Good for Lida for helping the Ross campaign.
Harkins won’t endorse Smulowitz in State Senate race
By Valentina Zic
Wicked Local NeedhamAs the Massachusetts Senate race between Democrat Peter Smulowitz and Republican Richard Ross moves forward, state Representative Lida Harkins won’t be endorsing anyone in the race.
“I’m staying out of the race altogether,” said Harkins, who lost a hotly contested Democratic primary to Smulowitz on April 13, told the Needham Times.Asked further whether she would support her House colleague, Republican Richard Ross in the campaign instead, Harkins said she was chair of Needham’s Democratic Town Committee, and that she respected that position.
Under those circumstances, Harkins said, “You don’t publicly endorse a Republican.”
Harkins last week blasted Smulowitz for his campaign tactics calling them ‘slanderous,’ State House News reported. Just days before the primary, Smulowitz sent out flyers to voters saying that Harkins had taken campaign money from former disgraced House speakers who left office amid criminal investigations. At the state Democratic committee meeting where Harkins made her comments, she read off a list of the many other state legislators who had taken contributions from the speakers prior to them being charged with criminal activity, just as she had done. Harkins also blasted Democratic party officials for not intervening in the campaign.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/nee…
For real?
More reps will have to explain their DiMasi support in November.
…of quite the blowup at the end of the last DSC meeting. Sounds to me like on the one hand people were upset that a fellow insider was attacked, but on the other hand the outsider overplayed his hand trying to show he was an outsider. It would be nice if such nastiness were kept out of a Democratic primary, but it’s certainly not the worst I’ve seen and remaining divided just helps the GOP.
not wanting to “kiss and make up” after that , to be honest. Whether Smulowitz “overplayed” his hand or not…when you go scorched earth, there’s nothing much left afterwards, is there?
When the doc-wannabe-senator decided to mail out uber-negative attacks on Harkins that bordered on slander, he surely did not expect that if he won she would be willing to support him. It was his choice, his character, his modus operendi in clear view. That she chooses to sit out the general and not endorse Ross is a generous gift….more than he afforded her.
You say the mailings “bordered on slander.” What do you mean? If I understand the story right, I think you probably mean that the information was factually correct but that the implication–that Harkins was tainted by the contributions–was somehow unfair. Maybe, maybe not, but I think it’s a fair point for someone running as an outsider to make, particularly since centralization of power in the Speaker’s office is surely one of the real problems on Beacon Hill. Maybe you disagree, and I’m curious to know why.
<
p>TedF
Lida never received personal money from DiMasi as Smulowitz claimed.
But this article suggests that Harkins’s complaint wasn’t that she hadn’t taken the money from the former speakers, but that lots of other legislators had, too:
<
p>
<
p>TedF
You know, what with the mailings being printed and all….
And truth is generally a pretty good defense against accusations of slander and libel….
…if the choice is between libel and slander, in that libel is printed and slander is spoken. However, I don’t think they meet the legal standard for either as there is an extremely high bar for public figures. My understanding is that while the statements against her were grossly out of context, they were technically accurate.
…he did use guilt by association to demonize his opponent.
<
p>
<
p>While Harkins’ lack of a competent ground game insured her loss (and for that reason I shed no tears for her campaign), it’s only human not to forget and forgive after losing due to ad hominem negative attacks.
<
p>That she limited her response to a non-endorsement shows class on her part,IMHO.
Its amazing how people on this page have turned on Lida Harkins who has been a true progressive Democrat on Beacon Hill for over twenty years.
<
p>Her opponent went very negative against a women who has has a record of being a champion for quality public education, a woman’s right to choose, gay rights and working men and women among other things.
<
p>His gutter politics unfairly painted her as something she is not. Calling her a two year old is just absurd – maybe the lady has pride hand dignity, something her Democratic opponent obviously lacks!
Lida Harkin has voted progressively on many issues, it’s true.
<
p>And I thought the bringing up of the campaign contributions was silly. Everyone passes around contributions.
<
p>However, the basic thrust was that Representatives Harkins was part of — and a supporter of — an imperial-style leadership in the House. And that several of the Speakers who she actively supported were indited on various charges.
<
p>It seems to me that these charges were correct.
<
p>She supported an undemocratic system that many feel does not benefit the Commonwealth, and she supported Speakers who were, it appears, corrupt.
