#MaSen redux

by BlueberryT

  

From 1985-2009, Massachusetts was blessed to have two “liberal lions” of the Senate representing us, and we saw no turnover in our Senate seats.  MA voters first elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate in a special election for his brother Jack’s former seat in 1962. Ted was not old enough to be appointed Senator when Jack was elected President in 1960, so the Kennedy family made a deal with the Governor, who appointed Jack’s former Harvard roommate, Ben Smith, to fill the seat until Ted was old enough.  Ted defeated Republican George Cabot Lodge in 1962, ran again in 1964 for a full term and was reelected 7 times, becoming one of the longest-serving Senators in United States history; he served for 47 years until his death while in office in August 2009.  The seat had been held continuously by Democrats since JFK first won it in 1953. 

The other Mass Senate seat was held continuously by Republicans Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (1937-44), Sinclair Weeks (1944-45), Leverett Saltonstall (1945-1967) and Edward Brooke (1967-1979; the first African-American Senator since Reconstruction) - in total, it was in Republican hands for 42 consecutive years, including much of the terms of Democratic Presidents FDR, Truman, local son JFK and LBJ.  I want to stress that the politics that these Republicans practiced bore little or no resemblance to the GOP politics today.  

Paul Tsongas, a former Peace Corps volunteer and strong progressive, finally captured the seat for the Democrats from Brooke in the post-Watergate 1978 election.  Tsongas would easily have won reelection in 1984, but he was battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma at the time and had to retire from the Senate.  (Tsongas’ widow, Niki, is now a Congresswoman.)  So it was that in 1984, Mike Dukakis's Lt. Governor, John Kerry, ran for and won the Senate seat that he has held ever since - for almost 28 years.  A newly interesting footnote to the 1984 Senate race is that Congressman Ed Markey ran in the Senate primary that year, but withdrew before the nomination.   

(Another interesting historical footnote is that both Kennedys and their brother Bobby, along with Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, John Kerry and Mitt Romney all ran for President, but only Jack Kennedy won; Lodge ran for VP on Richard Nixon's 1960 ticket and lost.  Something about Massachusetts politicians and national office...) 

Twenty years later, when John Kerry ran for President in 2004, Mitt Romney was Governor.  At the time, the heavily-Democratic state legislature was concerned that Republican Governor Romney would appoint the Senator to finish his term if Kerry were elected President, so they changed state law to leave the seat vacant until a special election could be held to fill the seat for the remainder of the 6-year term.

This change in the law backfired big time, then and now.  Kerry lost, so the change in law proved unnecessary in the first place.  Then, with Ted Kennedy’s terminal illness in 2009, they changed the law again, but instead of reverting to a gubernatorial appointment, they gave the (now-Democratic) governor the power to appoint a replacement to serve for a few months, pending the results of a special election. Note we are now up to two law changes and the result is an interim appointment and  special election.  Of course, they thought the Democratic candidate would be a shoo-in.

This special election took place right after the holidays in 2010, following a tough Democratic primary in which Attorney General Martha Coakley had to spend a lot of time and money to win the nomination in a crowded field.  Thus, during the holidays, she had to focus on fundraising, and few people were paying attention to the fact that little-known then-state Senator Scott Brown was raking in money from outside interests (Koch Brothers, NRA, etc.).  Many Dems, myself included, felt that “Ted Kennedy’s seat” was secure, and we didn’t realize the changing dynamics until after the holidays, when it was too late.  Scott Brown ran and won, reclaiming the seat from the Kennedys/Democrats and becoming “#41” - the vote that allowed Republicans to break the Democratic super-majority and fililbuster.  They have used this tool with a vengeance. 

So, now where are we?  In 2012, we saw progressive Elizabeth Warren challenge Senator Brown in a very tough battle.  This was one of the most highly contested Senate races in the country, costing more than $68 million.  (I wrote about this race here  and here.)  

Many of us breathed a huge sigh of relief when Elizabeth Warren won, becoming Massachusetts' first woman Senator-elect.  Remarkably, Brown lost even though he held a 57% positive approval rating on election eve.

