We’ve got two big elections coming up in these parts: tomorrow is the primary in the Fifth Congressional District that will very likely determine who will be the next Member of Congress from Massachusetts. And in a few weeks, Boston elects its first new mayor in two decades.
We’re quite fortunate in both of these races. All of the major candidates running are excellent. But choices must be made, and endorsements must be written up. Here’s mine for the Fifth District; I’ll post on the Mayor’s race shortly. Please note that this endorsement is only for myself. Bob has endorsed Katherine Clark, and Charley is for Carl Sciortino.
Karen Spilka for Congress
This primary field really is an embarrassment of riches, so let me preface this endorsement by saying what many others have said: I will happily and enthusiastically support whoever wins tomorrow’s primary, and I will be happy to have any of the candidates representing me in Congress. I hope and expect that the candidates themselves and their supporters feel the same way.
So the task of figuring out which candidate to support is one of zeroing in on the small areas of disagreement among the candidates (some of which have been discussed at length here and elsewhere), and of drawing on some of the less well-known aspects of their track records as an indication of how they’d fare in Congress.
Having done that, I’m voting for Spilka. I’m frankly a bit surprised by this, since of the five major candidates running in MA-5, she is the one about whom I knew the least at the beginning of the race. But Spilka’s legislative record is quite impressive. She’s been in the legislature for a dozen years, and she’s done some great stuff while she’s been there, in addition to the life insurance reform known as “Jenny’s Law” (the subject of her TV ad). A lot of her achievements have come on unsexy issues like CHINS reform, bringing bus service to MetroWest via the MetroWest RTA, advocating for people with disabilities, and even looking out for pets and service animals during natural disasters and other emergencies. That stuff – sometimes more than the headline-grabbing stuff – can make real, positive difference in the lives of people who don’t have other options.
Spilka is part of the leadership on Beacon Hill (she is majority whip in the Senate). In general, there’s nothing wrong with that – Senate leadership, perhaps moreso than that of the House, has overall (with exceptions) been pretty good on progressive priorities, and Spilka’s progressive bona fides are comparable to anyone else in the race. But, importantly, she has cast big votes that were contrary to the wishes of leadership, as well as to labor, another of her major constituencies; most notably, she voted against the final casino bill (though she’s not unalterably opposed to casino gambling – she did back an earlier version of the bill). The MetroWest Daily News focused on the strength of her legislative record in its endorsement of her. And as for the Globe’s patronizing dismissal of her legislative record as “pieced together within the friendly confines of Beacon Hill,” which somehow makes her “less prepared than some of her opponents to make the leap to Washington,” I frankly find that “analysis” to be laughable, and painfully unaware of how things actually get done (or don’t) on Beacon Hill.
Spilka seems to me to be someone who will be a strong big-ticket progressive in Congress – she has been as clear as any other candidate in the race about refusing a “grand bargain” that would reduce Social Security benefits, for strengthening gun laws, for backing women’s rights, and so on – but who also understands and knows how to pursue the smaller-ticket stuff that will positively impact the lives of her constituents. And that seems to me a pretty good brief for a Member of Congress (particularly one who is going in as a member of the minority party).
Also, she’s Jewish. What can I say, it’s a plus for me. 🙂 And she showed a sense of humor in her amusing “Welcome Letter to the Republican National Committee” that she posted here on BMG when the RNC visited Boston back in August.
As I said, the other candidates are all very attractive for reasons on which their partisans will happily hold forth. I’m only going to note here why I’m not backing them, but please don’t take that as an indication that I don’t otherwise think they’re terrific – I do.
Will Brownsberger’s iconoclastic positions have received a great deal of discussion here, and I won’t rehash all of it. I am not especially bothered by his view on Citizens United for two reasons: first, he is right that at least some of the proposals to “fix” the decision via constitutional amendment would do more harm than good; but second, and more importantly, let’s face it: there isn’t going to be a constitutional amendment on anything in the foreseeable future. The chances of two-thirds of the House and Senate agreeing on what day of the week it is, much less anything of substance that is remotely controversial, are virtually nil, and the prospect of a constitutional convention is (or, at least, should be) too terrifying for either side to seriously entertain. However, his willingness to accept chained CPI as part of a “grand bargain” on entitlement reform, to consider delaying Obamacare for a year to placate insurgent Republicans in the ongoing mess, and otherwise to appease (to use an overly loaded word) a rump faction of an already extreme party suggests to me that his approach in DC will be too close for comfort to that of the Bipartisan Fetishist Club (otherwise known as the Globe editorial page) that drives me crazy.
