from Ballot Access News
Boston Globe Doesn’t Like 3-Candidate Debates
December 15th, 2009
The Boston Globe of December 16 has this editorial, telling the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in next month’s special election that she is wrong to refuse to debate, unless all three ballot-qualified candidates are invited. [Ie: Democrat Martha Coakley is demanding a three-way, all-candidate debate]
The person who wrote this editorial probably doesn’t know that in Minnesota in 1998, every gubernatorial debate included Jesse Ventura, and there were dozens of such debates, all year long, in the primary season as well as the general election season. The Boston Globe says the independent, Joseph L. Kennedy, is “little-known”. Obviously, if he were included in all the debates, that problem would be overcome.
Background post about Coakley’s position by Paulie Cannoli at IPR: here.
Drek,
Not true. The other materials I covered earlier, as well as the interviews that are now on his campaign website (top left) and linked in various articles here at IPR, go in depth into his libertarian views. They also mention that his views did not just evolve now, as you insinuated.
If by “political background” you mean that you think it’s a bad thing that the bulk of his experience is in areas other than politics or political activism, why is that a bad thing? The interviews, youtube clips, etc. make it clear that he has a good understanding of political issues while his life experience means he is more in touch with the lives and concerns of regular people, rather than just politicians and political activists.
I guess if you are hell bent on confirming your cynicism, you’ll find one way or another to do it.
If his name was still Joe Rodriguez and he came to the Mass. LP with his life experience, viewpoints, willingness and ability to get on the ballot and serve as a party officer, he would certainly have their backing. And I say this having been to a state committee meeting and a state LP convention there, having been at Dr. Phillies’ house on several occasions, having been at Carla’s quite a few times (she is no longer with the party, last I asked), having stayed and worked with another state officer there, having worked on getting both the LP (2008) and Joe (2009) on the ballot, etc.
As for whether he would be running, that is just a presumption you make. I can’t say for certain, but like I told you I sat at Joe’s house, at his table, and I think he would have run if he had never been adopted and was still named Joe Rodriguez…but of course that’s not exact, since his life would have been a whole different one and he would have been a different person had his parents never adopted him and raised him.
Yep, there’s that confirmation bias thing we talked about earlier, again.
“We just had our annual State Convention, at which Kennedy was elected to the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts State Committee.”
I was being sarcastic when I suggested two months and didn’t realize I was closer to the truth than I thought.
His biography says nothing about his political background or experience, especially with regard to libertarian politics. I’m certain there are dozens of long-time, hard-working LP activists in Massachusetts, besides George Phillies and Carla Howell (both of whom would have been good credible candidates), who are better qualified to run for US Senate as libertarians.
Everything posted here simply confirms my cynicism about all of this. If his name were not Joe Kennedy he would not be running for office and he would not have the backing of the Massachusetts LP.
Keep in mind I’m just expressing my own opinion here. I gave up on libertarian politics a long time ago, and this kind of stuff just confirms I made the right decision.
@20
We just had our annual State Convention, at which Kennedy was elected to the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts State Committee.
The situation here is that Kennedy, a National Party member, decided to run, and he is running under the name his parents gave him.
@26
You have been misinformed — and I will allow that you are relying on what you thought was a trustworthy source.
I would urge you to read my book “Stand Up for Liberty!” in which I explain importance goals for national, state, and local organizations. I support *local organization*, but that’s not the same as saying we should only run local *candidates*.
Drek, bio page is now back up:
Biography
Joe Kennedy was born, Joseph Lewis Rodriguez to a young Puerto Rican mother and a Portuguese father in Boston Massachusetts on October 17, 1971. His young mother, wanted Joe to have a better life and put him up for adoption. Joe entered the foster care system as an infant and was adopted at the age of four (4) by his foster family, the Reverend Paul and Mrs. Carol Kennedy.
Joe grew up the son of a minister, his father, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, was the Senior Pastor for the Trinity Lutheran Church in Worcester, Massachusetts, and his mother Carol was an office manager in a nursing home. The Reverend Paul and Mrs. Carol Kennedy instilled in Joe the importance of philanthropy. An example of this lifelong commitment to the community is that the Kennedys are the benefactors of a new wing of the Lutheran Home, a nursing home in Worcester, Massachusetts, due to open in spring of 2010.
