Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Chang-Diaz/Wilkerson Debate

By

An audience member asked what both Wilkerson and Chang-Diaz would do to uphold campaign finance laws.

Wilkerson will “try her best.” That’s all she could say. Literally – and amazingly pathetic. The difference between the two of them here is, well, enlightening. Wilkerson’s just not listening. Her arrogance in the face of this primary challenge is astounding. Does she get that her job is on the line? Does she get why it’s on the line? The answer, below, makes me doubtful.

There is a clear choice for State Senator in this race. There’s a candidate who takes the job seriously – and not just for granted. That clear choice, that person who takes this job seriously, is not Senator Wilkerson. Hopefully, the incumbency protection racket will fail this time and Second Suffolk District voters can have a public servant who will uphold the public trust again.

For all the dirty details, go visit Mike’s site.

Crossposted at Ryan’s Take.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Definitly check this out – esp. if you are undecided in this race. While Wilkerson is good on many issues her inability to follow the basic principles we expect of public officials clearly undermines her effectiveness. I supported Sonia in 06 and after giving Wilkerson the benefit of the doubt for the last two years (hoping that she would clean up her act) I must say that she does not deserve yet another chance.  

    • “While Wilkerson is good on many issues her inability to follow the basic principles we expect of public officials clearly undermines her effectiveness.”

      <

      p>You are obviousley alluding to the fact that Ms Wilkerson is a fraud and a tax cheat—-amongst other things that have yet to surface.

      <

      p>Why beat around the bush? This woman is not now nor has she ever been a suitable, qualified, nor ethical public servant. It took “progressives” this long to figure that out?

      <

      p>Why do democrats protect corrupt politicians. Why does anyone—republican, democrat, libertarian, or green protect untrustworthy and corrupt polticians. When you engage in this behavior, regardless of intent, it makes you no better than they are because “you” (I mean that in a general sense) put a stamp of approval on it. The old James Michael Curley wink and a nod. Half the state house needs to be cleaned out.

      • we’re trying to boot her from the office. take your complaints to those who are actually trying to keep her in. I had a poll on this earlier in the summer; around 85% of the BMG community thought Wilkerson should resign immediately, never mind lose.  

  2. Just got this emailed press release from Sonia’s campaign:

    <

    p>

    JAMAICA PLAIN – The Sonia Chang-Díaz Campaign for State Senate campaign posted strong fundraising numbers in the pre-primary OCPF report for the Second Suffolk race, raising over $100,000 in 2008 alone. The report, posted on September 8th, shows the campaign with $51,000 on hand going into the September 16th primary as well as strong grassroots support for Chang-Díaz’s candidacy of new leadership.

    “From the start of this race, I have been committed to raising the funds we need to communicate our message to the voters. We know voters in the Second Suffolk district are looking for a change, and we’re doing everything we can to reach out to them and let them know they have a positive alternative ,” said Chang-Díaz. “Voters and donors alike understand what’s really at stake in this election – and the response from both has been phenomenal.”

    The strong fundraising numbers build on the momentum from the campaign’s district-wide door-to-door field program, as well as recent polling results showing Chang-Díaz leading her opponent by 17.5%. (To view full results, go to http://www.soniachangdiaz.com/poll).

    Highlights from the pre-primary report include:

    ·        As of August 29th, Chang-Díaz had raised $102,888 in 2008, none of it from PACs and only $100 from a lobbyist.  This compares to over $14,000 raised by her opponent from PACs and lobbyists

    ·        Including funds raised in previous years, Chang-Díaz has had a total of $132,585 available to spend in the current campaign.  Much of her expenditure has focused on voter outreach including a vigorous mail campaign.

    ·        Chang-Díaz reported having $51,000 on hand and no liabilities while her opponent showed a little more than $5,200 on hand with over $27,000 in liabilities.

    ·        Chang-Díaz’s report included a total of 663 donors, with 456 of those — or 69% — donating $100 or less, demonstrating a true grassroots commitment to the campaign.

    ·        Chang-Díaz has also had very strong support from inside the District.  She raised almost half her funds ($50,281) from 333 local residents while her opponent raised only $31,225 from 152 residents.

