Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Capuano or Coakley for Senate

By

You want courage?

Capuano voted against the Patriot Act when being America was being stampeded into it.

You want leadership?

Coakley sued the feds and their MIA-on-LGBT president Obama over DOMA when nobody else would.

You want integrity?

Capuano voted against No Child Left Behind because he believed it was wrong, despite pressure on the right (the popular George W. Bush), the left (the popular Ted Kennedy), and the money (charters, inc.) to do otherwise.

You want boldness?

Coakley, alone in the field, did not await Joe Kennedy’s decision/permission before running for the Senate seat.

Health care?

They both want a public option.

Afghanistan?

They aren’t ready to commit to more troops to this morass.

Liberal?

Yes.

Experienced in government and consensus-building — ready to hit the ground running?

Yes.

There are differences between the two, but in all honesty they are getting harder and harder to find.  We have two great choices here, and many positive reasons to support Martha Coakley or Mike Capuano.

What are yours?

(PS: I accidentally hit publish on this earlier, and cleaned up this article a bit…I don’t believe this will alter the value of the comments coming afterward.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. sorry.. the courageous leader who has the true integrity and boldness in this competition to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat, is Alan Khazei.. not Martha or Michael.

    <

    p>Alan is the only candidate of the three,  willing to turn down the influence that always comes with those packets of PAC and Lobby money. .. and of course Khazei: wants a strong public option;  won’t commit more troops to Afghanistan;and is ready to organize a citizens’ campaign to gather up enough senate and house votes to revoke DOMA.

    <

    p>Don’t believe me? Read this week’s Newsweek article by Jonathan Alter, Kennedy’s rightful heir’ Alan Khazei should get his seat

    • sorry.. the courageous leader who has the true integrity and boldness in this competition to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat, is Alan Khazei.. not Martha or Michael.

      <

      p>I’m quite failing to see where, if anywhere, the undoubted presence of integrity and boldness wrt to Khazai, is supposed to make me doubt the same of the others in the race…?   Surely you’re not postulating a zero-sum conservation of integrity in this race, or in any other?

      <

      p>

      Alan is the only candidate of the three,  willing to turn down the influence that always comes with those packets of PAC and Lobby money. ..

      <

      p>He seems to be a bit of a lobbyist himself, albeit one, I hasten to add, with whom I’m in general agreement.  And his career, such as it is, is built upon both a presumed and demonstrated ability to raise money.  Perhaps this is good. Perhaps less so… but you can’t pretend that because he functions as his own PAC cum lobbyist, he’s somehow above the fray…

      <

      p>

      and of course Khazei: wants a strong public option;  won’t commit more troops to Afghanistan;and is ready to organize a citizens’ campaign to gather up enough senate and house votes to revoke DOMA.

      <

      p>As much as I like Khazei, I must admit he has more than a faint whiff of the dilettante about him. This troubles me.   And, as a democrat committed to the republic, some notion of a ‘citizens campaign’ designed to strong-arm the Senate into acting in an ‘appropriate’ manner is equally troubling; one has only to look at California to see where this sort of hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy (republic) goes awry.

      <

      p>

      • He seems to be a bit of a lobbyist himself

        <

        p>Are you suggesting his fundraising for a non-profit, service oriented organization is in the same vein as other special-interest group lobbying for votes?

        • Are you suggesting his fundraising for a non-profit, service oriented organization is in the same vein as other special-interest group lobbying for votes?

          That does seem to be the suggestion!!!  Too funny.

          • Lobbyists and special interests are anybody who is organized.  When labor lobbies for safe working conditions, educators lobby for small class sizes, and environmentalists lobby for higher fuel efficiency standards, they’re all doing the same thing as the Chamber of Commerce.  Again, adopting the Republican frame that all previous knowledge and hard work connected with the government is perforce wrong…only helps incompetent Republicans.

      • And, as a democrat committed to the republic, some notion of a ‘citizens campaign’ designed to strong-arm the Senate into acting in an ‘appropriate’ manner is equally troubling; one has only to look at California to see where this sort of hybrid between direct democracy and representative democracy (republic) goes awry.

        <

        p>Can you say more?

