There are already 9 links “out there” that Lt. Gov. Murray will announce his resignation plans at 2:00 PM today. Here is one such link. I cannot speak for anyone else, but as for myself I understand that public life, its scrutiny, and the reality of lower pay then in the “royal tribe” of the CEO and private sector elite can be difficult with young children. For myself, when I support someone for public office, I do so trusting them to serve, to stay the course, and to put the public interest first during their full term. I can understand disagreeing as to what “the public interest” may be, and do not expect to dictate to those who are elected. I have, however, been gravely disappointed by the large number walking away from elected office.
I am interested in a pledge from any candidate, before I support them, that if elected, they will serve out their full term.
Photo taken by me when Marc and I marched with a Patrick/Murray contingent in 2010. As many know, Marc died in September of 2012. At least he did not have to see so many of those he supported walk away from elected office to have a greater income.
Does this mean Governor Patrick becomes Attorney General, and Galvin Governor.
Gov. Patrick will stay put right to the end of his term. He will not be going to clean up scandals festering in the Obama Administration. He will steer very clear of that gig as he harbors POTUS ambition of his own. In the meantime, he will ride out his own homegrown problems and simultaneously do some negotiating to get himself a solid post-Gov. lucrative private sector job.
If there were any chance that Deval would leave to help Obama, Murray would not be leaving early…that’s for damn sure. Murray has been the work horse of this Administration. Most of the achievements Deval ran for reelection on were the result of Murray’s vision and efforts especially in transportation and veterans services. The Mayors and Municipal leaders will miss him most because he listened to them and helped them solve problems. Murray would have made a great Governor and lucky Worcester Chamber for landing such a man to lead them.
but, at the same time, if he’s not interested in doing a good job as Lt. Gov now, I just assume he not serve as the Lt. Gov now.
There are perfectly good reasons to resign early. Scandal is one of them. Ailing family member is another. A government “promotion” is yet another [eg Kerry to Sec of State]. Jumping to a private sector job with a higher pay once it becomes clear that your political career is, at best, on hold? I’m not a fan of that move.
for a number of reasons. I have less of a problem with a Lt Governor resigning, since no one takes that job very seriously, but it’s certainly inappropriate for someone in public office to be negotiating about employment with the private sector.
This doesn’t apply to Murray, but I’m also tired of the taxpayers having to foot the bill for all these special elections. How about reclaiming the campaign funds remaining from anyone who leaves office without finishing their term? The money could be used to offset some of the expense of special elections?
In my view, Tim Murray is a good man who was relentlessly hounded from office by a cabal that included the Boston Globe. Mr. Murray could have been a worthy successor to Deval Patrick, and instead he resigns rather than face the continued innuendo and snark.
I noticed, for example, that a recent Globe article about Michael McGloughlin went out of its way to keep Mr. Murray’s name associated with the scandal (emphasis mine):
I am, frankly, far more interested in learning about who the other “Democratic politicians” were, rather than more unsupported innuendo about Mr. Murray. The only other reference to Mr. Murray was in this paragraph (emphasis mine):
The fact that Mr. McLaughlin organized fund-raisers for Tim Murray has been beaten to death for months. Is a $200 contribution from a childhood friend of Mr. McLaughlin (who happened to be a “HUD official) to Tim Murray really newsworthy? I think not.
Like the gross distortions and outright errors regarding Mr. Murray’s car crash, this kind of garbage reeks of another political “hit” executed by the Globe.
I’d like to know who the Globe is currying favor with. I’d like to know what other “Democratic politicians” Mr. McLaughlin was illegally fund-raising for. Are those two groups mutually exclusive? I suspect not.
I am sorry to see Mr. Murray go. I do not share your apparent objection to his retiring — instead, I am simply said that a good and effective public official has been driven from office.
More importantly, I would like to know far more about who ELSE helped Mr. McLaughlin enlarge his empire for so long. I have similar concerns about how Annie Dookhan was able to do so much harm for so long.
Both, in my view, reek of the same stench of public corruption. In both cases, I think it’s very likely that public officials knew of their actions, realized benefits from those actions, and concerned themselves primarily with ensuring that the respective principals took the fall on their own.
The Globe, in its handling of these, leaves me with the impression that it is little more than a tool of the still anonymous officials who it chooses to protect rather than reveal.
which is more than can be said for the media hounds, rumor mongers in BOTH political parties…there was so much fiction spewed around as fact during Murray’s tenure, it’s hard to understand why any decent person would want to run for office…if you win, you lose!
