This was reported by me over at KnowThyNeighbor and that Mary Z. Connaughton’s Press Secretary, Mike Flynn, does not want any topic outside of “what an auditor does” to be discussed. As a matter of fact, he told me that this is coming directly from the campaign itself. So, my 7 calls for a statement were not and probably will not be answered regarding Mary Z. Connaughton, her signature on an anti-gay petition or her stance on Equality for All Citizens.
Do we find this a surprise? I don’t. I have stood in the middle and reached to both sides of the aisle for so long, I understand exactly what is at play here. Republicans are being told from the top down NOT to discuss “social issues.” It worked for Scott Brown who avoided questioning on LGBT issues during his campaign. It will be Mitt Romney’s MO for future tries. And we are seeing it with Connaughton others.
Martha Coakley didn’t run to make a distinction between herself and Scott Brown of LGBT issues in a public way during her failed campaign. Will Suzanne Bump choose to take the lead from the Republicans and think her campaign can win against Mary Connaughton solely on “job description” without pointing out or drawing out potential anti-gay stances by Connaughton?
The conservatives within the GOP have recently demanded that their candidates discuss social issues. One might think that avoidance of LGBT issues must therefore signify the rise of the Republican Moderate…I would not be so sure.
This race for State Auditor leaves us with alot of unanswered questions. But the one thing I know for sure is that IF that nasty, anti-gay petition had made it to the voters and was successful (which I believe it would have been), same gender couples would have been left unprotected in this state. Our children would have suffered, our partners would have suffered and we ourselves would have no rights. AND Mary Z. Connaughton signed THAT petition.
The auditor cannot legislate, and makes no public policy decisions.
<
p>What should matter for auditor is which of candidate ( admittedly both extremely professional and competent women ) – would be the best watchdog for the people.
<
p>Auditor is not a springboard for higher office – not if you do your job. Joe DiNucci certainly wasn’t going anywhere.
<
p>The auditors office is supposed to sniff out corruption – and there is plenty of it in Massachusetts. Any auditor doing her job is not going to make a lot of friends among the political classes.
<
p>So it really shouldn’t matter where these candidates are on “social issues” but which is more competent and which is more incorruptible.
<
p>Democrats really dodged a bullet in the primary. They almost fielded a really inappropriate candidate for Auditor – Glodis. We now have a race between two good candidates.
<
p>Democrats really need to be concerned about electing someone for auditor who really does not have her sights set on higher office – or the Auditor will be very ineffective.
<
p>Look at our ineffective Attorney General – Martha Coakley. This is the state’s other major watchdog constitutional office. She hasn’t addressed corruption like the probation scandal because she has been trying to use the AG’s office as a springboard for higher office.
<
p>Allowing either of these offices to be held by ineffective Democrats has a negative effect on the Democratic party long term because corruption goes unaddressed and grows.
<
p>That is how we got to a position where we have three Speakers in a row indicted.
Bump 50% vs Glodis 31%. That’s not even close to “almost.” No “bullet-dodging” necessary.
It’s great that voters saved the Democratic party an embarrassment by rejecting Glodis by a 20 point spread. All hope is not lost.
<
p>But Glodis has strong support from the “hack wing” of the Democratic party. he had a lot of endorsements, and contributions. Bump’s victory was not at all assured going into the vote. And his support at the convention was very strong.
<
p>Voters did well by their party for sure. The party itself – not so much.
This wasn’t a two-way race. Lake voters rejected Glodis, too. Add Bump’s 50% to Lake’s 19%, and you have 69%. That’s rejecting Glodis by a 38% spread, not 19% (or 20% if you’re rounding, in which case it makes sens e to also round the spread to 40%).
<
p>The pre-election idea that there was a tight race between Bump and Glodis is completely disproven by the actual numbers. To insist we “dodged a bullet for sure” is to completely ignore the hard numbers. Such an argument might have made sense on September 13, when this race was still difficult to predict, but the election returns show an overwhelming rejection of Guy Glodis by Massachusetts Democrats.
<
p>
And they weren’t even close.
Maybe she was – like almost every other AG before her. But given her humiliating defeat for U.S. Senate, I can’t imagine how she could consider another run for higher office. She clearly knows that all she can do now is be the most effective AG possible, (including fighting DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).
<
p>I’ve never been a fan of Coakley. Obviously, like any thinking person, I voted for her against Scott Brown. But elements of her record (Louise Woodward prosecutor) and many of her positions (such as opposing legalization of Marijuana) turn me off.
