Friday, November 03, 2006

Good Senate Hunting

I grew up here in the Commonwealth in what is now the 2nd Essex Senatorial district, whose seat has been held for the last 40 million years or so by current Senate Majority Leader Fred Berry. He not only has been a stalwart for his party and his district, but also, to his credit, wouldn't know me from a hole in the ground.

But now that I have wound my way west and gotten more involved in the process, I can say that I will be personally acquainted and have held face-to-face discussions with my next State Senator. Want proof? I took this picture at a Rotary Club event a couple weeks ago:


Here holding the shiny blue Rotary mugs that inspire politicians everywhere, we have, L-R, Ben Downing (D-Pittsfield), Matt Kinnaman (R-Lenox), and Dion Robbins-Zust (I-Richmond). One of them is off to Beacon Hill to represent me and 152,299 of my closest friends.

The post-primary campaign has been a remarkably chummy affair. There have been more hairline jokes from Ben and Matt (the title of this post...get it now?) than in any other political campaign I've ever followed. There's been no October surprise, dirty campaign ads, "Macaca" moments, mailer meddling, or resume puffery. Keep in mind, now, that without a great resume puffery story back in September, there would be absolutely no hairline jokes in this campaign. So special thanks to Chris Hodgkins, who could have run away with it had he not orally Photoshopped himself next to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett.

Eventually, though, most elections are less about hair than about votes. Who to vote for?

Dion is a character. An original. He has an eye for The Show, which really comes in handy in the Politisphere. Not a policy wonk, nor a politics-as-usual guy. But he's probably going to poll the typical 6 or so percent next Tuesday. Not that I'm saying "don't vote for him", but it is not yet the time for the Green/Rainbow Party to ride the historical tide of backlash against the 2-party system into statewide office.

I bet his election night party is going to more fun than the other two, though.

Matt Kinnaman presented us with a challenge. Before the primary, Tara and I both were prepared to cross the line rather than vote for Chris Hodgkins. So we looked at his positions, and we listened to him speak. And we liked him, although it was hard to really believe that a vote for him would "restore balance" to the Legislature. But since he sounded enough like a Weldian/Patakian/Bloombergian liberal Republican with moderate tendencies, I could have been OK with him as one of Our Men In Boston...right up until I asked him about his position on choice.

My question to him was designed to get a straight-up answer: "Given the leanings of our Federal Government and our increasingly conservative Supreme Court, pretend Roe v. Wade is overturned and the issue is put before the states. A bill is before you to outlaw all voluntary terminations of pregnancy except where the life of the mother is endangered. Do you vote for it?"

He first tried to deflect the issue to parental notification, then I picked out three phrasings of a fairly long paragraph of a response that seemed to reveal his stance: "I respect the sanctity of life", "it would be hard for me to vote against my conscience", and "I'm still wrestling with the issue." A man says that instead of "yes" or "no", then I'm going to have a hard time switching parties to vote for him. It's less about the content of the answer than the format, in this case, to be honest, especially when the other guys answer is an unhesitating "No way, dude."

That brings us to Ben Downing. Back in August, I wrote a Letter to the Editor suggesting Margie Ware was the best qualified Democrat in the primary. In it, I questioned Ben Downing's motivations for running, writing that I thought he was only using the seat as a launching pad to a larger political career.

I hadn't actually met Ben at that point; I was using the power of persuasive penmanship to rally support for my candidate...although I did mention that I liked him. I heard him at a few more debates, watched him behave admirably during the campaign, and realized that as valid as my objection is, it doesn't mean he's not going to be an effective legislator for the years that he does actually hold the office.

So, a few days before the primary (I think on the day Mayor Barrett endorsed Chris Hodgkins), Tara and I were kicking it over at Ware HQ on Main St when we saw Ben head into the Cup and Saucer. I followed him in and introduced myself, and told him that if Marge doesn't win the primary, that I'd be proud to support him. I meant it, too. And I'll say it, for what it's worth: I'm going to vote for Ben Downing on Tuesday, and I think you should too.

Next up: the Governor's Council race. Your assignment for next week is to know more than the average Mass resident knows about the Governor's Council. Expected time to accomplish this: 26 seconds.

8 Comments:

At Fri Nov 03, 10:49:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Governor's Council?? We have a Governor's Council??? chbpod

 
At Sat Nov 04, 09:14:00 AM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say that thinking of Mr. Kinnaman as a Weldian/Patakian/Bloombergian moderate is a mistake. His opinion on choice is part of it; but he was, before taking a leave of absence to run, the head of Berkshire Christian School and his wife teaches there. From what I understand that school is one that doesn't believe in evolution. And, to be honest, I think the "let the people vote" argument on gay marriage is just a way to hide staunch opposition without sounding like a homophobe.

