In the last couple of weeks, I’ve been having more frequent conversations about my enthusiastic support for Maura Healey in the race for Massachusetts Attorney General.
I thought I’d share some of my many reasons for supporting Maura, whom I firmly believe is the most exciting, most qualified, and most progressive candidate in the race.
For me, my support is about three things: 1) Maura’s exemplary record as a public interest lawyer, 2) Maura’s commitment to criminal justice reform and 3) Maura’s vision for the Attorney General’s Office.
Maura is the progressive, public interest lawyer in the race:
In 2007, Maura left private practice and joined the Attorney General’s Office as head of the Civil Rights Division. She has never looked back.
Maura is a civil rights champion. She brought the first state civil rights case against a subprime lender because, as bad as subprime loans were across Massachusetts, they were even worse in communities of color, in Boston, in Brockton, Lawrence and Springfield. She looked at the data, built, argued and won the case.
Maura knows that discrimination in lending keeps communities in poverty. She fought back and she shut down some really abusive companies. Over the past year, I worked closely with Maura on our state’s Foreclosure Impact Task Force, which she chaired, to stop unnecessary foreclosures and help out homeowners. There’s no one more committed to standing with consumers than Maura.
On Marriage Equality, Maura has argued and won cases that have led the nation. She personally designed the first successful challenges to DOMA in the country at a time when most people said the case couldn’t be won. When the U.S. Supreme Court finally struck down DOMA, they used arguments that were developed by Maura in Massachusetts. That’s the sort of leadership that we need to make things better for people.
From her leadership on the buffer zone law and access to reproductive health care, environmental litigation, landmark settlements for people with disabilities, or her management of 250 attorneys and staff, Maura gives every resident a great reason to support her candidacy to be our state’s top lawyer.
Maura is deeply committed to criminal justice reform:
Maura has the unique experience of having been both a criminal prosecutor and a civil rights attorney. She knows it’s not enough to be tough on crime; we need to be smart on crime.
As Attorney General, Maura will lead the state’s efforts to refocus on substance abuse treatment, prevention, and education and job training services for people in prison. She knows that the more people behind bars, the more families are left without the stability of wage earners and parents.
After decades of Beacon Hill legislators passing “tough on crime” mandatory minimums and building larger and larger prisons, Maura will lead the effort to reduce our prison population and end mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders. As an example of that commitment, I was proud to stand with Maura at the Jobs Not Jails rally on the Boston Common back in March, with over 700 people in attendance taking a stand against mandatory minimums and the flawed War on Drugs.
Maura has the vision to lead as our next Attorney General:
What excites me the most about Maura is her forward-thinking vision for the Attorney General’s Office. I have had the opportunity to see her speak on numerous occasions, and I’m incredibly impressed with the plans she lays out for the AG’s office.
Maura’s plan to reduce gun violence in Massachusetts not only makes important changes to the state’s gun laws, but also focuses on using the AG’s office as a coordinator of services to the families with members engaged in violence – to help us really get at the problem. Maura has the experience from her work on the buffer zone and the bullying law, to partner with others in law enforcement to really make progress on this issue. Her plan calls for more mental health treatment, better school safety plans, coordination between states on gun trafficking, and the use of the world’s most advanced technology.
It’s why Maura’s plan (and candidacy) has the support of Professor Jack McDevitt, the expert criminologist that the state legislature picked after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut, to help us write our bill.
In addition, Maura has put forward the most aggressive plan in the country to take on the for-profit schools that are a major driver of the rising levels of student loan debt and default.
Finally, Maura is the only candidate for Attorney General to come out in favor of repeal of the casino law. Given her background in consumer protection and civil rights, I trust Maura to stand up for Massachusetts residents against predatory practices of all sorts, especially if we end up building casinos. As one of the leaders in the State Senate to fight the casino legislation, I think it’s critical that our next Attorney General understand how destructive casinos are to communities and people in terms of social costs and crime.
So, I hope you’ll join me in supporting Maura Healey for Attorney General. She’s got the heart of a public champion and the strength of a former professional basketball player (and she’s only 5’4”!).
I was working as an attorney at a non-profit in Boston while Maura was forcing subprime lenders to account for their deceitful profiteering, and I was floored by her commitment and competence. We need a strong AG who is willing and able to take on some of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions in a smart and effective manner. Maura has proved she is up to that task.
What can we do to get Senator Eldridge into a position of power in addition to being the progressive heartbeat of the state’s legislature?
This is the intelligent, visionary leader we need.
Is to follow him in putting Don Berwick into the Corner Office. And electing others like him to the State Senate.
He was mostly entertaining the idea when it was thought Galvin might run for AG, but I would support him in a primary anyway.
Maura has been a leader in working to gain access for people with disabilities. From an agreement with apple to working to make ATMs accessible she has been a leader.
