Lets face it we have all been ruined by Deval Patrick. His speaking ability, charisma and his devotion to Democratic values is without equal. He like any public figure has had the paint chipped over his two terms and many believe he never went far enough but considering the times he has been well above the rest. Yet Charlie Baker certainly had us all worried 3 years ago.
So when I look and talk to the members in the field I have to keep in mind that I want a Democrat in the corner office in January 2015. For me I can not see Steve Grossman, Juliette Kayyem, Joe Avallone or Don Berwick in the corner office. None of them have shown the key ability of reaching out to the masses in their own party. On the other hand we have Martha Coakley who if you remove the failed run for the US Senate from here resume has been an extremely well schooled candidate who attracts the base and wins in the general elections. She comes with deep roots in Middlesex County that makes up almost 1/4 of the voters in Massachusetts. She has been able to pull in the un-enrolled voter in the past. Then look at the ground game she has pulled together since announcing, look at the poll numbers and the voter recognition, then add in the fact that she is personally working on her campaign and you’re seeing a candidate that has the fire we always believed she had.
The rest of the field leaves me feeling like I am watching paint dry, a chorus saying what I like to hear but unable to distinguish themselves from the field. Martha Coakley has shown her true self as she has begun to rapidly pull away from the chorus. Just look at the polls – she has found the pulse of the voters while the others are still checking to see if they have a pulse.
We need a candidate who can beat Charlie Baker in November, we need a candidate who has strong history of supporting Democratic Values, we need someone who can continue the work of our Governor and make their own set of footprints in the office. This is why I am supporting and will caucus for Martha Coakley and will attend the convention in June to help nominate her. I want the best candidate, the best Democrat, the best person we can find to be the next Governor of Massachusetts. Not just a member of the chorus
I have nothing against Martha, I think Brown would have beaten any of the others in that race. But this is her third chance not second — her second chance was her reelection as Attorney General, with no Democratic opposition.
Which, by the way, she also lacked in her first run for AG.
I’m willing to vote for Martha if she nominates, and her showing so far has been strong. But she has a lot to prove.
Woburndem, Why is Coakley the best candidate to beat Baker? Because she’s polling well? I don’t think so. She’s a terrible candidate and there’s a decent chance that Baker will crush her in a general election. She stinks at debates, she doesn’t campaign hard, and I’m not convinced that she’s all that bright or good on her feet. The race that she ran against Brown was one of the worst Democratic campaigns in the state in a long time. jimc, I also completely disagree with your statement that “Brown would have beaten any of the others in that race.” I don’t believe that for a minute. I guess we’ll never know but I think that Capuano would have trounced Brown; and Khazi and Pagliuca would have run better campaigns than Coakley did, that’s for sure. Do I hold a grudge against Coakley? Absolutely! She’s got a long way to go to make up for the *&^%-show that was 2010. God-bless Elizabeth Warren for trouncing that maggot. She whooped him so badly that he left the state. Good-riddance, no thanks to Coakley. Gosh, I just re-read this… why am I so angry?
After having seen the Chorus running against her and looking at her debating in the Democratic Primary against some very good candidates Congressman Capuano for one she clearly separated herself from that field. Fact is who in the field can beat her in any way NO ONE. the rest are little more then a Greek chorus. Sorry Martha may have slipped in the US senate race but by far she is way above the field she is no and yes the early polling shows that very same thing.
If it’s the case that no one in the primary can beat her (and maybe so), it nevertheless says nothing about the general. Remember, we’ve been through this before with her. Won a contested primary; crapped out in the general. I actually share your view that the Democratic field isn’t very strong (although I wouldn’t belittle a pretty accomplished group by repeatedly referring to them as a “Greek Chorus”), I would just include her in the “weak” part of the field. I would like to see Niki Tsongas, Dan Wolf, Mike Capuano, or others join the race. My fear is that Baker puts the Weld/Romney coalition back together while Coakley heads off on a vacation in the midst of the general. I’ll give her this though, she’s smart enough to hire Doug Rubin and Kyle Sullivan to be her strategists. Any thing would be an improvement over the clowns she had running her campaign last time.
… as anomolous general elections (5 weeks long… riggged by the lege, and in the middle of January) aren’t to be compared with much longer general elections that are the norm.
It was not the average, run-of-the mill, everyday general election and so, therefore, you cannot compare it to the average, run-of-the-mill, everyday general election. It was an entirely different, and unquantifiable election and that, maybe more than anything, is why Scott Brown won it…
But she didn’t run in a normal and measurably similar election. She ran in a election that was rigged solely because of the notion that Mitt Romney would get to choose the interim Senator otherwise. The circumstances were not similar and will never come again in exactly this way…. It was anomaly.
It’s a fair point about a special election not being the same as a special. Nevertheless, bad campaigns and candidates shine through no matter how long the race is or other factors at play. So, in that respect, I disagree that you can’t compare the two.
The brief and contentious exchange related by Scott Lehigh in the excerpt quoted in the promotion-comment exemplifies why I will NEVER vote for Martha Coakley.
“Waste, fraud and abuse”? Mr. Lehigh treats this response far more generously than me.
1. This response is DEAD WRONG. As in incorrect. As in dishonest. Ms. Coakley either should or does know better. In sticking to this answer, she is either incompetent, dishonest, or both.
