I am happy to see that Representative Jason Lewis has decided to acknowledge newly-sworn Congresswoman Katherine Clark, now that she is a known winner. Especially since after Katherine Clark went out on a limb to endorse Lewis when he was a complete unknown,
JASON LEWIS CHOSE NOT TO SHOW KATHERINE CLARK THAT SAME RESPECT.
As many men do to women candidates behind the scenes, when Jason Lewis had the opportunity to support this progressive woman candidate as she ran for State Senate and sought his support in 2010, instead Lewis rewarded Clark’s support by endorsing her OPPONENT in the race, Mike Day. Then very recently when Clark faced long odds in the congressional primary, Lewis refused to endorse Katherine Clark, despite being from the same region of the district and instead Jason Lewis remained neutral.
In sum, Jason Lewis has GIANT GONADS to shiftily slide into a supposedly graceful recognition of Clark at the very top of a statement here on Blue Mass Group. I am sure that Katherine Clark will show more grace toward Lewis than he has shown toward her. I do not know Jason Lewis, and if any of this is in any way inaccurate, I invite him to please tell me.
Jason didn’t endorse Mike Day in 2010.
In my book, it is in fact very gracious and sportsmanlike to congratulate the person who won a race, even if that person was not your own choice. I see nothing wrong with any of what you allege.
Endorsements shouldn’t be a show of respect, or a favor to be traded back and forth, that makes them essentially useless.
This line is rather creepy:
To quote Jason Lewis: “First, I just want to
Congratulate Congresswoman-Elect Katherine Clark (it feels great to type that out!) on her victory.”
It feels great to type that out? Really? Does that mean you do not fight for your convictions since you never lifted a finger to help her? – or just that you are shamelessly glomming on at this late date? I contend the latter. Call me a grouch. I want historical transparency. Nothing more. Thank you.
Let me get this straight. Ms. Clark’s primary opponents, with maybe one exception, pretty much shared her convictions and Jason Lewis’ convictions. The Republican opponent lost by two to one.
It would seem to me that “fighting for one’s convictions” — to the extent that that means anything beyond the base tribal loyalty so colorfully advocated by our sharp-elbowed diarist — it does not mean working hard for one candidate rather than another in the CD-5 primary.
I see. So in your view, as long as candidates have a similar ideology, loyalty, grunt work, endorsements, building regional cohesion, and integrity with regard to one’s own recent political actions are all out of bounds as considerations. Understood.
And while I’m at it, it’s high time we called out those on the left who resort to this kind of elitism: “We of greater knowledge than thou base our political preferences purely on ideological and policy considerations.” That’s called malarkey where I come from. And by the way, that kind of thinking does not generally result in great accomplishments for the common person. I refer you to Lyndon Johnson vis a vis Adlai Stevenson. Thank you.
This is just an incoherent muddle, dermotyair.
A rational person engages in politics to change policy because policy affects people’s lives. One oughtn’t engage in it to express loyalty because that only affects a few individuals’ lives. Policy preferences are and remain a rational calculation.
On the other hand, anyone’s success as a politician depends keenly on his or her ability to translate political positions into emotional appeals — because that’s how we humans operate. Adlai Stevenson was not so good at that. As a candidate, neither was Mike Dukakis. That has nothing to do with how Stevenson, Johnson, or Dukakis traded favors with fellow politicians.
*
Might I point out, by the way, that it is ironic to be complaining about “the left” (whatever the hell you mean by that) lecturing people in the middle of lecturing people?
So please, by all means lecture away. I invite you, though, to think through what you are asserting with a bit more care.
Never heard of you before, but thanks for showing up. It would have been nice if your first post was original rather than a takedown, one with several ‘facts’ you have yet to substantiate. EB3 seemed to imply Lewis was bad news too and you and he share not only similar convictions but similar writing styles too!
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2006/01/facts-about-senator-jarrett-barrios/
That’s a style I find unattractive.
Wonder if he control F’d to replace Barrios with Lewis. Also very strange habit of showing up around primary time to bash competitors and challenge progressive bona fides.
There was more than just one anti-Barrios post. In one, our diarist emphasized how Barrios did “play well with others”. One gets the sense that there is an abiding interest in how legislators relate to one another on a personal level.
Thinking of Ted Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren, there’s something to be said about electing legislators who are capable of forming personal bonds with other members. We rarely hear about legislators who possess the opposite attribute.
Too soon?
are the preferred terms in this context.