“There’s no elective office for me,” Kennedy said.
Although she has said all along she isn’t interested in seeking the seat her late husband long held, the speculation and the cajoling have continued. Now, with Democrats starting to look in earnest for a compelling candidate to challenge Republican US Senator Scott Brown, Kennedy says that though she’s flattered by the sentiments, there’s no chance she’ll change her mind.
“There will not be a yes,” she said in an interview this week. “The Senate is not where I see my future.”
Barney Frank is apparently not running either (though he will seek reelection). And I believe Deval when he says he will serve a full second term, which precludes running for Senate in 2012.
So, OK. For real, now, who’s your candidate?
Had the opportunity to meet him at Congressman Keating’s (feels good to say that) and let him know just that: “I will be voting for you in the Democratic Primary. Please don’t make me write you in.”
See, I got caught up in the fact that Keating was elected. Should have said “Congressman Keating’s inauguration reception”
thoughts?
But too many people don’t – I don’t know why, but a lot of people I’ve spoken to just don’t like her, without reason. Is that wrong? Yes. Does it put her at a huge disadvantage in an election? Yes.
<
p>I feel like “outsider” and former State Senator Scott Brown running against the President of the body he once served in would be too “status-quo” “insider” “back-room deals” for the voters that Brown appealed to.
<
p>Sen. Murray would be a great Senator, but I worry about whether she could be elected state wide.
Tough, shrewd, and a great touch. She’s withstood many a Republican effort against her. I think she matches up with Brown’s image. However, she does have some enemies, and you give up a couple points in Massachusetts anytime the candidate is a woman.
She is a consummate insider, has never faced a competitive election, has retail politics deficiencies, and lacks the warmth and glad handling needed to effectively win. That said the more progressive of the two legislative leaders, but would definitely play into Browns’ anti-machine card (which as an adopted Chicagoan I find the notion of a Mass machine laughable).
Murray was targeted by the Mass. Republicans in 2004 and 2010. As for a “competitive election” few Massachusetts elections require better instincts and harder work than the election to lead a chamber of the State House.
It would be sweet if the person who’s done the most glass-ceiling work in the state was the one who broke through to the U.S. Senate.
<
p>FWIW, the State Senate rules quire her to step down as Senate President after 8 years, which I think is 2015 in her case.
<
p>
but I’d support Capuano, Lynch or any Democrat who would take the campaign seriously.
…saying he will run for Governor in 2014.
Haven’t heard that one. Anyway my preference is for Murray over Capuano. I think Mike is over qualified to be a Senator but exhibited severe limitations as a candidate and I think he will be a loser against Brown, as much as I love him. Murray comes across as warm, personable, and could really appeal to blue collars and get them to switch their votes. He will be competitive in Western MA. And he has only gotten good publicity his whole career. Deval has a lot of faults and would be at a disadvantage against Brown, ditto the other T. Murray, ditto any of the Congressmen or woman that might run. I think Murray would really take Brown to the woodshed. And I would be really disappointed if he just waited his turn to run for Governor, especially because I don’t think he would win that primary.
…as part of inauguration coverage that Murray has said he will run for Governor in 2014.
He endorsed Guy Glodis, and stuck with his endorsement even after it came out that Glodis laundered money during his campaign for Sheriff. Money laundering is a felony.
<
p>Any reasonable person would have retreated from the endorsement at that point even if they had somehow made a mistake and supported him in the first place (which I doubt a progressive would do). McGovern has no business running for Senate.
First you push back on my recommendation of Meehan because he took one vote a few years ago you didn’t like. Many cite McGovern as a great progressive in our delegation (who I believe did vote your preference on Iraq), but no, that’s not good enough for you. I don’t know how close they are personally, but I’m not surprised a Worcester Congressman endorsed the Worcester Sheriff. As far as I know money laundering was an allegation, for which Glodis was never arrested, tried, convicted.
No self-respecting voter should be easy to please. This is a Senate race, not a decision about who to buy a newspaper from. I want someone who will do the right thing in office all the time, or as close to it as humanly possible. Every bad decision can make millions of lives worse. Every good decision can make millions of lives better. In some cases hundreds of millions.
<
p>People with a history of poor judgment about right and wrong should not be in the US Senate if it can be avoided. And it can in this race.
