Barney Frank recently came out and criticized the candidate running against Congressman Michael Capuano as wasting energy by challenging a good progressive incumbent. Barney Frank is right.
This has nothing to do with whether that candidate has a right to run against Michael Capuano. Of course that candidate has a right to run against Capuano. The question is, is this the best use of the resources of the progressive movement at this particular time in history?
The answer is no.
People sometimes make the blanket statement that more people challenging incumbents is inherently good for democracy. But is this true? It is not.
You can have a wonderful, healthy, primary battle that appears to improve the health of a party, and then end up with a weakened candidate who gets beaten by a Trump-like candidate. If such a victor then dismantles democratic protections, or the civil rights of all citizens to vote, or the social safety net, or public education, how is that good for democracy?
For me, what matters is whether people get better access to health care, a decent job, a decent standard of living, a decent environment, and are protected from terrible public policy. That’s more important than the internal health or vitality of a political party.
So the question is not about whether an incumbent is entitled to an office. The question is, what is the greater good?
If you have an unopposed congressman, there is no limit to how stupid and craven they can be. Witness Congressman Kennedy, who wants pot to be illegal so cops will have an excuse to stop and search cars.
Those JKIII comments were almost hilarious. So so so dumb and bad.
In the abstract, perhaps.
We’re talking about Mike Capuano, not some generic cardboard standup. Of all the things we might say about Mr. Capuano, “stupid” and ‘craven” is not among them.
As recently as late January, Mike Capuano co-authored and co-signed the letter opposing the administration’s reversal of the Cole Memorandum.
We are talking about Mike Capuano, not Joe Kennedy and not a random stereotype.
I see no benefit from this primary campaign against Mr. Capuano, except perhaps for the political gain of the primary opponent (and I wonder about even that). There is no substantive ground to be made an any significant issue — whatever the issue is, Mr. Capuano is already leading the progressive stance on that issue.
The various comparisons that have been made elsewhere here at BMG are not relevant to this primary campaign. This is a campaign that cannot provide gain (because there is no ground to be gained) and can only lose (primarily by squandering resources that are surely needed elsewhere).
I would rather see Mike Capuano loudly and proudly leading the fight to help other good progressive Democrats take back the house than wasting his time on this senseless primary campaign.
Your constant insistence that she offers no difference or couldn’t possibly provide stronger leadership in certain areas is pretty gross. It seems that supporters like you are going to help make this primary uglier than it should be, and for no good reason.
Your claim that ” whatever the issue is, Mr. Capuano is already leading the progressive stance on that issue” is a wild overstatement. I like him and he’s great on a lot of things but on many things he’s just a solid vote, not the outfront leader. You may care about the issues he is a leader on more than others, but to say that an alternative could not possibly do better on any issue is wrong. All you have to do is look at Warren v. Markey on consumer protection and see what a difference there can be on leadership beyond what’s reflected in just looking at their votes or ratings from various organizations.
Please provide some examples of what you mean.
You have said that he is a national leader on issues. I think he has basically no national profile, although he gets some virality on videos of him dressing down bank execs in committee.
Areas where he is not a clear leader and certainly not a national one:
Trans rights
Sex education
Me Too
Food Safety
Farm Workers
Rural broadband
Black Lives Matter
Medicare for All
I could go on.
I’m not saying Pressley would be stronger on all of these, I think she’d be much stronger on some, but it is just untrue to call Capuano an across-the-board progressive leader of national repute. The argument that there is no possible daylight between the candidates on any issue is very weak.
I think there are a lot of local issues where Pressley has been ahead of local Democrats from body cameras to urban gun violence which too often gets subsumed . She has worked with Operation Lipstick to help take guns off our streets, and as I’ve extensively argued, those efforts are far more important to urban communities than banning bump stocks. I think there are a lot of issues where Capuano’s tenure gives him the advantage, particularly on mass transit funding. Let’s have them debate and argue about the issues, not whether or not contesting races hurts the party. It never does.
I am neutral in this primary and am actively in touch with both campaigns to organize a forum at my school. The fact that both candidates are scrambling to court my schools community is proof that this primary is a good thing for our party and the communities in the 7th district. I like Capuano and have voted for him in the past. I like Pressley and have voted for her in the past. I think they are both good, qualified, strong progressive candidates with the right to run.
I think if our party wants to be serious about being inclusive of women and people of color, particularly in this state with its checkered history on race, than the last thing we need to do is tell them to wait in line or wait their turn. Deval would never have been elected Governor and Obama would never have been elected President had they been forced to defer to white front runners.
There is zero risk a Republican gets elected to this seat. It is condescending to argue it is a waste of resources when folks like Marty Meehan, who will never run again, are sitting on far more money than the kind that will be spent on this race. One can argue this for any of the other multimillion dollar pots previously uncontested incumbents were sitting on. If they did not donate that money to swing districts or vulnerable progressives then, they cannot complain about having to use it now that the seats they took for granted are on the line.