<
p>Just because DeNucci never wanted higher office doesn’t mean that Auditor couldn’t be a springboard. It’s a statewide office, which means statewide fundraising and a statewide platform to get your name in the papers pretty much whenever you want to. DeNucci didn’t do that very much, but then, he wasn’t the world’s most effective Auditor either. Going from Auditor to, say, Lt. Governor makes all kinds of sense to me.
<
p>
<
p>Actually, I think that is wrong in an important way. The Auditor is not a law enforcement officer in the way that the Attorney General is. The Auditor’s ability to investigate actual wrongdoing is extremely limited, if it exists at all. Does the Auditor even have subpoena power? (I don’t think so, but I’m not sure.) CPAs aren’t crime-fighters.
<
p>
<
p>As Born Again Dem has already noted, the primary wasn’t even close. There was nothing “almost” about that result.
<
p>
<
p>Why is that point specific to Democrats? By your reasoning, it should apply to both parties. Do you have any information that Bump is considering higher office? More to the point, does Mary Connaughton see higher office in her future? It seems quite likely to me that, if Connaughton wins, she will be one of the MA GOP’s stars and will be on the short list when opportunities to run for (at least) Lt. Gov. and Member of Congress arise. So that question should be asked of all the candidates.
David,
<
p>I agree that the Auditor is not the same as the AG when it comes to law enforcement. However, the Auditor can and should have a vital role in identifying, detecting and helping to root out fraud. In fact, DeNucci’s has an entire Division dedicated to detecting fraud in government assistance programs. Here is the role of the Bureau of Special Investigations from their website http://www.mass.gov/sao/bsi.htm
<
p>
<
p>There is no reason that the identification of fraud via audits cannot be expanded to more areas of government and more government programs. The Auditor would then need to partner with the AG to assist in prosecution. In doing so, you would bring the power of what should be the two most professional positions in state government together in a way that would be very productive for the Commonwealth and its residents.
that the auditor does have sunpoena power. I can’t vouch for it, but someone I trust mentioned that we need to be very careful to elect an appropriate person, if for no other reason than the office has subpoena power.
Auditors office is not a springboard for higher office. For that matter neither is AG in Massachusetts. Every AG that has tried in recent memory has failed. MA was well served by an auditor DeNucci, who focused on the job and currying political favor. That is what we need this time too.
<
p>Auditors office is indeed a watchdog agency. To say otherwise is just silly. The IRS has auditors. They look for tax fraud. Not every problem needs to be solved be referring it to a law enforcement agency. The AG’s office is not set up to audit state agencies books. When things are working correctly those two offices should work in concert – the auditor finds the problem. If the intention was criminal then they refer it to the AG’s office. If not they work with the agency to correct the problem.
<
p>There is a danger if an auditor is not impartial when auditing agencies. It is possible that an auditor could use the office like some kind of inquisition to harass agencies they don’t like. I think both of these candidates are extremely professional. I really don’t think we have a danger of that with either Bump of Connaughton. Voters should really be looking at which of them would be better at understanding state finances and reporting. Both of them are strong here – voters in this case are lucky to be choosing between two good candidates.
<
p>You’re right that having a candidate use the Auditors office as a springboard should concern voters of either party. But I call out Democrats for two reasons. First this is BlueMassGroup. Presumably the discussion here is about things that should concern Democratic voters. Secondly the danger of “springboarding” is greater for Democrats because this is and is certain to remain next term a State dominated by Democrats. There are many more “springboarding” opportunities for Democrats here than Republicans.
How will they choose to staff the office?
<
p>How will they choose to look at state spending by agencies across the state?
<
p>Etc.
<
p>Their positions on equality matter a great deal, in fact.
<
p>
<
p>That is an extraordinary limited view of the office. Please try again.
<
p>
<
p>Almost? Glodis got trounced, nearly 2-1. Please try again.
<
p>
<
p>Martha Coakley has, in fact, been a very effective state Attorney General. Please don’t confuse the fact that she was a lousy candidate for US Senate as being a lousy AG. Her office has earned this state twice as much as the state’s paid out to it. She’s won a huge, national battle on civil rights (but then again, you don’t seem to think that matters). Really… it’s clear to me you want to find any excuse to bash the Democratic Party — please at least be honest and upfront about it…. and please try again.
<
p>
<
p>Whaaaa???
