A business owner and source that wishes not to be named stated that the other day he/she had received a telephone call from Andrea Silbert. In the call, Lt. Governor candidate Andrea Silbert repeatedly stated that she was opposed to the section of the recently passed MA healthcare law, which required businesses to pay a fine for the employees whom they did not help pay to insure. She then went about asking for a campaign contribution.
This is surprising since Silbert originally said that she supported the MA Healthcare Legislation, yet now she is going around telling businesses the opposite. She is stating that there is not enough money for the legislation, yet she is opposing the employer mandates that would help fund it. It amazes me that a politician like Silbert that touts progressive credentials and supposedly supports Universal Healthcare would not support the basic clauses that would help enforce healthcare reform. If businesses donât participate in providing health insurance for their employees then what is the point of a piece of legislation thatâs sole purpose is to ensure that all individuals regardless of socio-economic background, sex, race or age receive comprehensive affordable healthcare. Now there was already controversy behind the fact that the monetary âfineâ the healthcare legislation imposes on businesses who donât provide employees with health insurance would actually cost the businesses less money per employee than it would to insure them in the first place.
Already this legislation has baby teeth (if teeth at all), but now Silbert wants to yank those teeth out all together on the side of big business. Obviously, she thinks the tooth fairy will give her a couple thousand for each tooth she yanks out. Maybe she is right, but at what cost? Why compromise your core democratic values, and the rights of MA residents to quality, affordable healthcare just so that you can put a couple thousand more in your campaign war chest.
I am getting a toothache just thinking about it. Andrea you lost another vote today.
A business owner and anonymous source told me that Karl Rove and Mitt Romney are rigging the Massachusetts election for Grace Ross so that they can continue to run against crazy Massachusetts liberals in 2008.
<
p>
Also, a political operative told me that Andrea Silbert eats puppies and that Tim Murray is a hitman for the Latvian Mob.
<
p>
Also, a leprechaun told me that he’d give me a pony.
I heard from an anonymous friend of mine (really!) that one of her “women in enterprise” startups was a puppy breeder. Obviously she only helped start that one so that she’d have a steady supply of puppies to eat.
<
p>
This can’t just be coincidence. It must be true!
oh was this tim murray’s handiwork? i had no idea. the jet lag back and forth to worcester must be brutal.
Very persuasive.
FYI-
<
p>
Advance Planning for credibility means more than creating an account and then slamming someone in an hour with this info.
<
p>
Username: justademocrat
PersonId: 1463
Created: Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 13:25:04 PM EDT
<
p>
Post Created:
Silbert looks to Profit from Big Business, while Hurting the Uninsured
by: justademocrat
Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 14:27:13 PM EDT
<
p>
At least if I saw it in the Boston Globe, I’d know that a reporter and an Editor know who the sources are. There are plenty of good reasons to be anonomous both in posting and in the newspaper, but combining them here, an hour after creating your account gives you zero credibility.
<
p>
About the only way you can get an “I told you so” is to drop a dime at the Globe and see if they’ll write a story. Short of that, this is going nowhere.
…just another case of drive-by smears. I doubt we’ll be seeing “justademocrat” posting again.
<
p>
Like many other blogs, I suggest the editors have a 7 day waiting period between the time someone registers and the time they can write their first post.
<
p>
It would help stopping this kind of behavior.
but we were kicking around the idea of some sort of wait – maybe a day or two. We’ll see.
No one should be able to post a diary (or post, as they are called here) until they have established a comment history first to establishe voice and credibility. I’m thinking that maybe 20 comments is a good number.
<
p>
No one would post this unless they were affiliated with a campaign that’s frightened.
<
p>
Does anyone have some polling numbers or something? I can’t imagine this wouldn’t come out now unless one of the other two is deciding to go negative out of the box.
I’d be surprised to find out this is a coordinate effort by any campaign. I’d like to believe that we have 3 good candidates running for LG and that none would have a campaign that stoops to such tactics.
<
p>
My guess – overzealous supporter.
Overzealous? Whaaa?
Justademocrat or Justajackass? Even as baseless smears go, this is hamhanded.