Conor Pewarski, husband of City Councillor-Elect Michelle Wu, argues that even without support from Boston’s progressive wards (4,5,11 and 19) she would have won by 14,000 votes.http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/13/support-for-linehan-council-presidency-could-crumble-progressive-base/TJiEJj0ymev79pBoeoluaO/story.html Linehan is taken to task in today’s Globe story because of his support of excluding LGBT folks from the South Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade. Tito Jackson seems to be renewing his bid for the Council Presidency, to force Wu to cast her deciding vote against a Council President of color in favor of a right-wing Irish guy from Southie.
Progressives didn’t do as well as some thought on November 5th. Certainly no one can accuse South Boston of being part of the much-touted “New Boston.” Hopes for a progressive city government depend solely on the Mayor-Elect.
The response to progressives over the concern with Linehan?
Wow, that’s great. That should be Michelle’s slogan in her re-election bid. Maybe she should make up some t-shirts.
Looks like he deleted his Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/conorp33
Cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1cVUY5ZtDBUJ:https://twitter.com/conorp33+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Apparently the part about him deleting/deactivating his twitter account was actually part of the story in the diary above. Oh well.
We can certainly grant that wish though.
incredibly stupid tweet. You don’t pi$$ off the progressives in Boston- everyone knows that. As for some of the above commentary, I’d encourage people to realize that they too are engaging in the same type of counterproductive baiting when they say things like “some Irish guy from Southie” and “Southie’s obviously not part of the new Boston.” That in itself is bigotry too. Linehan himself may in fact be bad news, but that doesn’t mean that every Irish pol is or that South Boston is. South Boston is primarily populated with young professionals. It is not the South Boston of the movies. Boston now has a progressive Irish mayor who grew up about a 1/2 mile from South Boston.
Very well put
Considering that one of the people opposing Linehan is named O’Malley, I don’t think anyone is being bigoted against the Irish. It’s not about being opposed to Irish people, it’s about hoping that there will be a prominent role for politicians of color, especially considering the mayor is white. Being the one minority councilor voting to put a white guy at the head of the Council is not where I’d like Wu to be.
Not his ethnicity. Still greater empowerment of people of color in city government is a good in itself. I don’t think Linehan won based on the yuppie vote. A vote for Linehan is a vote for “Old Boston, despite the neighborhood’s demographic changes.
” in favor of a right-wing Irish guy from Southie.” You could have ended that line after “right-wing.” Also, “Certainly no one can accuse South Boston of being part of the much-touted “New Boston.” ” Again, you didn’t just say it was a vote for old Boston. You demonized an entire community.
Demographics don’t make you progressive, and if Wu is a deep down old school Southie pol, it’s a lesson for us all not to judge a book by its new and improved cover.
Given the gender identity thread that has raised itself in more than one election around here lately, I think we should understand that electing more women doesn’t necessarily mean we aren’t getting another Good Old Boy.
Which Linehan exemplifies. South Boston voted overwhelmingly for Linehan countervailing Lee’s margins in more progressive neighborhoods. The continuing exclusion of LGBT folks from the neighborhoods traditional St Patrick’s Day indicates that the old guard, still homophobic, have not been dislodged.
It is absolutely appropriate to note that Jackson and Wu are people of color and Linehan is not. Is it insulting to note Linehan’s ethnicity for some reason?
You are clearly more comfortable with Southie than I am. I’ve been fighting the exclusion of gays from the civic life of that neighborhood since I moved to Boston in 78. I think Southie has some distance yet to travel before its claim to be new and progressive is generally accepted. People attach differing weight to the fact that gays are excluded from the parade. I view that exclusion as shaming South Boston as a whole.
i don’t disagree with linehan being wrong on these issues. however, you are using the descriptions of “Irish” and “South Boston” as further evidence of his evil. That’s just wrong. I agree that the institutions of Southie still exist. I will say though, that they’re becoming more and more obsolete.
Certainly not based on geography. But I see Wu’s allegiance to an unreformed old school pol as an affront to progressives. I see South Boston as the most conservative neighborhood in Boston and one whose election returns I found most disagreeable on 11/5 in the District 2 race.
