I think about this in much the same way I would look at hiring for a top job in any organization. In this circumstance, we have two talented and accomplished people in the organization (in this case, elected officials), and two promising newcomers.
The first decision I have to make is simple. Is there a reason to bypass the people with a record of achievement in the organization for a talented newcomer, or in Globe terms a promising amateur? Looking at Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano, I must say the answer is no. There is nothing in the record to disqualify Coakley or Capuano from serious considertion, and there is nothing about Pagliuca or Khazei that trumps the positive work history of our loyal elected officials.
Now that I have sent polite rejection letters to Khazei and Pagliuca, hoping they will try again for something closer to an entry-level position, I need to make a choice between the two top candidates. Here’s the way I come to my decision.
Capuano’s experience is closer to the job than Coakley’s. A congressman’s job responsibilities are closer to a US Senator’s responsibilities, so I have a real sense of how Capuano would handle this particular job. In the case of Capuano, I like what I see. I see a passionate, hard-working legislator with a strong record of constituent services. Coakley has a strong record of achievement as a District Attorney and Attorney General, but it’s a different kind of job. Capuano has a slight lead in my decision-making process.
Looking at the two candidates as people, I can look at the interviews and look at the way I have interacted with them over the past dozen years.
When I first met Martha Coakley, I wasn’t particularly ready to like her. She came across on TV as cold and dispassionate. Meeting her in person changed my mind. She is a warm and caring person, who is in this business for all the right reasons. I was glad to support her for DA, and glad to support her for Attorney General. I like the job she is doing as Attorney General.
I also like Mike Capuano. I met him six years ago in Washington. As a school committee member, I was in Washington as part of the National School Board Association’s annual lobbying efforts.
2003 and 2004 were dismal times for lobbying Congress, particularly if you were from Massachusetts. The Bush administration had Congress locked down. When we caucused with school board members from around the country, we heard two things. The people who were talking to the Republicans were complaining of the considerable pressure for the majority to follow the leadership and the Bush administration policies. The Democrats were complaining that they were powerless in the minority, but kept asking us to see if we could influence Senator Kennedy to do something about NCLB.
Our visit to Mike Capuano’s office was different. While others in the Massachusetts delegation were clearly deferring to Senator Kennedy, Mike Capuano sang a different song. Capuano described why NCLB was a bad law, drew on his experience as a mayor (and school committee chair) to detail why it was a bad law, and said that even though he loved Senator Kennedy he couldn’t support this legislation.
He was candid, he was his own person, and he wasn’t afraid to go against the flow when he knew the prevailing thought was wrong.
This isn’t the only time Mike Capuano stood out from the pack. His opposition to the Patriot Act was another vote against the prevailing opinion at the time, another case where history proves Mike Capuano to be right.
With all due respect to Martha Coakley, she hasn’t had the opportunity to take legislative positions. She may have the same views, take the same stands, and be just as good as Mike Capuano. But I don’t know that. And that’s my tiebreaker.
Mike has been an excellent Congressman, and deep down in my heart I know what I am getting. I like it what I am getting. I like Mike. I also want to reward that kind of behavior by the Massachusetts delegation.
I vote to advance Mike’s candidacy, and I hope you will agree.
“In this circumstance, we have two talented and accomplished people in the organization (in this case, elected officials), and two promising newcomers.”
<
p>So, by that rationale:
<
p>You’re endorsing Attorney General Edward McCormack over Teddy K back in 62.
I was a nine year old resident of New York in 1962. Were all other things relatively equal? Was there a substantive difference in their positions? Was there a reason not to like Edward McCormack?
<
p>Also note, I am bringing my field of 4 down to a field of 2 excellent candidates using the experience screen.
I mean, if you’re going to use the insurgent cliches, go all out.
Certainly there was a major difference between Lincoln and Douglas on at least one major issue of conscience.
But the cliche addresses Lincoln’s thin record of elected office before he became president. Lincoln-Douglas was a Senate contest.
…Douglas was also the (Northern) Democratic nominee for POTUS in 1860, though the debates were for the Senate race. In any case Lincoln’s only elective office before either race was a single term in the House.
I agree with Eddie McCormacks great line ‘If your name was simply Edward Moore no one would take you seriously’. Ted was an awful, disinterested Senator until the day he realized he’d never be President. He was really only a Liberal Lion after 1980 when he gave up on being President and stopped pretending to be a moderate, and he was really mot successful when he finally dried up and met Victoria.
…McCormack was a dynast himself, as was Kennedy’s GOP opponent that year, George Cabot Lodge.
While you may have pulled the trigger quickly on Pags and Kay-Z so did I. I’ve been hiring staff for 20 years and sometimes but quite rarely you find a diamond in the rough who goes on to accomplish great things. I think Al Franken will be that kind of progressive leader but I don’t see it in Kay-Z or Pagluica. I’m willing to watch and wait but no they don’t get my vote for US Senate based on what they’ve done to date.
<
p>The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and Capuano’s voting record is grade A on progressive issues. His eleven year job training in the house on preogressive issues and experience with house leadership is more grade A quality qualification.
<
p>I don’t have to guess how Mike Capuano would vote on the Patriot Act or war auhorization for Iraq or suspending habeas corpus or indefinte detention or laws that roll back sixth amendment right of confrontation or parolees first amendment rights. I know Mike will stand up for these values while Martha weighs them quietly sometimes coming down on the side of civil rights and sometimes expaning government power at the expense of our civil rights.
<
p>Cheers! Go Mike …Tuesday!
that reflects why so many of us are choosing Mike Capuano.
<
p>Nothing against the other candidates – they are accomplished in their own right – but Mike Capuano has proven again and again throughout his career and during this campaign that he has the progressive values, the knowledge to get things done in Washington, and the passion for affecting people’s lives that most closely resembles Senator Kennedy’s own.
<
p>In many ways, this is a somber choice that none of us would choose to have to make but for the passing of Senator Kennedy. Today, we need more straight talk in the Senate. We need passionate advocacy for the progressive results we seek from government for all people.
<
p>I am proud to cast a vote tomorrow for Mike Capuano.