        <

        p>What exactly is troubling, as you see it WRT Khazei’s campaign?

        <

        p>What’s the strong arming you’re anticipating (I don’t see it/get it?), and what’s wrong with “appropriate”, as a general term?

        <

        p>I like “appropriate”, generally speaking.  

        • Can you say more?

          <

          p>I can indeed.    I have blogged here at length about just this topic. Those familiar with my writing might even now be rolling their eyes, as I have a tendency to wax prolix upon the subject.

          <

          p>

          What exactly is troubling, as you see it WRT Khazei’s campaign?

          <

          p>If by ‘campaign’ you mean the effort to be elected to the Senate, then I believe I’ve outlined them: the lingering air of dilettantism; the facile idea that the man who makes his money persuading and fundraising is somehow different from lobbyists…

          <

          p>But, if by ‘campaign’ you mean this ill-conceived notion of a “citizens campaign  to gather up enough senate and house votes to revoke DOMA“… then my problem is one of process and definition.   As much as I find DOMA distasteful in the extreme, I don’t view it as occurring outside the process or  context of representative democracy. Therefore, it is what it is.  But the idea of raising ‘citizens campaign’ to strong-arm congress plays into the underlying, and pernicious, notion that Congresscritters and Senators are merely proxy votes for this brand of noble citizenry who, somehow, know better.  That’s not how it works.  We vote for them to make laws. If we don’t like the laws they make, we have the right to say so and a follow-on opportunity to vote for someone else… or, indeed, run ourselves.   But it is not a mechanistic proxy for the citizens voice for which we vote.  As we are having this debate, California is melting down more or less drastically precisely because of this notion of direct democracy being both more righteous and better able to provide pleasing outcomes.  Other instances can be provided, but the basic idea is clear: neither direct democracy nor a hybrid direct/representative democracy provides any  protection from either chaos or misrule: which protection, however, is exactly what you seek from a ‘citizens campaign’ designed to force a specific outcome.  It does not, and cannot, work.

          <

          p>In short, there is no political system that will please each and every citizen. Nor should we even attempt to create any such system. The system we’ve chosen, that of representative democracy, for all its failings and shortcomings, provides checks and balances to the process and concerns itself very minimally with providing ‘appropriate’ outcomes.

          <

          p>

          What’s the strong arming you’re anticipating (I don’t see it/get it?), and what’s wrong with “appropriate”, as a general term?

          I like “appropriate”, generally speaking.  

          <

          p>While we both might agree that police officers are an appropriate response to crime, we might not agree on the level and kinds of force appropriate to do their work.  Or, put another way, who get’s to say, either generally or specifically, what’s appropriate?  Myself, I’ve voted for Deval Patrick, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barack Obama, etc… mostly on the strength of what they consider to be appropriate.  I’m willing to accept their conclusions in this regard.  I don’t particularly feel entitled to like their conclusions, but I have resolved to respect them.  That’s what representative democracy is all about.  

          • …the facile idea that the man who makes his money persuading and fundraising is somehow different from lobbyists…

            <

            p>R-i-i-ight…

            <

            p>…and Taxidermists are no different than Veterinarians since they both work with animals.

                1. Blithely equating a private citizen’s activism with this

                <

                p>2. Pretending not to know same, even while people like this hail from one’s own Congressional delegation.

                <

                p>Syn – see also: intellectually lazy, disingenuous

                <

                p>

  4. …and everyone would be remiss if you didn’t give him a truly serious look.

    <

    p>He will surprise you, how much you like him, his vision, his passion and his integrity.

    <

    p>And he will surprise all the cynics on Dec 8 too.  

    <

    p>Seriously.  

    • And City Year is a good program, and the service bill is a good bill.

      <

      p>I have yet to hear about any expertise with a foreign policy slowly starting to right itself, or a global and national economy in crisis.  I just don’t think this is the time to take a chance and yet another fresh face from outside government.  That said, I’d love to see him continue this engagement with elected politics after the primary.

      • Why would I choose a candidate who voting record is short of non-existent?  If the candidate has at least spent time in the Commonwealth legislature or US Congress then I have a measure of them in action. Otherwise, you have to take them at their word.  And my personal experience is that they rarely deliver on what they say. Watch them vote. See how they do the job of a legislator, then make your choice.  

