It’s no coincidence that people are debating Will Brownsberger’s stance on the issues. Will is the only candidate who is engaging voters with a real dialog about national issues.
Look at Will Brownsberger’s congressional website. http://www.willbrownsbergerforcongress.com/ There’s a rich conversation about the issues facing the country, and an invitation to join the conversation.
What about the rest?
- Karen Spilka: Just a photo and a Donate button. http://www.karenspilkaforcongress.com/
- Katherine Clark: Just a nice photo, a Contribute button, and a Get Involved button. http://www.katherineclarkforcongress.com/
- Carl Sciortino: A nice photo and a Donate button. http://www.carlforcongress.com/
- Peter Koutoujian: A very nice video in his kitchen, a field to sign up for campaign news and updates, and a Donate button. http://www.koutoujianforcongress.com/
Fifth district voters: what do you want from your representative? A pretty picture with a Donate button, or a deep conversation about the issues?
Please share widely!
I was just looking at the candidates websites and noticed the same thing. I’m sure the other candidates will put up links to issues but there is nothing up so far. One of Will’s strengths is his eagerness to discuss issues with people. Notice I don’t say constituents because I have never been able to vote for him before now. Despite that he has always been highly responsive.
When WIll represented 2 of Arlington’s 21 precincts, it was like he represented the entire town with passion and effort. I don’t agree with Will 100% of the time, but I really appreciate the quality of his representation.
While Will deserves kudos for being the first candidate to have policy matters on his website, I expect the other candidates will update there websites soon to include more information on policy matters. Right now the other sites just have placeholders that are not permanent.
If they don’t end up updating their websites then you have a right to hold that against them.
It might be a more accurate assessment to compare those early-in the race (first quarter like Brownsberger, Clark and Sciortino) and the two that entered in the second quarter.
Time worth spending might be checking out the Broadside series on the MA-5 candidates…if you can get past Jiim Braude interrupting himself and the candidates.
It’s not as if Ed Markey’s election to the United States Senate came as a surprise. All of these candidates have been active for several months. Are you telling me the other four candidates couldn’t come up with some sort of discussion of why they are running, or how they position themselves on the issues?
WIll Brownsberger sets the standard for engagement in public policy and meanful discourse about the issues.
All five candidates have voting records in the State Senate and House that can / do provide voters with a good initial view of their positions. As Massachusetts Legislators they have voted on a number of state issues that are being nationally debated right now (always nice to live in a state ahead of the political curve).
It will be interesting to see how the four current Senators/Reps vote on Governor Patrick’s vetoes in the next week.
Political campaigns should be more than cash-grabs. (I wrote about this during the Markey-Gomez race.) So, good for Brownsberger. He’s doing the right thing in this respect . . . With that said, people aren’t debating Brownsberger’s stances merely due to his willingness to engage in policy talk; it’s also due to the fact that some of his stances–like, as highlighted on this site, those pertaining to Citizens United and the Keystone XL Pipeline–are objectionable. (Side note. I was rather amused by his slippery, fallacious line regarding the latter: “The truth is what causes climate change is not taking oil out of the ground, it’s burning it.” Yes, but oil is being extracted so that it’ll be used. The one thing generally leads to the other, right (and thus, does impact climate change)?
For the record I am not a supporter of any candidate since I am not a 5th district voter and I’m not in the financial position to donate my money or the geographic position to donate my time.
That said, my first point is that Pablo is spot on. Will is an immensely thoughtful, engaging and progressive legislator committed to every one of his constituents. Like his former foothold in Arlington, North Cambridge was a small sliver and outside of his base of support but he still knocked on doors. It wasn’t even going to be in his Senatorial district that long but he went to bat for us before Pat Jehlen started going to bat for us. By being so upfront and transparent he has gotten himself mis-understood on Keystone and has taken a controversial position on Citizens United. And this has allowed the other four cheap and easy potshots to take it his expense. None of them have proposed anything positive on their own, none of them have offered what they would do differently, none of them have discussed whether they would take him up on the pledge or not. If they are so opposed to Citizens what harm is there in taking the pledge, and if they don’t take the pledge aren’t they more hypocritical than Will on this position?
