Boston Globe columnist Shirley Leung’s begins..
How is it possible that Jake Auchincloss is the perceived front-runner in a congressional race in Massachusetts?
We are living in a moment that calls for systemic change on race and gender. Yet amid an impressive field of millennial female energy, somehow the thirty-something Newton city councilor, former Marine captain, and recovering Republican has the momentum in the hotly contested Democratic primary to fill Representative Joe Kennedy’s seat.
Auchincloss recently gained a coveted endorsement from the Globe editorial board and is bankrolling TV ads through a super PAC funded by his parents.
Folks, this ain’t 1999 when all the rich kids get their way.
The moment clearly calls for Jesse Mermell, 40, who has spent her life preparing for it. She has been a ….
The comments from the really impressive list of individuals Leung quotes in her column really resonates with me because I’ve also been really impressed with Jesse Mermell.
For about six months last year I sat on a committee of business leaders Mermell co-chaired that was tasked with creating a set of recommendations to improve our state’s transportation infrastructure.
We didn’t always agree. But I was always struck by what a good listener, facilitator and consensus builder Jesse was.
And when you think about it, those skills are every bit as important, perhaps more important, than any position on any issue to be an effective congressperson.
Yup. Exactly right, Greg. That’s why people who don’t even agree with her on an issue respect her and are keen to work with her.
Just because someone worked for Charlie Baker’s election doesn’t make them a Republican. That’s an unfair attack.
Again, I believe Jake is going to win this race and represent MA-4 with distinction. It’s not fair to use Village 14 to undercut anyone’s candidacy. Shirley Leung’s remarks related to Jake are indeed unfortunate and misguided.
True. But being a registered Republican makes one a Republican. Or at least a former Republican. Not saying that’s a disqualification, only saying it’s factually correct.
Greg, did it trouble you that Mayor Fuller was a registered Republican and contributed generously to several national candidates? Want to make sure we stay “factually correct”.
Peter: No. It has never mattered to me if someone was a former Democrat or a former Republican. I’ve vote voted for both. But you’ve just changed the subject Peter. You wrote
It’s neither “unfair” or an “attract.” It’s a fact that Councilor Auchincloss was once a registered Republican.
i assume this blog is going to give equal time coverage to all candidates?
Or is it going to try to influence one candidate over others?
At least be transparent about it. Ie “are you intending to weaponize this blog to push one particular candidate over others?”
Every candidate has been invited to submit a guest post. Everyone of the more than one dozen bloggers here can start a thread about any candidate.
That said, this is an opinion blog. If you’re uncomfortable with the fact that the bloggers here may have opinions, you’ve come to the wrong blog.
Greg,
Now that is clear this is an opinion blog, I don’t see why any candidates other than the “chosen” one would bother to post here as they clearly will not be treated fairly here.
That’s more than a little silly Bugek. So I will not engage further.
Greg, my point was Mayor Fuller was once a registered Republican too.
Didn’t seem to be a disqualifier. Perhaps, when Jake was hard at work to elect the best Governor (Baker) in the nation he registered as a Republican.
No big deal! The discussion should be on the substance of what each candidate will bring to Congress.
Once again Shirley Leung has shown herself to be misguided and out of touch with local residents, just like she did when she was the Globe’s leading cheerleader in favor of bringing the Olympics to Boston. That sure was brilliant, Shirley, how’d it turn out? Now Shirley claims that this is a transformative moment in terms of race and gender yet she doesn’t endorse Leckey, a woman who happens to be the only candidate of color in the race. At least she’s consistently ignorant though. As for questioning why Auchincloss is the front-runner in the race, all she need do is read to the end of the Globe’s endorsement of his candidacy, which states that he has the most promise, is the best prepared, and that he deserves your vote. When you cut through all the anti-Auchincloss animosity being spread by his opponents, that’s the truth, and that’s why Jake is the front-runner, and that’s why he is likely to win on September 1st.
@Peter & @Bugek: I’ve also been a bit troubled by the idea that this blog has been all Auchincloss, all the time. I think in some ways it is a reflection of the way the greater narrative of this race has been shaped.
I am grateful that we’re making space for candidate columns and hope there will be more opportunities to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of others so people get a broader view of their choices.
FWIW – I am undecided, I’m just trying to make sure V14 does the best job it can arming the people of Newton with information.
I think it’s telling that all the criticism of this column (from both named and anonymous commenters) isn’t on what Leung actually wrote, but instead on her character and that of the person posting it.
