This is cross-posted at Marry in Massachusetts, with cutesy art.
As much as I join in the easy ridicule of the local GOP party-ette, this is a grand chance to put it out there for party and principle…if only she had either. Healey, you might notice, is a woman as well as nominal Republican. She was not the first of her gender to be looey here, following the bumbling and equally arrogant Jane Swift in the office. However, she was elected, not appointed, although her only real experience was as head of the state GOP and that for only a short time.
Pretending that the Dems here are all progressives and lefties, our Republicans often hide in the other party. That is practical for election purposes of hypocritical and cowardly pols. I question the strategy, which seem based on individual offices. If those pols who really believe in the national and state GOP platforms shed their donkey skins, wouldn't they give the less-left-leaning voters a real choice, rather than making them decode when it comes time to vote? Wouldn't that provide a real two-party (with lots of fractional minors) instead of Dems and DINOs?
So, Healey has her chance to lead her party's battle here. Even if it meant defeat on January 19th for the special election, it would have been for the good of the commonwealth as well as her nominal party.
Instead, we have lesser known possibles with less money and fewer connections to fight. They may have more guts and party loyalty, but they have weaker chances. In fact, DINO U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (who wears the badge of conservative Dem) will likely run and stands more of a chance of winning and representing the GOP views than any of them.
Healey has never been a leader or heroine and is not about to start. She is a wealthy woman married to a wealthy man. She seems to have more emotionally pulling if more trivial things to do. Her privileged status may be the stuff of GOP ideal, all except for the courage of convictions and advancing the party.
It’s smart. She read the handwriting on the wall and decided not to be a martyr. She wouldn’t be doing her party any favors with a suicide mission. They will need her and her money on a race that she might be able to win. The key word there is “might.”
<
p>And yes, Ms. Healey is in fact, a “wealthy woman married to a wealthy man.” We have people like that in our party too; in fact we have a wealthy man married to a wealthy woman whom we call “Senator.” So what?
<
p>and the “emotionally pulling” things Ms. Healey may have to do might not be a trivial as you think. She is the mother of two teen-age children. It’s not exactly progressive to assume this is “trivial.”
The so-what with her position is that she lets it determine what she does and whether she puts her alleged beliefs into action. That would be in strong contrast to, say, a Ted Kennedy.
had a wife. Ms. Healey does not. Women make these choices all the time. It’s not right; it’s not wrong. It just is.
Just for the simple act of running–with all the work and demeaning crap you have to undertake–I have to respect folks who run for office, no matter their idealogical persuasion. So Healy decided to take a pass…when are you going to show some guts and run?
I’m fairly introverted. I am queasy in public speaking and run pretty hard into the Myers-Briggs I side of the E/I scale.
<
p>I try to influence a bit with my writing, but I can’t see myself doing the sustained public-speaking periods that would be required. I admire those who can do that.
From MassMarrier comment on his blog…
<
p>”I can tell you the reason why Kerry Healey might not want a Federal seat…It was going around the well-heeled rumor mill in Beverly Farms, Prides, and Manchester-by-the-Sea that Kerry wanted to keep it local. It is alleged that Sean Healey (Kerry’s husband) would have received the state’s pensions to manage if Kerry had been elected Governor. Sean Healey’s company, AMG in Beverly had as its CFO, Darrell Crate, then Chair of the GOP in Massachusetts. And if you all remember it was Sean Healey who was going to invest $ 14 million of his own money into his wife’s run. If what I allege is true, then Sean has yet to figure out how Kerry Healey in a national seat would be profitable. I guess as soon as the profitability is realized, the wifie, will ‘go for it.'”
That’s from John, who has a Blogger ID but hidden profile. It’s thus anonymous, but intriguing nonetheless.
from MassMarrier’s blog, “John” who commented. I am intrigued also as I have heard a similar thing…from a State Rep.
My comment makes as much sense of the nonsense that started this idiotic discussion. Then the genius blames the Myers-Briggs test for not getting involved. You can’t make this crap up. Why can’t Kerry Healey just decide she is not going to run without being called gutless? What if she determined that she could not win? I’d say she’s smart, not gutless. To me calling her gutless is, in fact, gutless.
Film at 11.
We do have purple Democrats. Legions of them. They’re the ones who elected Reagan. But most of them don’t live here in Massachusetts, you know, (fill in the blank’s) country.
He’s not running. Therefore in your usual democratic method of stereotyping, he is gutless too. The most I know of Martha Coakley is that she’s the Middlesex DA who blew the Louise Woodward case and then whined on TV how it was so unfair that she lost. As for others: have they travelled beyond 128? There are voters out there too. As for Kerry Healey: I don’t think raising her family is “trivial”. Maybe if you splintered platform dems thought more about families, we might not need all the social programs you shove down our throats.
now gutless, in your estimation?
It’s been very funny to see the literal sorts clinging to “gutless”. Have at it.
<
p>To your point, I can pretend it is a real question. Joe announced that he will continue with his proven larger good of his energy group. He also likely had a lock on the Senate seat had he chosen to run.
<
p>So, on both counts, he was not pulling a Healey.
and call her a breeder.
Your whole argument was based on Healey’s “gutless” unwillingness to run. Your title said as much. Now it’s just a “nit.” Your reductionism…not mine.
<
p>I think you’re trying damned hard to wiggle out of a “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” argument and you’re not going to win. If it’s okay for Joe to take a pass on the Senate race, due to his other obligations….then it’s perfectly appropriate for someone else, even the “differently-winged” to do so.
A real point was what might be good for the local Republicans and for a two-party state. She totally blew that. There is the option of considering that smart of her not to run a race she might well lose. Yet, she was plainly the strongest, best known and most likely to attract contributions. A strong showing could only have been good for the party and future GOP candidates — including their ability to attract voters and cash. Even we pinkos would like to see more balance and stronger issues debates. Too many times, the Republican candidate seems to base a campaign on providing some theoretical check on a Dem contingent.
Women make decisions about what’s good for their family all the time – it isn’t necessarily what’s in the best interests of the party, her career, or anything else.
<
p>Furthermore, the responsibility of a real two-party system doesn’t hang on her shoulders alone. Additionally, there is no empirical evidence that supports your contention that she was the strongest of any republican candidates. In fact, the data suggests that she’s not. Her last showing sans Mitt indicates that she needs more time on the farm team. A strong showing would have been good for the party…but a bad showing would be a nightmare for any hopes the party might have in the future.
<
p>She did the right thing.