Now, I know this is a bit petty of me, but I am a bit bummed about Senator Kerry’s appointment as Secretary of State, not because he isn’t the right guy – he is! – but because it means we have to hold another friggin’ #masen election so soon. Apparently the legislature doesn’t have any inclination to change the law back to what it was in the first place.  PolitiFact rated the Massachusetts legislature’s actions as a “flip-flop.” I would just call it a colossal FLOP. 

To give Kerry his due:  he is highly qualified, having served for many years on, and for the past four years as Chairman of, the Foreign Relations Committee.  Those old enough will remember that he first rose to prominence when he testified before this very committee, when he was a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  This is when he asked his famous question, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”  (The entire testimony is worth re-reading; it is gripping.)

He is of course well-known throughout the country, having been the Democratic nominee for President in 2004.  Thus he has been extensively vetted, as well as subjected to the outrageous “Swift Boat” smear campaign that impugned his Vietnam War service.  His personal and family background, including experience living overseas, also helped prepare him for the job.  His wife, Teresa, provides an even greater international perspective, as she is from Mozambique and has family roots in Portugal, England, Switzerland, Italy, France and Egypt; she also worked as a UN translator prior to her marriage to Senator John Heinz. 

Kerry has signaled his intent to include global warming in the scope of his work as Secretary, which is much needed.  Kerry has strong environmental credentials, second only to Al Gore among recent Presidential contenders, and that bodes well for bringing greater urgency and attention to global warming.  Given how this issue is so closely inter-related to energy policy, I hope that we will see somewhat more progressive policies going forward. 

Kerry has also been very loyal to President Obama.  He fully deserves this honor, and his confirmation is a sure thing, especially after Republicans successfully maneuvered to scuttle the nomination of Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.  That maneuver was ugly enough, but knowing that it was a ploy to allow for Kerry’s seat to open up for a potential comeback by Scott Brown is particularly galling.

But we in Massachusetts will just have to suck it up, because the Massachusetts legislature has “no taste” for changing the Senate succession law again; apparently, they think it might make them look craven (cough, cough) to change the law a third time (back to where it started). So, after two Senate races in the last 3 years, it looks like we will have another special election this year, and then another election for a full-term in 2014.  That is four Senate races in less than 5 years.  Oh, joy.  Thank you, Massachusetts General Court (aka state legislature).  

If Scott Brown runs – and he openly promoted Kerry’s SOS nomination and even in his farewell speech in the Senate signaled that he might be back - he will probably begin as the presumptive favorite.   He still enjoys a majority approval rating.  He would also have the advantage of not running amidst a national election with a charismatic Presidential candidate drawing people to the polls.  He lost this fall because his opponent is such an inspiring progressive voice that she brought a lot of excitement and money into the race, although, as I wrote here, he did himself no favors.  His support for Antonin Scalia as a “model” Supreme Court Justice will likely continue to haunt him.  The same generic argument that Warren used successfully against him – that he would enable further Republican obstructionism – is still perfectly valid, and I’m sure we’ll hear it again.  It's true.

There are a few other Republicans whose names have surfaced, if Brown decides not to run - former Governor William Weld, former state senator and 2010 Lt. Governor candidate Richard Tisei among them.  They would be real long-shots, in my opinion. 

Why wouldn’t Brown run?  Well, he just lost a very tough race, and this race is another temporary position, meaning he would have to run again in 2014.  So, it would put him in the position of running four times in 5 years to win a permanent Senate seat.  His record is 1 and 1 - he might lose again.  If he did, it would really damage him politically, more than the recent loss to Warren did.  Maybe running for Governor in 2014 is more appealing, especially since Mass voters have elected Republican governors often over the past two decades. 

But, if I had to bet today, I would say he’ll run for the Senate seat. 

If so, who will run against him?  I sincerely hope that the Democrats will avoid a protracted and costly primary battle, which helped to undo Martha Coakley’s candidacy.  (Here is an interesting article on that campaign, including some good insights about the candidates.)  Fortunately, a few of the potential candidates are beginning to take themselves out of the running.  We now know that Ted Kennedy Jr. and Ben Affleck – both with instant name recognition – will not run.  Martha Coakley, the state Attorney General who ran against Brown in the 2010 special election, has ruled out a run.  It sounds like Barney Frank won’t run, (“I’m tired”), although he might accept the interim appointment. Vicki Kennedy, Governor Patrick, former Governor Dukakis and others have also been mentioned as possible candidates, but all have disavowed interest in the position.

