Yet, here we are, told to accept her because of her support on progressive issues. It’s almost as if there’s a super conservative running against her – and we’re facing a choice between Dianne Wilkerson or Dick Cheney, but that’s a false choice. If Dianne Wilkerson’s unseated, it will be for… drum rolls please… a very progressive candidate, likely even more than Wilkerson herself. Yet, let’s look at the organizations willing to protect Dianne (according to Mike):
Mass Alliance
1199 SEIU Mass (local 509)
Boston Teachers Union
MassEquality
NARAL – ProChoice Massachusetts
Planned Parenthood
National Association of Social Workers
Ward 5
These are seriously good endorsements. They’re endorsements that, quite frankly, Senator Wilkerson – guilty of serious crimes on numerous occasions – doesn’t deserve. The fact that there’s another talented progressive hat in the race who could very well win makes it all the more inexcusable – akin to the Human Rights Campaign endorsing anti-gay marriage candidates over those who support equality, just because of incumbency.
Both through my campaign activity and as a blogger, I’ve had the chance to work closely with MassAlliance, MassEquality, NARAL Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood in the past. They’re all incredible organizations that deserve even more respect than I could possibly bestow them with here, today. In fact, we would not be making progressive gains at the State House without these organizations – marriage equality would likely be facing an outright ban in November, our schools would have less money and there would be no universal health care bill, or at least a much more nefarious version. However, this is a huge mistake on their parts. This actually makes Joan Vennochi right, quite horrifyingly so.
At what point will the progressive organizations of this state decide to stay out of protecting Dianne Wilkerson’s crimes and misdemeanors? At what point is enough actually enough? At the very least, in a Democratic Primary with two progressive candidates, they should stay out of the race altogether, unless they feel inspired to support the candidate who’s both respected and respective of the law.
We should all be thankful for Dianne Wilkerson’s good votes and energetic support for equality – she’ll have our community’s thanks forever. In fact, a commenter on my website had this to say,
She’s one of those cases that leaves you shaking your head and saying ‘She had such potential, what a shame!’
And Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous was absolutely right. I wish I could be supporting Dianne, but enough is enough. Wilkerson’s good work and the debt of gratitude we owe her does not mean we owe her protection from violating the law over and over again, especially when she’s proven herself someone so ethically challenged that she can’t help herself from staying out of legal troubles when given second and third chances. We’ve given her the benefit of the doubt numerous times now and she’s repaid us by betraying that trust. Enough is enough is enough. Wilkerson should step down and restore our faith in her person, because someone who commits these gross violations of the public trust (and law) does not deserve to be a public servant. Meanwhile, in Sonia Chang-Diaz, we have a great candidate and leader waiting in the wings.
I actually did not know about her past violations and that really places her in a new light for me. All I had read previously was that same Globe article that you linked to, but there’s no mention of her past in there which is vitally relevant.
<
p>I completely agree, she should be voted out and Sonia Chang-Diaz voted in.
been very, very friendly toward her… you would think, in an article about her most recent ethical lapse, they’d recap some of her greatest hits…
I feel duped. I thought it was a one time ordeal by reading that story and gave it no further thought. I didn’t really care who won that seat, but that’s changed now.
<
p>Yes, the Globe absolutely should have included her past violations. It shows a history of that sort of action and that is a huge omission of the facts.
(Sorry couldn’t resist!)
I posted a while ago expressing disappointment about Wilkerson’s opposition to an affordable housing goal in a development proposal for my neighborhood in Forest Hills Jamaica Plain. That post is at http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showD… The lone dissenting comment on that post turns out to be from one of Wilkerson’s Campaign staffers, Josh Dawson (I recognized his name and when I called Wilkerson’s Senate office was told “He works in the campaign office”). Too bad there was no disclosure of that fact by Josh who signed off his rather nasty comment to me only as “Josh Dawson, Democratic State Committee, Second Suffolk Senate District”
<
p>I voted for Sonia Chang-Diaz last time. I firmly believe that Sonia can and will win this Nov. if enough people are given info to compare her as a candidate to Wilkerson and there’s a very good post with just such a comparison chart over at http://massmarrier.blogspot.co… .
<
p>The other key element for Sonia to win this race is that voters in the Second Suffolk Senate district are reminded to GET OUT AND VOTE ON PRIMARY DAY SEPT 16! Please consider helping Sonia GOTV on Tues Sept 16 in this district.
in a prior post Can Dianne Wilkerson pass a CORI with her criminal record? but people were too busy snarking at me to read…what I was saying. Wilkerson had her defenders then… where are they now?
Granted it was before the admissions recently, but her site claims quite a few endorsement. There are unions, MassEquality, NARAL and such, as well as the top of the state administration. The only senator she lists is the president, but she has most of Boston’s city council.
<
p>Last go, BayWindows supported her. The long-term editor, Susan Ryan-Vollmer, told me at the time that even with her personal shortcomings, Dianne had long been a good friend of the GLBT community, when that was difficult for black politicians.