Joe was primarily raised in Worcester Massachusetts. He attended the Flag Street School, Forest Grove Middle School, Doherty Memorial High School and Clark University, all in Worcester, Massachusetts. After receiving his Bachelors of Arts in Computer Science from Clark University in 1993, Joe entered the computer science and information technology field.
Over the past sixteen (16) years Joe has served as a software developer, department manager, and held executive-level positions for a number of large companies and information technology firms, including Fidelity Investments, Parexel, and his present employer, a Fortune 500, Boston-based provider of financial services(Joe’s present employer requires its employees who run for office to not use the name of the company in any literature etc. hence its omission here). Joe has over thirteen years of managerial experience working with and leading multi-national staffs with personnel in the United States, Britain, Germany, China and India.
Joseph Kennedy has a broad base of information technology experience and specializes in the design, development and delivery of cost effective, high-performance technology based solutions to address and solve the often complex problems and needs of large scale organizations. Joe has experience in all areas of information technology from infrastructure and telecommunications planning/management to application and systems development and enterprise architecture, and possesses significant expertise in strategic planning, enterprise architecture, rich internet applications, user experience, interface design, mergers and acquisitions, systems development, telecommunications, computer infrastructure, process, support, open source and open source law.
Joe’s expertise is widely recognized in the information technology world and is a sought after speaker, often invited to give presentations on cutting-edge technologies at conferences and forums held across the globe.
In Joe’s spare time he has assisted many startup and non-profit organizations in building out their technology presence and has served in advisory positions for a number of small firms as they get off the ground. Joe has served on the Board of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the NICSA Technology Advisory Committee and mValent’s Technology advisory Board.
Joe lives in Dedham and is an avid snowboarder and musician.
“And what’s wrong with using any advantage possible? ”
I can’t argue with that. In politics the ends justifies the means.
But it doesn’t make me any less cynical about it.
A few years ago some guy ran for statewide office in Pennsylvania with the same name as a very popular former Governor, and got elected as polls showed most people thought he was the former governor. But he took advantage of his real name and won the election accordingly. If he ran with some other name he would have lost.
Confirmation bias.
Nonsense. He says he is most interested in federal issues, and wanted to have more time to make an impact.
He’s been very clear that he is no relation in every interview and statement.
And what’s wrong with using any advantage possible? After all, the duopoly parties use every advantage they can to keep us off the ballot and out of debates. The other Kennedys used every advantage they could to get into power, including recruiting a janitor with the same name as the then-congressman to split his vote and help the first Kennedy to get elected.
Clearly, he doesn’t favor that strategy exclusively, since he ran for president.
Paulie at 21: “I made my initial decision to run for Senate in February of this year (2009) with my original objective being to run in 2012.”
In other words he’s only interested in running for the only office where he could use his “celebrity” name to the best advantage.
That’s how I see it.
I could be mistaken but I always thought George Phillies supported the strategy of libertarian activism at the local level and that libertarian candidates should run for office at the local level first where they had the best chance of winning before trying for higher office.
@23 “He is giving it his all and deserves a whole hell of a lot more expense”
“Expense” should be “respect.” But speaking of expense, he did borrow against his house to get on the ballot and would appreciate campaign contributions from everyone who is reading.
Carla Howell is an independent now. She is busy working on the sales tax rollback initiative and has no time for a candidate race.
Conveniently? Sounds like it’s been five years or more. Drek is off base again.
The section that says he can’t get on the ballot needs to be taken out, and the Bio put back in.
Joe Kennedy is not a “celebrity” candidate. I’ve sat at his table and talked to him. He is a real, down to earth, and well informed citizen taking time off from his job to bring libertarian views to the voters and offer the people of Mass a real choice. He borrowed against his house to get on the ballot. He is giving it his all and deserves a whole hell of a lot more expense than Democratic Party tool Drek is giving him here.
Paulie at 14: “Of course you’d think that, you’re generally a Democratic Party tool. ”
Actually my sympathies lie mainly with the Green Party now and the progressive/libertarian alliance strategy advocated by Robert Milnes.