I am not singling out Capuano. Keating, Lynch, and Neal also have competitive primaries and there is a very competitive primary for the seat Nikki Tsongas is voluntarily giving up. Using Franks logic, her decision will hurt progressives even more since there are 13 campaigns diverting resources in a seat that is less safe than the 7th. Michael Capuano has a strong record to run on and he is welcome to make the case that he is a better choice for the voters in his district than his challenger. She is welcome to make an argument that she will do a better job. I resent the argument voters in the 7th district should be deprived of having a choice at all because other districts are more deserving of a campaign.
Agree 100%.
I really wonder if Frank and the OP would argue the same thing for challenging Lynch. Or Dan Lipinski in Illinois. Who’s deciding the line for when an incumbent challenge is acceptable? Given Frank’s history I suspect he’d push back against any challenge to a Democrat.
I like Capuano and I like Pressley and I like this challenge. As you correctly point out, there is ZERO chance a Republican comes out on top as a result of a tough primary.
“I really wonder if Frank and the OP would argue the same thing for challenging Lynch.”
Yes, I would argue the same thing. This is not the year to expend resources in this way. Not this year.
**********
“I like Capuano and I like Pressley.”
Me too.
**********
“… and I like this challenge.”
NOT ME.
I think the strongest argument you make is that there is no chance a Republican will win in the general.
That being said, if I were looking at this from a purely partisan point of view, I would, in fact, be advocating a primary challenge like this, precisely it is healthier for the PARTY in the long run.
But this year, THIS YEAR, this is an emergency.
The situation is different when the opposing party poses a threat to democracy itself.
I cannot believe we are here, but with the present Republican Party’s failure to stand up to Trump on:
1. Collusion with a foreign power to undermine our very elections; and
2. His obvious and blatant emollient-related corruption, we are finally – and amazingly – at that point where electing an opposition House may, on fsat, be an existential issue for our democracy..
And in my opinion, having worked in countries with high levels of endemic corruption, it is actually THAT – corruption – which is the more important and pernicious threat to our democracy in the long run. It is incredibly difficult to root out corruption once it takes hold. We have never seen corruption remotely resembling this in our history.
Regarding your other, more creative point as to why sitting Congress members do not send their campaign funds to the fights for swing districts in response to my plea for activists, donors, and volunteers to SPEND THEIR MONEY AND TIME ON THE SWING DISTRICTS IN PA AND THE MIDWEST:
1. I’m not certain, but I do believe they do sometimes do donate such funds to swing races, perhaps via the party; and
2. Much more importantly, you make my point: One of the main reasons they do not do this more often is because they know they may have to contend with intra-party challenges.
My other counterpoint would be that beating Baker should also remain a proiority and having a competitive congressional primary in Boston with a compelling candidate of color on the ballot will substantially increase minority turnout and urban turnout which will generate more voters for downballot challengers like Zakim, Forde, and the Suffolk DA candidates and up the ballot with the gubernatorial contests.
Let’s be real. It is unlikely a lot of MA money and manpower was going to swing states this year when we have so many contested primaries on the statewide and local ballot across the state. Not to mention a gubernatorial race and several important progressive ballot initiatives. I think this is a lame attack that could be used in any year to justify attacking any challenger to the status quo. Using your logic Tsongas should have stayed in office rather than trigger an arguably more expensive and divisive primary to replace her.
2016 was also an emergency and we still had competitive primaries. So was 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012. We have been dealing with a reactionary right for my entire adult life. Insisting that limiting progressive options will fight that is exactly the top down model that has helped our party reach a nadir of state legislatures, governors mansions, and Congress.
Power does not trickle down from incumbents and anointed front runners but trickles up from grassroots activists and primary challengers are how those roots get watered.
Two questions I wan answers too. Why is the Pressley challenge a greater threat to democracy than the Tsongas retirement which arguably divides the party and wastes more resources? Why should we want fewer competitive races in Massachusetts when we desperately need our base to get excited about statewide and local races this year, let alone ballot questions? It seems more competition up and down the ballot will increase turnout and enthusiasm rather than depress it as you allege.
Q1: Ms. Tsongas decided to retire on her own for own reasons (reasons that she has not necessarily shared with the public). If she were not retiring, I would oppose a primary campaign against her just as I oppose the campaign against Mr. Capuano.
Q2: I don’t believe the campaign against Mr. Capuano gets a significant number of people excited. As we’ve already observed, there is no daylight on any issues between the two candidates. I am not willing to throw arguably the most visible and most effective progressive member of our congressional delegation under the bus in order to seek some some hypothetical gain in local voter turnout.
Q1`. I still say it is a wash since Terry’s argument is that it is unjust and helps Trump to have Democrat on Democrat primaries more broadly since they waste resources. Her retirement has triggered even more division, resources being wasted, and its a swingier district.
Q2. You clearly are not in the communities that are getting excited about this race. There is a real contest happening on the ground in Boston and its communities of color.
