Grossman once said, “Voters should determine who wins elections, not outside money!”
He was once on the right side of the argument. Shame.
A petition by Martha Coakley via MoveOn.org
To be delivered to Steve Grossman
Join us in calling on Steve Grossman to denounce the SuperPAC formed in his name and publicly request their ads be immediately taken down. These attacks, the first negative SuperPAC attack ads ever launched in a Massachusetts Democratic Primary, will only hurt our Party, our state and our democracy in the long-run.Petition Background
Massachusetts has been a proud leader in denouncing the Citizens United decision and preventing SuperPAC attack ads from influencing campaigns. Since Citizens United, these shadowy groups have used their unlimited, undisclosed corporate donations to launch negative attacks and drown out the voices of average voters across the country. In 2012, Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown led the way in voluntarily agreeing to ban these groups in their Senate campaign. Ed Markey and Steven Lynch followed suit in their race.
No matter which candidate you’re supporting, if you’re undecided or you may live outside Massachusetts, by joining our efforts, you’re helping to send a strong message that the Citizens United decision was wrong. These secretive, special interest groups drown out the voice of average voters, breed cynicism, and threaten our democracy.
We believe this campaign should be about grassroots activism and candidates’ ideas for the future, not attacks ads funded by undisclosed corporate interests.
Be sure to sign this petition too if the idea of Partners HealthCare becoming even more powerful in our state scares you: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/block-the-partners-deal
He does not control what an independent group does.
Maybe they don’t talk over the fence… Even if they don’t Grossman should disavow the ad and Super-PAcs in general.
I don’t like the ad; it seems like kind of a cheap shot. Better to have Steve making his own statement about this.
But given its subject matter (guns), I don’t see why we’re worried about its funding. Yes, all SuperPACs are potentially bad, but no corporation paid for this. The Kochs didn’t pay for this.
Bet you don’t know. And that’s just the point. You can have some special interest that doesn’t care a bit about guns use this as a pretense to attack Martha Coakley, simply because they don’t like her stand on another issue. What special interest group thinks Grossman is so preferable to Coakley that they would dump six figures into an anonymous SuperPAC? I would like to know, and I would like full and immediate disclosure before this group spends another nickel.
Why that is not yet the law baffles me.
Just wondering. Because without DISCLOSURE I cannot EVALUATE YOUR COMMENTS!!!!!
I agree with you that disclosure is preferable. But let’s not get the vapors over this.
You think my occasional BMG posts rises to the level of six-digit funding of an anonymous SuperPAC?
I was being cheeky.
Though disclosure is our default position, I don’t think the high dudgeon some of us are in is justified. I’m not crazy about the ad, but it’s pretty tame compared so some stuff out there.
More like mediocre.
Steve Grossman is down 28 points with six weeks until the primary. Both his campaign’s ad and the SuperPAC are mediocre at best. They don’t make you like Steve Grossman, and they do nothing to clearly differentiate between Grossman and Coakley except that Grossman is not a “career prosecutor.”
Career prosecutor? Makes her sound like someone working on our behalf in the government as a professional, not as some sort of career politician. She’s taken bad guys off the street and advocated against DOMA to the Supreme Court? Sounds good to me.
People genuinely like Martha Coakley and respect her work as a public servant. It is going to be difficult to make a case for another Democrat to defeat her in six weeks, and these ads don’t get close. Martha’s biggest negative, the loss to Scott Brown, even kind of helps her here. Solid public servant, but not a really great politician. It’s probably the reason why she is the only Democrat with a polling lead over Charlie Baker.
Steve Grossman is trying to run to the left of Martha, and Don Berwick certainly isn’t helping him there. I don’t see why Steve Grossman is willing to condone the SuperPAC mediocracy when chasing a progressive electorate that doesn’t like Citizens United. Makes no sense at all. Six weeks to go, down 28 points, and he wants us to spend a couple of days talking about why Steve has a SuperPAC running ads for him?
That’s what is kind of scary about this race. Coakley has many, and much bigger negatives. They are rarely discussed, except here sometimes.
Even look at the Partners agreement, which is a really big deal and says a lot about her approach to health care. That was in the press for almost no time and she won’t address the criticisms of the agreement. So few people give a sh*t about this race and just assume it is already Coakley’s (which I agree it probably is). It’s sad.
I don’t condone the SuperPAC with undisclosed donors, but someone has to try to take down Coakley to have a chance.
