So, it’s not a secret that I support Ed Markey. But it keeping with the traditions of this site and good neighborliness, I welcome supporters of Joe Kennedy III to post their opinions here — even if it makes me cringe, or if it’s not as flattering to Ed as I would like, or it tells uncomfortable truths. Bring it on – that’s what we’re here for.
But I do insist that we be factual, “reality-based”. Please don’t post things that are verifiably untrue.
Ed Markey is “unwaveringly pro-choice”, and has been since 1983. Markey just received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He’s also received the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Incidentally he also received these endorsements on these very pages when he first ran for Senate against Stephen Lynch, who is far more conservative on abortion. NARAL noted his “steadfast commitment to protecting reproductive freedom and privacy“; Planned Parenthood said (in bold): “Congressman Markey is a consistent and trusted advocate for women’s access to health care at home and around the world.“
Here’s Ed last March defending Title X funding for clinics and providers that provide abortion services. This is consistent with what we’ve heard from Ed over the years:
“From the halls of the Supreme Court to the halls of local health centers, the Trump administration is waging an all-out assault on women’s reproductive health,” Markey said. “A woman’s reproductive health decision should be left up to a woman and her health care provider. That is it. A health care provider receiving federal funds should be judged on its ability to serve a patient. That is it.”
Ed Markey is a co-sponsor of the bill that would essentially nullify the Hyde Amendment.
The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Woman Act would statutorily prohibit the application of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion. The bill would allow health plans funded by public programs, including Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits program and TRICARE, among others, to cover abortions. It would also make it so state and local governments may not prohibit, restrict or otherwise inhibit insurance coverage of abortion care by private health plans.
I’d also point out that two of the most reliable votes against Trump’s lousy judges (including Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, naturally) and exec branch picks are Elizabeth Warren … and Ed Markey — even when most other Dems roll over.
And here’s Ontheissues.org with Ed’s long record on reproductive rights.
He’s pro-choice, actively, vocally, and consistently; and has been for nearly 37 years, and certainly will be for the next 6 years. That’s all there is to it.
BKay says
I agree with all of your guidelines, Charley. And I respect your thoughtful opinions, even when I disagree with them. I also appreciate your willingness to welcome my own different perspectives. But I have to call BS on this post (at least the first part of it).
You assert that another post about Senator Markey’s stance on reproductive rights is inaccurate, and that posts must be true. You then post as evidence for the other post’s falseness that Senator Markey has been “unwaveringly pro-choice since 1983.” Yet, the post to which I assume you refer (posted by Anna S earlier today) states very clearly that Senator Markey adopted a pro-choice public stance in 1983. Her criticism of Senator Markey is focused largely on his record prior to 1983, when he changed his stance right before launching his first Senate campaign. So it seems a little misleading that that is your first bolded point.
As for the information on Hyde and Title X, that’s useful to know, and news to me. It would be good to see Senator Markey address those issues more, so that those of us following the race very closely knew that. It’s a shame he doesn’t seem to be very focused on it.
jconway says
Who cares? I would argue the fact that national pro choice organizations are endorsing him is proof that they are taking these issues seriously and have decided to back the incumbent. To the extent it’s “not fair” they are backing the incumbent, that’s too bad. It’s rich for a Kennedy to argue against the benefits of incumbency and a long record, if that’s what you are getting at. A challenger should instead lay out a case that was the incumbent is falling short.
Joe Kennedy is failing the Roger Mudd test like his uncle did in 1980 when he foolishly challenged Jimmy Carter. Why should you be our Senator and not Ed Markey? He has yet to answer that question or lay out a rationale. My reasons for initially supporting Kennedy were his youth, superior communication skills, better record of outreach to gateway communities and immigrant communities Markey has ignored, and it’s better for the future of our party to promote a rising leader over someone approaching the twilight of their Senate career.
I have yet to see Kennedy lay out that case. That’s exactly how Ayanna Pressley beat Mike Capuano-by contrasting her visibility and leadership with his invisibility and tendency to follow the leader. Kennedy could run the exact same race. Instead, he’s choosing to lie about Markey’s record and quibble about votes taken before either one of us was born. While ducking questions and debates. Weak. If he keeps doing that through September, Markey has my vote.
