The two leading candidates for Attorney General, Warren Tolman and Maura Healey, have been kind enough to sit down with Bob and me to talk about their visions for the office. By popular demand (and with the permission of both campaigns), we’re posting the full audio of our conversations so that you can hear what they had to say about their priorities and several important issues of the day. We hope to have a chance to write up highlights of the conversations separately, but for now, here is all of what they had to say in our conversations.
Obviously, the interviews were conducted in rather noisy eating establishments, so we apologize for the background noise. FYI, the casino discussions start at about 40:00 for Tolman, and at about 35:00 for Healey.
Tolman:
Healey:
Full disclosure: I am volunteering for the legal team seeking to overturn the Attorney General’s ruling and get the anti-casino question on the ballot.
The years of a having an AG that has been a luke-warm advocate for good government, but likeable as a person who seems to want to do the right thing and who has achieved a few high profile accomplishments, may be coming to an end.
The AG race has certainly become more interesting since Ms. Healey chucked her surprise anti-casino position into the ring. Her assessment of the law and the policy implications are spot-on. Mr. Tolman’s responses have been weak at best and do not reflect the progressive, independent minded Democrat most of us remember from his days serving in the legislature.
So what’s a Tolman fan to do? Pretend that the absence of a strong grasp on the regressive and corrupt nature of the predatory gambling industry is not a litmus test – when both candidates have strong positions on law, consumer and privacy? Or, recognize that there is a deeper attachment of today’s Tolman with the myopic position of labor (We all know his brother, former state Senator Steve Tolman is leader of the MA AFL-CIO) and the Beacon Hill Democrat establishment leadership on slots/casinos? Or, ignore the fact that the MGC has botched the process with multiple bend-overs to gambling proponents coupled with blatant conflicts of interest and that the AG candidate is not calling that out?
What’s a Healey fan, like Stan Rosenberg (aka, The Beacon Hill Eveready Bunny for Casinos) to do with her very savvy step-into spotlight with her solid statements on repeal?
Lehigh sums it up as thus in today’s Globe.
Let’s keep talking…..but more importantly, let’s listen to what is really being said not what we/I want to hear.
Lehigh’s for Healey, I’m definitely for Tolman.
Note the column also suggested that Healey is the preferred “choice of law-enforcement professionals.” Which brings us back to all the “other issues” an AG must face, and all the areas where I’ve been most distressed by the Coakley AG’s office. I’ve got a few “litmus tests” for an AG beyond casinos.
I trust this is in jest…
Is Lehigh the litmus test? Just joshin’ – of course he’s not.
Fenway and others……….what are your “litmus tests?”
I posted three categories law/consumer/privacy in which I see the front-runners as talented and close in policy.
Gambling seems to be the divide – what are the other side-by-sides to consider between these two candidates?
has was solid in his position on enforcement:
Haven’t had the opportunity to listen to the interviews but look forward to hearing them. Did Tolman stake any position or was he asked about the ballot question?
I’d hardly expect an AG candidate to say that the AG should not do any of the things in the quoted statement. I did ask him about the ballot question – it’s at about 40 minutes into the conversation.
alright, I was going to listen tonight anyway. Something to look forward to.
there really wasn’t any substantive discussion of the ballot question. David disclosed his role, but asked more generally about casinos, specifically saying the question wasn’t about whether the issue should be on the ballot.
Tolman said it wasn’t his preferred path to economic development, but it could provide an economic boost to a city like Springfield. He said he’d voted against Keno in the House but it came and you sort of come to terms with it. He said the ballot question raised a very interesting question.
If the comment “you disregard that Tolman has (sic) was solid in his position on enforcement” was directed toward my post, I must respectfully disagree.
I have disregarded nothing, except perhaps giving Ms. Healey equal consideration. Which I will from this week forward. My post was more of an inquiry to BMG readers than an endorsement or indictment of any candidates.
I do hope that the next AG will strongly understand that the state gaming commission needs to be watched and regulated based upon their actions as much as any other party in the expanded gambling issue. Areas of concern that need an independent watch-dog include:
1. Lavish expenditures on junkets, personal parking, luncheons, consultants, etc….
2. Watering-down the rules and regulations to appease gambling corps – adjusting timelines multiple times
3. Denial of host and surrounding community status to multiple towns and cities (See Mayor Marty’s call to have Crosby recused.)
