Rizzo began by talking about the district, and the common issues he thinks apply throughout: people are concerned about property taxes, want good schools, and worry about crime. He pointed out that, as Revere councilor at-large, he represents about 37,000 people in the district, compared to the 27,000 people in the district who are currently represented by Petrucelli (an east Boston state rep).
Rizzo talked about the choices cities and towns have to make: cut services, or raise property taxes. Local aid has not recovered, and this is one of his priorities. On that topic, he said he is glad that “we have a more forward-looking Governor now” but that “he’s only been in office a few months and already there is resistance” in the legislature for his proposals. Rizzo positions himself as an ally for Deval Patrick on corporate loophole closings, local aid increases, and reducing property taxes.
He talked about the size and breadth of the district, and how important he feels constituent service is. One thing Travaglini was know for, he remarked, was good constituent service … and a chorus of “not in Cambridge!” came back from the room. Rizzo said that he was surprised to hear that, because he’d had a different impression from his point of view “from the other side of the bridge”. He was also saddened to hear that Travaglini had neglected constituent service in Cambridge, which, he noted, has 25% of the district. He promised to do better.
Oh, and about that nonpartisan redistricting question: He is in favor. He thinks when legislators get together to decide their own districts, you get unfortunate results, and he’s even seen ward boundaries redrawn specifically to benefit municipal incumbents.
After he left, we discussed some other aspects of the race.
One thing that came up was gay marriage. MassEquality endorsed Petrucelli, but that’s no surprise: he’s a legislative incumbent who has voted in favor of gay marriage, and Rizzo is not in the legislature. He is also in favor of gay marriage. Also, some people expressed worry about what would happen if Petrucelli moved up to the senate and an old-school East Boston politico were elected to replace him in the house: there’s a reasonable chance that new rep would be opposed to marriage equality.
We also discussed the interesting role Cambridge plays in this election. With Toomey out, we don’t have a hometown favorite; Revere and East Boston each do. The populations of Winthrop, and the downtown portion of the district, are relatively very small. Cambridge, with 25% (about the same as East Boston, somewhat less than Revere) is the swing vote. Certainly a lot of this will hinge on turnout: how many Revere voters Rizzo can pull to the polls vs. how many East Boston voters Petrucelli can pull to the polls. But if one of them wins a significant majority in the Cambridge portion of the district, that would likely be decisive.
In that light, it was interesting for me to see how much support Dan Rizzo seems to have among both Cambridge progressives and Cambridge elected officials. State Senator Jarrett Barrios, Cambridge mayor Ken Reeves, former mayor (and consistent top vote-getter in city ellections) Anthony Galluccio, and former Cambridge Democratic Committee chair Laurie Taymor-Berry, are among his supporters. So are Boston progressives like Maura Hennigan and Chuck Turner. And he’s definitely campaigning a lot in Cambridge.
Some upcoming opportunities to see Dan Rizzo in Cambridge:
- Rally for Rizzo
Sunday, May 20, noon-2p
Zuzu (Middle East), 474 Mass Ave
- Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association
Tuesday, May 22nd, 7-9pm
8 Woodrow Wilson Court (near Pleasant & Fairmount)
Marjorie Decker and Brian Murphy are also supporting Dan Rizzo.
<
p>
It’s not hard to figure out why local officials would want a more responsive State Senator…just like Tim Murray pointed out in the last statewide election, cities and towns have been virtually ignored by GOP Administrations and legislative leadership for over a decade…the results are apparent…local aid and funding for mandated programs fall consistently short leaving communities to raise property taxes, fees, fines at the same time they are cutting services back in every direction.
<
p>
Patrick and Murray want to change that but they will not succeed without new Senators and Reps who aren’t beholden to the Leadership that handpicked ’em or the lobbyists that financed their campaigns.
<
p>
The upside of NOT being annointed to succeed Trav by the power elite and their fifty closest (lobbyist) friends is that Dan Rizzo will be beholden to no one except the people who elected him…and he has already proven to be a strong progressive willing to help this Administration push a progressive agenda through.
<
p>
Cambridge has a great opportunity to do what Deval has been urging his grassroots to do: help get him the support he needs to get his agenda passed…what better way to do it!
