The much rumored primary opponent to long-time pol Ed Markey has appeared in the form of a “fight for the little guy” attorney who has won battles with powerful forces before. (Sorry for Globe link Tom)
I know a little about Shannon Liss-Riordan and I’ve always liked the battles she picked. So I’m not going to play cheerleader for her. But Ed Markey has to really, really, really document what he’s been doing in Washington DC for the last 42 years to convince me to vote for him in the primary. Let’s say that again: 42 years in DC.
Of course Ed already has a huge thumb on the scale to crush this opponent, like all incumbents do, with $3.5 million on hand. This is but one of many examples of a rigged political system. How is it good for our political system that a challenger is put at such an incredible disadvantage form the very start? Every candidate deserves to be heard, yet our system gives incumbents a huge advantage to be heard more than their challengers. Just on that point, I’m willing to vote against this rigged system and give my vote to a primary challenger.
Of course Ed professes to be a “clean elections” guy, always fighting for what is right. If that is the case, what is right is Ed should pledge not to spend his $3.5 million he has already collected, against his primary challenger. But he won’t do that if he doesn’t have to, so he won’t. It is unfortunate that politicians today won’t do what is right, but rather do what the rules tell them they can get away with. Rules that politicians write. Hmm, funny how that works.
Well anyway, mark me down as a 2 for Liss-Riordan, mostly based on believing 42 years is long enough for anyone and I’m tired of the system that puts the thumb on the scale that produces 42 years of mediocrity.
Why should we expect Markey to pledge not to spend money on a campaign, which he raised specifically for the purpose of campaigning? That’s just silly. Markey has a solid record of voting and fighting all the right ways and has especially been a champion on the environment. It’s one thing to primary a DINO, but no reason to do it just to shake things up, and certainly from someone most of us have never heard of.
I thought you were in favor of campaign finance reform? One place to start is to make the incumbents zero out their campaign fund after every election (donate the $3.5 million to charity). That way “we the people” have an even playing field to hear and evaluate the candidates. What’s wrong with that?
Also, I find this an interesting perspective in this day and age:
It’s always important for people to run against incumbents…it’s called democracy.
‘It’s always important for people to run against incumbents…it’s called democracy.”
That’s not my understanding of “democracy”.
I think that when an elected official is supported and loved by a majority of his or her constituents, then “democracy” is served by keeping him or her in office.
I think it is important for people to run against incumbents when those incumbents are working against the will of their constituents.
Ed Markey was a fine Representative and he’s been a fine Senator. I reject the notion that he should be primaried because he’s the incumbent, just as I reject arbitrary term limits.
I’m sorry but if this isn’t an example of hating the political system, but loving your political sinner, I don’t know what is. How can we be critical of a system that gives all the advantages to the power of incumbency, and then embrace incumbency?
And seriously, who decides if “incumbents are working against the will of their constituents” if they seldom have a challenger? I haven’t had the time to look it up, but we all know that Ed went unchallenged several times in his 42 years of incumbency. You point to that as a example of the great good he is doing. But if this were Incumbent X from a Red State, you’d be declaring that money and the power of incumbency keeps Incumbent X in office and we need to reform the system.
In fact, just last week or so, you expressed support for making incumbents zero out their campaign funds, so they have to start at the same starting line as a challenger. That was one of the reasons I brought this up in this post. But all of a sudden, when confronted with the reality that one of their favorite long-time incumbents are using the rigged system to their advantage, silence.
Seriously, blind loyalty to Ed Markey is ALMOST as bad as the blind loyalty Trump supporters show to him.
Whoa, partner, slow down.
In the discussion where I discussed making incumbents zero out their campaign funds, we were talking about STATE REPRESENTATIVE races. That’s a completely different context.
You conclude your thread-starter by saying that your primary reason for supporting the challenger is his 42 years in office. You say absolutely nothing about his long record of policy accomplishments. You openly state that your support of his challenger has nothing to do with her qualifications for the office.
The ONLY thing you talk about is the length of his tenure. So far as I’m concerned, that’s sheer age discrimination.
