Now, onto the squashing rumors that Tim Murray is the âultimate insiderâ (because I am sick of hearing it). Murray has been Mayor of Worcester for about 5 years now. Most people donât pay attention to those west of the 495 belt, because oftentimes Central & Western MA are forgotten by those in the Eastern part of the state (as I am sure many of you are familiar). Despite this Mayor Murray has gained public and political attention throughout his time in office for being a huge proponent for progress and change within Worcester and other cities and towns. The work he has done with the environment (cleaning brown fields & pushing alterative energy), healthcare initiatives, closing corporate tax loopholes, fighting against state level education cuts, among many other things has caused people to take notice. Do you really think he would have such state -wide support otherwise?
Murray has not only advocated for change while Mayor of Worcester, but actually brought change and progress to one of MAâs old industrial cities, which youâll be able to see at the convention in June. He has worked with a number of politicians on all levels, state, local & federal to push these reforms and changes. They are supporting him because they have seen the work he has done, not simply because he is the Mayor of Worcester. He is the only candidate to continually put out policy proposals: first his âMunicipal Bill of Rightsâ & then his âRail Plan.â As one of my friends said, âHe has such big ideas he shouldnât be kept at the local level when he could be helping the entire state.â
Disclosure: Murray & Patrick Supporter
*Sorry that this is so long, probably the longest I’ve written – but I hate stupid labels.
Oh snap! Too bad it’s all untrue.
<
p>
Looks like the Murray folks are gettin’ nervous about who their real challenge in this race is and are startin’ to drop some of their bombs! Too bad this one has no legs to it…
<
p>
Anyone else want to debunk it? Shouldn’t be too hard to do, but I don’t have the time at the moment.
<
p>
If this is the tack that Murray plans on following going into the Convention, good luck to him. I’ll book a tee-time for a foursome with him, Goldberg, Kelley and me for Wednesday, September 20th.
<
p>
Lame.
<
p>
Yes, I’m with Andrea and have done some volunteer work for her campaign.
Is it just me, or does anyone else realize that AndreaFan’s comment had absolutely no substance to it?
I hope “some volunteer work” doesn’t mean something along the lines of deputy campaign manager (it often does), because if you are that high up in the campaign, good luck to Andrea Silbert.
<
p>
“Anyone else want to debunk that comment? I can’t right now because I’m too busy trying to figure out how respond. You’ll hear from me after the convention. On second thought, someone smarter please do it for me!”
<
p>
Whoo… that was probably a little overly sassy. Sorry about that.
<
p>
Note: I know you were all expecting this, but I have interned for the Murray campaign.
AndreaFan,
<
p>
Please tell me what is wrong with the above post? Andrea worked on Wall Street $$$$. And there is no doubt that she’s an insider. Not anyone gets put on John Kerrys fundraising team without having political connections to raise funds. So I look forward to you trying to spin those facts any other way. I dont like having such a debate, but considering all Silbert does is say the word Job and Murray is an insider I think it’s time to show the true Andrea a wealthy political insider
This should resolve it.
<
p>
1. Andrea Silbert knows how to raise money because she had to scrape and claw for the dollars she raised to start and support her entrepreneurial non-profit. She was also savvy enough to know that tapping state and federal funds would help her team and her team’s clients. How did she know Sen. Kerry? Because he’s on the Small Business Committee and she’s a business owner is his state. Good for her for knowing how to raise money for good causes and knowing how to tap into governmental resources. Every one of the 10,000 jobs she helped create was earned with the blood, sweat and tears of Andrea Silbert and her CWE teammates.
<
p>
That’s how John Kerry knows Andrea Silbert. In fact, he knows her so well that he inserted this statement into the official Congressional Record congratulating her on her innovative and groundbreaking approach to helping women and men start and grow their businesses.
<
p>
If working with Senator Kerry to help her non-profit bring hhundered of millions of dollars into state coffers through wages and if working for Sen. Kerry’s team to help boot Bush make her an insider, than by all means, call her that.
<
p>
But be careful not to call the kettle black, Mr. or Mrs. Pot, because if that’s the definition of insider, then all four LG candidates are insiders.
<
p>
2. Andrea Silbert is not rich. Only Deb Goldberg is the rich one in this race. Tim Murray and Andrea Silbert live similar economic lives. See this post for info on their tax returns and that’s all you need to know. Andrea worked on Wall Street in the early 1990’s for a couple of years. Today, starting analysts in jobs like that make around $200K. Back then, probably 60-80K. She worked there for two years. The idea that she made a mint there is ludicrous. Plus, she hated doing it and wanted to do some good, so she went to Latin America to work with street girls being forced into prostitution. She lived in the midst of the kind of dire poverty we can’t even know in this country. If her parents supported her while she was there (I don’t know if they did), great. She probably didn’t need a whole lot to live on. Her parents were government physicians – not a ton of dough in those jobs either.
<
p>
So, let’s set the record straight: Andrea Silbert is not wealthy. Her husband is supporting her and her family right now. He runs a small business out of their home. He is not indepently wealthy either. Any questions? I thought not.
and I’ll say it again: The idea of political “outsiders” and political “insiders” is absurd. If you are running for any high level of government, you probably have a mixture of inside and outside support. What would it say if somebody running for LG didn’t have any friends on Beacon Hill? To me, it would say that he or she is completely inexperienced and hasn’t been involved in politics at all thusfar — so why now the interest? Same with Governor, Senator, Congressperson and President.
