Ed have no money

I just got this email from former senate candidate Ed O'Reilly looking to retire his campaign debts. He's broked.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate

My primary ballot and predictions

Here is how I plan to vote in the primary tomorrow...

State Representative Harold Naughton deserves to be reelected, and will receive my vote. He has been a strong advocate for the citizens of this district and is well equipped to continue as our representative. Challenger Steve Kerrigan is also a credible candidate, but he has not made a case that Naughton should be replaced and has not proposed specific solutions.

I strongly support Jennifer Flanagan for State Senate. Not only has Flanagan brought millions of dollars in aid to the North County while serving as Leominster's state rep., but she has also taken a leadership role in state wide issues, including her advocacy for education and public health bills. Flanagan has also shown progressive positions on social issues, including abortion and gay marriage. Brian Knuuttila has campaigned hard during the race and would likely bring that intensity to the state house, but his conservative views on social issues and a series of campaign gaffes which reveal a lack of organization are red flags.

Congressman John Olver will most likely be renominated to another term , but I will vote for challenger Robert Feuer in the U.S. Congress race. Feuer made a thoughtful case for his candidacy when he visited Sterling last month. Conversely, Congressman Olver was dour and aloof in his interaction with our Democratic Town Committee.

Finally, I will mark my ballot for John Kerry in the U.S. Senate race. Kerry has the sort of steady hand we need in the senate, and it is especially important that he return to the Senate with the uncertainty surrounding Senator Ted Kennedy's health. I do not believe Ed O'Reilly has the temperament to be an effective senator.

Here are my predictions:

Naughton 58...Kerrigan 42. Kerrigan got off to a great start early in the summer, but without making a case for why Naughton should go, he won't get enough support to go over the top. Still, it will be closer than I'd have expected back in May.

Flanagan 56...Knuuttila 44. For most of the summer I've been sure that Flanagan would hit low- to mid-60s and win in a walk. I'm not sure why, but my gut tells me that Knuuttila has been coming on a little in the last two weeks. Can't explain it, just a hunch. Not enough to win, mind you, but a respectable showing nonetheless. (Keep in mind that I badly underestimated Flanagan's support in the 2006 election, for what that's worth.)

Olver 70...Feuer 30. What is the statistic? That any candidate will lose at least 25% of the vote no matter who they are running against? My guess is that Feuer has only been able to contact enough people to add 5 points to that base.

Kerry 66...O'Reilly 34. I think election day will prove that the O'Reilly campaign has been much more smoke than fire. There is no chance that O'Reilly wins, and almost no chance that he is even close. If O'Reilly breaks 45%, I'll make a music video of myself singing Willie Nelson and Julio Iglesias' "To all the Girls I've Loved Before" and post it on YouTube.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 State Senate Flanagan Knuuttila State House Harold Naughton Stephen Kerrigan Congress Robert Feuer John Olver John Kerry Ed O'Reilly Senate

Insurgent Candidates 'R' Us

Earlier tonight, I sent notes to the campaigns of Bob Feuer, who is running in the Democratic primary against Congressman John Olver, and Ed O'Reilly, who is trying to unseat Senator John Kerry. We're looking to host forums with all of the candidates on the primary ballot here in Sterling this September and I volunteered to send invitations.

Here is the response I got from the Feuer campaign:

Thank you for your interest in my U.S. Congress Campaign! I continue to be flooded with messages from those who are ready for a change in leadership. Your interest is important to me. My staff and I are working tirelessly in responding to each message personally. Thank you for your patience.

Gratefully,

Bob Feuer for Congress

And moments later, this reply from Ed O'Reilly's organization:

Thank you for your interest in the my U.S. Senate Campaign! I continue to be flooded with messages from fellow Massachusetts constituents ready for a change in leadership. Your interest is important to me. My staff and I are working tirelessly in responding to each message personally. Thank you for your patience.

Gratefully,

Ed O'Reilly
"A Massachusetts Democrat for the U.S. Senate"

Apparently if you are running against an entrenched incumbent, you get a handy dandy campaign kit that includes a standard email auto-reply.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 Bob Feuer Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate Congress

Dem Convention: Voting my Conscience

In the end, when they called my name to vote for the nomination for senator, I switched my vote to John Kerry. I had planned to vote for challenger Ed O'Reilly because I believe that the 3,500 or so delegates at the convention shouldn't invalidate the will of the 10,000 plus voters who signed the papers to put him on the ballot. I was not going to be part of any effort to keep O'Reilly off. But over the 18 hours leading up to the vote, I had a change of heart.

