A vibe I’m picking up in the South End, that I suspect is true is nearby downtown neighborhoods also, is resistance and pushback to the perceived caricature of Connolly as an “elitist.” For example, South End community leader Susan Passoni (who ran twice against Bill Lenahan) had this to say on Twitter; “Walsh, “United for Boston’s Future.” REALLY!?! Your campaign defines class warfare and divisiveness.” I don’t think it’s fair to blame Walsh, who seems to be an inclusive guy, for the divisive tone of some of his supporters. But will a Mayor-Elect Walsh have a more difficult time uniting the city, especially downtown, given the tone of some of the fliers that have circulated about Connolly.
Are there other folks in the South End, North End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway or Bay Village who are canvassing their home neighborhoods and talking to people with perspective on our patch of the city? On another note, I’m curious that there aren’t more Connolly supporters on this blog, although I surmise why that may be. There are certainly folks in sync with the politics here who are on Connolly’s side.Debate is always more stimulating when you have two sides.
With the “he’s not one of us” line. Anyone who lived through the 70’s in this town knows what that means. Nasty and divisive. And I’m very disappointed that Arroyo and Barros have gone along with this crap. Golar-Richie I’m not so concerned about since she essentially sleepwalked to her 3rd place spot. Still… Do these folks really want to go back there?
Of course people find it insulting. Duh.
…because they realize it’s not the 1970s and understand the phrase has a different connotation now.
It still connotes an “us” vs “them” dichotomy. Perhaps the “us” and “them” are different now, but it still is a divisive phrase.
I also have an instant revulsion to the phrase after seeing it on Scott Brown signs. (Yes, I know that Walsh is not even remotely comparable to Scott Brown)
Having said that, I don’t perceive this as being intended to be divisive.
And what new and ennobling connotation does the phrase carry now, Christopher?
The only people bringing up race to divide are Connolly and his desperate supporters. Sure Walsh is an Irish Catholic from a neighborhood that had historic hostility to African Americans. But while he comes from an old school Irish Catholic background he has voted for LGTBQ rights, including the right to marry, when it wasn’t popular. He has solid A ratings from every major civil rights organization and all his major opponents of color have endorsed him which is huge. I say this as an Arroyo supporter in the first round.
And it is because the new dichotomy is not about race, which the Globe and Connolly want to make it about, but about class. Do we want a Boston that is affordable and where middle and working class families can continue to live and make a good life for themselves. Walsh has concrete policies to do this. Connolly has demonized working people by demonizing unions. He is backed by the establishment papers, downtown law firms, and development firms. Menino, unlike Bloomberg and Emmanuel, has done a great job balancing the interests. But the balancing act is outmoded for the next round of battles within the Democratic party and within cities in the next few decades. A populist Mayor will fight for people. Period. And Connolly simply does not fit that bill as well as Walsh.
…as opposed to ethnicity based hostility
Surely you’re not arguing that “class based populism” is less offensive than “ethnicity based hostility”.
I have to confess that “populism” has always grated against me.
I agree that the class warfare practiced by the top 1% (and their wannabees) is and should be a major issue (though I don’t associate “populism” with that observation).
I also agree with kosta that “he’s not one of us” is a very loud dog-whistle that is and ought to be offensive during a Boston election campaign.
“Populism” to me means only that ordinary people understand that the top few percent are getting all of the gains in this economy, and they’d like to do something about it. This hand-wringing reminds me of all the scarred McGovern volunteers who spent the next 40 years telling everybody that DLC was the only way to go. I wonder how many people, during the FDR years, were still fighting the battles of the 1890s.
Connolly and Walsh are of the same ethnic background and both born and raised in the city of Boston. The expression, which seems to be getting more play here than in the actual campaign, refers exclusively to attitudes toward workers and unions. That’s about as legitimate an issue as exists; it goes to the very soul of the Democratic Party. The comments by Connolly supporters here (and all the support for him on twitter from the Mass. GOP people) have made it crystal clear that some “Democrats” have contempt for the labor movement.
