Left In Lowell

Classic Lowell Politics

by Lynne at 5:17 pm.

As Dick says, this is party unity? Dick has the transcript of a WCAP call from Pat McCarthy, a Tsongas supporter in the primary. The whole thing is worth a read, but I just want to point out one delicious little irony from something Pat says:

But this is a real personal campaign for them [the “six”]. I think that they’re going to openly attack people that supported Niki Tsongas. I’m sure they’re bitter about Rita’s endorsement and Bud Caulfield’s endorsement and they’re going to make it very personal. So it’s not really about raising the city up It’s not really about good government. I think it’s more about personal vendettas.

When in doubt, ascribe your own motivations to others, I suppose…this rant is, of course, from the treasurer of the “People for Lowell” who were going to get those “rats” (according to their own pamphlets) aka those councilors who supported getting a new City Manager. Even funnier and more ironic, the above was prefaced by a very personal attack on Councilor Elliot: “Rodney Elliott keeps saying this is how it should be run as a business, and this is what they do in the private sector. How would he know? He’s never held a private sector job in his adult life. And I’ll stake my reputation on that. Give me the list – if it’s 5% of his adult life that he’s held a private sector job, I’d be amazed.”

By the way, Eileen Donoghue - along with other primary opponents - have all jumped on the Democratic bandwagon and are doing their part. Eileen has strongly indicated her support for Niki Tsongas in the general, and was very clear about working to keep the seat in Dem hands. If anyone’s taking anything personal, it’s the GOB. Leave it to them to drag the larger Congressional race into this, erroneously. It’s not about anyone’s endorsement in the primary, for pete’s sake.

Thanks to Dick for putting up the transcript (which is probably get far more play than it should, but sunlight does do wonders).

[Filed under Local politics] [link]

64 Responses to “Classic Lowell Politics”

The Prince of Darkness Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I find it hard to believe that any of the “six” are going to make an issue of this, especially when half of them are fighting for their political lives. Also, I’m thinking of changing my moniker to Prince Charming, just for Mimi.
ArtisFun Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
PoD, I’ll throw my vote for the new name. Prince of Darkness has belonged to Sec of State Galvin since he was in the House.
Sweetness and Light Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Art: How’s this one? POD.
MVP Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
The least significant quotes posted here. Once again, Lynne demonstrating her complete and utter lack of knowledge about what she calls “Classic Lowell Politics”…. By the way, how about doing your own research instead of letting RichardHowe.com do it for you!
moonlight Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am
i am still convinced that pat mccarthy was the one on the

roof of that building over dunkins donuts the day of the rally

for poor johnny boy, and threw those flyers about the ‘RATS’

off the roof
joe Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
So the evidence for this speculation is…what?

Anytime any Cox people want to throw out an example of any Lowell City Councillors slamming Niki Tsongas during the general election, I’ll be waiting.

But I’m not going to hold my breath.

Cox people aren’t terribly good at releasing information to people who need it to make a decision, in a timely manner. Tee hee.

BTW, what’s GOB?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Fear not. If Pat McCarthy is the group’s treasurer, their campaign signs will be getting repoed any day now.
Lynne Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I’m still scratching my head at MVP up there…so I guess I’m not allowed to use transcripts of radio shows posted by other people. OK. *shakes head in amusement*

joe: I think his point was more that “the six” were going to go after the two councilors who backed Tsongas, in retribution - forgetting that there’s serious differences between one side and the other, not the least of which being, oh I dunno, the actual future of the city and transparent, helpful, equitable government. Ironic since those two backed Tsongas at least partly because they have a problem with Donoghue…while other GOBs backed Finegold because they couldn’t stomach backing either Donoghue or Tsongas (for what I understand old old grudge reasons against her late husband). The fact that Tsongas didn’t get those endorsements made her go up in my esteem, frankly…

