Although I committed early to support Deval Patrick at the convention, I have not yet made a decision about whom to support for Lt. Governor. Here are my thoughts on the candidates so far. I’m very open to well-reasoned arguments and respectful opinions from the BMG community.
Tim Murray
I know very little about Tim Murray. This alone is a concern to me, as I have learned quite a bit about the other two candidates via their campaigns. Mayor Murray’s campaign, on the other hand, has sent me only a couple of mail pieces with little substantive information and has not otherwise contacted me.
I do think there’s something to be said for someone with direct (and reportedly successful) experience in an executive-branch office. Being mayor of a city like Worcester is no easy feat, and he’s done it in a way that has allowed him to maintain and build support over three terms.
Andrea Silbert
As a Deval Patrick supporter, I’ve noticed that many other Deval supporters are backing Andrea Silbert. This makes me wonder what they know that I haven’t figured out yet. From what I’ve seen, her positions on some of the big issues aren’t substantially different than the other candidates’. Her success with the organization she ran (Center for Women and Enterprise?) is admirable, though whether it prepared her for a job as Lt. Gov. any better than the other candidates were prepared, I’m not sure.
One thing I don’t put much stock in is the argument that she’s middle-class and therefore will somehow understand or represent “the people” better than the other candidates. I can say from experience that there are born-into-money folks who are very in touch and folks who grew up poor or middle-class who are very out of touch.
Deb Goldberg
Deb Goldberg called me earlier this evening and spent five minutes on the phone making her case for why she’s the strongest candidate. As I noted above, I haven’t decided yet whether I agree with her, but she had some decent arguments. First, she has been involved in government and public service for years (so has Tim Murray). Second, she has won several contentious elections and policy battles (true, but local and state are two different animals). Third, she has money, both from supporters and from her pocket, and she’s willing to spend it to help the Dems win (valid point).
Beyond the points above, I’ve been impressed by her willingness to engage with the local level of the party. She was the only candidate in the campaign to e-mail all the ward chairs introducing herself, asking if she could arrange local events, and providing her personal e-mail address. When I wrote back, she responded within a day or two. Her campaign ultimately followed up on my recommendation to contact the city committee chair (state rep. Paul Donato), who she has since befriended. She also attended a city committee meeting to introduce herself and take questions, and she called me personally tonight to ask about my concerns going into the convention. (Incidentally, it wasn’t a generic call-list call; she had come across my e-mail from last year when cleaning out her Inbox.)
Overall impressions
Right now, I’m leaning a bit towards Deb Goldberg, but as I said above, I’m still deciding. I’m impressed by Deb Goldberg’s ability to engage at the local level, she has the money to fund a campaign through November, and she seems to be a bright, articulate, experienced leader. That said, I’m intrigued by the large base of progressive support for Andrea Silbert. So far, nothing has led me to lean towards Tim Murray, but again, I’m open to opinions.
Murray has some good issue papers posted on his website. His rail proposal is particularly interesting, IMHO.
Check it out here.
<
p>
Andrea and Tim are the only ones to have put out specific policy proposals thus far.
<
p>
I think if you’re into the progressive thing, Andrea’s probably your best bet. Her roster of progressive support is unparalleled. (Jehlen, Paulsen, Kaprelian, Provost, etc…)
Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo was there supporting her as well. As stated below, I became a delegate tonight. Yawn bed time really now.
Why should I (or anyone) support somebody just because a bunch of last names that call themselves ‘progressive’ do? I could spend a year making buddies with a bunch of pols from Cambridge and automatically have support from the ‘progressive’ politicians as well. It wouldn’t necessarily make me progressive, and I’d be willing to be your and my definitions of progressive differ.
<
p>
Who cares if something’s ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘free silver’, ‘know-nothing’, blah blah… I want a good candidate who will be a catalyst inside the corner office for better communication, relationships and policy towards cities and towns.
<
p>
Vote policy, not politics.
<
p>
Disclaimer, I’m a Goldberg supporter.
