Dianne Wilkerson is, well, Dianne Wilkerson. She’s right on a lot of the issues. She’s done some good things for her constituents. But her already impressive litany of legal and ethical transgressions is threatening to get longer still — there’s just no end in sight. And Wilkerson’s sponsorship of the dreadful bill to extend Jordan Levy’s term on the Turnpike Authority shows a distressing sympathy with hackish causes. At some point, enough is enough, and it seems to us that Wilkerson is past that point.
All that, of course, is a big part of why Sonia Chang-Diaz challenged Wilkerson in the primary, and why we endorsed Chang-Diaz’s candidacy. Wilkerson’s Republican opponent in the general election, Samiyah Diaz, has less relevant experience than did Chang-Diaz (who had worked for Senator Cheryl Jacques), and it will take her some time to learn her way around the State House. Nonetheless, she’s obviously smart, and we have no doubt that she’ll figure things out quickly. She’s a social progressive on issues like choice and equal marriage, and she’s taken thoughtful positions on other issues in which she seems clearly to have the best interests of her would-be constituents at heart. And she had the guts to challenge Wilkerson, an entrenched incumbent, even before it was known that Wilkerson hadn’t collected the signatures needed to appear on the primary ballot.
Does the fact that Diaz is running as a “Republican” cause us some concern? Sure. None of us likes much of what the GOP stands for. But Diaz has repudiated much of the GOP’s playbook, particularly with respect to her support for equal marriage. We think it’s people with views like those espoused by Diaz that represent whatever future the Republican party has in this state. And in any event, a Diaz victory would still leave the state Senate with an overwhelming Democratic majority, so no harm, no foul. (Plus, maybe she’ll switch!)
In short, we think Samiyah Diaz would be a breath of badly-needed fresh air in the Second Suffolk Senate district. We’re happy to endorse her bid to unseat Dianne Wilkerson.
You are progressives, not DLCC mouthpieces. Samiyah represents progress for Second Suffolk, and you have been true to your net roots.
I have never heard you say anything positive about a Democrat…I am new to the site so enlighten me…
…while I may not want Dianne Wilkerson to be my accountant, I am perfectly happy with her overall voting record in the Senate. Sure, she’s not perfect…I haven’t seen a politican yet who is. But she’s done a lot of good things for her constituents, and your endorsement isn’t enough to persuade me to support another member of the Republican party.
We endorse, you decide! đŸ˜‰
I agree 100%. She led the fight for lgbt equality was invovled in trans stuff to, and cory reform. She has years of experience on comittees and that power of persuasion in the state house would take samiya years to achieve.
Honestly, a well written endorsement. But “maybe she’ll switch” and “there are so many dems it doesn’t matter” isn’t enough for me. Tell me why Diaz will be a better advocate for progressive values and causes then Wilkerson. Or back up the “she’ll switch” thing with something.
<
p>
Those are the two ways to get me to vote against Wilkerson.
I posted a response to this question here but you may have missed it: http://www.bluemassg… Hats off to BMG for a gutsy endorsement. You’re certain to get flamed for this, but remember the saying: “No new lands ever were discovered by ships afraid to lose sight of the shore.” Or something like that. Thank you for your courage. No matter what happens on Tuesday, everybody wins when there’s a choice on the ballot.
<
p>
As always, I remain a Samiyah Diaz supporter and a Sonia Chang Diaz fan.
Seeing as you guys went 1 for 4 with your primary endorsements- Patrick, Silbert, Bonifaz, and Chiang-Diaz– any chance you could do the DSC a favor and endorse a few more non-Democrats for the general?
/ snark
no one ever said changing politics for the better would be easy! đŸ˜‰
Pleasantly surprised to see the range of your endorsements – geez, from Jack (well almost) and Jill to Samiyah and Silbert. Makes BMG fun to read.
Not exactly. Incumbents almost always have the advantage, so if Diaz won (not very likely, but let’s assume), then she would be have a much better chance at winning in ’08 if she was running for re-election than simply running a second time after a loss.
<
p>
If the state GOP got its act together (again, not likely, but they temporarily recovered from their 1988 doldrums pretty quickly two years later, so you never know), then this is one seat that we’d want to have if the numbers got closer.
<
p>
The best thing for people to do if they don’t like Wilkerson is not vote for her this time (or even write in Chang-Diaz as a protest vote) and then support a primary challenge in 2008. This is a far better choice than supporting a Republican.
With few exceptions, it doesn’t happen. The best way, probably the only way, to see a competitive election in ’08 is to vote for Samiyah Diaz. A blank, or write in, counts as a vote for Dianne rather than the underdog. If you want to support Dianne, go ahead and be proud enough to vote for her. Otherwise, as difficult as it may seem and as Samiyah’s website urges, “Do the Right Thing.”