I would be interested in learning more about Maura’s work in this area. I have heard her speak and was favorably inclined, although I know little detail about her or her opponents.
I’m off to Boston tonight but I will check and get back to you.
and Maura’s support for reform of mandatory sentencing of nonviolent offenders.
To me, key additional questions are what is her position on the Pelletier case, and what is her position on the unchecked privatization of government services, particularly in the human services field? Does she support the continued erosion of state-provided care and the closures of programs that families want, such as sheltered workshops?
The Pelletier case, in particular, and others like it, show the coercive power government can have over ordinary lives. Don Berwick wouldn’t answer a question whether he would support reuniting Justinia Pelletier with her family. Will Maura Healey answer it?
seeing how Ms. Healey responds to the two previous questions should be enlightening and interesting.
Like Kate’s support of Martha Coakley, Sen. Eldridge is demonstrating tremendous grace and civility in his endorsement comments. While I am backing Berwick for Governor and Tolman for Attorney general, respectively, I truly believe in this race we have two candidate who could make good Attorney Generals. The civility and thoughtfulness on this thread is a welcome change from the thoughtless and mean spirited attacks against Tolman that have been so common on other threads. Both are progressives, both will do a good job, I just happen to disagree with Healey supporters on the question of who will do the best job. Let’s start the conversation from there.
I like all the aspects of Ms. Healey cited here.
I still see no mention of privacy issues, protecting MA citizens from ever-expanding government surveillance, and addressing the growing militarization of police.
Here’s one specific question:
Ms. Healey, how satisfied are you with the investigation(s) into the circumstances of the FBI killing of Ibragim Todashev? Do you have concerns about the history of Aaron McFarlane, the Boston-based FBI agent who killed Mr. Todashev? Please contrast and compare Ms. Coakley’s handling of this situation with your own if you were AG.
Although I knew who Warren Tolman was, I had not heard either candidate speak and, of course, had no sense of either’s position on any issue. But I did have two inclinations: One, I am inclined to support women candidates and believe our state and country will be much better off with leadership that is representative of the population, e.g. less white male. (That is not a hard and fast rule for me and I am supporting Don Berwick for governor.) Two, I had niggling reservations about the brother of the president of the state AFL-CIO in a position of so much power. And even though, as a delegate, I was being asked for support from both campaigns, I remained in the undecided column until hearing them both speak.
I agree with Senator Eldridge on Maura’s record, commitment to criminal justice reform and vision for the AG’s office so I will add something else that made a big difference to me. I have become sorely aware that our state government has fallen short on managing many programs the state relies on from Mass Health Connector to Dept. of Children and Families.
So, It is Maura’s experience in successfully leading much of the AG’s office that I point to as a key advantage of her candidacy.
She know’s how that department runs and she know how to run it. And I am confident that she will run it in accordance with the progressive values many of us, including Jamie Eldridge, see as the best that government can be.
And, I’m compelled to add that Mr. Tolman’s silence on he many roles he has held in the last dozen years becomes more and more troubling. In my book the Attorney General is the Ceasar’s wife of government, she must be above suspicion. And Maura Healey is that, too.
I can’t believe I’m reading this here. Since when did the AFL-CIO become suspect to Democrats? I don’t recall ever reading about “reservations” because a candidate’s sibling worked at an investment bank or ran a hedge fund.
This is the second time a Healey supporter has mentioned the AFL-CIO on BMG. I’m assuming this is not official campaign rhetoric.
Fenway and jimc,
All I’m trying to say is transparency is needed. Asking questions is good, not bad, whatever the topic. I am pro-union, have been a member of a union and I do not work for the campaign so please stop casting aspersions on my motives. My motive is that I want good government for Massachusetts and the AG plays a crucial role in that.
But when I read things like the following I can’t help but wonder what else we don’t know but should: “Warren Tolman, a Democrat candidate for attorney general, for years has been incorrectly described as a lobbyist in paperwork filed by the Service Employees International Union Local 1199, according to both the Tolman campaign and the union.
….
“Between 2005 and 2013, SEIU Local 1199 paid $950,000 to a company called Etain LLC, according to U.S. Department of Labor filings ….. According to the union’s filings with the Department of Labor, Tolman’s company was paid for “lobbying” in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2013. The filings said Etain LLC was paid for “advocacy” in 2007 and 2008, with an additional note saying “lobbying consul.” In 2010 and 2012, Etain LLC was paid for “strategic consulting” and “professional services.” http://www.lowellsun.com/Today's%20Headlines/ci_25797854/Campaign-union-say-Tolman-mislabeled-as
Quick someone call Captain Renault.
I would much rather have an AG with a pro-worker, pro-union bias than the kinds of right wing union busters that keep getting elected AG across America.
