I gotta agree with David: I’m undecided in the LG race, and last night’s forum at Jimmy Tingle’s didn’t help me make up my mind. Andrea Silbert and Tim Murray both make a very good case for themselves: They were both passionate (in their own ways), eloquent, and genuinely good-humored. (And I finally got to meet both of them individually, and they’re both just swell — friendly and real.) I could imagine them both being very effective, but it really depends on which gubernatorial candidate they’re paired with on the ticket.
The problem is that I still don’t know — and no one seems able to explain — what exactly an LG does. So how do you evaluate someone for the job? I see Murray as more of a wonky, insider-y team player; whereas Silbert strikes me as more of an energetic change-maker — you know, an entrepreneur.
As a “social entrepreneur”, Silbert’s Big Theme is jobs, and she poked fun at herself for her repetition of that theme: “Did I mention 14,000 jobs?” She also mentioned the environment (and her kayak tour) and transit sorry, homelessness (“feminization of poverty”) as her Big Three issues. I’m still left with the question of how her obvious energy and enthusiasm gets translated into essentially being a bureaucrat, a team member. How does a Lieutenant Governor create jobs? That’s the question that she needs to answer — very, very, specifically and believably. I don’t quite think she did that, and yet the idea that there is a realistic answer to that is tantalizing.
I should mention that although at the convention I criticized Silbert for being too intense for TV, she struck a good tone for her last night — smart, alert, friendly.
Murray gives complete answers to his questions, hitting his themes of public transit, aid to cities and towns, and brownfield development. He’s smart, well-spoken, easy to listen to, and is popular in an area that doesn’t tend to go for Democrats in gubernatorial elections. There’s some question as to how much real authority he’s had as Worcester mayor, and therefore how much credit he gets for the city’s rejuvenation; but he’s a capable enough guy that he could grow into just about any position. There’s a comfort level with Murray, but compared with Silbert, who knows — he might get lost on Beacon Hill, which indeed would be a shame. And the fact that he hasn’t committed to Cape Wind is a serious disincentive for me to vote for him.
One thing I was disappointed in with both of them is their seeming resignation to allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts. I can’t get with that, regardless of how many dollars leave Massachusetts because of it. We can’t let potential revenue be the determining factor of every social decision. I’ll have more on this later.
If you discern a hidden agenda in reading this, please let me know — I’d love to know myself.
I LOVE the line “If you discern a hidden agenda in reading this, please let me know — I’d love to know myself.” TOO TRUE.
<
p>
I was about to write a post effectively saying the same thing about this race as you guys did…I’m still mulling. Now, it’s down to the gritty picky nuances. Murray has geographical yumminess and seems to speak credibly to many different issues. Silbert has a good get-up-and-go and has only improved her stage presence, she’ll make a lively addition to any ticket – and withstand anything the Repubs can throw at her.
<
p>
And yes, I agree – this too-good-to-choose problem is a GOOD thing!
If Patrick wins then you get Cape Wind and no casino gambling, regardless of the LG. If Gabs wins you get Cape Wind and Casino gambling regardless of the LG. What matters is who is more willing to go with the governors agenda, and Id agree with Charley that Murray to me seems more like a team player, and I also agree there is little an LG or any politician frankly, can do to create jobs. I think Murray would balance out a Patrick ticket, Silbert would balance out a Gabrielli ticket.
<
p>
And in case you havent noticed Reilly is a non factor now, he doesnt have a chance.
that I found a bit troubling in last night’s forum. Jimmy asked Silbert point-blank how, exactly, government can “create jobs,” since after all, Jimmy noted, it’s really the private sector that creates jobs. You’d think that Silbert would have a rock-solid, ready-to-go answer for this question, since it’s such an obvious first question for the “jobs candidate.” Yet I thought her answer was muddled, and the take-away seemed to be “I’ll call my friends at Harvard and MIT, and we’ll all sit down together.” Wasn’t impressed by that. The stuff on her website is better. She’d be well-advised to find a way to boil that stuff down into an appealing 60-second sound bite.
Hi, I’m new to posting here but I’ve been an avid reader since the convention, I love BMG!!!
<
p>
I’ve been torn too on the LG race. I missed the event last night but I’ve been reading a lot about them and catch them on TV when I can.
<
p>
It was a close call, but I’ve decided to go with Silbert. They hold similar views on most things I really care about, but she’s clear in her support of Cape Wind and he just waffles on this very important issue. It impresses me too because Silbert lives on Cape Cod and has taken this position.