<
p>If geography is his excuse for endorsing Glodis then it’s really pretty simple: I don’t live in Worcester, so I shouldn’t vote for a Worcesterite running for higher office. And neither should anyone else outside of Worcester.
<
p>Glodis hasn’t been tried yet, but it’s fairly obvious that he did it. This isn’t about the legal process. This is about having the common sense to recognize a scoundrel when you see one, and the decency to stop helping him reach a position where he can do even more damage to society.
…for someone who votes my preference well north of 90% of the time, which I’m pretty sure applies to both gentlemen in question. Local pride and connection is valid as one factor; it is after all a factor in my own support for Meehan.
Local pride may be a good enough reason for arguing to friends in the Lowell area about why they should vote for Meehan, or in the Worcester area about voting for Glodis/McGovern. But when you’re talking to voters from elsewhere, that’s a reason NOT to vote for them.
<
p>Now, if you want to talk about President of Suffolk University, Meehan would be an excellent choice. His war vote is irrelevant to that position. As a student at the law school, my impression is that David Sargent was mostly just sitting around collecting my tuition dollars for doing nothing that actually helped the school, and I’m glad he’s gone. His lobbying against a UMass Law School just made us all look like self-important jerks. Meehan has done an excellent job at UMass-Lowell, and I’d be happy to have him as my university president.
…that others should vote for Meehan because he’s from Lowell, and I doubt McGovern went around the state telling people that they should vote for Glodis because he’s from Worcester (though Glodis himself hinted he could help the ticket in the central part of the state, but with Murray on the ticket it would seem that was covered). I’m just saying that’s why I and McGovern were supporting our respective candidates personally. If I want to persuade others I would cite his campaign resources, and yes, what is IMO a legislative record to be proud of.
Glodis and Chavez are just one too many bad judgments and associations for me to handle. I also think he’d get creamed against Brown, why do people keep insisting we need a die hard leftist to beat Brown? We need a solid, middle of the road, lunchpail liberal, and Murray and to a lesser extent Mike Capuano fit that bill to a t. Also I am not against Meehan due to the Iraq vote but simply that he was a mediocre Congressmen and is a shameless self promoter who broke nearly every promise he made to the voters and to the UMASS Lowell community and is just leveraging his potential Senate bid to get a fatter pay check. He also kept all his money from his Congressional race waiting for the time to run for Senate, money that could have gone to help vulnerable Democrats.
Congressman McGovern’s amazing work as a Congressman, working for progressive causes and candidates — including his very early support of Deval Patrick in the Spring of 2005 — more than make up for one awful endorsement. There are those who endorsed Glodis who do not have the body of work that allows for forgiveness on that endorsement. Jim clearly does. McGovern would be a very good choice.
<
p>Capuano would be a very good senator, but he makes for a mediocre candidate. His aggressiveness, abrasiveness, and unabashed liberalness are exactly what we need in that seat at this time. Sadly the voters didn’t think so. Is there any evidence that it would be different the second time around?
he’s not, but Patrick would be great.
<
p>I’m as cynical as they come, but I do feel that Vicki Kennedy never had any intentions of running, if she did I think it would have happened in the special. My first thought was that I wouldn’t want to run after the last poll.
<
p>While there are many good candidates out there who would represent us well, I’m having trouble thinking of a potential candidate. Who wants to run?
I want Deval Patrick to run.
<
p>Tim Murray can step in and have a few years under his belt as Governor, I think he would do a wonderful job and Republicans would be hard pressed to field a candidate with MA gaining jobs and continuing in being the leader in jobs, education, etc.
but I really don’t think Patrick’s going to do it after promising (on several occasions) to fill out the term, particularly after all the Mass Governors who did it before him.
<
p>Maybe if we lose in 2012 and need someone in 2018… but it would be very difficult to oust Brown should that happen, even with Patrick.
She would run on a platform of economic (specifically financial) justice for the non-rich. Probably wouldn’t win, but would draw a lot of fire from the bad guys and influence the debate in the right direction.
<
p>Rachel was insisting very loudly last summer that she is not running, after Brown used the threat of her opposition in a fundraising letter. She might be my first choice if she ran.
<
p>Of likely candidates, I still like Capuano best, although being a previous primary loser counts against him in the electability factor. (I wonder what a retroactive poll would show about that primary — would the Coakley voters admit having chosen her?)
