The Issues
Let's take the most obvious issue first: Khazei (and Steve Pagliuca, of whom more later) took what we believe is the correct approach on the health care reform bill: a pragmatic attempt to improve the health and well-being of all Massachusetts residents to the greatest extent possible. This moment, right now, is very likely health care reform's only real chance. The Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in 2010, and we barely have the votes to pass a decent reform bill now. So unless the bill is so awful that it manifestly will not achieve the goals of health care reform, it should pass, and be fixed later as necessary. Restrictions on funding of abortions by insurance companies, as odious as they may be, do not justify denying the benefits of health care reform to millions of uninsured or underinsured women, children, and men — particularly in Massachusetts, where (as we've discussed before) the restrictions seem likely to have relatively little impact. If a bill with a public option, the elimination of pre-existing condition limitations, federal subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance, the creation of insurance exchanges, and the familiar litany of other useful reform provisions comes before the Congress, but with Stupitts or something like it attached, we think the bill should pass. That is Khazei's (and Pagliuca's) position; it is not Martha Coakley's or Mike Capuano's. We think Khazei is right, and we think this issue is very important.
Khazei has also paid the most attention to the critical issue of Afghanistan. As he's fond of noting, he's the only candidate who mentioned Afghanistan in his announcement speech, and he's also the only one to have issued anything like the detailed statement on his website. While his reaction to President Obama's announcement this week remains to be seen, Khazei has been a strong and consistent voice throughout the campaign against sending additional troops to pursue an unclear mission now that al Qaeda has been largely eliminated from the country, and he has the most sophisticated and holistic approach to the difficult problem of ensuring that, once our troops leave, Afghanistan does not again become a haven for fanatics bent on our destruction. We agree with retired General Wesley Clark's assessment in his endorsement of Khazei's candidacy:
Rather than make the easy appeal of simply bringing our troops home, Alan has done the hard work of detailing how to do so while insuring Afghanistan does not once again become a haven for terrorists. And, at the same time, Alan presents a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists globally. Alan, more than anyone else running for Senate in Massachusetts, presented a detailed approach and compelling, new ideas for accomplishing our goals.
Another clear distinction between Khazei and the other three candidates is the issue of casinos: Khazei is unequivocally opposed to bringing casino gambling to Massachusetts, while the other three are for it (with varying degrees of enthusiasm). Strictly speaking, whether or not MA legalizes casino gambling is not a federal issue (though there are federal aspects that our next Senator could face, such as the question whether Congress will revise the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 in light of this year's Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for the federal government to take land into trust — the necessary precursor to building a tribal casino in Middleborough). But a Senate seat comes with a big bully pulpit, and we have no doubt that Khazei would use it (as he is already doing). Your three editors are not entirely in agreement on the casino issue, but two of us support Khazei's stand and appreciate his willingness to speak out about it, and the third is grateful for a candidate who at least has a coherent position.
Which brings us to the issue of jobs. This is of course a hugely important issue. And it's one on which, frankly, Khazei's campaign has botched his message. Bob wrote some time ago about the disconnect between Khazei's claim to have created thousands of "good jobs" and his record of service jobs that pay a sub-minimum wage stipend that entitles their recipients to food stamps; David piled on, noting that Khazei was criticizing casino jobs that paid "only" an average of $6.34 an hour, a good deal more than City Year's cash compensation. We wish that Khazei had more clearly explained that the service jobs he has created over the years, while admirable, are not what most unemployed MA residents will be looking for to feed their families or put their kids through college. City Year "jobs," while themselves valuable for other reasons, don't have much relevance to restarting the economy.
However, the service jobs are only one part of Khazei's multi-part jobs plan, and the rest of it makes good sense to us. Furthermore, his call for a Clean Energy Institute whose "mission would be to fund commercially viable clean energy research through a collaborative effort with leading universities, state and local governments, business leaders, venture capitalists and other investors," is a creative and farsighted approach to both creating green jobs and encouraging development of alternative energy technologies, which in turns helps address both climate change and energy independence. Huge issues like these need big, bold ideas, and we think Khazei's are the best of all the candidates on that score.
In general, Khazei's position papers are the most detailed of all the candidates. Another candidate saw fit to pooh-pooh position papers since, in his view, "nobody in Washington is waiting for the senator from Massachusetts to be elected to bring their plan," but that's a little too high-handed for us. We want to know that our next Senator has something to bring to the table. We don't expect that all the plans will make it into the statute books next year, but we'd like to know that there's a place to start, and that he or she will think creatively about the big challenges facing our state and our country. Khazei has clearly done that.
Philosophy of Governance
Khazei, alone among the candidates, has repeatedly talked about bringing the people — you, us, your friends and colleagues, everyone — directly into the process of making policy in the Senate. And Khazei — unlike some politicians who have talked a good game about this but haven't always followed through as completely as we might have liked — has a superb track record in this area on which to build. Khazei has told (many, many times) the story of organizing a coalition that successfully pushed back Tom DeLay's move to gut AmeriCorps, and his work in moving the Kennedy
Serve America Act through Congress. And in our interview with him, he explained at some length (it's the first health care question) how he intended to "empower and support a citizen movement" on issues that he wants to advance. Again, Khazei actually has a record on generating grassroots movements, and if anyone could successfully bring outside pressure into the halls of Congress, we suspect it would be Khazei. A more "people powered" Senate would surely be a good thing.
By contrast, the other candidates leave us a bit cold. Perhaps the clearest contrast is Mike Capuano, who has loudly and proudly touted his knowledge of how to work the system to bring home the bacon, and who, his commendable work on the ethics bill notwithstanding, seems to show little interest in changing the basic ways business is done in D.C. That's fine, as far as it goes. But we think Washington — and, more importantly, the rest of the country — could benefit substantially from some new ways of doing business. As a corollary, we are a bit unnerved by Capuano's cozy dealings with the perpetually-under-investigation John Murtha, and we see his embarrassing association with PMA Group as the kind of thing that predictably results when one is eager to do business with whoever is "the one who can help get the things done that I want to get done" (that's a direct quote from what Capuano told us) — presumably as long as that guy hasn't yet been indicted.
Martha Coakley has done good work as Middlesex DA and as Attorney General, and in some cases (e.g., the settlement with Goldman Sachs) she's been excellent. But so far, we just haven't seen much evidence for her claim to be "a different kind of leader." What we see is a candidate who is trying to protect a perceived lead in the polls, not by ducking debates (there are plenty this week), but by saying little of substance during the course of them. We also see someone unwilling to admit even the slightest possibility of error in the Fells Acres prosecutions, in which she was not even directly involved, but as to which just about everyone who has taken a serious look has concluded that something went terribly wrong; and someone who sided with the state of Alabama in a case that, if Alabama wins, will likely lead to a mentally retarded person being executed (no, the brief in question didn't directly address the defendant's guilt or innocence, but one is hard pressed to completely ignore the context). We see, in short, a committed and successful prosecutor who hasn't yet made the case that she would be a "different kind of leader" in the Senate.
Finally, Steve Pagliuca. He talks a more or less unobjectionable game on the issues, but his personal "bad investments" (campaign donations to Bush in 2000 and Romney in 1994) and his employer's bad behavior (with respect to Ampad, KB Toys, and a number of other situations) leave us wondering how deeply held his progressive values really are. We'd be willing to take the chance for, say, state Senator. But U.S. Senator? No. We'll wait until there's more of a progressive track record there.
To be clear, though, we're not saying that we don't think Capuano, Coakley, or Pagliuca could make fine Senators. Actually, we think that any of the four candidates would represent Massachusetts honorably and well in the U.S. Senate, and we will happily and enthusiastically support the primary winner. But for the reasons given above, we're backing Khazei in the primary.