Through leadership and energy, really. Creating jobs is really about encouraging entrepeneurship and startups. There are all sorts of pieces of machinery in government that can influence how likely that is to happen, and they can move at different rates. If there’s someone with both a keen understanding of how the pieces fit together (or can fit together) and the energy to work hard and talk to everyone and change things, and the leadership & charisma to make people see the overall narrative, they can make a huge difference, is my guess.
<
p>
Government can…
* Fund nonprofits and resources for people going into business for themselves or trying to start small companies
* Figure out the processes that new businesses must go through to incorporate, get office or retail space, start payroll, and comply with the law – figure out where the roadblocks are, and how different government agencies figure into it
* Knowing some of the common problems new businesses face, a government agency could come up with a systemic solution.
* Put more people in a position to pursue their ideas, by lifting people out of poverty and providing basic security (such as health care), and making high quality education available to everyone.
<
p>
These are just some ideas of the kinds of things Silbert could do. The LG’s job is fluid and open to redefinition by each new person who holds the office, and I’m sure she has even more ideas than I could think of.
Sort of an Al Gore “reinventing government” from the standpoint of cleaning up (without weakening) regulation, acting as an advocate for entrepreneurs, so forth. OK, I can dig that.
<
p>
Now, why doesn’t she say that?
http://www.andreasil…
As I heard their remarks, neither of them support casino gambling in Massachusetts. They were both talking about the state lottery, and both talked about “limited, controlled” gambling which presumably means the existing state lottery. Andrea Silbert actually explicitly said she doesn’t want casinos. Murray didn’t say it directly, but I didn’t get any impression that he wants them.
Cos, you make a good point. I don’t know what Silbert’s position is on the casino vs. slots issue, but there is a difference.
<
p>
Allowing racetracks to have slots is different than allowing a tribe to construct a large casino. People go to casinos for the atmosphere, whereas people go to the track for reasons I can’t begin to understand (paging Argeo Paul Cellucci for an explanation, please…).
<
p>
For one, allowing slots at racetracks might (but won’t necessarily) allow tracks to stay in business and thus retain jobs – not an insignificant issue for a city like Revere, for example.
<
p>
I think/hope we’re at a sophisticated enough point in our society where we could make that distinction and there wouldn’t be as much of a risk of heading down a slippery slope. But then again, who knows.
If the state allowed slots in racetracks, any reservation in Massachusetts would then have the authority to build a full-scale casino. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s how it’s set up.
but that’s basically right, as I understand it. You can’t tell recognized tribes that they can’t have the same level of gambling as anyone else in the state, and slots are the big tipping point. You allow slots at the tracks, you’ve got ’em in the Indian casino.
<
p>
Anyone who is more familiar with IGRA than I, feel free to jump in here.
I heard Silbert as pro-casino, both last night, and on previous occasions. I’m sure Silbert was talking about going beyond the lottery – she wants to recapture revenue that’s going to CT and RI, and you can’t do that with the lottery. Murray sounded less enthusiastic, but I think the only LG candidate who’s unequivocally against casinos in MA is Goldberg.
Silbert was at the Arlington Town Day today and I asked her what her stand on casinos was. I didn’t have a notepad or recorder with me, so ALL THE BELOW IS MEMORY, PRONE TO ERROR.
<
p>
She said she is uncertain whether she supports casinos. She is still speaking with people to determine where she stands.
<
p>
She does support slots.
<
p>
Stating that I am not an expert on the issue, I asked her if it was her understanding that allowing slots was opening the door to casinos on tribal lands (as some others on this string have suggested.) Her response was that she did not know.
Under federal law, Indian nations can provide any gambling service already permitted in the state. So if slots are approved, they can open a slot machine hall.
<
p>
Foxwoods got its start when they discovered that Connecticut law permitted charity casino nights. Somehow they convinced the courts that meant they could have a full-scale casino.
What I heard Andrea said is that she will not make a full decision on this issue without full information. She also said that she has a familiy member who has struggled with gambling addiction, so she takes the social issues with gambling very seriously and personally. But, she has stated it would be improper for her, as an elected leader, to dismiss casino gambling out of hand, especially since we are in jobs crisis and economic downturn under Roms and Heals.
I have been reading BMG since the convention and love it. I’m going for Silbert. I like Murray, but he isn’t someone I get excited by. I thought Silbert spoke with great passion at the convention. I think she is very smart and would be a great LG. She cemented it for me in the first debate when she said she didn’t think equal marriage should be put to a vote. The others, even they though they oppose the admendment, waffled on whether there should be a vote
Good news for you sir Charles is that an LG candidate has flopped – Deb Goldberg. The people who know her best, Brookline Tab, chose Andrea Silbert as the best LG candidate over Deb and even chose Tim Murray over Deb.
<
p>
Here’s the scary part – she might win just because of more airtime in a down-ballot race. She would be a dead weight to our ticket and she’s too chicken to show up at all the debates. She has no message and no backbone.
