Some people send out press releases when they endorse. I, on the other hand, have decided to make my endorsement here on BMG. It seems presumptuous of me to think that people care, but Heartland Dem did ask.
I am endorsing Congressman Mike Capuano for U. S. Senate. I have put a lot of thought into this decision. Bottom line, I am supporting Congressman Capuano because I think he is the best person for the position.
I have been impressed with Mike’s passion. I believe that his years as a member of Congress have given Mike the experience he needs to get things done in Washington from day one. We know his record on issues on the national scene; he has voted against the Iraq war and against the PATRIOT Act and he has a long record of supporting the progressive agenda. On the very important issue of health care, he supports a public option.
I will say that Congressman Jim McGovern was influential in my endorsement. Congressman McGovern and I share values in a number of issues from human rights to the environment and other areas. And I trust his assessment of who will be effective in Washington, DC.
Join Congressman McGovern and me in working for Mike Capuano and in supporting his campaign.
UPDATE: I forgot that my signature line does not appear on diaries. A friend asked me if I was the “Kate” who endorsed. I was not so presumptuous as to assume that everyone knows me just as Kate. Just an oversight since the signature line appears only on comments.
Kate Donaghue
We have a race with a few very good candidates, but Capuano’s body of work in the House makes it very difficult to say another candidate is better suited. We have a candidate who shares progressive ideals (similar to other candidates) but the difference is that he has a voting record on those ideals. It’s one thing to say you are for something it’s another to have a consistent voting record. He has also been tested with the Iraq war and Patriot Act votes, he has shown that he will not wilt under pressure.
<
p>Editors, is it too early for an endorsement? I’d be interested to read your thoughts.
Personally, I’m still undecided, and we have yet to talk to Pagliuca, though I think we’re close to finding a time for that. And, of course, it’s possible that we will not agree on a candidate. But you can expect us to endorse, either collectively or individually.
I think that would be swell. A three-man IRV run-off. It’s entirely possible that you’ll be able to eliminate one or two of the candidates (kind of an un-endorsement) and at least quickly whittle down the BMG-endorsement-field from four to a more manageable two…
I hope when evaluating a Congressman’s record the consideration will not be only of one or two high profile recorded votes. I think it is just as important to consider what was not done. Case in point: Congressmen who sat on key finance committee who were either asleep at the wheel or looking the other way when Wall ST and their K St lobbyists stole the farm and brought down the economy. All of the “I’m shocked!” rhetoric after the fact did not hide the fact that they were in a position to regulate and check the greedy but did not.
with the Iraq war and Patriot Act votes. Those two votes were tough and he made the right decision. We need that in the Senate.
Explain to me again how “tough” it was for Capuano to follow the wishes of his Cambridge and Somerville constituents and vote against the Iraq War authorization and the Patriot Act — bills that Mike knew would pass anyway with or without his support.
<
p>Pressure is when you are the key vote and you vote against the wishes of your constituents. When has Mike EVER done that?
<
p>And there’s that nasty motivation of political ambition. Didn’t Mike’s votes on the Iraq War and Patriot Act echo his mentor, Nancy Pelosi. You don’t think wisely voting with Pelosi has helped Mike keep his spot on her leadership team, do you?
<
p>There’s a lot to like about Mike Capuano, but it’s a complete stretch to claim his Congressional voting record is anything but voting 99% of the time with Pelosi.
<
p>Show me the high correlation, 99% according to you. Then explain your reasons why that is a bad thing.
I didn’t say voting with Pelosi was a bad thing. In fact, I used the term “wisely.” And, I wish more Congressman voted like Pelosi. My other assertion is that it’s been EASY for Mike to vote with Pelosi when you represent Cambridge and Somerville.
<
p>I’m only disputing other BMGers’ characterizations of Capuano’s Congressional voting record as “courageous,” “tough” or “tested.”
“99%” of what comes out of your mouth is over-generalized hyperbole.
<
p>I don’t actually believe that but I’m making a point about your characterization of “BMGers’ Characterizations of Mike’s Voting Record”
<
p>There is hardly a unified voice here. If you take exception to one or two or ten people’s statements, then let them know and please don’t put it on everyone.
<
p>Similarly, making claims about Mike’s voting record with facts to back it up is equally unappreciated by me.
Similarly, making claims about Mike’s voting record with[out] facts to back it up is equally unappreciated by me.
forgetting what it was like at the time. I don’t think it was a slam dunk safe vote for anyone.
