Email from Don Berwick (no link) that arrived this morning:
It has been a pleasure and an honor to serve as a candidate for governor, and the 114,000 voters who supported me are, without doubt, a future force for change.
To all of you, I have one request now: join me in full support of Martha Coakley and the Democratic ticket on November 4th. Although we do not agree on all of the issues, I have no doubt at all that the Commonwealth’s future will be in excellent hands in a Coakley Administration. I cannot say the same about the prospect of four years under Charlie Baker and the Republican Party….
I believe that the future well-being of the Democratic Party lies in its unapologetic and firm commitment to the progressive values that together we explored over and over again in this campaign: social justice, equality, and compassion in public policy. Our state and our nation are hungry for leaders who remind us all of our shared interest in these values and in human rights. The Democratic Party stands for those values and Martha Coakley will champion them.
Good for Berwick. He didn’t have to do this – he’s not someone who strikes me as the sort who will definitely seek elective office again (though maybe he will).
What say you, disappointed Berwick backers who are skeptical of Coakley’s candidacy? Does Berwick’s full-throated endorsement change your view?
The primary effect of this statement is to remind me that Mr. Berwick is forced to perform the same uncomfortable acts after a primary loss as any other reasonably competent politician. I strongly suspect that Mr. Berwick held his nose while writing (or authorizing) this in the same way that I held my nose while voting for the Democratic nominee when she ran against Scott Brown.
In my view, Mr. Baker is far less dangerous as governor than Mr. Brown was as senator. I also, however, have no intention of ever running for public office. I get that Mr. Berwick had to take this step.
It changes nothing about my view of this election.
That’s what blogs are all about.
… I thought blogs were for handwringing over other peoples behavior. Silly me.
I suppose I could have launched a broadside and gone back and forth with Tom, who’s clearly made up his mind, or I could have simply not read it at all. But I like and respect Tom so I read it and let him know what i feel about it via the ratings feature.
It’s up to him to respond to the downrate, I guess, which leaves you… what…?
I acknowledge that the ratings system is pointless here, and I have long since convinced myself I shouldn’t bother about it. But I keep relapsing.
A question was directed at ST (and others), and it was answered honestly. Why downrate that? Why push further when I ask the question? Why insult me in your reply? (These are rhetorical questions you don’t need to answer.)
ST will not shut up … but other people might. My point is, all opinions are supposed to be welcome here. Am I wrong?
…but as this is a Democratic blog knocking the Democratic nominee after a primary is not going to be looked upon too kindly, and I fundamentally doubt Berwick was holding his nose as Tom suggests. The latter’s Coakley Derangement Syndrome is out of line IMO and I’m glad we aren’t limited in our downrates to only the most offensive the way Daily Kos does it.
Stuck in the late ’00s I guess. I don’t like downrating as a means of disagreement. But I know I’m outvoted on this.
… and then there’s fantasy: which fantasy (Berwick had to hold his nose and do this because he want’s to run again… Baker would be less dangerous.. etc) is that to which I was referring my downrate.
When I disagree with people, I disagree with them. I don’t downrate them because they have different opinions. I downrate when they write something egregious or assumptive or out of bounds. Sometimes that’s just my perspective and I’ll get a downrate in return. Sometimes they really are egregious and out of bounds.
This whole notion that everybody’s view is always valid and valuable (implicit in your claim that downrates always mean disagreement) doesn’t hold up. Doesn’t hold up for me. Doesn’t hold up for you. Doesn’t hold up for Tom. People have biases and blinkered perceptions, sometimes egregiously so, and downrates, however poorly they might do it, serve a function.
I did not remotely suggest, or imply, that all opinions are valid.
I could comment on “out of bounds,” and who determines that, but I will pass.
There are clearly various comments on this site that you’ve downvoted simply because you disliked what the person said – not because they were egregious or out of bounds. Your explanation suggests that for you, one disagreeing with you about something that you’re very passionate about, *is* egregious.
That’s pretty harsh.
Will it be helpful for me to counter with “Blind party loyalty”?
I’ve attempted to articulate my priorities and the issues that drive them. I’ve attempted to articulate the dissonance I see between our nominee’s stances on those issues and my priorities.
If you view that as pathological, then I suggest you rethink your attitudes towards the people around you.
…so yes, there is a loyalty component, but even if I weren’t I’d take her over Baker anyway, as does your candidate. Yes, I do think your hatred that you have expressed for her goes beyond the norm.
So what? It’s understandable that you would be disturbed that someone is not as loyal as you to the Democratic Party, but
is unfounded.
Whether or not you are a DSC member does not enable you to pathologize people you disagree with online and attribute to them a seething hate that which is a strong dislike.
Did @somervilletom say he bears hatred for Martha Coakley?
….because Tom specifically threw loyalty at me, which has some merit and I explained why. I am not qualified to diagnose pathology, but I do think his comments show a deep seated hatred for the AG which at least for me passeth understanding.
Passions sure ran deep during then Self included. 🙁
your diagnosis that Tom is suffering a derangement syndrome isn’t even clever…it’s just disrespectful of his deeply felt convictions. Let’s just disagree and quit baiting him.
I was tired on Tom crapping on Coakley four years ago. Disliking a candidate doesn’t need to mean subjecting us to the same negative comments over and over again. Nothing new to see here; time to move on.