<
p>
I am a rabid Silbert fan and think she is exactly what we need to energize the party leadership and create real change here for the better, but I also know Murray is a dedicated public servant and he would be a good asset as well. I want Andrea Silbert, but I will fine with Tim Murray. What I cannot have is Deb Goldberg.
Why is no one mentioning Deb Goldberg? My personal choice. Has she had a political “wake” similar to that of the Attorney General that I am unaware of?? I know that Silbert has the Prius driving Patrick Crowd and their is a lot of lunch bucket appeal for Murray, but is anyone with Deb???
To the Goldberg Convention Video. How anyone could seriously consider voting for this candidate after watching that video is beyond me. I’ve endorsed Silbert. I think Murray is a fine candidate also. But Goldberg could do so much more good with $2 million than give it to the Boston television stations it almost makes one weep. A tragic triumph of ego and inherited money over ability.
Tom Reilly picks Deb Goldberg as running mate!
<
p>
(just kidding)
I attended last night’s event in Davis Square. Going into it, I was leaning toward Silbert. Now, I’m not so sure.
<
p>
Andrea has an appealing energy, creativity, and vulnerability. Her vision and her intelligence would be really great to see in a statewide official. And her heart is clearly in the right place–that of standing up for the less powerful and of making opportunity more widely distributed.
<
p>
But I got the sense that Murray more clearly understands how government works and would be more effective in influencing legislation. He would need less on-the-job training. He would also be able to help capture a constituency that Deval will have a harder time getting on his own (I do think Deval will win the nomination).
<
p>
And on a personal level, Tim was also far less reactive. Andrea at one point made a comment to the effect of “Thank God Democrats weren’t in charge during the Big Dig mess,” which sounded to me like inappropriate Schadenfreude. She struck me, therefore, as more likely to make comments the press will jump all over. Given that the LG may one day be at the front of the ticket for the Dems, and recalling Shannon O’Brien’s meltdown in the debate spotlight four years ago (and she has a far more stable and saavy persona than Silbert), I would have to say that Murray is probably a strategically better bet for the Dems than Silbert.
<
p>
And as someone noted above, Silbert really didn’t do well with the wide-open opportunity that Jimmy Tingles gave her to lay out her job creation plan. I thought I saw somewhere that she was going to convene a government-business roundtable that would meet regularly, but she didn’t even bring that up.
<
p>
My heart is still with Silbert, and the role of women in MA government needs to be expanded. So I still can’t say who I will go with. But I can say that last night did complicate my appraisal going in.
<
p>
By the way, this is my first BMG post.
For those of you who may have missed it back in April, I have reposted the Saint Kermit virtual debate between Tim Murray and Andrea Silbert (we also interviewed Sam Kelley, but I have edited out his responses). Deb Goldberg was invited to participate, but she declined then (too!).
<
p>
For the blog post, click here.
<
p>
For a direct link to the MP3, click here.
I enjoyed his contribution to that debate..
To Bob-nobody outside of BMG or the roughly few thousand people and the DCU Center actually saw that video it wont factor in the race
<
p>
To Alex-Sams not in the race anymore, dont really need his opinion
<
p>
To VirtualDem-Murray does not the intricacies of government and your right that Andrea can at times appear to quick to jump the gun, also for me anyway Murray has lunch bucket appeal and the broad experience to balance a ticket with Patrick, though I think he would work well with either Patrick or Gabrielli. A Reilly-Murray ticket would be bad simply because they have similiar backgrounds and a great LG candidate would lose the race simply because he had an idiot on the top of the ticket.
I know Sam isn’t running, I just thought it was odd to cut it out as he was at the time…
I’ll admit I’ve been pretty cynical amount the amount of worrying about the LG race that goes on here.
<
p>
Personally, I think the Republicans might have the right idea with their habit of creating tickets. I have to admit that if the Gov. candidates made it clear who they thought would be their best running mate, it would make a big difference.
<
p>
In lieu of that, I’d love for someone, at some debate, to ask the Gov. candidates what they saw the role of the LG as. That way, we might have some idea about how much clout they would have.
At the convention, I was impressed with the Silbert organization’s feistiness and eagerness to get my vote. But looking at issues, it was difficult to distinguish between the candidates.
<
p>
While Silbert was making her presentation, someone pointed out that she didn’t smile at all. So I got concerned about whether she would be a compelling candidate — particularly for voters less wonkish than I am. The convention was Murray’s home turf. Perhaps comaprison is unfair. However, I felt that just generically in terms of self-presentation Murray would do better.
At least she did at Thursday’s debate.
Thanks for the update.