Both of these candidates bring alot to the table. Both of these candidates also have so much in common, so my personal endorsment for Martha is not because I disagree with Mike’s polictics, but it is more in line with strategy. Mike Capuano holds a very important seat in the House, if he were to win the primary and ultimately win the general election that would leave his district without a liberal voice. The next special election may bring about a more conservative Democrat(Blue Dog),with the 8th district being highly democratic I do not see a Republican or any other party winning his seat, but a blue dog could, which means we didnt lose anything in the Senate but we did lose alittle something in the house. NOW if Martha Coakley wins, Massachusetts keeps our liberal agenda alive in the Senate and we still have a strong Liberal voice in the House. Let me know what BMGer’s think of this strategy
“Both of these candidates also have so much in common.”
<
p>How do we really know this? We know that Capuano supports single-payer, we know that he has been a leader in pushing for an Afghanistan exit strategy, we can see from his track record that he is a true progressive.
<
p>Coakley? We know very, very little, and what we do know about her positions, we have to take on faith. Some good stuff in this interview. At 4:04 left, Coakley takes an ambiguous position on Afghanistan. It wasn’t an awful answer, saying we should be “very careful” sending in more troops. In general, I like what I here. I just think that we know, in Michael Capuano, that we will be getting a strong, outspoken progressive leader in the Senate, which we desperately need.
won’t Martha run for his empty seat in Congress?
When martha wins, mike will keep his seat and we will have the best of both worlds.
what will Martha do?
…and seek re-election in 2010. It just occured to me though, if she does win in January there is a very narrow window to recruit potential delegates to run at caucus in February for the 2010 nominating conventions. Is there any good gossip out there about who might be quietly laying the groundwork (like Coakley herself did regarding the Senate vacancy) to run for AG next year and thus ready to announce at a moment’s notice?
n/t
I’ve been wondering about what is likely to happen at the Convention and the potential of a contested DA’s race. Some people feel that whoever is appointed to fill the vacancy is unlikely to be challenged by a Democrat. Others feel differently.
<
p>Since in recent history AGs have come from being Middlesex DA, there is speculation that Gerry Leone would run.
The Boston Globe has an article on this. If Leone were to become AG he would be at least the 4th consecutive Middlesex DA to accede to that office.
<
p>(HT: Richard Howe, Lowell blogger and Northern Middlesex Register of Deeds)
Bristol County D.A. Sam Sutter
I thought she liked being Attorney General. Is she even in his district?
She lives in Markey’s district.
Mike Capuano came to Arlington tonight – and he talked about who he is and what he believes in. He’s the genuine article.
<
p>I met Mike Capuano in 2003, when I went down to Washington to lobby on behalf of Massachusetts school committees. I walked out the door hoping he would run for governor, for here was someone who understood the issues facing local governments, understood the issues of public education.
<
p>Most people who end up in the senate don’t have the real world experience that I find to be so critically important for a federal legislator. As a local government person, I know that the Feds can dump lots of pie in the sky ideas and mandates on cities, towns, and school districts. Mike Capuano, former mayor, former school committee chair, gets it.
<
p>He’s a strong, passionate, committed progressive who came up through the ranks – who understands cities and towns. He has a great progressive record, not just rhetoric.
<
p>Why would we turn our back on the real deal, a committed progressive who has been working on our behalf?
What is the difference between a progressive and a liberal…TK called himself a liberal (proudly)…Capuano calls himself a progressive…I asked someone what the difference was and they said a progressive is someone who doesn’t want to be labeled a liberal but has liberal leanings…the conservatives turned the word “liberal” into a label that “cautious” politicians wanted to run away from, thus “progressive” emerged as a code substitute.
<
p>We have 3 liberals and one BainCo-GOP leaning conservative imposter running for OUR US Senate seat.
