Left In Lowell

Move Lowell Forward Endorsements for Council

78 Responses to “Move Lowell Forward Endorsements for Council”

1. jdayne Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 9:24 am

   Curious list of challengers.

2. Right in Lowell Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am

   Wouldn’t it help the voters a lot more to know who answered the questionnaire and what their answers were.

3. MOONLIGHT Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am

   No Ryan Berard ??? Hmmmmmmm

4. C R Krieger Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am

   I think that the individual candidates can put the questions and answers up on their own web sites, as Challenger Ray Weicker did.  That way it is up to the candidate, and not forced on them by MLF.

   Regards  —  Cliff

5. Lynne Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am

   RiL: we feel it is the candidates’ right to release their answers. If they do, we’re happy to link to them. We debated this and that was the decision we came to.

   jdayne: it was a very interesting process and the outcome was meant to be objective. As such, of course there are surprises! The questionnaire was the largest portion of the evaluation. We did not want a process with a predetermined outcome! That was the exciting part about: everyone was given the same chance. We feel that the process turned out well.

   “MOONLIGHT:” we are not commenting on specific cases. However, I will say this: all the candidates we had participation from fared well; but there are only nine choices we could make and there were many more candidates than slots. We spoke personally to Ryan and to the other candidates and told them that not only did we appreciate their participation, but that should they win a council seat, we feel they would represent the city very well and we would not be disappointed. The candidates were all very gracious and understood that we had to make a cutoff somewhere, so I think we should take their lead and not be rude about it.

6. MOONLIGHT Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am

   Whose RUDe!!!! it was just an inquiry ?
   i think you made some good choices, especially the
   incumbents. lets move forward.

7. Anonymous Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 11:36 am

   Patrick Murphy’s answers can be found here: http://thinkmurphy.com/?page_id=394.

   I would like to see the other candidates’ questionnaires. I think the answers were the most important part of this exercise, and I don’t see any reason why a candidate would choose not to make them public. After all, these comprise a candidate’s vision for the city. I think they also provide a good window into a candidate’s way of thinking about and approaching different issues. Lastly, I think the answers can demonstrate a level of commitment to a candidacy and to this race; those who gave more comprehensive answers, are most likely more committed. Those who gave cursory responses, or none at all, are perhaps less serious about their role if elected.

8. Lynne Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 11:37 am

   It was rather rude. It sounded like you were trying to be divisive by questioning why this or that person did not make it. Since we’re not going to discuss individual situations it seems like a pretty rude thing to ask about those candidates who are not on the list.

   Considering the candidates themselves aren’t being divisive I want to be sure to nip such ideas in the bud.

9. Mr. Lynne Says:
   September 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm

   Weicker posted his answers here as well.

10. Dan Murphy Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Patrick Murphy’s answers can be found here: http://thinkmurphy.com/?page_id=394.

    I will say that I think it is fruitful to produce candidates’ answers to the questionnaire. I respect MLF’s decision not to publish, but I don’t see the rationale. These answers comprise a candidate’s vision for the city. If one is running for council, I would assume one is running based on his/her ideas (and I further assume that a candidate would want these made public and given as wide an audience as possible.)

    The questionnaire and the corresponding answers provide a glimpse into that vision of the city, but also into how a candidate approaches important public policy questions. They give insight into the intelligence of a candidate, as well as the level of commitment to the office he/she seeks. I certainly hope that those who made a sincere effort would want to have their views made known. For Patrick, I can say with certainty that he is unabashed in the positions he’s taken, and the answers he has given, and wanted to provide an easy way for anyone to find them.

11. Paul Belley Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Lynne
    I don’t have a website but you can put my answers up .

    Paul Belley

12. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    There may be a strain of Wonk Flu going through Lowell. Today, we have City Council candidates flaunting their ideas and positions, of all things.

    And over at Mr. Mill City, we have: What You Really Want to Know About: CHOICE VOTING (Part 1)

13. Bob Forrant Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Ah yes - the fresh breeze of folks thinking is a wonderful thing. Front page story in Sun today also talked about voters looking for change and the folks they did interview clearly understand what’s at stake here contrary to what many of our media leaders at WCAP and elsewhere might think.

    This includes a former city manager of Cambridge who somehow thinks Lowellians can not understand what choice voting means and how to work it. Choice voting clearly means measuring candidates and casting your vote(s) for who you really, really want to sit on a city council and not wasting votes on possible council choices simply because you know their cousin’s uncle’s butcher’s god father!

    Dear sophisticated Cambridge/Lowell nabob - Lowellians get it when their leaders take them for a ride on a tow truck or otherwise and can find their way to ask them to leave.