4. Arrogance, hubris and ignorance of the scope of impacts and rushing local referendum in Plainville when the corrupt Piontowski was outed and Penn National swooped in overnight after Tewksbury kicked then out
5. Serving as enablers for the predatory gambling industry
6. Conflicts of interest
7. Closed door meetings with proponents
8. Lobbying legislature for casino fixes – easing the restrictions in the law
9. Not establishing independent advisory councils with local stakeholders per the statute
10. Ignoring and denying requests from local officials for information
I wished David asked if he would have blocked that ballot question rather than how he would vote on the question. I think that would have been a better reflection on position for a AG candidate. Plus, that specific question should have been asked of Healey because I am skeptical, as I am with most pols.
My first instinct was her position is one of political expedience. Her position just weeks prior in her announcement was Tolman’s response, enforcement. Now all of a sudden she’s for repeal. Also where was Healey in September 2013, she still worked in th AG’s office? Profiles in courage? Not so much. Healey headed up Public Protection and Business and Labor. The Solicitor General handled the ballot question, was she part of any internal discussions?
In Healey’s announcement for AG
Where’s repeal? Anyone?
Jennifer Stark and Peter Sacks in AG office have been the chief POC.
Honestly, I don’t think the current AG grasps that this is a major consumer protection matter. Either that or she believes it is irrelevant to the office’s statutory duties.
I’m concerned about the Coakley AG’s office’s stance on DNA testing, wiretapping, the Patriot Act, the militarization of the police, etc. I’d have preferred to see Healey break with Coakley over those issues, rather than this, which is I see as largely outside her purview.
I don’t really accept the idea that there’s a huge gulf on the gambling issue. I agree with Healey about the ballot question, but I don’t see it as major issue pertaining to the Attorney General come January 2015. It will have passed, failed, or been kept off the ballot by then. If casinos go forward, the enforcement issues johnk raises will be the important thing. I don’t really buy the idea that significant numbers of voters will base their vote on a ballot question on what the Democratic nominee for AG says.
Some other issues, at least as relevant as casino repeal:
Tolman was a leader in the attempt to create single-payer health insurance as a legislator. He’s still for single payer or, at the least a public option, as an alternative to the “monopoly” of private insurance. Healey says she generally supports access to insurance for all MA residents but didn’t take a position on single payer or a public option.
Tolman strongly supports progressive reform of the Chapter 70 funding formula. Healey hasn’t taken a position.
FWIW, Tolman has been much more forthcoming about his support for progressive taxation.
I tend to Tolman because of these issues and longstanding personal connections in my local area. Lehigh’s not the litmus test, but he has in fact been pushing Healey since at least February, and he’s made his usual anti-union nonsense a subtle part of his push. To me Tolman’s stance with labor is a plus, and I dislike intensely when it’s suggested otherwise.
But I agree the candidates’ positions on a lot of issues are similar. I have great respect for what Maura Healey’s accomplished and if she’s the nominee she’ll have my vote and support, and I think she’ll be a very good AG in many respects.
And I’m glad I’m not the only one to catch that from Lehigh.
I’m wondering if you can expound on where you see the differences on progressive taxation. I haven’t noticed more than a little daylight between them. They have both said they are in favor of a more progressive tax code. They have both said they think the flat state income tax is unfair. They have both talked about using the tax code work on issues of income inequality.
Do you have anything specific that you see as different?
It happens that Tolman has been a legislator and thus would likely have a record on that whereas Healey has not. However, the AG’s opinion on what the tax code should be is hardly relevant. I just want the AG to investigate and prosecute tax evasion where appropriate and preferably not blink like it seems the feds have with Clive Bundy.
Here are the last five Attorney’s General for the Commonwealth:
• Martha Coakley — Running for Governor after serving as AG
• Thomas Reilly — Ran for Governor after serving as AG
• Scott Harshbarger — Ran for Governor after serving as AG
• Jim Shannon — Had run for US Senate prior to serving as AG
• Frank Bellotti — Ran for Governor twice (once before serving as AG, once after)
My point being that if I thought that being AG was the only job these candidates wanted, I might feel differently. But as this job is clearly used as a springboard to run for higher office (in 4 of the last 5 instances), we should not limit ourselves to the details of the job, but to the values they bring to political office.
