So Iâve been hearing a lot of talk around these parts about who is actually the most progressive candidate in the LG race. Progressive politicians are the ones who advocate social, political and economic reform. These are the people who lead the tide even when pollsters show it to sometimes be inconvenient politically. These are the people who shake the political ground and get real change to occur while others stubbornly remain stagnate. Without progressives America wouldnât be so great and I would personally like to thank those who stood up for our best interests of this country and this state.
One of those progressives is Tim Murray the mayor of Worcester and candidate for lieutenant governor. In his earlier political years Tim Murray helped Jim McGovern get elected to his current position as Congressmen. Those who came to the convention got to meet Congressmen McGovern a man who I feel is not only progressive but one of the best representatives in the house that we have. He has token the lead on issues such as the Iraq war, the genocide in Sudan along with his constant effort to stop homelessness. Iâm ecstatic to have him as my very own representative however it was an extremely difficult process to get him in. Unseating Peter Blute who at the time had one of the most secure seats in the country was a grueling process many thought unthinkable. With the help of Tim Murray and many other dedicated McGovern people the 3rd district is now a place where innovation and progressive ideas rule the land.
Tim Murray surely learned a lot from congressmen McGovern, both today have a steady record of getting things done in their respective offices. Since Tim announced that he would be running for lieutenant governor he has proven to be progressive. He has leaded a campaign that has embodied creative ideas and bold innovation especially in his comprehensive plans for the state which are on his website www.TimMurray.org. These detailed plans include pressing issues such as commuter rail and public transportation. He also has a strategy to improve public education as it is now along with his plan called the municipal bill of rights an effort to restore the partnership between state and local governments. Tim had these ideas well before the other candidates had outlined plans for our state. I took the time to look at the other candidates plans and it appeared to me that there plans are eerily similar to either things Tim has already said or has on his website. So when Tim has clearly been the leader on the issues, I find it appalling for the others to claim that they are progressives. This type of leadership is exactly what I saw 10 years ago when Jim defeated Peter Blute and 10 years later I see this same type of leadership in Tim Murray as the way to get the democrats back in the corner office.
And right now, I think he’s a better politician than his competition, including Andrea Silbert. However, I’m supporting Andrea, because I think she is an exceptional person who has an the highest potential in politics.
In terms of who would most benefit the November ticket, my thinking mirrors that of who is the best politician. If the election were held today, I think Tim would benefit the ticket more (not getting too far into the details of which G. candidates someone matches up best with, etc.) However, I think Andrea has the highest ceiling to potentially benefit the ticket, because she can lay claim to two hugely important swing votes: women and independents. Women, because Healy will be on the Republicans’ ticket and the Dem’s would benefit from balancing that; and Independents, because Andrea’s core issues of jobs and economy resonate strongly with independents.
<
p>
(I said “potentially benefit the ticket”. I do think she needs to work seriously on the art of public speaking as a political candidate, and I hope she takes the opportunity to do this now while there is a lull in the action.)
<
p>
In any event, I believe Tim does deserve the term “progressive” and I appreciate seeing thoughtful comments to that effect.
Tim is great…in a ordinary way. City Counclor, Mayor, lawyer. Good on the issues. But Andrea has way more potential to do great things. She doesn’t tackle ordinary problems–she tackles but problems–like the feminization of poverty. Now she wants to tackle job creation in this state.
<
p>
Like Tim she understands the problems center on funding for education, public safety and other issues local communities are grappling with. But Andrea’s experience in job creation provides the big answer– stimulating revenues to fund solutions. Yes, Tim understands that job creation is the solution. But that is not his strength. He has many strengths–but in this time and place–his strengths won’t help get us out of this mess. Andrea’s will.
Frank, you have frequently posted on the importance of winning this year. I agree. Do you think Andrea will strengthen our ticket more than Tim? How will the presence of one or the other of them translate into votes in November? Do you think either one has the upper hand in this respect? Does it depend on who is at the top of the ticket? Or is the LG’s effect on the race so minimal we should just go with the one we think has the most potential as a public servant? (What a concept!)
…sorry for sarcasm, because you really blended a lot of great questions together. I’ll start with the last two.
