Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed two bills to weaken Dodd-Frank, undercut mortgage protections, and open the door to higher fees on borrowers.
The two bills were H.R. 650 “Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act” and H.R. 685 “The Mortgage Choice Act of 2015.”
Americans for Financial Reform wrote to Congress last week opposing these two bills:
H.R. 650, the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act of 2015, would make homeownership more costly for those who can least afford it. It would do this by raising the interest rate and points and fees trigger for protections under the high-cost mortgage protections of HOEPA for manufactured housing loans. This bill would not expand access to sustainable credit, but would strip away protections already created by Congress and implemented by the CFPB. If this bill became law it would permit an interest rate of close to 14% in today’s market for a 15- or 20-year loan on a family’s home mortgage without enhanced protections. In comparison, the going rate for traditional real-estate mortgages is currently around 4%.
H.R. 685, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2015, would reintroduce some of the high fees that borrowers faced in the lead up to the mortgage crisis, fees that the new mortgage rules were designed to prevent. It would create a loophole to the 3% points and fees threshold in the Qualified Mortgage (mortgage affordability) rules by excluding fees paid to title insurance companies affiliated with the lender. Increased loan fees would lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in needless mortgage fee expenses for each borrower on such loans, and encourage further price gouging in an already broken title insurance market.
Obama has already said that he plans to veto both bills if they reach his desk (here and here).
Yesterday morning, Elizabeth Warren took to Twitter to criticize the bills as signs of a failure to learn from the financial crisis:
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/588009475505844224
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/588009585774096386
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/588009679944601600
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/588009844076105730
https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/588010047503998976
The “Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act” passed 263 to 162. 22 Democrats joined the Republicans here.
The “Mortgage Choice Act of 2015” passed 286 to 140. 45 Democrats joined the Republicans here.
8 out of the 9 members of the MA House delegation heeded Americans for Financial Reform, Senator Warren, and President Obama and voted against both bill. But one–Seth Moulton (MA-06)–took the opposite route, voting for both. If you live in his district, you should give him a call.
gets it exactly right.
It’s Moulton’s constituents, not Senator Warren, who should give the talking-to.
I read it right here on BMG
…about his progressive credentials right here on BMG.
One of the things I like to do is provide opposition if there is none. I’m generally quiet if there’s already back and forth.
The general consensus (just checked) was that a vote Tisei was a vote for Boehner and a vote for Moulton was not.
In MA, unless he’s Tierney 2, he’ll be there for life so everyone will just have to get used to it.
…the speakership vote and everything it represented mattered. During the contested primary his progressive credentials were in doubt. That’s not necessarily a contradiction.
Richard Tisei would have voted against the bills.
Congressman John Tierney’s committee to re-elect had aired a high-definition television ad explaining Moulton donors (along with the rich Michael Bloomberg) includes a list of Republican special interests, political action committees and voters… such as established GOP bodies favoring continued loose scattering of firearms [which costs us the lives of American military men reporting to base locked down upon a Gunman opening fire and the lives of American school children and Hokie coeds].
*****
As he voted on House Floor,
his wife she fainted in North Shore,
and with tears her eyes were sore
Americans know why
Then he looked into her phone
Safari loaded up bluemass
said that he was a war veteran
but voted for Dewey Square.
After these votes, it’s worth watching the ad. Here is a link to YouTube.
Tierney was damaged goods, I have been saying that since 2010. We should’ve convinced a progressive to run in his place. He felt entitled to the seat even though he clearly lost the trust of the voters. He should’ve looked at 2012 as a gift and retired from the seat. Maybe we could’ve recruited Driscoll then. Otherwise, besides Driscoll and Moulton who is on the radar in the 6th?
Give me a name, an alternative, or a plan of action beyond complaining. Otherwise, an actual Republican who favors a far more conservative foreign and economic policies than Moulton and would have voted for social conservative leadership in the House would have won. That’s it. There was no outcome where Tierney wins, the voters resoundingly choose a clean alternative in the primary.