Like Warren and Markey, I love both candidates and am not endorsing anyone. I think the idea that Pressley does not have a right to run or is selfish for running is incredibly insulting to the voters of the district and to the people who are getting excited about her candidacy.
You still attack a strawman. Nobody here says that Ms. Pressley doesn’t have a right to run. We say, instead, that we oppose her. There is a major difference.,
I read the arguments in the thread-starter differently than you. There is no incumbent after the retirement of Ms. Tsongas. That fundamental difference is why that primary campaign is irrelevant to Ms. Pressley’s decision to campaign against Mr. Capuano.
Regarding Q2, again you seem to focus on race and color. It sounds to me as though you’re supporting an effort to go after Mr. Capuano primarily because of his gender and race.
I think that’s movement in the wrong direction. I think we should be building bridges between these communities, rather than pandering to racial and economic prejudices.
“STRAWMAN’ defined in support of Somerville Tom’s argument. “A made-up version of an opponent’s argument that can easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticism’s of their own position. ‘Her speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn’t really convincing because she attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues..'” THE NEW DICTIONARY OF CULTURAL LITERACY
I have not made that argument at all. I have instead advanced the argument that a primary competition that forces both candidates to campaign in communities of color is ultimately to the benefit of that oft neglected constituency, no matter who wins.
Taking that opportunity away in the name of saving some money for other races seems like a foolish rationale, particularly if one of the features of our resistance is showing how much more inclusive we are than the other side.
Mr. Capuano has not responded to this challenge by whining about how unfair it is, he has responded by going to the Mattapan VFW for their Caucus and campaigning for votes. I would suggest we let the candidates campaign and may the best one win, rather than tell a progressive candidate of color she has to step aside in the name of resisting Trump.
Please do not put words in my mouth.
How many times do I have to repeat that I have not asked anybody to “step aside”?
It’s not just money. To me the entire exercise is a case study in venerable tradition of circular firing squads that we progressives seem to love so much.
I have said I oppose her. Please show me the respect and courtesy of responding to my argument rather than a caricature of it.
You make strong points no doubt, you are clearly plugged in and knowledgeable.
Maybe you or someone else, could inform me of the reason she is running? If not different then Cap…what good is a race, aside from furthering her own personal aspirations (her words)?
What national issues is she championing? What vote that Cap made would she have voted differently? What mistake has Cap made? Is he never around his district? She has no answer to any of these questions. For someone who follows and take politics/government seriously..this is alarming
That’s the argument Frank was making, be it in his own brash way. And he is absolutely right.
Understand, that I have absolutely no problem with campaigns, or even campaigns against same party candidates…and I could even somewhat understand campaigns against same party incumbents. But there needs to be some difference, some reason to run.
The lynch , forde, zakim examples….all have major differences to run on than the incumbents!
This interview is very substantive.
I liked her answer on how she looks at gun control differently than Capuano:
I think that is the different perspective she is getting. I know that my students have been victims of this trauma and she has been a strong advocate for them on the City Council. She also has pushed strongly for body cameras against the BPD which has been stonewalling this agenda.
I like Capuano and have voted for him in the past. I have invited both candidates to speak with my students and both campaigns are in the process of figuring out a timeline for that. Both campaigns are taking this race seriously and making sure the community I works in gets heard. Capuano is doing his part to take campaigning seriously. This community would not be afforded that opportunity if it was just another uncontested race. That is why I think this race is important and will only help the Democratic party organize communities of color in Boston.
I hope you understand that if Ms. Pressley were running for a different seat, I would enthusiastically support her. I like what she’s saying and doing. The activity and interest you describe in y our school and community is marvelous and much-needed.
I hope that after she loses the primary, Ms. Pressley will enthusiastically and aggressively work to pivot this community energy into support for Mr. Capuano specifically and progressive Democrats in general.
I oppose her candidacy to replace Mike Capuano. I wish she had chosen a different race. I like Ms. Pressley — and I oppose her in this primary.
Opposing her in the primary is an entirely valid position for a long time supporter of Mike Capuano to take. I may ultimately join you. I have voted for both candidates in the past.. I would like to meet with both candidates and see how they interact with my students before making up my mind. In fairness to their campaigns and my students, I will keep my opinion to myself. Opposing her entry into the primary is the argument I find appalling, not the affirmative case for retaining Mike Capuano.
Also…Deval and Obama ran for open seats. This is a little different than running against a democrat that you have said has made no mistakes, and you wouldn’t have done anything differently in regards to voting record.
Lastly, I just looked at some past financial reports. Looks like Cap HAS made political donations to other democratic candidates in races across the country over the years. So I’d recommend taking a peak at that…
Four things:
1. Competition is good. May the best candidate win.
2. I wish she were running against Lynch. But that’s not my call. I can’t require someone to move to a different district.
3. I truly hope this primary doesn’t become one of these times when we take minuscule (or non-existent) substantive differences between the candidates and try to magnify them into something they’re not. That is an unfortunate tendency of primaries; there’s a reason it’s called “the silly season”.