BKay says
Simply put – I care. And it sounds like Anna S (who wrote the other post) also cares. And I would imagine that many people who desperately needed an advocate for their bodily autonomy and reproductive rights in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and found the opposite in Ed Markey, would care as well.
You don’t have to care. The obvious beauty of our system is that we can all care about what we want, and advocate and vote accordingly. But just because you don’t care about this, doesn’t make it unworthy of caring. And if you actually don’t see a reason for Kennedy to be running, and are perfectly happy with Markey, you should vote accordingly. But that doesn’t make your characterization of Kennedy’s candidacy
accurate.
Christopher says
I think it’s fair to say that reproductive rights are safe in the hands of either Markey or Kennedy. There is really nothing to see here and JConway cares about reproductive rights (though I do recall in the early years here he considered himself personally prolife), but not a decade’s old no longer relevant record.
jconway says
Like Markey, Biden, Ted Kennedy, and countless other Irish Catholics I’ve evolved on this issue. My wife in health care is a big part of that evolution. I can’t know what’s in Markey’s heart of hearts-but I can know his record and it’s 100% pro choice. My one interaction with him was talking about this issue, and I can tell you one on one it was the same stance he has in public.
SomervilleTom says
@As for the information on Hyde and Title X, that’s useful to know, and news to me. It would be good to see Senator Markey address those issues more …:
It is not the duty of the candidate or anybody else to spoon-feed you with talking points or to hit you over the head with his decades-long stellar voting record. Would you have believed him if even he had?
It is YOUR responsibility to confirm your facts before you make public accusations about a sitting Senator — especially when that Senator has been voting your way for FORTY YEARS.
@ I care:
You are ripping jconway’s “who cares” out of context, so much so that it’s very close to being an outright lie. He does not write, imply, or mean that he doesn’t care about reproductive rights.
He means, instead, that nobody should care about events of forty years ago, when the player in question has been loudly and enthusiastically on the correct side of the issue for nearly all of those forty years.
I have three daughters. I care VERY MUCH about protecting their choices about their bodies and about their reproductive freedom. Ed Markey has been a bastion of protection for those rights for their ENTIRE lives!
I enthusiastically support Ed Markey.
Surely you agree that Planned Parenthood cares. Planned Parenthood supports Ed Markey.
Your argument here is driving away supporters from Joe Kennedy III. Is that what you intend?
Your argument is implicitly and harshly critical of Planned Parenthood. Is THAT what you intend?
BKay says
I respectfully disagree with much of your commentary here.
1) It is absolutely the responsibility of all candidates to be clear in their priorities to voters. That includes Joe Kennedy, Ed Markey, and others. I have heard others on this website state repeatedly that Kennedy has not made a compelling argument for his candidacy. Though I disagree with that assertion, I very much agree that it is incumbent on Kennedy to make the argument explicit to voters.
2) If it is considered a request for “spoon feeding” when a person who follows national and state-wide politics every day asks for clear information from a candidate, then we are in dire straits. I’m quite certain that the average voter (even the average voter in MA) doesn’t read half the news I do. Like others here, I put a great deal of (imperfect) effort into being informed. If I missed it, many many others have also missed it. It’s up to the candidates (Kennedy included) whether they want to hope that voters find their message, or whether they choose to present it clearly.
3) That was my genuine read of the “who cares?” comment, and I don’t think it’s as simple as either of us are portraying. I sincerely apologize to JConway if I completely misunderstood his words. I also think his words (like mine) exist in a context in which our priorities and backgrounds play a role.
4) I absolutely agree that PP cares. And yes, I absolutely do mean to criticize them strongly. I support PP, and I have a standing monthly donation to PP, and I won’t be changing that any time soon. But I do believe their endorsement was a mistake. I would hope we can all be open to the idea that people, candidates, and organizations that we value and respect sometimes make decisions with which we disagree strongly. (And yes, I include in that Joe Kennedy, whom I support strongly but don’t see as infallible. None of us are.)
jconway says
Why was their endorsement a mistake? I guess that’s the part I don’t get. I accept your apology, my “who cares” was asking why does a voting record from 40 years ago matter? It was not “who cares” about reproductive rights which we should all support. Joe Kennedy had he been alive and in Congress would have had a very similar position due to the times and cultural context. His uncle evolved on that issue a little earlier than Markey, but he also condemned Roe when it came down. The court truly was ahead of public opinion even within the Democratic Party. Hell, even McGovern opposed Roe on federalism grounds. Markey has been consistent the last 35 years and the endorsement should be proof he isn’t changing his stripes now.
