We’re halfway through the caucus process and I have made my decision on my candidate for Governor. It seems presumptuous to think that people care but some have been asking me so I decided to share my thoughts with fellow activists here on BMG.
As many here know, I have been volunteering for the Democratic Party, our candidates and issues for more than thirty years. I’ve worked with a number of you supporting progressive candidates from Jamie Eldridge to Elizabeth Warren and more. I am especially proud of my work for Deval Patrick and care deeply about who will succeed him.
I am proud to support Martha Coakley for Governor. She is a leader in a strong group of candidates. She stands out as the candidate with a record of accomplishment as an elected official. She is a progressive candidate who has stood up for progressive causes in challenging DOMA, taking on Wall Street and working to fight climate change.
Martha was the only Attorney General to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act because she saw the impact it was having on our same-sex families.
She was the most aggressive Attorney General in the country in taking on Wall Street during the foreclosure crisis to keep people in their homes.
She sued the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
Now, she’s running for Governor to stand for those same progressive values. She speaks passionately about turning this economy around for everyone, not just Wall Street, not those who already have so much. She’s committed to ending the achievement gap in our schools to help every child reach his or her potential. She has made increasing access to mental health care a top priority. Martha dealt with tragedy in her own family, and she’s pledged that no family should be forced to deal with mental illness alone.
I’m excited about her commitment to building a grassroots campaign. I’ve seen Martha at Democratic events, house parties, and caucuses across the state. Just this past Tuesday night, I was at the Clinton caucus in the snow and Martha was the only candidate for Governor there. That’s the kind of commitment to grassroots campaigning we need to win in September and November.
I want to talk briefly about the 2010 Senate race. I was there volunteering along with other BMGers to elect Martha Coakley to the U. S. Senate. Well she lost. When a race is won, people only remember what went right. When a race is lost, every mistake is magnified. I have had the chance to talk with the Attorney General about the race and I am impressed with the fact that she owns her mistakes and has learned from them. She is ready to win in the primary and the general.
Please join Martha and me on Saturday (2/22) at 3:30 PM at Panache Coffee at 680 Worcester Road, Route 9 Eastbound, Framingham. We’d both like to talk with you about her candidacy for Governor.
I’m excited to join Martha in her campaign, and I hope you will join us. I’m looking forward to electing a Governor who will continue to fight for the progressive values we all share.
Kate Donaghue взять микрозайм онлайн на банковскую без отказа
Great to see you supporting Martha, Kate!
It’s easy for candidates to talk about progressive values or check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on questionnaires. It’s a lot more challenging to put progressive values into practice and make changes in entrenched systems. Martha has, as our AG, done exactly that. She knows the ins and outs of government at all levels and has used her office to make change, not just to talk about it.
When I flew back to the US from vacation late last year, my wife and I for the first time only had to complete one customs form, because after 10 years of being legally married in Massachusetts, our relationship was at last recognized by the federal government. Martha was the first AG in the country to file suit against DOMA, which previously barred that federal recognition.
As AG, Martha also successfully brought suit against companies that profited from predatory lending and established a terrific foreclosure prevention program with the proceeds that has helped thousands of Masschusetts families secure mortgage modifications and stay in their homes.
As we campaigned for Martha before our caucus, we kept meeting people whose respect and loyalty she earned through her career: the retired police officer who stood up to say a few words at our caucus about why he was running to support Martha, recalling how he had valued working with her as Middlesex DA; the woman who volunteered to make caucus calls who appreciated the support of the AG’s office in resolving a pension discrepancy with a former employer; a colleague of Martha’s who related stories about canvassing with her for John Kerry in 2004.
Like Kate, I can see that Martha has learned from her past loss and put the campaign team in place – with our grassroots support – to win this time.
What will she do as Governor and how will she do it?
I have tremendous respect for Kate’s longtime presence in this community, her tireless work for the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and grassroots oriented focus. But I honestly hear the same talking points I heard in 2006, in 2010 for special senate and 2010 for AG. All of these accomplishments are reasons to re-elect her to AG-not realms to elect her to a higher office. Why governor and why now? I still haven’t heard a concise answer.
The race is now.
Coakley is answering “why governor” on the stump every day. She’s done great work as AG to help people in Massachusetts, but what she can do as AG is necessarily bounded by the nature of the office. She cares about fairness, equality, opportunity, and as governor she can promote those values in a broader arena. Go hear and meet her if you haven’t recently.
From what she has played here, what her supporters keep arguing, and what I’ve seen this far in terms of debates and speeches have left me underwhelmed to say the least. There are also pitfalls from the finance issue and the less savory portions of her AG record.
She has not addressed these concerns. Doug Rubin, saint as he is for answering questions on from us when he doesn’t have to, still hasn’t fully answered this question. What’s her signature issue or concern? What is her plan to get the legislature to implement it?