<
p>If you believe that voting against a war and protecting civil liberties during a crucial time in our country can be whisked away by some juvenile statement then you are seriously mistaken. That has got to be one of the most bizarre things I have ever read.
Am I glad Mike voted against these bills? Yes indeed.
<
p>Did Mike’s votes make a difference? No. The Iraq Authorization and the Patriot Act both passed comfortably.
<
p>Did Mike receive any heat from his constituents for voting the way he did? Again no. In 2002 and 2004, Capuano ran unopposed. In 2006, Capuano won with 91% of the vote. In 2008, Capuano didn’t face any opposition again.
<
p>Did these votes cost Mike his committee assignments and/or his spot on the Democratic leadership team? Again no. In fact, they may have enhanced his Congressional positions.
<
p>As far as your bizarre allegation, I hold that its much more bizarre to characterize these Capuano’s votes as “courageous”, “tough” or “tested.”
You agree with his votes.
<
p>You agree that he stood in very select company in opposing these bills.
<
p>You agree that his peers may well recognize his courage in taking these principled positions (“In fact, they may have enhanced his Congressional positions.”)
<
p>You agree that he clearly and forcefully represented the will of his constituents in the face of national hysteria, fear-mongering, and GOP-led xenophobia and demagoguery. I’d say that speaks positively to the courage of his constituents and Mr. Capuano more than anything else.
<
p>Yet you don’t agree that these votes were “courageous”? Who was more “courageous”, those who voted in favor of the bills (ignoring any personal reservations they now claim to have had) or those few who voted with Mike?
<
p>Meanwhile, you haven’t yet substantiated your claim that Mr. Capuano votes “99% of the time with Pelosi” — nor have you explained why that would be a bad thing if she happens to be right most of the time. However much their positions align, I would remind you that Mr. Capuano might be moving her positions from time to time.
<
p>Courageous or not, Mr. Capuano’s votes against the Iraq invasion and the Patriot act put him far outside the mainstream of Congress and I admire him for those votes.
I don’t agree that Capuano “… forcefully represented the will of his constituents in the face of national hysteria, …”.
<
p>Capuano certainly represented the will of his constituents. But “forcefully”? Maybe I’d agree with a “forcefully” characterization if somehow Mike had convinced some more of his fellow Congressman to vote with him. Did he even persuade the Mass delegation to join him? Unfortunately, he did not. [Markey and Lynch voted yes on the Iraq Authorization. Delahunt, Markey, Lynch and Neal voted yes on the Patriot Act.]
<
p>I do agree that, on these two bills, Capuano did vote “outside the mainstream of Congress.” And he should be complemented for voting the way he did. However, it’s a stretch to “admire” him for merely doing exactly what his constituents wanted and without any serious backlash concerns. He only did what any reasonable person would expect of anyone representing the Massachusetts 8th Congressional District.
<
p>BTW, I’ve been trying to substantiate my 99% voting with Pelosi claim. There doesn’t appear to be a free independent analysis that provides this type of information that I can provide a URL to satisfy your skepticism. So, I’ve had to resort to my own perusal of Congressional roll call votes — a time consuming endeavor. Needless to say, there have been a lot of votes since Mike joined Congress in January 1999. And, it’s hard to account for the House’s congenial practice of sometimes offsetting votes. My own research thus far indicates that Mike votes very closely with Pelosi. I’ve found two major differences. The Patriot Act and the 2005 Clean Energy Act. Other than those two, I have yet to find another difference. So my claim of 99% appears approximately correct. Perhaps, you’ll concede that it’s at the very least 95%.
<
p>And yes, let me repeat, voting closely with Pelosi is a very good thing. [I even use the term “wisely.”] And, you are correct that Mike could just as easily be influencing Pelosi as much as she influences him. Perhaps, though, you might concede that a Speaker of the House might wield more influence than one of her lieutenants. Nevertheless, my point remains. Mike has very strong personal motivation to vote as he does. We shouldn’t necessarily dismiss Mike’s personal motivations and claim others should “admire” Capuano for his “courageous” votes.
Try this url.
<
p>I’m most curious about which of his votes you think were wrong, whether or not Ms. Pelosi voted the same way.
Thanks, this site is very useful. I think I’ll bookmark it.
