I felt a lot of pressure, being from Worcester, to vote for Guy Glodis for fear of making enemies among the Worcester powerbrokers. More than one person advised me to abstain from the vote when I made it clear I could not vote for someone so clearly opposed to my values. I even considered it, thinking that maybe the Auditor’s race was not worth cutting into my effectiveness as an organizer and advocate in my community. But one person changed my mind, and convinced me to vote my conscience: Mike Lake, when he asked me personally for the third or fourth time to take a chance on supporting him. Not only did he convince me that he has the RELEVANT experience necessary, but he convinced me that he has the drive, commitment and work ethic to WIN.
Glodis is not My Guy
I won’t go into too much detail about the oft detailed regressive politics of Guy Glodis, but there’s one “but” I always get when I tell people I can’t and won’t support him: he’s Labor’s guy. There are a couple of glaring holes in this argument. The first is detailed in David Bernstein’s eloquent tear down a few weeks ago. He details Glodis’ work on a racist referendum to eliminate bilingual education, which even allows for suing teachers caught teaching en espanol. The Teacher’s Unions were obviously opposed, but according to Bernstein:
Glodis, perhaps the most visible elected official supporting the proposal, was openly critical of the teachers’ unions on the other side of the issue.
The second, I witnessed personally as Local 550 of the New England Police Benevolent Association walked out on Glodis at the Labor Day breakfast this past fall. 550’s website details their beef with the Sheriff and deeply insinuates that they were only able to resolve the dispute when Glodis wanted to avoid a protest at his Auditor announcement:
Now December 2009, shortly before an important event was to be held for the Sheriff at Union Station. Suddenly, an olive branch is extended and the Sheriff asks us to sit back down at the table. Then Superintendent Turco would assure us that he was under orders by the Sheriff to “get a contract done.” So what changed from his last, best offer to so much more?
But what about Bump?
A lot of folks see Mike Lake and Suzanne Bump splitting the “progressive” vote, but after getting a good look at her record, I have to wonder why. I know that there are some women who will support Bump because they want to support a woman. While I don’t agree, I respected that decision. However, the more I’ve learned about her past as a Representative and a lobbyist, the more I think it’s clear she and Glodis both belong on the other side of the ballot.
In 1994, Suzanne Bump was fined $600 for accepting dinner and entertainment valued at nearly $200 from an insurance lobbyist while chairing the state’s Labor and Commerce Committee. Of course, she herself is a career lobbyist, going on then to be a lobbyist and lawyer for the American Insurance Association and later for Citigroup. How can we expect an independent Auditor from someone with deep ties to insurance and big banks? Not to mention her time in former Bush Aide Andy Card’s office. If there’s anything people are more frustrated by right now than Bush, Banks, and Insurance companies, it might be oil companies. Which is why it’s so unfortunate that Bump’s OCPF report for the first half of April includes $3,000 in contributions from employees or relatives from a major Massachusetts oil supplier, Global Partners.
We can and should do better
Many in the national political discourse have tried to urge Democrats to the center, citing the fear mongering of the emboldened right. But if we’ve learned anything from the polls coming out of the healthcare debate and the special election in January, it’s that you can’t beat them by joining them. Compromising on values isn’t going to inspire a 9th inning rally among the frustrated democratic masses, it will only alienate us more. The only way the Democrats can win in November is by stepping up to the plate, and fighting for Democratic values of inclusion, fairness, and the idea that when Government is held accountable, it can be a great equalizer. I choose to reject the divisive debate of conservatives and Believe Again that with good progressive democrats in control, government can be a force for good.
Lets not forget that Citigroup was fined for its predatory loans on communities of color while Bump was general council there.
Are you implying (as you seem to be) that Suzanne somehow set policy for Citigroup to target minority communities? How absurd!
<
p>And, don’t forget, Deval Patrick had ties to another such company, and used his influence there to bring them to the table for a settlement and to reform their ways.
<
p>We can’t expect bad actors to suddenly see the light if we just ignore them. Someone has to interact with them. I have seen Suzanne Bump stand up to some pretty formidable opponents over the years, and succeed in bringing her progressive values to bear on the situation.