    It ain’t rocket science!

14. waittilnextyr Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    “I respect MLF’s decision not to publish, but I don’t see the rationale.”

    The candidates submitted answers for the purpose of evaluation. To take those answers and publish them without the candidates’ consent would not be consistent with the request made to them.

15. TPetty Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Move Lowell Forward endorsed a strong group of candidates for this year’s Lowell City Council election. I was impressed with each of them at CNAG’s candidate’s night. Thank you to MLF for their hard work, and to the candidates who participated in the process. Lowell will be a better city for it. Now, let’s get people out to the polls on November 3rd and VOTE! October needs to be “Get the VOTE out!” month. Otherwise, all this hard work will be for not.

16. openyoureyes Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Big surprise another hatchet job in today’s Lowell Scum. While the electorate is clamoring for change you can believe in (it worked so well the first time) they once again rehash the Sandy Ames story. While they mention that Ames signed off on the projects owned by Kazanjian they conveniently leave out that Ames is the only plubing inspector for the city at the time. In addition he is not signing off on work done by Kazanjian, he signing off on work done by plumbers. If it is substandard it is up to the plumber to fix it not Kazanjian. If he is building expensive condos do you really think he wants substandard work being done. Even those who despise Kazanjian would have to agree he is at least a competent business man. Why cut your own throat? The Scum also CONVENIENTLY neglected to mention the public’s outrage in the inspectional service dept. with regard to the McBee controversy. THIS IS A FAR MORE SERIOUS VIOLATION. Families were allowed to live in the property for six weeks in violation but the connection to cc Broderick and manager Lynch’s ignoring of the problem is as Al Gore would say an inconvenient truth.

17. openyoureyes Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Speaking of interesting problems with regard to inspections. Ladies you may want to check into (because we know the Scum will not) the issuing of a criminal cease and disist order which was brought by the inspectional services department against the Lowell Housing Authority. The way I hear it the LHA which has been doing many renovations to its properties neglected to pull any permits for said work. As I understand it the city was owed over 20,000 dollars in permit fees and the manager told the inspectional services dept. to look the other way. Why would he do such a thing? MMMM, me thinks there is a connection between the LHA, the manager and the newspaper. The last time the newspaper had this kind of influence in the managers’s office was during the Tully administration and we all know how well that went.

18. Corey Erickson Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Hi Lynne, as a Lowell resident I appreciate the principle of MLF’s endeavor of offering political view that varies. I must say however and I’ve been watching. By way of MLF’s bodied voice… I haven’t seen much outside LIL’s wheelhouse.

    As far as the selections, I’m not in disagreement with some… I am confused by others to be sure. I mean I was lucky enough to have had some spare time to attend CNAG’s great candidate’s night and the responses weren’t included with your posting… so I have my own opinions why.

    I thought it might have been informative or even relevant to MLF’s selections to have included your bipartisan evaluators? Where’s the transparency!?!

    Overall I’m sure it was a very extensive and thoughtful effort. Yet after everything you’ve done… we’re left to speculate what it was they said that made you guys think “these” candidates would be soooo good for the rest if us in the city. kinda-weird.

19. Old time Lowellian Says:
    September 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Little surprised that MLF selected David Koch, the fruit farmer…..seriously is he kidding?
    Gang Members pruning and picking fruit….. I am embarassed for this candidate that this is his idea of keeping kids off the streets, and raising revenue for the city from selling the fruit. This man is in way over his head. My be a nice guy but not too bright…..

20. Kevin Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Here is a link to Ryan Berard’s answers on his website. Ryan has said, over the past few days, that while he is disappointed that Move Lowell Forward chose not to endorse his candidacy, he does not view this as a set back. Ryan agrees with 99% of Move Lowell Forward’s stated values and goals and he looks forward to working with the group’s members when elected this November.

21. Kevin Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 1:39 am

    Sorry, here’s the link

    Ryan’s Move Lowell Forward Questionnaire

22. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 6:35 am

    I agree with this statement

    “The candidates submitted answers for the purpose of evaluation. To take those answers and publish them without the candidates’ consent would not be consistent with the request made to them.”

23. pw Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 7:57 am

    I would recommend reaching back out to the candidates for permission to post, because I imagine most people reading this are here for the imformation, and could care less what who Lynn and Cliff think is appropriate choice for Council. I think the Dallas Cowboys are the best team the NFL because I like the uniforms.

