Leland Cheung announced yesterday that he is running for the Second Middlesex Senate district against Pat Jehlen. Yes, Pat Jehlen, who I think many on this site would agree is one of the strongest, most effective, and most well-liked progressives in the MA legislature (and who is also pretty active on BMG).
In his announcement, Cheung stated:
For all that’s great about our community, we still face incredible challenges – a Green Line the state is threatening to let fall off the tracks, a housing market that’s pricing people out, persistent delay in the expansion of early education, an innovation economy that remains inaccessible to many, an environment in peril, and a government that all too often puts the interests of big business over those of small families like ours.
Those issues are largely true, and I think Jehlen would agree. Challenging her in a primary seems strange.
I’ve been critical of Cheung before on this site. Running against a strong and well-liked progressive like Jehlen in a primary doesn’t help change my view. I hope that Cheung will come to BMG and explain more about why he’s running and why he’d be better for the district than Senator Jehlen.
I don’t know Leland Cheung, beyond what I’ve read here. I don’t know why he’s chosen Pat Jehlen. I do know Pat Jehlen. I’ve met her several times, talked with her, even talked politics with her.
This strikes me as a clueless decision. If Mr. Cheung is progressive, then I wonder why he doesn’t establish residence in a different district with a less progressive and less stellar Senator. If Mr. Cheung is not progressive, then I wonder why he thinks I and people like me will support him.
I don’t see a scenario where he will get very much of my attention, never mind my vote.
I’m not in the district. Seems like it would have made more sense to move to Cambridgeport (where I am in the district) and be in the currently open special. That’s an interesting race with a few strong candidates and all of them with solid pockets of geographical support.
Cheung claims to be a strong progressive, so this really does not make much sense.
It helps to reinforce my suspicions that he is more concerned about his career than true public service.
Moving a family — even to a different hood in the same city or town — isn’t a trivial exercise. For some, it’s just not in the cards.
Running for office is a big deal too, and not just for the ego that decides to run. Good people do it to improve our polity. Petty ego-crats do it to further their careers. We now know this man’s motivation.
.
Agreed, and it is hard to imagine but some people do move to places so they can run for office. Barney did it, The Kennedys have done it and we even have a participant here who wants to do it. Personally, I nest in place, but some people have a dissimilar sense of “home.”
… it could be a plan (although it sounds like a long shot) to leverage his Cambridge power base into getting known in another town.
I think I’ll have to come to the next Stammtisch and get the real dirt!
And there’s no way I’m voting for him over Jehlen. At least this will get people to show up in September in what would otherwise be a quite primary.
… Pat better hope the folks in Medford and Winchester feel the same.
before he opportunistically carpetbagged into Massachusetts he was a failed REPUBLICAN candidate for public office out of state.
I have known Senator Pat Jehlen for years as a true progressive champion and a leader of unquestioned integrity, passion and fidelity to our principles.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
In all fairness, if Mr. Cheung were running in, for example, Cambridgeport (as mentioned above, I’d probably welcome him as a progressive with few reservations).
I’m reluctant to call a man or woman a “carpetbagger” for choosing a residence based, at least in part, on political consideration. Hillary Clinton did that in New York, and I had no problem with it.
I am similarly more than happy to welcome ex-Republicans into the Democratic fold. In the same way that any church worth its salt celebrates every conversion from the dark side to the Way of Light and Truth, so too do I welcome every conversion to the Democratic party.
Some in Massachusetts call me a “carpet-bagger” because I moved here in 1974 — there are too many towns here where “carpetbagger” (or “newcomer”) is anybody whose grandparents weren’t known as teenagers.
I enthusiastically agree with your characterization of Pat Jehlen. I’d like to leave it that, and welcome Mr. Cheung to join us in a different and less progressive district.
(kidding)
that he does not win the primary and runs again for Cambridge City Council in 2017, I bet this move might cost him a few votes.
Cambridge uses a proportional system to decide the vote. Forming a niche, and being at the forefront of that niche is more important in Cambridge elections, than vote totals.
Someone is having fun on Twitter with the name @Leland4Anything.