Finally, we cannot resist noting that whatever Khazei accomplishes in the primary will be a fine testament to the kind of people-powered politics that we think can only make the political system healthier. Khazei voters, whatever their final number, support him over the guy who carpet-bombed the airwaves with unlimited funds, the sitting A.G. with pre-existing name recognition and a statewide organization already in place, and the sitting congressman with the federal campaign account ready to go. Khazei is earning his voters by motivating a lot of volunteers to knock on a lot of doors and talk people into voting for their candidate. (In fact, his ground game, put together from scratch very quickly, may already lead the pack with a week to go.) If that works, it will bode well for the kind of change that Khazei says he wants to bring to the Bay State and to Washington. We hope he can pull it off.
Although you certainly give better reasons than the Globe.
n/t
At my last town committee meeting, a young rep from Khazei’s campaign came to speak with us. He put forth a compelling case for Mr. Khazei’s candidacy, I must say, and I think the young man swayed several people as a result. I can’t say I’m necessarily disappointed because I could easily live with Capuano or Khazei. Not so much with Pags or Coakley. I have to say, as well, that your analysis makes me pause and recalibrate. I shall retreat to my corner to think about it. Thanks again.
to endorse Khazei because in any case………..
<
p>
This actually might be the best articulated reason to vote for Alan Khazei yet.
I’d want some confirmation that Khazei is above 6% before I consider voting for him. On the issues, his willingly to throw our public schools under the bus of ideological driven “reform” has made me apprehensive about supporting him anyway, so it may not matter, at least for my vote.
<
p>While I’m leaning towards Capuano, I wouldn’t highlight ethics reform as an area he was particularly strong in. He was tapped by the Democratic leadership to shepherd the reform package through, primarily because they knew he wouldn’t let the reformers “get carried away”. And while he did eventually come around and support the package, he tried to gut some of the key provisions, particularly then restriction on congressional staff moving straight in to lobbying.
require earmarkes to be subject to debate and amendments on the house floor?
It does, however, require that earmarks be fully disclosed:
<
p>
<
p>Presumably, like with any other legislation, these earmarks are subject to amendment per the Rules Committee’s discretion. (In the House of Representatives, unlike the Senate, you can’t just offer any amendment willy nilly. It needs to be approved in advance by the Rules Committee, which makes them an extremely powerful body.)
My understanding is that Capuano was picked for Ethics because he was insulated from both sides of the reform debate. While you take the charge to “not get carried away” as a negative, I think it’s actually a realistic approach to an initiative that was approached to with a lot of skepticism by long-time members of the house. The reform package needed to be effective, but realistic enough to get votes. The independent commission is a huge step forward from relying on unorganized self-policing.
During tonights debate, the following rules will apply:
<
p>– You have to take a drink every time Khazei mentions his Globe endorsement
<
p>– You have to chug the whole beer every time he mentions his BMG endorsement.
<
p>– Take a drink every time Pagliuca mentions the always-important Mike Felger endorsement.
<
p>– A drink every time Capuano uses the phrase ‘I’m the only one on this stage…’
<
p>– A drink every time Martha Coakley mentions ‘the children’.
<
p>– Start drinking everything in the place if the candidates are asked to weigh in on the simmering Ernie Boch III/Howie Carr dustup…
or is it Here Here?
<
p>I am not at all surprised, and I encourage all to give Alan a good ‘nother look!
http://alanforsenate.com
…as in “HEAR this – he’s making my point!”
…look at this right here (stabbing at something in front of you with your finger, RIGHT HERE HERE)?
<
p>No? Maybe?
<
p>Aw shucks OK.
Don’t feel bad.
“their they’re”? 😉
HERE is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter!
In regards to abortion-provisions of the Health-care bill you dismiss them as “likely to have relatively little impact” in the Commonwealth. Well, you could make the same argument about the Health-Care bill overall, we already had our own state-wide fairly effective health-care overhaul. So why not work for something that’s over-all really good for the nation?
<
p>I think the whole abortion posturing is somewhat (very?) irritating. It’s clearly NOT going to be in a final version of the bill, and even if it were we overwhelmingly have the votes to abolish it on reconciliation. So to some extent it becomes an academic exercise. And I think it is a bit silly to say “I’d vote for it with Stupak”. You’re basically saying you’d vote for something sub-par that could easily, and clearly, be corrected.
<
p>I love Khazei, but if he wins and sticks to his idealistic position on earmarks I’ll be pretty worried about lost funds for various Massachusetts transit projects/ universities/ healthcare facilities/ etc. The problem isn’t earmarks per se, but BAD earmarks. (Doesn’t Americorps often get funding through earmarks?) Congresspeople know things about the needs of their respective constituencies a lot better than a national legislators ever could en masse. (That said more transparency and accountability for earmarks would be useful).
I’m glad you’re so sure of that. I trust you’ve done a whip count and ensured that no more than two House members who voted for the House bill will withhold their votes if Stupitts or something like it is not in the final version. Please post your evidence.
Isn’t it a bad negotiating tactic to say you’ll vote for anything, just so long as a bill gets passed? Capuano in particular actually will have to vote on this whether he wins or loses the Senate election. If he says he’ll rubber stamp anything before the final bill is written, he’s essentially taken himself out of the process — probably a bad move.
<
p>It seems to me the more people who say they won’t vote for it if it’s in the final bill, the less likely it is it will be in the final bill.
Voting for the Stupitts-containing bill in the end may be a good idea, but telling everyone beforehand that you will vote for it is really dumb.
<
p>You lose any ground on which you have to negotiate.
<
p>Also – if Stupitts is in the final bill and that bill passes, Stupitts will probably never be overturned. Thinking you can “start working immediately” to undo it, as Khazei suggests, strikes me as horribly naive and misguided.
<
p>
The rest of our delegation can stay quiet, but when you are an active candidate you’re expected to answer questions.
… good thing nobody is actually employing that tactic…
<
p>
<
p>I don’t know of anyone who’s staked that particular position wrt voting on this legislation. And I can’t think of a congressional vote most devoid of rubberstamps…
Well, it seems as if Pags is willing to vote for anything Obama supports.
<
p>But, both he and Khazei say they would vote for a final bill containing Stupak-Pitts.
<
p>How do you fight to keep that language out when you’ve already told the other side that you will vote for a bill with that language included?
<
p>You don’t even have a bluff for them to call.
Not really. Ever since the Afghanistan write up i had a good idea who you liked in the primary.
<
p>Nice write up.
Really?
Khazei is a wonderful wonk who writes fine policy papers. I’ll stick with Mike Capuano. Any and all the other candidates represent a Pollyanna view that somehow, gosh darn it, they maybe would blossom into a powerful leader and fighter. In other words, they just might become what Mike already is.
The whole point of an endorsement is usually to persuade readers.
I’ve already resigned myself to writing in Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. And I was THIS close to being sure that’s who they were going to endorse too!
Like I said, the BMG editors are seduced by the parade of candidates that view a record of public office as a liability to be dissected rather than an achievement to be lauded, who support a populist politics that promises ’empowering’ the people even though such a promise is both reckless and also politically unfeasible, and who take positions that appeal to the modern liberal bourgeois as opposed to working class lunch pail Democrats. Anything with reform, or progress, or other vague allusions to change and feeling good triumph over a proven politics of pragmatic as well as progressive results. Un proven ideals trimph over principled and hard fought results. Inexperience and political naivete is a virtue, and political experience a vice. This is the topsy turvy world of endorsements coming from wild eyed ivory tower progressives who think policy papers can change the world.
This is where I think he is head and shoulders above everyone, and why I think he’s an incredible choice for our next senator:
Word.
This country was founded on the philosophy that the people are too fickle, too short sighted, and frankly too stupid to make policy. That is why we elect Senators and Representatives, people more qualified than us to make policy. Look to California as the poster child of why direct democracy is a horrible form of government. Give the people the choice and they will vote against any kind of tax increases while supporting massive spending. Its because the people like programs that help them, and they also hate paying for them. It is a fickle, irresponsible, and short sighted desire and it is why the power of the purse, the ability to make war, the ability to write and ratify treaties, those powers exist with the Congress of the United States and not with the people. At the end of the day Alan Khazei cannot take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution because he clearly does not believe in its percepts.
