The DNC offered its frame of the Governor’s race in a press release last night from Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
Massachusetts Democrats have nominated Martha Coakley, who has demonstrated her ability and willingness to fight for the people of Massachusetts as a District Attorney and as the Commonwealth’s first female Attorney General. She will face Charlie Baker, who slashed jobs and put personal profit ahead of what was best for the people of Massachusetts as a health insurance executive. Baker also faces troubling ethical questions surrounding his connection to a possible pay-to-play scandal involving Chris Christie’s administration in New Jersey.
Baker is no doubt, let’s stipulate for current discussion, a predatory health care capitalist who took advantage of sick Massachusetts residents, especially children, at their moment of greatest vulnerability to line his pockets with a $1.7 million dollar salary payoff. That sounds like a decent point of distinction from our dedicated Attorney General who was fighting for crime victims at the same time.
As to the “Time for some traffic problems in Ft. Lee” New Jersey pay to play — Frank Phillips in the Globe on 15 June:
Baker’s new-found notoriety in the Garden State came to a head when the New Jersey State Investment Council agreed to seek a legal review of the $10,000 donation he made to the New Jersey GOP in May 2011 — just seven months before General Catalyst, the investment firm where he is listed as an “executive in residence” principal, received $15 million from the state’s pension fund.
The council’s decision sparked a series of headlines across the state that has put Baker in the middle of the ongoing media feeding frenzy that is swirling around Christie and his administration.
Just last week, a Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called on the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New Jersey attorney general, and the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission to investigate a possible connection between the donation and the investment.
And Charlie Pierce in “The Passion of Big Chicken: The Pensioning” — Esquire 29 May:
As noted a while back here, Dave Sirota at Pando Daily is all over Chris Christie’s dubious maneuverings with the pension money owed to New Jersey’s public employees. He’s all over it like stupid on Louie Gohmert, Dave is. The scandal has entangled Charlie Baker, the odds-on Republican candidate for governor here in the Commonwealth (God save it!), and Baker lawyered up this week. Which, as a fair-minded blog, we point out means nothing as regards Baker’s involvement — if any — in the pension shenanigans, but it’s not exactly the optic with which you want to kick off your campaign for an office you’ve already lost once in your life.
This cannot be said of Christie, who is hip-deep in what on the surface looks very much like a pay-for-play scheme by which $200,000 came into his campaign by companies that were doing business in one way or another with the state’s pension fund. …
Health care profiteer, corrupt financier, “Big Dig Baker,” (I still like this one, especially because Baker hilariously tries to deny it, and it is alliterative), or entitled Republican who resigned from the only elected office he ever held: Swampscott Selectman. What aspect of Baker’s record do you think the forces of reason and science should highlight when they take on Ted Cruz Michelle Bachman Mitt Romney the GOP’s Massachusetts champion?
merrimackguy says
wasting of hundreds of millions dollars and imperiling the health care of hundreds of thousands (probably tens of thousand of children) with the Health Connector and the actual outright killing of dozens (in the mixing scandal) and the actual killing of a few children (DCF) then Baker’s record doesn’t look too bad.
drikeo says
then Baker is going to get trounced. There is roughly zero regret in MA over having re-elected Patrick four years ago. If he were running right now for a third term, he’d win it in a cakewalk.
The last thing Baker should be doing is making Patrick a central figure in the race. If he does, then Coakley will make the case that, like Patrick, she’ll push economic and educational policies that work while Baker will bring us back to the days of the Big Dig fiasco, which he helped architect. Baker would do much better to pretend history doesn’t exist.
merrimackguy says
If Coakley wants to run against things that Baker did in the 90’s, she’s going to get trounced as well.
Christopher says
His record then is absolutely fair game and indicative of how he would manage government.
merrimackguy says
Just probably not of any interest to the electorate, for example:
” I drive the Big Dig and it works pretty well. What’s the problem?”
drikeo says
Except for the massive cost overruns, the naked corruption that took place, the hare-brained financing scheme that sent state transportation funding down a rabbit hole, and the rampant incompetence of the project and financial managers involved.
But, sure, no one remembers the Big Dig as a fiasco. Go with that.
fenway49 says
That 93’s still a parking lot. The O’Neill Tunnel: All the traffic of the Central Artery, none of the downtown views.
