Sen. Ed Markey gives campaign money to corporate Dem Patrick Murphy over progressive champion Alan Grayson.
I am writing to express my disappointment in Senator Ed Markey (MA-D)’s recent financial support for Congressman Patrick Murphy (FL-D) as he works to secure the Democratic primary nomination for Marco Rubio’s recently vacated Florida Senate seat. Rep. Murphy supports the Keystone XL pipeline, the TPP, and other anti-environment, pro-corporate initiatives. Rep. Murphy is a New Dem who falls in line with the corporations; NOT progressive ideals Sen. Markey and our other representatives from Massachusetts champion so well. Rep. Murphy’s opponent, Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-D), is a true grassroots champion, raising the most campaign contributions in the House from small donors of $200 or less. Rep. Grayson’s progressive ideas and policies make him the candidate we need standing next to Senator Warren, Senator Sanders, and other progressive leaders.
I was truly disturbed upon calling his Washington D.C office on July 13, when a staffer confirmed Sen. Markey “directly contributed money to Rep. Murphy’s primary campaign along with twenty other Senate Democrats.” Twenty other Senate Democrats many considered the neoliberal corporatist DINO wing of the Democratic party: U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Richard “Dick” Durbin (Illinois); and U.S. senators Bill Nelson (Florida), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York); Cory Booker (New Jersey); Tim Kaine (Virginia); Mark Warner (Virginia); Patty Murray (Washington); Ed Markey (Massachusetts); Michael Bennett (Colorado); Barbara Boxer (California); Jack Reed (Rhode Island); Debbie Stabenow (Michigan); Martin Heinrich (New Mexico); Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island); Ron Wyden (Oregon); Tom Carper (Delaware); Chris Coons (Delaware); and Al Franken (Minnesota).
Maybe it’s due to pressure from the Democratic leadership in Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D), but I want to know how Sen. Ed Markey, as a proclaimed “progressive” and champion of the environment, can justify supporting a corporate sellout like Rep. Patrick Murphy over a true progressive and one of the most vocal opponents to the TPP, Rep. Alan Grayson.
Let’s hope the interests of the people of Massachusetts aren’t being sold out.
…seem to pretty well represent the spectrum of the party. Are you seriously ready to ignore an entire record and throw Markey under the bus because he happens to prefer a candidate other than yours in a race in another state? Not the best way to introduce yourself to BMG IMO.
Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, and Al Frankenstein to name a few on your list are some of the most liberal Senators in the Senate-alongside Senator Markey.
Secondly, Grayson lacks the discipline of a Senate candidate. He is barely electable in his district and would be unelectable statewide. Murphy is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-economic fairness. Probably closer to Mark Warner than Elizabeth Warren-but so is the Florida electorate.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pro-economic fairness.”
Whenever there has been a vote to weaken Dodd-Frank or the Affordable Care Act, Murphy has reliably gone along with Republicans. When the GOP does their “Let’s vote for corporate tax credits one by one and not bother with ones that actually help the middle and working class,” he goes along. And he won’t even vote for a party budget. And although he’s certainly better than a Republican on the environment, his record is worse than that of all other FL House Dems.
He’s definitely among the 10 most conservative Dems in the caucus, and he will have the same bad voting record when he moves up.
At the same time, I’m not as huge on Grayson as many progressives are because Grayson is REALLY hawkish (more so than the average Democrat, which is already too hawkish) on Israel matters. He has been pretty consistently against the Iran negotiations, and I find that unacceptable in a candidate. But I’d assume most other FL Democrats are just as bad.
There is a lot to dislike in his record to be honest, but I agree with you that Grayson is quite erratic in his own right and probably ill suited to the Senate. A former co-worker of mine is a socially moderate Republican and keeps trying to get me to back Kirk making the argument it’ll move the Senate away from the right and to the center. I countered that the continuation of Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader is the largest impediment to Senate compromise and the biggest driver of continued obstruction.
