The Boston Herald has endorsed Mike Lake and I agree with their assessment.
Like Mike, I have to wonder why it takes 42 supervisors to supervise 43 workers as the Auditor’s office is currently constituted.
Further, having met and spoken with Mike several times, as well as met the other two candidates for Auditor and spoken with them, as well –
On THIS race I agree with the Boston Herald. Mike Lake is far more attuned to both current technology and a fresh start in how the role of the State Auditor functions than are the other two candidates.
Please share widely!
Although an endorsement by the Herald may draw ridicule here, I do believe that of the three candidates, Mike Lake is the one that will handle the Auditors office in the most professional, knowledgeable, and cost-effective way.
You need a supervisor for each employee so the democratic hacks have a job. And you’re saying we can’t cut the state budget?
Aren’t they entitled to a job too? WHY DOES BILLXI HATE REPUBLICANS??
In their hearts they would like to see Mary Connaughton as Auditor.
<
p>Lake is a great candidate – but he can’t win. And if he did by some miracle win the Democratic primary, either he or Glodis is more beatable than Bump.
<
p>So endorse Lake, see if you can tip the race toward Glodis, and create a more winnable race for Connaughton.
<
p>Way to double down Herald – its all or nothing for you – Connaughton or Glodis!
Exactly my thinking. Or has the Boston Herald inexplicably morphed into a progressive newspaper? Not very likely.
And you know what? I have never seen snarky comments get votes for a candidate.
<
p>Think about it.
Interesting observation from Joe DeNucci in a Lowell Sun political column — DeNucci would like to Bump Glodis from auditor race — by Peter Lucas:
<
p>
He seems the antithesis of the Worcester Sheriff and as I recall even demurred when asked if he would endorse Glodis should the latter prevail next Tuesday.
Didn’t Glodis get some of his supporters to vote for Lake at the democratic convention?
<
p>Realpolitik at its best.
if you believe it. I’m not sure I do. I think that was just something Glodis let get out there to soften the blow of the fact that he didn’t take the endorsement of the party — never mind not get the plurality of the delegates.
<
p>That still doesn’t change the fact that, as you said, I’m sure Glodis is mighty pleased to have Lake in the race. It’s really Glodis’s only shot to get through the primary.
Again, back it up or be viewed as a Snarkmeister, at least by me.
<
p>Anyone can accuse a campaign of this kind of mud slinging – but an accusation doesn’t make such actions true.
I will acknowledge being a snarkmeister, but that comment about “political operatives” was written by Peter Lucas, a political columnist for the Lowell Sun. Not written by me, but by a well respected political journalist who, coincidentally, wrote for the Boston Herald years ago when, in my opinion, it was a far better newspaper than it is today. I have to think that a journalist like Peter Lucas wouldn’t just write something like that without verifying it — that Peter Lucas wrote it, doesn’t make it true, but it makes it quite believeable.
Not enough for me to say “Peter Lucas wrote it in the Lowell Sun” – if so, where is the link?
<
p>Oh, and thanks for accepting your Snarkmeister Hat.
The link is right in my original post — highlighted in blue on my screen. Here it is again – just click on DeNucci would like to Bump Glodis from auditor race. Is that enough?
And it is also pretty obvious by the way the comment was formatted that it was quoted.
However, I don’t buy that kind of anonymous allegation (some operative dropped a dime kind of a thing) – perhaps because I don’t “know” Peter Lucas at all AND don’t find the allegation sufficiently fleshed out to be more than unsupported hearsay – but my apology – you did provide a link even if I do not personally find that single line in a story that basically bashes Glodis convincing.
. . . Lucas referred to “operatives” and “tips”, both in the plural, which is different from some single “operative” dropping a single “dime”. You don’t have to find it convincing, but please try to get it right.
<
p>I also don’t know know what you mean by a “buried sentence.” I’ll get to that definition as soon as I find a definition for snarkmeister.
<
p>In any event, I didn’t find that part of Lucas’s piece to be all that significant. I am sure that Bump and Glodis also have political operatives calling reporters with tips, and I’m not begrudging Lake’s supporters for doing that. What interested me was the opinion of an old hand like Joe DeNucci that every vote for Lake takes away a vote for Bump and helps Glodis. Now one can quibble with that, but it’s something that many of us Bump supporters have been saying, and I thought that DeNucci’s statement made it more legit. So that’s why I posted it – not because of anything that Lake’s operatives are doing, but because of the effect of what they and their candidate are doing, which I think, in the end, only helps Glodis, whom, as everyone knows, I think is odious.