<
p>
To pick an arbitrary number, I think the LG candidate will impact about 10% of the voters–almost all of them the last minute swing voters. But that margin of voters (about 200,000) exceeds the 120,000 votes we lost by in ’02–and we only have to move 60,000 or so to win this year. So in the big picture the LG candidate won’t impact a lot of voters–but they will impact the small segment that will decide a close election. (We need to squeeze every advantage we can get.) When any voter looks at the underside of the ticket, I do think we all look at them as the “farm team” and who will have the best future potential–but it won’t drive their decision on voting for Gov. (Again, it will influence some key voters.)
<
p>
I do think Andrea will add more to the ticket than Tim and that is what initially attracted me to her candidacy. Actually, I committed to Andrea before Tim got in and my mind hasn’t changed. Her message of “jobs” is far stronger what the essence of Tim ot Debâs message is.
<
p>
So her issue is a strong plus for the ticket. Especially if one of the two lawyers win, because they’ll have someone to point to and say we have a jobs expert on the ticket. Yes, the Gabber can claim “jobs creator” also. But you can never have enough of the jobs mantra–especially for a Democratic ticket. I can see a Gabrieli/Silbert ticket articulating their different jobs strength. Chris is a macro jobs creator by investing in new sectors like stem-cell research. Andrea is the micro-jobs creator by stimulating small businesses and revitalizing downtowns. So a Gabrieli/Silbert ticket would be a double barrel combination that is far better than a double barreled combination of two white Irish guys or a double barreled combination of two lawyers.
<
p>
In terms of what either Tim or Andrea can do with delivering a “base” of voters, again Tim’s argument about delivering Worcester County does not hold up when you look at the numbers. (Damn, I had a long post on the numbers, which I can’t find.) Basically Worcester County only makes up 12% of the ’02 general election voters. And the City of Worcester voted one way-Democratic–and most, if not all, the other Worcester County communities voted Republican. So the City has absolutely no coattail effects with the rest of the county in the pastâwhy should we expect it to do so in the future. And even of it did have coattail effectsâthere arenât enough votes in Worcester County to swing the election.
<
p>
Andrea will appeal to a key demographic–independent suburban moms. We lose the suburbs and we get creamed in the suburbs between 128 and 495. When Democrats attract women, we turn them into soccer moms and we win. When Republicans attract women, they become security moms. And with Healey at the top of the R ticket, we need a middle class women on the ticket. And if she can credibly take on the mantle as the “jobs” candidate…WOWâ¦Andrea is a twofer!
<
p>
So, that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.
I’m not advocating a Gabrieli / Silbert ticket over a Reilly / Silbert or Patrick / Silbert. I elaborated more on a Chris / Andrea team because of the perceived “jobs” duplication. For reasons stated about, Andrea will be the strongest enhancement to every ticket.
The Mayor of Worcester chairs the City Council and School Committee. Tim Murray led the group that brought in the existing Manager and laid out the economic development agenda that the city is pursuing. Whether it is Jim McGovern, labor groups, business community, colleges or hospital leaders, most have credited Mayor Murray with ushering in a new era of leadership that has Worcester moving.
That leaves me puzzled. If he’s taken the lead on issues like that, how does that square with his stepping in to quash a citizen-led effort to pass a civil liberties resolution in Worcester that he had to do no work on, and that is directly relevant to the people of Worcester in their daily lives?
<
p>
Remember I liked Tim Murray as a candidate quite a lot until I was reminded of his action to prevent this resolution from being passed. He gained nothing by it, he could’ve just stood aside and let a vote happen, but instead he used his authority to disallow it. All I can think of is that he submitted to pressure from US Attorney Sullivan (who worked for Ashcroft), who was lobbying cities very hard not to pass these, to go along and get along; or worse, that Murray was actually convinced by Sullivan’s arguments in defense of the Patriot Act as-is.
<
p>
I won’t call someone a progressive when they actively take a stand against civil liberties, no matter what else they’ve done.
When in fact there are several considerations that should be discussed. This isn’t just a motion to put the question on the floor, followed by an up or down vote by the council.
<
p>
Time must be set aside for debate. You then have positioning, posturing, grandstanding, more debate and maybe a vote or maybe a continuance to another meeting.
I know of some people who would love to take positions all day long and wear them on their sleaves for everyone to see.
<
p>
What have you really accomplished? What if your local government spent all of it’s time debating these questions?
