This guy is so wacko. Now he goes out and tries to mend the gender gap so that Healey can say "we've nominated as many women as past adminstrations have." Dope.
Notable amongst the nominees: Merita Hopkins, longtime Corporation Counsel for the City of Boston and more recently Menino's Chief of Staff. I believe she's former FBI and is well-respected around town. While she's clearly being rewarded for her years of service, she's also eminently qualified for the job.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
LGs and Rail
During a commercial break in the Sox game, I click over to NECN and who do I see but Andrea Silbert and she says that she's announcing her Jobs Plan tomorrow. It should be interesting to see what she comes up with, given that it's what she's been hammering away on in her campaign appearances. When I saw her a couple months ago, she was also talking about investing in rail with more Federal dollars that she'd lobby for. She mentioned that again today on NECN.
Interestingly, Tim Murray put out his rail proposal today. You can get there by clicking here.
There are two competing proposals emerging here on the rail front, both valid, both require faith by the voters that their chosen candidate can pull it off.
On the one hand, you have Silbert arguing for her ability to lobby for more federal dollars. On the other hand, you have Murray advocating for a new post in the transportation department to coordinate rail efforts.
I have NO idea which is more realistic, but I'll say this, one of them seems more ripe for Republican attack and that's Murray's. Here's Hillman's argument: more Democratic bureaucracy, more government waste, yet another "government-as-solution" plan.
Silbert's has its weaknesses too: how can we expect a Democrat from MA to win more Federal transportation dollars? (By convincing Mike Capuano who sits on the transport committee, that's how. But that's another story...)
Interestingly, reading through Murray's White Paper, it contains a heckuva lot of job creation wording, which is interesting. He must have heard something about the jobs message if he's moving towards it.
Good on both of them for these ideas, and let's see who comes out ahead.
Side note: it's very apparent that Silbert and Murray are pulling farther and farther ahead on the substantive policy end of things in this LG race. Nary a peep from Goldberg recently on anything, and Kelley's a one-man band on health care these days as usual...
Interestingly, Tim Murray put out his rail proposal today. You can get there by clicking here.
There are two competing proposals emerging here on the rail front, both valid, both require faith by the voters that their chosen candidate can pull it off.
On the one hand, you have Silbert arguing for her ability to lobby for more federal dollars. On the other hand, you have Murray advocating for a new post in the transportation department to coordinate rail efforts.
I have NO idea which is more realistic, but I'll say this, one of them seems more ripe for Republican attack and that's Murray's. Here's Hillman's argument: more Democratic bureaucracy, more government waste, yet another "government-as-solution" plan.
Silbert's has its weaknesses too: how can we expect a Democrat from MA to win more Federal transportation dollars? (By convincing Mike Capuano who sits on the transport committee, that's how. But that's another story...)
Interestingly, reading through Murray's White Paper, it contains a heckuva lot of job creation wording, which is interesting. He must have heard something about the jobs message if he's moving towards it.
Good on both of them for these ideas, and let's see who comes out ahead.
Side note: it's very apparent that Silbert and Murray are pulling farther and farther ahead on the substantive policy end of things in this LG race. Nary a peep from Goldberg recently on anything, and Kelley's a one-man band on health care these days as usual...
Revolutionizing the Debate Format: LG Virtual Debate Synopsis
Well, this is pretty amazing. The folks over at Saint Kermit, who appear to include former Green party LG candidate Tony Lorenzen, have a weekly podcast that they produce.
This week, they have done something which I think could revolutionize the way debates are held in America.
They have created a "debate" out of responses to a series of questions that have been posed to 3 of the 4 LG candidates. Why does this have the potential to revolutionize how debates are held? Well, no longer will candidates have as much of a reason to dodge debates. Instead, they can simply respond to questions while on their cellphones (as 2 of the candidates here appear to have done) while driving somewhere, while sitting at home, while doing the laundry, whatever. Granted, it doesn't give the opportunity for rebuttal, but that's actually sort of nice, because the candidates actually answer the questions and aren't posturing for the camera or for a constituency. I think what they did here was interview each of the candidates individually and then splice their responses together into one mp3 file. (If that's incorrect, let me know).
Check it out here and let me know what you think.
Here's what I think:
Sam Kelley sounded quite chipper, but freaked me out a little - he's a bit squeaky sounding, which, if matched with Deval, wouldn't make for the most "baritone" of tickets. Also, after listening, can you remind me again what advanced degrees he has? Sheesh! Sam, let it go, dude. We know we're not as smart as you! As for his positions, he's clearly gunning for the enviro/health care votes and CLEARLY knows his stuff. He's the kind of person you'd want advocating on your side.
Murray: polished and clearly on message, but can't answer a question without working in his talking points. A bit Kerry-esque in that way, and sounded like a typical politician too often. I didn't get a sense of who he was like I did with the others. What do you do every day in your life? Is it all about politics? Where do you live? What's your neighborhood like? What gets you excited outside of politics? I need to feel that there's someone behind the political mask. He seems to have a bit of knowledge about a lot of issues, but I can't tell where his passion lies.
