Globe West featured this question in its “The Argument” column: Should Governor Charlie Baker support a candidate in the presidential race? Pro and cons are provided by Republicans.
I don’t understand why the media isn’t pressing Baker on this. Of course, he should say who he’s voting for. He’s a leader, regardless of party. No doubt he’s in a difficult position but that’s precisely why he shouldn’t be allowed to sit this one out. His constituents deserve to know what he’s going to do in what might seem to be an impossible situation.
He has said he’s not voting for Trump or Clinton. Or the libertarian ticket. Is it ok for our governor to tell our youth that he’s not voting for president? Upping the number of charter schools and defeating the legalization of marijuana are priorities to him but the choice for our next president is just too hard for him to make? That’s bs.
Whichever choice he makes will affect people’s opinions of him, which is why he should share that information and not be given a pass.
Sorry Gail. I don’t get it. Why is it important that we know for whom, if anyone, Baker votes? I don’t look to him for insight on Presidential candidates. I want Baker to be a good Governor and have a good relation with the President, to the extent that doing so helps Massachusetts. Similarly, I don’t want Mayor Warren to chime in on national issues, and I don’t want the school committee to advise me on how to vote on Question 2. Baker, Warren, and the SC have enough on their plates to keep busy.
Also, I don’t think everyone should always vote. If you think all candidates are equally bad (or equally good), why vote? If you don’t feel comfortable understanding the issues, don’t vote.
This doesn’t really matter to me either. I would be troubled if Baker was supporting Trump, because it would reflect a very bad sense of judgement. But he’s not, so I’m good.
He’s sorta saying by not saying, but I agree that he should be more direct about it.
Gail – you are right – it is BS. Hillary is well-qualified to serve as President and Trump is a racist tyrant. This is not a normal election. Sitting it out as Baker is doing is wrong. This is the time to stand for what is right. And that choice is crystal clear this year. God forbid Trump wins; Baker will have stood idly by as the nation careens off the rails. No better than his friend Chris Christie.
If Charlie Baker supports Trump, Shawn says he is supporting racist. If he supports Clinton, some total partisan on the other side, says he is supporting a crook. What if Baker (like a lot of Americans) supports neither? What does Baker gain by supporting the worst of two evils? What do the citizens of MA gain? Is Shawn going to switch his vote for president depending on Baker says?
In a normal election year, it wouldn’t matter to me. But this year, I really want to know where public officials stand on the presidential election.
Not to mention, Charlie Baker tries to wiggle out of commenting on controversial issues until he can see the lay of the land. I expect a leader to be willing to take a stand on important issues.
He needs to take a stand and publicly announce his choice – even if it includes caveats. Democracy is based on voting. Choosing not to vote because the decision is complicated, controversial or difficult to make, particularly for a politician, will defeat the system.
There have been presidential elections in the past that had no ideal candidates. A president was elected then and will be now. Pick a candidate and vote.
A leader leads, and a leader worthy of the name leads by reason and example. Governor Baker’s Republican Party has nominated the most horrifyingly unqualified individual ever to run for president on a major-party ticket.* If Baker can’t bring himself to admit that and endorse the logical alternative–with a 70 percent approval rating! in Massachusetts!–then he ought to be ashamed of himself. Oh, and to the genius who stole my Hillary lawn sign and vandalized its replacement–you ought to be ashamed of yourself too. The fascist-flatering Trump may be inching ever closer to the White House, but at least for the time being, the First Amendment remains in effect, and trespassing, theft, and vandalism are still against the law.
*Don’t take my word for it. See the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., etc.–even papers like the Dallas Morning News and the Cincinnati Enquirer, which hardly ever turn their backs on Republicans.
This is the type of question that says as much (if not more) about the people asking it and demanding it be answered as it does about the person (Gov. Baker) answering it. Remember than Sen. Warren didn’t back Hillary Clinton until it was effectively a done deal (actually I think it may have been well after Sen. Sanders was mathematically eliminated). So if you are calling Baker out on this, I hope you did the same while Sen. Warren sat on the fence. Give him a few more weeks to dilly dally. Maybe he likes the Libertarian “what’s Aleppo” ticket.
I hope everyone enjoys the debate tonight. I’d be enjoying this a whole lot more if so much weren’t riding on it.
@Dan Foley: You’re probably right that the question says a lot about the people asking it but so what? I wasn’t happy with how politically careful Sen. Warren acted either. If she agreed with Bernie’s ideology, thought he could be successful as president, and believed he could have defeated the Republican nominee, she should have endorsed him. More likely (and I have no way of knowing this for certain), she agreed with his ideology, maybe thought he could be a productive president but didn’t think he could win the general election. Whatever the case, I think she should have been upfront about her thinking. It’s part of her role.
Just as it’s part of Charlie Baker’s role. You raise a valid point, though, saying that Baker should be allowed a few more weeks to “dilly dally.” He should make his decision public, but he has time.
