According to Brian McGrory, Christy Mihos has made clear his intention to challenge Kerry Healey for the Republican nomination for Governor when if Mitt Romney decides not to run for reelection.
Mihos made his substantial personal fortune by selling his successful chain of Christy’s convenience stores to 7-11. He made his political name as a member of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board, where he complained about finances and was unsuccessfully fired by then-Acting Gov. Jane Swift.
For a longer profile of Mihos, you might take a look at this Boston Magazine article. There are a couple of interesting inconsistencies between what he says there and what he told McGrory. First, the Boston Magazine article is about running for John Kerry’s Senate seat in 2008, not for Governor. "Whether or not John Kerry decides to run again for president, Mihos is committed to seeking Kerry’s seat — ‘I’m in,’ he says, stating for the first time his unequivocal intention to make a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2008." Funny, ’cause he told McGrory this: ”If [Romney] doesn’t run, I’m all for competition. I’ll get in."
Second, and relatedly, he told McGrory that he "would like to see Mitt Romney run for reelection." Continuing, Mihos said that ”I have always been with him. He’s a decent, honorable, incorruptible person." Gosh, that’s odd, because Mihos told Boston Magazine that "the governor has been ‘AWOL’ in not doing more to take control of the [Big Dig] project."
To me, this suggests that Mihos, while undoubtedly an interesting character who may have gotten some things right about the Big Dig, is a loose cannon who is not really ready for prime time. If you can’t keep your story straight when giving two roughly contemporaneous interviews as to (a) what office you’re "in" for, or (b) what you think of your party’s standard-bearer, you’ve got a lot of work to do before you consider running for statewide office.
Also, FWIW, the SJC was wrong to rule that Swift lacked the power to fire Mihos and fellow gadfly Jordan Levy (the ruling was 4-3, with Justices Marshall, Sosman, and Cordy – i.e., the intellectual firepower of that Court – in dissent). Just my ever-so-humble opinion.
Thanks for posting the Mihos decision. Good blog work. I read it for the first time and I agree with the majority. The turnpike authority is indepenbdent and the Court does a good job in expllinting the difference. The case could of gone either way and I think these good repeublican appointees on the dissent were doing the ole “result orientrd” decision. A JUstice Holmes special. But in this case they were being political and not trying to just do the right thing.Independent authorities need to stay independent. And as much as Mihos bothers me the made the right decision.Just my ever so humble opinion.
I can’t help but wonder if he’s aiming for the Lt. Governor seat in a Healey administration. As you point out, there’s not much to be gained by voicing conflicting opinions on Romney and speaking for every job that’s opening up in the next 3 years, but doing so will serve to get his name out there, and maybe that’s his only purpose at this point.
not after today’s column
in this case they were being political and not trying to just do the right thingI, of course, disagree – in my view, courts should be extremely hesitant about second-guessing the Governor’s determination that “cause” has been established to fire a member of an independent authority. Swift held a hearing and concluded that “cause” had been established. Of course the result of the hearing was foreordained. But that’s how these things work. It’s only going to get worse if courts insist on sticking their noses into it. The dispute, therefore, is less about the independence of the authorities and more about how “activist” or “restrained” the courts ought to be in these matters. In any event, as you say, it was a close case that could have come out either way.
SDory David, the court [rpotects us from the executive branch overreaching. Marbery v. Madison. I actually was being generous when I said it was a close case. I re-read. Are you eing selective about judicial activism.Roe v Wade and perhaps our recent gay mariage decision was 10 times more judicially active decisions then this petty little Mihos decision, that if he won would have undermined all the independent authorities in the state and really made board members puppets of sitting governors. Which ios what they are intended to prevent.