Rizzo was ghastly unfamilar about Cambridge issues at a recent debate and seemed unprepared according to witnesses hear and at the Chronicle, and Petrucci seems to be very well qualified, but unfortunately he was handpicked by Trav and that leaves him with a taint that he might not be able to shake.
<
p>
Both are able bodied progressive, both have the right view on marriage, both have the right view on most issues so it hinges on two questions:
<
p>
1)Who is better for Cambridge?
2)Who would work better for Deval?
<
p>
The answer sadly is mutally exclusive, Rizzo seems bad on Cambridge issues while he’d work better with Deval. Petrucci seems very knowledgeable about Cambridge issues but seems like he’d side with political ally DiMasi on corporate taxes and be Trav like on economic issues and patronage issues.
<
p>
So I’d say Rizzo, the fact that so many Cambridge pols from diverse ends of the Cambridge spectrum (Barrios and Galluccio ran against each other, Galluccio and Decker dislike each other) points to the fact that he has friends here and they will help fill in the gaps he might have on Cambridge.
<
p>
And its up to the voters to make sure the winner in either case is properly challenged if they fail to deliver, the State Senate is not the House of Lords, it shouldnt be a lifetime appointment.
First, let’s be clear that the man’s name is Petruccelli, not Petrucci.
<
p>
I attended the Cambridge forum on May 8 with Dan Rizzo and Anthony Petruccelli as well as the small gathering of the Progressive Democrats of Cambridge on May 17 at which Mr. Rizzo appeared.
<
p>
Based on the May 8 forum, I really couldn’t distinguish anything significant between the two based on what they said. Who was backing each candidate was the main thing I found myself focusing on. Mr. Rizzo is backed by Cambridge city councillors Murphy and Galluccio (whom I respect). On the other hand, he’s backed by councillors Reeves and Decker – definite negatives (note – Reeves is not listed on Rizzo’s site). Senator Barrios and Cambridge School Committee member Nancy Walser are also backing Rizzo.
<
p>
Mr. Rizzo is currently an elected municipal official in Revere. Municipal experience seems (to me) a good criterion on which to judge whether a candidate might be good for Cambridge. For example, if there are any creative proposals for changes to the property tax classification, a city councillor will likely have a better understanding of the issue. Advantage – Rizzo.
<
p>
Mr. Petruccelli has the backing of Cambridge city councillors Toomey and Simmons. He’s also backed by Cambridge’s State Reps. Wolf and Walz (and Toomey) and School Committee members Fantini and Grassi. Plenty of the heavy hitters at the State House are backing Petruccelli, including the man who’s vacating the seat. Insofar as clout is good to have, I guess that should be good for Cambridge. Advantage – Petruccelli.
<
p>
As far as “Cambridge issues” are concerned, I couldn’t discern any difference between the two candidates.
<
p>
In the end, all I really want is a reasonably intelligent and responsive person to occupy the seat. It would also help if the victor spent a little more time in the Cambridge portion of the district than did his predecessor.
For accuracy…Ken Reeves is not taking sides in this race…which is good for both candidates.
Petruccelli is supporting the Gov’s plan to close so called tax loopholes.
<
p>
And he wasn’t handpicked by Trav – It is true that Trav is supporting him due to the fact that he was his Rep and had a good relationship with him.
<
p>
I am familiar with Petruccelli and he is a good progressive choice who knows how to get things done.
I love this seemingly pervasive view that, by dint of his holding a municipal office rather than a state one, Rizzo would be free and clear of any obligations if he were to make it to the Senate. Am I really the only one who thinks that Sen. Barrios & others might want back up on some agenda items from the person they worked to get in the Senate? This is not necessarily a horrible thing, but a grain of salt to consider when listening to the “Petruccelli will owe DiMasi, Trav, Menino, etc.” commentary, you cannot have your cake and eat it to on this one.
<
p>
I also do not agree with the implications raised by Rizzo in saying that, “as Revere councilor at-large, he represents about 37,000 people in the district, compared to the 27,000 people in the district who are currently represented by Petrucelli (an East Boston state rep).” While factually correct, the implication is that Mr. Rizzo and Mr. Rizzo alone represents those 37,000 citizens.
