This Monday, August 10, at noon, The Boston Globe is hosting a virtual event, “After Endorsement, Questions For Jake Auchincloss.” Check it out! The event is a conversation between Globe editorial page editor Bina Venkataraman and MA-04 candidate (and Globe endorsee for that seat) Jake Auchincloss. This virtual event is the result of blowback that the Globe received following their much-criticized endorsement of Auchincloss. As the Globe’s event description notes: “Many Globe readers have expressed concerns about the candidate’s past statements and campaign finances, some of which emerged after the editorial board’s deliberations.”
What are some of those concerns, and what are some of the topics & issues that attendees to this virtual event might want to ask about (some of which was known prior to the endorsement, some of which occurred or came to light after the endorsement)?
- Auchincloss having been a registered Republican and paid campaign staffer for Charlie Baker as recently as 2014
- Auchincloss’ history of offensive remarks that can be called insensitive, divisive, and/or outright bigoted – and they have left a mark
- Auchincloss’ fake apology for said offensive remarks (he initially called the remarks “sarcastic” before ongoing blowback led to a display of forced and disingenuous contrition)
- Auchincloss making sexist comments at fellow candidate Jesse Mermell, which prompted fellow candidate Becky Grossman to call out Auchincloss and urge him to apologize & commit to doing better
- Auchincloss’ daddy and mommy and stepdaddy backing a super PAC to fund ads for him (not much of a firewall between the campaign and the super PAC…)
- Auchincloss caught straight-up *lying* about his position on the impeachment of Donald Trump (I mean, come on!)
- Auchincloss’ heavy reliance on Big Pharma CEOs and healthcare/hospital executives for his fundraising, suggesting a substantial bias toward this special interest at a time when further progressive healthcare reform is a top priority
So, yeah, this isn’t one or two nitpicky things during the silly season leading up to an election. These are several very substantial concerns that place him well out-of-whack with progressive Democratic values. And it isn’t like there is a shortage of credible, qualified, capable alternatives in this nine-way Democratic primary. As Globe columnist Shirley Leung wondered:
We are living in a moment that calls for systemic change on race and gender. Yet amid an impressive field of millennial female energy, somehow the thirty-something Newton city councilor, former Marine captain, and recovering Republican has the momentum in the hotly contested Democratic primary to fill Representative Joe Kennedy’s seat.
Auchincloss recently gained a coveted endorsement from the Globe editorial board and benefits from TV ads through a super PAC funded by his parents.
Folks, this ain’t 1999 when all the rich kids get their way.
Indeed, the Globe endorsement elicited very strong feelings (do read some of them here), leading to the virtual event. Regarding the Globe endorsement, the editorial board has dug in its heels, refusing to reconsider the endorsement in light of some of these items that came to light after the endorsement was made. The Globe has promised to conduct a post-mortem following the election, for what that’s worth. In the meantime, it may be worth checking out this Globe virtual event to hear how Auchincloss addresses all of these many substantial concerns. It will be further enlightening to observe how much these concerns pervade the MA-04 electorate and how these concerns impact the primary results on September 1.
[Disclosure: On August 5 (I think it was the news about Auchincloss lying about his position on the Trump impeachment that put me over the top), I donated $36 to the campaign of MA-04 candidate Jesse Mermell. I have not been a staffer for any of the campaigns, nor have I volunteered as of yet for any of the campaigns.]
Your second bullet point falls squarely in “don’t agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” territory, which is my position as well.
I don’t see anybody proposing to restrict his right to say any of this.
I think I have not only a right but an outright duty to incorporate such statements into whatever choice I make while casting my ballot.
What I’m saying is that HE seems to hold the view attributed to Voltaire, which I find to be a reasonable approach.
I would find it very hard to vote for a candidate who thinks that Steve Bannon should be given a platform to speak anywhere — and especially on a college campus.
He was specifically asked to name someone he virulently disagrees with.
What’s the story on impeachment? I hit a paywall at the link.