What then gets accomplished at the local level? Who’s watching the story then?
<
p>
I find it ironic, that Andrea Silbert (OR her campaign OR her supporters) has the time to be critical of, (by any measure), a hard working public servant, without ever having served in office herself?
<
p>
The final point. The body the motion is in front of has the descretion to decide whether to take up the motion or not.
If Cambridge wants to take it up, or another city or town, that’s fine with me, they have the right to do that. But if another town or city decides they have other matters that need discussion, who are we to say they don’t have the right to decide what is before them?
<
p>
I think the Sibert Campaign is in serious trouble if this is the best they can come up with on a blog that is so overwhelmingly in favor of her…
Tim Murray has been fighting to restore a once-great city since before he was elected to the Worcester City Council in 1997. He’s brought coalitions together to tackle issues like brownfields rehab, homelessness, education reform in a tough urban system, job creation by campaigning to bring new investment into the city (particularly biotech), etc, etc, etc. Is Worcester perfect? Of course not, but it’s far better off as a result of his leadership than it was before he was first elected as a councilor.
<
p>
I know. I’ve lived and worked in and near Worcester my entire life.
<
p>
Tim Murray has proven leadership and a record many should envy. He took a “weak” mayor role and made it strong through hard work and building consensus.
<
p>
I think what Andrea Silbert has done with the Center for Women and Enterprise is great, but it doesn’t qualify her to be a heartbeat away from being Governor of Massachusetts. That’s what the LG’s race is really about.
I am just curious about one part of your post. I have never fully understood what exactly Murray’s role was in Worcester’s government. While he certainly is the mayor, as I understand his position, he’s not a mayor in the way most of us would think of a mayor. I could be completely incorrect, but my understanding is that the Mayor of Worcester is the councilor at large garnering the largest number of votes, and that his only statutory role is to chair the school committee.
<
p>
To be perfectly clear, I understand how a mayor under this system could exercise influence over the city manager and others. But can someone show me an article or two from the T&G where they say “Murray Breaks New Ground in Mayor Role,” “Murray Takes the Lead.” I am just looking for some evidence that he really changed things in Worcester.
<
p>
I like Tim Murray, but I’d like if someone could point to something particular that he accomplished.
You’re right, I believe Worcester has a Plan E form of government like we do here in Cambridge. I’m not as familiar with it, but judging from the Cambridge example, yeah, Mayors can be pretty powerless if the city council over the years lets responsibility shift to the manager. Here in Cambridge, the city manager basically runs the city. Although the mayor formally is the chair of the city council, the city manager is actually the one who sets the agenda. He’s also the one who hires and fires, appoints people to the planning and zoning and liquor licenses boards/commissions, etc. So the mayor is basically just a city councilor, and with less power than a Boston city councilor-at-large.
<
p>
However, he does have a bully pulpit. Good mayors can accomplish good things, they just don’t actually govern the city. Ken Reeves has some accomplishments he can point to, for example.
<
p>
Anyone here familiar enough with Worcester government to tell us more about how this has worked out in Worcester?
Which, actually, makes Murray’s leadership success more striking. Murray has been the vision and idea guy, urging the city council to let its long-term manager, Tom Hoover, go when it was clear that the city was stagnating. And it was Murray who envisioned the new downtown that is currently in planning.
<
p>
I don’t think there’s anybody living here (and, I, too have lived in and around Worcester for nearly 40 years) who doesn’t credit the change in Worcester’s energy and vision to Tim Murray’s leadership.
I’m not trying to be a stickler, and I understand how Tim Murray could be behind the changes in Worcester, and I believe he probably is, but I am just looking for a little more than “And it was Murray who envisioned the new downtown that is currently in planning” … Anyone have any sources that say: Murray deserves credit for the new downtown that is currently in planning. It’s not that I don’t believe you lightiris, but I’d just like to know that somewhere out there in the ether he was really behind this stuff.
<
p>
That said, I do believe he is behind the changes in Worcester. I would just rather not base my support for a candidate on a vague belief.
you should talk with someone at Murray’s campaign office? I’m sure they can give you the specifics you need.