<
p>
First, Rizzo is one of 5 at-large councilors in Revere, which I would think has to have some type of effect on lightening his constituent service workload. Second, Petruccelli is the sole representative for East Boston in the House, and one of two in the legislature as a whole. With Trav’s departure, he has had even more to do as he is the only elected official with responsibility for East Boston currently in the State House. If that does not break towards Petruccelli truly REPRESENTING the interests of more people on a day-to-day basis than Rizzo, than it at least puts them at parity.
<
p>
I have no doubt that Petruccelli would work well with the Governor. He was a true and vocal supporter during the campaign, doing real work in a tough neighborhood for us. Will his vote go the way that the Governor wants all of the time, probably not. Will it go the way that seems best for the district, probably so. Ultimately it is for the administration to make their case to the Senator, whoever it is, and for that person to analyze it through the lens of what it does for their constituents.
<
p>
I also find it a little hypocritical for Rizzo to call out the legislative redistricting process, which I do think needs to change. He is taking full advantage of an election law technicality that allows him to run for a seat in this district, even though he lives in Sen. Barrios’ district. If this does not raise a progressive eyebrow because of the letter of the law, than it should raise one about how the spirit of the law is carried out.
<
p>
In the interest of fairness:
<
p>
Rally for Anthony Petruccelli for State Senate
Saturday, May 26; 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Orient Heights Square, East Boston
Intersection of Bennington and Saratoga
Speaking just for myself here, I find your argument about redistricting illogical at best. If you can make a case for why people who don’t live in the district should not be permitted to run, go ahead, but don’t put that case in Rizzo’s mouth (or mine). I don’t know if Rizzo has a problem with that rule – if he doesn’t, then there’s no hypocrisy here. I know I certainly have no problem with it; as long as the people of the district elect someone to represent them, that person is their legitimate rep even if he lives across the line.
<
p>
However, you’re trying to match that up with Rizzo’s support for taking redistricting power away from those who have to run in those districts. There’s no logical connection there. Redistricting as it’s done now is clearly a problem and he’s right to support fixing that problem.
<
p>
Ironically, it turns out that in this case, allowing people from outside the district to run is serving as a partial fix for gerrymandering. The 1SM state senate district is the district that represents Revere, and is the logical one for a Revere person to run for. Rizzo happens to live in Revere’s ward 6, the only ward not in that district – because it was removed from the district for incumbency-protection reasons!
The case that I am making is not about redistricting vs. residency. I personally agree that the redistricting system should be changed, because it is counterproductive to have people who are being elected help create the districts that they operate in. That said I think that it is the pot calling the kettle black for someone who will be exploiting a one area election law (I do not have to live here to run here because it is a Senate seat)to then criticize another (legislative redistricting). Either you want to amend it entirely, or you leave it alone.
<
p>
It is my personal belief that a person should live in the district they represent, before they run to represent it. I do not think that is an undue burden or hardship to ask of a potential legislator. I know that the way many districts are drawn it is difficult to get into office, but I think that when you start carpetbagging like this you are undermining one of the core principles of representative democracy.
Gerrymandering undermines the core principles of democracy that you profess to care about…manipulating district lines for the benefit of one or two politicians (in this case it was Birmingham)…Rizzo has the right to run to represent the people of his city and if he is willing to move just one street over to do that, more power to him! And the people of Revere have a right to have one of their own have a chance at a Senate seat. Your use of the perjorative carpetbagger term just does not fit…Rizzo already represents 37,000 people in this district which is more than any State Rep. does.
<
p>
(I already openly claimed to be a Rizzo supporter in an earlier posting about a month ago…and nothing has changed…it’s still time for a change of faces in the legislature)
Gerrymandering does go against the grain of democracy. But Birmingham had a hand in drawing those lines how many years ago? It is not as if someone snuck up a month ago, tapped Rizzo on the shoulder, and said “it has been decided that your ward is out of the district now, just thought you should know.”
<
p>
I agree with you that Rizzo does have the right to represent the people of Revere in the Senate, I just happen to think that the order of operations should be move, then run, not the other way around. That, or run in the district that you live in. By the way, where was he during the race for the open Senate seat in his district last year?
<
p>
The whole, “Revere has a right to have a candidate” argument really does not hold up for me. Are you honestly telling me that within the other 5 precincts of Revere there was not ONE person who could have been a legitimate contender for the seat, not one? Revere has a right to a candidate, as does every city, town, ward, and precinct IN the district.