<
p>Yet, to your point, I haven’t seen people rushing to agree with Wilkerson that this is over with her plea deal. Likely many nominal supporters are less enthusiastic.
“Dance with the one you brung?” Is that kind of like “Axe the Governor?”
Nice.
That’s my West Virginia childhood speaking. That’s rural talk and also expressed as dance with the one who brung you as euphemism for loyalty.
<
p>Dagnabbit!
My mistake. Carry on.
That goes way beyond WV. Bill Parcells used to say it about who to start in the playoffs, except it was “dance with the fella that brung you to the dance.”
the Mass Board of Bar Overseers late yesterday to initiate disbarring proceedings against Wilkerson as well.
Disbarment looks unlikely, according to the procedures at the Mass Bar Association (Lawyer and Judicial Discipline).
<
p>That includes filing a formal complaint, getting the Board of Bar Overseers to consider it, and a finding from them that the offenses are worthy of an admonition or of a reprimand. Then if it is worse, they write it all up and send it to the Supreme Judicial Court for another round of investigation and consideration.
<
p>Only the SJC can suspend or disbar a lawyer.
<
p>This call must make the elephants feel powerful, but it may just be trumpeting.
<
p>
just hollow ma-gop trumpeting, then i can only conclude that they support sonya chang-diaz. because she is the one who will most benefit from advertising wilkerson’s misdeeds.
and/or causes fragmentation in the party will serve their interests.
and they must be quite frustrated to find that a lot of dems agree with them on the “wilkerson must go” front, lol!
Sonia Chang-Diaz is a progressive Democrat with a long history of working on progressive causes. Maybe after you learn to spell her name correctly, you can actually look at her website and see that.
<
p>Maybe Wilkerson is supporting Sonia, because Sonia is the one who will most benefit Wilkerson repeatedly breaking laws.
i was poking fun at the ma-gop. didn’t you wonder why i linked to her web page, lol?
Now that you mention it, no I didn’t wonder why…didn’t even think about it. Ha!
Sonia Chang-Diaz is a progressive Democrat with a long history of working on progressive causes. Maybe after you learn to spell her name correctly, you can actually look at her website and see that.
<
p>Maybe Wilkerson is supporting Sonia, because Sonia is the one who will most benefit from Wilkerson repeatedly breaking laws.
but was just pointing it out. Thanks for the info!
“Well, he or she told me that as much as he or she liked what I had to write, he or she wished I’d stop writing about Senator Wilkerson, because the Senator deserved my support.”
<
p>Is it really a case of gender giving away an identity (such as refering to the only man working in her office). Usually when protecting anonymity I still use the correct gender figuring it only narrows the choices down to 50% of the population. The “he or she” construction has always struck me as sounding very awkward. The other option is to replace “he or she” with “this person”. Anyway, like I said, just a pet peeve.
“s/he” is a good alternative, as is “they”. then that quote would look like this
or this
but changed it after the fact, because I didn’t like the way it looked. I should have used they, but no real point in changing it now.
it’s a speed bump for the reader. “he or she” is at least all real words, which can be skimmed. “s/he” is ugly and causes the reader to stop and look at it again.
as i think s/he is beautiful because a) it is fantastically concise, b) it for once defines the male term as a subset of the female term, and c) it gives the feel of a spectrum, not enforcing the binary. so i like it. but your mileage may vary.
I don’t know. I wasn’t going to take that chance. However, your constructive criticism is noted; next time I protect an identity, I’ll either use “this person” or “they.”
That’s even worse. You are using a plural pronoun when the context clearly calls for singular. This usually results in a disagreement of number between pronoun and antecedent such as: “I was talking to a person (singular) who is close to Wilkerson and they (plural) said…” Yes, I tend to be a purist when it comes to grammar/syntax.
of the all-inclusive male pronouns.
it is a convention.
All rules of grammar are.
<
p>With respect to this one, the manner in which it has come into disfavor seems to be a nice example of tossing the baby with the bathwater, leaving awkward and inartful stopgaps in its place.
<
p>In favor of the alternative conventions proposed above, they remind me of this:
<
p>
is a well-accepted “nonstandard” usage. it may not appeal to you, but there it is. everyone has their own preferred manners of speech, and most are correct enough. this is english, after all. the beauty of the language is it’s flexibility.
I find it and s/he to be shibboleths used to flag certain political viewpoints. In other contexts, in which political statements are unnecessary and irrelevant then, I think it jarring and inappropriate.
<
p>It is almost as bad as “Oh, waitron? Waitron! Check, please!”
<
p>I tend to go out of my way to avoid using pronouns at all if the sentence can’t be restructured in the plural in order to avoid this silly artificial thicket. But I lament the damage to the language that this sort of thing has wrought.
when the gender is unknown.
<
p>”Man” could be male or female, depending on context. Consider: mankind, selectman, foreman.