One, whether the term “Coakley Derangement Syndrome” should be applied, which I think was Judy’s point. Most seem to think no.
Two, whether the issues Tom raises should be brought up again. A THOUSAND TIMES YES. She is running for a new office. What if she runs for President? She doesn’t get a clean slate every time, she still has to account for her record.
n/t
This is not a valid argument.
To the degree that people dislike a person, a style of music, a restaurant, a clothing brand, or anything else in this universe, the justification for them to be able to express that dislike in a open and free community is not contingent on any sense of entitlement you have of not being “subjected” to that expression.
I just want to say that I have no particular problem with downrates.
I know that petr and christopher disagree with me about this, and we’ve already exchanged our views candidly and frankly. I suspect we’ll continue to do so. I take the downrates as a perfectly civil “not me”.
I, frankly, find Christopher’s downrate far more courteous than insults like “Coakley Derangement Syndrome” offered down-thread.
It’s obnoxious to tell people how to act, to condemn others, to abuse a system simply because people say things that we disagree with.
While @somervilletom gave me something that I’m still thinking about, where I can see both an attitude I dislike but also one in which I’m sympathetic, your comment was the one that was downvoted (and doesn’t provide any ideas to reflect about other than how petty people can be online)
@jimc, given the tense environment created by the primary campaigns, I’d assumed that comment calling on people to downvote was sincere.. If you were instead making a joke and commenting on Internet pettiness, then I apologize.
I was being sarcastic. No worries.
This is what I don’t understand. Like I said, I doubt Berwick is running for anything in the near future. So how can he be “forced” to back a candidate he doesn’t genuinely support? What could the party possibly hold over him, if he’s not interested in running again?
I mean, maybe I’m wrong and he’s planning to run for state Senate next year. But I have to say, I seriously doubt it.
both Berwick and Steve Grossman endorsed Coakley at a Democratic unity event immediately after the primary. That was pretty much required – if Berwick or Grossman hadn’t shown up at that, it would have sent a strong signal. But to my knowledge, Grossman hasn’t send anything to his email list about Coakley yet; Berwick just did. And Grossman is certainly more of a party guy than Berwick is.
I didn’t save them, but I’m fairly certain I got a thank you, followed by a call for unity and an endorsement. Maybe not a formal endorsement but a “We must support Martha Coakley” message.
I received such an email.
If endorsement emails actually counted for much, this race would have been over a long time ago.
It’s nice of Grossman and Berwick to show support for their former opponent. Unfortunately, voters have a way to make up their own minds.
You are referring to endorsements from random politicians who are not themselves candidates. It is very important, however, in the interest of party unity, for former candidates to make very clear that they support the nominee, and therefore so should the people who supported them.
Don Berwick has been, is now, and I hope will continue to be a prominent national figure who is much more likely to find support from Democrats than anybody else. His journey into politics may be short-lived, but I certainly hope his national service is not. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but in my view doing anything except what he did has a high risk of being, in retrospect, a career limiting decision.
In deciding to issue this missive, he has little to lose and much to gain. I’d do the same in his place.
We knew we would have a nice presidential year to defeat Brown, and a great candidate waiting in the wings with Elizabeth Warren. Next to you and CMD, I might be one of the more consistent Coakley critics on this blog. I still have a lot of issues with her tenure as DA, AG, and her stated goals as a candidate. So do a lot of us.
What I don’t understand is the casual way with which you regard her as equal to Baker. Sure, he is just as pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion rights, and pro-gun control as Coakley is. I have defended him on that. But on economics, he is as much of a union basher as Scott Walker. He is still relying on “work to welfare” tropes that demonize the poor and are factually inaccurate, and he is committed to cutting taxes and cutting services as a way out of our revenue problem. Coakley is committed to indexing the gas tax, committed to labor rights, and committed to working with the progressives in the legislature on bread and butter issues. She may not go far enough on revenue-but Baker denies we even have a revenue problem and is myopic in his belief that it’s exclusively a spending problem caused by overly generous benefits to unions and workers. Baker can’t even admit climate change is a problem. He is hamstrung on areas where he could be innovative by his base, and will likely govern the way they want on the many areas where he is aligned with them.
I get that you can’t hold your nose for her a second time, I respect that. My own vote is going to stop another Walker clone in IL-Bruce Rauner-from becoming Governor out here, since I lost my MA registration. But were I voting in MA, I would hold my nose a second time, precisely because Coakley will be accountable to the sizable blocks of Democrats who didn’t vote for her, to the bloc of progressive politicians that backed Berwick or Grossman instead of her, to labor, to Progressive MA, and even to our community here in a way Charlie Baker won’t be. His power relies on big business. Her power relies on labor and this activist base coming out. She is a flawed candidate and a flawed public official, but she is accountable to progressives in a way Baker won’t be.
I did not say I thought Martha Coakley was “equal” to Charlie Baker.
In 2010, Martha Coakley ran against Scott Brown for the senate. My feeling at the time (and I think our collective experience confirms this) is that Scott Brown would be a toxic disaster as a Senator. He was. He did great damage during his brief tenure as Senator.