This scorched Earth campaign has to stop, I get that Healey doesn’t have the long record of public service or name recognition Tolman has, and that she hasn’t run statewide before, but please, if he is the nominee you have to vote for him, and these attacks won’t help that-or endear your candidate to us Tolman supporters if she wins. This is quickly becoming a nasty race that doesn’t need to be, and the nastiness is emanating from one side.
I am seeing cards laid on the table face-up. “Scorched Earth” is a bit dramatic. Candidate Tolman has some ties that should be examined. I would expect no less from visitors to this blog.
To be fair, Ms. Healey apparently does have the long record of public service but not the long record of elite corporate lawyering and lobbying that Warren Tolman added to his resume following his time in the legislature. Is that distinction and difference a factor for some considering this important race and position? Perhaps.
Are both talented, hard-working and skilled individuals? Yes.
Ms. Healey has a long record of supporting and promulgating Martha Coakley’s policies as AG. This is, of course, expected of Ms. Healey since Ms. Coakley was her boss.
I think the attacks on Mr. Tolman are unnecessarily harsh, even though I do question the way Mr. Tolman has handled his gaming industry ties.
The best way for the Healey campaign to attract my vote is to:
1. Enumerate the issues where your candidate differs from the policies of the current AG.
2. Articulate your candidate’s position on those issues.
3. Enumerate the issues where your candidate differs from Mr. Tolman
4. Articulate the reasons why your candidate’s position is better
5. Answer my questions about privacy and the militarization of police.
I oppose casino gambling. I am profoundly uncomfortable about Mr. Tolman’s ties to the gaming industry. I am attracted by Ms. Healey’s willingness to step forward and separate herself from both Ms. Coakley and Mr. Tolman.
That, however, is NOT enough to get my vote.
The office of AG is subservient to the office of Governer. Ms. Healey has already worked for Ms. Coakley. If Ms. Coakley and Ms. Healey are elected, I imagine that the nature of their historical relationship in the AGs office is very relevant.
The best way to get my vote is to provide concrete, specific responses to the questions I ask above. Bromides, bumper-stickers, and slogans are NOT effective with me.
An ideal AG is independent, and at times an annoyance to the Governor.
I think Tom is legitimately questioning whether Healey will be if Coakley is our next Governor.
If anyone had questioned whether Deval Patrick was going to be independent of his former employers when he was elected governor, that would have been recognized as an unfair question.
Since that is the same line of questioning that Tolman is being subjected to in the other thread. ‘We can’t trust him since he worked as a corporate lawyer, at one point had a tangential tie to a gaming device that he has since sold, and his brother runs a union!’ . You argued it was fair there, if we are truly going to say the gloves must be off and anything is fair game for the sake of vetting, than I think it is fair to ask questions about this relationship. If you agree, as I do, that maybe we should focus on the issues and stop asking these ‘gotcha’ questions than I welcome your support on the other thread. And I do hope the Peoples Pledge can help clean up this race.
My arguments —
Gaming ties, yes fair. A pending issue before the voters.
Union ties — no, not fair. I specifically said this was not fair. Look it up.
Corporate lawyering — I took no position. (That said, he left political life, so I think it’s fair to ask why he’s back.)
Surely you mean, a settled issue right?
.
Then put Bennet back on his leash and demand he retracts his DFW style thread full of insinuations and misleading statements.
Your statement in the parenthesis means you are effectively taking the position that it is fair, and if that is fair than it is more than fair to ask Healey why she didn’t stand up to her boss on casinos, what she would do differently, and how she would interact with any potential conflicts between them if they both win.
But I’m pretty sure he (she?) doesn’t have a leash.
Here’s my take on background: it’s always relevant. You may not like the idea, but working FOR the AG pretty much gives Healey absolute cover on “supporting” or “not supporting” her positions. (We have no idea.)
Re: Tolman, he worked in public life, then left it. It’s fair to ask what he’s been up to. The questions could of course be posed in an unfair way, and if anyone does that, I stand on my record of calling BS when I see it.
Deval Patrick’s immediate former employer was not the front-running candidate for an even higher statewide office (not that such an office exists) in the same year Deval Patrick ran for governor.
n/t
…about the degree of independence she would exercise vis-a-vis Governor Patrick, her former boss, when she ran for Auditor. I think that was legitimate and I speak as someone who supported her in that primary.
I am tempted to argue that auditor is more problematic, for a couple of minor reasons which would include special qualifications for AG and a more direct reporting relationship, but instead I’ll concede the point. Fair to ask.
Also quite easily answered, in my opinion.
Perhaps “subservient” is the wrong choice, but “Attorney General” is lower in the org chart than “Governor”. A governor has choices and powers that are unavailable to the AG.