<
p>She gave one good example in her campaign speech, and you can learn more about her values and accomplishments by visiting her campaign website.
<
p>As many of the comments below suggest, let’s stop tearing down fellow Democrats and start building a strong ticket that can will ALL the offices in November!
<
p>I crushed that expectation years ago as the chair of the large town to the northwest. My town committee is as lefty liberal as it gets, something that is completely in contrast to the town’s “personality,” which is affluent Republican. We’re accepted now as an anomaly, and the Worcester powerbrokers ignore us. Tim Murray has always been good to us and has stopped by during our town committee meetings when he was in town getting a coffee and comes to our annual dinner each year. Deval Patrick knows he has an activist group here and comes to town, quietly, as well. Joe O’Brien obviously has connections here that you will understand but I needn’t elaborate on. Harlee has strong support here, as well, and we do what we can for her. Jim McGovern is close to many on our town committee and is a frequent visitor. IOW, the progressive liberal office holders know we’re here and we’re validated. We work hard for them. We don’t need the Worcester city machinery very much.
<
p>At any rate, someday if I have the opportunity, I will fill you in on the long and tawdry tail that is entitled, “Why Glodis Is Poison in This Town.”
<
p>You may wish to substitute something stronger for the coffee, though. I know I will.
If McGovern-Murray-O’Brien-Chandler are the Worcester powerbrokers then Worcester is a very progressive and liberal place to live. No surprise that they would not pressure you to vote against your values. Every city in Massachusetts has its ideological camps and counterbalances…and powerbrokers of many varieties.
The powerbrokers I’m thinking of are not commonly known household names. I’m not denying the power and influence of those you list by any means, but that’s not the “machinery” I’m talking about.
I’d like to see that diary elaborating on what you’re talking about:)
…there are people, known to political types, who exhibit power out of proportion to their official titles – indeed out of proportion to their perceived status.
<
p>Collectively, these folks constitute the nuts and bolts of any political operation, including the policy side, usually wielding more influence than their nominal bosses.
<
p>…and often they don’t work in government.
A sock puppet for the Lake campaign shows up the day after the convention to trash Bump? Or has Glodis gotten smarter about his sock puppetry?
<
p>And let’s be clear: that’s what you’re about. Glodis has already been trashed thoroughly on BMG, so this is effectively just an attack on the Bump campaign, from whatever quarter its coming from. Mr. Powers, please tell us whose payroll you’re on.
<
p>And “interned for a Republican State Rep who represented her home district and later demonstrated her progressive values in the Legislature and the Patrick Administration” just doesn’t stack up against “Bush White House appointee arguing his experience under President Bush as his main qualification for office and never did anything to prove his progressive bona fides.” So sorry, you lose.
and harsh, imho. I read the post as mostly about Glodis from a Worcester delegate. Sock puppet for Glodis? Are you for real?
Methinks you better step away from the keyboard and/or have someone you love give you a tone check. You seem a bit over the top.
It’s already been made clear that Glodis is not a progressive. There’s not a lot left to say on that subject. This is another attempt to use guilt by association against Suzanne Bump. Ms. Berg (saw her full name in anotherb post; I stand corrected) has never bothered posting on BMG before today, and has never said anything about any race other than Auditor. Same pattern as previous Glodis trolls. But could be an honest Lake troll too.
<
p>Only thing is: Guy Glodis is guilty on his own, no association needed, and Bush appointee Lake’s got the worse associates out of the other two.
I read the post, in the context of her other comments, as more about her experience in Worcester politics and the extraordinary pressure on activists in Worcester during this cycle to support Glodis. Perhaps you don’t have a full appreciation of what that is?
<
p>I don’t know this person at all, but as a person closer to her experience than you, I’m still going to suggest that I think your hostility is misguided and unnecessary. Unless, of course, you’re goal is to fend off any suggestion that Bump has problems?
<
p>I’m fine with Bump, but I prefer Lake for lots of reasons. So did 8 of the 11 delegates in my delegation. Are we also suspected Glodis sock puppets who are out to diss Bump tangentially?