If I had a buck for every piece of misinformation, unattributed source falseholds, and outright libel printed about Tim Murray, I wouldn’t need to buy lottery tickets again. I’d be rich.
And if I had a buck for every time the press reported something good Tim Murray accomplished for the Administration and the Commonwealth, I’d be poverty stricken. Because rumors and fake scandals sell papers and tantalize viewers and a guy working hard to do a good job doesn’t attract interest anymore. Tim Murray told the truth, but it was too boring…so they hounded him off the stage.
The Globe reported that..I mean “an (unidentified) top Patrick Adm. official”…said that the Administration had been trying to help Murray find a private sector position after Murray announced he would not run for Governor himself…that so much nonsense!!!…Murray carried Deval’s water in Central Mass in 2 elections, hardly think he would need help in landing the Greater Worcester Chamber position. (There is no end to top Adm. official hubris)
I wish him great luck, and great fortune ahead…he has earned it.
The media sometimes publishes unflattering stories about politicians- I’m not getting the conspiracy angle here. The car crash was an unusual event, was it not? Is it good practice for the media to accept everything politicians tell them at face value?
It isn’t “unusual” or “mysterious” for a car to skid and crash on black ice. The “unusual” angle (like the currently in-vogue adjective “mysterious”) is overblown distortion. For weeks, the Globe printed references to speeds “in excess of 100MPH” — even after experts AND the official investigation showed that such behavior was impossible for the vehicle he was driving (in fact, the speedometer recorded the rotational speed of the wheels spinning on ice, just as he initially reported).
An occasional “unflattering” story is one thing. In the case of Mr. Murray, the Globe has been running hit and smear pieces for years. Sunday’s gratuitous mention of Mr. Murray in a long piece about Michael McLaughlin is an example of simple smear.
It would be far more informative for the Globe to detail ALL the “Democratic politicians” Mr. McLaughlin raised money for. I’d like to know much more about how deeply Michael McLaughlin insinuated himself into the Massachusetts Democratic Party circles and for how long. That’s no “conspiracy angle”, it’s a matter of public record that Globe surely has information about.
Similarly, questioning the Globe’s editorial policy regarding Mr. Murray is no “conspiracy angle”. It is, instead, a perfectly legitimate request that the apparent bias of a primary source of the “unflattering stories” be examined.
He should have served his full term. Whether the Globe or anyone else drove Murray from office is just speculation. The Globe reported that the admininstration helped Murray find this job. If that’s true it’s good to know that things are so much under control that an administration official has time to help somebody who can’t do his own resume.
I’d like to know the name of the official who has so much time on his hands. And I’d like to know everything that went on between between the administration and the chamber of commerce. It would make a good FOIA.
For your edification I will repeat: The Globe reported that..I mean “an (unidentified) top Patrick Adm. official”…said that the Administration had been trying to help Murray find a private sector position after Murray announced he would not run for Governor himself…that so much nonsense!!!…Murray carried Deval’s water in Central Mass in 2 elections, hardly think he would need help in landing the Greater Worcester Chamber position. (There is no end to “top Adm. official” hubris) Murray is responsible for and is credited with revitalizing that struggling city when he was Mayor… Murray needed no help to land that job, they came to him with the offer. (Because unlike the certain Globe reporters and Howie Carr, people in Worcester know and appreciate how valuable and talented Tim Murray is.) So Worcester is the big winner today.
and you know where the Caps-lock button is. My point is that someone elected to public office should finish their term, and that leaving a public position for the Chamber of Commerce and getting a big raise is unseemly. That should be particularly upsetting to the people who blog here–the agenda of the Chamber of Commerce tends not to be very progressive.
I have no way of knowing if the Globe is correct about Murray getting help from the Patrick administration. Let’s send in a FOIA and find out. Your use of multiple exclamation points isn’t a refutation.
The US Chamber is decidedly unprogressive, but local Chambers are generally just concerned with business, tourism, and culture in their areas. They are independent organization, not local chapters of the US Chamber. I don’t know what the state equivalent of FOIA is.
that I just copied off their website.
“Opposition to the expansion of the Bottle Bill. Opposition to mandates of sick time for employees. Opposed an amendment that would MANDATE coverage of hearing aids for children under 21.”
