raforrest/flickr
John Kerry and Ed Markey at a 2008 rally on combating climate change.
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) announced yesterday he will run to fill John Kerry's Senate vacancy in Massachusetts, assuming the senator is confirmed as Secretary of State, becoming the first Democrat to get into the race. The next question, of course, is who he's likely to face in a primary.
As of this afternoon, the Democratic Party establishment seems to have a preference: it doesn't want Markey to face any challenger at all. Indeed, Kerry himself announced his support for the congressman today:
"Ed's one of the most experienced and capable legislators in the entire Congress and it would be an almost unprecedented occasion for such an accomplished legislator to join the Senate able to hit the ground running on every issue of importance to Massachusetts.
"Ed's someone who authored and passed a visionary energy bill to deal with climate change; he's one of Congress' foremost experts on the Internet, telecommunications and new energy economies; he was a leader on nuclear weapons issues; and he's the House's leading, ardent, and thoughtful protector of the environment... He's passionate about the issues that Ted Kennedy and I worked on as a team for decades, whether it's health care or the environment and energy or education. He's gutsy and tough, smart and sharp, a workhorse in Congress who has never forgotten where he came from or who sent him to Washington."
Implied but left unsaid: "no one should run against him in a Democratic primary."
Whether other Massachusetts Dems get the hint remains to be seen. Keep in mind, this has to be awfully tempting for other in-state Democrats, especially members of the congressional delegation, because there's no real penalty for trying -- House members who run in the Senate special election don't have to give up their seats, and if they lose in the Senate primary, they can just run for re-election.
With that in mind, keep an eye on Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who's already expressed an interest in the Senate race. Lynch may struggle in a statewide primary because he has one of the least progressive voting records of any New England Democrat -- he voted with Republicans to kill health care reform, supported the Iraq war, and opposes abortion rights -- but he may run anyway.
Update: Vicki Kennedy also threw her support today to Markey, calling him "the best person to continue in the tradition of John Kerry to serve our Commonwealth in the United States Senate."
Leave a Comment:
Why is absence of primary choices in a deep blue state a sound democratic principle?
I understand the motives, but they are ill considered. Party elites anointing successors to elected offices is simply a left version of an entrenched ruling class. More, the promotion of the idea of inevitability of a candidate may seem to be a great campaign tactic, but is corrosive and counter productive. It tells voters they have no choice in the matter.
We need more choices not less, and Kerry should stay out of it until the primary decides the Dem candidate.
Except for the fact that the other choices in the Massachusetts Democratic Establishment are idiots (See Coakley, Martha and Capuano, Paul [I think], and crazy dumbass Lynch)
Capuano wouldn't be bad. He's kind of generic northeast blue congresscritter.
Lynch? His district is gentrifying so quickly, i wonder if he'd even win it in a primary. (He keeps getting re-elected to the House mostly out of inertia and lack of a credible opponent.)
JohnMesserly, the voicing of a choice for a successor is a pretty typical event in politics and not necessarily a bad thing (see Senator Inouye). in this case, i think Kerry's preference is a good choice for both the people and the Democratic party of Massachusetts. and, since when has the wish of one politician for another to stay out of a race been enough to actually make it so.
Markey can be an effective Senator for Massachusetts and it would be good for the senate to have a truly liberal voice there.
yes, i am a proud m@!$%# though not from Markey's district.
I made an argument that absence of choices in a primary in a deep red or blue state is a bad thing. Do you agree or disagree?
It is irrelevant who the anointed one is. I love Markey, and if we had ten times as many of his kind in the Dem ranks of the Senate we might make some progress on climate change. But my affection for his positions are quite simply irrelevant to the question at hand.
It is irrelevant the complaint that people must be allowed to voice opinions about candidates. The party apparatus can have a way of insuring that every prospective challenger knows it's not a good idea to go up against the anointed one. So everyone just bows out and there are only bozo challengers.
It's not democracy, and that's what polarized politics do to the duopolistic party system we have.
Which part of this do you disagree with?
i really like John Kerry.
we've had enough trouble with the repub/conservatives in congress since 2009.
we need a Democrat to replace him, in my humble opinion, not scott brown or stephen lynch.
A Republican governor would simply appoint Brown to finish the term, assuring him re-election in 2014.
But- oh my!- a Democratic governor would never do that. Unseemly, ya knows. . .
it would not be unseemly. it would be stupid for a Democrat to appoint a republican, particularly a republican who was so recently rejected by the voters. can you say "foot shot?"
a republican governor of Massachusetts (we've had many of those mistakes) who appointed brown to finish Kerry's term would just be killing his own career.
LOVE Ed Markey. experienced beyond belief --26 years in the House, progressive and for the 99%. I love this guy. I met him twice and was impressed. Just for the heck of it I looked up his wife too. She is a medical doctor and has a resume as large as the ocean. She is brilliant. I thought it important as it can often be a predictor of values. They both are of supreme intellect and Rep. Markey is Massachusetts through and through. NO ONE could accuse him of not being of Mass. He is. Went to Malden Catholic, Boston College and Boston College Law School. Not bad. He is better than Brown by YARDS who voted with Republicans 70% of the time. You see now we CAN judge Brown in that we can see EXACTLY how he voted -- against women, against choice and with the banks down the line. Brown's soul was sold to the banks.
Nice try, Scott, but you WILL lose this time as well as you do not have Cherokee Indians to kick around any more. Brown waged a disastrous campaign.
Ed, most in Mass. love you! I will use the quote again but this time for Ed. Ed, YOU are a price above rubies!
thanks, Natalie!