Union PAC money is dirtier than hedge-fund anti-union PAC money? Walsh is going to give away the store to his union thug buddies? The next Detroit? This is class warfare? You know who says those kind of things? Republicans. And, apparently, Connolly “Democrats.” Such people don’t stand with me.
First, let me say again that I am only a spectator in the Boston election, I don’t live in Boston and don’t get a vote.
I am and always have been a strong supporter of labor and unions. I join you in rejecting anti-labor and anti-union sentiments from anybody.
I guess I don’t like associate to “populism” with the Occupy movement or the wealth concentration it challenges. I am no “populist” (which, to me, carries all sorts of anti-intellectual and anti-analytical baggage). In my view, the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the top one or one/half percent is the single largest economic issue facing us today.
There is ample evidence from “elitist” economists like Paul Friedman that paint a devastating picture of our current wealth concentration, how it happened, what it is doing to us, and what we must do to reverse it. None of that evidence is “populist”.
I am convinced that there will be no progress on jobs, prosperity, the safety net, and overall quality-of-life so long as the extreme disparity continues (and even widens). In my view, characterizing this view as “populist” is something akin to lumping “socialist” and “communist” together.
The “class warfare” that has been practiced for decades is a pervasive assault by the top 1% (using bought-and-paid for right-wing media and hacks) against the 99%. It is the systematic dismantling of programs that benefit the lower and middle classes. It is the cascade of lies that result in poor neighborhoods losing rail transportation and getting buses instead (even they are painted silver), draconian assaults on benefit recipients while taxpayer money continues to flow through corrupt deal-makers like Michael McLaughlin. It is voterID laws that punish minorities while solving NO real problem. It is imposing a crushing financial burden on the best avenue out of the ghetto and into the middle class — a college education. It is wiping out the life savings of millions of middle-class homeowners, and finding nobody to indict, no funds to recapture, no punishment.
It is a full-throttle attack on the only substantive measure the government has put in place to control runaway health care costs, accompanied by a plethora of lies and distortions about who pays and who benefits.
The entire “austerity”/”balance the budget” narrative is a rationalization for the largest wealth transfer from those at the bottom to those at the very tip-top in history. When the national debt is paid, it is debt holders who receive the wealth. It is everybody else who pays (through drastically slashed goods and services).
I don’t think I’m stuck in the 1970s.
Nevertheless, the phrase that started all this was “He’s not one of us”, and I continue to find that unacceptable.
…I think there is good and bad populism, as well as good and bad elitism.
That’s what Occupy Wall Street was about. We need more of that in this new Gilded Age.
Questioning Arroyo’s Barros’ and Golar Richie’s creds on inclusion for their support of the candidate with a proven progressive voting is certainly the way to show that the Walsh supporters are racists.
With a nod to Christopher for his comment, those of us who were here in the 1970 remember the “Vote White” bumper stickers of a long gone time in Boston. And given the fact that Walsh and Connolly come form different backgrounds I suspect most voters know “one of us” is about that difference.
For reasons internal to his campaign that I frankly can’t fathom, Connolly decided to run a campaign premised on yuppie triumphalism. Of course, the Walsh people are exploiting that dynamic; they’d be committing political malpractice if they didn’t.
I can’t speak to Barros’ position, but the relationship between Connolly and black elected officials runs the gamut from friction to hostility. Ditto the relationship between Connolly and Arroyo.
Precisely because Walsh is running on populist issues he’s managed to create a multiracial working-class base. Rather than the Seventies, a better model is Ray Flynn, circa 1987.
That is a cool sounding phrase, but I don’t see how it really applies to Connolly’s campaign. To be fair, I don’t really understand what it means either.
Do you want a Bloomberg Boston where we have a a strong socially liberal Mayor focused on a lot of “quality of life” changes like the high line, gentrification, and walkable central parts of the city while battling teachers unions to look proactive in education and simply saying “let them eat cake” when asked about income inequality or do we want a Mayor focused on keeping the middle and working classes employed in an affordable Boston that educated every child and not just those in the fancy zip codes.