<
p>Women are indeed special, and therefore get a monopoly on feminine words like she, her, and woman. Men, however, aren’t so terribly interesting, and therefore we don’t get special words and have to share he, his, and man with women.
“wo” and “s” are accessory prefixes hung off of the roots “man” and “he” to create the female versions that are completely dependent upon the male root. how very telling. so your effort at humility (“men aren’t terribly interesting”) is cute but off base as to how sexes are prioritized in our language.
<
p>note that using “he” as a generic pronoun is indeed an accepted practice, but using “she” in the same way is laughed at as feminism going too far. so yes, women are “special”, as you say. that is, they’re an exception when allowed parity with men in common english usage.
it’s acceptable to say “hey guys” referring to a group of people whether it be male or female, but it’s thought of as ridiculous to say “hey girls” to a group of guys unless you’re trying to disparage them.
Not to me. I have to bite my tongue when the wait staff at a restaurant addresses a party of my mother, wife, daughter, son and I as “guys.” It feels like they’re talking to only two of us. I imagine they can’t figure out what else to call us, and rather than highlight their lack of imagination, I just ignore it. So far.
I’m guilty (but also unapologetic) of using the generic masculine because I believe context can usually distinguish between when a specific gender is warranted and when it is not. Using the generic feminine still sounds a lot better in my opinion than a misused plural pronoun or tripping over both masculine and feminine. I think what we are used to also comes into play. I usually use the feminine to indicate a singular non-specific British sovereign since the current one who has reigned for 50+ years happens to be a woman. I must confess I had no idea my comment on this would lead to such a discussion! My apologies for hijacking the post.
will have to agree to disagree with me, or perhaps even a small group of us.
This is different because he’s trying to keep the identity of the person secret, he wants to convey that it might have been a man, and it might have been a woman. Saying “he” would make readers think he had slipped up and revealed some information about who it was. Also, saying “they” here might make people think (who weren’t reading carefully) that more than one person said this about Wilkerson. So my vote in this instance is “this person”, or “he or she”, though I think “they” is a perfectly good singular pronoun when it is used in a context that is obviously one person. (I mean, “our vote”, I mean, “we mean”, doh!)
the Senators OCPF reports.
good reading…especially the expense side.
I live in Wilkerson’s district and agree completely that it’s long past time for her to go. I am, however, going to have to disagree about the endorsements being a mistake because I don’t think Wilkerson can lose this election. She’s clearly taken a page from the corrupt Irish pols of yore,and whenever she gets threatened, she plays identity politics. When her first tax evasion thing came up, she claimed at one point that she’d needed the extra money to protect her family from “a white man from South Boston” who was threatening her. (Because anonymous thugs almost always identify which neighborhood they live in.)
I could sugar coat this by trying to make it about neighborhoods, but it’s not. I think it’s safe to say we can expect record turnout in Roxbury in this election. I just don’t see those voters turning out one of the most powerful black elected officials in this state for a hispanic woman from JP, especially when Wilkerson starts sending some not-too-subtle coded messages about how she’s being persecuted for her race. My prediction is that JP will go overwhelmingly for Chang-Diaz, and Roxbury will go overwhelmingly for Wilkerson. Roxbury has the votes, Wilkerson stays, and those progressive organizations have, with their cynical endorsements of a hopelessly corrupt candidate, kept a friend in the state house rather than earning an enemy.
Is it an uphill battle for Sonia? Of course. However, it’s one she nearly won last time – on a sticker campaign! This newest revelation will remind voters about Wilkerson’s ethically challenged tendencies and hopefully can make up that less-than a-percentage-point-or-two difference from last time.
<
p>One key to winning this election, though, to me, is getting at least some institutional support behind Sonia. She deserves it, given her progressive record and respect for the law which Dianne’s severely lacking in. If she can pry even just a little bit of it away from Dianne, it should make up the difference between the two candidates last time with no problem.
In a long fact filled article in the Phoenix, which Sonia has posted on her website, Marc Solomon from Mass Equality has a smart perceptive quote that many of us “pols” who have been fighting to push various progressive issues forward for years would have been happy to point out.
Sonia is a wonderful candidate for public office, and is running this campaign on a positive note, touting her accomplishments and her policy proposals. I'm proud to know her. I hope the negative attacks on Diane by her supporters don't backfire.
how is discussing wilkerson’s continuing legal issues (that she admits to) an attack by chang-diaz’s supporters? i’ve not seen one unwarranted criticism of wilkerson. rather, i see a lot of people wishing they could still support a women they agree with and respect most of the time.
are these mutually exclusive- isn’t the main crux of the debate this: Diane’s a crook, so let’s elect a non-crook, whose name happens to be Sonia Chang-Diaz.
If she had any integrity, she would resign. Wilkerson got a second chance years ago and she squandered it. As for her law license, she should be disbarred over this. She broke the law, twice. Her actions reflect on the Democratic Party and on other members of the bar. Apparently, she has no shame. Sen. Wilkerson, go do something else… you have mishandled the public trust and do not deserve the position you have.