<
p>Furthermore on candidates that promise transparency and popular involvement BMG is glaringly 0-3 in its endorsements. Deval Patrick has negated on these promises. So has President Obama. So has Nikki Tsongas. I do not begrudge them for this, it is the role of the political representative at any level of office to act in the interests of the people, not to be a parrot for their prejudices and concerns, but to act in their interests even when they lack understanding of what those best interests are. So this philosophy is not only foolish and distasteful, and frankly unconstitutional and anti-republican, but it is also one that no person can practically accomplish or honestly promise. So BMG is basically saying, well these types of candidates have lied to us before but this one won’t, because um well because he promised he won’t and um community service is good so obviously he understands that the people need to have input. And it is why this odious endorsement will have no impact.
<
p>
And just like that, all of Khazei’s momentum from the Globe endorsement is melted away by the BMG kiss-of-death. How much are Capuano’s people paying you? 😉
It only stayed top on the front page for a little over an hour.
<
p>Let’s see how soon it goes back up to the top…… zzzzzzzip!
that maybe the editors weren’t committed enough to pay attention. Then a giant woops and zzzzzzzzip back up it went.
My endorsement of Mike was at the top of the front page for a long time!
<
p>Well Judy, David gave you credit for bumping!
endorsement of Mike Capuano stayed up a loooooooooong time as a tribute to her high standing among the BMG community I think.
<
p>Here it is again in case you missed it.
And I thought it was just a slow news day.
As someone who started off supporting Mike Capuano, and then learned about Alan Khazei, I wholeheartedly agree.
<
p>On policy, my expertise is clean energy policy, and I’ve been very impressed with his understanding of the issues and the positions he’s taken. But the prime reason I support him is his demonstrated talent for building coalitions, and I would love to see a Senator who could get more citizens involved in pushing good policy through the Senate…
I’m impressed by the well-articulated analysis. I’m heartened to see that the editors have successfully resisted the tyranny of the BMG majority.
<
p>I like Mike, and will vote for him a week from today.
<
p>Having said that, if Alan Khazei wins the primary, I will enthusiastically vote for him in January and work to convince everyone I know to vote for him (not that much arm-twisting would be required).
Bravo to the folks who posted and participated in the BMG readers poll! We should do this more often.
We had over 4,000 unique visitors yesterday. Only a tiny fraction posted, commented, or voted.
The same can be said of the Commonwealth. The population of primary voters is, after all, a similarly self-selecting sample with all the distortions and bias that comes along.
<
p>Hey, it’s your blog, your site, and your call. The analysis was solid and well-articulated even if I disagree with its conclusion.
But that then makes the editors a fraction of the tiny fraction – :), but first among equals as they say …
of visitors with accounts vs. those without? Obviously the latter cannot post or comment. I read for a long time before I bothered to create an account and participate.
Our tracking software doesn’t have any way of distinguishing those who have accounts from those who don’t.
wake up
<
p>coffee
<
p>boston.com
<
p>Times iphone app – very nice, but it was expensive
<
p>BMG
<
p>uhub – Adamg has a great thing going over at universalhub.com
<
p>Glad to hear the reach of your empire is growing. Good work.
Khazei is the most compelling to the field. He also deserves special kudos for attempting to enter the US Senate without a pile of IOU’s from special interest PACs and Lobbyists.
although i wish this went another way congrats to khazei camp for picking this us
Just two major quibbles really.
<
p>1. How easy it must be for three men to be so willing to set our nation back on abortion for the sake of health care. I would agree with you if the Stupak Amendment were to only require that subsidized plans not fund abortions, I could see making that sacrifice if necessary. But making it so that no company that provides a subsidized plan can offer abortions in any other plan basically sets back a movement that has been fighting for these rights for decades (if not centuries). There is a line that I can’t imagine crossing, and I though I think there can be little more important than health care, this is definitely more than I think we should stomach?
<
p>2. As for your criticism of Capuano’s relationship with Murtha, I wonder if you would use the same moral justification for every state rep who ever voted for and supported Sal DiMasi, even this past January. Would you throw a Carl Sciortino or a Jamie Eldridge out for consideration for higher office because of their willingness to “get the job done” by supporting the man in power? I would think not. I would hope not. Sometimes, you have to actually deal with who’s in power, not who you wish was in power (to slightly paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld).
<
p>Overall, a well reasoned endorsement, but I disagree with your two major blackmarks against Capuano, and I’m supporting him because he’s proven to be a progressive champion with 12 years of evidence to back that up.
As I understand it (and I could be wrong), that is not actually what Stupitts does. I had thought that under Stupitts, an insurer who wants to cover abortions in a particular plan must offer a plan that is identical except that it does not cover abortion, and may not accept federal subsidies to pay for the former plan. That’s quite different from what you are saying.
<
p>
So, I guess you are partially right, it’s not that they can’t get it covered in any plan. Just any plan that receives more than $0 in subsidies, which apparently isn’t many of these exchange plans at all. Seeing as the impact will not just be the tens of millions who are currently uninsured, but potentially tens of millions more who will join into this exchange in the future, we’re talking about eliminating abortion coverage for a huge number of women.
<
p>It seems to me that by going back on the Hyde Amendment “status quo” agreement, we are setting choice back pretty substantially, setting a precedent that is quite scary.
The point is that single-issue politics and ideologically-based with-us-or-against-us voting is not likely to produce the best results by a Senator for the people of Massachusetts.
…but why give away your negotiating stand in the beginning, just for the sake of winning an election?
<
p>To me, Mike (and to a degree, Martha) are standing up for a fundamental right that we already have and which is slowly being chipped away at, and he believes he can do that while still accomplishing health care reform. Khazei and Pagliuca have already conceded that they will give up abortion for health care, and have lost their power to negotiate the issue were they to win. To me, they have sacrificed abortion rights for campaign victory, and now you commend them for doing so.
<
p>Abortion, by the way, is not just a single issue. It’s about health, it’s about human rights, it is about privacy, it is about choice, it is about women’s rights.
<
p>What other rights would you be willing to give away for health reform? If the issue was torture versus health reform, would that be a line you’d not cross? unfettered federal wiretapping powers versus health care? death penalty versus health care?
<
p>Sorry, I’m disappointed, not so much in your endorsement, though I disagree with it. I’m disappointed that you have decided to buy into this idea that we should support politicians being willing to sacrifice abortion for health care in order to win an election. It would be far easier for Capuano to join in the Pagliuca/Khazei chorus, but the principled and appropriate stand is to sacrifice a stand that might help him get elected in favor of taking a negotiating position that could win improved abortion rights back into the final bill.
The thing is, no such vote has taken place. The one person who actually had a vote did not practice any sort of single-issue politics in that vote.
<
p>Everything else is pure posturing and positioning. I have no doubt that each of these candidates are a solid vote for cloture in the Senate for Health Care Reform should it be necessary, no matter what the final bill looks like. Why? Because leadership has to present a bill that will get those 60 votes and if Paguanazeily isn’t on board then likely others aren’t as well, and some concession will be made.
<
p>If there’s a case to be made against any of them it’s the amount of smoke certain candidates are blowing up our asses to give themselves room to negotiate in the face of fast-changing circumstances.
It’s ALIVE!!