The Bloomberg/Emmanuel/Daley II track record is laudable for keeping cities relevant during the era of neoliberal consensus, but there are winners and losers in globalization, creative destruction, and gentrification and having a Mayor focused on that competition AND remediation and alleviating the concerns of the “losers” rather than dismissing them as inevitable casualties will be a real sea change. Electing De Blasio and Walsh on Tuesday sends a strong signal to the country that some Democrats value labor and want to revive the New Deal coalition. It’s a message the White House will surely ignore, but one Mrs. Clinton cannot afford to.
I don’t think it is intellectually honest to portray Connolly as someone who is only concerned with the interests of the upper-middle class.
Since Walsh is up big among all income ranges below $100K and Connolly’s margin goes up the higher one ascends on the income ladder.
I don’t think that having higher income voters favor you automatically makes one guilty of “yuppie triumphalism”.
And the poll that shows that also has a pretty high MOE for the main result, so the MOE for those subcategories of voters is going to be even higher.
But regardless, poll results just show whose message is resonating with what groups. It does not show reality. You would not argue after all that because wealthier people in this poll do not favor Walsh that must be because Walsh is going to start a class war against the rich, would you? Of course you wouldn’t.
Either attacking working families or watching it happen for his benefit without calling it out. When his prelim opponents back Marty, he then attacks them, suggesting it’s all about the goodies and not about their care for the city and making sure the city had a good mayor, who would fight for the middle class. You could tell a number of those endorsers took offense at Connolly’s insinuations and attacks last night, at Marty’s rally. As well they should.
So, yeah, it absolutely applies. If the perception has been created that Connolly primarily cares about Boston’s most powerful interests and the wealthy elite, it is because of the realities of John Connolly’s campaign.
Where yuppies and downtown residents are demonized and the targets of a new populist ire driven by elements who think such divisiveness is in their interests. I know that isn’t Walsh’s intention but splitting downtown liberals from working class neighborhoods will not help the Left and it certainty won’t help the labor movement in building cross-class alliances. If my concerns seem excessive (here’s looking at you David), what is the return expected for the outside support approaching $3 million?
First, let me point out that the concept of “downtown liberals versus working class neighborhoods” is a false dichotomy. There are class issues in play, but that dialogue is two decades overdue, and (external to the campaigns) pretty civil.
Using the South End as an example, I’ve had disagreements with Connolly supporters, but in the context of broad agreement about the common values we espouse.
My reference to “yuppie triumphalism” refers to a subset within this City that equates professional status with intrinsic value and treats the less credentialed (and affluent) as objects of contempt. I can respect the average resident of downtown neighborhoods, while reserving the right to tell class bigots to kiss my ass.
Re: Outside support. It’s my considered opinion that outside expenditures (and the warm bodies and media that go with them) are well past the point of diminishing returns, precisely because they are “outside” and disconnected from the grassroots.
have no concern for the working-class neighborhoods that have felt so ignored, if not scorned, by your poor beknighted high-income folks that they’ve been open to the likes of Reagan and Scott Brown for 30 years. Why exactly do you think class-based appeals are working?
If there’s anything the Democratic Party has desperately needed, it’s candidates who place primary importance on the interests of households making under $100,000. The combination, as cannoneo so eloquently put it, of Walsh’s economic populism and his social progressivism makes him the candidate I’ve waited most of my life for.
It’s kind of amazing to hear supporters of Connolly, who would govern by conflict and chest-pounding virtually all the time, issue thinkly veiled threats that downtown yuppies will be even less likely to care about labor if Walsh wins or if anyone dares to point out the yawning economic chasm existing in Boston, Massachusetts, and the United States.
I worked for years with educated, upscale people who considered themselves liberal but had no interest in labor or any kind of economic fairness issues. Are you surprised that people in the outer neighborhoods have figured that out? Maybe they’re not feeling a candidate who plays to the downtown yuppies by running against organized labor while trying to invoke 1970s sterotypes to portray Marty Walsh — who is endorsed by every female officeholder and every officeholder of color in Boston to endorse — as some sort of Dapper O’Neil.