At least I like the Greenway.
jconway says
Five years ago when I first took my lovely bride to be to the North End, the Greenway had just opened and it was still a largely Italian neighborhood with old time local shops. Now, it seems to have a lot of the same kind of hipster spots that you could find in Davis, Cambridge, or the South End. Don’t get me wrong, the coffee shop was good and I know all the added foot traffic allowed venerable institutions like the Daily Catch (owned by a longtime Cambridge clan) and Mike’s Pastry to thrive and even expand. But, it was the last intact Little Italy in America and that likely won’t be true in twenty years.
Al says
looks and feels like a $15 Billion median strip. Almost all the big dreams for the area have fallen by the wayside. Is there anything about the thing that makes you say “Hey, lets go into town and go to the Greenway”?
fenway49 says
But I do linger there by the fountain or when there are market stalls or sometimes just to stretch out. It’s not all it could be. Yet. But if you’re walking around the city it’s a major improvement over a rusty elevated highway.
The North End’s authentic Italian character, I think, would be under assault regardless. It was happening before the Big Dig and, as jconway said, it’s already happened in virtually every other city. I don’t like it but the people who grew up there in the 50s largely moved to the suburbs. The older generation stayed but they’re gradually being replaced by yuppies, etc. It happens these days in any quaint neighborhood near downtown. Not a ton we can do except lament it.
SomervilleTom says
THAT particular outcome was predicted, thoroughly debated, and motivated an array of “amelioration” methods that have all been subsequently thwarted, evaded, or simply ignored.
During the Big Dig planning process, innumerable traffic experts testified that improving traffic flow through the tunnels would simply add more traffic to I93. It is an unstable dynamic system … solving the bottlenecks on I93 dumps more traffic into the city than the city can handle. Improving traffic flow through the city only adds more traffic, recreating bottlenecks on I93. The resulting system oscillates, with each peak getting higher and higher. This behavior is a consequence of Boston geography and highway placement.
The ONLY solution was to SIGNIFICANTLY improve public transportation, especially rail transportation — in and through the city. That was the origin of the federal funds that are now — belatedly and only under threat of federal enforcement — being used to extend the Green Line. That was the reason the north-south connector was demanded — and NEVER built. That was the reason for imposing parking bans on the city.
The Big Dig, as built, was and is orders of magnitude less disastrous than any of the available alternatives.
The REAL fiasco — and abysmally incompetent decision — was our collective choice to ignore reality and do absolutely nothing about public transportation before, during and after the Big Dig. Kind of like what we’re doing about climate change.
Ten or twenty years from now, we will have spent several tens of billions of dollars on some massive flood-control infrastructure across Boston Harbor. We’ll be bemoaning the fact that coasts to the north and south are having devastating floods every year, and blaming the new infrastructure — rather than admitting that we did it to ourselves by ignoring reality.
Those traffic jams are the result of our runaway addiction to automobiles, not the Big Dig. But perhaps you’re alluding to that in your comment, and I just missed your irony.
fenway49 says
that the traffic situation’s not really improved largely because we dropped billions into a highway tunnel without addressing public transportation.
merrimackguy says
The major impetus for the Big Dig were studies that showed by our current time period that Boston rush hour would be 6 AM to 8PM every day.
I too don’t understand why at least a North Station/South Station heavy rail connector wasn’t built.
SomervilleTom says
The major impetus for the Big Dig was that the Central Artery was literally falling down. Doing nothing was not an option, and the Big Dig was far and away the most affordable (when all costs were taken into account) of the alternatives. That remains true, even with the overruns.
JimC says
… is exponentially better.
We could certainly improve public transportation more though.
Christopher says
…the Big Dig confirmed every negative stereotype about how bad things get when the government tries to do something, though I do appreciate the results.
Bob Neer says
I’m sure you can find it: after all, Baker barely out-polled Don Berwick: 115,690 to 113,976.
Your concern about criticism of Baker’s ability to extract personal profit from the tragic reality of our dysfunctional health care system is duly noted.
This thread, however, is concentrating on constructive criticisms of Reince Priebus’ man in Massachusetts.
merrimackguy says
Like Coakley’s callous disregard of the actual innocence of people wrongly convicted of crimes.
kbusch says
you want a variety of views on BMG so that it doesn’t become a Daily Kos-like affair, you might consider a more moderate tone in responding to one of our most substantive, even valuable conservative contributors.
