Obviously I’d be excited if my candidate received this endorsement and while I feel there is much to criticize about Coakley’s record as a progressive-this area is certainly not one of them. This is a cause she has dedicated herself to and been successful in.
That said, all the candidates favor marriage equality and gay rights, one wonders what the purpose of endorsing this early is or what will be the direct result in terms of the resources deployed. Emily’s List came under similar scrutiny in this campaign and the Clark one. There was a time when there were significant social conservatives in the party-even a young person like myself can remember Finneran and his socially conservative agenda along with the many Democrats who voted wrong when gay marriage came up for a vote.
Hell, Deval’s position was a novel one in his field as Reilly and Gabrielli preferred civil unions, not to mention as recently as 2008, none if the viable Democratic candidates embraced full equality. But these days this issue and to a lesser extent abortion rights, define who gets in the tent. When all the potential nominees have the right stances on this issue, it seems problematic for issue groups to back a horse so early.
marcus-gralysays
Even if all candidates support you position on an issue, it still behooves you as an issue group, (which MassEquality is), to endorse the one you feel will be the strongest leader. A lot of the power of the governorship, and any executive office, really, comes from being able to choose where to focus the agenda.
jconwaysays
And it’s hard to argue she hasn’t done a good job on that particular issue, arguably more than her opponents in the past, but she also had the advantage of holding an office uniquely suited to fighting that battle (and to her credit chose to fight it).
I did feel that Emily’s List hurt itself by going negative and using misleading ads in the primary, particularly against Karen Spilka and Carl Sciortino violating the Reagan rule, and I am hoping that is not the case here. I am convinced all the Democratic candidates have a strong commitment to gay rights and continuing this fight for equality.
Yes we have marriage equality, but one major piece of the LGBT rights puzzle still lacking is public accommodations protections for transgender and gender non-conforming people. That’s the piece of the trans rights bill that got axed in 2011 and still needs passing. To Martha Coakley’s great credit, she countered the lies that the opposition was telling about trans people with unassailable facts. Where many Democrats in the legislature feared to tread — speaking up for the full civil rights for trans people — Coakley marched forth. She’s a proven fighter on LGBT issues. Can the other candidates convince us that they’re more than just armchair supporters?
Christophersays
An AG is in the position to fight in this way; not sure about the others.
…to show the depth of their support by supporting LGBT issues or causes. You don’t have to be an elected official to have a pro-equality track record. You just have to be someone who has been proactive.
doublemansays
To develop a significant public record of action and results on a particular issue without being an elected official is extremely difficult. For a non-elected official to have as much impact as Coakley on these issues, the person would likely need to be a full-time activist and/or very wealthy and generous.
The opportunity to create a hefty record is just not the same for everyone.
For example, the legislator who sponsors a bill will (and should) get more attention than a private citizen who lobbied their legislator on that bill. The commitment of the two people may be the same (or potentially even stronger from the non-elected person), but the public impact and the record of that commitment is much different.
That said, I totally understand the endorsement. Coakley has been in a position to be there for MassEquality in very powerful ways and has done so time and again.
Maybe she would be more aggressive and progressive on these issues as governor than the other candidates, but I’m not entirely convinced of that. And it doesn’t really matter to me given her strong weaknesses on many other issues as consistently shown throughout her long public career.
jconwaysays
Maybe she would be more aggressive and progressive on these issues as governor than the other candidates, but I’m not entirely convinced of that. And it doesn’t really matter to me given her strong weaknesses on many other issues as consistently shown throughout her long public career.
And one wonders what they gain now that they don’t gain by waiting until we have a nominee. Single issue groups are great for lobbying legislation but are a little myopic when it comes to endorsements. And Emily’s list really can’t see the forest for the trees.
It’s not at all difficult to get involved with a group and become a known supporter. Or to publish a thoughtful statement on what equality means to them personally, and what they’ve done to support it. It can be as simple as supporting an LGBT child as they come out. Easy as pie to demonstrate sincerity. Candidates who make excuses akin to what you’ve written only prove to me that they didn’t bother to try.
doublemansays
While it may not be difficult to become a known supporter, it’s still incredibly difficult to develop anywhere near the public record as an elected official. They are just not the same.