Today, Ms. Coakley is running against Charlie Baker for governor. I don’t suggest they are equal. Instead, I suggest that the actual damage Charlie Baker can do is relatively limited. I’m not at all confident that Martha Coakley will do less damage. They will, however, do their damage in different areas.
Neither candidate shows any willingness to invest in public transportation. That is tantamount to destroying it. Neither candidate shows any willingness to address our burgeoning income and wealth concentration crisis. In my view, that is just as dangerous to us as climate change denial, and with far more immediate consequences.
Both are wrong on casino gambling. Martha Coakley, in my view, demonstrated far too much tolerance for blatant public corruption while Attorney General. NONE of the major scandals that broke during her tenure were uncovered by her office — virtually all of the investigatory and prosecutorial resources came instead from the US Attorney’s office.
Thankfully, organized labor and unions still enjoy great support in Massachusetts. I think that Mr. Baker is unlikely to do lasting harm in that regard.
In contrast, public corruption is a major problem. The pronounced disinterest that Ms. Coakley demonstrated in addressing this problem while AG persuades me that she will at best have no interest in addressing it, and at worst may even weaken our existing defenses against it.
Ms. Coakley has been absolutely horrible about fourth amendment rights, militarization of police, police brutality, and the rest. She has repeatedly advocated expansion of government surveillance, she has pursued unconstitutional restrictions on adult use of the internet, and she supported the Patriot Act (as well as, if I recall correctly, its extension). In this area, I think she is likely to be MORE dangerous than Charlie Baker.
To summarize, my comparison was between Scott Brown as senator and Charlie Baker as governor. I stand by that comparison. I do not claim that Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley are “equals”. I do feel that neither is suitable for the office they seek.
I will not vote for either.
Yet you complain that she went after Tim Cahill and Mike McLaughlin, the latter you have always insisted was a proxy for Tim Murray. She either went after the scandals or she didn’t. You might disagree on which she should have prioritized, but you can’t have it both ways in terms of a general statement.
The McLaughlin prosecution was initiated by the US Attorney’s office, not Ms. Coakley.
She FOLLOWED that prosecution with her own “energetic” pursuit of what turned out to be only Tim Murray, and that “energy” dissipated as soon as Mr. Murray withdrew from gubernatorial contention (but only after securing a significantly reduced federal penalty in exchange for “information”). No indictments, apparently no “other information”. The net result was significantly lighter punishment for a convicted felon (who happened to be a major power player in the Masschusetts Democratic Party), and only one significant change — the withdrawal of her leading competitor (at the time) from the gubernatorial race.
It is certainly true that Ms. Coakley prosecuted Tim Cahill — who just happened to be a gubernatorial candidate at the time. I’m not sure I would cite that particular example while attempting to argue against my contention that personal political gain is the most important motivator for Ms. Coakley.
Meanwhile, where was Martha while:
– Somerville police officer Keith Winfield was raping his 23 month old niece with a hot curling iron. Ms. Coakley “investigated” and decided not to bring an indictment. Her successor indicted and convicted Mr. Winfield.
– Michael Kineavy was destroying emails in flagrant violation of state law,
– Annie Dookhan was submitting thousands of falsified drug lab reports in support of state prosecutors
– The owners of New England Compounding Center were killing and sickening patients with criminally polluted medications
– Boston police and firefighters, together with an entire industry of corrupt lawyers, doctors, and lobbyists, were building an entire industry dedicated to abusing the pension and disability benefits rightfully included in union contracts
– House speaker Salvadore DiMasi was arranging a criminally fraudulent contract with Cognos
– Richard Vitale, Mr. DiMasi’s accountant, was collecting payments from ticket brokers seeking a relaxation of ticket scalping laws
– John O’Brien and his co-conspirators (both indicted and un-indicted) were building and operating a criminally corrupt patronage mill
Yes, I guess I’m “deranged” because I am disgusted by a prosecutor and Attorney General whose record towards political corruption is so complete and so dismal.
If we’re going to blame Coakley for all of this, wouldn’t we also have to hold Charlie Baker accountable for all of the questionable privatization deals, patronage hires, various scandals and so forth during the Weld administration?
(By the way, in a timely blast from the past, Shirley Leung’s column today in the Globe reminds us that Steve Wynn got his casino proposal through with the help of “the best that money can buy — former governor Bill Weld and ML Strategies CEO and ex-Massport honcho Steve Tocco.” I believe the Massport patronage dumping ground was the subject of some criticism a few years back.)
Martha Coakley was the Attorney General for all but the first, and she was the responsible prosecutor in that case.
It was here JOB to investigate these, and she did not.
I get that you won’t be convinced, and you have been quite consistent about this from day 1 that the privacy and civil liberty issues are you’re most important, and I respect that.
This statement, however, is demonstrably false:
On transit: Coakley backs indexing the gas tax to inflation, Baker opposes. This year I can’t think of a single bigger demonstrator of commitment to the revenue problem you and I always discuss than this fairly basic remedy. If that doesn’t signal a stark difference of commitment, not sure what else would.
On income inequality: Coakley backs taxing the wealthy, she backs recovering funds from big banks that ripped off consumers, she backs raising the minimum wage and paid family leave, she backs single payer in theory. Is she as good as Warren or Berwick? No. Is she better than Baker? If his ‘work to welfare’ rhetoric hasn’t already convinced you, ending the wage gap is not even on his radar. Cracking down on mythical unworking welfare cheats is.