Katherine Clark’s legislative experience is much shorter than Spilka’s – she’s been there only five years. Her campaign literature has been a bit one-note for my taste (even though the note she’s been playing is an important one). And, while I understand that the EMILY’s List mailers that seemed designed to mislead the casual reader into thinking that Elizabeth Warren had endorsed Clark were not Clark’s fault or responsibility, her silence on them was disappointing. Relatedly, while I think it’s quite possible that the Globe editorial board heard what they wanted to hear from Clark on the topic of a “grand bargain” instead of what she actually said, she could have cleared it all up by disavowing that part of the Globe’s endorsement. Instead, again, she has remained basically silent (her statement to BMG didn’t exactly clear things up), even as one of her opponents (Sciortino) aggressively fundraises against her on the premise that she told the Globe she’d support a “grand bargain.” Sometimes your “friends” in politics say or do things that you don’t approve of, or that misstate your views, and it’s a mark of strength to call out your friends when they do so. That’s much harder than calling out the other side.
It just seems to me that Peter Koutoujian hasn’t set out a compelling raison d’etre for his candidacy. Yes, he wants to go to Congress to back the same progressive priorities that everyone else does, and I have no doubt that if elected, he’ll be a thoroughly reliable vote. But, really, why him rather than someone else?
Finally, as great as he is on many of the issues, Carl Sciortino’s decision to essentially hire the Washington, DC-based Progressive Change Campaign Committee to launch an online blitz of anti-Clark negative ads left a bad taste in my mouth. Even though it appears that the move was, technically, consistent with the People’s Pledge to which all the candidates agreed, he really didn’t have to go there at all, and IMHO he shouldn’t have. Clark, as Bob correctly argued in his endorsement of her candidacy, is overall a solid progressive, whatever quibbles one may have with individual positions she has taken. The notion that a DC-based PAC advocating progressive priorities would go all-in against someone like her in a Democratic primary frankly makes me uncomfortable; the notion that one of her opponents would authorize that action, to me, doesn’t speak well of that candidate. Perhaps I am making too much of this incident, which after all isn’t worth more than a couple thousand dollars. But, like I said, the task in choosing between several excellent candidates is to find the small differences.
So, tomorrow, I will enthusiastically vote for Karen Spilka. I congratulate all the candidates on their campaigns, and, as I said at the outset, I will happily back the winner of tomorrow’s primary.
Spilka is good. She is my second choice.
No matter what happens tomorrow Mike Capuano will remain my Congressman. But I appreciate the thoughtful comments you have made regarding the strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates. I agree 100% with your full throated defense of Will Brownsberger’s legislative accomplishments while also highlighting the real (rather than imagined) liabilities he would bring to Washington. As I said elsewhere, anyone, who at this point in time, conceives of a grand bargain with Republicans as a bargain that will be fair and balanced is frankly too naïve to enter that partisan jungle and fight on our behalf. It pains me to say that as someone who strongly supported him as my state rep, state senator, and tried drafting him to run for higher office in the past. I am hopeful he will find something local that might suit his skillset better and this primary will raise his name recognition and profile.
I also agree with your statement about Clark, and would add the troubling inconsistency not just on CPI but on her voiced support for Amash-Conyers and the bill she sponsored on wiretapping. She has strong and impressive support across the district, from activists and elected officials I respect in Cambridge and on these forums. But, like Brownsberger, not as prepared for the big show.
I think Peter has done a great job as sheriff and am surprised he has run one of the weakest campaigns in terms of substance. He is still my darkhorse if he gets his base out, and I’d be happy to back him (or any of them) as the nominee but I expect to be voting for his re-election to his current post down the road, or perhaps as a more fitting role as an AG or DA.
