Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Sudbury DTC Endorses Capuano

By

This will be short and sweet.  I’m happy to announce that tonight (Tuesday, October 13) the Sudbury Democratic Town Committee overwhelmingly voted to endorse Michael Capuano for Senate.

     –Carl Offner

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. about a town committee getting involved in a contested democratic primary?  (I don’t mean that as a criticism.)

    • Our DTC doesn’t endorse in contested primaries, probably because we’ve never had an “overwhelming” consensus.

      <

      p>Just curious (For Sudbury or any other committee that has chosen to endorse in a primary), do you have a certain threshold of support before you agree to endorse or would a simple majority have been sufficient?

    • Yes, many of us had such concerns.  In Sudbury we don’t as a rule make endorsements in contested primaries, although it turns out that we did once before — we endorsed Dukakis over King.  But generally we try to do things by consensus.  And while the vote wasn’t unanimous, it was overwhelming.  (And if it wasn’t clear that it was going to be overwhelming, I doubt we would have gone as far as taking a vote.)  We discussed the matter at great length — and there were representatives of both the Coakley and Capuano campaigns at the meeting, and they both spoke.  The discussion was friendly in any case, and we all agreed that whoever won the primary would be our candidate.  Of course this goes without saying because we are after all, a Democratic Town Committee.

      <

      p>What seemed to convince most of us that voting to endorse in this primary was legitimate was that this seemed to us to be the kind of decision that comes up once in a generation, and was going to have profound consequences for our state and for our country.  So if we really felt there was an important difference, then it was in some real sense our responsibility to make that clear.

      <

      p>The particular issues that seemed to touch most people were the principled positions that Rep. Capuano had taken in voting with Sen. Kennedy against the Iraq War, in his concern for civil liberties in voting against the Patriot Act and working now to undo that damage rather than to grant police agencies even more surveillance powers, and his role as a genuine “health care hero” in insisting that any health reform legislation has to include a robust public option in order to get his vote.  The 60 or so members of the House who have taken this position have forced the leadership into taking (against their own instincts and a lot of pressure from the insurance companies) the public option as something that cannot be dismissed.  So we were impressed that over a significant period, Rep. Capuano has consistently worked and voted for the kinds of things that we hold highly; the kinds of things we call “Democratic Values”; the kinds of things we say that we stand for as a political party.  And he has taken these stands thoughtfully, in many cases courageously, and in a way that is convincing and inclusive.

      <

      p>In answer to another post on this thread:  no, financial considerations weren’t at stake here.  The SDTC really has no money for this — whatever we raise will be raised specifically for this purpose.  But that would be true in any case.  It’s more a matter of visibility.  We are as a matter of fact one of the more active committees around, and we take our political responsibilities seriously.

      • Glad I don’t live in Sudbury, as I’d be angry if my DTC sought to annoint a candidate without benefit of the primary.

        • …but I’m not sure you need to be angry at the DTC for putting their opinion on the record.  It in no way takes away from the fact of having a primary or the right of Sudbury Democrats to vote for whomever they wish.  The committee members are elected by all the registered Democrats (and even independents who happened to pull a D ballot in the last presidential primary, which I see as a flaw in the system, but I digress), so they can certainly claim to theoretically be representative of Democrats in the town.

      • The particular issues that seemed to touch most people were the principled positions that Rep. Capuano had taken in voting with Sen. Kennedy against the Iraq War, in his concern for civil liberties in voting against the Patriot Act and working now to undo that damage rather than to grant police agencies even more surveillance powers, and his role as a genuine “health care hero” in insisting that any health reform legislation has to include a robust public option in order to get his vote.

        <

        p>1. Iraq War vote
        2. champion of civil liberties
        3. health care

        <

        p>I consider those three very good reasons to favor Capuano.  

        <

        p>The balance between civil liberties and police powers is an area in which I think there is a significant if not sizable difference between the Capuano and Coakley, and one area in which I would want Capunao represnting me and not Coakley.

        <

        p>

        • Is along the lines of the ‘death penalty difference’ – an imaginary distinction in the minds of those already determined to support Capuano at best or deliberately misleading campaign tactics at worst.

          <

          p>Wasn’t impressed with Capuano when I lived in Somerville when he was mayor, not impressed now.    

          • that’s your argument? a figment? ok

            <

            p>Coakley, having worked in law enforcement her whole career, is far more attuned to the challenges facing law enforcement than she is with constitutional rights and civil liberties of the accused.   If she had spent her career defending people’s constitutional rights, then she would be far more attuned to that. Coakley is a law enforcement zealot, not a champion of civil liberties. This is the main way in which Coakley is not a good fit for Kennedy’s seat, imo. That sai, I don’t really want to argue about Coakley’s candidacy on a thread about a Capuano endorsement.  

            • You assert a view on no evidence whatsoever.  It’s as likely that someone having spent a career in law enforcement would be particularly attuned to how the system can fail to perform, having seen it up close.  But that wouldn’t fit your preferred meme for the campaign.  

