Email us!
LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
- Art is the Handmaid of Human Good
- Blog from the Office of the City Manager, Lowell MA
- Captains Log (Paul Belley)
- Choosing a Soundtrack
- Corey Sciuto
- Downtown Lowell Blog
- Dracut Forum
- Dracut Musings
- Dracut Politics
- gerrynutter'slowell
- JackieDoherty.org
- Lowell Deeds
- Lowell Police Dept WebNews
- Lowell Public Schools Blog
- Lowellest Common Denominator
- lowellresident
- Middlesex Community College Blog
- MV Homlessness Blog
- RichardHowe.com
- Right-Side-of-Lowell
- Tewksbury Issues
- The New Englander
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Chelmsford Mass News
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Thanks Lynne, good work. Not only they did not post the donation amount, they put up the list in alphabetical order of the first names; usually lists are alphabetical order of last names. I guess it was an oversight.
And I agree with you, another gimmick from his campaign.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Has Eileen posted her donors? No. Has she stated that she won’t pump in $500K as she did for her failed Congressional race? No. Give it a break … Doherty has gone above and beyond both the law and his opponent. To criticize on this makes this site look petty and shrill.
In terms of the “paying Beacon Hill lobbyists to run your campaign” issue, Ferson was a Massachusetts registered lobbyist in 2007, 2008, and 2009. He is the founder and President of the Liberty Square Group, which is a Massachusetts & DC lobbying firm. He is the boss of everyone at that firm … that’s a little more than guilt by association. I don’t the CEO of BP actually worked the rig in gulf, but he was held responsible for his employees’ actions. Let’s not forget that Ferson is also currently a federal registered lobbyist.
How about comparing Ferson and the Liberty Square Group to a 25 year old woman on Doherty’s campaign staff?
Also, what about the fact that Eileen voted to double her own pay on the Lowell City Council? And, how about she stated that Doherty was a fake for touting that he quit his job as a state employee b/c state employees can’t run for office … and she was wrong?!?!
August 17th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Lynne,
Your a better searcher than I am. I also looked last night and could not find it. Thanks for pointing out where it is.
Also sorry I missed meeting you last night, I was sitting on the opposite side of the hall.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I looked up Scott Ferson in the Secretary of State’s Registered Lobbyist database after the debate…he isn’t a registered lobbyist in 2010 (for some reason)…but has in fact been a registered lobbyist since 2007.
Makes you wonder why he isn’t now? I mean the Legislature did pass sweeping reforms and pretty much anyone with business on Beacon Hill now has to register…why not someone who has been lobbying since 2007?
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/LobbyistPublicSearch/Summary.aspx?PeriodId=2007&RefId=2966
August 17th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Thanks, Lynne. It was an interesting snapshot of the two candidates. The impression I received, was the fact that if one aspires to be a member of the highest legislative body in the state, one must have an understanding of how to incorporate the rules of parol evidence and make sure you are imparting your ideas in “plain English” which I would hope would also be correct in its grammaical structure. Is that a run-on sentence, Marie?
August 17th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Lowell Lurker - give me a break. “Has Eileen posted her donors?” Of COURSE the hell not. She didn’t even KNOW he had done it! No one knew. Because he wanted to spring it on her in a childish lame ass attempt to one up her in the debate. How the f was she SUPPOSED to have posted hers? Half my point in the post was the fact that he snuck it on there instead of actually touting himself doing it.
And why the f should Donoghue put hers up and give Doherty an advantage of perusing them until HE does? He’s the one that needs to accept the challenge. Now that he has, so will she. But you have to give her enough time to do it, since the FIRST TIME she heard about it was last night.
“Doherty has gone above and beyond” - um, you have a really hard time comprehending when you read, don’t you? I said TWICE in my post that it was commendable to have posted it. Of course it took challenging him to do so, and also he used it to pull an eighth grade stunt, but I did state very clearly that at least he did it and that was good.
You are doing your candidate pretty much no good by the way you’re reacting. He was kind of a jerk in the manner in which he did it - and I have a right to point that out. You are posting the same lame ass attacks that Doherty is using - and they are very very lame.
Scott Ferson has a long history of working PR for many candidates, so are you going to attack Lt Gov. Murray or, hey, why don’t you attack late Senator Kennedy while you’re at it? Good lord. Get a real issue and come back when you can argue your candidate will actually be a better person for the job ON THE ISSUES.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
RE the attacks by Donoghue - well, she was only going to his level in this campaign - he wants to attack her character, he better be ready to receive some attacks too. It IS true that quitting his job was more than about spending the time campaigning - he wants to claim that by law others can raise the money for him, but that’s MUCH harder to do and no one does it. It stands to reason that the choice was pretty clear regardless of how “important” he thought it was to quit the job to campaign full time. Also, $86K IS nothing to sneeze at with regards to a salary - now, I’m not saying he didn’t earn his position or that his responsibilities don’t warrant it, and I think his answer to that was good, but you can’t attack your opponent for being wealthy and call yourself just one of the reg’lar folks when you earn that much money. I’d love to have his problem.