I also voted for Chris Daggett, the independent candidate in the recent NJ election for governor.
I do have alot of respect for long-time libertarian activists like Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby and George Phillies, and if Phillies was running for Senate instead of this joker he’s promoting I’d wish him well and the best of luck.
I’m sure there are other better-qualified and more experienced LP activists in Massachusetts who could be running as well.
Speaking of which, whatever happened to Carla Howell? Why isn’t she running? This would have been the perfect opportunity for her.
Where did you get that from? I’m sure it’s been longer than that. George Phillies would know.
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=117
I would like to provide you with a little background on my political history and where my beliefs lie today.
In College, I would have considered myself a Democrat. I would not have considered myself active in politics at the time, however, I did work on Tom Harkin’s run for presidency by collecting signatures for him in New Hampshire.
At different points in my life I have been registered as both a Democrat and as an Independent. Over the past 5 years I have become more and more concerned about spending in Washington and taxation in general. The extensive spending on Wars, Bailouts and Social Programs in both the current and previous administrations have expanded the deficit at speeds we have never before witnessed. These costs will have to be paid by us in the short term through tax increases, or by our children. These concerns have pushed me more and more to a Libertarian way of thinking.
Today I am a registered Independent, make small donations and am a member of the National Libertarian Party and have attended Tax Day Tea Party Rallies.
Lastly I want to note that I am a firm believer voting for a candidate based on the issues and not the generic political alignment. I understand how Democratic Massachusetts is historically and how difficult it will be for a candidate outside the Democratic Party to win. At the same time, I think people within Massachusetts still need choices in who they wish to elect and that one cannot complain about the political system unless you are willing to at least try to change it.
I strongly recommend you review my stance on each issue as I post them on this site. I think it is also important to know that I welcome discussion of the issues facing our nation. There is no wrong or right point of view on the issues, there are merely differences of opinion. I do believe if we talk about the issues in more constructive ways we can find areas of compromise. The most important factor regarding politics is I understand that I would be working for you. It is the voice of the people of Massachussetts that the person filling this position must echo.
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=141
My name is Joe Kennedy and I am running as an Independent to fill the open Senate seat for the State of Massachusetts in the special election. I have created this site to inform you of my views and to garner your support. I am not a politician, however I am well versed in many of the political issues which we face today. I firmly believe we need more individuals to take an active role in government as the average politician seems to have lost their understanding of what life outside politics is like. I think the most important role of a politician is to listen to the citizens they represent and make sure that view point is accurately echoed in the decisions made in Washington. I know that is not happening today as many of our politicians are turning a deaf ear to the wishes of the average citizen.
You will find that my views are closely aligned with the Libertarian party, but I think it is important to let you understand my opinions on all the topics and let you judge for yourself how I will represent the people from Massachusetts. I am posting my opinions on the major issues facing our Federal Government in the Issues section listed above. Please take your time to read them. It is very important that we as a nation not vote for a person, but the set of beliefs that person will bring to Washington to represent our fellow citizens. If we don’t, we will continue to get more of the same representation.
As I am an average citizen I do not have a campaign fund, nor the ability to obtain the required signatures to get on the ballot. I greatly appreciate any donations you can make to my campaign committee and any signatures you can obtain for me from other registered voters in your community. To donate, simply click the donate button at the top of the screen. To collect signatures for me, please click here or on the Volunteer tab above.
Thank you for your support, I look forward to working for you.
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=129%5D
My Decision to Run for Senate
I made my initial decision to run for Senate in February of this year (2009) with my original objective being to run in 2012. My assumption at the time was that the Senator would retire in 2012 giving me the opportunity to run for office. Given the strong voting history of the people of Massachusetts, I did not believe I would be able to defeat an incumbent thus my decision to wait for someone to retire.
My immediate concerns regarding government lie more on the Federal level than at the State level which is why I am aiming for a position in the Federal Government. As this would be a large personal change and require a firm commitment to public service, I made the decision early that I were make such a change, I would prefer to do it for 6 years (as a Senator) and not for 2 (as a Congressman).
http://joekennedyforsenate.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=112
The Kennedy Name
To preempt any potential confusion caused by my name, I claim no relation to the family or relatives of President John F. Kennedy. The surname Kennedy is very common in Massachusetts to the extent that I have encountered a number of people with the name Joe Kennedy over the years.
