Posted without comment, from the venerable Cambridge Civic Journal, aka rwinters.com:
What started out as a sleepy little filling of a vacancy in the State Senate has, as Primary Election Day (Tues, Sept 11) approaches, begun to show signs of a schoolyard fistfight – a fight primarily waged not only by the candidates but by various surrogates and other interested parties. We've all heard by now about the well-orchestrated campaign to portray Anthony Galluccio in the harshest possible light over his past indiscretions. One need look no further than Blue Mass Group to see how three bloggers will pull out all stops to torpedo a candidate and put all Democratic Party candidates on notice as to whose rings must be kissed. The BMG Three decided to whack Galluccio early, and the only thing left to decide was which candidate to back who could hurt Galluccio the most. They chose Tim Flaherty to be that candidate. Blue Mass Group has often been a good source of current information on political matters, but the BMG environment has grown increasingly hostile of late, and a principal focus has been on explicit and implicit endorsements of candidates by the owners of the weblog.
It goes on.
Yo, in the blog game I'm gonna bust a post in yo a–
I be flush with cold briefcases of cash,
I lay my comment on yer blogspot page,
Make yo thugs shaking wit rage
As they page, and they page, past my severe linkin skillz
They is kicking dey keyboardz when I make my flame war killz
RMG wot is dat, yo momma's initials?
Cuz when de Big Three comment it all get official
Insta can't blog me, Kos be scared of my tags
Digby be wishin she sported my fly rags
Bringin da Blue Game to yo block an yo hood
Cuz I told you we would, it's all good, I make J Keller listen
Poundin out posts til my baby mama's bod glistens
So step off Cambridge boy, don't bark at number one
I don't dig yall's sad cheap type an run
Your fun it's done, I don't need no gun
Wit my Dvorak torchin yo a–, yo readerz they allz know that I won
on a real BM – G.
Or words to that effect.
Winters brings up a lot of good points, none of you have answered why you think Flahertys lack of municipal experience is a plus, why Galluccios is somehow bad, and like Winters said I have had to painstakingly provide many links to dispute many of the unfounded allegations on this website that detractors of other candidates don't do. Also why is Ted Kennedy a great progressive even though his DUI killed a woman and Galluccio is somehow worse because he happened to side swipe some dudes car, and more importantly quit drinking which our Senator didnt do until two full decades after Chappaquiddick. The attacks on Galluccio are personal, hyperbolic, vitirolic, and taken from the right wing playbook and its high time they stopped.
Its because when you take Flaherty vs Galluccio down the line on their issues they are indentical, and the only thing seperating them is that Galluccio has done far more and has far more relevant experience. Its time the hackjob ends
“why you think Flahertys lack of municipal experience is a plus”
I don't think we said that. We said private sector experience is useful. That's different.
Quit drinking? Has Galluccio done so? Publicly? Has he apologized for the 2005 incident — which he surely caused, one way or another? I'd appreciate seeing evidence — apologies if you've already produced it. Comparisons to Kennedy are indeed apt, and I'm not going to defend TK's actions at Chappaquiddick at all. (BTW, I wasn't born at the time.) I will defend his legislative record, and I've said I find Galluccio's experience to be appealing.
But given the choice, I'm not going to vote for a guy whom I'm afraid will repeat past bad behavior. We're looking for reasons to support one over the other. We found one. It's an open forum, and you're free to arrive at your own conclusions.
First of all there have been two incidents with Galluccio one while he was a teenager, it occured before I was born, and he got a pardon for it from Governor Weld who to put it kindly was not a political ally of any sorts the evidence simply was suspect.
The second incident occured a few years ago, so there was nearly two decades in between the two incidents. Granted one was an incident fairly recently at least in comparison to the older incident, Galluccio has and it has been reported on this very forum, issued apologies to the driver in question and the Boston Police Department which would not take a “you know who I am statement” from a Cambridge politician seriously dismissed the bulk of the charges and saw fit to charge him with a lighter and more appropriate offense. I say we defend Boston law enforcement and its decision.
He stated at his kickoff that he would not be drinking and that even though he was sober he would make sure his wife would drive which got a few laughs. In either incident no one got hurt, nobody died, in fact property was not significantly or irreperably damaged. So aside from a personal attack to shore up your own preferred candidates credentials I do not see how the incident is relevant.
Answer me this how does the fact that another incident might occur prevent him from discharging his duties as State Senator? It might mean he isnt qualified to have a liscense but it does not make him unqualified to be Senator I see some correlation but no proven causation has been made on this forum.
