What’s this election really about?
We’ve taken to calling it 16YORG: 16 years of Republican governors.
That’s an unacceptable risk. If Baker gets in, are we ready for another 16 years? That would bring us out to 2030.
As noted, I understand the frustration with the candidates. The differences between Coakley and Baker don’t seem to be the yawning chasm that we’d like. But in the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the army you have.
Let’s look at the differences. They’re important.(All quotes from the respective issues pages.)
Coakley on Jobs and Economy
Providing earned sick time so that no employee is forced to choose between keeping their job and caring for their health, or the health of a loved one. Today, nearly 1 million workers in Massachusetts, many of them low-wage workers and women, don’t have a single day of earned sick time; extending earned sick time to these workers will increase productivity and reduce income inequality.
Baker’s economic plan:
Taxes
Charlie will not raise taxes, period. He will work to reform a tax code that has grown overly complicated – benefiting only special interests while harming workers, families, and small businesses.
Gas Tax
Charlie opposes the automatic gas tax hike supported by his opponents. Charlie will demand accountability and transparency from Beacon Hill, forcing the legislature to publicly cast their votes before increasing any taxes that affect workers, small business, and the economic future of Massachusetts.
Welfare Reform
By investing in measures to get people back to work and give them the tools to achieve economic stability, and by stopping abuse, welfare can be reformed so that it provides a true safety net for those who need it. Charlie has announced a series of welfare reform priorities to help people achieve economic independence, support parents and families, ensure the integrity of the program and prevent abuse.
Winner: Coakley. Does Baker really think welfare reform will stimulate the economy? And by the way his plan also raises the work requirement age from 60 to 66.
Coakley on gun control
Shift funding from prison expansion to focus on crime prevention and prisoner rehabilitation, including diversion, education and job training programs for court-involved or incarcerated individuals, and an expanded network of supports for individuals transition back into society, including behavioral health counseling. This effort will bring down costs, reduce recidivism and improve public safety.
That’s a substantial idea; Baker has nothing.
Coakley on education:
Ensure universal access to high quality early education, beginning with universal access for children in our Gateway Cities, because the foundation for success is laid early on.
Expand learning time to allow for more one-on-one instruction, enrichment programs like art and music, and professional development. And reduce the singular emphasis on teaching to the test, so that educators are empowered to help every child succeed.
Improve and expand Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education, especially computer science, because those skills will be critical for young people hoping to enter our rapidly evolving workforce.
Baker
Every School a Great School
We can have great schools across the Commonwealth that ensure opportunity for every single child, no matter where they live. We can and should replicate the innovative solutions developed in successful schools across the state to close the achievement gap and deepen the connections between schools and employers. As Governor, Charlie will work to build on the state’s successful intervention in Lawrence by creating an Excellence School District to enable and encourage dramatic improvements in the state’s lowest performing schools and districts.
Charter Schools
Massachusetts has some of the highest performing charter schools in the country, providing a quality education to students in some of the lowest-performing districts in the state. As Governor, Charlie will work with the legislature to increase the number of charter schools and remove the arbitrary restrictions on the number of students who can attend them in the lowest performing districts.
Higher Education
A four-year, full-time college program is increasingly unaffordable for middle-class and working families in Massachusetts. As a result, students are graduating from college with mountains of debt that bear little resemblance to their post-graduate earning capacity. By simultaneously working to make higher education more affordable, and better connect school to employment, Charlie hopes to see every high school graduate succeed right here in Massachusetts.
Coakley on workers’ rights (a section Baker doesn’t have):
In order to continue to protect the rights of workers in Massachusetts, Martha will:
Work closely with the next Attorney General to continue to hold employers accountable for wage and hour violations, and to protect workers’ right to organize and form unions.
Fight for improvements, like earned sick time, that will benefit all of Massachusetts’ workers and working families.
Expand worker training, ESL, and ABE programs, to ensure that workers in Massachusetts’ have the right skills to take on the high-quality jobs of tomorrow.