<
p> Even if this person is an operative of some sort, it’ll all come out in the wash. Suspicion of every person who posts here is becoming an epidemic problem. Good grief. It’s a political blog. Political people will gravitate towards it. This isn’t a club or a clique–or is it?
don’t tell me you’ve never seen a hit-job done on BMG, went to look at the history, found it to only ever be about that one race and often (very) negative on other candidates, and not suspected sock-puppetry or trollish intentions?
<
p>Neither Lake nor Bump are perfect, but if you want to look at the imperfections of both, I’d take a seasoned veteran with a lot of good ideas who’s had some past with lobbyist dollars (like 99% of politicians out there) over a fresh-faced candidate who’s only relevant work experience involves the Bush White House (and even there, it wasn’t a lot of relevant experience IMO). If Bump were that deep with the lobbyist factions, she’d be the one with the $800,000 and not Glodis. The diarist’s diary is inane, so of course people should be skeptical.
<
p>I look at the two candidates and can’t fathom, for the life of me, how a progressive or liberal could choose Lake over Bump, at least if they care at all about making sure we have someone competent in office. We know Bump will be at least that and almost certainly a whole lot more. We don’t know if Lake could manage his way out of a paper bag. But he’s young and good looking and cute! Awwww… whee let’s all vote for him! /sarcasm off
Given my naivete and ignorance about these things, being new to both the site and to politics and all, I appreciate your tutorial, Ryan. I guess I’ll have to revisit my progressive credentials in light of your disapproval and the fact that my support of Lake indicates I and others like me don’t “care at all about making sure we have someone competent in the office.” And anyone who knows me will entirely vouch for you that I become totally incoherent and dazed when in the presence of a someone “young,” “good looking,” and “cute.” I can hardly get through a day of work without getting the vapors.
<
p>I’m all set now. Good stuff, this.
I’m hopeful that Lake could, indeed, manage his way out of a paper bag. We just don’t know that, because he’s never been in a real leadership kind of position, running a staff of hundreds of people and having a job where he owes a great deal of effort and good will to literally millions of people who he would serve. That is very, very different from what he did at the White House (and I think it’s ridiculous for him to claim he ‘ran’ the White House — that sounds like a overstatement of Kirk-ian proportions), and it’s very, very different from what he does at United Way.
<
p>My biggest fear with Lake, beyond the fact that I don’t think he’s proven himself, is the fact that I’m worried he couldn’t beat the Republican. He needs more experience and seasoning, IMO, and it’s just too easy right now for the Republican opposition to paint him as not ready for the job, as pushing for things the job isn’t even supposed to do. While I’d disagree with the latter, I wouldn’t disagree with the fact that it could become a sharp tool to use against him in a general election (I seriously doubt he’s ever polled his “energy audits” despite the fact that it is his #1 issue).
<
p>He could very quickly be labeled as the guy who’s ‘not ready,’ and that’s all people would have to know about him. I hope, after he runs a nice campaign and still ultimately loses (which will happen), he sticks around the party and stays active, and considers some other positions in the future. I just don’t want him for auditor and don’t think he could win even if I wanted him to begin with.
I put up my first post in the wake of a state convention just about four years ago. Don’t believe anything I say.
I said it should bring a healthy dose of skepticism. If the person sticks around and comments on other issues and shows that they’re not trolling or essentially carpetbagging for a particular candidate, then obviously the skepticism goes away.
But such a quickly verbalized attack? I mean, in my first day most of what I wrote was in support of Tom Reilly, and I suppose that someone could easily have claimed I was a Reilly sock-puppet (a term you’re using incorrectly here). But lo and behold, by the end of the week I had branched out. As this poster is doing.
<
p>Perhaps waiting more than 24 hours before judging a poster isn’t a bad idea.
just a progressive activist who takes ideology, progressive bona fides, and track records very seriously. Whatever you think about the strategy in this election, you don’t need to shoot a sincere messenger. Which she is.
I’m defending her. Did you read all of the comments both here and on other threads?
