In a mini-debate to be aired tonight at 7 pm on NECN, Jim Braude’s NewsNight show brought out some interesting differences between the three Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor. Here’s the short version (candidates listed in alphabetical order).
- Casino gambling.
- Goldberg: agin’
- Murray: fer
- Silbert: sorta fer
- Gay marriage – all the candidates agree that the proposed anti-marriage amendment should be defeated. The question was whether the legislature should take an up-or-down vote.
- Goldberg: fer
- Murray: fer
- Silbert: agin’
- Campaign fundraising.
- Goldberg: $700,000-$750,000 raised, $2 million personal funds donated.
- Murray: $700,000-$800,000 raised, no personal funds donated.
- Silbert: $850,000 raised, $5,000 personal funds donated.
Here’s the actual transcript:
ON CASINOS (transcript)
JIM BRAUDE: Casinos for massachusetts, yes or no….
GOLDBERG … I don’t think so; that’s not the answer.
MURRAY … Yes, it will help us reduce property taxes.
SILBERT… We have to take a look at it in a limited way.
ON WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD TAKE A VOTE ON GAY MARRIAGE (transcript)
BRAUDE: Should the legislature vote yes or no, up or down on the proposal to ban gay marriage in the constitution?
SILBERT… I think this issue has been settled; it was settled by the courts, we need to move on, so no.
MURRAY …Yes. And hopefully as lieutenant governor I’d work to try to make sure that we vote no to a consitutional convention… But they should vote.
GOLDBERG… I understand why they’re not voting until after the election. This is the Republicans trying to divert attention… Should there be an up or down vote? Sure….
ON CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING AND PERSONAL FUNDS DONATED TO CAMPAIGN:
BRAUDE: How much money have you raised, how much money of your own are you spending?
SILBERT… I’ve raised $850,000 that’s in $25 checks up to $500…. BRAUDE: How much of your own money? … SILBERT: $5,000.
MURRAY… We’ve raised about $7-800,000… BRAUDE: How much of your own money? …. MURRAY: None yet… Other than the pocket money as we go around.
GOLDBERG… Same amount of money in terms of raising, around 7-750,000 raised… BRAUDE: And how much of your own? … GOLDBERG… $2 million…
…but we ALL agree that under no circumstances should the people who PUT the Legislators there, the mere electorate, should have a vote?
That’s the system – if the framers of Art. 48 wanted any initiative proposal on the ballot, they wouldn’t have required one, much less two, votes in the legislature. Under current law, a constitutional amendment cannot go to the people unless it can get a modest degree of support from the legislature. (Hey, it’s more “democratic” than the federal system, which has no direct role for the people.) If you don’t like it, advocate changing Art. 48.
Doesn’t the Dem leadership keep introducing bills to up the ante from 10,000 to a gazillion, in order to effectively eliminate petition drives anyways?
Goldberg impresses me on the issues. I’m not a big fan of people who like to spend big to win, but I’m deeply opposed to ANY casino action – even just slots. If there were slots, from my understanding on the issue, full-scale casinos could be built on Indian Reserves in the state. And we definately don’t need full-scale casinos. Furthermore, with more casinos, each casino’s profits decline… so it may not even bring in all that much money to Massachusetts anyway.
<
p>
Let’s try to build revenue in Massachusetts through means that aren’t corrosive to society – like becoming the leader in environmentally friendly technology.
At the end of Andrea’s answer, Deb tried to blurt in that she was really a “maybe.” Braude was, I think, a bit to cavalier with his attempt to bottle these candidates into simple boxes, and on this issue have a “yes, no and maybe” assigned to each of them. It’s really not that simple, and I think they would all agree that a) it’s worth looking at since we lose so much to CT and b) if it isn’t right, we shouldn’t do it. Didn’t we have a commission when Romney came in looking into it? I can’t recall…
<
p>
But Ryan, if you’re firmly opposed to casinos, then none of these candidates currently agrees with you, although Deb initially appeared to be closest to your position until she tried to get her revised position heard as Braude changed the subject.
How can Deb be impressive on the issues? Her time as a Selectwomen in Brooklin is a far cry as one to have the real life experience that Murray has done as Mayor for over 5 years in the second largest city in the state. Let’s face it most citzens main dealing is on the local level, whether it be dealing with getting a pot hole filled in, trash picked up, or fighting to maintain critical services such as police. fire, and school teachers. We can not always agree on every issue one takes a stance on but at least Murray is a “out of the box” thinker. I feel he would make a great balance to whomever the Governor maybe.
You can tell that these reporters don’t like the fact that Golberg has put so much of her own $$ into this. Why else would Braude have asked this question and why else would Janet Wu have asked the “private school/public school” question?
