by @BarryRafkind in Politics
Posted on November 27, 2009 at 10:25 pm
GD Star Rating
loading…
loading…
According to a Globe article published earlier this evening [Coakley picks up endorsements from Capuano's hometown] endorsements from current and former Somerville pols break down like this:
Martha Coakley
- State Rep. Carl M. Sciortino Jr.
- Former state Senator Sal Albano
- Former Somerville mayors Dorothy Kelly Gay and Eugene C. Brune, who is now Southern Middlesex Register of Deeds
Michael Capuano
- Current Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone
- State Senator Pat Jehlen
- State Rep. Denise Provost
- “and a raft of current aldermen and school committee members.”
Who are you supporting for US Senate and why?
GD Star Rating
loading…
loading…
I will support Capuano. I feel Martha has zero experience dealing with issues outside of MA and this may be a problem. Also, she just got elected AG and is jumping from job to job. I am not a fan of that.
loading...
In an e-mail yesterday morning (11/28/09), Mike Dukakis announced he is endorsing Capuano. I’m supporting Capuano as well. While he doesn’t have a huge amount of experience and clout in Washington, he has some, and Coakley has none.
loading...
LOL. Capuano??? The guy still thinks Cheney and Bush are in charge and is railing against them for some odd reason still. I saw his AD and just laughed — and I know Mike well. He’s a buffoon.
All 4 democrat candidates are trying to out “left” each other. All buffoons who will spend, tax and then tax and spend some more. No thanks.
I’m going to look at the GOP candidate and see if we can change this culture of progressive corruption. We need change.
loading...
If I could vote I’d vote for anyone but a Mass Democrat. I feel that the primary agenda of progressive candidates is to impoverish the middle class for the benefit of the poor.
I’m actually curious how the current anti-democrat whiplash that is going on in the nation be reflected in the Massachusetts election. I have no doubt that the democrat will win the seat, but wander if a republican candidate will have a higher percentage of vote compared to an average.
loading...
Knut, what makes you think that about progressive candidates?
What leads you to think there is a national anti-Democrat “whiplash” going on?
What type of candidate would you prefer?
loading...
Barry,
Why do I think that progressivism is out to rob the middle class? To be specific I’ll share a personal example.
Last year I bought a house here in Somerville. It’s a small house (1200 sq feet) on an ugly street, covered in asbestos. It was a foreclosure and I got it fore relatively cheap but my mortgage is still roughly 2300 a month. This crappy little house is all I could afford and I’m happy because I’m finally a homeowner. I’m not rich but make a good salary, but still rent out part of it to help with the payments.
While I was searching for a home I found a beautiful condo, 1400 sq, in an old converted school house in a beautiful part of JP. Great price too. I couldn’t buy it because I made more than the income limits.
I also couldn’t rent out or buy any of the beautiful and often properties in Somerville/Cambridge that because I made more money then acceptable, and all of these places bigger and better than the POS that I finally bought.
Although, I could buy this one condo in JP which was at the moment rented out to a woman who was paying with it with Section 8 checks she was getting from the state, while apparently using her own money to buy 50 or 60 pairs of shoes that I saw in her place. However, if I did buy it, I wouldn’t have received assistance from the state and would’ve had to cover the hefty mortgage myself.
And all of these people get to live in these great places, while I have to sit in my POS tiny apartment, while dishing out 35% in taxes, so that it could pay for their comfortable living.
And this is one of my problems with progressivism: I (middle class) live like sh*t, while paying for others to live in much better conditions than I do.
To answer your other questions. I think there is a general anti-democrat whiplash because of the Obama’s plummeting rankings as well as the fact that 2 Republicans picked up Gubernatorial seats during the last election.
My choice for a candidate would be a Libertarian (pipe dream) as I think Libertarians are most democratic and liberty minded candidates. Unlike Republicans they don’t stick nose in your private matters and are not war mongers. Also, unlike Democrats, they don’t want to tax the hell out of you and give your money to others, be it other people or corporations.
loading...
