Even The Globe sees what I see in Will Brownsberger, an authentic and open politician, who won’t duck the tough questions. We need Will’s candor and transparency, now more than ever, in D.C
Rather than making back room deals with constituents, Mr. Brownsberger has put on his website, all the questions asked of him by various organizations, such as the Teachers Union, AFL/CIO, etc. and posted all his answers, for all to see. Glad to know Will didn’t get the memo about closing the doors and making promises, with a wink and a nod, to the politically well connected or well-to-do.
The Globe goes on to say without this transparency, politicians can lock themselves to pledges that are not in the public interest. In the end, The Globe chastises the other campaigns for not following Will’s lead, and if they don’t, voters should weigh this issue when considering who should be our next congressman.
I will link the editorial later in the day, iPhone paste not working.
And I agree both with the Globe and with Dan on this point: Will has indeed set the standard for transparency and engagement with his constituents, and other candidates would be well-advised to learn from him. On this point.
I don’t necessarily agree that it sets a new standard for transparency. It’s a collection of links. Presumably the answers to a questionnaire ends up on the Internet eventually on the website of the respective group that composed the questionnaire. Nice to have it all in once place on the candidate’s site. I hope this starts a trend.
Many organizations don’t make their questionnaires or candidate responses public on their websites or elsewhere. This year, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund has created a voter guide from candidates’ questionnaires for the Boston mayoral and City Council races. With such crowded fields in these municipal races, we think it’s especially important to educate voters about where the candidates stand.
Very, very excited that Dan(not really)fromWaltham is on the Brownsberger train. This kiss of death endorsement means that Brownsberger will lose, which is a welcome outcome since he is an effete, sanctimonious jerk.
Is Will a jerk in your eyes b/c he gave you and your political interest group the 1000 yard stare? What happened Harry? Did Will say no, when most policians said yes?
I’m sure Harry’s opinion of Will will match his contribution to this blog, insignificant.
Dan, to borrow a line from Barney Frank, being called “insignificant” by you is like being called silly by the Three Stooges.
Not a union member, and have not had any business dealings with WB.
As an observer, just think WB approaches every problem from the standpoint of privilege and education. He typifies the worst excesses of “DLC-type Democrats” or “New Democrats.” He has absolutely no economic message for the underprivileged or for working people.
Charter schools don’t help the underpriveledged or working class? Education is not part of the equation in helping the poor?
The only thing I’ve read from your favorite politician, Liz Warren, is raise the minimum wage at McDonalds and Walmart, since those jobs are now what are available to working families. That your solution, Harry, increase wages for occupations that are normally taken by teens. Who really is the sanctimonious jerk, Harry? Tell me, you vote for Markey over Lynch?
The Brownsberger web site is good, it’s better than my candidate’s website.
Senator Spilka is the most effective of five very good candidates in getting legislation that matters on a wide range of issues done, IMO.
Take the pissing contests out back off BMG, please.
She stated she would vote against any compromise spending bill that contained CPI. With this marker she put down, Spilka and the others, like Koutoujian, will be left out of the negotiations, and have no input on a final compromise bill. Reality is, Spilka and Koutoujian, will be the most ineffective people we can send to D.C., on likely the most important issue America faces, our budget and entitlement reform. I like to have a rep that is in the weeds, who can perhaps, make a little difference in crafting the bill. We have enuff of those on the sidelines, they took the Grover Norquist Pledge and are obstructing progress.
As I’ve stated numerous times elsewhere, don’t live in the 5th and I like all of the candidates for different reasons. I know WB and CS best, and liked how WB was as my state rep. I will second the transparency stuff. He has taken some unorthodox positions, some I see the merits in (not voting to overturn the EC, not voting on the CU amendment) some not (we should hold the line on chained CPI, he seemed more pro-intervention on Syria, disagree with him on keystone). But I think calling him ‘effete’ is an odd, frankly homophobic slur for a progressive to say. Calling him sanctimonious demonstrates that the namecaller has never interacted with WB at all.
I think if we want a sure solid consistent progressive vote the choice is CS, if we want an independent, outside the box, transparent and ethical candidate who might make bad votes, its WB. Clark and Koutjian have not impressed me as candidates this campaign, and Spilka’s solid progressive rhetoric is inconsistent with her less than solid progressive voting record, but I could certainly see her improve in office and think she has been a good candidate.
I will be grateful when it’s over and Democrats can be nice to one another again.
Unless folks start at the top of this thread, it would give the appearance based on your post, since you replied to me, that I made those defamatory comments against Will, when in fact, I’m the one defending Will.
In any case, we got two great candidates and three good ones. Lets keep it clean folks!
Brownsberger just sent out an email saying that, after considering the facts, he’s decided he would vote No on the resolution authorization attacking Syria.
how nice should we be to someone who would further destroy the livelihoods of seniors living on a very tight fixed income? How pleasant should we be around someone who would further hamper the ability of hard working public servants to retire with dignity, when they can’t get social security (even if they paid into it)? Who would further hamper We, The People’s ability to have a voice when powerful corporations would have it taken away, or who would support those powerful corporations in their quest to build a project widely seen by scientists as the straw that would break the camel’s back on climate change?
There were lots of Democrats who were jumping all over themselves to be nice to GWB. Where did that get them?
Someone with WB’s agenda could be very pleasant to be around, but is still voting in ways that would fundamentally make the lives and livelihoods of hardworking families in Massachusetts worse. That’s not just something to be miffed at; that’s something to be deplored.