        • Khazei may be a good guy, but I want someone who can get things done. A proven voting record is a must.

          • on Americorps.  That’s a proven record.  No, not for voting.  But a record on legislative victory that neither Capuano nor Coakley can match.

            <

            p>I’m enough of a Pollyanna, I guess, to believe in taking people at their word, esp since he’s without the $$$ strings that would command another candidate to have to parse and hedge for fear of alienating The Money.

            <

            p>What are the issues you think he is going to go back on his word on? I dunno. Who burned you, who lied to you and flipped their word without a good thoughtful reason?  

            <

            p>As for “someone who can get things done”… Have you researched what he’s accomplished as a citizen, including the complete Republican reversal on Americorps?

            <

            p>If you did your due diligence, I think you’ll be surprised.  Give it a try!  

            <

            p>I’m not voting and volunteering for him “b’c he’s a good guy” but b/c I SEE he has gotten things done and that his moral compass is uncompromising and his experience is the kind we NEED much much more of in Washington (FROM communities, from the grassroots, what WORKS).

            • Even Khazai’s campaign site doesn’t make that claim:

              <

              p>

              In June of 2003, when the AmeriCorps program experienced a dramatic funding cut of 80 percent overnight due to mismanagement in Washington and partisan politics, Alan gathered with other service leaders to organize the “Save AmeriCorps” coalition. This effort included an extensive grassroots and grasstops campaign which culminated in a 100 hour round the clock “citizens hearing” in the Capitol in which more than 700 service leaders, AmeriCorps supporters, community leaders, AmeriCorps alumni, business leaders and governmental leaders testified. This effort led to half of the AmeriCorps funding being restored in 2003 and to all of the previous funding plus a 100 million dollar increase appropriated for 2004 — enough to grow AmeriCorps from 50,000 participants annually to 75,000.

              <

              p>I’m also curious why it’s up to me to perform “due diligence” rather than up to you to provide compelling arguments.  You may believe that asserting that Alan has an uncompromising moral compass is compelling.  I’d like some backing.

          • Is it a coincidence that only one candidate in this race a voting record of any kind? If it’s a must, it’s an easy call!

            • It’s not “a must” for me.  But I understand making that argument when your candidate is a legislator! 😉

            • I’d be happy with either Capuano or Coakley, but am giving Cap the edge based on his voting record and excellent constituent services.

              <

              p>The more I hear about Khazei (especially from Apricot), the less appropriate he seems for the position.

          • We’re creating career politicians.

            <

            p>We suggest candidates without the percieved level of “experience” to run for a different position, maybe the House?  Well, even though you may be okay with that, there is someone waiting who wants them to serve in statewide office.  That’s on the assumption that they happen to be in a position to run when one of our other career politicians retires or passes away.

            <

            p>Well I respect the demand for a voting record, I worry about the barriers to entry we have created in our democracy.

            • I’ve never understood why professional politics has negative connotations while in any other line of work (law, medicine, the trades, teaching e.g.) the more experience you have the better at it you presumably are.  I am not advocating a strictly regulated cursus honorum like the Romans had, but generally speaking (and there are exceptions, even in my own record of whom I’ve supported over the years) I don’t think US Senator, Governor, or President should be one’s first elective office.  At least, the lack of that kind of resume would be a single criterion in the negative column as I judge candidates.

              • I never said career politicians we bad, per se.  I was arguing that we are forcing politicians to make a career out of it when they shouldn’t have to.

                <

                p>Politicians aren’t like every other line of work.  There is no teacher or tradesman who is constantly handled at all hours of the day.  The politicians we elect don’t go in it alone, they go with an army of staffers who have made a career out of this and are prepared to get the job done; that’s what happens for every senator.

                <

                p>Now if someone wants to be a career politicians, I’m totally in favor of that, I’ve voted for a few that we would call “career politicians”.  The problem arises, for me, when we force politicians to do that.  