Berwick has made single payer and a commitment to a host of progressive policies , including casino opposition, the centerpiece of his campaign. Grossman has made family leave, raising the minimum wage and a lifetime if labor support his cornerstone. Kayyem has homeland security and to a lesser extent urban development and income inequality.
What drives Coakley? What’s her passion and how can she translate her passion into action?
All I’ve seen is boilerplate that could easily have been used for a re-election run or recycled from a disastrous campaign for an entirely different office.
Martha’s been all over talking about fairness, raising the minimum wage, paid sick leave, and she’s actually accomplished progressive change through political office. That’s not boilerplate, and it’s a heck of a lot more than the others can say.
Sorry but it does.
If we’re to believe jconway, when other candidates talk it’s somehow real and passionate and heartfelt and when Coakley does it’s boilerplate, yet the AG is the candidate who can back up her values with a long list of practical accomplishments.
So she knows that the polling for those issues — which are already on the ballot for this fall — is through the roof. She also knows that the other Dems (except maybe Avelone) are also with her on those issues.
I really appreciate Kate’s endorsement. I appreciate activists who put their names behind their candidates. I also appreciate candidates who are willing to step out and fight hard for issues they care about, and say how they will get those issues done. All the better if those issues are priorities for progressives.
I really would have thought that Coakley would push the envelope more, after everything that happened in 2010. But she sure seems to be playing it safe, again… and being coy on issues, again… and running out the clock, again.
Her campaign once again is sending the signal: ‘Martha Coakley has name recognition. The rest of you have so far shown bubkas. So until the polls show anyone else is a real threat, she’s going to continue to run on her name.’
That may get her to the general… again. It’s too bad, though, because it doesn’t define her in any meaningful way… again.
It’s a good thing in my book if candidates coalesce around issues that: 1. would make a difference 2. enjoy popular support 3. are practically achievable. Don Quixote isn’t my ideal for a gubernatorial candidate. Coakley is doing the work at the grassroots that she needs to do. This isn’t a reprise of 2009-10.
My problem with campaigning on minimum wage and earned sick time is that these issues will be resolved by the time the next governor takes office. It is very clever to run on them as they may well be on the ballot in November. But these are _not_ issues the next governor should have to address.
(That said, the more of the political establishment supports raising the minimum wage and earned sick time, the more likely these issue are to pass the legislature or win on the ballot.)
Really? I don’t recall suggesting that she campaign on far flung ideas. Don’t put me in the Berwick camp. I like Single Payer, but I’m not sure it’s enough to base a campaign on. To drjat42’s point, and to mine, Paid Sick Leave and Minimum Wage are well settled policy stands in the Democratic Party, and obviously are popular. And, as noted, they will be settled by November, so then what?
Is her campaign “I believe what everyone else believes, but I’ll do it better”? It’s not much of a message, but it’s something.
Give us something bold that she believes in that will open our eyes, provide an insight into who she is and what her values are. It’s really not that much to ask. And give me some sense that she’s not just playing it safe and running out the clock.
Which to me certainly suggests ideas that are more “out there”. I am not as interested in our Democratic candidates pushing the envelope in their campaign messaging – I’m all for campaigning on messages that will resonate with a broad swath of voters. Looking at some of the things Coakley has done – suing the EPA to deal with carbon pollution, first AG in the country to bring suit against DOMA, establishment of the foreclosure prevention unit etc. – I trust that in office she’ll act creatively and a forward-thinking way on Democratic values when she can make a difference.
Technical point: I assume what you are referring to is “bupkes” or “bupkis,” a Yiddish word roughly meaning “nothing.”
Unless you mean this: 🙂
Especially Rosenfelds
… other ‘politicians’, Martha Coakley is a wicked smart, fully trained, highly skilled and, most importantly, practicing lawyer. Now, it is true, that others have the brains also, and others have the training she has and still others the skills and yet few others practice it daily and very few I can think of combine all of it: She makes decisions about who, what and why to prosecute on a daily basis and she makes those decisions in the framework of the law. Real constraints with real consequences. Whatever else you might think about Martha Coakley you cannot say that she merely shows up for work for show and that, perhaps, her passion, such as it is, is for action since she seems both high energy and high impact. She ought to, and most likely does, distrust ‘passion’ (as I do) without turning to, as Barack Obama has and Berwick appears to, a soulless, technocratic and mechanistic, view of government.
In fact, the politician she most reminds me of is the one I’ve most often voted for (my default write-in candidate when others are too blah) and the one I miss the keenest: Mike Dukakis. That is, in fact, the highest praise I can offer.
Love Mike Dukakis; always have, always will. However, I highly doubt that I would have supported him for president in 1992 because he had already demonstrated that he had real problems in a general election. I still think that he would have been a very good president. Perhaps Coakley would be a very good governor. However, she has already proven that she stinks in a general election for higher office. That gives me real pause in trying to cure my undecided-ness in the primary. I have deep concern that she loses to Baker—and, we just can have that.