….that every vote for Bump takes away a vote for Lake? Just sayin…
In the real-world… Bump is the favorite in this race, albiet by a small margin. She can only lose it if Lake wins enough votes from her natural base, progressive democrats. Should that happen, and we get Glodis to represent us all in the November election, that will seem like a really, really hollow moral victory for Lake. “Just sayin…”
It was a Lowell Sun column he linked to….
<
p>I think you should direct your questions and/or ire at the source.
<
p>BTW: I totally think you’re being very touchy about this election, or is it just what I’m reading into your writing? Take a deep breath. There’s no reason whatsoever to viciously lash out at others who are quoting columns in the paper, or suggesting a vote for Lake is a vote for Glodis. It is very, very unlike you — and I think you’re better than this.
I have never been shy about calling Snarkiness, Snarkiness, for example. And suggesting that someone not vote for their preferred candidate for the reasons you were stated really DOES leave a bad taste in my mind. Frankly, Ryan, I thought you were better than that – using a voting for Lake is like voting for Nadar fear campaign. I really do believe that. I am not as “touchy” about this election as I was over the primary in the 23rd Middlesex back in the day…and I am NOT embarassed about being passionate and partisan at times, either. But then, I never claimed to be ladylike, you know?
<
p>The first time I was told “young ladies don’t behave like that” another first grader had mimicked the way I walked with my club feet (angular fixed feet) and I kicked him into a mud puddle at the age of six. THAT was my first suspension, back in my first elementary school in Detroit. I have mellowed a bit – but I won’t be muzzled or cowed into voting for a candidate who took the revolving door path into lobbying which is something I personally abhor.
No one is trying to snuff out your freedom of speech. No one is trying to “bully” you. Your gender, your city of origin and your angular fixed feet are completely irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion is whether or not Mike Lake is qualified to be State Auditor, and whether or not he’d be a better State Auditor than his opponents. The clear answer to both of those questions is no.
<
p>Suzanne Bump is the only candidate in this race with the experience, temperament, integrity and understanding of the office. She’s the only one who knows what to do with it, to make it work for the people of this state in ways that are efficient… and actually have to do with the office. Mike Lake is wholly unprepared for this office and it showed in his YDM debate, from what I hear. The fact that she’s the clear choice for this seat is why so many people and organizations, from all over the state, are now supporting her in this race.
I linked to the front-page of Marry in Massachusetts, not the story. That’s probably fine for the next few days… but here’s the link to permanently find it.
I disagree. I said why. I am done with this discussion and totally unconvinced by your comments and arguments, as well as less than pleased by your tone and some of what you have said, and what I view as a hijacked thread. But the internet and bloggind are not for the “faint of heart”.
<
p>I just want to make clear to anyone who might still be reading what has become a repititive and pretty boring thread that you have not convinced me at all, and I remain annoyed with several of your statements, as is my right.
And Ryepower, I don’t see it shown clearly anywhere that Mike Lake is not qualified to be Auditor. I think what is clear is that he is the best choice for State Auditor. He will approach it as if it’s a real job that comes with real responsibilities.
They also endorsed Reich in the 2002 gubernatorial primary.
Do you think that, back in 2002, the Herald editors ever really wanted someone as progressive as Robert Reich to be Governor? Back then, my conclusion was that the Herald wanted a weaker candidate than Shannon O’Brien in the final election, which would make it easier for Romney to win, and Reich was perceived to be the weaker candidate. I just don’t trust the Herald’s editors, who, in every final election in recent memory I can remember have always endorsed the Republican — e.g., Scott Brown, John McCain, Kerry Healey, Mitt Romney.
<
p>I know you support Lake, and I don’t want to tell you or anyone not to, but I do think those who like Lake should take a long, hard look at what a Glodis-Connaughton general election would look like, and how many papers the Herald would sell if it got it. There’d be a headline about how the “Democrat” Guy Glodis was the perfect example of why all Democrats are corrupt and can’t be trusted at least once a week. Glodis undermines all that democratic party activists stand for every day… and a vote for Lake gets us closer to that kind of a General election. So, vote for him if you will, but if we get Democratic Nominee Guy Glodis, and Mike Lake’s vote count was the difference, it will be a very, very sad day for our party.