Baker also has a health care section, which Coakley does not. Its lead item is:
Waiver from the ACA
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts has been a disaster, costing hundreds of millions of dollars for a botched website and temporary coverage for people who couldn’t sign up, as well as increasing premiums and policy cancellations for people who liked the plans they had. Massachusetts should be able to return to its own system that worked and as governor Charlie will aggressively pursue a waiver for Massachusetts from the ACA.
In nearly every case, it’s something vs. nothing, or something good vs. something not good. To be fair, I do think Charlie Baker is about as good as Republicans get. He’s pro choice, and not anti-gay. But the fact that that bar is so low is telling. If Baker wins, he brings an entire administration with him: all kinds of executives making decisions in departments across state government.
And to be fair to Coakley, I would prefer a more forceful liberalism. On guns, for example — would she lose a SINGLE vote if she came out for gun registration? Massachusetts could (and should) lead on that.
Oh well … you don’t get everything. But you get a choice. And with Martha Coakley as governor, more of the people government serves will have more choices.
Patrick says
Bill Weld spilled the beans on what a Baker admin would look like.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2014/09/nucci_baker_should_show_who_s_on_his_team
It’s clear and has been for some time that a Baker win is in no way a win for the “tea party” or right-wing Republicans. It’s more likely a death knell for them.
takebrowndown2012 says
Like privatization even when it doesn’t save a dime
Like demonizing the poor and welfare recipients
Like giving tax breaks to big business at the expense of everyone else
And countless other examples
usergoogol says
The Tea Party is a very particular kind of conservative, and there just aren’t that many of them in Massachusetts. So we probably don’t have to worry about Baker banning birth control or stuff like that. But just because a Republican is more moderate doesn’t mean they can’t do lots of damage.
And a common thread that has been running through the Republican Party even in the good old days of the New England liberal Republican has been being “pro-business.” Being generous to the wealthy, less so to the poor, favoring market solutions over government solutions: that’s something Republicans just like doing across the board. And when the “moderate Republicans” in question are themselves wealthy businessmen, they certainly have no particular incentive to buck that trend.
The fact that Baker wants to do those sorts of things doesn’t make him a Tea Party Republican, it just makes him a Republican. But that’s bad too.
JimC says
But it doesn’t have to be. Moderate Republicanism is bad enough, in a Governor. The times call for Democratic, activist governance.
takebrowndown2012 says
Plus, don’t forget about the LT. Gov match up..Kerigan vs Polito where the differences are quite stark. As “moderate” as Baker might be, we’d have a Palin wannabe in Polito next in line.
Patrick says
eom
takebrowndown2012 says
Polito has flip flopped on choice, has a.history of opposing gay marriage. It’s no secret, what her true colors are. Kerigan, on the other hand embraces the liberal principles many on this site share. Given his relative youth, he’s a good future standard bearer.
Patrick says
There’s been a sea change in public opinion over the past decade. The American public’s position has evolved and so has Polito’s.
I’m not sure what you are referring to about Polito and choice. She has always been prochoice. It’s true that she has repudiated her past support of what is referred to as an informed consent law. She’s never been considered prolife and never received the endorsement of MCFL.
Karyn Polito has a voting record. Kerrigan has never been elected to anything, right?
lynpb says
“Kerrigan called on Baker and Polito to return all donations to Polito’s campaign from Chanel Prunier, Executive Director for the Coalition for Marriage and Family. When Baker announced Polito as his running mate, media reports differed on whether she had changed her views on LGBT equality or merely shelved them temporarily for the election. Yet, Polito continues to accept campaign donations from Prunier, leader of the Coalition for Marriage and Family, a group that vows to “keep fighting to win the larger war” against marriage equality.
“If Karyn Polito genuinely supports marriage equality, she will return this and every other donation from those associated with a group that exists primarily to deny every LGBT citizen of the right to marry the one they love,” said Kerrigan.””