From the linked article:
There’s a world of difference between calling for the Congress to impeach Mr. Trump and voting in favor of a resolution before the Newton City Council.
I give the candidate a pass on that one.
??
How can he claim to be “one of the first Democrats to call for Donald Trump’s impeachment” when his only recorded position on the issue is, as an elected official, *opposing* a resolution in support of impeachment?
Like, wut?!
Oh please.
What’s next, finding a youtube of somebody making a speech to a high school student council?
Indeed — like, wut?!
[facepalm emoji]
Are you ready to defend every vote of Ms. Mermell on every resolution that has come before her at Brookline Town Meeting and Select Board?
I lived in Brookline. I know and like Ms. Mermell. I’m pretty sure that somebody who dug deep enough could find a vote that, when lifted out of context, might require explanation today.
facepalm emoji indeed.
Auchincloss is running on being the strongest to take on Trump and has explicitly called himself one of the first to SUPPORT Trump’s impeachment. His one recorded position was AGAINST supporting impeachment. Literally the *opposite* position that he’s running on. Nothing is out of context. This is the context.
I’m seriously vexed how this is the hill you’re dying on.
Neither of us “dying” on this hill. I don’t live in the district (Ayanna Pressley is my Representative), so I don’t have a vote.
I simply disagree with you about this insignificant piece of opposition research. I interpret that vote differently from you. I’ve known many town officials and town meeting members who are sincere and dedicated progressive democrats, who are sincere and dedicated public servants, and who feel that local resolutions like we’re talking about are worse than useless.
I think it’s just as likely that his “one recorded position” is a position against meaningless resolutions that accomplish nothing. I’ve heard local officials I respect and admire characterize such resolutions as “pandering” and “demagoguery”.
Can we just agree to disagree about this nit and move on?
I’m not going to agree to disagree on this point because A] he’s running in substantial part on his record of votes on the Newton City Council, citing them as recently as this afternoon in the Globe conversation. So the votes are absolutely in play; and, B] if it was a protest vote about the “worse than useless” value of such local resolutions, one votes present or just abstains from voting (and, when called on it in the present day, he’d make that very point, if it was part of his actual thinking, which it doesn’t at all appear to be). You don’t take the *opposite* position of the stance you’re now running on. That makes insultingly zero sense. But you calling it “this insignificant piece of opposition research” is a nice touch.
I’m reminded of Barney Frank saying the only time he voted for someone he 100% agreed with was himself, and even that was only the first time.
delete
I’ve been noticing that Auchincloss has a detailed transportation plan, which may have swayed the Globe.
But boy there are *lot* of warning flags.
I know a fair number of Democrats who voted for Baker. Baker currently seems to be having his moment. But Baker has oppossed every tax increase that I have been aware of since he was part of the Weld administration. He is a big supporter of Charter Schools as well. Given that Auchincloss registered as a Republican to support and work for Baker, I think he should be viewed through that lens. If he were to go to Washington would he support large tax increases? How about Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax? Will a guy who was registered Republican support changing the composition of the Supreme Court? And how about Charter schools? Auchicloss’ support for Baker is a pretty good indicator that he is too moderate for the MA 4th. We can do better than that.
CONVERSATION JUST WRAPPED.
They said it was being recorded. Presuming the Globe posts the video online, I’ll share a link in a comment responding to this comment.
First, big kudos to Globe editorial page editor Bina Venkataraman, who is an *outstanding* interviewer. Venkataraman was named editorial page editor last September, and this was my first time seeing her conduct an interview, and she was terrific. Even-handed and respectful, but direct and forceful. When an initial answer included spin or deflection, she followed up and pressed on the issue, instead of letting it slide, which far too many interviewers in political media do. Whether you support Auchincloss or not, Venkataraman offered a thoughtful and revelatory interview. Big cheers to her. (Seriously, I want her to moderate the next Markey-JKIII debate and interview every elected official everywhere now.)
