Aggh! I've been attacked for my wrong, incorrect and stupid Scott Ferson insinuations from last March!
I've been trying to lay pretty low for the past week since the primary, mostly because I need to do the work I actually get paid for... But I've been drawn back in by the WonderTwins.
Looks like the braniacs over at HubPolitics have decided to use the usual GOP playbook and pounce on disproven theories as the basis for their statements (WMD, anyone?). This time they accuse Mihos and Ferson of being in cahoots to bring down Muffy.
I wish.
Hey, dingbats: I WAS WRONG. I WAS A CLUELESS BLOGGER WHO JUST DISCOVERED THE INTERNETS BACK THEN. SCOTT FERSON IS A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST WHO WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT JUST WHOOPED SOME SERIOUS ASS IN THE LG RACE.
I think they know that they are right to be very afraid that Ferson et. als. are going to unload another can of that whoopass on MuffDawg.
Even Keller gets in a dig. I LOVE it.
Hat Tip to BMG for noting this.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
LG Race: All Tied Up
In a Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll released today, the LG race is too close to call.
The numbers are as follows (with their increase over the prior Suffolk poll from 8/22):
Deb Goldberg: 25% (+19%)
Tim Murray: 22% (+11)
Andrea Silbert: 20% (+15%)
In the commentary put out by the pollster along with the results, this interesting nugget about the LG race was included:
In an August 22nd poll, the results were as follows:
Tim Murray: 11%
Deb Goldberg: 6%
Andrea Silbert: 5%
It's pretty clear that they are all gathering traction and that Deb's millions are NOT allowing her to pull away.
This means that the Silbert and Murray field operations (which I would think track the Patrick operation in various communities) will play a key role in the outcome, because Deb likely has no field operation a la Gabrieli and is relying on name recognition.
The numbers are as follows (with their increase over the prior Suffolk poll from 8/22):
Deb Goldberg: 25% (+19%)
Tim Murray: 22% (+11)
Andrea Silbert: 20% (+15%)
In the commentary put out by the pollster along with the results, this interesting nugget about the LG race was included:
“When you consider all the races, this is the one that could come down to a re-count,” said Paleologos. “However, Deval Patrick supporters could end up deciding the Lt. Governor winner by discussing it on the Deval Patrick internet platform.”
In an August 22nd poll, the results were as follows:
Tim Murray: 11%
Deb Goldberg: 6%
Andrea Silbert: 5%
It's pretty clear that they are all gathering traction and that Deb's millions are NOT allowing her to pull away.
This means that the Silbert and Murray field operations (which I would think track the Patrick operation in various communities) will play a key role in the outcome, because Deb likely has no field operation a la Gabrieli and is relying on name recognition.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Inside the LG Poll Numbers: Closer Than It Seems
While the poll numbers put out by the Globe show the LG race at 26/20/18 in the overall horserace and 27/27/16 in the "definitely vote" category, given the large numbers of undecideds remaining, it's interesting and helpful to look inside the numbers to get a sense of where things really stand.
The Globe's Political Intelligence blog points to the cross-tabs can be found here at the UNH website.
What do these numbers tell us and what do they mean?
A couple things.
First, and most obviously, this race is too low of a priority for voters to be able to predict who will win.
Second, Deb Goldberg's purported lead is not as large as it seems, and her support is not as solid as it ought to be given the money she's spent.
And now the deeper findings based on the numbers:
Deval's Voters Favor Silbert: Of the 224 people who responded to the poll who said they were voting for Deval, 24% said they'll vote for Silbert, 24% for Goldberg and 22% for Murray. But if you look at the favorability ratings for the LG candidates amongst the 227 Deval voters, the spread widens, with 32% having a favorable rating of Silbert, 27% see Murray favorably, 26% see Goldberg favorably.
What does this mean? Well, if Deval's voters come out in higher numbers, Silbert's chances go up.
Fav/Unfav: Deb's unfavorables are twice Silbert's or Murray's, which is likely a result of people seeing her more on TV and more people having the opportunity to decide they don't like her. He favorables are also higher, but that's probably for the same reason - more exposure. Another interesting note is the Silbert's favorability rating is slightly higher than Murray's, although is within the margin of error.