Silbert: had some surprising positions: support testing students, just not as MCAS does it; also supports graduated the income tax. Andrea, which are you? Liberal? Moderate? Actually, I think those two may be indicative of the typical mom that decides elections - wants kids to assess kids, but on realistic stuff. And doesn't like how uber-rich get away with shit like paying nothing in taxes because their accountants hide it all in trusts. She pays her fair share and wants others to do so as well. I was surprised that Silbert's buying her own healthcare and not getting that good coverage. I can't imagine having to pay for healthcare right now. It'd bankrupt me.
Here are my barebones notes on the Q&A:
Q: Health care - is it a right? Kelley: yes, and we should have single payer. Silbert: fundamental right. I know it from all angles. My parents were VA docs, and talked about it as a kid. As an employer, I provided it for 30 employees. And now I buy thin coverage because it's all we can afford. Murray: I like to think of it as a right. I joined Cong. McGovern that got signatures to support HCFA ballot question. I supported House health care bill. Companies not doing the right thing should pay the price for not doing the right thing.
Q: H. 4491 would authorize development of surplus land. Would this undermine reuse of property by localities to reuse it? Silbert: Need to see before telling how I'd vote. But local control is crucial for more afford. housing. I'm also harwich Conserv. trustee, so open space is crucial. But I wouldn't want state to be able to come in a grab land. Murray: same, I can't tell you how I'd vote. But takings should be allowed, but w/ local input. Worcester has done well preserving open space. There is state prop. in our city that should be used for either open space or econ. development. Cities and towns need prop. tax income. Kelley: I support open space and clean environement. I have masters in enviro. bio. But afford. housing is important too, and is why people are moving south. But to grow afford. housing, we need to improve rail to 495 belt.
Q: MCAS: good? Kelley: no. Murray: Ed reform gains lost under Romney; Silbert: while testing is a decent principle, it needs to be done to test ability not memory.
Q: how would you reform MA taxes to make them more fair? Silbert: graduate income tax. Kelley: prop 2.5 is unfair, we need to reform. Murrray: oppose rollback, prop tax too regressive; close loopholes like telecom site exemption.
Q: How do you convince nonvoters to come out in general? Murray: we need leadership, get people more competitive. We're low in job growth nationally). Silbert: my life is thinking entrepreneurially, in addition to Dems being excited about me, Ind's and GOP even are excited about my candidacy. Kelley: I'm a listener and negotiator. I will be pulling the other LG candidates onto my team. Clean enviro., safe neighborhoods.
Q: What does green mean to you? Murray: Kermit, St. patty's day, money, brownfields clean up, green buildings. Look at IBEW 103 windmill, reduce greenhouse gas from public vehicles. Silbert: green means how you live your life. I'm a self-proclaimed tree-hugger. Worked in Costa Rica as a kid, now I compost organic waste, I drive fuel economic car; husband is a fly fisherman. Kelley: healthy forests, renewable energy, revitalize open space, clean air, reduce CO2. Healthy balanced ecosystem.
This week, they have done something which I think could revolutionize the way debates are held in America.
They have created a "debate" out of responses to a series of questions that have been posed to 3 of the 4 LG candidates. Why does this have the potential to revolutionize how debates are held? Well, no longer will candidates have as much of a reason to dodge debates. Instead, they can simply respond to questions while on their cellphones (as 2 of the candidates here appear to have done) while driving somewhere, while sitting at home, while doing the laundry, whatever. Granted, it doesn't give the opportunity for rebuttal, but that's actually sort of nice, because the candidates actually answer the questions and aren't posturing for the camera or for a constituency. I think what they did here was interview each of the candidates individually and then splice their responses together into one mp3 file. (If that's incorrect, let me know).
Check it out here and let me know what you think.
Here's what I think:
Sam Kelley sounded quite chipper, but freaked me out a little - he's a bit squeaky sounding, which, if matched with Deval, wouldn't make for the most "baritone" of tickets. Also, after listening, can you remind me again what advanced degrees he has? Sheesh! Sam, let it go, dude. We know we're not as smart as you! As for his positions, he's clearly gunning for the enviro/health care votes and CLEARLY knows his stuff. He's the kind of person you'd want advocating on your side.
Murray: polished and clearly on message, but can't answer a question without working in his talking points. A bit Kerry-esque in that way, and sounded like a typical politician too often. I didn't get a sense of who he was like I did with the others. What do you do every day in your life? Is it all about politics? Where do you live? What's your neighborhood like? What gets you excited outside of politics? I need to feel that there's someone behind the political mask. He seems to have a bit of knowledge about a lot of issues, but I can't tell where his passion lies.