Would you honestly give the same level of props to someone who was a volunteer for MassEquality as you would to Coakley?
As far as things like this:
It can be as simple as supporting an LGBT child as they come out.
I think it would be gross to exploit those private actions for political gain.
And if they just say that they have done that, would you believe them? Or would you need more evidence of a record? I wouldn’t. It would strike me as akin to “I have a lot of gay friends.”
As far as heartfelt statements, I have seen those from the candidates in public and read them on their websites.
Fisher is openly anti-gay, and Baker has chosen a steadfastly anti-LGBT running mate, meaning at best that LGBT equality is of no importance to him. There’s nothing to like on GOP side if you’re pro-equality.
jconwaysays
Got endorsed by the national Gay and a Lesbian Victory Fund. Have to agree with this blogger that the move makes little long term sense, and just as Emily’s List has been divisive and hurt progressives this endorsement could have the same effect. I am confident that Mass Equality will stick to the high road as they did in their statement by praising her record as opposed to bashing her opponents. But FWIW all our candidates have strong LGBT proposals and support trans inclusivity as well. I still think waiting for the nominee to emerge was a better call.
When she makes a clear statement of support for immediate passage of the bill protecting trans people in public accommodations, call me. But she won’t. It’s clear that she prefers empty phrases meant to string along the gullible while not upsetting the anti-equality gang who put discriminatory planks into the state GOP platform just a few short months ago.
When is she going to stop hiding behind Baker and do more than repeat the same tired stump speech? She needs to speak on public record about her alleged evolution, if it really exists. Her hiding behind Baker indicates to me that it hasn’t.
kbuschsays
A heretofore consistently anti-LGBT running mate?
bluewatchsays
I guess Martha collects bogus endorsements. She can now add MassEquality to her Emily’s List endorsement. Here’s why it’s bogus. There are two women in this race, but Emily’s List is only endorsing Martha because they think she will win. Similarly, there are five good candidates in this race, and MassEquality is placing a bet that Martha will win. But, there really isn’t any difference among the five cadidates on their viewpoints on LGBT issues.
I used to donate to MassEquality. I will find another LGBT organization for my funds. Bye-bye MassEquality.
kbuschsays
Emily’s List may have decided that Ms. Coakley has been a more visible or a more active advocate for women’s issues than Ms. Kayyem.
Advocacy organizations like MassEquality will always reward their friends. They tend to function like huge Stimulus-Response Dispensers. This is maddening to those of us who want to build a progressive coalition and dislike environmental endorsements, say, garnered by some hawkish but green Republican.
Coakley was actually in a position to do stuff to advance MassEquality’s goals, and she acted. No other candidate was in such a position. If they didn’t endorse her, it would have been pretty surprising.
I write all this as one unlikely to vote for Ms. Coakley in the primary.
bluewatchsays
Actually, Emily’s List is not an advocacy organization for women’s issues. For endorsements, their only criteria is that the candidate must be: a female democrat, pro-choice, and likely to win. Here is a quote from their web-site:
We recruit the strongest candidates, support campaigns that can win, study the electorate, and turn out the vote.
MassEquality did not need to endorse anybody in the primary. They could have waited until the general election. They chose Martha because they think that she is likely to win. They made a big mistake.
kbuschsays
I was speculating as to the motivations of Emily’s List. And yes, Emily’s List thinks that getting more women elected would be a social good, and, so yes, they’ll support the more viable woman candidate all things being equal. I was wrong actually to think that there was some kind of Passion for Feminism Test. Thank you for correcting me.
You haven’t so much answered my Stimulus-Response Dispenser comment as ignored it. I’m saying MassEquality did what advocacy groups pretty much everywhere do. It would be more surprising if they waited until the general. Then the reward is smaller. There is after all a big difference between having positions and policy papers on the one hand and having actually done stuff when it mattered on the other. Is that unfair? Possibly. If one rewards good behavior, that doesn’t mean everyone gets a cookie. If one rewards good intention, one needs more cookies. Only one of many possible good Samaritans happened to espy the robbed and beaten traveler.