Not speaking about this election, about which I know next to nothing.
But that’s THE problem the Democratic Party will have to answer: Are we going to work for the 1% or work for the common good? This decision will be hardest for those who make their living carrying out the agenda of the 1%. The war on Boston teachers, for example, is a war of the 1%. Support it and you aid and abet those who have stolen our democracy.
We are winning the war on social issues. The once and future war is against poverty and its causes, which are afflicting more and more of the middle-class. You don’t have to be a commie to fight the war. Some redistribution doesn’t mean equal redistribution.
Who didn’t get the memo on social issues having been settled. I disagree that the LGBT civil rights movement can stand down. Homophobia still exists.
You attempt to inject into this race an issue not properly in it, with the oblique suggestion that a Walsh victory is somehow a loss for LGBT issues. It’s not.
If so, you’re misreading me, either out of laziness or ideology. I’ve been a fighter for LGBT, and “winning the war” doesn’t mean “standing down.” It means it’s still going on.
Find another straw man.
Whom I unfortunately knew well in the 80’s. Indeed Marty’s ascendant progressivism, especially on LGBT rights captures the dream of breaking Dapper’s streak as top vote-getter on the Council ballot. I believe it is possible to balance neighborhood and downtown concerns, which is Connolly’s forte. Connolly is not Kevin White.
Considering he has run from day 1 as the only candidate capable of taking on the unions I don’t see how he is more conciliatory. And your declamations of class warfare as being offended by populism smack of David Brooks/Broderism or Booker pathetically begging Obama not to offend private equity. Oh the humanity!
Emmanuel ran on a platform of taking on the unions an did just that. The city was shutdown for two weeks, we lost two weeks of education for our kids, and his attempts to crush them alienated all stakeholders and made Karen Lewis look like the rational one in the room. Working people are tired of getting screwed and pitted against one another. I can think of
Nothing more cynical than Emmanuel and his cronies wrapping themselves in the civil rights movement while shutting down black schools and demonizing the very teachers who have the balls to teach in them. I don’t want to see that in Boston. Marty already has said the fire fighters contract is too generous and he will be the adult tray to negotiate for fair pay. Implying he is a patsy and claiming Connolly is the only one with the guys to stand firm is inviting the kind of conflict that crippled Chicago.
… But has Connoly ever adequately denied the charges of ‘elitism’? It seems like he and/or his supporters are playing a game of deflection here. They want credit for pointing out that Walsh is saying nasty things without going so far as to require vetting of said nasties…
It is axiomatic that you cannot unite people who do not want to be united. It is also axiomatic that “‘elitism” hinges upon a refusal to unite with others: the very word, “elite”, being defined as a cut apart or a separation between groups and sets.
So you’ve just given the game away by admitting that Walshs’ efforts to unite will be met with difficulties: the elite will cast their lot against him. So say you, if only implicitly. What choice do they have? They can’t be ‘elite’ anymore if they’re working with union rabble.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I neither live nor vote in Boston. This has given me a perspective on the race that surely differs from yours. It seems that the main sticking point is the inclusion of the unions: Walsh wants to include them, everybody else seems to loathe the very thought. Based upon that alone, I’d have to say that Walsh has true progressive bona fides and everybody opposed to Walsh (and to the unions) isn’t truly liberal: anybody who would call themselves progressive while at the same time opposing union involvement in civic matters is either very tepidly a progressive or very confused.