On climate change denial: He avoids the question, she has affirmatively answered that it is man made and we gotta do more than we are.
And lastly on casinos, it’s out of their hands and in ours, voting yes on 3 should be our top priority as a progressive community precisely since none of our lawmakers can be trusted to stop this predatory industry. Not even Deval.
The indexing is written into state law. I’m glad she opposes the referendum to repeal it.
The gas tax does NOT even begin to help public transportation. It is a pittance, and any success in shifting travel habits from automobiles to public transportation will penalize that success by reducing total revenue generated by the gas tax.
On income inequality, Ms. Coakley has not offered ANY proposals to tax the wealthy, except to say that she supports the “concept” of a graduated income tax. No proposals to raise the capital gains tax. No proposals to raise the gift/estate tax. Not even a suggestion to renew Governor Patrick’s proposal to raise the state income tax and simultaneously raise exemptions and deductions.
Minimum wage and paid family leave are must-haves, and do NOTHING about income inequality. Same with single-payer.
Her refusal to face the economic facts of our high and increasing income and wealth concentration is, in my view, just as egregious as Mr. Baker’s climate change denial. The difference is that the devastating impacts of the former are happening RIGHT NOW.
I see no evidence, based on her lengthy public record, that she will actually DO anything (positive) about the issues I care about.
…most if not all of the things you cite above are items the AG or a DA has nothing she can do about.
“And lastly on casinos, it’s out of their hands and in ours”
She worked to prevent the question from going to the ballot and has made the same statement as Baker that if the vote is “no” on Casinos, they both will seek a way to subvert the law in order to continue will the plans to bring them here.
If casinos are out of the hands of Martha Coakley, she sure hasn’t been convinced of it, nor is that an acknowledgement she’s made during the campaign or while in office.
You’ve made a list of what I’d call “macro” policy concerns, but you’re missing the day-to-day governance issues that end up really mattering. In particular, you are severely underestimating the power of the governor over the executive branch functions, including (most importantly, in my mind) the administration of the social safety net. A dedicated operator who knows the ends and outs of the executive agencies (like someone who once ran two of those agencies — i.e., Charlie Baker) can enact and enforce policies that can really change the focus, orientation, and even day-to-day operation of those agencies, and sometimes wreak havoc in the lives of the real people that those agencies’ programs support. Whatever her flaws, a Governor Martha Coakley is not going to gut the Commonwealth’s welfare programs. A Governor Charlie Baker very well might, and he won’t need the legislature or anyone else to do it.
Act One: Cut benefits to welfare recipients because of his stated opinion that the poor are immoral and need to be taught a lesson.
Act Two: Tax cuts for the rich to reward their success that is a product of their morality.
A day or so after the primary election, I said to myself that I could not vote for anyone who when asked about how she would address homelessness (including mental healthcare for the impoverished and acknowledging their struggle, extreme poverty, the dangers they face daily by not being provided shelter and protection) answered “We can look into it when the economy is better.”
While I don’t believe there are sufficient reasons to believe or agree with a few statements that @jconway expressed about the degree to which Coakley will be accountable or the predictions about how Baker and Coakley will govern, I feel that in general he made a more objective and compelling argument for voting for Coakley than you gave for not voting for her (or anyone running for governor).
Have you considered voting for one of the independents? Do you differ with @jconway about the level to which people will have access to and be able to hold Coakley or Baker accountable?
I hate Martha Coakley with a passion, because I know she let an innocent man (Gerard Amirault) stay in prison because it was politically advantageous for her, and because I suspect she blackmailed Tim Murray into quitting.
But I’m a liberal.
So I’ve been trying to decide how to vote (or not) in November.
Still not decided, but I appreciate the well thought our argument.
Coakley did not hold the decision on Amirault. It was Governor Jane Swift.
one of the relatively few times BMG has actually broken news was when we reported during the 2009 Senate primary that Coakley fully reaffirmed her long-held position on the Amirault saga. “I, as Middlesex District Attorney, opposed his commutation, and I stand by that decision to this day.”
Coakley owns the Amirault business – no getting around that.
Bean was correct when he wrote that it was acting Governor Jane Swift who refused to commute the sentence. The extent to which Swift relied upon Coakley’s input is unknown. The only information online I can find specifically putting Jane Swift and Martha Coakley in cahoots over Amirault was an Ann Coulter piece from World News Daily (to which I refuse to link). If you have more definitive proof I’d welcome it into the discussion.
What Coakley ‘owns’ is her continued belief that Amirault received a fair trial. Absent the absolute surety with which some assume this incorrect, there is nothing really controversial here. Some will, no doubt, counter with the mistaken notion that ‘sex-abuse hysteria’ contributed to a corruption of justice… to which I’ll counter that the peak of the ‘sex abuse hysteria’ is wholly co-incident with actual and widespread sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Clerisy, some of whom were not brought to justice until long after the ‘sex abuse hysteria’ had passed, some of whom have not yet been brought to justice (I’m looking at you Cardinal Law): just as your paranoia is an inadequate determination of whether or no you are being stalked, the presence of ‘sex abuse hysteria’ is not a determinant that no sexual abuse is occurring. Sex abuse, unlike witchcraft, is for real.