Goldberg v. Silbert In "Voter Belt": In the 128 to 495 belt, the race is essentially tied between Goldberg (28%) and Silbert (25%) with Murray at 18% there. This area includes, I presume everything from Woburn all the way around to Framingham, Franklin and Walpole. As people move out of the Boston area and as the commuter suburbs extend north, west and south, these are the towns where the race will be won or lost. Interesting that Murray isn't doing well here, although the margin of error is certainly in play.
Murray Cleaning Up in CMass, Low Interest in WMass; Silbert leads on Cape: In the area identified as "Central Mass", Murray gets 36%, Silbert 24%, Goldberg 17%. In Western Mass, it's only 15% Murray, 14% Goldberg and 5% Silbert. On the Cape and Islands, Silbert is at 21%, Goldberg 18% and Murray 14%.
Interestingly, the sample included the same amount of respondents from WMass (61) as from the Cape and Islands (63). Anyone know why? Are the population numbers that similar? CMass had a sample of 84, 128-495 had 144, inside 128 was 158.
Bottom line? None of us know what's going to happen.
The Globe's Political Intelligence blog points to the cross-tabs can be found here at the UNH website.
What do these numbers tell us and what do they mean?
A couple things.
First, and most obviously, this race is too low of a priority for voters to be able to predict who will win.
Second, Deb Goldberg's purported lead is not as large as it seems, and her support is not as solid as it ought to be given the money she's spent.
And now the deeper findings based on the numbers:
Deval's Voters Favor Silbert: Of the 224 people who responded to the poll who said they were voting for Deval, 24% said they'll vote for Silbert, 24% for Goldberg and 22% for Murray. But if you look at the favorability ratings for the LG candidates amongst the 227 Deval voters, the spread widens, with 32% having a favorable rating of Silbert, 27% see Murray favorably, 26% see Goldberg favorably.
What does this mean? Well, if Deval's voters come out in higher numbers, Silbert's chances go up.
Fav/Unfav: Deb's unfavorables are twice Silbert's or Murray's, which is likely a result of people seeing her more on TV and more people having the opportunity to decide they don't like her. He favorables are also higher, but that's probably for the same reason - more exposure. Another interesting note is the Silbert's favorability rating is slightly higher than Murray's, although is within the margin of error.
Goldberg v. Silbert In "Voter Belt": In the 128 to 495 belt, the race is essentially tied between Goldberg (28%) and Silbert (25%) with Murray at 18% there. This area includes, I presume everything from Woburn all the way around to Framingham, Franklin and Walpole. As people move out of the Boston area and as the commuter suburbs extend north, west and south, these are the towns where the race will be won or lost. Interesting that Murray isn't doing well here, although the margin of error is certainly in play.
Murray Cleaning Up in CMass, Low Interest in WMass; Silbert leads on Cape: In the area identified as "Central Mass", Murray gets 36%, Silbert 24%, Goldberg 17%. In Western Mass, it's only 15% Murray, 14% Goldberg and 5% Silbert. On the Cape and Islands, Silbert is at 21%, Goldberg 18% and Murray 14%.
Interestingly, the sample included the same amount of respondents from WMass (61) as from the Cape and Islands (63). Anyone know why? Are the population numbers that similar? CMass had a sample of 84, 128-495 had 144, inside 128 was 158.
Bottom line? None of us know what's going to happen.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Murray's CMass Turnout Bet: Risk vs. Reward
Well, it's finally been revealed: the hunger, the drive, the desparation of the Murray campaign has been revealed in two recent articles.
First, in this Worcester Magazine article, the secret Murray strategy has been revealed.
As I've said all along, if Murray can re-write the downballot campaign playbook and win a primary without competing on the airwaves with the bigger spending candidates, I will be happy because it will get us back to where we ough to be - running and winning grassroots campaigns. However, as we move farther and farther away from those grassroots years, I fear that we can't return to that model in non-top-of-the-ticket races.
So, that's one element of Murray's plan.
Here's the other element of it: a hunger, a drive, and indeed a sense of desparation amongst Worcester-area political operatives who can barely contain themselves about the possibility that one of their own will be elected statewide. They thought they had a shot with D'Amico back in '86, but that fizzled. And now they have the (pasty) white knight they've been dreaming of for decades. Take this quote from "Worcester man-about-town and Democratic Party activist extraordinaire" John Brissette in today's Worcester T&G while he was directing the set up for Murray's election night party:
But their arrogance doesn't stop there. In that same T&G article, the Murray campaign is blatantly asserting that their candidate is the one to pick if Deval Patrick wins.