Silbert: had some surprising positions: support testing students, just not as MCAS does it; also supports graduated the income tax. Andrea, which are you? Liberal? Moderate? Actually, I think those two may be indicative of the typical mom that decides elections - wants kids to assess kids, but on realistic stuff. And doesn't like how uber-rich get away with shit like paying nothing in taxes because their accountants hide it all in trusts. She pays her fair share and wants others to do so as well. I was surprised that Silbert's buying her own healthcare and not getting that good coverage. I can't imagine having to pay for healthcare right now. It'd bankrupt me.
Here are my barebones notes on the Q&A:
Q: Health care - is it a right? Kelley: yes, and we should have single payer. Silbert: fundamental right. I know it from all angles. My parents were VA docs, and talked about it as a kid. As an employer, I provided it for 30 employees. And now I buy thin coverage because it's all we can afford. Murray: I like to think of it as a right. I joined Cong. McGovern that got signatures to support HCFA ballot question. I supported House health care bill. Companies not doing the right thing should pay the price for not doing the right thing.
Q: H. 4491 would authorize development of surplus land. Would this undermine reuse of property by localities to reuse it? Silbert: Need to see before telling how I'd vote. But local control is crucial for more afford. housing. I'm also harwich Conserv. trustee, so open space is crucial. But I wouldn't want state to be able to come in a grab land. Murray: same, I can't tell you how I'd vote. But takings should be allowed, but w/ local input. Worcester has done well preserving open space. There is state prop. in our city that should be used for either open space or econ. development. Cities and towns need prop. tax income. Kelley: I support open space and clean environement. I have masters in enviro. bio. But afford. housing is important too, and is why people are moving south. But to grow afford. housing, we need to improve rail to 495 belt.
Q: MCAS: good? Kelley: no. Murray: Ed reform gains lost under Romney; Silbert: while testing is a decent principle, it needs to be done to test ability not memory.
Q: how would you reform MA taxes to make them more fair? Silbert: graduate income tax. Kelley: prop 2.5 is unfair, we need to reform. Murrray: oppose rollback, prop tax too regressive; close loopholes like telecom site exemption.
Q: How do you convince nonvoters to come out in general? Murray: we need leadership, get people more competitive. We're low in job growth nationally). Silbert: my life is thinking entrepreneurially, in addition to Dems being excited about me, Ind's and GOP even are excited about my candidacy. Kelley: I'm a listener and negotiator. I will be pulling the other LG candidates onto my team. Clean enviro., safe neighborhoods.
Q: What does green mean to you? Murray: Kermit, St. patty's day, money, brownfields clean up, green buildings. Look at IBEW 103 windmill, reduce greenhouse gas from public vehicles. Silbert: green means how you live your life. I'm a self-proclaimed tree-hugger. Worked in Costa Rica as a kid, now I compost organic waste, I drive fuel economic car; husband is a fly fisherman. Kelley: healthy forests, renewable energy, revitalize open space, clean air, reduce CO2. Healthy balanced ecosystem.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Patrick's Call for Unity & Debates
Just got an email from Deval that included his letter to Tom and Chris calling for unity and, at least, monthly debates in May, June, July, August and September.
You can read the letter (and press release) here.
This strikes me as a good plan, but here's my worry: if Tom and Chris agree to debates, will the media broadcast them in substantive timeslots? Remember 1996 when Kerry and Weld had debates that started right about now in the year, and kept them going through to November? That was cool. And they were in cool places too, like Mechanics Hall and Faneuil Hall.
I'd love that to happen now: hold debates in big open places where people can come and see them, and where you get a sense of how important the debates really are. I know the TV stations want to create these fancy red, white and blue sets, but the debates end up sounding just like news broadcasts.
I also hope that the big radio news outlets (WBZ-1030 and WBUR-90.9) agree to hold two hour debates from like 7-9 pm, perhaps even on multiple occasions.
Or, and here's my dream scenario, all 6 networks (4, 5, 7, Fox, WB and GBH) agree to broadcast three TV debates amongst the candidates. Unlikely given the ratings and access each station wants to claim as its own, but who knows.
A 'BUR, GBH TV/Radio debate could be cool too.
And, all things being equal, the LG candidates should get at lesat 2 statewide TV debates (and not only on shows like Kellers or the dreadful Greater Boston). The LG debates should be in the 7-8 timeslot.
Thoughts? I know, I'm reaching here.
You can read the letter (and press release) here.
This strikes me as a good plan, but here's my worry: if Tom and Chris agree to debates, will the media broadcast them in substantive timeslots? Remember 1996 when Kerry and Weld had debates that started right about now in the year, and kept them going through to November? That was cool. And they were in cool places too, like Mechanics Hall and Faneuil Hall.
I'd love that to happen now: hold debates in big open places where people can come and see them, and where you get a sense of how important the debates really are. I know the TV stations want to create these fancy red, white and blue sets, but the debates end up sounding just like news broadcasts.
I also hope that the big radio news outlets (WBZ-1030 and WBUR-90.9) agree to hold two hour debates from like 7-9 pm, perhaps even on multiple occasions.
