Flaherty is a strong candidate. Years of experience as a prosecutor, including murder and other major crimes, and including management experience running the narcotics and career criminal units in his office. More years of experience in private practice, giving him some first-hand experience with the issues facing small business owners and others who must deal with the vagaries of the marketplace. Solid progressive views on the issues, including favoring Governor Patrick's loophole-closing measures to pay for education and other initiatives, and willing to consider re-upping the issue of a constitutional amendment to allow a graduated income tax (which, if done right, should lead to a tax cut for many low- and moderate-income people). We had an interesting and wide-ranging conversation with Flaherty. He knew the issues well; when he didn't know the answer to something, he was happy to say so, and talked about how he'd think about it. He's realistic about how quickly some things (like single-payer health care, which he favors) can move through the legislature, but he remains committed to those ideals.
We liked Nowicki too. His 15+ years of experience on the Chelsea City Council give him unique first-hand experience with the issues facing an incredibly diverse city that has seen more than its share of problems over the years. He spoke at length about public safety — his top priority issue — and the strategies that have worked in Chelsea over the years. And, in a stand that sets Nowicki apart from his competitors, he is a solid “yes” vote to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts (that will be a big plus for some voters, and a big minus for others).
Galluccio and Ross both have much to recommend them. But Galluccio, as far as we can tell, has no relevant experience outside the Cambridge City Council — or if he does, you wouldn't know it from reading his website. There's value to spending at least some of your time in the private sector. And his, well, baggage just cannot go unmentioned. Questions remain about what really happened in December, 2005, despite the conclusion of a clerk-magistrate that there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge Galluccio with drunk driving. David Bernstein's recent feature article in the Phoenix (which references BMG's extensive coverage at the time) is the latest to reopen the subject. It's also noteworthy that Galluccio is planning to run for reelection to the Cambridge City Council — would he continue to serve if elected to the Senate (as Tim Toomey does in the House)? If so, that would seem to call into question Galluccio's ability to serve the whole district. [Update: Galluccio has confirmed his intention to finish his City Council term but not accept a new term if he is elected to the Senate. So if he wins there might be some overlap depending on when he's sworn in, but he wouldn't be holding two seats long term. Thanks to CambportDad for the link. Nowicki is not running for reelection to the Chelsea City Council.] Finally, despite our repeated requests, Galluccio's campaign never offered us a time to talk with him. Is that because of the many posts on our site regarding the December 2005 incident? We don't know — if it is, it doesn't bespeak the thick skin needed to succeed in the Senate. If he can't handle a couple of bloggers asking him about a drunk driving charge that he beat, well, … how can he handle al Qaeda, not to mention the less threatening but still contentious issues that confront the worthy officeholders in the Great and General Court?
We spoke with Ross for about an hour last week. We enjoyed the conversation, but we all came away from it feeling that his grasp on some of the important issues facing the state was not as solid as Flaherty's. We also felt that some of his ideas — like raising the income tax back to 5.95% as a way of financing the programs he backs — were, among other things, political non-starters.
So, for us, the choice comes down to Flaherty and Nowicki. Flaherty had the edge on seeing the big picture on issues like health care and education — budget-busting problems that really do affect every person in the state — and we like the fact that, unlike Nowicki, Flaherty has considerable private- as well as public-sector experience. We think Tim Flaherty is the best choice for the Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex district, and we happily endorse him.
with an unhealthy ego.
Sorry. It has nothing to do with the issues
take an unhealthy ego over an unhealthy drinking problem
Like me.
that by the time you were Anthony's age you COULD have a healthy drinking problem (or at least know how to call a cab)…. Apparently not.
Nice piece. It may shift my vote …
Thank you. I know Tim a little, and yes, his ego is healthy, but I think he's a good guy.
I find it interesting that BMG does endorsements. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but it's interesting.
I recently moved back into the district so this will be my first vote here in a long time and I am looking forward to casting that vote for Tim Flaherty.
1)Much better endorsement than the Globe, Flaherty would be my clear second choice for the nomination and I would be comfortable with him over the other candidates. The Blobes endorsement did not do him justice, did not even mention the other candidates, clearly its a bad day if bloggers can give a more succinct endorsement than the Globe but that also shows us why we need bloggers due to the lazy MSM. Again great endorsement guys even if I disagree with it.
2)Galluccio has repeatedly said he would withdraw from the City Council race if elected, you can check the Chronicle and rwinters.com for that information so your statement
is incorrect and you should not consider that against him, and correct your endorsement to reflect that
3)
But you also said Nowicki has a lot of experience on the Chelsea city council and that this is a plus, he has 15 years to Galluccios 13 years so why is Galluccios experience helping to run a far more diverse, larger, and more complex city than Nowickis any less relevant? Why is it a plus for Nowicki but somehow a minus for Galluccio? Also Flaherty has no political experience at all, do we really want someone inexperienced with dealing with the legislative process as a legislature? How is municipal experience a minus for a State Senate candidate but no political experience a plus? That seems like an odd point of attack that acutally huyrts the candidate you endorse, so I just don't understand it. Also his record is far more notable than Nowickis, he single handedly got a football stadium for the city which was a big point of pride for the residents and for the kids playing there, Russell field went from being a crummy city park to a gem in the city, ditto Danhey park which went from being a dump literally to a great park, he did a lot more than most Cambridge Mayors as Mayor and has relevant executive experience from that position, he is in fact just as liberal as any of the other candidates and more experienced than any of them so why attack him on the experience?
I would be happy to correct our endorsement if we’re in fact wrong, but I did a quick search of Camb Chronicle and RWinters and could not find anything relevant. Can you supply a link?