At least in recent years, it is ONLY in primaries when incumbents have been defeated. Parente this year. Ciampa and Howland in 04. Going back beyond that my memory might be off, but there’s also Maryanne Lewis in 02. Oh, and Ronny Sydney in 2000… and Barrios defeated an incumbent in a primary when he first ran for rep.
<
p>
Not all of these were “long term” incumbents — but Ciampa, Parente, and Lewis were.
<
p>
This is all off the top of my head, so I might be forgeting someone, but it seems, again, it is only in primaries when incumbents are defeated.
<
p>
In 2000, Bill McManus was defeated in the general by Jim Leary in Worcester. But even McManus HAD been a Democrat and switched cause he thought he’d have a better shot against Leary in the general. Oh well!
<
p>
You guys took a stand on this. I can respect that, as well as the vigor with which some have stood up for Dianne from the getgo. Amazes me, however, that the Globe editorial page took two passes on this race. Speak up, guys, we can’t hear you!
I am thoroughly surprised by the partisan criticism of the Editors here. They got it right. Wilkerson is a part of the very politics that we all want changed. She is a lawbreaker, a crony, a hack, all of the above. Samiyah Diaz offers a change and is with us on all or most of the issues. We need honest government, not more partisanship.
<
p>
Deval has a quote, we don’t have to agree on everything before we can work together on anything. Samiyah seems prepared to work for a new kind of politics against the old kind, right or left, that relies on partisanship over genuine hope.
<
p>
I don’t live in the district, but Diaz would get my vote if I did.
and this is not a criticism of the Editors. I respect their views.
<
p>
However, in 2006, I am very partisan and very much a Democrat. With everything that’s happening nationally with Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. and with the atmosphere created locally here in Massachusetts by Romney, Healey, and Co., it’s time Democrats stand together and fight back against the divisivness, fear and hate that has been heaped on us by the Republicans.
<
p>
And if Ms. Diaz wants to be a part of the party of fear, that is her right. But she won’t be getting my support.
C’mon. Partisan war is not the answer. You don’t rise above the Republicans by engaging in precisely the same conduct you criticize them of condoning. Deval said it best: “It’s not a question of left vs. right, but right vs. wrong.”
who switches parties like underwear–Democrat one day, Republican the next–has no respect for each party’s core principles. That alone is as good a reason as any not to vote for that candidate.
<
p>
Expediency is a bad sign in any candidate. Sorry, this is a no-brainer. Under no circumstances should a thoughtful Democrat cast a vote for a Democratic candidate who, having failed to dislodge the incumbent Democrat during the primary, switches to Republican in order to get a second shot, especially considering what the Republican Party has become in this nation.
<
p>
when did Diaz switch? She’s been Republican all along, AFAIK, announcing her challenge to Wilkerson in the general long before most people knew who Sonia Chang-Diaz was.
Its irrational to make the party more important than the candidate, like Ive been saying to defend my vote for Stein I will say here to defend my consistent support of Diaz (albeit support in spirit alone since I dont live in that district) Wilkerson represents the worse elements of politics, toeing the party line, voting for corrupt leaders like Finneran and Travaglini, voting for corrupt officials like Jordan Levy, and voting to keep the hackocracy going that silences true democracy in Beacon Hill. Sure shes more progressive than Trav on the issues, but her votes keep him in power, her votes indirectly but legitimately keep the people out of the halls of power. And her motivations, money and nepotism, are a far cry from the legitimate call of service a mother and law school student (how did she have the time to campaign!) suddenly felt urged to follow, back when the polls showed she’d lose and Wilkerson was entrenched beyond expulsion.
<
p>
It says R next to her name, but that R stands for Roosevelt, Lincoln, LaFolette, Salanstall, Sargent, and many other progressives, dont forget a Republican founded the progressive movement to begin with. That R doesnt stand for Romney, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Bush and any intelligent person would see that viewing her issues and website. Lastly we want the Republicans to have at least enough votes in the Senate to be able to roll call votes, to stop Trav from voice voting provisions. A loyal opposition is vital to the preservation of democracy.
Well said! Who knows, maybe reports of the death of democracy in Massachusetts have been greatly exaggerated….
…and as partisan as I am (and thanks to George W, I’m increasingly partisan) I’d still vote for Bill Weld over John Silber.
<
p>
And to all those folks defending Wilkerson simply because she is a Democrat…did you vote for Silber also…or Ed King over Frank Hatch (for the old folks on the board?)