I did not point Mr. Markey’s 42 years as an example of the great good he is doing — his record speaks for itself. The fact that you choose to ignore that record is your issue, not Mr. Markey’s.
“Blind loyalty to Ed Markey”? “As bad the blind loyalty Trump supports show him”? Stuff it.
You did not read my post (nor the headline) very carefully. What part of “I’m listening” did you interpret as “I’m a supporter”? And given the nature of the readership here, my comment that I was a “2” means I lean toward her (if your not familiar with how campaigns rate supporters).
Yes, given the state of our politics and country, anyone that has served in Washington DC for 42 years starts in the red with me. Shannon Liss-Riordan could flame out tomorrow and my opinion of Markey being an stands. Sure you an get enough things accomplished in 42 years to point to a record of accomplishments. But in total, he is the quintessential DC creature that does not deserve a rubber stamp approval.
Also, why do you favor making state Reps (and Senators I assume) zero out their campaign accounts and not for Federal Offices? The reasoning to do it is exactly the same thing? I find that puzzling.
Incumbent X from a red state is likely not doing what we want and therefore we would more likely want him to be challenged.
You wanted Markey to vote to repeal Glass Steagall?
I assume from your question that he indeed voted that way? I’m not an expert in this area of policy. My gut says keeping it would have been better, but I’ve also read that maybe that wasn’t the boogey man it’s been made out to be. I said a horrible voting record is a valid reason to primary, but I don’t want the Democratic equivalent of Tea Party purity either.
Charlie proved a link below to that very fact. Both the expansion of credit default swaps and the repeal of Glass Steagall was at the foundation of the Great Recession. Please link o the sources that suggest otherwise and claim repealing GS is a “boogeyman”.
Markey co-sponsored Warren’s 21st Century Glass Steagall Act.
The original act should have been reformed for modern banking instead of jettisoned. I think his co-sponsorship of this is a recognition of that fact.
I’m open to a law requiring everyone to turn over their remaining cash on hand to the state, the party, or a charity, but do not expect anyone to do that absent a law.
You know, this is a pretty ignorant post. Markey is well-known as one of the most effective and influential legislators. He gets stuff done, and it isn’t always sexy or front page. Here’s a brief rundown:
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2013/06/factcheck_how_effective_was_co.html
Care about privacy?
https://iapp.org/news/a/why-the-new-senator-markey-may-be-the-most-influential-privacy-congressman/
etc. etc. etc., at great length.
Add that to the fact that he’s been absolutely on the forefront of the fight for net neutrality, and yes indeed, the Green New Deal. He’s been a climate warrior, pro-choice warrior, anti-gun warrior, consumer warrior for 42 years. As I’ve said many times, he’s a workhorse, not a show horse.
AEI’s Norman Ornstein calls him one of the most effective legislators in DC.
Having said that-Capuano voted the right way and people in his district concluded they were not being represented. Ditto for John Tierney or Byron Rushing for that matter. I am still confident primary voters will reward Markey with a second Senate term.
He gets the local as well as the national right. Markey has been a drum major on getting justice for the victims of the natural gas explosion in the Merrimack Valley-even bringing his committee hearings out to Lawrence to do this. He is getting the local right.
Ayanna Pressley was successful in her challenge because she was better known among communities of color and younger voters than the incumbent. Unlike Capuano, Markey has won a competitive primary and competitive general in the last five years. Unlike Capuano, Markey has made a very visible and strategic alliance with the most popular Democrat in Congress after Bernie Sanders who is very popular with younger voters and voters of color. I expect AOC would endorse her Green New Deal co-sponsor over this challenger.
That said-I respect the challenge. I think we need more of them at all levels of government. If she brings in new ideas or new issues even better. It will result in a better Senator, either by making Markey more responsive to voters or replacing him with someone who is.
Well I’m glad someone else around here respects the need for incumbents to be challenged.
But I have to say, I’m tired of people citing politicians who are basically doing there job and are lauded for basically doing their job. Thousands of lives disrupted, billions and loses because of the natural gas explosion in MV. We are supposed to appauld his efforts for doing his job? Doing his job would have been oversight that prevented the explosions in the first place (well, more on the state level, but you get my point).
Why do we set the bar so low for the people we like?