And yes they “could” have waited until the general. They could have all gone to the Aquarium too, or had a picnic of ham sandwiches.
fenway49says
They might have been better off not alienating the 60% or so of Democratic activists who don’t like Martha Coakley.
kbuschsays
.
socialworkersays
It used to be Mass Equality’s policy not to endorse in a primary if none of the candidates opposed same sex marriage. No need for an endorsement here except perhaps as a gift for the AG’s fight against DOMA.
JimCsays
… and I’m not buying the spin against it.
Of course every candidate is good on this issue, but Coakley won the competition. I’m sure Mass Equality would have loved to endorse a lesser known candidate; that would have been news. Give Martha her due, and move on.
(Grossman ’14)
jconwaysays
So long as their endorsement and work for Coakley stays positive then I don’t really see it as that damaging. I just happen to think it might’ve been better for the organization to wait, you know? Endorsing Markey over Lynch made sense given his late to the game “evolution” and long standing record voting against the LGBT community at every turn as a State senator, etc. Here it just makes less sense to me, particularly if they truly are backing her solely because she is the front runner. Either way, I fully believe Coakley is deserving of praise on this single issue-but when we look at the full records my personal belief is that all the candidates are good on this issue.
jconwaysays
Having read the endorsement I am troubled by this implication:
the only candidate that has the combination of forward-looking, innovative and proven leadership that we need in our next Governor” to ensure Massachusetts remains “a national leader on LGBTQ rights.”
I highly doubt that she is the only candidate in this regard.
JimCsays
It sounds like fairly generic endorsement language to me. When a union endorses in a primary, it chooses between two or more people with spotless voting records. But they pick one and call him/her “a champion of labor.”
I just don’t like the line of argument that some people are employing. I absolutely guarantee that they’ll feel a lot better about Mass Equality endorsements if and when they like the pick ME makes next election (or even later in this election, in a different race).
Like I said below … tip our caps, and move on.
jconwaysays
I don’t think it will have that great of an impact, I just think it’s a little misleading to claim she is the only candidate on LGBTQ issues when they are all pretty good. Best candidate might’ve been a better phrasing. And I would be making this argument if Grossman or Berwick got the nod as well, it just doesn’t make sense to me to make this primary about social issues the candidates are in broad agreement on. And frankly, playing the social issues boogeyman didn’t work for Warren or Coakley against Brown-or O’Brien against Romney for the matter-and it won’t work for our ultimate nominee against Baker. It’s always been the economy.
fenway49says
is declarative, not exclusive. Saying that someone is “the only candidate who…” is a different kettle of fish.
jconwaysays
And I made a clear distinction in this critique over on the other endorsement thread (with which we seem to be inundated with this week), by praising Marty Walz for at least giving credit to Tolman for all his hard work on the issue and then stating her opinion and that of her organization that Healey is their preferred choice.
No need to engage in this over the top sophistry, particularly when all things are considered, we have probably the best field in the country on this issue and are lightyears ahead of our in-state Republican counterparts and our own party’s national approach to this issue. It’s now impossible for any credible Democratic candidate to be anti-choice or anti-equality in this state, and there was a time even in the recent past when that was not the case. And this ‘only one’ business doesn’t apply to marriage equality, though it does apply to crucial questions the candidates do disagree on.
For instance, “only one” candidate opposes casinos, ‘only one” candidate backs single payer healthcare, and “only one candidate” favors a fully progressive approach to education reform. His name is Don Berwick.
HR's Kevinsays
The endorsement really reads much more like a Coakley press release than an independent endorsement. I think that detracts somewhat from its impact.
A general problem with these types of endorsements is you never know whether the endorsement was simply a result of a critical mass of supporters on the board of the organization.
JimCsays
n/t
Scootermomsays
Bad move. Yes, all the Dem candidates are “good” on LGBTQ issues. The Grossman family has been supporting MassEquality for many years. In fact, Mrs. Grossman served on their board. I have sadly watched the decline of the organization in the past few years and this is the last straw. I can no longer support them. Better to withhold an endorsement than to alienate so many supporters IMO.
bluewatchsays
Incredibly, people at MassEquality are admitting that they chose Martha because she is ahead in the polls. Their endorsement is nothing more than a political tactical effort. This endorsement badly tarnishes MassEquality’s image.
fenway49says
If true that’s lame. Polls don’t mean much at this point. As I see it, Coakley has done good work in this area but was uniquely positioned to do it. It’s just not part of a State Treasurer’s job to challenge DOMA in court. Nonetheless, my instinct was that they went with her not just because she’s good on the issues, but because she’s also the frontrunner right now. It would be interesting to see actual public statements to that effect.
