At the state Democratic Party convention at the Paul E. Tsongas Arena, O’Reilly got 22.5 percent of the 2,574 ballots cast, more than the 15 percent he needed to secure a spot on the primary ballot. Kerry got the majority of votes, which means he’ll get the party’s endorsement.
O’Reilly has it right, he’s a nuisance. So what is the point? Just because he could?
http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
Please share widely!
why don’t we just make Senate seats lifetime appointments and tough shit if you don’t like it.
Leonidas, you’re usually such a subtle commentator. Maybe it’s summer and you’re taking a long weekend away from nuance. Or maybe you’re frustrated. Or maybe Xerxes is giving you trouble again.
<
p>No one is arguing that Kerry should get a pass for life. No one. At least two of the people who argued against O’Reilly appearing on the ballot used to work for O’Reilly. So at least those guys don’t think it should be a lifetime position.
<
p>It’s more of a resource question. Where can progressives get the most bang for the effort involved?
<
p>Probably in Maine or in Rep. Shays’ district.
<
p>Not so likely on this particular Senate challenge where the challenger is at least as flawed as the incumbent.
<
p>Do you think that resource calculation is wrong?
I don’t like having to explain to Democrats why electoral competition is important to the democratic process.
<
p>Peter Vickery said it best, in his blog
<
p>
<
p>What I saw today at the convention was a concentrated effort by the Party and the Kerry campaign to purge the primary from competition and stifle debate. It was very disappointing, to say the least.
Someone posted some days ago that: “Kerry gets it.” Really?
A minion has to post that his incompetent boss understands that the electorate of Massachusetts have finally tired of his elitist BS. Like John Kerry is better than most of us.
<
p>After almost thirty years of public office—-Kerry finally understands that there are responsibilities with holding public office? I don’t care who runs against Kerry—they have my vote and I’ll also send them money. I have had enough of “Live shot”.
Wondering outloud…
<
p>If O’Reilly got 22.5% against an over 2-decade US Senator with an open, RECORDED ballot, what would he have gotten with a SECRET ballot?
<
p>And, if an unknown Gloucester Democrat could get 22.5% against Kerry, what could Martha Coakley have gotten?
<
p>hmmmmm
Martha Coakley wouldn’t get any votes at the convention against Kerry because Martha wouldn’t run against Kerry. Martha Coakley was one of John Kerry’s biggest supporters at the convention. She gave his nomination speech. She knows how to give a great speech too!
<
p>I think Martha Coakley is great and I look forward to voting for her for US Senate in the future and I expect I will get that chance, but not until she decides to actually run…and she will not decide to run until one of our two currently sitting U.S. Senators retires.
No need to get in an uproar over a hypothetical wondering outloud question…
<
p>Here’s another one…do you think O’Reilly will break 30% on the September ballot against Kerry? (secret balloting in mind)?
Around 20-30% of this state’s population will vote against Kerry on the basis of his original Iraq vote alone. Then there’s got to be another 5-10% in addition to that on marriage equality and other positions. Kerry’s going to win walking away, but he’s not getting more than 70% of the vote. Practically no one ever does when there’s two people on the ballot…
nt
Why should anyone get a free ride? If we actually believe in “Big D” Democracy, we should be applauding the effort put forth by Mr. O’Reilly, and not disparaging him. I think the move to keep him off the ballot is undemocratic and unbefitting of people who purport to be progressive.
we should have as many people on the ballot as possible.
I don’t think it’s necessarily undemocratic for party members to limit access to the primary ballot so that resources can be targeted to general election races. This is particularly true in the case of someone supposedly running to the left of John Kerry, who has been a strong voice for progressives over the decades.
“by this logic we should have as many people on the ballot as possible.”
<
p>That’s absurd – an absolute red herring. In state-wide races, getting on the Massachusetts Democratic Primary involves two steps: getting 15% of a convention’s support, as well as getting X number of signatures. Obviously, the latter was not criticized as a method to limit the number of people on the ballot, though the former is. Therefore, it stands to reason, that your claim is both completely false and a means to change the conversation to one that you think you’re more equipped to win.
Arguing that “no one should get a free ride” is different than saying “everyone should be on the ballot.”
<
p>Unfortunately a crowded ballot, at least without such innovations as preferential voting (aka IRV), is not necessarily a fair one. A minority plurality can win; also an incumbent facing many opponents has a powerful advantage, as the opposition vote is divided.
<
p>In our one-party state, I’d prefer an IRV preliminary election to select two candidates for the primary ballot. However, the existing mechanism for winnowing the ballot is the state convention. 15% is not a very high bar, either.
<
p>The instant case is about having two instead of one, and none of the above applies. But that’s because three is not two, not because of what you call “this logic.”
Give me a F’n break. I don’t care if their are fifty people vying for one seat. It’s one of those annoying constitutionally protected things.
Running as a Democrat is certainly not constitutionally protected. For that matter, the Tsongas arena filled with 1000s of Democrats from around the state hardly constitutes a smoke filled back room.
