As someone who cares deeply about improving the lives of Massachusetts working families, spending many years fighting on the front lines for social and economic justice for the working poor, I was inspired by Martha Coakley’s willingness to go before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce this morning to ask them to come to the table and help address the biggest challenge we face – the growing income inequality between the haves and the have not’s.
As Martha said to the chamber today:
“Inequality robs people of hope, for themselves and their children, and deprives too many of the opportunity to build a better life.
Continued inequality does not just hurt those at the bottom – it threatens the very fabric of who we are as a Commonwealth.
It hurts our economy as the middle class disappears before our eyes. It breaks up our communities as rents and home prices rise, forcing countless families to seek out more affordable housing – or worse – pushing them into homelessness. And it reminds us just how far off the American dream is, still, for far too many here in Massachusetts.
Addressing this issue, creating opportunity, and restoring the dream of a better tomorrow for everyone, including the middle class, are the reasons I decided to run for Governor.”
Talking about the need to expand economic opportunity for all by increasing the minimum wage, offering earned sick time to all workers, expanding early education to every child, and improving workforce development opportunities for middle class families takes leadership. Asking the business community to join in the fight to end income inequality takes courage.
I am proud to be a part of Martha’s campaign team to deliver this message to every corner of the Commonwealth and continue our work for social and economic justice for all. Because as Martha said today, “For too many families, they’re not focused on climbing the ladder, because they’re worried about falling through the floor.”
Tim Foley, Campaign Manager for Martha Coakley
Andrei Radulescu-Banu says
This is a link to the boston.com story on Martha’s speech to the Boston Chamber of Commerce this morning:
Full Disclosure: I am working on Coakley’s campaign for Governor
Here is the actual link to the story:
include the closed-door, reporter-free meetings Martha takes with the billionaires and millionaires who will fund most of her campaign?
Trickle up says
I am far from sharing the tank with Team Coakley, but these measures
are solid, meaningful steps we should all work together to achieve.
Not to be argumentative or even rhetorical but how can the next Governor of the Commonwealth lead us there? I have no reason to trust that the well polished words to the Chamber, as reported here by the highly paid consultants to the career politician, are anymore connected to reality than my becoming the next POTUS.
I truly appreciate your sentiment that “we should all work together to achieve (solid, meaningful steps).”
It is my current perspective that elected officials are not getting us to
effective, efficient and responsive governance. Rather than grouse we the people need to act.
We do get what we settle for…..I ain’t settling.
By performing a key part of the job description – filing and advocating for legislation that will accomplish those ends.
Trickle up says
what the next Governor’s position is on these issues.
And it matters what positions he or she campaigns for.
On what level?
Ideology? Implementation? Impact on average person (child, adolescent, adult, older adults of all backgrounds?)
Please shatter my cynicism and tell me what tangible difference her words will make if she is elected Governor?
I believe that Governor Patrick is significantly more skilled than the frontrunner announced candidates. And, none of his words, promises or positions have had a positive impact on me or my family members lives. In fact, we are not better off than we were seven years ago. It it not my intention to blame the Governor. My point is that the person, and position of Governor may be able to make some changes (like bringing the predatory gambling industry to Massachusetts) but the system is broken and has not been working for meaningful, effective and efficient governance that provides relief to struggling citizens.
“Together we can!” Did we?
…to make the Governor inherently stronger as an executive? I think the words themselves matter in this context because she was saying them to an audience that would not necessarily be receptive rather than just buttering them up.
Are offered by the other four who are also better on other issues and don’t come with her baggage. The safe frontrunner campaign worked so well for y’all last time Dougie!
Martha has a long track record of taking on these kinds of fights, whether it’s the buffer zone, foreclosures, or working to lower health care and energy costs. While I didn’t work for her in 2010, I am proud to be on her team for this campaign because the issues she is raising are important to us all.
All those things you mention are good things and I’m happy Ms. Coakley went after them. Sadly, even while they were happening, they were not (in my opinion) the most important things that needed to be done.