What other criteria is there?
If a candidate need be wholly different for the job interview than for the job… then there is a problem with the job interview and not the candidate. If simply being a very good potential governor is not enough to get the job of governor then what, possibly, is enough?
And if there is, as you amply demonstrate, a serious disconnect between the job and the job interview what does that say about those who are good at the job interview? If they are different skills, and you come markedly close to saying that they are not only different but opposite skills, then where does that put our actual CommonWealth?
petr, I don’t think it’s disconnected and I’m not sure that I get your point. Grossman, Berwick, and Kayyem might be very good governors too. I count Coakley’s performance running for the senate against her. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone doesn’t factor that into their decision in the primary. For some voters it might be disqualifying, for others she might be able to overcome it. Part of any job interview is assessing past performance. On the one hand, we’ve got her AG record, on the other hand we’ve got the senate campaign. I think both should be given consideration in deciding if she’s the best candidate we have to offer in the governor’s race.
… Steve Grossman ran for Governor once before… did you know that…? He lost in the 2002 primary to Shannon O’Brien. Do you, or anybody, count that against Grossman? I didn’t think so. Grossman was Mass DNC chair when Bill Weld was governor and look how that turned out. You gonna hold that against him? Didn’t think so… He was president of AIPAC when AIPAC had half of Washington in its pocket. You even going to ask about that? You’re so blind in your anti-Coakley fervor you’d let a former DNC, AIPAC, Goldman Sachs corporate whore lobbyist waltz right in without so much as a head scratch about it.
Why, I ask you, doesn’t that “factor into your decision in the primary”?
Nominees are judged differently, especially when they’re campaigning in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.
… when one is a man and the other is a woman.
And stay there.
Sorry, I lost my temper. Life’s too short. I apologize. I don’t take well to being unjustly accused of something.
… I’m confusing you with someone else… but I thought you didn’t believe in hell so I didn’t take the directive all that seriously…
Of sexism is way, way out of bounds.
Petr, I’m not quite as anti-coakley as you think. I’m also not pro-grossman. I’m undecided. Wanted wolf. And maybe leaning berwick at this point. Actually, yes I think some of the things you raise aren’t great for grossman. But the O’Brien race was a long time ago and it was a primary, not a general.
We’ve been over this argument Petr and it’s an incredibly weak one. Grossman pulled out of the race way before the primary vote so we have no idea how he would’ve done. And you know what, reading the tea leaves and pulling out of a race you can’t win before you are nominated takes a lot more courage and foresight than taking a friggin vacation when you should be campaigning after your party nominated you and expected you to win. That action alone shows how much disrespect Coakley views the voters, the party, and the process.
And please, I solidly backed Warren in the primary and have apologized for not voting for Clinton the next time around and, in spite of my reservations, anticipate voting for her next round. Nobody is more excited about breaking glass ceilings than I am. But playing the sexist card any time legitimate arguments are made against a candidate’s past performance, record in the office she holds, and ability to be an electable and effective governor seriously undermines your candidate and her candidacy. I think you lose a voter anytime you employ it. Ask Shannon O Brien and Kerry Healy how effective it is statewide while you’re at it.
She was up 9 points in a Rasmussen poll on Jan. 4th. The “friggin vacation” doesn’t explain her loss.
However, I can just imagine the meme we’d be reading about here if she had campaigned over Christmas – how her tone-deafness about respecting the holiday cost her the election.
It doesn’t explain her loss no, but it shows that she thought she had the election in the bag. That coupled with her asinine statements about Schilling and her own admission that campaigning was beneath her made a very poor impression on the voters. It’s just not something you’d do if you respected the voters or cared about the trust they placed in you.
And tone deafness about Christmas would be the least of my concerns if I was running. You run to win. For what it’s worth Markey was never down in the polls to Lynch or Gomez and he campaigned his heart out.
The real reason she lost is that her message then and her message now has no bearing on why she should be elected to higher office, other than she is a woman and is next in line. What significant policy accomplishments does she actually have at AG that provide good evidence of the kinds of policies she will enact as Governor? I haven’t heard anyone from the campaign even bother to make that connection.
On the issues we have Berwick week after week making awesome policy press releases that show he has clearly staked out the most progressive terrain on every major issue. On experience we have Grossman’s rather solid record as Treasurer and as a businessman putting his values into practice on issues of fair pay, paid leave, and the minimum wage. He has some legislative heavy weights backing him and a track record of getting results with that body. Even the also rans like Kayyem and Avellone had specific policy related threads here on BMG. Kayyem linked her emergency management experience with a solid proposal to fight climate change while Avellone was quite passionate about ending substance abuse.