As such, there is no counterpart for your analogy using Deval Patrick. A better analogy would be if Deval Patrick were running for AG, and the Managing Partner of his former law firm were simultaneously running for Governor (and leading the race). In that scenario, I would certainly be expressing the same concerns.
But actually I would argue the opposite on one point; the AG has choices and powers that are unavailable to the Governor.
The Attorney General can do whatever he/she wants, as an old hand of my acquaintance once put it.
above was appropriate. We get it that you are gung-ho for Warren Tolman and pissed at Healey supporters that have not provided the answers you are looking for or have been overly critical of your candidate. I don’t believe my statements were either of those potholes and pass the sniff test.
I am not a fan of AG Coakley. And I like what I am hearing from Maura Healey.
I was a fan of State Senator Tolman and I am interested in learning who he is “today.”
I am not sure if I am a fan of Ms. Healey and I am impressed with her campaign thus far.
Warren Tolman was a staunch supporter of union/working people long before his brother was a state Senator or AFl-CIO president. His pro-union positions were/are not a biological-fraternal relationship issue it runs deeper than that to family roots in working class.
But I do dislike these insinuations.
From this past post
By all accounts the same man he was when he was in the State House and when he ran for LG. Is he now pro-life? Is he now anti-equality? Is he arguing that we should have less protections for consumers, the environment, victims of gun violence, victims of drug abuse, and criminals and victims alike?
There is no there there. That is what bothers me. He sold the ties, he did corporate law, I don’t think he did any lobbying on behalf of business or against the people as you insinuated in the thread I downrated. And again, the burden of proof is on Healey to demonstrate how she will be different from Coakley. It seems that they share supporters and she shares a focus on similar issues. I have yet to hear from her how she is radically different or won’t continue the status quo.
It would be great if she posted on those issues instead of bragging about enforcing a law Tolman did the legwork to pass or bragging about holding a symbolic stance on a casino referendum her office did everything in it’s power to prevent from getting on the ballot. I am eager to hear more. It is hard to have those issue based discussions if all we are doing is distorting Tolman’s record or associations.
I don’t read any “insinuation” at all in heartland’s quote that you used.
I read it as ‘this person’s been out of office for a while and now I’m interested in seeing what he stands for today.’
There’s no bad insinuations from that, no negative takeaways. It’s fair to ask of any candidate who’s been out of politics for a time and then comes back in. Heck, even if the person hasn’t changed one iota, voters are going to need a refresher.
–
I also want to tackle one other issue I have with your post. While you have decried others for being ‘unfair’ in regards to Tolman, you have at the very least put Healey’s positions out of context or placed them in a negative light in this post. For example, Healey was not a part of the AG’s office when it made its decision on the casino issue.
Furthermore, to cast someone’s statements on things they’ve done as “bragging,” as you’ve done here, casts it in a negative light to say the least, particularly when you suggest that the real credit belongs to someone else.
Implementing laws that others pass is no easy feat — for example, what would have happened if someone other than Governor Patrick implemented RomneyCare in that critical time period, as Patrick first got into office? Patrick got a lot of the credit for the law back then even though he wasn’t the one who passed it — and I think that credit was well deserved.
You’ve been making lots of posts about how we all need to keep things clean and argue for our preferred candidates without going negative… but that has to be a two-way street.
You can’t complain that it’s “hard to have these issue based discussions if all we are doing is distorting” a candidate’s “record” when you yourself did that in the very same paragraph you make that complaint.
I think you really need to accept the fact that tough questions are going to be asked in any campaign — and just because they’re asked, that doesn’t mean they’re unfair or negative.
The good news is at the very least I am not seeing all this negativity that you seem to be seeing in the AG race.
I certainly haven’t seen many people distorting Tolman’s record. In fact, I haven’t really seen anyone say much bad about him at all. I think the vast majority of us here agree he’s a very nice guy and has a great political background that he can be proud of.
Is that the best background to become the next Attorney General, though? That’s the kind of question that’s fair to ask of any candidate running for that office — and that’s what the bulk of people here that you’re getting angry at seem to be earnestly trying to grapple with.
There seems to be a running question if the Tolman who has that public service record is the same Tolman of today, as if the 12 years he was in the private sector somehow marinated him in corporate ooze disqualifying him from the race. Then Deval was disqualified for his years in between public service, or Don Berwick, or even State Sen. Michael Barrett, also a former gubernatorial candidate to boot who spent an even greater amount of time in the private sector before returning to office.
Then there is the idea that Tolman has a conflict of interest since his brother is a union President, and if these lines of questioning are fair than the ones I asked of Healey are and we can have a race defined by who did what in the past and guilt by association. Or we can have a race on the issues and record they plan to fight for if they win.