<
p>And, I have absolutely no qualms with Capuano’s votes. His votes accurately represent the Mass 8th CD as they should.
<
p>First of all, 99% was your number and it would be reasonable for a reader to assume you did your homework before you cited it.
<
p>I don’t think its a matter of BrooklineTom or me or other reader’s skepticism, I think it’s a matter of you making an argument using made-up statistics to make the argument more compelling when in fact you have no idea the correlation between Capuano’s and Pelosi’s votes.
<
p>What was your original purpose in associating Capuano’s votes with Pelosi… except perhaps an implication?
<
p>Here are some good historical polling on Iraq going back to 2002. Iraq polling
<
p>I don’t think there are a lot of Congressmen and Senators who got Iraq and the Patriot Act right. Mike did. I think that voting record puts him in rarefied air for his analysis, judgment and independence. That he is from a liberal district does not diminish any of those factors, it just makes it easier for him to continue to make the right vote without losing his seat.
First, there was Bob’s posting listing of all elected officials (mostly state legislators) endorsing Coakley. Bob offered this as proof positive that Coakley was “the candidate of the democratic establishment.”
<
p>Now, we have Kate’s endorsement of Capuano saying “congressman Jim McGovern [endorsement] was influential in [her] endorsement.”
<
p>Explain to me again why the endorsement of an elected Democrat is good when it’s for Capuano, but bad when it’s for Coakley.
<
p>Could it be that we can expect fellow Mass US Congressman to endorse Capuano. [Mike is in the Congressional leadership, so it would be suicidal politically for them to endorse anyone else.] And, we can expect most Mass state legislators to endorse Coakley. [It would be similarly stupid politically for state legislators to endorse anyone else but the sitting Mass Atty General.]
<
p>Let’s agree not to read to much into these endorsements. I doubt many voters put too much credence into them, anyway.
I honestly don’t understand why you’re so upset. It didn’t mean a lot to you, it meant something to Kate. Different strokes for different folks — no need to get defensive.
Sure, OK.
is very lucky to have your support, Kate. Although we have different candidates (I’m on Team Pags), I have seen first hand how effective, dedicated, and committed you are to your candidates.
<
p>Looking forward to a positive and spirited race, and then coming together on 12/9!
Absolutely, I will be supporting whoever is the Democratic nominee on 12/9. And on 9/13 my traditional December Holiday Party will be a unity event. Save the date.
<
p>Matt, thank you for your kind words.
<
p>Kate
Kate has terrific credibilty.
<
p>She is a tireless worker, with the energy and time to make a real difference.
<
p>On this one I will just agree to disagree with Kate, for now, recognizing that for every hour I can donate, I believe Kate can donate 10, or maybe 50!
<
p>At this point I am working long hours due to our familie’s financial situation and have little energy or money to spare for my candidate of choice; what I do suggest is that we all do what we can reasonably do.
<
p>I especially appreciated the way Kate’s endorsement focused on her positive reasons for endorsing her candidate, rather than tearing anyone down.
<
p>Kate, you are the best.
I appreciate your kind words. We’ll be supporting the same candidate on 12/9. Kate
The fact that he has a record — and it’s a good one — means something important to me. I’m tired of politicians who have moved into spots without long records, making great promises, ultimately leaving me disappointed. Capuano’s progressive record and moving and shaking within the House is as strong a piece of evidence that he’ll be a strong, progressive and effective Senator as any. That alone is enough to earn my vote, wholeheartedly. I didn’t actually think I’d be able to make a decision this quickly and easily, but he’s been out there making his case, and it’s a good one.
My sense is they matter.
<
p>I say so based on the following (rhetorical?) questions.
<
p>- What is likely turnout in an early December special election?
<
p>- In terms of bloc voters, who are the most likely to mobilize and why?
<
p>- What are ‘average’ voters going to look for in terms of:
<
p>A) motivation to actually vote;
B) motivation for choosing a candidate (name recognition? experience? gender? ethnicity?)and
C) explanations of candidates’ ambitions for this office?
<
p>These questions make it difficult to argue that endorsements are not important. Given the focus the candidates and their campaigns are putting on endorsements, their value seems quite evident.
<
p>(I was particularly fascinated by Coakley’s people re-releasing the same name of legislator endorsements that they released last month. This was a surprisingly effective response to Capuano’s announcement last night. Did the Associated Press and WBZ miss Coakley’s list the last time?)