Knut, excellent points and yes… the progressives want to tell people where & how to live and how much each person is entitled to earn. They want to tax us through the ground.
I myself have always been a blue dog democrat, but with these far-left moonbat progressives (Obama, Deval, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc) destroying our government and redistributing our wealth to the layabouts — I am done. I will never vote for another democrat again. Ever.
FYI: Barry is a nice enogh fellow, but he always responds with multiple questions. He never addresses any points — it gets annoying, but he means no harm. I realize why he does what he does; his progressive positions are indefensible. Unless you’re a marxist.
We need change. Vote all incumbents out.
loading...
Knut, thank you for elaborating on your perspectives.
I wonder what compelled you to buy a house you didn’t like? Especially, when you could certainly have rented a nice place for less than your current mortgage. It seems like you are comparing apples (the quality of a rental unit) to oranges (the quality of purchased unit – which you could fix up, by the way).
I don’t suppose you’d prefer to trade your good salary and property for a low income and Section 8 housing?
What do you mean about income limits for purchasing properties?
Why mention the bit about how many shoes the woman owned?
I don’t suppose you’d remain a Libertarian very long if you would fall on hard times, such as becoming unemployed for an extended period or developing an expensive medical condition that wasn’t covered well by your health insurance (if you still had it). Although I only wish you good health and prosperity, I wonder if you’ve thought about what you’d do then?
Have you ever thought of becoming that Libertarian candidate you’ve dreamt of?
loading...
Barry,
There are income limits for both renting and purchasing subsidized properties.
I’ve been a Libertarian for very long and I think I would remain one even if I lost my job and have fallen on hard times. I think this is also one more thing I like about it – Libertarians have a bit of a zen approach – they believe that there are times of propsperity and times of recession. Unlike the 2 major parties that believe in constant growth, manipulate the market or currency to achieve that and actually therefore add to the problem.
I do have to admit, that sometimes I swing between “more to the right” or “more to the left” libertarianism and frankly I’m more of a federalist than true-by-the-book libertarian, and I do believe that there should be a safety net for healthcare, but on a state level, not national level (what we have currently in Mass). I’m also not against social programs (on state level) as long as they are available to everyone, not only for those who fulfill certain conditions.
Also, I can’t become a candidate or even be a member of the Libertarian party (or any party for that matter). I can’t vote either. I’m not a citizen, yet.
loading...
Why all the debates? Martha has this one in the bag.
And as for that silly Globe endorsement of Khazi? Nice guy, but should stick to his City Year efforts. They’re much more vauluable to us than another politician kissing Nancy Pelosi’s butt lifted behind.
loading...
Some of the best political writing I’ve seen has been through endorsements of Mike by the Phoenix, the Tab, the Banner, and Bay Windows. And, I don’t know about you, but when I get a robocall from Dot Gay for Martha I can only remember that she’s the only incumbent Somerville Mayor thrown out of office by losing to two – not one, but two – outsiders. To me that says more about Martha’s political sense than Mike could ever say: we didn’t like Dorothy, really, and claiming that as a credit says why we can’t trust Martha, really.
It also raises or at least implies the question of who among progressives might run against Sciortino. Carl’s support for Martha seems oddly parallel to Dorothy’s: only a losing politician, who ignores Mike’s roles as both our incumbent Congressman and potential Senator, who has not and does not seek his office’s help with and for constituents…only that kind of incumbent office holder would seek to insult his congressman while investing in an outsider. So far, Carl’s only faced troglodytes like Vinnie Ciampa and Paul Trane. Just because he’s gay does not mean he’s also progressive! Unless you really think that progressivism is defined by what you do in bed!
loading...
Joe, what was it about Dot Gay that rubbed Somerville voters the wrong way?
This letter co-authored by Sciortino in Bay Windows helps explain his endorsement of Coakley.
What do you have against Rep. Sciortino other than the fact that he didn’t endorse your candidate?