I appreciate that Christopher and Striker-who are neutral on this race as far as I’m aware-have uprated my comments on some of these issues. Sen. Eldridge, Kate, Judy Meredith, Dinah Shah, other supporters and the candidate herself have all done a great job stating the case for Healey without even mentioning Tolman. It’s frankly not that hard. This idea of ‘vetting” is really a smokescreen for an implication that there is a risk to nominating Tolman if certain questions (which frankly he has already assessed with the asset sale) aren’t properly asked and answered. But it’s not like Jack Mitchell or whatever his name is actually has a chance-let’s compare and contrast on the issues and the record and pick the candidate we like better. For some that’s Healey and for others that’s Tolman.
Much like the CD-5 primary, the Reagan Rule should apply since our nominee will win, and we have two great candidates to choose from. No need to make this a lesser of two evils race when it so clearly is not.
Vetting is not a “smokescreen” of a campaign, it is the #1, #2, and #3 reasons why we have campaigns to begin with.
It is literally the purpose of an election — to give a chance for the public to decide.
Furthermore, maybe some people have worried that Tolman “marinated” in the corporate lawyer sauces, but certainly that was not the worry of heartland’s post or anything I’ve seen widely distributed on BMG — or elsewhere. If you hadn’t mentioned it, I wouldn’t have heard about it.
A few more people have spoken about Tolman’s brother and the role he’ll play in the race, but I’ve only seen one comment in which it was unfair on BMG — and in that instance, the person retracted it. I don’t think this issue has as much traction as you describe, at least on BMG. Herald comment sections may be very different, but there’s little we can do about that and they won’t make a lick of difference, anyway.
These are all public figures, so of course they’re not going to mention Tolman.
You won’t see public figures who have endorsed Tolman mention a lot about Maura Healey, either. That’s how endorsements typically work when made in primaries.
However, there is a very real and important place for community activists, bloggers and the media to ask questions of other candidates, and not just stick to the positive attributes of their own preferred candidate.
If all we had was a situation where only nice things can be said about our candidates, we’d be electing a lot more Governor Christies. That’s what an election looks like when opposition is silenced and no one is willing to challenge the favorite in the race.
Here’s the thing, though. If the candidate can answer the questions, then it doesn’t hurt them and may very well help them. It only hurts them if they can’t, at least so long as the questions are fair. And they all seem fair to me — questions about conflicts of interest are the among the most common in any campaign.
So there’s no real danger in the vetting process of a campaign, even if that process is tough, in the absence of real dirty campaigning — lying, deceptions, etc.
I don’t think either of the two candidates would describe this race as unfair or nasty. Both are running positive campaigns and their supporters are all largely very positive, even if they occasionally ask tough questions.
I can’t imagine any of them would be unhappy with how things are going in that regard.
There is no real dirty campaigning going on here, and until there is…. I think your vigilance is misplaced.
Does anyone honestly think Tolman is another Chris Christie waiting in the wings? I see you, particularly in your other thread, holding Healey to a double standard. We can praise her about her work on buffer zones and marriage equality as AAG, but can’t ask what she did on the casino issue. We can praise her for her hard work with Martha Coakley, but we can’t ask how she will interact with her if she is elected Governor and what issues might be present there?
But we can keep asking what Tolman will do vis a vis his brother, the law firm he worked at, and an investment in a software company tangentially related to non-casino gaming that he has since totally divested. This isn’t like the bridge where there is more to uncover, this is an issue that he has swiftly dealt with. The fact that he favors casinos, the fact that he had that investment, those can be legitimate reasons not to vote for him. Those aren’t my litmus tests.
But I see you and JimC arguing that repeatedly bringing up these issues, or as Heartland did say, ask if this is the ‘same Tolman’ and cast insinuations on his corporate past, is legitimate questioning. If it is, then my line of questions about Healey are. I would argue they are not.
So honestly, for the record, do you honestly think Tolman is as corrupt as Chris Christie? If you don’t, then let’s stop debating it, and move on to their actual issues where they frankly agree on 9 out of 10 issues, and on their records, which are distinct one was a legislator one was a prosecutor, and parse that out to get the best candidate.
You have, with these statements of ‘vetting’, implied that Tolman is a wolf in sheeps clothing and a liability as either a candidate or Attorney General and I haven’t seen any evidence to back up that allegation. That is what has pissed me off in this thread, and that is why I take it personally since the man I know is one of the most ethical politicans in the state, who would rather lose an election than give up his clean election principles. I was only 10 when I met him and Harshbarger, but I came away with a lifelong appreciation of their values and commitment to clean elections, which is an issue the incumbent has not only failed to address but repeatedly engaged in subverting with the activities of her own campaign funds. It is a real concern for me, and that is the discussion I want to have. How to we move forward and get a new direction, and who is the best person to do that?
