In 2010, Mike Lake exhorted as to “believe again” and support his campaign for auditor. He didn’t get the job. Four years earlier, the Herald had told us Democrats that Deb Goldberg was the best choice for lieutenant governor. She didn’t get that job.
Well, they’re back. And you’d think they’d be interested in those same positions — especially as the lieutenant governancy is still open. Once a great potential auditor, still a great one, right? An evergreen possibility for a quality LG? Nope. Apparently Lake and Goldberg are so talented, it doesn’t really matter what job they are in, we should be happy to elect them to something. If Mike Lake isn’t auditor, why not make him LG? And since Goldberg couldn’t be elected over Tim Murray, why not put her in charge of the state’s money as treasurer? Was their some upswelling I’m not aware of demanding we find something to do with these Massachusetts treasures, somehow? Let’s just put Rondo as the Celtics’ center and put Krecji in net while we’re at it.
In the past I’ve written about my disappointment in some potentially great Democratic officeholders to shoot for a constitutional office once, give up, and never offer their talents in the State House. As if John Bonifaz, Marisa DeFranco, or Ed O’Reilly are above being state senators. But I also find it galling this attitude that someone who wanted to really reform and upgrade the auditor’s office may just as well be lieutenant governor, and someone ready to partner with the governor as LG may just as well be treasurer. Were they lying the first time about how much they wanted to change those offices? Are they lying this time? Are Mike Lake and Deb Goldberg just fickle, and how long will their attention last if we elect them? Personally, it undermines my confidence if a candidate is so convinced of what they have to offer that the actual responsibilities of a given job aren’t worth their attention. If they think treasurer, auditor, and lieutenant governor are basically interchangeable jobs, are they ready to do any of them?
But I think it’s pretty common. After all, Grossman ran for Governor in 2002, but then decided that he’d run for Treasurer instead, but he didn’t make this list. If you feel you’re qualified to run the state’s finances or be 2nd in command, I bet you feel that you’re qualified to run the whole state. Whether the voters think so or not is another issue.
Yes, they may think they have something to offer in different offices. They may have looked at the different fields and chosen the one that best suited them. Maybe there are voters or activists who said they might be better suited for something else. I’m with Mike Lake this time for LG, but wasn’t for Auditor, which I say partly as disclosure and partly as an example of how different race means different supporters.
I was very impressed with his policy background and answers to my questions, but it didn’t seem he had the experience dealing with administrative offices of that sort quite yet to be the best candidate for Auditor. I do think he has the experience, through founding his non profit and working with cities across the commonwealth, to continue the Tim Murray role as an LG who serves as a real liaison to municipalities. He also learned from that race what his skills were.
Can’t really speak for the other candidates you mentioned. I do wonder why Coakley approaches every race as if she is running for another term as AG.
for comment of the day.
I do wonder why Coakley approaches every race as if she is running for another term as AG.
When she ran for the Corner Office she seemed to come up with a lot of reasons we should re-elect her Treasurer. In her case it also seemed like the reason for her candidacy was that everyone told her she should run.
And I would like to hear more from Christopher as to why he supports Mike Lake for LG but did not support him for Auditor. I find myself uncommitted, overall, so interested in such information.
…are largely based on personal connections. I supported Suzanne Bump for Auditor because I felt she had the best experience and qualifications for that office. I did, however, get to know Mike Lake during that campaign and his background and skill sets impressed me enough to think that I could support him in a different race next time around.
On both points. I will also add I did not back Tolman for Governor since I was a Reich man. Granted I was 14 and supported Reich because my dad is a huge fan of his and we both met him early in the campaign. But I was impressed by Tolmans commitment on that issue and am pleased to support him now.
Finegold, he ran for Congress, and don’t forget Martha, she ran for something else right?
Why not add Tolman to your list sabutai? He ran for Governor in 2002 but is now running for AG despite the Governor’s Office is open. Does he no longer think he is qualified to be Governor? What is his litigation experience?
Lake would be unlikely to choose to run against the sitting Auditor.
As for Goldberg losing to Tim Murray for LG….how did that work out. If she had won we probably would still have a LG in office right now.
why she isn’t running for LG again, since it’s an open seat.
That her MBA from Harvard, and her business experience would be relevant to this office and since she had run for statewide office thought this would be a better fit. She did not run against Grossman because they have similar business backgrounds. Goldberg is involved with the Treasurer’s office. I don’t see her using this job as a place holder till a Federal Office opens up as
I do with Conroy. He talks more about federal issues and is a fine legislator, he should have a legislative position.
I had forgotten about him. Listen, I get that in most fields, people take any promotion, no matter how seemingly ill-advised. But at the same time, in few fields do people spend months saying how much they want one job, only to forget about it as soon as it goes to someone else.
who thought of running for Treasurer a few years ago and decided to defer to Grossman.
Unlike other candidates who claim to be qualified for any office, Tom has very impressive credentials to be Treasurer. He has a strong economics background, with two related graduate degrees. He has run refugee programs in Haiti and Thailand. Early in his tenure he authored a cost benefit analysis of the casino proposals which showed that they will not deliver the promised benefits; he has consistently opposed casinos.
Tom is by far the most qualified candidate for Treasurer.
…for running for Senate in 2012 and stayed in longer than some after Warren declared. Honestly, though, people run for one thing then another all the time. I don’t think that should be a knock on any of them.
I really wanted to be somebody… I guess I should have been more specific…
Let’s face it, people who want to be important run for office. They have a deep need to be affirmed. Unless of course you are thrust into it like Elizabeth Warren who never ran for anything until she was asked repeatedly.
Maura Healey is running because her boss is leaving the job. She set out to work in the AG’s office, it is her desire, not to seek hire office just because…
Tolman also ran for LG and lost that too, so why isn’t he running for that again? When did he ever work in the AG’s office?
