The most common measuring stick when evaluating political candidates is the conservative-to-liberal scale. Yet when it comes to the US Senate, a metric that often matters as much runs from small to large.
Massachusetts has usually had big figures in the US Senate. Love them or loathe them, that was true of both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, just as it was true of Ed Brooke and Paul Tsongas, of Leverett Saltonstall and both Henry Cabot Lodges.
Comments
What elistis and bigoted observations. This smacks of the very utterances urged by elistists against commonfolk heros like James Michael Curly in his day. It urges the rich & educated to rally and avoid the working poor & middle class from electing Lynch and getting too uppity. Such trash talk brought to you by the very folks who'll claim Class Warfare were such words uttered by non-wealthy.
This, frankly, is a dumb criticism. My observations about Lynch are based on his: 1) obvious political expediency around Obamacare, which, if memory serves, the labor movement was livid with him about; 2) a small-minded vote on the bank bailout; and 3) a peevish, hot-tempered manner. How are those traits of the "poor and middle-class?" They aren't, of course. They are, however, traits of Steve Lynch.
Fabulous reply to an inane critic, Scott! Scott Leigh channels Hillary.
Scott Brown afraid of the press, gee scot, can't imagine why.......he gets such positive article written about him in this paper, what's the problem. Seeems you're pushing Markey, that would be about right, he's the most liberal.
Scott is afraid of Scott's record being reported in the press.
You may have something there, Salem
Some folks do take their politics personally. Voting for Lynch is implies "voting for the middle class and working poor", observing that Lynch is a small time politicians is "putting hiim in his place". Nor really.
Let's face it the only real pro pols here from my perspective are indeed Weld and Markey and even these don't even come close to some of the political heavyweights the state has sent to the Senate. Now some folks don't like the idea of the Senate being full of these pratrician type pols but I do indeed like a certain number of them. They bring a civility and a calmness to the Senate deliberations which the Senate is supposed to be all about. The Senate should be less partisan, more thoughfful and composed mostly of heavyweights. Let the House be the nuthouse which it currently is. We don't need the Brown's or the Tsongas's,( I never could figure that guy), the DeMint's or McCaskill's. It doesn't matter to me which party I just like the big thinkers in the Senate, the deal cutters the wheeler/dealers, the I've got an ideology but I don't allow it to get in the way of governing.
So for my buck from a purely political point of view give me Markey versus Weld. The state in either case would be well represented. Quirks and all.
ugh - sorry about the typo's coffee must not have kicked in yet.
I was under the impression that Lynch's original opposition to The National Affordable Healthcare Act was because it lacked single payer and was too much of a gift to insurance companies. Also, Kerry Healy is not a smart person who attempted to call Patrick soft on crime for his support of a convicted killer. She failed to mention that Patrick was working as part of a Public Defense Group at the time and was simply doing his job (and doing it well).
He had a whole list of rationalizations. As Brian McGrory wrote at the time, he was "forgainst" the bill ...
Keep searching Scot. Our current senior senator Elizabeth "no comment" Warren ( talk about being afraid of the press) will never rise to national prominence. Neither Markey, nor Lynch, nor Brown stir the emotions - other than in the I hate Scot Brown crowd. I fear that Massachusetts will continue to wane in influence in Washington.
What time and planet are you referring to? Elizabeth Warren rose to national prominence years before her election to the Senate. And at a time when many news sources are reporting that Massachusetts is seeing a surge in it's influence in Washington, you state the opposite.
As for your snide comment about the 'I hate Scot Brown crowd' - that crowd you decry is 53.7% of voters in Massachusetts, who after being blindsided by a January special election and appalled by his stances, actions, and record in the US Senate, threw the 2-year senator ....Sorry, INTERIM senator, since he cannot seem to win a general election, out the door.
Scot, any potential black horses? Be nice to see some new blood - on either side. Charlie Baker? Or is he more interested in Governor?
He is more interested in running for governor again, I think.
Charlie v. Scott? That would be fun...a true moderate Republican with intelligence and experience against a weathervane.
The liberal/conservative scale only matters to 'purists', and such concerns typically result in a crumbling of good government into gridlock, intransigence, and, in its most extreme form, civil war. As to small versus big (excellent choice of discriptor), even for those who enter the Senate with House experience or home state experience, it seems even the biggest of thinkers had to grow into that role. How 'big' were any of the greats during their first year or two in office? It is not unreasonable to expect a Senator to attain 'bigness' by the end of the first 6-yr term, but I don't expect any to be such from the get-go. Warren may prove great, or she may prove disastrous, but I'm more interested in making that evaluation four or five years from now. As far as I am concerned Brown lost on his record, but two years just wasn't long enough for him to mature into the role. He might still have been disastrous after a full term, but he only sat in one session of Congress (Jan 2011-Jan 2013). This year's special election looks to be even less meaningful.
