What a victory for the challenger!

A victory for small-d democracy (6.00 / 1)

When incumbent Democrats vote against core Democratic principles on issues like war and peace, marriage equality, and tax fairness, we ought to have a debate.  I think Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are looking down on this with some pride.  This is what they hoped for.  The Senate should not be the House of Lords.  May the best candidate win.

Voter Genome Project

---

by: Ron Turiello @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 00:04:43 AM CDT

some personal experiences... (6.00 / 2)

For the last few weeks, I was called by Kerry staffers 8 times (about four different people) and received one robotic Martha Coakley call.

Before the voting, I was visited by a high level Kerry staffer (I forget her name) whom I told I was supporting O'Reilly. She was very adamant that I change my support and stayed on me for about 8 minutes.

To vote for Kerry, of course, would have been the easy thing to do- especially because I was seated next to my local leaders and town commttee, all Kerry supporters.

So for Kerry to deny that his campaign was trying to switch votes, is of course a lie, but it also shows the intense institutional pressures that are there to insulate incumbents from challengers.  

---

by: Leonidas @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:15:02 AM CDT

Leo - I prevented my town committee from delivering a 'united' slate to Rappaport by insisting on voting for Healey. Some of them still don't speak to me. Good for you for sticking to your guns! (6.00 / 1)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:39:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for the reminder that 'unity' (0.00 / 0)

may be code for 'don't rock the boat,' don't ask hard questions....

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 21:08:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where was last Saturday's John Kerry in 2002, 2004, 2006....? (5.00 / 1)

Does it take a challenger for Kerry to do his job?

When John Kerry last ran for the Senate, in 2002, nary a bumper sticker did I see, not one.  Curious.  There was just his name on the ballot on election day.

In 2004, though wanting Kerry to come out far more forcefully for extracting our troops from our botched occupation of Iraq, I worked exceedingly hard to elect him as President.  

Kerry raised money just before the election to fund post-election recounts.  

There were, as you recall, no recounts.  

Oh, there was patent evidence of Republican election fraud in Ohio on election day and election night.  But Kerry nonetheless folded at once.  

This let him keep several million in campaign contributions that I and others gave him in order to defeat George Bush.

But how's Kerry been in the Senate since then?  

Let's just touch lightly on, e.g., Kerry's skipping out on last year's critical vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  

(Yes, John, even if Dems appear to lack the votes, and even if it's 9:36 p.m., and even if you've a bike ride scheduled the next day, we pay you to be there and cast your sacred vote on our behalf.  It was only our civil liberties at stake.)

But -- hey, this year John Kerry's been campaigning!  Of course you've noticed.

And last Saturday, at the Dem Convention, quel surprise!  

Finally, John Kerry breathed fire about going back to Washington and bringing our troops home from Iraq.  

(No mention of Kerry's vote to send them there in the first place.  No apology for that vote.)

Who knew that Kerry could breathe fire?  Who knew that he wanted, apparently unequivocally, to bring our troops home?

What made the difference in Kerry?  

Ed O'Reilly.  A union guy from a union family who worked his own way through UMass & law school, and stands foresquare for the Mass Dem platform.

Ed announced his candidacy at the Mass Dem Issues Convention in May 2007 at UMass Amherst.  

Late that afternoon, Kerry scurried to the mysterious wilds of Amherst for the Convention's tail end.  

I had the chance to ask Kerry, face to face after he spoke, to do his best to bring all our troops home from Iraq.  He temporized then.  But he's got the message now.  

If it takes a primary challenger for a U.S. Senator to focus on the job that we taxpayers pay him to do, do we want that incumbent for another 6 years?  

---

by: harper @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:46:43 AM CDT

Kerry's speech (5.75 / 4)

It amazed me to see Kerry give a speech wherein he promised not to repeat his past mistakes.

He'll protect our civil liberties -- after voting for the Patriot Act

He'll get us out of Iraq -- after voting to put us in there.

He'll help on education -- after voting for No Child Left Behind

He'll support full equality -- after fighting against marriage equality

I'm glad Kerry's learned some harsh lessons...but I don't think that's reason enough to return him.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks for excellent summary of the basic contradictions... (0.00 / 0)

 'Kerry supporters' must be so inured to deception, 'misstatement,' contradiction, and outright lying in politics that Kerry (or any other incumbent protecting a sinecure) doesn't worry about being booed out of the hall. This is the same factor that sustains GWBush's support: people who are always willing to reframe their memories, their minds, whenever the party leader changes course. "We are at war with Eurasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia...." ....