                • I keep thinking of Al Franken, who went from commentator to Senator…and already is distinguishing himself as a darn good one at that.  However, I’d heard him speak and read his stuff (both humor and policy).  Franken was already on the hook for public statements and accountability long before he ran for office.  We knew what we were getting.  Perhaps I’m in the wrong circles, but I never heard from Alan Khazei any thoughts on government outside volunteering before he prepared statements specifically for a political campaign.

            • As I said, I’ve seen many self-styled outsiders flail and flounder.  The US Senate is too important a position to have that happen.  I’m comfortable with there being barriers to entry.

              <

              p>I like Deval Patrick. but he’s a classic example of why experience in government matters. His tone deafness is typical of business folk moving into an environment where being able to play the game is important.

              • Deval certainly hasn’t been perfect, but an executive is a far different position than a legislator.  In fact, an executive is arguably more influential, important and difficult of a position.  This is why I find it funny that we so willingly elect non-politicians to the governorship but get all up in arms when one runs for the senate.

                • Or more accurately, I disagree on the differences.  The US Senate requires a considerable amount of political skill. I could also make the argument that it’s almost as strategically important as the Governorship.  Congress positions are a little less critical, but only because there are more of them.  

                  <

                  p>I do find the “well, his staff will help him” argument interesting.  Is it better to have a country run by elected career politicians or non-elected career staffers?

      • But I have to say that I take the opposite position:  I’m fairly SICK of “insider” government.

        <

        p>It gave us Iraq, and now Afghanistan and the hobbling health care reform.  

        <

        p>Business as usual and “experience” in this political culture is not necessarily a positive thing.  

        <

        p>These are of course also the arguments that were levied against Obama last year.  And where Obama has been softer and less resolute than I’d like, we might have a different narrative if we had a Senate that was less committed to “insider” gamesmanship and more focused on the moral and political imperatives (like, it’s totally wrong that we’re compromising the hell out of health care reform, for example, chasing after Snowe).  

        • I’m ready to validate your sick feelings over “insider” government, because those of us who are working from the outside in an organized way to persuade, influence, push, beg, plead, demand that our elected representatives to do what we think they should do get those sick feelings in the pit of our stomach a lot.

          <

          p>We do wish we could win our battles by relying more on what we think is the moral and political imperative of the day, but that tactic only works when declaring war I think. (That’s why President Lyndon Johnson named his Economic Opportunity ACT the War on Poverty.)

          <

          p>Policy making in a representative democracy is a very human process with all kinds of different folk with their fingers on the levers of power and the experience needed to move those levers to make something happen. And they do not always share our list of moral/political imperatives, never mind being focused on them.

          <

          p>Almost always, we find ourselves negotiating with them in good and sometimes bad faith, to move our issues forward. But when you win one — a big one or a small one, there is nothing like making a measurable difference in the lives of thousands of people who don’t even know you or the other insider players even exist.  

        • Come to think of it, so did most of the current Republican members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington campaigns have been in vogue for the last decade.

          • Are you suggesting that anyone who is arguing that the current political system is ineffective (HELLO health care?) = GWB?

            <

            p>LOL. You’re funny! 😀

            • You said  that insider government “gave us Iraq, and now Afghanistan and the hobbling health care reform. “

              <

              p>Here in reality the people responsible ran as outsiders.

            • A knee-jerk supporter of outsiders would have voted for Bush for President, Romney for Governor, and Palin for VP.

              <

              p>You’re proposing a criterion by which we might choose Senators. Why is what you’re proposing any better than eye color or last digit of social security number? Like eye color and last digit, it seems to randomly choose good people and awful people.

              • Apricot must’ve hated that Kennedy guy…what an insider he was!  Remember all those stories about him sending gifts to fellow Senators, hanging out with Congressman over his decades and decades in the Senate?  

                • How can a guy who’s friends list includes Teddy Kenedy, Bill Clinton, and Arriana Huffington be considered a Washington outsider?

        • Insider government gave us Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the moon landing, the end of the Cold War, the EPA, FDA, etc.

          <

          p>”Insider versus Outsider” is a false choice that only benefits outsiders with nothing but that to their credit.  I’m all for the right insiders.  Coakley and Capuano are two such.