SomervilleTom says
@1) It is absolutely the responsibility of all candidates to be clear in their priorities to voters:
Of course it is, and Mr. Markey has done exactly that. He’s been enthusiastically and proudly leading the fight for women’s reproductive rights for decades.
@2) If it is considered a request for “spoon feeding” when a person who follows national and state-wide politics every day asks for clear information from a candidate, then we are in dire straits.
My comment about spoon-feeding is in the context of an information-rich environment where Mr. Markey’s decades-long support of women’s reproductive rights has been readily available. I’m surprised that anybody who pays attention to politics or to women’s reproductive rights could miss that. While it can be challenging to get old items, Google is a great research tool — if you don’t already know, then enclosing text in double quotes directs Google to require the quoted text in its search. So searching for strings like ‘”ed markey” “abortion”‘ and ‘”ed markey” “reproductive rights” ‘ illuminates his position on these important matters. By the way, Google ignores capitalization in search strings.
The candidate’s own web site is often a good starting point for seeking seeking clear information from that candidate. For example (emphasis mine):
@3) That was my genuine read of the “who cares?” comment:
James has spoken for himself upthread, and I’m sure he’ll accept your apology.
@4) Planned Parenthood endorsement:
Harshly criticizing the endorsement of Planned Parenthood on a widely-read political blog harms the public image of the organization. When an organization or person that I strongly support (especially when that support includes financial support) takes a public position I disagree with, I try very hard to express my criticism in private to that organization.
Had you done so, Planned Parenthood would surely have directed you to the many web resources that demonstrate Mr. Markey’s commitment to their mission (including the links that our editors cited).
Many of us call the primary season “Silly Season” because all of us, including candidates and their staff, sometimes drift way out onto the shakiest limbs of the trees of rhetoric and debate during a heated primary.
There is no shame in walking back such a mistake when it happens.
jconway says
I had a whole thread about why I was backing Kennedy and why this site’s pro-Markey bias was blinding them to voter indifference to the incumbent and his record. I blamed said indifference squarely on the incumbent and I also agree with you it’s the candidates responsibility to defend their record and communicate it to the public. Markey has fallen short of that in other areas, but not here.
I am saying if PP and NARAL are backing him, he’s pro-choice. Look at every interest group rating and he’s pro-choice. So is Joe Kennedy. Great. So who cares about this issue in the primary if they both have the same freakin voting record? If these are the molehills Kennedy will turn into mountains to win, he’s got a steep hill to climb indeed.
Charley on the MTA says
Let’s talk misleading. The following quote from AnnaS’s post is 100% false, which I have demonstrated:
He has indeed, repeatedly offered his full-throated support, over decades.
Absolutely none of the following is true, as I have demonstrated. My remarks in brackets:
You said:
So you’re saying that — aside from the times that he has been very focused and outspoken on this subject — he hasn’t been very focused and outspoken on the subject. That … doesn’t seem fair!
Well, what can I say: It was in the papers., and it wasn’t lost on the advocates.
Neither was it lost on any number of us who have gone to any number of Ed Markey events and hear him talk up a woman’s right to choose practically every. single. time.
Again, I’ll entertain all manner of debate. But it’s not OK to simply come on this site and say stuff that’s not true — about anyone. Especially these days, that’s dangerous.
And I’ll echo: I have no idea if this particular talking point/subject comes from the JKIII team, but if this is the best they have to offer, well, good luck with that.
BKay says
Hi everyone –
I’m replying to Charley’s comment, as he runs the site. But I’ll try to address the various comments that have been made in my direction on this post and the related one. I’m sure I’ll miss some, but here’s my best effort.