It’s become a luxury to have a right-wing contributor who is not a troll.
merrimackguy says
I bet less than 1% of the voters know who Reince Priebus is anyway.
I’d like to start with “Martha Coakley wants to do this, Baker wants to do that” and go from there, not “Baker did some things in the 90’s that if headlined in a certain way make it seem like his character is suspect.”
There are plenty of people on this board that think that her character is suspect and no need for me to make that case.
My intention is to make a case that if DeLeo is running the show, maybe having Baker in the corner office might be a better thing for MA.
Additionally the point has been brought up here that MA would benefit if the GOP was a bit stronger. If Baker loses it’s the actual end of the party in this state. Baker wins and the party gets a little boost. If you’re opposed to that idea, by all means attack.
Ten years from now everyone here will be complaining about Speaker Dempsey. My hope is not for MA to be a southern state, or even IN or NH. I just want it to run better, and that means not only more efficiently but also more effectively.
SomervilleTom says
“My intention is to make a case that if DeLeo is running the show, maybe having Baker in the corner office might be a better thing for MA. “
Amen.
I won’t vote for Charlie Baker and I can’t vote against Bob DeLeo. Nevertheless, I think this spotlights the core dynamic of this election.
THIS is what the voters will decide in November.
centralmassdad says
until Romney bollixed it up.
I guess all of the Republicans who understand how bad he was for the future success of the local party are now former Republicans.
SomervilleTom says
Nevertheless, if the voter’s question is “Who will be more effective at restraining Bob DeLeo?”, then I think the advantage has to go to Mr. Baker over Ms. Coakley.
Christopher says
He’s not my favorite pol, but I can’t put my finger on anything specific I have against him. To me the argument I made in my recent diary about staffing the executive branch is more than compelling to keep that in Democratic hands.
centralmassdad says
Massachusetts probation department trial
My tax dollars don’t repair bridges or fund competent administration of government. It funds do nothing buckshot jobs for legislators’ friends.
jotaemei says
I’ve just been commenting here for a few weeks. So, didn’t know @merrimackguy was “conservative” either. Ha, that’s funny. I upvote some of this comments.
Christopher says
DK circles the wagons a lot more quickly if you are the least bit conservative.
JimC says
… seemed pretty moderate to me.
kbusch says
We uprate your comments. We recommend your diaries. We often agree with you. I keep saying how nice you are.
A differently winged contributor, even if quite sensible, is going to get little of that here. One thing that distinguishes non-trolls from trolls is that the former are sensitive to disapproval.
Hence my sensitivity.
JimC says
Fair point.
lodger says
I can’t even visit KOS let alone read the comments. BMG is my first read every day and though I rarely agree with the opinions, I (usually)get factual, logical, arguments and I am left to evaluate my own positions in that light. I’ll leave it up to you to guess whether I’ve ever been swayed.
jconway says
For me to read and post on, Simply J Malarkey still puts up the good fight over there, but I grew tired of those that thought, in spite of evidence, that Fischer would win since he was pure. Sort of similar to some of the more ardent Berwick activists here.
I strongly hope we don’t look like that site does to us, and I hope more center right voices emerge. CMD is always an educated person to read, glad he has back in the mix, PP is as well, and merrimack guy usually has good stuff to say. I particularly likes his link to Ed Factor, whose moderation and intellect gets him shouted off of RMG but whose no nonsense approach might be helpful here. I want that occupier activist to come here as well, we need more greens and left of/out of Democratic voices as well. I think we should welcome everyone and have a real debate.
It’s why I suspect EB3 is kept around. It’s why DFW was tolerated for so long until it became impossible to restrain him. The more voices the better.
kbusch says
Fellow Democrats, we have to take these problems seriously. They were pretty bad. The Health Connector problem really did prevent some people from getting health insurance — people who needed care urgently. The failure of management there is not something progressives should take lightly.
A candidate for governor who tries to wish these problems away is not going to have an easy time of it.
jconway says
I have been harping on both these problems. Too many people here think Deval is the second coming and would’ve glided to a third term, but we gotta have our nominee admit he f–ed up DCF and the Connector and that she won’t make the same mistake. We all agree government should be helping kids from broken homes and helping the uninsured enroll in a health plan. This is not an ideological debate. It’s a technocratic one, and the party that is supposed to represent good, competent, technocratic government failed to deliver and there has been next to no accountability for those failures.