<
p>
“Carpetbagger,” by the way, is a perfect term to use in this case. Carpetbagger – noun: an outsider who seeks power or success presumptuously. Rizzo 1) lives OUTSIDE of the district, and 2) is seeking POWER as a Senator and SUCCESS in his campaign based on the PRESUMPTION that he lives “close enough” to the district for it not to matter. I happen to disagree and hence my use of the term.
<
p>
My last point is in regards to changing the faces in the legislature. The last time I checked, adding Rizzo to the Senate would add one new face the the legislature. After some exhaustive research I discovered that if Petruccelli goes to the Senate there will be an election to replace him in the House (who knew?); and that the subsequent winner of that race would be, wait for it . . . a new face in the legislature! What a coincidence, huh?
<
p>
Oh but wait, I guess that a new face from East Boston in the House could NEVER be as good or progressive a force in the legislature as Rizzo could be in the Senate right?
<
p>
Buck, the law is on Rizzo’s side…when the pols gerrymandered, the law thank goodness left the citizenry a small recourse in the words “when elected”…so that anyone in any community could not be denied the right to run in their own community in a primary or final if they were living in the district “when elected”…no one can dispute that Rizzo was born in Revere and is now and always has been part of Revere (other than his 6 years in the US NAVY)…
<
p>
Robert Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy and Hillary Clinton had to face the carpetbagger charges when they moved to a new state to run for office…but they made their case and persevered.
<
p>
In the case of this State Senate district, to try to make a similar case seems silly at best. If that’s all Petruccelli has against Rizzo, he’s on weak sand.
I am a big fan of RFK, and I am not hostile to Pat Kennedy or Mrs. Clinton. Even so, there is a reason that term was applied to them, regardless of what good they had done prior to their runs. And honestly look at the company you are putting Rizzo in with that example. Two Kennedy’s and a Clinton? Not exactly Joe Six-Pack who just wants to make his neighborhood better and give it a voice.
<
p>
Is there more to the case for Petruccelli for Senate? Of course there is. I just think that residency is a good basic starting point when discussing candidates in an election, akin to citizenship. The way this has been discussed you would think that Rizzo lived in some no man’s land where it was illegal for him to run. I have a fundamental issue with a candidate basically saying, “The district I live in is too tough, let me find one that fits.” This is government, not Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
Buck, you ask “is there more to the case for Petruccelli?”…you have lost the residency argument considering that Rizzo represents more people in this Senate district now than does Anthony. So best move on to Petruccelli’s “case” as you put it…
<
p>
Someone on this thread said Anthony is for the Governor’s efforts to close corporate tax loopholes…that does not match his voting record (he voted NO on the strongest bill closing tax loopholes to corporations) and this year when the Governor Patrick sent his own measure to the House to close tax loopholes, Sal said it was dead on arrival, Sal looked at Anthony and said “JUMP” and Anthony said “How high?”…Anthony never uttered a word in support of Deval’s proposal then nor did he offer to sign on to it. (It will die in commission with so many other things)
A) Rhetorical question.
B) As I said earlier, Rizzo is one of five at-large councilors. So, it would make sense that the demands placed on him on a per constituent basis would be smaller than those placed on Petruccelli, who represents about 10,000 fewer people, but does so ALONE.
C) When working in a legislative body discretion can be both the better part of valor, and the smartest move for your constituents.
Buck…I’m not buying that one…you must visit the State House soon…a Rep works about 3 days a week (half days mostly) WITH staff assistance…I cannot recall one state rep. who ever dropped from overwork…can you?
…appears to have been invented in Massachusetts (as I know you know, it’s named after Eldridge Gerry, who was MA governor in the early 19th century), I personally have no objection to other notions of seat assignments.
<
p>
It is not written in stone that members of a legislature need be voted upon by electoral districts. In some parliamentary systems, members of the legislature are selected by their respective parties based on the proportion of the votes cast for those parties. I believe that (but cannot swear to the fact that) that is how it is done in Israel. I do know (and can swear to the fact that) that is how it is done for approximately half of the German Bundestag (the other half being from direct district elections). I don’t pay attention to the legislative elections in the UK or France, so I have no idea how it’s done in those countries.