I’ve heard no specific set of policy proposals from Coakley. Like in 10′, she comes here to link to her donation page or upcoming events and gets surrogates to argue on her behalf. And as much as I love Doug and Kate they haven’t done a great job in making the case. Martha still hasn’t learned she needs to do the heavy lifting herself and actually fight for this if she really wants it.
… including Scott Brown. If you don’t admit to that you either weren’t there or you’re lying to yourself (or both). The long and the short of it is just this: if Mike Capuano ran the same plays then with the same results he’d assuredly not face the same criticism now.
And no mistake that Martha Coakley has ever been accused of, much less did, is anything close to the creepy oozing pustulant lobbyist machine lizard that Steve Grossman is. Nothing. You could prove every last thing about Martha Coakley in a court of law and I’d still vote for her over Grossman any day and twice on Sunday.
But this gets NO PLAY. On the one hand (femaie) Martha Coakley made entirely understandable and, for other sexes, forgivable, mistakes (mistakes I still contend anybody else would have made in that context…) and suddenly it’s anybody but Martha… On the other hand this (male) pond scum lobbyist crawls out of the political ooze and NOBODY BATS SO MUCH AS ONE EYELASH…
Hence sexism. You don’t like that you should bring it up with the fella in the mirror.
Capuano shook every hand and would never have slept walked through the general. Obama coming here couldn’t even lift her up, and the DSCC didn’t put it’s money there until late-precisely because her numbers were up and she should’ve had it in the bag. It makes no sense to blame that loss on the President or Obamacare. Massachusetts already passed a similar law under it’s Republican Governor and it’s a law that is widely popular and was already established and successful at the time of the election. You want to repeat right wing talking points go ahead-but no, a living breathing candidate who didn’t disrespect voters by going on vacation and antagonizing them on talk radio might’ve had a shot.
You gotta back your accusations about Grossman up with links. FWIW I am more of a Berwick man, but Grossman is my backup. We have had plenty of links and long discussions and threads about her shady record as AG.
And please sir, quit with the sexism. Nobody was saying this about Warren because she bothered to campaign and kicked Brown’s ass. Nobody was saying this about Kayyem because she actually bothers to post here and has some substance to her campaign. Nobody is bashing Nikki because she also won her race. I did bash Hillary in 2008 and I’ve made a big mea culpa. Don’t need to tell me twice she would’ve done better than Obama the past 6 years. And unlike Coakley she has made serious inroads into progressive communities and the blogosphere and is taking this race as seriously as her last one.
Using your logic I am a sexist since I think Mark Penn ran a dumb campaign and Bill should’ve kept his mouth shut. I can’t disparage a female candidate on her record, which on the few areas the AG has any sway, is decidedly regressive on the civil liberties and corporate power front, and I guess I can’t disparage her for her shitty campaign, because again, it’s demeaning to women to point out their mistakes to them.
It’s crap like this that makes me seriously doubt she has learned any lessons.
I had a very specific question upthread that NO Coakley supported has answered:
why her over the rest of the field? What specific issues will she advance? How will she get them passed the legislature?
In case you think that’s sexist for me to ask I guess I hate men since I asked Berwick and Grossman that same questions. Their supporters gave real answers.
… which is kinda my point. You’ve spent so much time and energy rationalizing your illegitemate and entirely irrational dislike of Coakley, in fact going out of your way to make her look worse than she is, or ever could be, that you don’t bother to even look all that closely at your own purported ‘second choice’.
Coakley will never meet your impossibly high, and ever changing, expectations but you don’t even bother to attempt to apply those very same expectations to Steve Grossman.
Frank, raw and undiluted sexism.
… including Scott Brown
Unfortunately, whatever he thought, Scott Brown didn’t act like he had the election in the bag.
Or maybe not so unfortunately- 2 years SB + 18 years EW vs. 20 years MC? Hmmm…
I’ll take two of Scotty B. and 18 of EW. But, but, but…. maybe that makes me sexist!
I’ve tried to walk away from this exchange, but this comment pushes it too far.
I’m no fan of Mr. Grossman either, but “scum lobbyist crawls out of the political ooze”? Please, even I (who writes hyperbole from time to time) cringe at that.
The “long and the short of it” is that Mike Capuano WOULD NEVER run the same plays. He didn’t then, and he doesn’t now. He stands for something. It’s not hard to guess how he’s going to vote, what issues he’ll aggressively pursue, and what conflicts he’ll take a pass on. He pursues a vision that he articulates as clearly as he is able and that he hopes resonates with supporters. He learned the ropes in pre-Davis Square Somerville. Whether you support or oppose Mike Capuano, you ALWAYS know where he stands and what he wants to do.
In my view, Martha Coakley’s flagrant abuse of the powers of her office to bully Tim Murray out of her path — including an apparent get-out-of-jail-free card for the brazenly corrupt and criminal (but well-connected) Michael McLaughlin — alone should disqualify her for ANY elective office.