But this election and the expected rise of de Blasio in NYC is a great opportunity to reclaim the progressive mantle for those of us in the Tip O’Neil/Liz Warren tradition and away from the Clinton/Obama tradition. I am tired of Schumer and Gillibrand and Cory “Stop bashing private equity” Booker calling themselves progressive. The social issues are over and social conservatism has been purged from the Democratic Party and is the exclusive and shrinking base of the GOP and a recalcitrant South. For those of us outside the incredibly shrinking “Jesusland” it’s time to focus on the economy, restraining unrestrained captain, revitalizing labor, and rebuilding an America scarred by globalization and elite indifference to its decline. Lets stop managing the decline and get the country moving again! We need a strong and inclusive government to do this. I am tired of Democrats being the “band aid” party-patching over Reaganomics here and there without fundamentally burying it to revive Roosevelt. We can do it and this is a good fight that will make a better party. Even if Walsh loses tomorrow he has built a strong foundation for a truly progressive party in Boston and throughout the state.
And I hope whoever wins does so. As long as LGBT specific public safety concerns are well-tended I’ll have no grievance. But I don’t see how dividing the Democratic Party helps liberalism or the labor movement.
… “fuck you” vote is, IMHO, the only thing that could divide this, or any, party. You know the ‘fuck you’ voters, doncha… ? No? Well, let me explain: The old political saw says it’s better to have the camel inside the tent pissing out than to have the camel outside the tent pissing in. The “fuck you” voter is both inside the tent and pissing even further in, most likely because they are angry at not being the center of attention: These are voters who rage against good ideas just because somebody else had both the smarts to think of them and the balls to push them to the fore. Such a voter is likely to virulently oppose candidates and refuse to support them once they become elected officials: And that’s the division you fear, innit?
It’s no good blaming the people who aren’t pissing in the tent for the people who are…
The more I observe US politics the more I come to see that the taking of pleasure in the of arching ones back, digging in ones heels and bluntly refusing is at the heart of US politics. 41
There is appeal in dismissing those of opposing views with vulgar references, but that compounds divisions rather than bridging them. The perception of intentional divisiveness I describe exists, it will be an obstacle to uniting the city should Walsh win, and Walsh has the personal qualities that would enable him to overcome it.
I continue to be amazed at the ferocity with which Walsh partisans make their case by attacking the side. Why is it necessary to defame Connolly supporters, so many of whom are ideological allies? If the tone of intolerance that characterizes discussion of the Mayor’s race on this web site continues after tomorrow, it will divide the city. Walsh’s more shrill supporters will have unleashed a monster if they can’t get the genie back in the bottle.
I take it the rule “avoid personal attacks” is no longer in effect. At least it hasn’t been when it comes to the Mayor’s race.
I did not intend what I wrote as a personal attack directed at you. My apologies.
I do not say that you, yourself, are one of the voters I describe. I merely say that such voters exist and are the true heart of party and political division. I point out that, after the election, the true nature of such voters will be seen in whether or not they either accept defeat graciously (if defeat it is) or willingly embrace the new coalitions that will form. I make note of this in light of what seems to be your contention that it is solely Walsh supporters responsible for any divisions, post-election or no.
I will further point out that either Walsh supporters or Connolly supporters can take this path whomever it is who wins. I know whereof I speak because I, myself, have often resorted to ‘fuck you’ arguments in the past, always with deleterious affect, and have long resolved both never to do so again and point it out where it happens.
So tudor, you believe there is a tone of intolerance among Walsh supporters on BMG? Let me quote you on another thread:
Glass house much.
David Bernstein canvasses the last-minute concerns that could “make or break” either campaign. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/11/04/keys-victory-connolly-walsh/ He also detects a backlash among “progressives” over the attempts to paint Connolly as an “elitist.” See item no. 2.
Just got the following email from Felix Arroyo. I seem to remember him as pro-LGBT, not marching in the SB parade and representing groups across the city who have had trouble getting their voice heard:
Just my opinion but I think Felix might have his finger on the pulse of progressives across Boston as well as anyone.
though I supported him for City Council. His views are unlikely to carry the day in the South End, and I consider my neighborhood progressive.
It’s not “progressive” when you’re only progressive for your issues. For me, this campaign has solidified that view. When you speak of the “South End,” does Villa Victoria even count? Because Felix is pretty popular there.
counts the same and Villa Victoria is most certainly a part of our community.