2. This response is a GOP talking point. We will see it in GOP advertising for the rest of this campaign.
3. Her followup epitomizes the arrogance that drives me away from her. Especially in the context of (1), above, the only implication can be “I’ve made up my mind and neither you, the facts, nor the voters count”.
I’d rather watch paint dry than listen to, or read, the utterances of Ms. Coakley.
We Democrats MUST do better than this.
…always and automatically a GOP talking point? Seems to me that is something everyone can agree we should be vigilant about, maybe ESPECIALLY those of us who believe in good government and the positive role that government can and should play in our society.
that we could afford billions of dollars of desireable public investments if we just cut out waste, fraud, and abuse. Obviously doing so has value, but it will barely move the needle. It’s akin to saying that I’m saving so my kid can go to college by putting my spare change in her piggybank. The campaign promises that these candidates will make will some combination of economic growth, tax increases, or major program and benefit cuts to be afforded. The magic reform wand just isn’t going to do it.
Every little bit helps, especially if it ultimately leads to a change in perception that in turn leads to greater political support for spending on, and possibly even raising revenue for, those things that we really want out of our government.
There was a recent survey in which Americans were asked what percentage of the federal budget was foreign aid and what percentage it should be. Typical answers were that it was too large but respondents overestimated its size and the answer they gave for its proper size was many times larger than its current size.
Maybe people think it’s so large because they hear about it so much. Likewise, waste and corruption. If you were to listen to the Right Wing media, you’d think two thirds of the budget were devoted to waste and corruption.
These differences in scale matter.
The amount actually implied by Ms. Coakley was at least $500 M for her extended school day proposal alone, as noted in the Scott Lehigh column cited in the promotion comment and repeated down-thread.
There is NOT a half-million dollars of “waste, fraud and abuse” in the Massachusetts budget. The assertion that there is only benefits those who pander to low-information right-wing voters.
There is not a half-BILLION ($500 M) in waste, fraud, and abuse.
For a while, I’ve called this the tactic of eliminating the Department of Waste. I went back and reviewed when I used this phrase.
It’s always been about Republicans. So yes, it is striking that Ms. Coakley would refer to the magic pot of gold that comes from eliminating the large but mythical Department of Waste.
EVERYBODY agrees that we should be vigilant about waste, fraud and abuse. I don’t think any candidate has EVER said anything different. That’s why a promise to “eliminate waste, fraud and abuse” is NEVER going to accomplish anything.
It’s the economic analog to asserting, in the face of growing childhood nutrition issues, that mothers should make more apple pie. Everybody loves apple pie. Everybody loves Mom. Mom’s apple pie is not a public health solution.
but it goes pretty far: “if you remove the failed run for the US Senate from her resume.” Why would you remove this from her resume?
As a successful woman running in a country desperately trying to keep women barefoot, pregnant, but still holding down a full-time job, Coakley may have superficial demographic appeal to other women. But demographics don’t elect candidates, voters do. Most women will not vote for a woman because she’s a woman.
What else does Coakley bring to the table?
Removing the Election lose vs Brown is as much a result of a candidate who miss judged and opponent as it was a wave of discontent in the country. I would agree if she had to run the race over again would I like to see her do it differently sure would the outcome have changed that is where I doubt. Not because it was Brown just because it was in the voters mood. This time around she is head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Running against an experienced opponent who is remaking him self into a more friendly likable guy. The others will not even scratch that teflon coating the Republicans are painting on old Big Dig Charlie. No Martha can be the candidate who will take Charlie right out of his game and hold the corner office.
She blew a 15 pt lead into a 5 pt deficit. The mood on the country didn’t sour, but the mood on Coakley sure as hell did. And if Brown was Mr. Popular whom everybody loved, Warren would not have trounced him so. Ditto the ‘she was trying to break a glass ceiling’ excuse since a woman with a better record, clearer message, and stronger campaigning skills handed it to him. Sure she had Obama coattails-but she also ran ahead of the President.
but Warren did not run ahead of the President here, and comparing her total in MA to his nationwide total doesn’t tell you much. Of course, Obama was running as an incumbent and Warren was running against an incumbent.
moment, but have yet to decide. If she wins the nomination, she can count on my strong support.
The race back in 2009 – 2010 revolved heavily around the Affordable Care Act.
Back then, Democrats were convinced that this would be a popular initiative and simply lining up in support of it would be sufficient to win an election in a a liberal state like Massachusetts. Mr. Brown’s explicit opposition was thought to be inimical to his chances of winning.
Instead, the Democratic leadership sorely misjudged the state of the electorate. They had again taken the passive “the facts will win” approach. So while the country was hearing about secret negotiations, special Nebraska carve-outs, the wrongness of mandates, and the special perfection of America’s healthcare system, the Democratic message machine was doing what exactly?
I’ll tell you what it was doing. It was doing nothing.
So Coakley and her advisers and her campaign just did not see that they were running hard on a dubiously popular platform. Mr. Brown took excellent advantage of that.
Possibly, possibly she has learned her lesson.
That lesson should not just be campaign harder.
If we remove the only competitive general election she ever faced then sure, it’s no big deal.
Say what you will about Capuano-too liberal, too loud, too angry-he never would’ve gone on a bleepin cruise in the middle of the campaign.
So the idea that Brown was unbeatable is pure unadultered BS.