Christopher, I’m not comfortable that the Patrick administration is trading favors with this organization.Are you?
It just sounded like you were making assumptions. You also seem to be assuming that they are trading favors with the Patrick administration. Do you have evidence or are you really just as cynical as you sound?
You didn’t say local Chambers were progressive but you did say they tend to be apolitical (“generally just concerned with business, tourism, and culture in their areas”). Which, as Bob pointed out, is definitely not the case for the Worchester Chamber.
What I find particuarly unseemly is this from State House News:
Ha Ha. And F U too, Timmy.
Though I think there’s little evidence that the Administration is actually “trading favors” with the Chamber here, I do share Bob’s more general concern that it just doesn’t seem right for a leader in a progressive Administration to quit mid-term and go work for a decidely non-progressive business group.
there’s a favor in there somewhere. As to whether they are trading favors or just begging for favors I guess it could be either, now that you mention it. But I don’t think I would sound less cynical if I said the administration was begging for favors.
How about the WCC simply thought that Tim Murray was a good fit for the position and offered it to him? Do you have any evidence there is more to it than that?
They are business people. So for the WCC to look out, see a guy who’s already committed to public office until January 2015, who’s unlike anyone who’s held the post before, who holds public policy positions that are at odds with the WCC, and say “hey Tim’s a good fit” just seems a stretch.
But as I have already stated elsewhere on this thread, lots of Murray’s actions, even before you start speculating, raise eyebrows. This is no different.
What about Congressmen and State legislators who run in Special elections to move to another elected office? Isn’t that NOT serving out the term you were elected to serve? Doesn’t that cost the taxpayers a fortune in Special elections that domino one after another to fill the untimely vacancies? (At least Murray’s departure will save not cost public funds)
By the way, you are right about one thing, bob…I like Tim Murray a lot. I think he has done more than a great job for veterans, for STEM initiatives, for cities and towns (especially the Gateway programs and Seaport initiatives), and countless other ways having him as Lt. Gov. paid dividends for Mass. citizens. The campaign money he raised for Deval helped secure a victory that was not always assured when Deval’s favorability numbers hit the skids mid-term. Murray was Deval’s workhorse, he remained loyal, he got little credit. So I make no apologies for my defense of Murray. He is a good man and will do well wherever he applies his skills and talent.
wouldn’t it be better for him to keep doing the job he was elected to do? Instead of quitting?
Of course I would like to have Murray serving for another 18 months but I understand why he would take the offer presented to him now….an offer that will not wait 18 months for him. I understand why unending the character assassination he has endured would make him prefer this new assignment out of public office. I can’t fault him for for departing now, he has already paid to high a price to serve in office.
I’ve been in private industry for nearly forty years, much of that working with “C-level” executives.
There are frequently circumstances where a particular individual simply MUST go (for whatever reasons), and where an outright dismissal is (again for whatever reasons) not an option.
In those frequent circumstances, the very first step is for the CEO to privately contact one of several friendly executive recruiting firms (all good executives keep close ties with several) and encourage that recruiter to find a plum position for the individual in question. Good recruiters know not to ask too many questions.
That action takes about three minutes. Not taking it costs FAR MORE time than “helping” the individual.
You are merely adding to the unsubstantiated innuendo when you write “I’d like to know everything that went on between between the administration and the chamber of commerce.” Mr. Murray is a plum candidate for the position, and nothing needs to “go on” in order the chamber to jump at the opportunity to hire Mr. Murray.
The man’s political career is already ruined, to the apparent joy of people like you. Are there no bounds to your animosity towards Mr. Murray, the current administration, or both?
Here is statement Deval released:
Deval Patrick
“Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray has been an integral part of our team and an effective leader on a broad range of issues, from veterans’ services, where he has led us to number one in the nation, to STEM education and homelessness, domestic violence, restoring a positive working relationship with city and town leaders all across the Commonwealth, something we hear about and benefit from as citizens of this Commonwealth everywhere. He has shown significant leadership on the Seaport Advisory Council, the Interagency Council on Substance Abuse and Prevention, the Massachusetts Military Asset and Security Strategy Task Force, the Massachusetts Brownsfields Support Team, the Massachusetts Digital Games Institute and a host of key transportation projects. He’s also currently serving as the head of the National Lieutenant Governors Association. Tim Murray has been a trusted partner and just a great friend. He was here in every way, for the right reasons. So this is no small loss for our team or for me. And Tim, I just want to tell you, once a part of this family, always a part of this family. And as a grateful governor, a grateful citizen and a friend, I’m awful glad we passed this way together. Thank you so much.”