    Fundraising has remained strong, with over $10,000 raised since the August 29th reporting cut-off deadline.

    One new supporter signed up after hearing Chang-Díaz ‘s performance at the September 4th Jamaica Plain Candidates Forum (http://soniachangdiaz.com/debate). Carolyn Royce walked directly to Chang-Díaz ‘s headquarters after the debate to deliver a $50 check and sign up to volunteer. Said Royce, “Sonia has the knowledge, dedication, and commitment to integrity, and I want her to be my new State Senator.”

    The full financial report can be viewed at http://www.mass.gov/ocpf/.

    <

    p>All I can say is wow. I still have my fingers crossed, but all I can say is this: Sonia’s a wonderful candidate and has done everything she could to win this race. If this is how she can run a campaign, I can’t wait to see what she can do in the Massachusetts State Senate.  

    • I’m not trying to pick on S C-D, but why accept the $100?  Why not proudly announce that you’ve taken zero dollars from lobbyists?

    • Looking at Sonia’s report I just noticed that her campaign committee is located in Watertown!  I assume, for her sake, that there’s no provision that the candidates committee has to be the same district they’re runnning for.  It’s at least a little awkward though.  

      • That’s just where her treasurer lives, not where her campaign office is.

        <

        p>Also, Watertown is awesome.  You can’t blame her treasurer for wanting to live here.

    • But didn’t Dianne buy some space on the BMG website? I thought I saw a Diannedelivers08 banner somewhere on this site.  I also would have to disagree regarding Sonia running a good campaign…if she is trying to oust an incumbent, she should have less money on hand with only a week to go in the primary.  What exactly is she spending money on and I wonder how organized her campain is. I would agree that there has been an all out attack against Wilkerson by many on this sight that might or might not be justified.  One would have to ask, of all the elected officials in MA and otherwise, is she the only one that we should be ousting? I mean her failing to pay taxes was in 1997.  The recently resolved campaign finance issues were initiated by the former AG not Coakley. Whether you agree or diagree but  ” As part of the settlement  that was announced yesterday, Wilkerson admitted she failed to keep proper campaign records between 2000 and 2004 and operating a campaign committee without a properly appointed treasurer between 2002 and 2004″ from boston.com.

      <

      p>All I’m saying is let’s not be hypocrtical if we are going to out Dianne so to speak, the same standards need to be applied to all Dems who are not worthy to hold office.  There are a lot of GOP folks and some Dems that might hold the belief that Ted Kennedy should have never been relected after leaving a woman dead in the water, however he is consistently hailed as one of the greatest progressives of all times.  So please let’s keep it balanced.  

  4. This continued all-out attack on a dedicated, progressive, influential lawmaker as some kind of worthless nonentity is breathtakingly shortsighted and arrogant.

    <

    p>Seriously, I can understand supporting Chang-Diaz, but the cocksure and dismissive and personal language is stomach-turning.

    <

    p>Dianne Wilkerson has the ear and confidence of Senate leadership – not to mention the governor and mayor – and has come through time and again for the needy of her district and the state, not only through direct programs and support to nonprofits but through, yes, gasp, for-profit developments that produce jobs.

    <

    p>Sonia Chang-Diaz seems terrific. But that’s no reason to throw out a reliable senior legislator. It’s madness!

    <

    p>This is a legislature and a complex system of influence, not a damn fantasy league. You can’t just plug in someone with the same views and a cleaner personal record and think you’ll get the same thing with a bonus stat.

    <

    p>Why do you think not just every major pol but every conceivable progressive nonprofit endorses Dianne? It’s not a matter of gratitude but of realism. These folks aren’t stupid, they act in the interests of those they serve.  

    • Where do you draw the line?  At what point, in your eyes, does it become worthwhile to replace one reliable progressive vote with another?

      <

      p>Were the voters of Georgia right to eject Cynthia McKinney?

