BROCKTON
ED MARKEY’S face lights up. Working the small crowd at George’s Cafe here, he has just spotted two men he served with at the State House when first breaking into Massachusetts politics — 40 years ago.
Get unlimited access to Bruins cup coverage - Just 99¢
SCOT LEHIGH
BROCKTON
ED MARKEY’S face lights up. Working the small crowd at George’s Cafe here, he has just spotted two men he served with at the State House when first breaking into Massachusetts politics — 40 years ago.
Comments
Front-runner status for Markey is fine by me. He's a hard-working progressive. Who needs an "exciting" campaign like the incredibly expensive Warren-Brown race?
Democrats annoint their, 'chosen ones.'
It is unusual for another Democrat challenger to be in the race against old man Markey.
Progressive? Skip the repackaging, he is a die hard LIBERAL.
If you think anyone works hard in Washington on anything but furthering their own careers, c'mere, I have a deal for you on this mountain out in Dakota's with these four really cool faces sculpted into it.
If you like how your cell phone, cable and telelphone bills look and cost, thank Ed Markey! Everything he has done costs us more money.
But MA voters will blindly vote for him and the Globe will prop up his campaign for him.
I don't know a lot about Markey but I do know that he wrote much of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an Act that lead to the consolidation of telephone and internet services with At&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. An Act that was supposed to benefit consumers had the opposite effect. He's promoted as someone who stands up for consumers but if you look at the Act and its outcome that's tough to swallow.
Markey said "Iam running on my own pro-choice CAREER record"???!!!! He was first elected to Congress by being the PRO-LIFE candidate in a crowded pro-choice field...thus, his totla vote total under 30% in the Dem Primary allowed him to win. In the 80's when he wanted to run for US Senate and then dropped back into his Congressional race, he had a poll-driven epiphany and switched to the pro-choice position to save himself. For him to now characterize himself as having a pro-chice career is less than candid but very typical of Markey...who also wants people to believe that he has lived in malden for the past 30 years, not Maryland.
Helen is right, the record speaks for itself: Regarding Markey's position on abortion, he has cast a number of anti-choice votes including: The Hyde Amendment to prohibit use of federal funds to finance or encourage abortion on June 17, 1977 (H.R. 7555). Markey was one of the 201 House members voting yes. On Sept. 22, 1983, during consideraion of the Fiscal Year 1984 Health & Human Services appropriations bill (H.R. 3913), then-Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA) offered the Hyde Amendment on Mr. Hyde's behalf. Pro-choice members used a parliamentary device to force a vote on a "no-exceptions" version, rather than the "life-of-the-mother" version. However Hyde took the floor to assure his colleagues that the "exception clause" would later be restored in a House-Senate conference committee (as it was) The "no-exceptions" amendment was then adopted 231-184, with Markey voting in the majority. In 1995, Markey voted for an amendment by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) to the FY 1996 Foreign Operations appropriations bill (H.R. 1868) to restrict U.S. funds for overseas abortions. The amendment, which passed 243-187, sought to codify the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited U.S. funding of any public or private foreign entity that directly or indirectly performs abortions except in the cases of rape, incest of when the life of the woman is endangered; to require foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid to certify that they do not lobby to change abortion laws; and to withhold money from the United Nations Population Fund unless the President certifies that the Fund has terminated all activities in China or that for the past 12 months there have been no coercive abortions in China. After President Clinton vetoed the bill to ban certain late-term abortions on October 10, 1997, the House voted to override the veto on July 23, 1998. A two-thirds majority of those present and voting (286 in this case) was required to override the veto. The vote passed 296-132 but Markey took a walk and did not vote.
I did not know that Markey was another pro choice Democrat who had flipped on the issue. We heard ad nausem about Mitt Romney's flipping, but Democrats are given a hall pass for this. Scot's piece was a little boring today, as he is far more interesting when he is a critic than when he is a cheeleader. Kudos, though, for pointing out that Markey has no interest in solving the sequester. It exists to lay blame on Republicans, and win house seats in 2014. Markey is a strong foot soldier for the president on this. Neither the president nor Ed Markey have any desire to reduce the deficit, they simply want to use the upcoming sequester to score points against the GOP.
You were doing pretty good there but then couldn't resist putting on your partisan hat, the very thing you accuse Scot of doing. The sequester exists because Boehner and Obama couldn't pull a deal off and thought if they hung a sword over everyone's head no one would be that crazy. They both underestimated the insanity of the TP portion of the House. Reasonable options to reduce spending have been put on the table from chained CPI to cuts in Mediare no one will bite because it includes closing tax loopholes. The sequester is nothing but pure stupidity on both sides neither needs a cheerleader for loser of the week.
What "reduced spending" Turk? Even with the so called cuts that are supposed to have calamitous effects, the spending is really going up by $15B over last year. So how come we are going to go down the drain if we are spending more than last year?
Another way to look at these "cuts": The $85B is what the government costs to operate for 9 whole days.
There is no sword hanging over anyone's head. It is all Washington theater. I just wish they would move it all to Tokyo, paint their faces white, and call it Kabuki, far more interesting.
Nothing new here. Markey is a political veteran who knows when to sit on the fence. He will not be baited for answers that provide fodder for columnists if he can help it.
Political verteran... I'll say! He's been consuming my tax dollars for the last 40 years. Outside his progressive agenda, he's an empty suit.
Shame on you Incredible, you have let them redefine Liberal, now you are calling them "progressive".
This comment has been removed.