Are you KIDDING?
Since when is oversight of natural gas providers in the Merrimack Valley the job of a Senator? That fault lies squarely in the bromance of Charlie Baker and Bob DeLeo. It is the direct consequence of generations of government-is-bad deregulation and privatization, combined with generations of we-don’t-need-new-taxes.
You’re just taking cheapshots at Mr. Markey, unsupported by facts or logic.
You really need to read the full thread before you start shooting. James made a reference to the great job Markey did in terms of the gas leaks. That is what prompted my comment. I was not taking a cheap shot.
Here is your comment:
That’s a cheap shot.
No. Someone felt he deserved recognition for his work. My “cheap shot” was to say he was doing his job. ut you can read into it what you want.
I invite you to re-read your words. Your cheap shot was that he was NOT doing his job (“Doing his job would have been oversight that …”).
Is it asking too much for you to take responsibility for your own words? It’s not that hard to say “I was wrong about about that”. I’ve done it here and so can you.
Ignorant? Really? So much for consecutive dialogue at BMG. Like Tom (and apparently others) calcified incumbents you don’t like are the only acceptable examples of a politically corrupt system.
We are worst than sheep if we simply support “our” incumbents who take advantage of the rules of a corrupt system (the support for then Speaker Dimasi on BMG made me ill at the time) and then criticize the GOP for the same sins.
And I’m not sure if you just read the headlines and not the articles or actually agree with the substance of the links you provided. I assume the former (making you ignorant) and not the latter (making you in favor of the repeal of Glass Steagall Act, which Ed voted to do–which I doubt).
And one of those articles claims he is a leader in protecting our data privacy. By what measure is he a “champion” on the issue? By the measure of what kind of “privacy” existed before, or by the measure that I and millions of other people (probably many of the Markey fans here) who had their financial data stolen many, many times. (My negligence? Shopping at stores, subscribing to the Boston Globe, having a credit report…) So if Markey is a champion on Privacy, then all the more reason to say he has failed at his job.
Also, I don’t have the time to research the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I will grant you that is/was a very significant piece of legislation. But it is ironic that Markey is a big “Net Neutrality” politician. Because much–no all–of the lack of regulations around the telecommunications industry is directly related to the “free market” laws found in Markey’s 1996 Act. For example, if people are libeled by a post on FaceBook, unlike having the ability to sue the Boston Globe if libel is printed in their pages, Ed Markey gave FB and other emerging platforms (and of course at the time, unknown) a free pass from being responsible for what their platforms post.
So the next time you call someone ignorant, do your homework or you will show your ignorance. Plain and simple.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about regarding net neutrality, privacy, and the 1996 act. You really don’t. As you suggest, there is a LOT of material in the 1996 telecommunications act. That material was a major step forward in protecting consumer privacy, especially in its day. Your use of that to attack Mr. Markey is, well, uninformed. If you don’t have time to research the act, then you shouldn’t be using it to attack Mr. Markey.
I find it ironic that you are still subscribing to the Boston Globe even though you admit they’ve breached your personal data. The fault for those breaches has everything to do with the Boston Globe and virtually NOTHING to do with Ed Markey. It is doubly ironic that Charley chastised me for cancelling my Globe subscription. Oh well.
In this case, it is you who flatly refuses to do your homework — by your own admission.
PS Tom — subscribe to the Globe. 😉
I’m honestly baffled here. Why shouldn’t we support incumbents who we are feel are doing a good job?
BTW, what specifically was “ignorant” about my comments? Other than name calling, you failed to give any examples. The thrust of my argument is that 42 years is along time to be in office and relative to the time in office, has very little to show for it.
You apparently feel that is an “ignorant” comment. Then you cite articles that says how effective he was…like repealing banking rules that many feel started the us on the road to the Great Recession. Or his work on Alzheimer’s, which is noble. But federal research for Alz has been at a stand still for several years, while costs to care for Alz has skyrocketed, bankrupting many families. As you can tell, I feel you pretty ignorant for your ignorant comment. Are you going to ban me…then you’ll have 3 readers of this blog. (Now that was rude of me…making us even with your ignorant comment).