      • You add up a 20 year record of leadership in various battles for justice,  the proven ability to marshall support for controversial issues among colleagues, the courage to speak unpleasant truth to power (including sometimes your colleagues and your long time friends)against a quirky , even stubborn bad attitude toward the  reporting deadlines associated with personal and campaign finances.

        • without the “stubborn bad attitude toward the reporting deadlines associated with personal and campaign finances.”  Why do we settle for mediocracy in this state, especially Democrats?  We elect a Democrat to office and as long as they vote party lines and don’t harass any women in public, we keep them in for life.  We may end up with a Democratic vote, but we probably get mediocre policy.

          <

          p>BTW, acting like income tax filing requirements and campaign finance requirements do not matter much or acting like they just do not apply to some “special” people is not progressive politics and is not speaking “unpleasant truth to power.”  Speaking truth to power is throwing a politician out of office who does not seem to understand that the laws apply to them the same as they apply to all of us.    

      • which has little to do with reliable votes. Votes are cheap, compared to the work that goes into making them meaningful — ie, articulating constituent support, getting other votes, earning, over a period of years, the respect of leadership and many public and private partners.

        <

        p>I was at a committee hearing in 1998 where insurance industry lobbyists were trying to protect insurance policies from seizure for child support payments. They tried to suggest child support was some kind of pseudo-not-really-debt. Wilkerson called them out, sternly lectured them at length, exposed their weasel words, shamed them out of the room. This was not typical behavior, even among liberal reps. And at a time when most progressive legislators were out in the cold, she maintained this voice and built influence. And that’s just one tiny instance.

        <

        p>McKinney – what was her big crime? Shoving a cop who grabbed her? Has Hank Johnson spoken up as clearly as she did against the Bush admin?

        • But I’ll admit that when Wilkerson comes on my screen, I think “there’s that lady who keeps violating the law and can’t manage her own finances” and don’t really hear what she says.  This may be different for state legislators (for whom no offense is worthy of shunning, it seems), or voters in her district.  I’d be curious what others say.

          <

          p>As for McKinney, I know that the shoving made big news, coupled with statements that were inartful.  Frankly, I don’t think her missteps reach the level of Wilkerson.  What about Ciro Rodriguez?  Joe Lieberman?  What does it take?

        • The same taxes that she forces upon me.

          <

          p>BTW—Wilkerson is not the only solon that sees fit not to pay their taxes—not just picking on her.

        • a lot of the people in her district don’t think she’s an effective legislator. She tacks things on to the back of the bill and jumps at the back of the chorus line. That’s actually among Mike Ball’s biggest and continuous complaints. You’ll have to go read his blog for more, but he digs deep and has really lead the coverage of this election from Mass Marrier.  

    •  

      an issue that I’m sure is very important to 2nd Suffolk District voters.

       Tell me Ryan, why would the 2nd Suffolk be more interested in cori reform than other districts?

      • Now, I don’t want to come right out and call Ryepower racist, but what does he mean by this quote? Without explanation I find it offensive and racist, and completely consistent with someone who does not understand the needs of this district.  

        • another commenter who signed up on September ninth. I find that interesting and reflective… any disclosure’s you’d like to make?

          <

          p>as for my response, I’ll quote from below:

          <

          p>

          Honestly, the fact that you’d take what I said and try to spin it as racist says more about you than it does about me; these problems exist, disproportionately in many communities, and I make no judgments over people who suffer under our current CORI laws. There’s nothing wrong with them, only the system. It seems to me like you’re the one who’s making judgments by calling me out for things I neither said nor made any illusions.

          <

          p>But, really, the best answer to your insults was this, Stomv’s post.  

      • Given that blacks are statistically more likely to be wardens of the state than whites, and given that young black men have incredibly high incarceration rates, and given that former prisoners have a hard time finding any work due to their record, CORI reform is more important to a general population which [for fair or biased reasons] has a higher percentage of citizens with a criminal record.

        <

        p>Now, I have absolutely no access to the data, but given national trends on incarceration as a function of race or wealth, I believe that a community’s interest in CORI reform is positively correlated with actual or perceived incarceration rates, and is therefore far more of an issue for Wilkerson’s district than Creem’s Newton+Brookline district.

