Galvin’s Rope a Dope

Where're the debates?

This year's down-ballot races should be big stuff. Secretary of the Commonwealth, Treasurer, and Auditor each gives us a shot at a dramatic upgrade that can affect every one of us. All three have been stagnate for a long time and don't quite cut it.

With the benefit of contested primaries, Treasurer and Auditor have some visibility. In particular, the three candidates for Treasurer have set out platforms and have big distinctions among them.

Unfortunately, the Secretary race has just one Dem, one from the GOP, and one independent. It is scurrying around in the bushes. Yet, that's a huge office with a diverse, powerful spread of duties. Bill Galvin has squatted on it for 16 years, seemingly indifferent to providing public information to the public.

We need to raise the profile on this race, like today.


The independent, Jim Henderson, is the progressive, reform candidate. He'll crank it up a bit today with a call for five debates with Galvin and the Republican Bill Campbell.Whomever you support, join me in asking civic groups and media to get a piece of that schedule.

Galvin has been paying rope-a-dope with this office. That's often effective for an incumbent but we should not allow that here. On his site, you get next to nothing — platform, promises, reasons to re-elect.

Campbell is a little better. I don't agree with his few, pale positions (like no same-day voter registration), but he has stuff out there.

Henderson is far more forthcoming. He joined us on Left Ahead! to describe how he wants to change the office. His site is also very specific.

So far, Galvin has blown Left Ahead! off, as he does in general. He hasn't answered emails or calls. Rope a dope.

Secretary of the Commonwealth is big stuff. The office is in charge of elections, corporations, securities, public records and on and on. It's worth discussing. 

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post
.



Discuss

8 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. There should be debates.

    Has the deadline for independents to get on the ballot passed yet?  Maybe after the primary is the appropriate time to have these debates when there is no intraparty contest.

  2. All Sigs In

    August 3rd was the last day for independents to get in signatures. It's high time for debates.

    • Actually, we aren't to the deadline yet.

      Aug. 3 was to submit to at town halls for certification.  After that, you have to have enough certified signatures, and then submit THEM to the elections division for THEIR approval.  And I know one candidate who blew THAT by not having his full address on his town certified papers, so he was disqualified at the Elections Division.  Still opportunites to fail to qualify or withdraw.

      HERE is the 2010 timeline.  Full disclosure - this comes from the Prince of Darkness' web site...

      Oh, and I agree - post primary is a good time for debates for those races.  By then we'll know if Carbone or McKenna succeed in making the ballot to challange Marsha as well.

      • Good point - I will be on the ballot

        In response to Peter's valid comment, I have my receipt from the Elections Division, dated August 16, stating that I have submitted more than the 5000 signatures necessary to appear on the ballot.  So that hurdle, at least in my case, has been satisfied.

        I have called upon my two opponents to have 5 debates around the state, yes between the primary and the general election.  And no matter your political persuasion, we deserve an improvement upon the 20 minutes of debate that Mr. Galvin acquiesced to 4 years ago.

        I look forward to it.

        Jim Henderson Independent for Secretary of the Commonwealth http://www.JimForSOC.com

  3. still shocks me that the person who oversees our elections

    hates America hates our democracy is so callously and transparently anti-democratic.

    We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing it to go on so long, and then do everything in our power to get him out of that office and vote Jim in as the kind of independent voice we need. A true advocate for the public interest, not the one branding himself at taxpayer expense and putting his face on all the benign stuff his office puts out.  

  4. Debates

    There seems to be a continuing trend for incumbents to avoid debates and the opportunity for voters to gain a better understanding of each candidates' positions.  This can often work to the benefit of the incumbent and the detriment of the challenger(s) and the voting public.

    Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done except to keep asking when there will be debates, why there are no debates scheduled and, ultimately vote against any incumbent that will not agree to debates.

    Three examples that have received varying degrees of "press" recently:

    1) Will Lynch debate Mac before the primary?  He should and if he doesn't then people should hold Lynch accountable for not being willing to explain his positions and votes (Mac too).  Not my district, but two viable Democrats owe it to the district to debate before the primary.

    2) Galvin.  Almost enough said just by mentioning his name.  I personally plan to vote for anyone but Galvin.  Not sure who yet and a debate, or better yet, series of debates would help me personally make a decision.

    3) Fratto versus Dwyer.  She has asked for debates and he hasn't even bothered to respond for two weeks.  Aside from being rude, the two candidates should be heard by the public. Ducking debates is undemocratic and Dwyer should be ashamed.  Again, not my district, but we need more debates not incumbents who hide from the voters and their challengers.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thu 2 Oct 2:24 AM