<
p>Martha is a liberal based on litmus issue positions that she has publicly taken: anti-death penalty, anti-war, pro-PLA for workers, pro-wind power, pro-choice, pro-pay equity for women and all workers, pro-public option in health care reform…
<
p>I am not positive but I am guessing that Mike lines up on those issues along side Martha’s positions.
<
p>
There was a time when I thought of liberals and progressives agreeing on goals with liberals being more ideological and progressives more pragmatic. Then liberals adopted the progressive label rather than push back on attempts to turn liberal into a four-letter-word. Now it seems like progressive connotes an activist movement and liberal as more laid back.
Liberal” denotes a belief in liberty, which, in a broad sense at least, is the philosophical basis of modern Western civilization. “Progressive” denotes a belief in progress as something that is always inevitable and desirable, especially with respect to human nature and the human condition; if history has taught us anything, it is that human nature does not change.
<
p>2. When referring to themselves as progressives, most of today’s Democrats are running away from a proud political and intellectual tradition. From the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt to those of Lyndon B. Johnson, the term liberal was worn as a badge of honor by those who advocated civil rights, civil liberties, a welfare state, and confrontation of totalitarianism. Sadly, the word is now used as a slander by conservatives, who confuse the liberals of the New Deal and Cold War traditions with the McGovernites and New Leftists who invaded the Democratic Party in the 1970s. It is mainly because “liberal” is used as a slur that so many Democrats call themselves “progressive.”
<
p>3. In 1947, a group of prominent liberals, including Hubert Humphrey, Reinhold Niebuhr Walter Reuther, Eleanor Roosevelt and Arthur Schlesinger, among others, formed Americans for Democratic Action, which they used as a vehicle to transform the Democratic Party into a party that defended liberty and equality both at home and abroad, and did not shrink from confronting the very real threat posed by the Soviet Union. Henry Wallace and his followers vehemently dissented (they saw the communists as allies against conservatism), and in 1948 formed the short-lived Progressive Party, as a vehicle for Wallace’s futile presidential campaign
“Progressive” is a specific socio-political worldview, whose opposite is “Traditionalist.”
<
p>Traditionalists believe that American society and even humanity achieved its highest ideal in the past –such as the 1950’s, the decades before the federal Income Tax, the Reagan era, the Garden of Eden, etc. In terms of politics, they believe government should help us re-establish and maintain the previous, traditional social order. In terms of Belief, they view humanity in a “fallen state,” and advocate a “return” to God via conservative religion.
<
p>Progressives believe that American society and humanity are evolving from a comparatively ignorant, undemocratic existence toward an increasingly-civilized ideal, continuously perfected into the future. In politics, they believe government should ensure pluralism and social justice, protect human rights & liberties, and steward the environment to meet current and emerging needs. In terms of Belief, they value empiricism over tradition, and view human beings as developing consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
<
p>When a traditionalist hears the argument, “women should be allowed to vote” he will decide whether he agrees by weighing foremost whether women have traditionally been allowed to vote in the past. He may consult a thousand-year-old traditional religious text to determine whether he agrees, without scrutinizing the rationality or intellectual authority of that text.
<
p>A progressive will decide by weighing the facts and evidence in the circumstance based on present conditions, incorporating new information and testing the soundness and relevance of traditional assumptions. “Why shouldn’t women be allowed to vote?” “Are the reasons for denying them the right to vote fair and based on valid assumptions about women?” For progressives, “that’s the way we’ve traditionally done it” is not a legitimate argument.
<
p>These worldviews have nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative.” And Suffragists called themselves “Progressives” long before 1947…
<
p>If you believe in “individual liberty” as we’re told “liberals” do, then you should support allowing people to freely hunt and fish whatever wildlife they desire in whatever quantities. If you are “conservative,” you should support restricting the quantities and exact species of wildlife people can hunt & fish to avoid collapse in fish stocks and disruptions to the food chain.
<
p>But our popular media culture has it bass-ackwards, labeling those who advocate unfettered dredge-fishing as “conservatives” and those who seek to maintain a proper balance of the ecosystem through conservation as “liberals.”