GOB is my shorthand for “good ol’ boys.” I probably should be saying that when I use it for any new readers out there.
kami Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
The very personal attack by Pat McCarthy on Councillor Elliott is so
transparent. It’s John Cox 101. It’s how John handles his dirty work.
He has others do it for him while never actually soiling his own hands.
Cox is really the ‘coward’ , ‘rat’ , ‘ingrate’. He just instructs his
minions to do his bidding and they foolishly comply, while he chuckles.
My personal opinion is that McCarthy and side kicks are the source for
the story on NECN about Rodney’s cousin. This is just another attempt
to throw enough mud to have an effect on the outcome of the City
Council race; (prototypical Cox and the GOB’s). Sadly, his comments on the local radio show were not even about the Congressional race. I’m going to go out on a limb and state that none of the “6″ (now actually 5) will have anything negative to say about Nikki. I don’t think they care that Bud and Rita endorsed Nikki. It had zero impact. Just like Pat. I’m going to go out further on that limb and state that there will be additional very personal attacks on the “5″ as we get closer to the City election. If Nikki wants to win this race she ought to consider dumping that big mouth, arrogant, trouble maker. He turns off so many people. He is not a reflection of the type of quality campaign she has run so far. He’s a loose cannon that will eventually embarrass her. Her handlers need to wake up before Pat McCarthy is to Nikki Tsongas what Jay Garrity (the police officer impersonator) is to Mitt Romney. A great big mistake that could have easily been avoided with a little bit of foresight. I also believe he was the source of the “rats” flyer. (and apparently there is another one floating around titled: “Two down, four to go”) It’s the type of thing he would do. He’s unstable.
MVP Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Can we get a definition of “good ol boys”? Can a ‘girl’ be a “good ol’ boy”? I’m serious. I’ve asked for this before. I want to be sure I am understanding all these threads on the GOB. It seems to be such an obsession here.
Sweetness and Light Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
MVP, I’d be surprised if you get an honest answer to that question out here. I would never be so bold as to speak for the management, but I’d have to say that anyone who has lined themselves up with the previous administration is a GOB/G.
Lynne Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
If you have to ask…you probably will never understand. But if you really want to catch up on your reading, I can suggest the post that started it all.
Sweetness and Light Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
…and it’s going to be interesting if Mimi comes down on post#9 as hard as she comes down on me…. from the Artist Formally Known as PoD.
Lowell democrat Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
MVP,
I’m curious too. There seems to be alot of talk about how the GOB’s benefited under the reign of Cox. But how? Can you cite specific examples? The GOB’s and Cox are definitely an OBSESSION of Lynne’s. Watch out…..Here she goes!!!
Lowell democrat Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Sweetness and Light: Oh she will: Just watch…and it will be filled w/ emotion! Check out the archived post about what Cox “supposedly” said at a political party this summer (which by the way neither her or her side kick attended). That post sounded more like a victim/witness statement. I’m sure this one will be just as good, as the near mention of the word Cox evokes anger.
Mimi Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Kami:

I agree with Sweetness and Light (the artist formally known as Prince of Darkness). You need to stop with the personal attacks. I like City Councilor Rodney Elliott and I have known Pat for decades. So hearing CC Elliott disparaged like that was not pleasant.

I fully understand your anger, especially if you are acquainted with Rodney.

I think Pat crossed the line the other morning but we really do need to bring some civility to this discussion and more importantly you cannot make wild accusations as he did on the radio the other morning. Right now we are taking our eyes of the prize: the Congressional seat remaining in Democratic hands.

And it is very regrettable that someone has decided to resurrect that “rat flyer.”

And Sweetness and Light, my vote was for Prince Charming.
Prince Charming Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
You win.
Lynne Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Actually POD, I was going to…kami, let’s try to keep it a little less personal, despite the fact I agree with the context of your comment, and try not to go into too much speculation, which I won’t condone. Yes, SOME one in that group did those things…hard to know who, and it’s no use speculating.

(POD, I miss your old nickname, LOL. Though “charming” is cute too.)
patrick mccarthy Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I would like to take credit for the scandals rats incident, but i was at the east end club at a democratic city committee meeting. Two of my alibi witness are Lynn and Dick Howejr. Also Mimi was there. I’m sorry but wrong person.
joe Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Thanks, Lynne, now I get it. They’re going to pretend that the only possible reason the majority could object to the Cox councillors is the Donoghue/Tsongas race.

Ah, Good Old Boys. Now I get it.
Mike Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Was that considered a personal attack on Rodney Elliot? Was it false?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Lynne,

Since I’m a relative newbie here, I just went back and read the post that started it all, as you suggested. Then I did a search on the blog for the posts on Gay Marriage. What I discovered is that you don’t seem to have a problem with GOB’s when they’re making back room deals and stifling the voice of the people on issues that you support, as they did with the constitutional amendment.

