At tonight’s meeting of the Democratic State Committee incumbent Gus Bickford was re-elected with 63% of the vote (including mine) with 24% going to Mike Lake and 13% to Bob Massie. I was impressed with how much thought and effort the two challengers put into their candidacies and am honestly a bit surprised by the result. I would not have predicted a winner, but I might have predicted that nobody would get a first-ballot majority. There seemed to be a bit of an organized effort from outside the DSC to promote Bob Massie’s candidacy the likes of which I had not seen for previous chair races. Gus did spend part of his campaign speech apologizing for his role in the CD1 matter and committed to implementing the Jacques report recommendations, but those will take some time.
The other interesting thing we did tonight was taking the historic step of ratifying a collective bargaining agreement with IBEW to represent party staff. I believe this has become a bit of a trend among Democratic entities.
It is insulting for Mr. Bickford to “commit to implementing the Jackques report recommendations” while said report is still suppressed.
The organization is signaling VERY clearly how much they care about me and every other registered Democrat.
I think I’m going to make a call to city hall tomorrow.
And you can pass that along to your friends in the organization.
How do internal operations at all relate to the policies we promote that impact people like you and other registered Dems?
I’m a “values” voter, and always have been. I care about the vision, values, and priorities of the candidates that ask for my support.
When I put a “D” next to my name, I make a statement about myself and my values. When a candidate puts a “D” next to their name, it makes a statement about themselves and their values.
The organization we’re talking about literally OWNS that “D” next to my name. When those “internal operations” reveal an organizational culture that is antithetical to my vision, values, and priorities then I cannot in good conscience continue to affiliate with it.
Values matter. Priorities matter. Choices matter. Public perception matters. That is especially true for a political organization.
Let me perfectly clear, and let there be no mistake about it: this episode doesn’t just make me want to unenroll from the party. More importantly, it makes me less likely to vote for every Massachusetts candidate who chooses to affiliate with it. I did not cast a vote for the successor to Denise Provost. I did not cast a vote for Ayanna Pressley. When I voted for Ed Markey, I did so in spite of rather than because of that affiliation.
That’s how this episode impacts me.
I’m sorry, how does this internal matter affect our values? Are we no longer the party of the environment, equality, reproductive rights, organized labor, justice, a livable wage, etc. because maybe our chair made a mistake? Public policy is what matters. I thought you agreed with me not that long ago that this was much ado about not very much. Why the tantrum all of a sudden?
If you have no intention of running for office or going to a convention then it makes no difference whether you’re a Democrat or not. I’m still unenrolled since it doesn’t matter what party I’m in. I can pick the nominee in either primary and pick the candidate I like best in the general. Ideally, we would all would be unenrolled. It’s blind partisanship that’s partly to blame for eroding our democracy. Certainly on the other side, but increasingly on ours. Also if Kamala doesn’t draw a primary opponent four years from now, this gives me an opportunity to pick the least Trumpy Republican in their primary.
It’s a public shorthand statement of your values if you register with a party and personally, I wish we’d close the primaries.
Well, it sure is clear what your values are.
Care to enlighten us?
No. Your words speak for themselves.
Well, since you won’t use your words, I guess I’ll fill in the blanks. My values in this context are to defend people from unfair criticism and to follow appropriate procedures.
It is impossible to say whether or not the criticism is unfair without seeing the report. My own takeaway is that you value your loyalty to your colleagues above the larger good of the Commonwealth. It is similarly impossible to say what procedures are “appropriate” without seeing the report.
I’m reminded of the conflict that sometimes happens when a therapist in couples or group therapy learns of an episode that is directly relevant to other parties that the therapist also has an obligation to. A therapist has a duty to protect the confidentiality of the client. In this case, the therapist also has a conflicting duty to other clients. A common outcome is for the therapist to say to the client “<fill in the blank> has a right to know this. Do you prefer to tell them yourself, or would prefer me to do it? You have until next week to decide.”
I get that this is just a blog. There are certainly limits to what any of us can reasonably be expected to share here.
Still, it is a public forum that people like Betsey and I pay attention to and yours is a prominent voice on this blog.
I don’t hold it against you if you decide to keep your silence. I do hold it against the party, and I do find it insulting that the newly re-elected chair promises to carry out the recommendations of the report while suppressing the same report.
As in any other report like this, the recommendations are not the only value of the report. In particular, any report like this generally suggests other avenues for investigation that subsequent investigators may choose to pursue. I can only wonder what it is about this report that makes the leadership of the Massachusetts Democratic Party so loathe to disclose it.
My issue is with the organization, not you.