    You guys think pretty highly of yourselves if you think Ryan Berard i

24. peterican Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 8:12 am

    I would recommend reaching back out to the candidates for permission to post, because I imagine most people reading this are here for the imformation, and could care less what who Lynn and Cliff think are appropriate choices for Council. I think the Dallas Cowboys are the best team the NFL because I like the uniforms.

    This whole process seems like a waste of time unless you’re putting information in the hands of folks who otherwise wouldn’t have access to it. You guys think pretty highly of yourselves if you think the path to moving Lowell forward is blindly telling people who YOU like.

    I’m not going to lie, I expected a lot more, and can’t help but be dissapointed.

25. Paul@01852 Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Old Time: At least Mr Koch is thinking “outside the box.” What ideas have been proposed by the current Council members related to the problems of idle youth? None that I am aware of. And I don’t believe it’s only gangs Mr Koch is targeting. The unemployment rate for youth was 25% the last time I heard an official figure. What are all the unemployed non-gang members doing with their time besides hanging on the street corners creating the perception that all teens and twenty-somethings belong to “gangs” ? Instead of criticizing propose your own ideas? What exactly would *you* do to provide activities to alleviate this problem? Instead of being a critic, please become a part of the solution!

26. Lucy the Dog Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Can ‘Old time Lowellian’, or someone who knows, please clarify or elaborate on that “fruit farmer” comment about “gang members pruning and picking fruit”? I Googled to no avail, and Koch’s site doesn’t work.

27. Old time Lowellian Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Paul@01852, 1st of all where are we going to plant the fruit trees?? Not much green space left in Lowell now is there? do you really think we could plant enough trees to employ more than a couple of teens. He is definitely thinking WAY OUTSIDE the box. How about this, we add a room tax on to all the dorm rooms at UMASS Lowell. Even 100.00 per year…..figure out how much revenue that could bring into the city………gee probably a tad bit more than fruit sales.

28. Old time Lowellian Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:33 am

    LUCY the Dog: David Koch’s idea for the problem of teens being in gangs and roaming the streets was to plant fruit trees and have the kids prune and pick the fruit……. then sell the fruit to raise revenues for the city…….. He stated this at one of the Candidate Nights.

29. Smooth Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am

    I have to agree with everyone here that thinks the answers should be posted. At the very least, particular answers that highly influenced the endorsement or non-endorsement of certain candidates should be posted. While I don’t usually agree with the Lowell Sun’s endorsements for instance, they always list the reasons they do or do not endorse a certain candidate.

30. Paul@01852 Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Old Time: you did not answer my challenge! I understand you think Mr Koch’s porposal is ridiculous but complaining about it does not promote a solution. What would *you* propose to the problem of teens being in gangs?

31. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am

    I believe age is a factor in your decision . You have not endorsed any candidate over the age of 50. These candidates are frozen out

32. Mr. Lynne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    I certainly wouldn’t propose an age lockout. The value of an idea exists independently of who proposes it. The reason ideas with a conflict of interest are suspect have to do with the conflict, not the idea. This is why it’s possible for an idea with a conflict of interest with respect to the proposer may, in and of itself, still have value.

33. Franky Descoteaux Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I am pleased to have been endorsed by Move Lowell Forward. It is an honor to be running alongside such a qualified field of candidates. Lowell has the opportunity to be well served. My responses can be downloaded here:

    http://www.frankyforlowell.com/pacquestionnaire.html

    Thank you for your interest.

34. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am

    I would like to respond to Mr Lynne by borrowing peterican’s response

    This whole process seems like a waste of time unless you’re putting information in the hands of folks who otherwise wouldn’t have access to it. You guys think pretty highly of yourselves if you think the path to moving Lowell forward is blindly telling people who YOU like.

35. waittilnextyr Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    “I’m not going to lie, I expected a lot more, and can’t help but be dissapointed.”

    You are disappointed - you who did nothing? As the candidates release their responses, you ought to do the work to go through each of them and make your own judgment.

36. Lynne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    I am wondering if those detractors in this comment thread actually give a crap about MLF and its endorsements or if they are operatives for another party trying to detract from the very real, very impressive slate of candidates we selected. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out the latter.

    Seems to me some people are sounding scared. Scared people attack. It’s weak.

    Age had NO factor, and it’s ridiculous to think it would ever have been one in our process. (BTW, Franky is over 50? Please. Think before you post.)

    I think we’re getting trolled, to be honest. There are a lot of new nicknames and “Anonymouses” on this thread, and that usually happens when we get new trolls.

