As a candidate for lieutenant governor in 1982, John Kerry assured the voters of Massachusetts that he wasn’t seeking the position as a mere “stepping-stone” to higher office. But just one year into his four-year term, he announced his candidacy for the US Senate seat that Paul Tsongas was vacating because of illness.
Few people held Kerry’s broken commitment against him. In part that was because nobody had believed it in the first place (all candidates for lieutenant governor seek the position as a stepping-stone). But it was also because everyone knew what Kerry knew: If he passed up the chance to run for the position Tsongas was relinquishing, it might be years before it opened up again. So Kerry jumped into the Senate race and won. Sure enough, the seat has been occupied ever since.
Comments
jeff , ya don't have to go to DC to find out about unhealthy devotions to incumbents. look no further than our own city hall and beacon hill. ma
The comment makes it clear you didn't read the article. (see the sixth paragraph) Did you just look at the picture and the headline? Frankly the rest of the piece was nonsense, but if you're going to comment, you really should make a effort and at least read it.
Just echoing geolovely's comment, you clearly did not read the article. But then again, it's Mr Jacoby: he's a terrible columnist and you hang on his every word, even when you don't know what he wrote. mw
Term limits is a concept whose time has come. Its obvious that our current trends arent working. But the corrupt system in Washington and Boston precludes the discussion. "Seniority" makes the rules...and the provides the funding for the public's excesses.
We already have a term limiting tool: it is called an election. You want to limit politicians terms? Work for campaign finance reform, and fair and impartitial redistricting. Term limits are just a red herring periodically raised by the party out of power.
You're dead wrong, Geo. Term limits would would be hugely beneficial to the country. The government is run primarily by unelected bureaucrats, so don't give the "accumulated experience" baloney. The primary objective of a politician is to get re-elected. Everything else is secondary. Witness the shameful endorsement by both Brown and Kerry of the unneeded and unwanted jet engine for the air force. Politicians need to do what's right for the country, not what's right for their re-election prospects.
the only thing people care about Jeff is electing the people that will help them, we are a very selfish country, people actually re-elected Tierney, that's says it all. the voters allow them to be crooks.
This comment has been removed.
Tierney was elected due to a desire not to increase the number of Republicans in the House. It's that simple. Whitey Bulger could have been elected if he was the Democratic candidate. It was never about Tierney, it was always about national politics.
The timing of Jacoby's articles are always so obvious. And what is anecdotal becomes the rule. He gets upset over an Obama win, so all of a sudden political incumbancy is bad. Right before the election we get a lecture on how there is no obligation to vote-could a low turn-out possibly be good for Mitt?Hmmm...Let's see, Maine decides to vote for gay marriage and all of a sudden that becomes somehow a justification that the courts should stay away from what is obviously a civil rights issue. Then we get a lecture about how all affirmative action is bad and we should all see that as the real problem, instead getting all worked up about Scott Brown's minions doing the Tomahawk-chop. Jeff, I know you get paid to write about topics that are in the news but stop it with using anecdotal examples to make grand statements about everything.
If they get rid of Jeff, we may end up with a competent convserative voice. I'm personally all for it.
Anyone else miss Cathy Young?
Gee. Interesting timing and extrapolation considering all pols mentioned as Dems. Wonder how you'd feel Mr. Jacoby if these were Republicans. My guess is you wouldn;t have written this op at all.
You're guess is wrong, bump. The pols mentioned were Democrats because that's all we have in Massachusetts.
There are plenty of examples in state government. Scott Brown springs to mind.
Gee. Interesting timing and extrapolation considering all pols mentioned as Dems. Wonder how you'd feel Mr. Jacoby if these were Republicans. My guess is you wouldn't have written this op at all.
Spoken like a true Republican. I wonder whether Mr. Jacoby would have written the same article if the GOP was in power, or if he had been in California a few decades ago what his reaction would have been when Republican Pete Wilson was running for Mayor of San Diego in Southern California at the same time he was opening raising money in Northern California to run for the US Senate (or was it Governor). On the subject of term limits, they make sense for an executive position -- President, Governor, and Mayor -- but no sense for legislative ones. Again in California, term limits have meant that highly qualified legislators have been forced from office just as they were learning the ropes, and the result has been even greater power for the legislative staffs and lobbyists, who provide the only continuity.
Horse pucky!
Jeff as usual misses the obvious point when it comes to the House seats, gerrymandering. The biggest reason the Republicans held the House was because of that quaint little trick. Hey both parties love to use it. Suggest to either party hey let's set up a non partisam commission to set up the Deistricts and everyone screams, No. Let's face it people who seek political power tend to be people who aren't going to just walk away from it. So Jeff this piece seems more like a, darn we can't get rid of thsoe Dems. piece.
A delicious consequence of gerrymandering of House seats in order to create "majority minority" districts for African-American and Latino candidates is that the House is more Republican than it would otherwise be. Unintended consequences of affirmative action?
Attaturk
You have to look @ Maryland where the gerrymander resulted in Rorschach like borders to preserve and expand the reach of the Democratic party. Like Massachusetts it is a one party state.
How did Tierney get reelected??
Someone phoned in his article from bed this morning.
Another uninteresting rumination donated to Jacoby by the Heritage Foundation. With all the local, national, and international problems we are facing, HF,s favorite tries to backdoor a presently irrelevant issue. I do have this persistant habit of attributing the Heritage Foundation or its offshoots for Mr. Jacoby's columns. Maybe one day he can tell us where he gets his material and his so called information, most of it inaccurate or out of context.