        <

        p>That’s noting a correlation between race and CORI, not pre-judging a black person as a criminal.  Quite different indeed.  Please use critical thinking before playing the racist card.  Kthanks.

        • where do you think the average VOTER puts CORI reform?  I would say 10 or 9 but maybe I am out of the loop.  I thought that the CORI reform comment by Ry was a little suspect.  I know many denizens of this blog would have gone ballistic if it had been written by someone else, like Ernie or Eabo.  It is not racist but I think it is illuminative of how Ry views the “typical” 2nd Suffolk voter.

          • I said it was important to many voters in the Second Suffolk. That doesn’t mean it’ll be on the top ten lists of everyone, or even a majority of people, but there is a sizable number of people in that district for whom CORI reform will mean the difference between finding a well paying job or not, or having a friend/child/relative finding a decent job or not. To those people, CORI reform may be one of the most important issues at the local level.

            <

            p>Honestly, the fact that you’d take what I said and try to spin it as racist says more about you than it does about me; these problems exist, disproportionately in many communities, and I make no judgments over people who suffer under our current CORI laws. There’s nothing wrong with them, only the system. It seems to me like you’re the one who’s making judgments by calling me out for things I neither said nor made any illusions.

            • According to this site it looks like she was merely criticizing Patrick’s CORI bill for not “going far enough”:

              <

              p>

              Patrick was followed by testimonies from Sen. Dianne Wilkerson and Rep’s Gloria Fox, Willie Mae Allen, Linda Dorcena Forry and Steve D’Amico. These legislators commended the Governor for taking a good step towards reforms, but argued that he had not gone enough. Senator Wilkerson said that the bill was a “CORI Repair” bill rather than real CORI reform. Legislators raised concerns over the lack of juvenile related provisions, the importance of “fair hiring” protections that remove the felony check box from job applications, a need to remove non-convictions and not guilty findings, and the importance of reducing the waiting periods to seal a felony to 7 years and a misdemeanor to 3 years.

              <

              p>(From corireform.com)

              • At the Wards 11 and 19 candidate forum, she spun on CORI reform. Challenger Sonia Chang-Díaz noted this was one of many areas in which the community had a strong demand but the legislation had languished for years. That evening, Wilkerson did not address whether she could get other legislators to do what her constituents wanted. Rather, she said she would not try to pass CORI reform until it included full coverage of youth offenders (record purging upon case disposition).

                <

                p>It’s not anything like science, but the audience near me immediately took to muttering, along the line of babies and bathwater. Dianne seems much more willing to wait than her constituents are.

                <

                p>Her CORI bill limits the background check to cases in which the offense substantially relates to the job applied for by the applicant. That’s not breathtaking reform, but it is a repair.

          • I think you need to learn a little bit more about the district before you speculate so accusingly.  There are indeed portions of the Second Suffolk where if you ask voters what issues are important, a high percentage would list CORI reform among their top priorities without you even having to mention it.

    • This continued all-out attack on a dedicated, progressive, influential lawmaker as some kind of worthless nonentity is breathtakingly shortsighted and arrogant.

      <

      p>She broke the law. Numerous times. People are angry. They should be.

      <

      p>Maybe people should care a little bit more about district democrats instead of those with the power. People elect politicians to serve them, not to serve the already influential.

      <

      p>

      Sonia Chang-Diaz seems terrific. But that’s no reason to throw out a reliable senior legislator.

      <

      p>Indeed, you’re right. That’s why there are many reasons to vote for Chang-Diaz. Let’s start with the issues.

      <

      p>

      They differ on a few issues. Wilkerson supports a proposed biolab at Boston University, saying it will bring jobs, while Chang-Diaz said she opposes it because of safety concerns; the challenger supports public funding of elections, while Wilkerson has voted against proposals for taxpayer-financed elections; and Chang-Diaz is against using taxpayer money for the Columbus Center real estate project that would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike between the South End and Back Bay, while Wilkerson has been one of the stalled project’s most active advocates.

      <

      p>Those issues may not matter to you, but they matter to a helluva lot of people in the district.