    The candidates are free to publish their answers and when I get around to it (when I am not buried in deadlines) I will even post (at the request of those who do not have a website of their own) answers of candidates here on the blog. The candidates all worked hard on their answers and they have a right to have them read, but only if THEY desire it. But to the detractors who whine that this candidate or that candidate didn’t get on, or that you don’t trust us to have selected carefully, I suspect you aren’t here because you are really concerned about that, so much as you’d love to see dissension between people and groups of like mind, because if you divide us, then we’re not so dangerous.

37. Lucy the Dog Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    old time lowellian–

    while i’d like to know more about koch’s proposal, i think you’ve told me enough to warrant my personal opinion that your criticism is silly, short-sighted, cynical, and useless. would such a problem solve everything? no. but it sounds to me a lot like utec’s fresh roots program, which is a tremendous presence in this city and a valuable opportunity for local teens. your dumb comment just earned koch one voter. i’d never even heard of the guy before. thanks!

    a

38. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Democracy is the voice of all people. All these candidates are working very hard and they should have had a fair shot to the end…many supported MLF…even gave money …..

    All Men can stand adversity, but the true test of a man’s character is to give him power…Abraham Lincoln

    You are unfair to the people who have been trying to make a difference. Your politics are no different than the status quo just another name

39. C R Krieger Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Peterican, et al

    Left in Lowell must be a lightening rod.  The Left in Lowell blog site is not part of the Move Lowell Forward PAC, albeit, Lynne and Mimi are on the PAC Board and Lynne is the co-chair.  Neither were part of the committee that sorted through the mass of data for the recommended slate.  On the other hand, the PAC’s Chairman has only three comments on his blog post on the recommended slate.  To be noted is that the three comments were from people saying “Here is where I posted by responses.”  And, Lynne got one vote on approving the recommended slate, just like a dozen other people.

    As for the comment:  “You guys think pretty highly of yourselves if you think the path to moving Lowell forward is blindly telling people who YOU like.”  Actually, we think the path to moving Lowell forward is you and everyone else encouraging neighbors, friends and family to vote.  We just presented one perspective.  Others have their own.

    And, there are a lot of blog commenters out there to keep us humble, and if that fails, I guess there is always the Lowell Shallot to take us down a peg or two.

    The MLF PAC, like most volunteer groups, is just a group of people looking for help.  Send me, if you want to help, an EMail—crk@theworld.com.

    Most Clemently

    Cliff

40. Paul@01852 Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Anonymous (38) said: “many [candidates] supported MLF…even gave money” I know for a fact because I am a member of the executive board of MLF that the board discussed accepting contributions from candidates and, in fact UNANIMOUSLY(!), agreed that it would be an EXTREME conflict of interest to accept any contributions from any candidates, their campaigns or their families. We suspected (and it seems rightly so) that those who would oppose our efforts would use any such contributions to attack our motives and the fairness of our process in evaluating candidates for our endorsement. The PAC is registered with the Secretary of States Office and all contributions must be reported as a requirement of our charter. Cliff Krieger, our chair, can provide the specifics of the requirements we operate under and our reporting requirements as well as how an interested party can obtain the list of our contributors.

    Disclosure: I have made a financial donation to the PAC

41. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    38.Anonymous
    “…many supported MLF…even gave money …..” - I am not aware of any contributions from candidates or their immediate families. Put up or shut up.

    “power” - Other than the power of suggestion? No one at MLF controls a Lowell voters pink slip.

    “people who have been trying to make a difference” - See the inherent flaw in your already shaky logic is that “difference” is exceptionally subjective. The “difference” that MLF supports is clearly stated on the website. The “difference” that incumbent city councilors want to make is plainly shown by their voting record.

    Move Lowell Forward is an organization that has risen organically from the dissatisfaction with the “goings on” in city hall. Lowell voters will have the opportunity to choose among the various forms of “difference.” As Cliff has pointed out upthread, our hope is that many more voters participate this cycle. I’m willing to let the chips fall where they may. That said, I’ve been listening to the people and the “status quo” you speak of is not well liked, as of late.

42. jdayne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    I agree with “anonymous”. The PAC is looking a lot like old Lowell. A few folks making inexplicable decisions with information to which they claim only they can be privy and presuming the resulting endorsement matters. Bumper sticker is off the car, so to speak. Checkbook is closed.

43. Lynne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Anonymous apparently would want the PAC to endorse all the candidates, all 20 of them, for his satisfaction.

    Right.

    To people who are truly concerned (ie, NOT the new and anon commenters, which I suspect are drive-bys), the fact is, there are only 9 slots for Council. We stated very clearly that we feel there were good candidates left off the list - if we didn’t have to stop at nine, we would have gladly included more. We still wish them good luck in their campaigns.