4. “Best use of resources”, well, we’ve got to tend this garden. too. We can make a difference in NH-1, ME-2, and NY-19 (eg.). It is true that as a matter of political triage, the *most* important thing is a Dem congress. But of course it matters who makes up that majority, when we get it. It’s not the primary (hah) concern, but it still matters.
The Sherman Berman jungle primary was a great example of wasting resources, as well as another reason why jungle primaries are dumb. I do not see this race generating nearly as much animosity or wasted money.
It will be won by grassroots boots on the ground, which will have ancillary effects on activating the Boston based progressive grassroots and minority grassroots for down and up ballot races on the same primary ballot. Pressley running helps the progressives running for Suffolk DA, it helps Katie Forde activate the base against Steve Murphy, it helps Zakim against Galvin, and it forces the three gubernatorial campaigns to take campaigning in Boston seriously instead of for granted, which ultimately is their key to beating Baker in the general.
I see nothing but positive ripples coming out of this campaign no matter who wins. A loss for Capuano might incentivize him to run for another statewide office, a loss for Pressley will still elevate her profile for a future contest against Walsh or an eventual Capuano retirement.
The Lynch argument belies the fact that a well funded progressive activist of color already lost 2-1 in that district with a far more direct message of the incumbents failed votes on Obamacare. The reality is, the district is only 30% of Boston, the rest being the South Shore. That 30% is fairly white including the North End, Southie, the white parts of Dorchester, and West Roxbury. His current primary opponent has been nailed as an out of touch carpet bagger from Cambridge and has not gained much traction.
A black female carpetbagger would likely have a similarly hard time, even if Pressley is a far more credible person than Brianna Wu. The reality is, the 7th is a majority minority district and 70% of it is based in Boston. It would likely be a demographically uphill battle for Capuano if this were an open seat and he did not have the name recognition of being an incumbent. That a shrewd political move by a woman of color is being treated with such alarm by the Massachusetts party establishment is frankly more concerning than Franks concerns.
It would cause political grief, but technically you don’t have to live in the district you run in.
Competition is not always good… in particular we have long been warned that the ‘perfect is not the enemy of the good,’ but it strikes me that the challenger here is making exactly that argument.
However, the thrust of the argument is that there is, in fact, no competition. Capuano has the district sewn up and will, and should, win handily. In the context of this district, at this time, Capuano is ‘the best candidate.’ Challenging that is not competition, that’s a quixotic tilt at a nearby windmill.
With so little distinguishing the candidates’ positions… how could it be otherwise? The challengers arguments boil down to “I’m going to do everything the incumbent does, but better while being black and female” which strikes me as a jumping off point for more than a little silliness.
Sewn up?
The first poll to come out after she announced had it at 47-35 for Capuano. 33% of voters have never heard of Pressley.
She leads among voters under thirty 57-28, and among voters aged 30-44 by 50-24. She leads among all non-white voters. She leads by double digits among Boston voters. She gets trounced by older voters, white males, and those outside Boston.
Who knows what the electorate will look like in the fall, but I think younger and less white is probably not a bad prediction.
Are you backing up this assertion with evidence? Pressley has consistently been the top vote getter on the Boston City Council, she represents more of his district as a councilor than his Somerville base, and it is a majority minority and majority female district. Again, I am not saying Capuano is doing a bad job or needs to be replaced. I do strongly resent the dismissive and condescending tone people have taken in reaction to Pressley’s candidacy. As Seth Moulton demonstrated, none of these incumbents should ever take their seat for granted.
Why do you do this to yourself?
Charley made the claim that “competition is good.” I countered with a twofold argument: competition between the ‘perfect’ and the ‘good’ is almost never good… but which internecine follies may be made moot by virtue of the fact that there is no competition to be had. You disagree on the particulars, fine, but the assertion is that not every challenge is a competitive one and that not every competition is a good measure of the differences in various competitors.
“Wait your turn” politics is bad for our Democracy, bad for our party, and bad for our State. It produces bland, cowardly politicians who lose elections. I’m so done with it.
Did anyone here say “wait your turn”?
Barney Frank did, as did the OP. This is what we are arguing against, not Mike Capuano.
The entire premise of this question is condescending. The only person who has agency over whether or not Ayanna Pressley should run for office is Ayanna Pressley. Since she has chosen to contest the race whether it is a waste of resources has become a moot point. Debate the candidates on their background, experience, and issues. To argue otherwise is to make a wait in line or wait her turn argument, and I do not think this is an appropriate argument to be making precisely because we are living in uncertain times. .
That was only part of Barney Frank’s comments. He said that it makes no sense for anyone to try and run to the left of one of the most liberal, outspoken, and bold congressman in the country.
And said if she or any other progressive dem wants to run, to wait their turn.
You can’t cherry pick to create a false narrative.
Has nothing to do with race or gender. Everything to do with he has been a stalwart liberal dem..and why should we replace him with a different dem at this point? Especially, when the dems have a good shot to win back the house. No need for a family fight.