Grossman did have a strong competitor and he beat her for Treasurer. He has been tested statewide in a similar matter as Coakley and triumphed while she failed. Avellone won’t make the ballot, and Kayyem and Berwick will, but haven’t run big before. But this was one of the most defensive and lackluster ‘vote for my candidate’ posts I’ve seen in awhile.
That is unfair to include this race in a special election and it is unfair to categorize it as the only competitive general election she ever faced.
We’ve been over this before. We’ve sliced and diced what happened in January ’10 ten ways from sunday… We’ve discussed the primary being both bruising and several times longer than the general… we’ve discussed the 11th hour stealth money bombs… We’ve discussed Coakleys misteps… we’ve discussed Browns failings… We discussed the cold cold January
After all this discussion we still can’t agree on A) what, exactly, happened and 2) what, exactly, it means. For that reason alone it was not an ordinary election… and there are other reasons to consider it extra-ordinary… so I don’t think it fair to call it the only competitive general election as all the variables were different and will never come again in quite the manner in which they came in ’10…
Agreement doesn’t really mean much.
… 1,417,538
That’s how many people voted for Martha Coakley in NOVEMBER of 2010 for AG.
How many people voted for Martha Coakley in January of 2010 for the Senate seat…
1,058,682
Do you know how many people voted for Martha Coakley in the Democratic Primary in the AG race of 2010?
Zero. There wasn’t a Democratic primary.
That’s a big “difference opinion” doncha think??? So I don’t think, agreement or no, that the special election of January 2010 is a fair measure of “The only competitive general election she ever faced”
I recall there wasn’t even a Republican on that ballot. So no it wasn’t a competitive general election – neither was her. 2006 coronation with no primary opposition and Larry Frisoli in the general as a one issue pro-death penalty candidate. So no, she never had a serious race in her life until Brown and she didn’t treat that seriously until she was already a goner. She isn’t treating this one seriously with the vague platitudes and bland agenda she is running. What’s the phrase after fool me once, shame on you?
… of whether to believe the election of January 2010 was simply anomolous or Martha Coakley is simply a bad candidate.
You have, apparently, chosen the latter. Fine. There is no other choice because you’ve chose January 2010 as wholly dispositive. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to believe you or, better yet, genuflect to your ‘wisdom’ in this…. But it does mean you have to live with the choice.
The phrase in question is predicated upon the notion that you can’t fool yourself… which, as some of us know, isn’t strictly true…
My opinion is that the following are all true:
– Martha Coakley was and is a bad candidate
– The election of January 2010 was anomalous
– The 2006 ascension of Martha Coakley to AG was anomalous
– Martha Coakley is a machine politician who is much better at working her colleagues in government than at connecting with and representing her constituents.
I think both of you are correct.
… since your only evidence that Martha Coakley is a poor candidate is to cite an anomalous election in which she lost. In fact, the only evidence that Scott Brown is a good candidate is, likewise, to cite an anomalous election in which he won.
You’ve put yourself in a bit of a bind: If the election, and its results, are anomalies and you have no other evidence to indict Martha Coakley for being a poor candidate then you have nothing but dislike for her to justify your accusations. Anomaly means ‘out of the pattern’. And if this were a scientific study, the anomalies that can’t be explained adequately have to be discarded.
If, however, the election was not an anomaly, but rather (as has been posited) dispositive then I don’t see how her performance in the primary, suddenly, doesn’t count in her favor…and so again it comes down to simple dislke… which is fine, if not exactly honest in this debate… And that’s the bind in which you’ve put yourself.
Please note… I’m not what you would consider a ‘partisan’ in this. I’ve not said Martha Coakley is perfect. I’m saying that you can’t know she’s too imperfect for the job based upon the evidence at hand.
Now you’re going to have to explain that. In 2006 Martha Coakley won with 73% of the vote. She got more votes for AG than did Deval Patrick for Governor… If her victory is an anomaly then so to is his….
You won’t get an argument from me on this. I’ve long pointed out that relationships between colleagues in government is far more important (and constitutionally sanctioned) in a way that constituent servicing is not…
I will say, for the record, that historically the machine in Massachusetts has been overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly white. With Martha Coakley (the first female AG in Mass) and Deval Patrick (only the second African-American Governor in the entire contiguous) maybe the old machine is withering. Would it be great if it could be replaced with no machinery? Absolutely.
Do you really think that’s going to happen?
If EMILY’s list represents the new machine I say that’s a step forward. Let Martha Coakley take that banner and run with it…
Potentially the 2010 was anomalous but not so very anomalous as to make this datum useless. Connoisseurs of Bayesian inference would neither throw out this datum nor take it as dispositive. Polling would indicate that the campaign turned her double digit lead into a loss. That evidence has some weight.
Unlike Patrick, who has always had well-known, well-financed opponents, Ms. Coakley’s opponents are difficult to name or remember. So I’m not sure your severely dichotomous argument applies here. No?
.. then the ‘talking point that says she’s never faced a serious primary opponent is instantly invalidated. She face three… well-funded and serious… candidates and defeated them handily.
I’ve never said that what happened in 2010 was not a mistake. What I DID say, and do say, is that turning a double digit lead into is something that may have occurred no matter the candidate. That’s the anomaly. The entire and complete democratic establishment was behind her and would have been behind any candidate and any candidate may well have lost that race. The fault lies not in our candidates, but in our party. The entire and complete premise behind having a primary campaign that was three times longer than the general was predicated upon the belief that the primary would be more important to the general. That, obviously, was a mistaken predicate…. but the mistake was not Martha Coakley’s. The mistake belongs to the lege who were more scared of Mitt Romney appointing a candidate. There was a misjudgment. You made it. I made it. Everybody made it.