Healey, to me, is trying to have her cake and eat it to. She is unwilling to criticize Coakley, calls her a mentor, but also has made at least one policy break, I am eager to hear more. that is far more interesting to me than arguing what the definition of a patent is, and what video game keno device he may or may not still own.
Since you mentioned me (why?), my argument, again:
And I would argue that is a double standard I have never seen applied to another candidate on BMG. Did we ‘vet’ Deval Patrick for his time in between being a USAAG and running for Governor, when he also represented a lot of corporate clients? I was here then, and other than the ‘coke kills’ crazies, I don’t recall it being an issue. It wasn’t an issue when former DNC chair and businessmen Steve Grossman was running for Treasurer, it doesn’t seem to be an issue coming up for Don Berwick and his company, and in fact when the election commission decided it was an issue for Dan Wolf, the vast majority of us decried their decision and lamented his exclusion from public life because of it. Is it being asked of Steve Kerrigan, Mike Lake, Deb Goldberg, Leland Cheung, all of whom have either owned, founded, or worked for private sector entities?
Let’s say that it is, how has he not already answered this question with the sale of all interest in the private sector company? Are we really going to have to ask who he represented, what he did for them, whether he choose pastrami or corn beef in his ruben on 4/21/07 and whether he billed that to the firm or the client?
I see no limit to these questions when they are phrased so broadly, so snidely, and with an implied bias in the manner in which they are asked.
Journalist: Do you have any conflicts of interest in any companies that may do dealings with the commonwealth?
Tolman: I had, but I sold them all.
Why is this still an issue?
I wasn’t here, but yes, we should have raised questions about that.
And I mean that sincerely, I wish other Healey supporters would hold themselves and their candidate to the same standard of scrutiny they demand of Warren.
I do not think Martha Coakley has been a good Attorney General. In my view, the more Ms. Healey aligns herself with Ms. Coakley on issues — especially on privacy — the less likely I am to support Ms. Healey for AG. What you call “absolute cover”, I’m inclined to call “taint”.
So far, casino gambling is the only issue where the two candidates have clearly differentiated themselves — Mr. Tolman supports (or at least accepts) it, Ms. Healey opposes it.
One reason I continue to harp on the privacy question is that it matters to me and neither candidate has addressed it. As such, it is well on its way to becoming the deciding issue for me.
I am actually more concerned about privacy and police misconduct than about casino gambling. I wish one of these candidates would address this.
I may just give up on engaging with Healey supporters and make my own endorsement thread for Tolman expanding on why I think he is the best candidate without tearing anyone down. Shouldn’t be as hard as these guys are making it out to be. And I will contact his campaign* for a statement on privacy and civil liberties issues.
*I got no affiliation with it beyond supporting Tolman on this site, I met him at a Patriots Day parade as a 10 year old during the 98′ campaign, and bumped into him at a forum at a later date, haven’t interacted with him this campaign cycle.
it was about the role of vetting in campaigns.
Of course Tolman isn’t Chris Christie and I didn’t suggest that. Similarly, your attack on JimC is just as weird since he was one of the people who came to Tolman’s defense on the few unfair comments that were made.
What I said was that if we don’t have vetting in campaigns — and lots of it — it will result in more Chris Christie situations, because scrutiny is the only thing that can reveal their flaws.
Those who don’t have Christie’s flaws will have their campaigns strengthened by going through the rigors of questioning.
A lot of people asked about Deval Patrick’s corporate past when he ran in 2006 and they were fair questions. He answered those questions and won some of the most lopsided competitive elections we’ve seen for the Corner Office in our lifetimes.
So you need to get past the notion that asking questions is a bad thing or an attack on a campaign. It’s not.
First, I said nothing about buffer zones. I wonder if some of your problems is that you’re misattributing comments in your responses.
Re: casinos, what I said was that she the bureaus she led in the AG’s office had nothing to do with the ballot question process. So it would be highly improbable she was involved.
That said, I don’t have a problem with anyone asking what her role in that was, but the way you did it was completely loaded.
Furthermore, trying to conflate an employee in an office with their role in carrying out orders is very different than someone questioning the role of an owner of a business. It can still be fair to ask questions about these kinds of issues to employees, but the bar for culpability has to be much, much lower. Triply so for someone who didn’t even work in the Bureau that overseas the act in question.
I think your attacks here are misplaced, though, if you view it as your role in these conversations to advocate for Tolman. By raising the casino issue, you’re only highlighting the one area that may be a weakness on BMG, when everything else is solid.
Heck, you’ll note I never even came out against Tolman on BMG. I just thought your attacks on Healey are unfair and that most of the questions about Tolman have been fair, with a notable exception or two that I criticized.
If you want a debate over the course of this election that is more polite than these things sometimes end up, a lot of that is up to you.
it was about the role of vetting in campaigns.