I am by no means a Lake sock puppet. In fact, I wasn’t even sure if I was going to vote for him until I made up my mind Friday evening. Yes, I only recently set up my account on here, and I haven’t commented about any other race YET. How crazy to think that someone could get more engaged in democratic discourse around the democratic convention. I wouldn’t have commented on Glodis at all if I wasn’t from Worcester and didn’t know that it will come up, especially around his labor affiliations. However, it wasn’t to associate him with Suzanne Bump. I seriously considered her as a candidate before getting some tips to look into her past from some older delegates who were more politically conscious during her elected tenure (I was 10 when her term ended). Her internship with Andy Card is the least of my allegations, and I provided links to her OCPF records and Ethics violation, both things that I think are legitimate concerns that she should address. Mainly, I find it questionable that a long-time lobbyist is touted at progressive.
<
p>Also, for the record it’s Mrs. Berg Powers, not Ms. Berg. And I’m sorry my signature didn’t show up on this post, but I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m hiding my identity. I’m not a ghost poster, I’m an active member of the Young Democrats of Massachusetts and an elected officer of the Worcester County Young Democrats, and have no issue signing off on my comments.
Anyone who knows Cara and her work for many progressive causes knows that she is not a sock puppet for any candidate!
<
p>I like and respect Mike Lake but I support Suzanne Bump and was proud to vote for her yesterday because of her progressive record and qualifications to run the Auditor’s office. She has spent much of her career working, as both a state representative and an official in the Patrick Administration, to create jobs and make government work better and more efficiently, both progressive priorities. As a state representative in the early 1990s, she was a strong supporter of LGBT rights at a time when that was much more politically risky than it is today for a representative. I know that may not fit the definition of an “auditor” issue, but I use it as an example of her willingness to stand up for progressive values. In addition, she worked more than full time in the 2006 Democratic primary and general election to elect Deval Patrick, the most progressive candidate in the race. FWIW, I also know her personally and see her as a strong progressive, though I know that those claims are inherently subjective, so I’m trying to focus more on her record.
<
p>I’m not disputing the facts that Cara brought up, but in 2006, many BMGers supported Deval Patrick despite not being thrilled with every piece of his past employment because they saw him overall (correctly, in my view) as a strong progressive candidate for Governor. I looked at Bump’s OCPF reports as well, and while I saw the donations Cara referred to, I also saw donations from people in industries ranging from bike shop owners to lawyers to non-profit workers to union laborers, etc. Bump, like many candidates, has received donations from many people and I don’t think three donations should disqualify her from anyone’s consideration. Overall, I see Bump as a strong progressive candidate and the best fit for the auditor’s role of overseeing and monitoring state government. I know not all BMGers may agree but I hope everyone will take the time to look at Suzanne and her whole record of service.
<
p>
A lot of that sounded like the stuff Glodis sock puppets have been saying, but if people are willing to vouch for you I retract that accusation.
I know you. I know Cara. I personally vouch for her. And I appreciate that you blog under your real names.
If she said nice things about Than Shwe, I’d reconsider.
I’m really not looking forward to three months of playing who’s-the-real-progressive on this forum, especially with regards to the Auditor of all offices! I’m not convinced that ideology is really the key factor for this office; it’s much more about competence. I’m supporting Bump because her experience with state government gives her the perspective of knowing what to expect. Can we PLEASE talk about why we support our candidates rather than attack our fellow Democrats?
I would like to vote “D” on election day, but if you Lake and Glodis supporters keep bashing Bump and her supporters without articulating why your candidate is better in positive terms I might move over to the other side for a change on that race. I cannot vote for Glodis, I am more than happy to vote for Lake, but will only do so if his supporters stop acting like jerks towards Bump. We are all on the same side people!
We Lake supporters are bringing up legitimate concerns we have. Many Bump supporters have done the same. There’s too much aggression on both sides, but it doesn’t put Lake or Bump anywhere near being like Glodis
And that is why I think both sides should run an issues oriented positive campaign, all the more reason to demonstrate that we are not like Glodis and all the more reason to show why we are progressive and are campaigning differently and better than Glodis and his divisive rhetoric and views. Let this be a contest that restores some civility to politics. And let the opponents treat each other civilly, is that so much to ask in this day and age?
Very much in line with one of my comments earlier, so I’m sorta agreeing with myself.