On what grounds do you question his progressive politics? Judging by his accomplishments and endorsements, he seems to have lots of progressive credibility.
Why would you expect a state rep to seek the help of a Congressional rep? Were there any particular cases you’re thinking of?
Just for the record, Carl was challenged by Somerville Ward 7 Alderman Bob Trane, not his brother, Paul.
I wonder whether your aggressive defense of Capuano has more to do with his help in securing earmarks for community programs you’ve been involved with, and less to do with whose politics are more progressive.
loading...
Another point against Sciortino supporting Capuano is that the Capuano’s supported his challenger, Bob Trane, in last year’s election [link to the SOS campaign finance records]. I wonder what motivated the Capuano’s to support Trane against Sciortino?
loading...
First, Dot Gay rubbed the voters wrong in many different directions. She began as progressive, yet soon made peace and eventual co-dependency with several of the least progressive players, thereby assuring enmity not only as a conservative but also as a betrayer. She hid and conspired with a variety of players who, at various points, shared many of those same traits – not the lease of whom was Kathy O’Day, who became her chief apologist. It seems, in some ways, that Kathy helped her rationalize her progressive vocabulary (itself build while a member of the Governor’s Council), while Dot & Kathy built allies against many of those same progressive positions – whether they be gay or transit or education or health or development or Assembly Square or other deals, positions, or allies. In many other ways it seemed that Dot really believed in her advocacy for positions she then fairly explicitly betrayed – on multipurpose and intensive Assembly Square development for example – and ignored how her agreements with some developers betrayed her promises to others.
That pattern of self-justification and retroactive rationalizations reflects how many positions and politicians seem or become self-cancelling. Carl’s betrayal, for one range of examples, slid slowly from a network of commitments to a wide range of gay and lesbian advocacy (in schools, to youth, to housing, to aging and in health) to a more narrow focus on marriage – largely through his alliance with Mass Equality. Mass Equality, in turn, gradually shifted from an alliance of 20 or more progressive agencies (from the ACLU to the Mass Gay & Lesbian Task Force and others), to a stand-alone entity, focused exclusively on marriage and thereby distancing (if not actually betraying) many of its former constituents. This eventually trumped their and Carl’s broader range of allies. When, for example, the Task Force saw him, on budget day several years ago, hanging in his office with Mark Solomon (of Mass Equality), resigned to limited victories while the Task Force and others scored repeated additional victories by working other members of the House, Carl burned not one but dozens of other alliances.
In other words, Carl was on thin ice long before he cut himself off from Capuano and chose an Attorney General over a practical and effective legislative ally. Frankly, all but Executive statewide politicians can do very little beyond their spectrum on behalf of constituents. Even there, however, Martha’s high visibility advocacy for gay marriage waited until other key states joined Massachusetts before she “took the lead” and challenged the federal DOMA, which, to any serious politician, absolutely limits her reliability. If she’s not available until its safe, she’s practically not available, and that’s why most of the current politicians support Capuano. Carl ignored such self-interested timing, and keyed his support to a superficial bottom line.
In choosing Coakley over Capuano he not only demonstrated a kind of naivete that confuses ideology with practical and effective advocacy, but, much more important, revealed that he did not have an active and positive relationship on behalf of his constituents with one of the more accessible and successful federal officials available. Typically, a constituent goes to a State Rep first, for any apparent problem with state or local government, and the state pol will work with a Congressional (or Senate) staff member in resolving problems. That’s the primary reason why virtually all currently elected officials at city, state, and among the Congressional delegation endorse Capuano: his office is very effective in resolving federal and state problems constituents face (regardless of contributions). Dot Gay and Gene Brune’s exceptions to this rule illustrate precisely why they are no longer in office: effective politicians work across alliances and often with opponents to resolve constituent issues whether those issues are messy like immigration or litigation, or more direct like veterans’ affairs or union or development concerns.
