What’s happening out in Pittsfield with the Special Election to fill Rep. Chris Speranzo’s seat? Has the Democratic primary winner caused a bit of embarrassment for the Dems?
When Sen. Ben Downing and DSC Chair John Walsh hosted a unity event the day after the primary, it came as a surprise to most attendees to realize that they were being asked to support newly minted Dem. candidate Tricia Farley- Bouvier, a pro-life advocate and former teacher who prefers not to send her children to Pittsfield Public Schools. Sen. Downing claims not to have been aware of her pro-life views before the event. (Didn’t they wonder why MTA and NARAL endorsed her primary opponent so strongly?)
The October 18th special (and final) election, has 3 other candidates:
Independent/unenrolled candidiate- Pam Malumphy former Pittsfield City Councilor, a former Democrat who worked in the Patrick Administration’s economic regional office in the first term. She is pro-choice and pro-public schools. She has been active in county and state women’s organizations for decades and will garner support from pro-choice activists who are more than a little taken back by the Dem. candidate’s conservative views and the Dem. Party’s willingness to look the other way.
Green Party: Mark Miller is a smart but has no grasp on local issues and is an inept public speaker. (His family once owned the Berkshire Eagle, and he’s spending big to win.) He ran against Rep. Chris Speranzo last fall and got 45% of the vote because everyone was so ticked at Chris for running while jockeying for clerk magistrate job. This time, Mark has received some union endorsements (which don’t mean much in Berkshires), he is not getting the public support he thought he’d get.
Republican: there are so few Republicans in this district, that even with the worst voter turnout and all the money in the world, a Republican will never win the 3rd Berkshire District.
So my question is…if the Democratic Party Platform supports Pro-Choice, how can the party support Tricia Farley-Bouvier?
Wouldn’t it be better to either support the candidate that does support the Democratic platform position (the Independent, former Dem. Malumphy or the Green guy Miller? or support no one? When is it okay to look the other way? And how often can you do that without losing all credibility?
(Maybe Sen. Swan or John Walsh could respond as they certainly must have felt blindsided by Ms. Farley-Bouvier)
‘
Or the 12th Bristol District…
Or the 6th Worcester District….
Local enviornmental actvist Mark Jester – http://electmarkjester.com/issues/
(And David – Rob Eno doesn’t like ‘some of his views’ – how leftish is THAT?)
The difference between 3rd Berkshire and those other two districts is that both 12th Bristol and 6th Worcester have a mix of heavily Republican and heavily Democratic area allowing the Republicans to win them through uneven turnout. 3rd Berkshire is entirely within the City of Pittsfield. There is no Republican base to rally.
That being said, I think it is conceivable that the Republican could pull an upset, but only because of the four way split. No way Mark wins otherwise.
This time, it’s a four way split (ignoring the fact that the Democrats who voted in the primary deliberately chose the most conservative candidate).
Are you sure you don’t want to blame the tsunami, like Obama?
It’s ultimately up to Democratic VOTERS to choose the nominee.
There is no shortage of pro-life members who are Democrats. I seem to recall that Finneran made being pro-life a prerquisite for a leadership post, but I’m not sure.
The party doesn’t apply filters; if Farley-Bouvier ran as a Democrat and won the nomination, that is pretty much that, as far as party officials are concerned. There was the notable exception of Carlo Basile, who the Party objected to, but that didn’t work out well. It may have helped Basile.
I do not think you are accurate on your Finneran statement…he certainly was pro-life, but there was no requirement for his leadership to be…Finneran won the Speakership with the votes of many pro-choice female legislators who disagreed with his position on this issue. Agreeing to disagree was the fall back and no bill was ever brought to the floor which would weaken women’s right to choose while he was Speaker.
I stand corrected.
But my general point stands. There are a lot of pro-life legislators.
I love newborn babies and parenthood, but self-identified “pro-life” elements don’t actually do the work of caring for our American single mothers. One of the stupidities of self-proclaimed “pro-life” elements is flashing bumper stickers on their cars, which they most often drive alone, without even a fiancee. Then, when an American single mother juggles four children by herself elsewhere in our parking lot (I myself don’t know how they decide which two of their closely-aged children gets into their accessory car seats.), they surely do not give a flying prayer or care. Pro-life zealots harass young men with gory videos… chaps who they don’t even coach on how to share a joke with a young woman. “Pro-life” does not lead to full day kindergarten, but rather to corollary instead of axiomatic acts of sex. We the people deserve lifetimes full of memories, but “pro-life” proponents advance the spread of guns and ammo outside our United States armed forces (leading to tragedies in Virginia and Columbine, as well as the gipper-contra affair). I’ll be back…
.
