A number of groups and individuals have signaled their support for Bob Massie to be the next Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
The Party’s Democratic State Committee will vote on Thursday, November 12th.
Jamie Eldridge, the State Senator for the Middlesex and Worcester district, has formally endorsed Massie to be the next party Chair. Eldridge, a Democratic State Committee member, said, “I’m proud to endorse Bob Massie because the Massachusetts Democratic Party needs a leader who has a vision for supporting and advocating for the bold Massachusetts Democratic Party platform to be turned into actual policy, is committed to working directly with the grassroots, both on Democratic City and Town Committees and beyond, brings in more diverse and younger voices, and can communicate the ways that Democratic policies improve the lives of people, each and every day. I strongly urge DSC members to look at the comprehensive 10-Point Plan that Bob and his team produced, which speaks to his values and his vision.”
Organizational support for Massie includes Massachusetts Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, Alan Minsky, Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America and a number of Democratic Town Committees. Moreover, the editorial board of The Boston Globe released their opinion on the party Chair election, stating, “Politics today needs leadership with integrity, not a party whose leadership takes down candidates they see as a threat.” The editorial was released in light of controversy that the state party leadership was not completely neutral in the Congressional primary race between Democratic incumbent Richard Neal and his challenger, Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse.
“Our state party is seeing declining voter registration and declining budgets. I believe my spirit, vision, and experience can foster unity, growth, and an exciting new direction for our party,” said Massie. He continued, “I believe we can build the most dynamic state Democatic Party in the country.”
Massie and his team of several dozen party leaders and activists have been working for weeks developing the 10-Point Plan, researching other Democratic state parties around the country, reaching out to voting committee members, and releasing a series of short videos highlighting the plan.
Readers can see the plan here: Massie’s 10 Point Plan
John Cass is co-chair of the research team for the 10-Point Plan and is a Braintree Town Committee member. He said, “I joined Bob’s campaign for Chair because Bob best articulates a shared vision for the party. Under Bob’s leadership the 10-Point Plan represents the greatest opportunity to meet the challenges of our time. The Chair election is about building a stronger Massachusetts Party in order to change, grow, and foster the ideals of our party’s platform. With the 10-Point Plan, reaching out to ordinary voters and engaging them through the town committees will not just be a dream but become a reality.”
I respect how thorough Massie has been with his plans, as he was in his gubernatorial run.
The Globe doesn’t know what its talking about regarding CD1. (I’ve yet to see a media outlet that does.) There was no take-down attempt on the part of party leadership and neutrality or lack thereof is the wrong way to frame this.
The Globe reported on the results of the Jaques investigation. Either what was inaccurate about the Globe’s reporting on it, or what was inaccurate with the investigative report?
Whether the the party was involved in a “take down” is not the real issue here. It is the lack of neutrality that clearly occurred at the party level and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just as Trump should never have spoken to a foreign leader about domestic politics, Gus and his staff NEVER should have had any communications with the Young Dems about how to take sides in a primary. It is a clear line they crossed. The only thing Gus and his staff should have done is to say “we won’t speak to you about this. Come to us when you have information about Republicans, and we’ll be glad to help you.” Anything less then that should be a fireable offense.
According to the Globe editorial the Jacques investigation report found that : “Bickford encouraged a group of college Democrats to send a letter to Mayor Morse raising allegations of sexual misconduct — and to send it just weeks before the Sept. 1 state primary. … The report found that Bickford also encouraged students to talk to a reporter about the accusations. Those actions violated party rules against interference in a contested primary, the report said.”
As a proud member of Bay State Stonewall Democrats, that interference by the Chair in a contested primary is grounds for removal.
The report indicates Bickford advised on how to talk to a reporter should the students pursue that route. He did not encourage and certainly did not initiate it.
Without publishing the report, it’s your word versus the Boston Globe.
Well, I’d like to think after all these years that at least here I am a credible source.
I am absolutely confident that you are describing the report as you understand it.
None of us is as good as an independent free press checked by decent editors and a competitive market for information.