The doubts began to creep in as the O'Reilly party on Friday night. I arrived at the Doubletree Hotel right exactly at 5:00, the time the party was scheduled to begin. As I walked from the parking garage, I noticed O'Reilly people unloading huge signs from trucks and carrying them into the lobby. At 5:00. As the party was supposed to begin. I figured there was no sense in me heading straight to the event (since they apparently were still setting up) so I hung out in the lobby, checked my phone messages, admired the view of the canal from the patio, looked to see if they had free Internet in the business center (they did not) and then went on up about 20 minutes after 5:00. As I entered, I noticed there were about 40 other delegates mingling, and staffers still affixing signs to the walls. I was struck with the sense that the O'Reilly campaign wasn't particularly well organized. That impression was furthered as the candidate's most high-profile endorser, the Progressive Democrats of America, continued setting up their table, signs, etc. until well after 6:00.

While the lack of organization was a red flag (if you can't organize a reception, how are you going to run a senate office) that didn't leave as negative an impression as the candidate himself. I wanted to meet the candidate, shake his hand, and try to get an idea of what he was about. Of course I wasn't the only one--everyone at the reception who wasn't already a committed supporter was there for the same reason--and I was willing to wait my turn. The problem is that my turn wasn't really my turn. I shook O'Reilly's hand, introduced myself, and someone tapped him on the shoulder. He left to speak with other gentleman before I could even start a conversation. A few moments later, O'Reilly noticed that I was still there, mentioned to the man that had interrupted us that he needed to get back to talk to me, and then was intercepted by another party-goer. After about 15 minutes of talking to this person and that, he finally got back to me. I took away the impression that he was flighty and had a hard time focusing on what I--or anyone else--had to say for even a short moment.

I was able to quickly compare O'Reilly to Senator Kerry as the Senator was heading into the hotel at the same time I was heading out. There were a handful of other people in front of the hotel and Kerry took the opportunity to talk with each one. When he got to me, he shook my hand, we spoke for about a minute, and he posed for a photo. The entire time, other people outside the hotel were trying to get his attention, but he remained focused on me the entire time. Whether he was genuinely interested in what I had to say or whether he had learned to appear interested through years of practice I can't say, but I came away from my encounter with Kerry with a much higher regard for him on a personal level than I did for O'Reilly.

Still, I arrived at the convention with every intention of voting for O'Reilly based on the principle that he deserved a spot, regardless of how bad a candidate he appeared to be. Then O'Reilly gave his speech, and I really had a decision to make. I realize that he was rushing to get his remarks in under 12 minutes, but he was loud, and shrill, and screaming, and angry. He sounded like he'd never given a speech using a microphone before. He didn't modulate his voice or soften his speech, even when speaking about his own background. He spent a good part of his speech ripping Kerry, instead of giving a rationale for his own candidacy.

Following his speech, I was left with a dilemma: On principle, I believe ballot access is a good thing. If I vote on principle, I'd vote for O'Reilly. But I was completely convinced that John Kerry would be a significantly better senator that O'Reilly. If I vote my conscience, I'd vote for Kerry.

I watched the crowds during the nominating speeches, and it appeared that O'Reilly might just have enough support on the floor to get to 15%, but I wasn't sure. When it was time to vote I was helped in my decision by the fact that the votes are called alphabetically by town. Two trends stood out to me: first, all of the top Democrats in our delegation (including Senator Bob Antonioni, Representatives Bob Rice, Hank Naughton, Steve DiNatale, and Jennifer Flanagan, Fitchburg Mayor Lisa Wong, and Register of Deeds Kathy Daignault) were no-shows at the convention. If that trend was applicable among other delegations, then a number of committed Kerry supporters were not in attendance to vote (I'll have more on this in another post). Secondly, nearly all of the attending delegates from Gardner and Fitchburg cast votes for O'Reilly. Doing the math in my head and noting that at there were still O'Reilly voters from Westminster still to vote after Sterling was called, it was clear that O'Reilly would do well above the 15% in our delegation regardless of how I voted. If that were the case across other delegations, then O'Reilly should be safe to hit the 15% threshold.