<
p>Was the company that she kept not unsavory? And was the system of leadership that she supported not undemocratic?
<
p>On these facts, were the charges not accurate?
example?
While the racetrack bill may be an example of imperial-style leadership, it is pretty well understood that DeLeo has done his best to shut Lida out of current leadership.
<
p>So maybe the problems originate inside the office of the Speaker?
<
p>It’s an unfortunate reality, but in our current system Representatives have to team up(or choose a side) in order to pass the legislation their constituents need.
I understand that Rep. Harkins, and evidently some of her supporters, may have had their feelings hurt by the campaign. I don’t think that is a reasonable basis for being petty, as appears to be the case here.
<
p>First, who knows whether the mailings at issue had any effect on the actual results.
<
p>Second, and more importantly, there are larger issues at play here than trying to refight the last election.
<
p>Leaders need to rise above the exigencies of the moment — i.e., be mature — and think of what is in the best long-term interests of their constituents. In this case, that is not Richard Ross.
What does that have to do with anything?
What about the long-term interests of the Party?
<
p>Smulowitz has spent the last 3 months drawing a road-map for every future republican running for office in Massachusetts. The Democratic State Committee, and it’s members, have received over $100,000 in donations from the previous 3 Speakers, and they have given none of it back.
<
p>This young punk (not) from Needham has only hurt our party and made it more difficult to win seats on Beacon Hill in the future.
<
p>All for an election he cannot win. Thanks.
…but they ain’t that dumb. If the Republicans couldn’t think to tie each Democrat to the line of indicted Democratic speakers, they wouldn’t be able to find the ballot box on election day.
<
p>In 2004 we tried to campaign while scared of the Republicans. How’d that turn out for everyone?
1) the low-blows were needless and pointless. We have no idea if Smulowitz can win, but it’s important to note that not many gave him a shot last time around, either. He certainly has a great campaign under him capable of reaching out to a heckuva lot of voters, and then getting those voters out on election day — so there’s a lot of reason to be hopeful.
<
p>2) if he has indeed exploited a weakness that any number of other competitors could exploit against other candidates in other races, better for that to be exploited now than in November. At least now Democrats in the State House will expect it and can be ready to defend against it. (Note to Democratic Candidates who accepted money from previous speakers. Here’s what you need to say: “No one was more disappointed in Speaker DiMasi than I was. I felt betrayed by his actions.” Bonus points for actually meaning it.)
<
p>3) Harkins lost. People need to get over it. She needs to stop shadow campaigning for Ross. We can’t let this seat go Republican, it could stay that way for decades. You don’t have to support Smulowitz, but if you support the Democratic Party and its principals, you need to at least stay out of the way and stop undermining Smulowitz. Remember the big picture here: you can always run a primary later, but if the Republican wins this one, he’s probably not going anywhere, for a very long time.
but maybe if more Dems got blasted for being close with the speaker then they’d choose speakers who aren’t sleezeballs.
<
p>I don’t have a problem with her sitting the race out… but I don’t like the way she explained her not endorsing Ross. Even if she were not on the DTC, a campaign loser* who won in the past with tremendous Democratic support endorsing a Republican is beyond the pale, even if your opponent went negative.
<
p> * ‘loser’ describes not winning a race, not a permanent condition
Look, in politics, sometimes things get a little rough.
<
p>But, in the end, being a Democrat means that while we fight hard in primaries, on the day after the primary, we make up, and take our fight to the other side. We don’t sit and steam about how unfair life is – there’s plenty of time for that once the general election is over.
<
p>Lida’s sore about losing. This is what it’s all about – and it is really too bad, but sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. That’s just the nature of the game, and if you don’t get it, you shouldn’t play.
<
p>Does anyone think, for even a second, that we’d have seen such behavior from Peter if he’d lost? Of course not.
<
p>That is why I’m glad he won.
Peter Smulowitz attacked Lida’s character based on lies (he had to admit that his information was innacurate), and the worst form of guilt by associations. If he had attacked Lida on something she had actually done, there would be no issue.
<
p>Here is an example of character assassination – Peter Smulowitz is a union buster because he works with Paul Levy who is attempting to bust unions organizing at Beth Israel and took campaign contributions from him.
<
p>Obviously, this says nothing about Peter Smulowitz’s own actions but attempts to characterize him by the money he takes.
<
p>As to its impact on the race, one need look no further than the results – in Needham, where people knew her best, Lida won nearly 2-1. The literature had a direct impact every where else where people did not know her as well.