You wrote a post accusing Markey of “mediocrity” with literally no specifics. I wrote back with numerous specifics, and given enough time I could provide countless more — including and especially his Herculean work on the ACES global warming legislation that passed the House but not the Senate in 2010. He did his job — as usual.
And then you criticize him for not enough privacy, when he wrote the very privacy protections that we *do* enjoy. That is perverse. (Have you heard of/dealt with HIPAA protections? He wrote ‘em.)
As for the Telecom act, you’ll notice that Markey was pretty much responsible for the good parts, and the Republicans were responsible for the bad parts. That sounds to me like we should have a.) fewer Republicans, and b.) more Ed Markeys.
Going forward, please don’t make me do your Google work for you. Bring something to the table.
LOL, how in the world do you cite specifics about someone being mediocre? You certainly can cite specifics about superior behavior or terrible behavior. But that’s the whole point about someone being mediocre, you just feel meh about them. And that’s how I feel about Markey.
And being mediocre means going along, and Markey certainly goes along with the corporate/political system of DC. And you’ve been tainted by this system as well, by not doing a 100% vetting.
One of the links you provided lauded Markey’s role in repealing the Glass Steagall Act. I hope we don’t need to discuss why this was a bone head move (a bonehead move most of the MA Dems in Congress at the time committed). But I wondered why such a pro-piracy sounding group, the International Association of Privacy Professionals, would care so much about repealing key banking regulations.
So I looked at their members page and found a who’s who of corporate America as members (where are the consumer groups, the free speech and free press groups I wondered?).
So I looked at their board of directors. http://bluemassgroup.com/2019/05/markey-gets-a-primary-opponent-im-listening/#comment-414863
Mostly top executives from companies like LinkedIn; Pfizer, Citrix, Walt Disney, Uber and Northrop Grumman. You know the folks really concerned with my and your privacy.
This is the crazy system we live in. Where you can’t trust a damn thing or politician. The system continually snows us with BS, like this group, and we all fall for it at one point or another. Markey–and many other entrenched politicians–thrive in this environment. We need to break this pattern. Ed Markey is not bigger than this system that badly needs reform. He is the epitome of this status quo, broken system. That’s why I’m open to someone with reasonable bonafides to replace him.
And given that you dig up corporate astro-turf for research no, I’d rather you not do any Googling for me.
So Charlie, can you provide better sourcing for Markey’s privacy “achievements” than a corporately funded mouthpiece for companies who’s business models are based on using people’s data for profit? Just wondering?
Ed Markey being lauded as one of the most effective people in Congress is like saying he is one the healthiest people participating in a hot dog eating contest.
We won’t get better results by electing the same people. Plain and simple.
Why is this candidate a better option? How would she vote differently?
I share the concern that some people have been there forever and dislike the argument that some incumbent has ‘more influence since he’s been there x amount of years’. It did not hold for Joe Crowley or Mike Capuano. In my view, it does not hold for Richard Neal even if he is W&M Chair. Or for Byron Rushing. I do think it was an effective argument for Ted Kennedy back in the day. He did get a lot of things done. Or for Menino.
I think with Markey’s visibility on climate issues, particularly the Green New Deal, it is going to be difficult to beat him from the left in this kind of primary. I could see Moulton making a ‘guy’s been there too long and I’m a Marine’ pitch for the Baker and Lynch Democrats, but I don’t see an AOC style challenger beating back Markey. Particularly since he has cosigned AOCs agenda.
I am open to Shannon Liss-Riordon when she comes out with her record and stance on the issues, of which you admit you know little about. We know where Ed Markey stands.
Markey’s collusion with a short seller to manipulate the price of Herballife shares in 2014 should be enough reason to boot him. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-herbalife-investigation/massachusetts-senator-calls-for-probe-into-herbalife-shares-drop-idUSBREA0M19520140123)
Please, no whining about how Herballife is a sleazy company and the short seller was really a nice guy who was trying to make a point. Members of Congress have no business trafficking in inside information to manipulate stock prices. Markey is lucky to only be facing a primary opponent, and not a prosecutor.