Patrick says
http://www.redmassgroup.com/diary/17871/steve-kerrigan-mail-fail-democratic-candidate-has-rnc-member-chanel-prunier-on-preconvention-list
sabutai says
It doesn’t terrify me the way that a Brownback or Christie admin would, but yes, it scares me. As I’ve said repeatedly in reference to Democratic choices, “not sucking” is too low a standard for our state. I don’t think Charlie Baker would bankrupt the state, leave its infrastructure to rot, or shutter its schools. Nevertheless, I think he would be to the right of Richard Nixon, and at best make the next four years a lost opportunity for our state.
takebrowndown2012 says
And you’ll get a quick reminder of his true colors which reveal a much more rightward attitude than he’d like us to believe. The most notable example is his vow to cut 5,000 state workers.
fenway49 says
How many people who consider themselves liberal have bought into the Charlie rebrand David Bernstein called Baker 2.0. And of course the cool thing now is to shun Coakley as insufficiently inspiring and deny there are real differences between these candidates.
takebrowndown2012 says
Being “more” pro choice than Baker doesn’t cut it. She has a gift in the sick leave ballot question which she can own as her issue since Baker opposes it.
She should also run a few side by side ads featuring Baker circa 2010 next to “rebranded” Baker. The obvious flip flops alone should erase all doubt about who he really is.
johntmay says
Leaving what? Elizabeth Warren attacked the status quo, put Wall Street on notice, has been vocal in her support of labor and against casinos regardless of the latest polls. That energizes the base. That took down pretty boy Brown. If all Martha Coakley can offer is “I’m not Charlie Baker”, what are we fighting for?
takebrowndown2012 says
Prior to that, if you recall, she was running behind Brown, at one point as much as 10 points. Once she started hammering Brown on the pocketbook issues, she rocketed past Brown who was far more formidable than Baker could ever hope to be.
johntmay says
But what are the pocket book issues that Martha has to beat Charlie with? And by pocket book issues, I’m talking about issues that are easily understood by half informed people at a kitchen table.
takebrowndown2012 says
Which she and I dare say a majority support while Baker opposes it. If she can hammer him on that issue, she has the built in support of those who show up to vote yes on it.
She can also run on the same populist, Main Street vs Wall Street theme that Warren used effectively against Brown.
If she does the above two things plus come out with a point by point economic plan that refutes Baker’s, this race is hers.
She’s at least closer to having her base shored up than Baker is with his.
I also think she should make a pitch to the male vote. Everyone talks about the female gender gap Coakley needs. Well, Baker needs that male gender gap even more.
Christopher says
…Coakley would do well to remind folks how Baker said the Hobby Lobby case doesn’t matter. He might not be clamoring to ban abortions, but on HL he was either tone deaf or naive.
jconway says
I’ve strongly argued Coakley is a bad candidate with bland set of principles, but I’ve never argued Baker is better. Anywhere.
Coakley seems to hope that linking him to social conservatism and national republicans while downplaying their differences on economic issues is a winning strategy. It’s not. JimC, Charley, loquacious liberal answered my charges and showed me where she is a true blue progressive. So have you and others. Everyone but the candidate!
My point is she should go to bat for these issues and she’s not! Me pointing that out is not me supporting Baker!
fenway49 says
I also didn’t say Democrats are arguing “Baker is better.” But I have read plenty of comments to the effect that there’s not much difference between them, so a Coakley loss is really no biggie. And I’ve heard that from too many people offline. If you re-read what I wrote you’ll see that’s what it says.
Thou doth protest just a bit too much. I’d never say you’re “supporting Baker” or anything of the sort. But I’d gently question if you’re so wedded to being correct in your view that this is a flawed candidate running a bad campaign that everything that happens is filtered through that lens. I thought Coakley hit him on economic issues repeatedly at last week’s forum/debate and the surrogates I’ve heard have stressed differences on economic issues loud and long.
jconway says
But the whole argument, maybe on these forums anyway, has been between those that feel she has been a tepid candidate on the way to the political morgue and those that respond to such feelings with “Bakers worse! Suck it up liberals! Quit being bad Dems!”, and I honestly felt this in 2000 with Gore and 2004 with Kerry. It’s really hard to get yourself to the polls, motivate volunteers, and volunteer yourself for a candidate you feel is merely the lesser of two evils. I was too young in 2004 but was a very dispirited Deanic in the 2004 general election. 2012 “President Romney” and Obama (all too temporarily) rediscovering populism was enough.