Also, someone earlier tried to compare her run to deval Patrick or Obama’s run….saying that no one told them to wait their turn.
Couldn’t be further from this race. They ran for open seats. Didn’t run against liberal dems! Not racial or gender issue. No need to run to replace the same.
We should all be focused on other congressional races to replace republicans..crazy theory
There are no Republicans to replace in Massachusetts or Boston, so it makes far more sense to select the best Democrat available. The kind of activists who will come out for this race, on other side, are the people we will need to beat Baker and pass ballot questions in the fall. The kind of voters who will now turnout for this race will help challengers like Zakim and Forde and help the gubernatorial candidates gain traction.
There was not a similar outcry to step aside when minor candidates started symbolic challenges against Keating, Neal, or Lynch. The fact that this one has generated so much early opposition is proof that Pressley should be treated as a serious candidate rather than marginalized as a distraction from other races. He has a liberal voting record.
Has he taken on developers? Taken on the police unions? Taken on gun violence from an inner city perspective? Taken on bad corporate giveaways? He fought for the green line and silver line, it what about updating the antiquated and unsafe Mattapan High Speed Line? Or restoring full green line service on the E Line? Those are all issues Pressley has fought for that could use some federal muscle to move along as well. Perhaps she is the woman to do it. Perhaps her challenge at least puts those issues front and center for Capuano to address. I think this is healthy for our local democracy and neglected communities. I say this with no candidate to back, but a fair and civil fight.
I don’t think anyone is saying that Ms. Pressley should “step aside”. I think, instead, that people are reacting to her decision to choose Mike Capuano as her chosen opponent.
You observe that there was no similar outcry when symbolic challenges were mounted against “Keating, Neal, or Lynch”. You then spin this as “proof that Pressley should be treated as a serious candidate”.
In my view, a less contorted to way to interpret the same facts is that Mike Capuano is a far better representative than “Keating, Neal, or Lynch”.
Every “symbolic” candidate runs in order to put whatever issues matter to that candidate “front and center” for the incumbent to address. There’s nothing wrong with that — that’s why they’re called “symbolic” candidates.
I view Ms. Pressley as a symbolic candidate who is provoking concern because Mr. Capuano is much more admired, respected, and — yes — loved by the electorate that any of the three you mentioned.
I feel strongly that in the unlikely event that Ms. Pressley wins her primary challenge, she will not be nearly as strong in Washington as Mr. Capuano. The opposition to restoring full green line service on the E line (I assume you mean restoring green line service to JP) has been local, not national.
Mr. Capuano has succeeded in getting federal funding for GLX — we should not overlook his success in helping gain local support for that as well.
There has been at best lukewarm local support for either the Mattapan line upgrades or for upgrades to the E line. At the local level, the blue line is well ahead of Mattapan and JP in any reasonable ranking of extension priorities.
I therefore very seriously doubt that either Ms. Pressley or Mr. Capuano will get anywhere in gaining federal support for either of the two issue you mention. The feds are notoriously slow to proceed with projects that lack the enthusiastic support of local authorities.
In my view, Ms. Pressley is herself mounting a symbolic campaign. I am disappointed that she chose Mike Capuano as her opponent.
I think an argument could be made either way. Yes he has seniority, but he also voted against retaining the present Democratic leadership in the House (boldly in my view, but something you and others here also oppose). Whether that increases or reduces his influence in the potential majority is something for the voters to think about. Personally for me, the vote against Pelosi is a point in his column. That said, it is definitely something that might undermine his appeal to holding more clout than his opponent.
Again, you make fine arguments for why Capuano should be retained in the primary. That is vastly different from arguing that he should not be facing primary voters in the first place. This is a great opportunity for him to discuss his record and experience in front of the voters who have an opportunity to compare it with a strong challenger. This is absolutely a good thing for our democracy.
My pal, jconway, says : “There are no Republicans to replace in Massachusetts…”
Oh, contraire, my friend.
How about starting with my Republican State Rep. Donald Wong, ( Ninth Essex District ) ?
We’re supporting his Democratic challenger,
decorated U.S. Army veteran, Matt Crescenzo of Saugus.
Excellent point. I am sure the competitive primary for State Senate in the same area will help rather than hurt the Democrat running against Wong.
Not really. The competitive primary for 5th Middlesex State Senate will have de minimis impact on the State House Rep race precisely because there is no competitive primary on either the Democratic or Republican side.
The Democrat expected to run for Rep,, former U.S. Army decorated combat veteran, Matt Crescenzo, thus far, has no announced competition for the Democratic primary nomination.
To my knowledge, Barney Frank never once utter the words “your turn.”
What he did say was that Capuano would retire someday and that would be a great time for another progressive to run and that it’s hubristic to think otherwise… Not the same as ‘wait your turn.’
Are you doing some kind of variation on the twix commercials?
Issues are very much similar.
Background very much dissimilar.
Experience: Capuano has 9 yrs as Mayor of Somerville and 19 yrs as Congressman. In fact, involved with Government in some form since 1976… when Ayanna Pressley was two yrs old.