The real issue at the convention was whether the MA Dem party actually means anything,  means what it says. If it is not the real position of the MA Dems, what is the platform? -- some kind of window dressing...? or secular messianic hope?

O'Reilly puts an end to the practical necessity of having to go along with this charade. O'Reilly offers a chance to vote for the basic positions of the MA Dem party: single-payer health care, marriage equality, an end to the occupation of Iraq, and fair taxes.

John Kerry has acted in opposition to each and every one of these positions. Is he still a MA Democrat?

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 21:29:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"victory" (5.75 / 4)

I don't think it was that surprising a "victory". First, it was a two-way race. I can't recall any two-way race where one candidate failed to get 15% at the convention -- at least it's very rare. Many, including myself, voted for O'Reilly just to give him a shot on the ballot -- many without any intention of voting for him in the primary. Many just wanted to see a contested primary and give voters a "choice" on the ballot.

O'Reilly also benefited from a low-turnout convention. Those most likely to show up were largely were O'Reilly partisans. Most of the missing delegates from my district at least were more "establishment" types who I assume would have voted for Kerry.

So I just didn't see O'Reilly's gaining ballot access as some huge triumph for O'Reilly. I thought it more or less inevitable in a two-way race.

It annoyed me afterwards when I heard O'Reilly refer to some kind of conspiracy, or illegitimate effort, to keep him off the ballot. That sentiment seems to be echoed in this post. IT sounds silly to me. Both candidates are going to try to maximize their votes at the convention, duh. As far as I know, no one was specifically threatened or bribed, just the object of persuasion -- as it should be.

Somerville for Instant Runoff Voting

---

by: Greg @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:47:09 AM CDT

Big Difference (5.00 / 1)

Between keeping someone of the ballot and "maximizing" their vote.  Huge difference.  So let's be very clear, Greg.  There were undemocratic forces afoot to try and keep Mr. O'Reilly off of the ballot; it may be "legitimate" but it's still a conspiracy.  Whatever happened to "let the best one win?"  I'll tell you what's happened to it.  There's an infection of entitlement going around, and most of the incumbents have caught it.    

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the difference? (0.00 / 0)

I don't understand what the difference is. Any attempt to maximize one's vote at the convention could cause any other candidate to lose ballot access. You seem to admit that whatever Kerry did was "legitimate", so what is the complaint here exactly? That he worked too hard? You lost me.

Somerville for Instant Runoff Voting

---

by: Greg @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's legit... (0.00 / 0)

and I didn't say it wasn't.  It's just unseemly to keep a guy off the ballot who went out there and got the 10,000 plus signatures.  Maximizing one's vote doesn't have to include mobilizing party officials and other elected to keep the guy off the ballot.  Luckily, it failed.  Now, let's see what September brings.  

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If maximizing means getting as many as possible (0.00 / 0)

than it certainly does mean exactly that.  Given that 86% > 84%, if JFK was working to maximize his votes than at some point, it would happen to keep a guy off the ballot.  JFK didn't make the rules, he's just playin' by 'em.  I just don't see the beef.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:00:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not the effort (0.00 / 0)

It's the extent of the effort. Calling someone once makes sense. Twice is playing an acceptable hardball - but 8 times, as one person in this thread was claimed to be called - then hammered by a paid aide is not 'trying to maximize one's vote.' It's bullying people, sending them a message. I guess that's legal, but it's not very democratic.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 17:13:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I got two calls -- None of (6.00 / 2)

them were anti-O'reilly.  One was Coakley supporting Kerry and one was Kerry asking for my vote.   Kerry has every right to ask for a vote.  The funny thing is that if he didnt the slam would be that he takes voters for granted.  

---

by: cadmium @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 19:12:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Difference Is . . . (5.00 / 2)

Notwitstanding John Kerry's strong arm tactics, we have a choice on the primary ballot.

Politiciams can't go to Washington, Davos, or where ever and ingnore the concerns of the people.

Maybe John Kerry can wind surf off Lynn Beach this summer  Or he might actually have to explain himself to voters.

How rare for an elitist to have to slum it with the masses!

---

by: peabody @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:01:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Undemocratic forces? (6.00 / 1)

Kerry's campaign sent me a letter and made a couple of phone calls to me, the week before the convention, lobbying for my vote.  I don't see anything "undemocratic" about that.  

I didn't hear from O'Reilly until I got to the convention itself.

My delegation (2nd Middlesex) split about 60% for Kerry, 40% for O'Reilly, so if there was any intimidation going on, I didn't see it and it didn't work.

---

by: Ron Newman @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strangely (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't "committed" to either camp going in to the convention, and I wasn't contacted by either camp before the convention.

