But Lynch really isn’t really fooling anyone. Like the three other current or former Congressmen mulling a race are waiting for a smoke signal from the Kennedy compound. It’s like Lynch, Congressmen Ed Markey, Mike Capuano and former Congressman Marty Meehan are standing alone in St. Peter’s Square looking to the lone chimney waiting to see if the burned ballots come out white or black.
Seems pretty silly on its face, right? These are four powerful political figures in their own right – Markey a ranking chairman, Meehan sitting on nearly $5 million, Lynch and Capuano old school street brawlers never afraid of a fight. Why wait for Joseph P. Kennedy II, a guy who has been out of politics for 11 years and who hasn’t said one public word to indicate that he wants to follow his uncle into the United States Senate?
The answer isn’t as obvious as the pundits will make you believe.
Yes, they are worried about losing to Kennedy. Yes, Joe (or Vicki) Kennedy would be able to better pull on the family heartstrings and metaphorically make this a short campaign about a return to Camelot, another passing of the torch and not letting the dream die. All that is very real and that alone could be enough to freeze the field.
But consider these other factors:
Coakley is rightly receiving praise these days for having the courage to jump in the race regardless of whether Joe Kennedy runs. But for Coakley, as the only candidate with statewide experience and the only Democratic woman so far showing any interest, the math is much easier – and the risks far fewer.
I agree with you general assessments, and before commenting more, I want to say I lean towards the most liberal possibility in the developing field…Joe Kennedy.
<
p>There are a couple of Coakley weaknesses that I haven’t heard any pundits talk about. First is the fact that despite winning a statewide race and two races in Middlesex County, she never has been tested in a political contest (unless you want to count her losing race for state rep years ago). On the one hand she’s one of the luckiest politicians alive…as First Assistant DA with a wave of name ID thanks to the Nanny case, she had no serious opponent in her initial run for DA (I believe she had no Dem contest and a very weak Rep in the General). And again, she had no primary race for AG and only weak Rep opposition. And along with that relatively free ride, she never has had to raise money (but I assume Barbara Lee, Swanee Hunt et al, will help in that area). Of course speaking of money, while your right that Congresscritters will be bogged down in DC voting…I suspect Coakley will be spending plenty of time in DC, NY and elsewhere raising money, because her Federal bank account starts at zero, while the others have at least 1.5 million and they all know how to shake that national fund raising tree.
<
p>Martha Coakley certainly has a lot of strong qualities and political strengths. But she comes into this race as a rookie CANDIDATE competing for a heavy weight seat. And perhaps her biggest challenge is that she is far more comfortable in a court room or talking about points of law that political communication–whether that is working a room, giving a stump speech or mastering a TV debate.
Our government, in its infinite wisdom, distinguishes between state and federal campaign accounts. So any federal officeholder has more money than Martha.
Martha has raised plenty of money in the past. I wouldn’t underestimate her.
…because she never had any competitive races in the past…for AG she had no Dem opponent and had a very weak Rep opponent. Look up how much she raised for AG in ’06 over at OCPF…a quick review ball parks it at$500,000 (with about $380,000 in the bank from previous years). Small potatoes for a statewide election (but she didn’t have to raise much, because it was a fairly easy race).
Martha might be a rookie candidate at the federal level, but let’s face it. Some “candidates” have been Congressmen for years and they’re still “rookies” in terms of what they bring to the table. I’m pretty stoked by this race.
… who wrote the majority opinion deciding a US Supreme Court case against her. Coakley wanted to use evidence in a drug case without giving the defendant an opportunity to confront the witness.
<
p>Scalia, Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg all voted that this violated the 6th amendment. The case is MELENDEZ-DIAZ v. MASSACHUSETTS.
<
p>As I wrote in another post, it’s hard to believe, but true, that AG Coakley is to the right of Scalia. I suspect more people will become interested in what this prosecutor really stands for when she asks to be a senator; and that may change some equations.