People keep saying they want this race to be on the issues, but I don’t read that in this forum.
The reason that people keep bringing up Jake’s past in the republican party isn’t that his affiliation matters so much. It’s that it is part of a larger pattern of him changing positions as he learns and grows over time. This isn’t a negative, this is what happens to all of us as we grow.
The question for voters (and by most accounts, he is the front runner) is whether he’s the person we want to send to Congress right now, in this phase of his career. You may decide that yes, he is now who I believe he will be as our representative, or you may decide that he isn’t ready. Or you may decide that his past stances on some issues bother you so much that you just can’t vote for him.
This is what the field has been focused on during the debates: making Jake prove his positions. This appears to be what is at the core of the Globe Q&A on Monday. In this context, things like the changing party do, in fact, matter.
Even the issue of Jake’s response to Jesse in a debate grew out of this question. She had asked about his positions, and his response was to focus on her communications skills. The public argument then shifted to talk about sexism in the race and the various responses (yes, I’m guilty here too). Lost in that were legitimate questions about past positions and how those align with what he believes today.
Worth remembering also is that the Newton-Brookline axis, which has generated most (if not all) of the candidates and has predictably set the tenor of the debate thus far, is a relatively small portion of the 4th district. As Jim Cote noted, many of the remaining communities in MA-04 might have a decidedly different outlook on things than we do here.
All the competition about who’s most ‘progressive’ is irrelevant outside of urban hubs Newton and Brookline. Needham and Wellesley are home to more centrist Democrats, who don’t focus much on urban problems on the other side of the Charles. And the rest of the district is a patchwork of blue color to middle class families, who are worried about their jobs and Covid-19 recovery. These folks want someone who will work diligently everyday in Congress to bring federal resources to schools and municipalities, improve roads and transportation to and from work, lower drug costs and end gun violence, while not getting lost in high ideals like Medicare for All, Green New Deal, Defund the Police etc. They are more traditional Democrats but not definitely progressive one. Sooo … that means Mermell has less relevancy, while Auchincloss has more.
What is intriguing to me is that while people attack Jake as a former Republican and lies abound about him from Emily’s list, the most progressive among us endorse him because they work with him and know him to be an intelligent leader with skills that come around infrequently in government. Think about it….half of the city council has endorsed Jake. 8 out of 13 women on the council endorsed him, some of which are the most progressive politicians in the state! He is pro choice, pro affordable housing pro green energy, and foreword thinking on transportation. When these progressives got to know Jake they found him to be a great leader with the skills to be successful for the District and our country. I agree with them and guess who saw this after interviewing all the candidates…the Boston Globe editorial staff. It’s easy for those who don’t know Jake to take pot shots at him and believe the lies thrown at the front runner to take him down. It’s the sad part of the political game. I hope that people don’t get sucked in to the negative twisted false and irrelevant noise and that everyone spends some time getting to know Jake. Once you do, you realize what the so many of his colleagues know, that he is ready to represent us all with distinction.
Jake Auchincloss is a man who has been afforded every possible advantage in life, yet has shown no real desire or ability to empathize with those in a position of less privilege than he, whether they be:
– Minority students intimidated by racism
https://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20200627/column-as-black-student-from-newton-i-wont-vote-for-jake-auchincloss
– Muslims outraged by the illegal U.S. invasion, occupation, and destabilization of their region
https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/se-mass/auchincloss-im-sorry-for-2010-facebook-post-about-burning-quran/
– Indigenous people who have suffered the indignities of colonization, land theft, and cultural genocide for the last 400 years
https://twitter.com/masspeaceaction/status/1289302772010094596
Please spare us the nonsense claim that anyone with any sense of social justice is supporting this guy.
Back in January, Jake stood in front of the City Council quoting a study to say that (paraphrased), “only older, while men come out to vote on housing matters”, then pushed to move the date of the Northland special election that favors the developer.
https://youtu.be/Ee7ZJUr2E_M
Jake’s position on creating housing puts the burden purely on the backs existing home owners and the private market. The latter in particular is a conflict of interest, by providing Developers an open checkbook on density, while providing only a fraction of affordable housing.
Jesse’s position on the other hand counters this conflict of interest by spreading accountability and impact equally to all citizens with government intervention and funding.