Again, I find Mike Lake energetic and impressive, I don’t find Glodis either impressive or appealing, and for my own reasons, I find I cannot vote for Bump.
<
p>I prefer to support a candidate, rather than besmirch a candidate.
<
p>Your thoughts are indeed “yours and yours alone” and in this case, extraordinarily distasteful to me.
but not okay for me to give mine?
<
p>That’s what I’m feeling, here. And it’s very hypocritical.
<
p>What I say may not be very comfortable, but it is the truth, as far as I can see it. An important part of building a movement — and I do think progressives form a budding ‘movement’ that needs to grow and prosper if we’re to save this country — is being smart enough to realize we have to win.
<
p>People like Glodis and Connaughton are very dangerous in government, we need someone who’s both strong and has the right kind of ideas to take them on. With all due respect to Mike Lake, he’s not that person at all. He lacks any kind of legitimate experience for the position and is certainly not well positioned to take on a CPA with plenty of funding running from the Republican ticket. If it’s no longer socially acceptable to be “reality-based” on BMG, we need a new tag name for our community.
I still feel that way. By all means, tell me why you like Bump, if you do.
<
p>But don’t try to scare me out of voting for the candidate I do prefer.
<
p>I understand you don’t have any respect for Mike Lake (when ever someone says ‘with all due respect’ the message I receive is that in fact that person has NO respect). You don’t think he is strong, or has the right kind of ideas.
<
p>I find his personal narrative to demonstrate strenth, fortitude, self-discipline, compassion, and a commitment to the social compact I do not see in Guy Glodis OR Suzanne Bump. The way he stepped up and cared for his birth family after his father’s death while working his way through school demonstrates strength of character, fortitude rather than self pity, self discipline, and strong executive function. Lake has also demonstrated the ability to put “first things first” and master new environments without having the clubhouse on his side.
<
p>Bump will be supported by Beacon Hill’s insiders because that environment is incredibly clubby, and legislators support one of their own 99% of the time. So when legislators or former legislators endorse one another it carries ZERO weight with me.
<
p>My biggest problem with Bump is her use of the revolving door to become a lobbyist for the industries she once regulated and would police as auditor. For me, this is a fundamental barrier to my supporting her, not a strength. Walking away from the post at the head of Workforce Development during a depression rather than finishing what she had started also bothered me – a lot. I have met and spoken with her, but could not find the person in the set piece answers, all of which came out like rote memorized bits being replayed.
<
p>My perception is that Mike Lake has a passion for governance, and will continue to seek a role in healing the social compact through a role in governance, whether or not he wins this one I believe him to be worth watching, worth supporting, and the best candidate for the job.
<
p>Some of you asked me why I don’t support Ms. Bump – that is the only reason I posted about this aspect of my decision making.
<
p>I work in the trenches, I have spent hundreds of hours on Beacon Hill and in the very guts of where the social compact is frayed, and Suzanne Bump doesn’t get it, or seemed not to, when I spoke with her – Lake did.
That’s really, really, really over the top.
<
p>Instead of taking a cheap shot, maybe you should have proceeded immediately to why you’re not supporting Bump. At least I find that statement honest, even if I completely agree with it. The only time I’ve personally met Bump, I found her refreshing, open and willing to talk. Contrast that with Lake, who I find very opportunistic in his trashing of the current State Auditor employees — and their very meager raise after many years of getting no raises — as well as his gross exaggeration of his resume (buying office chairs =! “running the White House”)… and there is absolutely no question of who has the integrity to get down to the bottom of where and how our money is being spent, and how to make sure it’s spent most efficiently.
in reference to your fear mongering comment.
…can you elaborate on why you won’t vote for Bump? I certainly hope you at least will if she wins the primary, which to my mind is starting to look more likely. Also, it doesn’t make sense to cite Ryan’s comment as a reason to vote for Bump, then acknowledge his claim that the comment is “his and his alone”.
I don’t know how others feel, but I really don’t like being told that I shouldn’t vote for A because it will cost B the election.