I have been knocking on doors for Martha Coakley in Arlington. I’m talking to voters. I have never received a more positive reception for a candidate.
The Scott Brown loss is the only negative I am hearing on the streets. I know we’re in Middlesex County, so folks around here have been voting for Martha for years (DA, AG), but the negatives that some are pitching on BMG do not resonate on the streets.
The only person I want to take down right now is Charlie Baker. He’s got lots of negatives that will resonate across Massachusetts.
<
Friends of Charlie Baker
Just imaging the conversation they have in private after an event endorsing Charlie.
But that’s the problem.
Coakley gets a lot of support but without many people knowing where she stands on issues (except choice and equality).
What do you think about her work on the Partners deal? Do you support her stance on drugs? Do you think she’s laid out the best vision for health care in MA? On education? On addressing inequality?
I suggest that this a dangerous time to be trying to scare voters about the friends of Charlie Baker. That knife very definitely cuts both ways, and the dust has not necessarily settled from the Probation Department scandal.
I really wonder how many of us here appreciate just how glaring her vulnerabilities are, especially after these convictions and the embarrassing slap-down by the SJC of her attempt to squash the anti-casino ballot question.
Friend of Martha Coakley — Unindicted co-conspirator (Robert DeLeo)
Friend of Martha Coakley — Convicted Felon (John O’Brien)
Friend of Martha Coakley — Convicted Felons (Salvatore DiMasi, Thomas Finneran, Charles Flaherty)
Friend of Martha Coakley — Casino Moguls
Friend of Martha Coakley — Casino Gambling proponents
Is that the Republican got endorsed by Republicans, looks like he’ll be Governor.
Berwick, if he can get over the way he comes across on TV, as an outsider with not incestuous ties to local industries or political patronage would be our best bet against Baker. Coakley is far too compromised, and seems poised to make her campaign about abortion and gay rights-two issues where her opponent is way ahead of his party and in lockstep with her. That strategy didn’t work against the more socially conservative Brown and won’t work against Baker. His attacks against her on patronage, the insider deals like Partners, his support of putting the casino issue in front if the voters vs. her opposition, all of those will resonate with independents far more than her Emily’s List endorsement or how many sportscasters she stood up for.
…We went from Pablo saying, ‘the loss to Scott Brown is the only negative I’m hearing on the streets’… to “if all she has is that the Republicans get endorsed by Republicans”… That’s quite a leap. It suggests you’re not really reading what Pablo wrote.
And, as to the suggestion that DeLeo, O’Brien, Wynn and assorted other unsavories are ‘Friends of Martha’… It is beginning to look a lot like “Coakley Derangement Syndrome”.
Maybe you’re right about “Coakley Derangement Syndrome”.
Don’t be surprised to learn, in November, that a great number of Massachusetts voters suffer from this “disorder”.
Nobody cares about Romney or Christie who isn’t already a partisan Democrat. Independents care far more about the probation scandal, the bad casino deal, the bad partners deal, affording this state, good schools, quality healthcare, and making ends meet via increased employment and opportunity. You know, the kind of stuff Don Berwick is talking about while Martha rushes to another bill signing on abortion buffers or protects an out of state sports anchor from shock jock radio hosts. Both campaigns have been run in a tone deaf manner, like she is running for re-election and not an entirely different office requiring different priorities.
“Tone deaf manner” is exactly it.
Sadly, this is the real Martha Coakley. Call it “passion”, call it “arrogance”, its been the hallmark of her public persona from day 1. It’s the reason why her loss to Scott Brown was not a freak anomaly.
Apparently, Mayor Walsh suffers from the same disorder (judging from his embarrassing comments about the Probation Department convictions).
I was disappointed in Walsh, as I am disappointed in some people on BMG expressing pity for poor old corrupt Sal da speakah who deserves to be in jail. This is the kind of culture we have to stop to break the grip of the hacks and remain a consistently competitive party that is true to it’s core values.
We are looking at at least another four years of Weld-Cellucci style governance under Baker. With the exception of my dad who has always liked Martha, nobody at the BBQ thought she would lose the nomination and nobody thought she could beat Baker. That’s the reality outside of the BMG bubble. Everyone promised to ‘take a look’ at Berwick, but the reality is his team is doing canvassing this summer that the Patrick team did the summer before during the 2006 cycle. I was out there in 2005 canvassing in Arlington and Cambridge with Marc McGovern and BMG’s own joeltpatterson. Berwick should’ve been there in 2013.