Who else might run?  Here are a few potential candidates, in no particular order:

Rachel Maddow  – She needs little introduction among our readers!  Maddow is the well-known host of her own program on MSNBC, a very progressive self-described “national security liberal” who holds an undergrad degree in Public Policy from Stanford and doctorate in Politics from Oxford University.  She is also the author of a well-regarded book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power which tackles questions about how America goes to war in the 21^st Century.  Interestingly, Scott Brown previously claimed in fundraising appeals that she was likely to run against him in 2012; Maddow said she was not running and demanded that he retract his statement and apologize for using her as a fundraising ploy.  Building on excitement over Tammy Baldwin’s election as the first openly lesbian Senator and Warren as Massachusetts’ first woman Senator, Maddow would provide instant appeal to the gay community and women.  She is not without her detractors and attackers, of course, but she is by far the most media-savvy of the potential candidates, an expert debater, and would be one of the few people with the name recognition and support base who could mount a successful race against Scott Brown, IMO.  I think it's unlikely she will run, but OTOH, she’d be great.

Ed Markey – Congressman, Mass 7^th District; the “Dean” of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, having served since 1976.  Markey is a very smart, very solid progressive, strong on energy policy, also knowledgeable about telecommunications, internet privacy, the pharmaceutical industry and many key issues.  He is also strong on environmental issues and has repeatedly challenged "big oil." I take some small pride in having written to him several times (when he was my Congressman, early in his career) about nuclear power, because he subsequently became one of the most outspoken critics of the nuclear industry.  He declined to run for Senate in 2009, at which time he was the Chairman of a key House committee; however, with the GOP’s House majority seemingly set for years, there is some speculation that he may consider a run.  He is very popular in his District, and relatively well-known statewide.  He would be a great Senator, IMO. 
BREAKING NEWS (THURSDAY NIGHT): Congressman Markey has announced that he will run for Senator Kerry's seat.  More here and his new campaign website is here.  This HuffPo article has the text of his statement announcing the run.  If the Dems unite around Markey quickly, it would make sense for Governor Patrick to appoint him as the interim Senator; this would open up his House seat, of course.  Here is WaPo on this story.
BREAKING NEWS (FRIDAY):  Senator Kerry, along with Vicki Kennedy and the DSCC, have come out in support of Ed Markey as the Democratic candidate for Senate.  

Mike Capuano – Congressman, MA 8^th District.  This is the same district once represented by Jack Kennedy, Tip O’Neill and Bobby Kennedy’s son, Joe Kennedy II.  Capuano is the former mayor of Somerville, MA, part of the Boston metropolitan area.  He is a strong progressive with solid credentials in the House, and has the reputation as a scrappy fighter, but in all honesty, I don’t think he has the statewide profile needed to win against Brown (if indeed that is his opponent).  He ran for the Senate seat in the primary against Coakley, but lost.  Thursday night: I doubt he will run, now that Markey has announced.  

Setti Warren –  Mayor of Newton, MA (an affluent suburb of Boston which is largely white; Warren, who is African-American, grew up there) and, jokingly, Elizabeth Warren’s “cousin.”  Setti Warren is a rising star in the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and served in several roles in Bill Clinton’s White House and John Kerry’s campaign and staff.  He was also the New England regional director of FEMA and is a veteran who served in Iraq.  He ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat but dropped out early (in September 2011), once the idea of an Elizabeth Warren campaign began to gain momentum.  He later worked on Warren’s campaign and is taking on new leadership roles and speaking out as part of the coalition of Mayors Against Gun Violence.  He seems like a really bright and personable guy, and an up-and-comer.  Still, his candidacy would be a long-shot, and he would not want to lose a bid for the same position twice.  