However he clearly has progressive support, is a leader on progressive issues and his opinion and support of Marty in the progressive community is as valid as yours is for Connolly.
And given other Walsh supporters it’s safe to say you don’t speak for all the South End nor all those who care about LGBT issues.
This can cut both ways.
that pull in opposite directions. My question is that, if Walsh truly wants to represent all of us, why are his supporters being so divisive. Wouldn’t you prefer that the observation you quote not be countervailed by the one I point out?
But I have yet to hear or see a positive post or rationale for why someone is choosing Connolly. Simply Connolly supporters feigning neutrality and outrage over things Walsh or his supporters say or do. Going through logical leaps and creating mountains out of molehills on LGBT issues, trying to argue that Connolly is not being disingenuous about his teaching record, and claiming that courting organize labor-a bedrock founding member of the modern Democratic party and progressive movement-is somehow engaging in “class warfare”. Clumsy ads by outside forces backing Walsh have been denounced by me and others, the use of outside money is indeed troubling, but Connolly supporters have the gall to claim the union money for Walsh is tainted while the money from Stand for Children and other shadier PACs is somehow distanced from Connolly and unwelcomed by the candidate.
I am convinced that most of us Walsh voters could abide a Connolly mayoralty, but Connolly supporters are somehow convinced a Walsh victory will result in a return to cronyism at City Hall, unions dictating the terms of all their contracts, and the few racists and homophobes left in Southie having a secret black Mass in honor of Walsh the second he gets elected.
The charge of elitism goes both ways-the Globe and WBUR crowd can’t stomach the fact that a first generation Irish Catholic American union organizer from public schools is using a true rainbow coalition to beat the Harvard kid. Instead of talking about that story-the real story of the race if Walsh wins-they are pretending its 1979 all over and we need the old Brahmin guard to back the ‘well bred Irish Catholic’ against the goons. That is truly an Old Boston narrative and one that doesn’t fit this race at all.
This election is fast giving me a sense of who my friends are in the “Democratic” Party and who’s on the other side of the fence. As you say, the “case” for Connolly seems to be based on demonizing organized labor and pretending that Walsh is the reactionary candidate, when he’s the guy backed by pretty much all of “New Boston’s” leaders and Connolly out with Nick Collins and Ed Flynn.
I just read this tripe from someone who claims to be progressive, and who until recently was pretending to be neutral (a common trait among Connolly backers):
Say what?
The basis for endorsing Connolly, beyond Marty’s evil union ties and John’s “benign” hedge fund privatizers?
I hope beyond hope that Connolly loses and loses badly. And I will never again believe some of his supporters when they say stuff like:
You are by far one of the most divisive people on this site. Reading your posts makes my head want to explode on a daily basis. Your posts have employed every dirty trick in the argument book, from straw men to loaded questions to pure dishonesty.
Do not lecture anyone on divisiveness. You have not a leg to stand on.
That needed to be said.
to all the Connolly supporters who blog here. Wait–there are very few Connolly supporters who blog here. Wonder why?
There’s:
1. You: Walsh will be bad for GLBT because parade circa 1999, Walsh is anti-intellectual, downtown yuppies will be forced to oppose economic justice if Walsh wins, Walsh supporters are Madame Lafarges.
2. The person who said Walsh’s intelligence on par with Palin’s, Walsh will destroy the city’s bond rating, etc.
3. The guy who said people pointing out Connolly resume-fudging were “birthers,” that the union money for Walsh “stinks to high heaven” while the hedge fund guys for Connolly as “benign, almost to the point of disinterest,” and who offered a disgusting post on his own blog attacking Marty Walsh’s mother.
4. The guy who cared a ton about outside spending but disappeared when DFER started dropping a million on Connolly.
5. Kosta, whose dog is smart enough to be for Walsh but who’s been the biggest fan of your recent posts and comments here.
