“I am endorsing Warren because I know from his campaign and from a deep personal relationship with him that he will be an activist AG, and I am excited about that,” Patrick said in a statement. “From gun safety to health care costs to consumer protection and civil rights, I want an AG who will not only enforce the law effectively, but also use the influence of the office strategically to improve the lives and prospects of Massachusetts people and small businesses. Warren Tolman will be that kind of leader. I am proud to endorse him today and urge voters in the Democratic primary on September 9th to join me in voting for him.”
Bernstein says on Facebook he will also be cutting an ad for Tolman.
Definitely a good get and this race is going to come down to the wire, and probably to a few thousand votes.
I was just going to write the same diary, I just now saw the announcement on NECN. I’m glad you got here first!
A huge endorsement, well-timed.
The leader of the democratic party, the sitting governor of our state endorsing in a DEMOCRATIC Primary. When Maura wins the primary it will be so nice for the Republican challenger to say that she did not even have the support of a Democratic Governor. Bad move, Deval.
Yup, the leader of the Democratic Party and the sitting Governor of our state endorsed Warren Tolman for Attorney General. So did the Democratic Mayor of Boston.
They realize that the Republicans are offering only token opposition in the AG’s race. This race is effectively over on September 9th at 8 PM. They endorsed the candidate they believe will be the best Attorney General.
I would have bet that he would not endorse in contested primaries. Does anyone think we should infer anything about the Governor’s opinion of Coakley in not supporting her former Assistant AG?
I thought he’d stay out, too.
Not endorsing Martha says more, though. Of course, he could just want to stay out of a race for his position, but I’d find it hard to believe he is supporting her. Endorsing her would be relatively riskless given her popularity and polling. Endorsing anyone else could making him look really bad.
Off the top of our heads, anyone know who that is again? Be serious, you’d have loved the get and would’ve been bragging about it too.
The Democratic nominee will romp in the general. Anyway, if the Republican said that, Deval just says he picked Tolman but they’re both great and Maura’s a million times better than the Republican. End of story.
When her campaign was asked about Governor Patrick endorsing her opponent, Ms. Healey’s reportedly stated “I did not expect to get any endorsements from members of the Beacon Hill Establishment.” I found this to be telling…if Ms. Healey truly believes that Gov.Patrick is a member of the “Beacon Hill Establishment”, I fear she is not really up to speed with the political side of the job she seeks. The job of AG is a leadership position…the leader of one branch of government that must understand and interact with the other branches.
All that aside…
Personally, I am voting for Warren Tolman because Noah Posner will never be able to…that’s the only issue for me in that contest.
it might be taken out of context.
Newspapers, civil rights activists and those seeking competent government side with Maura Healey.
This will be a great an election!
Also environmental activists, labor activists, and very progressive elected officials from across the state – at all levels.
What do you mean by that? I’d honestly like to know.
As far as the claim of “civil rights activists” all coming on one side, that is baseless. That’s really limited to GLBTQ orgs endorsing Healey, which have endorsed her for pretty clear and obvious reasons (and I totally agree on why they would).
Doubleman, competence means to know the power and also the limits of the office. Tolman claims the AG can mandate smart gun technology on all guns (or sometimes, as he says it, only on some guns). He claims the AG can waltz in and settle Market Basket commercial type disputes. He sees the AG office, more generally, as a political bully pulpit, with little concern to the legal merits of the issues at hand.
And Gov. Patrick, in his endorsement, is encouraging this attitude.
This charge is just incorrect. The limits of the office are not defined. You may believe he is going too far, but there are no set limits on the office. Much of the work (including the most important work) is up to the discretion of the AG.
The AG is given very broad authorities under a number of laws, most notably Chapter 93A, the state’s consumer protection law. That law does not define the limits of its use.
Here’s two relevant sections:
Any limits in there are very broad. The rest is about the discretion of the AG. He wants to use that discretion to create regulations on guns. I agree. Whether he can could be challenged in courts, but there are not current existing limits (that I know of) that say he cannot as AG.
As far as labor disputes, government officials are in the right to bring the parties to the table and help work out a solution, especially when the disputes implicate very important employment law issues. Can they force a solution? Probably not. Can they mediate? Yes.
If an AG limited their work to only engaging in actions that are lawsuits they can definitely win, the office would be nearly useless. I don’t want that. It’s a powerful political office and it should be used as such.
If you know the explicit limits of the office, please share them. I’d love to know.
Sand in the eyes, doubleman. 2(a) applies to unfair methods of competition not regulated by the FTC. It has nothing to do with mandating smart guns or Market Basket.