I wonder if she has any interest. I suppose it depends on how things go with the consumer protection agency. If she gets blocked, she’d have a unique perspective: I can tell you first-hand how broken the Senate is, and I’m running to fix it.
But my honest reaction to the post was – Who is Elizabeth Warren?
<
p>This is not to say you shouldn’t nominate her.
Yes, she’s a relative unknown. But she has instant access to circles that will raise her a shitload of money fast. She also has a great story to tell. If she starts early enough, and introduces herself properly, she would be formidable. Who the heck knew who Deval Patrick was in early 2005?
I had never heard of him before he ran for Senate.
He was the most widely known guy considering the position. Name recognition is more important in a primary than in a general, because winners of a primary almost by default get instant name recognition. So, Warren would have a bit of a climb to win a primary — but, as David said, nothing that’s out of the range of possible (or even realistic) if she decides early enough.
a message of economic justice and keeping the banks in check could be very, very effective.
Not a well known name around the state, seems like her only connection is her resume as a Harvard academic which does not bode well for either race. That said I think she was a fantastic pick for her current post and will do far more for the country in that capacity than she could as a Senator.
is a consistent progressive vote in the House. His credentials as an advocate for working families will make him a compelling candidate against the faux populist currently occupying the seat.
odds are, my bet is its gonna be capuano (who i fully support and is my former congressman, and to whom i honestly think all that bashing of obama bs was just him being caught on a bad day). that said, being from wmass i do think our region, like many others outside of metro boston, is highly under represented and will be even more after the redistricting (does ne one really think that wmass wot be cut out?? have a happy retirement rep. olver) id love to see a strong south shore (real south shore, not the cape) or wmass candidate in the field. ne ideas??
I think whoever runs for Senate from the Congressional delegation is the seat that gets cut. Olver stays. Dunno for how long. But it’s been rumored for years that he was retiring in 2012 to make room for redistricting, and it’s not happening now.
<
p>I’m really disappointed that Olver has no Senate ambitions. National Journal consistently rates him as the most liberal member of the House (technically, there’s a multi-way tie every year, but he’s one of those), and it would be amazing to have someone of his caliber in the Senate. Actually, going through National Journal’s list gives you a pretty good idea of my preferences prior to looking at the list.
<
p>Among the MA delegation last year: http://www.nationaljournal.com…
<
p>1.Olver, who was never going to run anyway
12.Frank, who has said no
30. Delahunt, who wasn’t going to run anyway
35. Capuano, who it looks like I’ll be supporting, unless I find someone better from outside the delegation
40. Markey, who I would like but for his foreign policy views. Probably the most conservative I would accept, if Capuano decided not to run.
47. McGovern, who, in the more conservative half of the MA delegation is nowhere near as liberal as everyone gives him credit for
51. Tsongas
104. Neal
106.Tierney
149. Lynch
honestly, i wanna see someone from outside the delegation. there is something to the whole ‘new blood’ argument. maybe a mayor flannigan of fall river or st. sen rosenberg of amherst. hell, id be down for therese murray too. we dont exactly got a small bench here in the bay state
Murray, no.
Flanagan, Hell no. He actively sought to have a casino that Fall River couldn’t even legally build even if casino legislation had passed instead of a biotech park that would have been legal and have created a lot more permanent, high-paying jobs.
<
p>Rosenberg I would support over Capuano.
<
p>When was the last time we had a Senator from Western Mass, anyone know?
sen. fred gillet (r, springfield) served in the 20’s
Why on earth would anyone want him?
<
p>He took tens of millions of dollars this state invested in Fall River and flushed it down the toilet. And don’t you think — for a second — people or the media will forget it.
<
p>F him.
whereas Markey got a 91. They obviously don’t use the same criteria that I would use.
As I wrote before, “I think he would eat Scott Brown’s barn jacket wearing,”I drive a truck”, sound bite of a campaign for lunch.”
<
p>As much as I like to quote myself, I’d love to hear more from others. Can we get a bump to this discussion? Perhaps our most illustriuos editor could add a poll to the post featuring the candidates mentioned so far??
…until he announces he’s not running, which may well happen. Honestly nobody jumps out in my mind as a super-exciting candidate.
I think you’re the only Lowell-area person I know who actually likes the guy.