Additionally I have waited to ensure that no one from the family of John F. Kennedy was going to run for the position previously held by Edward Kennedy. Only with Joseph P Kennedy’s validation that he is not going to run would I even consider my own candidacy for office. Their family has a proud heritage in politics which I believe should be allowed to continue, if they so desire. I say this not to diminish my conviction for the position, but out of respect for the work and the great contributions their family has made to American politics.
Bography info was there earlier. Might be being rewritten to be clearer? Dunno.
Paulie at 14: “Kennedy is on the state committee of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts”
For how long, two months?
“and his personal, professional and political background can be found at JoeKennedyForSenate.com.”
I checked out the site but there is nothing posted on the “Biography” page. However he does have a disclaimer that he is not related to Ted Kennedy. The only other info about his politics is that he is a former Democrat who only recently (and conveniently) changed his views regarding government spending on domestic programs.
I saw nothing on his website to alter my cynicism, or which answered my questions about his involvment in libertarian politics.
If he was running for some other office at some other time I wouldn’t be so cynical about it. I realize the LP has a history of running “celebrity” candidates to attract attention (in this case a political nebbish with a “celebrity” name, which is even worse), Bob Barr perhaps being the most recent example, but I never thought it was a good idea when I was active in LP politics and I don’t care for it now.
Twinkle?
You’ve been hanging out with Cavlan, have you?
Seriously…give me a call about posting youtubes…it’s really easy, I promise.
Paulie at #17:
Agree!
Twinkle!
Thanks for saying it!
😉
Joe Kennedy is fully qualified to debate Martha Coakley and Scott Brown.
The US System of government is still supposed to be one where regular citizens can fully participate, rather than live as serfs to be ruled over by an overlord class.
@15 What do you mean? Al Franken was a renowned radio host before becoming a Senator. Before that his comedy was politically influenced, much like Jon Steward, who is more than qualified to be a Senator.
Really though, what “qualifications” are necessary to be a legislator? The more “qualified” someone is, the more likely they are going to represent special interests rather than secure the rights of the citizens and residents of the district.
Plus, Drek, there are plenty of Senators who don’t have any political background (at least electorally) before they make it into the Senate. Al Franken, for instance.
Drek,
Of course you’d think that, you’re generally a Democratic Party tool.
Kennedy is on the state committee of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts, and his personal, professional and political background can be found at JoeKennedyForSenate.com.
“The person who wrote this editorial probably doesn’t know that in Minnesota in 1998, every gubernatorial debate included Jesse Ventura, ”
This Kennedy clown is no Jesse Ventura, who was mayor of one of the largest cities in Minnesota and a well-known radio show host before he became governor.
What is this guy’s pedigree? Has he ever held, or even run, for elective office before? What are his libertarian credentials.? How long has he been active in libertarian politics? How long has he been a member of the national party?
Does any rational person seriously believe it is only by pure coincidence he got into this race with the same name as the former Congressman and nephew of Ted Kennedy?
Yes, I’m being cynical. Why not? If this guy can get into a US Senate race and exploit the fact he has the same family name of the deceased Senator he’d be replacing, then I can be cynical about it.
BTW I hope he does get into the debates, especially if he is the only other candidate on the ballot. Then voters can see him for what he is and make their own judgment on election day. My guess is his poll numbers will stay in the toilet, and the Democrat will win by a big enough margin to make his impact on the race irrelevant.
There are only three candidates in this race.
I agree with the Boston Globe that they shouldn’t limit the debate to only three candidates, assuming there are four or more who can meet the access requirements.
I’d like to republish that here. Any objections?
It’s more proof that the media picks the candidates more than the people do. Pretty sad if you ask me.
Dear Eric,
Since my husband is at work, I give you a preliminary answer.
We did not organize the event. So, don’t know the story about it being canceled, etc. I do think that there was some confusion.
Chris Garvey appeared at the event on behalf of the Libertarian candidate and did a good job.
