Update: Globe is now challenging Jake’s campaign claims about Trump impeachment.
Another update: UPDATE: Here’s media columnist Dan Kennedy’s take on this.
The Boston Globe is hosting a discussion between Editorial Page editor Bina Venkataraman and City Councilor and congressional candidate Jake Auchincloss in the aftermath of the Globe’s endorsement.
“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. Readers and voters deserve to know more and hear directly from the candidate. In this conversation, Globe editorial page editor Bina Venkataraman will ask Auchincloss about his record on racial justice, free speech, and beyond.”
Monday, Aug. 10 12 p.m. – 12:45 p.m. Sign up here.
I did a quick look at previous Globe op-ed talks and didn’t see any talks about candidate endorsements. Bina Venkataraman is relatively new in this position so it’s hard to decipher the intent behind this discussion. But it makes me question whether the Globe is promoting, explaining, defending or rethinking its endorsement.
Fascinating.
This does seem highly unusual for him to go online with the editorial page editor and not a reporter. What happens if they don’t like his answers? Do they rescind the endorsement?
And shouldn’t the Globe be giving other candidates a chance to also answer reader questions?
Greg, your questions are right on target. This step does more to undermine the value and validity of their endorsements than anything I can imagine.
Newspaper endorsements are an anachronism that should have been shelved a long time ago, they do nothing but undermine a news organization’s credibility. That said, this bizarre do-over is just hugely embarrassing.
They certainly could have seen this piece before making their decision: https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20200627/column-as-black-student-from-newton-i-wont-vote-for-jake-auchincloss
This seems odd. They endorsed the best candidate who happens to be a white male. There was bound to be blowback considering these crazy times but for once the Globe should keep their nerve and do the right thing.
Sorry gents, disagree on both counts.
The perception that this endorsement is wobbly reflects “how it used to be” and this idea means the candidate speaks directly (which they could do on any number of personally-controlled media outlets). This lets him/her be completely accountable — no claims of being misquoted or misinterpreted by a reporter or editor. So, Bina takes a bold step, and a modern one, and it leads to other questions:
> how many other races or candidates in the Globe’s area get similar high-profile endorsements and this kind of event opportunity?
> are Globe stories about this race any more frequent — or less — if polls show changes in popularity? How does the Globe news editorial defend whether to run or downplay stories about other challengers?
The weirdness of 2020 shows no signs of abating. On we go. . . .
With a field of nine candidates, the Globe had a huge task to evaluate all the primary candidates in a timely fashion. After Jake’s endorsement, the spin machines of eight other candidates (led by some very experienced Beacon Hill and Washington insiders) hashed and rehashed all its opposition research, which was typical of Congressional campaigns and discussed ad infinitum on public forums many times. If another candidate received the Globe endorsement, candidates would have likely pursued the same path because this is a very competitive and crowded primary race. This session will give Jake an opportunity to speak authoritatively about his record and answer any critics as he done clearly and respectfully throughout his political career. I look forward to it.
Will mom, dad, and stepdad be in the wings with their checkbooks out again?
The Globe’s decision to hold this 1:1 discussion is ridiculously unfair to the other excellent candidates who have earned, but won’t get this type of platform to explain anything about their record – positive or negative. If the Globe is having doubts, just retract the endorsement. Better yet, host an actual debate with all the candidates.
There are so many qualified, accomplished, self-made candidates. Let’s move on and elect one of them. No “do-overs”. And no parents buying the seat.
The Globe definitely received blowback for their endorsement. I surely do hope that they did all their research before endorsing their candidate – I think they made a good choice – and I agree that they should stick with their endorsement.
For those who don’t read behind the newspaper headlines or links on Village14:
At the very end of an upcoming Globe article:
Why City Counselor Auchincloss considered but did not support Newton City Council’s symbolic resolution for impeachment in 2017, as discussed in-depth in his widely circulated public affairs newsletter.
At the time, Auchincloss called Trump an “abomination” to the country and the Constitution.