Hey, there are many things that Gore did wrong in the election, which by the way I believe he won, but no one can deny that Nader was a factor. I think that all as progressive voters, not just Al Gore, need to be held accountable for our actions — the insensitive comments we might make here in BMG, me included, for example — which includes making a statement with your vote when there is much on the line. I believe that Guy Glodis represents everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party, and I would hate to see him get into a position that would be a stepping stone for higher office. It’s not just my belief that a vote for Lake will cost Bump the election (who would make a terrific auditor in my opinion) — it’s that a vote for Lake will help Odious Glodis. I’m not telling you who you should or shouldn’t vote for — I am telling you that your vote, whoever it is for, can make a real difference in this and future elections.
Mike Lake has all the momentum, I’m riding the wave to victory!
I don’t think this comment in any way deserves a zero rating.
If you want to say something about how much you like Mike, great, but to suggest he has “all the momentum,” is a little silly — and, quite frankly, divorced from reality. The only ways I can think of to measure this race (endorsements, ads, positive press, etc.) see it swinging far toward the direction of Bump.
Far more Democrats failed to vote at all in that election than pulled the trigger for Nader. Why don’t we blame lazy voters instead of those who made a principled (if misguided) choice for Nader?
<
p>In a race like this, getting your supporters to the polls is a lot more important than trying to convice the small number of Lake supporters to switch sides. I hate to see Lake and Bump supporters wasting huge amounts of energy in this stupid argument instead of teaming up to take down Glodis.
I very specifically said I didn’t want to tell someone to change their vote if they love Lake. You like the guy, you vote for him. I get that. However, everything has consequences: if he loses, and takes Bump with him, and we get Glodis to represent our party in November (and the disasters that will come with it), please accept your small share in the responsibility for that.
I very specifically said I didn’t want to tell someone to change their vote if they love Bump. You like the gal, you vote for her. I get that. However, everything has consequences: if she loses, and takes Lake with her, and we get Glodis to represent our party in November (and the disasters that will come with it), please accept your small share in the responsibility for that.
(I suppose I need a disclaimer: these are not necessarily the opinions of the poster)
outside of a vacuum. Bump has a much better shot than Lake at defeating Glodis. That’s not just my opinion, as the front-pager suggested.
<
p>If Mike Lake wins a third of the undecideds from that poll, he finishes the race with less 30% of the vote — and I think I’m being really, really generous in that hypothetical. Bump, right now, has to be considered the favorite in this race — slightly — the only way she’s going to lose, IMO, is if the progressive vote gets split by too high a margin.
<
p>Again, I’m not telling you to not vote your conscience, only to consider this fact before you make your vote. It may change your mind, it may not. You are your own voter. I just want Lake voters, or at least the ones who are marginally Lake, to consider it.
in a bottom of the ballot race like Auditor?
I don’t doubt the cynicism of the Herald Editors, but a race like Auditor is just not predictable–especially this year. Even the predictable races aren’t predicatable; ask Senator Coakley.
If Lake wins the primary, I guess I’ll owe BMG the metaphorical mulligan, but I think his chances this Tuesday range from 0 to 1… in a million. That’s based on the fact that he has no name recognition, a limited base of support, and almost no relevant experience, which will matter to any voters paying attention (which will be a fair amount of people who actually bother to check off a name for that office).
<
p>Bump has a decent base of support and a lot of party backing, Glodis has the hack club all lined up behind him and some $$ to boot. You don’t need to pay PPP $5-10k (or however much it costs) to poll this race to know this information. It is what it is.
<
p>(BTW: A lot of people predicted the Coakley race — including a whoooole lot of people who supported Capuano.)
I hadn’t heard of any of these candidates prior to this election cycle and I am sure that I am not alone, so I don’t find that line of argument especially convincing in this case.
Whether that’s positive or negative could be up for debate.
Like Mike, I have to wonder why it takes 42 supervisors to supervise 43 workers as the Auditor’s office is currently constituted.
<
p>That’s because it doesn’t. Mike managed to leave out a whole layer of senior field auditors and support staff that the supervisors manage.
<
p>Now did he do this because due to ignorance about how the Auditor’s Office is actually structured, or was it because it sounds better to people, like yourself, who won’t know the difference? That I cannot answer.