No need to begin a totally unrelated argument here about that particular issue (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples as well), but before you go decrying GOB’s, take a peek in the mirror to make sure you haven’t become part of one yourself.
Lynne Says:
September 18th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Like it or not, it wasn’t a backroom deal, it was a perfectly legal maneuver, one they used on several other petitions over the years. To be honest, I felt the process itself was abused in the first place (how much outside money got those signature, and how many by FRAUD?), and the lege is the check against a seriously flawed rule (ability to overturn judicial rulings and change our actual constitution in this state with a few hundred petition signatures and only 50 of 200 legislators) with another rule, the one that says the lege has the right to kill ballot inits. In fact, it’s the job of the legislature to look at these things and make sure what gets on the ballot isn’t something that risks hurting our citizens. But then, you sound like the anti-gay apologist who cried “let the people vote” but really meant, “put civil rights on the ballot.”

Everything was fair and square on that ballot init. The lege followed the rules as they are set out. You have a problem with that? Go live in California where ballot initiatives are screwing up the state so bad, no one knows what the hell rules they live under anymore (or what they’re spending money on).

I don’t feel it is inconsistent, and what’s more, it certainly is NOT GOBish. No one benefited except for a group of people who have spent decades waiting their turn for equality. Civil rights have no place being voted on by the mob. If we’d voted on minority rights as these things came in front of us, it still would be illegal for African Americans to eat at the same counter as you or drink from the same fountain.

Go ahead, argue that you have the right to vote on someone else’s civil rights. I dare you.
Dan M. Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Are we still blaming John Cox for all our issues? I dont get around here much anymore, but he hasnt been in office for how many months? Must be a powerful man.
Eddie Jr Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Most puppet masters are powerful men, he reminds me of Geppetto. He has created a band of puppets & most of them remind me of Pinocchio. I can’t believe he talked Mike Lenzi into this mess he calls a slate.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Somehow, I knew you’d find a way to rationalize it, and you certainly didn’t disappoint.

Fact of the matter is, there were enought signatures to get the issue on the ballot (please don’t insult me with “fraud” accusations…your party’s had illegal immigrants and dead people voting for decades) and it was blocked by a legislative body who’s leadership and governor made all sorts of back room promises of pork to get people to switch their votes. Even you aren’t naive enough to deny that happened. Yet you’re quick to jump on Cox and Lowell GOB’s when they make their back room deals that are well withing the governmental process. HYPOCRITE!

As for the civil rights issue, if that’s your point of view, fine. I’m not going to argue it here with you. We’re not going to get anywhere. But just because you like how it turned out, doesn’t mean you didn’t endorse the GOB network that did your dirty work.
Prince Charming Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Ya know, RIL, I was beginning to feel like I was all alone here. I’ve begun to feel almost a kinship with you over these last few weeks. I agree with you on a lot of these issues, but for the life of me I cannot see how anyone can justify the type of thuggery that exists in the GOB network in Lowell and to compare it to what happens elsewhere is beyond the pale. What’s happened in this city in the past few years will take decades to correct. The foundation for all the good that’s happened in Lowell was laid in previous administrations. It fell into Cox’s lap. His legacy? Winterfest aka HowieWinterfest. Haven’t seen so many mobbed-up pols in one tent in a long time. Ask some of the local businessmen about the shakedowns for donations. Wink-wink. Come have a drink with us in a nice warm tent. Pleeeeze.
Paul@01852 Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
RiL please stick to provable fact. Unsupported allegations (”illegal immigrants and dead people voting” and “leadership and governor made all sorts of back room promises of pork”) do not an argument make!
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
OMG, too funny. The righty takes out the age-old dead-people-vote thing…

Anyway, it’s not a backroom deal if it’s part of the rules for the legislature to take this action or that. So give me a break. Logic, my friend. Logic.
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Oh and I have had plenty to say when I do see hackery, as Charley calls it, even (often especially) in my own party, like this. God, does anyone else remember the trouble I’ve gotten into by opposing Senator Panagiotakos from time to time?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Spare us Paul. The entire country knows about your party’s dirty little secret. We can’t document it because you won’t allow ID checks at the polls, but we know what’s going on. It’s an undeniable fact!

Prince, I’m not a Cox or GOB defender. As I’ve said many times before, he did some good, some bad, it was time to move on. As for Brian Martin, he can take credit for some good, some bad, and it was time for him to move on, too. Just like in a few years, the same will be true for Lynch and the GOB that he develops.

For the record, I’m one of those local businessmen who donated and was never pressured into doing so. I did so willingly, just as I do for every event that benefits the city.