Or, and here's my dream scenario, all 6 networks (4, 5, 7, Fox, WB and GBH) agree to broadcast three TV debates amongst the candidates. Unlikely given the ratings and access each station wants to claim as its own, but who knows.
A 'BUR, GBH TV/Radio debate could be cool too.
And, all things being equal, the LG candidates should get at lesat 2 statewide TV debates (and not only on shows like Kellers or the dreadful Greater Boston). The LG debates should be in the 7-8 timeslot.
Thoughts? I know, I'm reaching here.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
En Espanol: Patrick & Silbert Get It
So I was trying to think of other ways to analyze the races for Governor and LG and came up with this: let's see which candidates have multiple languages on their websites.
I was sorely disappointed.
Only Deval Patrick and Andrea Silbert have a link to click on to read about them in other languages. Deval has pages in Spanish, French and Portugese. Andrea has an intro page in Spanish and a Spanish bio page as well. I've heard that she knows Portugese too, so I don't know why she doesn't have a page for that community as well.
Kudos to Deval and Andrea and I hope that the others get hopping. You'd think they'd want to be able to appeal to that diverse crowd of voters whose first language may not be English.
Shame also on the MassDem party. Its website does not contain any Spanish, nor does the new Victory06 website. Come on folks, let's truly be the party of ALL people. The MassGOP website has no Spanish, nor does Healey's. This is an opportunity for us, and given the fluff that the press has been writing about, this seems to be perfect fodder for those reporters who are too lazy to delve into actual substantive issues. (Yes, I'm also too lazy for substance, but hey, my job isn't to write for a newspaper; it's to post blog comments all day.)
I was sorely disappointed.
Only Deval Patrick and Andrea Silbert have a link to click on to read about them in other languages. Deval has pages in Spanish, French and Portugese. Andrea has an intro page in Spanish and a Spanish bio page as well. I've heard that she knows Portugese too, so I don't know why she doesn't have a page for that community as well.
Kudos to Deval and Andrea and I hope that the others get hopping. You'd think they'd want to be able to appeal to that diverse crowd of voters whose first language may not be English.
Shame also on the MassDem party. Its website does not contain any Spanish, nor does the new Victory06 website. Come on folks, let's truly be the party of ALL people. The MassGOP website has no Spanish, nor does Healey's. This is an opportunity for us, and given the fluff that the press has been writing about, this seems to be perfect fodder for those reporters who are too lazy to delve into actual substantive issues. (Yes, I'm also too lazy for substance, but hey, my job isn't to write for a newspaper; it's to post blog comments all day.)
Globe Double Speak
.08 Acres and a Donkey beat me to it, but this morning's editorial in the Globe is a bit two-faced, dontcha think? One day they want all tax info released, the next day they're slamming coverage of candidate wealth? C'mon. I agree with this editorial, but have they read their own paper?
In fairness, the truth is that these stories don't materialize on their own. Campaigns put them out by dropping them to the press who runs with them. The following stories were clearly put out by campaigns: Patrick's mortgages (by Reilly to make him the regular guy); Murray's fundraising woes (by Murray to lower expectations before a big March); private schools (Reilly, see above). I could go on...
Also, in fairness, this is the opinion page, so maybe the silver lining here is that we have evidence that the editorial and news divisions really are divided by a wall! Hooray!
UPDATE: Commenter MaverickDem makes a very valid point below: Patrick's people likely did push that story about Reilly's fundraiser. Anyone else have other examples, feel free to comment and I'll note them here.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Dumb Ethics Ruling on Politics in State House
The Boston Globe this morning details this State Ethics Commission Ruling that bars elected officials from engaging in political activities in the State House and other state facilities.
While this makes sense in principle, the breadth of the ruling is dumb and impractical. In the example given in the article,
C'mon.
While this makes sense in principle, the breadth of the ruling is dumb and impractical. In the example given in the article,
under the new rules, once political questions dominate the news conference, it must be stopped. ''The press officer should conclude the interview by referring the media representative to the campaign for further discussion," the advisory says.That's so impractical as to be absurd, and what Rob Gray said in the article is right: this allows Press Secretaries or officials to simply say "oops, can't touch that question, too political."
C'mon.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
BrewHaHa
Well, there was quite a brouhaha over at BMG regarding the future of Worcester. Thanks to Frank Skeffington for linking to MassChange and to Bob for promoting that post! I hope all you readers enjoy this space!
Friday, April 14, 2006
Worcester Headed for Bankruptcy?
Following on this comment to my earlier post regarding Worcester having to close schools due to financial difficulties, I was intrigued to see what the anonymous poster was referring to when s/he said that Worcester was headed towards bankruptcy if the firefighter contract is not settled. (BTW, have the cohones to ID yourself or at least give some name, even if you - like I - don't want to reveal your true identity).
I looked at the T&G website and have to correct the anonymous commenter: this assertion was NOT made by "the T&G" but rather was made by columnist Robert Nemeth in his column from Sunday, April 9th.
That said, even taking Nemeth's column for what it is - opinion and not news - it does not present the rosy picture of Worcester that has been emanating from that city's muncipal leaders.