<
p>Aside from its smarminess and its character assassination, this literature fundamentally attacks any elected official who accepted contributions from these three former speakers without returning them. There is a long list of them, including many of our most progressive members and the Mass Democratic Party itself.
First of all, (not truth) != lie. There are things called mistakes, errors, etc. The claim that Lida took money from a group of other folks was incorrect in that she hadn’t taken money from all of the folks listed. Was that a lie or a mistake? Dunno. Was it guilt by association? Youbetcha. To be clear, she did “actually done” take money from people he listed (though not all the people he listed).
<
p>Measuring the impact by noting that she won 2-1 in the community she’s from is bunk. Most candidates do well in the region they’re from — higher general name recognition, deeper ties with potential volunteers, more favorable local press, etc.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, yes it does. It seems to me that we’d all be better off if our politicians did more to shun badly behaving speakers… or even didn’t vote a badly behaving legislator to the position in the first place. Frankly, I’m glad he called it out, and I hope more challengers (of both parties) do too. We’ve had a bad run of Democratic Speakers, and it undermines our ability to accomplish Democratic objectives.
If there’s anything to be upset about, be upset that this line of attack WORKED and that almost all of our state legislators are vulnerable to it.
Forgive me, but I don’t seem to be able to discern the relevant (to me) facts here:
<
p>1. Did Smulowitz publish something that was factually incorrect, i.e., that Harkins took cash from DiMasi?
2. If a factually incorrect accusation was made, was there an appropriate public apology?
Sorry for the long post, but I think I know these issues pretty well.
<
p>Maybe the flyers sent out in the final weekend of the campaign helped win the primary, but it could well cost the election. Some points:
<
p>1. Needham is very important to any Democrat winning this district. The district was designed as a conservative district by Billy Bulger to group conservative voters and protect former minority leader David Locke. Needham was more conservative back then, but also stood in the way between Wellesley (Locke’s home) and more conservative voters in places like Plainville and Wrentham. (This makes Cheryl Jacques’s win all the more impressive.)
<
p>Needham has been trending Blue in the 2000s, as evidenced by comparing the Needham vote to statewide vote in state and federal elections since 2002.
<
p>Scott Brown won in large part because many Needham Democrats were not big fans of the Democrat.
<
p>2. Needham is a fairly tight town despite its size (about 28k), and is also a very active place for volunteerism of many kinds. People who know Needham and other similar towns have confirmed this impression for me.
<
p>People who apply a statewide perspective will miss a big point. Active Democrats in Needham know Lida well. Thus, they feel much more offended by the last minute attacks and just do not buy them. Negative campaigning works best when you can apply a label to people who do not know any better and the negative is one of the few data points they have.
<
p>The response was swift and strong:
<
p>One active progressive took down a lawn sign for Peter and replaced it with a Harkins sign. (I have never seen that happen before. I know signs — almost every Deval sign in Needham in 2006 was planted by me personally.)
<
p>Lida won by 1000 votes in Needham (roughly 2200-1200), and I suspect the last few days that margin grew from what it would have been.
<
p>This last minute tactic have helped in places like Plainville where people do not know any better about Lida.
<
p>3. Peter was forced to admit that his flyer had several inaccuracies, like double counting a donation, and counting a speaker’s fund donation from a previous speaker. In the misleading category was that some donations were from the speaker’s fund, which I understand is doled out rather widely, although it is generally small potatoes. before correction, the amount cited was $2700.
<
p>This was really guilt by association. Is the problem that she did not resign her position for DiMasi’s problems?
<
p>4. People are livid. I know for a fact that for a number of very active people in Democratic politics in Needham, there’s a real debate between doing nothing except vote, staying home, and possibly voting for Ross (although they would typically not say it out loud).
<
p>I’m a loyal Democrat and like Peter’s positions better than Ross’s, so I will vote for Peter. Had things gone differently, however, I would likely have donated, and done some other field work.
I don’t understand what good it does to focus on these fliers. There’s a seat to win and an incredible candidate to win it. We don’t need Brown 2.0, we need someone who will help to push this state forward and Smulowitz will certainly follow that track.
<
p>For Lida supporters upset at the way things worked out, remember there’s an election every two years, including a primary. But after the primary, we come together and support the winner. It’s time for Lida’s frustrated supporters — and Lida herself — to do that, or at least get out of the way. It’s time for people to act like grown-ups.
