Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

So much for Congressional delegation unity

By

Dear Friends,

I’m writing today to let you know that this afternoon, I will be endorsing Martha Coakley for the United States Senate.

Throughout her distinguished career, Martha has been a tireless and highly effective advocate for the citizens of this great Commonwealth.  Her proven track record from keeping the Commonwealth safe for our children and seniors to holding Wall Street and the big insurance companies accountable, is well known to the residents of Middlesex County and the communities of the Fifth Congressional District.  

We are fortunate to have so many great candidates running for this seat.  Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca have brought, and will continue to bring, new ideas and energy to the debate.  My colleague and friend Michael Capuano has made tremendous contributions to the Commonwealth during his decade representing the Eighth District in the House and I am honored to serve with him.  

But after carefully examining all of the candidates, I believe that Martha Coakley’s unique experiences, many accomplishments, perspective and work ethic, best qualify her for the challenges we now face.  I am confident that Martha will be an effective voice for Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate.

I hope you can join us this afternoon when I officially endorse Martha Coakley for the U.S. Senate at 2:30PM in Lowell today at the VFW Post 662 located at 190 Plain Street .  I look forward to seeing you and to introducing you to Massachusetts next U.S. Senator!

Sincerely,

Niki Tsongas

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I’m interested in the timing of this, because it may be one of Coakley’s strongest shots (along with Menino).  Either the plan all along was to endorse during this dead time, Coakley’s get other Congresscritters or heavy hitters lined up for later, or she’s hearing worrying feedback from the debate and is looking to change the conversation.

    • Like what?  Honestly, I can’t think of a thing that anyone said in that debate that was especially memorable either way.  Certainly, I didn’t think that Coakley said anything that could create problems later.

    • More likely Coakley is building on momentum from her debate “win.”

      <

      p>BTW, Andy Hiller of News 7 proclaimed Coakley the winner of Monday’s debate.  He thought Capuano lost.

      <

      p>Similarly, Jon Keller of WBZ4 proclaimed Coakley and Khazei winners while Capuano and Pagliuca lost.

      • I didn’t see Capuano as angry. I saw him as informed, focused, in control, and certainly the most experienced in the public forum, kind of what they do in the Congress. Coakley started tentatively, then got more comfortable, but I never saw any sense of mastery of the subject. It was a little like watching a job applicant trying to hide that fact from the interviewer. Khazei I liked, although the constant references to his mother and father wore thin after the first time. Pagliuca is not ready to be on this level in any way, shape, or form. His delivery was bad, and his attempt at wit with the crack about DC fell flat. Besides, he donated to Romney and Bush. I don’t care what the excuse was, that disqualifies him, period.

        • But many others not already enchanted didn’t like his demeanor.  I thought he was arrogant, my spouse thought he came across as hostile.

          <

          p>That’s not good for Capuano, since he started out behind.  He needed to win over people not already with him through this debate.

          <

          p>We are supporting Coakley, who did a great job – exactly what she needed to do in this debate.  I thought Khazei came in second – I’d support him for another office, just not this one, based on what I’ve seen of him in the debate and at the forum at Middlesex college a few weeks ago.  

    • Thought Coakley won by default. Nothing damaging. Levy was also of the opinion Capuano sounded like “an angry man”. Levy thought it was a contest to see who could be most left.  

      • Any passionate politician with a worthwhile BMI is “angry” to the shrinking pundits.  Anyway, I personally don’t think Coakley won or lost the debate, but I just find the timing of the announcement rather curious.

        <

        p>Regardless, after seeing the pundits declare each debate for McCain, only to see the insta-polls show Obama victories every time, I don’t put much stock on their opinions of who won a debate.

        • Coakley:
          Given her lead in all polls, Coakley’s campaign only needed for her to (1) not make a mistake, (2) appear senatorial in her demeanor and (3) state liberal positions on issues.  She accomplished all three (although it would have been better, but not necessary, for her to be more passionate).

          <

          p>As for Capuano:
          Any good political consultant will tell you that you should NEVER appear irritated, raise your voice, and/or get angry during a televised debate.  They will tell you that “television is a cool medium.”  Many people thought Capuano appeared irritated and impatient during Monday’s debate.  STRIKE ONE.

          <

          p>Going into Monday’s debate, Capuano needed to turn the race into a contest between just him and Coakley.  He did not. Because Khazei was seen by many as being more passionate and articulate for liberal positions, Capuano now needs to worry about Khazei siphoning off liberal votes.  Further trouble for Capuano is that latest polling shows him slightly behind Pagliuca (no doubt due to Pagliuca’s heavy media buy).  So after the debate, the contest remains Coakley versus three also-rans, not Coakley vs. Capuano. STRIKE TWO.

