As I’ve stated many times, as a candidate Walsh needs to talk for himself. But instead he accepts boatloads of money and looks the other way, his campaign team cheerleading their efforts. Never should have happened folks.
#BosMayor gen elex has its first piece of negative literature – released on behalf of Marty Walsh by Working America pic.twitter.com/qx0LtCwtmH
— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) October 19, 2013
Please share widely!
No snark, just wanted to inquire as I noticed your comment David.
Yes, mailers are not normally included, Consalvo did say that he would have included mailers if the candidates were to reach an agreement back in the summer.
Seems like a pretty simple compare/contrast piece to me. Why do liberals and democrats get so frustrated whenever a candidate or a PAC or whatever says something unflattering about their opponent? Oh woe is us, attack ads! Pointing out that Connolly worked for a law firm? And that the Globe ran a column calling John “the Education Mayor” Connolly’s education plan “uninspiring” is pretty tame. Especially because the piece that I think this refers to that the Globe ran was actually much more disparaging than this attack.
This is so tame compared to the lunacy we see every day coming out of the rightwing in this country. Yeah, it’s a campaign – people are going to want to compare and contrast.
just a compare and contrast folks. Personally, we really need to call things as they are and not blame elsewhere. It’s a negative mailer on the behalf of Walsh.
Now how does Walsh respond now that he willfully took 1.2 million. My hope is that he doesn’t respond as you did here. Let’s see what he does.
I think both Connolly and Walsh would both be a good mayor. I have my personal preferences but they’re personal. But I am really tired of hearing how people are so shocked when a candidate or PAC says something “negative” about the other side. Negative statements should meet certain thresholds, like being factual and accurate (unlike Swift Boat) etc. I’m not defending the piece … I’m just saying, hey, it’s 2013, we’ve seen a LOT worse in the last decade of political campaigning. This seems pretty tame by comparison.
It’s a high stakes mayoral race. People are going to make the case both for their candidate and against their opponent. This doesn’t seem particularly dirty or inaccurate, but definitely uncharitable. Let me put it another way — our discourse lately is filled with all sorts of hyperbole. This mailer might make some stretches but it’s really not the worst I’ve seen or even close.
Who is “Working America” who sent out the negative flier? Where does their money come from? I hope it is not funded indirectly with the sweat of some poor bricklayer or painter or carpenter or home health aide who goes to work and has union dues withdrawn from their checks for every hour they work. It would be a shame if that’s where their money ended up going. And honestly, it would be bad for Marty Walsh, too, because he is trying not to appear as just a union puppet…these kinds of mailing underscore the stereotype he is trying so hard to shed.
Had you bothered to google it, it would have taken less time than writing your post and you would have found out it is a solid progressive organization. They no doubt knocked on thousands and thousands of doors for Liz Warren and Ed Markey and no doubt said much meaner things about Gabriel Gomez and Scott Brown than was said here, though none of us complained about that… (That said, I think the ‘son of privilege’ bit was a low blow and no help to their cause given that people can’t control who’s womb they come out of — the rest was fair though and relatively tame.)
You are a sharper googler than I…as you seem to be more familiar with this group and their election tactics, perhaps you know who is footing the bills for this “solid progressive organization” as you refer to them.
I am not opposed to comparative material…but when that material is deliberately designed to deceive voters, I think it suppresses voter interest and increases voter disgust with all politicians.
I do not live in Boston, but I know both candidates. Marty and John are both decent guys. They both have positive attributes to put forward. I don’t think it helps either of them to sink into the gutter (or let their “friends” drag them into the gutter)
Interesting that the attacks on Connolly are undeniable class warfare strategies…but, this group did not call out Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick or John Kerry for being (reprehensibly) wealthy and educated… now they say it is a terrible thing to be…go figure… and when it comes to wealth, I am sure NEITHER Marty OR John can compare to the leadership income of the groups sponsoring these outside PACS.
Do we need to cast suspicion onto any group that supports a candidate you may not like.
The tone of your post is over the top.
A community organization of non-union members organized by the AFL-CIO. Through this organization, the AFL-CIO can indeed use union dues to communicate with anyone who has voluntarily joined Working America. Though, as fenway49 points out below, AFL-CIO members can always opt out of having their dues used for political purposes (should they feel particularly suicidal about the future of unions and their jobs). Here’s the best and most fair explanation I’ve seen:
http://www.thenation.com/article/170481/road-working-america#
…I expect johnk to be the first in line here to call them out too.
and I like it :p
1. Working families is definitely a union organization. So yes, presumably union dues are eventually buying these ads. Whether that’s appropriate is obviously a matter for debate. I presume union members want their dues to go to things like political activism on their behalf.