I do not know the extend of Amiraults guilt: I feel he could be guilty; I feel he might be innocent. But I do think that he received a fair trial. Even the commutation of the sentence does not dispute this fact resting it’s case upon purported unfair sentencing rather than verdict.
The parole board made specific mention regarding the conviction, which I believe is a quite unusual thing because they have no power to consider those issues.
Coakley owns her public campaign to make sure the commutation never happened. Whether and to what degree that impacted Swift’s decision is unknown, and doesn’t matter a ton. Coakley was at the core of the campaign to keep Amirault in prison. Because of that, she owns this mess more than anyone else, and the fact that she thinks her actions were correct is a big flaw and pretty scary.
I already linked to and quoted a WSJ piece that laid out Coakley’s active efforts to counter the Parole Board’s 5-to-0 vote to recommend sentence commutation. Perhaps if you spent more time reading BMG, and less on World Nut Daily, you might have seen it.
is unimportant. What is important is that the primary is over and Martha Coakley was chosen to represent the party in the November election. Either we Democrats support her, or Charles Baker, the Republican candidate wins, which is unacceptable. Just because he can claim not to be way off the reservation like too many of his fellow Republicans, doesn’t mean that his has policy beliefs that we want to see put into action.
Can something electronic be hearty and full-throated?
Hardly think he’d be doing that if his email was just pro forma.
Yes, something electronic can be hearty and full-throated,
I know you were just being clever, and it WAS clever. But some of us have been working LNG hours for years, and decades, so you can say things electronically. And so can Don. The medium doesn’t devalue the message; it enhances it because, if Don were writing longhand notes, none of us would have received one.
I was looking for an opportunity to announce this on BMG so this is a good as any. Actually, each time I hear Mr. Baker tell me that we need to enforce “work for welfare” I want to scream. I need to fight back. So yes, nice to be with you all in support of soon to be Governor Coakley.
Now can you try to get SomervilleTom to follow your example?!:)
That’s been my experience. I’ve gone through the stages of denial after the primary and now it’s time to get back to what I wanted before the primary. My best path is with a Democrat prior to and following the primary. Nothing changed on that. Also, I can’t expect Martha Coakley to be open to change if I am not.
n/t
…I think I’ve been transported back to the 1990s. Didn’t we already take care of this back then?
…that this email thanking supporters and endorsing Coakley came through NOT mindlessly slapped into a template with a DONATE button at the bottom? That’s one up on some other candidates who were not as careful, including Elizabeth Warren in 2012 and Warren Tolman yesterday.
A note to all candidates: if you are facing a November race after winning a primary, you’re forgiven for thanking folks and asking for $ in the same breath, though it might be better to do them separately. But if you are not running right now, please don’t undermine your core message by asking for a handout when (as far as recipients are concerned) there’s no longer any reason to do so.
Re: Martha Coakley, she’s the nominee and has the enthusiastic support of this Berwick voter. End of story. I hope she takes substantive (and not only political) lessons from the enthusiasm and support Don Berwick and Steve Grossman generated over the past few months and that she will be an outstanding governor.
Post primary asks aren’t completely out of line, but did you read the ask carefully? I didn’t, but the reason I ask is that sometimes in these unity emails the ask is on behalf of the nominee rather than the sender.
In these cases it seemed that the teams just used their standard template and not paying attention. Even if there is a need to ask for help retiring debt, the candidate can send a separate request (which Warren did). I think it’s important not to thoughtlessly undermine your key message thanking volunteers or endorsing another candidate. If the ask is $ for the party or nominee, then that should be made very explicit.
within 48 hours of the primary result. As the glob pointed out, her cash on hand is less than 10% of Baker’s cash.
Coakley isn’t as progressive as I’d like on environmental, criminal justice & civil rights, or transportation issues. So, I’ll work to elect Coakley, and I’ll work to elect state reps and senators who are to her left. ?Por qué no los dos,? I say.
He came to my Town of Granby and spent a couple of hours telling us about his ideas and listening to our thoughts. He even took notes.
I sat next to him. I suppose he could have fooled me, but he struck me as thoroughly authentic. He gets it, he cares. In my opinion, he believes what he said about Martha Coakley, and he thinks she is the best candidate in the general election to run the state. To accuse him of doing some sort of pro forma political dance is to misunderstand him and his candidacy.
Well stated.
Don Berwick is a class act as a distinguished national leader whom we were fortunate to have on the (D) stage as a candidate for Governor and his endorsement of the party nominee prompt me to respect him more.
It is highly unlikely that I will cast a ballot for the major party nominees. – I am certainly not voting for Charley Baker/Karen Polito who seem intellectually challenged.
I have grown wiser with time and experience – and integrity matters to me. I won’t vote for someone who does not have the character that I believe is necessary to be Governor of the Commonwealth.
I believe that the two-party system is broken and the influence of big money on (Massachusetts) politics has further poisoned the political process including the selection of candidates that often win “nominations.”
MA has always struck me as a state with actually relatively little money floating around. Our caps are pretty strict and cover both campaigns and PACs, both giving and receiving.
applies here just like it applies to the rest of the country, which means that states can no longer prevent SuperPACs from freely operating in state elections. They still can’t give directly to campaigns, but there is assuredly a lot more money sloshing around this time than in the past.
