Two endorsements emerged from Morrissey Boulevard today. For Attorney General, Maura Healey:
Healey’s clearer focus on the core responsibilities of the office, coupled with her evident tenacity and discerning legal mind, make her the superior choice…. Healey shows a refreshing willingness to acknowledge some limits to the power of the position she’s seeking. From her work as an assistant attorney general under Coakley, Healey has a firm grip on how to deploy the powers the office indisputably has — and to tend to the basic duties of that office…. [H]er unusual biography — she played professional basketball in Europe before attending law school — and her audacious performance in debates hint at a level of imagination and creativity that would serve her well….
Tolman, if elected, would be more conspicuous in using the attorney general’s bully pulpit. Healey would likely be more aggressive in using the office’s established powers in pushing for outcomes that she and Tolman both favor — and that would benefit the people of Massachusetts.
And for Treasurer, Tom Conroy:
He has worked in the private sector as a financial and risk-management consultant. He understands clearly how securing favorable financing terms for major state debt issuances can save money that can be directed toward other needed projects. He sees how giving cities and towns access to the state’s investment expertise can reduce fiscal pressure on municipal authorities. Meanwhile, his wide-ranging public-sector experience, which includes everything from working with refugees on behalf of the US State Department to chairing the Legislature’s Labor and Workforce Development Committee, bespeaks a commitment to maximizing the good that government can do for people by making it work effectively…. [I]t’s Conroy who shows the most fluency in, and enthusiasm for, the gory details of the treasurer’s job, and that makes him the best Democratic candidate for treasurer.
Nice gets for both of them (and for Steve Grossman, of course). Still, I’d urge all the endorsees not to get too comfy, and instead to recall the specter of Dan Winslow. As I observed after he lost big in the three-way Republican primary for US Senate in 2013:
Newspaper endorsements don’t mean sh!t. Everyone pretty much knew this already, but wow – what an emphatic demonstration we got yesterday. Republican Dan Winslow absolutely ran the table on major newspaper endorsements. He got the Globe, the Herald, the Lowell Sun, the Springfield Republican, the Fitchburg Sentinel, and the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune. Yet he didn’t just lose the primary, he got blown out, netting only 13% in a three-way race. And to make matters worse, this seems like the sort of election in which newspaper endorsements might actually have some influence – nobody really cares who the Globe or any other paper supports for president, but if you’re coming late to an election that you know is important (it’s a US Senate seat, after all), but that you haven’t had the time to delve into, you might place some stock in the views of what you consider to be a reasonably like-minded editorial board. But apparently not.
I prefer to think of it as winning the bronze medal…
nt
I don’t think we can conclude from Dan Winslow’s shellacking that newspaper endorsements don’t matter writ large. The narrower conclusion would be that they may not matter in a Republican primary, and the still narrower conclusion would be that they may not matter in a Republican primary when they are in service of an iconoclastic candidate like Dan Winslow.
We can’t conclude anything from the attention paid newspaper endorsements in that race for our upcoming Democratic primary, and I think there is reason to believe that the Globe endorsement of Maura Healey could be significant.
First, liberals/progressives/lefties like information, and the Globes’s endorsement of Maura Healey is chock full of information and analysis why she’s the better choice: civil rights record; familiarity with the office and its limitations; significant litigation record; clearer vision for the office and its proper role. There’s a lot to chew on there, but one could hardly make a better case for Maura Healey than that Globe endorsement did.
Second, the Globe has a huge readership in the suburbs inside of Route 128, which is an area where I could imagine Maura Healey will captivate many hearts and minds — particularly female hearts and minds. Getting those suburban voters to tune in in an otherwise low turnout election will be important if Maura Healey is to overcome urban mayoral/union political machines turning out voters.
In a Democratic primary race this close, I think the Globe endorsement of Maura is a huge deal.
ratifies Healey’s messages about herself (qualified, measured, skilled) versus her opponent.
In a close race that can be potent.
The most important message about herself that the Globe ratifies is “I will follow in my predecessor’s footsteps”.
I think the endorsement of Maura Healey demonstrates the Globe’s approval of Martha Coakley’s policy of doing as little as possible to interfere with political and venal corruption of government officials.
It reinforces my decision to vote for Warren Tolman.
…about your reaction to the Globe’s endorsement of Grossman given that seemed so sure they were in the tank for Coakley.
They know that their candidate will win. They also endorsed Charlie
BrownBaker in the Republican primary. Is there any doubt about who they’ll endorse in the general?I think they’re just covering their bets, seeking some gains among voters outside the Martha Coakley constituency.
For one, she is a very competent candidate, who answered straight all questions asked of her. She’s a candidate with a vision for the office, and with the know-how to deliver on that vision.
Healey has repeatedly said in the campaign that as AG she will prosecute political and venal corruption wherever she sees it. Nothing in her record indicates that is an empty promise.
When asked by Jim Braude whether or not the candidate would have investigated the killing of Ibrahim Todashev by FBI agent Aaron MacFarlane (recruited by the Boston FBI after “retiring” with full “disability” from the Oakland CA police department as part of a settlement in significant police brutality lawsuit), the two candidates gave starkly different answers (Sorry, NECN has disabled linking to these clips, they are available on the NECN site):
Warren Tolman: yes, I would have investigated
Maura Healey: That’s why I’ve called for the creation — first time ever — of a child and youth protection division
You may call that a “straight” answer — I call it an evasion.