Quite a portfolio for an LG! Now you know why DP had time for book writing, he could count on Tim Murray to share the load…and he was not disappointed.
but also bounds to my credulity. You would have us believe in a giant cabal that wants Tim Murray out of the way. So name the people involved. Murray himself denies that he was driven out of office; why shouldn’t I believe him?
Let me repeat for your edification. I don’t like it when public officials get big raises to work for people with business before the state. I don’t like it when the administration takes credit for placing the public official in a cushy job. It’s to Murray’s credit that he took this matter to the State Ethics Commission. But it would have been better if he served out the term he was elected for.
I don’t care if in the private sector there is an old boy’s network. Public officials should not be trading favors with the Chamber of Commerce.
I remind you that it was Michael McLaughlin who was “trading favors” — apparently for years. We still don’t know (because the Globe is reluctant to publicize it) the extent of Mr. McLaughlin’s “old boy network”, and especially the overlap between that network and the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
I don’t know if “giant cabal” is an appropriate characterization. We do know, because it is a matter of public record, that Mr. McLaughlin was a major fund-raiser and a Massachusetts Democratic Party insider for a very long time. When people cite “personal reasons”, or “family responsibilities”, or similar rationale for resigning, surely you understand that most often those are to avoid or minimize further publicity about an already difficult situation.
I don’t ask that you like or admire Mr. Murray. I do ask that you focus a portion of your hostility on the admitted felon (Mr. McLaughlin) who is — together with HIS “old boy” network — the real story here.
if it makes you happy. I would be happy if the Globe names more associates of McLaughlin. But I don’t buy your contention that the Globe’s coverage of the McLaughlin scandal is actually a coverup for some bigger scandal. If you have a specific claim, the name of someone involved, or any facts at all, focus your mind on it and share it with us. But spare me all this crap about anyone who ever criticized anything Tim Murray ever did being part of a cabal. All I said is that he should finish out his term and not be in a position where it looks like the Patrick administration is trading favors with the Worcester Chamber of Commerce.
The word “coverup” is yours, as is the “bigger scandal” phrase.
If it is a “specific claim”, “the name of someone involved”, or “any facts at all” that you demand, I ask that you apply the same standard to your speculation about Mr. Murray’s appointment to his new position. You’ve insinuated, several times, that something improper took place between the the Patrick administration and the Worcester Chamber of Commerce (“trading favors”?). Please offer a specific claim, the name of someone involved, or any facts all to substantiate your accusation.
In the meantime, I remind you that the facts about Mr. Murray’s crash were widely available at the time and were discussed at length here — specifically, the utter impossibility of his acceleration from 85MPH to over 100MPH in the brief time period cited.
Mr. Murray’s vehicle was a rear-wheel drive Crown Victoria. The speedometer measured wheel revolutions. The spike shows the rear wheels spinning on ice precisely as Mr. Murray and the initial police report claimed. The “fact” is that the vehicle could not possibly have performed the maneuvers reported, wrongly, over and over again in the Globe (and subsequently all over the press). You don’t have to be a physicist or an accident reconstruction specialist to figure that out. Instead, you need a high-school level understanding of physics together with a desire to actually learn and then report the truth.
Tim Murray has been pilloried by the Globe in story after story. I didn’t make up the gratuitous connection included in this weekend’s piece about Mr. McLaughlin. That’s another fact.
You want a name? How about Joan Venucchi, who led yesterday’s column with:
Neither is true. Each is a distortion. The second is particularly gratuitous and egregious. If Mr. Murray is “embroiled” in the McLaughlin fund-raising scandal, than so is every other public figure Michael McLaughlin raised money for.
The silence about every name except Tim Murray is deafening — the Massachusetts Democratic Party has thrown him off the boat.
Government officials shouldn’t resign to take big raises from organizations with business before the state. It might not be illegal, and the state ethics board might have passed on it, but I think it is improper.
I have never commented on Tim Murray’s accident in his Crown Victoria. That’s because I don’t care. It’s baffling that you keep injecting it into the conversation in order to point out its irrelevance.
I, too, wish that Joan Vennochi would write a column about everyone that McLaughlin raised money for. There are also plenty of other fund raisers and big contributors she could write about, starting with my ex-landlord, Gerald Schuster, who leads a charmed life over at the Globe.