<
p>Those they call “conservatives” are, in fact, “traditionalists” i.e. “we should be able to fish as much as we want just like we’ve always done in the past.”
<
p>Those they call “liberals” are really “progressives” i.e. “we now have new scientific evidence that current fishing rates will wipe-out the Cod stocks in 10 years. we need to adopt new methods and limits to conserve the Cod population so they can recover and be sustained into the future.”
<
p>Since true progressives rely upon empiricism and are willing to incorporate new information that challenges tradition, they tend to support extending human and civil liberties to people who have been denied them –women, gays, racial & ethnic minorities– for no reason beyond “that’s how we’ve traditionally treated these people.”
<
p>But make no mistake: “progressive” tells you overall how someone views society and politics. “Liberal” only tells you their stand on a particular issue –and often inaccurately given how Opinion Elites misuse it.
Or as one of my grand daughters would say……Sweet. Been struggling to explain the difference to myself forever.
On public policy matters which substantively effect people I think I’m more-or-less progressive. Examples include marriage equality, gun control, reproductive rights, single-payer health coverage, opposition to church-state entanglement, and quality public education. On stylistic things that do not directly harm people I’m more traditional. For example, I have in the past here on BMG defended “hack holidays”, the Governor’s Council, traditional grammar/syntax complete with generic usage of masculine pronouns, and passing references to religion such as “year of our Lord” and “In God We Trust”. I for one do not see these as conflicting.
He was a key player in the foundation of the progressive movement at the end of the 19th century, yet argued against evolution in the Scopes monkey trial?
I of course believe in scientific evidence and therefore am very much an evolutionist.
Disclaimer: I like Mike, but I’m supporting Martha for US Senate. She is the real deal, too, and will work very hard on our behalf.
So, Pablo, this is one on which we must agree to disagree.
<
p>Of course, you labor in the world of schools and school committees – and I am a VERY dissatisfied consumer of public schools whose children had to leave public school for their safety as well as education due to unchecked bullying and discrimination against them due to their issues and challenges.
<
p>I labor in the world of courts, checks and balances, and the rule of law where I have come to know and respect Martha Coakley personally. Martha is among those candidates that I know personally fairly well, and have stood-shoulder to shoulder with-on at least one issue and in Martha’s case, more than one issue. She understands law and the courts and what the rule of law is all about, which is important to me.
<
p>Do I agree with either Mike or Martha on anything? No, I don’t. But I try and choose candidates based on who I think they are what what I believe they bring to governance. I am no always right, but I don’t do litmus tests to pick candidates.
<
p>I want Mike to keep on in the House, and to avoid using attack politics because first, that weakens the Democratic party, and second, I have never done campaign work for someone who runs a negative attack-based campaign.
<
p>Let Mike and Martha tell us both who they are, and what they believe and leave the attacks to “Pags” and his tired phony “outsider” campaign and high-priced mercenaries.
“Do I agree with either Mike or Martha on anything” I meant to write “Do I agree with Mike or Martha on everything” Ooops.
Negative campaigning is a total turn off for me. No matter which candidate descends into negative campaigning, they lose my support and if nominated later by my party, I don’t have that sense of enthusiasm for their campaign that gets me involved. Bad move.
I can’t make my Senate candidate choice based on what might happen down the line, whether it’s who would get Capuano’s seat, who would be the next AG, or even who would run the Celtics (not that I care, not being a Celtics fan).
<
p>This is about who will be the best person to fill a Senate seat for what could be a long, long time. The focus has to be there IMHO.
We are almost certain to drop a seat with the next census and Capuano in the Senate gets one out of the way. Even with the 8th being protected by the Voting Rights Act we still have to redraw the lines to include the right number of people. I wouldn’t mind drawing Lynch into a district with Capuano’s (hopefully) progressive successor and forcing a primary there. I’m also leaning Capuano at this point as I feel that when you’re thrown into the Senate midterm it’s good to have someone with experience as a federal legislator. Yes, there are differences between the chambers, but Capuano already has DC contacts and a working knowledge of the process.