I have sent EO'R two emails over the past 8 months or so, with radio silence on the other end.  On the other hand, I've been invited to participate in two conference calls with John Kerry w.r.t. energy and environmental issues over the same time period.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

perfectly explains (0.00 / 0)

why kerry will win and o'reilly will lose...

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 17:15:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It all comes down to (0.00 / 0)

$$$$$$$$$$...voter contact, conference calls, events, ads, direct mailing, robo calls ALL cost money...them that has, gets.

---

by: HLPeary @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:09:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Responding to an email sent to your site that you put up (0.00 / 0)

costs no money whatsoever.

EO'R could have certainly responded to my questions or concerns; he and his staff chose not too.

That's cool, but they lost the chance to convert me, and perhaps people who I could have converted.  Instead, I cast my DSC vote for JFK, and I'll almost certainly cast my Sept primary vote for him too

---

by: stomv @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:03:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree -- that is the a lot of (0.00 / 0)

why they call campaign time silly season.  I am a Kerry supporter, know other Kerry supporters and never once heard anyone doubt that O'Reilly would get enough to get on the ballot.   I went to our local Democratic breakfast a couple months ago and lots of Kerry supporters signed O"Reilly's forms to get on the ballot.    

---

by: cadmium @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 18:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the 'lack of doubt' only happened after PDA (0.00 / 0)

PDA's endorsement of O'Reilly triggered the party line that 'of course he would get on the ballot.' Prior to the PDA endorsement, the party opinion was that O'Reilly would not get on the ballot. The endorsement was announced January 7, 2008.

BTW, why do we accept campaigns as 'silly season'? Is it because we expect and accept a lot of lying... but we don't want to call it that?

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 21:41:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe among your (0.00 / 0)

friends there was doubt he would get on the ballot.  Not among people I know.  As soon as I read the first articles about the challenge I knew that O'reilly would be on the ballot as long as he got enough signatures.   Campaign time is referred to as silly season because of repetitive speeches, hyperbole and innuendo etc.   In response to your rhetorical question regarding why should we accept it?  I would say fine--make it less silly.    Actually one thing that I like about Obama, Kerry, and Patrick is that they play into silliness less than most polls.  

---

by: cadmium @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:21:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

not a low turnout (0.00 / 0)

There were 2574 delegates -- or at least there were 2574 total votes -- at the convention, 1994 for Kerry and 580 for O'Reilly. That's almost all the delegates (about 3000 total).

So this was not a 'low turnout,' but almost everyone eligible to attend did attend.

As for 'no one specifically threatened or bribed,' I'll allude to just two examples I heard about: a staffer in a statehouse office who was told 'don't report for work on Monday if you support O'Reilly on Saturday'; and a state rep who was told, 'if you support O'Reilly, you will never get any union help again.'

Let's just agree that the vote for O'Reilly is significant, in more ways than one. That's a 'win'  

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 21:07:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I heard... (0.00 / 0)

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who was told "if you support Kerry and your house is ever on fire, it will burn down" at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:33:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Save Ferris! (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: Wookie @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I seem to be missing a comment.... (0.00 / 0)

It was call "Cease, please."  It was written at 6:02 AM this morning.  I don't think it was the least bit offensive.  

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM CDT

Well Kerry DID receive the convention endorsement (4.00 / 1)

and Ed O'Reilly clearly benefited from Clinton delegates that wanted to punish John Kerry for backing Obama.

Otherwise that speech O'Reilly gave at the convention was an embarrassing paranoidal rant that would do some justice to Mussolini on the balcony of the Palazzo Venezia.

One last point, if strict adherence to the state party's platform was a requirement to sit in convention, then you could have emptied the hall of about half the delegates Saturday.
Maybe that was O'Reilly's plan all along....

---

by: Elias @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did he talk about himself... (5.00 / 2)

and forget to breathe.  That's what he did during out town committee meeting.  Kudos to him for going to town committee meetings.  My take is he's making the effort to come to meetings across the state so I kept an open mind.  But all he did is talk about himself, the the guy didn't breathe.  It was quite impressive.  Then he threw a couple of haymakers about Iraq at the end and was gone.  Not much about how he was going to do things.  In any event, didn't do much for me.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ugh. (4.00 / 1)

and Ed O'Reilly clearly benefited from Clinton delegates that wanted to punish John Kerry for backing Obama.

Do you have any evidence of this at all?  Not a story about 4 or 5 people you spoke with, but actual data?  Or, are you one of the BHO supporters who picks at the primary scab, baiting HRC supporters to pick at that scab too?

---

by: stomv @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

do we have any evidence (0.00 / 0)

that would explain how anyone on Saturday voted?