Benjamin Downing – Downing has expressed interest in the seat.  He is a young, well-liked state senator from Western Massachusetts who previously worked for Congressmen Delahunt, Neal and Olver.  As I understand it, he is a guy who wears a barn jacket and drives a pickup truck in real life, and might peel away some of Brown’s male supporters.  OTOH, he would be a real long shot.  While he is popular in his part of the state, he is an unknown elsewhere and Western Mass has a lot less people than the eastern half of the state.

I sincerely hope that some others mentioned as possible candidates, like Congressman Stephen Lynch or former AG Scott Harshbarger, will decline to run, as in my opinion they would not stand a chance.  I feel the same way about Alan Khazei, the former head of City Year and CEO of Be the Change, who is a good guy but who ran in the primary unsuccessfully twice; the same goes for Marisa deFranco, who ran a spirited campaign against Elizabeth Warren in the primary, but got crushed.  

I personally believe that the candidate needs to already have a strong "identity" and name recognition with the electorate.  There is simply not time to establish that from scratch.  Of course, Scott Brown did not have that when he ran in 2009-10, so I could be proven wrong – if the right mix of circumstances came together.  The Governor could make a big difference with a strategic interim appointment.  Whatever happens, if the legislature will not address the idiocy and expense of having 4 Senate elections in 5 years, I hope the Dems will be "in it to win it," as we were with the Warren campaign.  

While the Republican National Convention (slowly) starts in Tampa, Sarah Palin will be giving a headline speech at a Barbecue in Arizona - PLUS: Sarah Palin goes rogue again, considers a conservative third party "a possibility" - UPDATE: Mitt Romney praising the virtues of female Chinese factory workers at private fundraiser (VIDEO)

By Patrick

So what is Sarah Palin doing these days? The Alaskan rogue who has fallen from grace was destined to conquer the RNC 2012, according to her remaining few dozen fanatical followers (hint: never annoy Karl Rove). However, this is not how things turned out in the end. Sarah was not allowed to speak at the RNC, which is a wise move, given the fact that there are countless bombshells in her closet which are just waiting to go off at some point. But it now looks that she might not even be there at the RNC: On Monday, August 27th, when the RNC is supposed to start (the convention will now start on Tuesday due to storm "Isaac"), Sarah Palin will be "headlining" a Barbecue in Arizona, supporting Kirk Adams, Republican candidate for Congress.

Sarah Palin's support for Kirk Adams is actually quite interesting. Kirk Adams is currently embroiled in a hot & dirty primary battle with Republican Matt Salmon. As we all know, some Republicans still believe that the endorsement by the mentally ill quitter from Alaska matters a lot, and Matt Salmon apparently falls into this category as well. Salmon's campaign manager voiced his dissatisfaction about Palin endorsing Kirk Adams:

Adam Deguire, Salmon's campaign manager, responds:

“It’s a wonder why Sarah Palin would endorse a politician like Kirk Adams who has a record of voting for wasteful spending, higher taxes and supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. Matt Salmon is supported by Governor (Jan) Brewer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and every Tea Party organization in the East Valley – we’re confident his proven record of conservative leadership has resonated with the voters.”

Matt Salmon's opponents found the new "ultimate weapon" against him: He cashed in as a lobbyist on Obamacare! Well, this is at least what Kirk Adams' campaign claims in the following advert:

While investigating this claim, I discovered some interesting details. Matt Salmon's opponents claim that he "cashed in on Obamacare" because they claim that he represented as a lobbyist the pharmaceutical companies Lundbeck and Millennium, which "are part of Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), which struck a deal with President Obama and the Whitehouse." Who would have thought that lobbying for pharmaceutical companies could be held against you in a Republican primary!

However, the truth is apparently more complicated, and we can also find indications that "Obamacare" is not the Socialist monster that the Koch-sponsered tea-hadists want Americans to believe it is. On a blog called "Western Free Press" we find interesting comments about this topic. This blog examines Matt Salmon's "rebuttal" to the potentially very damaging claim that he "cashed in on Obamacare" - a rebuttal which reads like this:

1) Matt Salmon has NEVER lobbied for the passage of ObamaCare, the expansion of ObamaCare, or supported ObamaCare in any way, shape or form. 2) Matt Salmon has NEVER lobbied for or against any legislation pertaining to ObamaCare. 3) Matt Salmon’s former business partner, John Haddow, was the consultant who represented Lundbeck and Millennium pharmaceutical companies 4) John Haddow actually lobbied AGAINST ObamaCare, NOT for the passage of it NOR for the expansion of it.