It is pretty clear that he has taken, and you applaud him for it, single issue stances that are ideologically aligned with your politics-specifically on Afghanistan, health care, ‘open and honest government’, ‘grassroots activism’, and casino gambling to boot. On all of those issue you applaud his stance on this single issues individually, condemn his opponents for not taking those same positions on those single issues, and you applaud them as part of a broader ideological whole. To wit it is not one single issue you are voting on, but you applaud his ideological stances on a series of single issues and condemn them in his opponents. To me that is definitely with us or against us voting. Mainly with do gooder progressives who aren’t tainted by the sin of actually serving in Congress and writing laws for a decade, who take irrelevant stances on casino’s, and who irresponsibly jump to conclusions on national security issues without hearing out their Commander in Chief. Those are the values Alan stands for and those are the ideological reasons you support him. I would also argue that BMG has a very twisted ideological logic against supporting politicians for political office that has been demonstrated time and time again with these endorsements. Similarly BMG takes the ideological stance of presuming that Charlie Baker is bad for MA because he is a Republican even though he is a Republican that expresses MA values on issues of equality and choice, or that Stephen Lynch and others are disqualified because they are against choice or gay marriage-other single issues. I am not arguing that it is wrong to make those decisions based on ideology and issues, hell its what smart voting is about and its a whole lot better than determining which candidate you would rather have a beer with. But to argue that this endorsement, or any of the Editors prior endorsements are either non-ideological or not based around specific positions these candidates have taken is absurd, especially when those are the reasons stated up front in these endorsements.
you say they endorsed because of single issue stances (though apparently several major issues = single issues), and on the other hand you attack them for endorsing based on stylistic qualities, such as thinking it’s important to listen to people and employ grassroots strategies. Or have you changed your mind in between replies?
I meant to link this comment of your’s, though there is a whiff about what I was talking about in the comment I did accidentally link to in my reply above.
Bob argued above that single issue voting is wrong and that he is not endorsing candidates on the basis of ideology. Except that he did endorse Khazei on the basis of his which refers to that philosophy of governance I attacked that you linked to, as well as his ideology on the political spectrum (the far left).
<
p>Lastly Bob was saying it was wrong not to support Khazei because of one issue-abortion and StuPitts yet they consistently endorse candidates, or decline to endorse candidates based on single issues.
<
p>For instance a pro-life, anti-equality candidate would be a non starter since those two single issues-apart and as a whole-doom a candidate from getting a BMG endorsement. Similarly being a Republican also disbars someone from getting the endorsement even if they meet the litmus test on each single issue. Furthermore deviation from any one of the single issues on their litmus tests results in a disqualification.
<
p>Coakley is disqualified since she would vote against health care reform
<
p>Capuano disqualified since he has not committed to voting against the troop surge in Afghanistan
<
p>Those are specific votes and single issues for which they praise Khazei for his individual positions on this single issues as well as glad that he shares each position with them on a whole range of issues.
<
p>And like I said it is entirely valid to vote on ideology and the candidates positions on specific issues, hell that’s frankly the only smart way to vote, but to condemn someone who won’t vote for Khazei because of his single issue position on StuPitts, while condemning Coakley for her single position on that single issue, and condemning Capuano for lacking the same single position on the single issue of Afghanistan as Khazei, to me smacks of hypocrisy. Its as if the BMG editors are claiming some kind of objective neutral ground from which they based their endorsement when in reality those same single issues matter to them just as much.
Not true. It hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Also it sends a message that we put being for equality over being a Democrat. Remember you only endorsed Khazei for the primary so it is not hypocritical to have two endorsements-kinda like the Globe and Herald did. We know the Herald will endorse Brown and the Globe will endorse the Democrat in the end, but they still endorsed in the primary and you could too.
so, denying my rights as a human being is ‘just an issue?’
<
p>Occasionally, some having the wrong stance on an issue should disqualify someone from a position; pardon me for thinking I do not think we should be sending bigots to congress or as Governor, etc. Furthermore, Bob, Charley and David wrote a lengthy endorsement fleshing out probably a dozen issues. At what point does something cease to be about “single issues” and become about a lot of issues?
<
p>
<
p>Where did they say that they specifically didn’t endorse her because of that one issue? They brought the issue up because it was important to them, but it was only one example in a whole lot of examples of reasons why they were supporting/not supporting certain candidates.
<
p>Then when they talk about a candidate’s style and judgement as reasoning behind an endorsement, you criticize them for that. You’re really reaching, here.
It only states that any subsidized health plan cannot include abortion coverage. A study has shown that the amendment will likely eliminate abortion coverage.
Here is what Open Secrets tells us about PMA contributions here and elsewhere since 1988:
<
p>Barack Obama: $839,726
Hillary Clinton: $388,933
John Kerry: $289,994
Patrick J. Kennedy:$216,177
Mike Capuano: $142,000
Edward M. Kennedy: $131,050
<
p>Whic leads me to ask, why does Capuano take all the heat?
<
p>http://www.opensecrets.org/new…
…he’s the only one on the list in the current race. The article you linked is vague about what PMA is being investigated for and I didn’t see any indication that Capuano took bad money. I don’t why we get all tied in knots about this. If I were running I would take any legal amount from any legal source.
When PMA was a known problem he donated the money to charity. If he wasn’t running or at the time this story came out a possible candidate, it would have been a page 20 story one day and never heard from again.
As you know, I put my stake in the ground here about six weeks ago, and have been posting (and working) in support of Khazei ever since.
<
p>So, obviously, I agree with you, and I think your reasoning is sound. We’re blessed with a bevy of qualified candidates, and Alan is the best of the lot.
<
p>He’ll make a great Senator!
How is Alan remotely more qualified than Mike Capuano or Martha Coakley? You can make an argument, that I would disagree with, that Alan is your preferred candidate for his positions or the fact that he isn’t ‘tainted’ with the burden of actually having to be a public official. But in no way is he the most qualified candidate by a long shot. Thats just absurd and demonstrating why this endorsement is certainly not based in reality.
He had to accomplish his considerable achievements outside of public office, which is often far more difficult when you rely on the help of the federal government for what you are doing. His work with City Year and his work to keep Americorp viable are hugely significant achievements that are absolutely the same caliber (and imo then some) of what Capuano and Coakley have achieved. As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You’re not only ignoring those other ways, you’re “lolz” mocking them.
Then you are saying he is a successful lobbyist. Are you telling me that you would rather elect the guy who is successful in lobbying for his non-profit, or elect the guy who is the successful progressive legislator?
You’re right!! Never thought about it that way. I forget, is this the candidate who pledged not to meet with paid (gasp) special interest lobbyists or was it the other one.
…how does he shave in the morning?
for fighting for City Year and Americorp, it is absurd to criticize it. Absolutely, I would vote for this candidate.
<
p>This was not a rejection process, this was a selection process. I have enormous respect for Capuano. If Khazei weren’t in the race, I would jump to support him.
Does this exercise put a kibosh on the BMG PAC?
<
p>I know I know … St. Khazei doesn’t take PAC money. But let’s just say that there were no restrictions and we have some heated debates on candidates then it’s announced with an endorsement that the PAC would donate to the campaign.
<
p>I see heads spinning Exorcist style.
So I can see what you mean. 😉
…why Khazei would object to taking BMG money. Not all PACs are created equal. We are a collection of citizen-activists, not a special interest group.
Many PACs are collections of citizen-activists. I personally don’t see it as a problem to accept money from PACs. Having said that, I don’t think that candidates should take money from ALL takers.
<
p>While I would not go so far as to say that I consider it naive to not take money from PACs, I do not consider it a sign of virtue either. When a campaign makes that decision, they have made a decision to preclude ALL PACs. With the way that our Campaign Finance laws are written, when citizens want to raise money legally, not directly for a candidate, then a PAC is one of the few legal mechanisms.
<
p>When you refer to “special interest groups” it reminds me of a campaign where people opposing his candidacy, accused him of supporting special interests. I recall commercials of senior citizens and young children saying “I’m Joe Smith’s special interest.”
…I draw a very clear distinction between public and special interest groups, though there are organizations that seem to be a bit of both depending on the issue. To me that distinction is NOT based on whether I agree with them or not. A special interest seeks a direct benefit such as a tax break, fee waiver, or government contract specifically for its members. A public interest seeks policies which (at least in their view) can be taken advantage of, if not by absolutely everybody, then by a large portion of the population that qualifies.