Well, I was talking about both real and potential largeness. I didn't list Warren, however, for the very reason you describe: We don't yet know. Interestingly my man Henry Clay was elected speaker his 1st day as a representative. That said, that era was some years back ..
On my more cynical days I think 1789-1791 was pretty good and it's been downhill ever since! Have a great weekend. -Jim
What I don't understand is why Lynch would run.
In the words of Kinky Friedman: why the hell not? I don't see him beating Markey for the nomination, but I'd much rather see a real primary campaign.
I think JL has pretty much nailed it. Because it's a special, he gets a free shot, without losing his House seat. He folks think Markey's support is soft, that he's insular, and that they can ride the labor horse to the nomination if things go right. I very much doubt all of that, but I do think that's their thinking.
Markey has been doing yeoman's work for more than two decades on climate change and related issues of resource depletion, ocean acidification etc. It's been tough and frustrating with the Republicans in control of the House for so many of those years and even too many timid Democrats who are afraid to be bluntly honest about what's at stake. You should give him a very serious look if you have young kids or grandkids becauses their lives and environment are almost certain to be very grim if we and other nations don't start getting serious about this.
dont hold it against him
The commonwealth's largest crop is indigo, which we assiduously work to export to the far corners of the republic. We are predominantly and proudly liberals. When we mount the horse to send to the senate a mouthpiece and advocate for our causes, the rider should bellow BLUE all day and night on our behalf. Mr. Weld ("Welcome home") and Ms. Healey for years now have done nothing on behalf of Massachusetts (including her working for Mr. Romney's failed presidential campaign). The Massachusetts GOP needs to build its party and groom its members for high office before any citizens should chance sending one or more of them to the U.S. Congress--or even the state house.
Hmmm. That's only true if you think one party has a monopoly on wisdom and good ideas, and though I do not like the far-right bent of the national GOP -- which has largely become a party of the South, the Plains, and the montane west as far as Congress is concered -- Weld was a very good moderate governor here. I'd love to see him back in action. Healey is more of an enigma, but she is smart and seems like a pretty decent person. But as one of the above posters said, Markey has a v. good record of battling on important issues, too.
Steve Lynch is a Southern Democrat if you know what I mean. He's also the only politician who features his iron worker background more as a current event rather than touting his attainment of a law degree. He loves to stereotype himself. I think he's the only male who uses hair tonic; seriously, that's what he looks like in photographs with shiny, wet hair.
"Wild Root Cream Oil" comes to mind.
Mumbles!
Would Deval ever run?
Any retired, rather than current, US representatives from Massachusetts care to run? I can think of a couple that could do the job superbly.
Barney should run just to anger Deval. I still think Weld could tell Mitch McConnel where to go however!
I posted the following in a reply to migh's post but it was not visible. I repeat it here.
A great, incisive column, Scot. Senator Brown got free support from two other well known and broadly exposed media outlets on a continuous basis. Either great praise for even his smallest action or blaring headline reaction against his opponent "Professor" Warren. That added up to mucho dollars of free ads. So i call the Globe's favoring Warren vs. those two favoring Brown a wash. A side story on the last Senatorial election. Early on in the election I got a live call from the Brown campaign. The caller asked if I would answer a few questions and I said OK. Into the third or fourth question about "issues," slightly slanted, ( no complaint as both sides do it - part of the game ) I said, "I can save you some time, sir, I'm voting for the Indian." We both had an understanding laugh, said good night and went about our business. Moral of the story, this was very early on in the campaign. Brown's campaign, and those two media outlets didn't get it that the "Professor, Indian" stories were settled issues by a large portion of the electorate. I could see a small investment in the Indian story at the beginning but Massachusetts calling card is Education and all that relates to it. Scott Brown was dissing not just Elizabeth Warren but a major economic part of his and our state, ( MIT, R&D, Inman Square start-ups, IT degrees, Harvard, Brandeis, BU, Northeastern, Route 128 and etc. ) I and even some of my non-ultra conservative friends and acquaintances, some retired engineers who did vote for Brown, simply never got that angle, especially in the debates. Warren also effectively pointed out the schizophrenic votes taken by Brown. He was a Romney/Kerry mini-me with his flexible, etch-a-sketch ( Eric Fehrnstrom's term ) votes while Senator. Scot Lehigh is right, Republican or Democrat, Massachusetts has had very big political minds representing us at the state and federal level and we have benefited from them.