Scootermomsays
do most of the legwork on DOMA? Am I mistaken?
fenway49says
Maura Healey was in charge of the Civil Rights Division when the case began. But that’s almost always the situation; the AG rarely litigates cases personally. The buck still stops at the elected AG and Coakley was willing to support that use of the office’s resources. I think she should get some credit. I don’t think that means the other candidates would be any worse on the issues if they were elected governor.
doublemansays
Yes, she deserves credit.
There is a recent example of Coakley doing a high profile argument on a case, which, as you say, is rare in general and especially rare for Coakley.
The Supreme Court case she argued, Melendez-Diaz v. MA, involved whether the results of a drug lab test had to be accompanied by the testimony of the lab technician. Coakley argued that they did not. She was definitely on the wrong side, but, luckily, she performed poorly at the argument, including completely botching an answer to an important and obvious question. Massachusetts lost the case, and it resulted in a fun court split with Scalia, Thomas, and Souter joining with Ginsburg and Stevens in the majority.
Scootermomsays
In that case, they have REALLY sold their souls. Too bad. The folks who built that organization must be stewing in their juices. UNBELIEVABLE. Wherever did you get that info? Would like to see backup, please & thank you.
The Mass GOP, their elected officials and their candidates are way behind the curve when it comes to gay rights. As noted here, Charlie Baker is weak and his running mate is opposed to the rights that all the Dem gubernatorial candidates have fought so hard to achieve. There is a ways to go on this issue still, and all the Dem candidates are well eager to help. MassEquality has singled out one candidate, but they all are strong and deserving of the support of the gay community.
coopdavissays
I am supporting a different candidate in the race, and think Martha would be the only candidate out of the three strong Democratic primary candidates (Grossman, Berwick) that could loose to Charlie. That being said, Martha has done great things for the LGBT community in the state, and I am pleased she has received this endorsement.
methuenprogressivesays
Odd, the things that happen here.
fenway49says
Individual people with similar values sit at computers in separate locations and react similarly to the same post. MassEquality has “fallen from favor” with a couple of commenters, it seems. The rest of us are just raising eyebrows.
n/t
Read the endorsement here. Martha Coakley has done outstanding work in this area.
Obviously I’d be excited if my candidate received this endorsement and while I feel there is much to criticize about Coakley’s record as a progressive-this area is certainly not one of them. This is a cause she has dedicated herself to and been successful in.
That said, all the candidates favor marriage equality and gay rights, one wonders what the purpose of endorsing this early is or what will be the direct result in terms of the resources deployed. Emily’s List came under similar scrutiny in this campaign and the Clark one. There was a time when there were significant social conservatives in the party-even a young person like myself can remember Finneran and his socially conservative agenda along with the many Democrats who voted wrong when gay marriage came up for a vote.
Hell, Deval’s position was a novel one in his field as Reilly and Gabrielli preferred civil unions, not to mention as recently as 2008, none if the viable Democratic candidates embraced full equality. But these days this issue and to a lesser extent abortion rights, define who gets in the tent. When all the potential nominees have the right stances on this issue, it seems problematic for issue groups to back a horse so early.
Even if all candidates support you position on an issue, it still behooves you as an issue group, (which MassEquality is), to endorse the one you feel will be the strongest leader. A lot of the power of the governorship, and any executive office, really, comes from being able to choose where to focus the agenda.
And it’s hard to argue she hasn’t done a good job on that particular issue, arguably more than her opponents in the past, but she also had the advantage of holding an office uniquely suited to fighting that battle (and to her credit chose to fight it).
I did feel that Emily’s List hurt itself by going negative and using misleading ads in the primary, particularly against Karen Spilka and Carl Sciortino violating the Reagan rule, and I am hoping that is not the case here. I am convinced all the Democratic candidates have a strong commitment to gay rights and continuing this fight for equality.