Yikes.
is a comic genius. Some really great parody stuff.
Practically a who’s who of the political scene in the district.
strong, progressive that I hope all support – including door knocking
JAS
For sure he will try to hold both the Senate and Councilor posts and double dip on the salaries. I must admit I never understand how anybody can justify that a Cambridge Councilor, who has minimal authority or real work, get paid more than a legislator, except for the massive ego and general blow hardiness of the Cantabs.
than one fewer.
I tweeted this out the other day and stand by it:
Doug Rubin @dougrubin
Just read @lelandcheung is challenging @patjehlen in #DPrimary. Sen. Jehlen does a great job, but competition’s good for democracy. #mapoli
I echo the positive comments made about Pat Jehlen in the comments above, and agree with doubleman that she “is one of the strongest, most effective, and most well-liked progressives in the MA legislature.”
But that shouldn’t prevent someone who believes they have something to offer the voters from running against her, and giving the voters in the district a choice.
(Just to be clear, I’m not working with either candidate and not looking to get involved in the race – just my opinion.)
That settles it. Thank you for your cogent argument.
Mac D’Alessandro ran against Stephen Lynch and was praised on this site (by me among others). Cheung can run against Pat Jehlen. Period amen.
Primaries are healthy. Just ask a Sanders supporter.
(If I lived in the district, I’d vote for Pat Jehlen.)
I don’t think anyone has said he can’t run. Of course he can.
We can also be critical and suspicious of his motivations for running. Based on his short political career, it doesn’t come off well. I hope Cheung lays out the reasons why he is running, and, critically, why him and not her, maybe even by posting here. As far as progressives are concerned, it seems like a very big ask to be convinced he’d be better than an experienced, effective, very well-liked progressive who sits in important committee positions.
As far as Mac v. Lynch. That was a clear case of a progressive challenging a moderate, antichoice Dem who had voted against the most important piece of domestic legislation in a generation. In other words, a challenge made a lot of sense. Lynch could be a lot worse, but for progressives, we think we can do a lot better. That same reasoning doesn’t exist for this challenge.
and you have every right to question his motives. But I don’t think we can be supportive of contested primaries when people we like run against people we don’t, and not supportive when it is the other way around. Democracy is messy sometimes (see the 2016 Republican Presidential primary as exhibit A), but I think competition in these elections is healthy.
I want a progressive agenda to win out, so I like challenges to conservatives and moderates by progressives much more than challenges to progressives because they are less effective at pushing the progressive agenda. Challenges where the core theme is “we can do better” make a lot of sense. I’d like to see the argument from Cheung about why this challenge is because we can do better.
I will never settle for the proposition that a good person should be challenged for office just because a boy with an itch wants power. It is perfectly consistent to run against people of an opposing ideology, even if only to make a political statement (as long as it does not mess with a legit challenger), and to speak ill of an ego driven challenge to a person of similar values.
Cheung is in the latter category. I have no doubt he will lose in 2016, he will force progressives to piss away resources defending the Senator’s good record and person, and earn himself a permanent place on many a progressive’s shit list. For a guy with obvious intelligence, it is hard to see how he even benefits in this. He ain’t moving on to Congress or statewide office after this.
Shouldn’t? Most of the thread.
but was hoping for a bit more productive discussion.
who can take care of herself. (At least that’s not my issue, and I haven’t lived in Somerville for years.)
It’s about confirming a suspicion held by many that Cheung is an opportunist who stands only for and with himself.
That’s still rebuttable, I guess, but at this point the burden of proof is squarely on him, and it won’t be easy.
for this faux DINO to run against a true progressive Democrat and faithful public servant like Senator Jehlen.
And it’s a kick in the ass to every activist who has broken their back to elect progressives up and down the ballot all over this state. So, now we’ll have to waste precious time, energy and resources to defend a seat that shouldn’t be threatened in the first place.
And why ? All to satisfy the over inflated ego of a bored, self-absorbed opportunist.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
So he’s claiming to be a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, but is actually…what? A real Republican who’s only pretending to pretend?