This comment has been removed.
HHKitchener2: Arutz Sheva ? What is that supposed to mean ?
What a load of highly selective GOP revisionist nonsense! Only D's stick around past your idea of their expiration date? Strom Thurmond was a US Senator for 48 years, (of course only 32 of those as a Republican). Ted Stevens? 40 years. Pete Dominici did it for 36 years, and Orrin Hatch and Dick Lugar are both currently serving in their 36th year (though of course Lugar got dumped by a tea party candidate). What's next, an attempt to institute term limits? And please before you dinosaurs go over that well trod ground: we already have term limitors, they are called elections.
I used to consider JJ's pieces worth reading because, while I generally disagreed, they were at least thoughtful, even if their logic I saw as flawed. The last three pieces have been execrable, unworthy of even a diminished BG.
This comment has been removed.
So HH old boy, why do you bother reading the Globe at all?
Gosh, Jeff. Don't you understand that "liberal lions" like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are entitled to their Senate seats for life? In their minds, the Senate is the U.S. equivalent of the House of Lords.
I like that...once a Democrat gets in modify the Constitution and give him/her the seat for life. This would render silly elections unnecessary, which would obviate the need for the Republicans to try to modify the Constitution by restricting, inhibiting, and otherwise trying to prevent people from exercising their Constituionally guaranteed right to vote. Gr8te idea!!!
This comment has been removed.
Despite the comlaints from the usual suspects who decry every word Jeff writes, he makes another very valid point. Term limits would serve everyone so much better, than the system of endless incumbancy. I can see how any pol would be drawn to hold on to office for decades, but I also believe that one would be far more affective if there was not a permanent re election campaign. It is not a partisan issue-both sides are guilty of this practice.
Many of Jeff's"valid points" are built upon faulty logic. A smart tenth grader can pick apart the holes in Jacoby's "valid points".
And to the point, yes, both sides are "guilty" of this practice. Even Scott Brown, Jeff's choice for senate. Brown has been in one office or another his entire adult life. So what gives, Jeff?
In other words, what's good for us isn't good for Jeff or the candidates he supports.
Richmond isn't even from this state. You should take his comments on MA politics for exactly what they're worth.
This comment has been removed.
The politcally uneducated rely on name recognition. End of story.
A ppolicy I would like to see explored is the elimination of the so-called "full-time" Massachusetts legislature. What do they do and/or accomplish that requires a full time salary and perks? The evidence is pretty solid there's not a lot of heavy lifting going on there. And considering the last three speakers of the house left "under a cloud" to put it mildly.
One excellent point JJ makes is there is no need for a Lieutenant Governor in this state. Kerry's tenure and Murray's behavior are the best arguments for that.
I have mixed feelings. I lean toward agreeing that we don't need a full time legislature. Maybe a limited time to get the state's business done -- say 3 to 6 months -- with legislators paid a per diem allowance for a hotel room and meals.
There is another side, though. A full-time legislature with regular salaries allows people to serve that couldn't otherwise afford it.
Others may have different reasons to support one or the other. It's not a issue that's easily resolved.
Data on the reelection rates from the past or just bombastic cherrypicked anecdotes? Well, considering the author, I can assume there will be no nasty facts in the partisan pudding.
I'm sure his omission of Jesse Helms was just an oversite.
Since seniority means quite a lot in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, term limits would put any state that imposed them at a serious disadvantage.
Committees are all important in Congress. With seniority a member can choose prime committees and may eventually become a committee chairman.
Another important factor, for those of us who prefer less polarization, members who get to know each other, even socialize with each other, are much more likely to be able to find legislative partners from the other side of the aisle. Ted Kennedy, for instance, had a lot of Republican friends.
So we should elect a new Congressman every two years, and a new Senator every six years? If we want Massachusetts to be politcally powerless in Washington, we should go for it.
That's part of my point in mentioning Jesse Helms above. Why do these folks keep getting re-elected? Because they're effective at representing their constituency. We may not agree with them, but folks like Jesse and Teddy were notably accomplished at bringing jobs and projects back to their states. Over in Indiana, the GOP just shot themselves in the foot by running Tea Part favorite Mourdock over Dick Lugar.
As to crossing the aisle, the poster child for changing that culture is Rick Santorum. He wouldn't even share candy with Democrats.
As an earlier poster noted, the timing of Mr Jacoby's epiphany about term limits is remarkable.
The same people who have the 'power' to change the election process, be it state, federal or city, are the same people who benefit from the status quo. So, get serious - NO CHANGES will ever be made.
People love 'power.' Once a person has any kind of power they WILL NOT PART with it. Simply look at the old codgers still plugging away in political positions. Not even in touch with the 20th century.
But _ what the heck, they are still voted into office, no matter their intelligence, or what they do or do not know. There is always a 'fresh' group of students, lonely single white women, and people who have more and more wants (not needs) from candidates who promise it to them.
Your feelings of superiority are badly misplaced.
"There is always a 'fresh' group of students, lonely single white women, and people..." Your misogyny and dismissive attitudes toward the educated are exceeded only by your apparent lack of political savvy. The demographics of the nation are evolving fast, and those who fail to understand and adapt are doomed. Besides, why would anyone support a party whose only promise is to give their tax returns to a small cabal of billionaires?