Now, to Mr. Auchincloss’ responses and rhetoric throughout the 48-ish minute long conversation. I’m eager for the Globe to post the video so people can watch for themselves. But what I saw, in a nutshell, was pretty damning and, as Beto O’Rourke might say, “true to form.” Far more self-aggrandizing than self-reflection. Here are the thoughts based on the notes I kept throughout. Certainly not 100% comprehensive, but I tried to keep up. Definitely watch the video if/when it gets posted.
Venkataraman began by asking for his thoughts and reflection on his Islamophobic Facebook post. Auchincloss acknowledged that people found it offensive, but repeatedly try to dismiss it as a 10-year-old social media post, trying to minimize the offense rather than address it for what it is.
Venkataraman then raised the episode with the Confederate flag and quoted from Newton students who were offended by the tone deafness of Auchincloss’ response and the obliviousness his response indicated regarding the life experience of Black students in Newton schools. Auchincloss stressed that he found the flag vile as a political image, but was trying to make a point about the First Amendment defending undesirable speech. In an immediate display of that tone deafness, Auchincloss insisted that his track record in Newton was “at the forefront of racial justice.”
Pulling no punches, Venkataraman quoted one of the students asking if Auchincloss was only “conveniently enlightened” on these issues because he’s now running for Congress. Auchincloss insisted “I’m going to take feedback. I’m going to improve.” To me personally, this was not the slightest bit convincing.
Venkataraman then raised the episode where Auchincloss called changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day was “taking PC too far.” He responded with what felt like lip service, citing Columbus’ genocide of indigenous people. The delivery again sounded like he was saying what we wanted to hear, rather than any self-reflection-driven actual evolution in belief.
At this point in the conversation, I took that note that many of Auchincloss’ answers and remarks began over and over with phrases like “Like many Democrats…” and “Like many Americans…” as a way of displacing blame or normalizing his conduct, rather than just owning his stuff. A really big tell – but, again, watch the video for yourself when it gets posted and come to your own conclusions there.
Continuing on regarding political correctness in general, Auchincloss then made the point that – and this is my note-taking, but it’s *close* to verbatim, but not exact – “On college campuses, we see an increasing reluctance to see other points of view.” Does Auchincloss really embrace this shallow GOP talking point?!
Venkataraman then pressed Auchincloss on the issue of white privilege, asking if he thought that a woman or person of color running for Congress would be forgiven for making similar comments to Auchincloss’. Instead of addressing white privilege, Auchincloss deflects and self-pities, explaining how he’s not being forgiven for such comments and keeps insisting that “statements should be put in the larger context.”
Venkataraman didn’t let it slide, and re-asked the question and pressed him on it, two or three times! Again, big kudos to her. And Auchincloss kept falling back on deflection and insisting that there’s a broader context.
Then Auchincloss goes into full misrepresentation and self-aggrandizement mode. He insists that he’s the strongest to stand up to Trump and called for Trump’s impeachment – even though he voted AGAINST a measure supporting Trump’s impeachment – and emphasizes that Congress is short on political courage, compliments himself on taking hard votes (without going into detail on what those hard votes were), and demonstrates much more self-aggrandizing than self-reflection.
Venkataraman then quotes from a letter drafted by four high school students volunteering on different MA-04 campaigns, who came together to raise substantive concerns about Auchincloss’ candidacy. If I recall precisely, the exact passage Venkataraman quoted was “His is a campaign of contradictions. He presents himself as an environmental leader but unapologetically takes fossil fuel money. He is pro free speech for Confederate flag-wavers, but blocked a constituent on Twitter. He was even a registered Republican from 2013 to 2014.”
And Auchincloss’ response was to ask “and these were volunteers for other campaigns?” which he knew was the case, so that he could immediately dismiss these substantive concerns as “political attacks.” This was one of Auchincloss’ worst looks of the conversation, and Venkataraman wasn’t allowing that dismissal. She immediately pressed back that these weren’t political attacks but substantive concerns.