Now that you’ve moved out of the darkness/blackness, settle into the gray area with me. That’s where the truth usually lies.
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
You know, that’s really off the reservation there. Crazy conspiracy theories aside, the real issue is that IDs for voting disenfranchises. Your rant is so laughable, it’s an urban myth (sort like Reagan’s rampant “welfare queens” moniker).

Dude, Cox hid a DoR audit and a $6M deficit! I think that constitutes more than “gray”. Yeesh.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Just like Cox doing things within the rules, right Lynne? Nah, there were no back room promises made by Patrick or the legislative leaders, were there? All those reps and sens changed their vote because of the superb lobbying job done by YOUR gob.

Or does transparent government and government for the people only apply when it’s your ox being gored?

BTW, that dead people voting thing is only age-old because your party’s been doing it for ages. You can try to write it off as “righty” conspiracy theories, but you’re really only fooling yourself. We know the truth though, don’t we?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
And as I’ve said many times, it was time for Cox to go because, like the donkeys in this state, absolute power corrupted absolutely.

Explain to me again how showing an ID at the voting booth disenfranchises? I never quite bought the democratic party line on that one. Puh-lease! Does it scare them off from getting their driver’s licenses or any other license they need to show proof of residency before getting?
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Not everyone has a driver’s license. And it IS a righty conspiracy. It’s not true. Study after study has shown such fraud is minimal, if it occurs. So, you like Big Government? Cuz a Voter ID program is going to cost money, and it is more Big Brother watching over you. So, Big Government is good, then?

So… I guess that ethics complaint against Cox in the 90s was another gray area, huh?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“It’s not true. Study after study has shown such fraud is minimal, if it occurs.”

So which is it? Not true or minimal if it occurs? Because as the 2000 election showed, even a “minimal” difference can be enough to elect one candidate over the other. Come on Lynne, admit defeat on this one, would you. Your argument there was almost laughable.

Now let me ask this; How come most of the rest of the democratic world requires identification and gets over 80% turnout, yet this “open” society here in the States can barely get half it’s people to vote even though they don’t disenfranchise voters by asking for proof of identity?
Putting ink stains on hands didn’t seem to “disenfranchise” Iraq and Afghanistan voters from turning out, even though they were risking their lives, did it?

Boy, did Cox sleep with your little sister and not call her back the next day or something? Get over it, would you. The fact you’re arguing with someone who agrees he needed to go makes you look petty and vindictive. I’m sure if he knew he’d tick you off this much he’d have let you into the GOB. LOL!
MVP Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Lynne- I’m so glad to provided a link to the “post that started it all”. It is amazing that you decry “backroom deals” and then to re-read this post in which you gleefully report on a backroom deal to oust CM Cox. Funny, I don’t recall any public input into that process. Just a group of 5 different GOB’S. The 6th- Broderick- didn’t have enough guts to go public with any position on the matter….Your post in response to my question ( What is a GOB?) perfectly illustrates my point!!!! You are a GOB too. Backroom deals, etc. just a different group of GOBs…… Save us your pity and indignation!

And, don’t forget, Cox may have had an ethics complaint. In case you aren’t aware, there are a lot worse things littered around the Lowell political landscape. You might not want to read about them!
Prince Charming Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
This type of politician, lawyer, schmoozer, lobbyist etc. knows how to skirt the laws very well. That’s what a professional legislator does in his spare time, figures out ways to (legally) beat the system. Wonder how Cox looked in a toga?
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
MVP: what backroom deal to oust Cox? As I saw it, they were trying to allow him the dignity of leaving on his own terms, which to my mind is a fairly common thing that happens between employers and employees from time to time. Of course, it got out, but it was no backroom deal.