What’re you trying to get at by painting me as some sort of voice of the Silbert campaign? Have I ever posted as a Silbert supporter? The most supportive thing I’ve said about her was that I’m slowly coming around to supporting her as a way of supporting my friends (organizations) who support her, not because I’ve decided she’s the best candidate. In fact, until this week, I had equally good opinions of all three Lt. Governor candidates. And when Progressive Democrats of Cambridge voted to endorse Silbert, I was the only person there to vote against it – which I’ve posted about here on Blue Mass Group.
<
p>
On the one hand, it’s funny to see you trying to dislodge my criticism of Murray’s shameful action as an act of the Silbert campaign; on the other hand, it highlights how you’re jumping to uninformed conclusions and trying to deflect the actual argument with innuendo meant to make my comment seem dishonest. I’m offended.
<
p>
The rest of your comment is full of straw men.
<
p>
Nobody disputed the right of Worcester’s city council to decide whether to vote on this resolution. Just as nobody disputes the right of the US Congress to privatize Social Security. This isn’t a debate about Worcester’s rights, it’s a debate about Murray making the wrong choice. I never said he wasn’t allowed to make that choice, I only said I oppose his candidacy because of the choice he made.
<
p>
“What if your local government spent all of it’s time debating these questions?” Umm, what “these questions” are you talking about? The original poster here brought up other questions, some of which were entirely irrelevant to Murray’s job as a Worcester elected official, yet which he apparently did spend time on. But the issue I brought up is one issue, that could’ve been handled at one session of the council, and that’s it. It’s a relevant issue for local government, and thus exactly the sort of issue local government should be debating. That’s what local governments do.
<
p>
You seem to be implying that any city that passes a local civil liberties resolution, must necessarily therefore waste it’s time on lots of issues having nothing to do with local government – an insinuation clearly demolished by looking at the other cities (including NYC, Philadelphia, Dallas, Detroit, Denver, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Portland, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Kansas City, Atlanta, Richmond, DC, Des Moines, Baltimore, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, New Haven, Hartford, Lowell, …) that have done so.
You seem to have an open mind about the candidates.
I believe Smitty was referring to Cong. McGovern, who was arrested outside of the Sudanese Embassy for protesting the genocide. And he is pointing out that not only did Murray help get McGovern elected, but the Congressman strongly supports Murray in his race for Lt. Governor. They are very similar on the issues.
<
p>
As for the vote – he didn’t lead a charge to vote it down, it was a decision that a city council mtg was not the time or the place for such a resolution. Of the 11 city councilors, including himself, only 1 was supporting the introduction of the resolution. 9 other city councilors would have voted to not hear the resolution even if Mayor Murray had asked for a vote. I highly doubt, Murray, a staunce liberal democrat had Ashcroft whispering in his ear or Sullivan for that matter.
And that you have received at least $1,000 for your services from the Murray campaign. Doesn’t BMG have a rule about writing disclosures if you are on a campaign payroll?
<
p>
Please disclose that in all of your lg oriented posts so that readers know why you’re writing the way that you are!
<
p>
5/12/06 — $400
3/15/06 — $600
A variety of reimbursements.
<
p>
All I want is open blogging!
<
p>
WR
I think it was pretty clear I was talking about Jim McGovern. I concur with Renaissance Man if this is the best skeletons the Silbert people can find out of Timâs closet this far out to the vote, I can only wonder what we will hear in the coming weeks and months. They canât beat Tim on the issues so their mounting misleading facts to confuse people and us as Dems shouldnât have this kind of chatter in our primaries.
I assume your talking about me or “Will” as we were the only ones on this post saying we liked Andrea over Tim. Our basic point is that Tim’s a good candidate and good guy, would make a good LG–but we think Andrea’s better.
<
p>
How is that “mounting misleading facts to confuse people” as you write?
<
p>
I recommended this post, even though I don’t support Murray, because I think it’s well written. However, I almost didn’t recommend it because it has no whitespace between paragraphs – that’s actually the reason I didn’t recommend it the first time I looked at it. Whitespace is very important for readability. So, just wanted to point that out.
I though John Kerry was the “Real Deal”? How can there be two “Real Deal”s?
<
p>
That said, as former 3rd districter, the McGovern connection and endorsement is a big plus for Tim. Not enough to pull him ahead of Andrea, but enough to say I’d never be anti-Murray. Though I share Cos’s concerns about civil liberties, and a few other positions Tim’s taken.