The ONLY determinative endorsements in a special Democratic primary election are union endorsements, those of executive officers (i.e., Mayors, Governors), and liberal organizations.
<
p>Special Democratic Primary elections have notoriously low turnout, so anyone that can mobilize significant voters to actually turn out and vote can be determinative.
<
p>Mayors and Governors have organizations that are significant enough to drag many voters to the polls. Unions have proven that they can mobilize their memberships to turn out and vote in Special Democratic Primaries. Liberal organizations can sometimes motivate significant voters to get out and vote, but their track record is spotty. Together, these 3 endorsement types dwarf the effect of Democratic elected representatives.
<
p>This is why the Coakley and Capuano campaigns are actively trying to get Mayoral and union endorsements. And, they are both willing to invest in getting the support of liberal organizations.
<
p>Other than perfunctory protocol, I wouldn’t expect either campaign to waste too much time getting state legislator and Congressional endorsements. They’re nice to have, but won’t garner a lot of actual votes. [Capuano is naturally going to get the Congressman and Coakley is naturally going to get the State Legislators.]
<
p>Key Endorsement Scorecard so far: It seems Capuano and Coakley have split the unions, while Coakley is racking up the Mayors. Liberal organizations have, for the most part, not taken a side yet.
You mean has the endorsement of 4 (four) mayors, then sure. 🙂
Many mayors are backing Coakley but aren’t officially announcing until after their elections.
[shaking my head and rolling my eyes]
Then name names. Who is secretlty endorsing Martha over the former head of the Mass Mayors?
It’s been rumored that the “courageous” Mayor Thomas Menino is waiting till after his election to endorse Coakley.
because anyone can make them up, and how many mayors elections hinge on who they endorse in the Senate race?
“Many mayors are backing Coakley but aren’t officially announcing until after their elections.”
<
p>Is 99% about right?
<
p>Are you just saying things, making it up, because you’re not sure?
When I endorsed Deval Patrick, and rang doorbells for Deval Patrick, I did so based on what he SAID. It hurt my credibility when what he said didn’t match what he did.
<
p>I now have a candidate I can wholeheartedly endorse because of what he DID. Capuano’s words are backed up by a strong and consistent record in Congress. I have more genuine enthusiasm for Capuano than for any other candidate I have supported in a Democratic primary in the past 20 years.
The best predictor of future performance is past performance. The other thing I look at when I make hiring decisions is motivation. If I thought Mike was coming up on his expiration date for enthusiasm, I would pass on him as my selection for U.S. Senator. What I see is a energized candidate working hard for the opportunity to do the job.
I would give your comment many more sixes if I could, frankly I feel the same way about Deval (I will not vote for his re-election) and am feeling some Obama fatigue as well (I will vote for his re-election) so I like the experience and the record. Also it matters a lot more for the Senate what someone did in Congress. Its a well deserved promotion.
Mike Capuano clearly inspires (actually, continues to inspire) voters and volunteers to bring his candidacy to the top. It’s a firm promise when he gets volunteers from past Democratic campaigns to whip out their old energy even after the trying times we now face (i.e., consumer inconvenience due to the lessening of full-service Registry of Motor Vehicles offices, which towns used to each avail their very own of). It’s important for us Democrat volunteers to produce a high turn-out of voters for December 8. We must keep our general public aware of this crucial date = make it weigh heavy like Hannukah or Christmas.
If Mike so inspires why is that Martha has so many enthusiastic unpaid volunteers? Mike has had to pay $2.50 per signature- I think it’s easy to support someone who has been in a position to do favors like a Congressman is-that’s his job. Attorney Generals, if they do their job correctly, piss off lots of people. Martha Coakley is well respected by her peers and that’s big. As a typical woman who has to be twice as good to get noticed she worked for 23 years in low paying and difficult public service jobs. Coakley has excelled in everything she’s ever done. She put her life on hold to be the voice for those without one postponing marriage and missing out on motherhood. She has been called a careerist and opportunist here for simply doing what the guys have done – dare to run for higher office. After 23 long years one would think she might deserve it- I’m disappointed that so many folks here go for the guy with what you call “experience’ and I’m assuming many of you- just as Capuano did-supported the Presidential candidate with the least amount? How to explain it beyond a gender bias? Isn’t 221 years enough time to be able to support an incredibly talented and committed woman as our first female Senator? Massachusetts may be perceived as so liberal but from my dealings in state politics; it’s still the old boys club that rules, and women simply often do not support other women and that’s a cold hard fact.
