Hey, there! Log in / Register
Barney Frank must've run those ads for the hell of it, then
By adamg on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 9:04am
Won't run for Kerry's Senate seat, thinks voters should get to pick Kerry replacement if Kerry leaves.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Barney
He won't go for Kerry's seat. He is waiting for Senator Kennedy to kick it.
That makes no sense
The seats are the same. They're both state-wide. Teddy is Senior Senator only because he was senator first.
If someone else gets Kerry's seat and then Teddy steps down and Frank runs for Teddy's open seat, then the guy who took Kerry's seat will be the Senior Senator, not the guy who replaces Teddy. Basically whoever gets Kerry's seat will likely end up being the Senior Senator before long.
The only explanation is that Franks doesn't want to be a senator at all.
Seniors rule! That makes sense.
I always thought you became senior senator by having served more time than the other guy or gal. "The only explanation is that Franks doesn't want to be a senator at all." There's nothing in your post to support that. But consider this, elections for the Senate are held at six-year intervals, compared to Congress which has a campaign every two years. In the Senate you are your own island noone can tell you what to do. That's why I can't believe Kerry would give up his seat for a cabinet position where you answer to the chief of staff. peace
Pronoun trouble
You said:
What you said makes no sense if the "He" is the same person in both sentences - Barney Frank. There's no reason he'd prefer Teddy's seat over Kerry's seat (simmer down, folks) - they're really the same seat, but Teddy's had it longer.
If you shuffled around your antecedents, so that the he in the second sentence is Kerry, then what you said makes better sense. It's a sloppy use of English, but it makes sense upon explanation. I can imagine that Kerry would want to wait a bit and be Senior Senator - though it seems to me that Secretary of State is a bit more prestigious and powerful.
Franks could probably win an open special election for Senator. He's got substantial good will and credibility in this state among those few who would vote. There's no good reason for him to wait for Teddy's departure and a second open seat.
So the reason for Franks not to run would be what again? I think he would rather be a powerful Representative now than a weak Senator, and is excited about pushing his agenda in the next Congress. Can you think of another reason?
Only The Beginning
If Kerry gets raptured into the Obama Administration, that will be round 1 of a two-round senator replacement process, and they all know it.
As much as everybody loves Ted, a simple scenario analysis says that he really isn't going to be able to be a senator too much longer. A further X factor is that MA stands to lose another rep in the coming census because the west and south continued to grow and MA has not.
Cage match anybody?
That makes sense, some of
That makes sense, some of them may be holding back and hoping that everyone else with cash makes a run for it for Kerrys seat so when the Kennedy seat comes around there will be less people running.
I cant wait for all of this to happen, assuming Kerry gets a position and Kennedy decides to step down, and even in a way once we lost that congressional seat just because it will make political life exciting again. I think most of our big politicians have become such a part of the national scene (Capuano ran the logisitics of the capital logisitics when the Dems took over the capitol building, Barny is a national voice ect) that they are not on the streets as much as they could be. New congressmen tend to spend alot more time campaigning and meeting voters because they are afraid of losing their seat next time. Kennedy is even at the point where I dont believe hes been within 30 miles of my hometown (with the exception of events IN Boston) for longer then I can really remember. Kerry is a little bit better, but even then it tends to be a drive by politicing stop.
I doubt John Kerry is going
I doubt John Kerry is going anywhere. Someone on his staff is probably whispering his name into columnist's ears. For most of his time in the Senate, he's been a nonentity. Around the country, the impression of John Kerry is guy with a big "L" for Loser on his forehead. Even the Massachusetts Democrat establishment hate him for going against Hillary - remember that? They voted to put someone on the Primary ballot just to stick it to him and make him actually go out and campaign. The only possible appeal to Kerry is that his seat would be guaranteed to remain in Democrat control.
Consider This
If anything, Kerry lost in 2004 because he was too diplomatic.
What was a liability in US electoral politics might just be an appropriate quality in a more limited role.
Kerry seems to be well regarded in the international arena. That counts more than any "loser loser loser" labels that certain infantile people who can't distinguish sports from politics might apply at home.
Exactly, lets not forget
Exactly, lets not forget that Kerry appears (in public at least) to be unflappable and amazingly on message if he isnt forced to do things that make him look silly, which is what a campaign does. All the things we make fun of him for are what you need when someone is visiting the UN on a regular basis, or dining with world leaders. There are no more cheesesteaks to trip him up, nor does he need to worry about appearing to not be wealthy when the truth is he has access to more money then some small countries.
Its a much better fit for him then anything else he has done to be honest with you.
LOSER??? John Kerry was down
LOSER???