In response to your original post that losing Mike could lead to a ‘blue dog’ winning the 8th in a special I find that highly doubtful. State Senators in the 8th include Tolman, Galluccio, Jehlen who are all quite progressive. State Reps. include Brownsberger, Wolfe, and Toomey (and probably a few others I forgot) who are all progressive (Toomey only after a primary challenge pushed him left on gay marriage and abortion). County officials include Gerry Leone and Michael Sullivan who are also progressive. Curatone used to be a Republican but is also quite progressive these days. So which blue dogs are you fearful of?
Cambridge was represented in the state Senate for years by a troglodyte who won reelection because progressive candidates split the primary vote. Capuano won his critical primary election with something like 23 percent of the vote, and he was hardly the most progressive candidate.
<
p>I happen to disagree with Ray M’s conclusion–it’s a poor basis to pick a senator, for one thing, also the same math could deliver a congressperson who is more progressive than the conventional wisdom.
<
p>Nonetheless, we unfortunately have an electoral system that allows for small-plurality-takes-all winners, and until we fix that the “blue dog” outcome is possible.
An extremely successful Senator is worth a great deal more than an extremely successful Representative. Even if by some bizarre freak of plurality weirdness the 8th (my district) wound up with a Blue Dog, I’d still be willing to trade that for a great fighter in the Senate.
<
p>Not sure if I’m going Coakley or Capuano at this point, but losing Capuano in the House definitely won’t figure into my vote.
Would someone kindly provide background evidence on the AG’s position(s) on the death penalty?
<
p>Would someone kindly provide background evidence on the AG’s position(s) on equal marriage prior to the state’s supreme court decision and legalization in Massachusetts?
<
p>Thank you,
I remember Martha as DA advocating to restoring the death penalty but I also remember her 06 opponent highlighting his support and her opposition as a reason to vote for him so I am unsure. She also actively opposed Question 2 by campaigning and donating to its misleading opposition, a proposition which made our drug laws a lot more sensible. Lastly she is a foreign policy neophyte who will likely toe the line on Afghanistan rather than challenge the President’s strategy.
How quickly we forget…Louise Woodward was charged by DA Tom Reilly for the murder of Matthew Eappen. Assistant DA Gerry Leone was the Prosecutor on the case. Martha Coakley, then ADA, was a back-up prosecutor who dealt with the medical testimony and medical witnesses.
Herald reports on behind the scenes work of the [Coakley Campaign http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
combined with some of her hard-line stances as a prosecutor (Fells Acre anyone?) are problematic for me.
<
p>I’m supporting Capuano unless something major happens. I want someone with his legislative record, his experience, and his fire in the belly for progressive causes in Ted Kennedy’s seat.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I think Coakley is a fine candidate. I’d rather she run for something else, I guess.
I never agreed with her decision to go for murder in the Louise Woodward case. Murder requires intent and I never saw any evidence that she intended to kill Matthew Eppin (sp?). To me it was clearly manslaughter.
It was Tom Reilly’s, IIRC.
…is that she played up her role in the case when running for DA. You may well be correct that it was Reilly’s call, but I remember cringing when she brought it up because I very much disagreed with the murder charge.
BTW, I find that case one of the most heart-breaking miscarriages of justice imaginable — just a whisker short of the guy wrongly executed for arson in TX. Maybe just as bad.
<
p>I had heard that she had something to do with that case, but I wasn’t clear on it. I looked it up and all I saw was a wikipedia entry which seemed pretty vague.
<
p>However, with some Googling now, I’m finding this:
<
p>I wasn’t in MA when this went down. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Daniel Weaver’s column, or his recounting of the facts. Did she oppose a pardon for Amirault? Why, in God’s name?
<
p>I have to say, I’ve interviewed her twice, and not asked her about Fells Acres. I’m embarrassed that I let that opportunity slip by.