And you call that ‘competitive’?
That reads more like an argument for change than you realize.
I call “foul”.
I’m as opposed to ageism as I am to racism and sexism.
Calling for change because you disagree with the incumbent is fair game. Calling for change because you think the incumbent has been in office for too long (which is a thinly disguised euphemism for “too old”) is not.
That is your opinion. Many other voters would look at that and say he has been around too long. I think this primary is a great opportunity for people to debate and discuss that question. An opportunity they normally would not have in a state where 73% of the incumbents are unopposed. Valuing increased competition means accepting that the incumbents we like will face challenges from time to time.
I am not an advocate for a candidate. I am an advocate for contested elections and an advocate for fairly weighing the pros and cons of each candidate. Particularly as a potential moderator or host, I am simply asking Socratic questions that hopefully make advocates for both candidates healthily question their assumptions. I think the primary will succeed if it forces both candidates to campaign in the neglected communities of the district and be subjected to new questions from voters who otherwise would not be heard.
It is an ageist comment. The fact that many voters agree with the sentiment doesn’t make the sentiment less ageist. It instead suggests that those voters are themselves ageist.
Suppose a candidate says “I think its time to restore dignity to white men” and suppose polls show that many voters applaud that sentiment. Does the voter approval make the statement any less racist or sexist?
The essence of this meme is that young is better than old.
What does “been around too long” mean?
We seem to be in yet another exchange whose heart is about identity — race, gender, now age. Some say “fresh”, others say “naive”. Some say “stale”, others say “seasoned”. Does the exchange do anything but create more discord?
There is absolutely nothing “socratic” about these words:
That’s a cheapshot either attacking his age, her youth, or both. There are no “new questions” in that.
Ageism is just as insidious and just as hard to admit in oneself as sexism and racism.
Your comment was ageist, whether intended or not.
Tom, I hope you acknowledge the issue here of calling this comment ageist twice while being horrified that someone might view you statement that Pressley brings nothing to this race except her race and gender as . . . you know.
We have met the silly in the season, and it is you.
I’ve been reading Tom carefully and what I read was his pretty clear statement that the challenger brings nothing to the race that the incumbent doesn’t already possess except her race and gender.
Or, to turn it around on ole Bob: the challenger is the one saying left Twix is so much better than right Twix and the challengers erstwhile supporters are all falling all over themselves clamoring to point out how oppressive right Twix can be if you don’t keep an eyeball on them 24/7. Hi Bob (waves)
As I posted, what a challenger brings to the race is entirely up to us. With two strong progressives in the race, we can ask tougher questions. My post about the incarceration of Palestinian children is just an example of an important issue that is usually ignored. There are plenty of others. If enough voters ask enough good questions, people will have enough information to make a decision.
And, as I’ve posted, the point is to ask what happens when the two candidates give very nearly the same answer to these ‘tougher questions’ ?
All Capuano has to do, and he can very plausibly do so, is to agree with everything Pressley says, mooting any progressive cred she might possess by advertising where, and when, he was there first.
A very clear, distinct, palpable and, I judge, insurmountable, advantage Capuano. Why would anyone challenge that?
However, as Charley earlier lamented this is a recipe for making the picayune and minuscule molehills of difference into mountains… as ably demonstrated by yourself, who had to go all the way to the Middle East to find a divisive issue to maybe, possibly, could-be distinguish between the candidates…
“All Capuano has to do, and he can very plausibly do so, is to agree with everything Pressley says, mooting any progressive cred she might possess by advertising where, and when, he was there first.”
In what election, and on what planet has anything remotely like that ever happened.?
Isn’t that just a slightly different version of Sanders v Clinton in the primary of ’16? The very essence of what many here say about how “Sanders brought Clinton to the left” when in actuality Clinton just agreed with Sanders and pointed out where she’d been on the issues for a long time…
Sorry it wrecks your narrative… but co-optation happens all the time. Here, in the race under discussion, the only difference is that Capuano has very plausible claims that would moot any accusations of ‘pandering’.
There were clear policy differences between Clinton and Sanders. That example doesn’t prove your point. If you ever want a gold star, Petr , and to get rid of that symbol that looks like a target at a shooting gallery, you’ll have to do better.
Yes, that interpretation of the race has no basis in reality. Saying single payer “will never, ever come to pass” ain’t pointing out an agreement.
I did not say the analogy was perfect.
However, I have long said, and you have concisely demonstrated, that you will settle for nothing less than perfect and that you, in fact, believe, the perfect is always and forever at odds with the good.
QED.
How many times will you guys repeat this outright lie?
The nominee CLEARLY said that Mr. Sander’s proposal would never ever come to pass. Watch the video (the WHOLE video) for crying out loud, or read contemporaneous reports (linked to here multiple times).
I want to respect your commentary, I really do. When you repeat such lies over and over, you make that much harder.
Such lies make the task of somehow joining together to advance a common agenda immensely more difficult.