Are you kidding me? I'm not asking that for political reasons, because projecting confidence is important. And each of the LG candidates can make a credible political argument why they are the most appropriate running mate for Deval Patrick or any of the others too. But could you BE more presumptuous, arrogant and disrespectful? People don't like being told who to vote for, and an article like this certainly won't help that. People want to vote for winners, people who instill confidence, but when they detect a candidate's sense of entitlement, that don't work.
I'd advise the Murray campaign to tone down that rhetoric in tomorrow's debate because the whiplash can getcha everytime.
So, there's the playbook: increase turnout in Worcester County and environs and hope that investing in direct-mail advertising and gotv will trump advertising on television. I hope for the sake of democracy they're right. Otherwise those State Police will have to shift from escort duty to suicide watch.
First, in this Worcester Magazine article, the secret Murray strategy has been revealed.
...Murray’s... talking predicted voter turnout in Worcester with [campaign manager Joe] O’Brien. “Only 66,000 four years ago,” says Murray. Joe calls for 100,000 this time around, at least.So there it is: the Murray campaign is counting on increasing turnout in Worcester County by 40,000 voters. If they do that, good on them, but any seasoned political operative knows an extraordinary field/GOTV operation is good for 3-5% points. Even with Deval Patrick's purported unprecedented field operation statewide, increasing turnout by 66% is a pipe dream. Taking it one step further, if they are able to increase turnout in Worcester County by that large an amount, presumably working in concert with the Patrick campaign's GOTV operation, it will be because something bigger than any of them is happening in the state and turnout across the board will be greater - which will help the other candidates and lift all boats.
As I've said all along, if Murray can re-write the downballot campaign playbook and win a primary without competing on the airwaves with the bigger spending candidates, I will be happy because it will get us back to where we ough to be - running and winning grassroots campaigns. However, as we move farther and farther away from those grassroots years, I fear that we can't return to that model in non-top-of-the-ticket races.
So, that's one element of Murray's plan.
Here's the other element of it: a hunger, a drive, and indeed a sense of desparation amongst Worcester-area political operatives who can barely contain themselves about the possibility that one of their own will be elected statewide. They thought they had a shot with D'Amico back in '86, but that fizzled. And now they have the (pasty) white knight they've been dreaming of for decades. Take this quote from "Worcester man-about-town and Democratic Party activist extraordinaire" John Brissette in today's Worcester T&G while he was directing the set up for Murray's election night party:
“How long’s it been?” Mr. Brissette said as he directed logistics in the middle of Union Station’s expansive marble-floored entry hall yesterday afternoon. “We’ve got a shot in Worcester to do something really big. We can’t blow it.”There you have it. These guys feel a sense of ownership, which is good. But there's also that sense of desparation; if their man doesn't win, it seems like these guys won't know what to do with themselves. But another excerpt from this article shows how confident they are:
With a state police escort, I presume? There's some Herald front page fodder for ya...
If he wins, Mr. Murray will deliver a speech to local supporters before being whisked to Boston to appear on stage with whoever is victorious in the primary for governor.
But their arrogance doesn't stop there. In that same T&G article, the Murray campaign is blatantly asserting that their candidate is the one to pick if Deval Patrick wins.
Are you kidding me? I'm not asking that for political reasons, because projecting confidence is important. And each of the LG candidates can make a credible political argument why they are the most appropriate running mate for Deval Patrick or any of the others too. But could you BE more presumptuous, arrogant and disrespectful? People don't like being told who to vote for, and an article like this certainly won't help that. People want to vote for winners, people who instill confidence, but when they detect a candidate's sense of entitlement, that don't work.
I'd advise the Murray campaign to tone down that rhetoric in tomorrow's debate because the whiplash can getcha everytime.
So, there's the playbook: increase turnout in Worcester County and environs and hope that investing in direct-mail advertising and gotv will trump advertising on television. I hope for the sake of democracy they're right. Otherwise those State Police will have to shift from escort duty to suicide watch.
Friday, September 15, 2006
WBUR Helpful Candidate Interviews - Gov and LG
WBUR has a helpful page that contains links to interviews with each of the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
WBUR's Election Page.
Deval Patrick.
