What could have possessed Jack Connors to turn in his Democratic bona fides, and endorse Charlie Baker? Mr. Connors is a power broker, but his entourage is made up mostly of the well off in the Democratic Party. Yes he does much charity work, but for fixing societal problems, I believe, that impact is minimal. The big connection driving his backing of Charlie Baker is his attachment to Partners Healthcare’s market dominance, having been its former CEO.
It didn’t hurt that Baker’s wife was his one-time employee. It seems Connors’s affinity for his former life at Partners trumped his allegiance to the Democratic Party. What is worse is a belief that Baker’s libertarian streak will be a plus for keeping his former place of employment rolling in greenbacks at the expense of health insurance subscribers. Mr. Connors surely knows that Charlie Baker was a prominent executive at the Pioneer Institute, a blatantly libertarian think tank professing to be “non-partisan.” When it comes to his own baby(Partners) “Free Market” solutions just suit him fine. His support for Charlie Baker dissolves his credentials as a Democrat. His endorsement’s translation: When it comes to bringing down healthcare costs, the public be damned.
Mr. Connors probably was not overjoyed with Martha Coakley’s deal with Partners, and is putting his money on Charlie Baker to re-roll the dice. Especially now that the the AG is being pressured to revamp her position and possibly having the court reject the merger as the health planning council recommended. This is something Mr. Connor as a power hungry operative could not abide, so I believe Mr. Baker became his champion.
If this alliance is played right, it should outrage voters. This is a crass example of pure misguided selfishness at the public’s expense. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that he made the same overture to Martha Coakley, and she wisely turned him down.
Against the Partners merger? For something else? I really can’t tell from your post.
Jack Connors is lukewarm towards the present agreement, and if the court goes farther and rejects the plan, he wants a friend in the governor’s office to retain Partners monopolistic position. This is decidedly against the public’s interest, and his past support of the Democratic Party just went up in smoke.
The existing deal under which Partners will assume ownership and control of a larger portion of Massachusetts’ hospitals does something other than allow Partners to maintain its monopolistic position?
but those in power seek more.
.
Partners occupies too heavy an influence on the pricing of their services to the detriment of other hospital systems. Other hospitals have merged to do the same thing. The losers are the general public who are out of the loop when payment schedules are made between insurers and providers.
I don’t think we need to question Jack Connors’s motives. He’s done a lot for the state and the city of Boston.
I think this is a big get for Baker, and a loss for Coakley in a tightening race. But it’s really hard to gauge how much it hurts, because I don’t think the average voter cares. But for the insider types, this might affect fundraising and things like that. Better to have a unified “We need to go all out for Martha” front.
Game on …
Sorry, but this whining sounds like sour grapes. Mr. Connors is not the only Democrat with rock-solid bona fides who rejects the Democratic nominee.
The Democratic Party allowed its nominee to betray an army of us who sought to hold the party to higher standards. Some join me in choosing to withhold a gubernatorial vote in this election. Some join Mr. Connors in actively working to defeat Ms. Coakley.
After a month’s-long primary campaign with too many of the Coakley campaign’s proponents offering a succession of insults and arrogant bullying, it should come as no surprise to that campaign when some of those targets vote with their feet, their ballot, or — in the case of Mr. Connors — their checkbook.
A Democrat does not endorse a health insurance executive who holds libertarian views. There is nothing in Charlie Baker’s record that should have produced this endorsement. If the judge rejects the Partner’s deal, Mr. Connors wants an in with the governor to correct it. This is not sour grapes, but reality. What progressive stance does Charlie Baker take on anything? Taxes? Health care? Job creation? Drug addiction? Transportation? Unless Mr. Connors explains himself better, I do not understand the switch. Does it mean those criticizing me are going to vote for Baker?
so I think it’s more to do with the democratic nominee.