Make no mistake: Cox ousted Cox, with his lack of accountability to the voters and the council (were you guys watching the same meetings that I was? he was surly, defensive, and very uncooperative much of the time). Sure, it took the council far too long to get to that point of being fed up, in my opinion, but it sure isn’t a backroom deal. Five people wanted him gone. How is that a backroom deal? Cox lost support for his actions and nonactions. ‘Nuff said. Fair and square, folks. It’s time to face the fact that your guy made the huge mistake of screwing up - more than once, on some major decisions and issues.
Lynne Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Excuse me, six…Broderick, of course, was expected to be on the GOB side because they thought they’d gotten him there with their support during the election. They forgot to ask Broderick if that was OK, however. Of course, the howling about that was the loudest…
MVP Says:
September 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Lynne- Go back and reread your old post again. You complain that the GOB operates to “supplant and replace democratic and open government “!! The funniest of all is your complaint that, with the GOB, “they discuss important issues in closed offices with their friends.” And you CANNOT see the hypocrisy? Face it. You have been called out as just another member of a GOB network! I guess it serves you right. You chose the nasty personal attacks and name-calling route. The GOB is your second favorite subject (after John Cox). But, no matter how you try to spin it, the fact that you are as deeply entrenched in a GOB network is obvious. Apparently, because of your GOB connections, you had a “trusted” source with the low-down on the decision of 5 members of the CC. Sounds like, in typical GOB fashion, you were “privy to inner circle decisions.”

Don’t like this post? Nothing but your own words staring back at you! ‘Nuff said…..
Lynne Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Um…how is this blog like a closed door? I kinda do it out in the open.

Keep in mind, I really don’t have a personal stake here - other than being a local taxpayer now, of course. To be a real GOB, you have to have something to gain. I really, really don’t. I’d rather be watching C-SPAN or reading than answering you right now, to be frank.

Sources are an age-old privilege of journalists…why can’t I have sources? Your posts really amuse me. MVP, you haven’t proven anything, logically, at all. What stake do I really have in this? Please enlighten me, because like I’ve said, this blog takes up a lot of my time and I don’t really get paid, and I’d love to close up shop tomorrow and go back to a noncontroversial life. I do it because I see a problem, and it’s not being discussed, and I want to make sure that democracy is served. If you don’t believe that motivation that’s your problem, but it’s the truth.

Good lord, do NOT put yours or anyone elses motivations on me. I don’t think like you.
kami Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Mimi/Sweetness
I’ve read daily comments on this blog that aren’t too flattering about “Bud-Lite” and the Merciers and others as well. In the case of my post regarding McCarthy I thought that Pat put it out there in public so to be responded in kind seemed fair game. Although I respect the opinion that I may have crossed the line. I apologize for placing my personal feelings about Pat McCarthy into the blog. It’s not the place and you’re correct. Any other apologizes out there from any of you that have personally attacked other individuals? I’ve read a number of personal attacks that have never been addressed even when the poster has been challenged.

The reason that John Cox is still being discussed a year and a half later is that he just won’t go away quietly like other City Managers that were asked to leave. The “5″ used the same protocol to ask Cox to leave that has been used with most other City Managers. It’s a way to allow them to leave after they’ve lost support with some dignity and be able to say to their next employer that they weren’t fired. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Has Brian Martin or Dick Johnson or any other recent Managers continued to work behind the scenes to get their job back by supporting council challengers? Did they work while they were City Manager to defeat sitting members of the council (their bosses) that they felt were not in their camp like Cox did? Are they out rallying the troops for a coup? I’ve never seen this before. How can we miss him if he just won’t go away?
Lowell democrat Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Wow….That’s an interesting comment…”I don’t think I like you.” Why have you met MVP? Or is this just another person you’ve never met, but choose to dislike because they don’t agree with you? (Case in point,the GOB’s, most of whom you’ve never met, but obsess about.) Why must you address everyone so angrily, and take everything so personally? Your anger and obsession with John Cox scares me…..
joe Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
The Constitutional Convention is not a back room. It is an open process, with everyone’s vote made openly and counted, and the issue debatted in a public forum.

The anti-gay people lost. They couldn’t even get a quarter of state legislators. A quarter!

We have this ting called a representative democracy, or democratic republic. We elect legislators to represent us, every couple of years. If they don’t vote the way we want them too, they lose their elections. Seen anyone lose his seat because he supported marriage rights? Anyone?

The anti-marriage people lost, because they were on the wrong side of the issue. They held a vote, and not only did their position fail to gain a majority, it failed to gain even 1 out of every 4 votes cast!
joe Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Lynne, will you get my parking tickets fixed?

You know, with all that pull you have in your nefarious political network.
Lynne Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Thanks, joe, I totally needed that giggle this morning!

But yes, you actually make my point more poignantly than I ever did.