I’m reminded of the fairly common expression in certain business deals: ‘he may be a crook, but he’s our crook’.
<
p>Doesn’t she remind you of another notable politician.
because drug charges and campaign finance violations are exactly the same…
<
p>I think you should add to your list. Does she also remind you of:
This professional athlete?
This actor?
This athlete/actor?
This rapper?
But, she reminds me of Huey Long, Marion Barry, Richard Daley. Your list contains no politicians at all. I don’t get it.
<
p>Again, she may be a crook but she’s our crook. i.e. I don’t really care about her dirty laundry because she’s bring pork to the porkless.
Boston Irishman to vote for a Brahmin over JM Curley in the 1920’s? Can you blame people for trying to vote their interests? Who would Chang-Diaz be most committed to if she won? Her own OCPF filings might give a hint (or might not- I don’t know her well enough to say either way) Could be she’d actually serve her African-American constituents better than Wilkerson. If so, she’d best start making that case in Roxbury itself if she really wants to win.
Er, nevermind…..
I guess now that 1913 is gone, there is no need to keep her on the payroll? Her problems were what made her useful, because everyone knew she’d be unelectable if she didn’t kowtow to the LBGT supporters, so she had to. And she probably knew that after there was nothing more to do for them, this would happen. Let this be a lesson to all the reps who pander for Tim Gill’s money and supporters, and their prospective challengers.
dumping 1913 was important, but there is still much to be done. adding “gender identity and expression” to the state’s anti-discrimination law for one. keeping schools safe for lgbt kids is another. so no, we’re not throwing out wilkerson now that she has nothing left to do for the lgbts. on the contrary, she (or her successor) still has work to do.
because this latest bit of publicity coupled with her likely successor’s likely progressivism makes it smarter to ditch her at this point. OK. But it’s opportunism at its ugliest, since Wilkerson’s always had these problems and everyone knew about them but took advantage of them while they could.
<
p>Also, I think the Tim Gill/South End Gay priorities are indeed finished, they don’t really care about trans rights (see EDNA controversy) or high school kids.
Her past transgressions I mean. See my first reply on here about the Globe article with no history of Wilkerson’s actions. So calling it “opportunism at its ugliest” I think is uncalled.
<
p>Also, the ENDA controversy wasn’t about supporting or not supporting trans rights. I think we all have the same end goal of protections and equal rights for everyone, but some of us took a more pragmatic route to it and others a more idealistic one.
The Globe has always been in her corner, that’s where half of the South End gay population works. So they are just now jumping ship and changing horses, so to speak. If you didn’t know about her prior transgressions, well, you live in Cambridge I guess. Everyone else knew, but knew that it made her dependent on LGBT support and therefore a loyal tool, at the expense of her black and less affluent constituents (though I don’t know that she neglected them, only that she was compromised by knowing where her campaign money came from. She may have been able to leverage her guaranteed tenure for their benefit, for all I know).
<
p>Also, yes, on the surface, the EDNA controversy was about pragmatism versus idealism, but that only covered up what is in fact a deep rift between T’s and G’s. G’s don’t want people to think they are women in men’s bodies, they are very much men who are attracted to people who are very much men, and they think people that transition are just wussing out on being gay men. They share with L’s and T’s and B’s only a common enemy of straight society and its norms, but beyond that, very contradictory goals.
LOL! Not only do you think you know how I feel, you think you know how an entire demographic thinks? LOLOL! No, I think what we have here is a peek into the personal feelings of they about himself. Very revealing, and in a very sad way. I won’t even bother to debunk your ridiculous statement about ALL gay men, since it’s so clearly whacked.
You have disqualified yourself from making any statements about anything but your own linkable, verifiable opinions about yourself, so don’t try to tell me that gay men don’t think that. Only a hivemind such as mine can claim omniscience into all things :p
<
p>And I have read enough blogs to know that this fight goes on, and you are too knowledgeable to claim it doesn’t without being flat out dishonest. Lesbians feel the same way about transwomen too, witness what went on at Smith last year about admitting transwomen, and this Alternet thread about “How Trans Women Challenge Feminism.”
First off, your claim
<
p>
<
p>is bogus. I know and am friends with too many transgender people to think they’re ‘wussing out’ on being men. It’s far more likely that you’re projecting your own thoughts.
<
p>
<
p>It doesn’t surprise me that someone who has predetermined thoughts about a group of people – glbt in this case – would walk into online disagreements about where a movement is heading and come up with an absurd notion what they were actually saying. Please, don’t try to read between the lines, especially when you lack any of the background knowledge or a neutral perspective that would be capable of reading the small print, so to speak.