Charlie Pierce is as progressive as they come and loves Moulton. He really is with us 9 out of 10 times, and the 1 out of 10 times he is voting his district which is the least Democratic leaning in the state or his donor base which like it or not, is needed to defend our single swing district. Kos says elect the best Democrat you can get for the district, and Moulton is significantly more progressive than Tisei. That’s the choice.
John Tierney did absolutely nothing wrong. He was never convicted or indicted of any wrongdoing. He did not profit in any way from his office. There is no evidence that he ever misused the trust that the people placed in him.
Tierney was simply the victim of four years of constant negative ads. The negative ads came first from Tisei and second from Moulton.
At best Tierney was under an Ethics microscope and after a couple of years of scrutiny the House Ethics Committee gave their colleague a pass. But for the “average” voter he did not pass the smell test.
Dismissing this as four years of negative ads taking its toll, ignores the fact that Tierney, again-at best, created a lot of smoke for people to yell fire about. BTW, Moulton’s “attacks” were far different than Teisi’s, focusing on his congressional record and not his brother-in-law.
Tierney only got about 41% of the Dem primary votes…a clear signal that core Democrats abandoned him. And, as pointed out on this thread, Tierney went out thumbing his nose at his fellow Democrats–refusing to support Moulton in the general.
Tierney is no victim. And his post election behavior showed his true color and it was pretty ugly.
Judge Young said Congressman John Tierney is “not implicated in this in any way, shape, or form.”
The House ethics investigation found no basis for any action against Tierney. Incidentally, Tierney is not the only Mass. Congressman to face an ethics probe. Barney Frank received a reprimand from the House Ethics Committee.
I’m with pogo on this.
I don’t know Mr. Tierney, I don’t have a dog in the race now and didn’t while he was in office. The comparison to Barney Frank reinforces pogo’s case, rather eloquently.
After the reprimand from the House Ethics committee (which Mr. Frank accepted without whining, deception or spin), Barney Frank went on to CRUSH his opposition in election after election.
Barney Frank, because of his stance on issues, his gender preference, and his exuberant style of argument, was a lightning-rod for negative ads, right-wing attacks, and right-wing money raisers. All that rolled off him like water off a duck. His district loved him, his opponents despised him, he was a fabulously effective retail politician, and neither he nor his supporters never made excuses for anything.
Whatever the causes of Mr. Tierney’s political demise, Mr. Frank shows that those causes had far more to do with Mr. Tierney than with any external factor.
n/m
By comparison, the House Ethics Committee, under republican control, could not find any reason to reprimand Tierney.
Yet, Tierney is the one who got a primary opponent, and that opponent was supported by the Mayor of Wall Street, Michael Bloomberg.
And why did Bloomberg (and Wall Street) oppose Tierney and support Moulton in a primary? Well, Tierney played a major role in Dodd-Frank.
Nobody should be surprised that Moulton is voting to water down Dodd-Frank!
I’m still not following your argument.
Barney Frank was reprimanded in 1990. He easily won every every election since then until he retired in 2012. Those elections were sometimes contested by the GOP, sometimes not. The “Frank” in Dodd-Frank is named for Barney Frank, for crying out loud. Surely Wall Street was as unhappy with Mr. Frank as with Mr. Tierney — why did succeed in removing Mr. Tierney and fail to remove Mr. Frank?
In my perhaps overly simplistic view, the answer is glaringly clear — Mr. Frank was politically strong and Mr. Tierney was not. When I look at the obstacles facing the two men, it looks to me as though Mr. Frank had a much tougher row to hoe, and yet he did it time and again.
Sorry, but I’m not buying your pitch. I think Mr. Tierney was removed from office because the electorate preferred Mr. Moulton. To the extent that blame is to be apportioned, I think the lion’s share must fall on Mr. Tierney and nowhere else.