Many delegates I spoke to voted for O’Reilly, not because they preferred him, but because they believed he deserved ballot access. I think the Globe is wrong that this was an “embarrassment” for Kerry. When was the last time any candidate who managed to get enough signatures denied ballot access at the convention? The message from the convention today was twofold: 1) an overwhelming endorsement of Kerry; and 2) O’Reilly deserved a shot on the primary ballot.
Yes, that was 14 years ago, in a three-way race, at a time when there would be a second chance to get on the ballot if no candidate got a majority. My point isn’t that it never happened, but merely that many convention delegates vote strategically to ensure candidates other than their favorite get on the ballot. This is particularly true in a two-way race — to ensure primary voters have a choice on the ballot.
<
p>Some politicians live in an echo chamber where they keep hearing how great they are. We have a junior senator who lives in an echo chamber.
<
p>Having a staff that listens is the first step.
<
p>A certain Junior senator should answer the following questions:
<
p>Are you keeping the nation safe?
<
p>When George W. Bush moved Francis X. Taylor, the Coordinator for Counterterrorism from the start of the Bush administration to almost a year after 9-11 to be assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, did Senate Foreign Relations Committee member John Kerry do enough?
<
p>Didn’t the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then the full Senate need to confirm an assistant secretary of state?
<
p>What was John Kerry and his senior foreign policy adviser, Nancy Stetson, thinking of?
<
p>Wasn’t national security on their minds?
<
p>Wouldn’t it have been important to the nation to highlight this action of George W. Bush to illustrate the Bush administration’s failures on national security?
<
p>Wasn’t Senate confirmed Coordinator for Counterterrorism Francis X. Taylor the right hand man of then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice?
<
p>Weren’t there indicators that George W. Bush was not keeping the national security in mind before he led us to war?
<
p>Isn’t Condoleezza Rice now Senate confirmed secretary
of state?
<
p>Was John Kerry asleep at the switch?
<
p>How is Frank Taylor , worldwide security chief at General Electric, doing after his stellar goverment service?
<
p>
this is the 2nd i’ve seen (so far)
<
p>hey everyone, peabody needs to be heard!
<
p>everyone look! it’s peabody!
<
p>look!
So far Peabody writes in two modes: (1) dim-witted liberal mode and (2) wingnut mode. (You can scan his/her comments to confirm this:
commentmodeHillary is a Class Act!dim-witted liberalAppreciation to David!dim-witted liberalWell, Then I Will Try To Restore It From Memory.wingnutIt’s Amazing That David is Permitting Criticism of Deval!wingnut (with traces of dim-witted liberal)Like a Bad Penny!wingnut
<
p>This Echo Chamber post is from neither mode which is what makes it a particularly interesting specimen. It bears repeating!
<
p>I think you can tell from my posts, that I am neither a dim-witted liberal nor a wingnut. I consider myself aa fiscally responsible progressive.
<
p> 😉
<
p>
Rather you are clearly a wingnut who writes dim-witted liberal — or progressive — things as a form of parody.
<
p>There was a regularly recurring feature on an old Air America called Liberal Rules for the Day which made hilarious fun of liberals.
Actually, no, you have it wrong.
<
p>Hiding one’s beliefs — with a big helping of thin parody — makes it more difficult to engage them. I would prefer that Peabody state what he/she believes, substantiate it, and be forthright.
<
p>Instead we get a lot of “I’m a progressive!” nonsense followed by other comments that make it crystal clear Peabody is no progressive.
<
p>This is not a personal attack. No personal attributes were used.
<
p>Rather it is a request to engage and to be direct.
Laurel:
<
p>I am glad that I have provided people with an opportunity to read this post. I wasn’t sure anyone would notice it as post 66.
<
p>It has never been about me. I would post annonomously if it were a possibility.
<
p>I don’t need attention, but there are some things we Democrats need to pay attention to so that we get elected nationally.
<
p>The Republicans would never siftboat me because I would never fall asleep at the switch. Complacency breeds mediocraty!
<
p>Mediocraty won’t win us elections! Not for the Senate or the White House!
<
p>Go Barack! You have learned from a good teacher!
<
p>
<
p>If my post strikes a nerve wth you Kerry apologists, I feel bad for you!
<
p>If John Kerry had been paying attention at the controls, he would be president today. His mind must have been on polo or cricket.
<
p>Ed O’Reilly may keep John Kerry in Massachusetts a little. Barack should express his thaanks to Ed. The more real people John Kerry speaks with, the more allienated voters Barack has.
<
p>John Kerry is the poster child for elitism! Barack and the party need to have people like Jim Webb and Tim Kaine out there for them!
<
p>
!
<
p>!
<
p>!
Punctuation is the new vocabulary.
<
p>Webb and others are good for the Senate. Barack should pick somone he is comfortable with as vice president!
<
p>Your point is well taken.
<
p>
Just read around the Nets at the delirious support that accompanied Ned Lamont’s 30% at the Connecticut State Convention in 2006. I have no idea if Lieberman spent as profligately as did Kerry at the convention, but just shy of one quarter isn’t a bad start.