<
p>Okay, so Democratic candidates wanting to use seats as “springboards” to higher office is why we had three speakers in a row — politicians who never, ever, in a million years wanted to seek higher office — get indicted? There are no words to describe how silly I think your arguments and failed logic are… please try again.
Mary Z shouldn’t be denied the job of State Auditor because she disagrees with the top of the Republican ticket (and most people in the Commonwealth) on abortion and gay rights…
<
p>She shouldn’t be Auditor because she sees the Auditor as a partisan playground for frustrated right wing ideologues…
<
p>Don’t listen to the pap she spouts today about keeping the office non-partisan…
<
p>Less than 3 months ago she delivered the most red meat speech at the Republican convention, talking about using the office to remain ‘the thornist thorn in the side of Deval Patrick and the Democrats’…
<
p>This is a women who ran as one of the ‘mini-Mitts’, clones of the former Governor who LOST massively across the State when they pledged not to follow their own judgements, or even do what was right, but rather to submit completely to the partisan right wing whims of Romney…
<
p>On the Mass Turnpike board, the worst kept secret was that she leaked to the press like the Louisiana oil well on every issue discussed behind closed doors…
<
p>That’s the LAST kind of person who ought to be Auditor!
<
p>Mary Z has a lot of ‘splaining’ to do betwen now and Nov. 4, and my bet is she implodes when the extent of her partisan past becomes more and more apparent to voters…
It isn’t that Connaughton is lacking in the qualifications and experience to do the job of Auditor, but that she has the wrong temperament and political point of view. With her in the office, the seat would be used as a political bludgeon, in an effort to do administratively what Republicans couldn’t do electorally, which is to defeat Democratic policy making in the Commonwealth. It would be her choice as to who and what would get audited.
I’d think it was good that she revealed what the Turnpike Authority was saying behind closed doors. This was a public body, and I suspect that it was usually violating the Open Meeting Laws when it discussed issues behind closed doors. We probably would have saved a lot of money if we had known what the MTA was up to all along.
I don’t know the law, but if a body meets in executive session members are obligated not to leak contents of the meeting without leave of the body.
… true transparency than ‘spin by leak’. If leaks produce stories and they come from ideologues, I can’t be genuinely thankful that information is ‘getting out there’ because now I don’t know if I can trust it. Worse though, is that since the leaks are anonymous as far as the public knows – they don’t know not to trust the stories.
Isnt the GOP Lt Governor candidate gay? I believe he was uncontested for the nomination. I don’t see how a “homophobic” state party would let that happen. Seems to me that you can’t paint the whole party with one brush. If Baker/Tisei does win this November what does it say the the first gay statewide officeholder in Massachusetts will be a Republican?
We’ve already had at least one, a Democrat. This person isn’t “out of the closet” but I know for a fact that this person is gay.
<
p>M’kay?
If you feel you can’t name the person due to not being out of the closet then you can’t expect “thoughtful” to know the history. If the person is not openly gay then it’s a moot point in terms of judging tolerance anyway.
<
p>The fact is, if Tisei is elected, he won’t be the first. Period. Will he be the first “out” elected? Maybe. I honestly have no idea… we’ve had hundreds of constitutional office holders.
<
p>What I know with 100% certainty is that he won’t be the first gay statewide officeholder — thoughtful’s comments are just plain wrong. I also know that I’m hardly the statewide political insider and that plenty of folks know this to be an “open secret”.
that they follow their marching orders. Charley Baker picked ’em, they went with him. A lot of them begrudgingly, I’m sure.
follow marching orders? :):)
There’s a very large divorce between many members of the establishment and the party activist base. Many of these people were so dissatisfied they were hitting snooze for about 26 years until Governor Patrick ran for office.
Though, 26 could certainly apply if we looked at things from a more national perspective…
sides of the political spectrum are truer to their
ideals (whether or not one may agree with those ideals.)
but historically, the Republican Party famously falls in line. Every time. The reason why people are continuing to pay attention to the Tea Party is that they are the first major group of ‘base activists’ to go against the mainstream from time to time.
<
p>That said, the Tea Party’s reach into Massachusetts is about as tenacious as the Green-Rainbows (and maybe less). This state’s GOP still falls in line, or at least what’s left of it. Just ask Christy Mihos, who polled nearly as well as Baker at most points in the spring, but was trounced at the convention so badly he couldn’t even get on the ballot. That never would have happened at the Democratic State Convention with a candidate of Mihos’s stature… just ask Chris Gabrieli, who wasn’t even in the 06 race during the convention delegates caucuses.