Yes we have marriage equality, but one major piece of the LGBT rights puzzle still lacking is public accommodations protections for transgender and gender non-conforming people. That’s the piece of the trans rights bill that got axed in 2011 and still needs passing. To Martha Coakley’s great credit, she countered the lies that the opposition was telling about trans people with unassailable facts. Where many Democrats in the legislature feared to tread — speaking up for the full civil rights for trans people — Coakley marched forth. She’s a proven fighter on LGBT issues. Can the other candidates convince us that they’re more than just armchair supporters?
An AG is in the position to fight in this way; not sure about the others.
…to show the depth of their support by supporting LGBT issues or causes. You don’t have to be an elected official to have a pro-equality track record. You just have to be someone who has been proactive.
To develop a significant public record of action and results on a particular issue without being an elected official is extremely difficult. For a non-elected official to have as much impact as Coakley on these issues, the person would likely need to be a full-time activist and/or very wealthy and generous.
The opportunity to create a hefty record is just not the same for everyone.
For example, the legislator who sponsors a bill will (and should) get more attention than a private citizen who lobbied their legislator on that bill. The commitment of the two people may be the same (or potentially even stronger from the non-elected person), but the public impact and the record of that commitment is much different.
That said, I totally understand the endorsement. Coakley has been in a position to be there for MassEquality in very powerful ways and has done so time and again.
Maybe she would be more aggressive and progressive on these issues as governor than the other candidates, but I’m not entirely convinced of that. And it doesn’t really matter to me given her strong weaknesses on many other issues as consistently shown throughout her long public career.
And one wonders what they gain now that they don’t gain by waiting until we have a nominee. Single issue groups are great for lobbying legislation but are a little myopic when it comes to endorsements. And Emily’s list really can’t see the forest for the trees.
It’s not at all difficult to get involved with a group and become a known supporter. Or to publish a thoughtful statement on what equality means to them personally, and what they’ve done to support it. It can be as simple as supporting an LGBT child as they come out. Easy as pie to demonstrate sincerity. Candidates who make excuses akin to what you’ve written only prove to me that they didn’t bother to try.
While it may not be difficult to become a known supporter, it’s still incredibly difficult to develop anywhere near the public record as an elected official. They are just not the same.
Would you honestly give the same level of props to someone who was a volunteer for MassEquality as you would to Coakley?
As far as things like this:
I think it would be gross to exploit those private actions for political gain.
And if they just say that they have done that, would you believe them? Or would you need more evidence of a record? I wouldn’t. It would strike me as akin to “I have a lot of gay friends.”
As far as heartfelt statements, I have seen those from the candidates in public and read them on their websites.
Because volunteers by definition have chosen to be proactive. They wouldn’t be there if they didn’t care. Huge props.
Will MassEquality be making an endorsement?
Fisher is openly anti-gay, and Baker has chosen a steadfastly anti-LGBT running mate, meaning at best that LGBT equality is of no importance to him. There’s nothing to like on GOP side if you’re pro-equality.
Got endorsed by the national Gay and a Lesbian Victory Fund. Have to agree with this blogger that the move makes little long term sense, and just as Emily’s List has been divisive and hurt progressives this endorsement could have the same effect. I am confident that Mass Equality will stick to the high road as they did in their statement by praising her record as opposed to bashing her opponents. But FWIW all our candidates have strong LGBT proposals and support trans inclusivity as well. I still think waiting for the nominee to emerge was a better call.
Victory Fund doesn’t engage in larger questions of strategy.
She says her position has evolved. That’s not steadfast.
When she makes a clear statement of support for immediate passage of the bill protecting trans people in public accommodations, call me. But she won’t. It’s clear that she prefers empty phrases meant to string along the gullible while not upsetting the anti-equality gang who put discriminatory planks into the state GOP platform just a few short months ago.
Got any other good jokes for us, Patrick? 😀
About why they are not endorsing in the GOP primary.
When is she going to stop hiding behind Baker and do more than repeat the same tired stump speech? She needs to speak on public record about her alleged evolution, if it really exists. Her hiding behind Baker indicates to me that it hasn’t.
A heretofore consistently anti-LGBT running mate?