In that column, Nemeth quotes from remarks made by MA Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco at a forum hosted by the Worcester Research Bureau. At the forum, Trimarco
Now, Trimarco's comments must be taken with multiple gains of salt. For one, he is a Republican. He has served in the Malone (as Deputy Treasurer) and Romney administrations. 'Nuff said. Second, he has just come off of a stint on Springfield's Finance Control Board. While this would appear to give him credibility on the subject, it also clouds his judgment: he saw the worst of the worst over in Springfield. Unless Worcester's municipal leaders are papering over their problems, or unless they are oblivious to their problems, Trimarco's comments may not hold as much water as Nemeth would like them to.
That all being said, if Worcester's fiscal situation is as precarious as this column indicates, watch out - that thing falling on your head might be the Murray campaign's chances in September. If Murray can't repair his own ship's leaking holes, how can he be trusted to repair the damage inflicted by the Romney Healey nightmare? I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the coming months.
I looked at the T&G website and have to correct the anonymous commenter: this assertion was NOT made by "the T&G" but rather was made by columnist Robert Nemeth in his column from Sunday, April 9th.
That said, even taking Nemeth's column for what it is - opinion and not news - it does not present the rosy picture of Worcester that has been emanating from that city's muncipal leaders.
In that column, Nemeth quotes from remarks made by MA Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco at a forum hosted by the Worcester Research Bureau. At the forum, Trimarco
If this is true and the City's finances are not in good shape, then this could have a huge impact on Mayor Murray's statewide aspirations. If Worcester is the Enron of Massachusetts municipal finance...delivered a stern warning: "You are on an unsustainable road. Unless you turn around, you’ll be Springfield-like. Your stability factor is zero."
Now, Trimarco's comments must be taken with multiple gains of salt. For one, he is a Republican. He has served in the Malone (as Deputy Treasurer) and Romney administrations. 'Nuff said. Second, he has just come off of a stint on Springfield's Finance Control Board. While this would appear to give him credibility on the subject, it also clouds his judgment: he saw the worst of the worst over in Springfield. Unless Worcester's municipal leaders are papering over their problems, or unless they are oblivious to their problems, Trimarco's comments may not hold as much water as Nemeth would like them to.
That all being said, if Worcester's fiscal situation is as precarious as this column indicates, watch out - that thing falling on your head might be the Murray campaign's chances in September. If Murray can't repair his own ship's leaking holes, how can he be trusted to repair the damage inflicted by the Romney Healey nightmare? I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the coming months.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Woodlief on Convention
Interesting post by David over at BMG regarding the Convention. I commented there and won't waste bandwidth here.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Worcester Schools Shuttered
Following on this thread I participated in over at BMG earlier this year, it appears that the Worcester School Committee has voted to close four elementary schools in Worcester. It remains to be seen what impact this will have not only on the City of Worcester but on Tim Murray's LG candidacy.
There were some interesting comments over at the BMG thread and I encourage you all to read through it. Now that we're 2 months past that thread, what do you think will happen? What will the political fallout from this be?
There were some interesting comments over at the BMG thread and I encourage you all to read through it. Now that we're 2 months past that thread, what do you think will happen? What will the political fallout from this be?
Needham Override Fails
From this morning's Globe:
NEEDHAM
Voters reject override for school programsVoters last night rejected the School Department's proposed $1.48 million override, which would have funded several programs such as the Science Center, elementary Spanish, high school athletics, and the hiring of 16 teachers. Voters approved a $597,370 override to support town expenses, including two police officers, one firefighter, library materials, and money to revamp the website. The failed school override will mean the Science Center will be closed next fall and athletic fees will increase to $285 per student per sport.
I think we all know who we can blame for Needham having to be put in the position (he works on a hill in Boston, but doesn't spend much time there...)
But here's the question I pose to all of the candidates running statewide: what the Eff are YOU going to do about it? Raise the income tax? Cut the income tax? Re-allocate spending to local aid?
Want to know what I think? Here goes: we need more than what Healy has done (i.e. nothing) in her role as the "liaison" to cities and towns. Where has she been fighting on their behalf? Nowhere. But here's the bigger question: what could she really have done? Pounded on the Governor's desk, demanding that he order his executive budget-writing staff to allocate more $ to local aid? Uh, no. Could she have lobbied the Senate Prez and Speaker for more aid? Sure, but that wouldn't get her anywhere. So, I presume she's essentially been powerless.
Now, how is that going to change in a Dem administration? I dunno, it depends on how much attention the Gov wants to pay to local aid. And all the hooting and hollering by the LG candidates ain't going to make much of a difference. Be wary of the LG candidates who say that they're going to "fight for cities and towns." While that will certainly be accepted more under a Dem administration than under this current one, running on a platform to fill that role seems a bit narrow. And what about the other LG platforms? Jobs? Do we want a jobs or healthcare czar in that role? Would that be more "effective" than having an "advocate for cities and towns"?
