Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Globe endorses Khazei

By

Fascinating.

The 48-year-old Khazei offers a strong vision for success in the Senate, channeling the energy of activist groups and private-sector policy incubators while dedicating himself to the laborious task of building legislative coalitions. He offers a time-tested and relevant example of this approach: his two decades of work bringing together politicians of both parties and citizen-activists to develop a national service plan….

Extended to issues like health care, the environment, energy, and job training, this entrepreneurial model of progressive politics offers hope for real improvements. It moves away from Reagan-era skepticism about government without relying on traditional government programs to provide all the answers.

In supporting Khazei, the Globe believes that this state’s future depends on new ideas. The next Massachusetts senator should be the person who best embodies forward-looking thinking, and not the traditional paths to power….

At this moment, he is more of an impassioned amateur than a seasoned pro. But his energy, idealism, and intelligence – combined with a grounded sense of how the Senate works – is unusual, and gives voters a chance to support a new, home-grown approach to politics. He isn’t trying to line up just enough constituencies to eke out a win; he’s asking voters to sign on to a vision – a less top-down, less programmatic way of improving people’s lives. His emphasis on capturing the energy of private initiatives and translating it into the conventions of the Senate feels rooted in Massachusetts and the Kennedy legacy, but also appropriate to this moment in history.

Gotta say, I did not see this coming — not because of anything on the merits, but because I don’t associate the Globe with backing dark horses.  Khazei may be running an impressive ground game and may have a plausible strategy, but I think all would agree that if he wins, it will be one of the greatest upsets in Massachusetts political history.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. and Merit Pay attached to students scores.

    <

    p>The Globe has been battling the MTA over their opposition to the Ed Reform bill.  

    <

    p>I am not surprised by this endorsement at all.

    <

    p>The Globe has an agenda – union busting. So they chose a New Democrat. It makes sense.

    <

    p>(I want to stay on topic here, so I’ll write a post some day soon about the effects NCLB has had on teaching and learning in our schools.)  IOW, we the people do not need Alan Khazei in the Senate!  In fact, he’d be a disaster.

        • The Globe evidently appreciates the idea of a MA senator who stands with the Democratic Party leaders on education reform, particularly in support of public school choice for inner city parents…

          <

          p>Thread hijack complete!

          • I like the Illinois model, where the LEA approves and funds the charter.  My complaint is when the state parachutes a charter into a community and takes away local funds to pay for it.

            • …Gov Patrick proposed “Readiness” schools (give autonomy to traditional schools) in addition to traditional charters….what’s your take on that?  

              <

              p>I know the Superintendents Association was disappointed at how much the State Senate just diluted the bill at the behest of the MTA, any thoughts on prospects to fix it in the House?

              <

              p>

    • …but their Capuano criticisms are inaccurate cheap shots.

      <

      p>I have said from the get-go that as a state that leads the nation in so many ways, Massachusetts would do well to elect an innovative outsider. I frankly had hoped to see a handful of capable people with varied resumes (e.g. physician, academic, human rights leader, Iraq veteran) enter this race alongside the career pols.

      <

      p>This is a contest between individuals with relatively little difference on the issues; I don’t think the “experience” card matters much to voters in a race like this.

      <

      p>Whatever you feel about Khazei, The Globe correctly lauds his effort to bring something beyond the “correct” set of proxy votes backed by the usual vote blocs. It’s g-damn good to see a reasonable candidate running without PAC & lobbyist cash who isn’t a gazillionaire –I give Khazei much credit for this. Indeed, it’s a mystery to me why more Bay State progressives aren’t asking candidates in a safe-Dem primary why they aren’t doing the same…

      <

      p>I also give The Globe credit for not making a more conventional, obvious choice.

      <

      p>That said, I completely reject their particular anti-Capuano spin. While I agree that Cap has not been the best candidate nor shown his best at times (manna from heaven, testy tone in first debate) The Globe knows his idiosyncracies very well after the last 15 years.

      <

      p>Instead of letting the well-reasoned, positive case for Khazei stand on its own, they are simply indulging themselves with some tabloid spitballing.

    • If the Globe endorsed Khazei soley on the basis of his support for Charter Schools, wouldn’t it stand to reason that a Baker endorsement will be forthcoming as well?  Hasn’t Baker championed Charters forever?

        • Indicated that Khazei and Pagliuca were pulling from Coakley more than Capuano?

          <

          p>This early endorsement helps Khazei get into third place, nothing more IMO.  If he has any money left he can get literature or an ad cut to properly utilize the endorsement. Money has to be in by wed to be used in this race, which is why cash on hand was so key last week. Khazei had the lowest amount.

          <

          p>For Coakley this hurts. Everything that has transpired during the campaign has been staged and ready for months. She hasn’t earned anything during the campaign.  Any endorsement or support she has garnered as been so since her announcement. Considering how careful her campaign has been this is not surprising.

          <

          p>For Capuano, the only candidate he is running against is Coakley and since she didn’t get the endorsement either I would argue his campaign is pleased.

          <

          p>  

        • The editorial is here.  It’s an interesting read.

          <

          p>

          He follows the national Republican line on policies from cap-and-trade climate change legislation (he opposes it) to same-sex marriage (ditto) to how to handle Afghanistan (Brown favors sending all the additional troops that General Stanley McChrystal has requested). While Brown promises that he would be an independent voice in Washington, he falls well to the right of the moderate Yankee Republican tradition, once upheld in the Senate by Massachusetts’ Ed Brooke, Connecticut’s Lowell Weicker, and Rhode Island’s John and Lincoln Chafee. But Brown deserves a hearing.

          His rival in the primary is Jack E. Robinson III, a lawyer who once was the party’s nominee against the late Edward Kennedy and has also run unsuccessfully for secretary of state and for Congress. Robinson hopes to bring back the GOP progressive tradition of Theodore Roosevelt. It’s a worthy goal, but some of Robinson’s policy proposals, such as staging a Paris peace conference to negotiate with the Taliban, are unrealistic. It’s Brown who can best engage the Democratic primary winner in a vigorous debate about ideas.

      • No one knows where the votes will go. Khazei, if he should steal votes, will probably steal more from Coakley, if only because she has the most votes to lose. And the polls sticking her in the 40s showed her support to be soft (26 of those 40+ percentage points were “soft” voters, if I remember correctly).

        <

        p>If this were a Steve Lynch-type election, I could see where you’re coming from, but Martha Coakley (to her credit) is no Steve Lynch. They’ve all painted themselves as liberals and/or progressives, even the ‘I-buy-companies-to-bankrupt-them-and-make-a-profit’ Pagluici (I love the internet ads that say “Pags=Jobs,” because it doesn’t mention whether it’s more jobs or less. LOL).  

        • OK, Coakley has the most votes to lose and, as the frontrunner, has a bigger amount of “soft” votes.

          <

          p>But still, any growth in Khazei is growth Cap or Pags do not get and right now, growing support is all that matters.  It is only inevitable that as the race tightens some soft-front-runner voters will be peeled away from Martha–she ain’t coming close to winning by the lead current polling indicates–and whatever impact the Globe endorsement has in impacting that change: Cap loses and Alan wins.  Period.  

  4. Definitely an interesting development, and certainly unexpected. Newspaper endorsements usually matter little or nothing, but in Khazei’s case — because he is a “no name” — the endorsement might cause some voters to say “huh? Who’s this guy?” and give him a look. Ultimately, though, I’d be shocked if it added more than say 5%-7% to his total.

    <

    p>That’s obviously not enough for Khazei to win, but it is possible, maybe likely, that Khazei’s total will come out of Coakley’s total (though that’s just speculation — I haven’t seen any polls asking for supporters’ second choices). If this is indeed true, and the Rasmussen turnout assumptions (from the poll recently blogged on BMG) are correct as opposed to the Globe’s poll, and Capuano has a late surge, it is possible he could pull the upset. I’d have to say it’s still highly unlikely, however.

    • This will nudge people into taking a second (and more likely first) look, which is certainly important when you’re the least known candidate running for the Democratic primary.  

    • …managed to pull off a victory in the VA Dem gubernatorial primary in large part because the Washington Post endorsed him, despite being the one contender out of three NOT from Northern Virginia.  Unfortunately, getting re-endorsed in the general against “Northern Virginia’s Own” Bob McDonnell didn’t work the same magic.

      <

      p>BTW, why is the Globe so gung-ho for charter schools, as has also come up in threads about the topic?  It’s almost as if they have a stake in it that someone’s not disclosing.

      • What do all these have in common?

        <

        p>Editorial pages of NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Chicago Tribune…we could add another 30 papers to the list.  

        <

        p>All pro-charter, it’s true.  All generally support Obama’s aggressively pro-charter reform agenda.  All certainly left-leaning and generally endorse Democrats over Republicans.  

        <

        p>But it’s larger than charters.  If you read many papers, you see the same theme, that they’re “tired” of watching special interests blocking change in education, particularly in the schools which serve the kids from low-income families.  

        <

        p>Anti-charter, anti-Teach For America, anti-turnaround schools, anti-tests for teachers, anti-tests for kids, anti-rewarding the best teachers, anti-removing even the most egregiously bad teachers, anti-longer-school-day…the editorial boards are reacting against the “anti”

        <

        p>

  5. The Globe didn’t support my candidate!

    <

    p>It doesn’t matter though, becuase newspaper endorsements don’t matter.

    <

    p>Unless they endorse my candidate.

  7. Somerville – The executive board of the Boston Newspapers Printing Pressmen’s Union Local 3 has voted to endorse Congressman Mike Capuano for Senate. The Boston Pressmen’s Local 3 represents 200 members who operate the presses for the Boston Globe.