Also, you parsed Ian’s sentence wrong. Ian was saying that it was only the Green Party candidate who was (ie: both) against the War in Afghanistan and for Single-Payer Universal healthcare. You could very well be correct that the Libertarian was against the Afghanistan War.
Peace,
Kimberly
Thanks to Misters Wilder and Sundhall, and the fearless George Phillies.
Wilder is right, of course. We need Green Party candidates on the ballot and in the debate in every race. Wilder is also correct that the major media’s support of permanent American war has hurt is credibility greatly. Meaning, like Wilder, many in the Green Party – largely blacked out, blocked out of any fair political coverage for nearly three decades now, have to reach deep into our hearts to find sympathy for a warmongering politically exclusionary mainstream media.
Phillies is right also. The Globe, and many of the big media have excellent reporters. Their corporate masters too often block any fair reporting or any reporting of note of Green Party candidates.
As a Green Party fan, elected official, and periodic candidate for public office over many years, like Sundwall, I have never heard a Libertarian candidate support these stupid, taxpayer dollars wasting wars, military budget 10 times too large.
In every case I’ve read, or seen first hand over many years it is the Green Party (like Ron Fisher) and the Libertarians (like Ron Paul) opposing the waste and stupidity of these wars.
Finally, I recall the last statewide race in Mass, where the Green Party (I believe they call it the Green Rainbow Party) had a strong woman candidate who easily won, and dominated the CSPAN debates with common sense solutions, great intelligence, and a relaxed matter of fact manner.
Having had such strong Green Party candidates in Mass…it makes an exclusionary Globe position all the more unreasonable, untenable.
Thanks for the story.
“The Boston Globe says the independent, Joseph L. Kennedy, is “little-known”. Obviously, if he were included in all the debates, that problem would be overcome.”
Furthermore, if outlets such as the Boston Globe did even a mediocre job covering ballot-qualified candidates for office that problem would be overcome as well.
This is the Boston Globe editorial position on Libertarians, even those whose party is Liberty. They have excellent reporters–I spoke to one yesterday– but there is a long record of editorial comment support for other parties.
I logged into the GLobe to respond, but wrote a piece instead . . .
http://www.examiner.com/x-13418-Albany-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Let-libertarian-Kennedy-debate
Mr. Wilder,
I was invited to that debate in LI as chair of the LPNY and initially accepted it. I was subsequently told the debate was canceled. My recollection was that Chris Garvey could have also attended as a surrogate. Either way, I find it hard to believe that any LPNY representative would have not protested the wars. My only conclusion could be that we were ultimately not invited or informed. I look forward to any correction of facts on your part.
Thanks for the comment, Buster.
Now…
Would love it if folks want to log onto the Boston Globe and complain. (Though, they do make you register to comment.)
Also, I am not a lawyer, and I think this is pushing it…but I was considering if someone should file an FEC complaint.
This is a Senate race. The Boston Globe is basically saying that having two candidate instead of three in the debate helps the Republican, and then they are lobbying to have two candidates. So, aren’t they willfully using their platform to steer public opinion towards the Republican??? (In the manipulative way of creating made up formulas and ethics on who should be invited to debates…)
This is why so many liberals who voted for Obama are shocked that he is for the Afghanistan War. When two candidates in a debate, such as McCain and Obama, agree on an issue, such as Afghanistan, then there is no discussion of that issue. And even worse the public draws may draw false impression about a candidate because voters have to rely on their assumptions about what that party stands for, rather than the candidates actual position.
This was highlighted when we had a debate in Huntington LI in 2008 with surrogates fof the Democratic, Republican, Green and Libertarian candidates. The Green Party surrogate was the only one who opposed the Afghanistan War and supported single-payer healthcare. The contrast became very stark as the Democratic surrogate called Green surrogate’s position on Afghanistan “naive”, though it was the position supported by a majority of Americans. If we had a broader debate in the 2008 presidential race we could have had a real discussion of these real issues instead of socialist name-calling and Joe the Plumber.
This is why newspapers need to die. Not because I disagree with their position, but because they are totally failing to do their constitutionally protected role. The press is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Not just the ideas represented by the few but all the ideas, so that the best policy can be made. If newspapers not only refuse to do that job, but even lobby against such discussion then democracy is better off without them.