RE the city council salary, that’s just dumb. The question is, what was parity at the time, and what were other CC’s of comparable level doing for salary? And Donoghue’s answer was quite plain on that front - the CC salary had not been touched for decades.
But whatever, if you think such things have traction, go ahead and use ‘em. But remember these things can seriously backfire. Ask Kerry Healey.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:14 am
On the DONATION page? Srsly?
That’s just scummy.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:21 am
It’s like a there was a tragedy at a real political campaign, and the highest remaining person in the line of succession was the oppo researcher, so he became the candidate. Not a pretty sight.
Inside-baseball stuff about campaign finance and personnel, and personal attacks on Eileen Donoghue’s character. Uh, yeah, that’s a great way to win over Lowell voters. Right now, as we speak, people from Christian Hill to Sacred Heart are telling each other, “Did you hear that Eileen Donoghue’s campaign spokesman used to be a registered lobbyist? Why, I always did think there was something wrong with that woman.”
August 17th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Spin it any way you’d like Lynne, but there were a couple of bad faux pas by the Donahue team last night. If you’re going to dare someone to do something, you’d better have already done it yourself. It doesn’t matter when or how Doherty posted his donors. The point is he did and she still hasn’t. He scored a big point there.
Not to mention the point about why he quit his job. If you’re going to attack someone on it, you’d better have your facts straight. Once again she didn’t. She said he’s required to by law. He isn’t. That’s two points she tried to attack on and was proven uninformed or unprepared on both. It’s not a good thing for a State Senate Candidate to come off as uninformed as the local high school football coach.
What has to be more troubling to Eileen’s camp is that the roles were reversed last night. She’s the seasoned pol and campaigner, He’s the rookie, who put his foot squarely in his mouth over the push poll controversy. Since those misteps, the young pup has learned a thing or two and taught the old dog a valuable lesson last night. Political seats aren’t handed out unless the Governor is making an appointment. When an election is involved, anything can happen and you’d better be prepared.
I trust now the Donahue camp knows its in a fight. How they respond to last night’s misteps, much as Doherty recovered from his push poll misteps, will go a long way toward telling me if she has what it takes to fight at the higher level of government.
I watched both candidates after the debate last night. One was legitimately euphoric. The other did her best to put a positive face on her performance. Judging by your spin here, I take it Eileen also realizes she opened the door for him.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I really enjoy how Dick Howe does a great job of posting facts in a considered, well-balanced and less partial manner than on this blog. Lynne comes out of the gate on the defense. Who is really keeping the debate civil here? I don’t have a dog in this race, but the name-calling rhetoric (”dumb”, “stupid”, “idiot”) on here does not endear me toward your candidate.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“If you’re going to dare someone to do something, you’d better have already done it yourself.”
Really? You call on your opponent to do something as a response to his ridiculous “don’t self fund” attack, but you’re going to give it away ahead of time? Frankly, that’d be bad strategy. Can you imagine Doherty’s attacks when he gets her list if there’s even one minor person there to question? I’d keep my powder dry too if I had Chris as an opponent considering how he’s quick to make mountains out of mole hills. I wouldn’t put my list out there until I had parity with the guy who spends all his time attacking me, so that if he starts in on donors I have, I can start in on his (trust me, I’ve already seen some, er, interesting names on there). Since he’s the one who insists on doing these attacks, and he’s the one who started it, it’s on him to rise to the challenge. And good on him for doing so, even in the limited, and rather crass way that he did so.
And I’m sorry you don’t like to hear a spade be called a spade, but Doherty has done nothing but perpetrate these crazy, overblown attacks. They are pretty lame (come ON, I mean, seriously?) and I still have not heard something useful about why HE’D be better than Donoghue in the office. Donoghue has serious creds on the experience front - having helped to form a direction (as a team with other CC’s etc) for this city that could have been in the same boat as Lawrence. Her biggest offense? Helping to push John Cox out. Which of course only makes me - and many others - respect her more.
And Doherty sits there and says “I am not a politician. I am not a politician. I’m a regular guy” but yet wants to claim credit for building all sorts of legislation? Either he’s experienced, or he’s not. Can’t have it both ways. Donoghue has not tried to have it all ways. She doesn’t over credit herself, but does have the sort of experience on the muni level that will help the district in the state Senate.