Maybe we need another article to get the words from the horse’s mouth. So far all we do is guess, including me. However the Partners connection, Charlie’s wife as employee, and hobnobbing with those who will maintain your power has some cache in my book. Many unenrolled women took a Democratic Ballot while I was poll watching in Reading for Don Berwick. Guess who they wanted for governor on the Democratic ticket. Ask Katherine Clark who she supported for governor. Their sentiment played an important role. Live with it, and let’s help Coakley become governor. If she stinks at it, we’ll elect someone else next time. Without doubt Charlie Baker will not be an asset to this state. There is nothing Jack Connors can point to with Charlie Baker that rings true with Democratic values.
but he went against Baker 4 years ago, and donated to Grossman in the primary. So just pointing it out. No way in hell I’m voting or advocating for Baker, but realistically, at this point it looks like Connors’ motivation might be something else.
Both Grossman and even Deval Patrick are uninformed when it comes to medical economics. I have spoken to both of them, and even Martha Coakley about it. I am not an intimate insider, but I am not shy about asking about public policy if I have the opportunity to do so. They are swayed by MGH’s prominence in the public’s mind, and can’t get around doing what has to be done to lower healthcare costs. Don Berwick was the only candidate who truly understood how costs in medical treatment are lowered. No one now in the race does, but a health insurance executive who was employed by the Pioneer Institute surely marches in the opposite direction to reform.
that’s where it goes awry. Coakley just cut a sweetheart deal with Partners to continue to further their cause to monopolize the market. They should be forced to break into groups rather than getting larger. So I don’t see Coakley and Baker that differently here. So unless you can say that Coakley would be similar to Berwick in office, then I don’t see it.
I’ll repeat what I’ve already written multiple times here: I WILL NOT VOTE FOR CHARLIE BAKER.
Nevertheless, in my view the simplest explanation for Jack Connor’s decision is that he does not want Martha Coakley to be governor. In the same way that many argued that I should support Steve Grossman (even though I did not support him) because voting for Steve Grossman was the only way to deny the nomination to Ms. Coakley, Mr. Connors may simply conclude that the only way to deny Ms. Coakley the corner office is to support her opponent.
I fail to understand why it is so difficult to comprehend that MANY people actively OPPOSE Martha Coakley as governor. That does not make Mr. Connor, me, or anyone else a bad Democrat. It means that a great many Democrats actively and sincerely believe that our party made the wrong choice. I speak only for myself when I write that, for me, party loyalty does not extend to supporting a candidate who I consciously, actively, and — in my view — rationally believe will be a terrible governor.
Our party was wrong when we nominated Ed King, wrong when we nominated John Silber, and — at least in the view of some loyal true-blue Massachusetts Democrats — wrong when we nominated Martha Coakley.
What’s the message when a major Democratic fundraiser and power broker turns and supports an even worse candidate in the form of Charlie Baker. Charlie Baker is a laissez faire technocrat. The only quote in the Globe on Connor’s reasoning was he “loves Martha, but I think Charlie will make a better executive.” Not only is it untrue, it is an insult to those who elected Martha Coakley by a decent plurality. It is also unseemly that a former Partners CEO sits down with a former health insurance executive. This shows some disdain for regular taxpayers and voters in this state. Both of these candidates represent the milk toast wing of their parties, so the attraction for Charlie Baker remains elusive in my mind.
It looks to me like the message is that Connors does not share your assessment of the candidates. As much as that may rub you the wrong way, the message you are sending is more and more the aforementioned sour grapes. It would be classier to regret Connors’ choice, but refrain from throwing rocks at him.
to his endorsement for the reasons I stated. It is not rock throwing, but rather analyzing why someone who has never endorsed a Republican before is doing so now. By the way some of those rocks have been coming my way for very flimsy reasons. What policies does Mr. Connors favor that make Charlie Baker so attractive? If this is a credible, meaningful endorsement, someone should ask him. Maybe I’ll learn something I don’t know.
But rather a candidate.