You seem to have this knack for picking up on things that to hear you tell it should be these huge scandals, yet from lack of coverage I sense maybe aren’t big deals after all. As I recall you’ve subjected Maura Healey to the same treatment.
There is no evidence of any sort of “collusion” with anybody in the link you cited. Are you unhappy because Mr. Markey agreed with Mr. Ackman that Herbalife was an utter and complete scam?
If you have evidence that Mr. Marker personally profited from the Herbalife investigation, please offer it. All I find is a transparently political ethics complaint from a Republican opponent in a desperate and failed attempt to rescue a losing campaign in 2014. The fact that today, after five years, I can find no reporting at ALL about that complaint strongly suggests that it was dismissed as the political hogwash it was.
This line in particular: “Members of Congress have no business trafficking in inside information to manipulate stock prices” exemplifies commentary that verges on being an outright lie. It uses a phrase — “trafficking in inside information” — that actually means something. Even the spurious complaint against Mr. Markey didn’t reach THAT level of hyperbole.
Please stop lying about Mr. Markey.
Ackerman lobbied Markey for an investigation into Herbalife in order to profit from his short position on Herbalife stock. The purpose of the investigation was to drive down the price. That is a variation on the old “pump and dump” scam. Accoriding to reports Markey spent and hour being lobbied by Ackerman and then co-operated by pushing for the investigation.
I’m not lying about Mr Markey any more than I was lying about Gerry Stuidds.
I get that you sincerely believe that Mr. Markey illegally conspired with Mr. Ackerman in a pernicious scheme to describe life, the universe, and everything. That doesn’t make it true.
Your characterization goes well beyond the facts that have been reported.
Every time I’ve heard Markey speak almost every sentence is “I did this” or “I did that.” He continually tells his audiences what legislation he’s proposed or passed or worked on, which is good.
But, boy, it sure tires me out and makes me think that Ed Markey is way too full of himself. In addition, I think a lot of the legislation he’s so proud of has had terrible consequences as well as good ones and he doesn’t usually mention fixing those terrible consequences at all. Or so my memory tells me.
Hmm. So which is it? In commentary on the rest of the thread, he should be replaced because you can’t remember what he’s done. Yet when he tells you what he’s done, you (pogo) upvote a complaint that he “tires you out”.
@gmoke: Your memory is failing you.
Hmmm. Nobody on this blog would be caught dead advocating voter suppression. But isn’t it the most effective voter suppression to just not have an election at all?
“… isn’t it the most effective voter suppression to just not have an election at all?”
There is no evidence that any votes were suppressed or that any candidate was discouraged from running for any office.
What on EARTH are you talking about?
Republicans are engaged in voter suppression all across the country because they know that higher turnout benefits Democrats.
“Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” Joseph Goebbels
I’ve always wanted a candidate who would run as an organizer, leaving constituents doing practical things at the grassroots level to continue their work whether or not said candidate won the election. Markey’s continual blowing of his own horn is most definitely not in that mode and, in my opinion, strengthens the “Big Daddy/Mommy” form of “democracy” where it is only an astute legislative infighter with years of experience who can do what the “people” demand.
My interactions with Markey have been few and far between but remain consistent with my observation of most professional politicians – they may be politely silent while a voter is explaining something to them but they aren’t really listening, just waiting to tell you how great they are.
I still believe that voting is the least of democracy as a civic duty and that people organized in their own interests have the ability to herd politicians in the direction they should go, that people should start the parade and expect the politicians to run to the head of it and pretend they started it all.
I am especially disappointed that Markey seems never to have recognized the pernicious influences the mid 1990s telecommunications deregulations act he helped shepherd through Congress has caused. He still seems to think that it was an unalloyed success, at least the last time I heard him claim credit for it.
Will I vote for Markey? I don’t know yet. He certainly has stepped up to the plate on climate change and I thank him for it. But he should learn to credit somebody other than himself from time to time.
In my book the grassroots ARE the organizers while the elected officials are the leaders. You do need to toot your own horn in this business. Democrats have lost races due to a reluctance to do so.
Well again, I’d like to know specifics about what you think was good or bad.
He’s a politician; he talks himself up. They do that; that’s the game. (He also makes corny jokes and acronyms.)