    <

    p>In a letter to Congressman Capuano, Local 3 President Martin Callaghan wrote, “It is vital that the voices of working men and women are heard in the Senate. I am certain the citizens of Massachusetts will be well served with you as their next senator.”

    <

    p>Yes, we’ll be well served with Capuano as our next senator!

    <

    p>

  8. Interesting read on the Globe Editorial pages…between the lines that is…the Globe’s effusive praise of the “impassioned amateur” Alan Khazei was predictable…he is their kinda guy, no question about that…but the slam they gave to Capuano in the full text seemed harsh and made the case that he does not have the temperament to go to the Senate. They for whatever reason felt the need to put that in strongly.

    <

    p>They also praised Coakley and said she was suited to the Senate but criticized her for not wanting to support a second stimulus giveaway until we determined if the first giveaway had been effective. Not anything that would make a Coakley supporter or leaner have any second thoughts, for sure.

    <

    p>I am sure that Capuano was hoping to snatch the Globe endorsement with Barney and Duke and his congressional colleagues making calls on his behalf. But, if it didn’t happen, I’m sure they did not expect to get slammed within an endorsement for someone else. Had Capuano received the endorsement, trailing candidates Khazei and Pagliucca supporters might have switched to Mike rather than stay with a hopeless cause. Now Khazei supporters will stay put and liberal leaners may go his way instead.  That hurts Mike for sure who needed those camps to fold to him in order to make up the 15 point spread with Coakley.

    <

    p>I’m sticking with Coakley and expect that she will carry the day by 10%…but it is sure interesting…endorsements are mysterious…Barney, Duke, Deval and a host of solons lined up shoulder to shoulder to defeat Hillary…we know how that turned out in Massachusetts Primary.

    <

    p>

  9. I remember when the Globe endorsed Scott Harshbarger and then ran a story election day, above the fold right hand saying that if Harshbarger won it would be an entirely too Democratic take-over of the MA government.  I think there was also a picture of Finneran going to the polls with Cellucci!

    <

    p>Alan Khazei has been a cheerleader for a good program.  In that position he’s been fortunate to have a more than comfortable relationship with philanthropists and the media.   Many are his personal friends.  Easy to be well liked when you’re not doing anything controversial. How can anyone be negative about City Year?    That’s not the rough and tumble of Washington politics even though our fantasy of no red America and no blue America; hope, peace, love is wonderful but just that. . .a dream-we need to get back to  a reality based universe.

    <

    p>FYI: The editorial board has much the same gender make-up of the Senate- 1 woman and 4 men vs 17% in the Senate.  

    • FYI: The editorial board has much the same gender make-up of the Senate- 1 woman and 4 men vs 17% in the Senate.  

      <

      p>That explains it.

      <

      p>And if they had endorsed Coakley I suppose that fact would be similarly relevant?  

      <

      p>Oh, and I know it’s coming–it always is–so I’ll take my 3 or 0 now, thank you.  

    • Identity politics is why a ruled out Coakley.  Every time someone raises gender as a factor in a discussion that can be judged on the merit, I’m reminded of that.  

  10. of the realities of the daily lives of their readers.

    <

    p>We are in the throes of economic depression, two foreign entanglements and a war on terror, facing the cataclysm of climate change, standing on the precipice of health care reform, and so many other challenges, and the Globe wants us to hire the guy with no experience, but “promise”.  Are you kidding me?

    <

    p>All of the Democratic candidates have “promise”. We cannot wait for someone to work into their “promise”. This is the United States Senate we are talking about, not some cub reporter’s job.

    <

    p>How about we hire Mike Capuano, the only candidate who knows how to get things done in Washington, who wisely reflects our progressive values, who, according to common cause and other congressional watchdogs was the only member of congress who could persuade his colleagues to pass landmark ethics reform. These are the qualities we need day one in the Senate.  

    • I get the argument, at some level, especially since it’s the one advantage Cap can claim, but I dont’ buy into it.  Otherwise we would have never voted for Kennedy in the first place, or Obama for president.  Or Capuano when he was elected in his first term with no experience.  

      • It’s not the be-all-end-all, but the point I keep harping on is that there will be a baptism by fire.  Whoever is elected will get to the Senate midsession and have to get to work right away.  For a regular election cycle there is a two month gap between election and the beginning of a new Congress, during which new members have time to hire staff and there is also a formal orientation.  The winner will not have that luxury this time.  Kennedy had some valuable connections and exposure via his brothers and concerns about Obama’s experience has a key reason for my supporting Clinton.

        • Khazei has tons of relationships thru his years of behind the scenes legislative teamwork.  He’s not a newbie to the process, he’s just not been elected before.

          <

          p>And, while in the short term “experience” is most important, we need to look a little beyond the short term if we are going to be honest about the real importance of the race and THIS SEAT as a whole.  It’s not about the next few months, it’s about the next several years.  So temperament and vision and passions are more improtant to me than short term considerations of “who can hit the ground running” (even tho I think there’s more advantage to Khazei there than many acknowledge/realize)

          • …but that I imagine is primarily at the state level.  He will have to learn legislative procedure and hire staff from scratch.  I don’t doubt he and the other candidates woud be quick learners, but advantage definitely Capuano.

              • The next senator is not going to have Kennedy’s 47 years and we’re only going to have a short period of a Democratic majority and President to launch some of those long-term policies (like health care reform).  

                <

                p>Also, I really hope that Khazei does not get the chance to get some of his long-term policy goals.  

                <

                p>This really killed any love I had for the guy:

                <

                p>

                Question:  Do you support Rep. Barney Franks bill to reduce federal penalties for marijuana possession?

                Alan Khazei (D):
                No. Drug use remains a serious problem in this country. If anything, we need to get more serious about the effects that substance abuse have on our society. Marijuana use may strike some as relatively harmless, but it often leads to the abuse of stronger drugs. Through my work with City Year, I have seen first-hand the impact that drugs have on our communities, and I am committed to preventing their spread.

                <

                p>Gateway drug? Really? Is this 1989?

                • One of the reasons that Prohibition was repealed was the wave of violence that it created. The tragedy at Harvard, and too many like it, are the direct result of the criminality of the substance, not the substance itself.

                  <

                  p>If marijuana was a “gateway drug”, then an overwhelming majority of baby boomers should be drug addicts by now.

                  <

                  p>This argument is a thoroughly-discredited red herring.

                • as evidence of the evils of alcohol and the wisdom of banning it? While smoking weed might not be particularly good for you, from a health perspective, I haven’t seen any evidence that marijuana is more harmful (either to society or to the individual user) than alcohol or tobacco.  

            • No, actually.  I suspect Khazei knows relatively few players in the State House — fewer, certainly, than Coakley or Capuano.  Khazei’s legislative experience, both with saving the AmeriCorps funding and getting Kennedy’s Serve America Act passed, was on the federal side, and that’s where his contacts are.

            • Maybe he knows a few players… but that I imagine is primarily at the state level.  

              Much of his contacts/base/etc are national, not local. Please do your research before you make such sweeping comments. City Year, a national program, depends greatly on funding it gets from the national government, funding which Khazei had to save from the GOP axe not long ago — and when the Republicans were going to cut Americorp, who do you think was one of the people to lead the fight against it? Khazei is much more of a national player than he is a local one, which is one of the reasons why it took a while for him to gain any traction in this race IMO. But he sold me on his ability to be the most compelling Senator, even over Capuano, who I do like a lot, as I’ve made plain on this site. I think Capuano would be a very good, serviceable Senator. I think Khazei will be a great one.

              • I thought sure from your various comments you were with Capuano (or maybe that’s just vis-a-vis Coakley?)  Point taken about CityYear.  I didn’t realize it had a connection to AmeriCorps and had not heard of its existence outside of Boston.

        • Candidates choose the major members of a staff before they’re even sworn in. For most of the rest of the staff, in this case, it’s already in place. He could probably keep a lot of the lower-level Kennedy staffers on board, at least until there’s time for him to make a transition. I have no doubts that any of the candidates in this race couldn’t manage to get their office positions filled and make a transition relatively quickly.  

          • …there’s also the issue that generally speaking US Senate should not be one’s first elective office, IMO.

              • …but Ted Kennedy was a special case in a lot of ways.  I don’t think it’s an apt comparison to say the brother of the POTUS and the AG had never been elected before and look what he became.

                • Billy Carter was the POTUS’s brother.  Roger Clinton was the POTUS’s half brother.  “Sam Houston Johnson, alcoholic and brother of President Lyndon,” was the POTUS’s brother.  Being a POTUS’s brother doesn’t exactly predestine greatness — that’s up to the individual to achieve.

                • Can we PLEASE stop assuming that just because a factor is present in one race means that we would/should give the same factor the same weight in every race.  The examples you race may or may not (and my admittedly limited knowledge of them inclines me against) have made good candidates.  I am NOT going to refight a Senate race from almost half a century ago!

                • you’re the one who brought it up.  Saying something like “generally speaking US Senate should not be one’s first elective office” in a race to fill the seat of a person (a) whose first elective office was US Senator, and (b) ended up being one of the greatest US Senators of all time, pretty much begs someone to state the obvious.  That’s what I did.  It has nothing to do with refighting a 50-year-old Senate race.  It has to do with not ignoring history.

                • It is what I believe.  I think I gave myself enough wiggle-room by saying “generally speaking” rather than something like “absolutely”

            • We need more citizenship brought to Congress, DC, not less.  We need less insiderism and its entrenched “this is how we do it, you silly little Citizen”-ism, not less.

                • is a term that Alan’s campaign has been using to describe the kind of energy and change that comes from communities, from the grassroots, that isn’t legislated from above in the old hallways of power.  

                  <

                  p>It’s the organizing principle behind Americorps, City Year.

