In my opinion the editors of BMG usually give candidates a good looking over before endorsing them. This was not done when a few weeks ago when BMG endorsed Tom Concannon for Middlesex County Register of Probate. The editors wrote
We don’t honestly know all that much about Concannon, but inquiries of knowledgeable sources indicate that he has a solid reputation. Plus, so far anyway, he appears not to have been caught on video committing petty theft from state property. That’s good enough for us.
What makes Concannon BMG-worthy?
BMG is not promiscuous in the issuance of its endorsements and usually knows a lot about any candidate it endorses. I do not see any vetting or due diligence here at all. Much like dating on the rebound, hasty endorsements frequently are bad decisions.
For instance, this week in the mail I received campaign literature from Sean O’Donovan an alderman from Somerville. I know O’Donovan and find him to be a progressive Democrat whose views on many issues are consistent with the overall tenor of this blog. For instance he claims that he would support same day voter registration, affordable housing initiatives, Massachusetts Coalition for Women’s Wage Equality and Senator Jehlen’s legislation for wage equality. I recognize that none of these issues are directly related to the Register position but they seem to be consistent with BMG’s positions. I do not know where Concannon stands on these issues. Does anyone?
I know that O’Donovan worked for John Kerry in Florida four years ago and campaigned for Deval Patrick. O’Donovan announced his intention to run in August. He may or not be BMG-worthy but I think he deserves consideration. After all, shouldn’t our goal be to fill the position with a good progressive Democrat?
he still goes to Mass every Sunday.
what do you expect to catch in your ground trawl? maybe eabo, the yoda catholic will stop by to some stink bombs drop. sounds like fun!
Sean is a solid candidate for Register of Probate and his record in support of progressive and Labor issues deserved more recognition from BMG.
…but before the professional victims jump to conclusions, that post gives me the impression that O’Donovan was mentioned because at that point he was the only one talking about organizing a write-in campaign for the office. The choices were O’Donovan and Buanonomo, which was really an easy choice.
<
p>Now that Buanonomo has resigned, it seems that several people are gearing up for write-in campaigns, and we may not have time before the primary for the weaker choices to realize their disadvantage and stand down. I would appreciate people from the county weighing in on the panoply of sticker options now, including who else is trying to get written in.
is that O’Donovan was planning to run as a Working Families party candidate. He was therefore irrelevant to the Sept. 16 Democratic primary, which is the only ballot that registered Democrats can take.
that the most important thing is to have another name on the ballot other than Buonomo. O’Donovan is a Democrat who, if successful, will be on the ballot. Write in candidates have a very hard time (Sonia Diaz springs to mind) ousting someone on the ballot. O’Donovan’s tactic was to get on the November ballot and thereby give voters another option, a progressive one. What would have happened if a Republican got on the ballot and Buonomo did not withdraw? Not a choice I want to make. Please remember at the time O’Donovan announced it was unclear what Buonomo would do in November.
<
p>I believe that O’Donovan is a lifelong Democrat who supported Kerry and Deval. He has progressive leanings. De deserves a look.
If Sean O’Donovan wasn’t running a write-in campaign for the Democratic nomination, then it doesn’t matter whether he’s “A Democrat who will be on the ballot”, he still doesn’t have a chance of winning the Democratic primary. So if O’Donovan’s tactic, at the time of the BMG vote, was to get on the November ballot, there was no point recommending him for the September ballot.
<
p>Sonia Chang Diaz ran as a write-in against another write-in with nobody on the ballot, a very different situation. Also, as you can see, she came surprisingly close to ousting a very long-time incument with strong institutional support. I really don’t see how that example supports your argument.
Please tell me the name of a successful write in candidate who ran against someone on the ballot. BTW O’Donovan can be written in on any ballot just like anyone else.
I had that backwards I think. Sciortino beat the incumbent in the primary. The incumbent, Ciampa, tried a write-in campaign in the general and lost. But as he had already lost to Sciortino in the primary, it is not surprising he lost again in the general. Sure couldn’t attribute that loss to the write-in campaign. His constituents just didn’t like him any more, as evidenced by his loss in the primary.
A successful write in candidate who ran against someone on the ballot…
<
p>Tom Sannicandro in the Primary in 2004
In the Democratic Primary, as a write-in, Tom beat two candidates who were on the ballot. It was an open seat. I don’t have an example of someone beating an incumbent on stickers.
Strong write-in campaigns against incumbents are rare enough that it’s very hard to generalize: each one happens in its own unique set of circumstances. Write-in campaigns are not all alike, and there’s no general rule for judging how they’ll go that trumps the specific situation you want to talk about. Examples you gave don’t apply, and I can’t off the top of my head think of any examples that apply either. I can’t think of a similar situation where the write-in candidate beat the disgraced downballot candidate in the primary, nor can I think of a similar situation where the disgraced downballot candidate beat the write-in candidate in the primary. I just don’t know of any elections that were similar to this one, period.
I don’t see ANYONE as being ignored, but rather that the office of Register is little known, and less understood. Frankly, I think it should be an appointed office.
<
p>As to the “he still goes to mass” as far as I know the five [yes, as of today, FIVE] declared candidates ALL go to mass. I certainly haven’t heard that any of them don’t do so!
<
p>But, frankly, not being either Catholic or born in Massachusetts most of my choices as to who to support are intellectual in nature – that is, I evaluate the imperfect data set I do have, and decide.
<
p>So sometimes that works – and sometimes that bombs, as it bombed with John Edwards, and worked so well with Sean Garballey. I cannot expect to bat 100 – can you?
<
p>But it looks like until the end of the month no one will no for sure who is running, as I have heard, in addition to the five who say they are running, several more who have explored running with me, but not gone public.
<
p>Again, just why is this an elected office rather than an appointed office?
There are reasons why an office like this is important to progressives (like us).
<
p>The nation is filled with a bunch of folks who seek and obtain public office for the purpose of proving that government doesn’t work – part of a huge privatization effort. Of course, this provides fodder for commentators who condemn government in order to win more victories at the ballot box.
<
p>That’s why we can’t afford self-inflicted wounds. When even the most obscure government office is beset by antiquated and inefficient practice, it’s bad enough. When the elected Democrat who runs that office is also on the evening news, removing coins from the copiers, it is far worse.
<
p>Merely replacing John Buonomo with someone smart enough to eschew the keys to the copiers, that’s not good enough. A change-free candidate is simply not enough. We need real change without dipping into the small change.
<
p>2. A strong personality, able to lead a demoralized work force with entrenched factionalism.
<
p>3. Technological savvy capable of bringing the Register’s office up to 2008 from state of the art 1960 [there are IBM selectrics still in use there, as well a pneumatic tubes, and more]…the computerization project requires management and technical no how, not a law degree.
<
p>4. A commitment to service for all the public, not just those folk who can afford lawyers.
<
p>5. The ability to communicate and work with the legislature, the Secretary of State’s office, unions, attorneys, and programmers.
<
p>Just for a start.
AmberPaw, do you wear lipstick?
I saw Amber at the concert, and she’s too attractive a woman to seem a pitbull. The mental acuity of one, perhaps, but the visual simply doesn’t work.
<
p>PS: Don’t feel bad, Sean. Given my favorite candidates (Reilly, Richardson, Clinton, O’Reilly) I’m not BMG-worthy either.
But given that HE is not available, who has the stamina, the technical no how and the “brass balls” – the pay comes in at about $110k, so it isn’t princely but it is decent.
I had the impression that BMG made an endorsement in the primary, based on known candidates at the time. If a caucus were to happen, that would not preclude a different endorsement for the caucus.
http://www.bostonherald.com/pr…