I guess Martha collects bogus endorsements. She can now add MassEquality to her Emily’s List endorsement. Here’s why it’s bogus. There are two women in this race, but Emily’s List is only endorsing Martha because they think she will win. Similarly, there are five good candidates in this race, and MassEquality is placing a bet that Martha will win. But, there really isn’t any difference among the five cadidates on their viewpoints on LGBT issues.
I used to donate to MassEquality. I will find another LGBT organization for my funds. Bye-bye MassEquality.
Emily’s List may have decided that Ms. Coakley has been a more visible or a more active advocate for women’s issues than Ms. Kayyem.
Advocacy organizations like MassEquality will always reward their friends. They tend to function like huge Stimulus-Response Dispensers. This is maddening to those of us who want to build a progressive coalition and dislike environmental endorsements, say, garnered by some hawkish but green Republican.
Coakley was actually in a position to do stuff to advance MassEquality’s goals, and she acted. No other candidate was in such a position. If they didn’t endorse her, it would have been pretty surprising.
I write all this as one unlikely to vote for Ms. Coakley in the primary.
Actually, Emily’s List is not an advocacy organization for women’s issues. For endorsements, their only criteria is that the candidate must be: a female democrat, pro-choice, and likely to win. Here is a quote from their web-site:
MassEquality did not need to endorse anybody in the primary. They could have waited until the general election. They chose Martha because they think that she is likely to win. They made a big mistake.
I was speculating as to the motivations of Emily’s List. And yes, Emily’s List thinks that getting more women elected would be a social good, and, so yes, they’ll support the more viable woman candidate all things being equal. I was wrong actually to think that there was some kind of Passion for Feminism Test. Thank you for correcting me.
You haven’t so much answered my Stimulus-Response Dispenser comment as ignored it. I’m saying MassEquality did what advocacy groups pretty much everywhere do. It would be more surprising if they waited until the general. Then the reward is smaller. There is after all a big difference between having positions and policy papers on the one hand and having actually done stuff when it mattered on the other. Is that unfair? Possibly. If one rewards good behavior, that doesn’t mean everyone gets a cookie. If one rewards good intention, one needs more cookies. Only one of many possible good Samaritans happened to espy the robbed and beaten traveler.
And yes they “could” have waited until the general. They could have all gone to the Aquarium too, or had a picnic of ham sandwiches.
They might have been better off not alienating the 60% or so of Democratic activists who don’t like Martha Coakley.
.
It used to be Mass Equality’s policy not to endorse in a primary if none of the candidates opposed same sex marriage. No need for an endorsement here except perhaps as a gift for the AG’s fight against DOMA.
… and I’m not buying the spin against it.
Of course every candidate is good on this issue, but Coakley won the competition. I’m sure Mass Equality would have loved to endorse a lesser known candidate; that would have been news. Give Martha her due, and move on.
(Grossman ’14)
So long as their endorsement and work for Coakley stays positive then I don’t really see it as that damaging. I just happen to think it might’ve been better for the organization to wait, you know? Endorsing Markey over Lynch made sense given his late to the game “evolution” and long standing record voting against the LGBT community at every turn as a State senator, etc. Here it just makes less sense to me, particularly if they truly are backing her solely because she is the front runner. Either way, I fully believe Coakley is deserving of praise on this single issue-but when we look at the full records my personal belief is that all the candidates are good on this issue.
Having read the endorsement I am troubled by this implication:
I highly doubt that she is the only candidate in this regard.
It sounds like fairly generic endorsement language to me. When a union endorses in a primary, it chooses between two or more people with spotless voting records. But they pick one and call him/her “a champion of labor.”
I just don’t like the line of argument that some people are employing. I absolutely guarantee that they’ll feel a lot better about Mass Equality endorsements if and when they like the pick ME makes next election (or even later in this election, in a different race).
Like I said below … tip our caps, and move on.
I don’t think it will have that great of an impact, I just think it’s a little misleading to claim she is the only candidate on LGBTQ issues when they are all pretty good. Best candidate might’ve been a better phrasing. And I would be making this argument if Grossman or Berwick got the nod as well, it just doesn’t make sense to me to make this primary about social issues the candidates are in broad agreement on. And frankly, playing the social issues boogeyman didn’t work for Warren or Coakley against Brown-or O’Brien against Romney for the matter-and it won’t work for our ultimate nominee against Baker. It’s always been the economy.
is declarative, not exclusive. Saying that someone is “the only candidate who…” is a different kettle of fish.