As the local prominent Jerry Williams use to say of those who operated against the public interest, “Yeah, but he’s a nice guy.” That is the sum total of Mr. Connors’ endorsement. If Mr. Connors is a Democrat, he should be supporting the Democratic Party platform. Mr. Baker decidedly does not, and his time at HP was typical of how HI CEOs operate. Mr. Connors was running Partners expansionist plans while trying to gain influence with Democratic candidates. As Ralph Nader said of the GM brass who tried to excuse their putting the unsafe Corvair on the road by pointing out all the other good they did: “Do we forgive a thief because he doesn’t steal 95% of the time?”
“If Mr. Connors is a Democrat”?
You might want to check in with Doug Rubin about whether or not the power-brokers and money managers of the Massachusetts Democratic Party are ready to permanently refuse to accept support from Mr. Connors in future campaigns.
Regarding thievery, at least some are making the case that Charlie Baker did, in fact, rescue a failing company. At least at the moment, the attacks from Ms. Coakley about Harvard Pilgrim and Mr. Baker’s role in its rescue ring hollow.
Until we role out government-sponsored single-payer health care, executives will be doing what executives do to make companies sustainable. Harvard Pilgrim was in deep trouble when Mr. Baker took over. They are in fine shape today. Massachusetts residents would be in much worse condition today if HP had failed.
The nominee of our party has not exactly distinguished herself in her efforts as Attorney General to interfere with “expansionist plans” of health care providers.
I suggest that your comments here are over-the-top and counter-productive.
In my view, it is precisely BECAUSE Mr. Connors has such a long history of backing Democratic candidates and causes that he says “[he] loves Martha, but [thinks] Charlie will make a better executive.” He is saying, as clearly as a public figure can say such a thing, “You guys screwed up this time”.
You assert this his statement is both untrue and an insult to supporters of Martha Coakley. In my view, your assertion fails on the surface and also in its implications. Taken at its most superficial, how can a statement about his feelings about Ms. Coakley and Mr. Baker be “untrue”? It sounds as though you’re claiming that he either dislikes Ms. Coakley, actually thinks Mr. Baker is a worse executive, or both. I think you’re simply confusing “true” with “shares my opinion”.
In my view, whether we disagree or not, it seems to me that Mr. Connors is in fact better able to form an opinion about both Ms. Coakley and Mr. Baker than you or me. He has worked closely with each candidate. He has stated that he has close social and family ties with Mr. Baker — we don’t know about his social ties with Ms. Coakley. He has worked closely with both campaigns. I have done neither, have you?
Regarding “insults” — once again, yet another supporter of Ms. Coakley is accusing folks of “insults” because they choose to support a different candidate. How is that an “insult”? I suggest that you breathe deeply, take a chill-pill, and perhaps grow a thicker skin. As radical as this may sound to you, it is NOT an “insult” to disagree with you.
Frankly, the entire tone of your response to me is emblematic of the bullying arrogance that so often comes from the supporters of Ms. Coakley. Our current governor enjoys a standard of living far beyond “regular taxpayers and voters in this state” — does Mr. Patrick also “represent the milk toast wing” of our party?
Let me try once again. I do not choose candidates based on party loyalty. The reasons that led me to support my Democratic candidate (Don Berwick) over the eventual nominee did not evaporate as the votes were counted. The very long public record and history of our nominee that causes me to conclude that she is unsuitable for the office she seeks did not dissolve like morning mist on September 10th.
You have presented no evidence, beyond your own intolerance of Democrats who disagree with you, that Mr. Baker’s reaction is any different from mine (and perhaps a great many other voters).
My bottom line is that, in my view, my party has nominated an unsuitable candidate for governor. As the consequences of that mistake unfold, some in my party are demonstrating precisely the arrogance that drives so many unenrolled voters away from the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
I caution you (collectively in the Coakley camp) that in a close election, such prickliness may do more harm than any amount of “GOTV” activity. If Ms. Coakley loses in November, a factor in that loss will be just this kind of apparent arrogance.
Aside from what this diary says I’ve never heard of him or know anything about him.
brief bio. http://goo.gl/eyiUNw
ad company Hill Holiday
Harvard Pilgrim was a client.