WGBH, WHDH, WCBV, NECN, etc.
I gave you your instructions in the dressing room. Remember to protect yourself at all times and above all obey my commands. … You are both professionals so I expect a good, clean fight. Now touch ’em up and good luck.
UPDATE (by David): here’s the video:
WHDH-TV 7News Boston
WHDH-TV 7News Boston
Please share widely!
Is RD Sahl the first journalist to name Connolly’s career out loud?
A pretty clear difference.
I worry that Connolly’s “non-school culture” candidate usually means “corporate culture.”
Connolly is very good at shifting his school messaging in subtle ways to always control the conversation.
That says it all, except that he’s in the family business, too.
What does “career politician” mean anyway? Is that meant to be an insult? Is Connolly any less a “career politician” than Walsh? Is “lawyer” meant to be an insult? Or do you actually believe that all lawyers have this magical ability to “control the conversation” whatever that means? Maybe experienced litigators are good at this, but Connolly is a relatively small time real estate lawyer.
But I agree with you on the Career Politician remark. A) Is that a bad thing? and B) Walsh has been in the statehouse since ’97, a full year before Connolly was at the Renaissance Charter School and 10 years before the City Council.
“I’m proud to have the support of working men and women in this city.”
“the only people that make out when talks go bad is the lawyers.”
“I have trust on the other side of the table. That’s something we don’t have today in this city.”
I know that Walsh didn’t invent this “working people” rhetoric, but it really does annoy me.
that that’s who we’re talking about when we talk about those big, bad unions.
It’s a way of avoiding the use of the word “union members” or “union workers”, etc.
Anyway, that rhetoric is not going to fool too many people, and risks turning off those of us who work very hard but do not happen to belong to a union.
our economy doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. When unions are strong, everyone’s getting stronger. When unions are weak, only the top couple of percent are strong. True in the 1920s, true today.
Are you saying I or the economy would be better off if I was in a union? Because I don’t think I would agree with that. Strong unions are indeed important, but not all types of workers really need union representation.
All I am saying is that there are many of us who are “working people” and it is not fair to us to always use that term to only refer to people who are union members or who work in blue collar jobs.
I am not at all arguing against strong unions, as long as that means standing up for workers rights, fair pay and benefits and safe and humane working conditions. (If it means forcing companies to not eliminate obsolete jobs or business units, I am not really in favor of that, but I don’t think that is really an issue with local unions at this time.)
you need to be in a union personally. Nor am I saying (nor is Walsh saying, imo) that only union members or blue collar workers work hard or are “working people.” That’s obviously not so. As I see it, the unions do represent a large number of working people who aren’t at the top of the professional ladder, and Marty Walsh is proud to have their support. Full stop.
My concern here is that your comments suggest too much willingness to assume Walsh/unions don’t respect other hardworking people and to bristle at that perceived lack of respect. A seemingly automatic reaction against unions, even among many progressive Democrats, doesn’t bode well for our nation. We’re in this together: many people’s wages and hours are impacted, at least indirectly, by how strong organized labor is at a given time.
I am saying that I feel left out when Walsh and unions talk of “working people” when they specifically mean union members and blue collar workers. You are trying to turn it around and say that I am not respecting or appreciating unions enough when they omit me from the conversation.
As I have said repeated, I am all for strong unions. But standing up for unionized labor is not really sufficient to meet the needs of all of the workers in Boston.
For instance, I have not heard either of the candidates say a word about improving the internet infrastructure in Boston. How many years have we been waiting for FIOS? I am still using a crappy DSL connection and my only other option is Comcast. If I were just moving here now, I would probably have chosen a different town to live in.
Though I wish it was. My brother and I have tried, informally, to get a grassroots movement in Cambridge to get FIOS and we’ve been told Verizon simply refuses to deal with the older infrastructure in Cambridge and Boston. It’s ironic that Donnie Wahlberg reps it with Boston in the background since they will never make the repairs. Short of government forcing them to do so or paying them to do so, for now I don’t see what the Mayor could do to fix that specific issue. Free wifi was an alternative Cambridge was exploring.
Bringing high-speed internet to Boston, whether it is FIOS or some other company can easily be a policy goal. It’s not like the city itself is going to build affordable housing, or improve public transportation or build more office space.
I said I don’t think you’re being omitted from the conversation. Because I don’t think they’re meaning only union members and blue collar workers when they speak of “working people.”
I also tried to explain why I think union members are, in fact, a decent proxy for working people, even those who aren’t union members or in blue collar jobs. Not standing up for organized labor is a pretty good way to harm the needs of all of the workers in Boston. It might seem like your job (and I don’t know what you do) and those kinds of jobs are independent labor markets, but I think that’s less true than believed. That might seem at first blush to contradict my first statement, but I don’t think it does.
