http://www.nationaljournal.com…
While we’ve already debated this endlessly, supporters of other candidates should feel free to pitch their candidates in the comments now that I don’t have one. I’m especially interested in hearing from would-be Frank supporters about who you’re going with now that he’s out.
Please share widely!
As I soon suspect will be the case with the entire Congressional delegation sans Capuano. This is because to enter the primary they would have to forgo their own re-election. So far the only candidate who seems ready to move on from the House is Capuano who has publicly broken with Pelosi and seems eager to begin his Senate race. His aspirations have always been for beyond the House, whereas if Democrats regain the majority, there are Chairmanships waiting for both Frank and Markey. Tierney is out due to his wife’s scandal, and McGovern, I suspect, is going to stay put and wait for more seniority or maybe a future leadership position.
…but considering even I had to think for a second to remember what his wife’s scandal you refer to was, I doubt it would be much of a factor.
Endorsing Guy Glodis is something no progressive would ever do.
or supporting Hugo Chavez in my book
with nothing to back it up
I’d love to see Frank run, but ’tis not to be.
<
p>I expect our main candidate slate, following the pattern of recent Mass. Democratic primaries, will be:
<
p>- The DC Insider
– The Boston Insider
– The Bored and Rich Candidate
– The Consummate Inspiring Outsider
<
p>Names may vary, and there may be competition to gain one of these slots. However, the people here probably already know which of these they’d support…
…which generic label I would support. The candidates in the Senate primary were obviously Capuano, Coakley, Pagliuca, and Khazei respectively, but I don’t know how other races fit.
<
p>For now my own pick is Marty Meehan, but I don’t know if he’ll run.
I hope to god not. Anybody but Meehan! No offense, Christopher. đŸ™‚
Almost always voted the way I liked. Made some big plays on things like tobacco and campaign finance. There’s local pride involved too, plus he has the resources to beat Brown.
That’s a no-go for me.
A vote to give POTUS authority to act based on determinations we thought at the time would be made in good faith, before so much of how wrong so many people were, and that was taken several years ago should not automatically and forever disqualify someone from further political ambition. That vote passed overwhelmingly as I recall so you’ve just counted out lots of good elected officials. This is starting to feel as ridiculous as refighting the Civil War or Vietnam.
It only disqualifies them as long as there are good elected officials out there who voted against it interested in running against them.
<
p>”Almost everyone else was wrong too” is not an excuse. Plenty of people were right. It was obvious to those who were paying attention at the time that the President was lying, but most decided to do the wrong thing to help their political ambitions. I can forgive that, but I can’t forget it.
<
p>Meehan is only as bad as the average Congressman, you’re right. But when there’s a candidate available who showed judgment and courage superior to that of the average Congressman, why settle for average?
<
p>The last I heard, Mike Capuano is still interested. While I’m not impressed with his campaign skills, I am impressed with his voting record, and would vote for him over someone who voted for the war.
To go to war is to take an action that will knowingly kill scores of innocent people. It is one of the most terrible things mankind can do.
<
p>There were good people at the time who recognized this, and those people who happened to be in Congress did the right thing.
<
p>Knowing that a person would go to war as carelessly as Congress did back then is a pretty big mark against them in my book, and they do not deserve to hold public office.
<
p>Actions have consequences.