      <

      p>I don’t feel as though I should have to list all the ethical reasons of why Wilkerson doesn’t deserve the public trust, but you seem to be short in memory. So, for your benefit…

      <

      p>

      While she has done a lot for the district and particularly the GLBT community, she is no longer fit for office. Let’s recap why:

      Just this August, she reached a settlement with the Attorney General’s office over her latest violations of campaign finance law. She paid over $10,000 in fines and had to forgo over $30,000 in reimbursement for improper uses of campaign funds.

      Two years ago, she didn’t bother to collect the trivial 300 nomination signatures, had to run a sticker campaign and was almost defeated by then newbie Sonia Chang-Diaz. We should expect more from such a long-term incumbent.

      Also two years ago, she stopped paying her condo fees for many months, eventually owing over $13,000. Her unit faced foreclosure.

      In 1997, she pleaded guilty to not filing or paying taxes for three years, from 1991 through 1994. Besides paying up, she was placed under house arrest for 30 days per a federal judge. Furthermore, she admitted not reporting $27,000 in political donations and could not account for $18,000 in reimbursements directly to her. For twice breaking curfew while under house arrest, she ended up at a halfway house for 30 days.

      <

      p>So, let’s recap: there’s both major differences on local issues (and all politics is local, after all), as well as ethical reasons to vote for Sonia over Wilkerson. Voters don’t have to choose between good votes and ethical standards; they can have both in Sonia Chang-Diaz.

      <

      p>

      Why do you think not just every major pol but every conceivable progressive nonprofit endorses Dianne?

      <

      p>It’s called the incumbency protection racket; they act in the interest of their organization, which is not always the people they ‘serve.’ Otherwise, they’d just support the candidate who the people of their district support. GLBT people voted for Sonia last time around, overwhelmingly, yet GLBT orgs continue to back Wilk. Why?  They fear going against incumbents: if the incumbent wins, they’ll very likely take the slight personally. Furthermore, for organizations who want to bring more people to their side, going against someone who’s supported you in the past could be a touch dangerous. Most importantly, there’s little fear of retribution if the incumbent loses: next time, where else would the newly elected candidate go? Sonia wouldn’t block glbt legislation because she didn’t get MassEquality’s endorsement; she’ll get backed next time, when she wins again – and Wilkerson will be a long forgotten memory. .

      • Can you cite the LGBT overwhelming support last time quote? or is this akin to your baiting quote about CORI?

        • In either case, there are much bigger issues that should be taken with GLBT organizations for supporting much more questionable incumbents, such as the example of the national organization(s)/HRC endorsing Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins.

            • What I was going for was the fact that on the actual issues that the LGBT organizations are actually about, Wilkerson has an exemplary record, and she didn’t vote to put in place anti-gay leadership for her caucus or the Executive, the way the two I cited, endorsed by the national orgs., do.

        • and that includes the hugely disproportionate number of glbt people who live there. Go talk to the gay people who live there. Even leaders in some of these orgs who have endorsed Wilk will admit that the bulk of glbt people in the district support Sonia. It wouldn’t have been close last time if that weren’t the case.

          <

          p>And what “baiting” quote? Feel free to point it out and show why it’s “baiting.”  

      • Issues: The biolab and Columbus Center do matter to me, and Wilkerson’s main focus is on guaranteeing local jobs. Philosophically, this is important – that a politician not be overly fastidious about development at the expense of jobs, density, and economic diversity.

        <

        p>The major disruptive force to inner city neighborhoods has been industrial job loss. I.e., not enough jobs that can support families. But this district is not some isolated ghetto, where investors fear to tread. Large-scale development will happen, whether the working class voters are at the table or not. Wilkerson puts them there.

        <

        p>I see Chang-Diaz coming from the party of purity in economics, putting her emphasis on safety net factors and small business support. Whereas I see Wilkerson as a realist, able to both support those programs and understand the need to do business with major investors who have their own interests.