1. After playing such a significant role in financial reform, in 2010 Barney Frank had a difficult re-election, facing an extremely well financed opponent. In 2010, the total number of votes he received was the second-smallest in his career. (The smallest was 1980 when he first ran) The next cycle, in 2012, he retired, rather than face another strenuous election (his words).
2. John Tierney didn’t do anything wrong. It’s silly to point to a House Ethics Committee that, under republican control, could not find a reason to reprimand him. John Tierney faced an extremely well-financed primary opponent. Much of the money came from Wall Street.
3. Both Tierney and Frank paid a price for their efforts to regulate Wall Street.
And, yes, I realize that’s three things and not two.
The political demographics of the Fourth and Sixth Districts are sufficiently different that one really can’t compare Frank’s and Tierney’s political traction in ideological terms.
The difference was that Barney Frank was politically competent and Tierney was not, when it came to dealing with a political crisis. The 1989 Gobie scandal could have ended Frank’s career, but by addressing the issue and admitting fault Frank saved his seat.
However, I think Barney Frank’s District in 1989 was on the whole more tolerant and forgiving than the Sixth Congressional in 2014.
One of my favorite Barney Frank quotes – paraphrase actually – defined one’s base as “those people who are with you when you’re wrong”. By that definition, Tierney had an insufficient base.
Granted, it was Tierney’s wife and brother-in-law who were at fault in the gambling scandal that crippled him, but Tierney handled the matter in such a sloppy fashion that guilt by association was inevitable.
While a case can be made concerning who was the more progressive of the two in the abstract, the argument is irrelevant insofar as their respective political survival is concerned – except in the unsentimental sense that Barney Frank was a better politician, relative to his District.
Two observations:
1. When you suggest that John Tierney should have handled the matter better, and when you quote Barney Frank about “being wrong”, you are making an assumption. You are assuming that Tierney was somehow guilty. Have you considered the possibility that he’s telling the truth, and he didn’t know his brother-in-law was involved in Internet gambling?
2. Patrice was convicted in 2011, and, about 20 months later, John Tierney won his re-election battle. In that 2012 election, his district voted for Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren. So, I think John Tierney has good political instincts.
As to point 1 it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether he was personally guilty or not since he lost the publics trust after that point, was on the defensive and did little to win it back.
As to point 2, he had Obama on the ballot and a strong libertarian that drew a consequential amount of anti-incumbent voters away from Tisei. Either of those two off the ballot and Tierneh goes down. The fact that he lost his own primary by nearly 60% of the vote to an outsider with zero political experience prior to his run should show you everything you need to know about his complete vulnerability and unelectable situation. Last, Tierney had the example of his scandal plagued predecessor to think about and clearly failed to learn.
Point 1: I was not presuming guilt on Tierney’s part; I was thinking in terms of public perception. When a spouse and brother-in-law (in Frank’s case a romantic partner) are involved in a scandal, there are matters of guilt by association that Frank addressed competently and Tierney didn’t. The results were a sympathy bounce for Frank and negative public perceptions for Tierney.
Point 2: There is a tendency on the part of Massachusetts Congressional Democrats to presume a static electorate, ignore creating permanent on-the-ground organizations, and overemphasize media at the expense of field operations. It must be remembered that Tierney had no primary opposition in 2012, so that specific cycle is irrelevant to my point. However, in the absence of an organized support base (as defined by the Barney Frank rule), Moulton’s media campaign was sufficient to the task in 2014.
Had Tierney spent some time in 2011 – 2013 creating a town, ward, and precinct organization loyal to him in MA06, and created halfway effective voter ID and GOTV operations,the 2014 results might have been different.
So, while we can debate whether or not Tierney had good political instincts, I submit to you that he had limited political skills, based upon the only criterion I care about: getting re-elected.
…who made you the boss of me?
The Senator has expressed her ideas many times. Rep. Moulton is free to disagree with her analysis. And he is far from alone in that disagreement among Democrats.
“Seth Moulton—the Democratic congressmen Republicans love!”