<
p>Therefore, let me take this opportunity to make a grammar suggestion: “differently from and better than” …
is anything, but someone’s puppet. She’s a very thoughtful person and someone who thinks very much for herself. I’ll leave it at that.
<
p>Please think before you go calling someone names.
<
p>I know it’s just the comment section and I’ve always found it best to stay out of reading or posting comments, but it’s tough to resist when it is someone you know. I can’t say that I know Cara well, but we’ve interacted on a number of occasions. I’m happy to voucher for her any day.
<
p>Cheers,
John H Kleschinsky
We’re trying to elect an auditor, not canonize a saint. This doesn’t mean that all mistakes and examples of bad judgment are the same, but guys…
<
p>
<
p>worked in an administrative capacity for the White House when a Republican got elected?
<
p>worked for a financial institution or two over the span of a number of years in private industry? A small fine 16 years ago?
<
p>
<
p>This is silly. Quit falling into the trap. Just speak well of your Bump or your Lake.
That is all I have been saying. The only bad things I have said about Lake is that I do not like his supporters attacking Bump. I think he is just as qualified as she is to run this kind of office, I think his experience is relevant, I think guilt by association attacks are low and dirty regardless of who is running them. To say that Bump is a tycoon who likes banks more than people is about as smart as saying Obama is pallin around with terrorists because he served on an education committee with Bill Ayers. Similarly, Lake did what many of us policy wonks have done, worked for people he disagreed with to get valuable experience. I worked for the State Department under Bush and Condi so I could gain valuable experience about world affairs, it had nothing to do with my endorsement of their views. To attack Lake for that is unfair as well. So lets stop the attacks and focus on the issues.
And I am willing to believe this. Still I am struck by the take down of Suzanne Bump which strikes me, an avid Bump supporter, as a recitation of some talking point smears.
<
p>Andy Card’s office? You mean when he was a moderate republican state rep back during the Carter administration? This is not a connection to the Bush administration by any wild stretch of the imagination. This complaint is a total reach and manifestly unfair.
<
p>Career lobbyist? What about her several years as a legislative aide? What about her several years as a State Rep? What about her several years working for a Democratic governor as a Cabinet Secretary? What about the years spent as a volunteer/moderately paid campaign organizer for democratic candidates for governor of Mass? Years she could have spent making real money. “Career lobbyist” is a distortion at best.
<
p>AIA represents property casualty insurers, perhaps the most benign type of insurer. You know, the people who will rebuild your house if it burns down? The people who pay you if you are hurt at work? No one bemoaning Suzanne’s work for AIA has ever pointed to anything sinister about her time there. It was just a job that paid well, the kind long-time public servants sometimes like to take, the kind that pays decent and requires a knowledge of government, which long time workers in state government are likely to have.
<
p>Someday Mike Lake may want to settle down and buy a house or raise a family. Maybe he will want to make some money to finance that kind of lifestyle. If he stays in government service type jobs until then he might find that the only good paying positions out there for him are doing lobbying or other work for a private company with government concerns, since government concerns will be the ones that Mike Lake will understand best after his public service. I hope he will not be resented by his current kool aid drinkers if he reasonably chooses such work to support his future family.
<
p>Maybe the only reason Mike Lake doesn’t have such entries on his resume is because he hasn’t gotten there yet. He is a very young man after all. Just something to think about. After all, Deval Patrick has some sketchy capitalist entries on his resume which were much better paid than any work Suzanne has ever done. My understanding is that he is still regarded as an acceptable progressive.
<
p>By my reading this post recites some glaringly unfair characterizations of Suzanne Bump. Even if this is the post of a sincere progressive, that is really unfortunate.
Your posts are great, Neil. It’s good to read the inside information on Suzanne’s past contrasted against the information being posted by supporters of the other candidates.
<
p>I just have one suggestion – disclose your relationship with the campaign in your signature. I know you disclosed it in another post today, but people have short memories and a taste for outrage. Just my suggestion.
but I would hate for my poor stepmother to be guilted by association when I post more generally on my radical, dangerous, and thoroughly outlandish views. But I will consider adding something to my signature.