        <

        p>Experience: The political naivete of this statement is self-evident: “People elect politicians to serve them, not to serve the already influential.” Democrats work as a team in a hierarchical structure. An official can’t serve constituents if she can’t be effective within this structure. You continue to talk about “good votes,” as if it would be possible to elect someone from this district who didn’t vote the way we want. Being a legislator involves much more than that.

        <

        p>Endorsements: “Otherwise, they’d just support the candidate who the people of their district support.” No, they wouldn’t. They don’t exist to represent a political district. They have clearly defined stakeholders whose needs in most cases they put first, and they have developed the knowledge of how to do so. Saying otherwise is something of a libel.  

        • Issues: The biolab and Columbus Center do matter to me

          <

          p>It very likely wouldn’t. But it matters to a whole ton of people who are in the district. And the jobs question is pretty much bunked. It’s not a lot of jobs we’re talking about, while – especially in the case of Columbus Center – it’s a huge amount of public dollars that Wilk’s been trying to put into a private project. On the biolabs issue, it’s a shame that it doesn’t matter to you, because that thing is just hazardous. Furthermore, there were other things that could be used there that will create as many/more jobs. Maybe you should watch the videos and read more about Sonia’s position?

          I see Chang-Diaz coming from the party of purity in economics, putting her emphasis on safety net factors and small business support.

          <

          p>Ah, let’s not vote for Chang-Diaz because she supports local businesses… you know, the one’s that create 7 out of 10 jobs in America. Who’d want to do that when we could support mega corporations and huge developers with tens of millions in public dollars? These mega companies will feel free to game the system as much as possible and, when they don’t get what they want, they’ll ship off to a state that will give it to them… So I guess we can keep on electing people like Wilkerson who will always give them everything, that way we’ll never have to worry about it… good thinking!

          Democrats work as a team in a hierarchical structure. An official can’t serve constituents if she can’t be effective within this structure.

          <

          p>Keep on trying! She’s worked in that “structure” for many years, along with her work for organizations that are deeply involved in it. She’ll fit in fine and will provide effective representation for the district. My guess, in a few years from now if she wins, she’ll be a much more powerful voice on Beacon Hill than Wilkerson ever was. Why? Unlike Wilkerson, she takes the job seriously.

          <

          p>

          They don’t exist to represent a political district.

          <

          p>Speak for yourself. They exist to serve those who belong to their organizations or who are a member of their interest group. In fact, there are many large organizations that won’t endorse a candidate unless their local chapter endorses her first, such as Neighbor2Neighbor. But keep it up! Maybe one of these days, you’ll be able to get me on a point.  

          • C’mon man, you’re arguing like a campaign hack on cable news. Seriously, you took the opposite of the plain meaning of almost all my points. Serious bad faith. And the smarm to match.

            <

            p>I said, “The biolab and Columbus Center do matter to me.” As in THEY. DO. MATTER. TO. ME.

            <

            p>You said, ‘let’s not vote for Chang-Diaz because she supports local businesses.” Not remotely what I said. I clearly said  both small business and major investors are important, especially in that district. Chang-Diaz does one, Wilkerson does both.

            <

            p>You said, “She’s worked in that “structure” for many years.” No. By hierarchical structure I obviously meant legislative leadership. Big words, I know.

            <

            p>You said, “They exist to serve those who belong to their organizations or who are a member of their interest group.” Right. What I said. Which is clearly not the same as a political district.

            <

            p>”Unlike Wilkerson, she takes the job seriously.” Finally, once again, this kind of rhetoric shreds your credibility with all the people who have worked with Dianne on important issues over the years.  

            • I read a “not” in there that wasn’t there. My apologies on that on the first part.

              <

              p>Now, for the rest:

              <

              p>

              You said, ‘let’s not vote for Chang-Diaz because she supports local businesses.” Not remotely what I said. I clearly said  both small business and major investors are important, especially in that district. Chang-Diaz does one, Wilkerson does both.