I think loathe is too strong a word and I suspect there are plenty who would be OK disclosing, but a vote will need to be taken. At least for the time being this is much closer to omission rather than commission. The recommendations basically come down staffing the party Judicial Council (possibly expanding its mandate) and promulgating a Code of Ethics and training staff on that, which we should have been doing anyway.
This report contains more than just recommendations. The Mueller report is an example of a similar report that provides at least clues and some suggest even a roadmap for other investigations.
Whatever process needs to happen should already be underway.
With multiple sources publishing accounts that reference the report, including the Mr. Bickford himself and you, it is glaring and suspicious that the organization has not yet released it.
There’s nothing more to investigate at least on the state party side. You’ve also been hinting that people are somehow misdirecting or betraying me, but keep in mind I’m not relying on other people’s accounts of what the report says. I HAVE read the whole thing myself.
I get that, my friend. You are not an unbiased reporter and you don’t necessarily have the experience to know what is and is not significant.
It’s a bit like an attempt to read an audit report from a major corporation or fund — the meat is in the footnotes, and it is not a job for amateurs.
The footnotes of this report are basically the verbatim emails that were used in the investigation. The other thing I’m wondering is what exactly you think is there that I’m not saying. As it is the negative stuff is already out there thanks to press leaks and what’s left seems to be exculpatory. I can’t claim to not be biased, but in this case I think it’s helpful that I know the people involved and how they operate. Given that I know how the party does and is supposed to work I actually do think I know what is and is not significant in this context in a way that I would not for a corporate audit. Even the worst of what’s been alleged isn’t end of the world stuff. The report is written in very plain language, but if you think it requires expertise to understand that’s all the more reason you should not credit cherry picked quotes from press reports the way you seem to be.
Closing primaries would be giving a massive finger to the non partisan majority in this state. Not a wise move politically. I’ve found I have more credibility with my students and colleagues when they find out I’m a registered ‘independent’ or non partisan voter. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
I don’t think asking people to pick a side is that out of line. At very least we should figure out a way to elect party officials only by party members whereas now unenrolleds can too.
Which “side” would that be?
You’ve persuaded me that the party organization has no role to play in vetting candidates, influencing policy, and in any way rewarding or punishing elected officials who affiliate with the party and then act in accordance with or in stark opposition to the explicitly stated party platform.
The only thing I can recall you saying in support of the current leadership is that more seats have been flipped — so our majority has gone from super-majority to even-more-super-majority even as we remain unable to make any progress at all on traditional Democratic issues.
It sounds as though you’re asking me to pick “D” because we we win more state elections. Is that it?
While not in any way suggesting that we emulate the GOP or the Trumpist GOP, I have to nevertheless note that every GOP incumbent even now trembles in fear that Donald Trump and his minions will primary them from the right if they dare even suggest that perhaps he might not have won the 2020 election.
Do you think the political power of the GOP is increased or decreased by this view of the role of a party?
I abhor everything about the GOP. Having said that, there is no question that at least at the national level the GOP is far better at maintaining party discipline than we Democrats. They are stronger because of that discipline.
I think that asking people to pick a side when the party doing the asking so completely refuses to take a side means that the “ask” amounts to a demand for a profession of blind personal loyalty — a declaration of faith.
You won’t get that from me.
I’m asking you to pick D because you already share our public policy positions, though I remain frustrated like you that some folks, certain legislators in particular, do seem to pick it only because we are consistently successful policy disagreements notwithstanding. I can’t prove this hypothetical of course, but if more people chose sides that might end up strengthening both parties and the most extreme DINOs might actually switch affiliation. I for one do not want my party to become the personality cult that the other party has.
I can’t imagine myself picking anything other than “D” for future elections.
I haven’t yet pulled my registration, but I think it’s only a matter of time. The longer the party refuses to publish this report, the more likely I am to unenroll.
I suspect I’ll make a decision in about a week’s time.
I can say right now we won’t move that quickly. The full state committee won’t meet again until after the new year and I don’t know if the executive committee can make this decision on our behalf. If you would like you can reach out to your own DSC members since you are after all their constituent. Your ballot members for 2nd Middlesex are Justin Klekota and Teresa Walsh, which means you had a chance to vote for them on the presidential primary. Your caucus members elected by local committee delegates are Andre Green and Diane Masters. Add-on members from your district are Arjun Jaikumar, Colin Killick, Bob Massie, and Kerianne Lorenzo, who are elected by the DSC to broaden representation. Your district also includes several 20-year members and Senator Elizabeth Warren. You can find their contact information here.