          <

          p>During the debate, Capauno repeatedly emphasized his insider credentials and “horse-trading” skills.  While those are really good skills for being an actual Senator/Congressman, they’re terrible skills to emphasize for getting elected in the first place.  Running as an insider who compromises is NOT a winning election strategy.  STRIKE THREE.

          • If they are saying that, then it’s certainly a reference to Marshall McLuhan, and either they or you are misunderstanding it. As for NEVER appearing irritated, it’s too bad none of those consultants were able to get to Reagan before he delivered his “I paid for this microphone” line.

            <

            p>I want the person with the “really good skills for being an actual Senator.” I include the ability to get irritated as one of those skills. I think Capuano can hit the ground running, and we need that.

            • It wasn’t Reagan’s outburst, “I paid for this microphone” that helped win the Republican New Hampshire Presidential Primary in 1980.  It was that George H. W. Bush shrank and appeared flustered (and to conservatives, weak) when confronted by Reagan.

              <

              p>Had Bush instead appeared strong and pushed back on Reagan (who had not actually paid for the microphone), Reagan’s angry outburst would have backfired.

              • to make that “wrong” interpretation. Here’s the Nashua Telegraph:

                1980: The microphone

                Whenever politicians and historians talk about turning points in presidential campaigns, the evening of Feb. 23, 1980, is near the top of the list.
                . . .
                Reagan then grabbed the microphone stand, stood up, his face flushed in apparent anger and shouted, “I’m paying for this microphone, Mr. Green (sic).”

                If your assertion that a politician “should NEVER appear irritated, raise your voice, and/or get angry during a televised debate” were correct, that would have been the end of the Reagan campaign. Obviously, it was not.

            • Marshall McLuhan designates television as a “cool medium” that rewards a “low-pressure style of presentation” and “rejects the sharp personality.”

              • to do justice to McLuhan’s concept of “cool media.” Scabbing one phrase from his work onto another is not rendering that justice.

        • it’s not showing up in BMG poll

          <

          p>* Mike Capuano – 15 votes (60%)
          * Martha Coakley – 4 votes (16%)
          * BMG should not endorse – 2 votes (8%)
          * I still believe in the “BMG Kiss of Death” – 2 votes (8%)
          * Scott Brown (Hey, just want to be fair!) – 1 votes (4%)
          * Alan Khazei – 1 votes (4%)
          * Steve Pagliuca – 0 votes (0%)

          • Are out working for the candidate, instead of blowing steam on BMG.  

            <

            p>My excuse is that I’m stuck in an airport waiting to get a seat on a delayed flight.  

                • It will be modest at best, because BMG polls are not even remotely scientific, in almost every case will reflect a non-representative sample of BMG readers, and are easily freeped.  It’s just not a good barometer of what “the BMG community” thinks.  As I said, entertainment purposes only.  Ernie’s got the right idea.

              • you wouldn’t have.

                <

                p>are you saying a disproportionate number of Capuano supporters read the diaries and vote their polls or…

                <

                p>only the smart people read the diaries and vote in the polls or…

                <

                p>a sample size of 25 is less than 5% and can’t produce a statically significant result or…

                <

                p>or statistical sampling requires a random sample to be predictive…

              • David does not want a widely read/voted BMG US Senate poll on the front page which might potentially conflict with his preferred endorsement and cause embarrassment.  

                • If you could let me know who my “preferred endorsement” is, I’d appreciate it.  Since I haven’t figured it out yet.

                  <

                  p>Seriously, Neil, you are almost laughably defensive about any comment on any thread that isn’t 100% pro-Capuano.  Lighten up, fella.  We’re here for serious political discourse, but we try not to take our own selves too seriously.

                • Maybe it means he chuckles, but does not LOL. I would think that something “hilarious” would merit better than a chuckle, though. Maybe even a guffaw.  

              • The one cited two comments above yours is mine from the current diary (which you quickly front-paged, thank you) and asked whom BMG should endorse, not who won the debate.

    • I think she’s come to terms with the 5th being eliminated.  The only thing saving her now is a retirement or Cap victory…which she obviously isn’t helping.

      • Last time they tried to eliminate the 5th, leaders across the political spectrum came to its defense.  You won’t take away a Lowell-Lawrence based district without a fight.

  3. It’s telling that Coakley’s camp are claiming a win from the lackluster performance we saw from her on Monday. It seems like she’s taking her early lead (which looks to be slipping away) as a foregone conclusion. If she can say little enough and avoid substantive debate, she can win by not losing. But not only is that shortsighted, it underestimates the voters and her fellow candidates. I thought Capuano, who came across as passionate, experienced, and progressive, was the clear winner.

    <

    p>While Tsongas may be backing Coakley;  Frank, Lynch, Tierney, and McGovern have all thrown their weight behind Capuano. These four congressmen represent a broad spectrum of democratic viewpoints in Congress. They are in a unique position to judge firsthand Capuano’s performance on behalf of his constituents, his work ethic, and his leadership ability. Their endorsement–one of the few things they all seem to agree on—shows how capable Capuano has proven himself to be.