I don’t care who Charlie Baker is voting for in the presidential election. I do care that he’s an ignorant prohibitionist who’s opposed to ballot initiative #4. Baker is a sitting governor encouraging people to vote against a ballot initiative that would bring hundreds of new businesses–thousands of new jobs–and pump a billion dollars into the Massachusetts economy.
Frankly, I expect that kind of stupidity from a Republican Governor. But to see him joined in this conservative folly by Democrats actually sickens me. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh also signed a letter with Baker opposing legalized cannabis. That’s the same Marty Walsh who oversees one of the state’s worst school systems. A school system so bad that Walsh has to bus thousands of Boston children to suburban schools in order to get them a decent education. Yet this idiot, Walsh, feels he’s in a position to reject the million$ Boston would receive annually in cannabis tax revenue.
@Gail. I’m not sure there is a “so what.” It was really more a commentary on the responses, I suppose. There just seems to be a lot of indignation over the Governor’s lack of an endorsement, which I didn’t see/hear in the months leading up to Sen. Warren’s endorsement of Hillary. I guess I just want to make sure there’s consistency. Based on your last post, you have that consistency, which I appreciate.
For what it’s worth, I was disappointed in Elizabeth Warren’s foot-dragging (though I’d have been even more disappointed if she had endorsed Bernie Sanders). Nevertheless, I believe there’s a world of difference between, on the one hand, remaining neutral when colleagues you respect face off in a primary and, on the other, cynically claiming not to see any difference between a rational, competent, experienced candidate from one party and, from the opposite end of the ideological universe, a candidate who is, to put it mildly, none of those things, especially when it’s your own party that has foisted the latter onto the rest of us.
Dan – I was indignant that Sen. Warren didn’t declare her candidate until it was safe for her. Leaders are supposed to lead, and a lot of times that puts them in an uncomfortable position. She and Charlie Baker should stand up for what they believe in, especially in an election of this import.
I’m with Gail, Jane, and Shawn on this one. Political leaders need to share their political opinions, most of all when a national election threatens the institutions of the republic.
As someone who mobilized voters for the governor – which often times meant asking Democrats to cast a ballot for a Republican – I consider it a betrayal of his non-partisan pragmatism that he does not announce his support for Secretary Clinton.
Trump is a racist clown. I want to hear my governor say that, and I want to hear my governor tell his constituents that not voting – or voting for a third party – is not a responsible option.
As a member of the boomer generation I [fortunately] missed WW2. But I’ve often wondered how it was possible for someone like Hitler to come to power. Having watched Trump and his simpleton supporters over the past year and a half, I don’t have to wonder about that anymore. It’s truly frightening to see large numbers of Americans embracing Trump’s brand of fascism.
Gail, Shawn, Jane, Jake, Dan and Marti have convinced me to change my mind: Yes. Gov. Baker should come out in support of Clinton.
But I still don’t [heart] our current zoning.
@Jake – I dont believe you were clear on your passion for high density housing before your election either. Is that an example of political leadership you referred above?
Jake’s election announcement – http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20151023/OPINION/151027486
A city councilor’s position on a municipal matter isn’t in any way, shape, or form in the same category as a Governor or Senator’s position on a presidential candidate in an election with a candidate such as Trump. Charlie Baker needs to state where he stands on the Republican candidate – and he needs to do it ASAP and unambiguously.
Jane, Charlie Baker already said he would not vote for Trump. Period. Are you going to change your vote based on what Baker says? I didn’t think so.
@Jane – with all due respect. I will be voting for HRC, regardless what any of politicians tell me. I dont understand how this topic fits on the V14 blog… but thats for others to decide.
On other hand, what Jake promises before the election and more importantly his actions following affect me and this town. I also consider it hypocritical of him to talk of “political leadership”, when he himself has failed to meet his standard.
We have someone running for President who’s made derogatory statements about women, minorities, people with disabilities, immigrants, etc. The Massachusetts electorate deserves to know exactly where the top leaders in the state stand on his candidacy. Is Baker just not voting for him, but thinks he’s pretty much okay? Or does he think he’s leading the country into a period of fascism, will lead the country to a war, etc? Those are two different standards and we deserve to know where the Governor stands as it provides insight into his thinking on other matters.
Late to the game …
Values. It’s important for the governor to keep us informed of his political values. So, the question is fair and appropriate.
As for his answer, his non-answer is revealing, despite his obvious intention not to appear to be taking a position, he’s taking a position: that Donald Trump is acceptable enough as a candidate for President, that it’s not incumbent on the governor to actively support his opponent.
I get it. He’s a Republican. Supreme Court nominees, small government, less regulation, lower taxes, blah, blah, blah. Under normal circumstances he wouldn’t support the Democrat. But, these are not normal times.