…but that is not a problem particular to MA as I inferred from the above comment.
Coakley is better than Baker, that’s certain. Not much better, perhaps, but better. Whether Dr. Berwick said so or not, I was connecting the arrow for her in November.
…is just not possible unless you are applying the farthest left litmus tests possible. Candidate Baker went to Chelsea a few weeks back to talk about our housing issues, looked around, and his big policy was — keep undocumented tenants out of public housing. http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/08/charlie_baker_let_s_reserve_public_housing_for_legal_residents He runs ads about his bipartisanship and then hypes “welfare reform” as some top level pressing issue in Massachusetts. He will find multiple ways to demonize the poor, the undocumented, and labor before we are over (or he will have his running mate do it.) He has all the earmarks of that noted “moderate” Mitt Romney who ran one way, and then did a LOT of damage as soon as he wanted to use Mass as his punching bag for higher office and playing to the ever rightward Republican party.
The fact the Martha didn’t adopt the same positions as Don Berwick on several issues shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone — candidates are not all clones and the primary is all about staking out different territory. Those might be the issues that helped you decide which way to vote, but the notion that if we don’t have the Berwick option then the choices are all pretty much the same smacks of Ralph Nader logic. And look where that got the country.
As many have noted, if you believed Candidate Berwick was a sincere straight shooter, why doubt him now when he says he stands with Martha? And Steve Grossman not only has said it at the morning after unity breakfast, he came personally to the Coakley finance team meeting to full throatedly urge his supporters to put the primary aside and raise even more money and support, and he has been out on the trail side by side with Martha since.
.. amen.
Don Berwick has cultivated a loyal following and while I doubt he will be running for office again, he is still deeply committed to his cause. If he were to abandon the party and the presumed front runner, he becomes less relevant .
It’s been reported that a large number of Grossman supporters are going to switch to Baker. If a large number of Berwick supporters supporters remain loyal to the party and Coakley and Coakley wins, that helps Berwick and his cause.
… if the truest Dem party loyalist in the race turns out to have the least loyal supporters? One wonders what they think they were supporting? Whatever else you might think about Grossman you can’t think that he’s the least bit iffy on which party, and party line, to which he adheres.
The question of surrogates might be what propels this race: in particular Maura Healey barnstorming the state, basically unopposed, asking for votes on behalf of herself and on behalf of Martha Coakley. Potent, that. If Grossman and Berwick continue to make public statements on behalf of Coakley… even better. Deval Patrick, also, remains solidly in Coakleys corner.
One wonders who Charlie Baker is going to trot out on his behalf… I can’t think of either a national or local republican who’ll excite both the base and the swing votes in the CommonWealth… Rmoney? Yeah, right. Weld? Whodat? Scott Brown? Busy with his own problems. Chris Christie? It is to laugh…
It looks like it’s the entire Democratic establishment (minus Somervilletom, of course) versus Charlie Baker and Karyn Polito. I might be willing to spot them a large contingent of Grossman ‘supporters’ just so’s they ain’t so lonely.
Tom is an exception to the rule, and he has a right to his exceptions. The rest of us, to a person, is backing Coakley. That includes all the other Berwick and Grossman backers on this forum. I strongly don’t want to relitigate the primary that just concluded with the voters making the decision for us. I suspect if a Grossman supporters wants to back Baker, than they didn’t know much about Grossman and didn’t care about his values to begin with. Coakley has adopted many of his positions on wages, unions, and family leave-positions Baker is diametrically opposed to. There is just no way around that.
???
This post makes no sense: neither standing on it’s own nor in the context of replying to what I wrote. I questioned the rationale behind support (by Grossman voters) of a truly stalwart party man. Nowhere did I question either Grossmans loyalty to the party or his expressed support of Martha Coakley.
I questioned what, exactly, the former Grossman supporters thought, exactly, they were supporting.
And I took a shot at Somervilletom… didn’t want him to feel left out…
I happen to fully agree with Tom’s assessment of Coakley, and have said I will probably sit this race out. You don;t have agency to speak for “all the other Berwick and Grossman backers on this forum.”
Neither does Petr, who seemed convinced a substantial number of us were backing Baker. I have been consistent in defending Tom from criticism of his personal and deeply held beliefs that neither candidate is worthy of his vote. I disagree with the notion of telling people how to vote, I also happen to disagree with his reasoning that Baker is not worse than Coakely. That is what I argued against. Guilt tripping Tom into voting for Coakley is not my idea of a fun activity for me to participate in or him to endure, but sniping at the particular reasoning he employs and sparring with it can be mutually beneficial.
For me, this is a lesser of evils race, and while that turns off a lot of activists and people who want to vote for candidates that inspire them, it is true in this case that she is the lesser evil to Baker on a host of fronts. I also feel that progressives can best advance their agenda by electing centrist Democrats rather than staying home and electing economically conservative Republicans, and actually pressuring those centrist Democrats to be progressive once they are in office.