While it is doubtful that this statement can be viewed as the full truth, as "Western Free Press" also points out, there are some interesting comments on the blog which Matt Salmon's former partner business John Haddow then left himself, in an apparent attempt to control the damage.

John Haddow comments:

My name is John Haddow. I was Matt's partner while at both Policy Impact and Upstream Consulting. I had both Lundbeck and Millennium as clients before Matt joined the firm. As a small firm it was customary to list all the lobbyists on the forms, more as a form of protection from the very onerous reporting requirements and penalties that are now in place. You err on the side of safety.

With respect to those two clients I was the only person in the firm that met with these two clients and had the technical background to understand the issues before them. I have repeatedly stated that Matt Salmon did not lobby on these clients behalf and that in fact we did not support ObamaCare since it was harmful to almost all small pharmaceutical companies. We did vigorously engage to ensure that the treatment of Orphan products in the bill was corrected to ensure that patients using these products would have continue access to them to keep their quality of life at the level they currently enjoy.

There are some clients that Matt was working for that I was listed for but in fact did no work on as well.

Now things get confusing: John Haddow claims in this comment that Obamacare "was harmful to almost all small pharmaceutical companies" - but on the other hand, just recently the Wall Street Journal made the rather sensational claim that "Big Pharma colluded with the White House at the public's expense", a claim which was then quickly exploited by the right-wingers. I am not sure where "little pharma" ends and "big pharma" starts, but it is more than obvious that President Obama wanted to please the "industry", which actually sounds like classic Republican policy to me.

That Obama's healthcare reform was not governed by "Marxist" policies also becomes even more obvious when you look at the next paragraph from John Haddow's comment:

The major health insurance companies all cut a deal with the Obama administration to support the bill. They did this because the most crucial part of the bill, the mandate to buy insurance, was in their interests. Kirk Adams and his family insurance company sells health insurance policies. Should we now say that Kirk Adams was supporting ObamaCare since his insurance company and the companies they write policies for would benefit? That is the leap of logic that Kirk wants you to take with Matt Salmon but ignore with him.

So, wait a moment: President Obama cut a deal with "big pharma" as well as with "the major health insurance companies?" Is this what Socialist policy look like these days? The legions of brainwashed Fox News-fans believe that Obama is a "Marxist" or "Communist" who wants to enslave the USA, but in reality Obama is doing nothing more than to implement what I would call "classic moderate Republican concepts" (although some of you might disagree with this classification).

On the one hand, the fact that Obama managed to bring through healthcare reform is certainly "progressive", but on the other hand, the details of the implementation are just what somebody like Mitt Romney could have had in mind (who just today boasted about his "Romneycare" achievements in Massachusetts). In any case, many Americans will certainly be very grateful to President Obama that in future your eligibility for healthcare insurance will not depend any more whether you have a pre-existing condition or not. 

+++

Finally, Sarah Palin displays again her personal brand of "rougeishness." Asked on Fox News the clearly "pre-approved question" (like all the questions, no doubt)...

"Would you consider at any point a viable conservative third party if neither party will move from their current positions?"

...the quitter from Alaska is clearly elated to nurture her grudge against the GOP-people when she explains in quite some length why she believes that a third party is "a possibility":

I think Karl Rove might be annoyed again! She did not learn, did she?

Have a great Sunday, everyone!

+++

UPDATE:

This clip is just about to go viral - somebody videotaped Mitt Romney at a $ 50,000-per-plate private fundraiser and published a first clip: Mitt Romney praising the virtues of the notoriously appalling working conditions in Chinese factories - a Capitalist's dream!

Watch the clip:

UPDATE - The video clip is not available any more as the "Rachel Maddow" youtube account has been deleted, but I uploaded the clip again, and here it is, in its full glory:

Mitt Romney letting the audience know about his rather peculiar views:

"95% of life is set up for you if you were born in this country. And, I remember going to ah, uh, sorry just to bore you with stories.