 
At Sat Nov 04, 02:20:00 PM EST, Blogger Ross said...

pitty: The "let the people vote" argument is a dangerous one, I agree.

That's one of the things that differentiates (or at least should differentiate) the Senate from the House: the House should be more of a purely representative body, but the Senate, as a more "august" institution, should be able to take the 10,000-foot view and provide leadership on statewide issues, regardless of the murmurs back in the district.

I'm willing to give MK some leeway on the school's philosophy vis a vis his legislative agenda. Running a Christian school, he's responsible to the parents, who expect a very high level of religious involvement. I think Matt's a bright enough guy to realize that you don't get elected more than once if you can't convince enough voters back home that you voted somehow for the greater good.

If he wins, and his voting record is too out there for the district, he knows that he's vulnerable to a Democrat (especially since 2008 is a Presidential year) and will be a 1-term senator. Christian today or Christian tomorrow, if he's as good a politician as I think he is, he knows how to design an agenda that both works with his conscience and with his constituency.

 
At Sat Nov 04, 06:24:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are some issues that an elected representative are expected to deal with and they are elected to exercise their good judgment-- there are others that are beyond that---even more so when the Supreme Judicial Court writes law---in that case let the people decide-- of course that sounds simple enough- but that ultimately rests in the hands of the legislature to implement even if the "people decide"----if all of these-- Democratic candidates for election favor gay marriage-- -and they represent the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts citizens---it could be looked at -as though they were elected with that position and should not put it on the ballot-- but then again many candidates are elected --not for one position but for their overall positions--- and of course what bacon they bring home to the district---a ballot question brings it down to one single issue---so let the people decide-----gay marriage is probably not the most important issue in most people's minds---but why don't we see where it is when that's the only issue? I don;t like government by initiative and referendum----most balloit questions are fairly confusing--- but a yea or nay on gay marriage---confusion?? I think not----chbpod

 
At Sat Nov 04, 07:14:00 PM EST, Blogger Ross said...

C: I see your point. I do. It's hard to argue with the idea that we live in a democracy. We've sent our nation's strongest and bravest kids off to die for democracy. It's right up there on the "good things" list with Freedom, Justice, and Ice Cream; and anyone who doesn't like democracy, well, we should probably bomb them. So when it comes time to make laws, we live in a democracy, right? So let the people decide!

On the other hand:

The folks who set this civics-type stuff up were much more attuned to the possibility of the tyranny of mob rule than we are now. People as individuals are usually pretty bright, but as a group, tend to make some very bad decisions.

The only real qualification to vote in this country is the ability to have made it 18 years without dying. So why do we want to take a very complex question involving state sanctioning law, religious tradition, civil rights, and the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution--and let it be decided by people who have no idea of the issues involved and are susceptible to being maniuplated by the hidden agenda of mass marketing campaigns?

Wine in supermarkets? Sure, put that right there. Make it Question One, in fact. It ain't rocket science. But some questions are really just too complicated to just let everyone have a crack at it.

The founding fathers knew this. That's why the set the system up the way they did. And you're too much of a student of civics and history to not know that.

Besides, one of my upcoming posts is going to be on the whole fallacy of the "liberal activist judge" tag. I don't totally want to blow my gay marriage material here...so to speak...

 
At Sat Nov 04, 08:22:00 PM EST, Blogger Greg said...

I was a latecomer to the Downing bus, but after chatting with an Olver staffer, I began to think that Ben was more than a kid riding on Daddy's coat-tails.

And then, Ben started posting on the local blogs. (A practice he has reportedly stopped because of the nasty north county mudslinging.) His posts were cogent and reflect a surprising wisdom for a guy still in his 20s.

That is when I took a hard second look at the guy. He's for real. And I will confidently vote for him.

And, I need to add, one of my cooks (she's cute, single and 23) wants to date him. That's an endorsement of a completely different kind. -The guy is a rock star.

 
At Mon Nov 06, 08:27:00 AM EST, Blogger Greg said...

Chris- Ben was a regular on Wes's site and occaisionally on Andy's.

 
At Mon Nov 06, 02:55:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best of Luck Ben----you da man!!!!!
actually I am hoping for a clean sweep by the Dems in Mass-----still not sure on the national level-----I'd like to see more boots on the ground---but not the draft---windmills suck--- chbpod

 

Post a Comment

<< Home