Discuss...
p.s. - yes, I know this post is loaded with innuendo about the various LG candidates. I'm closing in on a selection, but still need to be convinced as to who I'm going to support at the convention. I await the onslaught of posts from the campaigns...
Monday, April 10, 2006
LG March Money
Here's the LG money roundup for March, in order of cash on hand.
1. Andrea Silbert: $408,226.86
Starting Balance: $389,255.36
Receipts: $ 47,388.74
Expenses: $ 28,417.24
Net + $18,971.5
2. Tim Murray: $323.234.76
Starting Balance: $237,954.18
Receipts: $140,117.74
Expenses: $54,836.76
Net + $85,280.58
3. Deb Goldberg: $155,479.94
Starting Balance: $143,606.11
Receipts: $ 57,030.44
Expenses: $ 45,156.61
Net + $11,873.83
4. Sam Kelley: $26,039.26
Starting Balance: $18,709.00
Receipts: $14,090.00
Expenses: $ 6,760.54
Net + $7330.26
All in all, an impressive month for Murray. He's clearly come back after his slow-ish start to the year (hat tip to da clerk over at BMG). Feb. seemed status quo for all candidates, but this surge by Murray is noteworthy. However, his burn rate has to cause a bit of consternation. Looking inside the numbers, it appears that he spent a lot of money on invitations/printing in the first half, which is understandable because he must have had a lot of events to raise all that dough.
If Murray wants to compete with Silbert on the air, he needs to a) have another month like this in April, b) win the convention and c) start racking up political support outside of his geographic area.
Silbert, on the other hand, needs to step up the fundraising. She's plateau'd a bit, but it appears as if she expected that to happen because she hasn't been spending as freely as Murray and Goldberg have - and yet she seems to be resonating well among the people I talk to. If she goes into the Convention in the money lead and comes out with a 2nd place finish, then in my mind she'll have exceeded expectations. Even getting on the ballot will be something her campaign will be able to be proud of, given her newcomer status.
As for Goldberg, I need help: what is her deal? Is she planning to write a big check to pay for media? Is she just raising enough money to pay staff and keep a comfortable nest egg? I can't figure it out. She has all that staff, and must be thinking she's going to build political support. If someone could enlighten me as to her strategy, I'm all ears. I would love to hear from someone on the inside who can credibly, even anonomously, fill me in on her plans. I like her, but I guess I need to see more evidence that she's into this, because I just don't see her winning unless she either writes the check or has something else up her sleeve. She could, however, be planning a "June Surprise" at the convention. If she can engineer a win, then that would be a significant upset. If she can keep Silbert off the ballot (seems doubtful), then that would be even better for her. Both are unlikely though, and Murray has to be the favorite to win.
(As I've said before, Murray finishing anything but first at the convention is a shocking loss that could prove devastating to his effort. Even though the winner of the convention doesn't always go on to win the primary, and even though some might say it's a jinx to win the convention, in this case, Murray is such an insider that for him to fail to come out on top would not be good. And after raising so much and, more importantly, spending so much recently, if he doesn't win, that's bad. Also, he has been talking a fair bit recently about how he already has his 15% and has almost finished his signature gathering. To make those bold statements and not win the convention would be a failure.)
And Kelley: I'm also now wondering if he's planning to write his own check. He appears to have a small staff, but how on earth is he getting his signatures? Does he have a squad of volunteers like the others do? Perhaps, and let me know if you know. It would be a shame if he didn't get on the ballot. How is his delegate outreach going? I have heard from the others (enough, Tim!), but not from him. His Deval endorsement was bold and might put him over the bar and if so, kudos on that.
So another month of fundraising is done and things are pretty much the same. I think it's going to take a surprise at the Convention to really shake this race up. Whether it's Murray not winning, someone not getting on the ballot, or something crazy happening, this race needs a shakeup if it's going to get any attention. If that doesn't happen, then it will plod along all summer.
Look forward to your comments.
1. Andrea Silbert: $408,226.86
Starting Balance: $389,255.36
Receipts: $ 47,388.74
Expenses: $ 28,417.24
Net + $18,971.5
2. Tim Murray: $323.234.76
Starting Balance: $237,954.18
Receipts: $140,117.74
Expenses: $54,836.76
Net + $85,280.58
3. Deb Goldberg: $155,479.94
Starting Balance: $143,606.11
Receipts: $ 57,030.44
Expenses: $ 45,156.61
Net + $11,873.83
4. Sam Kelley: $26,039.26
Starting Balance: $18,709.00
Receipts: $14,090.00
Expenses: $ 6,760.54
Net + $7330.26
All in all, an impressive month for Murray. He's clearly come back after his slow-ish start to the year (hat tip to da clerk over at BMG). Feb. seemed status quo for all candidates, but this surge by Murray is noteworthy. However, his burn rate has to cause a bit of consternation. Looking inside the numbers, it appears that he spent a lot of money on invitations/printing in the first half, which is understandable because he must have had a lot of events to raise all that dough.