                  <

                  p>I’m using idea-shorthand.  Not sure I understand what it is you think I was implying, but by that, I can probably safely say I wasn’t implying whatever it was you think I was. 🙂

                  <

                  p>I like what Ryan says, below, and let’s just say for the sake of time and effort I was saying this:

                  <

                  p>

                  I completely agree with you that experience is necessary, but there are many kinds of experience. Khazei’s experience lies directly with the intermingling of federal, private and non-profit interests — the three primary facets of American life. Not only is that where his experience is, but he has a proven track record of overwhelming success, often despite huge odds — as well as a track record of coming up with creative, inspiring solutions.

                  I’m sure there would be some learning that Khazei would need to do that Capuano wouldn’t, but I don’t think it’s anything that will be centrally important, since Khazei has the important part of ‘national experience’ — he, like Capuano, knows all the important players and Khazei actually has a stronger record of being able to reach across the [a]isle, a la Ted Kennedy, to get things done.  

                • means paying yourself 300 grand a year, while the kids that work for you live off food stamps.  Khazei’s the only “citizen” who is “big” enough to earn a living wage.

                • I know Khazei has been saying Big Citizenship…I just never heard much of a definition.  Ryan’s quotes do help, in some ways.  

                  <

                  p>How about this: let’s see how serious Khazei is about “big citizenship”.  If he loses the primary next week, and never approaches elected office again, we’ll know it was a slogan.  If he follows up his talk with getting involved at a less powerful and glamorous level, I’d be happy to donate to his campaign.

              • There’s something to be said for new blood, but I’d prefer experience at the Senate level.  I actually like the idea of politics being a profession, though I wouldn’t want to legally limit the choice of the people either.  Insiderism is what often gets the job done.

                • I’m going to disagree with you. It’s an undemocratic, elitist institution catering to the Good Old Boys club. Occasionally, we sneak a few Senators by who really care (and understand) about problems central to the lives of most Americans, but unfortunately that’s the exception, not the rule.

                  <

                  p>I completely agree with you that experience is necessary, but there are many kinds of experience. Khazei’s experience lies directly with the intermingling of federal, private and non-profit interests — the three primary facets of American life. Not only is that where his experience is, but he has a proven track record of overwhelming success, often despite huge odds — as well as a track record of coming up with creative, inspiring solutions.

                  <

                  p>I’m sure there would be some learning that Khazei would need to do that Capuano wouldn’t, but I don’t think it’s anything that will be centrally important, since Khazei has the important part of ‘national experience’ — he, like Capuano, knows all the important players and Khazei actually has a stronger record of being able to reach across the isle, a la Ted Kennedy, to get things done.  

                • I left it alone last time you went down this road, but since this was a response to me I will put myself emphatically on record in support of having a chamber which both represents the states equally and is further removed from the whims of the people by virtue of longer terms.  The difference was more obvious before the 17th amendment (IMO) took away the role of the states in acheiving requisite concurrent majorities in our federal system.  It’s a moot point anyway, as even if such an amendment were legal (and aside from moot slave-trade provisions it’s the one thing specifically excluded from the provisions of Article V) I doubt very highly you’d ever get the requisite threshhold to change the composition of the Senate.  The one thing I would entertain is having three Senators per state thus giving every state an election every biennium and at first automatically injecting new members.  Keep in mind the Senate has a role stradling the Executive-Legislative divide with its advice and consent and treaty ratification roles.  I don’t know if this is still true, but at least at first the Senate kept separate journals for its executive and legislative proceedings.

                • it’s not democratic.

                  <

                  p>If it’s a problem with length of terms, that could be solved with having one house that typically lasts for around 4-5 years to make law…. like they do in most other countries in the world. I think elections every two years is a bit much, anyway.

                  <

                  p>I agree that, at least for now, the point is moot. The Senate is not going to change its composition for a long time. Part of me thinks it may be easier to get rid of it than to make even close to being representative of this country. It’s not close, no where near close — I think the whole chamber is criminally undemocratic and it’s a dirty little secret that was never spoken about, lest Americans riot in anger over it. 30,000,000 million people in California have the same legal representation in the US Senate as 500,000 people in Wyoming. That, to me, is criminally undemocratic.

                  <

                  p>It either needs to be changed or gone or stripped of its power, like the House of Lords. I’d even settle for its function to remain as a check of presidential appointments, etc. but not as a body that passes law, at least so long as the Senate is not proportionately represented. It has to be either one or the other — either there’s proportional representation, or it doesn’t have a major, meaningful impact on policy in America.

                • It’s not democratic and was never meant to be.  We have a decidedly mixed Constitution.  Aristotle’s “Politics” does a good job (better than it’s counterpart, Plato’s “Republic”, IMO) of flushing out the need for mixed constitutions with components of the many, the few, and the one.  The most successful systems usually have elements of each with some checks on each other.  We have the House for the many and most democratic, the Senate for the few and semi-democratic (ie freely elected by universal suffrage and previously by elected legislatures but not proportional, and the President for the one and more-or-less democratic depending on how well the Electoral College reflects the popular vote in a given cycle.  The judiciary, as our differently-winged friends are often quick to point out, is NOT democratic (though nominated and confirmed by elected officials), but ironically often relied on to defend our rights that the elected branches won’t.

                  <

                  p>Don’t get me started on the House of Lords.  I agree that an unelected chamber shoudn’t have an equal voice, but I’m still miffed that Labour has thrown their unique system to the wind lately under the guise of constitutional reform, most notably by kicking out the hereditaries a few years back.  They too have the many (the Commons), the few (the Lords), and the one (the Crown), but thank God they have a tradition of liberty because as it stands now the Prime Minister through discipline of the majority party can pretty much get what he wants with precious little check.

                  <

                  p>I don’t think the situation of the Senate is a dirty little secret at all.  It’s common knowledge, I think that states are disproportionate in population, but equal in the Senate.  The framers knew exactly what they were doing and I think the compromise between the Virginia Plan that wanted entirely proportional representation and the New Jersey Plan that wanted entirely equal representation seems pretty obvious in retrospect.

                • it “was never meant to be.”

                  <

                  p>While the Senate wasn’t originally intended to be democratic insofar as people actually voted for their senators, that matter was clearly cleared up when we passed a freaking constitutional amendment to make it a ‘democratic’ institution, by allowing voters in every state to vote in their Senators. There were some things the founders were wrong on — the Senate was clearly one of them. There’s a reason why governments across the world, as they became democratic, didn’t copy that aspect of our democracy.

                  <

                  p>Unfortunately, people back then didn’t think to go the extra mile and make the Senate a wholly representative institution, as it should be.

                  <

                  p>It was never so clear as today that we need to change form and/or function of our Senate, or get rid of it altogether. When 41% of the chamber can completely block reform and essentially freeze government, we have a major freaking problem. When that 41% of the Senate represents an even smaller proportion of this country, we have on our hands a democratic disaster of epic proportions.

                  <

                  p>Our votes, because of the makeup of the Senate, are disinfranchised — which is clearly wrong, no matter what the founding fathers or some man who lived thousands of years ago thought. Believe it or not, we’ve learned a thing or two since then. It’d be nice if we put our newfound knowledge to work. America would simply put be a much better place if the US Senate were representative of its population; the things we both care about would be far more likely to pass.  

                • …I’m absolutely with you on changing the internal rules of the Senate.  We obviously just have different philosophical outlooks on government.  In the non-party sense I am very much a republican rather than a democrat (note lack of capitalization).  I also think we need to separate issues of constitutional polity from the merits of various issues we prefer.  After all, deliberation is a good thing and I know there are times when I’m glad it’s not simply the popular majority carrying the day.  These are my own opinions too, thank you very much.  I’m hardly saying that we should just be stuck in history.  I certainly favor that we abolished slavery and expanded the franchise for example.  It happens that I favor abolishing the Electoral College in favor of popular election since we popularly choose our electors anyway and it feels odd to say the least that we go through all the trouble to campaign and vote for President only to have the math conspire to throw the election the other way.  In my view the House should represent the people within the states, the Senate should represent the states as units and the President should represent the people as a whole.  From my perspective (and I’m not going to get into a war of examples with you) it seems a balanced system such as ours has generally proven to work, often better than others.  Keep in mind not every democratic system has a federal component to address either and our Senate is hardly the only upper house in the world chosen differently.  I’m not expecting to necessarily persuade you or many on a forum like this, but that is where I stand.

                • In my view the House should represent the people within the states, the Senate should represent the states as units and the President should represent the people as a whole.

                  <

                  p>I can respect this, but I don’t think you’re going to bump into too many people these days who consider the United States to be 50 different countries in unison. Let’s face it: while the fabric of state government is still important to the lives of Americans, we think of ourselves these days as Americans, not Massachusettsdians. We think of our country as one country with various levels of government, more akin to a corporation that has a central headquarters and then regional offices. To put this in perspective, during the War of 1812, there were many people in this state who thought it socially accepted to want to side with the other guys, because they did view themselves as Massachusettsdians.

                  <

                  p>I have to ask you two important questions: What’s more important, that people participate in a political system that reflects their wants and wishes, and is responsive to their needs, or one that bends backwards to protect arcane rules and ancient traditions, but fails to address those needs as America has failed to address them for generations? I’m going to support the one that protects people, because in a representative democracy, it’s supposed to be one person, one vote and a representational democracy is supposed to actually be representative of those it governs.

                  <

                  p>My second question: if we made the Senate somewhat more proportional (but still made sure it was the smaller, more deliberative body of government), in what significant ways would that change this country for the worse? If California had four Senators and Alaska had one, it would be a much more representative democracy; many things that a large majority of this country supports would pass. By keeping it unrepresentative, we’re allowing states like Alaska and Wyoming to destroy any chance of passing anything representative in this country unless there’s a large majority of support in small states as well as large. You may think that’s good, but it’s legally okay to fire people for being gay because of places like Wyoming and Alaska, even if literally 75% of this country thinks that should be illegal.