Chris Gabrieli.
Tom Reilly.
Andrea Silbert.
Tim Murray.
Deb Goldberg .
These interviews are perhaps a better way of deciding who to vote for than reading a position paper or blog because you get to hear who these people are and how they talk to you.
For anyone who is still undecided after reading and studying the candidates, perhaps listening to these clips will help you make up your mind.
WBUR's Election Page.
Deval Patrick.
Chris Gabrieli.
Tom Reilly.
Andrea Silbert.
Tim Murray.
Deb Goldberg .
These interviews are perhaps a better way of deciding who to vote for than reading a position paper or blog because you get to hear who these people are and how they talk to you.
For anyone who is still undecided after reading and studying the candidates, perhaps listening to these clips will help you make up your mind.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Goldberg Whines While Silbert Shines
Apparently Deb Goldberg has taken out a full page ad in today's Brookline Tab complaining about the Tab's failure to endorse her and instead endorse Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor.
Does anyone else find this hysterical?
Now I have not seen the ad, but the Boston Globe noted that she'd done this, as did onBrookline.com's editor, and former Tab columnist, Jim Conley who posted this excerpt from the print ad.
This is absolutely pathetic on Goldberg's part.
First of all, it confirms what many of us already believe about her: that she is thin-skinned and can't take the heat.
But it also re-confirms something I already know, which is that she feels entitled to support from her hometown and is incredulous that it is not forthcoming.
Lastly, it shows me how off-base her priorities are. Can you imagine the scene at the Goldberg HQ last week when the editorial came down? I guarantee that her staff spent valuable time this past week working this ad, time that could have been spent on getting in touch with voters. I also am sure that Deb wasted hours on the phone speaking to her Brookline homies who were, like her, SHOCKED.
(I'm sure they are all hot at Dan Payne who informed the world outside the Blogosphere today that the Tab hadn't endorsed Debbie and insted went with Silbert. Payne's a Newton guy, part of that whole Brookline/Newton political crew that grew up with JFK, came of age with Barney Frank and The Duke, and now think that they're god's gift to politics. Think again, folks, because the people who matter most in Mass. politics these days live in towns like Wayland, Ashland, East Bridgewater, Wakefield and Franklin.)
If the people who know Deb Goldberg best do not think that she is ready to be our LG nominee, should the rest of us? I think I answered my own question.
Well, it all plays well into Ms. Andrea Silbert's hands, because she, apparently, has been spending the last week getting a story about her in papers around the state just about every day - something which ain't too shabby for an unelected candidate who supposedly has no base.
But don't forget, Andrea's a Brookline native too, and she got a ton of support at the convention from Deb's hometown delegates who knew Deb and liked Andrea better.
Deb, it's too bad it's come to this. I said to myself last week that I thought your $2 million could innocculate your campaign from worrying about these kinds of things, but that's evidently not the case. Actually, I should clarify: I'm sure your campaign staff wasn't worried about it, but you made them worry.
I wish you luck on Tuesday because you're going to need it now more than you needed it yesterday.
Does anyone else find this hysterical?
Now I have not seen the ad, but the Boston Globe noted that she'd done this, as did onBrookline.com's editor, and former Tab columnist, Jim Conley who posted this excerpt from the print ad.
“Your misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of dedicated and hard working public servants are not worthy of refutation (sic).”
This is absolutely pathetic on Goldberg's part.
First of all, it confirms what many of us already believe about her: that she is thin-skinned and can't take the heat.
But it also re-confirms something I already know, which is that she feels entitled to support from her hometown and is incredulous that it is not forthcoming.
Lastly, it shows me how off-base her priorities are. Can you imagine the scene at the Goldberg HQ last week when the editorial came down? I guarantee that her staff spent valuable time this past week working this ad, time that could have been spent on getting in touch with voters. I also am sure that Deb wasted hours on the phone speaking to her Brookline homies who were, like her, SHOCKED.
(I'm sure they are all hot at Dan Payne who informed the world outside the Blogosphere today that the Tab hadn't endorsed Debbie and insted went with Silbert. Payne's a Newton guy, part of that whole Brookline/Newton political crew that grew up with JFK, came of age with Barney Frank and The Duke, and now think that they're god's gift to politics. Think again, folks, because the people who matter most in Mass. politics these days live in towns like Wayland, Ashland, East Bridgewater, Wakefield and Franklin.)
