And despite that endorsement, I’m STILL going to vote for her.
Wondering what the BMG loyalists think of this endorsement. I really thought if the Globe couldn’t endorse Bump, they’d endorse no one, so it was a real surprise for me this morning.
A pleasant surprise.
Please share widely!
Without detracting from or adding to Connaughton’s merits as a candidate, it’s obvious that she’s the Globe’s token Republican endorsement. Unlike the Herald, the Globe at least pretends to be nonpartisan. They’ll point to her when someone complains about their editorial slant.
I remember the occasional endorsement of Richard Tisei in the Globe, often presented as endorsing an island of sanity within the Republican caucus. Hey, speaking of which, I never hear about him anymore. What happened to him?
Sweetheart of a Republican in the Senate. We’ll miss him.
…but as a constituent in his Senate district, I won’t. The guy’s been in office forever, and I really can’t think of a single thing he has ever accomplished or initiated. We have an outstanding Democrat, Katherine Clark, running for his seat. I’m hoping she wins this one…she would be a huge improvement over him.
As to the Boston Globe’s endorsement, it shows that the Boston Globe is NOT the “organ” of either party which is not a bad thing, to be sure.
<
p>In fact, I would prefer the Office of the Secretary of State, the Treasurer, and the Auditor ALL to be non-partisan. Radical, huh?
<
p>In fact, those three statewide offices should function as over sight on behalf of taxpayers.
I think that they might be right that Mary “Z” is the better electable candidate to the office of Auditor. It will be refreshing to have anyone with new ideas in the the office.
<
p>Shoot me now but I have not been impressed with Ms. Bump’s campaign or her track record for this position and I don’t see her as the watchdog that is needed for the corruption swirling around Beacon Hill.
<
p>I am one of the folks on the outside that faults the Democrat establishment and the DINOs for the arrogant piss-poor public relations and performance of Democrat power brokers.
<
p>Too bad the green rainbow candidate for Auditor Nat Fortune didn’t get more traction. Both he and Jill Stein have the better platforms, which was confirmed when Margery Eagan described Dr. Stein as a Moonbat in the Herald.
What if those folks shot themselves and all the rest of us in our political feet, what if the reality is that “A vote for Bump in the Primary is a vote for Connaughton in the general election”? The political narrative for the Auditor’s election is as it is. Bump’s campaign has not exactly been on fire, sadly, in catching on with voters. The Globe’s endorsement of “Z” is but a symptom.
<
p>No one knows what might have been had Mike Lake been the candidate. I absolutely stand by my own endorsement of him, that Mike Lake was the best candidate running.
<
p>To his credit, there has been zero sulking by Mike Lake. To his credit, Mike has used every bit of his organization and political capital to fight for Deval Patrick’s re-election, so way to go Mike.
<
p>Note: because I do NOT buy into the idea that anyone “earns” a nomination by party work – the only way to “earn” a nomination should be by being the best candidate.
I met her twice as she was campaigning in Arlington. She came off as competent, articulate, thoughtful, and mainstream. She is in the running to be my second-favorite Republican, behind Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).
To his credit unlike, say, Tom Reilly he isn’t sulking, he is campaigning for Deval Patrick. I think he has a future as long as HE is still interested in governance.
Apparently the ed board doesn’t read their own newspaper. They had to make all kinds of excuses to endorse her. “Well, bump making a mistake on her taxes is totally bad, but connaughton letting underlings get special perks by laundering the promotional budget and then finally correcting the problem only when denucci questioned it is totally ok.” I encourage everyone to read the endorsement, actually. If you do, it becomes clear that this is payback against denucci for some sin or another. It really has nothing to do with the candidates running, except that one was endorsed by him. The globe really doesn’t like him. Perhaps because he one upped them on the lottery. They found a lot of mary z’s corruption in an investigative report that came out well before the audit, but the sweetest find was the donut fund, and they missed it. Ps I like how ms thorn in devals side says she opposed all the bad things going on under her watch and claims those decisions were at a higher level, but never spoke out publicly.
are, of course, non-partisan.
<
p>The Globe also has an endorsement of Republicans whom you should vote for because they don’t foam at the mouth, or as the Editor’s opine, they present “a significant opportunity on Tuesday to promote sound tax policy, increase accountability, and restore some needed balance in both branches of the Legislature.”
<
p>I get accountability, but sound tax policy? Tell me more, oh prophetic editors! And balance? Since when was that a value in and of itself? Tell us o serious ones!
for being a slave to fashion. And some kind of bipartisanship has been in fashion for a while now.
<
p>That it may be bad politics and bad policy doesn’t make it any less fashionable. Our newspaper of record wants to remain chic.
to go after all the health care programs for low and moderate income people,(did you read the Herald today?) the social service programs for the disabled, the environmental protection programs that threaten polluting industries, etc etc etc and find SOMETHING that looks terrible. Mary Z knows better than anyone how an audit can hurt good professional services in good programs.
<
p>I’m voting for Suzanne. She won’t pull any punches going after waste fraud and inefficiencies in any of the programs we have fought so hard to create and maintain. But she won’t be on any witch hunts either.
why two of three candidates have stated emphatically that they would audit any expanded gambling legislation and the third (Bump) took a pass?
audit state funded programs. Maybe two of the candidates said they would offer estimates of the cost of the legislation and advocate for certain changes?
As an observer, each candidate has talked about pro-active stances for the Auditor’s role in government.
<
p>Every candidate espouses a view that the new auditor can and should proactively assess, report, study and get involved pre-legislative enactment, surely we can assume whoever is elected will insist on conducting an independent study of the costs/benefits of any expanded gambling proposal?
<
p>Surely we should assume they will want to ensure that any legislation in this area ensures a comprehensive, robust audit and regulatory structure upfront and explicit remedial and clawback provisions?
<
p>Why would Bump not respond to the above question? This issue has been a high profile debate before the Commonwealth for some time with no “voice” from the Auditor’s office. Maybe you or others that visit BMG could ask her and report back? Maybe she will answer the question if posed from close supporters?
<
p>Ever heard of the separation of powers between the Legislature and the other branches of government? Totally up to the Legislature to pass laws.
<
p>Why answer a uninformed question pretending the auditor has some power over the legislative process?
<
p>
I am trying to figure out who is the best candidate for the job. It seems that all three candidates have been stating that they would take pro-active steps.
<
p>If not answering an uniformed question was the intention of Ms. Bump why has she suggested that the Auditor’s office can and should be doing more pro-active work? I know you are bright. I want to know if Bump has the ability as a true Democrat insider beholden to unions and the pro-casino position to be a watchdog.
<
p>Attorney’s General have historically been consulted and involved in pre-legislative discussion as have other Constitutional officers, non?
Their endorsement didn’t do anything for Charles Yancey in ’86.