But there is a lot of great progressive substance and policy to this candidate under the surface, and those of us want more from her have legitimate criticisms and shouldn’t be attacked-that is counter productive. Saying she is a sure loser is also counterproductive, and I will agree to stop doing it. But I want this candidate to recognize she is losing the sale and correct the course by appealing to the left and not the mushy middle.
sabutai says
I wouldn’t say “Baker is Better” (and I know you haven’t implied that I have) as much as I would say “If Coakley loses, I won’t be too upset”. Not because I feel there isn’t a difference, but more that I’m oddly not personally invested in her campaign that much. Usually junkies like us feel really upset when our candidate loses, but right now I care more about Begich and Shaheen winning than Coakley.
Trickle up says
about Bill Weld, and regretted it.
(And believe me, Coakely is no John Silber.)
fenway49 says
For proving my point. Personally I’m more concerned about who is running this state for the next four years than in a U.S. Senate seat in Alaska. I’d like Begich to win but, even if the Republicans take the Senate next month, Obama is still in office and nothing good was getting done in the House anyway. I feel fairly confident that the Democrats can regain a solid Senate majority in 2016. By which time Governor Charlie Baker would only be halfway through his first term.
stomv says
How many people in state government are hired by the governor? The heads of departments, divisions, etc. I honestly have no idea, but I suspect that it’s a lot.
Governor Baker would have to staff all those positions. Who will he hire? Those are political offices, and they go to folks ” on the same team” by and large. So, maybe Baker is smart and moderate and reasonable, but will the new head of DOER? Health and Human Services? Mental Health? Public Utilities? Port Authority? How about their immediate underlings?
The Republican bench is weak. That includes the bench for civil servants. This leads to two problems: (1) not being able to find a technically qualified head, and (2) inevitably finding and hiring heads who are far, far to the right of Mr. Baker. Neither of those outcomes is very appealing to me.
bean says
Baker’s first pick of tea party favorite (and Red Sox license plate schemer Karyn Polito shows what we can expect from a Baker administration.
methuenprogressive says
If you believe there’s no difference between the parties, or there’s no difference between Baker and Coakley, you haven’t been paying attention.
kirth says
What is the basis for believing that no Democrat can be elected for 16 years if Baker wins? A better Democratic candidate could certainly beat an incumbent Baker. That Coakley won the primary is not evidence that there are no better Democratic candidates in a general election.
JimC says
But my point is, if people who voted for Bill Weld knew that his governorship was going to be the beginning of 16YORG, things might have turned out differently. (Though maybe not — Silber was kind of a nightmare.)
I hate it when people say “The stakes couldn’t be higher!” because that’s usually not true. But we shouldn’t underestimate the stakes either.
takebrowndown2012 says
Four to eight years later instead the Republican stranglehold on the corner office. Claprood if you’ll recall was as progressive as you could hope for back then.
JimC says
But she was never a star, electorally. I remember her run for Congress.
takebrowndown2012 says
Would have made her the easy favorite to succeed a Gov Silber.
That’s why it’s important to think long term. Coakley might not be our first choice but at least she’s not Silber and she’s miles better than the alternative ( Baker). Four to eight years later, there’s Kerigan who I think has great potential.
bob-gardner says
Even though I don’t support Coakley, the Lt Governor’s race does matter. Both Weld and Celluci walked away from the Governor’s office before their term was over. Romney came pretty close. How likely is Baker to finish his term if he’s elected?
Bryan says
Charlie Baker thinks women’s healthcare “doesn’t matter” and his first ad was about the importance of welfare reform. This is straight out of the tea party playbook and if you think he’s changed since 2010, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Meanwhile, Coakley’s biggest claims to fame are starting the HomeCorps program to keep people in their homes who would otherwise be evicted and fighting against the detestable Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
The differences between these two candidates could not be more clear.
Patrick says
What he said was that the Hobby Lobby decision did not matter insofar as it doesn’t change the law in Massachusetts.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/07/09/baker-hobby-lobby-case-doesn-matter/EkdIqi4k1hIFmgLVVVvnyJ/story.html
For anyone that is effected, Charlie will set aside $300k to provide for contraceptive coverage.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/republican_gubernatorial_candi_10.html#incart_river_default
Charlie Baker is totally pro-choice and cares deeply about women’s healthcare.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2014/09/baker-put-out-a-new-ad-today/
fenway49 says
It need not change Massachusetts law to change the law in Massachusetts. The Hobby Lobby decision was based on a federal statute, which under the Supremacy Clause trumps state law to the contrary. The decision surely can be relied upon by the two Hobby Lobby stores in the state, and any other employer who so desires.