This leads to my second point. There are some serious issues this Congress will face that are not being discussed. So far this conversation has been dominated by two issues, CU and Keystone, and the silence of the other four on what issues they are concerned about or how their experiences will shape this race does not benefit the campaign, the district, or even their own candidacies. After all, if all they do is blast Will and the four split the anti-Will vote it serves no greater purpose.
So I challenge all the candidates to talk about immigration reform, an issue sorely absent in our last Special Senate election and when that is incredibly important nationally and even regionally. Talk about Senator Warren’s efforts on Wall Street, will they co-sponsor in the House and could they get conservative support as she has. Talk about the red lines in the sand Rep. Capuano is courageously drawing, against his own party’s President, on the NSA and the erosion of civil liberties in general. Talk about the next phase of the gay rights battle. Talk about action to restore the voting rights act. Talk about the comprehensive climate change fight.
I am not bashing the other candidates or defending Will’s positions on those two controversial issues, I’ve defended his reasoning extensively elsewhere while disagreeing with his conclusions. But if all this race comes down to is one candidates position on two issues of the multitude this country is facing and this campaign is talking about its a big disservice. I give Will tremendous credit for getting out front and discussing all of his positions on the issues with the voters, and I give him props for doing so when most of them are hostile to some of his positions, again for the sake of clarity, positions I disagree with him on. But it would benefit, not hurt, any or all of the other four to discuss these other issues, and I want them all to come on BMG as Will did and discuss their candidacies and I will welcome them but also be firm in my questions.
Yes, they have VOTES to go by. And they have work web sites. And a personal web site is all positive. So, let the real debating begin. Comparing web sites is not a great way to start this race.
And: money does indicate supporters. Some support by volunteering or simply voting, some give money.
Finally: Senator Markey will be sworn in on Tuesday. He has not even resigned yet. The primary date will then be set and they are off and really running toward a deadline.
Some candidates may feel – as we all used to believe as a common courtesy – that it is disrespectful to “jump the gun.” We waited for the incumbent to die, resign or be elected before pronouncing intentions to take the seat.
They’ve clearly already declared their intentions to take the seat prior to the resignation. They simply haven’t chosen to do it in any substantive way. This being the case, I’m not sure that your supposition about professional manners/courtesy really applies here.
Professional manners/courtesy apply
I should have said, “your supposition [doesn’t apply]” IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. Of course manners should most definitely apply here at Blue Mass Group. I merely meant to point out that none of the candidates seemed to have any problem “jumping the gun” with a website declaring their candidacy. So why would you imagine that their scruples were stopping them from providing information on where they stand on the issues?
WRONG
WRONG
Have you watched the Braude interviews? As I have stated elsewhere, it’s hard to get a coherent question from Jim at times when he’s busy interrupting himself and his guests, but there were many different topics touched upon by the candidates.
Surveillance including closed judicial proceedings are very important topics. I have seen and heard one candidate address that with words and actions to my satisfaction.
I see two law and order candidates.
I see one with more experience and breadth.
I see one with expertise in communications/marketing.
I see one with high likeability/favorability.
I see two that seem establishment Ds with mostly progressive voting records.
I see two that are innovative.
I see one with a proven record of getting hard entrenched issues moved.
“Address those issues on their websites and field questions about them at BMG”
Like you stated, Braude interviews are not the best forums for educating one-self about a candidate. My fear is that Bernstein and others are calling Will’s honesty gaffes, clearly Helman treated them as such when he posted his Keystone comments, and my fear is that the other candidates will stay silent or generic and not engage in these kinds of issues on a forum like this one, they are certainly silent on their websites.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, this is the rare race where we get to pick the best rather than the least candidate and it’s especially important we hear from all of them and they all field questions here. I hope the reaction to Will’s statements has not scared them off, or emboldened them to stay ‘above the fray’ to be the safe choice. Any of these choices is a safe one, but only one can be picked. It will be easier for voters to determine for themselves who the best one for them is if we here from all of them here.
How could any progressive candidate resist the allure of BMG>!>!
I too, look forward to the campaigns coming to fruition.
Let’s put away the cleavers and invite them over.
Videos, Twitter, Facebook, Podcasts welcomed!
hartlanddem wrote:
Going on TV with Jim Braude is nice, but it’s not a real dialog with voters. Where do you see a commitment to listening and responding thoughtfully to the voters? Just one website.
are the voters engaging the candidates? There just isn’t a lot of traffic on Brownsberger’s site (or anyone else’s for that matter.)