It’s well known I’ve been a Goldberg supporter, and helper, for a while now. That’s no mistake. So, I’m going to rightfully give my push for you to support her as a delegate. I’ve carefully vetted the candidates, and watched them perform in different scenarios. Yes, Deb and her staff are very aggressive in their field operation. Yes, Deb’s list of supporters are very impressive (Barney Frank has been unequivocally on her side since last June, as has Steve Grossman). And, yes, Deb has more “resources” to contribute to the gubernatorial race (by far) than the other candidates.
<
p>
I went to the Suffolk Law LG forum last week, and watching her perform completely sealed the deal for me. Not only is she graceful under pressure, but she comes out with thoughtful and practical plans for just about every issue, beyond boilerplate responses.
<
p>
In my opinion, this is a two person race: Murray and Goldberg. They clearly know what they’re doing in a political forum. While I’m impressed with Silbert’s background and work, she just isn’t as refined and polished as the other two candidates, and it’s obvious when they’re speaking to an audience. She maybe needs some more political experience before jumping into a statewide race. But, Goldberg definitely beats out any other candidate with resources (aka, money)…which, I’m hoping among other things, will tip the scales come September. That will be a HUGE deciding factor in November, since the Healey machine will be dumping gobs and gobs of cash into her campaign.
<
p>
That’s my two cents. Not to mention, Deb Goldberg is quite simply a very charismatic and personable woman…something that is quite an asset in politics. I know her, and I am very comfortable and confident in giving her my unfettered support.
It would seem to me that if you want a balanced ticket heading into November Tim Murray would be the best of the Lieutenant Governor Candidates. He will be able to bring the perspective of the local cities and towns that have to deal with the policy decisions made by the state, cuts in state aid for example immediately comes to mind. He has had to deal directly with such problems as he moved Worcester forward. He can provide the missing link between the State and Local governments and repairing that disconnect is the first step to creating a vibrant Massachusetts, East, West, Central, North, and South. He has done an excellent job with Worcester and I for one would like to see what he can do to help the other struggling cities, such as Springfield.
<
p> Granted I can see how one will have a hard time turning down the money of Deborah Goldberg, lets face it, money wins elections. However if you look at the polls (granted its early yet) all of the Democrats have a double digit lead over Healy, it would appear Massachusetts thinks its time for a Democrat in the Governors seat. If its money what you are worried about just keep in mind how good of a fundraiser Murray is, he has raised the most money since joining the race, and just because Goldberg isnât running doesnât mean she canât donate.
<
p> As I mentioned it is still too early for a poll to be extremely accurate in race predictions, the Republicans have hardly entered the race, but I would like to ask just one question. Does it make more sense to put up a candidate that has the ability to make the biggest difference, or the candidate that can write the biggest checks? Now I say biggest difference because as has been mention several times all the candidates are qualified for the job, but from where I am standing it would appear that Murray is the candidate that can best DO the job.
<
p> For me it all comes down to who can move Massachusetts forward, and Mayor Murray is the candidate who can do just that, he has the know how, he has the experience, he has the drive, lets allow him the opportunity to get to work.
You put forward a good argument for Murray, but I still don’t get why Murray supporters keep saying he would bring “balance” to the ticket. From a purely image point of view, being that all 3 gubernatorial candidates are men, Silbert or Goldberg clearly would bring gender balance, something that might be important in picking a team to go against Kerry Healey. As far as public vs private experience, you have three different kinds of Gov and LG candidates in this regard, so as far as balancing this factor Reilly/Silbert, Patrick/Goldberg, or Gabrieli/Murray. I just don’t see how the “balance” argument points to Murray more than any other candidate.
<
p>
The biggest argument for Murray is his executive experience in a public office, and it’s a strong argument for him, especially as a runnign mate for Gabrieli, but with Reilly I think it would make a lot of people want to turn the ticket upside down…
<
p>
I think it’s clear that Silbert and Murray have the widest popular support, and personally I’m still leaning Silbert, but I think Murray or maybe Goldberg could be good.