The $300K fund to cover employees who might be affected is nice, but it’s another example of Charlie (supposedly Mr. Fiscally Prudent) being more than happy to spend state money on what should be paid by employers.
In the meantime these candidates are separated by far more than views on contraception coverage.
centralmassdad says
I am not sure and haven’t tracked it through.
I was under the distinct impression that the portions of RFRA that applied to state laws, rather than federal laws, were long since been found unconstitutional and unenforceable.
So how does the decision directly alter Mass state law?
What am I missing?
fenway49 says
I had forgotten City of Boerne was an RFRA case and that the RFRA, as applied to the states, was supposed to have been enacted under the 14th Amendment and was thus curtailed by the Rehnquist Court’s aggressive federalism theory.
Under SJC precedent strict scrutiny to be applied when claims of religious exemption from generally applicable laws are asserted under the Mass. constitution. Such a claim would be decided in the MA courts.
centralmassdad says
Holly Lobby was a RFRA case. I don’t see any supremacy clause issue in MA, because any application of the statute to the states is unconstitutional. If MA requires “free” contraception, MA requires “free” contraception.
Which is another way of saying Holly Lobby will have a rather limited impact, at least in MA.
fenway49 says
Normally the Supremacy Clause would mean the federal statute trumps state law to the contrary. Here the statute has been declared unconstitutional insofar as it attempted to do so. So the decision does have a limited direct impact.
But the state constitution already requires application of the strict scrutiny standard that the RFRA would impose on the states if only it could. The possibility remains that someone (including Hobby Lobby itself), citing the Hobby Lobby precedent, could file suit here. Ultimately the SJC would decide if our laws satisfy the strict scrutiny standard or if application to religious objectors is unconstitutional here. Of course the state courts are not bound by the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Hobby Lobby, but even if the SJC rules against the plaintiffs it would be years of litigation just to maintain the status quo.
centralmassdad says
Thanks.
merrimackguy says
That would have made this election much more interesting.
There’s a good chance we’re getting Willy Lantigua back though. Also an interesting politician.
Christopher says
Lantigua is one person whose papers I wouldn’t sign given how strongly I feel that his name belongs nowhere near a ballot. That he is running for office again is the definition of chutzpah.
merrimackguy says
He’s Huey Long and JM Curley combined.
Optimist says
Those who see Coakley as barely better than Baker, explain to me:
+Does Coakley trumpet beating up on the poor (welfare reform, time limits and work requirements for affordable housing, etc) as the centerpiece of her economic plans? And if that is what Charlie does now, when he needs to appeal to moderate independents, what will he do when his hand picked minions are running state agencies?
+If we have another downturn, will the centerpiece of Coakley’s economic plan be to fire 5000 state workers — what Charlie said he would do in 2010?
+Would Coakley ever make as her first major job appointment Karyn “stop gay marriage” Polito as a heartbeat away from the Governor’s office?http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/02/poised-launch-campaign-karyn-polito-aims-republican-charlie-baker-running-mate/AM4FJtwTXVjiuihIoHZsPN/story.html If he makes a Pailin-like selection, is Charlie in your view still not that different than Martha who chooses Steve Kerrigan?
Anyone who follows Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren for statewide office in Massachusetts will seem low wattage by comparison. But style is not substance. Is it really so hard to get enthusiastic about continuing the basic successes of the last 8 years? To give our delegation a Governor who will work with them, not make them the butt of his jokes? To accept that 8 years of statewide managerial experience and getting things done as AG might actually be a good quality to have in the corner office? To think that electing a woman to lead the Commonwealth after over 3 centuries of failing to do so might just be a reason to get out and knock on doors?
JimC says
Small differences loom large, in a role as important as governor. So I was trying to reach people who see the differences as small (mainly outside readers, not regulars here).