The fact that you state that there are organizations that seem to be a bit of both underscores that fact that if you make a decision not to accept PAC money, that means no PAC money. Doesn’t matter if they are “good” PACs.
A candidate can easily say he would happily accept money from PACs A,B, and C while not touching PACs x, y, and z with a ten-foot pole. I don’t think it needs to be absolute unless there’s a law I’m not aware of that requires you to either reject all PAC money or accept all PAC money offered with no in-between. If there’s such a law then it should be repealed, IMO so that candidates can choose and use their choices to show voters where they stand. With PACs on all sides of all issues of course some people are going to like some more than others and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
…too many permutations… too much uncertainty to deduce the answer soley on the strength of your wits.
I’m not sure what this is refering to or if it were even meant for me. Whose office should I call to find out what?
I really, honestly, truly thought that finally I would be voting for the candidate who received the BMG endorsement. Alas, ’tis not to be.
<
p>My current hopes rest with your endorsement for Mass. Treasurer next year.
well i cant vote but my parents can
The only times I picked their candidate was Obama and Patrick. And I definitely regret the Patrick vote now. I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but part of me regrets that my irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton blinded me to the fact that she would probably have been a more effective President, at least domestically.
<
p>What offends me more is the ‘reality based’ community moniker. Not only was this endorsement not based on reality, as they confessed they liked his ideology and philosophy all along, but most of their endorsements are not based on reality. David endorsed Chris Dodd for crissakes a candidate who had no realistic shot of winning the presidency. Similarly I think no party can claim the moniker of being ‘reality’ based just as no party can have a monopoly on patriotism. While the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks are fast turning the Grand Old Party into the ‘stupid party’ as JS Mill would say, there are people within their ranks, Colin Powell, Richard Lugar, Lindsey Graham, Andrew Bacevich who and certainly our own bloggers like PeterPorcupine and JoeTS who are definitely conservative and still live within the reality based community in my opinion.
<
p>Also I think this endorsement is a slap in the face to the other three candidates who bothered to be interviewed and examined for the Editors who essentially made up their mind when Khazei joined the race and another Axelrod approved sexy outsider emerged. Frankly no candidate outside of this mold should bother spending time with the BMG editors since its a waste of everybody’s time. Can anyone else honestly tell me they didn’t see this one coming a mile away?
…and I’m glad to see you acknowledge that. I’m not sure it’s fair to give endorsements a “reality” gauge unless it was based in part on chances of winning. An endorsement is by definition an opinion to which one is entitled and in this case I’m not convinced the editors knew their choice all along. These endorsements involve assessments of who will hypothetically do the best job which cannot be absolutely proven without crystal balls, so the next best thing is to go by what the candidates have already said and done.
Entirely untrue; we were genuinely undecided going in, and did not make up our minds until close to Thanksgiving (and, of course, you have no evidence showing otherwise). I don’t expect you to believe me, but then, I don’t really care either.
I’d just like to take this chance to pull a reverse Voltaire…
<
p>I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, but remain concerned over the process. BMG has come to be quite the community, but the fact that the three “Editors” remain solely in charge of endorsements – and now the PAC – continues to deeply disturb me. It makes this place feel distinctly less like a community, and more like a stereotypical blog. Y’all own the place, and we are merely permitted to be here.
<
p>Which, of course, is the literal truth, but if you are looking to build a community and not a fiefdom, this is the wrong tack to take.
<
p>It has been rightfully pointed out in the past that leaving endorsements up to a community poll would leave the field wide-open to ballot stuffing and besides which, who wants the likes of Peter Porcupine or JohnD voting on these matters? (Kidding! Mostly.)
<
p>But there are compromises between that position and the current setup. I’ve seen suggestions – and I’m really sorry, but I’ve forgotten whose – that you compose a sort of Executive Committee, maybe of 20 or so hand-picked frequent contributors, who would direct the PAC and consider endorsements such as this.
<
p>It’s just a thought, in my humble opinion, and I earnestly beg leave if I have offended any of the Three of You.
They use us to become political players within the state Democratic party, that has been the plan the entire time. Look at the ‘DailyKos’ community-it serves no one but its master who is now a major fundraiser, pundit, bestselling author, and player within the national Democratic party. And I am cool with that since I just post to his site, he put his name, time, and money into it and his investment paid off. Similarly I respect Dave, Charley, and Bob for putting their time and money in this start up and I congratulate them that their investment has taken hold and they now have benefited and frankly I am disappointed with myself that I didn’t beat them to the punch. But I do not begrudge them for this. Like they would say, if you want to endorse candidates start your own blog. Also they do make it clear it is the BMG Editors who make this endorsement and not a ‘BMG endorsement’. There might be merit to coming up with dual endorsements, one from the community and one from the editors, but I can’t think of a fair way to get a ‘community’ endorsement for the reasons you argued, and such a dual endorsement would hurt the BMG bottom line which is to advance the power of the three editors and a ‘community endorsement’ would reduce their brand power. They have certainly created a forum of diverse opinions and are much more benevolent masters than RMG, DailyKos, or MYDD. But it is pretty clear who the masters are. You don’t like their PAC don’t contribute, contribute to the candidates you support. You don’t like their endorsement, make your own either here or on your own blog. And give the editors credit, they won’t delete your endorsements or comments they disagree with like they do over at RMG, Kos, and other blogs-and frankly its their site so they have a right to do so.
Ooooh, darn it, we’ve been found out. Who told?
<
p>(That you think what David, Bob and Charley have done is some sort of plot is, honestly, a little silly. Accidentally stumbled their way into a little more weight in the state party and local media – by creating a great community site? Sure, but thinking they “use us” in some sort of plot is going overboard. If you really feel that way, you should register a domain name and create some competition, before they rise to power and take over the world! Unite, comrades, unite!)
A wise friend once said to me, “The harder I worked, the luckier I got.”
<
p>When I first started being part of the blogosphere, there were a number of good lefty politcal blogs just starting out. BMG ended up becoming the most prominient. IMHO, the reasons for its success include:
– a cool name
– the fact that the workload is shared by three people
– the community nature of it
– the work that the editors do to ensure that there is regular new material
– the time that they invest, not just in writing, but covering events
<
p>A number of those blogs from the “early days” (counting in blog years) are gone or dormant. I won’t name names. The bottom line is people have other lives. Left in Lowell continued, I think in part because Lynne brought other people on.
<
p>Maybe they “accidentally stumbled” to Springer Mountain but it is sticking to it, day after day, that got them to Katahdin (a metaphorical reference – the Southern and Northern termini of the Appalachian Trail).
<
p>
I’m not surprised by your endorsement of Alan Khazei. Quiet, mild mannered, similar temperament to John Kerry. They almost look alike! Your endorsement did not sway my opinion. If Alan Khazei is elected, he will be plowed over for years.
<
p>I understand your admiration for the fact that he can rally up the young ones so they can make a difference. But we all saw how long that lasted in the case of Barack Obama. Where are all of those young ones now, and their flood of calls, emails, and letters to our Federal Government to make change happen.
<
p>Mike Capuano voted no to the Iraq War. I am certain he gave the issue careful thought and review before that vote. I am confident that he has and will continue to give careful thought and review to the ongoing issues in Afghanistan. Alan Khazei’s statement you link to regarding Afghanistan, dated 11/16/09, is very similar to what Mike Capuano has said about the problem with sending more troops there. So their thoughts on this subject are nearly identical. I’m not sure why it’s pointed out as an exception among the candidates, except that Alan Khasei was
<
p>
<
p>On healthcare, I want someone who IS willing to vote no to a very bad bill. Of all of the candidates, I believe Mike Capuano will review the bill in it’s entirety, and make the very BEST decision. His statement has been that he will look at the bill as whole, and make his decision based on what’s good and what’s not.