<
p>Are there disagreements about the GLBT movement? Of course there are, but not as you describe. First – and I don’t know why I’m wasting my time, but I’ll go on – you have to realize that the GLBT community, with Bs and now Ts added on, is still forming and relatively new. 10-15 years ago, it was still GLB, and not long before that it was G and L, etc. Many people who are GL or B don’t have a broad understanding of what it means to be T, so they’re just as ignorant about transgender issues as most of society.
<
p>Secondly, there are some glb people who think that being transgender is different, because being glb is about sexuality whereas T is about gender identity. Of course, that’s not really the case, because gender issues so heavily impact many GLB people because they don’t conform to gender stereotypes. That’s it. No ‘wussing out,’ just philosophical differences and a lack of understanding on many parts.
<
p>So there’s a basic ‘101’ lesson for you; hopefully you won’t repeat those absurd thoughts/feelings about what’s going on in other forums. In reality, it’s very different, and only because our community is still coming together in many ways, which makes our progress across the nation all the more amazing.
that lgb and t interests are intertwined beyond lgb people suffering discrimination based on gender expression. the fact is that some t people are l,g or b. and you know, the bigots usually don’t bother to differentiate us. we’re all queer and bashable in their eyes.
… for group x, then group q, then group z. Its all intertwined.
sexual orientation and being transgender as they both stem from notions of proper gender roles. However, I do see those 2 issues as distinctive and each unique.
<
p>As to Laurel’s 1st point, I don’t know how prevalent discrimination is against GLB people for acting too butch or femme. That was an argument that Lambda Legal had made during the ENDA debate saying that it wouldn’t be enough because GLB people would still be fired. John Aravosis responded to it here
<
p>And to the 2nd point, of course some T’s are GLB and some GLB’s are T’s. There’s always overlap between minorities just as some women are gay and some people of color have disabilities etc. But I’ve never understood the argument to try and say that those issues are the same; it doesn’t mean we’re not a community simply because the issues are distinctive.
to tell me that gay people (and straights too, by the way) do indeed suffer from discrimination based on gender expression.
<
p>as for glb and t issues being the same, i’m not sure anyone is saying that. but they are intertwined and overlapping and, in the mind of our “enemies”, indistinguishable.
in the minds of those that don’t like “queers” we’re indistinguishable, but that doesn’t mean the issues aren’t distinctive (which is a distinction I would like to make! ha).
<
p>As for:
<
p>
<
p>I was sort of responding to both your’s and Ryan’s response there. And he was saying that,
<
p>And that’s absolutely fine that you’ve got those opinions with having experienced that. I on the other hand have not witnessed that occurring where someone is too butch or femme and being discriminated for it. I would be open to changing my mind on that, but I haven’t read any lawsuits about that happening. I have read about people being fired for transitioning at work or for the fact that they’re gay plenty of times however.
you will never open your mind to this. not all discrimination based on gender expression results in a firing. a lot of it is just basic humiliation, degradation and bashing (i.e. bullying) in front of others. you’ll never see a lawsuit about that unless it involves school kids in select states. also it is vital to remember that we can still be legally discriminated against in most states for this. so again, no lawsuits possible in most cases, even if it results in something like being fired or refused an apartment lease or public accommodation.
Beyond this comment, I am not going to engage with a person who writes “the jig is up” in a context like this one.
ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act) just fyi.
<
p>You readily admit that there is some media bias so how would people be opportunistic if they didn’t have all the reported facts? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
<
p>As to your discussion on the GLBT community, I don’t think you can make such big claims. Do you have some studies or polls to back that up?
<
p>Personally, as a gay man, I don’t think being trans is “wussing out on being gay men”. I’ve also never heard any of my gay or straight friends make such a statement. Heck, some people that transition are actually attracted to the same sex of the gender they transitioned to so there goes that theory.
<
p>As to your notion that:
<
p>
<
p>That never even crossed my mind and I’ve never heard that notion pushed even from the most anti-gay organizations such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and Focus on the Family. My concerns as a child growing up was thinking I would have to live a lie and marry a woman someday and that I would never have the courage to come out of the closet. Thankfully the times have drastically changed and gay people are even afforded the right to marry in this great state.
<
p>Anyways, just my own $0.02. Response?
You readily admit that there is some media bias so how would people be opportunistic if they didn’t have all the reported facts? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
<
p>Because the Globe and the South End gay community are virtually the same people. (I know, I know, it’s a generalization, so sue me) They very reluctantly wrote about Wilkerson’s troubles before, it used to be the sole province of Howie Carr and the Herald. That they are turning at the same time the LGBT community is turning is no coincidence.
<
p> I’ve also never heard any of my gay or straight friends make such a statement.
<
p>Maybe people are learning the new rules, then. I found this essay which seems to be a scholarly look at the issue I’m describing, which suggests that it was prevalent in the 70’s and 80’s but is now considered passé. If that’s true, I think it only reflects political correctness and that the underlying conflict is still there as strong as ever.