Only one candidate only worked at the AG’s office as an intern, and has already run for Gov. and Lt Gov. I have to think he figures he will be set up since he figures Baker will be a one term Gov.
Having spent 7 years in the AG’s office day in and day out, I don’t think Healey is thinking about positioning any farther than doing the AG’s job.
Healey may well not want another job, but just because she has worked in the AGs office does not mean she doesn’t have higher ambitions. Her colleague Steve Kerrigan also worked there for a similar amount of time and is running for LG, and it should be worth noting that Coakley spent any years as ADA before running to replace her boss Tom Reilly and then running to replace him again as AG. In many respects she had a similar background to Healey prior to running for that office. We also don’t know how people can change the longer they serve or if they get bored or get bitten with the bug.
Let’s be clear here. Being a politician most of your life is different than running for the job you boss is vacating, that you can only get by running for it. Healey deserves more credit than you are giving her. I hope you and Fenway49 will be a bit more open to her.
I’ll give you I mixed up what Kwerigan did in Reilly’s office-thought I read elsewhere he was AAG but I guess he was a Chief of Staff and policy advisor which didn’t require law degrees. Fair enough.
But I don’t think Fenway and I have been harsh at all. I’ve been quite direct with my Coakley criticism but still pledged my support for her as AG. For Healey I haven’t even been that critical, I’ve repeatedly said I respect her record, will vote for her if she is nominated, and even think she’s make a good AG. What I have also said is this casino repeal flip flop of hers strikes me as overly symbolic and somewhat opportunistic.
Both candidates have clearly stated the enforcement mechanisms they will put in place of the voters vote this down, which polling and Mayor Menino seem to indicate they will. The ball is in the SJC’s court quite literally to ensure the referendum stays on the ballot and at this point neither candidate can reverse the damage Coakley’s office has done. Hopefully David and the others on the legal team can win through, we get it on the ballot, and it loses. And to be absolutely clear on this I oppose the casinos and will strongly back that referendum. It just isn’t a factor in my AG vote since Tolman has a longer record I am more familiar with on the issues his office does have sway with.
We have no evidence this far either from the candidate or her campaign that she won’t seek higher office down the line. I also am not at all troubled if she does. The incumbent AG in NY would make a great Governor or Senator in the Warren mold since he has been hunting the wolves of Wall Street and has a few great scalps. Richard Blumenthal was a progressive and courageous AG who has gone on to be a good Senator. Some people thought Michael Sullivan would stay clerk for life like his uncle but I for one am glad he is trying to take his talents to the DA’s office and think he would do great. So I don’t care if Tolman or Healey run for Governor down the line-I am just saying we have no promises from either that they won’t.
I’m not looking for a promise, because what does that really mean? I’m just saying that to limit our interests in candidate’s positions solely to the specifics of the job they are seeking is not how I will ever think about candidates. There’s always a potential bigger picture. (Though I suppose I draw the line in asking a candidate for Governor on his detailed beliefs on foreign policy matters… seems a bit much, even to me.)
I do go back to my original question: What is the daylight between the candidates on progressive taxation? Anyone have an answer?
And, since it was brought up, is there an actual “flip flop” by Healey on casinos? I hadn’t seen her ever say anything different on the topic.
Thanks.
Whoa there – “flip flop”? When has Healey ever expressed any sort of pro-casino opinion?
At a forum on April 1
http://wwlp.com/2014/04/16/tolman-healey-differ-on-casino-law-repeal/
…for when and if they do in fact decide to run for Governor. The issues will probably be somewhat different then too.
Here is my own audio link:
http://youtu.be/xdtezUYWs-0
of Warren Tolman speaking.
In this own audio link above, you will not hear guitars and background music which do not match Tolman’s Watertown narrative. The music goes well with his talking briefly about his kid.
The music should have changed to “Roar” or “Eye of the Tiger” when he recounts taking on Tom Finneran.