<
p><embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://www.necn.com/avp32.swf?
o@!lC)csn]ct/Ejay_!Z.{H3_qDMC)kpQz9P|On1@Vrff4xKJW#U[PR}>;Ek.?uYn?o^eEGN9}(JuJt}N}AM>g38^-_!)Rn<xofVQM8M,R:4g3f-y1_$8OOB}vKh(eEaJ/^AsC7;AEa=dcLK{gx?hGVC,a?Wn-!-6?5zz:!-S&k(v$UZC)~/p}#ZT[!jbE1<9=6<5IN;aLI{#WQ'_ z9/4u-:gD$G{0A:I-s65# pZfc7RW~pNR^i_L^Kkd8fY=c})*5q7′}$T):JbJ43U5=d,7Ev-aI>[r)t{qE” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″><
p>Thank You BMG. Thank you for the opportunity for all of us to have a voice. I value BMG more than you can imagine. I appreciate the editors and all of the hard work and time they give to keep this site running. I appreciate all of the people who post/comment here, as they share their honest thoughts. It gives us a window into the world that you can’t find on a televised news program or any radio show. It’s just the best.
Alan Khazei?
<
p>Not by a longshot.
The BMG endorsement of Khazei is a huge disappointment in the judgmment and perspective of the three owners of the site.
<
p>The endorsement of someone who lacks a public record, when there are two well-qualified elected officials, is a clear example of the “blank slate syndrome” that naturally occurs when an outsider with great rhetoric shows up at the town clerk’s office with nominating papers. The people who have a track record, they have done many good things and a few things you don’t like. The guy without a record, he has no negatives. He is the “perfect” candidate, free to generate positions on past issues with the hindsight that eludes folks who had to make a tough decision years ago.
<
p>So, this new guy in the political arena, he can generate nice position papers without any evidence that these positions have any depth or longevity.
<
p>He was the first to say Afghanistan? Maybe in the campaign, but Michael Capuano has been talking about Afghanistan and Iraq on the floor of the House of Representatives for years. Capuano got it right, not in a position paper, but over the course of history.
<
p>Khazei talks about casinos? Isn’t that special. In all my years of lobbying on Capitol Hill, I never talked about casinos. I talked about the challenges faced by the people responsible for local government and public education. I talked about issues that involved federal funding, federal mandates, federal policy. The first responders on 9/11 were local firefighters, EMTs, and police officers in three communities. The federal government can’t educate our children, but they can provide resources that help and regulations that hinder the people who are on the front lines providing these services. It’s nice to talk about casinos, but the real issues that a US Senator can deal with to make a better life in Massachusetts are tied to the way the federal government responds to the needs of state and local government.
<
p>Khazei seems to be a process progressive, where he wants to bring people together and have happy conversations. Sounds like Town Meeting, which Mr. Khazei hasn’t seen fit to join. I mean, if he won’t even run for one of the 240 Brookline Town Meeting seats, why should I take him seriously when he wants to go to the senate?
<
p>Khazei was nothing more than a lobbyist, advocating his own interests, when he worked against efforts to kill AmeriCorps. He may have built a coalition to support his pet program, and it is a good and noble program, but I don’t see that work in any more of an altruistic light than lobbyists for any other special interest.
<
p>The endorsement of someone who talks a good progressive game, rather than someone with a strong (but not perfect) progressive record, hurts our cause. It means that hard work in the political trenches will be rewarded with rejection when you want to take it to the next level. In my book, Michael Capuano has had the guts to take unpopular stands that, in retrospect, have proven to be correct. He has a real understanding of where I live, as I try to make town government work in Town Meeting and public education work in my day job.
<
p>Khazei is sweet talk. Capuano is progressive action.
<
p>This endorsement only serves to split progressives in a primary where they should prevail. So, I leave you with this thought. Do you want to feel good by voting for the guy with sweet rhetoric and nice position papers, or do you want a strong progressive in the senate?
<
p>That’s why I LIKE MIKE!
<
p>
Actually, he has a very strong and long public record working for the public good. Now, he may not have a legislative record, but it’s safe to say that he has not shied away at all from taking positions on the issues. Furthermore, he certainly has a strong and proud record of affecting public policy in the legislative arena, even when he was at odds with the likes of Tom Delay.
<
p>
<
p>Again, he has a long record of bringing people together — and getting results. You can ignore that or scoff at that, but it is not an intellectually honest argument and you’ll be criticized for doing it, rightly so. Khazei is not “sweet talk” or playing political “games.” He has a lifelong record of public service and results. For someone who criticized the editors based on the caliber of their arguments, you brought some pretty flimsy, bad and plain-old wrong ones to the table. Pablo, I expect better from you!
public record = voting record
<
p>It is very easy to say you are against more troops now, but how would he have voted on this resolution or this bill?
<
p>It causes me great pause when Alan says he would vote for any old health care bill. What about when the Majority or Minority leader (I hope this is not the case, but you never know) calls and says we are going to kill or pass this bill because of x amendment and I need your vote. Will he have the courage to stand on his convictions or will he cave as many legislators do when they enter a legislative body where today’s vote secures tomorrow’s funding for your state?
<
p>
n/m
You’re of course entitled to your opinion. But you seem to be in quite the minority in that respect, even amongst your fellow Cappies.
but assumes that because of what Khazei says now, he will thereby stand up for those values tomorrow. I don’t need a leap of faith with Capuano. On issues of war and peace, civil rights and social issues, Capuano has and will be exactly where MA needs him to be.
The endorsement begins with the basis of the endorsement, positions and philosophy. I will give you positions, even though its relatively easy to come up with detailed positions that are not in conflict with a public record when you are a new kid in the political arena.
<
p>However, to base the endorsement on philosophy is absurd, illogical, and sets the endorsement on a very poor foundation. To base an endorsement, and a hiring decision, on philosophy rather than achievement is the basis of a poorly thought out endorsement.
<
p>This is an endorsement that fouses on philosophy and discards two extensive records of public service. You could only reach an endorsement of Khazei by discarding large chunks of the public record in favor of philosophy, and this is poor thinking in my book.
<
p>Khazei may be good at philosophy, but I want someone who can actually do the job.
another candidates’ long and extensive history of public service.
There is a difference between public service and a public record. There are many people who have worked hard for the public good, professionally and as a volunteer, that do nothing to establish a public record.
<
p>A public official, who works and makes decisions under public scrutiny, creates a public record. Only two candidates in this race have a public record of substance.
You’re trying to make your own definition of public service. It does a great disservice to the many politicians who have come from the background of public service, having a long public record there. I’ve campaigned and volunteered for many politicians who were elected to public office based on their public records in the area, even if they had no legislative or council votes. They still had to take stands on issues that were of record in the community and depended on that record for the base of their support.
<
p>If Khazei hadn’t build City Year from the ground up and helped get Americorp funding, he wouldn’t have any ground to stand on in this race. The lack of any public record whatsoever is why someone like Pagliuca has gained no ground in this race, despite spending millions. You can argue which kinds of public records are more important, but please stop trying to spin this as if Khazei has no record in the public sphere. It’s not at all an honorable or intellectually honest argument — there are so many good arguments to support Capuano, his being the only candidate with a “public record” is not nearly one of them. There are three candidates in this race with strong and lengthy public records. Judge them on it; don’t ignore the fact that they exist.
What did Khazei think of invading Iraq when it was a debate issue? The Patriot Act? NCLB? Kyoto Protocol?
<
p>I know what Capuano thought…I can get an idea from what Coakley thought, as the two of them had to go on the public record on those issues. As for Pagliuca and Khazei, at worst they had to discuss these issues at dinner parties, and at best whatever they tell us they said will gibe with what other people said they said. That’s the difference between a record of public service (who’s against public service??) and a public record.
a legislative record is a nice thing to have, but it is not the only form of a public record. There are other kinds of a public record that, with even the slightest bit of analysis, can tell us every bit as much about a candidate as a legislative record. I wouldn’t support Khazei if he didn’t have a public record. Indeed, it is that record which gained him my support.