“But the Newton City Council should focus on roads, schools, and municipal services,” Auchincloss wrote in an e-mail update that he circulated to Newton residents at the time. “Nationalizing local politics undermines the resilience of federalism. I will not be voting in favor of the resolution.”
Linda Pizzuti’s wunderkind editorial page hire has obviously spent very little time following Massachusetts politics if she’s now claiming to be in any way surprised by “Thanksdad” Auchincloss’ exposure as a bigoted, Republican corporate shill subservient to his sponsors (the Kraft Group, Hill Holliday, Century Bank, Greylock Partners, Fireman Capital, Rockpoint Group, etc.). As per the Globe:
Auchincloss confirmed his bigoted us-versus-them worldview with his despicable anti-Muslim “So we can’t burn their book, but they can burn our flag” tweet in 2010 and his 2016 condemnation of Indigenous Day as “taking PC too far.”
But the opening paragraph of Bennett Walkes’ Newton Tab column (cited above by Ralph G Ranalli) should be enough for anyone with even a modicum of decency to disavow Auchincloss:
@NewtonResident: You call it “parents buying the seat” with $40K?
How about Leckey and her husband, a fossil fuel trader, “buying the seat” with $880,000 and counting? TWENTY-TWO TIMES MORE.
If you and Michael (of Needham) feel so much righteous indignation about family campaign contributions, your criticism should start with the top offenders.
Kudos to Jake for refusing to get involved in a meaningless symbolic vote on an issue far outside the purview of the council. He has repeatedly stated his opposition to the Trump administration and that is more than enough.
All of the viable candidates have connections to rich people and powerful companies. What would you expect from such an important district?
Craig, that is an excellent point. Our City Council has wasted too much time discussing and voting on federal matters, such as Congress’s impeachment power and nuclear weapons, that are completely out of municipal purview. City Council members are free to express their views as private citizens on those issues, but to co-opt Newton’s representative body for that purpose is a misuse of City Council.
Re @Thomas: “With a field of nine candidates, the Globe had a huge task to evaluate all the primary candidates in a timely fashion.” Oh come on. The candidates have been known for months. Their platforms have been set forth for months. Simple internet searches of their backgrounds and positions have been possible for months. All have also been available for personal interviews for months. There’s no excuse for sloppy background work, if that’s what at play here. But frankly, who knows what’s at play with the original endorsement or with this latest backward step. The newspaper has no credibility left on this issue.
@Ralph has it exactly right: “Newspaper endorsements are an anachronism that should have been shelved a long time ago.” Even in the “old days,” they were made by a small anonymous group of senior editors (and publishers) who in no way reflected the geographic and socio-economic diversity of the Congressional district at play. Now, perhaps (we can’t know because they remain anonymous), there is greater diversity in the group that decided, but the process and criteria they use are opaque to the public. It’s a total waste of time and effort.
(Disclosure: I’m supporting another candidate, but I would also be happy with Jake and many of the others as my US Representative. It’s a noteworthy group of candidates, and we’re fortunate that so many qualified people have put themselves out there for public scrutiny.)
Between the strong arguments made by folks like Craig and Michael Singer and the pure drivel of the Needham Interloper and NewtonResident, I have decided to register as a Democrat and vote for Councilor Auchincloss. Thank you V14 for making clear what had been hazy to me.
Speaking of the City Council “‘involving themselves in issues far outside the purview of the city council,” and “co-opting Newton’s representative body,” Thanksdad Auchincloss doesn’t want to get involved when it comes to calling for the impeachment of his fellow Republican Donald Trump, but for some strange reason he does want to get involved when it comes to defending racists:
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20200627/column-as-black-student-from-newton-i-wont-vote-for-jake-auchincloss
I agree with Gregg and Paul and the similar comments. The Globe should host a debate to give all the candidates a chance to answer the same questions.