I just don’t understand how you couldn’t see Murray as a good fit for all of the candidates. He has worked with public and private in order to move the city of Worcester forward, and he has succesfully done so from a position of government. Silbert does have an impressive resume of private business experience, but does she know how to foster that growth from a governmental level? Murray has shown he has the experience and the know how (SSL goes through many of his accomplishments below so I won’t bore you twice)
<
p>
Sorry for my roughly written commentary but I am in a rush off to work (whoever told me this can get addictting was right!)
<
p>
~John
I think he would be a good running mate for any of the three, but I still don’t see how he brings “balance”. As far as the “public v private” experience, I meant in the sense:
<
p>
primarily public:
Reilly: Middlesex and Mass AG
Murray: Worcestor mayor
<
p>
mixed private and public:
Patrick: assistant US Ag and corporate & activist lawyer
Goldberg: Stop & Shop and Brookline selectboard
<
p>
primarily private:
Gabrieli: businessman and investor
Silbert: international and local economic development
<
p>
All different kinds of experience, and as far as all the “private” experiences go, I think Silbert’s is the most useful to public governence, as far as most of work has been non-government economic development, not really the same as “private business experience” as you wrote, which is one of the main reasons i’m leaning that way.
So that shouldn’t be the issue. Personally, I know plenty of Patrick/Murray delegates including myself. So just because all Silbert delegates are for Patrick doesn’t mean all Patrick delegates are for Silbert. That being said, we can’t assume all Silbert people are for Patrick either.
<
p>
As for why I’m supporting Murray: he really has a grasp on the issues and what needs to be done. He not only has fresh ideas, but also has actual plans on how to implement them on a statewide level, while having already implemented and advocated for them on the local level. Just look at the brownfields clean up in Worcester that they are now turning into affordable housing. Murray is the President of the Brownfields Association.
<
p>
I have had the opportunity to talk to him on the many issues that I care about including push button “progressive” issues like reproductive choice & gay marriage (he is pro-choice & pro gay marriage). In addition, he has been the one pushing the debate on the environment (solar panels), affordable housing (brownfield clean-up), jobs (bio-tech industry), the cost of higher education (keep education affordable for all) and the commuter rail (expansion & wifi access). None of the other candidates even mentioned commuter rail until Murray released his Rail Plan, which was not only innovative but also detailed and practical. He has also been a huge advocate for cities & towns as Mayor of Worcester and now as a candidate for Lt. Governor. None of the other candidates connected the dots between all of the issues raised above until after Murray spoke about it (at least not when heard them speak at forums).
<
p>
For example Murray made these connections “High tuition$$ –> graduate/student loans –> can’t find job in MA –> can’t a cheap place to live –> move out of state for job/cheaper housing –> state loses younger population, aka. tax base/revenues –> more cuts to education, etc (cities & towns must make cuts as well)–> cycle continues. Murray continually brings new ideas to the table and has experiance already dealing with many of these issues head on.
<
p>
Its easy to see that all the candidates are liberal democrats, which is great, but when deciding on who to vote for you should also consider how they will act on those issues and what they can bring to the table. I think Murray would help Partick, Reilly or Gabrieli on the Democratic ticket. He is the only candidate not from Eastern MA, and has strong support in both Central & Western MA. He also has the most hands experience dealing with these issues on the government level, which is very necessary to actually get things accomplished.
<
p>
These are just some of the reasons I am supporting Tim Murray (yes, there are more). I wish you the best of luck in making up your own mind.
Can I just make an observation…I can’t believe how many Democrats and Progressives are cheering the fact that Deb is rich and will have tons of money to throw into the campaign. This from the progressives? Obviously at some point we threw our loftier ideals overboard and approached the Governor’s race tactically – but when precisely did it happen, and is everybody going to be happy with the choice in retrospect?