I never labelled Walsh “anti-intellectualist.” Walsh is outstanding on LGBT issues, but Connolly did better outreach on LGBT-specific public safety issues. I never said yuppies “will be forced to oppose economic justice if Walsh wins.” I did make the reference to Madame Defarge, but I would never paint all Walsh supporters with a single brushstroke. OK, the Madame Defarge comment was a little over the top–I doubt any Walsh supporters want to send Connolly supporters to the guillotine. Please quote me accurately if you’re going to hate on me.
I think the editors should be concerned when one perfectly respectable blue point of view is missing from their web site, and the longtime gay activist who’s used to people hating what he has to say is feeling piled on.
Did you just insinuate that we’re on the attack because you’re LGBT?
You do realize I identify as LGBT as well, right? And that I’ve been fairly involved in LGBT politics across the state?
Furthermore, Fenway’s bonafides on LGBT issues, as an ally, are as strong as anyone on this site. His posts on LGBT topics have hit the recommended level on Dkos — not an easy feat — because they’ve been so strong. I don’t know him personally, but I imagine he is very involved in LGBT issues as an ally — and there’s nothing more important to the LGBT cause than impassioned allies.
This whole comment of yours deserves a facepalm, but unfortunately I don’t have my home PC to upload a picture of Captain Picard at the moment. Suffice it to say, for someone who’s dished out as much as you have — and is far from alone on your side — you have very thin skin indeed. Maybe you only feel piled on because our arguments have been better?
and I never have on this site. That wasn’t what I meant. I was alluding to the negativity LGBT advocates have historically encountered when we make our case to non-allies. Like the time I was trying to get permission from a security guard at the Hanover Mall for LGBT truth-squaders to urge members of the public not to sign the petition to repeal the anti-discrimination law. Not a pleasant experience, but I avoided arrest.
I always smile when LGBT folks do politics to advance our liberation.
Again, repeating over and over that I called out Connolly first. But this place was completely obnoxious and I had enough, even thought of quitting here. The climate David let go here, starting with you was not a good place. You are a sideshow clown, you just are, nothing remotely good has come from anything you provided this blog. You insult progressive who have worked hard for years.
But even though this place is not what it used to be, it never was about abandoning positions for a candidate. But here we are. I’ll continue to read. But I decided I won’t let small minded people dictate what I do.
I stayed here because of David to be honest, I think most people do. I enjoyed the debate and standing up for issues you care about, even thought people may disagree. To me that has been lost here over the past month.
That’s my reason for not posting. Not you. You have just been annoying, we had plenty of that here.
Jerk.
Seems like reading is an issue for you as well.
At the end of the day, for me it was Walsh, not Connolly. The Republicans coming out is too much for me to get on board with.
But you have been just awful.
I have also felt that fenway has been somewhat obnoxious at times, but I really don’t think it is at all fair or useful to respond with this kind of language.
I agree with you in that the Walsh/Connolly debate on this site has been unpleasant and largely unproductive for all, but you aren’t making things better by resorting to direct personal attacks.
but then again, I didn’t start taking shots at him. He did.
You called Ryan an “unbalanced jackass” the day after the preliminary and called me “nutty” because I was arguing a point of logic. To me that set a tone, but I should not have allowed it to.
I will admit that the past month I have not been at my best, and I’ll be happy that this election’s over. I feel strongly about this one (obviously) and, yes, I’ve reacted to people too much. Though people may not have appreciated what I’ve said at times, I’ve been equally disturbed by what I’ve read from others.
I apologize for calling you a jerk an hour ago. It was another example of reacting, though in this case reacting to a pretty direct attack. If you don’t think I’ve contributed anything of value to the site, there’s not much I can say.
then you will recall my post was about money, that was repeatedly attacked by you the person you mentioned. I didn’t handle it well and it kept on going throughout the the past few weeks to others. Tudor can’t make a point, without being attacked.
Elections do that, if you read the onslaught on twitter #bosmayor that was unbearable at times. I used it for news but just cluttered with people throwing haymakers at each other.
I’m over it. Hope you are as well. I think there are a great many things that we agree on.
best of luck….
my apologies for name calling.
I don’t live in Boston and didn’t have a candidate. Yet you picked a fight with me.