Michael Capuano. Steve Pagliuca. Alan Khazei. All of whom were well know and, most certainly, well financed… So, um, what’s your point?
Well, yes, it does. If the election was dispositive, then the primary campaign, which every democrat in the state thought was the real race, was equally dispositive and Martha Coakley garnered nearly 50% (47%) in a four way race. That’s a nearly unbelievable statistic. I don’t blame you, or others, for not believing it…. but there it is.
If the primary campaign was not dispositive… then why not? And why is the primary not dispositive but the general election is? You can’t have it two ways….
… That’s the nature of a severely dichotomous argument… no?
I don’t think I’ve ever cited her loss in any election as evidence that she’s a bad candidate. I have, instead, cited her conduct in both her campaigns (victorious or not) and in her office.
I most certainly did NOT have Emily’s List in mind when I referred to the “machine”. I meant, instead, the zaibatsu of Beacon Hill, City Hall, the Boston Globe, and the lawyers and lobbyists who provide the lubrication (in the form of cash) that keeps the whole thing running.
That would be the machine that worked, like clockwork, to remove Tim Murray from the race (without indictments and the potentially embarrassing court appearances that might follow), obtained minimum penalties for Mr. McLaughlin, and ensured that NO other machine candidates for whom Mr. McLaughlin raised money were even mentioned by name in the media.
In my view, the point here is that the current narrative offered by the Coakley Campaign is that her only “problem” is her loss to Scott Brown, and that she’s “fixed” that.
I beg to differ, and that’s why I made the comment I made.
… why, the question is begged, is this particular sub-thread occurring in a diary entitled martha coakley is working to prove she deserves second chance… ?
I rest my case.
Perhaps I need more coffee.
I have NO CLUE what “case” you’ve decided to rest.
point was this wasn’t worth talking about again?
Taking on the banks to help keep people in their homes, protecting civil rights as the first AG to successfully challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, helping consumers by addressing the costs of energy and health care, and standing up for victims of domestic violence.
Plus, she has campaigned for Governor aggressively across the state, working hard to build a grassroots campaign and talk directly to voters about the issues that are important to us all.
The low hanging fruit.
Doug, why don’t you run? We feel we are listening to you as Martha channels Doug Rubin, any-who 😉
You could block the Casino Repeal http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org and get back into the Corner office, right? timed for the SJC overrule of her “takings” argument…..The spin puts her front and center and Grossman cant back out with cred., or the mea culpa coakley on a platter. It’s beautiful!
You could have it all!
You have mapped her flip to support Repeal by now,right? The MGC Commissioners are back peddling 😉
I worked for Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren because I believed in what they stood for and the values they brought to politics. That is the same reason I am working for Martha Coakley.
Shrewd, simple, bon homme messaging. Pick the two outstanding candidates and align yourself with their “values.” Damn you are good. Pristine, you are not. Casinos/The Donald, Wilkerson, Cahill, Pagliuca (Bain Capitol) all points of light……what did they stand for and what values have they brought to politics?
Upstream I suggested you step into the center this time because your skills are far better than your client’s.
You could have it all! We know Marty’s in your debt.
And to paraphrase the political cliche, “Martha Coakley is no Elizabeth Warren.”
In my opinion Martha Coakley is far and away the best candidate for Governor and the person I believe will continue to move the Commonwealth in the right direction. My wife and I are raising 3 daughters here in MA and that matters to us. Others may agree or disagree – that is why we have competitive campaigns.
I have enormous respect for you, Mr. Rubin. I believe you are the best at your business here in Massachusetts — by a long shot. Deval Patrick has been a great Governor in large part because of you.
Elizabeth Warren would NEVER assert that closing the “Department of Waste” (eliminating waste, fraud and abuse) would fund any significant Massachusetts program. Elizabeth Warren would NEVER respond to follow up questions with the arrogance that Ms. Coakley apparently showed Scott Lehigh.
I most strongly encourage you to hear us (and I don’t agree that it’s cliche): Martha Coakley is no Elizabeth Warren.
get this snotty?
I don’t know you or Doug, though I’m guessing you are both acquainted with each other.
Doug has a job to do, and I think we have benefited from his work. Do we have to disapprove of him for making a living that isn’t 100% dedicated to progressive values?
It was Doug Rubin who cited his work for Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren, and cited that as his reason for working for Martha Coakley (“That is the same reason I am working for Martha Coakley). I don’t think it’s “snotty” to observe, as heartlanddem and I have, that Martha Coakley is no Elizabeth Warren.
Even if heartlanddem was attempting sarcasm, I actually think think Mr. Rubin would make VERY attractive candidate for Governor — I am absolutely serious when I say that I would immediately support him, well more than any of the current candidates.
I hear where you’re coming from, I just didn’t see the comment as “snotty” in the way that you apparently did.
I always respect your comments, Doug, but, I think your message should have included a disclosure that you are a paid member of Coakley’s staff. After all, it’s your job to make Coakley’s record appear as good as possible.
I have included a disclosure in a number of other comments on BMG lately. I wasn’t sure what the correct protocol was – I just assumed by now it was known that I work for the Coakley campaign. I will include the disclosure on all posts going forward.