Carl – and Dot and Gene – clearly have not worked with Capuano on enough of those cases to deliver (to either side) the kind of service their mutual constituents have found with other elected officials (including but not limited to Capuano). If you can’t get help when a friend or constituent is at risk of eviction, or rejected because of unclear immigration status, or subject to whimsical and conflicting regulations by an adversarial federal agency – and I have had cases of each of these resolved by Capuano – then it’s logical to support somebody like Coakley who has been friendly ideologically. If you do get that kind of help, and then choose Coakley over Capuano, you are an idiot. I don’t think Carl’s an idiot. I do think he is profoundly superficial (itself an interesting neologism), and probably has a much more limited history with his Congressman’s case work than people like me. It’s Carl’s job to build that history, whereas I just know people. He’s quite clearly not doing that job.
Regarding the Trane brothers there is a more interesting range of conflicts. You’re quite right that it was Bob Trane who ran against him, not Paul, and Bob had Mike’s not terribly aggressive support. Paul worked for Mike and worked on Mike’s current campaign, as, I suspect, Bob does as well. I don’t like either of the Tranes – Paul lobbies for Verizon and ATT and Comcast, who, I think, are among the most contemptible of American corporations; while Bob is a crony of some of the least likable of Somerville pols. Yet their support of Capuano doesn’t bother me at all, and, in fact, makes it possible to work with them on behalf of people we may both want to help. Ironically, while the Tranes and I may agree on very few things, agreeing on Capuano makes it possible to build more agreements, while, at the same time, I agree with Carl on many ideas but find his networks so unreliable that I would go to him only on the safest of issues.
Finally and in summary, Capuano is massively progressive in execution and in practical, realistic ways. His progressivism reflects his knowledge of the problems people face, and the failure of ideology to solve those problems. He is eclectic in his solutions, which, to me, is far more progressive than ideological and polarized rhetoric. His success in securing earmarks, in fact, underscores his ability to work across that ideology on behalf of constituents, jobs, and our community’s economic and cultural development, since many of those earmarks were during one of the most regressive Presidential administrations in our history. I know Mike’s constituent services compared favorably with Teddy’s, and would expect many of the same people might pop up in his office, while I doubt many would survive with Martha. And I think that will help in working with the “permanent government” of agency and enforcement officials in Washington. I don’t think Carl even knows much about this level of government, concerned, as he is, with a kind of voluntarism and ideological level of social change and civic engagement. When you wear the white gloves of ideology, the boxing gloves of real politics seem a little foreign.
loading...
ahhh…. progressives eating their own. I love it.
(munch….munch…. munch)
Can you guys wait for me to pop some more popcorn? I don’t want to miss any of the entertainment.
Oh yeah, Joe, Carl beat Bob not Paul.
loading...
“Progressives” are not a monolithic group and can be found scattered among supporters of Capuano, Coakley, and Khazei. (I doubt that any are supporting Pagliuca, but you never know.)
loading...
Xumi’s so out-of-it that he doesn’t know we had Dot Gay for lunch several years ago. “Progressives” are best at cannibalism – they eat their own old ideas and generate new ones, just like “Regressives” eat their best ideas and generate … excrement like Sarah Palin. It’s wondrous how “free market” transforms itself into shooting moose and protecting oil companies, and then goes on to transform “independence” into a vaguely literate autobiography of a half-developed political career.
In any community – region or state – where there is over 60% membership of any Party, there will be many, many fragments that coalesce from time to time in odd alliances as that Party struggles to retain its leadership. That is just as true in Massachusetts on the left as it is in Texas or Florida on the right. And in small communities, the fur flies faster, farther, and over more nuanced differences. I’m reasonably sure Carl knows those rules, since they’re the same rules that play out in a bar on a Saturday night. And I am quite sure that guys like the Tranes know, as do Capuano and Curtatone. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Not such a mystery.
loading...
ok…. things have slowed on the progressive cannibalism front, so let’s get the party rocking again.
Did you guys hear what Carl is saying about Mike? He also threw Pat and Rebeccah under the bus! Poor Mike.
(munch….munch)
loading...