Markey is about as deep as a puddle on a flat road. Ask him questions about anything but his progressive agenda and he has no answers. He's a doctrinaire, unimaginative lefty.
This comment has been removed.
I said progressive agenda. It should be liberal agenda.
Elect asnother partisan who will vote lock step w/ Harry "No Budget" Reid.
A politician for life - never held a job. A great resume for the times we live in. New blood? Nah, he has all the talking points down.
Some brilliant politiking:
Oil and gas leasing programs are among the initiatives that could get slashed if Congress doesn’t stop automatic spending cuts set to begin March 1, a top congressional Democrat warned today.
The warning from Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. came as the Obama administration stepped up pressure on lawmakers to agree to a deal to avert the across-the-board spending cuts. Flanked by firefighters and other emergency responders at the White House on Tuesday morning, President Barack Obama appealed to Congress to pass a short-term fix, lest the cuts jeopardize “investments in education, health care and national defense.”
But those aren’t the only investments and programs at risk, Markey suggests. An 8.2 percent spending cut at the Interior Department would translate to fewer offshore drilling inspectors and fewer onshore drilling leases, Markey said. Permitting of oil and gas projects on public lands and waters also could slow down, Markey speculated.
“Republicans say they want to drill, baby, drill,” Markey said, invoking the GOP chant that caught on after oil price spikes in 2008. “Yet by letting the sequester go forward, Republicans in Congress will put the brakes on oil and gas development on public lands in America and reduce our ability to protect against another offshore drilling disaster.”
And more (thehill.com):
"Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday compared the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case to the Dred Scott cast.
Markey, who is running for the Senate, said the 2010 decision that led to the creation of super-PACS should be repealed, just as the Dred Scott decision that affirmed the legality of slavery was repealed. "I want to go to the United States Senate in order to fight for a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. The whole idea that the Koch brothers, that Karl Rove can say we're coming to Massachusetts, to any state of the union with undisclosed amounts of money is a pollution, which must be changed,"
This comment has been removed.
Scot - another dem fluff piece. CAnt wait for you to write up Jack Lew.
One thing that struck me as I watched the State of the Union address was how old members of Congress are. I'm not an ageist and realize that life experience is a benefit but I'd like to see some new blood make it into Congress to take on the serious problems this country has.
Maybe people should start voting for those who can solve national problems and not just those who can bring money back into their states. How else do you explain guys like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd continuing to be re-elected when they were far beyond their usefulness?
Congress is full of a bunch of bought and paid for pols who only care about keeping their political careers going and lack the inestinal fortitude to take bold positions on issues that are undermining this country. Fix the damn problems or step out of the way for someone else to have a shot. The gridlock we've had for years now is unacceptable. Markey strikes me as being more of the same.
An octagenarian Robert Byrd stood almost alone on the floor of the Senate pleading with his colleagues not to pass the Iraq War resolution. Had younger senators listened to his wisdom, we would have saved trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of Americans killed or wounded.
The 111th Congress, which took office in 2009, was the oldest in U.S. history, with an average age of 57 in the House and 63 in the Senate (SLATE, 1/2/13).
On the other hand, President Obama who could be considered an example of a 'youthful' politician, cannot communicate with his peers, can't focus at meetings, and loves the Hollywood crowd. So, what needs to be done is _mandatory term limits and a media that will not become embroiled in campaigns. When you have an unfair press, taking sides the outcome is skewed.
The U.S. media (television, news-papers) failed to report Obama's shortcomings. Reporters made no attempt to hide their love of Obama, with tingly legs while ignoring his gross inadequacies.
Markey will win because there is simply no viable alternative. He will win reelection in 2014 because of the advantage of incumbency. Perhaps there will be a more inspiring choice in 2020.
Markey is a turnip.
Markey has surrounded himself with "yes" men and women. I tried to contact him regarding the energy bill he wrote - his staff wouldn't talk to me because I wasn't in his district - and the I heard him speak in a public forum - he is so full of himself - the other democrats were essentially laughing at him. And he hates the amusement park industry.
"History" I understand you don't like Obama and that's fine, but you simply refuse to recognize your confusion regarding long term and short term. There have been over 2 trillion dollars in long term debt cuts. I have no problem cutting 85 billion if it is done with half a brain. This idea that federal spening went 15 billion from last year is something speical is just throwing numbers around of course it went up. It will go up again probably the following year. What we are looking at in terms of a deficit problem is long term not short term. Now you can believe the political bs if you want but the fact of the matter is you get anyone of the pols right or left to sit down and talk honestly, they will tell you short term is just not important. We know the causes for the long term debt problem we don't even need to balance the budget to solve it. All of this yelling and screaming about the rise of spending this year or next year by you or anyone else is nothing but political blather or simply not uderstanding the budget issue.
Well you add all the short terms together and you get the long term, don't you? People who have been demanding that our political leaders rein in spending for decades only to be told "not now, later" are understandably cynical, are they not? Nor is it clear to me that your understanding of budgeting, and don't break your arm patting yourself on the back by the way, is so vastly superior to theirs because of your dazzling intellect.
Markey has been in Washington or should I say Maryland for too long. God knows he hasn't lived in Malden for many years. As others have posted above every cable and cell phone bill should have his picture on it! Typical entrenched blowhard!
So you republicans do not like Ed. Are you going to do anything about it except whine on comment pages? No you will do nothing else. Steve Lynch has support that extends at least 5 miles beyond South Boston. He has no chance of beating Ed. So Mr. Markey will become our next US Senator. Take it to the bank.
Maybe Scot can do a hit piece on the R candidates