Say what you will, at least Martha is passionate about her work. This is in sharp contrast to a number of others, who play the numbers game before deciding which side of the issue they’re going to be on. So she made a mistake – and she’ll learn from it. We’ve certainly forgiven far bigger, and far worse mistakes from any number of other congressmen. I also think calling Martha “to the right of Scalia” is a bit of a stretch. She’s a progressive on many issues. So, which candidate are you backing?
to be backing Ed O’Reilly?
Bless his heart.
relive the memories….
…yes
In Massachusetts, being slapped down by an ignoramus such as Scalia is a good thing. The man is an ideologue first and foremost.
… is not the point. The decision is the point.
<
p>Scalia wrote for a majority of the Supreme Court a decision upholding the 6th amendment right to confront witnesses against you.
<
p>For me, the issue is the Constitutional Bill of Rights, not Martha Coakley. The fact that she supported and argued the case tells us her perspective. It’s the perspective that is at issue, not the person.
For most sensible people. Scalia makes George W. Bush look like a towering legal, ethical and constitutional scholar.
I’m certainly not a fan of Scalia, but objectively between him and Bush, Scalia definitely IS the scholar.
… I didn’t.
<
p>If Scalia makes Bush look so towering (and even a dog may accomplish that), what does Scalia make Coakley look like? That was the reason for my headline: Coakley is to the right of Scalia. It’s a serious legal issue, not a personality contest.
<
p>Here are the facts: Coakley prosecuted Melendez-Diaz while denying him his 6th amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The state court convicted him. On appeal, Scalia took the lead in the opinion that reversed the conviction and upheld the 6th amendment right.
<
p>I go with the Bill of Rights. And as for Scalia’s “scholarship,” judge for yourself from this quotation about the meaning and history of the right to confront witnesses against you:
<
p>BTW, I never thought I’d be arguing in favor of Scalia against a MA A.G., but surprises happen.
Is this the case where the people who work in a forensic drug lab, who test and identify the substances seized during a search and seizure, will either be allowed or not be allowed, under the ruling, to be called by the defense?
<
p>Martha argues no, that the defense attorney should have no claim to call this person and ask questions about how they handled the substances, how they tested them, the potential for contamination, degree of certainty, to answer questions about those issues, the chain of evidence because it is expensive for the state to have them appear?
<
p>Martha puts a lot of faith in the process and wants to roll back the rights of the accused to question the forensic lab person. Seems to be that any problems that may have occurred in the law, that unreasonably put the suspecting greater legal jeopardy than what is merited by the facts, is a bad idea. Whatever happened to the LIBERAL principle “Better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.” If I have the facts right, this is another example of what I describe as law and order zealotry.
<
p>IANAL so if anyone has a more accurate assessment of this case, please share.
Seems to be that any problems that may have occurred in the LAB
Frank…a not so small correction…when she ran for DA in Middlesex County which spans 1/4 of the state, Coakley was up against 3 or 4 opponents in the Primary…one was Mike Sullivan whose family was a county political powerhouse, another was Charlie Flaherty’s son, a handsome and very well-funded candidate…I do not recall the names of the others..but I remember attending a debate between all of them in Cambridge…she was amazingly cool under fire, articulate, and compelling…I remember thinking that night that this was a candidate who would go far beyond DA…it was a hotly contested race, but she prevailed.
<
p>I’m actually hoping that Joe Kennedy does get in (although i think he won’t) because i think Coakley will win this Joe or no Joe. I’ve heard a lot of people over the past week express the feeling that maybe it would be a good thing not to elect someone just because they are related to a family they have admired and voted for in the past.
…nor is OCPF on line for ’98…but Coakley was the big front-runner from day one because of her Nanny-case public exposure. And the fact that 2 of the opponents were scions from Middlesex County made it all the easier for her because they split the “old boy” vote.
<
p>I do not disagree with you on the positive qualities of Martha…I’m just saying she’s never been in a tough political campaign. What amazes me is that given the electoral importance of Middlesex DA (the most visible elected office below statewide office) that it hasn’t had a tough, big spending race since Reilly first won it in ’88 (?) and even then it was not a close race. (We almost had one this time around, but as you know, as soon as the career prosecutor proved to the politicians that he could raise the big money…they folded and given Leone a free ride.)