If the people who know Deb Goldberg best do not think that she is ready to be our LG nominee, should the rest of us? I think I answered my own question.
Well, it all plays well into Ms. Andrea Silbert's hands, because she, apparently, has been spending the last week getting a story about her in papers around the state just about every day - something which ain't too shabby for an unelected candidate who supposedly has no base.
But don't forget, Andrea's a Brookline native too, and she got a ton of support at the convention from Deb's hometown delegates who knew Deb and liked Andrea better.
Deb, it's too bad it's come to this. I said to myself last week that I thought your $2 million could innocculate your campaign from worrying about these kinds of things, but that's evidently not the case. Actually, I should clarify: I'm sure your campaign staff wasn't worried about it, but you made them worry.
I wish you luck on Tuesday because you're going to need it now more than you needed it yesterday.
Somerville's & Cambridge's Choice: Deval Patrick & Andrea Silbert
In an editorial published today, the Somerville Journal endorsed Deval Patrick for Governor and Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor. In an identical editorial, the Cambridge Chronicle endorsed the same team.
On Deval, the editors note
Congratulations to the Patrick and Silbert campaigns.
On Deval, the editors note
Deval Patrick understands that cities facing the challenges presented to Somerville - aging infrastructure, few train stops despite many trains running through the city, children of many languages to educated and a sky-rocketing cost of living - can become opportunities with the right help from the state. Patrick is the only candidate in favor of returning local aid to the cities and not to the pockets of wealthy suburbanites via ill-advised tax cuts.To complement him, the editors endorse Andrea Silbert and write
She has real ideas on retaining companies in this state - so those started in Cambridge can flourish here in Massachusetts - and she has real experience in getting into the workforce a diverse group of women as the former CEO and co-founder of the Center for Women & Enterprise, the largest nonprofit entrepreneurial training center in New England.
Congratulations to the Patrick and Silbert campaigns.
MetroWest's Choice: Andrea Silbert
In an editorial published today, the MetroWest Daily News endorsed Andrea Silbert for Governor.
The editors note
Congratulations to the Silbert campaign.
The editors note
[W]e're most impressed by Silbert. Her grasp of the issues is sure. She speaks well, and listens well. The lieutenant governor's office has little legal definition, so she has written her own job description. At the top is economic development, a field she has explored from Wall Street to Brazil -- and in MetroWest, where her organization has helped several small businesses get started.This endorsement is significant because many think that the MetroWest area is where the primary races next week will be decided.
Congratulations to the Silbert campaign.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Newton's Choice: Andrea Silbert
Today's Newton Tab includes an endorsement of Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor and Chris Gabrieli for Governor.
The Editors note
Given that Newton's turnout in 2002 was amongst the three highest in the state (higher than Worcester, interestingly), this endorsement could have an effect on a lightly covered race.
It is also important because Deb Goldberg was thought to be running strong in Newton, given her connections to the Jewish community in Newton and Brookline. While she will likely receive the most votes in those two towns, the endorsement of Andrea Silbert by both the Brookline and Newton Tabs is telling.
The Editors note
This endorsement is significant because the Tab is delivered free to thousands of households in Newton each week and is the paper of record for local issues there.
...Andrea Silbert has shown she can be an equal to those running for governor - as well as an advocate for job creation, the environment and the homeless.
Given that Newton's turnout in 2002 was amongst the three highest in the state (higher than Worcester, interestingly), this endorsement could have an effect on a lightly covered race.
It is also important because Deb Goldberg was thought to be running strong in Newton, given her connections to the Jewish community in Newton and Brookline. While she will likely receive the most votes in those two towns, the endorsement of Andrea Silbert by both the Brookline and Newton Tabs is telling.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Globe Op-Ed: Silbert's the Star
Scot Lehigh, a longtime reporter and observer of the Massachusetts political scene, has called Andrea Silbert the "real star" of the 2006 Lieutenant Governor field in a column in today's Boston Globe.
Lehigh also not only notes that Goldberg's candidacy was "torpedoed" by her hometown paper's endorsement of Andrea Silbert, he also torpedoes the main point of the Murray candidacy - namely that we somehow needs an advocate for cities and towns in the corner office. Lehigh writes
We now have multiple, objective, experienced observers ratifying what at least 14,000 people, and likely tens of thousands more, already know - that Andrea Silbert is the best candidate to back up her campaign promises with a proven record of job creation expertise.