It doesn’t really matter, but I think people are interested in it because there have been candidates in the past who have succeeded due, in part, to their ability to communicate that they represent new ideas, new leadership, blah blah blah. Romney is a good example of the combination of new-ness with substance. Of course, it was all a charade and his positions were wrong and bad for the state, but I think you probably know what I mean. But nevertheless, he did attract voters because he effectivley communicated the message that he would not be “more of the same old insider blah blah…”
<
p>
I think that’s why, in the LG’s race, there’s a “race for the outer edge” of the campaign where everyone wants to be seen as the new, but experienced, face coming in with fresh ideas to jumpstart things.
<
p>
I think Sam Kelley is a good example of what happens when you don’t know people and aren’t part of a group like the other 3 are (albeit each in their different group, to a certain extent) – it’s just harder to drum up financial and political support. Goldberg is part of the Boston-based politically active Jewish community, Silbert is part of the entrepreneur, non-profit and policy-based world, and Murray is part of the political, establishment, government world. They’re each “insiders” in their own worlds, but since this is a political campaign, Murray gets labeled “insider” because he’s the most “known” quantity in that world.
Not worthy of you SSL. This is basically a slam piece as far as I can tell, and doesn’t really advance the LG race debate in any significant way. The most egregious evidence of this is the line, “Not that I have a problem with Andrea Silbert for having money.” Note no sourcing, no backup, nothing. Silbert has released her tax returns, gone public that her artist husband is supporting her during her candidacy, and been completely forthcoming about her past work experience. In fact, I agree with AndreaFan that this says more about nervousness among Murray supporters that their candidate will be labeled a hack insider who will spend his time in the LG’s office, should he win, handing out political favors to his cronies in Worcester — rather than the serious and innovative candidate we know him to be.
Karl Rovian insider hackery? Slam piece? That seems a bit extreme. This User Post is no more hyper-partisan than what we’ve seen here at BMG recently.
<
p>
At least she disclosed that she’s a Murray supporter.
<
p>
For the record, I’m supporting Silbert. I don’t care if she’s inside/outside, upside-down. She’s a very bright, qualified candidate with some great ideas, and a great track record. She will be a great LG.
<
p>
SSL – downrating someone’s comment because they don’t like your user post is considered bad blogging form. Just sayin’.
SSL, I tried all day to resist responding to this post. I’m just weak. But instead of defending your sophomoric attacks on Silbert (oh my God…she helped John Kerry try and defeat George Bush–even worse, because she founded and ran a non-profit she knows how to fundraise–and now you’re telling me that she actually understands how government works and is not an “outsider”), I’d like to suggest you refocus you complaint about Murray being labeled as an “insider”.
<
p>
Maybe you should raise your complaint with your friends in the Murray campaign? They were the ones who sent a mailer out to all delegates that had one page crammed with endorsements from elected officials around MA. Spin it anyway you want (you write, “He has worked with a number of politicians on all levels, state, local & federal to push these reforms and changes. They are supporting him because they have seen the work he has done, not simply because he is the Mayor of Worcester.”…ya right).
<
p>
Given the focus the Murray camp has placed on endorsements, is it any surprise that people see him as the “insider”. Isn’t there anyone in his campaign that would realize that the list would fuel this perception? Nope, the “insider” label is apparently something that the Murray campaign is comfortable with. If you’re not comfortable with it, go talk to your campaign friends and don’t go slandering others.
Maybe we’re all insiders. I don’t think that outsiders are reading this blog traffic, but I might be wrong and there may be a really really lonely soul out there. But let’s be careful about the term “insider”. I’m not sure it’s a bad term anyway, as the “insiders” who have endorsed Tim have been elected, represent constituencies, and in fact are the types of people we as Democrats hope to have more of. And in fact, any candidate would be happy with any of Tim’s endorsements. If not they can disclaim below. In fact, Tim receives the endorsement of Sheriff Cabral on Monday, another insider he is proud to have. So I await the “outsider” gathering at the convention in Worcester in two weeks, but it might be more of a welcoming party for new insiders. And Tim is, in full disclosure, a client of mine.
I always like to welcome first time posters here (especially when they register minutes before their first post). I do agree that almost by definition, all of us who read BMG, volunteers (or workers for) campaigns or delegates to the convention are insiders. It’s probably a population of 10,000 (on the high side) vs. the 5 million or so citizens of the MA.
<
p>
The point of my post was that SSL was contending that Murray was some how being unfairly painted as an “insider” by other campaigns (Silbert was SSL’s target of course). I certainly take issue with that and contend that the Murray strategy appears to reinforce that perception with the list of endorsements mailed out to delegates. I’m making no judgment of whether that is a good or bad strategy, just that SSL can not complain that other campaigns are responsible for the perception of Murray being a “insider” when in fact the Murray campaign strategy is fueling that perception. Hence, if SSL was a beef about this, she maybe should talk to you.
<
p>
As for disclosures…I think I’ll take the Joe Biden approach of 1988…sometimes I’ll disclose, sometimes I won’t. Either way, it’s easy for people to find out.
This topic/exchange is almost as silly as the signature free-for-all from a couple of weeks ago. I’m simply ashamed of myself for reading this whole thing on a Friday night. SSL, you and hoss need to get a room.
SSL, you know where to find me wink. I’ll meet you at the Murray party at 9:15. I’ll be wearing the In&Out Burger t-shirt. Then we can steal away to my “Sweet” at the uber-posh Crowne Plaza and see if we can “get our 15%” together.
<
p>
The 15% part was spit-take worthy. 🙂 Well done.
afertig is funny. 🙂
Sorry, I just can’t get interested in that discussion. Tell me what Tim or Andrea would do as governor. Ya know, what’s in it for me?
Tim: a plan to re-divide the pie through a change in priorities
<
p>
Andrea: a plan to grow the pie and change priorities.
<
p>
Not sure which is better or more realistic, but that boiled-down description of the distinction just came to me.