An important fight that Ms. Coakley could have taken on and chose to duck was the flagrant corruption and fraud of the Big Dig. Overruns of BILLIONS of dollars, dozens of government officials on the take, cash flowing EVERYWHERE — and Ms. Coakley managed to score a few million dollars from a minor player. She didn’t even take on the big guys. People died from the resulting substandard product. The taxpayers of Massachusetts (and the US) will be footing the bill for this fraud for the rest of the project’s life (the constant water intrusion, for example, will last for as long as the tunnel). As Attorney General, Martha Coakley should have been our last and final bastion against such egregious corruption and fraud. Instead, she was chasing who-knows-what — online pornography, if I recall.
Martha Coakley has been Attorney General during a time when the stench of the pervasive culture of political corruption on Beacon Hill and in City Hall has sickened all of us — and again, she has done virtually NOTHING (besides make sure that her chief competitor was conveniently pushed into retirement). Pension abuses, retirement scams, housing authority scams, wholesale destruction of public records, the list goes on and on and on and on — and through it all, the question has remained “Where’s Martha Coakley?”
Today, the ONLY important fight is the fight against WEALTH CONCENTRATION. “Income disparity” is a key aspect of that, and small increase in the minimum wage spread across years is, well, too little too late. Of course it should be done — but don’t try to persuade me that that will make ANY significant dent in the real problem.
Here is the ONLY issue that matters to me:
What new tax revenue will Martha Coakley strive to collect, from whom will she collect it, and what steps will she take to get those new tax measures approved by the House and Senate?
I agree the issues you highlight “are important to us all”. If you want my support, you need to address the issues that are most important to me — and you need to address the reality of Ms. Coakley’s pronounced lack of enthusiasm for tackling politically tough and risky issues during her lengthy career in public service.
You should be backing these statements up with verifying links. I just did a search and it looks like they recovered nearly a half a billion dollars on the Big Dig, not the few million that you claim. And with regard to the on-line pornography, it was child pornography, which is a very big deal and should not be minimized as less important.
Attorney General Martha Coakley has led the office as a strong advocate for consumer protection. I have contacted them a few times during her term and the office is very receptive and wants to know about experiences we are having in the REAL world. I am supporting her for that reason. AG Martha Coakley makes me feel like I matter in this crazy world. We do matter.
I encourage you to read the release cited in your first link more carefully — specifically, the last paragraph (emphasis mine):
In my view, this piece (found on AGs website) is spin that, in my view, overstates the role Ms. Coakley played in this matter. My recollection, consistent with this piece, is that Ms. Coakley (as in so many other similar matters) was more than happy to let federal agencies take the lead — I think the AG’s office did the minimal amount needed to preserve the appearance of interest. I note that Ms. Coakley “assumed responsibility for cost recovery efforts” more than a year before the fatal collapse. There was precious little energy directed at that cost recovery.
I think that the collapse finally passed the threshold where even Ms. Coakley felt compelled to act. Even then, I’m not sure the other participants enumerated in the final paragraph would agree that Ms. Coakley was the lead prosecutor or even a significant player.
I agree that I understated the amount of the final settlement, and I should have done more homework. I apologize for that. That settlement, about $500M, is a tiny fraction of the overruns. I think the question of how much of that settlement is the result of Ms. Coakley’s participation is very much open.
Regarding her “child pornography” campaign, we apparently have different viewpoints about its constitutionality, its effectiveness, and its importance. Child pornography has ALWAYS been illegal. While I’m sure I join most people in being appalled and disgusted by it, in my view her campaigns against it do not rise to the level of being a qualification for Governor — particularly given her rather dubious role in the very questionable Fells Acre
Given the energetic stance you’ve taken here in the past regarding the importance of doing something about the obscene wealth concentration in Massachusetts — and about the importance of finding a way to tax that obscene accumulation of wealth — I’m surprised that you don’t join me in holding all our candidates, including Ms. Coakley, to the standard being set by Pope Francis and the Obama administration.