Would be interested in knowing more about it than who is for or against.
Manufactured housing is generally significantly cheaper than regular real estate, so the closing costs–which don’t really change much, even though a loan may be for more or less money– are a greater proportion of the sum borrowed, which makes those loans “high cost.” If that status has actually slowed the manufactured home market relative to the rest of the real estate market, as it has rebounded, then that would indeed be a problem.
The choice was between Moulton and a Republican who would’ve voted this way-and likely been a lot less reasonable on issues like ISIS and Obamacare, places where Seth has already established himself as a solid liberal . Tierney wasn’t gonna be in office, had Seth stayed home we’d have a Republican Congressman in this seat. Can’t think of a challenger to the left of Seth that would be viable here. Driscoll has made it clear she doesn’t want to go to Washington, who else is there? Leave the purity tests to the fanatics on the right.
Contact him if you want. He doesn’t need to listen.
After all he came in by primary challenge.
I called my Congressman, Seth Moulton, today and gave him a spanking on those votes. Not him personally but his staff at the DC and district office.
I told them he got both the policy and the politics of this wrong. It’s Republican-sponsored, pro-Wall Street, anti-Main Street legislation. Opposed by Senator Warren and the entire MA Congressional delegation. Dah? Come on, Seth! Get with the program. Are you tone-deaf or what? How can you justify this vote? It looks craven – a cave-in to your big money backers, maybe?
Hillary is moving left on a progressive economic platform. Yesterday she called for an anti-Citizens United Constitutional Amendment to end the corrupting influence of dark money to “fix the dysfunctional political system.”
President Obama has pledged to veto this puke-sponsored bill. (H.R.65 & H.R.685) Call Congressman Moulton at his DC office (202) 225-8020 OR district office (978) 531-8020 and tell him he can rectify this ill-advised mistake by voting to sustain the President’s veto.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It wouldn’t surprise me if he took this vote knowing that it would be vetoed. Sounds like he’s looking to collect points with the right wing. He can vote to sustain the veto, and claim “all’s well that ends well”.
This was routine for many of our representatives for years around the anti-abortion issue (although those were more often voting against the delegation after it was clear the delegation would prevail).
and then vote to sustain the veto?
We look dumb screaming “primary challenge!” over just one bad vote-particularly when we have a lousy track record (Moulton a significant exception I might add) of seeing them succeed. Obviously if this continues to be a regular occurrence and we see eventual violations if the Reagan rule (don’t speak ill of your own party’s platform and candidates), then we need to consider it. It’s definitely a bad vote, but we can chalk it up to a rookie mistake if we make our voices loud enough for the next round. One things for sure-we won’t be caught off guard again.
Meant to upvote, but clicked on the wrong button.
How often does this happen? Quite a bit.
The buttons either need to be further apart, or you should be able to undo your vote.
I only use a standard computer and I’m pretty sure it hasn’t happened to me yet. I agree it should be reversible.
Just looked at OpenSecrets. Seth Moulton received hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions from securities and finance industries.
You can expect Moulton to vote favorably with Wall Street a lot more times.
After all, when Wall Street buys a politician like Moulton, then they own his votes. Remember, Wall Street always gets a return on its investments.
… but Scott Brown won the MA06 Congressional District by a comfortable margin in 2012 ( 53.62% – 46.38%).
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have much in the way of grassroots political leverage within the District insofar as Congressional politics are concerned.
In 2012, while voting for Scott Brown, the citizens of MA06 re-elected John Tierney. In that election, Tierney withstood significant negative attacks that were funded by Wall Street . It’s important to remember that, working with Warren, Tierney played a major role in supporting and passing Dodd-Frank.
So, Wall Street has a long memory. A significant amount of Wall Street money flowed into Moulton’s campaign.
I am stating, however, that it will require some serious and systematic bottom-up organizing.
I am also saying that it is unfair to Senator Warren presume that she should attempt to do the job that in-District progressives should do for themselves.