Where as Jake uses “progressive” as an end to a means, I get the impression that Jesse walks the walk, and more than just, “a good communicator and tweet” (Jake’s words).
https://jessemermell.com/issues/housing/
“Here’s Jesse’s vision for tackling our housing crisis:
Increase Affordable Housing-Related Investments. Such investments include expanding the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, funding for public housing, the National Housing Trust Fund, the Federal Historic Tax Credit, and Section 8, a federally-funded housing subsidy for seniors, the disabled, and low-income renters.
Create Federal Grants to Encourage Housing Development. Jesse will fight for new federal grants that award funding for local projects to communities that enact inclusionary zoning laws, enable the construction of more housing units, and intentionally build housing near public transportation.
Hold HUD Accountable for Its Failures. Jesse will be a leading – and loud – voice in Congress to ensure HUD better monitors and enforces existing laws and regulations aimed at ending discriminatory policies against people of color.”
Matt, something you are leaving out is the date in favor of the developer that Jake was pushing for was Super Tuesday. And Jake quoted that study as a way of arguing for increased voter turnout. He stated, correctly, that zoning meetings skew towards the populations who have the time and resources to take an evening to go to City Council meetings- generally white, older, male citizens. He was making the point that everyone deserved a voice. Not just the folks that had the time to go to zoning meetings.
Whether or not you admit it, you were arguing in the same line as many Republicans in this day and age – for lower voter turnout by making it more difficult to vote. Your views on development in Newton are your choice. But stop trying to purposefully muddy the waters as to what Jake’s intentions were during that debate.
@Ben, if memory serves, Super Tuesday was the EARLIER of the two dates. The fear was that the earlier date provides a distinct advantage to the “Yes” advocates as their campaign was solely funded by the deep pockets of the petitioning Developer, who was able to flood our neighboods with signs, mailers and free coffee while Right Size was searching it’s couches for loose dimes and nickels. Councilors Kalis and Norton argued these points right after Jake. And after all that, only 25% of registered voters turned out to vote; energized by (influenced by?) the countless dollars Northland poured into “Yes”.
But I digress….to your last point, this is not an attempt to muddy the waters, but rather clarify a salient point…note that on Jesse’s web page on housing, she his holding two of those “Yes” signs that Northland paid for. She supports the need and desire to create more affordable housing, just like our Mayor, City Council, Right Size, you and… yes, me.
The difference between the two candidates is that Jesse is taking the “medicare for all” or “new green deal” approach to creating affordable housing vs putting all of our faith in corporate entities like Northland to “do the right thing”. Relying on Developers feels a lot like “trickle down housing” does not? That’s the difference I see between Jake and Jesse (on housing) and this is the sort of clarity we all should have going to the polls (or mailing in a ballot).
Perfect clarification Ben
This is just my own opinion, based on my own life changing experiences. I think the spat over whether military service or a civilian career with the Federal Government is a more important qualifier for public office is totally irrelevant as a general statement. It depends on time and circumstance and what the candidate’s experiences were with either or with both types of service. I say this as one who saw interesting and life changing experiences in both military and civilian assignments. It has absolutely nothing to do with who is more or less patriotic.
Jake lived through dangers during his military career that I never experienced during a four year set of tours as a naval intelligence officer in the Sixth Fleet’s Mediterranean and Middle East theaters of operation. I served the last year as the Ship’s Intelligence Officer on an aircraft carrier, much of which was spent hovering off Cyprus and the Israeli and Lebanese coasts. Scary at times, but nothing like ground combat in Afghanistan. Still, it was a life changing experience for me and it turned me into a far more thoughtful, mature, and skeptical but tolerant human being. I know that Jake’s experiences must have been even more personally transformative because of their gravity and the immense danger they entailed. Still, I’m not backing Jake. It’s simply because our life experiences, for whatever reason, have led us to some fundamentally different conclusions about who we are, where we are and where we need to go as a country in this crazy world.
After my naval service, I spent 27 years at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington where I played a small, probably inconsequential part in overseeing the modern Clean Air Act that saw air pollution levels drop dramatically from 1970-2005. Still, I think I did more for the country’s well being in this civilian position than some great but lesser accomplishments during my naval tours.
RE: Fuller’s Republican past not being a disqualifier. For many people it was. It was to me – I was very uncomfortable with her past political donations. That was a very close race, too, so I think there were others put off by that.
I know that people can grow and change, but anyone who has been a Republican in the past 20 years has agreed with some terrible things or decided that these terrible things that their party has done were acceptable.
So Jake is off the table just like Fuller when she ran for mayor.