There are many forms of a public record, yes. Some are rather complete (Capuano’s), some are decently filled-in (Coakley’s), and aside from issues such as public service and trading for Kevin Garnett, same are almost non-existent.
<
p>I contrast this with Al Franken, who spoke volubly about all the major issues in public, in many guises, even though he was not in public office. He developed a complete record. Khazei and Pagliuca did not.
pablo, a few years ago, i thought i recalled you supporting deval patrick (3 years justice department, no elected office) over tom reilly (30 years?) to be governor.
<
p>”process prog?”
<
p>he built a pretty significant, concrete organization…isn’t that the OPPOSITE of someone who wants to lead “happy conversations”?
<
p>seems like you ding him on one hand for NOT being a career pol – then ding him as if he IS a career pol.
<
p>i’ve met alan k 4 or 5 times over the years. impressive, thoughtful man. we could use a few more khazeis in the senate.
<
p>i still don’t see how anyone catches coakley during such a short campaign, but then i didn’t see the pats getting torched by 3 TDs last night either….
Deval has been a disappointment. I think his lack of experience with local government has led him to make many serious mistakes. My experience with Deval certainly influences my support for Capuano, as it raises the local government experience credential on my list of priorities.
<
p>Khazei may be thoughtful (we’ve never met) and people who I know have met him and like him. I have met Capuano on several occasions, and I find him to be thoughtful and passionate and knowledgeable, PLUS he has a proven progressive track record as a mayor and congressman.
<
p>I am sure that we both agree, when we look to hire teachers we want someone who can deliver for the kids. Same here.
Bravo Pablo! Bravo Pablo!
I’ve decided to go with Capuano.
Or philosophy based?
For the record I predicted this very endorsement for weeks now. Predictable.
<
p>BMG Editors have committed the cardinal sin of liberals by blaming the process itself as corrupting. Thus no politician, regardless of how experienced they are, how progressive they are, how committed they are, cannot ever get elected. We must have outsiders, we must have people ‘work outside the system’. I think 16 years of Republican Governors here in MA demonstrated why inexperience dealing with politicians, with a legislature, with the basic pitfalls of politics has shown few results for our state, and this same lack of efficacy has continued under our Democratic incumbent as well. Our public officials should have some experience dealing in government so their idealized policies will not be thrown against he wall of pragmatism and compromise and so they will not be buried by it. Outsiders from Mitt Romney, to George W. Bush, to Deval Patrick are unable to work with others, unable to forge compromises, and unable to live outside the bubble of their own ego and their own idealized principles. They can’t get things done. Khazei has no proven track record of success as a political figure, no proven track record on the issues, and no proven ability to forge the compromises and pragmatic every day decisions of governance. Clearly idealism trumps experience and competence yet again in the minds of the BMG editors and in the minds of some within the progressive community. It is time to reject sexy, vague, outside candidates and reward someone who has had the time and patience to get real results within the system. The only candidate with that record is Mike Capuano.
<
p>To get on specifics the BMG editors cited several areas where Khazei allegedly is more progressive than the other candidates:
<
p>1) Health care
<
p>By staking the vote on reform with Stupitts and taking the criticism for it, including from the very BMG editors now demanding that Mike vote the way he originally promised but who criticized him at the time, Mike Capuano shows he has the political fortitude and skill to get this passed in the House and in the Senate. That he can handle the intricacies of big legislation and get it done. Coakley has shown complete ignorance of that process. Pags and Khazei have the benefits of simply reading tea leaves after the vote and saying what progressive want to hear-where were they to take a stand on the House vote before it came up? Mike was out in front on this issue and its a shame the bad hand he has been dealt by the media including our hypocritical editors here, and admittedly by his own political ineptitude spinning the vote.
<
p>2)Afghanistan
<
p>Khazei is opposing troop additions, the right stance in my view, but also the likely stance of Mike Capuano who will also have the opportunity to vote against the surge in Afghanistan. He has consistently stated his reservations, but I respect that he wanted to hear the President make his case before rushing to judgment, unlike Mr. Khazei who took the knee jerk leftist position before hearing the President make his case. Again this shows why Capuano has the temper to make a great Senator while Khazei leaves a lot to be desired. It is pretty clear Mike is skeptical. If he can vote against it in my view he is showing more leadership than Khazei. The endorsement of Clark is a wash since here is a guy who was on both sides of the Iraq War debate and supported ground troops in Kosovo. Someone most generals don’t take seriously.
<
p>3) Casinos
<
p>The Senator of MA cannot do anything about casinos, its a local issues, and one the state government can handle. In my view it is an issue that the candidates positions are irrelevant so Khazei gets no extra points for taking the right stance on this issue seeing he can do little about it. Also BMG has consistently supported pro-casino politicians including Gov. Patrick so I do not see why a pro-casino position can credibly be a grounds for not endorsing a candidate when they have already endorsed several pro-casino candidates. Mike Capuano had the right answer, lets let the local government handle it. Personally I would have preferred him to articulate his own opposition to this idea, but I respect that he, unlike Khazei, realizes that being a Senator does not make someone a magician who can influence things he does not have power over.
<
p>4) Jobs
<
p>Considering that Khazei has consistently and blatantly lied about job creation, misleading voters about the nature of City Year as a volunteer service organization, misleading voters about the permanent nature of the jobs he created, demonstrates pretty clearly that he is not honest on the issue of jobs and can’t be trusted on it. Capuano again understands the limitations of being a Senator and that one cannot legislate job creation, but can implement policies that will help. To wit his policies are better than Khazei’s who only relies on his personal bio of ‘creating’ City Year jobs that last for a year and pay well below minimum wage.
<
p>5) Education
<
p>This is an important issue and one where Alan Khazei has a less than stellar progressive record on. While i am a charter supporter and not a skeptic as some progressives, I am disappointed that Khazei seems to have few ideas about bringing the same kind of innovation seen in private and charter schools to the public schools. His only solution seems to be the further privatization of the public schools. Charter schools and vouchers are band aids, they are not panacea’s that fix the real problems of inequality in education funding and the lack of high quality teachers within inner city and urban public schools. As a visionary at city year one would have hoped he would have a better education plan that would bring great teachers into our public schools. Capuano had the guts to oppose his own party and Ted Kennedy on NCLB recognizing a bad bill when he saw one. Mike is the only candidate committed to restoring a legacy of excellence to our public schools without mortgaging their future on privatization schemes that have a suspect record of success.
<
p>The BMG Editors have predictably, but inexcusably, endorsed the candidate who has the least amount of government experience in the race, the least educated positions on the issues, and has the worst grasp of the actual powers and abilities of a US Senator and how he can fulfill those goals. Khazei would be preferable to a Scott Brown but so would a ficus plant.
<
p>2. “I agree with Khazei on Afghanistan, but I’ll probably agree with Capuano too, so I’m voting for Capuano.”
<
p>3. “I agree with Khazei (and disagree with Capuano) on casinos, but I’m voting for Capuano anyway.”
<
p>4. “I didn’t read the rest of Khazei’s jobs program because it’s fun to harp on the service jobs, which Bob and David have already criticized him for.”
<
p>5. “I agree with Khazei on charters (and disagree with Capuano, who opposes them), but I’m voting for Capuano anyway.”
<
p>Got it.
<
p>1 in 3?
<
p>
<
p>Wait, a reply ago you said their problem was that they were single-issue endorses, but that was a reply before their problem was that they were too obsessed with “process.” So we’re back to process now? I’m so confused.
for bestowing the BMG “Kiss of Death” on the guy who is not my candidate. I can sleep tonight.
<
p>Emphasis mine.