So, if standing up to that makes someone mean or unpleasant or “uppity” … well, lots of very good people who did great things have been called that before, but they realized you can’t get anything done if you aren’t willing to ruffle some feathers.
Obama is supporting chaining CPI to social security, something you call “destroying the livlihoods of seniors”. It is estimated this proposal would reduce the cost of living increases by $3 a month. That’s “destroying seniors”? Yet, thwarting high paying Keystone jobs in favor of McDonalds type, part-time jobs, is not destroying families? Will, saying he would not obstruct Obama if he approves Keystone, puts him with favoring powerful corporations? So bizarre, no?
RyansTake or ryepower, whatever your name is, rails against Tea Party folks who obstruct Obama, but supports obstructing Obama, whenever he feels it is necessary. Ryanstake was against obstruction, before he was for obstruction. Makes total sense now.
Voters need to be less like Pavlov’s dog, salivating at politicians buzz words like “fighting for working families” or “rich must pay their fair share” or “war on women” etc. The others running for congress use scripted language, and the audience is told what they want to hear, and solutions are so easy, if not for Republicans.
With Will Brownsberger, there are no throw away lines to feed the crowd. You get a thought process and how he comes to his conclusion on various issues. It can be complex, look at what he said about the Syrian issue and how he arrived at his final opinion. The “Read My Lips” slogans went out decades ago, yet, all the other candidates running for congress took a similar pledge regarding entitlement reform, and RyansTake thinks that is being honest, tell the voters what they want to hear. A 5 second attention span is all you need when listening to the other candidates, what they say is so predictable.
On the most pressing issues facing America, politicians like Spilka and Koutoujian will promise you the moon and do nothing in office, but Will Brownsberger will tell you what is wrong, what needs to be done, and how to do it.
Overall, of those making the federal minimum wage less than 20% are teenagers. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-reward-work-raising-minimum-wage )
So, there’s that. Ya know, actual facts.
Danfromwaltham – I’d love to cross-post a link to this piece at http://lex-wiki.org/wiki/State_Politics:2013_US_House_Special_Election_MA_District_5, where I am maintaining a compilation of web links to campaign-related news stories and blog posts.
But one of the rules of lex-wiki.org is that only non-anonymous posts are allowed (and, by implication, it seems wise to only link to signed stories). If you wish to have this blog post cross-posed, please send me a note with your name. My email is bitdribble [at] gmail.com.
I found many interesting posts on Blue Mass Group related to the MA-5 campaign, but some are published under pseudonym and I could not link them to the lex-wiki.org campaign page.
No one who has ever met the guy will ever vote for him…he’s just such an arrogant jerk. I think a couple of years ago he surpassed John McCain for the title of biggest jerk I’ve ever met in politics.
Don’t confuse being principled as to being a “jerk”. And don’t just b/c Will lives a green lifestyle, doesn’t make him sanctimonious, as Harry Lyme described him, Will just highlights the global warming hypocrites that we have come to love.
So tell us, what issue or concern did Will say no to you about?
I’m not confusing anything. I actually love that he’s willing to take against the grain, but personally, he’s just such a jerk.
Did he not get his kids a dog when they were young and now they are emotionally scared? Does he ask too many questions when he has a town hall meeting? Did he not buy Girl Scout cookies or turn the lights off on Halloween in order to avoid trick or treaters?
I’m struggling not to use stronger language. He’s just really not a good person, and those in this forum who come for that type of info deserve to hear it. I’m not involved in that race at all and I wis him no harm, but I feel very strongly about this man. I know there are a few candidates in that race who are good guys (and gal), so no one should be voting for Will.
And many of his colleagues say the same thing: that he is a lovely guy. So evidently opinions can differ on this subject.
In any event, unsubstantiated personal attacks are probably the least effective form of political discourse, right back to the stone age. To convince folks, argue the issues.
But trying to articulate that it’s not his policies that bother me so much as his personality. Him not being a good person is relevant.
I’m with Bob – I find that statement very difficult to square with the guy I met a couple of weeks ago. So, if you’ve got something substantive to share on this topic, please do so. Otherwise, this is degenerating into name-calling, which we generally don’t allow on BMG.
it’s less great when those answers are horrible.
Whether it’s the environment, social security, labor, citizens united and several others: his views range from bad to terrible for Massachusetts and outside the mainstream.
There are not one, not two, not three — but four better choices in this race. Four.
you can have process goodness?
“I arrived at my sub-par ideas in a completely disinterested manner. They cannot be blamed on corruption. I vow to pursue them with transparency, honesty, and integrity. You can be assured that I sincerely believe in my wrong-headed approach. Let it be said of me: I was rarely right but always genuine.”
As Letterman used to say (and perhaps still does…) to his bandleader, “once again, you have crystallized my thinking, eloquently.”
Before we smartened up and banned smoking in public places there use to be a profusion of signs saying things like “thank you for NOT smoking.” Comedians used to riff on that (“thank you for not murdering the hotel staff” and “thank you for doing your bathroom business in the bathroom…” ) It was all about giving out brownie points for acting in a civiized manner: here it is the same as Brownsberger wants to get brownie points for doing something all politicians should do…
The Globe doesn’t help at all here: they are acting like Brownsberger is the one doing extraordinary work over and above the call… when it is the other politicians who have long been falling down on the job (with the Globes equally long standing help, of course…) and who should be shamed over and above praise for WB.
But, as Rye points out above and KBusch below, WB seems to want to put the transparency out there, get a pat on the back and maybe a boost in the polls, without having people actually read the answers and come to the conclusion that, for all his transparency, he’s not the guy.