My second question if he has said he will no longer drink why is the risk of another incident relevant? If we believed Teddy who said he was sober in the early 90s why not believe Galluccio now?
Also Galluccio had private sector experience as a private lawyer before he was councilor which is a concern others already addressed and we have repeatedly asked for you to correct those statements.
A third and final question, if Galluccio did not have a recent DUI would you still endorse Ross over Galluccio?
Convictions in 1984 (for which he was pardoned in 1993) and 1997, plus the 2005 incident. Oh, and don’t forget he was tagged for receiving stolen property in 1985. That also got wiped with the ’93 pardon. And your assertion that Weld and Galluccio had no common interests doesn’t bear up — in fact, it appears that they both were heavily involved in the anti-rent control ballot question in 1994. “[T]he evidence simply was suspect”? What’s your basis for saying that?
<
p>
As for his “private sector experience,” I wish someone would bloody well tell us what it is. Galluccio won’t — his website says nothing about it other than that he’s a “practicing attorney,” and he won’t talk to us. His professional address is his home — has he got a thriving law practice there? Maybe so, but since there’s nary a word about it on his site or anywhere else we can find, what are we supposed to think?
<
p>
Finally, we did not endorse Ross over anyone. We endorsed Flaherty.
Despite numerous requests. At least Flaherty, Ross and Nowicki cared enough to talk with us. My conclusion is that Galluccio can’t defend his own record, which is a pretty weak one if you ask me.
Hmm, this was the point, I think.
Some folks talk to you and give you their story; some folks don't, and that's their choice. What would you do in our situation.
You should nevertheless try to not let that change your opinion of the best candidate. Consider that they don't want to have to talk to every blogger, and Peter Porcupine and Ryan's Take and Left in Lowell all have their opinions. Maybe you should just not talk to any of them, and make your mind up from their public presentation.
if the editors did as you suggest, what would you have to bitch about? they’re doing it for you.
You assume that because Galluccio hasn't talked to the Editors, they automatically say negative things about him. As opposed to, maybe there are negative things to talk about and the guy doesn't seem to give a straight enough answer to satisfy bystanders, which in this case includes the Editors, who have tried to reach out. He's the one missing the opportunity to explain himself, and not just by BMG's invitation, but by the media in general.
Funny how we all just loooove the BMG guys…til they don't like our candidate. Dude, if I threw a hissy fit every time a fellow blogger backed another candidate than mine or questioned my guy for something, I wouldn't have a co-blogger anymore.
Yeesh.
Sorry, jconway, but yes, I did answer this exact point a while back. You just didn’t like the answer, because your point didn’t cause me to change my mind and back your candidate instead. And you keep mischaracterizing what we said — as Charley notes upthread, we have never said that Flaherty’s lack of municipal experience is “a plus.” I defy you to prove me wrong.
Its time the hackjob ends
<
p>
…the propietors of this website can do with the website what they like. They are paying for it, after all. If you don’t like what they do with their website, consider starting one of your own.
<
p>
On your attempted analog of Galluccio’s case to that of Teddy Kennedy (and by extension Gerry Studds) you really should recall that they put themselves up for re-election and won, despite the fact that the electorate likely knew full well what they had done. Just how much of the electorate knew what Galluccio had done? Probably very few. So what is the basis for your objection to Galluccio’s history being brought out? That you object to it being made known? That’s silly.
<
p>
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the reason that the clerk magistrate who heard Galluccio’s DUI charge gave him a pass because the police–probably intentionally–neglected to collect the evidence required to support such a charge. Such a practice is not unheard of regarding a state legislator. If the CM didn’t have the evidence regarding Galluccio’s incident, he could not have convicted him with DUI. That should be obvious.
at the time of the 2005 incident, Galluccio was a Cambridge City Councillor, not a state legislator.
<
p>
Other than that, yeah, pretty much.
…I realize that you three own the site. You’re paying the bills. And that we commenters (or user posters) are guests here. You set the rules, because you own the site. It really is as simple as that.
<
p>
I’ve tried to point that out on other sites where people screem “free speech” and “censorship” when management steps in, but to little avail.
<
p>
Thanks for the correction. I had no idea who Galluccio was.
JC, I can't help but wonder if you'd feel differently if you were the dude who was side-swiped, and if you were the dude who witnessed Galluccio staggered out of his car, and speak to you with slurred speech and glassy eyes. And, when you, the dude, testified about it in a hearing, was summarily attacked by Galluccio's attorney for seeking “new found fame.”