We have learned since Nader to get Part 1 correct, we haven’t done a great job with Part 2, and I would want the infrastructure in place to put real concrete pressure on Coakley to extract concessions from her. Unlike the presidency, I am not so terrified of electing a Republican that I wouldn’t favor a robust primary challenge if she failed to meet those promises. She has also never been in a position of governance before, so perhaps her instincts and principles are far more liberal than this campaign or her record has indicated. I doubt that, but I am also hopeful she has taken the strengths of her opponents showing against her and their platform to heart. I doubt very much that an outsider like Dr. Berwick would back her simply to win one for Team Blue, she must’ve actively sought his endorsement and convinced him that she shared many of his principles, recognizing the importance his campaign and it’s dedicated supporters bring to the party and to the polls in November.
You said:
It’s all very well to say that Tom and I are entitled to our opinion, but when you say in the same breath that everyone else here thinks otherwise, it’s deliberately marginalizing us. You are wrong in saying Tom is the only one who isn’t getting behind Coakley, and you’d be wrong to say that I’m the only other one who isn’t. By making statements like that, you claim agency to speak for everyone, and you don’t have that.
I don’t doubt Berwick’s sincerity in endorsing Coakley, or yours, or anyone else’s. Do me the favor of not trying to paint me as some kind of aberrant fringe-dweller because I vote my conscience.
I think you over interpreted my words, but fair enough, if I didn’t recognize your stance before I certainly do now and apologize. I’ve said over and over I respect Tom’s opinion on this, accusing me of calling you or him fringe voters for abstaining is to make the same sweeping generalization about me that I accidentally made about you.
I strongly defended voting your conscience in the primary , strongly disagree with the notion that Berwick spoiled Grossman , and strongly believe that Baker is worse than Coakley. Should that be sufficient enough for her to earn ones vote? I leave that up to the voter, I respect your opinion and Tom’s that it’s insufficient and I hope you’d respect mine that it is. But asserting that she is not the lesser of two evils to progressives is factually incorrect, that’s been my main argument this thread.
He’s a party man to his core with a resume including state and national party chair, and I don’t think his words of support for Coakley in the last week could be any stronger.
… Why are you responding to me in a tone that suggests I’m questioning Grossmans party bona fides? The entire point of my post was to point out the comic irony of voting for Grossman, who’s been demonstrably loyal to the party — above and beyond — and then abandoning the party for Baker.
Grossman himself being not the least bit iffy was, a priori, the impetus for wondering what, exactly, Grossman voters (and NOT Grossman himself) stood for.
.. head scratch…
I completely misread the original “iffy” sentence in your above comment – mea culpa.
I suspect that there are two reasons.
First off, polling does not show 100% of Grossman voters would vote for Baker. So there is a significant block of Grossman voters who will vote for Coakley, thank you very much.
Second, some of the news from state government has circled around mismanagement, especially but not just the health connector and DCF. Baker and Grossman both make appeals based on their management experience. One might imagine that Baker would do a reasonable job cleaning up management problems. Voters who think the state needs a steadier hand might be persuaded that Baker is a good second choice for that.
Third, of course, is the bogus and occasionally effective appeal: I know how to create jobs; I’ve done it in the private sector. Both Grossman and Baker make that appeal. Coakley can’t.
Other than that one Globe poll, which was clearly an aberration, are there any who have publicly stepped forward? Any declaring themselves here? I recognize you thought the tone of your post was conciliatory but it smacked of sour grapes to me. And that is particularly unusual since your candidate won.
The only BMGer’s voting for Baker that I am aware of are Merrimackguy, Porcupine, and possibly CMD. Tom has stated for months he is staying home, and I haven’t heard a single Grossman supporter claim that Baker is better than Coakley. That assertion is what I took issue with.
Who are these magical voters switching from Grossman to Baker?
Blue Collar guys who don’t want their hard earned money going to those lazy ______ people.
…did they think their money was going to be much “safer” from that bogeyman under him than under Coakley?
….and they did not like Martha.
I listened to a few at the polls. I can’t explain it in a rational way.
When they want to join the rest of us in 2014 I hope they let us know.
Same crowd told me that they would not vote for Elizabeth Warren and were going with Scott Brown.
What happens in this scenario if the casino repeal proponents, following EB3’s suggested (and likely very effective strategy), turn corruption into a major campaign issue?
What happens if the Baker campaign recognizes the opportunity and ties Martha Coakley and that “entire Democratic establishment” (minus me, of course) to the Probation Department criminals and to corruption in general?
I think there are a lot of voters who believe that “the Democrats” have made Massachusetts government corrupt for years, who believe that their taxes are higher and the services they receive lower as a result, who believe that the recession they feel the effects of are a result, and who are likely to be VERY sympathetic to a campaign that tells them that voting for “the Democrats” is voting to perpetuate the “one-party rule” that is already causing them so much pain.
I have to tell you that between my party’s support for casino gambling and its gubernatorial nomination, this is one campaign where I am very happy to not include myself in “the entire Democratic establishment”.
In fact, I hope that my party’s wakeup call is something as routine as an election loss. If casino gambling repeal is defeated, then by the next election cycle I fear Massachusetts politics will make New Jersey look pristine.
A sleazy health care corporate CEO who is unashamedly pro-casino and who rubs elbows with Chris Christie is going to soothe our fears of corruption?
Not going to happen.