No need to look for the letter of law here to deconstruct Tolman, as he said it himself – in a direct exchange with Healey:
“It’s a time for leadership. And you don’t wait. You don’t try to search the statute and say, ‘Oh, gee. Can I do this?’ No. Often the authority comes with apparent authority. Whether you have the authority or not, they will listen.”
Translation: I’ll talk fast, and rely on apparent authority. To which Maura Healey deadpanned:
“I don’t know that we want an attorney general who’s going to show up on people’s doorsteps… Usually we do that when we have a subpoena in hand.”
The contrast could not be more evident.
I know it’s stupid time as we are a week out, but for crissakes.
Yes anyone can endorse. However, if you look at MOST races, sitting legislators or members of the executive branch do not endorse in their own party’s primary because it creates ill will and gains little to nothing. This is the case here.
As for Deval being part of the Beacon Hill Establishment, she got that right.
We’d have had an indexed minimum wage, properly rated gas tax, proper transit funding, and sound movement on green energy, tech taxes, and a progressive income tax. All issues where the Governor proposed serious legislation that got overturned by the legislature. The one big second term win was in casinos, an area where he happened to align with the establishment. But DeLeo wanted casinos and slots and got casinos and slots, he didn’t want to raise gas taxes, tech taxes, or fund the T and he didn’t have to. You tell me who the establishment is, the guy who always wins or the guy who only gets to win when the other guy says it’s ok?
“you tell me who the establishment guy is, the guy who always wins or the guy who only gets to win when the other guy says it’s okay?”
The guy/gal who goes along, plays the game, shmoozes the big guys, walks away from his/her principles to get the thing of the moment that is the establishment guy.
So, you are saying if you don’t win that proves you are not part of the establishment. Could be maybe you didn’t try hard enough, you were not convincing enough, or you did not put enough into that basket. All the things a person does not accomplish speaks to their being ineffective.
Back in 2006 when Deval ran he was not part of the establishment. I would not say the same thing about him today.
And Martha Coakley is carefully aligning herself with him. Maura Healey is, as always, following in her footsteps.
This is great “get”, and a boost for Warren Tolman.
I do not generally associate the two in my mind and have no evidence they are aligned beyond your constant assertions and that they happen to share a party label, the latter being pretty meaningless very often.
A quick look at Coakley’s and Grossman’s websites shows a large number of Mayors, State Reps and State Senators endorsing in their party’s primary.
And I note Democratic elected officials are on Maura Healey’s website as endorsers.
Ms. Healey’s statement about Governor Patrick being a Beacon Hill insider is her first campaign mis-step. And it feels a bit like sour grapes -I’m guessing she would have gladly accepted Deval Patrick’s endorsement -had it been offered.
MOST is the operative word. If you compare the numbers who did against the numbers who didn’t, I think that would make my point.
Then make your point with facts. There are endorsements from elected officials in most of the primaries – Democratic and Republican – add them up and get back to us with real numbers – until then you’re just talking through your hat.
There are 351 cities and towns, each having some elected representatives, mayor or city council. There are 160 state reps and 40 state senators. I am estimating there are easily more than 1000 elected officials in Massachusetts. Grossman getting 90 is hardly a drop in the bucket.
How many more since April? Then add the endorsements for Coakley, Berwick, Tolman, Healey, Goldberg, Finegold, Conroy, Kerrigan, Cheung and Lake. Then add in the Republican candidates endorsements.
As usual you don’t back up your statements with facts and I’m not doing your homework for you.
Don’t bother. I am not a fact driven person. I am interested in the big picture. I am interested in the politics of endorsements and their impact. Not interested in whether 2-3 hundred “elected officials” endorsed. More interested in why some elected officials endorse and others consider it bad politics.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/26/grossman-hopes-endorsements-will-pave-path-victory/hPkzOp7rnLoYNignT45GdP/story.html
Months ago (April) the Globe ran this:
Grossman has so far racked up the endorsement of 90 officeholders — state representatives, senators, sheriffs, mayors, and selectmen — who have pledged to support him
Has the Globe endorsed any candidate who takes a strong stand against the casinos and will vote YES to repeal?
immediately come to mind
Didn’t you know? It only counts if it implicates the great progressive champions Berwick or Healey, neither of whom had Word One to say about casinos until a political opportunity was spotted.
I don’t read the Globe. In fact on my street, the only folks in my neighborhood that still get it are in their late 80’s. It’s kind of nostalgic to see the green newspaper tube below the mailbox.
n/t
I have been undecided in this race (among others). Normally I don’t pay much attention to endorsements, but Gov. Patrick offers one of the few that I will get my attention. I think it takes a lot for a party leader to endorse in a very close primary, so it certainly gives more weight to what Gov. Patrick has done here.
I kid … huge get for Tolman. Just what he needs right now.
A bases-clearing grand slam, if you will.