I agree that a lot of things have been missing from the debates and coverage of this campaign, as is often the case. FWIW, Marty Walsh’s website does mention FIOS:
I didn’t see anything specific on Connolly’s website, though he mentions
“Removing barriers to small businesses and our creative economy” on his “Ideas” page.
I can think of many times when Walsh has gone straight from discussing a union-specific issue and gone to the “working people” rhetoric.
Hey, you can argue all you want. I am not trying to convince anyone to take my side. If unions and their supporters don’t care if their messaging is not perceived the way they want, that is no skin off my back.
I would love if either candidate did something about the FIOS thing, but I really expect nothing from either.
…that segue-ing from unions specifically to working people generally is an acknowledgement that’s what is good for union membership is also good for non-union working people. That’s a good thing in my mind.
and often it is. It is not good when it is simply a means to duck the question, as happened multiple times in this campaign when Walsh was asked to justify his binding arbitration legislation.
It hasn’t gotten much play, but the first plank in Walsh’s “Tech & Innovation” policy is “Optical Fiber Internet – Through public/private partnerships Marty will work to bring ultra-speed Internet (100x faster than current speeds) access to all Boston homes, businesses, and educational institutions.”
If Walsh cares about the contributions of professors, IT workers, people who work in professional and financial services, and writers, why doesn’t he acknowledge their hard work. Lord knows lawyers work hard, though Walsh portrayed them as parasites in the debate. There is an undercurrent of class warfare when Walsh talks about working people. This is going to get us to “One Boston”?
Perhaps it cannot be explained without going into a lot of detail of the arbitration process, but nevertheless I still don’t understand why it would have been a good idea.
Is Connolly’s charge that the bill was drafted by the Firefighter’s Union correct?
I don’t like The Herald, and I can’t stand Joe Battenfeld. Nevertheless, his column today and the Ethics Commission letter to Rep. Walsh shows just how conflicted Rep. Walsh has been in the legislature, and how his union ties may impact his ability to impartially discharge his duties if elected Mayor. Apparently it was more important to Walsh to collect both the legislative salary and the building trade’s salary than it was to avoid the potential for a conflict of interest that he knew existed. The Commission’s letter highlights all the things that Walsh could not do as a legislator and head of the building trades at the same time without violating the law. The grand fallacy of the Commission’s letter is that Walsh could avoid the appearance of impropriety by not taking actions on certain legislation when every member of the general court and state agencies knew full-well that Walsh was both a State Rep. and head of the building trades. In other words, every member of the legislature and administration knew that by helping the building trades and other unions that they would be supporting Walsh’s agenda, and working to gain his support for their agendas. Rep. Walsh refused to release the Ethics Commission letter (despite the fact that he could have released it at any time) until it was too late for Connolly to fully point out the extent of Walsh’s conflicts to the voters in the last debate. Since Walsh went to the Ethics Commission for advice, he knew that serving in these two roles presented the potential for ethical issues; yet, he didn’t want the voters to know about this until the eleventh hour. Finally, how screwed up is the Ethics law and Commission when Dan Wolf can’t run for governor, and Marty Walsh can serve as a union representative while serving as a member of the General Court and introduce legislation drafted by unions?
Not seeing embed: here’s the link.
Walsh: creating jobs and closing the poverty gap are necessary to closing the educational achievement gap. Not a popular view among the ed reform crowd.
Let’s be honest; that’s the real agenda of Stand for Children and their ilk. That’s what worries me most about Connolly.
What does “sell schools out to corporations crowd” mean specifically? I really don’t understand this comment. Is Connolly talking about outsourcing education or something? I hadn’t heard that.
IT seems that you have trouble understanding any comment that questions or criticizes Connolly.
What it means is taking public money from our taxes, and transferring it to corporations through charters. This can be through for-profit schemes, or “non-profits” whose CEOs earn on the order of $300,000 (remember that the NFL is a non-profit). The people running Connolly’s ads for him, “Democrats for Education Reforms” are a group of Wall Street hedge-fund managers heavily leveraged in these corporations.
I really don’t know what you meant. It could have meant many different things.
If it meant that he is going to support charter schools, then I think that is a totally bogus criticism because WALSH SUPPORTS CHARTERS JUST AS MUCH AS CONNOLLY!!!! So I assumed it must have meant something different.
If getting support from corporate education interests (which I also do not like) is “selling schools out to corporations crowd” then wouldn’t that same logic say that Walsh is “selling out to unions”? I don’t believe it in either case.
If there is some legitimate issue behind the accusation I honestly would like to hear it because believe it or not, I am still undecided as to who I am going to vote for.
So hm back at you.
First off, anyone who is conversant in education knows precisely what that means.
There is a difference between supporting lifting the charter cap — a bad idea — and opening the regulatory doors to make it easier for charter to set up. The billionaires funding Connolly’s campaign know this, which is why they’re funding the campaign.