I’ve spoken to Markey a couple of times (though not terribly recently). He was very courteous, friendly, unpretentious, smart, extremely well-informed and conversant with policy detail, and I gather he had good, smart staff as well.
I’ve read a lot of commentary about how Markey is worth voting for in a primary. I’ve read exactly nothing that shows he rates a pass, or that a primary opponent is somehow bad for the progressive cause.
I would not say that a primary is a bad thing, and Ms. Liss-Riordan sounds like an interesting person. I feel very confident that Sen. Markey will make a very good case for himself as the primary season goes on.
I find primarying incumbents unnecessary unless there is a horrible voting record or corruption involved. Politics is a team sport and we should have each other’s backs within the party and focus on beating Republicans. For open seats or a GOP incumbent OTOH, the more the merrier.
It’s kind of a slippery slope though, isn’t it Christopher? I seem to remember your opposition to ballot questions a while back, because you thought that we should just leave it to legislators to make laws.
Now, your comfortable with insulating legislators from the voters, “unless there is a horrible voting record or corruption involved.”
Whether an incumbent has a “horrible” voting record is just the thing that the voters should get to decide as often as possible.
I see a real slide toward complacency in your comments. If you’re not careful you’ll end up like Fred, who confuses progressivism with ancestor worship.
I am opposed to ballot questions except to amend the state constitution (not to be confused with opposing specific questions since I do sometimes vote yes). To be clear I’m not suggesting that we should legally prohibit primaries and I would be first in line to oppose if someone were to propose that. I do think there is something to be said for stability in our government so for me if you’re going to primary an incumbent you had better have a darn good reason. I do not see that in Markey’s case.
” If you’re not careful you’ll end up like Fred …”
Enough with the personal attacks. Really. ENOUGH.
There’s unfortunately been a lot of that in this thread and all over the site. It is a contributing reason to why I have not posted as frequently these last two years as I had before. It drives down traffic and makes newcomers afraid to come here. I have tried to avoid it as best as possible.
I think the old rules still apply: unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, charity in disagreement.
For me supporting Ed Markey is not a litmus test one way or the other. I proudly welcome the challenger and her supporters to make reality based arguments for why she is going to be better than Sen. Markey. Obviously that will be an uphill but not impossible case to make.
Prior to the Green New Deal I would have been more open to this case, I just do not see how one can run to the left of an AOC ally in a Massachusetts primary. What positions would she have to endorse? I am eager to learn more. If this challenger wants to succeed she should follow Ayanna Pressley’s playbook and not Marissa DeFranco’s.
Well, if I may say so, you recently took a few months off, which was noticed and you were missed.
Had a lot more to do with getting settled back in Boston and my practicuum year followed by semester one in my new school. Now I have some more free time-but I do think the quality of the posts has deteriorated and we all have a responsibility to make the site better.
If I’m angry about something here or outside of here-I don’t post. I wait until I’m ready. I think it’s good advice. I also got off twitter completely and have dialed back my Facebook. We could all use a break.
And? I think everyone is on the same page that if she gets the signatures and necessary delegates at the convention than she should be on the ballot and make her case. I have yet to see a supporter of hers make a case for why she is better, nor have I read any compelling evidence for why he is worse. Anyone is welcome to make that case and I for one am open to the evidence.
I voted for Pressley. I voted for Santiago. I voted for Zakim. I am one of the few people who defended Moulton against Tierney on this site. I am all for competitive elections-one of the reason I tried to create a genuine center left alternative to the Mass Democratic Party. What I learned through that effort is that people won’t vote for an alternative for its own sake. They need a reason to vote for something as well as strong reasons to vote against something or someone. It’s gotta hit both.
One of the challenges Wu ran into is that she did not live in the district or understand its local issues, this put her at a huge disadvantage to Lynch. It was not enough to be ‘not Lynch’ she also had to offer something more. The same rang true for Zakim who went nuclear on Galvin and still managed to lose that primary despite impressive funding and backing. There are a lot of people who think Galvin is doing a bad job, but they needed to be educated on why Zakim would do a better job. Frankly he failed to make that second case.