                  <

                  p>You aren’t asking to protect the rights of states, you’re asking to hold the rights of people back. Those who wrote the constitution did think states should have certain rights and the federal government others — which is precisely why they wrote them down, in writing, so there’d be as little confusion as possible. Isn’t the constitution’s provisions guiding what falls under the domain of federal and state enough to satisfy anyone’s desires to protect the rights of states? If states want to adopt laws and policy more reflective of themselves, they’re well able to do that today, already, with their own state governments, which do precisely what you think the Senate should be mystically doing.  

                • Responsiveness vs. tradition – Respectfully, I think this is a false choice.  I believe that a role for states on equal footing IS appropriate in a system of divided sovereignties tradition or not.  Our current system allows for both responsiveness AND reflection and makes sure the more populous regions do not consistently overwhelm the less populous.

                  <

                  p>Proportionalizing the Senate – the states are created equal in our system (though the idea of giving the original 13 greater weight was entertained) and such should be reflected in our polity.  Of course I agree with you on it being wrong to fire people for being gay, but I’m still going to resist the temptation to allow the merits of specific policies to intrude on the discussion of how the overall system should work.  (Actually, I could have sworn ENDA finally passed – no?)

                • and it won’t, not any time soon, so long as Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, Kansas, Alabama, South Caroline, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. etc. etc. have 11x the representation as California in the Senate, even though there are less people living in all of those states combined (and then some) as California. At some point, “balancing” the interests of small states at the cost of the majority becomes ridiculous. We’ve long-since entered that territory, with the amount of Americans living in this country now and we’re they’ve decided to live. This is no balance — a tiny sum of the population has sent a Senate delegation that controls what goes on, even when a large majority of the country’s population generally opposes that agenda. This government is decades behind others in terms of being “responsive” on issues that Americans have supported for literally generations. The Senate is the key reason why — and it’s not just about the filibuster, which is also stupid, arcane and broken — that’s only the straw that broke the camel’s back.

                  <

                  p>I’ll repeat myself: the constitution protects the rights of the states, giving them wide-sweeping powers. The Senate may have been a compromise that was reached to help create our government, but the role to which you decree it has is not actually found in the constitution.

                  <

                  p>If the small states didn’t want to be subjected to some rules by the federal government, they shouldn’t have become states in the union. Obviously, these small states saw it as advantageous to join the country regardless of the fact that they had less representation than bigger states.

                  <

                  p>We were all taught as little children that the Senate is democratic — it was a lie. That lie has created a system that destroys democracy and that anything can be killed, no matter how large the majority of people who support it, if it’s important enough for companies that they’re willing to pay lobbyists to bankroll politician from enough tiny states. In those states, these politicians facea ridiculously small to nonexistent amount of scrutiny back home. Hello, Alaska, which should be a national embarrassment (and I’m not even referring to Sarah Palin, who’s squeaky clean compared to most of their other recent/current representation).

                  <

                  p>The Senate is broken, in a whole bunch of ways, and we’re all suffering because of it — be it my civil rights, or health care, or getting this country to invest the kind of resources into public transportation that we do highways. Issues facing cities, where the vast majority of people in this country either live in or around, have become complete nonissues in almost every single major campaign and in terms of legislative priority because the big cities are in just a few states — states that happen to hold the vast majority of people, but not anywhere close to the vast majority (or any majority) or power. Broken, broken, broken, broken, and we’re all suffering because of it, except for Exxon Mobile, Blackwater and Walmart. You’re shooting yourself in your own foot, Chris.  

                • …that you were taught the Senate is democratic.  I must have been absent from school that day since I’ve never had such illusions:)

                • …I’m not sure which role you think I’m giving the Senate that’s not in the Constitution.  It’s role as a co-equal legislative branch representing states absolutely is there.  You DO realize I’m not defending either the filibuster or wimpy Senate leaders, right?  I strongly suspect that if you were to straw-poll the Senate you would find in the current session the votes ARE there for ENDA, health reform, and a whole host of things we support.  There is plenty that can and should be done to reform the Senate that requires only political will without touching the Constitution.

                • Getting rid of the filibuster would go a long way toward restoring fairness to the Senate, but something has to be done about the proportional imbalance and lack of representation many populations in this country are getting (or over representation in others). At the very, very, very least, it’s time to stand up and recognize the fact that the population of the District of Columbia, a population greater than that of at least Wyoming, not only has a right to its self-determination, but also its full representation in the House and Senate.  

                • …let’s focus on the politically and constitutionally doable, which I think we’re in agreement on.  I remember we had a rather intense back-and-forth about DC’s status a while back, which I don’t want to reopen either.  Let’s agree to disagree on DC and the terms of representation in the Senate.

    • …things hasn’t produced great results, has it?  He champions a system of legal shake down involving PACs,lobbyist and special interests, which used to be called the legislative process.  Here is a guy that voted for the financial equivalent of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (when he voted to deregulate the futures market in 2000), yet he dismisses this vote as one bad vote out of the thousands that he made and won’t accept the responsibility that he shares in making the financial crisis.  

      <

      p>As a fellow Dem, I don’t want to be to tough on Cap.  But if you want to express distain about voting for “promise” and tout “experience”, it’s important to put things into perspective.  

    • that the guy who created City Year would be a complete mess in office? The way I see it, he’s gauranteed to do well, with promise that he’ll be something special.

      <

      p>I agree that Capuano is a sure-fire thing, but he’s been a good House member, not a Ted Kennedy of the House. When I didn’t know much about Khazei, Capuano seemed the natural choice, because Pags cannot be trusted in the Senate and Coakley doesn’t seem capable of making the transition, but as someone who had an opportunity to take an extended look at Khazei, I have not a single doubt that he’ll be a great Senator — with promise of being a special one.  

  11. I will take Capuano’s passion, intensity, and populist anger over the cool, passionless, style points of the other candidates every day of the week.

    • Capuano traces his virtues to his working-class roots. Despite his close family, Ivy League education, and successful career in Congress, he believes himself to be underestimated and type-cast because of his Somerville upbringing. He often expresses a sense of class-based anger. Any such us-against-them attitude is inherently divisive, and makes a deeply admirable quality – his desire to stand up for average people – seem more like personal grievance. Capuano could well broaden his approach in the Senate, but his decision to base his current campaign on populist anger suggests that he doesn’t really want to change.

      <

      p>True he expresses anger/passion but not class-based, rather based on a sense of moral values on issues like war, torture, civil rights in the era of Bush and Cheney, bank executive bonus pay and fiduciary responsibility.  You’d think the Globe has fallen asleep for the last nine years or maybe it’s just becuase they continue to lose people like Charlie Savage.  

      <

      p>To describe Mike’s passion  as “class-based” is to mischaracterize and grossly undervalue his strength.  It’s not class-based though he does fight for the middle and lower class.  That’s a value he shares with Obama: Twelve months ago it was a reason to choose a candidate. To describe Mike’s passion as an issue of class identity politics is to mischaracterize him. He expresses his passion in issues that merit that passion such as war against Iraq, Patriot act, Darfur genocide, bank executive pay…  

      <

      p>If its not clear to every Democrat by now, we need a party that stands for its values and fights for them. We all see what  Ted Kennedy and people like Rep Grayson brought to the table, a passion about right and wrong and a willingness to fight for what’s right.  Pick Coakley, Kaz or Pags and you set Massachusetts back with a second mediocre senator.  

        • This bit of conventional establishment punditry they got from a shabby Scot Lehigh column of a few days ago. Lehigh accused Cap of lacking authenticity because he fights passionately for the poor and working-class without being poor or working class himself. Lehigh practically accused him of faking his accent, as if Cap’s great sin was to live the American dream but fail to acceptably acculturate to his hard-won economic station.

          <

          p>Lehigh, the Globe board, and their ilk, say explicitly that they fear someone who will unapologetically defend the interests of the majority.

          <

          p>Khazei is perfect for them. His vision of the public good is to move it away from legal guarantees won by self-organized labor, and towards a voluntary, philanthropic project designed by elites.  

          • The Globe gratuitously and inexcusably insulted Rep. Capuano, instead of just promoting the attributes of the man they endorsed.

            <

            p>And you’ve just done the same thing to Khazei, spinning his community activism like he’s Mitt Romney.

            • I don’t fault the Globe for taking digs at a candidate. I have no problem with campaign negativity, by candidates, newspapers, me or anyone else.

              <

              p>The point is the substance: the Globe’s critique of Capuano is lame and anti-democratic, while mine of Khazei is, in my opinion, on target.

              <

              p>His whole candidacy is based on City Year as a public-private model for how to approach society’s challenges. I interpret (spin, if you like) that as a juvenile misconception of what’s at stake in politics at the federal level.  

              • “…his vision of the public good is to move it away from legal guarantees won by self-organized labor…”?

                <

                p>Please share whatever Khazei policy statement, argument, or action that you used to reach this rather, uh, sweeping conclusion.

                <

                p>His website says he supports Paycheck Fairness Act. The Globe summarized all the candidates responses to Union questionnaires here.

                <

                p>Nor do I see Khazei’s attempt to enter the US Senate free of special interest PAC and Lobbyist IOU’s constituting a naive “public-private model for how to approach society’s challenges.” In my book, that’s called good-old-fashioned-walk-the-walk-progressive reform of the status quo.

                <

                p>I don’t see the Mitt Romney-Ralph Nader hybrid you’ve portrayed from the available facts.

                • I meant “spin, if you like” literally. It’s an interpretation the candidate himself (and his supporters) would not agree with. Let me adjust the grammar so I’m not attributing direct statements to him: his vision of the public good would move it away from legal guarantees, because it is not based in such guarantees, but in the realm of “new ideas” and “service.”  