    I will say again, if the candidates themselves can be so gracious and understand the process as fair, then what are the rest of you complaining about? Seriously. But the fact is, a lot of this is deliberate divisiveness for another reason altogether.

    And if there are candidates who were excited about the PAC and happily morally supported us (I will repeat the others and say we are not accepting donations from candidates or families of), and they didn’t get endorsed, doesn’t that say that we were MORE fair in our assessment, not letting personal feelings crowd our judgment, than biased?

44. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    say you ….”I will say again, if the candidates themselves can be so gracious and understand the process as fair”…surely you are kidding..these people have been hitting the pavement for months, time away from their families, money ,their concern for the city and you deem them not to be endorsed…and you say they are gracious?…you are no better than the status quo…no better

45. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    42.jdayne: The words “sore sport” come to mind. Hell, I should be pissed. There is a Ryan Berard sign in my house, waiting for me to put it up. As a “private citizen”, I plan on helping Ryan and a couple others that are not endorsed.

    44. Anonymous: I’ve heard that to be a good CC, you have to miss your shows and eat cold dinners. H/T to CCs and candidates.

    Move Lowell Forward has gone through an open and deliberate process. If you don’t like what we have done, I can send you the paperwork to start your own PAC. We aren’t playing T-ball here. We are not handing out ribbons for showing up. We have a stated vision for the future of Lowell and an endorsed slate of candidates that share much of that vision.

    The people of Lowell can ignore us to the degree they choose. It is that simple. Please don’t ask us to shirk from our endeavor. We are principled people that you do not agree with. Can we leave it at that? Or are ya gonna take a swipe at my Momma?

46. Mr. Lynne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    The PAC came out and said it would evaluate candidates and then, based on that evaluation, endorse a slate. This is exactly what’s happened. The candidates understood this, why doesn’t everyone else? What is the surprise here? Are we really suggesting that the process was somehow GOBish? On what basis? Just because the whole city wasn’t an eye witness to every aspect of the hard work that the PAC did (not that they’d want to be - it was hard work) doesn’t mean anything other than a valid process happened.

    We never specified to the candidates that we’d publish their answers. Being the kind of PAC that tries to maintain some form of ethical responsibility, we certainly aren’t going to publish without permission. I would hope those that want to see ethics in their city government could understand that.

    I suspect (and have since the start) that the individual candidates will post their questionnaires on their own. (Indeed, within a couple of days we’ve seen the more web savvy of the slate do exactly this.)

    This is no time to panic because you didn’t witness each detail personally. There is too much at stake for our city. Given the nature of current issues - the City’s changing relationship with UML, the large scale long-term development projects, the difficulty in accomplishing anything within the constraints of a tough economy - the decisions of our next city council will almost certainly have repercussions over the next few decades. The PAC was formed for precisely this reason. The PAC governs itself democratically because the varied perspectives matter. The process the PAC went through and continues to go through is done with an emphasis on ethics, because ethics are embodied in its core issues. Everyone in the PAC who has been a part of the sausage-making has been encouraged that this group operates this way.

    If you wanted to be a part of the hard work, all you had to do was ask.

    Its not too late.

    If you still want to be a part of the hard work all you have to do is show up.

    I invite you all. Be a part of the change that Lowell needs right now.

47. Mr. Lynne Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    “no better than the status quo…no better”

    Clearly someone who doesn’t understand (or willfully ignores) exactly what the status quo entails.

    There were nine slots. There were more challengers. Everyone went into this knowing that there would be some challengers not on the slate.

    I’m dumbfounded that people would be surprised that the PAC actually did what it said it would do.

48. joe from Lowell Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    The internet is extremely useful for uncovering heretofore unknown levels of stupidity.

    Today’s chestnut: it is inappropriate for you to endorse candidates, because there are other candidates, and you did not endorse them.

49. Anonymous Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    to borrow another quote..this one from jdayne

    “The PAC is looking a lot like old Lowell. A few folks making inexplicable decisions with information to which they claim only they can be privy”….no better..

50. westie Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    RE: Dave Koch’s fruit tree suggestion. This idea sounds similar to the Fresh Roots program which is run through UTEC. I don’t know all the particulars but I do know that the kids farm, sell the produce at the Farmer’s Market, and also prepare a variety of foods and baked goods, sell the products and also cater. They make an excellent whoopie pie and s’more cupcake.

51. Corey Erickson Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    A little sensitive considering you put yourselves out there with endorsements? If you review past posts (I did), you’ll notice it’s been quite some time since LIL’s had such significant numbers of replies. I got bored looking getting all the way back to the Aug. 11th post… “LET THE GAMES BEGIN”.

