulting special election to fill her seat.
Heh, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Today, Joe Kennedy filed a statement of organization with the FEC creating a “Kennedy for MA” senate campaign committee. Let the trial balloon testing of the waters begin.
I see Markey as the more progressive choice. But for average voters, “hip progressive” could still be a hard sell against a young Kennedy. If the Kennedy challenge has legs, Markey would do well to get Bernie’s endorsement. I would even consider going after Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
More than anything, voters currently distrust the establishment. So being a good policy progressive (which Capuano certainly was), does not necessarily mean anything. The wild card here is Kennedy… I really have no idea how he will be received.
Senator Ed Markey just announced the endorsements of : NARAL Pro-choice MA, Sunrise Movement, Coalition for Social Justice and League of Conservation Voters Action Fund.
Quite impressive liberal bona fides for an over the hill, out of touch has been, eh?
@ NARAL Pro-choice MA, Sunrise Movement, Coalition for Social Justice and League of Conservation Voters Action Fund.
Sounds like a bunch of purists are supporting Markey, Fred. You’re going to have to find another candidate.
Sounds like you’re jealous of these highly respected progressive advocacy groups’ endorsement of Senator Markey, Bob.
I’m proud to stand and fight to move America forward with my friend, Ed Markey.
Oh, and who are you supporting , Bob? Or don’t you want to say.
Not at all. If the election were today I would definitely vote for Markey over Kennedy., although I would like to hear from the other two candidates in the primary before I make a final decision. I’m looking forward to a chance to make my decision in a polling booth.
I listen to those advocacy groups. It’s just that you should know, Fred , that there is some nut on this thread who keeps making brainless comments about “holier than thou progressives”.
Go blow it out your nose.