Look, I get it. This is not about ideas or politics — somehow this has become personal to you. I don’t know why, but we’ve left the territory where we’re talking about ideas. You are about as undecided as danfromwaltham is.
And I’ll be up front — I’ll take a guy who “sells out” to democratically run organizations of thousands of working men and women than guy who sells out to a few hedge-fund managers on Wall Street.
So I am expected to be “conversant in education” to read comments? I am just supposed to ignore “sell out to corporations crowd” comment and just nod stupidly? I am not allowed to ask for a clarification? And the only clarification I get is a vague statement about charters that does not in any way clarify the difference between Connolly and Walsh? Why is that not a reasonable question?
Why are you treating me like a Connolly sock puppet for asking for an actual explanation rather than more slogans? I was asking for clarification of ideas and was getting trashed for asking. Now you are trying to turn it around and make is seem like I have some sort of agenda.
Now, back to the ideas. I understand that there can be a difference between supporting charters and opening the floodgates to them. However, I have not really seen anything in Connolly’s literature or public statements that suggests that is what he wants to do. I guess the concern is that because of where he is getting some of his support, that makes you think that he is going to go in that direction. I can see why people might worry about that, but I think I would need a little more direct evidence or clarity about Connolly and Walsh’s actual statements (or those of their advisors) to make a very strong assessment of their differences on charters.
So is there any difference between Connolly’s and Walsh’s stated positions on charter schools? Is the only difference in who is giving them money? Are there other aspects of Connolly’s education proposals that are troubling to people who are conversant in education policy?
While I don’t feel very strongly about education policy, given that it doesn’t affect our family directly, I do oppose expansion of charters and do not agree with either candidates views on the purpose of charter schools in the Boston school system. I also do not like Connolly’s over emphasis of education as an issue, and believe his promise to “transform” the school system is grandiose. All I expect to ever see from any mayor is a modest improvement in the school system, especially in their first term.
And I am indeed undecided. The fact that I challenge some statements that seem hyperbolic or questionable coming from some Walsh supporters here, does not mean that I am anti-Walsh or pro-Connolly. I am just anti-BS (and yes there has been some BS coming from the one or two Connolly supporters here as well. I am sorry if I have not been on top of that quite so much, but really given that Walsh supporters outnumber Connolly supporters on this site by a factor of about 10-1, I don’t think that I necessarily always had to comment)
Connolly really doesn’t want to state a position on the casino. Walsh seems a little bit more in favor of it and was willing to suggest some ways in which it would benefit the East Boston community. Connolly totally avoided the question other than to say he wouldn’t want a casino next to his house.
Brazen! No doubt relying on fine points of definition but it’s fundamentally false.
And affirms commitment to fiscal health of city.
n/t
Walsh challenges Connolly on job creation, Connolly hits Walsh on legislative committee.
Asking Connolly for three different ways in which he helped to create jobs while on the City Council when he only had something like 60 seconds to answer was a bit unfair. I was surprised that Connolly actually seemed to be ready for the question. Personally, I am skeptical that the City Council has been all that instrumental in creating jobs, but I don’t really expect them to either.
Not sure what to make of the ethics committee question.
Connolly: parent, teacher, teacher, parent, tough decisions, schools connect everything.
Walsh: life story overcoming struggles, fighter in the leg, fighter for opportunities for all Bostonians.
As someone who has taught for over 20 years I’m insulted by Connolly’s constant refrain of “I was a teacher”. Come on, the guy taught for what, almost 3 years? Since he couldn’t hack it, I would hope he’d have a little humility rather than running to sell out public schools to corporate interests.
I was almost shocked when Connolly said, “As a former teacher,” in his closing statement. We’re talking about two years volunteering and one year as teacher. One year vs 15 years as lawyer.
I believe that people who believe in their own ability to get away with deception are arrogant and dangerous. I don’t respect people who don’t respect the extraordinary challenge and contribution of a career in teaching, but use a single year as a teacher to create an image for self-promotion.
And denying the push poll was more of the same. Heaven help Boston if this master of deception becomes our mayor.
I actually think this is why some see Connolly “winning” these debates. He’s facile enough to position himself with nuance on every issue, and at the same time willing to go all-in on his deceptions. You can see where a format that rewards those talents creates uncomfortable moments for a straight-ahead guy like Marty.
I am less shocked he continues to lie about it, I am more shocked that the media and far too many BMG based Connolly supporters either ignore the deception or insist it’s not even one.
I mean honestly, would we be as easy on Bush if he said “as a former soldier” or even better “as a former teacher”*-I think not
*he volunteered for the same number of years as Connolly and only mentioned it in one ad
You’re relying on negative stereotypes of lawyers to extol Walsh’s superior virtue.
is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, and how the fight against poverty and all its ills is the work from which all other progress flows. I agree with that and it’s a shame these attack issues have crowded that fact out. I’m convinced, though, that Marty Walsh is the mayor who can and will fight on this front.