If Murray wants to compete with Silbert on the air, he needs to a) have another month like this in April, b) win the convention and c) start racking up political support outside of his geographic area.
Silbert, on the other hand, needs to step up the fundraising. She's plateau'd a bit, but it appears as if she expected that to happen because she hasn't been spending as freely as Murray and Goldberg have - and yet she seems to be resonating well among the people I talk to. If she goes into the Convention in the money lead and comes out with a 2nd place finish, then in my mind she'll have exceeded expectations. Even getting on the ballot will be something her campaign will be able to be proud of, given her newcomer status.
As for Goldberg, I need help: what is her deal? Is she planning to write a big check to pay for media? Is she just raising enough money to pay staff and keep a comfortable nest egg? I can't figure it out. She has all that staff, and must be thinking she's going to build political support. If someone could enlighten me as to her strategy, I'm all ears. I would love to hear from someone on the inside who can credibly, even anonomously, fill me in on her plans. I like her, but I guess I need to see more evidence that she's into this, because I just don't see her winning unless she either writes the check or has something else up her sleeve. She could, however, be planning a "June Surprise" at the convention. If she can engineer a win, then that would be a significant upset. If she can keep Silbert off the ballot (seems doubtful), then that would be even better for her. Both are unlikely though, and Murray has to be the favorite to win.
(As I've said before, Murray finishing anything but first at the convention is a shocking loss that could prove devastating to his effort. Even though the winner of the convention doesn't always go on to win the primary, and even though some might say it's a jinx to win the convention, in this case, Murray is such an insider that for him to fail to come out on top would not be good. And after raising so much and, more importantly, spending so much recently, if he doesn't win, that's bad. Also, he has been talking a fair bit recently about how he already has his 15% and has almost finished his signature gathering. To make those bold statements and not win the convention would be a failure.)
And Kelley: I'm also now wondering if he's planning to write his own check. He appears to have a small staff, but how on earth is he getting his signatures? Does he have a squad of volunteers like the others do? Perhaps, and let me know if you know. It would be a shame if he didn't get on the ballot. How is his delegate outreach going? I have heard from the others (enough, Tim!), but not from him. His Deval endorsement was bold and might put him over the bar and if so, kudos on that.
So another month of fundraising is done and things are pretty much the same. I think it's going to take a surprise at the Convention to really shake this race up. Whether it's Murray not winning, someone not getting on the ballot, or something crazy happening, this race needs a shakeup if it's going to get any attention. If that doesn't happen, then it will plod along all summer.
Look forward to your comments.
Patrick Leads Reilly 36-33
Here's the link over at CBS4.
36% said Patrick
33% said Reilly
19% said Gabrieli
11% are undecided
Probably not the best poll, but a pretty big deal nonetheless.
36% said Patrick
33% said Reilly
19% said Gabrieli
11% are undecided
Probably not the best poll, but a pretty big deal nonetheless.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
All the Stupid Articles...
What's with the flurry of dumb, non-substantive articles about the Governor's race recently?
There's this article about lawyers' donations.
There's this article about the Gov candidates living in luxury.
There's this article about the money being paid to consultants.
There's this article about Reilly's tax returns.
There's this article about Patrick's "bogus" blog vids.
OK, maybe these aren't stupid, but they feel so unoriginal. Especially that lawyer money article - why did Frank Phillips and his intern spend so much time and effort researchng that? Is it relevant? Probably. But is it news (i.e. is it new, original, etc...?) abosolutely not. We all know that while Tom Reilly is not a "good politician", he's also not someone who can easily be bought, so this kind of journalism is a waste of time. The fact is that downtown Boston has tons of lawyers, and tons of lawyers also work in other professions. So it's no surprise that people with a JD gave $$ to candidates.
Bottom line: if Frank and his intern spent as much time reviewing job creation or environmental proposals and wrote nearly a whole page about that, we as a populus would be much better off. And don't give me the "we'll cover substance as the election approaches" argument. That's crap. We need to know this stuff now and we're big enough and smart enough to be able to take it all in - contrary to the patronizing view you may have. These articles are why people get pissed off at politicians and talk about it at the water cooler or on the bus. This is why when I'm in a cab and the driver as jay Severin or Howie Carr on and the cabbie starts railing to me about how awful our politicians are, I get mad. It seems to me that a pretty simple shift in approach by these newspapers would have the potential to lead to people saying "Reilly's new ______ idea sounds interesting" or "Gabrieli's record on after-school programs is interesting." It wouldn't take much, folks...
There's this article about lawyers' donations.
There's this article about the Gov candidates living in luxury.
There's this article about the money being paid to consultants.
There's this article about Reilly's tax returns.
There's this article about Patrick's "bogus" blog vids.