Couldn’t get his speech fed into the teleprompter. No water for him at the podium either.
<
p>The claim was that Christy missed a deadline and so it was his campaign’s fault. I’m not so sure…
Who switched parties because he was afraid he couldn’t get enough votes out of the convention to make it on the primary ballot? Now this may be a smokescreen to cover his party switch, but I do seem to think that it has been said enough to have some merit. Tim certainly is as strong, if not stronger, a candidate than either Christy or Chris.
<
p>As for Christy at the convention this spring, I ask you, how welcoming would the Democratic Convention and John Walsh be if Tim Cahill were to announce his return to the Democratic Party after his independent run for governor?
<
p>Although I do agree with the basis for your comment that both parties tend to stay in line with few notable examples of people examples of crossing party lines to vote on an issue (doesn’t the phrase “crossing party lines” say it all by the way?) and when they do they are usually “punished” by the party establishment. Scott Brown has been admonished for his vote on Financial Reform and was roundly criticized in some circles for it while being acknowledged for his bipartisanship in others. On the other side you have Steve Lynch who crossed lines on HCR and was criticized and primaried for his efforts while being applauded by conservatives for his vote. So you can “cross lines” but do so at your peril depending on the make-up of your district (Scott Brown has to “cross lines” to have a chance at re-election while Steve Lynch is potentially in a different position).
1) Cahill’s done a lot to be despised by the democratic base, even before he switched parties. If he chose to run under the Democratic banner and failed to make the ballot, it would have been of his own doing.
<
p>2) His switch was much more likely because he thought he had no chance in the primary. Ironically, it would have been his best shot, but that’s only in hindsight.
<
p>3) I still think he would have easily made the 15%, even knowing most of the party wasn’t a huge fan of his even before his independent bid. For starters, there’s usually a decent chunk of people at the convention who just don’t want to see people denied ballot access — I even think Grace Ross would have had a shot had she made it because of these people. Beyond that, there’s enough of an anti-Deval vote out there that even at the state convention, it could have been 15%.
<
p>
<
p>How is that even relevant? For what it’s worth, John Walsh is a “more and better” kind of guy, but with the emphasis on the more. If you’re a Democrat, you’re going to get your due from the Chairman. He’s a respectable guy. As for “the Democratic Convention,” which I take it you mean as a body of people… that’s up to “the people” to decide, isn’t it? I for one don’t think people will care too much, especially given the fact that Cahill has almost universally been seen as a boon for Patrick in this campaign… sucking up dissatisfied voters who otherwise probably would have gone Baker.
<
p>
<
p>Your characterization of it being ‘both’ parties, as if both parties were equally guilty for partisan gridlock, is certainly not what I was aiming for at all… far from it. The Democrats are notoriously bad at herding their sheep. Guys like Senator Nelson and Lieberman not only aren’t punished for what they do… they’re rewarded for it. Lieberman ditches the Democratic Party one year, speaks at the Republican National Convention and endorses the GOP candidate two years later… and he’s still got the gavel for his committee! Nelson starts to undermine health care reform, betraying our party on our signature issue and at our biggest time of need… and not only does Harry Reid fail to hold him in line, but doesn’t lift a finger to stop the DSCC when it gave Nelson more than $500,000 in ads in Nelson’s home state, years before his next election, just because his obstructionism was hurting him back home. Mind you, this all happened before the vote took place, while he was holding everything up and forcing the Senate to continually water it down. (Ben Nelson’s actions should be seen as one of the major reasons why the Democrats are going to be creamed in November.)
<
p>I’m sorry, but there is no moral equivalence here….
Let me tell you this. I have been upfront with my support of Baker and committed my time to educate him and others on transgender needs and acceptance. So where I find Baker’s shortcomings on our total community’s equality, I am stepping up to the plate here.
<
p>I was indeed impressed with Baker’s choice of Tisei. He could have chosen others if he felt the gay thing was a liability, but he chose Richard for his experience and integrity. That being said, from day one the forces at NOM and their anti-gay arm in DC were flooding emails , mailing brochures and doing robo-calls against Tisei. I am surprised this was not reported in the press. I spoke with many a GOP activist and delegate who still to this day receive “Dump Tisei” propaganda. Tisei and Baker have the same stances on Choice and Marriage Equality…these negative attacks are on the Trans Rights Bill only. Before the convention the attacks were direct and prolific.