It will haunt us in November if Coakley doesn’t distance herself from these failures in September. David Bernstein and other analysts agree with my take on that, as do average swing voters like my brother and sister in law, who are lean Baker due to their own terrible experience with DCF. “We don’t want the program cut, we just want it shaken up” well, it’s gonna get cut under Baker and Coakley should promise a shake up to stay competitive. Pretending it’s not a problem is part of the problem.
sabutai says
For people who didn’t deal with the Big Dig on a daily basis (including, ahem, the swing electorate the Brahmins never think about), “Big Dig Baker” doesn’t have much sting. For most Massachusetts residents, it’s a receding memory while the benefit of driving through the city is vivid.
Meanwhile, the indignities, inefficiencies, and lethality of private health care is a daily reality for all of us. His role in furthering such a confused and bizarre system and profiting from sickness speaks so much ill about him. I prefer the moniker “no to chemo Charlie”.
merrimackguy says
and you think “furthering private health care” will lose him votes? Maybe on BMG but unlikely with the rest of the electorate, assuming they even understand that argument.
johntmay says
The difference between American capitalism and that practiced in Japan and other civilized nations is that the top executives suffer at least as much or more than the lowly workers. I know a vice president of a company that Toyota owns and after the 2007/8 recession, all employees took a 20% pay cut, including him. That resulted in no layoffs. I have no admiration for CEOs who toss their crew into the sea to save their ship and themselves alone.
merrimackguy says
Baker took over after the merger. They companies had not integrated their systems and they failed to bill and collect properly, among other major issues. Baker took the actions necessary to save the organization. The HMO was turned around and Baker got rewarded. Not exactly a scandal.
kbusch says
We have private healthcare corporations. They can be run well or poorly. They can be run humanely or callously. No one running such a corporation has a magic wand that creates Single Payer magically.
It seems perverse then to blame Baker for running a corporation well. If he did things that were inhumane, that’s a different matter but it’s a matter that requires some documentation. Merrimackguy is right to suggest that the corporations = evil equation is not going to be convincing to all Massachusetts voters.
sabutai says
Baker ran a corporation well whose bottom line depends on denying health care to people who need it. It’s their profit model, and while I don’t expect that he would have lasted had he tried to fight that model. nobody made him go into that line of work.
I don’t think Mass. voters think corporations are evil. But I do think most Mass. voters think that their government should be run along the same principles as the company that consistently jacks up their rates while lowering the quality of care on something so vital.
kbusch says
That’s a good point too. It’s one that it would be useful to emphasize in fact in the upcoming campaign.
An only partial answer: A private health insurer is going to lose market share if it develops a reputation for funding care inadequately. So health insurers have to at least appear as if they’re doing the right thing.
johntmay says
Corporations in the majority of case lack the capacity to be evil…or kind. A corporation looks at growth as good, regardless of any consequences to anyone or anything else. I compare them to trees. A tree grows in my front yard and gives me shade. Shade is good but that tree is not giving me shade because it likes me. The roots of the tree are screwing my my septic field and that is hurting my wallet. Does the tree want to hurt me because it does not like me? Nope, it’s just growing.
Health insurance corporations only concern is growth and supplying a portion of that growth to shareholders, period. There is no kindness or evil in them. They are not moral or immoral, they are amoral.
hlpeary says
The beltway crowd likes to produce ads that exaggerate the evils of our GOP opponents to such an extent that even Democrats find them distasteful and unbelievable. The Tierney defeat in the 6th is a prime example of negative over-reach to take down (and smear) an opponent. A deceptively framed negative attack ad from Tierney played a part in the undecideds going to a little known Moulton in the last days…it was a total turn-off. If Coakley plays the same strategy with Baker, it will backfire. Making every GOP candidate the devil incarnate with exaggerated and barely-credible claims is no substitute for having a clear plan for what you want to accomplish as governor and stating it directly free of platitudes.
merrimackguy says
Baker took over after the merger. They companies had not integrated their systems and they failed to bill and collect properly, among other major issues. Baker took the actions necessary to save the organization. The HMO was turned around and Baker got rewarded. Not exactly a scandal.
merrimackguy says
Nt
kbusch says
The negative ads set in a garage that Kerry Healey ran against Deval Patrick were another case of negative over-reach, to use hlpeary’s excellent phrase.