I will not be assisting you in efforts to promote South Boston’s progressive makeover until gays can march in the parade. That exclusion is deeply hurtful and Wu’s preferred candidate supports the discriminatory position. How do you feel about that parade?
i feel like i’m getting tired of this. i’m merely asking that we not denigrate the Irish and South Boston. I would support gay groups marching in the parade. I would support a black pol hosting the breakfast, and I wouldn’t support Scott Brown over Liz Warren. This is probably my last post on this subject because I don’t feel like this conversation’s moving forward.
that it’s wrong to denigrate anyone or anyplace (although I have cracked some jokes at the expense of my native Mississippi.) Certainly South Boston is not as bad as the deep South on LGBT issues, and there are a lot of progressives who’ve moved into the neighborhood. There is, as you say, hope. I did not mean to disrespect the potential for change or your belief in it.
I would hope that any progressive would eschew ethnic generalizations; the notion that the Old Guard of South Boston represent Irish-Americans generally is absurd, although some of them would like you to think that.
I’m just really hung up on the parade, which excludes LGBT people who happen to be Irish and Proud. That exclusion does reflect badly on South Boston, and indeed, Boston as a whole.
It is this: “Honey, never, ever mention me on the Twitters. Thanks.”
It just doesn’t work out well. I feel bad for him/them because this is obviously a stupid mistake but man is it … not good. Hang in there Conor and Michelle. I really really want MWu to change her position (it seems really really not worth it), but a goof like this is no fun personally, and we’ve all been somewhere like that at some point.
PS, Still hoping that constituent outreach will be helpful in MWu changing her decision for the better.
What if it represents the predominant view in their household and the only mistake here was in the heat of a moment, exposing it.
But it feels dirty to know it. And also not anyone’s error but his. Just cringe-worthy; I just feel for them on personal level.
If he just popped off because it pained him to see her take heat, fine. But if this is something she thinks as well, entirely different story.
Disagree. Of the many possible interpretations of the situation, the idea implied by your question, that Wu’s predominant view is insufficiently, or even not truly, progressive…. isn’t the first one that comes to my mind.
If the other progressives aren’t even the least bit stalwart and start to grumble and fracture from the get go (and let’s face it, from Mike Dukakis to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama this is a pattern) then the judgement isn’t fickleness on the part of Wu and Pewarski… If the progressives are going to grumble, or blindly go along with the Globes vicious framing… of what use are they? What good would it do to identify with them if you are, therefore, straitened and constrained by that identity and are riven the very first time you do something that doesn’t fit that frame?
It just seems like the loudest and whiniest ‘progressives’ are the first to jump ship when and if it looks like their not going to get every little thing they want. The Globe is all over that whining and turns it around to make it Wu’s fault when, in fact, it’s a nearly a self-fulfilling prophecy
Or, put another way, if her “base could crumble” over one vote, then it’s not a very reliable base, is it…? Fickle is sometimes more dangerous than opposition. At least you have a better chance of predicting opposition. If I were in Wu’s position I don’t think I’d do anything different and if the progressives didn’t like it then they should run for city council or STFU.
The current situation is this nightmare of a country might have something to do with why “progressives” are defensive and pissed off. All you ever hear is, “Get out there, recruit candidates, organize, canvass.” You do it endlessly and little gets better, everything gets only worse. If you don’t think Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have deserved the frustration people feel about them, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a crisis in this country for many people right now and they’re just looking for the bleeding to stop.
Everything you say could go just as easily the other way. If a newly-elected official is willing to dump the “base” over some criticism on BMG and Twitter, that wasn’t the right candidate for that base to begin with. And get “every little thing they want,” what the hell are you talking about? When was the last time progressives in this state, or this nation, got ANY fucking thing they wanted, even when it’s something that would help millions of struggling Americans stay afloat?
So spare the condescension. I don’t know anyone who figured out they didn’t like Bill Linehan as council president only when the Globe told them to.