I don’t bash Ms. Coakley for her long string of political blunders. I may roll my eyes, but I also remember Mike Dukakis driving a tank in a presidential campaign.
No, it’s the much longer string of horrific abuses of whatever office she has held that alienates me from Ms. Coakley. Abuses that stand out from a background of doing as little as possible on issues of substance, while dedicating the bulk of her apparent energy and attention to developing her own career prospects. Every issue, every statement, every appearance, for as long as I’ve known of Martha Coakley, has been transparently calibrated against the whats-good-for-Martha scale.
THAT is why I will not ever cast a vote for Martha Coakley for ANY office — and that has NOTHING to do with sexism.
Speaking of that fella in the mirror … perhaps you might check in with him again yourself.
… I don’t know which Michael McLaughlin you’re thinking of.. .but the one Martha Coakley indicted was already serving 16 in a federal pen for forgery. And from where I sit it looked like it was Tim Murray, who copped to the plea, paid a fine and restitution and landed on his feet, a free man, perhaps in order to save the elderly McLaughlin a lonely death in prison, who ended up with the ‘get-outta-jail-free’ card…
My point being that you don’t know the story. You think you know the story because you have changed the facts to fit the theory. This is not something you would, ordinarily, do were the theory about a man.
quod erat demonstrandum
And not worth responding to further.
.. one of my favorite movies.
As Prof Quincy Wagstaff was wont to say “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”
You think if Mike Capuano or any other male candidate (1) scorned the very idea of campaigning; (2) managed to sound completely tone-deaf about something as iconic in Massachusetts as the 2004 Red Sox; and (3) took a vacation three weeks before an election for United States Senate, thus losing a race that started with a 25-point advantage in the polls, that we’d be giving that candidate a pass?
Maybe you would, since you’re the only person I’ve heard describe those mistakes as “entirely understandable” or suggest that anyone else would have made them. But the rest of us? No bleeping way.
As for Steve Grossman:
No, I don’t. As others have said, it’s one thing to be one of several candidates seeking a nomination and not win it. It’s another to be the nominee of your party for the U.S. Senate, knowing that you would be the 60th vote in a time of constant filibuster, and run such a lazy and inept campaign that you blow a 25-point lead.
Grossman was state party chair from the end of 1990 to 1992 – not on Election Day 1990, when Weld was elected because the Democrats nominated their worst candidate ever – and that turned out fine. In the 1992 elections Democrats captured 7 of the 16 GOP Senate seats from the previous session, turning a 24-16 majority into a 31-9 majority.
Grossman was chosen specifically because Rabin took office in 1992 and told AIPAC they were being frozen out due to hardline, pro-Likud positions. He was picked because he had ties to the Democrats here and Labor in Israel. Grossman was close to Rabin, and convinced the AIPAC board to endorse the Oslo accords formally. He left when, after Rabin’s murder, it became clear the hawks within AIPAC were undermining peace efforts. I am not an AIPAC fan, but Grossman was very much a moderating force within AIPAC. See page 57.
And Grossman left Goldman Sachs in 1974. That’s 40 years ago.
Cue the increasingly antagonistic stream of comments calling me a sexist, a fellow-traveler-to-a-creeping-oozing…lizard, and whatever other good stuff you’ve got.
… Cause I got the notion that Grossman was chosen because the previous AIPAC president, David Steiner had taken to bragging indiscriminately about how many politicians were directly under AIPAC’s influence. When found out he, sensibly enough, resigned in disgrace. No politicians, interestingly enough, were implicated and Grossmans first order of business was, apparently, to say ‘nothing to see here, move along…’ Now, maybe, once the position became vacated Grossman was chosen for the reasons you cite but Rabin was murdered in 1995 and Grossman didn’t leave AIPAC until 97 so I find your ratiocination suspect.
It is not what I got. It is what you have got. From where I sit it looks very much like a desire to hate that has not rational basis. Maybe not you in particular, or any particular individual, but the collective will here seems to re-inforce itself against anything besides the notion that Martha Coakley is not just poor, but actively evil. There is no rationale basis for that and no male politician has faced similar enmity.
You’ve obviously looked into Grossmans career and have presented a long list of what you expect to be exculpatory circumstantials in Grossmans favor. I’ve long presented the same in defense of Martha Coakley, including an impressive performance in the 2010 primary. This has been dismissed wholesale with great harumphing amidst the rather dubious counter-conjectures that no (male) politician would possibly have run the same plays as MC did in the general, blah blah, handwaving and also the primary doesn’t count, so there… In addition I’m faced with dubious accounts of Coakley skullduggery against Tim Murray (never so much as demonstrated as even plausible, never mind connect to MC) and this general feeling, never adequately explained that Martha Coakley
It doesn’t add up. When something doesn’t add up it is likely not the math that is at issue….
Denver performed well in this year’s Super Bowl because Denver smoked the Patriots in the AFC championship.