<
p>
Also, a blind vote of partisanship for a corrupt person (anyone want to defend Diane?) is more harmful to the long term health of the Democratic Party, than electing a Republican today. We’ll see how the stragety of Republicans defending their corrupt members of Congress gets them on Tuesday.
Personally, I wouldnÂ’t have a problem with the editors endorsing Diaz if it werenÂ’t as enthusiastic as the HeraldÂ’s endorsement of Healy. A badly needed breath of fresh air is not reason enough to endorse a neophyte Republican with no voting record. Oh and the argument that she might switch over is totally irrelevant as is the fact that there will be plenty of Democrats in office. I’m sure Samiyah will be great at keeping the Dems in order. Since there is still an overwhelming number of Democrats, why don’t we go out on a limb and endorse Healy. Frankly, I am surprised that Samiyah would even affiliate with the Republican Party considering sheÂ’s a minority, a single mother and a Muslim. Our recent history tells us the Republicans (generally speaking) have not taken to kindly to those three groups. It is hypocritical to overlook WilkersonÂ’s record on socially progressive issues when Democrats have routinely endorsed others who have been bound with some ethical issues as well. Bill Clinton was getting his wiener waxed in the oval office and he is often referred to as one of best presidents in recent times. And Ted Kennedy Â…..need I say more. Then again, I suppose their ethical/moral problems donÂ’t matter because of their White Male Privilege!!!
Ummm, how about because Healey’s a lousy candidate and Deval Patrick is a terrific candidate? Surely you can see that there’s a bit of difference between that and the Wilkerson/Diaz situation.
<
p>
As for Clinton, I couldn’t care less about his affair. It had nothing to do with his job. You really can’t say the same about campaign finance violations, though, can you?
She has no legislative or executive experience. She hasn’t been involved in her community (and by community, i mean the South End/Roxbury/JP area. If elected, she’ll be a minority member of committees instead of a majority member or leader of committees. She has no experience working with other people in the State Senate. She hasn’t been at the forefront of any major issue-based battles in this state.
<
p>
These are all things that Sonia Chang-Diaz had that Samiyah lacks and it makes a huge difference in deciding who represents us in the State Senate. To the rest of you, this might just be one out of a million seats. But to those of us who actually live in the district, we realize that this person is going to represent our needs in the State Senate for the next two years. And given the choice of a toothless newbie Republican or a tenured Democrat with significant legislative experience at a time when we have significant crime, job, and housing problems, the choice is incredibly clear.
<
p>
I voted for Sonia Chang-Diaz and I’ve voting for Jill Stein. I’d vote for Samiyah Diaz if I thought she was the best candidate for my community. But I really think she isn’t and the BMG argument for her isn’t convincing to me.
This is a sad business.
<
p>
I’m one of Dianne’s constituents and have usually found her great to work with. Plus, her consistent support of civil liberties, economic justice and responsible environmental stewardship are something to be proud of.
<
p>
That said, she’s really managed to make an ass of herself outside the state house. And I doubt many of this site’s contributors (including myself) would have been willing to cut her so much slack if she were seated on the other side of the aisle. So I suppose a moderate Republican like Samiyah is a perfectly respectable protest candidate. I know that a lot of folks in my neighborhood feel embarassed and pissed off that she seems incapable of assuming full responsibility for her screw-ups. Many people I’ve talked to are planning to use their left over Chang-Diaz stickers next tuesday.
<
p>
With the expected surge in her Roxbury base, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Wilkerson will keep her seat this time around. But I’m betting that Sonia will come back and eat her lunch next cycle.
from a block of his constituents because he’s right on their issues, takes care of his constituents and does what politicians do this time of year.
<
p>
He’s also a crook. He’s an embarassment to his party, to his district, to his family.
<
p>
For the life of me, I’m sitting here thinking why on earth would people still support him. Why would they still vote for him?
Because in their eyes, he’s their guy. Sure he’s an embarassment. Sure he’s a crook. But he stands up for what (we think) he believes. He goes to bat for his district and brings home the bacon. He takes care of his own.
Of course he finally resigned today but if he hadn’t he’d still get votes. Bob Ney and what he stands for on our side or the aisle is a complete disaster for the country and democracy. Dianne Wilkerson is also a mess and for the same reasons. If Dems can’t look beyond the D to see what our candidates stand for outside of our sphere we’re no better than those supporting Bob Ney or any of the rest of the felonious hacks desparately trying to cling to power.
<
p>
Kudos to the editors of BMG for seeing between the lines.
I’m going to stick with the devil I know–until Chang-Diaz in 2008 or, if not her, some other credible challenger comes along.
<
p>
Wilkerson’s behavior should be an absolute disqualifier. But there’s no way I’m voting for someone who chooses to affiliate with today’s GOP.