              <

              p>Coakley’s a smart, fair-minded public servant who will bring a career’s experience to the critical issues of financial regulatory reform and consumer protection.  Hers is the background we need right now, not a Rep. who has been a liberal vote but has no significant legislative accomplishments in a decade of service.  

              • We’ve been over this and you have dismissed every issue.  You’ll have to go look at the relevant comments if you want to read the evidence. I’m not going to spend my time going over it again.

                <

                p>

                P.S. Coakley was not responsible for charging in the Woodward case.  The moonite terror case??? Martha, et al forgot their meds that day.

                <

                p>If I have some guarantee that Coakley will be faithful in taking her meds faithfully, then I would consider giving her my vote in the primary.  

                • with someone else.

                  <

                  p>Certainly your block quote is nothing I have written or previously read.

                  <

                  p>More of that imaginary stuff I am objecting to…

    • The Charter of the Democratic Party makes it clear that pre-primary endorsements are “suitable.”

      <

      p>

      Town, ward and city committees are the foundation of Party organization and have the closest contact with the people. The local committees shall conduct, according to duly established and recorded local by-laws, such activities as are suitable for a political organization; among which (without limitation) are: the endorsement of enrolled Democratic candidates in partisan and nonpartisan primaries, preliminaries and elections; financial support of the State Committee and Democratic nominees; the adoption of resolutions and platforms; the raising and disbursing of funds for political purposes; voter registration campaigns; and the calling of caucuses for the purpose of endorsing candidates, adopting resolutions, or conducting other Party business as provided for in the Call.

      <

      p>As I understand the history of pre-primary endorsements, this was a change that came about maybe 20 years or so.  I believe that the change was initiated by DSC member Alana Murphy and I’ve heard it called “Murphy’s Law.”  Ms. Murphy was living in Boston at the time and made the case that to make a difference and be relevant, in a heavily Democratic area, they wanted to be able to make pre-primary endorsements.

      <

      p>Some people feel that pre-primary endorsements are divisive and can create rifts in a group.  Others feel that they are appropriate and allow a DTC or Ward or City Committee to make a difference.   It would be naive to say that there are not races here in the Commonwealth where winning the Democratic nomination is tantamount to victory.  

      <

      p>Sometimes there is a favorite son that it is clear that a Committee would like to endorse.  My State Senator, Jamie Eldridge, regularly was endorsed by the Acton DTC.  

      <

      p>Sometimes there may be a DINO (Democratic in Name Only) competing for the nomination and a Committee feels it is important for the Democratic nominee to have values consistent with the values of the Democratic Party.  

      <

      p>Generally bylaws call for a super-majority; I have seen 2/3 and 80% as the requirement.  Bylaws also typically call for advance notice of an endorsement vote.

      <

      p>As a DSC member I recently worked with one of the DTCs that I represent.  There was significant thoughtful discussion about their process.  The most notable policy they had was that there would be two votes. Realistically, with a super majority, there will typically be a clear leader and supporters of the other candidate will be looking for a “no endorsement” vote.  This DTC decided to require first a vote on whether or not there should be an endorsement vote.  This would allow people to vote against an endorsement, without explicitly voting against the local favorite.

      <

      p>From my experience, I would suggest that committees use pre-primary endorsements with caution, but I believe that there is a place for them.

      <

      p>NOTE: this is my personal opinion and not that of any candidate or organization.  

    • about whether it we should delay until after the primary or not. In the end, we decided it was important to endorse and work for our own Congressman Mike Capuano in the primary.

      <

      p>Of course, if he does not win, we will support the Democratic candidate.  

      • As a DSC member, Sudbury is one of the communities I represent.  As Carl mentioned, they are a very active group and discuss issues extensively by e-mail.  Although it was mentioned a few times that the Congressman’s sister lives in Sudbury, it did not appear to be much of a factor in the discussion.  

  3. DTC’s should be equally supportive to Democratic candidates (e.g. permitting signature gathering, inviting campaigns to introduce themselves etc.) until after the primary, when the party has a nominee.  

    <

    p>Capuano supporters certainly aren’t reflecting well on their candidate here on BMG IMHO – lots of swift-boat like attempts to associate Coakley with anything they think might stick as a negative, now misuse of party committees.

    <

    p>An old feminist like me, of course I’m with Coakley.  

    • In a state where republicans can qualify for the endangered species list, the democratic primary is often the real election.  In my opinion, DTC’s should ask themselves whether or not they want to make an endorsement.  As Kate pointed out it’s legal and in my opinion, important for DTC’s to be heard.

    • Bean,  If Martha were not as good a candidate, how much would her gender weigh in your comparison of the two front runners?  

      • So it’s not all about the chromosomes for me, although I find it too 1970’s that the Massachusetts Congressional delegation consists of white guys and one woman who was married to a former member of the delegation.  

        <

        p>A few things I’d note in brief in support of Coakley are the deep respect and loyalty she’s engendered in people she’s worked with over the years – the very quality Ted Kennedy leveraged so well in the legislative setting; her fair mindedness and commitment to equality; the tremendous value having practiced and administered laws brings to law-making; and specifically the AG’s knowledge and work on consumer protections, a key area for Congressional action in the wake of the subprime mortgage mess.  

Archives