<
p>Winners have to earn their support, or at least not lose it. For plenty of Lida’s supporters, Peter’s actions lost their vote/support because they felt his actions were low blows. It’s not an issue of policy, it’s an issue of respect and trust.
<
p>I’m not arguing that I agree with the Lida supporters who feel this way; I just don’t think you’ll change their minds.
I think that at the very least they can choose not to participate and stay out of the way; I’m not exactly expecting Lida and her most avid supporters to go stumping for Smulowitz. I just don’t think they should be shadow-campaigning for Ross. They need to remember that if Ross wins, that’s almost certainly it, he’s not going anywhere. But if Smulowitz wins, Democrats in the area will be able to hold him accountable. He’ll be secure in his position if he does a very good job and mends those bridges with most people who feel upset now, but if he doesn’t, he’ll be open to a primary battle pretty soon. There’s a big picture here that a lot of supporters are just missing.
So, let me get this straight since the Smulowitz apologists defend his actions…
<
p>As a liberal and a progressive, I’d ordinarily vote for Smulowitz, but he’s another of those politically-correct hypocrites that seem to infest the ridiculously fringe wings of both the Dem and Repub parties.
<
p>President Obama took $ from a few convicted felons; returned some; refused to return others. President Clinton also did the same.
<
p>Based on the spin here by some of the moonbats, it appears that it’s perfectly appropriate for Smulowitz to have stitched together a paradigm that goes something like this: “Harkins received campaign contribution from ex-Speaker Finneran who broke law; therefore, Harkins is corrupt since she took money from colleague who had broken the law.”
<
p>So, I think I get it. Hilary Clinton took a campaign contribution from several people who broke the law. And she didn’t return all of those contributions. Nikki Tsongas took campaign contributions from several people who broke the law. Is she corrupt? Her late husband, former Senator Paul Tsongas famously took contributions from those who broke the law and adamantly refused to return those contributions. Was he corrupt?
<
p>Also, I seem to remember several current legislators — some liberal, some conservative — who took contributions from corrupt former Speaker Sal DiMasi. Are those legislators continuing to serve in the House and Senate corrupt?
<
p>I don’t blame Harkins for her reaction. Smulowitz pulled a cheap-shot, low-rent, unethical attack that has no place in Dem politics. That kind of bile and garbage may be at home in the Repub party, but it should be repudiated by Dems — liberal and conservative alike.
<
p>What are we going to do when we learn after the election that Smulowitz actually took a campaign contribution or two from individuals who broke the law? Maybe someone who was convicted of stealing, or domestic violence, or some other crime?
<
p>Will that make Smulowitz a thief? A batterer? Smulowitz jumped into the mud headfirst. Win r lose, he will now have to live with the reality that his every action, his every utterance, his every acceptance of a campaign donation, will be subject to rigid public scrutiny. When a legislator has to fear taking a stance on an issue — not because of whether he believes or opposes the issue — but because how he may be perceived by those wanting to take political advantage, that legislator’s effectiveness as an impartial arbiter is forever lost.
<
p>Don’t be surprised at the number of Dems and Independents who will vote against Smulowitz as opposed to those who will vote for Ross.
<
p>As for my wife and I, two blue-dog Democrats, we’re blanking the race.
on one hand claim to be a progressive and on the other call others who are true progressives “fringe” and “moonbats.” And you certainly can’t claim to be a progressive, then call yourself a blue-dog. Why are you even here? Your kind of politics is poison for politics and poison for policy — and while you go off attacking Smulowitz for campaigning negatively, you forget the fact that few are as vicious and offensive on this blog as you.
<
p>I guess this is a step forward for you, though, because this is the first-ever non-casino post I’ve ever seen you write. Kudos for your first step into — maybe, perhaps — not being a complete shill. We’ll see.
<
p>
<
p>That’s up to voters to decide in November, but Lida’s problem wasn’t the money so much as the years of leadership in the Majority Whip position, while under those thrice-indicted Speakers.
<
p>You had me till the end. The legislator’s effectiveness is not lost, the politician is just accountable. If they don’t want to be viewed as subject to special interest influence, they should think long and hard about just who’s money they accept. I’ve been a part of many campaigns and, believe it or not, most candidates are very judicious about just who’s money they accept, because they know that with money comes strings.