<
p>The party is not entirely homophobic but their anti-gay activists are loud and resilient. There is no one from LGBT Leadership lining themselves up when Baker/Tisei are elected. No trans activists, no LGBT youth activists, not MEQ, no one. So all the Republican elect will hear from are the anti-gays, once again.
<
p>
… even reasonable GOPers because there penchant for lock-step policy votes means that a vote for an ‘independent’ GOPer is really still a vote to enable the national GOP. The main exception here is hyper-local races where actual implementation of bad GOP policies tend to be avoided because the harm they can bring tends to be immediate and retribution tends to be swift.
is a very strong and unequivocal supporter of GLBT rights, which is just one of many, many reasons to support her over Connaughton.
Nowhere does the Auditors office have the power to revoke marriage equality, to discriminate against gays, or to at all affect GLBT rights. This is just another social litmus test issue and an erroneous culture war issues used to distract the electorate and line up the base, albeit on the right side (aka the left side) of that debate. As long as she agrees marriage equality in MA is settled law I do not see any danger she poses. Frankly if that is her position, and last time I checked it was, it is far more progressive than those of our senior senator, President, Vice President, and Secretary of State who all oppose or continue to oppose marriage equality and who are dragging their feet on a number of important issues at the federal level. Her opinions on DADT and DOMA are also irrelevant since as a state official she can’t change federal law one way or the other.
<
p>That said I do agree that Suzanne Bump is the better candidate because she has promised to maintain the friendliness to organized labor and working people her predecessor had while also cleaning up the office and making it more transparent than her predecessor and truly usher it into the 21st century with innovative technological solutions that will allow for better government service. She has the experience and the ideas to succeed. Her opponent very well could use this as a springboard, and that by itself makes her less qualified since she is less serious about the office than Bump who genuinely seems in it for the long haul.
<
p>As an aside why is it called a Comptroller in some states and an Auditor in other states?
It’s absolutely applicable in who they choose to hire and fire. Workplace discrimination is notoriously hard to prove. Furthermore, to this day, it’s still completely legal to fire someone for being transgender. Meanwhile, Suzannne Bump has been hugely supportive of not only rights for gays and lesbians, but also people who are transgender.
<
p>Furthermore, there’s nothing stopping an auditor to pick and choose what they audit and how stringently they audit it due to partisan issues. I would be very, very uncomfortable allowing Connaughton to hold sway over money attached to programs that help people who are glbt. Bump can be trusted not to turn this office into a partisan witch hunt to be used as a GOP launching board, Connaughton can’t.
<
p>
<
p>This is why anyone everyone should vote for Suzanne Bump. Of course, her experience, ideas and intentions are why people should vote for her. Her recognition of the importance of civil rights is just another one. It can be easy to say that where people stand on equal rights shouldn’t matter, but why on earth should we trust anyone with great power if they don’t or can’t recognize that basic value? When you put people who don’t view others as equal human beings in places of power, discrimination happens. Period.
that some people go to bat for or downplay a person’s involvement in something that if it had been successful would have taken away rights, hurt people, families and children.
<
p>I was reminded this morning by the woman who contacted me about Connaughton having signed this petition. She is married to her spouse and the two women are raising a daughter here in the Commonwealth. The daughter was old enough to understand what was happening back in 2005 when her mothers took her to grocery stores and saw the petition gatherers there, lying to potential signers and in best case (which was no best case for LGBT, listening to signers tell the truth about what this petition would do to families and same-sex couples. This mother had to explain to her daughter why this was happening and why these people felt there was something wrong with them.
<
p>Do not tell us why WE should vote or not vote for a candidate if you are going to tell US that we should think about all other things except what Mary Connaughton would have had done to us because of how we were born. “Agreeing that marriage is settled law” may work for you but it doesn’t work for me. And far be it for you to tell these mothers and their daughter that it must work for them.
<
p>How dare you.
The two mothers of the young daughter above which that I cited are NOT married. They are raising there child together and have been with each other for 25 years. They chose not to take advantage of legal marriage in MA, but are no such less a family than those who do choose to get married officially.
<
p>Of course I am making this correction because it was brought to my attention by one of the mothers who read my comment and wanted you all to know this.
<
p>I find it even more so rewarding as an activist myself to have the chance to understand the drive behind this woman who is fighting for LGBT, her daughter, her partner and herself NOT just for an “institution” called marriage but the equality we all have as a birthright, but so many of us are denied.
<
p>