              <

              p>Where has Chang-Diaz said that she wouldn’t support major investors? That’s completely warping her stance. She won’t support public financing of the Columbus Center project – that’s very different than not supporting major investors. Indeed, it seems to me that she’d support the project if they privately financed it. The amount of public support they were asking was a trivial amount compared to the overall price tag – I’m sure they can manage to make up the small gap on their own. If not, then there’s probably better sources of investment – which will attract more jobs or contribute more to the community – for the millions upon millions that they’re asking for.

              <

              p>

              You said, “They exist to serve those who belong to their organizations or who are a member of their interest group.” Right. What I said. Which is clearly not the same as a political district.

              <

              p>Did you ever conceive to think that there are members of these organizations inside the district? Hundreds or thousands, even? Do they not matter to you? Should their thoughts not be taken into great consideration… since its their district and all? Often, that’s how these organizations operate – especially in finding new candidates. It’s how they should have operated this time, too. Members of these organizations from within the community are going to be put off by them choosing Wilkerson over a law-abiding progressive, but ultimately they’ve shown that they’re more worried about the politicians than their members – a shortsided choice, given where these groups’ power comes from.

              <

              p>

              “Unlike Wilkerson, she takes the job seriously.” Finally, once again, this kind of rhetoric shreds your credibility with all the people who have worked with Dianne on important issues over the years.

               

              <

              p>If Wilkerson took her job seriously, she wouldn’t have answered thusly at the debate:

              <

              p>

              <

              p>The fact is, Wilkerson’s attidude is one that this job belongs to her. That’s not taking the job – and the public trust – seriously. She isn’t political royalty, she’s a servant of the people. Someone in her position must obey the very laws they seek to craft – talk about shredding credibility.  

  5. Is a star example for why we should vote certain democratic law-breakers out. This ain’t the U. S. Congress, they’re not above the law. Yes, I said ain’t.

  6. Also, the title of this diary isn’t really fair: it’s two snippets of the debate, putting one candidate in the best light and the other in the worst.

    <

    p>Of course Dianne Wilkerson supports CORI reform. Chang-Diaz’s eloquent explanation doesn’t distinguish them on this issue.

    <

    p>Here’s Wilkerson’s policy page. Here’s a rundown from the last campaign of what she was working on in just the 05-06 session.  

    • For one thing, she’s been there for 16 years. If she has the kind of power and experience you speak of, why hasn’t she lead CORI reform to passage? Surely, someone of her skills and connections could pass such a sensible bill as CORI reform if they made it one of their biggest priorities? Surely, especially in the Second Suffolk, it should be a priority, shouldn’t it?

      <

      p>Secondly, while Wilkerson supports CORI reform, there appear to be some significant differences.

      <

      p>

      CORI reform was another bifurcation. Both believe that people need a chance to get a job after paying their nominal debt to society. Yet, this legislative agendum has stalled for many years. Oddly enough again, Dianne said she wouldn’t promote it until it had stronger language for youth offenders. All suffer meanwhile.

  7. Let’s just hope that those alleged progressives gleefully heaping derision on Dianne for her fiscal problems never face the reality of clawing your way out of poverty while raising two boys like she did.  

    <

    p>Let’s also hope they never need someone at the state house willing to take on the hard fight, if she’s gone.  Nobody can really say that they know for sure Sonia will do that.  You may think that she will, but you can’t say for sure.  With Dianne it’s for sure.

    • Being a single parent with money issues does not absolve the fact that Dianne Wilkerson repeatedly violated campaign finance laws to the extent that she’d be convicted of it once, then cop a plea again years later. I’m sorry, but struggling economically and violating campaign finance laws (or any laws) are complete apples and oranges.

      <

      p>This she’s done on a salary much higher than the one my family had growing up, with a single parent, and significantly higher than a great many people in her district – almost all of whom manage to pay their taxes. Dianne made over $73,000 in 2007 alone – and it’s not anything new that she’s been bringing in a good salary. The median family income of Boston is $44,000, maybe lower in her district. No matter how you slice it, the things she’s done – especially recently – are unacceptable and inexcusable.

      <

      p>Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying Dianne’s a bad person. For the most part, she’s good on the issues. However, there is absolutely, positively no excuse for the things that she has done while in office. We must, as a society, aspire to be better.  

Archives