This one gave me the giggles.
Her words and the reports are very clear.
And your last point is important – do we really have a common agenda? I think Democratic centrism is a complete dead-end, you obviously don’t.
Very well, then…. Suppose I grant that Democratic centrism is, indeed, a complete dead end… What makes you think a Progressive Puritanism is likely to be a success where Democratic centrism fails?
Hence the fundamental GOVERNING difference between the two candidates. HRC was being realistic, but if Congress by some miracle passed a single-payer system I doubt she would veto it. HRC knows that politics is the art of the possible. Sanders had a lot of good ideas for at least moving the overton window back to the left (and I prefer single-payer myself), but ultimately seemed to believe a lot of his own rhetoric that if only we would elect him everything will magically get better.
High school kids just got gun control measures passed in freakin Florida.
So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love the student activism. The very first mature political organizing I ever did was a student strike in my high school in 1968. It was very effective, and I love that it is happening again.
I encourage you examine the new Florida gun laws rather carefully. I think you’ll find that this first round offers rather less than meets the eye.
I don’t claim that it’s great, but it happened in a state with some of the most backward gun laws after some very good (and brief) collective action. It’s a promising start and I think is evidence that politics as the “art of the possible” is utter BS and a good way to achieve little progress and also lose elections. Who would have thought WV teachers shutting down every public school in the state for two weeks could happen? Or what these Parkland kids helped start legislatively in FL? Or a $15 minimum wage in cities and states?
I think too many Dems operate under this fake sense of “the possible” and that leads to pre-compromised policies, poor politics, and lots of instances of calling others “unserious.” It’s also a good way to squander any public enthusiasm you might be able to work with. Hush now, kids, let the adults take over.
@ “I don’t claim that it’s great, but …”
I agree with everything you say in this comment.
I am among those who wish Obama had fought harder for the public option, but there is a balance and don’t forget HRC already had battle scars over health care. This is part of the experience that is so important to me for that office.
Indeed, Ms. Clinton’s words and the reports are very clear — she was addressing the proposal of Mr. Sanders.
When you and people like you reject facts that are so plainly visible — visible in live video clips that we’ve all seen and and contemporaneous reports that are available for all to read — it makes it very hard for me to give you the respect that I attempt to offer everyone I encounter.
The more you write, the more I agree with you that we have no common agenda.
This has nothing to do with “centrism” or any other label you choose from a grab-bag of buzz words. It, instead, has to do with simple foundations of communication such as telling the truth.
You are attempting to gaslight us.
I agree that the incarceration of Palestinian children is a terrible thing.
It is not on the list of the top 50 things that matter most to me in the upcoming election or in the two year term that the winner of the November election will serve. I don’t see it mention in any of the issues jconway has enumerated in support of Ms. Pressley. I cannot imagine a scenario where a first-year Democrat from Massachusetts can make even the tiniest difference in ANYTHING involving the decades-long Israeli/Palestinian conflict,
I think that issue exemplifies the kind of empty bluster that makes this “silly season”. Your cite of this issue makes my point for me in support of Mr. Capuano.
On the issues that I care most about, Mike Capuano is the clear and obvious winner. We will see how the electorate comes down on the issues that Ms. Pressley’s supporters care most about.
I think Congress needs to act as soon as possible to reverse as many of the devastating actions of the current administration and current GOP House as possible. Whether it is rolling back the tax giveaway to the already wealthy, undoing the destruction of the ACA that the GOP congress has done in stealth (after being unable to do it openly despite years of effort), or taking effective action against an administration that has clearly been in the pocket of Russia for years, the need for Democrats to act effectively in the Congress is urgent and immediate.
If we Democrats retake the House, it means that we need representatives who can hit the ground running — there is no time to waste. If we do not retake the House, then we Democrats need to be the loudest, most effective, and most savvy minority party EVER.
I think Mike Capuano is far and away the best Representative in either scenario.
Typical millenial BS worship of all things new and shiny and young… In no other field of endeavor is this line of reasoning countenanced (much less legal).
Talk to me in twenty years, James, after you’ve been an effective and experienced teacher who loses a job to a young hotshot. You won’t like it then, why should you stand for it now?
I am simply pointing out that there are cons as well as pros to long time incumbency. “He’s been around forever” is a common complaint among voters when it comes to long time politicians. “He delivers the bacon” is a common point of praise. It will be up to the voters of the 7th to decide what they value more. That is what contested elections and campaigns are all about. I do not see how that is ageist or relevant to my radically different profession. As a teacher it is my job to make students look at all sides of an issue and that is what I am trying to do here.
As a teacher, it is also your job to model renaissance standards of reason, logic, and objectivity.
It isn’t “long time incumbency” you’re talking about here, it’s age.
Let me ask another hypothetical. Suppose Ms. Pressley were a woman of the same age as Mr. Capuano. Your comment wouldn’t even make sense.