In Denver’s case they may have met a better team. In Coakley’s case it seems clear she thought the Dem primary was the only election that mattered, as it was for the 5th CD in 2013. Didn’t pan out.
I don’t know of any politician, male or female, who would have made the same mistakes. If you can think of a specific example, let us know.
I’m not reflexively anti-Coakley. I supported her in 2010 but she did a bad job and blew it. She seems to be running that evasive front-runner’s campaign again so far this time — with a few well-publicized repentances like showing up at Fenway Park. That’s my major problem with her as a candidate.
I’ve been quick to praise the policy areas where she’s done well, and I do think the AG’s office has done some very good work under her leadership. But there are other positions that are not so great. Wiretapping. Joining the neo-Confederacy in opposing DNA testing that could exonerate wrongfully-convicted prisoners. Refusal to even consider single-payer. At this point I think there are better candidates.
Rabin’s killing, if anything, meant there was MORE reason to stick around and fight for his causes instead of resigning and ceding the ground to the hawks the next morning. But extra points for “ratiocination.”
These are incredibly serious and no it’s not a double standard to ask Coakley the same set of questions I ask every candidate. If anything, Petr is asking me to hold her to some higher standard where past mistakes and the regressive parts of her record can’t count against her because she is a woman. Hillary is smart enough not to hire Penn, she immediately endorsed marriage equality after she left state and she is making rhetorical overtures to the populist wing. I don’t see any similar evolution on the part of Coakley.
… well, that, and the fact that we all thought the same. This was not Coakley’s mistake alone. We all made it. And if you, particularly, did not make it, well, it’s a fine time to note that now. And, I’ll repeat, no other politician who ran in that race thought, or would have acted, any differently.
I agree it didn’t pan out.
For those Capuano supporters who did not show up and work after the primary in the special election in 2010. And calling Coakley lazy or disrespectful of voters – c’mon, she is NOT. That election was nationalized and millions of dollars poured in for Brown late. Coakley had to raise money like crazy and run in a vastly different election than expected. Instead of a sleepy special, it was an election that drew out Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in Presidential-election kind of numbers. Meanwhile, lots of Democrats stayed home. Democrats win when we turn out our voters, and we didn’t in that special. All of us, who do the work of elections, own a piece of that loss. I supported Martha in the primary, and I phonebanked and worked in my town. We had decent turnout and a big margin of victory for her; we always do for Democrats, but it could have been bigger. Because a few weeks of increasingly urgent phonebanking interrupted by the holidays – what we did for that election – can’t compare with what we did for Deval Patrick that fall – a huge doorknocking push across the state to boost turnout – or what we did for Elizabeth Warren – canvassing every damn weekend for six months.
To any Coakley critic – I want to hear how much voter ID work YOU did after the primary that cycle. I want to hear how much money YOU contributed after the primary, because of course every hour our Democratic nominee had to spend dialing for dollars was an hour she couldn’t spend on the stump.
McCain got in losing to Obama two years before.
Democrats unhappy with that loss need to look in the mirror. We’re the ones who didn’t turn out like we could have.
The primary was pretty bloody, right? I wasn’t that involved in politics at the time, but it seemed like the Capuano people just took their ball and went home, the unions sat it out because Obama was going to tax their gold-plated health plans, and everyone else was flipping out because Socialized Medicine Cornhusker Kickback I’M NEVER GOING TO GET TO SEE MY DOCTOR AGAIN!
Everyone also forgets the sequel which was the 2010 general. Patrick got 1,112,283 votes, Baker 964,866, Cahill 184,395, and Stein 32,895 with 2,600 other and 22,924 blanks. Coakley got 1,417,538 and McKenna 839,274 with 1,981 other and 61,170 blanks. So even if Coakley got all of the Patrick, Cahill, Stein, and other voters there were still about 85,000 people who went for her and for Baker. That suggests that her support is a lot broader than it would appear from the posts on this blog. (I like you guys enough that I read you every day, but sometimes it gets a little crazy in here . . . )
She had NO OPPONENT in 2010 on the ballot. You can’t claim that as a win. Period. It’s comparing apples to oranges.
Second I got three friends to register and eight friends to vote and marshaled my parents and brother who were thinking of sitting it out. I did my damn part which is why it’s so insulting she took a vacation and didn’t do here. Capuano was at a unity event right after and gave her his phone banks. The unions, hardly fighting a Cadilliac plan tax, funny how Coakley supporters keep using right wing talking points to defend their candidate, were out in force. The members definitely didn’t vote the right way because all she talked about was how pro choice brown would take abortions away while he bashed Beacon Hill and promised to restore some moderation and balance. He ran against Obamacare which she didn’t bother to defend. Abortion was the only issue she really talked about which Brown negated.