Lastly, I too am deeply troubled by the tone and direction of Carl’s campaign particularly as he had one of the most positive and inspiring ads in the race.
Spilka is someone I have heard little from in this campaign, but I generally like her record, her substance on the issues, and she seems less naïve than Brownsberger and doesn’t have the negative campaign mud that has afflicted Carl and Clark’s campaigns. While I have no vote, I think your arguments for her candidacy are quite persuasive. But I will just say I have no favorite and will gladly support the nominee.
After he spent the entire primary fighting his opponents and not moving an inch, I think we can put to rest any notion that Brownsberger is a pushover by anybody – especially by people molded in the ideological vein or playing the ideologue just for TV.
Brownsberger’s problem is that he is annoyingly principled, and he keeps refusing to take the usual short cuts and to speak in the time honored sound bytes. He’s a wonk’s wonk, and will address any issue on its merits alone. My kind of guy – working by the seat of his pants.
Would Brownsberger be compromising?! I guess we each have a different notion of what it actually means to compromise.
Ted Kennedy was very liberal, and also looked for compromises with either friends or foes – in the process achieved more than most over his long career in the Senate. Was Ted Kennedy naive? Did he seek a grand bargain with the Republicans?
No, and not! He was a liberal lion, and he also got things done, within the isle if possible, and across the isle if needed. He serves as a good model for who we need to elect on Tuesday.
spilka has a great record on labor issues and has had a distinguished careeer thats why it shocked me that Clark got the globe endorsement when age just became a state rep as early as 2008
and she certainly illustrates the dysfunction of Emily’s List. So, whey did Emily’s List choose Clark over Spilka? The answer is simple. A couple of the local major donors to Em’s List personally like Clark better! Basically, Em’s List chooses its candidates like membership to a sorority. You have to be liked by the right people!
Disclosure: I am supporting Peter Koutoujian
If I recall correctly Clark was among those lining up support before the Senate election and I don’t remember Spilka doing the same. Remember EMILY stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast, so they may have wanted to jump on the first candidacy that met their prochoice Democratic woman criteria to provide the early money. You may be correct about the donors, but can you prove that or are you just speculating?
The proof is right here on BMG!
…as the major donor to EMILY’s list who has also endorsed Clark?
.
If you look back to 2007 FEC data…
http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/DisplayReport.aspx?pdf=true&reportId=78552
You see that Swanee Hunt, her then-husband Charles Ansbacher, and Barbara Lee were early supporters of Katherine Clark before she was even announced as a candidate, giving what I believe is the maximum contribution. Now look at early in 2013:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/massachusetts_cambridge_02138.asp?pg=5&cycle=14&mode=s
You can see three $2600 donations from the same two individuals, Lee and Hunt. People in foundation circles at that level all know each other and what David said is absolutely true, if you get in with that crowd doors will be opened for you.
Google emilyslist “donation-template” — and then you will see info on two September 30 receptions organized for Emily’s list, concurrent with the last 3 weeks of the 5th CD campaign.
I want to dislike your comments since they smack of unfounded conspiracy theories but I find it rather odd Emily’s List endorsed in this primary. I guess they thought Clark was the more electable between the two? It seems rather corrosive and destructive to have so many progressive groups pick sides in a primary and run negative ads against other candidates especially when they all have stellar records on choice, women’s issues more broadly, and solid progressive voting records.
It makes sense for the LGBTQ community to back Carl over his opponents, not just due to his own visibility as a gay statesmen but also because he defeated an anti-equality candidate in a real shoe leather campaign early on in the marriage equality debate and showed moderate democrats that they had to come down on the side of equality. That small primary had national ramifications and certainly contributed to keeping equality off the ballot in Massachusetts.
But the PCCC and Emily’s List endorsements seem like a tremendous waste of activist resources and time, and make me less likely to endorse them. I had issues with Emily’s List in the past already (I’d strongly argue they contributed to 2010 defeats in several key districts and gave us Scott Brown), but liked what PCCC was trying to do. We need a left leaning pressure group. But PCCC should be backing the Markey’s against the Lynch’s and the de Blasio’s against the Quinn’s-it shouldn’t be picking among progressives. Whoever wins, both groups have just tarnished themselves in MA.