OK, maybe these aren't stupid, but they feel so unoriginal. Especially that lawyer money article - why did Frank Phillips and his intern spend so much time and effort researchng that? Is it relevant? Probably. But is it news (i.e. is it new, original, etc...?) abosolutely not. We all know that while Tom Reilly is not a "good politician", he's also not someone who can easily be bought, so this kind of journalism is a waste of time. The fact is that downtown Boston has tons of lawyers, and tons of lawyers also work in other professions. So it's no surprise that people with a JD gave $$ to candidates.
Bottom line: if Frank and his intern spent as much time reviewing job creation or environmental proposals and wrote nearly a whole page about that, we as a populus would be much better off. And don't give me the "we'll cover substance as the election approaches" argument. That's crap. We need to know this stuff now and we're big enough and smart enough to be able to take it all in - contrary to the patronizing view you may have. These articles are why people get pissed off at politicians and talk about it at the water cooler or on the bus. This is why when I'm in a cab and the driver as jay Severin or Howie Carr on and the cabbie starts railing to me about how awful our politicians are, I get mad. It seems to me that a pretty simple shift in approach by these newspapers would have the potential to lead to people saying "Reilly's new ______ idea sounds interesting" or "Gabrieli's record on after-school programs is interesting." It wouldn't take much, folks...
Friday, April 07, 2006
Gabrieli: Good Start
Despite some snarking (both legit and not) on various websites, Chris Gabrieli appears to have gotten off to a pretty good start. He benefits from having credibility with the media because a) he didn't instigate the St. Fleuriasco, b) he was already vetted in 2002 and c) he's a likeable guy. I still resent his coming into this race at this stage, but I don't deny his right to do so. I also don't care that he's paying for signatures - I'd do the same thing if I felt strongly about getting my name on the ballot. The truth is that while he'll have some volunteers supporting him, he could never have a standout, never have an unpaid mailing and never have people sending "dear friend" cards and he'd still have as good a shot at winning as the others. Campaigns at the Governor's level can, theoretically, be won without a "ground game" if you can pay for TV ads, mailings and robo-calls to combat the lack of troops on the ground - and that's as legit in America as running a grass-roots campaign on a shoestring.
It appears that Gabrieli is also out there hiring people away from other ventures (read: David Howard from the Mass Dem Party). Again, I do NOT begrudge anyone for doing that either. Think of it this way: work for the Party behind the scenes, help Dems win in November, get no love post election. Or, get paid a bunch of dough to leave your job to work for Gabs, have a legit shot at winning, and get a plum post in the Gov's office if you do win, which then leads to a plum private sector job down the road with mucho $$. And if you lose, go work for Mass2020 and make the world a better place. Doesn't seem to hard of a choice to me!
All in all, kudos to the way in which Gabs has made his entry. Boos for entering the race at all.
It appears that Gabrieli is also out there hiring people away from other ventures (read: David Howard from the Mass Dem Party). Again, I do NOT begrudge anyone for doing that either. Think of it this way: work for the Party behind the scenes, help Dems win in November, get no love post election. Or, get paid a bunch of dough to leave your job to work for Gabs, have a legit shot at winning, and get a plum post in the Gov's office if you do win, which then leads to a plum private sector job down the road with mucho $$. And if you lose, go work for Mass2020 and make the world a better place. Doesn't seem to hard of a choice to me!
All in all, kudos to the way in which Gabs has made his entry. Boos for entering the race at all.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Understatement of the Week
From today's Globe: "Gabrieli Facing Charisma Questions"
I don't think there are any questions... when I saw him speak in 02 and he was "fired up" he just sounded like he was trying to be fired up and didn't give me the impression that he was serious. I know he is seriously passionate about issues, but he does not fall into that category of "inspiring public speakers" with his oratory. The words are good, though, so that's important. I will still probably support Deval, but will obviously vote for any of them in the general.
I don't think there are any questions... when I saw him speak in 02 and he was "fired up" he just sounded like he was trying to be fired up and didn't give me the impression that he was serious. I know he is seriously passionate about issues, but he does not fall into that category of "inspiring public speakers" with his oratory. The words are good, though, so that's important. I will still probably support Deval, but will obviously vote for any of them in the general.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Picket Line at Convention?
Get this: there may be a picket line of firefighters at the convention if the Worcester FD and the City don't come to a resolution.
Here's the link to the T&G Story.
If this happens, it will NOT be good for us Dems. After the St. Fleuriasco and Gabrieli jumping in, this would be yet another reason for MA voters to say "You know what, they're a mess. Let me stick with Healey who at least has her sh*t together."
I'm not excited about this prospect at all.
Here's the link to the T&G Story.
If this happens, it will NOT be good for us Dems. After the St. Fleuriasco and Gabrieli jumping in, this would be yet another reason for MA voters to say "You know what, they're a mess. Let me stick with Healey who at least has her sh*t together."
I'm not excited about this prospect at all.
Kudos to CS Monitor
This photo montage over at the CS Monitor's website is fabulous. Kudos to them for how they are handling the PR of this thus far. Awesome. And shame on ANYONE questioning Jill's patriotism. We will not let Jill be Swift-boated by you and the weasels you run with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)