Of course Tolman isn’t Chris Christie and I didn’t suggest that. Similarly, your attack on JimC is just as weird since he was one of the people who came to Tolman’s defense on the few unfair comments that were made.
What I said was that if we don’t have vetting in campaigns — and lots of it — it will result in more Chris Christie situations, because scrutiny is the only thing that can reveal their flaws.
Those who don’t have Christie’s flaws will have their campaigns strengthened by going through the rigors of questioning.
A lot of people asked about Deval Patrick’s corporate past when he ran in 2006 and they were fair questions. He answered those questions and won some of the most lopsided competitive elections we’ve seen for the Corner Office in our lifetimes.
So you need to get past the notion that asking questions is a bad thing or an attack on a campaign. It’s not.
First, I said nothing about buffer zones. I wonder if some of your problems is that you’re misattributing comments in your responses.
Re: casinos, what I said was that she the bureaus she led in the AG’s office had nothing to do with the ballot question process. So it would be highly improbable she was involved.
That said, I don’t have a problem with anyone asking what her role in that was, but the way you did it was completely loaded.
Furthermore, trying to conflate an employee in an office with their role in carrying out orders is very different than someone questioning the role of an owner of a business. It can still be fair to ask questions about these kinds of issues to employees, but the bar for culpability has to be much, much lower. Triply so for someone who didn’t even work in the Bureau that overseas the act in question.
I think your attacks here are misplaced, though, if you view it as your role in these conversations to advocate for Tolman. By raising the casino issue, you’re only highlighting the one area that may be a weakness on BMG, when everything else is solid.
Heck, you’ll note I never even came out against Tolman on BMG. I just thought your attacks on Healey are unfair and that most of the questions about Tolman have been fair, with a notable exception or two that I criticized.
If you want a debate over the course of this election that is more polite than these things sometimes end up, a lot of that is up to you.
Do you honestly think asking petty questions about when patents were issued and in whose name will really reveal major flaws about Tolman? I am curious, because, in your other responses, you defend Tolman’s record of public service and here you stated you brought Christie up as an example rather than a comparison. But again, you claim, the line of questions posed by the OP of this thread are fair when clearly-Christopher, Striker, Fenway, myself, and are arguing they are not.
I frankly think Bennet, Annewhitefield, and demeter have done themselves and their candidate a great disservice with their uncivil tone and actions throughout these two threads and throughout this campaign so far. They are trying to insinuate that Warren Tolman is shady when he is a candidate of integrity.
Did I insinuate there were shady issues with Healey? Yes, as much as Jonathan Swift insinuated that the Irish should eat their young. The point of that exercise was to point out the absurdity of these kinds of questions and to give those specific Healey supporters a taste of their own medicine. Perhaps that backfired.
But I agree with you that it is time to move on. Let’s discuss the issues they agree on, contrast where they disagree, and more importantly focus on the different particulars of their proposals and the different experience they intend to bring to bare in this office. Let’s have that discussion and debate-I have been eager to do so. But threads like this distract from that debate, and sully the process. If you still think that is a form of ‘vetting’ then-I guess we have distinctly different understandings of the term.
Tolman sold the assets and he has nothing to hide. It ceases to be a story. Figuring out who paid for his lunch back in 2005 may seem like a fun exercise for some, but I would rather know what the candidates intend to do once they are in office in 2015.
…I’m not neutral in this race. I have committed to Warren Tolman and have done a bit of volunteering for him and expect to do more. He has my vote at both convention and primary.
When I read:
I see a thinly-veiled, snarky attempt to impugn Tolman’s post-legislature career. Which is of a piece with the nonstop harping about patents and the suggestion in this very thread that being related to the head of the state AFL-CIO is problematic. Read of this together and the clear message is “Warren Tolman may have been OK 10 years ago, but now he’s shady.”
when you read the rest of heartland’s posts, though I’ll agree with you that heartland’s snark got in the way of her point.
It’s a mistake I’ve made many times.
Finally, heartland wasn’t the person who made the comment about Warren’s brother. That was demeter…. who quickly retracted it.
In any event, these kinds of comments have been rare and the exception. If this perception truly exists on BMG, it is among only a few and isn’t gaining any traction.
I meant to add to “when you read the rest of heartland’s posts,”
that “I think the context becomes clear.”
Hey guys, relax. My post was not written with snark or attack or innuendo – anyone thinking otherwise is reading something into what was a balanced post with my sincere personal perspective. If you’re the same person you were in the 90’s best of luck to ya. Healey, I don’t know from a few blog posts and a headshot. And I like what I have read thus far on her candidacy.
Those who are ripping me for snarking seemed to have missed that in the post there was a fact-based comparison on professional career paths and a “got your back” for Tolman’s lifetime support of working people.
Can we return to finding out who will be the best of the best for AG?