That’s some House of Cards stuff right there.
as in Cheung threw his hat in the ring for self-amusement in a superficial way ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
is a crypto-Democrat, i.e., someone who pretends to be a Democratic-in-name-only, but is really a straight-up Democrat.
In a very long time.
I don’t think it’s wasting time – every time the grassroots works hard to defend progressives and progressive values, we give voters valuable information about these issues and candidates who are doing great work, and hopefully convince more and more people about the importance of supporting these causes. In some ways, it is a great opportunity to get more people engaged and active.
Out time is not unlimited and there are plenty of other good uses for our political time (perhaps working in other states for the democratic presidential nominee, working on other races here where a progressive is challenging someone who is not, phone banking for democratic US Senate challengers in other states).
I would rather be defending progressives and progressive values in other races, than in this race. Between jobs, families, other non-profit work – I suspect that most here have lot to do and would rather not have to work on this race.
So perhaps not a waste of time – but taking valuable limited time away from other critical races.
Paid consultants love competition, even petty competition. It represents one more opportunity to make money off of the labor and money of the grassroots, doing what the consultants are otherwise doing to remain in the game. I have spent more than a half century giving to and working for people who I respect. I don’t like having to throw in my limited resources so Cheung can hire a few hacks to challenge a progressive like Jehlen. There will be a mega-turnout in the November election and a tiny turnout in September, a Thursday election due to the Jewish high holidays. I don’t want to waste my time and money because Cheung has an ego problem. My time and money would be better spent in a swing state, as I usually go to one when there is an election that matters to me.
I have known the Jehlens since before she was in the House. I like them/her. I thought the Cheung Star Wars fundraiser was clever. Now I think he is damaged goods and will oppose him for every office he ever seeks. Forever.
I figured someone would try to make the paid consultant argument, which is why I was clear in my post that I wasn’t going to be working with either candidate in this race. To be clear, my firm doesn’t do a lot of political work anymore. It’s my personal belief that no one is entitled to any elected office, and that the voters and the community benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas and competing visions. And to respond to the other comment below – yes, I’m fine if Republicans decide to challenge Democrats – same premise. You can try to attack me and say it’s because competition makes more money for consultants, but I’ve been doing this a long time and I believe from experience that competition makes better candidates and better elected officials.
There was no attack on you. I assumed your fees take you out of the realm of a State Senate race. You work for the corporate community now.
It is simply the case that consultants and the most hardcore of third party members either like it or take no position when a progressive incumbent gets challenged by somebody who can point to zero failures in her record. When you throw in the gender disparity in the lege, the “I am taking no position” position wears thin as rain on the road in July.
Now that was an attack. You will know it when I hit you.
It’s more likely that your crypto-support for Cheung is based on Jehlen’s opposition to casinos and the boatloads you’re making as a casino lobbyist.
And I have no conflict to disclose, nor any “crypto-support.” I’d vote for Jehlen.
But really seamus, the principle is what matters. Does working for casinos (which I don’t like either) mean Doug Rubin never has any credibility ever again? He also worked for Governor Patrick, who also supported casinos … so does the Governor lack all credibility now?
I, too, will vote for Pat Jehlen.
Robert Young was a reasonably accomplished actor. He was well-loved as “Marcus Welby, MD”. I would NOT depend on Mr. Young for medical advice, because as an actor his medical advice was only as good as his scriptwriters, and as an individual he was a lay person. I, sadly, feel the same about the commentary from Mr. Rubin. I have enormous respect for Mr. Rubin’s craft as a political consultant, much as I did for Mr. Young’s craft as an actor. When speaking as a paid political consultant, his political advice is only as good as whatever client he is paid to represent. As an individual participant here (out of “character”, as it were), he is a lay person.
I must say, though, in response to your last paragraph, that my answer to your final question is, sadly, “yes”. Working for casinos is, in my view, a huge blow to my personal respect for Mr. Rubin. Mr. Patrick’s support for casinos was a huge blow to Mr. Patrick’s credibility (especially when followed by Mr. Patrick’s career choice after leaving office). Whatever credibility Deval Patrick had with me, he has shredded.