Martha Coakley’s only campaign experience prior to the 1998 DA’s race was a lose in a Democratic Primary to now State Rep. Marty Walsh.
<
p>That race was in Dorchester(Suffolk County) so when Coakley ran for the open DA’s seat in Middlesex County her name had never appeared on the ballot there. Mike Sullivan was a proven vot-getter in Cambridge and had significant family name recognition in Middlesex County.
<
p>I worked for Martha in that race and anyone who thinks it was a real political test wasn’t on the ground.
<
p>Any name recognition she had from the Nanny case was offset by the Sullivan family name (think Sullivan wasn’t a tough opponent – take a look at the results from the 2006 Middlesex Clerks race – 82% against a Somerville Alderman who ran in the primary).
<
p>As for the AG’s race in 2006, Coakley’s standing as a candidate kept opponents out of the race. An open statewide office and no primary challenger. Seems most thought her a candidate they couldn’t beat.
I think it is smart for any candidate to weigh the Kennedy factor in calculating his or her chances of raising enough money to win. Especially a sitting Congressperson like Mike Capuano who already holds a very powerful position.
If someone doesn’t want to be a Senator enough to be willing to run and lose, whether because of the “Kennedy factor” or some other reason, I’m not sure exactly why I should vote for him.
or a Constitutional office holder, or Local office holder who didn’t drag his/her friends and supporters into an expensive doomed campaign to prove that he/she was willing to lose to a Kennedy or had “nothing to lose” because he/she they could run and not have to give up their current seat.
<
p>Especially if that Member of Congress or Constitutional or Local office holder already had a full plate of important work to do in a national or state or local policy arena.
<
p>Isn’t this a once in a lifetime choice between personal political ambition and a life time opportunity to play a leadership role in a national state or local policy arena in the middle of a recovering economy?
She’s also the only candidate who has run and won statewide.
Mr Guarino- I checked out your blog, which in fact a link to MS&L.
<
p>Are there any conflicts of interest or disclosures required in your critique of the candidates of the major issues?
<
p>It seems to me MS&L would benefit if the correct candidate were elected as the next senator from Mass.
I believe that Coakley is likely the front-runner. I was initially quite impressed by her gumption in going full speed ahead Joe or no Joe. I am a little disappointed by her press conference, her commitment to ‘destroy the Hyde amendment’, and her support of archaic drug laws. I would also be interested to hear what she thinks about foreign policy before I could fully decide.
<
p>I hope Capuano gets in because I think he is the only potential candidate who actually knows what he’s talking about when he talks about foreign policy, the only candidate who has solid anti-war credentials (Martha, Joe Kennedy were on the sidelines, Lynch voted for the war), only candidate who supported stopping the funding as a route to ending the war. The only candidate expressing reservations about our Afghan commitments. I think that kind of progressive foreign policy vision would be absent from the debate without his candidacy.
<
p>That said I like Lynch as well, his pro-war votes notwithstanding it took a lot of courage and foresight to oppose the bad bank bailout and to be the only pro-life member of the MA delegation. You can disagree with him on that, but at least he stays true to his courage and convictions unlike some other politicians who flip flop on that issue depending on the audience they are talking to
Yes, Martha does have big advantages. When she goes to round up support from party insiders, she can boast that she kept her AG nose out of their business. No nasty corruption probes here! And think of all here great accomplishments in state-wide office. Why, there’s….. and… and she’s a woman too! That’s quite a combination – the I Didn’t Indict You factor together with the First Woman Senator From Massachusetts meme – how can she loose?
If you think only men make good Senators, why not just come out and say it.
only men who didn’t indict corrupt politicians.
<
p>Why should we deny her the advantage of being a women and running to be the first woman Senator from Mass when we have no apparent objection to reserving the seat for a Kennedy? /snark
<
p>All I’m saying is, let’s try to pick the best candidate Kennedy or not, women or not, etc.
Martha Coakley must come across with more personality than she does on her website video if she’s going to win this race.