(Post-election, 2006: “Yes, the Democrats can elect a millionaire too…”)
Note: I am supporting Andrea Silbert, quite enthusiastically. Andrea is mounting a very strong outsider campaign. I like that both because I am an outsider (and if I ever run, I would hope to run a strong campaign 🙂 and because running a strong outsider campaign means, almost always, bringing new ideas to the table. And I believe that is the lifeblood of politics. In other words, while Andrea is out there campaigning her butt off to get taken seriously as a first-time office-seeker, she has put more new and worthy ideas on the table than Tim and Deb combined. (Feel free to flame me for that, but consider reading their websites before you do.) I am thankful for Andrea’s campaign and I hope very strongly that she gets to implement her ideas as LG.
Note 2, an aside: I have been helping Andrea’s campaign by calling other delegates and talking to them about the race. This is both enjoyable and extremely effective. Delegates tend to be interested in politics, so they are not so quick to shoo you off the phone. Also, you have something in common with them – you are both delegates, and you both must make a choice about whom to support in the LG’s race (or, pick your race/candidate of choice). You are perhaps a few days or weeks ahead of them in that decision process, and you generously offer to share your thoughts on the candidates and how you finally arrived at your decision. It’s fun, easy … and very helpful to your chosen candidate!
“she has put more new and worthy ideas on the table than Tim and Deb combined”
<
p>
All I here out of her mouth is jobs, jobs, jobs – which is not necessarily a bad thing, I just think Goldberg and Murray are a tadbit more well-rounded. Murray more so based on his tenured position as Mayor and Chair of the School Committee.
<
p>
Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but Andrea admitted to being an insider at the Suffolk Forum. Anyone running for state-wide office is not an outsider, no matter how much they’d like to be made out to be one. Besides, outsider vs. insider politics is so trivial. We should be supporting candidates based on what they can do in the position they are running for, the issues and how they can help beat the Republicans in November.
…honestly, do you even try to sort out your contradictions? You write above, “outsider vs. insider politics is so trivial”, yet a week or so ago you posted the opposite Also, at the bottom of this post you wrote that you did not attend the Suffolk Forum.
<
p>
We’ll let the reader decide about your crediablity. I made up my mind when you introduced “bitchy” as an issue in the debate for LG.
I noted that Silbert was trying to paint herself as something she was not . . .and later agreed with comments that said there is no major difference btw and insider or an outsider. I didn’t attend the Suffolk Forum (nor did I say I did), but I had a few friends who were there. Lastly, I never introduced “Bitchy” as an issue, nor am I a fan of the term especially when it is referred to female candidates – for the upteenth time I was commenting on another comment by JConway
<
p>
I am pretty sick of your ridiculous attacks, and have no plans on responding to your meritless comments in the future.
…it’s because that’s her message … kind of like Tim Murray’s message is “I’m mayor of Worcester.”
That doesn’t mean Andrea doesn’t talk about other topics and ideas as well. (Just as I would grant that Tim is occasionally able to get out a sentence that doesn’t include the word “Mayor”)
because the Boston Globe Article today on the LG Candidates lists all the candidates main issues, and funny enough her issues seem to resemble another candidate in the LG race . . .
<
p>
Tim Murray – Expanding Rail & Affordable Housing
<
p>
Andrea Silbert – Expanding Rail & Affordable Housing
<
p>
Hmmmmm Interesting . . .
<
p>
Here is the article online But, I just realized it doesn’t have the subsection that is in the print version. And I left that in my car, oops. But, I swear that is what it basically says. Silbert has no mention of “Jobs” in her little side blurb next to the article.
<
p>
Ohh and Tim Murray’s message is working for Cities & Towns and in this message he talks about job creation, affordable housing, expanding commuter rail, the environment, education, and many more important issues. All issues he has worked on and continues to work on. His title is the Mayor of Worcester and is referred to as Mayor Murray. He earned the title and has every right to use it — if Silbert or Goldberg had a current elected title like Representative or Sheriff, you know that they would be referred to by that title as well. Common sense buddy.