She is no different than the FBI agents that allowed four or five men to be sentenced to life in prison ( where one or more died–effectively an execution) where the entire FBI office in Boston knew they were innocent–and no one lifted a finger or uttered a word. That to me is nonfesance and malfeasance. Believe me–if she gets the nomination—she will wear this albatross around her neck.
I was in MA when this went down, and with young children in day care at the time.
<
p>Fells Acres was a dangerous place for children and a nightmare for any parent with young children in day care. Comparing the treatment of the Amiraults to Cameron Todd Willingham is an insult to Mr. Willingham and gravely distorts the facts.
<
p>I am no fan of Martha Coakley, and I fully support the stance she took on the Fells Acre case.
And the handling of the Fells Acre case is an egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct. Suggesting that the Amiraults should have rotted in jail because you heard they ran a crappy daycare center is almost as appalling.
<
p>If you support keeping innocent people charged with the worst of crimes, child sexual assault and abuse, in jail for years because you don’t like them, then you’re beyond hope. Really, I’m stunned that a so-called progressive on this site could harbor such anti-constitutional, anti-justice views.
What’s the evidence of that, aside from the obviously fanciful tales that Mr. Amirault was somehow raping kids with knives in a clown suit in a magic room?
<
p>Mr. Amirault changed a kids clothes, and went to prison for 20+ years. Show me more than that, Tom.
The Fells Acre case is twenty five years old. It has been exhaustively explored in the media and by an array of special interest groups on all sides. I don’t think further discussion is going to change any minds — those of us who followed the case at the time have come to our own conclusions about it.
<
p>If there is genuinely new evidence that is material to the case, then let’s look at that. In its absence, I don’t think further debate is going to accomplish anything but inflame all of us.
You’re right. It’s probably not going to be a productive dialogue on this blog, but I can tell you this: more than a dozen people at my town committee meeting this past weekend cited the Fells Acre Day Care issue as a compelling factor in ruling out Coakley. Indeed, the person who came to the meeting to specifically champion Coakley’s candidacy got an earful.
<
p>Coakley will have to deal with it whether we rehash it here or not. We’ll see how she does. I like her a lot, so I’m hopeful she can say something that will rehabilitate her behavior.
I suggest we compare Martha Coakley’s handling of Fells Acre, where she did act aggressively (to the dismay of one group and the applause of another) to Tom Reilly’s handling of the sex abuse cover-up, where he did not act aggressively (again to the dismay of one group and the applause of another).
<
p>A quality I seek in any candidate for elective office is genuine commitment to articulated vision that I share. In my view, Martha Coakley showed this in her handling of Fells Acre. Tim Reilly showed an absence of this in his handling of the sex abuse cover-up. My primary beef with Ms. Coakley is her recent notable (in my view) lack of enthusiasm for pursuing corruption in local government (in sad contrast to her early career).
<
p>Meanwhile, I see a consistent and passionate enthusiasm and commitment in Mike Capuano, especially in contrast to Martha Coakley.
<
p>That’s why I support Mr. Capuano.
to rehash a miscarriage of justice.
<
p>
<
p>Further debate will keep such tragedies from being swept under the carpet and forgotten.
<
p>Out of respect for the people who have spent a good part of their lives in jail for no reason, we can get a little inflamed for their sake. Or how about the innocent people who have been put to death. These cases should be discussed over and over, in order to insure that it does not happen again.
<
p>All that you have to do is picture a parent, sibling, cousin or beloved friend (or even you)going to jail as an innocent wrongly convicted. You might think differently about someone who turns their back on an opportunity for true justice.
<
p>
Martha Coakley’s current behavior than about her peripheral role in the Fell’s Acre case.
<
p>I am well aware of the horror of innocent men and women being convicted, punished, and even executed for crimes they did not convict. As horrific as those realities are, in my view they are not relevant to this campaign.