The point is nobody can engage with the other four candidates’ websites unless they use their credit card.
voters are going to have to engage more otherwise the candidates will take the easiest path available. Its not like they are beating down the door over there at the “free” website.
There are plenty of opportunities for an interested voter to engage all the candidates (and they don’t require a credit card). If your only source of information is a candidate’s website you’re missing out on a lot of the race. With no primary date set there is time for all candidates to assemble and state positions on the complex issues Congress is attempting to deal with.
There isn’t even officially on open seat yet. As someone with no early-on leanings and who plans to spend his good-old time picking this race apart to figure out who to vote for (and that also means a nice break from actually working on a campaign – nice to be on the other side 🙂 ), I’m as likely to choose a candidate at this point because of the content of their web site or their posts here on BMG (although I appreciate the effort) as I am to rule out a candidate because of their positions on one or two issues.
The reasons are simple. In the former case, once the other candidates are more of a known quantity, I may find someone I like better. In the latter, I may find out they are all worse. 🙂
Pablo, if your intention is convincing someone like me, it isn’t working. Keep with the positive.
About the only prejudice (and I’m willing to call it that) I can define at this point is that there are no women from MA on the House side of our delegation and we have two female candidates in the race. It doesn’t mean I’ll end up voting for either, but that will be one of many things that go into my decision.
I agree with much of what you’ve said about the 5th District race, but we do have Rep. Tsongas (who has been a real leader on the military sexual assault issue lately) in our House delegation.
But I agree it’s great to see two female candidates making serious pushes for the seat and I think they should bring a good perspective to the race and either would make a good nominee. I also think both will be quite formidable.
Huge apologies to Rep. Tsongas. What an oversight!
and the embarrassment fading a bit, let me edit that comment:
there is only one woman from MA on the House side.
But the point remains the same.
I am pointing out that the website represents Will Brownsberger’s way of doing business and Will Brownsberger’s priorities as a candidate. Let me put into evidence Will’s senate website http://willbrownsberger.com/
The folks who are running have spent considerable time calling activists and raising money. Is it too much to ask, that six months after these folks started to solicit support, there would be some substance to their online presence?
You can ask all you want. Just don’t expect everyone else to feel the same. I’m not paying a whole lot of attention at this time, and that is more attention than most of the electorate.
And you were trying to use this as a wedge – how can you deny that?
The meaning of a communication is the reaction you get, and all that.
You have another candidate, with no track record on the issues, no stated positions, coming in and attacking Brownsberger for his stand on the issues? If making no statement on the issues is “playing it safe” and the way to a smooth primary win, we’re in deep trouble.
Nice try to change the subject.
If you want to post something pro-Brownsberger, just do it. This post looks really insincere: It sends the message (and you don’t even have to read between the lines) that you aren’t really interested in the views of the other candidates, you are just using the lack of information and interaction to this point as a weapon to wield. The innocent act is one thing that really drives people nuts about politics.
Note to Sen. Brownsberger: I do appreciate your communications efforts and I hope that the other candidates in the field make similar efforts. However, it won’t worry me if they don’t until Labor Day or so.
Curious as to what candidate you think has no track record on issues given that all the candidates served in the state legislature and currently hold elective office.
These days a lot of politicians -engage with the electorate online via social media like Facebook and Twitter instead of on their own websites. Corey Booker, one of the politicians best known for engaging with constituents online, seems to do so a lot on Twitter. If you want to evaluate candidates’ “online presence,” it is a pretty serious omission not to include their social media activity.
In addition, I agree with those who say it’s a bit early to start criticizing candidates on the substance of their campaign Web sites (I seem to recall similar criticisms of Elizabeth Warren’s early on).
you don’t get credit for putting it up earlier than the other candidates. I’ve met Mr. Brownsberger, and I really like him. However, my current understanding of his position on Keystone is a deal breaker for me. Maybe I’ve misunderstood. Maybe he’ll change his position to be unambiguously opposed to both Keystone and the proposed tar sands pipeline through New England. My hope is that both occur.
Go look at this map http://panamrailways.com/Maps/Map.pdf and check out that blue that runs through southern Maine and Massachusetts.