So then Auchincloss felt compelled to address them. He dismissed the fossil fuel point saying only “I’m an environmental champion” and that not everyone can “afford a Tesla” so it is what it is. (Again, more self-aggrandizement than self-reflection.) Then he calls himself an “Obama-Baker supporter” and tries to justify that he was a registered Republican and Charlie Baker campaign staffer back in 2013-2014 because, in his assessment, Baker is doing a good job of handling COVID response now, in 2020.
Finally, running short on time, Venkataraman raises the issue of Auchincloss’ parents backing a super PAC for him. Auchincloss insists that he supports campaign finance reform and notes that we have a broken campaign finance system and that he is playing within the rules of the current system. (Not inspiring stuff.) Then he defends the super PAC by saying that there are people who want to tell a positive story about him. (Yeah, your parents, dude.) Here, Venkataraman’s pushback was just on point: she asks “telling that story was more important than disavowing super PAC money?” which he concedes.
That then wrapped up the conversation. Also, more interpretation by me. It appeared that Auchincloss was standing throughout the Zoom conversation rather than being seated. I mention this because that (odd) choice allowed for more examination of body language. He was antsy and rocking back & forth throughout. He clearly didn’t want to be having that conversation, meaning it was more about damage control than about good faith communicating.
Anyways, if/when the video of the conversation is posted, I’ll share here so folks can come to their own conclusions. But these were mine. And it was rife with bad looks for Auchincloss, and short on anything that resembled sincere contrition for past offenses or genuine self-reflection on how to comport himself more thoughtfully. Just a lot of damage control and spin. [shrug emoji]
I saw some of it. Venkataraman did seem to be giving him a grilling. It begs the question, how did this guy get endorsed by the Globe in the first place? I don’t recall the Globe doing anything like this. That is, making an endorsement then following it with a public Q&A grilling of the candidate they just endorsed. I wonder if the Globe feels this somehow absolves them for making such a poor choice? A candidate who is clearly not right for the district.
I’m not following this race super closely, though know Jesse Mermell the best of the candidates, but honestly your portrayal of Auchincloss makes me more sympathetic toward him. You seem to be needlessly picking on him.
I don’t know Mermell at all, friends and constituents of hers speak very highly of her, but her negative race has really turned me off. I’ve known Jake since 2016 and was introduced to him by other veterans who worked on his campaign. He’s a good fit for the district, which is why he is the front runner.
In an ideal world, ranked choice voting would keep the campaign civil. The candidates disagree on very little so they are amplifying silly stuff to compensate. It mirrors the senate race that way. He reminds me of Will Brownsberger, another progressive with a thoughtful independent streak who takes in every issue and votes for the candidate and not the person.
I did not always agree with him, but I knew he did his homework and arrived at his conclusions sincerely. I feel the same way about Jake. A lot of Massachusetts voters are the same way, especially in the fourth district. It’s not my district and any of the Democrats running will win and do a good job, but the attacks on Jake have been merciless and reflect badly on the people and campaigns making them. Another reason to vote Yes on 2.
Here’s link to the video (just got the email alert from the Globe)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/08/04/opinion/after-endorsement-questions-jake-auchincloss/
Enjoy! Curious to hear others’ takes.
Overall the Globe blew this entire thing. The Ed Board wanted to have an early endorsement because of absentee and early voting, but other than interviewing the candidates and a little googling, they don’t have the resources to find/get the dirt on the candidates.
The news side of the Globe does that–which yes is separate from the endorsement process, but news coverage certainly shapes things–but they either didn’t have the resources, or hadn’t gotten around to it (probably both), and you have this FUBAR. I saw the entire video and thought one reason why Venkataraman was so thorough, is that she had to make up for the original process.
And I agree, Auchincloss looked/sounded defensive. But I have to wonder if he was thinking how much he regretted getting the Globe’s endorsement in the first place.