Lehigh also not only notes that Goldberg's candidacy was "torpedoed" by her hometown paper's endorsement of Andrea Silbert, he also torpedoes the main point of the Murray candidacy - namely that we somehow needs an advocate for cities and towns in the corner office. Lehigh writes
By my count, with 40 senators and 160 representatives regularly doing the same thing, we'd then have 201 public officials committed to that task.Spot on.
We now have multiple, objective, experienced observers ratifying what at least 14,000 people, and likely tens of thousands more, already know - that Andrea Silbert is the best candidate to back up her campaign promises with a proven record of job creation expertise.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Globe Endorses Murray
In this editorial in today's Boston Globe, the editors endorse Tim Murray for Lieutenant Governor over his rivals, Andrea Silbert and Deb Goldberg.
The editors note
Congratulations, Mr. Murray.
The editors note
Murray's best asset is his ability to see the connections among the state's many challenges, including a sluggish economy, high-cost housing, shrinking population, and rising energy and healthcare costs.
Congratulations, Mr. Murray.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Globe Endorses Patrick
The Boston Globe, in an editorial to be printed on Sunday, September 10, 2006, endorsed Deval Patrick for Governor in the Massachusetts Democratic primary to be held on September 19, 2006.
The Globe's editors chose to focus their first paragraph of policy analysis on Patrick's primary substantive focus: economic development.
His economic prescription is simple but powerful: Hold the line on income taxes; focus on support for beleaguered communities to ease property taxes; and expand the economy by making Massachusetts a more inviting place for all kinds of businesses. Despite the easy stereotype, he is no big-spending, antibusiness liberal. His ideas for economic development are as serious and sensible as any candidate's, Republican or Democrat.
Interestingly, in an interview broadcast this evening on WBZ-1030 Radio's Lovell Dyett show, Patrick was asked his greatest frustration of the campaign. He answered, and I'm paraphrasing, "the media's inability or unwillingness to focus on what is the main focus of my campaign: economic development."
It appears that focus was apparent at least to the editors of the Boston Globe.
The editors then discussed his approach to the state's new healthcare law and his plan to repair the relationship between state government and cities and towns.
He has a measured, focused approach to implementing the state's complicated new healthcare law, already fraying at the seams. Just holding together the fragile coalition that passed the universal access law and steadily making it work is challenge enough for now. ``It's important for us to get past this politics that says we have to agree on everything before we can work on anything," he says. Similarly, he wants to fix the relationship between the state and the cities and towns, which he correctly says is in ``total breakdown."
The editors have, in my opinion, correctly listed the order of priority of issues facing our next Governor:
1. Economic Development.
2. Implementing the new healthcare law.
3. Increasing local aid.
Congratulations Mr. Patrick.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Kids in Ads
There have been a lot of kids in political ads so far this year, as John Keller pointed out today in his blog when he referenced this Weekly Dig story about same.
So while we may all agree or disagree over whether Chris Gabrieli, Andrea Silbert or Tim Murray are exploiting kids in their ads, I think we can all agree that none are as bad as this ad that Rick Santorum is running in Pennsylvania.
So while we may all agree or disagree over whether Chris Gabrieli, Andrea Silbert or Tim Murray are exploiting kids in their ads, I think we can all agree that none are as bad as this ad that Rick Santorum is running in Pennsylvania.
Silbert: Brookline's Choice for LG
In a stunning move, the Brookline Tab today endorsed Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor.
Given that Deb Goldberg is from Brookline and claims it as her own, this is nothing less than a shocking upset. (For the record, Andrea Silbert is ALSO from Brookline, but has since moved to Cape Cod.) It speaks volumes as to Goldberg's qualifications when the people who know her best do not want her to be elected.
The Tab editors summed up Silbert's qualifications this way:
That's the highest of comedy. Can you imagine that traffic stop? Just think about it for a second.... OK. Now, who you gonna vote for?
In other shocking news, the West Roxbury Transcript endorsed Tim Murray. The endorsement was based primarily on property tax issues. An important issue, for sure, but not a ringing endorsement given that they could have expounded more as their Brookline colleagues did.