But so what? Neither your wishes nor mine make it okay for Tim Murray to leave the post he was elected to and to take a job with the Worcester Chamber of Commerce–a distinctly non-progressive organization which will now benefit from the clout Murray has accumulated from the votes of progressives over the years.
I’ve raised the accident because the Globe mentions it in virtually every story about Mr. Murray’s resignation. You asked me to support my assertion that the Globe is conducting an apparent vendetta against Mr. Murray — then you complain when I do so.
Meanwhile, I note that you have not yet offered any specific claims, nor identified any of the names involved, nor provided any facts at all to support your objections to Mr. Murray’s appointment.
On this thread, you’ve written:
Together and separately, those surely exemplify innuendo and insinuation. You come very close to an outright accusation that Patrick administration is “trading favors” with the Worcester Chamber of Commerce — that goes well beyond a simple complaint that Mr. Murray failed to serve out his term. Yet you offer not even a shred of support, beyond your own cynical speculation.
You could at least be honest with yourself and us while you cast about these insinuations, allegations, and accusations.
Here are just three of the things that the Worcester Chamber of Commerce opposes
1. the expansion of the Bottle Bill.
2. mandates of sick time for employees
3. mandated coverage of hearing aids for children under 21
As a progressive, I think that the Patrick administration should be fighting for all three things. In fact they should have been fighting for all three things before now. How confident are you that any of those three things will happen now that the Lieutenant Governor is working for the opposition?
What part of “appearance of impropriety” don’t you understand, Tom? How is it that you seem to have missed all the references over the years about the “revolving door” between government and special interests?
You accused Tim Murray and the Patrick administration of “trading favors”, multiple times.
When asked for specifics, you cite three issues where the Worcester Chamber of Commerce (under the outgoing leadership) opposes initiatives that you support. Sorry, Bob, but that hardly rises to a “cluck cluck” — it is utterly irrelevant to your baseless allegation.
In my view, the “revolving door” question involves situations such as an outgoing legislator joining a paid lobbying firm dedicated to pursuing the same issues the legislator was most recently associated with. That’s just not, at all, what’s happening here.
You would apparently have Mr. Murray serve out the rest of his term and then sit on his hands for however long you decide it takes for the “revolving door” to stop turning.
I think you’re just attacking Tim Murray, and doing so based on absolutely NOTHING but your own cynicism.
It is a waste of taxpayer money. Tip O’Neil Jr never spoke to Ed King, John Kerry quit after two years, Dukakis survived from 85-87 without one, and Evelyn Murphy was ignored by Dukakis as he ran for POTUS and drove us over a fiscal cliff in 89-90. When Weld quit, did Cellucci live without a Lt. Gov? How about Swift when Paul went to Canada, did she survive?
John Silber said in 1990 that we should eliminate the position of Lieutenant Governor, it’s long overdue we take his sage advise in 2013.
John Silber was a bitter old bastard that should rot in hell. Screw anything and everything he ever recommended.
“Screw anything and everything he ever recommended.”
So screw in desegregation of the Univ Of Texas back in the 50’s. Screw turning a commuter school into a world-class university. Screw opposing CLT Question 3 back in 1990. Screw opposing banning assault weapons, as Silber suggested, but Weld took the NRA position on guns. Screw trying to save the Chelsea public schools. Screw Silber’s proposal to provide pre-K education to kids of poor working moms. F the recipients of all B.U. education scholarships Silber provided to Boston children who excelled at studies, but parents lacked the financial means.
Stay on topic if you choose to reply to me, it’s about eliminating the Lt. Gov position. I cite Dr. Silber b/c it’s his brilliant idea, not mine.
Silber was such an extreme anti-gay bigot during the heights of the AIDS epidemic, that not only did we got saddled with years of pathetic Republican Governors, but he basically spit on the lives of what should have been his Democratic base. If he flushed his legacy on these other things that you list down the toilet when we spit in the face of the Democratic Party, that was his doing, not mine. Screw John Silber, I hope he is rotting in Hell. And screw any of the bigots that voted for this festering DB. And if that includes you, then so be it. Any hatred of Silber is the legacy the Silber created for himself.
Do not feel as though you need to rush to reply. I as out tomorrow having some heart arteries “cleaned” or “Roto-Rootered”, so I will not be back until Friday at the soonest.