High presidential level turnout and a successful libertarian nominee who got a significant chunk of the vote. Neither President Obama nor Senator Warren nor the libertarian were on the 2014 ballot. Charlie Baker-who did win the CD-06 was, as was his 2010 Lt. Gov nominee. The fact that Tierney got clobbered by a primary challenger to his right in Massachusetts should demonstrate that he was a fairly weak incumbent who would’ve been clobbered in the general. If he couldn’t even win a Democratic primary, and frankly, if he couldn’t avoid losing by the margin he did, than it belies belief to think he would’ve been strong against Tisei.
I basically made this argument throughout that primary, that Tierney should have stepped aside for a viable progressive. He didn’t. He lost. And he went out of his way to do nothing to help Seth or help Democrats keep this seat after the primary was over, while folks like Warren, Deval and Healey flocked to the district to help him out. Seth went out of his way to help Martha Coakley while Tierney was missing in action. He put himself before his party and his district, and it hurts to say this because Tierney was always good to the Conway’s of Salem. But he ran a miserable scorched Earth campaign that ended any future he had in politics.
I have conservative leaning friends and relatives in the district that voted for Seth because of the military background alone, people who split their tickets between Baker and him. People who actually liked Tisei, but ended up liking Seth more.
I am not arguing his vote here or his positions are always correct, I am arguing that there was not a plausible outcome where a Democrat other than Seth Moulton would’ve kept that seat in that cycle.
Had Tierney succeeded in his campaign to tar and feather Moulton as a teabagger we wouldn’t be complaining about a Democrat voting for Wall Street, we would be complaining about a Republican voting for Wall Street and also voting to repeal Obamacare 90 times a session, repeal gun control, cut social security and medicare, cut aid to the fishermen in his own district, vote against campaign finance reform, and vote against Obama’s foreign policy. In all of these areas Seth is a solid Democratic vote in favor of Obama’s foreign policy and on the right side of those issues where Tisei would’ve voted NO like the rest of the Tea Party caucus that controls the House.
Absolutely call his office right now and demand an explanation, I will do the same and maybe write my local paper, but this vote so far is an exception to the rule, and will remain one if we remind him that people are people and corporations are not.
It was actually two votes on two separate bills to water-down Dodd Frank.
I am saying on other issues: Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, unionization, LGBTQ rights, Iran policy, ISIS policy, veterans health care, gun control, budget cuts, safety nets for district fishermen, safety nets for the rest of us, Boehner for speaker, affiliating with the Tea Party caucus-Moulton is signficantly to the left of the only alternative offered on the ballot which was Richard Tisei.
This is the first time I’ve seen a complaint about a vote Moulton took on BMG since he was inaugurated, I think we would’ve seen 10 or 15 similar posts had Tisei been the victor. There is no scenario where Tierney wins, and I am doubtful a challenger in this district running to Moulton’s left beats him in the primary and goes on to win the general.
Let me be clear. It is absolutely fair to criticize Moulton on this shitty vote. No way around that, but let us try and stay reality based with our response. The best thing to do is let the new guy know that we don’t feel his vote represents the way we feel. My folks live in the 6th, as do plenty of BMGers, and we should all follow Fred’s lead and make that call. I know I will today.
Moulton received most of his money outside of the district. He received more money from New York than from Marlblehead, Swampscott, and Salem put together. He raised an astonishing $3.3 million in 2014. Incidentally, he’s already raised over $400,000 in 2015. The financial industry loves Moulton, and Moulton is voting to eliminate consumer protections on mortgages.
I never argued otherwise. I am arguing that it’s really stupid strategically to take it to 11 and bark “primary challenge” and every bad vote or insist another Democrat could’ve won. Tierney lost badly, whose left? The Tisei endorsing
Di Franco? Kim “I’m probably running for Governor” Driscoll? You want to run be my guest, but I am definitely unhappy with the vote and letting him know about it. All those folks bankrolled Obama and our next nominee, Warren got a ton of our of state money from progressives across America. It’s a bad vote-it doesn’t immediately make him a DINO deserving of a primary challenge.