<
p>Very sad and disappointing- All of these candidates have passion- that’s not enough, most are more than capable – It’s a good thing that the people of MA and all over this state know the many accomplishments of Martha Coakley.
I for one will be thrilled to make some history here for a change- 17% representation when women are 52% of the vote is pathetic- this is the 21st century. Stanford University just published a study showing that women legislators get more done- If only we had an equal balance of women running the country we might not be in this mess. We need to give it a try.
Government should reflect the people it serves.
i support Capuano for the same reasons I supported Clinton in the primary. He has the most experience and a proven track record on the issues I care most about. I like Martha a lot, and think it would be great to have a female Senator, my experiences with her office have led me to believe that she will also not be the best senator in terms of constituent services.
<
p>Please stop throwing around accusations of sexism, it’s not very fair, and you have no idea what has lead people to support the candidate of their choice.
and throwing gender bias out there is about as appealing as it was being called a racist for supporting Hillary Clinton.
<
p>I also whole-heartedly supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. I was devestated when she lost. I will never support a candidate because of gender. I supported Hillary Clinton because I thought she had the best qualities to be our President. I am supporting Mike Capuano because I think he has the best qualities to be our Senator.
so that the front-runner can have positive things said about her candidacy in a positive context rather than positive things said about her candidacy in a negative context of Capuano criticism. :-O
I’d love to see a thread where posters explain why they are supporting their candidate. Tearing down other candidates or impuning the motives of other supporters has no place in a Democratic primary. I’m currently undecided, but I’d love to hear from Matt as to why he thinks Pags deserves the support of liberal democrats. I want to hear from Coakley or Khazie supporters why they think their candidate can beat Scott Brown when neither has been in a competitive race against a well-known opponent. As for Capuano, I still think of him as mayor of Somerville. Is he ready for the big time?
I posted this thread a while back and it only gathered 13 comments (some good ones) despite being front-paged. Maybe a bump or another try by someone else??
There were positive things in that comment (“Attorney Generals, if they do their job correctly, piss off lots of people. Martha Coakley is well respected by her peers and that’s big. As a typical woman who has to be twice as good to get noticed she worked for 23 years in low paying and difficult public service jobs. Coakley has excelled in everything she’s ever done. She put her life on hold to be the voice for those without one postponing marriage and missing out on motherhood. She has been called a careerist and opportunist here for simply doing what the guys have done – dare to run for higher office. After 23 long years one would think she might deserve it”). I’m not saying I agree with it all, but it was there.
<
p>And true, there were negative ones as well. We’ve seen this from both ends. Considering that his campaign announcement included attacks on Coakley, I think it’s fair to say that Capuano started this, and it’s a shame that Coakley’s supporters are now responding in kind.
<
p>Do you think it’s possible to have a campaign with these dynamics — two strong candidates with loyal bases, where one has a significant lead — that wouldn’t devolve into negatives?
This sentence demeans the contributor and candidate:
<
p>This site is filled with exchanges, positive and negative, that have nothing whatsoever to do with gender bias. Those of us who support Martha Coakley, like those of us who supported Hillary Clinton, do so because we feel she is the best candidate for the office. Those of us who support another candidate do so because we feel that candidate is the best candidate for the office. The presence or absence of a Y-chromosome should have nothing to do with the discussion — and by and large does not, here, with the notable exception of this comment. I go toe-to-toe with participants here, based on mutual respect and legitimate differences of viewpoint and opinion. I categorically reject your accusation of gender bias, on either side, in those exchanges.
<
p>I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because of his race, and didn’t oppose Sarah Palin because of her gender. I voted for Barack Obama because he is far and away the better person for the job. My disgust for Sarah Palin is generated by her flagrant ignorance, arrogance, and shameless pandering to the worst elements of our culture.
<
p>In my view, John McCain’s nomination of Sarah Palin illustrated his own deeply-rooted sexism — he and his handlers had such low regard for American women that they felt they would vote their chromosomes in spite of abundant evidence of Ms. Palin’s incompetence. How could anyone who respected supporters (of both genders) of Hillary Clinton come to the conclusion that those supporters would possibly be drawn to Sarah Palin?
<
p>In my view, the above-quoted paragraph expresses similar disrespect for the BMG audience and most of all for Martha Coakley herself.