Ambitious, but insincere
I generally agree with Joan Vennochi’s analysis of Seth Moulton’s loss to Ed Markey in the senatorial primary (“What Seth Moulton’s loss says about the Democratic Party,” Opinion, Oct. 8). I ended up voting for Markey, although I initially planned to support Moulton. This, despite my belief that Moulton is experienced in the ways of the district, attuned to the realities of the 21st century, and progressive.
Why did I change my mind? It started with Moulton’s comments about transgender athletes, which were sexist, incorrect, and boneheaded. I have a trans family member and the challenges are familiar to me. My enthusiasm dampened. I started rethinking the race.
What turned me toward Markey, in the end, was that Moulton ran a bad campaign. His ads were awful. The persona intended to appeal to the young turned off this septuagenarian. He came across as ambitious, insincere, and untrustworthy.
I am firmly in the camp agitating for age limits in both Houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. I have long believed that the Democrats’ fixation on seniority, and their refusal to advance young talent into the ranks of leadership until it is “their turn,” has left the party moribund. That’s on my generation, in particular.
Vennochi asserts that Moulton does not present either the “face or voice of generational change.”
No, he doesn’t. He comes across as an old-school Dem, a precocious fogey unwilling to challenge the status quo in any meaningful way.
Ellen B. Cutler
Boston
‘Generational change’
I believe that Seth Moulton’s loss to Ed Markey can be explained very simply. His only reason for running, which he admitted, was “generational change,” a euphemism, in the opinion of this 82-year-old, for ageism. All octogenarians are not alike, and Markey is not former president Joe Biden. Fortunately, you need to offer more than your age to win an election in Massachusetts, and I believe that the majority of voters, even those much younger, understood that.
Neil Weiner
Wayland