– As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I **volunteer** for Joe Kennedy’s campaign, as do many
others. I’m not a professional policitian, nor have I followed MA politics for 4 decades.
– If I were a person of influence, elected official, or famous in an sphere, I might agree that public criticism of an organization could be a problem. (Though you could also argue that it could be important to hold organizations accountable.) Seeing as I’m a private citizen operating under only my first name and that this isn’t the Globe, I’m not too concerned.
– Regarding Somerville Tom’s lesson on google, I would invite him to google the term “mansplain.” I actually have had a google alert set for anything published on both Markey and Kennedy for the last several months, and read the results almost daily. It’s how I see the various things I respect about Markey and admire about his service, and it’s how I see a few things about Kennedy that I’d prefer were different. I use campaign websites much less, as they are obviously biased.
– Finally, and most importantly – In all posts and comments I have made since joining BMG, it has been my intention to be honest and accurate. I routinely remind people that I volunteer for the Kennedy campaign. I work hard to recognize and be respectful of Markey’s service. In many posts, I have included citations. When data have been presented to me that indicate I am wrong (e.g., Hyde, Title X), I have not only acknowledged it, I have explicitly expressed appreciation for it, and I mean it. On more than one occasion I have also offered sincere apology. I do this because I agree 100% with all of you that facts matter, now more than ever. That misinformation is dangerous, now more than ever. That we need to try to be civil, now more than ever. Especially when we disagree. Even more so when we disagree passionately. Yet, even since doing so on this post (and the other related one), many of you have continued to hammer at points that I have already conceded, and make insulting and dismissive comments about Kennedy. It seems counter to your stated goals for the tenor of these discussions. Worse, it seems counter to having a reasonable exchange about points on which we agree (and their are many) and disagree. I think that’s a loss for all of us.
Charley on the MTA says
I’m sorry if I missed points that you’ve conceded, and I certainly don’t want to beat a dead horse.
But I do want to nip this in the bud.
BKay says
Thanks, Charley.
SomervilleTom says
@mansplain:
I’m technical, and I’ve spent decades working with non-technical users of all genders. Those users are frequently not aware of various ways to make Google searches more precise. I neither know or care about your gender, Your use of the term “mansplain” is offensive and insulting. I make every effort to exchange views with every participant without regard to their gender. I ask the same respect from you.
@I use campaign websites much less, as they are obviously biased:
Your initial complaint was that Mr. Markey has not been sufficiently aggressive in communicating his position and actions on women’s reproductive rights.
It sounds very much like you repeat one of the more fabled mechanisms for finding fault with an elected official — if the official isn’t energetic enough at announcing his or her positions and policies, then that official is “too isolated” or “disconnected”. Yet the usual places where such pronouncements are made — including websites and press releases — are “too biased”.
It isn’t possible to have it both ways.
jconway says
I’m gonna be blunt-if this is the best Joe Kennedy and his surrogates got, I’ll vote for Ed Markey. A 35 year record of consistent 100% ratings from both organizations is nothing to sneeze at. The Iraq vote is fair game, although that’s been offset by his forward thinking progressive positions on foreign policy in the Senate. I totally disagreed with the idea that Kennedy should wait his turn, but perhaps he should wait until he has a rationale to run. His campaign has been much ado about nothing so far, which is no way to beat an incumbent well regarded by the Democratic base.
Christopher says
I wouldn’t want to assume that diary was from an official surrogate. I’m sorry, I don’t recall if you’ve done this yet. but of course you can write a positive diary too.
pogo says
Ah yes, Ed’s original sin. I forgot about that and now that his long=ago opposition to abortion has resurfaced, it only highlights how Ed is politics as usual “leader” and does not deserve another 6 years of serving the people after 44 years of mediocrity.
I’ve always viewed Ed as a “stick you finger in the air” kind go politician. Someone who finally shows some leadership on an issue after he knows it’s safe to take a stand. That was Ed Markey in the 1970’s with abortion and that is Ed Markey today. Yes he votes on the issues I feel are important, but this being Massachusetts, that is not hard to do.
JoeIII ain’t much better. But I haven’t had to put up with his ambition for that long. I’ve suffered through enough of Ed 40 plus years of ehh.