Those trains full of unrefined crude oil, heading for the big Irving Oil refinery in St. John NB, aren’t running through Lac-Mégantic right now. News reports talk about the trains running along the Pan Am Railways through southern Maine. Southern Maine leads to southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts.
Killing Keystone XL isn’t going to stop this oil production. It will just change the mode of transport for the oil. If you want to stop the use of dirty fossil fuels, the levers of change are elsewhere. Give me the guy who looks at the whole problem, rather than being distracted by the debate around a pipeline that has distracted folks from the real solutions to our fossil fuel addiction.
Thank you for pointing out the tar sands oil in Canada is being extracted, with or without Keystone. The oil is being moved by rail as we speak. I believe many here simply prefer “symbolism” over reality.
Even if something bad is happening one way or the other it doesn’t mean we have to be the ones enabling it.
We cut off our nose to spite our face? You want to stop Keystone (miss out on construction jobs and best management of the flow of oil) to just prove a point? End result is oil still flows out of the tar-sands, but at higher risk to public safety. Nice trade off to prove a point.
The Alberta tar oil is being transported by rail, traveling through Massachusetts. We are already enabling it. And the silly notion to suggest (not by you, by Stomv) that Pan Am Railways would have to reroute their tracks, in order to haul the oil cars, is ludicrous, never gonna happen.
For many months, perhaps years, people here tied blocking Keystone to stopping the tar-sands oil. That was a lie, reality is that tar oil is in our own backyard. Tariffs won’t work, isn’t that what NAFTA was all about?
Support Keystone, keep tar-oil out of Massachusetts. That’s the reality of it.
We take the high ground AND focus on sustainable job growth while not further raping and killing the planet in the process. Let others remain stuck in the 20th century if they must.
I don’t accept that as the only possible outcome. Canada may now prohibit large fuel shipments closer than X miles to towns. tUSA could easily do the same. At that point tarsands might not have pipeline nor rail as transit options.
This isn’t clear either. Pipelines have accidents too. Sometimes they don’t fail as spectacularly, but they often fail with far more spilled, causing a larger environmental catastrophe.
Indeed. They likely wouldn’t re-route their tracks. They simply wouldn’t ship the oil. No pipeline, no rail, no market for tar sands oil. That’s the whole point, and it’s exactly why taking the high ground, as christopher suggests, is both morally preferable *and* can yield the preferable results (not using tar sands for oil).
What you are hoping for is a five card flush, with all the stars in alignment. Canada “may” do this, the USA “may” do that, and Pan Am Railways may not do this.
The PM of Canada is on the record, oil is being produced out of Alberta, end of story. Pan Am just spent millions upgrading their tracks in Maine, no way they will be prevented from hauling the oil cars. Is anyone in elected office or running for office, even considering this idea?
IMO, its the high price of oil that many here wish for, that is driving Canada to extract tar-sand oil. If oil was dirt cheap like it was under Clinton, perhaps it would not be profitable to develop the tar oil. Apparently, at these pump prices, it is, even if it means using the railroad.
Thanks for the comment.
to prevent the environment being flushed down the toilet, so be it.
Politics change, both north and south of the border. Given the damage that the fuel train caused, maybe Canadian politics will change. Maybe the Northeastern states will have the ability to add restrictions making it impossible there*. What we do know is that if Keystone XL is built, there will be two distinct options for shipping that carbon out. Without Keystone, there is only rail. Those are the only two ways you’re shipping that much oil from inland.
It’s true that high prices for oil make tar sands attractive, because tar sands are far more expensive to extract than traditional drilling (onshore or off). But it’s also true that the more expensive it becomes to extract the oil from tar sands, the less of it will be extracted. By making shipping the stuff more expensive, it keeps more of it in the ground.
P.S. Most folks around here wish for higher priced oil via taxes. This way the use is less, the people (not the few) get the added revenue, and it doesn’t induce tar sand extraction. However, just as Clinton couldn’t (and didn’t!) do much to keep the price of oil low, BMGers can’t do much of anything to drive the price up. So, the “wish” of the people around here isn’t really relevant to the price of oil.
* I have no idea to what extent rail regulations are state-by-state or federal
My comment is most people on your side of the issue, want higher prices through both taxes, and cutting the supply (ANWR, tar oil, no drilling permits for Atlantic coastline). And I am a cynic of politicians, who would say I would get back the money paid in extra gas taxes, but I totally understand, and respect your opinion.