As far as the City Council resolution on impeachment, I think it is entirely appropriate, and important, for the City Council to weigh in, if only through symbolic votes, on national issues. We are part of our country, not a separate little island; with so much at stake for our democracy, we should not act as if the only things that are important are local issues. I want my local elected officials to be concerned and voice their views on national issues.
On another note, I called Jake about his response to the students’ waving the confederate flag at North after the incident. I remember the call vividly because when he called me back I was in the parking lot of the New England Mobile Bookfair. I was baffled that he did not seem to understand how waving that symbol of hatred could be a “substantial disruption” to students of color and others, the court standard for regulating speech at schools. He focused only on the free speech issue. I was unimpressed and dismayed by his unwillingness to broaden his view at the time. I remain unimpressed.
I was in the chamber with Jake. His actions were clear. In 2017, the Newton City Council received a citizens’ petition calling for an impeachment investigation into President Trump. Jake called President Trump an “abomination,” and asserted publicly during the debate in the City Council that President Trump should be impeached and convicted by the Senate. He voted against the resolution because he didn’t think it was appropriate, or healthy for the local body politic, for the city council to take on a national issue that properly belonged with Congress.
@Rick Lipof, thanks for that – your unwavering support of a candidate who makes Islamophobic statements and calls Indigenous People’s Day “taking PC too far” is duly noted. Were you also in the chamber with Jake when he unnecessarily inserted himself into the Confederate flag debate?
You and Jake are obviously – oh what’s that indemonstrable expression people always bandy about on this site? Ah yes – you and he are obviously people of the highest integrity for defending intolerance.
@Elmo,
You’re not alone. Auchincloss has energized his fellow Republicans. In particular, many Republicans in the southern part of the district (e.g. Bristol County) are very strongly attracted to his dog-whistle politics.
Michael Singer’s and Craig’s logic is flawless. Jake did exactly the correct thing in not voting for the petition. In a liberal-Democrat city, where people focus on headline votes without digging deeper, the politically-expedient decision is to vote affirmatively with the majority of the council. Jake’s decision is evidence of the character that I seek in representive.
@Michael. Most readers here are smart enough to understand the distinction between (1) a reasonable debate about freedoms of speech and (2) what you over-dramatically and incorrectly characterize as sympathy for the confederacy and Islamophobia. Either you do not understand that distinction or you have chosen to conceal it so that you can make false accusations about a candidate whom you dislike for unrelated reasons–namely, because he is not a Marxist.
It is possible for a kind and reasonable person simultaneously to condemn the confederate flag but to believe that in America, we do not punish people for flying flags, no matter how hateful.
It is possible for a kind and reasonable person to point out that burning an American flag or burning a Qur’an are comparably disrespectful acts; this does not make a person Islamophobic.
If you would actually read their words, there is no candidate in the MA-4 race who has every supported the confederate flag, or said anything negative about Muslims, and condoned any act disrespectful to them.
Your repeated contentions to the contrary are nothing more than exaggerations and hate-mongering. A few others–mostly Mermell supporters–are joining you in this practice. It’s an insult to readers’ intelligence, and judging by most comments on Village14, it’s not working.
I’m honestly laughing out loud. Michael Singer, I wish you knew what delight your 1950s red-baiting witticisms bring to my heart. Are you that guy I saw driving up and down Comm Ave. in a Hudson Terraplane last weekend?
Auchincloss lost my support four years ago, when I had absolutely zero idea what his economics or political affiliation were, or for that matter who he was – but his subsequent exposure as a reactionary Republican corporate shill certainly came as no surprise:
(my first comment is the fifth one down – and for the record we lived in Newton then)
https://village14.com/2016/10/03/auchincloss-dont-punish-north-students-who-flew-confederate-flag/
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Councilor Auchnicloss also have the option to “step outside the rail” on the Trump vote, which essentially signals that you neither support no oppose the resolution?
UPDATE: Here’s media columnist Dan Kennedy’s take on this.
The Globe should stay with their endorsement of Jake in this race. Jake is ahead in polling and now everyone wants to gang up on him. Jake will be the nominee.