When I described the candidates’ messages (somewhat tonge-in-cheek, w’r’t Murray), I was referring to what I heard from them directly, at the debate, a City Committe forum, and probably other random occasions. I’m not going to debate whether what their message is based on something some reporter pissed on in a Boston Globe article (even if it were actually viewable online).
SSL, are you going to the Convention this weekend? I would offer you the opportunity to demonstrate both your “S”‘s to me in person 😉
in the Globe article. It struck me as very strange – I wonder whether it was Silbert intentionally trying to become less of a one-trick pony, or whether the reporter did some picking and choosing from an interview with her and chose rail when really what Silbert mostly talked about was jobs. The reporter (Stephanie Ebbert) isn’t one that I’ve seen writing about the LG race before, so she may not have been very familiar with the various candidates’ messages. Interesting.
we’re all too wrapped up in this shiznit. Ebbert didn’t know what she was talking about.
<
p>
Plus, I’ll take an above-the-fold photo, first-mention any day.
I met Andrea tonight and had a lenghty conversation with her about the issues I think are most important, jobs, housing, and transportation. For those, who like me, are younger single people these are the things that need to be addressed first to keep us here in the state. Too tired now to write in full, but it suffices to say she impressed me enough that I am not only voting for her this weekend, but have volunteered to be a whip for her as well.
<
p>
Night all…. zzzzzzzzz…..
All the candidates started talking about those issues after Tim Murray brought those issues to the table. He released a plan specifically tailored to improving the Rail Transportation and discusses issues of Affordable Housing & Jobs in his “Municipal Bill of Rights.” They are all Democrats, and all literally are talking about the same issues. WHat you should be looking at is how they plan on fixing the problem. That is where they differ.
<
p>
(Sorry, my intention is not to tell you how to vote, but to look at the broader picture)
I was undecided until yesterday. For me Andrea is the best candidate, but I would not be upset with any of them in the number 2 spot come November.
Count me among the undecided heading into this weekend’s convention. I’ve been quite frustrated in trying to make up my mind which of the Lt. Governor candidates to support. As pretty much everyone else in the BlogLeft-osphere has written, we’re blessed to have such an excellent dilemma.
<
p>
That being said, I’m having a devil of a time trying to sort out what skills (and each candidate bring a unique package to the table) are necessary for doing the job of Lieutenant Governor?
<
p>
As far as I can tell — and I may well be off base here — Executive policy will pretty much be driven by the Governor, be it Reilly, Gabrieli, or Patrick. To that end, it seems that for all the great ideas the Lt. Gov. candidates bring to the table, that’s not really the key “comptency” for the position.
<
p>
In my view what will be needed is someone who can serve as the Governor’s liaison, making sure his agenda is carried out. If the Lieutenant Governor has some good ideas re: job growth, health care, cities and towns, etc., so much the better, and hopefully the Governor will take these ideas under advisement.
<
p>
As the Governor’s liaison, we need someone who can comfortably circulate among the legislature, business, non-profits, other government agencies, and so on. I think all three candidates will be able to do this to some extent — again, each one may have a greater area of focus or expertise. We need someone who has good people skills, as well as executive chops, and experience dealing with people at different levels of our Commonwealth.
<
p>
I am concerned to a lesser degree about ticket balance, regionalism, and funding. Perhaps gender balance matters on a superficial level, but I’m more concerned about getting the right person for the job. If that person happens to be Deb Goldberg or Andrea Silbert, I think that only helps in going up against a Healey/Hillman ticket. If that person is Tim Murray, I still don’t think we lose much.
<
p>
Perhaps having a candidate from somewhere other than the eastern part of the state means more to those beyond 495 (apologies to Susan M.), but again, I don’t think that this is necessarily a deciding factor.
<
p>
As has been mentioned earlier, I think that whatever advantage Deb Goldberg may have in funding is, well, fungible. I doubt that she wouldn’t throw her financial support the Democratic ticket regardless of the outcome of the convention/primary.