Batter up! It aint over yet.
bases-clearing? 😉
I have two big issues this year:
1. The introduction of casinos may be the single worst policy adopted by the state government in my lifetime, and I am looking for candidates who seem to understand the future costs that casinos will bring, rather than brushing the entire issue aside as irrelevant.
2. For reasons I have described on multiple occasions, I will not vote for AG Coakley, or anyone else tarnished by that Middlesex DAs office, or anyone in their orbit.
These two issues present are presenting a problem for primary day, the solution to which has not yet presented itself.
I am SO glad to see somebody else expressing your #2.
Just me and you on that one, though, it seems.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but what would you have had Maura Healey do, lead a rebellion against her boss? Resign?
Instead she worked on important cases.
Over 70 ADAs resigned in Middlesex County rather than continue to endorse the Remy coverup orchestrated by Marian Ryan. Healey could have done so to make a statement that her boss was wrong, to date, I have yet to read her make a single critical statement about Coakley’s handling of the entire repeal effort.
Granted, it’s on Tolman for backing them that he made this kind of opening, but it was a lot easier for her to do something about it now, than say, when the issue was actually before the legislature or AGs office. Sonia Chang Diaz, Jamie Eldridge, Pat Jehlen my old senator, Will Brownsberger and Jon Hect my old reps, all came out against it and defied their leaders to do so. That took guts and courage, having a last hour change of heart during a campaign doesn’t take as much.
I of course applaud the actions of Eldridge, Chang-Diaz, et al. in standing up against leadership on casinos. But Therese Murray was not their employer. Coakley was Healey’s. Furthermore, the casino ruling came out of a bureau in the AG’s office that Healey had nothing to do with. I think it very unlikely (though I of course can’t say for sure) that she was consulted in the slightest degree before the decision was announced. It simply was not her department.
Also, did the 70 ADAs really resign over Remy? That’s the first I’ve heard of that theory of what happened.
I guess this is what I want.
It seems to me that there has been a stream of political prosecutors from the Middlesex office who have used their prosecutorial power to preserve their predecessors from embarrassment, including but not limited to embarrassment from Fells Acres. Harshbarger, O’Reilly, Coakley.
I want Healy to convince me that she doesn’t view the highest law enforcement office in the Commonwealth as a mechanism to cover her predecessor’s butt, and thus secure her own political “turn” to climb up the machine ladder.
Grossman is OK with casinos and neither he nor Berwick has ever had anything to do with the Middlesex DA. Of course the GOP has a primary and I believe you are unenrolled so there is that option as well.
I for one will save the “single worst policy adopted by the state government in my lifetime” designation for Proposition 2 1/2.
Not looking forward to November though.
I think that long-term, this one could do more damage to the ability to fund competent government.
Otherwise this line –
“Bernstein says on Facebook he will also be cutting an ad for Tolman.”
– sounds like Bernstein saying he will cut an ad for Tolman himself (in addition to DLP as opposed to by DLP in addition to endorsing). Too bad we don’t have multiple pronouns to indicate how far back the antecedent is like Latin does!
Given the gender differential described in the latest Globe poll, I wonder if Patrick’s endorsement will have as much effect as Tolman might hope?
I listened to Patrick’s explanation that the endorsement was based on Tolman being “a friend, and a close one, for a very long time.” Think of it this way: you are great at your job, your immediate boss moves on and you want to succeed her. The big boss likes you and says good things about you — and then you find out he’s recommending his “friend,” who’s never worked in your field, for the job.
Does anyone else see the problem here? (and if you don’t, that conflagration you’re seeing is coming from a few thousand women voters …)
I like Tolman and respect him for the many good things he’s done, but I think Healey is the better candidate for this position.
“I think both of these candidates are so good…”, Patrick said, but only Tolman is a friend of his.
That speaks volumes.
This is my HYPOTHESIS. Deval owes a lot to Doug Rubin as does John Walsh. Doug Rubin is Tolman’s campaign consultant. This endorsement is likely a thank you to Doug Rubin from the Governor and John Walsh. It strikes me as the kind of political cynicism that Deval has always vehemently opposed. As I was preparing to write this post, I notice on Facebook that Dan Payne stated the same thing that Doug Rubin drove this endorsement and not the value of the candidate.
I think Patrick’s remarks on both candidates are sincere. I just think the appearance of “hiring from the outside” is going to have particular resonance with a core group of primary voters. Obviously it can happen to male employees too, but I wouldn’t think Patrick or the two gentlemen you just mentioned would be as insensitive to this interpretation if it had been historically evenly divided between the genders.
I am looking for candidates in all races with that right mix of vision and experience. I like that the Governor pool is more weighted toward CEOs this time (one of whom is my choice, although a long shot at this point).