We need to see Seth Moulton for who he really is. He is not a progressive champion. He has Wall Street support, and he is well-financed.
It’s also important to see who is not contributing to his campaign. He has almost no financial support from unions.
All I’ve been arguing is that he was significantly more progressive than Richard Tisei, who would’ve been the ACA opposing, social security privatizing, Medicare cutting, Iran deal hijacking, Boehner electing conservative from the 6th. Moulton’s no Warren, he’s no Lieberman either. Oppose him for higher office, don’t send him money, but a primary challenge in this district isn’t warranted yet.
So far he has voted against the President and most grassroots Dems on a single issue, there may be others and it’s up to is to keep the count and bombard his office. He’s new and responsive and vulnerable to grassroots criticism, what doesn’t make sense is pushing another primary in a district we would not have held onto with Tierney.
Moulton also passed on recent progressive budgets.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2015/03/the-house-voted-on-three-democratic-budgets-yesterday-how-did-the-ma-delegation-vote/
and you could have voted Tisei out. Moulton can be there for life if he wants.
I argued that as well, during the 2012 campaign. The thing is, what other Democrat could run against Tisei? Say we vote for the more liberal incumbent, Tierney beats Moulton using scorched earth tactics, no way he beats Tisei. Who runs again in the 2016 cycle? The well funded Moulton or the unemployed Tierney? Driscoll has made it abundantly clear she doesn’t want to run and Tisei is far more well known than any of the state legislators in the district.
My point is, we don’t have a deep bench in MA. It’s all fun and games to scream ‘primary challenger’ at every opportunity a vote doesn’t go your way, but more often than not it leads to embarrassing losses like Mac D’Allesandro. At least Lynch is a populist on economics, hell, he even voted the right way on this issue. And Moulton will balance Lynch from the left on social issues and foreign policy. So between the two of them we get a liberal Congressman. It isn’t ideal, but I would argue no other Democrat could win in either district, and Tisei would have added about ten other bad votes to this one.
Call his district office, I did, and they told me he heard from a lot of people and will continue to look into this issue. He is on notice. It’s the most reality based response we could have.
Lynch often gets a lot of bad blood on Blue Mass for “being the most conservative member of the delegation.” However this spring he’s done commendable work voting against these two odious bills, voting for all 3 progressive budgets, and taking a stand against Fast Track.
I didn’t pile on Lynch until he voted against ACA from the right, and then lied in his primary with Markey that he voted against it from the left. He has come out for gay marriage and choice, and is now voting the right way on economics and foreign policy. He is moving towards the delegation.
If Lynch, or even Moulton if that is the case, is “the most conservative member of our delegation” we should remember they are still well to the left of if not absolutely the entire delegation, then definitely left of the political center of gravity in many states.
I just got back from a Texas road trip and you can look up Ruben Gallego or Gene Green and find two Democratic reps far to the right of our delegation. You don’t even need to get that far from where in currently living to find Dan Lipinski drinking up the 3rd or Rahm stinking up City Hall.
…but to nitpick a little…you write:
“My point is, we don’t have a deep bench in MA.”???????
You know better than that. You seem to think that Kim Driscoll is the only viable political in Moulton’s district. What about Sens. Joan Lovely or O’Connor Ives? And while Party Chair Sen McGee may not be everyone’s (or anyones) pick here ar BMG, he represents the crown jewel of Democratic votes in the district.
I agree with Merrimack Guy’s point about Moulton being unbeatable in a general, but there are some formidable primary opponents lurking around and if Seth keeps drifting away from core Dem principles, he could have a problem.
Oh ya, btw, Moulton came out in support of the Bowles Simpson budget plan last year…if he starts voting in favor of some of those positions, he might just get that primary challenge.