<
p>Neither Scott Harshbarger nor Tom Reilly (the central figures in the Fells Acre case) are running in this election . Martha Coakley’s role was, at best, incidental.
<
p>I’d like to keep this campaign focused on current candidates and current issues.
seems to coincide with my memory of the case and her behavior around it.
<
p>I remember once watching her try to make a case for upholding the conviction and keeping the Amiraults in jail, hence my issues with her.
<
p>She has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do….
There’s plenty of information, good information, out there to give people a clear picture of Coakley’s behavior around the Amirault case. People who are inclined to view her as a suitable candidate for the United States Senate should really spend some time with her prosecutorial record in this matter.
<
p>When prosecutors make mistakes, we, as citizens, depend upon them to own up and take responsibility. We should hear public apologies on behalf of the people, especially when people have served serious time in prison.
<
p>Coakley should be held accountable for her actions regarding the Amiraults and be made to explain–in detail–her zealous defense of a botched and unjust prosecution. Where is her apology to the Amiraults who were among the last, if not dead last (from what I’ve heard), to be released from prison? Her opposition to Gerald Amirault’s parole borders on the nutty.
<
p>
The link you cited was from “Dan Weaver”. From his bio, on the same site:
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know what your standards for qualifying sources are, but I can assure you that Mr. Weaver does not pass mine. I see nothing in that piece that enhances my view of Mr. Weaver’s credibility, and multiple things that makes me even more suspicious, such as:
<
p>
<
p>I think all of us need be very careful about putting too much stock in “evidence” from sources like this.
That’s why I put in the qualifier. However, there’s a factual claim that the parole board voted 5-0 to pardon Amirault. Either that happened or it didn’t.
You’ve compared Ms. Coakley to Texas prosecutors who executed an innocent man, regarding a case that you’ve acknowledged your own unfamiliarity with, and quoting from a blog posting of a source that is dubious at best.
<
p>Now, you offer up her decision to oppose a unanimous parole board recommendation?
<
p>The case you cite is not the first time an Attorney General has opposed the recommendation of a parole board, nor is likely to be the last. Surely you don’t now argue that her decision to oppose the parole board recommendation itself disqualifies her.
<
p>I think there is ample current-day evidence of the qualifications of both Mr. Capuano and Ms. Coakley. If it’s damning evidence of incompetence or misconduct you seek regarding Ms. Coakley, I suggest that her inappropriately contemptuous dismissal of the current email scandal is far more damaging than anything offered in connection with this ancient history — not to mention her silence as the rest of the sorry story of Beacon Hill corruption has unfolded.
working for the Department of Correction than I, but in my experience, a 5-0 parole board is rarely challenged by the Commonwealth. Coakley’s efforts to oppose the parole board is, indeed, rather extraordinary, especially in cases where the inmate’s behavior is exemplary and where there are serious post-conviction concerns in relation to time served.
<
p>Charley, too, is more than capable of completing a solid Google search of the Amirault case history if he desires. As I said earlier, there are plenty of sources out there–WBUR reports, Globe reports, and national reporting–on the factual events of what happened to them, all of which reveal serious deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s case and post-conviction actions.
<
p>
Actually, a “solid Google search” is proving a bit more difficult. Two problems: Older newspaper articles are behind firewalls; and other recountings tend not to be from neutral, “reliable” sources.
<
p>So I need to get to a Lexis-Nexis. Will do.
“Don’t get me wrong, I think Coakley is a fine candidate. I’d rather she run for something else, I guess.”
<
p>I’m with you 100% on that one.
It is an inane strategy to say to Capuano, or anyone else, that you have done too good a job so we won’t promote you. Never mind that you have a solid progressive record, never mind you have been in Congress for a dozen years, never mind you have taken the tough votes on the right side of the issue. We’ll let someone else get the plum job, you are just too good to promote.
<
p>The flip side to that argument is just this: promotion, especially in politics, isn’t an entitlement. However well you do in your present position does not give you a free pass to the next level.