So, in answer to your last question — “Does the Governor lack all credibility now?”: Yes
I have to admit my respect for Dan Payne has never recovered from hearing him say, on WBUR, words to the effect of “You can’t just be against casinos. You have to say how you’re going to pay for other things.” (Or “replace the revenue” or whatever the hell he said.)
Maybe he meant that sincerely, but it sounded so bought and paid for that I’ve never heard his voice the same way again. Todd Domke, the Republican guy he’s usually paired with, sounds much more credible.
But back to Mr. Rubin, his experience is broader, as is the governor’s. But casino support is something they’ll wear forever.
I wouldn’t say the casino support means Mr. Rubin is lacking in all credibility on every subject forever.
But when he is currently making a lot of money to lobby for a casino, and is showing signs of support for someone running against a strong opponent of casinos, yes it does mean he is completely lacking in credibility as to this race. And yes, I realize Cheung has been somewhat critical of casinos lately. But as we all know, he is somewhat flexible in his views on everything, whereas Jehlen stands for what she believes in.
I am not “currently making a lot of money to lobby for a casino”. Yes, I did work for Suffolk Downs but I am no longer doing so, nor am I working for anyone else pursuing a casino in MA.
Because that’s so fundamentally different from casinos?
I stand corrected.
I don’t represent any slot parlor.
I was, apparently incorrectly, referring to contents of the above-cited link to Mr. Galvin’s office that shows your company in a current contract in the amount $132,000 with “IGT and Its Affiliates”, and a description that says “All gaming matters”.
I don’t care too much whether the “gaming” comes as The Lottery, casino gambling, or online gamine — the result is the same — there are “dealers” and there are “players”, the players always lose, and the players are almost always people who are desperate and who can’t afford to lose (and that’s all too often why they play the “game” in the first place).
Somvervilletom, I have always enjoyed reading your posts and comments, and while I don’t always agree with your point of view, I respect your opinion. However, what you’ve said here makes it hard to do that going forward. Basically, what you are arguing is that if I disagree with you on an important “value” argument that you are making on a particular issue, I should give no credibility to anything else you say going forward. Is that really the point you want to make?
I can’t believe it makes sense to throw out somebody like Gov. Patrick’s great work in so many important areas because you have a significant disagreement in one very important area. Wow.
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make, so perhaps if I try again my intent will be more clear.
What I was trying to say is that when you or any other political consultant speak “ex officio”, then I presume that the values reflected in your commentary are those of your client. I think that’s true of any profession dedicated to putting a client’s “message” in front of the public — press secretary, media consultant, speechwriter, and so on. I mean no disparagement, I think it just comes with the turf.
Perhaps I overstated the situation when you speak for yourself (as opposed to in an official capacity), but my point is that your personal values and opinions do not carry additional weight with me because of your success as a political consultant.
A lawyer, especially a criminal defense lawyer, is paid to advocate for people who are often unsavory. The fact that an attorney successfully gains an acquittal for a man or woman accused of a horrific crime does not, in my view, mean that the attorney encourages the behavior the defendant was accused of. When that attorney is NOT appearing before the bar, I think I need to form my opinion of him or her without regard to what they do in court. That’s all I was trying to say about you, your profession, and your commentary here.
In my view, support for casino gambling is antithetical to the values we hold as progressive Democrats. I don’t think it’s just one area. I think the combination of Mr. Patrick’s advocacy of casino gambling combined with his decision to join Bain reeks of hypocrisy. I just don’t see how someone who is truly committed to the values we hold as progressive Democrats can take those two steps together.
In my view, six major areas have been at the very top of our priorities here in Massachusetts since Mr. Patrick was first elected:
1. Wealth and income concentration
2. Grossly inadequate state revenues
3. The appearance of pervasive corruption throughout state government and in Boston
4. Public rail transportation in particular, and transportation infrastructure in general
5. Public education throughout the state
6. Militarization of police, expansion of government surveillance and associated shredding of individual privacy, and tolerance of police misconduct
I am, in retrospect, disappointed in Mr. Patrick’s work in all six areas. I had high hopes when he took office (just I did for Mr. Obama), perhaps unrealistically high. I saw, if anything, continued decline in all six during Mr. Patrick’s administration.