Matt Lai has a concise and I believe totally accurate analysis of the almost insurmountable obstacles (financial and otherwise) that the NO side was up against in the Northland referendum. In retrospect, I’m actually impressed at how many votes the NO side was able to capture. They employed some brilliant, wry, and energetic tactical moves that caught the YES side off balance on more than one occasions. What they lacked were the resources for a coordinated citywide strategic operation.
@Mary Mary Quite Contrary – Governor Baker is a Republican and the best Governor in the Country. He was re-elected in 2018 with 67% of the vote. Mayor Ted Mann was also a Republican and the best Mayor of Newton to serve in decades. Former US Senator Ed Brooke (a Newton resident) was a Republican who served with distinction. You can’t compare any of these people to Trump including Jake.
This just in, Jacob Auchincloss supports a woman’s right to lose! The MA-04 election, that is. Ba dum bum
I didn’t see Mermel in the trenches in Afghanistan putting her life and limb on the line. Lines like “folks, this ain’t 1999 when all the rich kids get their way,” are just silly. What is this a John Hughes movie?
Jake is leading the race because he best represents the hopes and aspirations of the entire district, not just an elite group in Brookline and Newton.
Mr. Auchincloss’s military service for a county whose military has wreaked havoc across the globe since WWII, and which military has allied itself has with the most oppressive of regimes should be highly scrutinized. It’s hard to imagine a truly progressive individual serving in the U.S. military.
@Drew Goldstein
I’m here right now, and I can assure you that there are plenty of progressives in the US Military, including me.
I would argue, that unless you identify a) why you registered as, worked for, and otherwise supported the Republican Party as recently as 2014, b) what – if anything – in your reasoning/beliefs/values has changed since then such that you now identify with he Democratic Party, and c) how this makes YOU the best choice to be the Democratic candidate, voters in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY absolutely have a reason not to vote for a former republican.
It should be noted that there is ALSO a Republican primary on September 1st. There’s only 2 candidates in that one.
Also, while it is admirable to learn and grow as we age, when I select my elected officials i’m generally looking for three things: 1-2) that we agree (and have a HISTORY of agreement) on the majority of the issues, the ability to understand and do the job, and the more nebulous “trust”.
By do the job and trust I mean that my official is sometimes going to make a call I don’t agree with – they might allow an amendment in to get a bill past a vote, but be working to remove it later. They might vote against something named the “all good things act of 2021.” I follow politics – local to national closely – but I have a family and a job. I need my representative to be able to understand what theirs is.
If elected, as the junior rep from MA I am looking for a solid Democratic backbencher, who is willing to stick with the office long enough to attain seniority on the committees that interest them the most and/or are of the most value to MA, and to use the power of a “safe” seat to move the goal posts to the left/be more progressive; work towards equality and justice for all.
There are candidates in this race that don’t seem to understand what this job is or how the hose of representatives works. There are candidates that I disagree with on the specifics or strength of their positions on the issues. And there is a candidate who as recently as 2014 was a registered republican.
/as always, this is a personal opinion.
@Noah Rivkin That may be, but armed forces are in no way progressive organizations and, as noted, the U.S, military has a horrific record since WWII. In addition, for years now the department of offense budget has been outrageous which has cost this country dearly.
So why would a progressive join the armed forces? It’s like an advocate for reasonable gun control joining the NRA or a pro-choice advocate teaming up with Phyllis Schafly instead of Gloria Steinem.
@Anne Alvarado: Trust in the U.S. government. I think that died long ago, culminating in the normalization of a pathological liar, serial cheater, and scofflaw as President.
Why shouldn’t our politicians lie, we the people vote liars and war criminals into office over and over again. We are living in a post-truth and post-shame society. Lie to the American people gets you on Dancing With The Stars. ♂️
Example of electing someone that way: I recently planned to call Kay Kahn (my state rep) to urge her to support a piece of legislation. Turns out only she was one of the authors. Stopped there.
/personal experience
//as always
Funny how Jake Auchincloss and liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer agree on Constitutionality of Freedom of Speech and Expression no matter what the cause: In an interview with former TV talk host, Larry King, Supreme Court Justice Breyer., an Army veteran, recalled how the sight of the American flag being burned during the Vietnam War triggered ‘a physical reaction of repulsion’ in him. Yet such are the burdens of living in a free society. ‘We protect expression that we hate,’ he said. ‘You can think what you want.’