                  <

                  p>I base this claim on the fact that the candidate’s acknowledged formative experience and model program is City Year/Americorps;  on statements of first principles like this one, which pledges to follow the “innovative ideas” of experts and individual “citizens” but makes no mention of established constituencies; and on his reformer rhetoric, which prevents him from developing relationships of accountability with labor or other progressive organizations.  

        • the Globe should be embarrassed by the way it articulated it’s argument against Capuano. What they are pointing to is their main reason for NOT choosing him while acknowledging “…Khazei’s Democratic rivals are impressive in their own realms.”

          <

          p>

          “Capuano traces his virtues to his working-class roots.”

          <

          p>Fact established.

          <

          p>

          “Despite his close family, Ivy League education, and successful career in Congress, he believes himself to be underestimated and type-cast because of his Somerville upbringing.“

          <

          p>First, he has been an underdog in the biggest elections of his career; his first for US Congress and this one for the US Senate. As the only candiate who has any experience in Congress, you might be willing to concede that his position in the polls is empirical evidence he is underestmiated. It’s clear to me why Capuano believes he is underestimated but I have NO IDEA how the Globe considers his family, Dartmouth experience or a career in Congress of as evidence to the contrary.  How do these factors the Globe cites provide evidence to the contrary?  The Globe is guilty of lazy analysis and its central to their decision.  

          <

          p>

          He often expresses a sense of class-based anger.

          <

          p>This is pure misrepresentation of his anger or what most people call passion.  It is not about class, it is about standing for what is right or wrong.  Take as evidence his Cheney commercial. It is not class based.  Take as evidence his position on executive bonus for TARP bank executives.  It’s not about where Mike grew up, it’s about what’s right and wrong.  

          <

          p>

          Any such us-against-them attitude is inherently divisive, and makes a deeply admirable quality – his desire to stand up for average people – seem more like personal grievance.

          <

          p>Here the Globe proves it’s own parochialism.  Shame on them really.  If Capuano had grown up in Weston or Wellesley, gone to Dartmouth, ad served six terms in Congress, the Globe wouldn’t make this argument.  

          Capuano could well broaden his approach in the Senate, but his decision to base his current campaign on populist anger suggests that he doesn’t really want to change.

          <

          p>Funny.  Capuano is the only candidate with “an approach.” The other three are less than novice.  They are beginners.

          <

          p>(C’mon HLPeary, you can do better than ad hominem. Talk about the merit of the endorsement, not who agrees or disagrees but why and whether it has merit.)  

          • …in Globe reporting and analysis for decades; and a lot of the posts above, while citing symptoms, are avoiding mention of the disease.

            <

            p>Combined with the traditional lack of competent political reporting at the paper, and the corporate-501(c)3 old boy network, this is what you get.

            • the proud son of a doctor. His ability to connect with people is rooted in being an outsider becuase of his ethnic background.  His career has been as leader in the public service movement, a populist movement. The Globe elevates the value of populism in its endorsement for Kaz and criticizes it in its explanation of Capuano’s shortcomings.  

              • …in the nineteenth century sense of those terms. For all the good it does, City Year doesn’t have much of a political constituency outside the activist and 501(c)3 communities because there is little or no local input into or control over their programs.

                <

                p>The Globe has always opposed populist approaches wherever found, in favor of managerial elitism. Outside of elites, the Globe has never connected with the general population in Boston.

                <

                p>The public service movement (exclusive of the Catholic Labor Movement)in MA has always been the anthesis of populist.

      • than a Senator who wants to stand up for the people who have the least. That’s not “class-based anger,” that’s sticking up for people who have been shat on for almost 30 years straight, now, and can’t take a second more, lest we all be put in a Charles-Dickens-esque poor house.

  12. I am surprised that the Globe captured everything I’ve been thinking about the race. This part is the most important part of why I have been supporting Alan Khazei for weeks:  

    …his energy, idealism, and intelligence – combined with a grounded sense of how the Senate works – is unusual, and gives voters a chance to support a new, home-grown approach to politics. He isn’t trying to line up just enough constituencies to eke out a win; he’s asking voters to sign on to a vision – a less top-down, less programmatic way of improving people’s lives. His emphasis on capturing the energy of private initiatives and translating it into the conventions of the Senate feels rooted in Massachusetts and the Kennedy legacy, but also appropriate to this moment in history.

  13. The Globe writes:

    The next Massachusetts senator should be the person who best embodies forward-looking thinking, and not the traditional paths to power….

    At this moment, he is more of an impassioned amateur than a seasoned pro.

    I puzzle over this.  Would the Globe hire someone who embodies forward-looking thinking and an impassioned amateur to be their publisher, or to write editorial endorsements?

    <

    p>I think Khazei and Pags should run for city council or state representative before they attempt a run for a senate seat.

  14. if you going to make make endorsement atleast endorse plausible candidate when he came and spoke in West Boylston he wouldnt start until he had COMPLETE silence. If youre at a political event people are going to TALK. Thats what politics is. Voting for people who are good at talking.

  15. All along, I saw Khazei as being the candidate that most embodied the BMG ethos – yet reading the posts, it was obviously Capuano that had the BMG Kiss of Death from the rank and file (the editors haven’t endorsed yet, correct?).

    <

    p>This outbreak of pragmatism was odd, but I put it down to Capuano’s repellant and backwards looking commercials, running against Dick Cheney and longing for a new Voldemeort.  The whiff of promised show trials seemed too enticing for BMG to resist, even at the price of neglecting the most classsicly Progressive candidate.  (Full disclosure – I met the man when he was mayor of Somerville, home of my married daughter, and found him sneering and dismissive in person, too).

    <

    p>I look forward to the actual BMG endorsement, and wonder if reality-based will triumph over progressive values there, too.

    • Panelists are usually from various media anyway, though it might be wise for them to disclose that at the beginning of the debate.

    • with a newspaper, you can generally separate news from editorial comments. For example, at least before Newscorp bought it, the Wall Street Journal’s always had an excellent news staff and horseshit editorial pages. I’d want to know who’s representing the Globe at the forum, but I wouldn’t be too worried about it otherwise.  

  18. The endorsement is absurd, but reflects the direction the Globe has taken in the past few years.  Apparently the editorial writers think that experience is a negative–that’s probably why they got rid of all their older seasoned journalists, and the paper is the worse for it. f Frankly, I don’t think anyone in the Coakley campaign expected the Globe to endorse her, since the paper has not been friendly to her–even their supposedly positive stories about her have contained negative undercurrents.  I am a Coakley supporter but thought for sure the Globe would support Capuano, so that’s the surprise.

    <

    p>But the Globe described Coakley as an “exemplary public servant” with “a personality that would play well in the Senate.”  That sounds like grounds for an endorsement to me.  On the other hand, it referred to Khazei as an “impassioned amateur.”  I too am an impassioned amateur, with probably at least as much, if not more, political experience than Khazei but it has not occurred to me to run for the Senate.

    <

    p>Based on the argument in the editorial, if the young Ted Kennedy were running in this campaign the Globe would have dismissed him.

    • what it comes down to is “what kind of experience.”

      <

      p>I think they’re wrong about a lot of the things they said about Capuano and he’d be an excellent Senator. However, Khazei certainly has plenty of experience on the national level, as well as experience in accomplishing something that has yielded positive results in this country. If you suggest otherwise, you’re clearly ignorant of all that he’s accomplished — which is fine, since there’s still time to get yourself better acquainted with his policies and record.

      <

      p>Capuano will no doubt be a great bread-and-butter Senator who will almost always vote the right way (and do so courageously) and offers great constituent services, but I think that Khazei’s unique experiences are something special within this race that only he has. It’s important we elect a number of Senators who can think of new and unique ways of doing things that will make the world a better place and do so at a cost we can afford. Either Capuano or Khazei are both compelling, great selections for your vote, but I think you should at least take a second serious look at Khazei before you make your final decision.  

      • A little off topic but i was just reading through all these posts and reflected about how lucky we are to be able to speak our minds. I’m not of legal voting age yet but before we go back to pulling for our candidate i want to tell all of you to remind 20 friends to vote. I can’t wait until i get to exercise my right for the first time in the general in 2012 so i believe you should all do what i do and remind people to vote even if they are not for your candidate because a  country where people dont vote becomes a slippery slope. But as we all know we need to band together after December 8th and get ready to unify becuase it will be a cold day in hell when that seat is filled by a republican

        • people are allowed to vote at 16, at least that’s what I’ve been told. I think it’s a crime we do not allow the same in this country, especially when so many important issues going on nationally greatly impact our youngest adults. If we, as a country, want civics to be important (and want to instill a tradition of high voter turnout among people starting from the moment they can vote), then we need to make it important to people when they have the most opportunity to learn about it — in high school. I can’t think of a better way to have that ‘teaching moment’ than making sure everyone who goes to school in this country gets to learn about our government and history — and then use that knowledge to help inform their vote today.  

          • “At least that’s what I’ve been told”?  The UK voting age, per a quick Google search is 18.  The world’s youngest voting age is Iran at 14…not that such votes will matter.

            <

            p>Voting is part of the full citizenship package — if you get the right of voting, you get the responsibilities of being drafted to fight in the war declared by the people you voted in.  As long as the general age of American majority is 18, I don’t see why we make a special case for voting, or indeed drinking alcohol.

            • the change hasn’t actually happened, but there’s a strong movement to make it happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V…

              <

              p>As for your argument against it… knee jerk.

              <

              p>Who said there should be one age in which one ceases to be kid and suddenly becomes adult? Why not pass the responsibilities off in steps. As little as I knew about politics in comparison at age 16 in comparison to my present self, I still knew more about government and politics than my own parents at age 16. 16 year olds are not inherently unable to come to a reasonable conclusion on who to vote for, especially if we renew our push to bring important civics classes to high schools.