If the question becomes Baker palling around with Christie vs Coakley palling around with DeLeo-Baker wins. I think Tom, kbusch, and others have made a profound argument that the sheen is off of the Deval administration thanks to the DCFS fiasco, the Health Connector website FUBAR, and the stench of corruption that has pervaded the Gaming Commission since day 1.
If Romney, a job destroying CEO could argue he was a crusading reformer of a broken government, and if four term State Senator Scott Brown could argue he was the Beacon Hill outsider-than I can easily see Baker going down that path. Particularly if he has to make substantial inroads among women, independents, and 10-15% of Democrats to win.
Charlie is a former HI executive who stiffed subscribers and providers. He sheepishly owned up to his expensive financing scheme for the Big Dig that cost taxpayers extra. He stated that Ma had protection against the Hobby Lobby decision(although untrue) inferring that women’s rights being compromised in other states was OK. He wants to cut taxes putting Ma into an economic tailspin. Martha Coakley’s inability to finesse the law to bring justice or understand medical economics is upsetting, but her heart is right on education, infrastructure, and creating jobs. Maybe she’ll Don Berwick’s Cliff Notes on single payer. At any rate, hands down, she is head and shoulders above Charlie Baker as a gubernatorial choice.
I sat as a poll watcher in the 2nd precinct in Reading, and as I recorded I also observed many voters were unenrolled, taking a Democratic Ballot in a Republican town. The outcome: voters wanted a woman governor, the young, and new faces in the body politic. We should listen to their collective wisdom, and put it in the mix as we vote in November.
Are you sure that when people voted for Martha Coakley, this was out of a desire to elect young new faces to the body politic?
Are you sure that when people voted for Martha Coakley, this was out of a desire to elect young new faces to the body politic?
I really hope we don’t campaign on this. It’s a 16-20 year old problem, the DCFS scandal, Health Connector fiasco, and the imminent corruption of the gaming commission will be tomorrows headlines-not news from the last century. We really have to take this seriously. I am not rooting for Baker in the slightest, but I do know that he is neither classy enough nor dumb enough to leave those issues unpinned to Coakley by the end of this campaign. We underestimate that, and overestimate the staying power of the Big Dig and religious right boogeymen, at our own peril.
on BMG. This thread reminds me why BMG is so useful. Good arguments both ways. I said way back when, before the Ethics Commission ruled, that I was with Sen. Dan Wolf for Governor. He didn’t really run at all. “Zero for one.” Then, I went with Berwick. He was compelling but didn’t run a very good campaign, and missed some opportunities to break through (lousy paid media, stuck too much to single-payer as an issue). “Zero for two.” I said many times on here, that I would support Coakley if she won the primary. I will keep my word; but, “Martha, do not make me ‘zero for three.'” I have serious reservations about her abilities as a politician, and I’m just not sure if she’ll be a good Governor. But Charlie Baker is worse, much worse, than Coakley will ever be for the citizens of this state. So whether I have to hold my nose, pray, cross my fingers, whatever, I will vote for Martha Coakley. Baker is a fiscally and morally conservative Republican who has only taken socially liberal positions to make sure he’s not unelectable in this state. He will not use Government to help people, and at worst Coakley will surround herself with liberal, progressive people who will try to use government to help people in this state. I just don’t see how Baker is a better alternative for this state than Coakley under any circumstances, despite her serious flaws.
My takeaway from Don’s message, delivered earnestly IMHO, is that there is only one candidate left in the race who has been influenced by the values and ideas that he brought to his campaign, and only one candidate, if elected, whose ear he will have. If there is any progress to be made on the issues that he and his supporters fought for in the campaign, it will be made under a Coakley administration. Not a chance under a Baker administration.
I can’t imagine Don being anything but earnest. That’s why I am giving my full support to Martha Coakley.
Don Berwick strikes me as just about the last person who would “hold his nose” to say anything. We supporters admire his integrity, bravery and that he speaks his mind clearly and unambiguously and I think his endorsement of Martha Coakley is no exception. I attended the unity event in Lexington and I thought Don’s words seemed very sincere. He said that his endorsement did not come out of party loyalty but, instead, out of the values he believes Martha shares. Martha said several times that Don would be “front and center” in her administration. I’m not sure what that means (though I’d sure like to know…it might push me to actually find the time to volunteer instead of just vote for her). But, if he would be willing to provide advice in some significant capacity, and she would welcome that, wow that would be interesting. Afterwards, she told a couple of us (not knowing, I think, if we were Berwick or Grossman supporters) how much she’d appreciated offers of help from both of them and that Grossman said he’d help her with finance issues in her campaign. After that event, some Coakley supporters seemed to indicate surprise and appreciation for Berwick’s endorsement. I can’t say I was surprised because I can’t see him endorsing Baker’s agenda and, also, a gesture like this is just what I would expect from Don Berwick. Re the original question, did it change my view? Not really. My support of Berwick was always more about his positives than the other candidates’ negatives, and I was already pretty unlikely to vote against Coakley in November. But, I have confidence in his judgment so hearing what he had to say was useful, maybe even mildly comforting ;-). I attended the unity event not for so much for the “kumbaya” but, instead, to continue to support Berwick, and my impression was that this was what had brought a lot of us there. But, the unity goal is worthwhile, and I thought it was a nice event.