My fear is that she is working harder this time around having embarrassed herself and all of us that worked much harder than she did to elect HER to the US Senate seat. She was not my first choice in the primary. But I stepped-up and donated and worked for the (D) nominee and faced a very rude awakening about her lack of substance and lack of vision as a candidate who was swaddled by an unresponsive campaign team.
The trouble with Ms. Coakley – in addition to the baggage in her body of work – and cited on BMG many times, is that she does not have an inner compass that resonates with many voters.
dasox1 wrote passionately above about the ire that many felt (and still feel) with her as a candidate but also I think there is disappointment in her as a Constitutional Officer who has not been an exceptional AG. On the upside for her, Martha is attractive and has a strong foothold in voter rich Middlesex County with some very influential backers. She has name recognition. She polls well – to date.
I will sit this one out if she is the nominee.
BTW, Charlie Baker has learned some lessons too and he is working his campaign harder and smarter without the shadow of Mitt, Scotto and the Teabagger fanatics on the radar to drag him down. I see DSC staffers blogging/posting negatives on a routine basis about Baker but they don’t really stick.
The vacuum being created by Patrick’s leaving is huge. For crying out loud, he’s running the state without an LG and hasn’t really skipped a beat. Low expectations might be the safety position – a lot can change between now and November but I don’t see any of the (D) declared candidates, all of a sudden becoming Neo, “The One.”
Good luck to you.
You wrote “For crying out loud, he’s running the state without an LG and hasn’t really skipped a beat. ” It’s not as if that vacancy just happened, out of the blue.
Tim Murray would have been a much better candidate than any of the current contenders.
I happen to agree with you, and I suspect Coakley did too 😉
My compliment regarding Deval Patrick was not intended as a slight to our former LG….the best we’ve had in my observations.
I intended my comment to be a “build-on”, not criticism.
Martha Coakley paid her sister $34,000 from her Senate campaign fund. Her sister did, basically, nothing to get that money.
Coakley’s actions are particularly outrageous when you consider that, as AG, she prosecuted people for campaign finance problems.
Martha Coakley lacks ethics. I will not vote for her.
I’m not arguing that Ms. Coakley did or didn’t do anything — but I am arguing that if you’re going to accuse her of being unethical, you need to provide a little evidence.
Note that I erroneously said $34,000. She actually paid her sister $28,000. Here is the link to the story about her campaign funds.
“Her sister did, basically, nothing to get that money.”
I’m certain you have proof?
It doesn’t sound like you read the story itself. No further “proof” is necessary (emphasis mine):
Given the “accounting nightmare” and “disarray” already on the record about these campaign funds, it seems to this reader that the “proof” that Ms. Gentile “did, basically, nothing to get that money” is already on the table.
I think that the onus is, instead, on you to demonstrate otherwise.
What is it you think Ms. Gentile did to earn that $28,254?
Coakley’s sister’s job for that Senate fundraising account was simple and administrative. The attorneys and the accountants prepared the FEC reports, and they were paid. Coakley’s sister just needed sign the reports. Since the federal account was dormant, there was almost nothing to report, anyway.
It’s plan and simple example of campaign finance corruption on the part of Martha Coakley.
Has the Coakley campaign answered this? It’s difficult to pass judgement without at least hearing the other side.
She replaced her sister and lawyer-ed up. Here is a link to an article describing her response.
I don’t think I’m being overly cynical to observe that the Globe would be all over this if the owners didn’t support the figure in question.
The continued silence of federal and state authorities about these apparent violations of state and federal law is striking, as is the absence of Boston Globe followup.
I’m curious about what Chuck Turner and Dianne Wilkerson have to say about all this.
Perhaps if you brought it to the attention of Howie Carr and the Herald?
It sounds as though you are suggesting that we here at BMG should look the other way at apparent misconduct of our own favored people (bearing in mind that the individual in question has not been shy about pursuing such misconduct on the part of her political opponents).
Is that really what you mean?
Your “proof” for your claim that “Her sister did, basically, nothing to get that money,” is a Globe story that doesn’t address the amount of work her sister did?
You have very interesting standards for “proof.” Your charge is very serious. Has there been an official investigation? By whom? What were their findings? Are there criminal charges pending? Or is it just your partisan opinion that since the person was Coakley’s sister your charge of corruption needs no evidence?
Perhaps, and I’m going out on a limb here, your time (and ours) would be best spent talking up your candidate instead of attacking the other candidate? Your strategy didn’t work very well for Mitt Romney.
Since her Senate campaign had failed, Coakley could have given the leftover money to charity. She also could have given the money to other candidates Instead, Coakley continued to keep her account open, and she continued to pay her sister from those fund to simply sign a quarterly report.
And, yes, if Coakley wins the nomination, the republicans will make sure that everybody in Massachusetts knows Coakley’s sister’s name.
Just who would provide the “proof” you demand?
The facts, as reported, create the impression of misconduct. The immediate termination of her sister’s role in the campaign suggests that the campaign agrees. The person in question heads the AG’s office, and the newspaper that reported the story is itself a long-time supporter of Ms. Coakley.
I agree with that you are, in fact, going out on a limb. Not talking about apparent misconduct of a potential candidate is generally not a winning strategy, especially in even a marginally competitive race.