If one feels a strong animus against the other guy, it’s easy to product overly negative ads.
I could mention a recent example but will only do so in this coy indirect fashion.
jconway says
Sorry Bob Neer-nobody honestly would put Baker and Bachmann in the same sentence. The war on women trope won’t work here. Instead, we have to focus on the pocket book issues of everyday MA workers who are still feeling the effects of the recession and may think Deval only did a mediocre job keeping the ship of state afloat (see my post above about DCF and Connector problems). Nationalizing this race is a massive mistake that won’t work. It clearly failed against Scott Brown in the special and it won’t work here.
Warren tried the same stuff-war on women, Brown backed Blount amendment and it went nowhere. When she changed the focus to how much he helped corporations screw over working people, she started kicking his butt in the polls. Ask Seth Moulton how devastating Tierney’s tea party ads were to his candidacy. Let’s go on offense-but let’s do it on our issues not what the DNC thinks this midterm is going to be waged on.
fenway49 says
Nationalizing the race almost always works in a federal election in Massachusetts. It didn’t work for Democrats/Coakley in the 2010 special because the national climate was toxic for Democrats. If anything, nationalizing the race worked for Brown.
In 2012 Warren won women by almost 20 points – don’t be so sure concerns about the national GOP on those issues played no role.
merrimackguy says
He needs women to see him as him, not as a generic Republican.
centralmassdad says
By trying to convince anyone that Brown = Michelle Bachman or the dolt from Missouri who sunk himself with his “homespun” views on rape. That would have insulted voters intelligence and might well have backfired.
Patrick says
It bothered me so much to hear that line of attack used against Mark Fisher and coming from Baker supporters. Fisher should have run for a lesser office because he lacks electoral experience. Charlie was an absentee selectman from Swampscott. He never ran for state rep or state senate.
hlpeary says
If you are only qualified to run for office if you have run before is a dumb premise, isn’t it? No newbie could ever run! Maura Healey could not have run for AG under that criteria. Deval Patrick could not have run for Gov. either.
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
It is relevant whether Baker was an active or absentee selectman. What do we know about that?
jconway says
No.
Patrick says
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2009/07/the-myth-of-charlie-baker/
Donald Green says
When Charlie Baker was asked to say who was a role model for governing from present office holders, he paused some time(On OTR), then said Ronald Reagan. When reminded that Reagan was dead, the wheels grinded in his head, and he finally said Jeb Bush. Somehow his favorite, Chris Christie, got short shrift(the NJ governor even did a fundraiser for Republican gubernatorial candidates in Boston). Seemingly Mr. Baker knows he has to keep his true inclinations under wraps. However it is an insight on what he thinks is proper governance. It would be hard for him to come out loud with his support for Christie(Charlie gave $10,000 to the NJ Republican Party, not the Fl Republican Party) since he knows cuts in pensions, casino failures, downgraded credit rating, stubborn unemployment, and poor infrastructure planning would not fly well in the Bay State.
merrimackguy says
Interesting that NJ had casinos when Christie arrived and you blame him, yet MA has no casinos and Deval Patrick is trying to bring them in. So in connecting your dots, if you like Deval Patrick, you like casinos, or something like that. Also if you’re talking cuts in pensions, check out RI. I think Republicans were at the bottom of that as well.
He probably didn’t contribute to the FL GOP because the last time he looked Charlie Christ was the Republican governor and now he’s the Democratic nominee for governor. I know I’m confused.
centralmassdad says
Christie is a Republican, so those failing casinos in NJ are Republican casinos.
Our casinos will be Democratic casinos and therefore a triumph of the working man.
Until they fail, in which case either they will become Republican casinos, or else their failure will be like a huge blizzard– a random event that just happens and cannot be blamed on Democrats that brought the casinos in.
Donald Green says
In the late 70s Casinos were voted in by NJ voters. I was a NJ voter then, and I did the opposite. But now there is a history, so the failure of casinos as a job creation machine, a boost to the economy, and a source of revenue have become plain over the years. We have these facts to ponder so it makes no sense to think we are just a different place so it won’t happen here. Moreover we don’t need it. We have space, and an highly educated workforce. Surely we can do better, and not put in a breeding ground for crime, addiction, and job loss.