If the primary candidate was a black woman born in 1952 who had announced her candidacy, would you be as enthusiastic about her? Even if so, you wouldn’t make the ageist comment petr and I are reacting to — because it wouldn’t be true.
Fair enough. Good luck to your candidate Tom.
I’m not sure how to draw a meaningful distinction between this and the challenge to Rep. Lipinski (opposes gay rights, opposed Obamacare, anti-choice, etc..) other than, “well, I don’t agree with that guy” because who gets to decide which reps are sufficiently superduper that a challenge is a terrible waste?
By the way, ML Pelosi’s decision to actively support Lipinski reinforces my belief that the sooner she is the former leader of the caucus, the better.
I think it’s pretty straightforward in the minds of many. Capuano is sufficiently progressive; Lipinski is a DINO.
Well, that settles it then. I do hope you keep an updated list of incumbents who are entitled to be free of primary challenge.
Honestly, this seems like a big nothing to me. As far as I can see, Capuano isn’t exactly vulnerable on his left, so what’s the big deal?
I tend to recoil at the “Do What You’re Told” tone that is struck by the “establishment” types herein, plus Frank, such establishment is so afraid of its own shadow that it is, by its nature, quite conservative.
I didn’t say anyone is entitled to a free primary. In fact I like that Ayanna is running because I’ve known her for several years and shaking things up every now and then isn’t horrible. I don’t have strong connections to Capuano and supported him for Senate in 2009. I’m just saying I can understand people making distinctions between when primaries are more appropriate and when they are not.
People are entirely free to piss directly into the wind, also. Doesn’t mean they should do it. And, I’m much more likely to try to dissuade them from doing so, for their sake as well as my own, when they are standing next to me then when they are very far away.
Ayanna Pressley should not take on Mike Capuano. She shouldn’t do it because it is very highly quite likely to end up a resounding defeat, which is something she neither deserves nor is likely to recover from… And is something I do not want for her.
Many who are here championing her would have recoiled, nauseated, at the thought of Hillary Clinton attempting a primary challenge to Barack Obama in 2012. She did not so. Do you know why she did not? ‘Cause she smart. Here, it looks like Pressley is letting her ambition and ego get the better of her intellect…
Speaking of Barack Obama, he was told to step down and wait his turn when an incumbent state senator changed her mind at the last minute and decided to run again. He choose instead to stay in the race and he became a state senator instead. Four years later he challenged an long time incumbent progressive Congressman and got his clock cleaned.
Instead of ending his career, it propelled him four years later to run for the US senate. Just four years after that he was running for President despite being far less experienced than his 2004 and 2008 primary opponent. So if anything Ms. Pressley is in good company taking a bold risk like this.
The whole political establishment of the State is premised on “wait your turn”. It’s a philosophy, not a direct quote. In most other States contested primaries are a fairly regular occurrence. You don’t win your seat in a special election and hold it uncontested until your death. That’s a Massachusetts thing, and it’s very damaging to having a healthy Democracy.
I suppose we just read the thread-starter and the posts here (not to mention Mr. Frank’s commentary) differently.
In my view, the issue we are discussing is the very narrow question of the decision of Ms. Pressley to challenge Mr. Capuano in the primary.
I agree that the thread-starter is perhaps a bit over-the-top.
I do not claim to speak for anyone else. I explicitly make no assertion that Ms. Pressley or anyone else should “wait their turn”. I don’t know about “the whole political establishment of the State”, nor do I care very much.
The standard I apply to every candidate in every election goes something like “Is this the best person for this office at this time?”.
I am much more inclined to support a primary challenger to Mr. DeLeo, to Colleen Garry, or for that matter to Mr. Lynch or Mr. Kennedy.
I don’t care how Denise Provost or Pat Jehlen won their seats. Each had recent primary opponents, and each of those opponents completely failed my above test.
I think a weak incumbent is easier to defeat than a strong incumbent. I think a strong incumbent who is on the wrong side of a long set of issues is a better target than a strong incumbent who is on the right set of most issues.
In my view, the “new blood” argument is the obverse of the “wait your turn” premise — I reject each.
I oppose Ms. Presley for this position because I think Mr. Capuano is doing a great job, and I think he is the better candidate for this job — by a very large margin.
I reject (and resent) the sour-grapes claim that my posture is an expression of some discredited theory about political “establishment”. I am of the generation that CREATED the “anti-establishment” meme, for crying out loud.
I know what we meant when we coined the phrase “anti-establishment”. We did not mean Mike Capuano.
Your comments have been fine by me Tom. You’re making a case for why we should vote for your candidate in the primary as opposed to arguing the challenger has no business running in the first place. I think the latter position is unfair. Jehlens primary made her a stronger and more influential Senator and was a race that proved charter advocates could not buy an election. It also inarguably helped Mike Connolly downballot in his primary against Tim Toomey. A lot of Cambridge politicos told him to wait his turn, I am glad he did not. I think this race will help drive minority and youth turnout up and down ballot and help those other races. It could help drive Boston turnout in the general as well. Contested elections are always good. May the best candidate win.