Again, (and you admit it) you are making these huge generalizations. Just because both groups are liberal and or progressive doesn’t mean they’re one and the same and I view that as grasping for straws. Just like the other item, show me some proof.
<
p>
<
p>So how is the Globe turning on Wilkerson? They were the ones to publish that article omitting key facts. That doesn’t seem like they’re turning on her and is actually quite to the contrary.
<
p>As for the GLBT community, I would bet the majority support Wilkerson especially after the mass publicity she received for heralding the repeal of the 1913 law through in the Senate. And not receiving the full story through the media makes it likely that they’ll keep supporting Wilkerson unless Diaz and others can get that info out and reasons why they should support her instead.
<
p>
<
p>70s and 80s? First of all, gay people were barely understood back then let alone trans people.
<
p>And again, you’re implying things without any proof at all. If that view isn’t prevalent then it could be due to any number of reasons. The fact that you automatically assume that it’s because people are trying to hide their true feelings is rather telling. What about the possibility that people no longer hold those views from the 70s and 80s of which is quite likely since views on GLBT issues have changed dramatically since then? What about some other possibility that we’re not considering?
I don’t see how it’s any different than the last time around – which was mostly a split. Sure, lots of glbt people are supporting Sonia, but the fact is MassEquality and other glbt organizations are still endorsing Wilkerson and making it known that that’s the thing its members should do. There’s been a lot of cover by the leaders in the glbt community to help Wilkerson win this race – and that’s exactly the sort of thing I’m speaking out on in this diary. So I think it’s very inaccurate to say that the GLBT community is turning against Wilkerson – rather, that it should.
did a great many people know about her problems? Yes, but we were continuously told she was working on them and they wouldn’t continue. Most of us would like to give the benefit of the doubt. So when we were told she’s hired new bookkeepers to keep track of her campaign finance stuff, etc. many of us believed it. Obviously, that’s complete BS, or her bookkeepers had a different sort of job to do (and couldn’t even do that well). So I reject your notion that this is ‘opportunism.’ This is just people waking up to the fact that she’s a serial law breaker and not deserving of the trust we put into our public servants.
but you’ll invariably be wrong. why not just stick to what you know: your own opinions?
last time I checked, Wilkerson had much larger constituency groups than LGBT voters. Splitting their vote last time was her main goal, but it’s still probably only 5-10% of her district, tops. She could hypothetically win without the GLBT community.
<
p>Secondly, a confessed law-breaker is near inexcusable on Beacon Hill, especially one who is a repeat offender. She’s done much more than 1913 for our community – you need to do more research. However, there’s nothing she can do that would offset the fact that she’s a confessed lawbreaker who’s twice faced hefty fines and penalties for her actions… and still repeats her lapses of judgment and shady ways.
<
p>If this is a “lesson” to anyone, it’s a lesson that the progressive community isn’t going to tolerate wide-scale abuses of the law, because we can have elected officials who are both good on the issues and respective of the public trust at the same time. It’s not a choice between the two – we need look no further, in this case, than Sonia Chang-Diaz.
I wish sanctimonious good government types from out in the sticks would leave our city politicians alone. First some start disrespecting Sal – one of the most effective progressive state legislators ever – and now here they come for another formidable and experienced advocate.
<
p>If you live in the district and like Chang-Diaz better, go for it. Otherwise you’re just concern trolling the party.
i won’t. that’s because legislators, senators in particular, can have state-wide influence, and so are sometimes the natural subject of state-wide scrutiny. if you’ve ever given money to the campaign of a pol not representing your district, you know what i mean and agree with my point. also, why is it sanctimonious to question whether re-electing a confessed lawbreaker is good for the party or the state? i’m not saying i’d vote for or against wilkerson, but i think the debate is important and just downright interesting.
to campaigns not in their district, because people who have the kind of money to throw at candidates generally have too much money and influence in general, and are just trying to buy more, to the detriment of those who don’t have enough money to begin with. Naturally in cases where there are civil rights issues or altruistic motives involved it is an understandable practice. I donated money to Kucinich in his Ohio reelection bid because I wanted to keep impeachment on the table and to reward him and preserve his voice in the House. However, I also have seen a lot of people donating to Sal DiMasi (and probably countless others) because they had some vulgar financial interest in MA (such as the Cognos guys) or wanted to keep some regulation “off the table” (Matthew Israel and the Rotenberg Pediatric Electrocution Center). In other words, shady characters trying to pull a fast one on people of good faith- and even worse, people I disagree with!
<
p>I’ve given a total of about $300 to about 10 different candidates not running to represent me in the past 4 years. That includes Town Meeting candidates, City Council candidates, MA House candidates, MA Senate candidates, US House candidates, and US senate candidates.