<
p>I don’t know how Khazei thinks he’ll make this a reality, bringing all of these people into the process for any extended period of time, unless he has persuasive powers I haven’t yet seen or if he is going to add more hours to the day. I like the idea in theory, but I don’t think it pans out in practice.
<
p>The Obama campaign was the biggest political mobilization I’ve experienced in my life. I saw people gladly sit shoulder to shoulder in crowded rooms to make calls on their own cell phones, and when they couldn’t find a place to sit, they’d find a place on the floor. Others even went outside to do their calls. Big crews were sent up to NH on election day and the weekends before. According to reports, this was repeated across the nation.
<
p>This “biggest mobilization” involved only a small slice of the population. And despite good efforts by Organizing for America, most of those who were involved in the campaign have gone back to their own busy lives. The people I know who are still involved are those who had figured out how to carve out space for politics in their lives before the Obama campaign. And some of them are off doing other things now (such as working on Senate campaigns).
<
p>The issue, as far as I can tell, is most people do not have the time for this stuff. Sometimes a situation comes up, whether it’s a local issue like saving a school program or a global issue like trying to elect a President, that gets people to sacrifice some of their time to make something happen. But, in my experience, once the crisis is over or election day passes, the urgency is gone, the priorities return to what they were, and we all try to get “back to normal”, addressing the other demands on our time.
<
p>I have no doubt that Khazei can motivate people to get involved in efforts such as what I’ve described above. But to claim that he can get any significant percentage of the population involved for a sustained period of time to be directly involved in making policy in the Senate… well, I really need to be convinced.
Did people go back to their own lives because the election was simply over, or because they were disappointed in the Democrats? Polling suggests the later.
<
p>If people are given a reason to stay involved, they will. Barack Obama and the DNC at large has given people little reason to keep up the momentum.
<
p>Maybe it’s just the slice of the population I interact with most (parents with school-aged kids, many of them with both parents working), but for these people, something has to give in order to do political work. Most are willing to do that for a short time if the cause is right, but the things left undone during that time pile up and they eventually have to get back to them. Work, homework, school activities, what little time they have for leisure and fun – it pretty much takes up all the time these folks have.
<
p>And part of my point that I probably did not emphasize enough is that the vast majority of the population did not even get involved. Some for these reasons, probably most because it just isn’t something they want to do. Can’t miss American Idol, after all.
They didn’t even stay engaged enough for this special election to have even a reasonable turnout.
<
p>And frankly, if Obama could not do it, there is no way Khazei can.
<
p>Also, how is Khazei supposed to do it? Weekly television addresses to everyone in the state?
<
p>I see Khazei as a candidate who wants to be an empty vessel through which movements will work. To me, that is willfully choosing to be ineffective.
The man’s career is built on getting people together to move mountains.
<
p>No one expects a wholesale change where everyone stands up together and becomes ALL OF A SUDDEN really involved.
<
p>The distaste I’m seeing here for the mere IDEA of it is indicative, to me, of the larger poisonous atmosphere of politics that keeps people away.
I live in the world.
But I recognize the need for aiming higher and trying to get there.
<
p>I live in the world too, which is why I want to see it change.
Parent. School aged kids.
<
p>Involved for the first time because I found political organizing work at the community level to be effective for the first time, and the template was the obama campaign, for me.
<
p>Does everyone get on board and stay on board? No.
<
p>But way better to make it a goal to involve than write off the notion of citizen engagement/involvement from the get-go.
<
p>That’s the kind of political cynicism that keeps people away. It makes sense then that a cultural change in political leadership might make a cultural change in citizen involvement, incrementally of course, but you start with one step. (Like with getting the corrupting influence of $$ out of Washington. You start with one candidate.)
<
p>I started out in my local community as a “concerned parent” believing………
<
p>
<
p>And key to staying involved I think is learning how important it is to recruit and get behind candidates with shared values who have a realistic chance of mounting and winning a political campaign. Very rewarding, winning and working with a newly elected public official who values your opinion and respects your hard work in the political arena.
<
p>And nothing is more discouraging to newcomers than working their tails off for a uncompromising,principled candidate who is out resourced, out smarted and loses. It’s a heartbreaker, and I’ve had more than my share of scars on my heart.
…the worst reason to get behind someone/something is because it’s the most likely to succeed.
<
p>shudder
<
p>Again, that’s that political calculatedness/cynicism that drives people away.
<
p>Only when all of us vote and work for what we actually believe to be the best/true causes/candidates will we finally get good politics/politicians.
<
p>And great things happen when you work hard for what you believe in, which is what citizens across the state are doing in this race. Good on us all.
<
p>The guy who gets the Boston Globe endorsement isn’t out of the race.
<
p>I’m sorry for your heartaches and I am glad you are working for someone /thing that won’t break your heart by not winning. What happens to your heart, though, if he does?
“if he does
not win“<
p>You can’t edit these posts or delete them when you accidentally post twice, can you.
<
p>…sigh….
<
p>ciao all for now
I dont’ know the codes here.
<
p>”…if he does NOT WIN”
It can be confusing. Try to be sure you preview. Good luck. K
…the worst reason to get behind someone/something is because it’s the most likely to succeed.
<
p>shudder
<
p>Again, that’s that political calculatedness/cynicism that drives people away.
<
p>Only when all of us vote and work for what we actually believe to be the best/true causes/candidates will we finally get good politics/politicians.
<
p>And great things happen when you work hard for what you believe in, which is what citizens across the state are doing in this race. Good on us all.
<
p>The guy who gets the Boston Globe endorsement isn’t out of the race.
<
p>I’m sorry for your heartaches and I am glad you are working for someone /thing that won’t break your heart by not winning. What happens to your heart, though, if he does?
it was my shudder at this
<
p>
<
p>Meanwhile my heart is stronger where it was broken, thanks for asking.
And I’m glad you decided to stay involved. But that’s more the exception rather than the rule.
<
p>What I take issue with is the oversell. Again, from the endorsement text:
<
p>
<
p>Sure, he can work on getting people more involved, but it’s never going to get to this level.
<
p>Because we are involved and spend hours thinking and writing about political issues as well as working for our candidates, we look at this differently than the majority of the people who are not as plugged in. I maintain an email list (like many here) to help keep people I know aware of political things that are going on and often to persuade them to see my views. The most common response I get is along the lines of, “Thanks for doing this. I don’t know how you find the time!”
<
p>So this whole thing about big citizenship, I believe, isn’t going to be an effective sell for most folks, at least the ones I know. They try to vote for the people who will do a good job and handle the details so they do not have to. “Aren’t you asking us to elect you to the Senate?”
<
p>While I think significant changes in the procedures and the ways in which business gets done in Washington are both desirable and necessary, your focus on what is good for DC and the rest of the country is misplaced. We are not electing the next Senator for process liberals across the country – we are electing the next Senator for Massachusetts.
<
p>I vote selfishly – by this I mean that I place an extremely high premium on what I perceive as a candidate’s ability to represent the needs of my district. This consists of three main elements: fighting for the political values of the people living in the district; securing earmarks and directing funding to worthwhile and necessary projects in the district; and, providing essential services to individual constituents who have been ignored or unfairly treated by governmental bureaucracies and have no other place to turn. This holds true for local, state, and federal offices.
<
p>The ability to do all three of these things effectively is contingent upon the ability to work within the current framework and guidelines of an institution, whatever that institution might be.
<
p>However, although Mike Capuano has demonstrated an ability to work effectively within the current system, he has also spent significant political capitol working to change that system and to make it more accountable and transparent. The ethics bill that passed in large part thanks to Capuano’s leadership is not something to be glossed over and dismissed as not enough. It was the most significant process reform Washington has seen in decades.
<
p>I am most disappointed in this endorsement because it seems to place more value in idealism than in what would actually be best for Massachusetts and for the people in Massachusetts who need government the most.