… because I don’t see any analysis between “do it endlessly” and “little gets better”. From where I sit, “little gets better” is a priori and reflexive: not born of reality but of fears and insecurities. In the present instance, Michelle Wu hasn’t even taken office and some backseat driver(s) are already second guessing her decisions before the key is in the ignition. Yeah very little is going to change between the election and the swearing in…
So my question is simple: if Wu’s constituents can’t find a way to stick with her at least up until the swearing in, why should she stick with them? Be honest with yourself: would you do any different? If people voted for me on Tuesday yet wanted to hang me by Saturday… what loyalty do I owe them?
None. Fickle is as fickle does.
Whether or no it is deserved is rather well attenuated by the speed with which it, initially, arrived… and so the majority of present frustration might be deserved or it might be a result of the feedback loop of hearing nothing but frustration from day one. To be honest with you, I can’t tell.
Hell, yes. If I believe in issues and other people who believe in the same issues put their faith in me, knocked doors and made calls for me, gave me money, and voted for me, you better believe I’m going to feel some obligation to those people. And I’d be looking to discuss things and mend those fences if they didn’t like my vote on a key issue.
I sure as hell wouldn’t be saying, “Peace, suckas, never needed you anyway. Don’t like it, beat me in ’15, I triple-dog-dare-ya.” For the record, I don’t think Wu is doing that either but it sure would be nice to see her speak out on her husband’s tweet.
As for Obama, I’m sure some frustration on Daily Kos or whatever made him name Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, propose a too-small stimulus and then scale it back to appease House GOP members (who voted it against it anyway), cut a deal to ditch the public option, buy into the “deficit reduction” hypocrisy, send his Treasury Department to weaken Dodd-Frank, and propose Social Security cuts multiple times without being asked.
Well, you’re a better person than I. I would be extremely frustrated that they turn so quickly and strongly disinclined to give them so much as the time of day. It just looks so f-ing twitchy and unconstant to be so vehement at this point in the process… nor, as I have pointed out, would I be inclined to trust them further if they A) automatically don’t like a vote without seeing it’s consequences and B) threaten to fraction at the first sign of impurity.
For the record, I don’t think Wu is doing that either… I’m only saying that nothing you, or anybody, says about Wu between now and ’15 is, at all, guaranteed to have even the slightest impact… nor, for that matter, are you, or anybody, entitled to that impact. Your impact was in November and your next impact is in ’15, whatever else happens. Now Wu, being smart, isn’t going to ignore you… Nor should she, as i pointed out in another comment… but you, rather, are not entitled to even so much as acknowledgement. That you often get it is good and nice and all, but it’s not the role. Is that right? Who knows? Is that fair? Beats me. Is that what it is? Michelle Wu can lock herself in a room and come out only for votes and she will have fulfilled the duties of her office. She probably won’t get re-elected if she does, but re-election is neither the game nor the point of the exercise, as much as people like to think it is…
Isn’t necessarily potential policy viewpoints in his house, but the value and importance they may place on the thousands of people who consider themselves progressives and got them into office.
His tweet went out of the way to do the math — looking at myriad wards across Boston and displaying the sort of thought that takes more than a few seconds to carry out — flippantly saying, by hashtag, in effect, ‘We could have won without you. We don’t need you.’
That is the view I worry may be the predominant one in that house. It’s backed up by the fact that potentially the very first decision — and one of the most important decisions she’ll make over the next two years — is something that is a complete violation of the trust that some of her most ardent supporters gave her in all the doors they knocked, phones they called and dollars they gave to get her elected.
What I thought was the display of a first-time-pol listening problem when she first posted her reasoning may in fact be much worse.
Does she really just not place a great deal of value in this huge swath of the people who got her here? That’s what her husband was, in a way, saying. If it was a momentary burst of anger, fine… he can apologize. But right now Wu’s damage control now must account for a much greater question than whether or not she was making the right call in backing Linehan — she must account for whether or not she really cares about the people who just, weeks ago, worked their butts off to get her there under the expectation that she had their backs.
Finally, I wanted to address this one quote:
It’s not just one vote, it’s her first vote and one of the most important she’ll make over the next two years.
Second, you seem to think the volunteers and voters who put someone in office — a politician’s base — “owes” something to the politician. It’s the other way around. The “base” shouldn’t have to go out of its way to display trust in the politician they elect after feeling betrayed, the politician they elect should act in a way so as to ensure the trust voters placed in them is rewarded and built upon.
