« Hudson Institute Defends U.S. Selfishness | Main | Real electoral college reform »

January 07, 2005

Capuano will not run for Governor in 2006

The Boston Herald has this AP report that Congressman Michael Capuano has decided not to run for Governor of Massachusetts in 2006. 

Which leaves us with, at present, only two candidates "likely" to take a shot at unseating His Excellency: Attorney General Tom Reilly and Secretary of State Bill Galvin.  Both are solid, but we are not exactly inspired by either of these guys, for various reasons (discussed in more detail here and here).  Come on, Mass. Democrats: who else is out there?  Other congressmen?  Other state officials?  A mayor, or maybe someone who's not in government at all?  Now is the time to start trying to get rid of Mitt Romney, so put your thinking caps on.

Posted by David at 05:15 PM in Massachusetts | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Capuano will not run for Governor in 2006:

» uukmmlidoub from axiwueqo
nswpih [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 7, 2005 12:16:42 PM


Well, Harshbarger is making noises about considering another run. I realize he's damaged goods having lost before, but the margin was narrow and the fact that everyone can more clearly see what a putz Cellucci was must help him. Then again, I wasn't living in MA then, so not sure what I missed out on.

Posted by: Chris Cagle | Jan 7, 2005 8:52:14 PM

Interesting - I hadn't heard that Harshbarger was considering tossing his well-worn hat back into the ring. But I'm worried that if he couldn't beat Cellucci (not exactly a charisma overload) as a sitting Attorney General, he'll have no shot at Romney now. After all, what's ol' Scott been up to lately, anyway? In 1998, he was leaden and ran a painfully bad campaign. Would he be better now?

Posted by: David | Jan 7, 2005 11:46:22 PM

I don't believe we'll be rid of Romney. Going national (dry-heaves at the thought) only gives the balloned ego and weird fundamentalism a stage suitable to its intensity and aspiration. Willardism, symbolized by that other golden dome on Belmont Hill, is dangerous and best kept contained right here.

This administration's usefulness is demonstrated the frequent comic relief it provides. Remember his "Marraige is an institution that has been with us since the beginning of time" remark? Surely it generated some laughter, if not pity. Why cast off such an ass et. Why help it grow larger?

Willard Mitt is surely guilty of crimes against sensibility, credibility, and society in general. Keeping him locked up in the head-bashing routine that is Massachusetts politic (likened to organized crime) can be our gift to the nation.

I know. We've given enough already.

Posted by: Mark Richards | Jan 8, 2005 7:55:17 AM

I disagree. I think the best hope of containing 'Willardism' to the political wilderness is to hand him a loss in '06. Should he win reelection, he proves to the nation that he can succeed in heavily Democratic areas. A loss hurts him in his quest for the presidency and the most we can expect for him in the future would to become the next secretary of gay-bashing.

Posted by: Jugwine | Jan 9, 2005 10:53:16 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.