              <

              p>Furthermore, it’s a statistical fact that those who vote at age 18 are likely to be frequent votes for the rest of their lives. Those who vote regularly in their early twenties tend to vote regularly for the rest of their lives. If we get more poeple voting at a young age and foster a stronger sense of civics, we’ll have a populace that votes more frequently and knows more about the issues and differences of the candidates in individual campaigns. I can’t think of a better carrot approach to making America a more civicly-minded place than allowing young adults to vote at 16.

              <

              p>Finally, for all the people that can’t be reasoned or rationalized with and who wish to continue on discriminating against young adults, all the while they push for things that go directly against their interests (like starting wars they’ll have to fight in two years time by a disproportionately high number, or the lack of funding for public schools and colleges, etc.), may I point out to them that people aged 16-18 are a tiny, tiny sliver of the electoral system, unlikely to change the results of very many elections at all (but at least big enough to get some politicians to start caring about issues that are important to young adults). The sky would not fall if we allowed 16 year olds to vote.

              • As for your argument against it… knee jerk.

                <

                p>Unnecessary and mundane.  You usually do better than that.  Trying to re-define “young adult” to mean 16-year-olds, and accusing someone who disagrees with you of discrimination is also typically beneath you.  There are many pitfalls to avoid in policymaking, and one is to assume that all citizens are like you, therefore what does/would have/will make sense for you should be implemented across the board.  Not every 16-year-old is like you, Ryan.  Another pitfall is to implement a notable policy change because “the sky will not fall” if you do it.  What you told me is that this won’t be a thoroughly disastrous policy, especially if everyone is like you, which they’re not.  If you ever bother to respond to that points I made while leaving the ponderous attacks out of it, I’ll look forward to having a worthwhile conversation.

                • I agree that age does not equal maturity.  Just as there are high schoolers who could handle voting there are also sadly many adults when you hear them rant (teabaggers, anyone?) my reaction is, “They let you vote!?”

                • I’ve thought a lot about the issue; I think it was clear by your response that you read it and dismissed it out of hand.

                  <

                  p>Who said I defined “young adult” at 16? “young adult” “adult” “middle-aged” etc. are all relative, Sab. I just got into a several-post-long discussion a few days ago because Kate thought 48 was too young to be “middle aged” and was offended when I had the audacity to say that not only was 48 middle-aged, it was technically beyond that by the math.

                  <

                  p>It’s certainly true that not everyone is mature enough to handle being an adult at 16. It’s also true that my 34 year old brother is barely mature enough to be an adult, either, doubly so for my 30 year old sister. I would have certainly been a more deliberative voter than he or she at 16, as would many others. Anecdotal? Maybe, but I think there’s a huge portion of 16 year olds responsible enough to vote. Why shouldn’t we let them, because a few people wouldn’t be? And would those people even vote anyway?

                  <

                  p>Would it be perfect at 16? No. Is it perfect at 18? No. Was it perfect when it was 21? Definitely not, which is why they changed it not so long ago. Is there such a huge difference between 18 and 16? No. In fact, medical science has shown that the human brain doesn’t stop developing until the age of 25. Maybe we should make that the new universal age of adulthood?

                  <

                  p>16 years olds drive cars, get each other pregnant, have abortions, get jobs, deal with huge stress and often make a $50-100k decision that will effect them for the rest of their lives just one year later, not even at the age of 18, without any semblance of an idea of what that really means. If we’re allowing 16 year olds to tour college and 17 year olds to pick where they go, certainly we can allow them to vote. If we’re allowing them to plow around in two tons of steel on wheels, we damn well better trust them to actually be able to make a decision at the ballot box.

                  <

                  p>Most importantly, though, I’m thinking of the long term. Often, in life, we make decisions not based on today, but based on what could happen five years from now. I want to “draft” 16 year olds in the first round so they can get the practice they’ll need to be capable of hitting the curve ball when they face it on the ballot box. If they make a few more mistakes along the way, that’ll only mean they’ll learn their lessons sooner, making them that much more effective.

                  <

                  p>A longstanding problem in America is voter apathy and a general lack of awareness when it comes to civic issues. People were never taught it when all people were universally taught things because it wasn’t important to them or important enough to their schools. Let’s make it important. People who care about government when they’re older, tended to have cared about it when they were younger. Let’s make more people care about it when they’re younger.

                  <

                  p>If we want to increase civic awareness in this country and make this country think differently, think better, and realize this whole ‘government thing’ isn’t just some ebil enterprise to take all yar money away like da pirates, then maybe we need to be teaching these lessons when people are younger. Fact of the matter is, it’s damn hard to teach anyone about anything unless you make it important to them. Students who struggle in history do so because they don’t find it interesting. I got As on my history papers, but Bs and Cs on my English papers, because I didn’t give a shit that some people thought they saw a crucifix on the damn sail boat on The Old Man in the Sea. The only way to make it matter to them is if you give them some kind of personal stake. The easiest, most effective way of doing that is giving them the vote. Do that and generations of Americans will have the importance of voting instilled in them.

                  <

                  p>I find it odd that we live in a state where we allow a high school student to be a full-voting member of the Board of Freaking Education, making decisions like “should there be an MCAS” and “who should be the next head of the DoE” when that person can’t even for their own school committee members.

                • Legally speaking, “adult” is the term for 18 and over.  Since we were speaking about law, I figured you’d use the appropriate definitions.  Fact is, of course it’s a fiction that midnight on some magical day, people can suddenly handle something they couldn’t have the night before.  However, the line is set across the board for simplicity’s sake, and in this country it’s 18.

                  <

                  p>Now, if you want to make an argument for lowering the age of majority to 16, go ahead.  And yes, some responsibilities and rights are moved off the 18-year old line, such as gambling, renting a car, drinking, leaving education, and driving.  However, most of those at 18 are an interlocking system of which voting is part of it.  I don’t want a 16 year old voting for unregulated capitalism or needless war just because he won’t be affected — that’s the same level of insult of male Congressmen ensuring that medicine affecting males is protected to a higher level than medicine affecting women in the public option.  

                  <

                  p>Your solution isn’t going to have a huge affect on voter apathy — how many adults don’t care about voting when they can?  It’s not a question of not having the franchise, it’s a question of not understanding how the exercise of the franchise effects them, and that’s something that can be taught long before adolescence.  The choice of many states, including Massachusetts, not to do that is not resolved by giving people rights that people don’t have the background to use effectively.

                  <

                  p>Heck, you’re not talking about giving 16- and 17-year-olds a personal stake in a system…you’re talking about giving them influence in a system despite a reduced or non-existent personal stake is tiny, if present at all.  I don’t care enough about auto repair, frankly, and it’s ridiculous that I don’t change my oil.  I mean, I own a car and it’s not my fault that my school didn’t give auto repair courses.  Does that mean I should get to stop by Meineke and tinker with other drivers’ cars until I figure it out?

                  <

                  p>

                • we attach all sorts of things to all sorts of ages. Legally, we try 16 year olds as adults all the time. Legally, we could decide people could vote at 16 if we wanted.

                  <

                  p>

                  However, most of those at 18 are an interlocking system of which voting is part of it.

                  <

                  p>There is no law that says, “legally, you’re 18, now you can gamble, buy porn and take your 17-year-old friend to a rated R movie, and, btw, vote.” What we have, instead, are a whole bunch of laws which essentially say, ‘oh, by the way, you can do this at 18.” There are other laws which legalize things at 16, or 21, or not at all. You are on real fuzzy territory here, no matter how deep you dig.

                  <

                  p>

                  I don’t want a 16 year old voting for unregulated capitalism or needless war just because he won’t be affected

                  <

                  p>I don’t want anyone doing that, but it’s not up to me how people vote. Lest we forget, it’s the current system in place that’s led to these votes. I don’t argue merely to legalize the voting age at 16, I argue to make it a part of a comprehensive strategy to make voters well informed on civic issues why they’re still in school, so as they’re prepared to make well-informed, serious votes on these matters for the rest of their lives — or, as the conservatives like to accuse leftwingers of doing, “indoctrinate them.” Right now, we have almost no civics lessons taught in school and place almost no importance to vote for young people — young adults, in my view — other than saying “this is important, you should do it,” once or twice in their senior year.

                  <

                  p>It’s a surefire system to create lazy, uninformed voters who, for the rest of their lives, care little about political candidates and even less about most votes those candidates make, once in office, creating a system which fosters the very problem you just complained about.

                  <

                  p>

                  Your solution isn’t going to have a huge affect on voter apathy — how many adults don’t care about voting when they can?

                  <

                  p>I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. In actuality, voting is habit forming. If you get someone to vote once, they’re much more likely to vote the next time. But, please, don’t take my word for it, just turn to page 15. Getting someone to vote in one major election can make them up to 50% more likely to vote for the next. It’s particularly true of young voters — get them to form good habits young, and we’re going to raise entire generations of people who understand the importance of voting and government.

                  <

                  p>

                  Does that mean I should get to stop by Meineke and tinker with other drivers’ cars until I figure it out?

                  <

                  p>That is a rediculous metaphor. Do you have shares in Meineke? Well, the American people have “shares” in America — one person/one vote. 16 and 17 year olds may not have been given the legal right to vote, but damned if they aren’t American citizens and therefore equal shareholders in our system of government, we’ve just barred them from having any say in the system, just like we used to bar 18, 19 and 20 year olds not long ago (not to mention the entirety of the female gender). They’re certainly not Class 2, never mind 1, ‘shareholders,’ even if they’re about to be given their full-fledged rights, with no training or compass with which to use.