Murphy is in many ways to the right of Kirk on some issues, but I will probably vote against Kirk and would probably vote for Murphy to ensure a Democratic majority. I strongly believe that is where the DSCC is coming in and why folks like Markey and Franken are fundraising for him, since they want to be back in a majority. And a majority with Markey, Franken, and Warren is better than a minority without Murphy.
Maryland friends are having a similar hard time between Donna Edwards and Chris van Hollen, though I would argue either of those two would be better than Florida’s options. It’s pretty pathetic the GOP has a better Latino bench than we do in Florida, hopefully with the Castro politics neutralized we can win some of them back.
The argument to encourage to vote against party to encourage the other party to move toward the center is a strange one. At the end of the day, Congress behaves in a parliamentary fashion now, and party often matters more than the candidate. You are voting for a party to be in power. Hence, a vote for Susan Collins last year was a vote for Mitch, as would be a vote for Kirk (whose record really isn’t that moderate anyway, especially when it comes to economics or foreign policy). I think there are times when a candidate can be so bad as to be a deal-breaker, but as a general rule, you are voting for a party rather than a candidate.
Maryland is rather different than Florida even though I’ve seen some people try to act as though the races are similar. Van Hollen is center of the caucus, and Edwards is left. Murphy is right of the caucus, and Grayson is left (but with some erratic voting tendencies and an uncharacteristic hawkishness for the left of the caucus on Iran matters.) Besides the fact that I always like to see the more progressive candidate in a primary win, I think Edwards is the right candidate because the Senate doesn’t need more white men. There are too few women in the Senate, and Mikulski’s departure would lower than number even more if her replacement is not a woman.
And even used your analysis about a de facto parliamentary system these days in both houses of Congress myself in my arguments. His record on foreign policy is particularly appalling, especially his statement yesterday. That said, Duckworth is only marginally better, but she will still be a vote for a Democratic majority. A better comparison was the Chafee vs. Whitehouse race from 2006, and even Chafee later argued that Rhode Island made the right call.
Murphy is to the right of the caucus but to the left of whatever Republican wins the nomination who will surely be further to his right, and a vote for McConnell. I think Markey, Franken, and others are making the right call in this race if our goal is a democratic majority.
I just brought Maryland up to illustrate that their bench is significantly better than Florida’s, Edwards or Van Hollen would both be great Senators, their records are actually quite similar on nearly every issue, though I think CVH has more experience getting legislation passed and is a centrist on Israel while she is a leftist. I can see why voting to increase minority and female representation is a worthy goal, and it makes sense in a race where the candidates are so close on the issues. I don’t have a horse in that race, I think whoever wins the primary there will be a good Senator. I have significant doubts that if Grayson wins the primary he will be able to be a Senator.
Perhaps we can find some sort of Merkelesque way to declare the entire state of Florida in default of something or other, and give the whole state back to Spain.
“Florida Democrat” seems to be an oxymoron.
The state should be able to produce at least one viable Latino candidate, but alas, we have black candidates in minority-majority districts with little statewide appeal historically (and unfortunately), and white moderates like Murphy or Graham or Jewish liberals (Wexler would’ve been great, DWS likely would lose). My great Aunt Helen is pushing 90, and as she always says in her Boston brogue “Demahcrat always bettah’. Not too many left like her unfortunately.
NOT Frankenstein. I laughed out loud when I read your typo though I think the author might argue that all of Murphy’s supporters are MONSTERS ! LOL 🙂
Your friend,
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Great autocorrect error!
Grayson is very progressive, but he is a huge hothead. It takes more than just being progressive to get ones support. Markey probably recognizes that Greyson that personality might be a liability rather than an asset to Senate Democrats. It doesn’t take much to ignite scandal nowadays.
Messy divorce, plus hiding his wealth in tax shelters. But, no, it’s his opponent who’s the “corporate sellout”. “Progressive champions” can hide their hedge fund’s money wherever they feel like.
Grayson would probably lose the general election by 20 points or so. This attack on Markey for making the strategically correct choice is beyond ridiculous and is beneath the standards of this blog.