John Kerry was down against Howard Dean and managed to overcome serious deficits in polls during the primary. The field that year was quite large and had some serious competition in it and he ended the game fairly, remember back then Gephart and Edwards were still players on the field. He went on to come closer to winning in 2004 then McCain did in 2008, and that was against a sitting US president who at the time had the biggest fundraising machine in the world. The tally in Ohio was close enough that if you were to swing the catholic female vote a few degrees in Kerry direction he would have won the whole thing. I dont see how coming so close is being a loser.
Also Kerry picked Obama to speak at his convention in 2004, supported Obama early on, endorsed him fairly early, and even lent him some staff members (including his "Chief of Stuff" Marvin. Seems to me like Kerry picked a winner this time around, even if he disagreed with the State as a whole. He was on the Obama band wagon before Clinton managed to woo Massachusetts.
May I remind you - he lost.
May I remind you - he lost. And regarding big fundraising machines.... Obama just broke the record. Be careful what you complain about.
Not complaining about 2004,
Not complaining about 2004, I was stating that as candidates go Kerry did quite well in his quest to unseat a sitting president. I dont think Clinton would have done it without Perots help and a few other factors, Dole was a lame duck, and forget about the democrats who tossed themselves at Reagan, at one point the whole country was looking bright red on those election maps. In comparison Kerry took a huge bite out of Bush. Yes he lost, but he lost by smaller margins then many others, and did better then McCain did against Obama.
I know Obama has the money machine now, and if some republican walks in in 2012 and manages to come within a handful of electoral votes of winning I will give them credit where credit is due.
Frank looking to move up
As I mentioned yesterday, Frank is looking to move to the Senate. Hence, the ads.
I think that Frank is just waiting to see what happens next and not tipping his hand. He should jump at the first chance, because I would not count out the possibility of Joe Kennedy or another Kennedy moving to succeed Ted if I were Frank.
I have mixed feelings about Kerry leaving. On the one hand, it would open the seat to someone (like Frank) who actually tries to help his constitutents and would run an effective office. Right now, Kennedy's office is the go-to place if you have an issue. The stories of unhelpful poor customer service and snubbing of (former) supporters from Kerry's office are legion.
On the other hand, if the post is State, Bill Richardson would be a better choice. He was Ambassador to the UN and has a good reputation in foreign policy circles as an effective negotiator. With Kerry, too much grandstanding.
I love the idea of a quick special election. I still say Coakley is the favorite in a field with many Congressmen; but both Frank and Lynch would have a good shot at it.
Paul Cellucci should be the Republican candidate, if he wants it.
I love the idea of a quick
Before we pick winners, we need to be informed about the process. Does anyone know the process, or the likely process? Will we choose a party candidate in a primary election first? I'll assume we do.
That said, How does Lynch compete with Frank or Coakley? He doesn't. He's too damn conservative.
We just had an election where a national majority voted for "the #1 most liberal senator," and the Massachusetts voter is way left of the national average. The only way Lynch wins the Democratic nomination is if he has no Democratic competition. Actually, I think he'd have a decent chance if his only competition was not another MA Congressmen because he could successfully make the experience argument.
On the Republican side, we have Cellucci, Swift, Weld, Romney. Romney is the most formidable Republican candidate but it's a personal risk to his ambition because Senate votes produce a record which would come into play in the next presidential campaign 2012.
On the Republican side, we
Yeah but if he got the seat he could be former governor, current senator, business man, savor of the olympics ect...
It would also offer him a perch from which to strike at Obama.
Lynch
In a field with McGovern, Capuano, Markey, Frank and Lynch, Lynch wins. If Coakley is in, that's another matter, but Lynch would still have a shot as another kind of "different." Coakley could probably cover the base of being some kind of "conservative," because she's a prosecutor.
Cahill and Galvin, having run statewide, may also take a shot.
The thing to remember about Lynch or anyone like Coakley who is distinctive politically or otherwise is that with a big field in a primary, you only need a plurality - you could win with as low as 20% of the vote.
Lynch would appeal to a whole swath of high-voting precincts from South Boston through West Roxbury down to Cape Cod. He picks up other pockets here and there and he wins the primary with the help of massive building trades labor union support.
It's also a time when all of these elected officials can run without risking their seats, so I expect a big field.
In a field with McGovern,
Why?
High voting districts is an advantage but he needs to win statewide. His district is the same size as other Congressmen in the Commonwealth. Republicans who like Lynch cannot help him, they have to choose whether to vote R or D in the primary.
Lynch does not score well as a public speaker, he comes off as provincial.
His Democratic opponents will hand his votes on social issues and civil rights around his neck.
Good call! I agree.
Kerry won re-election to his post in the Senate fair & square.
There's no evidence that he's going to Washington to be in Obama's cabinet. He'd be a disaster as Secretary of State, anyway.