In her federal Senate campaign account, Coakley spent about $35,000 for software that handles email lists and fundraising activities. But, why would she need to spend that amount of money in a federal account that wasn’t doing any fundraising? It’s a pretty good guess that Coakley used those funds to transfer email addresses and other material to her state account to run for Governor. Such a transfer would be a clear violation of federal campaign laws and probably state laws. There is no proof, however. There is just the odd expenditure, which was followed by a major increase in her state fundraising results. Altogether, it doesn’t look good.
Who? Well, you.
You leveled the charge.
To be fair to you, you’re backpedaling at gold medal speed, saying now there is only an “impression of misconduct.”
Enough vitriol and hyperbole, let’s leave that to the other party.
Got anything good to say about your own candidate?
…I’m fairly certain I recall the gist of this being widely reported as well as discussed here awhile back.
There is proof that Coakley paid her sister $28,000 for doing a simple administrative job. The proof can be found in the FEC reports, which are the basis of the Globe articles.
In addition there is another allegation for which there is an impression of additional misconduct.
I am not backpedaling at all. I am saying that Coakley’s actions paying her sister represent an unethical act. I am also saying that there is more about this situation that needs to be investigated.
As far as your request that I say something about another candidate, this thread is all about Coakley.
“Lets face it we have all been ruined by Deval Patrick.”
I don’t think so, and the words following that make me think you wanted the word spoiled, rather than ruined. Because you led off with ruined in your thesis, though, that’s the word that colors all the rest. Makes a great quote for the Republicans, doesn’t it?
S/he wrote a thoughtful, careful post supporting Martha Coakley.
And what happens? David Kravitz takes over and insists on the first word in his promotion post. Then he gives second word to Scot Lehigh, overpromoted mail room boy at the Globe. All that work, and relegated to third place in one’s own writing.
nt
Just because things are unfair doesn’t remove an obligation to make them more fair. Anyone who makes their argument by interrupting someone else making theirs looks poorer for it.
you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. My own view is that most posters’ sensibilities are not quite so tender as perhaps you make them out to be.
His reply to your comment was a bit standoffish, but I think he was probably reacting to you portraying front-paging as a negative thing. It is not.
I’m honored, and often surprised, when it happens to me and most of the promotions are fine. It seems most awkward when the promoting editor opines in a way that dissents from the opinion of the diarist.
To my knowledge it hasn’t happened to me personally, but I’ve seen several lengthy promotion comments tending to negate the point of the diary. Even where I’ve agreed with the promoting editor more than the diarist, I wish there could be a different way of handling it. But your blog, your call.
For the record, I think most of my issue could be mitigated if it looked different visually.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, and I don’t mean to get into a pissing match with anyone. Just wish I had a chance to read an argument before being subjected to the refutation is all.
We progressives ignore or ridicule the “waste, fraud, and abuse” issue at our peril. For a lot of voters that is an important and highly charged issue, whatever its real contribution to the state’s fiscal problems might be. (My take: relatively unimportant but not negligible.)
I don’t hear anybody suggesting that we “ignore” waste, fraud and abuse.
I want to put the “waste, fraud and abuse” comment in context. Here is the relevant paragraph from Scott Lehigh’s column (emphasis mine):
Ms. Coakley is, in essence. asserting that there is HALF A MILLION DOLLARS per year in “waste, fraud and abuse” waiting to be reduced. She then doubled-down on the claim with her response to Mr. Lehigh.
Please … tell me again how this is anything BUT a GOP talking point.
Asa state employee working for DMH for almost 30 years, I think there is waste, but the waste that I see is based upon the priorities that an agency establishes. For me many state agencies are upside pyramids in their organizational structure, far too many people getting paid way too much ,money to administrate, not provide direct services to patients/clients/consumers/persons we serve. Way too many people talking and way too few doing the work that needs to be done. So, I look at the 630 million dollar budget and ask what do they do with all that money? How about we look more closely at exactly how agencies spend their dollars and not decrease budgets, but force a more effective budgeting process. Let’s review each administrative position and see if they agency can function without it, and move those dollars to where they are actually needed, providing the services the agency is mandated to provide!.
As the state official responsible for prosecuting public benefits fraud, she (along with the AG’s in other states and the US Attorney’s office) has forced some of the the biggest welfare cheats in the state — drug companies — into settlements in which they have admitted to bribing doctors and pharmacies to promote drugs for uses that have not been approved as safe or effective.
This past November, for example, Johnson & Johnson agreed to repay $62.5 million to the state for improperly encouraging the use of one of its drugs to control agitated nursing home patients, even though the drug increased the risk of stroke.
It’s regrettable that so far she’s simply choosing to repeat the GOP mantra without setting the record straight that corporate interests are responsible for the the lion’s share of the waste (or taking any credit herself for deterring it) . A disturbing lack of vision.
In February 2014, the race is for delegates to the state convention. During this period, misinformed people who think over a quarter of the state budge is wasted, stolen, or abused are inactive. Their ill-considered views don’t matter because they certainly are not going to show up at Democratic caucuses. On the other hand, people who instantly recognize this as an empty Republican talking point do participate in those Democratic caucuses. Saying stupid policy can be pretty damaging right now.
IMO promotions might provide one sentence worth of background, but the editors then can and should save their opinons for the comment section like the rest of us.
Whatever our opinion of Scott Lehigh, he does write a column for the only daily Boston paper that even makes a pretense of being legitimate. Mr. Lehigh’s cited column, as published in the Globe, certainly caught my attention — the “waste, fraud and abuse” cliche most of all.