I am donating some money to his candidacy and hoping he can catch fire, but it’s looking pretty bleak in either state. It’s also looking pretty bleak for Tierney, but I am hoping he can pull one off. Fortunately, the GOP is too inept to compete for the other offices.
I was very upset when Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown, but, if she had won, she would likely still be a senator and we would not have Elizabeth Warren. Maybe, aside from running one of the least effective campaigns ever, there was some divine intervention in her loss.
If anyone here would’ve preferred Senator Coakley to Senator Warren?
While the crickets chirp, I am going to fight to elect a Warren style progressive to the Corner Office named Dr. Berwick.
Who knows? If a Senator Coakley had the potential to be as disastrous as you alledge a Governor Coakley would be, what was to stop Elizabeth Warren from similarly running a primary challenge in 2012? Do you think she ran purely because her opponent was Scott Brown? Why does it have to be ‘either or’? If Coakley is the nadir of Mass poltical scummery, then we’d probably be well rid of her by now, and still welcoming a Senator Warren…
Two can play this game: perhaps a Senator Coakley would have left us with a candidate now ready to become Governor Warren? I’d prefer that, to be honest. I think Coakley would make a better senator than a governor and I think Warren would make a better governor than a senator… but we can’t always get what we want..
The job of being the chief executive officer for a state, or a major state agency (AG), or leading a large prosecutor’s office (DA) is very different from the job of being a legislator.
I supported Mike Capuano over Martha in the senate race, because I thought his experience and style were better suited for that job. Martha has been a skilled leader in the day to day operations of state government. She has worked effectively as a partner with local governments. She has assembled a very good staff, and we can cite Maura Healey as an example of the type of folks she hires.
Yes, I prefer Senator Warren to Senator Coakley. I also prefer Governor Coakley to any of the other options.
When did Warren run against Coakely (other than in your head)?
I’m glad Brown beat Coakley so Warren could beat Brown. That is the argument. Id take a nationally prominent voice for strong liberalism over a milquetoast back bencher who prefers vacations to tough fights.
She may not be the fighter Warren is, but it would have made Senate life a lot easier for a couple of years.
N/t
She would have kept our tally to 60 at least on paper and while we had a couple of Dems who balked at major legislation like ACA there would not have been nearly the number of successful just-because-we-can routine filibusters of nominees and the like.
And you are forgetting that Reid and Obama should’ve changed the rules when they had the votes at the beginning of this administration to avoid this mess. Other seats were lost that could’ve been won, other senators like Lincoln would’ve voted against the ACA to save their skins, and we wouldn’t have a liberal lion to unleash upon the far right.
Not saying I am happy Brown became a senator, voted for him or rooted for him, but-if his interregnum was needed between Teddy and Warren I’ll take it.
My wider point is that Coakley is always setting herself up as the lesser of two evils rather than articulating what she stands for besides personal advancement. I still don’t know why she wants to be Governor and all her supporters are giving me is that I am a sexist, Baker is the devil, and she will crush her primary opponents so why bother hoping or trying for something better? Hers is a cynical and ultimately self defeating campaign.
I am now certain she will be nominated and certain she will lose.
As for Coakley I sure hope Dems thinking she will lose this general does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Republicans in MA are elected by Dems who stay home.
it’s the ones who hope she’ll lose the general.
Whether “hope” or “think”, I’ll wager that your commentary during this campaign season has driven away far more potential Democratic votes than any negative Charlie Baker spot.
Sadly, you seem to be fairly representative of most of the Martha Coakley supporters I’ve known, and not just in this campaign either. One characterization that comes to my mind is “divisive”.
Your support of Baker might be better revived there.
I suggest you’ve already done more for him here than anything I might write anywhere.
When Ms. Coakley wins the primary, I fully intend to keep my “act” here and help us stay aware of what we’ve done, what it means, what it’s consequences are.
Republicans in MA are elected by unenrolled Democrats who conclude that a Tweedledee from the GOP is preferable to a Tweedledum from a pervasively corrupt and correspondingly arrogant Democratic party.
Democrats who stay home do so because the party’s anointed candidate has been giving the finger since before the convention.
We know.
I’ll be here to tweek you when Charlie Baker cleans Martha Coakley’s clock in November.
Some of us are trying to tell our party something that it is becoming increasingly desperate to ignore.