That doesn’t mean a politician has to vote the way his or her base wants every time, but it should mean that when a politician bucks his or her base, it should be based on deeply rooted, principled stands — or at least because there was no other option.
Backing Linehan over any number of the progressives is an awfully curious way to plant a “principled stand” flag, and being done at a point in which Wu has not yet had a chance to prove herself to her base.
It could be a rookie mistake, like I thought at the beginning. It wasn’t until I read her husband’s tweet that I saw a second data point in the other direction.
… I don’t think it’s predominantly one way or the other. I think the base owes the politician at least a honeymoon… if not even more stalwart loyalty. I think Wu does owe the people who put her in office something, to be sure, but I don’t disagree with her writing them off after it appears they’ve written her off.
I think that’s the whole crux of the debate: what are the responsibilities of politician and polis? Honestly, Wu doesn’t have to even acknowledge her base, or anyone, until it’s time to campaign again. There’s nothing besides tradition and legacy to direct her to do so. It’s probably not a good idea to act that way, but there’s no legal compulsion to do so. She’s a representative. She’s representing as she sees fit. If you voted for her and don’t like it… well, tough… you have to until the next election and then you get to make a different choice.
The people have voted. It’s sorta backseat driving (and in this instance, backseat driving before the car has even left the garage) to vote one day and complain about your vote the next.
That’s a lot of spinning around to do in one paragraph, all amounting to ‘let the politician do whatever the hell they want no matter what.’
A base owes a politician a honeymoon — but, no, wait, they really owe them stalwart loyalty?
Wu owes her voters something, but you’re not really sure what?
Finally, trust “honeymoons” is not how trust works. The most important time for trust to be built is when relationships first start. A newlywed wife on her honeymoon isn’t going to have a lot of trust in her husband if he says he wants to go to the strip club the first day they arrive on Hawaii, because his buddies said the process for how they make their drinks is better than anywhere else on the island.
Amazingly, the rest of your argument gets worse — and more bizarre — from there.
I find I can only agree on one thing… if Wu continues to violate the trust of the people who put her in office, come next election “a different choice” may well be the popular decision.
Yup.
You don’t like that then you don’t like the Republic. That’s the way it is. You’re vote cedes authority (limited in time and scoped by checks n balances) to the representative. They get to do what ever the fuck they want. Michelle Wu can draw a middle finger and send a copy of that to every progressive in the state and she still gets to be City Councillor for this term.
You’re job is to vote for the candidate who wants to do the right thing. No such candidate? Sucks to be you then, donnit? But, all seriousness aside, no candidate will align with you more than a small amount of the time. So you’re job is to vote for the candidate who wants to do the right thing and suck it up when they don’t. That’s the job. Ain’t no other.
??
Are you here because you think some politician is waiting to read what you have to write and enact it into law?
I’m here because the discussion, for it’s own sake, is often very stimulating, sometimes brilliantly so, and because I’m exposed to numerous, marvelously eclectic, points of view. Why else would I be here?
That’s a great attitude for a brand-new elected official to have. I’m glad you’re not running. Engaged citizens look to support candidates who specifically don’t take this approach.
… I very much hope that Michelle Wu, or any other, does not adopt that approach.
You mistake a clear statement of scope for a desire: I do not endorse this approach. I only point out that, however unlikely, it can happen. I said that Michelle Wu could do something and face no legal repercussions for doing it. It was an, admittedly extreme, example only. So chill, please, and try to understand the real point: after you vote for her, or for anyone, your bellyaching, or praise for that matter, is immaterial until the next vote. That’s not nothing, but it’s not that much either.
Do I ‘like’ that? Not particularly. But it is what it is. That’s the representative democracy that we have. You don’t get to vote for someone with an addendum that says “except if he/she does such and such…” You don’t get to set conditions, of any kind, upon a representative: that’s what makes them a powerful representative, for good or ill. There’s not so much as a legal frame of reference to attach any validity, politically or otherwise, to what you have to say about a candidate, good or bad, after you vote for that candidate.