I think formatting screwed this one up, but to clarify the ‘your’ refers to Bluewatch’s comments not David’s or Christopher’s responses.
…how EMILY’s List gave us Scott Brown. Trickle-up made reference to this too. Are you saying they should not have helped Coakley? In other districts are you saying they got unelectable Democrats nominated a la a Christine O’Donnell or a Sharon Angle on the Tea Party side? I’m not sure they have that much clout.
I’m not the least bit surprised PCCC went for Sciortino, though they do poll their members to make a decision. He has carved out the true believer niche in this race which tends to be what attracts the PCCC.
They made her focus exclusively on abortion, even in the general, when the campaign should’ve been fought on the economy and jobs. They crowned her the nominee, called her Madame President, and feted her at DC Soirees when she should’ve been getting cold outside of Fenway. They made her focus on the only issue where Brown could come across as palatably moderate, instead of the economic issues where he was way to the right of the Weld-Cellucci mold.
Case in point, Warren focused on jobs, the economy, and stopping corporate power and won handidly. Coakley stepped in it on conscience clauses and the Hyde Amendment getting a lot of pro-lifers who would’ve sat out to back Brown.
The MI 1st would still be in Democratic hands had they not bullied Bart Stupak (hate his amendment all you want, a reliable 70-80% vote for Dems) for their preferred candidate who ended up losing the nomination in a bruising primary that has led to a no name Tea Partier occupying the seat. Probably forever now thanks to post 2010 redistricting.
Instead of taking a firm stand for pro-choice women against the corrupt and by that point mentally unstable Jesse Jackson Jr, they stayed out, only coming back when Robin Kelly ran to replace him.
They bungled local issues by nationalizing races in NH, and arbitrarily picked between progressive women up there like they did with Clark down here.
They strongly tried to get a pro-choice Republican to switch parties to run against Casey during his 2006 bid. Had they been successful it is likely Rick Santorum would still be in the Senate.
I respect Babs Mikulski tremendously, and the goals of the organization, but it’s single issue focus and single minded pursuit of it’s mission sometimes clouds it’s political judgment. It also picks some lousy candidates sometimes.
Do you mean to say that LARGER DONORS HAVE MORE INFLUENCE IN A FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATION?1?1?
What the hell has happened to this country?
you have already turned your head and looked the other way when it came to election financing. I thought it was interesting that your position was modified to “negative” ads when Walsh had outside group drop a million dollars for a mayor’s election.
That’s about the entire amount a candidate would hope to get in donations on their own and you look the other way. This is classic trying to buy an election.
Why can’t Walsh share his vision and have the voter decide?
Good luck with your endorsement.
I wish Walsh had handled the outside money thing differently. But, the fact is that he didn’t sign an agreement.
I can’t recall anything positive that you’ve said about Connolly in this race; just negative things about Walsh. That’s OK, obviously, but why not write up why you’re backing Connolly?
I did say that I thought Walsh would win the day after Walsh and Connolly were the finalists. Plus, in general I thought highly of Walsh.
But it’s the small things that sometimes show the character of a person. The breakfast thing really bugged me as well as how flippant Walsh was about trying to buy his way to an election.
The Aaron Sorkin type posts didn’t help, so I started highlighting what I thought were areas of concern. The response here was unfortunate and I didn’t handle it well.
It’s true that he didn’t sign the pledge, but that doesn’t mean that we should look the other way. I think people can make their own decision on that. Also, people can think a little about why does he not want to stand for himself and run his own campaign with his own message.
Something to think about.
I’m voting for Koutoujian for family reasons I’d rather not fully disclose, but Spilka is my strong second choice. I’d also happily support any of the five. Great field.
David, your endorsement is well reasoned and gives serious food for thought.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 is a good day for well reasoned decisions based on results.
Again, I thank BMG – the editors and all who participate here. This has been a lively run.
See you at the polls.