Every day that goes by without this report being published reinforces the narrative that something tawdry happened — something so tawdry that an organization that has championed transparency for DECADES is suppressing publication.
“Suppressing” I think is too active a word for this context. I’ve contacted the party vice-chairs under whose auspices this was conducted (since the Chair was a subject of the investigation) and asked that it be released officially since it pretty much has been unofficially. I don’t know what the process is for doing so except that I know it does not involve my simply snapping my fingers.
Whatever quotes from a CONFIDENTIAL report that made it into the press have been cherry-picked to give the worst possible spin. I have read the report multiple times and it at worst mildly tweaks party leadership. I do not believe that telling people to go away is the obvious course of action either. It has never even been alleged, let alone proven, that the leadership violated neutrality obligations within the meaning of the bylaw clause in question. The report also includes evidence that leadership explicitly discussed how far they could go and that they were all cognizant of the line not to cross.
You say “cherry picked”, and others might say “highlighted” and “summarized”.
The more you say about this infamous report, the more it makes me wonder about what really happened.
This exchange is sounding more and more like Mr. Bickford was attempting a “You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment” moment — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJFiByfiRTA.
I’ve already said it’s been summarized in the press about as well as Bill Barr summarized the Mueller Report and I stand by that. Only a couple out of about a half-dozen key findings even tweaked party leadership a little bit and I say even those are open to interpretation.
You might think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Has the organization published the full text of the Jacues investigation? Until that happens, there is no right way to frame this — you have ZERO legitimate basis to assert that any publication is framing this “the wrong way”. So far as I can tell, you are the only participant here at BMG that has seen the report. It seems to me that you should either not talk it about it here or find a way to publish it here.
Presumably the investigation did not rely on any sources whose lives are risk if their role is publicly revealed. Nobody will object to redacting phone numbers, email addresses, and similar personal information.
As EVERY organization has learned since Watergate, the perception of coverup is worse than the crime.
In my opinion, the refusal of the Massachusetts Democratic Party to publish its own investigation is the same as an admission of guilt. Everything you say to the contrary comes across as just more insider spin.
I’ve written here several times that I agree with you that the original episode was not worth worrying about. That’s the reason why this report should have been made public within days of completion.
This cover-up is serious, especially for an organization already struggling to assert its relevance to anything substantive.
I think releasing the report will in fact help the party’s case and I hope it will happen. However, unlike apparently some who have blabbed to the press and leaked it I don’t believe it is my personal prerogative to release or even quote it when we were expressly told to keep it confidential. I am frustrated that because of that instruction I am forced to defend good people with one hand tied behind my back. I have read it multiple times because I go back and double check after reading a press account or the rantings of someone who only knows what they read in the papers just to make sure my memory of what it says is solid. I remain confident that it is and I feel like I’ve been gaslighted. It should also be clear that this is not Watergate by a long shot. No crimes have been alleged. A party is not a public entity. There are no FOIA-type obligations nor was this investigation a legal proceeding. I’m about as shocked that there is politics going on in this establishment as I am that there was gambling occurring in a Casablanca speakeasy.
You ARE being gaslighted, my friend. It looks to me as though your friends are throwing you under the bus. When was the last time you asked your friends and colleagues in the organization when they plan to release the report?
That is all precisely why there really is NO good reason to hold this back.
The reality is that the public already perceives this as a coverup by the organization. Nobody claims that it’s criminal. OTOH, you yourself claimed (and I agreed) some time ago that there was nothing consequential here.
This exchange is reinforcing the perception that Mr. Bickford did, in fact, step over a line that he himself knows he should not have crossed. Your attempted defense of him makes both of you look worse.
Either persuade the party to release you from your obligations to keep it confidential or stop talking about it.
It only came out a few days ago and I did make my feelings known at tonight’s meeting. I got the distinct impression I’m not the only one. I feel gaslighted by those who think they know what is in the report when they clearly do not and so far certainly won’t if their only source is the public press.
The very fact that Massie went through a collaborative process of researching and developing his 10-point plan for building the future of the party is a big plus to me. That’s the kind of energy and initiative we need in a Chair.