Keep calling us sexist though and lazy site losers , great way to win us over if she wins. I ask her the same questions I ask every single candidate and by having the gall to ask her that I get criticized. You think we are being mean and crazy wait till baker, the herald, and eventually the globe turn on her. She has endorsed positions to the right of the field on civil liberties, casinos, and the gas tax and we are obliged to celebrate the stances she shares with candidates that are better than her on the issues or better equipped to deal with the legislature. If she is nominated I promise not to stay home or sit on my hands, but you guys are naive to expect her to waltz away with this thing. It’ll be a real primary not a coronation.
…having no opponent on the ballot in November of 2010 says more about other Mass pols than it does about Martha Coakley. And the fact that she won without opposition means that her skills were not tested in the same way, not that she doesn’t possess them. This is not a refutation.
Similarly, winning many more votes in November of the year than in January says more about Massachusetts voters than it does, again, about Martha Coakley.
It is your insistence upon making it only about her and her abilities, which you then denounce in the strongest possible terms… It is a strawman. It is you going out of your way to make up reasons to call her a lousy politician with no rational basis: no reason mitigates; no circumstances account; no other variables play; no, it’s just made up reason after shoe-horned reason to dislike her. And the idea that you have to invent reasons to dislike her indicates the real reason you dislike her isn’t particularly savory.
I respect you and like your posts elsewhere, but you are totally making unrealistic comments here. Let’s dissect
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that a victory where she won more votes than she did in an actually competitive election counts for something and then state that it didn’t actually test her skills. The idea that she didn’t draw an opponent because she is unbeatable is also laughable since you know as well as I do that a statewide race requires extensive funding and mobilization. The GOP did run close for Gov, Treasurer and Auditor but there was no credible AG candidate. I am sure if they even had a no name on the ballot he or she would’ve attracted a similar percentage to Frisoli in 2006. You just can’t cite this.
So now the voters are sexist? Not sure what this point is saying. Again, since she had no opponent and ran unopposed in 2010 we can’t cite that election as a fair comparison to the special election, even if you want to argue the turnout was different and not enough “Ds” showed up. The turnout percentage was nearly comparable to 2010, though obviously not to 2012.
I
A politicians ability to win competitive elections goes to the heart of her abilities. You are right though it is I who insists on making this about her abilities and it is you who insists about making this about her gender.
I have cited an election that she had a 25 pt advantage of and ended up losing by 5 pts. That is a staggering 30 pt drop. She also had the financial advantage for the majority of the race. I am not inventing reasons, I am citing a 5 pt loss that should’ve been a 10-15 pt victory-if we are to use Ed Markey and Gomez as a good comparison (as close to generic D and generic moderate R as you can get). It’s not made up reason after made up reason. It’s a clear electoral mistake that at least Doug Rubin and Martha Coakley have the decency to admit actually happened, unlike you, that goes to the heart of her abilities as a politician and it’s the troubling portions of her record as AG.
The only one arguing about gender and sexism is you, and I would contend it’s your strawman to distract from the fact that you haven’t bothered to defend her record with any specificity or defend her 2010 performance convincingly in 2010.
Have I ever critiqued Elizabeth Warren? Do I have serious questions about her abilities as a candidate or record as a Senator? Have I critiqued Juliette Kayyem on her record or electability? Have I critiqued Hillary Clinton on electability grounds in 2016? Have I attacked Katherine Clark or defended her from spurious allegations? Have I attacked Maura Healy? Have I attacked or did I endorse Suzanne Bump? Have I not been consistently begging Kim Driscoll to run against a man no less?
Speaking of Driscoll, read my posts on Tierney. I make the same arguments against him as I make against Coakley so this whole sexism charge is incredibly unfair. If that’s the best you got than you ain’t got much.
I’m done with this back and forth. She was a loser in 2010, I suspect unless she listens to the grassroots of her party and responds to what our needs and desires are in a candidate and actually answers our questions about her record and commitment to issues we care about, she will lose again in 2014. If need be I can hold my nose for Coakley, in the meantime we still have a choice and at least three candidates that are significantly more progressive AND more competitive than she is. She is not even the best woman running.
I like your comments elsewhere but you are really stretching it blaming unions and Capuani supporters for the loss.
Let’s see about this. Coakley was up by 25+ in the October and November polling. For about two months no polling was done. During that stretch, in the six weeks between primary and general, Coakley went on her famous vacation. By early January you had a close race, and of course huge GOP money came pouring in. It was vote #41 for their obstruction on the line. The key to keeping that money out was: KEEP YOUR FOOT ON THE GAS AND DON’T LET IT BECOME A CLOSE RACE.
Then, after it became a close race, she screwed up the Schilling thing and, far worse, mocked the very idea of shaking hands at Fenway Park. After all, she now knew the members of the Salem school committee. Who needs voters?
Suburban turnout, and especially turnout in Republican towns, approached presidential levels. Urban turnout was way down. That’s always the case, but usually not this much. And I’ve heard many times the campaign had virtually no presence in those communities.