Given that Deb Goldberg is from Brookline and claims it as her own, this is nothing less than a shocking upset. (For the record, Andrea Silbert is ALSO from Brookline, but has since moved to Cape Cod.) It speaks volumes as to Goldberg's qualifications when the people who know her best do not want her to be elected.
The Tab editors summed up Silbert's qualifications this way:
Silbert impresses with her readiness to roll up her sleeves and get to work and with her progressive, grassroots style. She has a practical view of the limits of the lieutenant governor, yet a clear determination to negotiate a meaningful role. We are also not swayed by her opponents' claims that she lacks government experience. Her managerial background, ability to think on her feet and analytical skills give us confidence that Silbert could ably step into the governor's shoes, if needed.In an amusing turn, they also note the following about Ms. Goldberg:
And while Goldberg is campaigning under the slogan "people first," we can think of few events during her years as a selectman where that sentiment drove her decision-making. In fact, we think of a May 2003 incident when Goldberg was stopped for speeding and reportedly flashed her selectman's badge to avoid a ticket as more symbolic of her priorities.
That's the highest of comedy. Can you imagine that traffic stop? Just think about it for a second.... OK. Now, who you gonna vote for?
In other shocking news, the West Roxbury Transcript endorsed Tim Murray. The endorsement was based primarily on property tax issues. An important issue, for sure, but not a ringing endorsement given that they could have expounded more as their Brookline colleagues did.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Thoughts on Charter Schools
First off, let me say this: I am not an expert on education issues or on school funding issues. Rather, my thoughts on this issue are formed in the context of race relations, fairness and fostering innovation.
Over at BMG, there has been a lot of discussion about charter schools in this thread from last week and this thread from today. Pablo, a poster over at BMG, appears to be an expert in this field and knows far more about it than I. Read his stuff because he throws actual numbers around and knows what he's talking about.
But here's my question: if we expand charter schools, won't the most underserved communities benefit? More bluntly: won't black and latino children living in Boston and other cities have more educational opportunities than they otherwise would? Isn't it racist NOT to offer those communities new and innovative educational outlets after they have been systematically ignored, denied and oppressed for a century? Don't we want to give not just hope but real opportunity, real chances for success?
Now, perhaps "charter schools" - as strictly defined - are not the best solution. Perhaps "pilot schools" are a better option. In Boston, I know that there are a number of excellent high schools that are pilot schools. I confess I don't know the exact difference, but perhaps someone can enlighten me some more on that front as well.
But getting back to my primary point: we as a state need to ask ourselves the hard questions. I'd point people to the Oprah episode with Bill Gates from earlier this year, but I can't find the exact link. But the jist was this: Oprah followed a bunch of black and latino Chicago school kids as they toured a posh suburban white public high school, and then the suburban kids visited the inner city school. Both groups of kids (and yours truly too) were absolutely flabbergasted at the discrepancies between the schools.
But look in our own back yards. Take a walk to Madison Park high school in Roxbury. Check out the concrete wasteland surrounding it, check out its dilapidated facilities. Then check out a place like Newton North high school, and take a look at the designs famed architect Graham Gund has done for its new facility.
Now, I know it's easy to say that it's precisely because charter schools are draining money from school systems that these schools in black and latino communities are suffering. While that's probably not exactly true, it could be a factor, and please, someone, demonstrate to me why it's true if it is. But the innovation, the dedication, the cutting edge education that is going on at the vast majority of charter schools is too powerful to ignore because it is giving hope to literally thousands of kids who would otherwise be left behind due to latent racist policies that have existed for generations both inside and outside the educational arena. (I also recognize that there have been instances where charter schools have failed. But I argue that a)the successes far outweigh the failures and b) the media's fascination with the failures is due to just that: the media's fascination with failure as opposed to success (when was the last time you heard "news" that was good but wasn't in the context of some "human interest story"?)
So, where does this leave me? Here: we should not be stifling innovation and creativity in the name of saving money. We should not stifle innovation because it's taking money away from the non-charter public schools. (If this Hobbes-ian choice is occurring, the we should come up with a solution - and perhaps "Pilot schools" are an answer.)
For too long our educational system has reflected the racism that still thrives in our society today. It is only by creating a new, highly educated black and latino upper middle class that we will conquer these challenges. Because going to a prestigious college or university is such a master key for success in this world, we must do all we can to ensure more black and latino kids get into elite colleges. (Or, at the very least, sharply increase the percentage of black and latino kids that go to four year colleges.) Only then will our society become more equal, more fair, and more democratic.