    If you review this particular thread you’ll see some unbiased-objective requests for the information you were able to get in the candidate replies or even insight on the process. Fine, you chose not to disclose anything. It doesn’t make the inquiries stupid or treacherous.

    Your dismissive replies? RE-read them. You’ll see an ugly pattern.

    An example? A candidate you endorsed wants fish farms and fruit trees? wow. Superior Court Judges can barely get convicted felons to report to their probation officers to pee in a cup. I am shocked, that you’re not shocked for catching it on the back end with junk like that. Hey, I spoke with the guy, I listened. He seems very nice, looking for something different to offer, God bless him and all, but please.

    I could go on, but won’t and understand pride in your organization. How can you not see it’s so hard to trust Left, Right, Fair Vote Lowell, PACs, Special Interest and Advocacy Groups? You are part of the problem and the reason politicians lie.

    Here’s some advocacy & special interest for you, your personal fights and agendas may weaken your opponents, but this foolishness is of no service to our citizens.

    Again, it’s me in the Middle… Say HI the next time you’re running Left and Right.

52. peterican Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Lol, so someone has the audacity to question how constructive the “MLF” project was and it’s dismissed because I’ve never made a comment here?

    I read this site almost daily (and yes Cliff, I do realize that there’s a difference between LIL and MLF) because you folks provide informative content. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that also the objective of MLF?… to provide quality information to voters? It just seems like this project missed the mark.

    The only thing we’ve learned here is that you sent out questionnaires and candidates responded with thoughtful answers. Isn’t that nice? No mention of what criteria was used for selection, no mention of how the MLF crew deliberated, and we’re sitting here crossing our fingers hoping some of the participants post their responses.

    So at the end of the day, what we can conclude here is that a group of generic people got together and came up with a squad of 9. That’s it. Thanks for coming out.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I will conclude this “drive-by” and resume my regular posting on other sites that aren’t taking themselves so seriously.

    PS. If anyone wants my endorsements for council, shoot me an email.

    Double Secret PS. I will actually share my selection criteria…Just note that it involved a and a Beirut Table.

53. Mimi Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    Wow; what can I say?

    The decision was finalized on Saturday; the press release went out on Monday. It is now Tuesday night. The PAC will post the questions and the process that went into selecting the 9. The posting of the answers will not be done unless the candidate gives his/her approval.

    If you do not like this process, you have other options. You can get directly involved with one or more candidates; you can follow one or more of the unions’ endorsements; there is always the Sun’s endorsements.

    We should go back to discussing the issues that face our City and which type of candidates would serve Lowell best.

    I do not intend to post on this thread besides this comment; so if you want to criticize me, go ahead but do not expect a debate.

54. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Corey: You almost had me. Then this, “You are part of the problem and the reason politicians lie.”

    Love the, “it’s me in the Middle.” Very…..cute.

    peterican: I know you know, but nothing MLF will provide will make everyone happy. It will be gutted by detractors no matter what. Had we endorsed all of the candidates, cries would echo down the canals of Lowell.

    Folks, Ya think this is all we got? Dudes? I mean, come on? Game on!

55. Kim Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

    I am not left or right. I am in the “middle” This was not an endorsement by LIL and Right in Lowell. This was a group of concerned citizens from all walks of life.
    Go on the candidates sites that are available and read the answers on your own
    and you can make your own judgements about the endorsements made.
    No one chooses who you vote for and if this makes residents do a little homework and make informed choices then the PAC’s job was done perfectly.
    There are 9 slots and 9 endorsements

56. Corey Erickson Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    That’s it I guess. MiMi put the hammer down.

    Must say all in all, very big day for Move Low(LiL)ell Forward.

    Jack, sorry I lost ya. It’s likely my lack of experience with politics… if I ever run for elected office and adress a PAC, I’ll say something different!

57. A Concerned Taxpayer Says:
    September 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    Corey-Well said. I too am “in The Middle”, but I call em when I see em.

58. Anonymous Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 6:01 am

    #54….Game on! …..you call that progressive?…no better than the status quo…no better

59. Anonymous Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 6:06 am

    #53..say you…
    “I do not intend to post on this thread besides this comment; so if you want to criticize me, go ahead but do not expect a debate_”

    …because it is not a debate..it is revealed you are no better than those you critize…”no better.”..now that makes a nice bumper sticker

60. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Kim said, “if this makes residents do a little homework and make informed choices then the PAC’s job was done perfectly.”

    I’d like to add, if this makes candidates do a little homework then the PAC’s job was done perfectly.