I think the fact that she is running for her boss’ job indicates she will likely continue her boss’ priorities once she is there. Some people here think Coakley did a fine job, others a bad one, I happen to think she’s had her ups and downs but the office could use bold changes and different priorities.
Healy may well offer that, but Tolman seems like a change agent and less like the status quo. He also got talked into the race after a twelve year hiatus from public life-I honestly don’t think he is using this as a springboard but will be dedicated to cleaning our elections, protecting consumers, fighting the NRA and big business, and getting to work.
How is being a talking head on TV taking a hiatus from public life? And how is that a way to be a change agent? Forgive me, I like Tolman personally, but he has been “bringing in business” for a large law firm for these years. How does that translate into doing all the things you suggest? He already flubbed the clean elections business.
Why do you assume that since Healey is running for Martha”s job she doesn’t have ideas of her own? People who work in an organization often have the best purview on how to change priorities, of what can and can not be done. They also know best ways to fix them without making the getting to know the job missteps…
And who do you think is more able to run a large agency which is what the job is?… Tolman, “I want to use the job as a bully pulpit” says you want to be an outside face, not the reformer you suggest.. Quotes are from a Tolman presentation.
I’m sure that there are many policies/trajectories where Ms. Healey and Ms. Coakley are similar. I’m sure there are a few where there are significant differences. It’s a bit tricky for Healey to lay those out though, because Coakley (her boss and mentor, fair or foul) is running for Guv.
I like Healy a lot, my good friend Marc McGovern in Cambridge is hosting a fundraiser for her attended by a few other friends, I will likely support her if she gets the nomination.
I am just saying, if you like what Coakley did, back Healy. If you had issues with some of what she did, or wish she did more, Tolman, backed by Harshbarger (our best AG in the last 20 years IMHO) and committed to running a consumer protection and trust busting oriented office is the better choice for the times, IMO. I really don’t see why these lower tier races have to get bitter.
I’ve voted for Cheung down the ballot in Cambridge before, but like what Lake has to offer and backed him before Cheung got in. I believe Finegold impressed me most in his House run a few years ago, but I don’t like his stance on charters. I backed Murray in 06′ but am intrigued by Goldberg now, I backed Warren but liked what Conroy had to say. I backed Carl, but also voted for Brownsberger as my State Rep and Senator and like how Clark won and what she has done as a member of the House. Massachusetts lacked a deep bench for awhile, I think Deval’s win has brought a lot of new blood into the process and I am glad to see so many competitive races across and down the ballot. Even compared to 2010 this is a more competitive race. So I welcome it, and I’ll back our eventual nominees.
Ryan inherited a tricky situation since Leone irresponsibly bailed out on the office, she has done a decent job. But Michael Sullivan and my family go back a long time, and he was incredibly gracious to me when I was on the Student School Committee and backed me up when the Superintendent criticized me, he also wrote me an outstanding and sincere college rec. So he has my support. If he loses, I’m sure Ryan will do a good job and he will still be our excellent Clerk of Courts. But the personal connections matter.
At some point voters (and delegates) deserve to hear what, if anything, she’d change about the AG’s office.
Whether he delivers or not, Tolman has laid out a rather bold vision for the office and will take it to issues it hasn’t taken up since Harshbarger left. Strong consumer protection focus, trust busting and big business fights, taking on the NRA. Coakley had a lot of small ball victories and high profile screwups (Murray, Fells Acre). It’s worth knowing how much Healy was involved with the cases that went bad, the cases that went well, and how she might approve the job differently than it’s current occupant. Perhaps Tolman’s vision is unrealistic-but it’s bold and exciting. It’s up to Healy to show me hers.
but my bet is that you ain’t going to hear about it in February. Might not even get to hear about it until after the primary, frankly.
It’s tricky for the campaign to thread that needle, and if the campaign fails it won’t be a campaign much longer. Thems the breaks.
Sabutai says here what I’ve been thinking …
I covered the auditor’s race a couple years ago. And Mike Lake seems like a very nice fellow. A nice fellow who would make a fine state rep. He was *completely out of his depth* running for auditor. It was not pretty. He seemed to think platitudes and “fresh energy” and whatnot were going to substitute for policy experience and expertise in what should be a very sober, nuts-and-bolts kind of job.
He was a real lightweight then. I can only hope he’s, uh, put on weight since. Seeing as it seems like he’s actually got a shot, it’s a good thing that the LG isn’t actually required to do much, for his sake and ours.
That was the nicest “Eff you” I’ve seen in quite some time. I’m impressed.
😉
Not an F-U. He’s personable and smart enough. Just that he should start where he should start. He’s young, so he’s got time to build depth and experience.
I felt that Bump was more qualified for the job, but thought Lake brought an interesting background, resume, and enthusiasm to the race but had a nagging feeling nothing about any of those things screamed ‘Auditor’ to me. Thomas P. O’Neill III and a young John Kerry are just two political neophytes I can think of that used the LG office to go onto bigger things and make an impact. Tim Murray as a Plan E Mayor had about as many responsibilities as a typical city councilor, but ended up delivering to municipalities and fighting for better transit.
LGs can have a big impact if they choose to do so, and Lake strikes me as someone with a strong network in the suburbs and North Shore who also has a lot of connections to the academic and non-profit community in Boston. He has a great relationship with Katherine Clark and Sonia Chang Diaz for example. And considering how vague and undefined the body is in the constitution (basically a warm body to replace the Gov if need be and chair the equally vestigial Governor’s Council), he can really define it as he moves forward.
I get the apprehension though, Sheila Simon ran for State Senate in IL based on her daddy’s achievements, didn’t amount to much there, became LG, didn’t do much there, and is now fading back to obscurity. I don’t see Mike Lake doing that.