I agree that the post was thoughtful and careful (as is just about everything from woburndem). I think it belongs on the front page.
I was happy that the editors included the Scott Lehigh reference in their promotion comments. I was happy that woburndem wrote the piece. The combination meant that I didn’t have to compose a piece myself.
and the esteemed co-editor, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the post was hijacked in the preamble by David Kravitz.
It is common practice for the editors to add comments to some posts. I do not see the comments as being outside the precedents and norms for injects. For example, the recent MA-05 Congressional race when posters were identified as partisan and promoted with brief opinion statements. The term, “partisan” as well as the Lehigh-Coakley inter-change with a link were not conflagrations, hyperbole or derogatory.
It was a thoughtful post by Woburndem and it has been a catalyst for spirited debate.
but the leader.
She’s the AG. How has that been working out?
I am old enough to remember Scott Harshbarger and even a bit of Frank Bellotti. These were Attorneys General who deeply understood the job as advocates for the rights and property of the people of Massachusetts.
Coakley by comparison seems to to see the job as fundamentally about locking up bad guys. That’s what the DAs are for.
I feel she is not just unready to be Governor, she’s also unready to be AG.
She can hire all the media consultants she wants and shake as many hands as she pleases and she won’t change that.
I will not dismiss Coakley’s loss to Scott Brown in looking at the primary candidates. Blowing that election was arguably the most significant accomplishment of her political career. I used to have extremely high hopes for her. She is a smart, relatively polished politician. She also happens to be a woman with roots in W. Mass., the law enforcement and legal communities as well as the Boston area. However, I really haven’t seen her do much as AG that makes me want to vote for her, which is all the more reason why “fraud and abuse” reduction just isn’t going to do. It indicates that her lack of accomplishments may not be due to her position, but because she’s simply not that skilled at working in government. Let’s also not forget that she was polling around 45% in a 4 way democratic primary in 2009, so no level of primary support should make us believe she will beat Baker. I respectfully disagree with the poster who said earlier that she shined above at the debates. Capuano dominated whenever they were in a room together. I also take issue with the prosecution of Tim Cahill. The decision to prosecute Tim Cahill was a joke, and ended without a conviction. She embarrassed herself when appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has had issues with mismanagement/misuse of campaign funds. She has the best political consultant in Massachusetts and a great chance to win the democratic nomination. However, I will be extremely disappointed if she gets a free ride to the general. In my mind, she needs to make a case for why her accomplishments outweigh all of these concerns.
And by Tom, Heartland, and many others. Point is-EB3 is right and Grossman and Kayyem gotta go after her on this stuff. It’s important to defeat her in the primary so that she does not get defeated in the general.
In addition, her actions at the tail end of the Fells Acres Day Care case — by which time, the original prosecution’s case had been shown to be outrageous and unsupportable — were shameful.
I don’t think that the main problem with Martha Coakley is that she ran a bad campaign. That kind of stuff can be fixed, and there are enough Doug Rubins around to fix it. I think that the Fells Acres case, as well as her lack of sensitivity to civil liberties issues (including the notion that we need more government suveillance) are serious negatives. I don’t see a principled Democrat here. I don’t see a person with progressive vision. I do see a person who cares a lot about the abuse of women and children — and that’s good. But that’s about as far as it goes. She’d probably be a good local prosecutor, at least for those crimes. But why should she be governor?
That’s the elephant in the friggin room. Perhaps Charley should’ve made his thread about Coakley instead of Mike Lake?
Thank you, Carl Offner, for “going there” with respect to Fells Acres and, in general, Martha Coakley’s record. The problem with Coakley isn’t that she’s a lousy campaigner (though this also seems to be the case). The problem isn’t that she wouldn’t stand outside Fenway in the cold four years ago (though her snippy response at the most recent debate tells me that she still doesn’t get it). But no, the problem with Martha Coakley isn’t style, but substance.
As a mother and grandmother myself, and as an activist and feminist going back to the sixties, I will do my best to ensure that the Emily’s List brand of identity politics does not prevail in choosing our Democratic candidate for governor. If Martha Coakley does win the nomination, I will vote for her against Charlie Baker. But for now, I am still waiting for a good answer to the question, Why should she be governor?
I most respectfully feel compelled to observe that when you write “If Martha Coakley does win the nomination, I will vote for her against Charlie Baker”, you invite the Coakley campaign to ignore both you and also your otherwise astute comment.
I think that the Coakley campaign cares ONLY about getting more votes than Charlie Baker in the general election. I think their interest in voters, forums like this, delegates, and everything else is JUST ENOUGH to get her nominated, to win the primary, and then to win the general.
I see no evidence whatsoever that Martha Coakley gives an iota about any of the things we talk about here. Her conduct of her office, in my view, demonstrates that Martha Coakley cares only about whatever it is that Martha Coakley cares about (hence the arrogance). The rest of us are just votes — tools for her ambition — and I see no evidence that she cares how she gets them.
Deval Patrick is a principled Democrat who was able and willing to find ways to accommodate the wisdom of his advisers (like Doug Rubin) with his principles to become a formidable candidate and powerhouse governor. Anyone who has met Mr. Patrick knows that central to his principles are his genuine commitment to, empathy for, and connection with the people of Massachusetts (whether or not they support him). The same is simply not true of Martha Coakley.