    • “Lackluster performance”?  Sez who?  Like I said upthread, no one really rocked it, but the format made that totally impossible.

      <

      p>And as to her lead “slipping away,” again, sez who?  The most recent poll I know of shows her holding a solid 20+ point lead over Capuano and Pagliuca, with Khazei in 4th.  Have you got anything that shows otherwise?

      <

      p>I’m assuming you’re a Capuano backer — that’s fine, but be careful about assuming what you wish to be true.

      • I have very little faith in the accuracy of that poll. If you look beyond what Keller wrote and examine the poll itself, you see that only 52% of respondents said they were likely voters. When only half of the people surveyed expect to show up to the polls, how much stake should we put in the results?

        <

        p>Excluding the 50% who probably won’t be voting, the poll is whittled down to around 200 reliable people. A BMG poll has more likely voters than that!

        <

        p>I don’t have any other numbers myself, I’m just cautioning that the ones we’ve seen from Coakley’s camp are pretty suspect. The last poll she released was done only days after Capuano and Pag entered the race, and before Khazei had even announced. So yeah, when she was the only candidate anyone knew about, she was the frontrunner. When there’s only one candidate, there’s only one choice! Regardless, even these suspect polls show Coakley dropping 10 points. That looks like “slipping away” to me!

        <

        p>Yep David, I am a Capuano supporter and I thank you for your point. But I think “assuming what you wish to be true” is more Coakley’s strategy than mine. If she can convince the electorate her challangers are too far behind to catch up, she can discourage voter turnout and interest in the race. I don’t want a Senator who won’t speak up because she thinks she can hold her breath long enough to win the election! I want a Senator who will fight tooth and nail against the frontrunner because he believes he can bring positive, progress change to Capitol Hill.

    • if it didn’t seem just so sexist. It’s a little more than curious that the only woman in the delegation is endorsing the only woman in the race.

      • is it not curious that every man in the delegation who’s endorsed has endorsed a man* in the senate race?

        <

        p>

        <

        p> * They sure as heck weren’t going to endorse Alan Khazei or Stephen Pagliuca, so really it was “50-50”.

  5. as prepared for delivery

    <

    p>

    I am proud to endorse Martha Coakley today for the United States Senate.  Throughout her distinguished career, Martha has been a tireless and highly effective advocate for the citizens of this great Commonwealth.  Her proven track record from keeping the Commonwealth safe for our children and seniors to holding Wall Street and the big insurance companies accountable, is well known to the residents of Middlesex County and the communities of the Fifth Congressional District.  

    Her candidacy in this race is particularly important as our country works to recover from one of the worst economic crisis in recent history.  At a time when our finical regulatory safeguards have failed us, Martha Coakley’s law enforcement background and 25 year record will help her effectively work to reform the system and better protect consumers.  She investigated the Wall Street firms whose irresponsibility helped to cause our economic crisis and recovered millions for taxpayers and victims of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and UBS’s deceptive activities.  She’s also gone after fraud and abuse in the health care industry delivering millions in settlement payments to the state’s Medicaid program.

    As Attorney General, Martha has led the fight against predatory lending practices, while championing the rights of homeowners and consumers.  She has helped more than 12,000 people avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes.  Hailing from North Adams, she also understands the unique economic challenges that older industrial cities like those here in the Merrimack Valley face.  

    We are fortunate to have so many great candidates running for this seat.  Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca have brought, and will continue to bring, new ideas and energy to the debate.  My colleague and friend Michael Capuano has made tremendous contributions to the Commonwealth during his decade representing the Eighth District in the House and I am honored to serve with him.  

    But after carefully examining all of the candidates, I believe that Martha Coakley’s unique experiences, many accomplishments, and deep seated commitment to protecting our citizens, best qualify her for the challenges we now face.  

    Massachusetts Fifth Congressional District is a revolutionary district; the American Revolution was born in Concord and the Industrial Revolution was sparked on the banks of the Merrimack River.  And, in 1925, five years after women earned the right to vote, this district elected Edith Nourse Rogers as the first woman from Massachusetts to serve in Congress; she still holds the record as the longest serving Congresswoman.  In her 35 years in the House of Representatives she left an inspiring legacy as a powerful advocate for veterans and was one of the principal authors of the GI Bill.  So, it is not inappropriate that we’re here today with Martha Coakley who again has a chance to make history as the first female Senator from Massachusetts.  

    Given the Fifth District’s long history of sparking change, one that elected me to Congress as the first woman from Massachusetts in 25 years, I am sure this district will once again be true to its revolutionary spirit, support Martha Coakley, and help send to Washington a U.S. Senator who will be a forceful and effective voice for change.

Archives