    Lowell certainly likes a big popularity contest. As of this endorsement, issues and other wonky things are solidly on the table. Say it with me, pro-fes-sion-al ci-ty go-vern-ment. Sounds nice, once ya get the hang of it.

61. Greg Page Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 9:45 am

    I just read the post, and all 60 comments so far, and I’m left scratching my head..In regards to Kim’s comment (#55) and each of Jack Mitchell’s comments, I’m wondering why more people don’t see it like this.

    It looks like MLF endorsed nine candidates. Doesn’t sound like anything dictatorial or imposing. I don’t stop reading a newspaper just because they endorse a candidate I don’t like…instead I exercise my democratic power and VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE!! This is no different..

    Personally, my List of Nine looks a little different from theirs. This list doesn’t stop me from voting for Ryan Berard or Paul Belley, for instance…why should it?

    My advice for anyone who doesn’t like this list — why don’t you post a comment or write a letter to the Sun stating the nine that you’re voting for, or even why you disagree with one of the nine who was named.

    In other words, make your own endorsement list and then vote that way in November.

62. Prince Charming Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am

    I have not posted here in a while for a number of reasons, one of which is that this is a blog where dissent is not tolerated very well. That being said, your PAC has listed your endorsements as is your right. The Sun will list theirs. The major difference is that the paper will tell you WHY their candidates got the endorsements and you won’t. If someone answered the magic question correctly, did they get your endoresement? Other than painting them with the broad brush of “progressive, professional government” you have not done yourselves or the candidates any favors by presenting the slate in this manner.

63. Corey Erickson Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Greg some held high hopes for MLF’s effort and many of the comments were for simple disclosure of the process and a similar explanation of WHY or HOW they came to these particularly. Of course they’ll be disagreement, but it might’ve been possible to get some input in something these guys were proposing not evident to what they were get across in thru websites, ground work, lawn signs, limiting radio interviews and intimidating neighborhood meetings. Otherwise.

    MLF: Hey, these are choices.
    Questioner… “Why?”
    MLF: “Never mind why.”

    We may not agree with everything they’re saying, but we’re willing to listen. If we were looking for blank statements, it would just be who’s able to position the most lawn signs. Isn’t that much the argument of the progressive movement in the city, yet curiously not here.

64. Smooth Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    I like this blog. I thought the PAC was a good idea. I also want to vote out a large number of current CCs. However, I still am missing the point as to how this endorsement can help me make a choice on the 9 councilors I want to vote for. I guess I could read through all 20 candidates responses, but if that was the case, why make the endorsements at all? Just provide the responses. Shouldn’t the purpose of the PAC be to weed through all the answers and do the hard work for me?

    Still confused…

65. Lynne Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Can people calm the heck down? Please? For god’s sake, no one is saying we aren’t going to talk about how we arrived at our decision. Of course we are. We’ve been planning to do that. Jesus.

    We are ALL busy people and the plan was to talk about this, but we haven’t had the chance. It was work enough to get through actually DOING the work. If we could have a little patience from people, that would be nice.

    By the way, PICK A NICKNAME. It is impossible to determine who is who if people do not pick a nickname. In fact, I will not allow any more comments on the blog (period, not just on this thread alone) if there is no nickname associated. It is too hard to respond to a bunch of “anonymouses.” I happen to know from the IP address that this person is the same person over and over again, but enough is enough. Pick a nickname, that is the rule.

66. Smooth Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    PAC people, glad you will be talking about this. I did not understand that from the post.

67. Lynne Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Smooth: this was just the endorsement announcement press release. Honest to god, we’re very proud of the work we did and aren’t afraid of it; it’s just that all of this is a LOT of writing, working, and all. We all have day jobs! We’re volunteers here. We just can’t have everything done at once is all.

    But we’ve been working on this, and continue to. Stay tuned.

68. Tom Cares Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    What amazes me is,sometimes people try so hard to get endorsed by any group or pac,Sun,UTL,police union, fire union,… it’s part of the process!Unfortunately, when candidates of friends of the afformentioned,get really upset when they don’t receive it,but again it’s just part of the process, so, the candidate just has to pick up the pieces, and campaign a little harder.Can’t we all just get along?

69. Lynne Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Tom, the weird thing is that the candidates who participated but didn’t get endorsed have all been great, understanding, and generous. So I don’t know who some of these people really are!

    The “anonymous” person was definitely a troll, though. Troll like behavior from the get-go. None of his posts even make sense.

    As to the concerns about not knowing the process, I hope we’ve alleviated genuine consternation with the information we’ve just released (you can read it here).