And I made a clear distinction in this critique over on the other endorsement thread (with which we seem to be inundated with this week), by praising Marty Walz for at least giving credit to Tolman for all his hard work on the issue and then stating her opinion and that of her organization that Healey is their preferred choice.
No need to engage in this over the top sophistry, particularly when all things are considered, we have probably the best field in the country on this issue and are lightyears ahead of our in-state Republican counterparts and our own party’s national approach to this issue. It’s now impossible for any credible Democratic candidate to be anti-choice or anti-equality in this state, and there was a time even in the recent past when that was not the case. And this ‘only one’ business doesn’t apply to marriage equality, though it does apply to crucial questions the candidates do disagree on.
For instance, “only one” candidate opposes casinos, ‘only one” candidate backs single payer healthcare, and “only one candidate” favors a fully progressive approach to education reform. His name is Don Berwick.
The endorsement really reads much more like a Coakley press release than an independent endorsement. I think that detracts somewhat from its impact.
A general problem with these types of endorsements is you never know whether the endorsement was simply a result of a critical mass of supporters on the board of the organization.
n/t
Bad move. Yes, all the Dem candidates are “good” on LGBTQ issues. The Grossman family has been supporting MassEquality for many years. In fact, Mrs. Grossman served on their board. I have sadly watched the decline of the organization in the past few years and this is the last straw. I can no longer support them. Better to withhold an endorsement than to alienate so many supporters IMO.
Incredibly, people at MassEquality are admitting that they chose Martha because she is ahead in the polls. Their endorsement is nothing more than a political tactical effort. This endorsement badly tarnishes MassEquality’s image.
If true that’s lame. Polls don’t mean much at this point. As I see it, Coakley has done good work in this area but was uniquely positioned to do it. It’s just not part of a State Treasurer’s job to challenge DOMA in court. Nonetheless, my instinct was that they went with her not just because she’s good on the issues, but because she’s also the frontrunner right now. It would be interesting to see actual public statements to that effect.
do most of the legwork on DOMA? Am I mistaken?
Maura Healey was in charge of the Civil Rights Division when the case began. But that’s almost always the situation; the AG rarely litigates cases personally. The buck still stops at the elected AG and Coakley was willing to support that use of the office’s resources. I think she should get some credit. I don’t think that means the other candidates would be any worse on the issues if they were elected governor.
Yes, she deserves credit.
There is a recent example of Coakley doing a high profile argument on a case, which, as you say, is rare in general and especially rare for Coakley.
The Supreme Court case she argued, Melendez-Diaz v. MA, involved whether the results of a drug lab test had to be accompanied by the testimony of the lab technician. Coakley argued that they did not. She was definitely on the wrong side, but, luckily, she performed poorly at the argument, including completely botching an answer to an important and obvious question. Massachusetts lost the case, and it resulted in a fun court split with Scalia, Thomas, and Souter joining with Ginsburg and Stevens in the majority.
In that case, they have REALLY sold their souls. Too bad. The folks who built that organization must be stewing in their juices. UNBELIEVABLE. Wherever did you get that info? Would like to see backup, please & thank you.
?
The Mass GOP, their elected officials and their candidates are way behind the curve when it comes to gay rights. As noted here, Charlie Baker is weak and his running mate is opposed to the rights that all the Dem gubernatorial candidates have fought so hard to achieve. There is a ways to go on this issue still, and all the Dem candidates are well eager to help. MassEquality has singled out one candidate, but they all are strong and deserving of the support of the gay community.
I am supporting a different candidate in the race, and think Martha would be the only candidate out of the three strong Democratic primary candidates (Grossman, Berwick) that could loose to Charlie. That being said, Martha has done great things for the LGBT community in the state, and I am pleased she has received this endorsement.
Odd, the things that happen here.
Individual people with similar values sit at computers in separate locations and react similarly to the same post. MassEquality has “fallen from favor” with a couple of commenters, it seems. The rest of us are just raising eyebrows.