<
p>
The likelihood is that, if all members of the legislature were to be selected by party votes, not by district votes–and the parties determined who would represent them in the legislature, the Reps would have a much higher percentage of senators and representatives in the legislature. Consider that? As it currently is, with Reps not even being willing to field candidates in 2/3 of the districts in the last (2006) election, they essentially yielded the legislature to the Dems, and those who might have survived the primaries and gone to the general election were mostly doomed to defeat in the general.
Anyone who has spent any time at the State House since Trav finally left knows that the full court press is in play for Petruccelli…he’s one of the boys and it’s time to shuffle the chairs around…Anthony’s campaign finance report reads like a who’s who in registered lobbyists who have been hit up to pony up for him by Sal and Trav…not to mention the State Reps who are looking up the barrel of Sal’s leadership gun…they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t…if Anthony wins they still have to deal with him in the Senate and if he loses they still have to deal with him in the House…and no matter what happens they are afraid to go against Sal…it’s the system…let’s not pretend we do not know how it works.
<
p>
I don’t think Anthony is a bad person or a corrupt person, but I think he has proven to be a weak legislator, too willing to follow the crowd…and I’m NOT talking about the widely reported night he got his leg shaved during the drunken nonsense that went on during a late night budget session…I’m talking about voting both ways on many issues depending on who applied the most pressure at the moment…he has not been a leader by any stretch…he signs on to others work, but rarely offers his own (unless Menino asks him to as a get back on the Boston teachers)
Anthony is a good ol’ boy and I fear will continue to be as a Senator.
<
p>
Please prove me wrong.
As a legislator, what percent of the time does Petrucelli vote the way leadership wants him to vote? (Over 90% is my bet)
<
p>
What percentage of his campaign contributions come from people outside his district? How much from registered lobbyists? What special interests are those lobbyists working for? (Surely not the taxpayers in Cambridge, Revere, and Winthrop!) How many of his contributors does he actually know? Or who actually know him? (A lot of bank shot contributors?)
<
p>
The whole system is rancid.
Maybe his colleagues are supporting him becuse they think he is a decent guy who will do a good job for his district.
<
p>
Did he take money from lobbysists – YES, however many people from the distrcit have given to him as well – I know many personally!
<
p>
It seems that any elected incumbent is beholden to someone – Frankly that is just nonsense – Yes they have relationships with the leadership and lobbysist BUT they must have relationships within their districts with the community activists because they wouldn’t be there is they didn’t.
<
p>
It’s not cynicism…it is the simple reality of the situation…it’s not pretty, but it’s accurate.
<
p>
And, it is definitely what’s wrong with the system.
<
p>
Money talks…louder and louder and louder…
<
p>
I have less problem with PAC money than I do the lobbyist kick-ins…because a PAC at least is visible…you know who the let’s say Bricklayers Local PAC is and what their issues are…if I see them on a campaign finance report, you know the candidate must be for prevailing wages, workers rights, etc….but the lobbyists’ names give no insight to the average person as to whom their clients are and what they are surely going to be pushing for the candidate to support if elected…
<
p>
The average person is not going to read a campaign finance report and then take the lobbyists listed and go to the Sevretary of State’s site to look up the clients of the registered lobbyist and how much money was spent. We hope that the media will do that, but let’s be honest here, the political coverage rarely goes beyond poll number reports or the fundraising horserace now…in depth political reporting is a thing of the past with shrinking staffs at every paper and news outlets desperately focused on ad revenue.(Don’t get me started on the link between local paper endorsements and ad purchases)
<
p>
So the beat goes on…bang…bang…bang…and voter turnout goes down…down…down. They don’t want to be part of such a system, they don’t think it has anything to do with them…
Are you also talkiung about the lobbysists for the homeless, the social workers, the poor who need a good defense?
Lobbyists are lobbyists…it’s a profession. But, when they write out checks to candidates the public has no way to know who they are the hired guns for…If a lobbyist donates to a candidate, the should be required to disclose to the voters who they are indirectly accepting money from…
<
p>
Candidates should be held accountable for who they allow to finance their campaigns…especially when those checks they are accepting represent special interests with keen interests in legislation pending, government regulations and projects.