Being ahead in the polling might be the single worst argument against rescinding an endorsement.
Even after the Globe rescinds its endorsement, Auchincloss and his corporate puppeteers will still try to get the nomination with 15%-20% of the vote.
Mermell/Leckey/Grossman need to draw straws, and fast. With all three of them in the race, none stands a chance. As demonstrated in this thread, there are even Republicans claiming that they will switch parties just to vote for Auchincloss in the primary.
This “All Jake/All the Time” blogging has grown tedious to a fault. I suppose it is natural that the media and his opponents comb Jake’s every move over many years for material to use against him: that’s our system, for better or worse. By all means, back your candidate, and I admire Paul Levy’s steadfast, principled support for Jesse Mermell. He sets the right tone. Ditto for Tom Friedman, who supports Jake Auchincloss.
Instead of the name-calling and mud-slinging, the rest of us should present cogent points of departure between candidate A, say, and candidate B in terms of their political views or legislative history. My impression is that all of the candidates in our congressional district are honorable and well-intentioned in their desire to serve in Congress. Can we raise the level of discourse?
I basically agree with you Bob but it’s pretty hard to ignore what’s happening regarding the Globe editorial. Feels unprecedented to me.
Ditto to what Greg said. Jake is certainly getting attacked a lot because he’s perceived as the front runner, but the Globe seems to be looking carefully at criticisms of his past rhetoric. This is not typical post-endorsement behavior from the Globe. I bet all the candidates are paying very close attention.
This isn’t just about Jake; it’s about the Globe too.
A little birdie told me that Jake is a republican.
This kerfuffle reflects poorly on the Globe editorial staff, which comes off as some combination of lazy, inept, and easily intimidated. What do they hope to “discover” from their conversation that they didn’t know before, or could have found out from their (supposed) due diligence? If they rescind their endorsement under these circumstances, it would say more about them then it would Jake. This also reflects poorly on the other candidates, some of whom not even a week ago were saying how newspaper endorsements don’t matter. I guess they do matter when they go to someone else. Are they counting on the Globe to do for them what they’ve been unable to do up until now (besides woke virtue signaling)? Even if Jake isn’t the right person for Congress, I’m not sure that any of the others are either after this episode.
I agree with FG. If the Globe rescinds the endorsement – that would be a hugely embarrassing move for them, and would reflect poorly on BG more than on Jake. There is no new information that whoever did the “research” for them couldn’t have found out by typing “Jake Auchincloss” into Google. What a mess.
@Irene and @FG, actually there is new information which appeared after the Globe editorial board’s deliberations, i.e. the Politico article about Auchincloss’ Quran, Indigenous Peoples’ Day, and Steve Bannon tweets.
…and the Tweets wouldn’t have been available to the Globe, because according to Politico,
I am voting for someone other than Mr. Auchincloss in the primary but I am quite offended by the hyperbolic personal attacks against a member of our community who has served our city and country. It is especially disturbing that most of the vitriol is coming from a commenter “Michael,” who is anonymous and supposedly doesn’t even live in our town. It is surprising that this blog allows such hatred from an anonymous man or woman towards our neighbor. It seems downright cowardly to not have the courage to stand behind one’s name when making such allegations.
I agree with Bob Jampol. It’s not necessarily the topic but the tone of the posts. I am also getting what seems like daily anti Jake mailers. Today’s was from womenvoterproject.org. I checked out their website to find out more on what they are about. Their site consists of one page of sayings that they want people to tweet or post on Facebook but no content of substance. ..not even an explanation of who they are. It blows my mind that people would push this info to their friends etc without truly understanding who this organization is behind this message. Of course by googling I found the connection to Emily’s list. I am pro choice however something about this approach does not sit well with me. Give me explanations of substance not just one liners. All that said I am undecided.
