A request: If you’ll be a delegate at this weekend’s Democratic state convention then please vote for one of the candidates other than Martha Coakley when you vote to endorse a candidate for governor. Actually, please vote for whoever appears to be in second place so that there will be at least two candidates on the primary ballot this September.
For those not in the know, Democratic candidates for governor must receive at least 15% of delegate votes at the state convention in order to get on the primary ballot. Coakley currently leads Treasurer Steve Grossman 49% to 14% according to a recent poll. (The other three candidates only have low single-digit support.) I have no idea how that translates into support amongst convention delegates but I really don’t like the thought of an uncontested primary. Not to be coy, it’s not just the thought of an uncontested primary that bothers me. I just plain don’t care for Martha Coakley.
Why don’t I like Coakley as a candidate? Simple: I listen to her speak and visit her website and what immediately comes to mind is “Poll-tested platitudes.” I’ll elaborate.
I remember listening to an interview with her on WBUR just after she declared last fall. (Listen to it here.) All happy talk. Not a single concrete plan for how she’d achieve all the great things she says she’d like to achieve. (Seriously, listen to the interview. “Have a conversation.” Really? Shouldn’t you have had those conversations and have developed some concrete plans before you declare your candidacy for governor? I say you should. Perhaps I set the bar too high?) That’s just one interview though. Check out her campaign website. In particular, check out the Issues section (and, for entertainment, see how long it takes you to find it from the main page). Take one issue from the Education section, “Bring down the cost of higher education so that no student finds the path to a better future blocked by the high cost of college.” That’s a great objective. Any governor who could achieve that would have my vote for re-election. Thing is, how are you going to achieve that? What is your plan? Are you going to reallocate funds from some other portion of the budget in order to reduce tuition? Are you going to propose a tax increase and put the additional funds towards higher ed? What’s your plan? If you’ve got a plausible one – or, better yet, a couple plausible ones – then let’s hear it. Let’s hear how we can make it happen. But please don’t try to blow smoke up my ass – telling me a bunch of things that you think I’d like to hear and will get me to vote for you while in fact you have no @#$%ing clue how you’d achieve your stated goal. I don’t care for that.
Contrast AG Coakley with one of the other candidates, Treasurer Steve Grossman. I go to Grossman’s Issues section (which is right there at the top of his web page) and the first topic I see is Jobs & Economic Growth. That’s a subject near and dear to my heart. I read the associated text and I discover, lo and behold, Grossman did something constructive while was Treasurer:
When Steve became treasurer, he found that 60 percent of the state’s reserve funds were deposited in banks in Europe, Australia, and Asia. Steve worked to bring that money back so the taxpayers’ money, now in Massachusetts banks, could be loaned to credit-worthy small businesses to create jobs for the people of Massachusetts. The Small Business Banking Partnership has moved more than $327 million into 52 community banks. Those banks have in turn made more than 6,000 loans with a value of more than $1 billion, focusing heavily on job creation in our gateway communities. To level the playing field, banks have made loans with a principal focus on women-owned, minority-owned, immigrant-owned, and veteran-owned businesses.
I like that in and of itself but it also gives me confidence that when he says he has a goal of creating 50,000 new manufacturing jobs that he’s got a clue about how he’ll go about creating them. In contrast, Coakley’s approach to job creation is to have some conversations with business leaders. That does not inspire confidence. (I’ve also heard from a retired state employee that Grossman has done a good job with the state pension funds as Treasurer. That also earns him points in my book.)
This issue is bigger than the Democratic primary. Charlie Baker, the Republican candidate, is no fool. He was the CEO of Harvard Vanguard and Harvard Pilgrim and my understanding is that he was good at it. He’s not a nut job. If she hits the general election with more of her happy talk then expect him to counter with “Unlike you I’ve run a successful business…” And it will be true. And she will have no substantive comeback. And that will not be lost on the electorate. And she will have her head handed to her on Election Day just as she did in 2010. Grossman, on the other hand, he could go toe-to-toe with Baker in areas where Baker is strongest. That matters. (NB: Baker’s website is devoid of substance. It makes Coakley’s look good. That noted, I think he’ll do a number on her on the campaign trail.)
Full disclosure: I don’t have a preferred candidate at this point. Obviously not Coakley. (And not Baker either!) As noted above, Grossman has his merits. Kayyem, Avellone, and Berwick have their positives as well. The main issue for me is that Coakley gets a primary challenge. When she ran against Scott Brown in 2010 she came across as a stereotypical useless politician – poll-tested platitudes and a willingness to keep monied interests happy. I don’t see anything which leads me to believe she’s a fundamentally different candidate this time around. We (Democrats) can do better in terms of who we put on the ballot. Let’s do so. We at least need to give people who pick up a Democratic ballot a choice.
UPDATE 6/15/2014: Grossman, Coakley, and Berwick make the primary ballot.