As a long time Chelsea resident I took Paul's candidacy seriously. I went ot his and others web sits.
I thought that he took too a much effort to promote his connection to the Catholic Church.
He did state that he would “nver support any legislation which violates anyones “civil rights”.
Unfortunately the anti marriage equality people also state that Marriage is not a civil right. This tends to indicate that, despite Kathi Reinstein's recommendation, he probably is against equal marriage rights, or he is not willing to stand up to the Church.
Either way do we need him as a Senator?
Nowicki told us that he supported the legislature’s refusal to send the anti-marriage amendment to the ballot, and that he’d never support any measure to overturn marriage equality. So as far as we know, all four candidates are strongly pro-marriage.
According to this article in the Alewife
So you have that. Still no answers to my third point? Why is Nowickis municipal experience good but Galluccios somehow bad especially when no municipal experience in Flaherty is somehow good?
I’m not sold yet on point # 2. “Suspending” a campaign is a famous weasel word.
<
p>
On your third point: We’re not denigrating Galluccio’s service on the city council. Our point is that that’s more or less all he’s done — and we made a similar point about Nowicki’s lack of private sector experience. As for Flaherty, his years of experience as a prosecutor is a solid record of public service; we didn’t say that it’s “good” that he’s never held elective office.
In his own words thanks to the Cambridge Chronicle
First the disclaimer: My union has endorsed Anthony Galluccio and I will be on the Labor phonebanks Thursday and Monday and active in the union door-to-door canvas this weekend.
<
p>
While I disagree with your endorsement, I respect that it is well thoughtout and well agrued.
<
p>
First “solid progressive views” are wonderful. However,Solid progressives votes are the lifeblood of political reality. Galluccio has a voting record that is progressive and documented. While appreciating that Tim Flaherty has voiced progressive views, Anthony has taken tough votes and stood by them. (note to my rent control friends – I disagreed with Anthony’s position as well. However, I can’t ignore the rest of his record on progressive issues and the rights of workers)
<
p>
I believe that 13 years of experience in a legislative body as diverse and as contenious as the Cambridge City Council qualifies Galluccio to handle the legislaive process in the State Senate. That is experience Flaherty does not have and can only come with time (I am stunned to learn that state senators handle al Qaeda – just a bit of a reach there to make a point). As an attorney with experience in private practice, Galluccio brings public sector and private business experience to the job.
<
p> “- – would he continue to serve if elected to the Senate (as Tim Toomey does in the House)?” you asked. And another poster here provided you with Galluccio’s answer. He will suspend his campaign for city council. You may not like the word “suspend” but he is on record. And to that issue – Tim Toomey’s service as a Cambridge City Councillor and a State Rep with more then Cambridge in his district has never been an issue to the voters who have returned him to both offices (including defeating Avi Green). I suspect if the voters have a problem with any candidate not covering the District it will show up in the polls.
<
p>
And dear to my heart are working families issues. Galluccio has sponsored and voted for a living wage ordinance, a Responsible Employer Ordinance, walked dozens of picket lines, forced developers and contractors to the table to improve neighborhoods and open job opportunities. Only Nowicki, to his credit, can claim similar votes. And the act of putting your voice, vote and body literally on the line for a cause is experience that Flaherty is lacking.
<
p>
Anthony Galluccio isn’t perfect but he has the ability, the experience and the heart to be a great State Senator.
No mention of that on the bio page of his website, although on the education page it does say that he is a member of the state bar. Do you have any details about his “experience in private practice,” and why don’t you think he highlights this on his website?
Bob: I don't know why Galluccio doesn't talk more about his law practice. I don't have the kind of detail on it that I suspect most BMG posters would accept as conclusive. My interaction with Anthony has always been within the legislative and political world. His references to his law practice have been in passing. I raised it not as a significant part of my support for him but only to point out that he works in the private sector as well as being a City Councilor and former Mayor.
Its kinda a weak argument, someone will be a bad public servant since they have no private sector experience, if anything someone will be a better public servant for having more public service experience. Flaherty has a great resume to be a DA but a State Senator should also be able to work with people, handle political setbacks, deal with constituents on a daily basis, and know how to work with political opponents. In my view Galluccio has this experience and Flaherty does not, and if anything Flahertys experience in the private sector and in county government (btw not one of the districts three counties either) is not as germaine as Galluccios 13 years as a councilor and the great work he has done across the board.
I would say the BMG editors while certainly doing a fairly eloquent job of defending the mans credentials and highlighting his positives have done a poor job arguing again why Nowickis experience is a plus, Flahertys lack of experience is a plus, and Galluccios experience is somehow a negative.
It seems that people supporting Flaherty are basically people that like Galluccio but dont want to vote for someone with a past drinking problem and thats a terrible rationale if I heard one, and the greatest hypocrisy from the same editorial board that supported Ted Kennedys re-election.
Are any of the candidates for Sen. Barrios’ or Sen. Havern’s seats being asked for or campaigning on a concern over reforming the fraud-prone petition initiative system? There are many things that could be done that do not need to be implemented via constitutional amendment. For example,
The recent one that cuts the Legislature out of the initiative process altogether.
could you elaborate?
One of the questions ratified for upcoming referendums (according to the Globe today) would cut out the Legislature from the process altogether.
i can’t find what you’re talking about.
<
p>
Link.
<
p>
That is, if you get a bit more than three times the number of signatures you need under the current system, you can move a constitutional amendment straight to the ballot — the legislature has no gatekeeper role. Which is to say that, under this proposal, we’d almost certainly be voting on gay marriage in 2008.
<
p>
No thanks.
Good debate!! Like a long rally in tennis. Send me an absentee ballot — I'm for Galluccio.
Tom from Troy, NY