<
p>I don’t believe Lieberman had the full-court press working in 2006 the way Kerry did this year, either. It’s amazing the amount of money was put into letters and phone calls trying to dissuade delegates from supporting Kerry. Heck, some of the advice edged toward the threatening variety, as in “if you’re really interested in helping the Democratic Party in the future, you really should support Senator Kerry…” Not to mention the stunt with doubling his speech time.
<
p>In short, O’Reilly’s result wasn’t too far off Lamont’s successful start, despite the party mandarins taking their best shot to shut him up and make him go away. While the odds remain stacked against him, he looks to have a much better chance coming out of today than he did going in. The machine did all it could to kill O’Reilly right off and failed. Now that the race expands statewide, Kerry will have to do his own work a little more.
I think it was a wrong-headed strategy by the Kerry campaign to try and keep O’Reilly off the ballot. It looked elitist and anti-democratic.
<
p>Mind you, I voted for Kerry – I see no reason to throw all that seniority and experience away.
<
p>Additionally, I have talked with Ed O’Reilly enough to convince me I don’t want to vote for him.
<
p>But it is kinda like telling your teenage daughter not to date someone – the daughter is then MUCH more likely to date that forbidden fruit.
<
p>If Kerry had asked me [he did not] I would have suggested that he ignore O’Reilly and serve a good, hot breakfast that – like the “horn of plenty” – couldn’t possibly run out to all comers on June 7th. Imagine…..
If you’re going to base your decision on those two attributes, you have to ask yourself two questions.
<
p>First, is it the right kind of experience? That’s a point RFK Jr. actually made about McCain at the convention, speaking in favor of Obama in the very same speech he was introducing Kerry (whom openly wanted McCain on his ticket). All of that tickles me pink right now.
<
p>Second, what good is all that seniority doing for you right now? It would be doing much more if we had a second Ted Kennedy, who is much better at constituent services and getting stuff for our state.
<
p>Consider this a reply from the Devil’s Advocate, but it’s one I hope Senator Kerry’s campaign will take to heart. If Kerry is going to campaign on seniority and experience alone, he’s not going to be anymore successful now than when he was running for President.
<
p>My suggestion for Kerry would be to pull the rug right out from under O’Reilly and switch his support to marriage equality for all, no matter where they live, to loudly advocating for Cape Wind and projects like it all across Massachusetts and to support single payer health care. If he does that, O’Reilly’s campaign is over.
Given that Kerry has a GOP opponent in November…
<
p>Kerry’s job as a candidate is to win in November. Anything less is failure.
<
p>So, heading into the DSC, he has two choices:
1. Organize. Grab as many Democratic movers and shakers as possible. Get whips, rally for votes and support, the usual. Either (a) EO’R is kept off the ballot, helping Kerry ensure he wins in November, or (b) EO’R isn’t kept off the ballot by getting just over 15, or (c) EO’R isn’t kept off the ballot but also gets enough to outright embarrass Kerry, or (d) Kerry fails to get 15.
<
p>If (a) EO’R is kept off the ballot, people will forget by December [given Kerry’s general election opponent], if (b) EO’R just exceeds 15, Kerry avoids being embarrassed and Kerry has already laid the groundwork to win in the primary because he’s lined up local active Dems, the kind who run phone banks and knock on doors and hold signs and raise funds and otherwise help candidates. Clearly, (c) and (d) were both unlikely and not good for Kerry.
<
p>Why shouldn’t John Kerry try for (a) or (b), given that both of those choices help his campaign, and that (c) and (d) hurt his campaign.
<
p>
<
p>It’s neither elitist nor undemocratic to try your best to win. It’s the MA Dem’s job to ensure democracy; they did that with their sigs and delegate threshold criteria. It’s a candidate’s job to win the damned election, and John Kerry did his job on Saturday by trying to maximize his chances of winning in November.
<
p>Where’s the beef?
When I first met John Kerry, we were both young Vietnam veterans trying to end that war. The war was started and kept going by rich old guys who didn’t care if people like us wound up dead or maimed because of it.
<
p>Today, one of us is a rich old guy who doesn’t seem to care much that the war he helped to start causes young soldiers to wind up dead or maimed. Guess which one of us it is. The guys in VVAW told me John was more interested in his political career than in ending the war. I didn’t believe it, but they were right.
<
p>Until Hillary Clinton got busy, Kerry got more in corporate contributions than any other Democrat. He may be a “voice” for progressive causes, but it’s just noise. When he could have made a difference, he didn’t.
<
p>John Kerry made himself famous being an articulate spokesman against bad war. It was a politically astute position at that time and in that place. Thirty years later, he tried to take an equally astute position – one which was diametrically opposed to the ideals he once stood for.
<
p>Since I intend to keep my promise to him that I will never again vote for John Kerry, I welcome the chance to vote for someone who seems more like a real progressive.
<
p>If anyone can tell me just what’s so bad about Ed O’Reilly, please do.