Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Michlewitz may have received advance copies of 3rd Suffolk debate questions

By

Well, this is embarrassing.  South End News reports that … well, I’ll let them tell you.

South End News has obtained copies of e-mails that suggest that state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) may have shared questions prepared for a 3rd Suffolk District candidate debate with candidate Aaron Michlewitz in advance of the event.

Go to the South End News article for the text of the emails.  Especially awkward is Michlewitz’s ham-handed response when asked about this:

“Whether candidates review questions in advance of forums is really not the issue here – this is about my privacy and an attempt by someone to take the focus off of the issues – which is hardly the politics of change.”

Um, no Aaron.  “Whether candidates review questions in advance of forums,” or, said another way, “whether candidates gain an unfair advantage over their opponents, otherwise known as ‘cheating,'” is precisely the issue here.  Also, for that matter, it doesn’t seem to me that getting advance copies of debate questions from a sitting state Rep is exactly “the politics of change.”  That sounds to me like the politics of more-of-the-same.  Not pretty.

Rep. Walz did not return the South End News’s calls, so as yet there’s no comment from her.  But here’s some irony, again from the South End News story:

In April [Walz] told South End News that Michlewitz should not be judged on the alleged ethical lapses of his former boss [Sal DiMasi]…. “I have no concerns about Aaron’s integrity,” said Walz, a former member of the legislature’s ethics committee, at the time. “I would never endorse a candidate if I had concerns and I have no concerns at all about Aaron’s integrity and ethics.”

The election is a week from today.  Susan Passoni and Michlewitz are in a tight battle.  Will this affect the race?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Will dig her key into the side of his pretty little sup’d up 4 wheel drive…

  3. The fact that this story contains no comment from Passoni or her campaign suggests to me that she may have also obtained the questions in advance.  In my experience, it is not at all uncommon for debate questions to reach candidates in advance of debates.  I’ll wait to hear a statement of toal innocence from the other candidates before getting too worked up over this.

  4. is devoting this much space in Bluemassgroup to this drivel.  This has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with which candidate will best represent the citizens of the Third Suffolk district.  This is just a typical media sideshow.  

    • If one candidate acted in a less-than-ethical manner to get elected, how would that candidate act once he has the job?

      <

      p>Methinks it’s a fair question to ask, and see where the chips fall.

      • if one campaign unethically secures private emails and leaks them to the press, or learns about the existence of such emails and encourages someone else to unethically leak them to the press in order to secure a campaign advantage, are they more or less guilty of an ethics breach than the campaign that received the debate questions in advance?  Or is it just in the nature of campaigns to seek whatever advantage they can in order to get elected?

        <

        p>I admit that I am inclined to believe theloquaciousliberal’s interpretation of events.  But, even if that were not the case, I am hard-pressed to see this as a meaningful issue worthy of any further discussion.

  5. Who cares – this is local politics at its best – supporters of a candidate gave him a heads up on a question – WOW – he knew he would be asked about the gas tax in advance – if he didn’t have an answer for that one already the he deserves to lose.

    <

    p>Having attended both town and ward committee endorsement meetings, I can say that the questions are all the same and it really isn’t a case of Michlewitz stealing the final in advance of the big test day!!!

    <

    p>having looked at both this story and the other one they posted online this week – I am awaiting the Pasoni endorsement soon!

    1. When the top aid to Dimasi (who resigned under an ethhics cloud, I’m sure you remember) is running for his former boss’s seat, and goes to a debate that people assume is fair and honest and it turns out he cheated, doesn’t that pretty much suggest same-ole same-ole?

    <

    p>2. Marty Walz was the chair of the House Ethics Committee. Maybe now we know why these ethics bills go nowhere in the legislature.

    <

    p>3. How do you think Rep Walz’s Ward 5 members feel about her integrity now, especially when the Ward 5 Committee endorsed Aaron after his strong debate performance.  

  7. The Boston Phoneix set the record straight on this ridiculous story. Robert Whitney, Chair of the Ward 5 Democratic Committee, has the most authority to speak on this issue:

    <

    p>

    Whitney does not feel that anything horrendous occurred here, and that the South End News made too much of it. He says that the list of questions was not exactly a state secret; that having the list was no great advantage, because the questions were all pretty generic, predictable topics; that it’s no secret or surprise that members of the Ward Committee are often supporting one or another candidate, and nobody has ever suggested that anyone be kept out of the loop about debates because of that; and that the list Michelwitz allegedly received was not final anyway, and changed right up to the day of the debate.

    <

    p>Bottom line No story here. The more important issue is where did the South End News get this email? You have to ask yourself with the Passoni campaign in desperate straights (According to OCPF Passoni owes herself 0ver $130,000 since 2005) is she taking the gloves off herself? She has two outs against her already from the races against Kelly and Lineahan and she has two strikes against her in this race…..

    <

    p>http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta…

Archives