When the Coakley campaign knows they’ll have your vote in the General, I think the campaign concludes that they can ignore you if they can only win the primary.
Bill Gates is famously quoted as saying that “the ‘law’ is the way they’ll try and stop us from doing what we want” (my paraphrase). I believe that Martha Coakley governs and campaigns from that same unprincipled cynicism.
I don’t disagree with anything you say here. I will just add, in defense of my (admittedly somewhat illogical) position, that what I wrote above isn’t something I would say publicly, using my real name, for precisely the reason you cite. I wouldn’t say it in a letter to the editor, for example. I was taking advantage of this forum to express the frustration I’m feeling within the Democratic party right now. I simply don’t get why Coakley seems like a perfectly good option to so many Democrats, including many who would call themselves progressive.
It’s about the people and who can best serve us. We need a Governor who will be with us more often than not which she clearly will be more than Baker. Neither candidate needs us from a quality of life standpoint for themselves. Whoever loses will land on his/her feet suffering only a bruised ego, but the rest of us may get the royal shaft if the wrong person gets in.
On most of the issues that matter to me, I’m not sure a “Governor Baker” will be any worse than “Governor Coakley”. On public transportation, in particular, the barrier is the legislature. Martha Coakley has offered no evidence that she WANTS to raise the revenue needed to address the problem. The result will be stagnation, just as if Charlie Baker is elected. The same is true, but more so, in education.
No new taxes = no change = continuing decline
There are three key areas where I think “Governor Coakley” could, in fact, be FAR WORSE than “Governor Baker”:
1. Privacy: Martha Coakley has, in fact, a long history of pushing in exactly the WRONG direction. She has advocated expanding government intrusion into private lives, first in the name of “protecting children” and then citing “security”. She was wrong both times. She has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that she has regard for individual privacy at all.
2. Militarization of our police: Martha Coakley has similarly been a strong supporter and advocate of an increasingly militarized police state.
3. Political corruption: I think Charlie Baker is actually far more likely to do something about the pervasive culture of corruption on Beacon Hill and in City Hall than Ms. Coakley. This is particularly ironic given her lengthy tenure as AG.
I’ve said, repeatedly, that I will never cast a vote for a Republican. I write this comment in order challenge your claim that a Baker victory will “clearly” be worse than a Baker victory.
I am of the opinion that I am just as likely to “get the royal shaft” from Martha Coakley as from Charlie Baker.
Too bad we can’t edit our comments.
Thanks somervilletom for bringing this up, as I think Baker is going to harp on this point pretty strongly, whether this culture really exists or not.
Two questions for those more in the know:
(1) Grossman’s been a Beacon Hill player too, why wouldn’t he be tarred with the same brush?
(2) Wouldn’t Baker just have his own set of politically connected hires, vendors, and business interests? What leads anyone to believe things would be different in a Baker administration?
The answer to both your questions is that Charlie Baker is not the Attorney General. I don’t expect a former health-care executive to eagerly pursue, without regard to party or politics, investigations of apparent corruption. I do expect that of an Attorney General. The same is true for Mr. Grossman.
I see no reason to believe that Martha Coakley’s values or priorities will be any different as Governor than they have been as prosecutor and then AG.
I think the answer is people get riled up about things like pension “double-dipping” that look bad but are actually legal. If the AG’s office went down all of these trails they wouldn’t have time to go after cases with a better chance of success. I’m not a sworn Coakley supporter but her office has recovered millions of dollars for the state. Plus every public official has supporters that will accuse you of staging a witch hunt if you investigate them, doubly and triply so if there turns out to be nothing there that’s technically illegal.
I know that pension double-dipping is legal, that isn’t what I had in mind.
I’m remembering Ms. Coakley’s pronounced lack of interest when Michael Kineavy (Tom Menino strong-man) was destroying public records — emails that allegedly documented the City Hall connection of the crimes that put Ms. Wilkerson in prison.
I’m thinking of all the bluster and name-dropping about Mr. McLaughlin — at least, when the name being dropped was “Tim Murray” — and the number of actual indictments (zero) that came out. I guess Mr. McLaughlin didn’t raise money for ANY other Democrat during all those years. Right? I guess that the testimony he offered in exchange for the plea-bargain he was granted didn’t actually reveal anything. Right? It smacks to me of “nothing to see here, just keep moving”.
I’m thinking of the “disability mill” — the network of attorneys, physicians, and similar “advisors” who ensure that so many firefighters happen to be “filling in” for a higher-paid supervisor when they “retire” with “disability”, at a much higher pension.
I’m thinking of the YEARS during which Annie Dookhan cooked her lab results — and the apparent disinterest in pursuing how those abuses continued for so long. We are asked to believe that the prosecutors who benefited (until the scam was discovered) knew absolutely nothing.
I have no doubt that much of this is, at least superficially, totally “legal”. After all, these guys pay good money for a lot of lawyering to buy just that.
I think an Attorney General who shared my distaste for such rackets would find ways to slow things down, even if not through actual prosecutions. There are many tools available to whoever is Attorney General — outright prosecutions are just one.
Enforcing the law is part of the AG’s responsibility. In my view, I expect a person who wants to move from AG to Governor to demonstrate a stronger commitment to leadership than I’ve seen from Ms. Coakley.
Just to chime in to say that
1) “because she has truly learned her lesson about campaigning hard” does not answer that question, and
2) it’s possible that a mediocre AG will be a great governor—but it’s not likely.