UPDATE: MA Senate debate: Ed Markey – Gabriel Gomez, June 11 – Live updates
Markey’s lead over Gomez shrinks, poll shows
Related: Sunday Globe Specials: Gomez Gaining on Markey
It looks like the same margin to me. WTF?
"Missions clear for Gomez, Markey in debate tonight" by Frank Phillips | Globe Staff, June 05, 2013
With less than three weeks to go until election day, the campaign for US Senate will enter a critical final phase Wednesday night as the candidates bring their message directly to voters in the first of three televised debates.
And I won't watch one of them.
For each, the debate presents the opportunity to rewrite some of the emerging story lines of the expedited special election campaign and to set the tone for the final weeks.
GOP candidate Gabriel Gomez, who has yet to prove he can speak in-depth about complex policies, will have to display a confident command of the issues and talk beyond his usual sound bites. Gomez, a former Navy SEAL with little campaign experience, must also prove he can appeal to moderate and independent voters.
His opponent, US Representative Edward J. Markey, must show not only that he stands with the Democratic Party but that Gomez’s positions are far out of sync with the Massachusetts electorate. He also must make clear that he remains passionate and vital after nearly 37 years in Congress.
With the June 25 election fast approaching and polls showing Markey with a lead, Republicans are looking for a perfect confluence of events that would set the political world on fire, rousing the sort of anti-Washington, anti-Democrat dominance that swept Scott Brown to a stunning GOP victory in the January 2010 special election to replace the late Edward Kennedy in the Senate.
You gotta come out against the spying, Ed.
Peter N. Ubertaccio, a political science professor at Stonehill College, said he does not see those dynamics in place this year. He said the controversies that have engulfed Washington in recent weeks have failed to roil the national and state political waters as President Obama’s health care initiative did in 2010.
“The contours favor Markey and nothing has changed that since the beginning of the race,’’ Ubertaccio said. “He has maintained the lead. I read the lack of interest as a boon for him.’’
Markey has proven to be a cautious and even robotic Senate candidate, rarely varying from standard Democratic positions. Despite his years in public office, he can be awkward when facing the media, although he does not shy from the press. His performance on the campaign trail is in sharp contrast to his reputation in Congress where he is respected for his long record of legislating.
“Ed Markey is running out the clock,’’ said Jeffrey M. Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University. “He is ahead and is being extraordinarily cautious not to make any mistakes that could generate enthusiasm for Gomez. He is hunkered down, campaigning in safe venues in front of Democratic audiences.”
Yeah, with the Kennedy's at the Jewish Health Center. Playing not to lose usually results in just that.
The frustration for some Republicans is that Gomez’s political inexperience has hobbled his efforts to contrast himself to the older, plodding Markey.
Gomez’s misstep in calling Markey “pond scum’’ underscored his inexperience on the campaign trail. He has also displayed little policy depth on key issues, such as abortion and foreign affairs. His refusal to release documents about a $281,500 historic-preservation tax deduction for his Cohasset home hurt his image as a new fresh face.
So far, the race to replace John F. Kerry, now secretary of state, is hardly a barnburner contest like Massachusetts voters have seen in the past....
Because we are sick of endless elections.
Still, a sudden shift is not out of the question in the final 20 days of the race. Solid performances by Gomez in Wednesday’s debate, sponsored by WBZ-TV and The Boston Globe, and the two other scheduled debates could be enough to reshape the race and attract the national funds he needs to compete with Markey, who has raised about $6.5 million in the past five months. That is on top of the $3.2 million he had in his campaign account when he launched his Senate bid this year.
Kirsten L. Hughes, the chairwoman of the Massachusetts Republican Party, is convinced that there is good potential such a switch can occur. It is indeed time for a fresh face to replace the calcified Democratic old guard, she said. That could put the Republican nominee on the path to an upset that would shake national politics.
“People are tired of the same-old, same-old,’’ Hughes said. “Markey is not only not exciting, he’s been a mediocre congressman. Gomez represents a new brand of leadership.’’
I am predicting an upset, and the Globe will claim a win-win. Massachusetts will be shown not to be a Democrat lock, and Markey will remain a powerful congressman.
The subdued race seems to be putting a damper on Gomez’s ability to generate the kind of financial support that propelled Brown’s candidacy in 2010, either from individuals across the country or from the national party.
“The national Republican Party has seemed to have given him the back of its hand,’’ said Berry, the Tufts professor. “They have said things that are reassuring, but the big hitters in Washington are not working to inject funds into his lagging campaign.’’
Mitch McConnell said he was going to give him a whole pile.
At this point, the funding from national sources seems to be moderate when compared with Markey’s fund-raising, according to state GOP sources. The national Republican Party is giving the state GOP about $375,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to build a get-out-the-vote operation to compete with the Democrats’ robust field organization. In addition, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has created a joint fund-raising committee with Gomez’s campaign that is expected to raise about $1 million.