I view Mr. Patrick’s support for casino gambling, and subsequent decision to join Bain, through the lens of his performance on these six issues.
I think I better understand the point you were making. While I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Gov. Patrick, I definitely understand it much better now.
I try to come to BMG with my own opinions – not those of anyone I represent. While some may not believe it, I do care about progressive issues and have spent a large part of my career working on them. And I don’t expect my personal values and opinions to “carry additional weight” because of my professional work – just like I don’t think they should be discounted because of that work.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this – appreciate it.
I’ve been pretty clear my posts are not about support for Cheung. And Sen. Jehlen has a principled stand against casino’s, which I respect.
It’s too bad when even on BMG, we can’t have legit disagreements on policy without people launching personal attacks. Yes, I did work for Suffolk Downs in the casino fight, but I don’t anymore and haven’t for a while. That fight’s over.
This is about what’s best for our political system, and I happen to believe that more people running and their values and vision helps our communities.
Because that’s REALLY something you should have been up front about in entering this discussion. I have a lot more concern about non-disclosure of these six-figure deals than I do about the campaign staffer making $400/week failing to disclose that s/he works for a candidate.
Yes, I did work for Suffolk Downs in the casino fight, but I don’t anymore and haven’t for a while. That fight’s over.
would be an equivalently dumb argument to this one.
Next you’re going to encourage Republicans to challenge Democrats because “every time the grassroots works hard to defend progressives and progressive values, we give voters valuable information about these issues and candidates who are doing great work, and hopefully convince more and more people about the importance of supporting these causes”.
It would be the exact same argument you’re making here. Real progressives are in it to win, not to make $ off pointless competition.
criminals by definition are committing crimes – not good for society. Candidates running for office are putting their ideas and visions before the voters – i think that is healthy and good for society.
Agree that real progressives are in it to win, but I would also argue real progressives aren’t afraid to debate their ideas and stand on their visions for a better community – and that when they do that, they do win.
This way of thinking is unhelpful and should be rejected. It suggests you think that Sen. Jehlen has some right to her office, which of course she hasn’t. What does it mean in a democracy to say that the seat “shouldn’t be threatened in the first place?” Nothing good.
… Leland Cheung, so far as I can tell, is not making the case that the sitting Senator is doing a poor job. I think the one righteous advantage to incumbency is that constituents get to judge actual performance on the actual job.
Nothing much good comes from change for the sake of change either… “watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” only works with the blood of tyrants, else change — the never-slaked thirst for the new and the novel — becomes the last tyrant.
… Fred is not saying that Cheung shouldn’t win. He is saying that Cheung shouldn’t run, that there shouldn’t be a contest.
… there just isn’t a contest to be had…? Cheung has money and presumably backers and surely ambition to burn. Jehlen has experience. Where is the contest? Leland Cheung can use his money to threaten the seat… but that doesn’t make it a contest… and would he threaten the seat absent the money?
He has money, he has backers–sounds like a contest to me. It may not be a contest you like or a contest you want to have happen.
… If I get money, and backers, I can take David Ortiz’ spot in the lineup, then?
Next time the Sox play the Yanks, will it still be a contest?
If we elected ballplayers by majority vote, I’d say, go for it! Personally, I’d like to take George Clooney’s spot in an upcoming movie.
So you’ll be calling your Rep to urge them to re-elect Speaker DeLeo?
Change is inevitable. Whether it brings good or bad, it comes.
Being opposed to change for the sake of change is hardly an endorsement of stasis for the sake of stasis. Derp.
No doubt. Winter changes into Spring. Spring changes into Summer. Summer changes into Fall. And Fall changes into Winter… Looking forward to the spring doesn’t mean Winter isn’t coming back and fearing Winter doesn’t guarantee Spring is going to be much to write home about.
My argument comparing two types of elections is egregiously stupid. Yours talking about “change, the last tyrant” is deep and philosophical.
I will never learn.