70. Snowhawk Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    I have lived in Lowell for a long time and it is great to see a group like MLF PAC taking a bipartisan approach to supporting the city and the people of Lowell rather than the petty self-interest groups who have been leading Lowell toward the rocks.

71. Old time Lowellian Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    I am not a drive-by as was stated. I have been reading this blog for a long time without posting any comments. I understand there was a lot of work put into selecting the candidates that MFL has decided to endorse. That said, I resent being called a drive-by or a troll. I am sure most of you would resent being called “blow-ins’ since several of you were born and raised here like myself and many others that read or comment on this blog. I have lived here all my 60 plus years and don’t believe that someone that has lived here in Lowell for a considerly short period of time should be trying to tell us what is best for our city. Lets see if in 10 years time how many of you still reside here. Another thing I don’t understand is why, if people like, Jack, Lynne, or Cliff think they have all the answers to what ails this city that their own names are not on the ballot. Now I agree with some of the endorsment that you made but find it difficult to understand a few of them.

72. Old time Lowellian Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    Typo error…… should state several of you were NOT born and raised here……..

73. Jack Mitchell Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Not everyone gets to be the star winger on the hockey team. I love my spot as head towel hander outer and back up waterboy.

74. Robby Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Whats the big deal about this? I support most of the candidates mentioned’, but who gives a rats ass what anyone else thinks about the election? Im voting for who I think will represent the city the best, not who some group thinks. And by the way, the majority of Lowellians have never heard of Move Lowell Forward. All Im saying is this list makes no difference in the race whatsoever, it neither helps nor hurts any candidate. The people that oppose it are wasting just as much of thier time agruing here than the people that support it. The group made endorsements, whats the problem? In reality, no one is going to care because no one is going to notice.

    Stop wasting time arguing here online, and start spending some time campaigning for who truly support.

75. C R Krieger Says:
    September 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    Dear Old time Lowellian

    You are correct, I am a blow-in.  I was born in a mill town much like Lowell.  Johnstown, PA.  Eighth War.

    I have lived in Lowell longer than I have lived any other place on this earth—15 years.  When I took a job up here the person who enticed me up here wanted us to live in Derry, NH.  After four and a half months we found nothing we liked.  We bought the first place we were shown in Lowell.

    As for running for office, I ran twice against David Nangle for State Rep.  Lost both times, but still have an interest in Lowell and in figuring out the needs, values and responsibilities of different folks and seeing how they sum up to good government.

    You can find more of my opinions at my shamelessly plugged blog, here

    Regards  —  Cliff

76. Lynne Says:
    October 1st, 2009 at 8:39 am

    Old time: you spewed this thread with the same line over and over and making no sense whatsoever. That is the very definition of a troll. If it looks like one and acts like one…

    Secondarily, just because you’ve been a long time reader, doesn’t mean you aren’t trolling. That just makes you a long time reader, first time troll. Learn how to be a part of an online community and maybe you can reverse that.

    And no one has a lock on “what’s good for this city” just because they’ve lived here all their lives. Neither does anyone who’s been here a few months. A GOOD idea is a good idea, and cronyism is still cronyism, but you claim we’re cronyists…which is the most amusing thing I’ve heard since the last person to accuse me of it. Right. I have nothing to gain OR lose in this fight. I could go back to my quiet life tomorrow, instead of taking abuse from people like you. I could shut down this blog tomorrow and be just perfectly fine - and don’t think I haven’t thought about doing that. I do this because I see abuse of the system and I don’t like it, and I don’t think it’s good for my fellow Lowellians. For me personally, it’s neither here nor there, except maybe my eventual property values.

    And speaking of which, I’ve bought a house here, so I doubt I’m going anywhere soon. I DECIDED to live here, very deliberately. Unlike being born here, necessarily, I feel that CHOOSING a place shows quite a lot of commitment. Anyone can be born in a place. We chose Lowell, despite the fact that geographically, it isn’t the perfect place for us to live for Mr. Lynne’s commute.

    Robby: if you think we’re not doing stuff, you are sadly mistaken.

77. K-R-S Says:
    October 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am

    Old Time…seriously? The Blow-In argument again? I’m sure you can do better than that..BTW, I also chose to live in this city, purchase property in this city, educate my kids in this city and work in this city..so just take my money and shut up?
    Me thinks not. Try again.

78. Link Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Speaking as someone who was both born here and chooses to live here, can someone explain to me why the people who moved in from Cambridge or wherever in recent years are any worse than the people who moved in here from Italy, Ireland, Poland, Greece, etc. in years past?

Leave a Reply