        • might you consider inexperience valuable?  In your heart surgeon?  In your real estate agent?  In your financial adviser?  In your teacher?  In your criminal defense attorney?

          <

          p>Your construct is deeply flawed.  Inexperience is rarely an attribute, and only the most politically naive would argue that it is.  Indeed, in a turn that echoes the last refuge of scoundrels, the elevation of inexperience from disadvantage to advantage as a qualifying attribute reveals much about the trumpeter and little else.  

          • I would prefer that any criminals who attempt to ply their trade be at least inexperienced, and preferably incompetent.

            <

            p>I would not be surprised if those who prefer ‘outsiders’ as a class view career politicians as criminals, whether they admit it or not.

        • Don’t be self-deceived by the notion that outsiders elected as government officials are not subject to the same pressures as experienced legislators. That said, wouldn’t you rather have a record to judge a person performing in that context?

          <

          p>Skills are as just as relevant and valuable as principles and policy positions in this job.  Skills take time to develop.  

          <

          p>That’s why I see the legislature as an incubator and a way to produce a record the justifies or does not justify a promotion.  In this race, we are fortunate to have a candidate with a lengthy record as a US Congressmen.  Take a look at it.

          • Definitely.

            <

            p>But they’re not the only metric, and not the only metric that matter.

            <

            p>I’ve voted for career politicians and I have voted for new politicians with little legislative experience.  

            <

            p>Sorry to be brief; just skimming/checking in very quickly

            <

            p>APologies to the person who I offended earlier; didn’t mean to be insulting.  

            • Coakley has less than three years experience in state-wide office as executive law enforcement officer.

              <

              p>Capuano has 11 years experience in US Congress, probably the most relevant and comparable job to the office in the US Senate.

  5. The debate a couple weeks back was what solidified my feelings in the same direction — Coakley and Capuano are both great choices, and neither of the others will do…

    <

    p>Pagliuca proved in that debate that he has no true command of the issues, and spent most of the evening deferring to Capuano.

    <

    p>Khazei really turned me off with his constant repetition of talking points and personal tidbits (please, Alan, remind me again of how your father was a doctor.  I seem to forget every 30 seconds.) … and it just makes zero sense to me that he’s spending so much of his time speaking out against casino gambling in Massachusetts: While I completely agree with him on the topic, he’s running for a FEDERAL OFFICE, where he would have no opportunity to vote on any issues of gambling in the Commonwealth.  So while a look at his position papers puts him basically in line with my ideals, he’s no more so than Capuano and Coakley, and has proven that he’s a dirt-poor debater, somewhat scattered in terms of focus, and IMO should stick to organizing and activism.  He’s just not a good politician.

    • Like Ed O’Reilly, Khazei is looking like somebody with good ideas, good ambition, and good values.  However, voters don’t seem ready to trust them with what they’re seeking — here’s hoping both will eventually “settle” for a seat in the state Legislature and prove their chops there.

      • Running for state or local office gives candidates time to build needed job skills, like campaigning, debating, and working a crowd. Also dealing with hecklers and tough questions. And, of course, convincing others to vote your way.

  6. In the debate Capuano proved to be passionate and knowledgeable, with the experience and voting record to back it up.  A US Senate seat is not the place to gain legislative experience; I want a candidate who has already has it. Capuano has proved that he is a strong, decisive leader who can make the legislative process work for his constituents.  

    <

    p>His voting record says it all:
    – Long history of championing quality health care.
    – Stood with Ted Kennedy against the Iraq War.
    – Chairs the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement.
    – Opposed the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act when they were both popular among citizens and legislators.
    – Co-sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
    – Co-sponsored the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

    <

    p>This isn’t about insider or outsider politics. It’s about supporting someone that we know will do a good job representing us.  

  7. There are two tiers for me for candidates the First Tier of experienced and capable public servants trying to move up and the second tier of outsiders trying to run outside, and in some cases against the system.