For whatever reasons, the “pro-life” movement has LONG been aligned with the extremist right-wing Ollie North crowd.
I think the comment is referring to the way that the Reagan administration (strongly pro-life) sold illegal weapons to Iran (who was at the TOP of the US “terrorist nations” list at the time) in order to fund arms purchases to ship to an illegal war in Central America. The same crew used CIA-supplied aircraft to fly cocaine to the northeast, sell it, and use the proceeds to buy more illegal weapons that were flown BACK to Central America on the same CIA-supplied aircraft. There is a REASON why the first President Bush pardoned ALL the participants.
None of this was particularly secret, all of it was widely publicized, and the “pro life” movement has always ignored it. I think the hypocrisy of the “pro life” movement is striking, and their acquiescence to the criminal behavior of the Iran Contra crowd is a perfectly reasonable and accurate example.
Most of the pro-life advocates I know are in the thirties; many were unborn themselves when Iran-Contra happened.
Far from influencing their POV, they are likely unaware of Iran-Contra, let alone complicit or influenced by it.
(I remember the first time I told a young activist that Republicans originated the EPA – they thought I was crazy)
David, in answer to your query…I think I would support Malumphy the former Dem. who is running as an Independent…she best reflects the Democratic positions on key issues…and after she gets elected, we should pull her back into the Democratic tent where she belongs! As for pro-Lifer Farley-Bouvier, I think she is a Republican posing a Democratic.
I have no problem with voting for a pro-life Dem if they are solidly progressive on other issues. My biggest beef with Lynch was that he was pro-war and has recently turned anti-union and anti-healthcare reform, not that he was pro-life. There are also degrees of pro-life. Does she support banning 3rd and 2nd trimester abortions (with health exceptions) or does she want to ban the entire practice? The former is supported by most MA and American voters, the latter is quite extreme even for a pro-life Republican. Does she want MA to ban abortion in the event Roe v Wade is overturned? Those are the right questions to ask. Someones position, at the local and state level, on Roe v Wade is entirely irrelevant since she is not voting on Supreme Court nominees. If she supports defunding Planned Parenthood, abstinence only, and a host of other inept policies under the ‘pro-life’ umbrella than thats another story. So it really depends on how she defines pro-life and what she intends to do with it. As I recall Tommy Taxes used his bully pulpit to oppose marriage equality and stem cell research, not sure where else his social conservatism got into the mix, but the stem cell opposition was deplorable, especially considering how he shilled for the very same companies after leaving office.
I am starting to think that labels are becoming meaningless on this issue. I used to say, rather proudly on this site I might add, that I was pro-life, while always maintaining my support for Roe v. Wade. I felt that government could restrict, regulate, and promote alternatives to the procedure but that it shouldn’t ban it entirely because that would cause more problems than it would solve. But I now recognize most pro-lifers consider my opinions to be pro-choice so I prefer neither term. This is one issue, if not the issue where shades of gray are vital. To me, most pro-choicers tend to support federally and state funded abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy, and if opposing that position makes me or anyone else a conservative on the issue than I am afraid most Americans and Democrats, the Vice President, and the President are all quite conservative on abortion. If this woman is in the Joe Moakley/Bob Casey mold and not a Henry Hyde than I could easily vote for her as should any Democrat*.
*If she never disclosed her views before the primary though than her honesty and integrity should be questioned, along with her sincerity on other core issues. And if she lied than she should definitely be opposed.
I see nothing on her website indicating any stance on abortion, I also read her education positions and they seem to be in favor of more funding, capital improvements to schools, restoring local aid to municipal (note not charter) schools, opposing high stakes tests, and she specifically opposes the MCAS, and has over 25 years as a special ed teacher and consultant. So I am not sure where her anti-education record comes in. She went to a conservative Catholic college (Salve Regina) but so did other great Catholic liberals like John Kerry and Mario Cuomo (BC and Fordham respectively). So it seems that the burden of proof rests on the author of this post, who notably included absolutely no links to substantiate his claims.
http://www.triciafarleybouvier.com/issues.shtml
You want to talk about the actual issues that Pittsfield voters care about and not some narrow social wedge? What fun is that?