I wonder, dude, whether you'd be so psyched to have this guy as a State Rep.
Who would have thunk it.
Galluce gets the bums rush and Bill Clinton and Uncle Ted, as well as Patrick K get dispensation for their conduct? What's Gallucio got—bad breath? Or does he not want to play ball with the in crowd?
I remember the seemingly GENUINE angst among the Editors about even MAKING an endorsement in the Gubernatorial race, and Cos's scrupulousness about Bonifaz.
Now, it's gotten a little routine. Tsongas in the General I understand totall, but eldridge in the Primary was a surprise, as Finegold and Donoghue also had Progressive bona-fides.
The Respected Editorial Troika should make a statement regarding Contested Primaries, as this is a problem which will only become more frequent with time.
Was the Brighton state rep race with Moran, Golden, Schofield, et al in March 2005. And we endorsed Schofield.
When we feel we have adequate information, and when we feel like it, we endorse — at least as a matter of transparency, so folks will know whom we're rooting for and process our commentary accordingly. The idea that we're power brokers somehow is more than a little goofy (cf. Eldridge, unfortunately), although apparently some people believe that.
We say what we think. Others are perfectly free to do so, on these pages, at great length. God Bless America.
So thanks for the recap. It does no harm to state your policy from time to time, to remind readers that you do make such decisions.
Hey – if you have a ring – is it a sapphire? ;~)
Unless you consider “shooting your mouth off in public” a policy.
“One ring to rule them all … and in the darkness, BIND THEM”. mwahahaha
I need one of those…they're sweeeet…
And chuck it back in. It’s a heavy load.
This post is absurd on several levels. Now, BMG is a great website, but no one needs to pucker up to The Editors to win quite yet. Further, I don't exactly think BMG is somehow taking it to the mattresses on Gallucio because they don't like him; they've explained their positions in great detail and I, for one, think they have just cause. Three odd driving-related incidents ranging from the early 80s to 2005 is cause for concern, in my book. While, yes, politicians are only humans and will make mistakes – and therefore, it's important to be able to forgive them – repeatedly doing the same thing, over and over again, isn't something I find inspiring in a candidate. Part of being in the progressive camp is finding politicians who aren't very likely to break the law – and are wholly different from politics as usual.
Both appear to have a long history. So much for that premise.
What are the qualifications or CV to be annointed by BMG? Do you have a bedrock policy or does it “all depend”?
Barrios was a fair headed boy until he decided to follow the money. Being a member in good stead is based on what?
As a Galluccio supporter who has posted several times during this special election, I haven't appreciated the personal tone of many of the attacks on Anthony. But you know what, Galluccio is an adult who when he announced for this seat knew the issue would be fodder for the media, the blogs and all others.
Candidates live with their mistakes and, hopefully, grow because of them. We all find ways to decide our support for candidates and if the powers that be here decide his mistakes (and their concerns that he has not acknowledged/dealt with them) are a reason to supppor Flaherty. So be it.
I appreciate that we have the forum here. We don't change the hardcore regulars minds with our posts, we hope to give our candidates and issues exposure.
The good news is we are not worried about electing a progressive candidate in this race – we are just fighting over what progressive we want.
Me -I will work for the guy who has experience in local government, actually writing legislation and getting it passed. Anthony Galluccio for State Senate.
What I love is this:
Anyone who's anyone knows that “well-orchestrated campaign” and “three bloggers” do not belong in the same sentence together.
This is a cheap swipe at a big blog designed to achieve face time for rwinters.com, and BMG kindly obliged. I guess the editors decided they needed more blog-enemies to play with. So it goes. But a journalistic thesis, it ain't.
Moral: Never use blockquotes while breaking a six-month no-posting spell.
It's more fun to have blog-enemies than blog friends …
That way I can blame the success of BMG for why my site doesn’t get any hits anymore. It’s all your fault for sucking the oxygen out of the MA progressive blogosphere, and not my fault for an erratic posting schedule and taking long unannounced breaks!
Your bookmarked. Cute kid.
I pledge to visit as part of my rounds. There are some I visit regularly that have dried up or gotten uninteresting to me. So you've now got one of their slots.
I know you probably don't feel much like Nuke Laloosh getting the call to the show, but it's as much as I can offer.
Everyone knows this place would be so much better without the Great Satanic Donkey — and his fiendish hell-spawn, who truly will carry his treachery to our children, and our children's children. Someday, my friends, we may live free of this scourge on our Commonwealth.
Release the flying monkeys! Onward, onward to Watertown! Flyyyyyyy, my pretties!