Gomez is also expected to get some significant help from a super PAC — the Committee for a Better Massachusetts — that former Romney presidential adviser Eric Fehrnstrom has created to support the GOP nominee. Its funding sources and expenditures have not been publicly disclosed, so it is not clear how much the committee is spending.
By the end of the piece I realize money matters more than votes.
UPDATE: Markey leads Gomez by $1m
$ee what I mean?
--more--"
As for the debate I didn't watch?
"Gomez, Markey spar over D.C. gridlock, Benghazi" by Michael Levenson | Globe Staff, June 06, 2013
An aggressive Gabriel E. Gomez wasted no opportunity to mockingly highlight Democrat Edward J. Markey’s nearly four decades in Washington while Markey used the first debate of the US Senate race Wednesday to paint his Republican rival as dangerously out of step with Massachusetts values on issues such as gun control and abortion.
Gomez, who came armed with a series of one-liners, was often the more stinging of the two. In his first remarks to viewers, many of whom have only seen him in television ads, Gomez turned to the veteran congressman and said: “After 37 years in D.C., welcome back to Boston.”
It was a theme he returned to relentlessly during the debate, which was sponsored by The Boston Globe and WBZ-TV.
“You are basically Washington, D.C.,” Gomez said at one point. “I’m sorry, sir, but you are.”
Markey shrugged off the repeated digs at his years in Congress and embraced his long tenure, saying that it had allowed him to rack up a series of accomplishments for his district and the state.
He rattled off laws that he helped craft on matters ranging from port security to Internet access for the blind and deaf. He said he worked with Republicans to pass those laws and warned that Gomez was not a fresh face but an advocate of the “same old, stale Republican ideas.”
“I’ve had a job down in Washington: It’s been to battle Tea Party Republicans,” said Markey. “They want Mr. Gomez down there to help them get the majority that will ultimately further this gridlock that they have fostered over this last generation. That is the heart of the problem. That has been what I’ve been fighting.”
WTF? From 2008 to 2010 I was told we had a filibuster-proof Democrat Congress -- and all we got was a lousy health care bill.
The debate came at a critical juncture. Markey appears to hold a lead in the polls less than three weeks before the June 25 special election to replace John F. Kerry, who left the Senate seat to become secretary of state. But with voter turnout expected to be low, the three debates have the potential to shake up the dynamics of a race that has so far failed to capture public interest....
Gomez, a former US Navy SEAL and a political newcomer, succeeded in discussing the issues without any major slip-ups and put Markey on the defensive at times....
Markey, who was first elected to Congress in 1976, was eager to show that he was not out of touch with the concerns of workaday voters in his home state and has the energy and enthusiasm to fight for them in the Senate. Though Markey remained largely unflustered, Gomez pressed him hard on his record of voting nearly in lock step with Democrats....
Perhaps the most emotional flashpoint of the evening centered on an issue that has not received much attention in the race: the attack on the US diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012....
Markey argued that House Republicans have been politicizing the investigation of the attacks in an attempt to derail a potential presidential bid by former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. That brought an outraged response from Gomez.
That's part of it, but the real story is the stage and scripted psyop going so awry.
“I can’t think of a more classic example of putting partisan politics ahead of the people,” he said. “The people need to know what happened. How can you sit here and say you’re more worried about Secretary Clinton’s potential presidential run, as opposed to what happened to Glen Doherty and why he died.”
Markey shot back at Gomez, saying, “You’re the one politicizing this,” and noted that he had attended Doherty’s funeral in Winchester.
“I honor him,” Markey said. “I honor his family, but we can’t allow this to turn into a political attempt to get at Hillary Clinton, rather than getting at the facts of what happened.”
When the debate turned to gun control....
When the debate moved to abortion....
That's when I moved on.
--more--"
Related:
Debate a tough test for Gomez
Gomez vs. GOP, Markey vs. himself
A snippy opening, then things got serious
Senate candidates missed the mark on some points
Like what?
"In Senate race, two views of global responsibilities" by Joshua Miller | Globe Staff, June 07, 2013
With a civil war in Syria destabilizing the Middle East, the two candidates for US Senate in Massachusetts offer strongly different stances on United States foreign policy, positions that illustrate distinctive philosophies of what role the country should play in the world.
US Representative Edward J. Markey said he believes that addressing “poverty, injustice, hunger, disease, climate change” and other development issues abroad should be an essential part of US foreign policy, alongside diplomacy and defense.
Gabriel E. Gomez, a former Navy SEAL, describes a more narrowly focused view of the country’s role in the world, emphasizing support for allies and pressure on enemies.
“We can’t be the police force all over the world,” he said. “But we got to make sure that we support our allies.”
In Syria, which is mired in a bloody civil war that began more than two years ago when President Bashar Assad cracked down on protesters, the United States faces a hard choice about how deeply to get involved. Gomez supports US military involvement to create a no-fly zone over the country that he hopes would hamper Assad’s fight against rebel forces. Markey opposes a no-fly zone, saying the United States needs to be extremely cautious before involving itself in the war there.