When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there. It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married.

And they work in these huge factories, they made various uh, small appliances. And uh, as we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they
worked per day, the pitance they earned, living in dormitories with uh, with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10, 10 room, rooms. And the rooms they have 12 girls per room.

Three bunk beds on top of each other. You've seen, you've seen them? (Oh...yeah, yeah!) And, and, and around this factory was a fence, a huge fence with barbed wire and
guard towers. And, and, we said gosh! I can't believe that you, you know, keep these girls in! They said, no, no, no. This is to keep other people from coming in.

Because people want so badly to come work in this factory that we have to keep them out. Or they will just come in here and start working and, and try and get compensated. So we, this is to keep people out. And they said, actually Chinese New Year as the girls go home, sometimes they decide they've saved enough money and they don't come back to the factory.

And he said, so, on the weekend after Chinese New Year there will be a line of people hundreds long, outside the factory, hoping that some girls haven't come back. And they can come to the factory. And, and so as we were experiencing this for the first time, going to see a factory like this in China some years ago.

The Bain Partner I was with turned to me and said, you know, 95% of life is settled if you are born in America. This is uh, this is an amazing land and what we have is unique and fortunately it is so special we are sharing it with the world."

Isn't it cool to have millions of impoverished people wanting to work for you...?

These are the values of the wannabe President of the United States...?

This is what working conditions in Chinese factories often look like - watch the documentary "Santa's Workshop":

(h/t IWantTheTruth)

+++

The uploader of the video (who calls herself "Rachel Maddow", but is just a Rachel Maddow fan) said in the comments of the video that she will make the full speech available to the MSM:

There can be in my view no doubt whatsoever that this video is "real" (other websites think the same, for example "Crooks & Liars"). It is clearly Mitt Romney's voice, you can also see him in the video, and the uploader recorded from a fairly concealed position. It might very well have been an employee who was working at this event. It is also apparent that the video uploader is pretty inexperienced as far as "internet activities" are concerned, because he or she chose the rather unfortunate youtube name "Rachel Maddow" (although explaining in the profile that he/she is just a "fan"), which resulted in a rather absurd controversy, with even Rachel Maddow tweeting about the video.

+++

UPDATE 2:

Alaska, love it or suck it! Todd Palin, following in the footsteps of his "wife" Sarah Palin, now has his very own "speaker's bureau" - the "All American Speakers Bureau" has taken him on, according to their website! The former "first dude" can now be booked to give expert advice for example on how to bully friends and foes, and he has a lot of special knowledge to offer ("What to take into account when planning to fake a pregnancy"). No, that was a joke, but he really is available for speeches now:

This is his bio on the website:

Todd Palin has served as Alaska's First Gentleman, is a four-time winner of the Iron Dog snowmobile race and a reality television personality.

Categories:  Adventurers, Entertainment, Reality TV Stars, Television Personalities

Booking Fee Range:  Contact booking agent for fee info   (About Fees)

Speaker Travels From:

Todd Palin was born on September 6, 1964 in Alaska. He is the husband of former Alaskan governor and McCain's vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Sarah Palin. He graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982 and worked as a commercial fisherman and in the oil production field.

He's a four-time winner of the Iron Dog, the world's longest, toughest snowmobile race that stretches over 2,000 miles from the Mat-Su Valley to Nome to Fairbanks in Alaska.

Palin was the First Gentleman, also referred to as the "First Dude" of Alaska from 2006 to 2009. While in this position, he focused on vocational job opportunities for workers in Alaska.He also holds his Private Pilot Certificate and owns a Cessna 185 float plane.

He appeared on the TLC show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, with the rest of his family, in which he assisted with logistics and production. Todd is currently a contestant on NBC's reality show Stars Earn Stripes, where celebrities contend with one another while executing military challenges that are inspired by real exercises.

Well, this should be another piece of evidence to prove that the Palins left the political scene for good and try to find a "safe haven" in the celebrity world instead. But is the celebrity world really ready for the Palins...?

It should also be noted that the Palins always tell Levi Johnston that he should get a "real job." However, if there is anyone who lost any interest in "real jobs", than it is the Palin family. Todd, the slope is waiting for you!