If only I could get my own parking tickets fixed! I get them all too often (I *never* put enough money in the meter, it seems).
Mimi Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Kami:

Thanks for your comments. You are right, there are some things being said on this blog that cross the line, in my opinion. Needless to say, the upcoming City election is the primary cause of all of this. So, I have decided that if people cannot control themselves than I will speak up. We can all make our points without the personal attacks. And I fully agree with your assessment of the activities of the previous CM.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
We can’t oust the scoundrels Joe because they’ve set up an inbred system which exists only to keep them in power. So what they do is promise each other future favors, lots of pork for their districts and goodies for the unions so that they’ll show up and vote for them on election day. And it all goes on in the back rooms, not in an open process. (how long did that debate go on for that last time Joe, anyway?)

Just like the GOB’s. Everyone has something to gain financially. Rather than stay and fight a stacked system, conservatives and sane-minded middle of the road people just get up and leave, so pretty soon all that will be left are the lefty special interests and unions, gobbling up an ever shrinking pie.

So before fighting those casino proposals, you may want to reconsider. The only other place to find money will be to dip into those entitlements.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Sorry, I accidentally deleted the sentence about the votes being taken in open, but they were bought behind closed doors.
Lynne Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
If you have an accusation, then make one, RiL. Bought how exactly? Did money change hands, or favors? I’m curious, if there’s an ethics violation here, then what is it? A couple councilors talked? What?

As far as I know, a slew of those councilors had been aware that the former CM was a problem and had wanted to do something about it a long time. Broderick, once he was elected, wasn’t beholden to the GOB like they thought, and Ramirez campaigned opening about it, and won. So, really, what was the deal?

And have we really regretting the decision, given what’s come out about Cox’s actions or nonactions while CM?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I was talking about the Gay Marriage fiasco, Lynne. I believe your comments should have been directed at Joe?

But if the comments were directed at me, the votes on the gay marriage issue were “bought” with promises of future favorable treatement. Perhaps it’s technically not the same as a suitcase full of money being passed, but in reality, it is exactly the same. Representative Government at it’s best!
MVP Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Lynne- the “post that started it all” specifically refers to discussion of “important issues in closed offices with their friends”. Wasn’t the decision to terminate CM Cox discussed in “closed offices”? I never saw any public discussion. Yet 6 councilors apparently made a decision. Or was this decision not an “important issue”. It all sounds very GOB to me!! Or is this GOB conduct OK with you because you like the end result? You appear to be saying just that in post #51. Tell me again about “transparancy”……If you don’t like the prior city administration, then “good for you”. You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. But please don’t hold out yourself and your like-minded friends as more “ethical” and “transparent” or more honest than others when the facts speak for themselves.
Lynne Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I think you misread what happened, my friend. They went to Cox to tell him, look dude, this can be messy, or this could be less a stain on your head if you go quietly. I think to a large extent, they didn’t want the GOB retribution crew to make that ridiculous hue and cry that they ended up making, because it was definitely predictable that that’s what would happen. To be honest, given the crap even little old me (who is nobody, to be honest) got from their allies both in the press, and on this blog, I’m not sure I blame those councilors. I think it was going to get out anyway, but I think they were trying to figure out a way that everything could happen without dragging this out into the very poisonous, disgusting display of behavior it’s been.

Also, if you didn’t know or remember I actually broke the story that this meeting had happened, precisely because I did want an open discussion on this issue. This was because I didn’t want Cox to go quietly without discussing exactly how he screwed up, primarily so that we wouldn’t have a repeat performance with the next guy they hired. But to some extent, the employer has every right to say to an employee, if you resign, we won’t have to fire you. I actually think that was rather nice of them, going to him in private, before taking it up in public. It’s not how I would have done it (as I said, I wanted this to be aired out) but it’s certainly not GOBish. Generous, maybe.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
You do a great job avoiding the questions Lynne. I’d swear you were a politician in a previous life.

The point that I and others have been trying to make is that the Gang of Five decided in their little closed door meetings that Cox had to go. Whether justified, or whether they were trying to save him the embarrassment of being fired is irrelevant to THIS argument.

They didn’t hold public hearings on his performance. They didn’t ask for the people’s input. They made that decision amongst themselves behind closed doors.

Sorry, but that is not transparent government. That’s just a different GOB from the Cox GOB making a decision on what’s best for the city behind closed doors.
joe Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
We can’t oust the scoundrels Joe because they’ve set up an inbred system which exists only to keep them in power.

Have faith, RiL! Maybe people will actually see through Bud and Rita’s jes folks act this time.

No, seriously, you don’t think the Republicans in Congress engaged in logrolling and back room deals in the years prior to the 2006 election? How’d that work out in November 2006?