<
p>Altruistic? Hell no. I want to live in a better America, and I thought that these candidates would help make a better America for me to live in. Maybe I’m a different color cynical than you, but a “special interest” donor trying to influence a particular policy or piece of legislation is no more or less altruistic/opportunistic than I am, trying to influence broad policy and legislation. Beauty and altruism are in the eyes of the beholder I suppose.
if you don’t have relatively much money to donate it’s smarter to donate to races that are actually competitive and will make the most difference (getting the most bang for your buck so to speak). The chances that those races will solely be in your district is improbable.
I’m not “out in the sticks.” I’m a whole 1/2 hour away from the district by car, 40 minutes by subway. So I’m sufficiently close to this district that I actually care about it, most especially because I have friends in the district.
<
p>Second off, I’m not “concern trolling.” I do not support Wilkerson; concern trolling would be offering advice that purports to help the Senator while actually hurting her electoral chances. I’m pretty sure asking to Senator Wilkerson to step down is publicly asking her to ‘hurt her chances,’ thus it’s not a form of concern trolling. It’s an opinion – a good one at that – which is what BlueMassGroup is about.
<
p>Lastly, the situation with Sal is completely different. Some people think things about him, with very little evidence. Senator Wilkerson has twice pleaded guilty, once serving in a halfway house and just this past week agreeing to ten thousand in penalties… which was light, considering her history and the magnitude of her abuse. Lest we think this system is confusing and lots of people abuse it, it’s nearly impossible to get in trouble with OCPF so long as you admit your mistake on target. They also take phone calls every day so people can get near instant clarifications on any rules.
<
p>The facts of the matter is Senator Wilkerson purports to be a public servant who stands for law and order, yet can’t manage to go more than a few years without outwardly abusing the law and her position – and most importantly of all, the public trust. Meanwhile, her opponent in this race is just as progressive, if not more so, than the Senator herself – one who has a long of Beacon Hill experience and will be able to quickly gain the power and influence Wilkerson’s had there, without any of the distracting baggage.
How close you live to the district is irrelevant. You’re “opposing” her without any reference to what her constituents need or want. The entire post uses the pronoun “we” to define some group, not clear who it includes, who should decide to kick Wilkerson out of office. Classic goo-goo paternalism. And dripping with sanctimony.
<
p>I didn’t say you were concern trolling Sen. Wilkerson, I said you were concern trolling the party. You know, by telling it to repudiate one of its most liberal legislators and most senior minority officials, because of the exact reason the right wing has been screaming about since she got into office.
<
p>While the facts about Sal and Wilkerson are different, the issues of loyalty, solidarity, and smart politics are the same.
<
p>just doesn’t sink with
<
p>Be consistent.
<
p>Really? It sure fooled me. Next time feel free to be more clear. However, I think you’re absolutely, 100% wrong. So, apparently, when I disagree with an aspect of the party, I’m automatically “concern trolling.” Who knew? Here I thought I was using my rights to free speech and freedom to organize to express my politican opinion and try to reform the party to which I a) belong and b) work so hard to make stronger.
<
p>Finally, your argument is weak from top to bottom.
<
p>
<
p>Sonia is
<
p>a) at the very least as liberal.
<
p>b) a minority
<
p>c) has effective Beacon Hill experience that will allow her to transition well, so the district loses little of its power over the short term, with the likelihood of growing even more within a year or two.
<
p>Most progressive activists I know, both inside the district and out, seem to think Sonia is more liberal and has a better grasp of the issues. I’ve had Sonia on my radio show and would concur. Indeed, several people have come on here suggesting that Wilkerson’s ethics are the least of her problems, and that her tendency to give in to special interests and others makes her even more replaceable. I don’t know as much about that as they do, but that kind of talk certainly exacerbates the problem. Any way you look at it, Sonia is the superior choice for a leader who can both be effective and someone we could be proud of, as every public servant should aspire to be.
<
p>Speaking of red herrings… here’s two whoppers that actually are red herrings.
<
p>
<
p>Feel free to address my actual points. If you don’t think the fact that Wilkerson has twice pleaded guilty (once just a week ago) and shown many other terrible lapses of judgment is a big deal, then explain away. It’s an argument I’m more than curious to hear, because it sure seems to me that it will be ridiculous. Good luck with that.
“the sticks” was obviously rhetorical, the point being that the criticism is coming from outside the district and makes no reference to its particular needs.
<
p>My original comment said “concern trolling the party.” How that “fooled you” is a mystery.
<
p>My point about Wilkerson is that her seniority and savvy and toughness are not to be cast off lightly. Her endorsements reflect that. Her problems are problems, but they have to be weighed in the balance. Reasonable people can disagree about how the scales read. I see no balance here, but a call for a putsch, not by saying her ability to advocate has been compromised, but by calling her a crook, an embarrassment, and a moral pariah.
The person out ahead of this issue in the blogosphere is Mike, who’s decidedly in the district. Many others from in the district have posted here – perhaps even more than those from outside. In fact, despite all her disadvantages, enough people in the district almost voted for Sonia last time around for Sonia to win. If she even nibbles a little from Wilkerson’s plate, she’ll win this time for sure… and, fyi, voters who vote in a particular election are decidedly in the district.