McGee and O’Connor Ives are to Moulton’s right on social as well as economic questions, both have low ratings on the Progressive MA scorecard. Lovely has a solid record, but not sure if she could assemble the money and name recognition that Driscoll has. She’s definitely the top tier recruit for a primary challenge and it’s a tertiary tier after her.
My point is, doesn’t make sense to take it to 11 and call him a DINO over one vote, especially since he kept the seat blue. I think it’s a shitty vote, I called his office, and Fred is right to say we should be pissed at him. But it’s one thing to channel that anger in a constructive way for the movement-pressuring and persuading officials-and another to argue the impossible. No other Democrat is on the radar able to take that seat.
Remember this: Joe Kennedy moved to his district in order to run for Congress, and Seth Moulton moved to his district in order to run.
I am sure we can find a great progressive champion.
Not only does there need to be a “better” candidate, there needs to be a reasonable chance of that candidate getting elected.
It is far easier to lobby Seth in his first term to be more assertive as a progressive, it’s a lot harder to try and unseat him when he just overwhelmed a long term incumbent and long time legislator from the district. Dislike him all you want, the voters of the 6th overwhelmingly supported him in two tough races and nobody has offered up anyone who passes either metric Christopher brings up. So I ask again, who’s to his left who actually wants to run and has a chance of winning? Until that question is answered, we sound like RMGers begging for 100% purity and slinging around empty threats. Let’s stay credible folks.
Born and raised in Marblehead and he just moved to Salem. He moved back from Texas and his ten years in the service kept him away from home, but it’s disingenuous to argue he isn’t from there. Disagree with him on this issue, but he grew up in the 6th. Joey definitely moved to the district, he grew up in the 8th which his old man represented. Didn’t see anyone step up then either, though he should’ve been challenged just to avoid a coronation, candidates don’t fall out of the sky.
It is very white and has long been the place where Finance Industry Captains roost going back to Cabots. Lodges and Bradley F Palmer. “Patrician’ would be a fair characterization.
He’s just trying to do constituent service up in another affluence bastion. And, as you might expect, it isn’t inclined to care about what schizoid faux progressives in Boston care about.
I almost ended up in Marblehead Neck today where a Fidelity mogul or two lives.
By the way, your basic analysis essays of Masshole political reality are pure gold. It must give you a chuckle to drop by here when you see that “Reality Based” tag.
just curious
Lynn, Salem and Gloucester don’t exist and certainly didn’t represent about half of Moulton’s margin of victory. Beverly hasn’t been a 50-50 city for a decade or two. Peabody and Saugus are “patrician” places.
Henry Cabot Lodge and Bradley F. Palmer are long dead. Your Fidelity moguls live in the distrct? So what? By that logic Katherine Clark should’ve voted for these bills. She represents Weston, Lincoln, Sudbury, Sherborn, Winchester, Lexington…
I completely agree with that statement. She has taken actual political risks skipping the Netenyahu speech and taking this vote, since her district is home to a lot of affluent people. She also has passed bipartisan bills and risen to a leadership role without watering down her progressive instincts.
Perhaps we can all agree on this-I think this vote is a good indicator that there should is a ceiling for Seth if he wants a higher office down the road. I still think it is hard to argue with the data that the 6th is slightly to the right of the state and would have elected a Republican last cycle had Seth not taken Tierney out. But clearly, with Capuano now joining Lynch in calling for a more centrist speaker than Pelosi, I think Clark rises to the top of the delegation in terms of sheer political courage.
I’d put McGovern pretty high. He’s never backed down from his convictions that I can think of and the district has some fairly hostile territory.
Capuano should just be ashamed. He represents one of the most Democratic districts in the nation and I thought he understood how much a wishy-washy national Democratic Party was hurting his constituents.
But he is excellent on foreign policy, probably the most expert member of the delegation on those issues. I frankly wish he had given a Senate run a go during the last open cycle. Clark is probably the best positioned to run for higher office, though it appears she also has the best shot at rising up through the leadership. I expect both to continue to advance sound legislation and get things done.