<
p>Flipping yet again, we have to ask what, other than pay and prestige, is actually ‘promoted’? Obviously, his vote will count for more in the Senate than in the House, but with greater political capital will come greater pressure and a wider array of constituents and their expectations to juggle. Certainly, his present constituents might have cause to worry, both about whom it is who will replace him and the possible dilution of his progressive cred as he comes up against the need to represent the entire state, certainly less progressive overall than his present district. They may not, in fact, see it as a promotion at all.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not sure what it is you are saying here. Are you saying that tough votes are defined by the outcomes? (e.g, ‘on the right side of the issue’) I think this is not a very defensible position. The 2002 resolution on the use of force in Iraq (the so-called “Iraq War vote”, for example, was a ‘tough’ vote: a lot was riding upon it and many politicians agonized over it. John Kerry, who was (shortly afterwards) labelled ‘the most liberal senator’ voted for it. Edward Kennedy, equally a contender for the appellation, did not vote for it. On the other end of the spectrum, the recent vote to increase the state sales tax was, in effect, a effort to avoid tough decision (on the spurious grounds that it was the ‘most fair’ tax.)
<
p>As others have testified here, and elsewhere, Capuano is a progressive in a progressive district. He seems not to have been tested on the ‘tough’ votes… votes that might separate him from his previous constituents and put him at some remove, for whatever reason, from ‘the right side of the issues’. Certainly, as a US Senator, he’ll come under a wider umbrella of pressure and constituents pulling him in a wider array of directions.
<
p>None of this, of course, is any reason not to vote for him, nor excuse to prefer someone else. I’m just trying to point out how thin your reasoning seems to be.
There actually is no salary difference as members of both chambers make 174K. The Senate has been considered the “upper house” since the beginning and like many other “upper houses” around the world it is smaller and less representative than the “lower house”. Members also represent entire states as most representatives do not and have executive functions such as advice and consent on nominations and ratification prerogatives for treaties which the House doesn’t have.
How many people give up a Senate seat to run for the House?
QED
Though I think that might have been more common in our earlier history.
who?
<
p>
<
p>No, the flip side to that argument is just this: you have done too bad a job so we will promote you.
<
p>Entitlement is a different issue altogether. A candidate that acted entitled would stay home and not campaign believing everyone would vote for them anyway.
<
p>That deserves a Molly Ivins memorial head scratch… I guess, in the context of an electoral disposition required by zero-sum gamesmanship this fulfills the merest definition of logic… but not of sense. Fortunately, for us, our methodology lies at quite a remove from zero-sum games.
<
p>We were discussing one individual and his (or her) view of themselves as ‘moving up’.. And, merit or no, that has little bearing on why somebody else might, or might not, get elected. In the present instance, Capuano is acknowledged to be performing at or above the grade of ‘excellent’ by his constituents. It might merely be a fear to say a larger canvas might prevent him from painting so acutely, and a wish not to lose that. This remains to be seen. It might simply be that, in a sea of worthy candidates, voters are performing a delicate calculus that provides optimum movement in the progressive direction while trying to maximize stability and/or to prevent the loss of whatever toehold we have now. If nothing else, it may be a form of rationalization whereby a silver lining is extracted from the cloud of an expected, or simply perceived, defeat. You do have to live with yourself, after the vote.
<
p>I also threw in the conjugate ‘flip-side’ in the form of the district whom, it is fair to say, might find themselves, overall, with representation of a lesser quality. This, as I have been at pains to point out, might not, to them, qualify as a ‘promotion’.
<
p>None of this speaks to reasons either for or against other candidates. Each has there own rationale, perhaps overlapping in some areas with Capuano. But to say, as the original comment inferred, that Capuano is the most deserving of ‘promotion’ and therefore the only sane choice is, frankly, illogical.
<
p>
<
p>While that may be one expression of entitlement, to be sure, there’s no rule-book suggesting that to be the only form of entitlement. I might feel myself deserving of any number of things for which I am still required to ask.