<
p>
While it’s still somewhat superficial, I do think that “political polish” is of some importance. I think that Murray and Goldberg have the edge here. Both present well on television, and I enjoyed meeting Tim at the Lowell caucus. I think Andrea’s relative political inexperience shows at times, but her passion is palpable.
<
p>
All in all, it’s going to be a tough call to make. I guess at this point I’m leaning Goldberg (hey, Barney likes her!), but am still officially “undecided”.
<
p>
I’d love to hear what others think about my assessment of the job duties of Lt. Governor, and why a particular candidate might fit the bill better than the others.
Just to clarify your point, Tim: like you, I have no doubt that Goldberg will do everything she can to see the Dems win, whether or not she’s the LG nominee. But isn’t it true that, if she’s the nominee, she can spend as much as she wants on the campaign, while if she’s not, she’s limited to $500 to the Gov nominee and $500 to the LG? I’m sure she can find other ways to spend money in support of the ticket, but surely it’s a lot easier if she’s part of it.
Can someone confirm. I am sure the max donation for an individual is $500, however I am not sure of the rules on “self financing” a campaign.
Self-financing is unlimited. Deb Goldberg on the ticket equals, lots of Deb’s money. Deb Goldberg supporting the ticket means, $500 of Deb’s money max (or $1,000 if she has a husband, which I don’t know)
Goldberg (or anyone) can still give to the state party if they’ve exhausted their allotted donations to candidates. I don’t know what that limit is, though, off the top of my head.
Count me among the undecided heading into this weekend’s convention. I’ve been quite frustrated in trying to make up my mind which of the Lt. Governor candidates to support. As pretty much everyone else in the BlogLeft-osphere has written, we’re blessed to have such an excellent dilemma.
<
p>
That being said, I’m having a devil of a time trying to sort out what skills (and each candidate bring a unique package to the table) are necessary for doing the job of Lieutenant Governor?
<
p>
As far as I can tell — and I may well be off base here — Executive policy will pretty much be driven by the Governor, be it Reilly, Gabrieli, or Patrick. To that end, it seems that for all the great ideas the Lt. Gov. candidates bring to the table, that’s not really the key “comptency” for the position.
<
p>
In my view what will be needed is someone who can serve as the Governor’s liaison, making sure his agenda is carried out. If the Lieutenant Governor has some good ideas re: job growth, health care, cities and towns, etc., so much the better, and hopefully the Governor will take these ideas under advisement.
<
p>
As the Governor’s liaison, we need someone who can comfortably circulate among the legislature, business, non-profits, other government agencies, and so on. I think all three candidates will be able to do this to some extent — again, each one may have a greater area of focus or expertise. We need someone who has good people skills, as well as executive chops, and experience dealing with people at different levels of our Commonwealth.
<
p>
I am concerned to a lesser degree about ticket balance, regionalism, and funding. Perhaps gender balance matters on a superficial level, but I’m more concerned about getting the right person for the job. If that person happens to be Deb Goldberg or Andrea Silbert, I think that only helps in going up against a Healey/Hillman ticket. If that person is Tim Murray, I still don’t think we lose much.
<
p>
Perhaps having a candidate from somewhere other than the eastern part of the state means more to those beyond 495 (apologies to Susan M.), but again, I don’t think that this is necessarily a deciding factor.
<
p>
As has been mentioned earlier, I think that whatever advantage Deb Goldberg may have in funding is, well, fungible. I doubt that she wouldn’t throw her financial support the Democratic ticket regardless of the outcome of the convention/primary.
<
p>
While it’s still somewhat superficial, I do think that “political polish” is of some importance. I think that Murray and Goldberg have the edge here. Both present well on television, and I enjoyed meeting Tim at the Lowell caucus. I think Andrea’s relative political inexperience shows at times, but her passion is palpable.
<
p>
All in all, it’s going to be a tough call to make. I guess at this point I’m leaning Goldberg (hey, Barney likes her!), but am still officially “undecided”.