Take a look at Sec. of State Galvin’s site where you can look at the amounts of money special interests are paying to certain lobbyists to carry their water on Beacon Hill…were are not talking small change…and the contributions thay make to candidates are not because they want good government…they want elected officials who will be responsive (to them).
… on May 8th. I hope people who were there that night will chime in here and confirm when I say that Rizzo consistently flubbed questions, was not knowledgeable at all about the issues, repeated himself – and what’s worse – consistently responded with a DEFEATIST attitude when came to dealing with the issues facing our district. Petruccelli, by contrast, consistently responded with can-do, optimistic, thoughtful, and knowledgeable answers to questions … Here’s what I had from my notes that night:
<
p>
First question asked what issues the candidates perceived that Cambridge residents were concerned about. Rizzo ducked the question and responded with a vanilla statement about how there are local issues that require state solutions, and he cited his experience as being chair of the economic development committee on the Revere City Council.
<
p>
Petruccelli responded with specifics citing his efforts to protect the environment and his legislation capping Massport’s emissions at 1999 levels; cited his sponsorship of $100 million bond bill to promote affordable housing; citing his $13.5 million anti-gang “Shannon” grant for his district.
<
p>
Another question asked how they would “wrangle” Massport. Rizzo answered with a watery statement about how he would “get Massport to the table” and make sure “our voices would be heard.” Petruccelli answered with specifics at how he moved Massport to use environmentally friendly vehicles, and how he secured 20 acres of Massport property as open space “at no cost to the taxpayer.”
<
p>
On the Issue of Marriage Equality, Rizzo simply stated that he was against the ban, and spent most of the time talking about how he was pro-choice. Petruccelli one-upped him stating his endorsement from MassEquality, and that he has done and will “at all costs prevent discrimination in the Constitution from going forward.” He also cited his efforts in the legislature to establish buffer zones around family planning clinics.
<
p>
AND THIS IS HUGE FOLKS: When it came to the development and the Chapter 91 Process RIZZO stated that he was in favor of stripping the environmental review out of the process, while “still continuing to take public input” on projects. Petruccelli said that environmental review of projects was vital, and six years ago he helped quash a bill that would have stripped it out.
<
p>
Question after question, Anthony responded intelligently with specifics stemming from his experience as a legislator. Rizzo looked under-prepared at best for this debate, just as IMO he will be underprepared to be my State Senator.
<
p>
P.S. By the way, citing Anthony’s vote IN FAVOR OF marriage equality (Trav voted the other way) and for his incredibly principled and thoughtful support IN FAVOR in-state tuition for undocumented immigrant children despite a conservative leaning East Boston electorate, I can’t understand how anyone on this blog can make the statement that Petruccelli simply does what he’s told. He has PROVEN that he stands his ground despite pressure from traditional power brokers when he believes its in the best interest of his district.
Someone is jumping the shark…Your statement about Rizzo’s position on CH 91, public input and review process is clearly in error…check the tape, it aired on Cambridge Cable. Rizzo is a leader on Zoning issues in his community and the strongest advocate for neighborhood citizens impacted by developers.He stands firm on citizens’ rights to be heard at every stage of the process.
<
p>
As for marraige equaality…Jarrett Barrios, who is supporting Rizzo, sent a mailing message to Cambridge voters to let them know that Rizzo is now and has always been an unwavering supporter of marriage equality and a solid progressive.
<
p>
It is understandable that MassEquality would lean to Anthony even though Anthony has voted on both sides of the issue in the House because he will have a vote they need win or lose (Senate or House)…that’s politics for ya…no matter, they can count on Rizzo in the Senate.
My recollection was that Rizzo wanted to strip out the environmental review and that Petruccelli wanted to keep it in, and I remember it so vividly because when Rizzo said it, it immediately raised red flags in my mind, and Anthony took great pains to have that be a contrast between the two candidates. Please if someone could digitize the debate that happened at the L.B. Johnson center on May 8th and post it, so we can confirm this … I sure hope I am wrong, because that seems ludicrous to me.
<
p>
Another reason to digitize the tape: so everyone can plainly see how Rizzo was thoroughly unprepared – maybe he was having a bad night, I don’t know – but Anthony consistently answered questions thoroughly and intelligently backed up by his years of experience as a legislator, and Rizzo didn’t have many substantive things to say.