Like I said above, I suspect I’ll make my decision in about a week’s time. I have no doubt that the Party would like to delay this as much as possible.
BTW, I blanked all of those items on the primary ballot. I never vote for candidates I don’t know. I’m sure that both Mr. Klekota and Ms. Walsh are fine people, I’ve just never heard of either.
My objection is not with you, it is with this organization. The more I learn about it, the less I like it.
There’s been no talk of delay. This is just standard procedure in lots of contexts. Very often an organization conducts an internal investigation to learn how it can do better or what went wrong. I think releasing will show the whole picture and make the party look better, but confidentiality isn’t nearly as nefarious as you are making it sound. Have you never in your professional life been involved in or aware of things that should stay in-house, or at least have no reason to be shared? In my experience personnel issues, which this basically is, often are confidential. Even MA’s open meeting law has an exemption for discussing personnel matters.
I’m reminded of when a certain rector in a certain Massachusetts parish found his wife in flagrante delicto with a curate in the upstairs apartment of the rectory. The vestry fired him the same day, citing “personnel issues” as the reason for not disclosing why they acted so abruptly.
Many members of the parish were surprised when that same woman became infamous some years later (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/07/11/episcopal-church-ex-treasurer-gets-5-years-for-embezzlement/1bac7ca0-7334-4ba0-bfd6-add28ba6baff/). Some of us were not at all surprised.
The reason open meeting laws exist is because organizations like this so often hide things that should be disclosed behind excuses like “personnel issues” and “process”.
Am I reading this right – the rector caught his wife in the act and HE got fired?
As an aside, did you notice the name of the US District Judge in the article you linked? 🙂
Heh. Yes indeed, you are reading that right — that’s exactly what happened. I’ve made jokes before about church politics — this is an example. Let’s say that there were some issues between the rector and the vestry.
I did notice the name of the judge. Purely coincidental, but fun anyway.
I heard what a sh*tshow the Zoom call was. I’m disgusted but totally not surprised. I for one have *NO* regrets about unenrolling from the MA Democratic Party last spring. I imagine that the re-election of Bickford was the last straw for lots of other people. Good luck getting lots of young people and Progressives to enroll!
Can someone please approve the comment I wrote just before 2:30pm today (Friday)? I don’t understand why it’s “pending approval”. Thanks.
I think that if you create a new comment and use the word “spitshow” instead of your original choice, your comment will post just fine.
The editors, of necessity, have a very restrictive obscenity filter.
That’s precisely why I edited it, replacing one of the letters in that word with *. Reposting my comment now with another tweak. Super frustrating.
Apparently 2 asterisks did the trick. Oy vey.
I heard what a s**tshow the Zoom call was. I’m disgusted but totally not surprised. I for one have *NO* regrets about unenrolling from the MA Democratic Party last spring. I imagine that the re-election of Bickford was the last straw for lots of other people. Good luck getting lots of young people and Progressives to enroll!
That I will confess was not our finest hour. We have had smooth DSC meetings via Zoom since the pandemic, but this was not one of them. The technology gods were not on our side for some reason. There could have been a bit more procedural control too. I think Bickford’s overwhelming re-election speaks to his many years of very capable and effective service to the party and some marked improvements he made as chair – a totality of record that should not be judged by one incident. Party chair is by definition an insidery position and incumbents are not household names (though I’d love to have a civic culture where they were). Party insiders know and trust Gus whereas this recent bruhaha is all the average news consumer probably knows about him.
Young, more progressive members did not support Bickford.
86% under 36 supported Lake or Massie.
The problem for those campaigns is young progressives are not really involved with the MDP. Most of the ones I know are gearing up for the GA special or the Boston mayoral race.
Where are you getting that information? I have not seen the individual votes posted.
Why should we surprised to see two candidates who have twice failed at winning statewide primary votes lose this vote? Why should we be surprised that a sore loser from a congressional primary lose again? This was all much ado about nothing, and I’m glad to see common sense and decency prevail over raw ambition and sour grapes. I have a great deal of respect for Bob and Mike, but win a local election for crissakes or go home.
I’ve lost a lot of respect for Morse and his people and I’m a donor to his primary campaign. Won’t support him ever again. Both because of the aspects of the allegations that were true (teacher should never try and date students) and also because he couldn’t even carry his hometown but he’s blaming the weak MDP for his loss. He should also go home.
I actually don’t see the Morse campaign making the biggest stink over what happened here and I think he handled the fallout pretty well. Some of his supporters definitely got their noses bent out of joint, but mostly this seems to be a case of trying to bring an institutional party down a peg.
Fair. I’m glad it failed.