If the public really wanted to undo gay marriage, like they really wanted to end the Iraq War, we’d see people running on that platform win over defenders of the status quo. We haven’t. Not one.

Not One. Although we did see at least on anti-gay legislator lose his next election.
joe Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
You can logroll and backslap your way to a few votes, sure, but logrolling and buddy-buddy b.s. isn’t going to turn a majority that’s afraid of the public will if they cross them into minority of less than 25%.

The desire to stop gay marriage just wasn’t there. Face it. YOU are now the minority, and the majority has accepted gay marriage, either with enthusiasm, or with a shrug of the shoulders. There was no “popular will” to ban gay marriage. If there was, we would have seen, I don’t know, as many as 26% of the legislators vote for the initiative.
MVP Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Thank you RiL…….And, NO Lynne, I did not “misread” your post. I think RiL gets my point. And so do you…….BTW, Thank you EVER SO MUCH for breaking the story so that we could have an “open discussion” on the issue! BIG OF YOU! ………. Only you know what???? I didn’t elect YOU to be the moderator of any discussion concerning my government!!! I elected 9 people to hold publicly noticed and PUBLIC meetings every Tuesday night at City Hall………Tell me again about TRANSPARENCY and the GOB?
waittilnextyr Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
So, with all of this, what exactly were the reasons that they asked CM Cox to go quietly?

It apparently wasn’t the Stocklosa School, as they still haven’t been able to publically provide that as a reason.

It couldn’t have been the shortfall of free cash, as they later approved the FY2007 budget with that problem buried within 2 months after the fact.

It couldn’t have been the DOR letters, as they didn’t know about them until much later.

Could it have been the towing contract “collusion”?

Or was it something else that this open government has not yet disclosed?
Right in Lowell Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Joe, Gay Marriage advocates are not the majority. Far from it in every single poll taken. And it would be the case if it ever went on the ballot, too, but your cronies blocked it.

As for why there isn’t a backlast at the polls; because they delayed their blocking of the people’s will until after the election. Now they have a full 2-years to “pork it up” and provide cover for those who succumbed to the pressure. Throw in the advantages of incumbency and the total lack of a Republican presence in the state (because anyone with half a mind has already left the Commonwealth), and you a a GOB Donkey network ruling the state.

And even with all they’ve done to drive moderates and conservatives out of the state, they still can’t get a majority of what’s left behind to support their Gay Marriage agenda. So they turn to the State Supreme court and political manuevering in the legislature.

You have every right to support Gay Marriage. You have NO right to say the will of the people is being observed. Anyone who says so is a phony who loses any semblence of credibility!
insurance classic car information Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
new insurance classic car car insurance classic brokers
joe Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Joe, Gay Marriage advocates are not the majority.

I didn’t say they were. I said that its opponents aren’t a majority, either. BTW, the latest polling on the issue shows that people against the ptition - the one that would have banned both marriage and “civil unions” - are a majority, representing about 2/3 of the public, as that is the % that supports either full marriage rights or civil unions.

And while I’d love to claim that 76% of the state legislature were “my cronies,” I cannot. I don’t think any of them could pick me out of a crowd.

Now they have a full 2-years to “pork it up” and provide cover for those who succumbed to the pressure. Actually, there was an election held between the first vote and the second one. Despite having a number of targets, the anti-gay Marriage Coalition failed to unseat a single legislator who voted against the amendment. Not. A. Single. One.

Face it. You lost.
Right in Lowell Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Very intelligent and mature final comment there Joe. The only thing missing is the na-na na-na na-na!

Yeah, we lost, but only because the game was fixed. We were never allowed onto the playing field. You know what you can do with all those fraudulent poll numbers, too. Because if your side was so confident in them, the issue would be on a ballot instead of dead in a legislative back room somewhere.

Then again, why am I wasting my time discussing an issue with someone who writes in #57: “Face it. YOU are now the minority, and the majority has accepted gay marriage…” only to turn around in #62 and deny ever saying it. Go back and read what you’ve written in the not-too-distant past before contradicting yourself.
Prince Charming Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I don’t believe the majority has accepted it, we’ve just accepted the fact that most of our legislators are spineless and won’t let it go on the ballot. We have no alternative than acceptance. We just hold our noses and live with it.

September 17, 2007

Classic Lowell Politics

64 Responses to “Classic Lowell Politics”

Leave a Reply

LeftinLowell Tweets

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug				Oct »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30