<
p>
And there were two questions asked later in the debate – one regarding how we can overhaul the sewer system so that it doesn’t dump directly into the waterways during rainstorms, and one about how there was an algal bloom on Magazine Beach that could have been caused by commercial sod — Rizzo seemed totally dumbfounded by these questions! Rizzo simply complained that for 8 years he had tried to get the government to do something about the algae on Revere beach and he said something like, they never got back to me. He admitted that he had been ineffectual about addressing an environmental concern that faced Revere.
<
p>
Anthony, by contrast, immediately chimed in and said “yes, there is something we can do,” and cited his leadership on the Metropolitan Beach commission, and how he got the funding to buy more beach sand sanitizers, etc …
<
p>
I hope people will please chime in and back up one of our accounts, or someone post the debate online. Obviously I’m biased here – I’ve stated before that I’m proudly volunteering for Anthony’s campaign. And I have nothing against Rizzo personally, I thank him for his service in the military, and I’m sure he’s been an entirely competent Revere city councilor. But before this debate, I was working to get Anthony elected as my State Senator- now I’m also working so that Rizzo won’t become my state senator.
North End News endorsed Rizzo for several reason and some good points. Their Editorial said “Mr. Rizzo’s real world experience as a small businessman, and as President of the Revere Chamber of Commercand the Revere Rotary Club, as well as his service to our country during his six years in the Navy, distinguishes him from Mr. Petruccelli, who went from working for Mayor Menino to being the State Representative for East Boston. Mr. Rizzo is the more well-rounded candidate…
<
p>
Mr. Rizzo has seven years in public office as a Revere City councilor where he either chaired or served on a number of important committees, including Economic Development, Ways and Means, Elder Affairs, Public Safety, Zoning, and Government Affairs…
<
p>
…Though both Mr. Rizzo and Mr. Petruccelli share many of the same positions on the important issues we face, Mr. Rizzo is not indebted to special interest groups. Mr. Rizzo is not a career politician, nor a Beacon Hill “insider”, as many have characterized Mr. Petruccelli. His life experiences give him a different perspective than a career politician, and one thing we have more than enough of in the state senate is career politicians…
<
p>
Mr. Rizzo is a plain speaker; he is independent; and he is not surrounded by operatives who tell him what to do, who to speak to, and how to vote.
<
p>
I think Deval Patrick’s election is testament to the fact that there are plenty of people, me included, who are tired of the same ol’boy crowd in the legislature, tired of the favored few who pull their strings and the favor for favor nonsense that goes on there. Rizzo is a true progressive who will not owe anything to Trav. or Sal or any of the dozens of lobbyists financing his opponents campaign. I think that’s good for the rest of us and good for Deval.
Simple questions:
<
p>
1) In his electoral career has Rizzo ever taken campaign contributions from a person or group who has brought business before the city council?
<
p>
2) What did Rizzo do for Deval during the campaign?
<
p>
3) This endorsement says that Rizzo is not a “career politician,” implying that Petruccelli is. If so, then how come both are on their first elected office, and are within a year of one another in terms of length of service.
<
p>
I will grant you that Rizzo has a more “well-rounded” resume. Damn Petruccelli for spending his ENTIRE ADULT WORKING CAREER in public service. I know that I would feel more comfortable if he would just take the blinders off and go for the payday.
I’m with you Buck on this one…Anthony should try working at a real job…it will give him a different and more substantive perspective on what the voters have to deal with every day.
Enduring the backbreaking hardships you mention of “public service” working for Mayor Menino and Speaker DiMasi would crush any man’s spirit. Anthony can be his own man in the private sector free of the pressure to go along to get along…free of the need to grovel for contributions from lobbyists and their clients. Free Anthony.
has been entirely in the “public sector”, not necesarily the same as “public service”.
<
p>
That means Anthony has always had better than average health care and retirement plans, better than average job security, better than average holidays and benefits. Nothing wrong with that resume but it’s a very narrow experience base on which to build a leadership position in the senate.
<
p>
On his website he talks about making decisions “without relying on public opinion polls to gauge my positions”. That’s true – his record indicates he’s a virtual clone for Sal DiMasi. Nothing wrong with that either – if you’re a rep, one of 160. But as one of 40 in the Senate, well the district needs more than that.