<
p>
I’d love to hear what others think about my assessment of the job duties of Lt. Governor, and why a particular candidate might fit the bill better than the others.
Tim, I want to respond to your thoughts with a comment on what qualities are desired in an LG. I want to jump immediately to an analogy in the business world, where the question of “Whom to hire?” has been very important for a long time and has been heavily considered and discussed.
If there is one seminal question in the “Whom to hire” discussion, it is: skills or talents; concrete training and experience, or innate potential. There is no right answer, and the choice (or correct blend of factors) depends on your business. But many successful, innovative companies such as Microsoft lean very far towards talent: “Get the smartest people to work here. Period.” The idea is, focusing on skills means focusing on what has been done in the past; but the reality is, the landscape is always changing, and you are hiring someone to do tomorrow’s job, not yesterday’s.
There are some elected offices where I would look at specific skills. I want a State Rep or Congressman to be comfortable with lobbying, negotiating, and the free-wheeling, high-stakes environments of the State House and DC; less so than I would want those qualities in a Governor (compared to qualities such as management and leadership ability). As a concrete example, Jarrett Barrios dropped out of the LG’s race at a time when many had concerns not about his political talent, but about his skills for that specific job.
As far as the LG’s race: I have little better idea than you what quantities are “needed” in an LG. I think the job description is very vague; very dependent on one’s own initiative and desire to be proactive; and, additionally, very much a warm-up for future positions such as Governor, Congress, or Senate (witness Maryland LG Steele running for MD Senate). As such, I heavily consider the “talent” side of the equation (meaning general political talent), and rather lightly consider the “specific skills” side as it applies to any skills that might be particular to the office of LG.
My 2 cents.
I meant to say “modern” instead of “innovative” in regard to Microsoft.
you meant “DA” instead of “LG” regarding Barrios, right?
I think for those who are undecided about the LG’s race, perhaps you should take a “Bill Belichick” approach.
<
p>
In the NFL draft each year, Belichick evaluates the prospects, ranks them after a comprehensive series of tests and evaluations, and selects the best one available when the Pats number comes up. Nothing fancy, perhaps a bit to do with the position the prospect plays, but generally if the best available under the Pats criteria is a running back, they pick a running back.
<
p>
A similar tack can be taken in this LG’s race: who is the most talented, who has the most relevant experience, who has the most potential, who has the most “upside”, who is the most creative, who would be a “good fit” for a state that needs to reinvent itself with new ideas and fresh leadership after so many years of stagnation?
<
p>
Easy choice: Andrea Silbert.
<
p>
It’s not that the others don’t have positives for each of the above criteria, it’s that Silbert’s positives outweigh the others’.
Hey, Hoss…. In theory I agree, except that I think you also have to address look at what the particular skills or talents are at your position of need.
<
p>
Let’s presume that the Dems will have a hotshot “QB” coming out of the primary. (My personal choice is DP, of course.) I think the talents/skills needed to be a good QB/Governor are those you list above.
<
p>
However, no QB can do it alone. He/she needs a supporting cast whose talents/skills are complementary. For example, you’d use different criteria for evaluating an offensive lineman or a running back than you would for a QB.
<
p>
Perhaps — if we’re not already stretching the analogy too far — the Lt. Gov’s position is best likened to a tight end: In my mind this player needs to be flexible, with good hands/playmaking ability, but also good blocking skills when called upon to get into the trenches. This is very different from what’s needed from the guy running the offense.
<
p>
Now, I’m not saying that Silbert doesn’t have the skills/talents to be a good TE. I’m just not as convinced as you seem to be that she’s so far ahead of the others on the depth chart, or that her talents are best suited to that position in the first place.
<
p>
My problem is that none of the others have unequivocally distinguished themselves either — and I don’t have the luxury of being able to call in a sub on 3rd and goal.
I like hoss’s TE theory, but I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusion that it leads to an “easy choice” of Silbert.
I read your post and immediately thought Tim Murray. Maybe that’s just me or a whole lot of other folks who feel that way too 🙂