Their positions are also somewhat at odds on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Syria’s south.
Gomez blames both Israelis and Palestinians for the long impasse in the creation of an indelible Middle East peace. Markey repeatedly declined to fault Israel, instead arguing that Palestinians have missed multiple opportunities to negotiate a long-term settlement....
Well, Ed has been in Congress a long time. He knows whom you do not cross if you want to win election.
The winner of the June 25 election will succeed John F. Kerry, who resigned his Senate seat to become secretary of state. The new senator will have an ability to help shape the country’s foreign policy and the constitutional prerogative to vote on treaties and ambassadors.
Both candidates sat down with the Globe in recent days for lengthy interviews on foreign policy.
Markey, who has served in Congress for almost 37 years, but has largely focused on domestic and homeland security policy, nonetheless appeared fluent with details of foreign affairs, comfortable with the historical context of world conflicts. He praised President Obama’s approach in several current hot spots.
At moments, Gomez appeared less at ease with some of the nuances of world politics. He repeatedly referred to his service in the military, using it as a prism through which he views unrest in the Middle East.
While Gomez did not criticize President Obama’s overall foreign policy agenda, he said Kerry and President Obama “are too focused right now on the Israeli peace process.”
“You have Syria and Iran right now, where I think there should be more focus,” he said.
But some foreign policy specialists said Gomez’s assessment was off the mark.
Aaron David Miller, a former longtime State Department adviser on Middle East issues, who counseled both Democratic and Republican administrations, said he thought the opposite was true.
Kerry is “spending plenty of time on Syria,” Miller said. “Kerry is working, I would argue, at the expense of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” to focus on the conflict in Syria.
Just cancelled a trip to Israel to work on Syria he did.
James F. Jeffrey, a former US ambassador to Iraq under Obama and deputy national security adviser in George W. Bush’s administration also said he disagreed with Gomez’s take. “Kerry can chew gum and walk at the same time,” Jeffrey said.
In the interview with Gomez, which took place at a crowded Irish pub, the Cohasset military veteran repeatedly said there would be an extremely high bar for him to authorize the president to use military force abroad. “Committing troops has to be the absolutely last resort, ever,” he said, repeating a line he has used often on the campaign trail and in debates.
But on Syria and Iran, Gomez positioned himself more hawkishly than Markey.
Gomez said US troops ought to be used to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria, even without approval from the United Nations.
“I wouldn’t wait for the UN, because that could take a long time,” he said after a debate with Markey on Wednesday.
In the interview last week, Gomez admitted that committing US air assets to the region could result in American casualties. He said any military effort there would be “for the security of the United States because a weaker Syria is going to be a weaker Iran.”
“Syria is, literally, Iran’s best friend,” Gomez said.
Markey said he supports a diplomatic approach as a way to “restrict the spread of the chaos into other countries,” but opposes a no-fly zone over Syria, given the current circumstances on the ground there....
In Iran, Gomez said he would authorize the president to use military force to stop the regime there from getting a nuclear weapon, but only “as a very last resort.”
Markey, in an interview this week in a Boston hotel lobby, was more guarded about whether there were circumstances under which he would support military action against Iran.
“We have to move through this stage by stage,” Markey said.
Markey said he supported President Obama and Kerry’s efforts to pressure Iran through sanctions.
“The president intends on denying Iran a nuclear weapon and he has built a powerful coalition to squeeze the Iranian economy and its political system,” Markey said, his hands clenched in a demonstration of the pressure.
Pressed if there were circumstances where he would support military intervention against Iran, he said: “We are not there yet.”
On the question of how to deal with a belligerent North Korea, both candidates praised the president’s strategy of diplomacy, combined with a recent show of force in support of South Korea.
And in regard to American involvement in Afghanistan, Markey said the US mission in that troubled country had been “completed.” Gomez disagreed, but said America should “be drawing down our troops” there.
Both Gomez and Markey said they were open to the United States using military action solely for humanitarian purposes, but set the bar high.
On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both candidates expressed strong support for Israel. Each said he supported a two-state solution. And, despite the long impasse on a peace agreement, both said they believe a two-state solution remains feasible. But the candidates split on who holds blame for the continued failure of the peace process.
“Obviously, there’s culpability on both sides,” Gomez said. “Neither one of them has been perfect in the peace process, I’ll put it that way.”
Pressed three times if Israel had any blame at all for the peace process not moving forward, Markey only assigned fault to the Palestinians. “The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” he asserted.
As a conscientious Massachusetts voter, I'm insulted!
Asked if Obama has missed the mark on any areas of foreign policy during his tenure as commander in chief, Markey took a long, deliberate pause.
He finally said he hoped the president would change his mind about committing to build “a new generation of nuclear warheads.”
Drones, Libya, no big deal, huh?
--more--"
Also see: Obama to visit Boston next week for Markey event
Maybe Ed should ask him not to come now given the spying scandal.