As a former City Councilor, along with being a former Marine (I’m currently in a few things like being a father/grandfather/concerned resident), I’m tired of this nonsense. The time has come for everyone campaigning to grow up and tell us what “they” will do for the 4th District!! I grew up in South Attleboro, and SE Mass, there are issues there that make most of this conversation look out of touch.
Jake has a public record because he got involved, show me a modern day list of Newton grads that joined the Marines out of college, during a war, then devoted time and money to become a CIty Councilor? Also, who made all of you throwing criticism of his party affiliation the “gate keepers” of the Democratic Party? How about everyone campaign with “what values will you bring to the residents of the 4th?”
My guess is we can find things about everyone running if we look (pay) hard for information!!! Oh, and I’m a former Democrat, and I would not at all consider Jake a Republican. My$.02 cents worth of advice.
I agree with James Cote. Stop slinging the mud at the front runner. Jake served his Country ably as a Marine Captain with two tours of duty. He will be a fine Representative for MA-4. Let the other candidates focus on their records and what they can deliver. It seems to me that Village 14 is fast becoming a forum to bring down Jake’s candidacy. As Michelle Obama says “when they go low we go high”.
Well said @James Cote and @Peter Karg. (Also, Mr. Cote, thank you for your service and bringing commonsense remarks as a former Marine and native of SE Mass).
In view of all the mudslinging, it is amazing how little discussion there has been here on Village14 comparing the candidates’ positions on healthcare, transportation, education, energy, the economy, the environment, and public safety.
Michael Murphy, I’m not sure how you using your last name somehow makes you “courageous” – am I supposed to know or care who you are, just because you added “Murphy” to your username? Or are you just interested in doxing me?
I would be absolutely elated to meet in person with Councilor Auchincloss to discuss our own personal choices when it came to serving our country within the context of a couple of illegal wars and occupations. Jake joined the military (USMC). I joined the diplomatic corps (U.S. Foreign Service). Was Jake’s choice somehow more worthy or courageous than mine?
I can certainly tell you one thing – tweeting “So we can’t burn their book, but they can burn our flag?” would have disqualified his candidacy as a Foreign Service Officer.
@Michael: Great you joined the Foreign Service, as they do serve a real purpose and add value to our international relations, “but” you’re not running for office. I’m sure you’re a great person, “but” its not about you, it’s about the candidates who seek to represent the MA4th. Please note in history that the American Revolution was an illegal war from the British perspective. So I guess legal depends upon which side your on.
Michael (with no last name so you sling mud under the shield of anonymity), you are embarrassing yourself to compare your service as a bureaucrat with anyone who is asked to potentially die for our country. Humor us and tell everyone where you were stationed.
When Jake Auchincloss first ran for the Board/Council, some members of the NDCC vociferously objected on the grounds that he wasn’t a Democrat as he claimed to be. That controversy quickly degenerated into an argument about name-calling, and the substance got lost, though the kernel of it is surely still out there somewhere on the Internet for an editorial board doing its job properly to discover. I have always found the Globe much more eager to stereotype Newton than to learn anything about it. I’d hoped that the new, enhanced reporting via journalism students indicated a change of attitude. I guess not.
@James, thanks – I was responding to @Michael Murphy’s comment about “courage” and my supposedly “cowardly” attacks against a man “who has served our country.” As for legality I was referring to 21st century international law.
Hey folks, while we allow people to comment anonymously, you’re not required to respond to them.
Responding amplifies their comments and encourages them to continue.
Just a thought.
Jeffrey Pontiff – talk about embarrassing one’s self. You’re really willing to put your name on that disgusting, chickenhawk insult? https://www.afsa.org/afsa-memorial-plaque-list
Michael, Don’t forget to tell everyone where you “served.” I can’t wait to find out.
I just listened to the League of Women Voters debate for MA-4 primary candidates and To my mind Jake was the least interesting and/or appealing one of them all.
Tweets from Bina Venkataraman, editorial page editor at the Globe:
And with that, I’m closing this thread to further comments. It’s outlived its usefulness, in my opinion.