<
p>
Hilarious.
<
p>
Remember this about the money too: Silbert’s lead in fundraising comes without the benefits of incumbency. All the more impressive. But given the personal wealth of her opponent, she still needs our help badly. See this post for my strong feelings on this.
But what’s not to like? So she’s rich. BFD. All that means is that if she wins, she brings a lot more dough to the ticket than the other two. She’s raised roughly the same amount as the other two candidates, so it’s not like she’s got no support (unlike some other wealthy candidates for Governor). Honestly, I think this question and Janet Wu’s even worse one about the cars they drive are total cheap shots.
Murray and Silbert knew when they got into this race that Goldberg was going to dump a ton of money into this race…for Silbert to whine about it now is a little much.
<
p>
Silbert admittedly put some of her own money in but because Goldberg has more and can afford to put more in is a reason for her to take issue with Goldberg? What I found even more funny, beyond her rolling her eyes when Goldberg spoke, was that she couldn’t say she wouldn’t have done the same thing if she were in the same financial position as Goldberg…just seems a little inconsistent to me.
Andrea’s point was that money in general has become too important in campaigns. Just look at my own views posted here over the last few months: I believe that whoever has a combination of a lot of money and quality ads will likely win. It’s not about really anything else. For candidates like Tim and Andrea, they have to spend all their time fundraising, whereas Deb doesn’t and can spend money on ads. Yes, I know that’s the system, but imagine how much more engaging this already interesting race would be if what I think are the two best candidates could get out of their offices more and actually speak to voters and get a real grassroots effort together. (Yes, I know Tim says he’s putting together a ground campaign, and maybe he is spending a lot of time on that – his lack of fundraising could be evidence of that, but we’ll see if his ground game comes together in the end. I’m doubtful but hope to be proven wrong.)
<
p>
But it’s not just that. Imagine if more people like Andrea Silbert ran for public office because they didn’t have to be burdened with fundraising all the time. It sucks the life out of candidates, and it’s too bad.
<
p>
So I think that was her point when she said that dealing with campaign finance reform was important. She wants to make real change on this it seems, and perhaps she’s the kind of innovator who can come up with a real, bipartisan public financing scheme that is the smarter, more effective progeny of the ill-fated clean elections bill. I wouldn’t be surprised if Andrea’s new biggest fan Scott Harshbarger has some ideas on this too…
Let’s not kid ourselves folks, Andrea is not waiting in a bread line. She and her family has done very well for themselevs, and I applaud them. It appears we are get caught up in the ones ability to raise the dough and forgetting about who can do this job. To me Murray and Andrea stand wellabove Deb. I tend to think Murray’s experience is vital mainly due to his working as Mayor in the second largest city in the Commonwealth.
Let’s not kid ourselves folks, Andrea is not waiting in a bread line. She and her family has done very well for themselevs, and I applaud them. It appears we are get caught up in the ones ability to raise the dough and forgetting about who can do this job. To me Murray and Andrea stand wellabove Deb. I tend to think Murray’s experience is vital mainly due to his working as Mayor in the second largest city in the Commonwealth.
…I dispute Goldberg’s contention that she has raised as much as the others.
<
p>
As for cheap shots about driving cars…I couldn’t believe the way Deb brags about how “green” she is and then hopes into her Lexus SUV.
George Bush won two elections in no small part because millions of people thought they’d rather have a beer with him than Gore or Kerry. I personally can understand that: he comes across as more of a regular guy than the other two. (Until, of course, he passes a mirror and you note that he casts no shadow just before he rips off his face and the fires of hell shine out, but I digress). The car question is directly to this point, and I bet many thousands more Massachusetts voters will make their voting decisions based on make and model than on, for example, LG candidate positions on casino gambling. As to the wealth business, look at Gabrieli’s ROE (return on equity) — pretty low — and one can begin to see the danger of being perceieved as a rich person without a wide base of support or much experience in state-level politics.
You got to be kidding right ? Pouring that kind of money into a race like this is only about one thing, Deb’s ego is just as big as her pocketbook or should I say her Grandparent’s. Let’s elect someone who truly cares about the average person.
Now that I’ve watched the mini-debate, I have a few comments. While I’m not convinced on who I’ll vote for and I still think Deb is right on the issues more often than the other candidates (though, none of them are BAD on the issues), Andrea Silbert DEFINATELY has a lot of poise. She does look and sound like a leader.
<
p>
However, there’s something that really bothered me about the “mini-debate.” Why so much time spent on asking them all who they’d support for Governor?! I mean that was a good chunk of all the time they were given and it matters this much >< in the race.
<
p>
Sort of pissed me off.