I just think he was a very good hard-working member of Congress, that I’ve imagined for a long time serving in the Senate. (He all but declared for the vacancy that John Kerry was going to create by becoming President.) He gained national stature fighting big tobacco and working on campaign finance reform. He almost always voted (I can’t think of any exceptions off hand.) the way I liked and was a reliable supportive vote for President Clinton. He’s a reformer who got his seat by defeating an incumbent Democrat and was overwhelmingly re-elected everytime after that. I have no doubt he’d still be in Congress if he had continued to run. I don’t know where you get the idea of people not liking him. I know several people who won’t commit to someone else (and this happened when he flirted with running for Governor) until they know for sure that he is out. Since leaving office he’s gotten a lot of praise for his work as UML Chancellor as well, leading many to see him as a leading candidate for UMass President.
congressman in the Commonwealth, I have to go with Jim McGovern, a man whose integrity and credentials are impeccable. And he’s a liberal who can hold onto one of the most conservative House districts in the state based on his record, his seriousness, and his core beliefs.
He knows he’d have no chance in a primary, and would fare little better in the general should he make it that far. If the field is weak, I have a hard time imagining Marty Meehan and Bill Galvin won’t give it a lot of consideration.
<
p>In my wildest dreams, Elizabeth Warren would run. I’d work myself like a dog to get her in office, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. She’s a pioneer in government and I think she’s going to be able to do more from where she’s at than if she were to run for Senate and be 1 of 100 voices in a very flawed system.
<
p>If I had to have a pick, I think I’d have to go with Tim Murray. I’d probably like McGovern more, but Murray’s the one who’s been a part of some major statewide campaigns, even if he’s the plus-one.
He very publicly considered running last time, but the only way he’d win a primary is if the left were hopelessly split. Galvin wouldn’t be my choice, but the one advantage to his going all the way IMO is the opportunity for a different Secretary. Tim Murray has already said that his next political ambition is to succeed DLP as Governor.
but we could do worse.
<
p>I think Lynch just realized how out of sync he is with the rest of the state… and polls have placed him as one of the least likely people to be able to win. Even in a three way race, with two progressives, he’d still probably lose to one of the progressives.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe, but no one would blame him for running for a different position in the same way that, say, they would if Patrick ran for it and broke his pledge to serve the full term. It’s really just a different beast because of Murray’s position.
<
p>At the end of the day, I think there’s also going to be a lot of pressure on Murray to run from the Patrick grassroots, many of whom are more closely associated to the Patrick camp than they are any other factions in the state party. (Let’s not forget how many people are active in the state party today who weren’t even ‘checked in’ before Patrick first ran for office — even to this day, that’s a large chunk of the state party’s committee and grassroots.)
<
p>I mean I am as desperate as anyone else to get rid of that bastard, but kicking him up to the Senate is not the way to do it. Anyway his record on issues places him to the right of Lynch on the typical liberal litmus test so he is a non-starter. He has never run for a serious office because he doesn’t want to put his terrible tenure and his abhorent record against busing, against gay rights, against AIDS funding, against abortion, and in favor of the death penalty up to the test. Remember he was an arch-conservative Hicks supporting Dem back when he ran Brighton as its State Senator. And he has crossed far too many people on his way to his current position to get further.
I do not think Warren would be a good candidate this cycle, its too late for her to build the kind of infrastructure and momentum needed to run a serious campaign. Also besides her Harvard career, what connection does she have to the state?
<
p>The most important reason for her not to run though is what you stated
<
p>
<
p>We can disagree on the filibuster and the Senate’s existence, but as it stands, its a far cry from its glory days and a very flawed institution. She can get far more done from her current position than as a Senator and that is the most compelling reason.
<
p>I think Murray is not only the most progressive but also the most electable candidate we could field, and I think he would womp Brown. It’ll be really hard for him to say no.
<
p>Also Galvin will flirt as he always does but he won’t run, he is far too much of political snake to ever win an office that required real campaigning and transparency to win. Besides his historical voting record against gay rights, in favor of the death penalty, and against abortion make him a non-starter in the primary. And those last three reasons are why Lynch is DOA in a Senate primary. He will be the Congressman from Southie for life though, but I am surprise the vast majority of his district (which is not in Southie) hasn’t cared to correct that.
but she’d have to start soon.
<
p>I just don’t think she’s that interested, for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread. She’s already got a good job, one that actually gives her more influence, particularly over what she cares about, than most Senators.