Let's not be ridiculous. Of course it's anecdotal, but in a case like that, there's little else to go on. The greatest assumption would be that at least 15% of the convention wanted O'Reilly on that ballot because they are going to support him, but I can only verify that by the 5-10 people I talked to there who were supporting O'Reilly. That's anecdotal too...

If you'd like to commission a study on the reasoning that went into why people voted for O'Reilly or Kerry, surely people will read it, but until then, I think you should give people a break and allow their experiences of the day to weigh in just as much as your's.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 17:19:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think most evidence of this kind would have (0.00 / 0)

to be anecdotal unless someone involved spilled their guts.  It is not an evil motivation even if true.   I know all the Gloucester people I sat behind sported both O'Reilly and Hillary buttons.  

---

by: cadmium @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 19:08:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two O'Reilly voters sitting in front of me (0.00 / 0)

were pressured to change their votes by the whips, and then by an old friend who had moved to a different town.  They explained their vote for O'Reilly by saying that Kerry should have backed Clinton.  That's not anecdotal, that's what I was able to overhear, given that I was sitting two feet away from the conversation.  

How many did this?  I have no idea, but it definitely did happen, and we definitely have our work cut out for us to achive party unity.

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:33:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mussolini on the balcony... (0.00 / 0)

I love it. Great image. The balcony of the Palazzo. The Dem convention was reminiscent of the great dictators' era -- the big stage with the little lectern, the black-jacketed color guard, the big screens picking up on Orwell's fantasy of totalitarianism.

But the real stage-manager was not Ed. We saw that as soon as we heard Coakley and RFK,Jr., speak for more than twice the 15 minute limit before Kerry got up to speak for another 20 or 30 minutes. We knew the fix was in as far as the spectacle of this convention  was concerned. Mussolini indeed.

Ed's passion -- and even outrage -- may have offended some people's sensibilities. But a war based on lies is still going on -- indeed has almost become 'normal' news. A key participant in enabling the war -- John Kerry -- is making speeches about his 'concern.'  I think we deserve a shouting-at to wake us from our stupor.

There was no 'paranoia' in Ed's critique of Kerry, the 'punchless senator.' Kerry has both failed to defend and acted contrary to basic Democratic principles. His efforts to prevent O'Reilly from access to the Dem party primary ballot are a further insult to all MA Dems.

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:01:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you Derrico (0.00 / 0)

Your posts on this topic have been spot on. Thank you.
I was not a delegate but have heard Ed speak and I look forward to working for him and voting for him.

---

by: ruppert @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:36:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is so (0.00 / 0)

Yes - how true. Ed's speech was spot on. Kerry can talk all he likes but the fact remains - just as Ed said it - that Kerry voted for a war he knew was wrong for political reasons. He should not be voted out of office - he should be thrown out!

---

by: Magic Darts @ Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 20:17:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, it's gone (0.00 / 0)

because the original comment to which you were responding was deleted, so all of the responses (including yours) went with it.

---

by: David @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 13:28:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmph! (0.00 / 0)

I spent time on that...at 6:02 AM!

"The world was made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness." ~Annie Savoy, Bull Durham

---

by: Justice4All @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:49:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good for EO'R. (5.14 / 7)

I mean that sincerely.  He worked to get on the ballot as a Democrat, and he did.  Hats off to him.

Let's be clear.  Saturday wasn't about democracy.  It was about Democrats.  The vote on the floor of the DSC has no impact on Ed O'Reilly's ability to get on the ballot.  It only had to do with him being on the ballot as a Democrat.  This blathering about "the fate of democracy", going so far as to question the constitutionality of the process, is nonsense.  Claiming that EO'R was "forced to go through the convention process to get on the ballot"is an absolute lie.  Anyone with the necessary signatures gets on the ballot.  If you want to represent a political party than you need that party's permission to represent them on the ballot, and that's what Saturday's vote was about.

Ed O'Reilly's job as a candidate is to maximize his chances of being elected in November -- same as John Kerry's.  EO'R has a better chance of being elected in November if he's on the ballot as a Democrat in November, requiring that he win the Democratic primary in September, requiring that he get 15% in June.  JFK has a better chance of being elected in November if he's on the ballot as a Democrat in November, requiring he win the Democratic primary in September, which is easier to do if he has no opponent on the primary ballot.

JFK will still face an opponent in November (Beatty), and if EO'R had preferred, he was welcome to submit his sigs without trying for the (Dem) next to his name, putting him on the ballot in November too... and allowing him to spend June 7th elsewhere.

