I just wanted to follow-up on Charley’s I’ll Take Silbert post below, in which he endorsed Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor. I second everything he wrote — including about Murray, whom I agree has much to recommend him. I have indeed been bugging David and him to take a position on the LG race (seems we still have one truant), but I haven’t lobbied them in any way other than to repeat the arguments for Silbert’s excellence that I posted in June. Charley came to his conclusion on his own.
I was impressed by Goldberg after our initial BMG interview with her, and said so, but she lost me completely with her campaign: the perverse Convention video, her low visibility on the trail, including occasional refusals to debate, and worst of all her apparent belief that she can just buy the election with her inherited — she didn’t even make the money herself — millions. Very weak.
I am convinced that Silbert will produce some real results if she is elected LG. Her record supports that. Not only did she get three degrees from Harvard and start a multi-state non-profit from scratch that has helped to create thousands and thousands of jobs for the least well off among us, she also built an effective campaign that looks to have raised over $1 million her first time out of the gate. This person can get things done. She will bring new ideas, fresh dynamism, and a proper focus on expanding jobs to Beacon Hill — all things we desperately need. She is worth your vote.
Silbert has my vote too.
<
p>
I had the same problem with Gabs and Deval that I had with Silbert and Murray. Two great candidate buy only one vote.
<
p>
As silly as it may seem, I think hurry, hurry vote for murray may put him over the top.
<
p>
…and have not been watching TV, but I have not seen Murray’s ads. Have you? And if so, how many Murray ads have you seen compared to Silbert’s? (Hurry hurry is cute, but Silbert’s kids are just, if not more, memorable.)
and I like Andrea’s ads, but in a race were most people can’t even name the candidates for Lt Gov, the one with a “tim for treasure” like slogan might have an advantage.
<
p>
Silbert certainly deserves credit for her accomplishments. But at the end of the day, what we’re going to need in Boston is someone who understands that cities and towns are being squeezed by rising health care costs for their employees, not enough local aid, a crumbling infrastructure, and a need to have safe streets. Not only has Tim Murray spent years on these issues, but he’s the only one in this race who has weighed in on them in a consistent manner throughout the campaign. He’s brought something more to the debate than just the “i can create jobs” mantra that everyone is tumpeting. Sure, Harvard degrees are great, but since when is that litmus test for higher office? In the end, the numbers will give the edge to Murray.
we already have 200 State Reps and St. Senators looking out for the needs of cities and towns. Really, what will Murray do that will be any different? Only the Executive Office (Gov / LT Gov) can have the global view to drive balanced growth.
What he will do is fight for cities and towns. Yes our Reps & sens to this but they do not have the experience the Murray will add. Isn’t worth having someone who can hit the ground running for this position, no learning needed? Andrea is smart person who would make a great public servant but I am little troubled that she feels that her CEO resume with a nonprofit/nonpaying tax business is equal to being part of a team that runs the 2 largest city in the state.
<
p>
Hurry,hurry, vote for Murray !!