[this comment is in the abstract, not in the Pittsfield]
If a Green were elected to the LA lege, a few things would happen:
1. It would be the highest position a G-R would have ever held in MA
2. It would force the GR politician to either compromise or be irrelevant
3. It would raise awareness in the general public about the GR, and help them with voter registration, pushing them toward 1%
4. It might force the Dems to move left on envioronmental issues
Has she been vetted on her equality views?
This is not a new phenomenon. Remember how the true Dem Ned Lamont trounced fake Dem Joe Lieberman in the 2006 primary? Guess who the party was supporting, apparently because connections are more important to the party than being a Dem.
John Kerry was one of the few national-level Dems who stood by Lamont.
typos…
if there was a new term that I needed to know….LOL
Like so many things, Barney Frank has the most interesting way of describing situations like this. I once heard the congressman explain that there was only ONCE where he voted for a candidate whom he agreed with on everything. That was himself — the FIRST time he ran. He conceded that by the time he was running for reelection there were a few votes he wasn’t too happy about. I guess the point the congressman was making – and one I agree with – is there are many different factors voters take into consideration when casting their votes for a candidate. Our party is strong because Democratic primary voters are wise in their decision-making and we nominate and elect excellent candidates who hold a wide variety of positions on many issues. As a state party organization, we trust the wisdom of the people who make up our party on the ground and once they have chosen the nominee we do what we can to help them win.
The Democratic primary voters in Pittsfield had a familiar challenge: three talented Democrats running for this one open seat. They chose in Tricia Farley-Bouvier a woman who has worked hard for Democrats and Democratic causes for many years. She ran a grassroots, door-knocking, person-to-person campaign that would make anyone in the BMG community proud. Tricia and I don’t need to agree on every issue for me to be enthusiastic in my efforts to support her election. If the voters in Pittsfield agree, she’ll be a welcome addition to a very strong – and very Democratic – legislative delegation from the Berkshires.
Last week, I traveled to Pittsfield with two members of our staff for the event to kick-off the final election. Our staff has been in regular touch with Tricia and her team this week and I’m looking forward to being back in Pittsfield early on Saturday to help and would encourage any Democrat who is free to join Auditor Suzanne Bump as Tricia’s campaign kicks off a canvassing effort that will be crucial to her victory. [http://bit.ly/nCN12X]
It’s beautiful in the Berkshires this time of year.
John Walsh, Chair
Massachusetts Democratic Party
And leading is not the same as being in control, but rather it is taking responsibility from “the front”! Well said.
John, thanks for your response, I get your points. I am sure Farley-Bouvier is a good campaigner and good Democrat in many ways you describe. And the Party has to be with her as she is the Party nominee in this case. But, her pro-life position could result in an anti-choice vote in the legislature and for many Democrats that is not acceptable or a risk worth taking. For many women, in particular, this is a deal breaking position. For others i know, it may not be as important and they can more easily look the other way. Compromising a principle here, compromising a principle there, before you know it, you will accept just about anything in the name of victory. Where do we draw the line? i guess each person is left on there own for that…
It’s beautiful in the Berkshiress just about any time of year.
Does have any record of her pro-life position and what it means practically? That question has yet to be answered
Disclosure: I am Mark Miler’s campaign manager.
Regarding a woman’s right to choose, Mark Miller recently won the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. This came on the heels of the endorsement by the progressive coalition Mass Alliance and the Massachusetts Nurses Association. In addition to being pro-choice, Mark is the only candidate who is unequivocally in favor of single-payer healthcare. (In contrast, his Democratic opponent declared in a debate that single-payer would lead to hospital closures.) Mass Alliance, the MNA, the UAW, and Planned Parenthood based their decision not only on Mark’s stance on the issues, but also on his viability.
On October 18, Democrats in the Third Berkshire District have a simple choice. Either vote for the party’s nominee, or vote for the progressive, pro-choice, pro-single payer candidate: Mark Miller.