                  <

                  p>I think you are right that at some point we have to decide who should and shouldn’t be eligible to vote, but as I said before, if we trust 16 year olds with two tons of wheels and a getting a job, we ought to be able to trust them once a year in the ballot box, as just one of up to several hundred million eligible to vote.

                • “What we have, instead, are a whole bunch of laws” — Yes, they work together.  Hence my use of the words “interlocking” and “system”.  It would be odd to be legally able to take out a loan, but not be liable for debt, wouldn’t it?  BTW in many establishments you have to be 21 to gamble, not 18.  I continue to agree with you about civics education.  

                  <

                  p>The problem as you phrase it confuses me.  If the problem is that not enough 18-year olds vote, why not try to…get more 18-year olds to vote?  Sounds like you’re advocating lowering the voting age to 16, and getting them to vote.  That doesn’t solve a problem, it just moves it.

                  <

                  p>Yes, all Americans have a stake, and no not all Americans seem ready to use it.    How do you decide that 16 is a natural age to begin voting, and not 14 as Iran has it? Because 16-year-olds can drive in some states? I have 14 year-olds I’d trust to vote before much of Texas.    

                • so we have “interlocking” laws which all amount to 18 being the only year we could possibly let people first vote, even though we allow people to drive as young as 15 in some states, 16 in our state, even though we allow kids to get a job at 16, even though we allow kids to be tried as an adult at ages sometimes even much younger than 16, should they have allegedly committed a crime — and even though we allow 17 year olds to go see a rated R or even NC-17 (aka X) film.

                  <

                  p>All the rights we give people at 18 make them an adult, but the many rights we give them at 16 makes them…. what? The age of “adulthood” truly is relative; you should accept the fact that we’ve deemed all sorts of things appropriate for all sorts of different ages, and all of those things and corresponding ages we allow people to do them at has changed throughout history. Voting, in fact, isn’t any different — and it’s time to change it again.

                  <

                  p>

                  If the problem is that not enough 18-year olds vote, why not try to…get more 18-year olds to vote?

                  <

                  p>The problem is that not enough people vote or know much about how our system of government works, or much about politics, in general. If we don’t allow people to vote until after they’re out of school, we’ve lost the teaching moment. In that case, it’s up to them to figure it out somewhere along the way; sometimes they do; sometimes they don’t.

                  <

                  p>As I said, our current system has lead to the problems you describe; changing it to foster more education and to get kids to actually make their first votes right after or in the midst of those civics lessons is far more likely to keep them engaged in the system in the long haul. Get more people interested and informed while we have the chance, then make it incredibly easy for them to participate in the system (often voting already takes place at schools, for example) and you can help establish that good habit early. If they vote at 16, they’ll be able to vote again at 18, while they’re either still in school, and/or just out of it, so it’s much more likely for millions more to be voting as one generation succeeds the next, each with good voting habits formed early.

                  <

                  p>In this case, I am dealing with statistical facts; getting someone to vote in an election makes them more likely to vote in the next one. You may deem it more important to bar young adults from voting for two years than fostering a lifelong habit of good voting, but only at the cost of continuing the trend of creating generation after generation of people who vote far less than half the time, don’t understand government, don’t want to understand government and therefore, don’t trust government.

                  <

                  p>

                  How do you decide that 16 is a natural age to begin voting, and not 14 as Iran has it?

                  <

                  p>As I’ve said over and over and over again, I think a lowered voting age should be linked with classes in civics lessons, something already done as an elective in many high schools, but not compulsory. Lowering the voting age to 16 makes sense for several reasons. First, it would give high schools two years to teach that class before or at the same time as when someone turns 16. Second, it would give a student at least two elections to vote in before they left home and were on their own, enough time for a good voting habit to sink in. Third, yes, society has, indeed, deemed people 16 years of age as young adults by bestowing on them a lot of added responsibility — among such rights as the ability to become a licensed driver and get a job. I don’t see why one should be able to do either of those, but not vote, so it does make sense in that way.

                  <

                  p>Furthermore, while everyone progresses differently, there certainly is a great deal of difference between the average 14 year old and the average 16 year old — much more so, I would argue, than the difference between an 18 year old and a 16 year old. A lot of development, both physically and mentally, takes place in those years, as kids cease to be kids and become young adults. Of course, that’s not the end of the road in terms of reaching full maturity, the human mind does not stop developing until around age 25, but given the great trust we already place with 16 year olds, coupled with directed lessons on how government and the political system works, this is certainly something a 16 year old could handle and would, more importantly, benefit from.

                  <

                  p>Someday, people 50 or 100 years from now may feel differently and, in that case, the law could be changed again. Passing law is just a series of experiments, seeing what will work best. You seem to be afraid of some ‘slippery slope,’ a type of argument which rarely, if ever, is valid. What we know is that voting at 18 works. Voting at 16 would probably work, too. If it works so great people want to experiment again in the future, that’s an interesting question future generations could be posed with. However, we know enough now to know that 16 year olds can be trusted as young adults in many capacities and could benefit from the experience, especially while they’re in an environment where they can learn more about it and ask questions. We know how to foster good voting habits, we know who could benefit most by gaining those habits (young adults). Now we just have to put what we know into practice.

                • You employ examples that don’t prove your point, then criticize me for how inappropriate the examples are (you brought up driving age as a sign of majority). You play fast and loose with the legal concept of adulthood because it  doesn’t suit you.   You lecture me about adolescent psychology.  You dismiss slippery slope as invalid because you don’t like it, apparently it’s an argument that lacks the power of “the sky won’t fall”.  I never expected you to seriously examine your opinion, but a refusal to even ask questions means that we’re both wasting time here.

              • …a legislator in California suggesting that 16-year-olds get half a vote and 14-year-olds a quarter vote.  Obviously this would mean counting those ballots separately for the sake of the math.  Personally I’ve thought for a while that we should lower the age to 16.  That is the age that many employment opportunities open up to kids and if they work they are subject to taxation.  Given that, not allowing them to vote strikes me as taxation without representation.

      • Deval Patrick over Tom Reilly, Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, now Khazei over Capuano or Coakley.  The only major Globe endorsement I can think of the most experienced candidate was Tim Murray four years ago.  Actually, come to think of it Ryan — are you on their editorial board?

        • Everything I feared about Barack Obama has seemingly come true. I do not approve of the job he’s doing as President. “Better than Bush” ain’t good enough.  

          • Truth be told, Obama’s been much better than I’d feared, and knowing now what I know then, I’d have seen him and Hillary Clinton as a coin flip.  I was wrong about that one.  I still maintain that I was right about Deval Patrick — not that I ever expect you to agree with me.

  19. I can’t vote for this person because of this…

    <

    p>Oh wait, a candidate I’ve supported in the past has fallen into that category?

    <

    p>It doesn’t matter because that’s a special circumstance.

    • Experience in government is a plus; lack thereof is a minus, IMO.  Yes, I have also in the past supported candidates without that experience, but in those circumstances other factors overrode.  In this case given the choices we have and the situation we are in I have given experience and exposure the greatest of weight.  You’re treading awfully close to JohnD’s “campaign to make everything equivalent to everything else”.  I’m also not sure what you meant by the “spin it anyway you want” comment above.  There’s no way I’m going to second-guess whom I might have supported in a race 16 years before I was born.  I could imagine the advantage of having a Senator whose brother was President, but given that Teddy’s primary opponent was Ed McCormick, Jr. and his general opponent was George Cabot Lodge, the 1962 Senate race became an exercise in choosing one’s favorite dynast.

      • I’m just rather put off by the snarky comments and hypocritical arguments.

        <

        p>As much as I enjoy good debate, I worry about the deterioration of that dialogue as the race gets closer.  

  20. is that Coakley’s commanding lead, helped by name recognition in a short race is very soft.  Over the holidays, I’ve heard support for Coakley, Cap, Khazei and even Pags.

  21. endorsement is newsworthy, I wouldn’t follow their directions if they told me how to get from Auburn to Ludlow and I was already on the Pike.

    <

    p>I don’t know much about people in their upper classes, but I suspect these folks serve on boards, go to cocktail parties, and generally know folks that make decisions. I have no evidence whatsoever, but I’m convinced at least one of the editors worked on education reform back in the early 1990s. Of Khazei, I have no opinion. But I wouldn’t put it past the upper echelons of Globe management to mix in politics.

    <

    p>And as far as the Editors endorsements go, remember Obama and McCain for President? What does an endorsement mean when you endorse both a candidate and his opponent? It’s like rooting for the Red Sox and the Yankees.

    <

    p>I’m voting for Capuano. I value his political experience and the fact that we’re generally on the same page when it comes to issues. That said, I’ll gladly support whoever gets the nod.

    • it is very common for newspapers to endorse in both primaries. For the general election, they only endorsed Obama.

      <

      p>Mark, if you have a few minutes, would you read my thoughts on the race? I am a huge fan of Capuano, as should be obvious to anyone who’s read my writing on this site over the past month or so, but I think there are reasons why the nod should go to Khazei. Seeing as you have no opinion of him, I’d like you to read mine and see if any of it rubs off on you 😉

      • Though I’m supporting Capuano if you cross-post it here I will recommend it like I did for AmberPaw’s endorsement of Coakley.

  23. The American Prospect has an interesting article by Dana Goldstein discussing the concept of “social innovation” as promoted by Pres. Obama.  The article references Vannesa Kirsch, described as “the queen bee of the social entrepreneurship movement”, who is married to Alan Khazei.  You can see these ideas in Khazei’s rhetoric.

    <

    p>It defines social innovation as relying on the private non-profit sector to come up with new ideas to solve social problems.  

    <

    p>

    At its core, social innovation refers to the belief that for-profit institutions should be the model for nonprofit ones, and that nonprofits, in turn, can be more effective protectors of social welfare than government

    <

    p>The article makes a number of points but one that is worth mentioning is that society has large problems which require solutions that only governments can provide.  There are limits to what the non-profit sector can do.  