Your argument makes no such comparison. Your argument (such as it is) requires me to endorse Speaker DeLeo because I don’t like change for the sake of change. That is a hotted up slice of extreme stupid: there is no line, using anything resembling logic or even simple linearity, that connects those two points. None. Quitting Deleo is change for the sake of DeLeo’s blistering suck.
If I believed that I’d never respond to you at all.
We have a big problem with the Democratic bench. I know it’s awkward to challenge incumbents, but in general we should be encouraging candidates.
The presidential primary was the most visible symbol, but if you think of all the recent big races and how many people ran, it’s a grim picture.
I don’t think there is much of a problem with the bench in Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston. If Cheung were running in a different district I would have been b**** deep with him, but never after this.
If anyone who challenges an incumbent is going to face the wrath of Democratic activists … that’s a problem.
Would you please keep down the wrath?
Thank you.
Is it true that Jehlen supported Cheung for lieutenant governor?
My source is the Twitter account mentioned upthread, so I thought I should confirm that.
Pat Jehlan was my state senator for a relatively short period of time. I must say that Jason Lewis is a substantial upgrade.
When Charlie Shannon was my state senator I disagreed with him on a wide range of issues, but when my town went to him for help, he was willing to listen and try. The same is true of Jason Lewis (although I tend to agree with Jason on most matters).
Pat Jehlan, on the other hand, was either indifferent to my town’s interests or in one case that I can recall actively worked against the town.
Let’s be frank — the Democratic Party of Massachusetts has spent the last ten years letting the children of our Commonwealth down. More testing and more privatization are the ruling commitments of the Party, which makes them very similar to the Republicans.
As Vice-Chair of the Cte. on Education, Senator Jehlan is one of the very few Democrats who has progressive values she’s trying to implement for our kids. For that reason alone, I prefer her. And to lost her voice to a Republican of recent vintage would be a step back.
This thread is several days old, and no doubt many have moved on. I read it when it was fresh and, at the time, had decided not to get involved. I had thought I had moved on myself, except I found myself pondering it again and again and have come to two separate, perhaps even contradictory, conclusions.
Conclusion #1: Doug Rubin is just another interlocutor here. He’s upfront about who he is and offers his opinion, Questioning who he’s “shilling’ for, or aspersions upon the the motives of ‘paid consultants’, when not actually petty, border on the venal. BMG is first, foremost, and (truly) only a debating club. I happen to think that’s a good thing and I quite enjoy it. When people seek to undermine a freely given opinion as ‘shilling’ or deriving from shallow pecuniary motives, it becomes less enjoyable. When people do it from behind an anonymity it shades into farce.
Conclusion #2: Pat Jehlen is not just another State Senator. The notion of ‘competition’ being good for democracy is, frankly, trite. I don’t like this word, ‘competition,’ for two reasons: A) It suggests candidates are mostly just interchangeable and indistinguishable campaign athletes and therefore voters are off the hook for not differentiating them IN OFFICE and 2) it suggest victory for one must mean defeat for the other. ‘Competition’ it seems, comes at the expense (at least in this instance) of cooperation and I think co-operation is not just good for democracy… but perhaps at the heart of it. And I mean cooperation in it’s broadest, most victorious, sense: I don’t know a whole lot about Pat Jehlen but what I do know suggests that Pat Jehlens efforts in getting good education for Leland Cheungs children will not flag in the least, whatever Leland Cheung does or says. That’s cooperation. Leland Cheungs history as a venture capitalist,as well as his nakedly ambitious run at Jehlen’s seat suggests something entirely different about his efforts… It’s not my district, and I normally don’t comment on other district races, but really, for progressives, it’s no competition.
As to conclusion #2, I did struggle with how to best express my opinion on this issue, and I agree “competition” may not have been the best way to describe it. I don’t live in the district either, but if I did, I would very likely be voting for Jehlen. However, I do believe that more people running for office, and more views on policy and visions for the state for voters to consider, is healthy. I happen to believe that when voters are presented with good candidates with progressive values (like Jehlen), they will win much more often than not – but I still think a healthy debate is good for our Commonwealth.