<
p>I don’t really think anyone here is doing that. A series of events have led to this campaign – and all of them are Wilkerson’s fault. If only one or two of these things happened, Wilkerson would probably be fine. However, a lot of things have happened, hence why people are starting to realize that despite her votes, she needs to be replaced. I don’t think anyone is taking decision that lightly, it was literally years in the making.
<
p>
<
p>We lay in the beds we make. Dianne Wilkerson decided, on numerous occasions, to break the law – the most recent case being over a stunning five year long period. What is someone who knowingly and frequently abuses the law, other than an embarrassment and someone who’s morally suspect? Public servants can’t abuse the public trust; lawmakers can’t be allowed to abuse the law as they see fit. These are reasonable and minimal concepts in society from any angle you look at it.
And I’ll repeat here for Cannoneo and others –
<
p>Yes, as a voter in the second suffolk district, I am happy to have it known that I enthusiastically support Sonia Chang-Diaz for state senate. There have been many gravely disappointing instances of Sen Wilkerson siding with moneyed interests over the interests or ordinary people in this district. (And these reasons to think hard about replacing Wilkerson come on top of her “legal matters”). Wilkerson’s position against the clean elections law that passed with 68% of the vote is a glaring example, and, more recently, her flip-flop to vote against the public health measure to have DPH establish safe minimum nurse staffing levels in hospitals, akin to the sensible minimum staffing levels that have long existed existed in day care centers. These positions that Wilkerson has taken are appalling positions for a “progressive” senator, imho.
<
p>FYI Sen Wilkerson supported the safe nurse staffing law last session but repeatedly refused to publicly state her position on it this term. Then she voted against it this month; voted against it despite overwhelming evidence that thousands of MA patients are being harmed due to inadequate staffing and despite over 130 statewide groups http://www.protectmasspatients… and the majority of Wilkerson’s constituents urging her to vote for it. (Makes a thinking person wonder how much dough the hospital executives are funneling to Wilkerson’s campaign trough, along with the Pharma execs who got the Senate to gut the gift restrictions bill.)
<
p>Sonia Chang-Diaz is running a very positive campaign. I’m excited about her knowledge and her positions on public education, community development including affordable housing, and good government. I’ve got a child in a Boston public school and another heading there in a couple years. I’m a nurse who’s worked with Boston Health Care for the Homeless for 3 years so the affordable housing issue (see http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/showD… ) is one of many public policy issues near and dear to me, as is the gay rights issue as well.
<
p>As a long-time constituent in Dianne Wilkerson’s district I know there is plenty to be negative about but that’s NOT the campaign Chang-Diaz is running. Facts are facts.
<
p>We city folk(TIC) need a Senator who we can have confidence in their basic competence, who we can trust, and who we can reasonably count on to vote our progressive interests. Please do what you can to help Sonia Chang-Diaz replace Wilkerson in the second suffolk senate district http://www.soniachangdiaz.com
Well my comment wasn’t aimed at 2nd Suffolk voters, and I even think Chang-Diaz supporters would be justified in playing up the senator’s legal woes.
<
p>But your policy case against Wilkerson is the ancient-history clean elections law and nurse staffing levels?? That’s a pretty thin case for resetting the seniority of your state senator back to zero.
Maybe the clean elections law was a few years ago, but it was damn important and a true lost opportunity. It shouldn’t be forgotten.
<
p>Finally, your argument that you don’t think nursing staffing levels is a big deal is even weaker. Good luck when you’re sick and there aren’t enough nurses around. No offense, but Ann has infinitely more knowledge on nursing issues than you do. She’s been talking about them on bmg for at least a year. You absolutely have the wrong priorities and a terrible viewpoint of the purpose of government if tossing aside major and majorly important legislation like the quality of health care is no big deal to you.
Of course nursing levels is a legit issue – but is it anywhere near a sufficient reason to declare a legislator anathema to the entire progressive community?
Yes, in fact, it could be. Obviously, to AnnEM, it is, or at least it’s one of the biggest reasons (yet not the only one) she finds Wilkerson lacking.
<
p>You shouldn’t assume your values are the values of other people, or more worthy/important than the values of others.
we have power now, let’s start remaking even the most progressive precincts of the party in our image
and never discuss anything beyond our own back yards?
<
p>i’m curious – i’ve never seen you jump on any other “replace that scoundrel!” diary. why just this one? or have i missed some key posts by you?
but take into account the given district and its needs, which often have more to do with systemic power than with a perfect person.
<
p>Not sure what you’re getting at with that last question. I’ve just always admired Wilkerson, and felt this diary, and its comment thread, lacked perspective.
may i suggest that you join in the conversation and provide the perspective you feel is lacking? because as you can see, just getting upset at the fact of the discussion won’t stop it from happening without you, and your perspective will not be heard. it’s your choice.
if we want lawmakers who are as law-abiding