I am with SomervilleTom and want to learn more about privacy, surveillance, as well as how we are going to get people out of jails.
The current criminal justice system is one Merry-Go-Round that $uck$ – Now that is snark.
That apparently has been enough for some people. All of your questions are valid, and as a Tolman supporter I fully expect those kinds of questions to be asked. I am honestly shocked his union affiliation via his brother is apparently an issue worth attacking a fellow Democrat over in a progressive leaning primary. I think he dealt with his unfortunate casino ties, but agree he could probably do more to put that issue to rest.
Nor with me, and that is all a lot of these guys got.
Maura’s plans are much more thoughtful and speak volumes about her beliefs. I encourage everyone to look through the issues section. Her gun plan is extensive, no quick fixes. Her criminal justice reform plan is comprehensive.
Her child protection plan is a fresh and hopeful way to solve some of the problems with DCF. I know the readers here can read all of it for themselves, but she gets short chained in discussions here. She knows what is important for this job, and has the ideas to innovate.
Yes, I have looked at her website.
I don’t feel that I am short-changing Ms. Healey by asking the questions I pose here, and I wouldn’t ask them if they were answered by her website. I find similar and similarly-attractive statements on the website of Mr. Tolman.
I will be choosing between two good candidates, each of which is a strong progressive. Since I can vote for only one, I’m looking to make the most informed choice possible.
And that is what I wonder about Healey. Did she sign on to the Coakley defense of the casino industry? What other bad Coakley policies has she supported over the years?
She seems to be having her cake and eating it too-breaking on an issue with the old boss that is symbolic at this point and was a game changer at making her look more ‘left’ than Tolman while also clearly still actively associating herself with Coakley and her supporters. It’s no wonder so many people who back our current AG for Governor are backing Healey for AG. But for many of us, continuity is exactly what is needed least in the AGs office. A clean break with the past, a restoration of the Harshbarger era-AGs office that went after banks, protected consumers, went after gun makers, and was an effective tool for protecting the middle class would be welcome. And I welcome Healey to articulate how she intends to make that break here on BMG. Warren Tolman clearly has already.
jconway has been on the nose with his reasons for supporting Warren Tolman and calling out the Healy supporters for some of their posts. But sadly, I’m not shocked to see union bashing on a progressive website. Having just completed the Boston Mayor’s race where making a union affiliation a “bad thing” by “just asking questions” got to be an art form here.
Warren Tolman has a Legislative record that he can be judged on by the voters. It’s hardly a secret he had a pro-worker voting record in the House and Senate. And it’s hardly a secret his Brother Steven (a former State Rep and State Senator) is the President of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. I expected to see the business types complaining about that, sad to see it still lingers here from last year.
A larger number of unions, including mine, endorsed Warren Tolman because of our knowledge of his legislative record and the personal integrity he brings to the office.
I’ve had the opportunity to work with Maura Healy and like and respect her as an attorney and a person. She would make an exceptional AG should she be the Democratic nominee. We disagree on the casino issue but reasonable people can disagree without bad blood.
And for the record I like and respect Maura Healey as well and would gladly support her, and will say here and now I fully will if she is nominated. I would be supporting her if Tolman wasn’t running. I frankly think the questions I am asking regarding her relationship with Coakley are unfair, and my point in asking them is to point out the absurdity of the double standard Tolman has to answer to. Is he a union stooge or a corporate hack? Apparently both in the eyes of some people.
I would argue he is nobody’s stooge or hack but a dedicated public servant with a strong commitment to working people, clean elections, protecting consumers, the environment, fighting gun manufacturers and taking on the special interests at every turn. I see many of these same qualities and commitments in Healey, what I don’t see is the same kind of track record, but this is the double edged sword that comes with being a first time candidate.
I strongly agree with this statement from Striker and ask the Healey supporters to insert ‘Warren Tolman’ into it and agree to it as well. I certainly agree with it regarding Healey.
I fully agree that throwing out the fact of a union association as though it were some kind of negative is not sensible. Being a union leader is at least as estimable as being a successful businessman, and I’d incline to it being a better indication of character. Every working person owes a huge debt to the struggles by organized labor on their behalf. The decline in union membership and influence is a major factor in the decline in the fortunes of working people. If unions were to disappear, I have no doubt at all that worker protections would begin to evaporate. we have already seen prominent conservatives advocating child labor. Progressives should be praising organized labor, not trying to use it as a slur.
n/t
Yes, unions and progressives should stand together.
Yes, unions represent working men and women as we hope all our elected officials should.
But unions do something else too: They show up. As Democrats, they are our foot soldiers. They put their money and their sweat where their mouth is. They knock doors. They make calls. They send mailings.
Many a great progressive would not have the ground game they needed to win without the incredible organizing done by unions. Never forget that.