Taking all of that into consideration I voted my conscience and supported Senator Kerry. In the end, O'Reilly took 23% of the delegates. So I guess I got all of what I wanted. The principle of ballot access was upheld, and I was able to support the best man for the job.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 John Kerry Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate Convention

I've been beseeched

A Kerry supporter reached out to me yesterday in an effort to dissuade me from voting for Ed O'Reilly at tomorrow's convention. While Kerry supporters have been calling me once a week or so to get my vote, this time the outreach was a little more forceful. This supporter came across my earlier post and emailed me a passionate response, "beseeching" me to vote for the Senator. One of the implied reasons: A vote for O'Reilly hurts Barack Obama and Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

....we can either begin the coordinated campaign in June, and start the hard work of winning these seats immediately, or after the Primary in September, leaving Mass residents to organize themselves for trips northward and paying for their own gas.

I beseech you, if you are planning on voting for us in the Primary and General, please support us at the convention. We have far too much work to do this Summer defeating McCain and the Republicans.

Maybe I'm a little naive about the threat O'Reilly poses, but it doesn't seem to me that the Kerry people are going to have to spend that much time and effort in Massachusetts for him to win the primary. And while I don't have much experience coordinating campaigns, I'd expect that Obama at least will have plenty of volunteers available to be organized and sent to New Hampshire if necessary.

I appreciate the hard work of the Kerry supporters in trying to clear the ballot for the September primary, but my position is based solely in my opposition to the 15% rule and my belief that contested elections and a debate of the issues is a good thing for the people of Massachusetts.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 John Kerry Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate

Herald shocker: Politician plays politics!

In one of the least stunning, least shocking developments on the political landscape, Senator John Kerry's campaign is trying to round up enough state convention delegates to put him on the primary ballot and keep challenger Ed O'Reilly off. Democratic party rules require candidates to gain the support of 15% of the delegates at Saturday's convention in order to qualify for the ballot, so if Kerry can get 85% plus one, O'Reilly's campaign will end before it begins.

This rule has been around for a long time and there is a floor fight for delegates every time there is a contested election. Most recently, Tom Reilly fought like hell to keep Chris Gabrieli off the gubernatorial ballot in 2006 and was nearly successful, with Gabrieli squeaking by with hardly a vote to spare. It happens all the time.

But leave it to the Boston Herald to find drama and intrigue where there is none:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry - wary of a potential political embarrassment - has been calling in favors to top Bay State Democrats in a bid to block a Gloucester lawyer from getting on the ballot to challenge him, the Herald has learned.

Several high-ranking Democrats said the senator has reached out in recent days seeking support and asking for help in preventing attorney Ed O’Reilly from getting the convention votes he needs to force a September primary race against Kerry....

Insiders say Kerry has drawn the ire of some party officials for backing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary race and that some may use Saturday’s convention to exact political payback....

“In a (presidential) primary race as close as this one has been, it would not surprise me to see people take sides and for there to be hard feelings,” said state Sen. Jack Hart. “I know the Kerry campaign is calling around to all the delegates, which they haven’t done in the past, asking for their support.”

If O’Reilly gets on the ballot, he would be Kerry’s first primary opponent since 1984.

The lede suggests that the Senator is "calling in favors to top Bay State Democrats" but the only evidence of that is State Senator Hart's suggestion that Kerry is "calling around to all the delegates." I can vouch for the latter; as a delegate, I have received several calls from Kerry organizers asking for my support. I suppose I should be flattered that the Herald considers me a "top Bay State Democrat." Perhaps I should put that on a business card or something.

Further, reporter Dave Wedge suggests that perhaps Kerry might not get past the 85% threshold because Clinton supporters will be piqued over his support of Obama, a premise which seems to me to be particularly silly.

The reason Kerry's campaign is calling all of us top Bay State Democrats looking for support is because he has an opponent for the first time since 1984. Had Kerry been opposed in 1990 or 1996 or 2002, he would have been canvassing for support before those conventions. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Kerry fearing embarrassment; it is because Kerry wants as much support at the convention as possible in an effort to run unopposed.

While I support Senator Kerry and will be voting for him in both the primary and the general election, I will be standing for Ed O'Reilly at the convention Saturday. I do not support the party's 15% rule and believe that any candidate who files the necessary 10,000 signatures has demonstrated enough support to qualify for the ballot. We should make it easier to run for office and tear down the barrier that allows top Bay State Democrats to squash a candidacy before it gets off the ground. Elections are good things, and I hope O'Reilly makes it onto the ballot.

Then the voters can decide to squash his candidacy in September.

Tags: Massachusetts Election 2008 John Kerry Ed O'Reilly Democratic Senate