Thanks.
By way of disclosure, I should state the following: I have studied critical race theory extensively, hence my thoughts on this issue. CRT is a much more complex field than simply thinking everything is racist - as too many people often assume. But after studying and working in the field, it's not too hard to see how latently racist our society is. For another powerful example, take a look at how much higher asthma rates are in black and latino communities in Boston and you'll know what I mean. That doesn't mean we can't fix it, that doesn't mean we should all feel guilty. It just means that we need innovative, entrepreneurial ways to solve the problem, and I am of the opinion that the benefits provided by charter schools is one way to accomplish the larger goal of becoming a more just society.
Over at BMG, there has been a lot of discussion about charter schools in this thread from last week and this thread from today. Pablo, a poster over at BMG, appears to be an expert in this field and knows far more about it than I. Read his stuff because he throws actual numbers around and knows what he's talking about.
But here's my question: if we expand charter schools, won't the most underserved communities benefit? More bluntly: won't black and latino children living in Boston and other cities have more educational opportunities than they otherwise would? Isn't it racist NOT to offer those communities new and innovative educational outlets after they have been systematically ignored, denied and oppressed for a century? Don't we want to give not just hope but real opportunity, real chances for success?
Now, perhaps "charter schools" - as strictly defined - are not the best solution. Perhaps "pilot schools" are a better option. In Boston, I know that there are a number of excellent high schools that are pilot schools. I confess I don't know the exact difference, but perhaps someone can enlighten me some more on that front as well.
But getting back to my primary point: we as a state need to ask ourselves the hard questions. I'd point people to the Oprah episode with Bill Gates from earlier this year, but I can't find the exact link. But the jist was this: Oprah followed a bunch of black and latino Chicago school kids as they toured a posh suburban white public high school, and then the suburban kids visited the inner city school. Both groups of kids (and yours truly too) were absolutely flabbergasted at the discrepancies between the schools.
But look in our own back yards. Take a walk to Madison Park high school in Roxbury. Check out the concrete wasteland surrounding it, check out its dilapidated facilities. Then check out a place like Newton North high school, and take a look at the designs famed architect Graham Gund has done for its new facility.
Now, I know it's easy to say that it's precisely because charter schools are draining money from school systems that these schools in black and latino communities are suffering. While that's probably not exactly true, it could be a factor, and please, someone, demonstrate to me why it's true if it is. But the innovation, the dedication, the cutting edge education that is going on at the vast majority of charter schools is too powerful to ignore because it is giving hope to literally thousands of kids who would otherwise be left behind due to latent racist policies that have existed for generations both inside and outside the educational arena. (I also recognize that there have been instances where charter schools have failed. But I argue that a)the successes far outweigh the failures and b) the media's fascination with the failures is due to just that: the media's fascination with failure as opposed to success (when was the last time you heard "news" that was good but wasn't in the context of some "human interest story"?)
So, where does this leave me? Here: we should not be stifling innovation and creativity in the name of saving money. We should not stifle innovation because it's taking money away from the non-charter public schools. (If this Hobbes-ian choice is occurring, the we should come up with a solution - and perhaps "Pilot schools" are an answer.)
For too long our educational system has reflected the racism that still thrives in our society today. It is only by creating a new, highly educated black and latino upper middle class that we will conquer these challenges. Because going to a prestigious college or university is such a master key for success in this world, we must do all we can to ensure more black and latino kids get into elite colleges. (Or, at the very least, sharply increase the percentage of black and latino kids that go to four year colleges.) Only then will our society become more equal, more fair, and more democratic.
Thanks.
By way of disclosure, I should state the following: I have studied critical race theory extensively, hence my thoughts on this issue. CRT is a much more complex field than simply thinking everything is racist - as too many people often assume. But after studying and working in the field, it's not too hard to see how latently racist our society is. For another powerful example, take a look at how much higher asthma rates are in black and latino communities in Boston and you'll know what I mean. That doesn't mean we can't fix it, that doesn't mean we should all feel guilty. It just means that we need innovative, entrepreneurial ways to solve the problem, and I am of the opinion that the benefits provided by charter schools is one way to accomplish the larger goal of becoming a more just society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)