Wealth concentration is the issue. Income inequality is a consequence of that. None of the items she or you cite will make ANY substantive dent in that problem.
But she is not running for re-election to the AGs office. She fundamentally misunderstood that in 2010, and didn’t campaign hard enough or for the right office. She though being a good AG and breaking the glass ceiling would suffice for that office. We have seen what Liz Warren has done with it. A banking law expert who has really gone to bat for the middle class by writing great legislation and forming the kinds of partnerships to pass it. Ditto Markey and climate change leadership. What kind of leadership does Martha have in advancing her set of priorities? Why her over other Democrats who have a similar set of issue priorities but either take bolder stances or have better credibility with the legislature? The next Senate President just put his trust in Grossman yesterday, Senator Sonia Chang Diaz put her trust in Dr. Berwick. Those candidates have plausible and powerful allies in the legislature and bolder legislative priorities. What does Martha bring to the table that they don’t? Besides being a good AG and breaking a class ceiling, since that’s all I’ve heard in this campaign and the failed one in 2010.
Why is it that women in politics always end up being called by their first name? The Speaker before Boehner was Nancy; the Secretary of State before Kerry was Hilary. It is with some relief that I find our Senior Senator has not also shed her last name.
Would it be possible for the Attorney General after Reilly not to be called Martha?
An interesting point, but a lot of people call the current governor Deval. Martha is not as uncommon a name as Deval, but in Mass. politics it is. It seems to me that the candidate’s people are choosing to call her just “Martha,” perhaps to make her seem more familiar to voters.
A similar thing happened with Hillary Clinton, who had campaign stickers and posters that said “Hillary.” Of course, that pattern was established 20 years ago to distinguish Hillary Clinton from Bill Clinton, who happened to be President of the United States. A similar thing happened with “Bobby” Kennedy.
I’m not sure Nancy Pelosi was called just “Nancy” all that often. Having lived in New York during the relevant time, I can say that Rudy Giuliani and Mario Cuomo were referred to on a first-name basis all the time. These things just seem to evolve sometimes when people have a first name that no other prominent politician shares.
Sorry, didn’t mean to down vote, missed on my iPhone.
I ignore published material whose headline is just a first name — the grocery-store check-out line is full of it, and I ignore it all.
I don’t know and don’t want to know anything at all about “Jennifer”, “Bobby”, “Bo”, or any of the gazillion other meaningless “celebrities”. I don’t know why any politician who wishes to be taken seriously would allow it.
I want to see this candidate referred to as “Martha Coakley” or “Ms. Coakley”. I apply the same standard to Mr. Obama, Mr. Patrick, Mr. DeLeo, and of course Ms. Warren.
I was just going to post something like this. Is there some sort of new received wisdom among the staffer class in the last couple of years to the effect that first names work better in focus groups, or something? I hate it.
…that says our elected officials are or should be just like us. They are our friends and neighbors, the type of people whom we generally would call and refer to by their first names.
Both of the people working on Ms Coakley’s campaign who commented here referred to her as “Martha” – in Mr. Foley’s case, in second and third reference.
It does seem to diminish the stature of the candidate.
I generally find that people within a campaign will tend to refer to the candidate by first name. (Sometimes as “The Candidate”, too.)
As a reminder, I was involved in a campaign where we ran “Tim for Treasurer”, so it’s been done with both male and female candidates.
…Tim Cahill ran the same year that another Cahill (Mike) also ran for Treasurer.
…but calling former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton, “Hillary” may have something to do with the millions of dollars in campaign ads her spent calling her “Hillary”.
Speaker Pelosi tended to be called Nancy more often by Republicans.
Mark L. Bail says
youth inaugural, and one of the kids who spoke to him kept calling him “Deval.” No disrespect was intended, but finally, an adult corrected him.
Hillary is “Hillary” because she’s embraced her first name as her moniker. I don’t know whether the Herald calls Coakley “Martha,” but I never hear anyone calling her that derogatorily.
When you work for a candidate, you don’t call them Mr. or Ms. You call them by their first name.