Question is this. I just paid $3.66 per gallon today. Ideally, what would be your dream price of a gallon of gas?
ideally, my price would be infinite. As in, no longer sold because our transportation needs are being met without carbon emissions.
The disinterst in ANWR, tar oil, and the Atlantic coastline doesn’t stem from the impacts on supply. It’s entirely based on the way the extraction happens. In the case of ANWR, the land is very fragile and home to very photogenic mammals, and ANWR pipelines and trucks wreak havoc on the landscape.. In the case of tar oil, the carbon emissions per gallon of gasoline are substantially *higher* than other oil plays. In the case of the Atlantic, folks don’t want to look at the rigs and they don’t want to risk a spill.
All are reasonable concerns and aren’t based in reducing supply, but rather avoiding particularly damaging impacts on the environment due to the extraction.
IMO, the environmental movement should have offered one of the oil fields up for development, most likely ANWR. That would show its not no-no-no to oil drilling. Seems like you can find a reason to say no to oil drilling just about anywhere.
Since we still need oil, what would your ideal price for gasoline be in 2013 for the US driver?
Firstly, if it were cheaper by rail, they’d want to use rail instead of Keystone. If rail is cheaper, that makes it possible that, at least some of time time, it will be just too expensive to do at the moment. Any delay is good in my book. Therefore, any extra cost in getting tar sands to market is a good one. Throw on some tariffs, some environmental permitting, some carbon pricing, just keep piling on the costs until its uneconomic.
Secondly, my suspicion — I haven’t done the research — is that, in terms of environmental pollution, pipeline spills are far worse than rail car spills. In a clear sense, the limitation of a rail car spill is straightforward, but a pipeline can spew for an awfully long time before it gets stopped.
But wait, you say — look at the loss of life caused by the fuel fire in Canada. Pipelines would avoid that! Probably. But so would simply not running fuel that close to towns, even small ones. What? But the rail line goes through towns? Tough. Build your own rail line to go around them.
Preventing Keystone XL won’t stop climate change. But not preventing Keystone XL is an even worse outcome, because it ensures that the tar sands are economic for a greater range of oil prices.
I always hate the argument ‘hey this bad thing is happening anyway, why not just let it happen?’
The truth is, they are building the pipeiline to make it cheaper to transport oil. The more expensive and the harder it is (i.e. railways, trucks, etc), the more viable real alternatives are. The pipeline coming in just sets wind, solar, even natural gas, and any other energy source implementations back several more decades.
I’m surprised to see so many people on BMG supporting Keystone or even not caring. Making it harder for oil drilling seems like a pretty clear environmental stance. It’s not like people need to take my word for it, it’s been the default position of pretty much every environmental group who has looked into it.
That is the fairest and most honest criticism I’ve read thus far regarding Will’s actual stated position. You also proposed viable solutions that could actually work, I honestly hope Will and his oopponents can see this specific argument since it perfectly frames the issue. I suggest you make this its own post, a far smarter way to talk about this than Helman’s simplistic attack.
… as is often said, the truth hurts, does that mean that everything that hurts is the truth?
No. It does not mean that. But that’s the postulate behind the opening gambit of an ‘honest conversation.’ The idea, apparently, being to say things that are unpalatable, painful even and then to hide behind the veneer of ‘honest conversation’ as though performing some form of chemo on the body politic: a racing of poisons in the hopes of performing a cure, or at least getting past the post before anybody really notices.
But the game has been given away already: The truth that hurts so much is that our future is bleak if we remain dependent on oil. This is a truth that, on it’s very own, refutes and repudiates Keystone XL and anybody who does not stand against Keystone stands against this truth. Keystone creates many more problems than it purports to solve, and that it is a solution at all is very much in doubt: At best, Keystone XL is only the easiest fix for the shortest of short terms and the very best we can hoper from it is the worst, most baleful, embrace of long term problems. If we are really discussing, honestly, our future, we should look to the present to ensure we’re not creating more problems than we solve.
Or, put another way, embracing Keystone, or just failing to stand against it, is the beginnings of a dishonest conversation when looking to our future.
It’s worth a second look:
http://www.karenspilkaforcongress.com/