We will pick it up when u r back
Very romantic.
My heart will go on an on. This proves that “I have a heart”. Got records to back up that claim, despite claims to the contrary.
Also, if there is ever an all drag version of this – I want the Kate Winslet part (dibs).
…but I’m open to that also…the pols would never change the constitution to eliminate offices they run for.
We should really put a stop to it, it should be part of an ethics package. Pols shouldn’t actively be searching for and acquiring jobs while still in office and should serve out their terms.
I backed Murray from the beginning, back when a lot of BMGers were for Silber. I backed Leone from the get go as well. Disappointed in them both.
Don’t recall Silber resurfacing. That guy’s getting more press on BMG the last two days than in the prior few years.
I assume that jconway is referring to Andrea Silbert, who was one of the candidates running for LT Gov in 2006. She may have been given the BMG Kiss of Death in that race, but I don’t remember if it was made official.
How quickly they forget.
I was working long hours in New York when the nominations were made, but worked on the Patrick campaign a bit in the fall. I recall being a little skeptical of all the social entrepreneurship stuff.
I am very unhappy when elected officials choose not to fill out their terms. Leaving for a more lucrative job is what bothers me the most.
If you run for office you are making a commitment to the people who voted for you. When you are sworn into office you take an oath that you will serve. No one is asking you to make a lifetime commitment. You get the option not to run for office again when your term is up.
Most terms are just 2 or 4 years. If you leave office in the first half of your term why did you try so hard to win your election? Why didn’t you let someone else run? If you leave office in the second half of your term why can’t you just wait it out? You are almost done. You need to make more money because you have kids? I know a lot of families with kids who would like to be earning the same salary as your elected office pays. The job offer came now and was too good too turn down? You are an elected official, you shouldn’t be job hunting and if you are you should tell them your available start date is in January when your term expires. If you are worth it, they will wait for you.
You broke your commitment to me as a voter. You broke your oath to the Commonwealth that you would serve. You broke your contract.
An elected official leaves and gets a higher salary. Yes, I feel disappointed whenever that happens no matter how “understandable” it may be, it feels dishonorable and disappointing and I like the thought of some accountability for it.
I appreciate the sentiment, but running elections are the job of the government, not the candidates. That needs to be a bright, unambiguous, never a camel’s nose line.
Relative to the cost of running a municipality or a state, a special election is small change. It’s not worth blurring the line for peanuts.
Today’s Globe reports that no special election will be held to replace Mr. Murray (emphasis mine):
I share your disappointment in Mr. Murray’s early exit. I do not, however, agree that being elected to public office sentences a person to being a punching-bag when significant parts of the party (and the newspaper that typically leans towards that party) choose to relegate the person to scapegoat status.
I am far more disappointed in Michael McLaughlin, and I’m far more disappointed in the Globe’s reluctance to publicize the extent of his connections to Massachusetts Democratic Party officials. If we knew as much about THAT network as we “know” about Mr. Murray’s car crash, I think we’d all be in a much better position to improve state government.
Why did he run in 2010? Why is he in politics? It’s one of the least family friendly occupations out there.
Why is he also current president of the Lt Governors Association? I could be involved in professional associations as well, but am wary of the time commitment. Why wasn’t he?
Why is everyone saying how involved he was with everything that has happened in the Patrick administration? Maybe he could have dialed it back a little and had some time with his family.
Why would an organization consider a job candidate who couldn’t start for two years? It’s not like politicians are prime candidates for these jobs- most of the CC leaders are regular guys.
Why does he say this in the Telegram? (my bold)
If I’m not mistaken McLaughlin plead already. To me that’s a resolution. Doesn’t this imply there is another shoe (Murray) left to drop?
The LG’s history recently has been one where the average person, just based on the admitted facts, scratches their head. He got up from bed and went driving in his pajamas. He had numerous calls to a government official that was convicted of fraud, as did his chief fundraiser. He all of a sudden has family concerns after 15 years in politics. A job just happens to pop up when he could use an exit. He keeps raising money despite not running for office. I don’t think it’s the Globe putting questions in people’s heads- it’s Murray himself.
Yes I appreciate and understand commitment, but life happens and things come up. Maybe there is a way to legislate against accepting a higher-paying private sector job during the term for which you are elected, but we shouldn’t treat elected officials like we own them.
Questionably a John Lennon quote.