She has made the claim about “political and venal corruption” just once, to my knowledge, and I see NOTHING in her record to indicate that it has any substance whatsoever — in my view, that’s what the “empty” of “empty promise” means.
What she HAS said repeatedly in her campaign is how much she “appreciates” Martha Coakley. Ms. Healey has repeatedly said, in essence (to paraphrase) “If you like Martha, you’ll like me”.
Judging by that criteria, what we can expect of Attorney General Maura Healey is to investigate and prosecute ONLY that corruption that is so offensive that it cannot be reasonably denied (except when the threat of an investigation suits her personal political agenda).
I wear the downrate from methuenprogressive as a badge of honor.
I note that he does not attempt to deny any of the simple statements of fact I cite.
I can only conclude that:
1) He agrees with Martha Coakley that the AG’s office should stay as far away from corruption and scandal as possible (after all, it’s all “just politics”, right?).
2) He doesn’t like it when folks like me talk about that corruption-enabling policy.
Your whack-a-doodle conspiracy theories (The Globe’s endorsement of Grossman proves the Globe’s approval of Coakly) is a “statement of fact” only beneath your tin-foil hat.
The exchanges between Jim Braude and the two candidates remain what they are, independently from any “whack-a-doodle conspiracy theories” I might have. Similarly, the Healey campaign has repeatedly offered Martha Coakley as an exemplar for how Ms. Healey intends to carry out the office if elected. That remains true. During the tenure of Ms. Coakley, the corruption investigations and prosecutions have been pursued by other players — that is true of the Probation Department criminal conspiracy, the McLauglin housing department scandal, and even the Annie Dookhan scandal.
Those are the simple statements of fact that I refer to. We may interpret them differently, but those facts remain in the public record.
I’ve watched the debate, and it seemed to me both candidates would have started an investigation into the Todashev affair.
NECN has removed the link to the Maura Healey interview with Jim Braude, it was broadcast June 17, and the response I quoted was her answer to the same question posed to Warren Tolman. Perhaps Ms. Healey view has “evolved” since June 17.
since I didn’t see it, but WBUR reports that the candidates agree on an independent investigation into the Todashev business.
…that a state AG has jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the FBI.
The AG’s office can initiate any investigation it choose. A state police contingent was present at the scene, and that alone is sufficient to allow inquiries.
I don’t doubt that the FBI could stonewall such an investigation. I also don’t doubt that AG’s office could make that stonewalling public so that the attempt to block the investigation itself becomes an issue.
Furthermore, it appears that Aaron MacFarlane is committing fraud against either the Boston FBI or the Oakland PD because he is working for the FBI while receiving a generous pension premised on his alleged full disability. I’m no attorney, but I’m pretty sure that the fact that he was hired by the FBI in Waltham MA makes that an act that the MA AG’s office can investigate.
Like so many other situations where you’ve cited lack of jurisdiction, an AG who is convinced that this needs to be investigated can find a way to do so.
Even if it were true, Maura Healey COULD have said “I don’t believe the office I seek has jurisdiction in this matter”. That wasn’t her “response”.
I am talking about the LEGAL AUTHORITY a state officer would have to investigate a federal agency. Seems to me the principles of federal supremacy and the premise behind (I think) McCullough v. Maryland would preclude such investigations. I agree that based on your quotes Healey did not answer the question.
It seems to me that you are avoiding several very salient facts:
1. Massachusetts state police were at the scene. Their behavior is well within the jurisdiction of the AG.
2. An unarmed witness was killed in his own home by a fusillade fired by Aaron MacFarlane. Even the FBI can’t commit murder.
3. The same Aaron MacFarlane appears to have defrauded either the Oakland CA PD, the FBI, or both regarding his “disability”. He was presumably a resident of MA when he committed that apparent fraud.
4. Martha Coakley did not cite “lack of jurisdiction” in her response to the Florida “investigation”. In fact, I have heard none of the principals offer this as a reason for inaction.
In my view, and in Warren Tolman’s view, these provided sufficient grounds to pursue an investigation. Martha Coakley chose otherwise (without further explanation) and Maura Healey is following in her footsteps.
I really doubt she can do much about 2; that would take a Congressional hearing. I’m not familiar with the Florida case in 4.
The “Florida investigation” was the investigation by Florida authorities (which, incidentally, DID take place) into the killing of Mr. Todashev by the Mr. MacFarlane. It was a homicide, it took place in FL, and FL authorities investigated it. They concluded that all was fine (big surprise there).
From the story (emphasis mine):
I again suggest that you are mistaken about the authority given the FBI. I think that ANY homicide can be investigated by ANY reasonably-related government official without requiring an act of Congress.
Reality based commentary, please.
huh?
The candidate the Globe endorsed in the race for the office Ms. Coakley now holds is the candidate who explicitly cites Ms. Coakley as a role model for how the candidate will execute the office if elected. I call that “ratifying the Coakley legacy”, you may interpret that however you like.
The Globe will endorse Martha Coakley in the general, when the endorsement might possibly have an even slight chance of helping her.
Actually, I doubt it. My prediction is that if Coakley wins the primary, the Globe endorses Charlie Baker.
And eb3.
so kudos to her for the endorsement.
They need look no further than Deb Goldberg for Treasurer. I have followed this race very closely and Deb has the passion and the business savy to be a great treasurer. The other two candidates are Beacon Hill bores.