Both candidates played by the rules* and did their best to maximize their chances of being elected in November.  There shouldn't be any ill-will or suggestions of suppressing democracy of violating the constitution or other nonsense.

* I agree that Kerry should have been yanked from the stage with a hook.  I thought his speech was far better than EO'Rs, but it did run longer than the rules permitted and that ain't cool.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM CDT

i am sick of the meme (6.00 / 1)

that you keep spouting on how the Democratic Party has no duty to act democratically. You may think that, but I'd wager a bet that nearly the rest of us think it a ridiculous assertion. The Democratic Party legally can enact its own rules, but if we don't make our rules friendly to democracy, our party will die - and it's death would be well deserved. Obviously, enough people thought O'Reilly's 10,000 signatures were worthy to be on the ballot, because I'd wager another bet that he received more votes out of the convention than people who actually will vote for him in September among that group.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 17:25:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it was about Democrats (5.50 / 2)

Exactly. The convention was about the integrity of the MA Dem party -- whether it means what it says in its platform and resolutions, or whether these statements are some bizarre exercise in political masturbation.

Why does a party exist, if not for its own principles? If it tolerates, and applauds, Democratic leaders who ignore and run from party principles, and disavow their allegiance to the MA Dem party -- to run for President, as in John Kerry's case --then the party must be called to account. This is what O'Reilly is doing.

It's not really about O'Reilly. It's about democracy in the Democratic party. That's the kind of challenge that any citizen should be able to make: I am a Democrat. Democratic principles mean something. We fight for them.

O'Reilly got 'mad as hell' about Kerry's war vote.  He  challenged that vote, and also Kerry's votes on other major issues -- health care, fair taxes, marriage equality, where the MA Dem party positions are clear.

O'Reilly's positions are the positions of the MA Dem party. Kerry's aren't. But the party machine doesn't want people to think about this. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:26:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I also... (5.00 / 1)

...was subjected to significant pressure.  I even told Ed O'Reilly at his Friday night party that if I were wearing short sleeves I would show him the twist marks on my arm.  Two people in particular whom I respect, have worked with in the past, and probably will again, really worked me more than I thought was necessary.  I was beginning to wonder whether I should feel flattered that my vote was worth so much to them.  At the end of the day I could not reconcile the argument of not even wanting a race.  I am so glad that the Senator himself did not make that argument, either in his robocall or his convention speech.

I do want to add that I believe the 15% rule is legitimate and certainly constitutional.  There needs to be some vetting to see that the candidate really is a Democrat and signatures alone do not answer that question.  Except for the specific prohibitions on disenfranchisement found in the Constitution the states make their own election laws and our method is in accordance with Massachusetts law.

---

by: Christopher @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 14:40:46 PM CDT

really is a Democrat... (0.00 / 0)

What does this mean? As has been pointed out, Kerry has voted against and acted contrary to all the major positions of the MA Dem party --  on health care, Iraq, marriage, and fair taxes. Kerry is trying to please voters somewhere else, not MA. If he is a Democrat, you couldn't prove he represents Massachusetts. Even if the party machine says he does.

---

by: derrico @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 22:29:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But he certainly isn't a Republican (0.00 / 0)

If you were to line up all the Senators on a left-right continuum he would certainly fall closer to the left.  As far as really being a Democrat I guess the best example I can come up with as a counter-example is a LaRouchite.  Those guys try to use our party, but really have no interest in it.  Senator Kerry really is rather progressive.  For evidence of this check out Project Vote Smart.

---

by: Christopher @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:10:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: "No primary challengers in 24 years"... (0.00 / 0)

Is this because nobody's tried or because Kerry has managed to shoot everyone else down in conventions?

I mean, I'm all for as many choices as possible but I feel like 10,000 signatures is a lot of work to then turn around and face a senator with two decades of experience.

"Don't settle for style. Succeed in substance."


-Wynton Marsalis

---

by: BTCole @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 16:03:13 PM CDT

PS: Thanks Ed (0.00 / 0)

It was getting dull around here now that the Obama-Clinton rivalry was over.  Thanks for ginning up another primary fight to tide us over till September...

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 20:59:27 PM CDT

A Funny Thing Happend on the Way to the Convention! ... (0.00 / 0)

The people spoke!!!

John Kerry's strong arm tactics backfired!

Deval Patrick, John Kerry, et. al. were reminded of who controls the party!

Incumbents were reminded that they need to be responsive to the people (DeNucci save your rambling; Chet Atkinins, Ed O'Reilly may not be just a nuisance)!

Democracy is alive and well in the commonwealth!!!!!

   

---

by: peabody @ Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:42:32 AM CDT