2. I agree that the ad’s fairly mild and mostly fact based, but I’d be interested to hear what Walsh has to say., as he’s said in the past that he won’t go negative. A litle bit of wiggle room for him here I guess since “he’s” not the one going negative, though I don’t buy the lack of coordination on these things at all (in general, not just with Walsh).
3. If this is going to continue to be an issue in the campaign, where the hell does Connolly stand on outside spending? He was against the people’s pledge before he was for it. Now Stand For Children, the Walmart/Microsoft etc. funded Ed. Reform org., says they’ll spend on his behalf. He may have again told them not to and I just missed it with the awful coverage of this campaign, but if not what does he have to say?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/10/11/education-nonprofit-says-will-spend-behalf-connolly/kJr1gU9WeB5c22UxEow7AM/story.html
It’s actually Democrats for Education Reform that will spend for Connolly, not Stand for Children. I mixed the 2 groups up. My bad. I guess the main questions remains though as to positions on outside spending.
are every bit as bad as Stand for Children, funded by a bunch of hedge fund union-bashing, charter-worshiping extremists. Any Boston parent who thinks their kids deserve good schools no matter where they live — and without having to win some kind of lottery — ought to have tremendous pause before supporting Connolly. Quite frankly, with the friends he has in the education world, he scares the bejeezes out of me.
People keep trying to hit Connolly with the Charter school thing, but Walsh is just as much in favor of them.
in favor. If he were, I’d not support him. Walsh was involved in founding a charter and served on its board. He said he’d support raising the cap, an issue on which I disagree with him but one that’s more relevant to the state legislature than the mayor’s office.
His detailed plan for the BPS, however, contains much more nuance. He has many ideas that don’t involve scapegoating BPS teachers or insisting they do more work for no additional pay. He is not on the radar of the “reform” groups so eager to back Connolly.
Saying they are the same on this is like saying Chuck Schumer is “just as much in favor” of regulating Wall Street as Elizabeth because he voted for Dodd-Frank.
And I was as responsible for the dichotomy in our prior back and worth HR Kevin, but my point is Connolly is making the same tragic mistake that Duncan, Obama, Booker, and Bloomberg are making viewing what was initially a stop gap measure as a substitute for a true national education policy. Similarly, Connolly views charters as his education policy and not a portion of a broader education policy vision. Walsh has that broader vision, on this issue and so many others. Connolly is short of the corporate boogeyman I made him out to be, but he will be a milquetoast moderate when we need a proud populist in City Hall.
I understand you can draw other differences between their education policies, but I still keep seeing Walsh people keep pushing the Charter issue, which I think gives the false impression that Walsh is not for charters.
Personally, I hate to see either of them offer more charters and am not happy with either of their explanations for why the cap should be lifted.
“I’m horribly wrong, but it doesn’t matter because people keep talking about those issue I just conceded I was wrong on — and that makes me angry!!!!”
Are you even reading your own posts? Next time have the decency to say “oops” when you get thoroughly corrected by someone like fenway and leave it at that.
For thirty years the Supreme Court has made clear that union members who don’t want their dues going to political activity can get a refund for that part of their dues. The same cannot be said of corporate employees or shareholders who abhor their company’s massive contributions to right-wing PACs.
Waiting to hear any complaints about the compare and contrast to the article about Walsh.
How about a link?
One of us does not know what that word means.
Okay, maybe it is me. But at most this skirts the line. At most.
first the piece on Connolly
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/10/19/connolly-from-tight-knit-family-tight-knit-neighborhood/xz1snOHfnn6niSrep96yRP/story.html
and here is the piece on Walsh
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/10/19/walsh-cancer-fight-marked-his-youth/bA7zWfYoA9CgW35F1FI1nJ/story.html
What do you think of this contrast and compare pair of articles?
BTW I love reading my online subscription to the Globe early in the morning. Particularly love the save button. Rarely buy a hard copy — maybe on Sunday morning. —
http://www.universalhub.com/node/11213
By adamg, Sat, 11/03/2007 – 12:03pm
UPDATE: Connolly just lost my vote. His campaign admits sending out the Murphy piece.