    <

    p>

    The truth, though, is that big, top-down government programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare have done more than almost any nonprofit effort to lift Americans out of destitute poverty. Imagine what something like a national universal day-care system could do, in terms of encouraging work among poor parents and providing early childhood academic enrichment.

    <

    p>Non-profits have their place, and we need all the new ideas we can get.  Certainly we need change and reform both within government and in grass roots organizations.   But the constant, almost knee-jerk criticism of “big government” and “established interest groups” that comes from the social innovation set, (including, apparently Alan Khazei and the Boston Globe) ignores the fact that it will take major changes to really solve our nation’s problems.  And that can’t be achieved by bypassing government and the major economic players.

  24. There’s no way to not see this as a setback for Capuano and Coakley, either of whom would have been the safer and easier choice by the Globe.

    <

    p>Going from single digits in the polls to the mid teens plus this endorsement, Khazei has to be taken more seriously now. I really am amazed that the Globe has suddenly decided to support the “new ideas” longshot. Pretty unusual, especially after they shunned new ideas to support a 16 year mayoral incumbent not long ago.

    <

    p>What will also be interesting is the next poll they release. They have to find a way to release a poll that shows a big jump for Khazei to give themselves credit for his boost in numbers. Expect a weekend poll to come out that has a tighter race, with Khazei at least within the margin of Capuano, and both within about 10 of Coakley. I look forward to another nose-ringed, tattoo-covered teenager from New York knocking on my door this weekend too, to tell me all about this big news.

    <

    p>Doesn’t change my feeling that Capuano is far and away the best and most progressive candidate.  

    • Big lead, little time left. Anything that keeps the non-Coakley vote from coalescing around one of the others helps her run out the clock. Does anyone really expect a big move to Khazei in the last ten days?

      <

      p>My guess, and it is only that, is that the Globe prefers Capuano to Coakley but doesn’t think he, or anyone else, is going to catch her. I read this endorsement as a shout out to Khazei’s exemplary non-profit service, and maybe an attempt to boost to Khazei’s future electoral prospects.  

  25. Ironically my dad changed his vote at the last minute from Chris Gabrielli to Capuano in the 98 primary because he perceived Capuano as the winner-similarly he is sticking with Coakley because he said “she was the winner the day she announced” and think Mike was too deferential to the Kennedy’s.

    <

    p>In any case to me the big issue of the race is and ought to be who would make the best Senator and the best answer is Mike Capuano. Before Stupitt all four candidates were in agreement on the issues. The difference is who has experience taking tough stands on the issues and fighting for them on Capitol Hill and who skirts from politically tough fights, who has political experience and who is an unqualified outsider, who has a consistent liberal voting record and who remains a mystery at the end of the day, those are the differences. Passion, experience, record-those all weigh to Capuano’s side.

    <

    p>Khazei has no experience in government, neither does Pagliuca and that should disqualify them from such a high office. Martha’s experience and temper are more suited to an executive position than the Senate, where she has clearly shown throughout the campaign that she lacks the political abilities to be anything other than a back-bencher in the Senate.

    <

    p>That said I predict the BMG editors will follow suit and back an untested, unqualified do gooder free of the original sin of actually holding public office and making tough decisions, freed from the contortions of Martha Coakley, and free from the (in this case valid) taint of friendship with Mitt Romney. So definitely expect Charley and Bob to endorse Khazei-I suspect David still wants to go with his heart and back him as well but will likely go with his mind and back Martha.  

      • While I am also a notorious typo offender I went back and spell checked my initial post and found no errors.  

    • in gov’t was the qualifier for higher office, Barack Obama would never have become a Senator, nevermind President. Not to mention our Governor. The best candidates aren’t just there because they have the years. It’s what they’ve done with those years. What I like about Capuano is what he stands for, what he stood against, his voting record, his record of leadership, and his no nonesense style. No candidate can hold a candle to that.

      <

      p>There may be others who have good qualifications. Those qualifications may appeal to other voters, and that’s fine. There may be personalities, or identity politics, or “outsiders” that appeal to other voters. I understand. But it really is hard to argue with Capuano’s record.  

      • I would disagree with your Obama analogy. Barack Obama was a State Senator before he was a Senator and that seems like an apt qualification to me since State Senates’ are good training grounds for their federal counterpart. Similarly he was a Senator before he was President, and again I would argue that the Senate is probably one of the best training grounds for the Presidency. Congress is probably the best training ground for the Senate. Ex-Governors tend to hate being among 99 other ego’s, but ex-Congressmen already know how to work well in groups, on committees, and in coalitions and can adapt those skills going from a less collegial body to a more collegial one. I can think of no better breeding ground for service in the Senate than service in the House and James Madison would agree with me there. So would Henry Clay.

        <

        p>I think Attorney General’s and DA’s tend to make more legislators since they are used to getting their way, tend to be political neophyte’s when it comes to deal making and staking ideological ground, and usually do not meet great success in the Senate.

        <

        p>That said for all I dislike about Coakley’s extremist stances, ignorance on Senate procedure, her pursuit of ideological purity over pragmatism, and her willingness to lie about her record and that of her opponents, I would pick her any day of the week over Pagliuca and Khazei who have never held a public service job in their lives and have no idea how to interact with other public figures.

        <

        p>So to me ANY service in government is preferable to no service at all when it comes to filling out higher office, and some service in relevant government posts seems to trump service in less relevant government posts in my estimation. I would support Mike for his experience alone if Coakley held rational positions on the issues, although I’d be more willing to stomach her if she won the nomination in that reality.

        <

        p>Lastly the Globe, and as I suspect the Editors, are making the cardinal sin many liberals do in presuming that the process itself is corrupting and only outsiders can be trusted to govern it. This same idiotic logic led to 16 years of ineffective Republican rule in the State House and arguably its continuation under the current Democratic incumbent. We have plenty of clean progressives in the State Legislature and one hopes they can emerge to leadership at the state wide and federal level. Eldridge, Sciortino, Brownsberger, and Jehlen would all make fine Senators, Congressmen, and Governors and its a shame the Globe, the Editors, and the liberal voting public will not consider them since they are somehow ‘tainted’ by being elected officials, even if they happen to be clean, competent, and talented ones.  

        • I grant that obama served 3 terms as a State Senator, and 2/3 of a term as a US Senator, but though they gave him a semblance of resumé for his victories, they were not why people voted for him. (I say this as someone who worked hard for him in the primary and the general).

          <

          p>But if you prefer, you can use our Governor as an example.

          <

          p>I’m not with you that any gov’t service is enough for me. I think forming an organization dedicated to public service is impressive and worth a look, just not when you have a candidate who is as good as Capuano.

          <

          p>Coakley’s stand on CORI reform, wiretapping, and 3 strikes is enough that I’ll vote for her with reservations over Scott Brown, and I’d have to search deep but would likely support her over Pags if forced to choose. I’d much prefer Khazei. As disappointed as I am in Khazei’s rise, and as turned off to him as I am on some of his stands on charter schools and some union related issues (probably the same issues that appeal to the Globe), he is an intriguing candidate. If he’d had a year to build this up, I think he might actually win. Then again, I’d say the same for Capuano.

          • I am not arguing that Obama ran on the experience card, if anything he ran on the un-tainted outsider card. What I am saying is that I think experience does matter and his experience at least qualified him to run for President. To me Khazei’s logic could easily be applied to a presidential race as well as a Senatorial one, and to me to get to offices that high someone should have spent sometime in government institutions to at least understand how they work before they can credibly talk about changing them. If he was running for Congress that’d be great, but he had the ego and audacity to presume that running a community service organization taps the same skill set as being an effective Senator and to me that logic is lacking.

              • Yes the Senate is part of Congress but come on in political parlance its always “Nikki Tsongas for Congress” and “Mike Capuano for Senate” Congress always colloquially refers to the lower chamber. Hence why Representatives are called Congressmen. My broader point is you and the editors clearly threw Mike under the rug. Its more important for you to have a political neophyte who is basically a political virgin to run for high office that requires a lot more experience in the nitty gritty of politics. I understand this makes you sleep better at night knowing he never take any campaign money, he never made any deals that hurt his liberal credibility, he is a millionaire so he is incorruptible, and because he is not an incumbent he actually cares what people think, etc. Yet remember all that when he gets elected and is forced to stop listening to every little constituent complain, is forced to raise money, is forced to make deals. Then the glow of perfection will be dirtied by the reality of politics.

                <

                p>To me if your endorsements were reality based they would favor the men and women who have a proven track record of getting the job done and reward the progressive insiders every now and then with more responsibilities-that they have clearly earned. Instead you belittle an incredibly progressive politician for his service and endorse someone who has no reason to be a Senator. Is it just that leftists of a certain age are addicted to lost causes? Or is it a Bostonian sports fan symptom of setting yourself up to be disappointed? In either case its time this anti-politics ideology die if you actually want progress to occur.  

  26. Are you high?  Are you smoking crack?  How can I possibly be of any service to anybody or anything while having to struggle for mere survival in the wake of detrimental government sponsored programs aimed specifically at the destruction of my life?  How does one volunteer while applying for food stamps?  How does one volunteer when contemplating a bridge abutment as a new home?

    <

    p>Yes, the most evil of candidates must be endorsed by mainstream media.  The one with the most Satanically destructive themes is endorsed.

  29. resources to document this but impressions are that this man may be the winner.  Why do I say that.  Well his vision?  The expert, resident expert on weird paranormal CT idiot tin foil hattery rates this guy THE most Satanic of ALL of the candidates and as such makes the prediction of winner. 40% chance on second thought.

Archives