    <

    p>Of the first tier:

    <

    p>I strongly favor Capuano. The Senate is a place you want an experienced legislator able to get things done on day one. Capuano is the only candidate with that ability. He already knows the halls of Congress, already has made key connections in both chambers, has already demonstrated a willingness to fight both for earmarks and constituent services. He will go to bat for anyone in his district-I want that kind of nuts and bolts approach in the Senate. Its what made Sen. Kennedy a better Senator than Sen. Kerry in my opinion. Kennedy knew that in many ways being a Senator still involved getting involved locally. He went out of his way to help any MA resident who asked for it, including a great story about a conservative Republican on whose deceased son’s behalf he helped fight for body armour for our troops. Capuano would go out of his way to do those sorts of things for the average resident of our fair state. I like Coakley and Khazei, but I don’t see them doing that. Capuano as a former Mayor also understands urban issues and will fight for our cities and towns, again something a lot of people forget about in the Senate.

    <

    p>On top of the nuts and bolts issues, he is also an expert on just about any issues. Talk to him about Darfur, I have, and he is an expert on it. Iraq, Afghanistan, healthcare, the environment. He can answer any question with the knowledge and sophistication of a wonk but phrase it so that anyone in the Tobin School auditorium can understand. This is again an important way he can speak directly to people on the issues he cares about.

    <

    p>He had the courage to take tough stances and make tough votes, something none of his competitors had to do. And I am tired of people belittling him for his service in the Congress, there is nothing he did that did not require political courage. He defied the President, the media, and most Americans in voting down the post 9/11 twin hysterics of the Patriot Act and Using Force Against Iraq. He defied Ted Kennedy to vote down a bad law, a law everyone now recognizes as bad. And between the two experienced candidates, only he will have the guts to stand up to Obama on gay rights and Afghanistan-issues where the President is misguided at best wrong at worst. I don’t see Coakley doing that, her style and her manner is too cautious, too cold, and I don’t see her taking the tough stances as much as Capuano. That said she is miles ahead of the second tier and will get my vote if nominated.

    <

    p>The Second Tier

    <

    p>Pags past support, and continued defense of Mitt Romney is reprehensible. His lack of a coherent rationale for his candidacy and any specific knowledge on any of the issues is stunning and troubling. His belief that he can buy the race insulting. This guy is not Senate material.

    <

    p>But neither is Khazei the darling of the national blogosphere, the college students, and the far left. Khazei simply does not have the experience to be a Senator. It is really troubling that in our post-Watergate post-Bush world that NOT having experience somehow makes someone more qualified. Khazei supporters have been relentless in attacking Capuano as being ‘tainted’ by his service in Washington or by ‘the establishment’. This narrative of an ‘outsider’ taking on ‘the establishment’ is troubling since the Senate is the most conservative institution in government, it is meant to be deliberative, meant to be free from the popular sways of the mob and the electorate. Khazei would alienate himself from the leadership in the Senate and be relegated to being a bomb thrower like Finegold or McCain at best, or a liberal Tom Coburn at worst. We want a Senator that can actually help advance our states interest, Khazei’s style would set them back. I do not see this guy having any allies in the Senate, I do not see him having any big say on legislation, I do see him making impassioned speeches on C-Span but I don’t see him making a difference.

    <

    p>I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Scott Brown, but I cannot in good conscience support him and the fervor of his supporters and their hatred of the system troubles me immensely.  

      • I still live out of state and don’t see these ads in my living room (also I live in a dorm and don’t have one, or a TV for that matter).

        <

        p>While it is nice to see this kind of personal connection, and I applaud Martha for having a warm and positive ad that contrasts her cold demeanor I’ve seen thus far (I did watch your interviews and part of the debate) I still would give the edge to Capuano for constituent services, seeing that his office actually conducts them and it would not be a stretch to go from district wide to statewide. Also unaddressed is my charge that Capuano would be more effective at bringing home earmarks.

        <

        p>Again Coakley has shown she is perfectly capable of being a good Senator, Capuano is going to be a GREAT Senator and that is the difference IMO.

        <

        p>Also David you frequently defend Coakley, did I miss something or are you in the tank for her officially? (and I don’t mean that sarcastically, just an honest question).

        <

        p>It would be nice to hear from Khazei and Pags on this, I suspect often overlooked subject that actually consumes the majority of a Congresspersons time (in either House).

Archives