As for me, I wasn’t living in MA at that time but I did donate and, when it tightened I came up here on my own dime and spent a weekend canvassing in 10 degree weather.
…What does that tell you?
that the pollsters thought it was a blowout race. Sure. Martha isn’t much for sports but her colleague Maura Healey could have told her every basketball coach says, “Play the game, not the score.” Or just look at the Tortoise and Hare statues in Copley Square. The candidate shouldn’t act like it’s a cakewalk even if everyone else thinks it is.
How is it that this comment gets uprated by the author of this diary?
But more to the point, Why now? is a fine question. What can Martha do as Governor that she couldn’t do as Attorney General? The fact that the answer seems obvious just means that we’re providing our own answers. Coakley’s answer is important, so it’s worth asking.
I like, respect, and admire both you and Doug Rubin. I forgive each of you for choosing the wrong candidate 🙂
I guess this is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the diversity of the BMG community.
Wrong candidate – not so much.
From Kate’s straw poll posted on February 3rd:
I am not the biggest fan of Coakley, but am truly undecided at this point. I guess I am writting to A) thank you, Kate, for sharing your reasons, and B) ask others to do the same – if you are decided, tell me (and anyone else on BMG) why.
I was attempting irony. I meant “wrong” as in a light-hearted “not my candidate”.
I do note that Mr. Berwick came in first in the straw poll.
Thought the trades were going to Grossman. He’s had a lot of labor support throughout his career-intrigued to find out their rationale if they have backed Coakley.
Coakley supporter. The rest of us (9 others) were all supporting or leaning Berwick. (I’m leaning Berwick, but going to the caucus uncommitted).
Everyone was irritated with or put off by Steve Grossman. Sick of the mailers this early in the campaign. Sick of the robocalls for whatever reason. All the elected officials I know support Grossman, but the lack of enthusiasm is deafening.
Thanks to all of you for your interest in this post. I’m finally home after a day of caucuses and going to the event with the Attorney General in Framingham that I mentioned. It was interesting to hear from people throughout the day who had seen this post.
I’ve known Martha since 1997 when she first ran for DA. I don’t speak for her but I did want to respond to some of the comments.
Massachusetts is at a critical time. We need to continue the great work begun by Governor Patrick, and that means electing another Democrat to the corner office. I’ve spoken with Martha and listened to her speak many, many times. Martha decided to run because she believes she has the record of leadership and experience that prepares her to tackle the challenges we still face, both those we know about and those we don’t. Martha believes she can do more to address the challenges as Governor than she can as AG.
The next governor is going to have to face a number of issues and problems, including rising income inequality, persistent gaps in our education system and increasing healthcare costs. As AG, Martha has a record of tackling many important challenges at once.
I’m not sure that there is or should be a signature issue. But if I picked something that is important to me, and I believe to Martha, it would be education and workforce development. There is also a great deal we can do in conjunction with our business and nonprofit community, including better alignment of curricula and better use of technology.
As 02136mom said, we’re interested in hearing from others.
I echo Tom’s comment upthread and will be deciding between Berwick or Grossman on primary day myself, and have gone from a lean Grossman to a lean Berwick at present. That said, I want our nominee whoever he or she is to be the strongest possible nominee. Unlike other Coakley skeptics, she has my support if she is nominated.
I appreciate your comments in response to some of my questions and would love for Martha herself to answer her critics here. I promise I’ll be respectful and I think it would be a great service to all of us, the undecideds like 02136mom, and to her as a candidate. I want her to link her record as AG tk specific issues and proposals she will advance as Governor, I want to know what her priorities and how she hopes to achieve them and I want her to respond to the questions about how she handled last cases and the campaign finance issue. Responding to them here will better prepare her to respond to them later.
What troubles me is that she seems to be running another front runner campaign without engaging with the issues or her opponents and hoping to get the bare plurality to get nominated and then hoping the name ‘Gov Baker’ is a sufficient boogeyman to keep the base and win over independents. I don’t think it will be, and the earlier she engages her critics and the issues the better her campaign will be. BMG will be a far better venue to have this discussion than talk radio or the Herald.
Thanks for front paging this and thank you for your generous promotion comment. I’m off for the day to a caucus and then a municipal candidates forum.
SHE SUCKS?
Just throwing that out there.
BTW please get more ice for next year’s party. My Cutty Sarks aren’t the same straight-up.
Clearly satiric. Lighten up people.
Clearly satiric, yes. Funny, no.
… and, if EB3’s rancid sexism weren’t already the basis of my disrespect, publicly admitting to drinking Cutty Sark would do it… (and needing ice to get a blended down is just another admission of weakness)
I thought it was for, you know, thawing frozen locks and stuff.
When I found out he also drank watered down Cutty Sark. If you gotta go blended stick with Black Label. Otherwise single malts are the way to go.
Best to dilute the the alcohol when doing many many rails.