There's a special election for the Kennedy/Kirk Senate seat in Massachusetts coming up. AARP mailed out a voting guide about the candidates -- see for yourself (PDF). Of the six major candidates, five responded: Michael Capuano (D), Martha Coakley (D), Alan Khazei (D), Stephen Pagliuca (D), and Jack E. Robinson (R). The sixth candidate, Scott Brown (R), didn't respond.
AARP listed their positions on a whole bunch of Support/Oppose statements. Unfortunately, these statements are vague enough as to not be useful. Regarding health care, for instance, AARP supports "Affordable coverage for individuals age 50-64", as do all five candidates who responded. Well, duh. I'll bet they all support the statement that "Puppies can be cute", too. In fact, on every single one of the Support/Oppose questions, all five responding candidates answered the same way as the AARP's recommendations.
AARP allowed space for each candidate to give a short, free-response statement germane to the topics at hand. All four of the Democratic candidates provided thoughtful comments at all five opportunities. In contrast, Robinson "chose not to make additional comments" on four occasions and used the fifth to argue that the AARP's endorsement of the House health bill was wrongheaded.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with the Republican party? AARP members are aged 50+; this demographic (or at least the 65+ sub-demo) is the base of the Republican party. One of the two Republicans couldn't bother to find the time to respond to AARP, a very influential bloc of frequent voters. The other very nearly phoned it in, using his own words only to tear down the AARP's position.
In any case, I know which way I'm voting in the general. As for the much-nearer primary election, I'm leaning toward one candidate but am not yet committed to any of them. Maybe Tuesday night's Senate debate will help, but the last one I watched turned out to be pretty useless (and offensive, as the moderator kept rudely interrupting one of the candidates at the end arguing that he had gotten too much speaking time already). If you have any strong feelings toward (or against) any of the Democratic candidates, please let me know.
AARP listed their positions on a whole bunch of Support/Oppose statements. Unfortunately, these statements are vague enough as to not be useful. Regarding health care, for instance, AARP supports "Affordable coverage for individuals age 50-64", as do all five candidates who responded. Well, duh. I'll bet they all support the statement that "Puppies can be cute", too. In fact, on every single one of the Support/Oppose questions, all five responding candidates answered the same way as the AARP's recommendations.
AARP allowed space for each candidate to give a short, free-response statement germane to the topics at hand. All four of the Democratic candidates provided thoughtful comments at all five opportunities. In contrast, Robinson "chose not to make additional comments" on four occasions and used the fifth to argue that the AARP's endorsement of the House health bill was wrongheaded.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with the Republican party? AARP members are aged 50+; this demographic (or at least the 65+ sub-demo) is the base of the Republican party. One of the two Republicans couldn't bother to find the time to respond to AARP, a very influential bloc of frequent voters. The other very nearly phoned it in, using his own words only to tear down the AARP's position.
In any case, I know which way I'm voting in the general. As for the much-nearer primary election, I'm leaning toward one candidate but am not yet committed to any of them. Maybe Tuesday night's Senate debate will help, but the last one I watched turned out to be pretty useless (and offensive, as the moderator kept rudely interrupting one of the candidates at the end arguing that he had gotten too much speaking time already). If you have any strong feelings toward (or against) any of the Democratic candidates, please let me know.
Leave a comment