Over the past two days, we’ve gotten a pair of mailings related to Tuesday’s city council elections. One is from John Connolly and basically explains how wonderful he is and why he should be an at-large city councilor. The other is an anonymous mailing telling us how awful incumbent at-large councilor Stephen Murphy is.
What’s interesting is the physical similarities between the two mailings. Both are the same size and use the same cardstock. Both make extensive use of dropshadow. The computer-generated mailing “labels” are identical (and in our case, both addressed to “The Gaffin Household”). And then there’s the thing I find most interesting: That the cut-outs used to attribute something to the Boston Globe have the same exact scissor-like borders:
Funny that the paper has been so slanted toward Connolly in covering the policy and politics of the race, but can’t ignore Walsh’s more compelling life story.
I like when Connolly’s mom says, “My parents instilled in us that they would educate us through college, and then we were on our own for graduate school.”
Or, “Like others, [a roommate] mentions Connolly’s sense of humor, but like others, he is hard-pressed to give examples.”
You get the feeling it was a frustrating assignment for the reporter.
Still, I sense in our future a highly condescending editorial endorsement that begins, “Yes, Marty Walsh has lived an inspiring life, but…”
“Whether from Wellesley or West Roxbury, he had a comfort with all different kinds of kids” says Hamilton, who grew up in Hyde Park.”
I literally thought this was a joke, but it wasn’t.
…that the race is between a guy who thinks that adversity is crying his way home after football practice versus a guy who spent the better part of grammar school undergoing chemotherapy but still doing all he can to attend class.
So I guess what it comes down to is, right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, truth or fiction…if the other side does something shady, it’s okay if you do it, too!
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy, that’s a pretty sorry defense. Can’t blame people for being disgusted (and staying away from the polls)
So you think an anonymous attack mailing sent by Connolly, which he denied responsibility for sending for days, then finally, FINALLY admitted was from his campaign is the same as an outside group pointing out that Connolly is from a privileged background? Why is this even considered and attack add, and where is the hypocrisy?
Teachers (and organized labor generally) are against Connolly primarily because he wanted extended day in BPS, is for charter schools, and opposed the teacher’s and police’s latest contracts. Organized labor is for Walsh because he’s a union organizer (on labor’s payroll), and legislator who has introduced pro-organized labor legislation. Connolly will stand up to organized labor, when he thinks it’s the right thing to do. He’s done this when he thought it was fiscally necessary (police), and when he thought that it was necessary in order to provide a better education for kids (teacher’s contract). The Mayor has to be willing to stand up to organized labor (as Menino has done time and again) when it’s fiscally prudent, and good public policy requires it. Walsh is an organized labor executive. He cannot and will not stand up to organized labor. I respect Walsh for this. Standing up for organized labor is noble. But, we cannot have a Mayor who is unwilling or unable to protect the city’s fiscal health. Walsh is not in a position to do this.
as you would describe it, which is why he’s as yet to be endorsed by them.
He also hasn’t been endorsed by the police.
Or any municipal union, minus one.
But he’ll give away the store to all of them anyway, right? Just like he argued for the bus drivers? Right? Oh, that’s not what happened at all? Shocker.
Who needs to make arguments based on facts when a preconceived narrative is so much more fun? Sadly, they don’t hold up as well in rebuttal.
Sorry, but that is just a ridiculous statement. Of course he “can.” Whether he “will” obviously remains to be seen, but these kinds of open-and-shut absolute statements don’t really advance the argument very far.
Don’t apologize. He cannot and will not stand up to organized labor because they have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in his campaign, and because they have paid him $170,000 a year as a union executive.
…to “stand up” to organize labor as if they are some special interest rather than the representation of a sizeable portion of the city’s population (including indirectly non-members in terms of some of the things they advocate)? If I had to choose I’d prefer someone who stands up FOR organized labor and stands up TO corporate interests and the outsized influence of the very wealthy.
…against powerful interests whether it is against big business, unions, mortgage lenders, or the State House. That may mean standing with unions sometimes and against some union at some other time.
While I have some concern that Walsh may be more favorable to unions, but I think it is pretty clear that he is not going to automatically take their side in all things. I think it is silly to suggest that.
Nevertheless, Walsh has distanced himself from the ad, so this does make me a bit uncomfortable. If the unions are going to run ads for Walsh, I hope they keep them more positive so that there will be no question of Walsh benefiting from dirt thrown by others.