“Blow” - we endorsed in this race, if you don’t like the fact we’re transparent about it then, well, nothing I can do for you, is there? We’ve been nothing but plain. But also, even if I HAD no dog in this race, Doherty pisses me off. Sorry! He just does. I hate these sort of cowardly attacks.
And yes, to be frank, I would have preferred Donoghue not pull out some of the things she did last night either, but it’s hard to blame her for trying to fight back after months of these MoM (mountain-of-molehill) attacks from Doherty.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Lynne, you and Eileen are clearly rattled after last night. She was flat out wrong on two points of attack she attempted. Spin it anyway you want. Blame him for starting it. Fact is, she was factually incorrect twice. She was no better last night than Jeff Moore at the school committee meeting.
Her credibility took a major hit because of that. And yes, she should have posted her info online. If there’s nothing to hide or be ashamed of, what’s the difference? It’s all going to come out anyway. If she had, she could have rebutted his response by saying something along the lines of “welcome to the club. I posted my donors on line x-weeks ago. It’s about time you posted yours.” Instead she had to sit there an look foolish because he had the info posted and she swung and missed. Did you see her face after Doherty corrected her?
As for overblowing experience to make oneself sound better, if Eileen touts one more time how she was the Mayor of Lowell, I’m going to hurl chunks. Big whoop. She was mayor of Lowell. So was Rita Mercier. So was Armand Mercier. So was Bud Caulfield. So was Tarsy Poulios. EVERYBODY gets to be mayor of Lowell if you serve long enough, except Rodney Elliot LOL! It’s not an elected position. It’s a favor passed around amongst colleagues and carries no real clout. I know why she says it all the time, because people in other 5th District towns versus Tsongas and people in the 1st Middlesex District vs. Doherty might not know any better and think “Wow, this woman ran a city of 100,000.”
It’s deceiving and makes her no better than him in terms of exaggerating one’s record. Which, by the way, he scored more points on in my book for mocking her taking credit for Tsongas Arena.
August 17th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
OK which two was she flat out wrong on? Because I bet I can tell you how she wasn’t. Now, Doherty had good answers to her questions (as Donoghue had good answers to his) but, I can tell you where I think they came from and why they might be questions to ask. Let me know which ones you think were “flat out wrong.”
“And yes, she should have posted her info online.” That’s nice, you hold her to a standard you don’t hold Doherty to?
Actually she was mayor, and for two terms in a row. I think it’s legitimate to talk about it, especially in light of the influence it has on the School Committee.
And frankly, a good mayor makes a huge difference from a bad one. Caulfield was a terrible mayor. He couldn’t run meetings properly, and forget the school committee stuff…useless. Contrast that to, say, another recent mayor, Bill Martin, who not only kicked some serious butt running the meetings (which surprised me, as I wasn’t on the high expectations list) but also was the one who stood up to Cox personally as a representative of the majority, and also worked hard on the school committee side. I wasn’t here in the 90s so I can’t speak to the specifics of Eileen tenure, but having watched her as a Councilor, I can safely say that I bet she was one of the latter types of mayors instead of the former.
Actually, Eileen having been elected in the “wave” election of the 90s, and those people having been a group looking to form some sort of change in Lowell, it’s pretty amazing she took two terms as mayor for that era.
“Scored points” for mocking…actually, that makes him look like kind of a jerk, IMHO. *shrug*
August 17th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
It looks like this year is going to be a very exciting year for political buffs like myself…and I couldn’t be anymore happier! Here we are, with about 2 weeks to go until Memorial Day, and I feel as we are in mid-October.
As a conservative-leaning Independant, I will vote for Eileen Donoghue in a heartbeat in the general if she is nominated. She has a strong and qualified background that I believe will fit her role perfectly as a state senator. She was a successful mayor of Lowell for many years. She has been there for the people, has listened for the people, and has shows a history of success in working for the people. Although I may not see with her eye-to-eye in regards to major issues, she has EARNED my respect for the work she has done and the type of character she has shown.
I was an Ogonowkski guy back in 06, but I remember praying that Eileen would win it out over Niki. Again, we may have not agreed on issues, but at least the citizens of this district would have some real representation. Instead, the “progressives” won out the Democratic nomination. And we got stuck with Niki - a woman who wasen’t even living in the district for the past 12 years and had no real accomplishment other than having a known last name. Instead of electing a representative, we got a puppet.
Democrats - please, please do not nominate another puppet or self-serving clown. We can no longer afford it. i’m not knocking Chris Doherty either, frankly, I really don’t know much about the guy. All I have seen from him are his ads, which are “unpleasant” to say the very least. I don’t need to no anymore. Eillen’s the woman for the job.
Eileen Donoghue had earned this supporters vote for her. The record and having history of accomplishment trumps out campaign rhetoric and nasty accusations.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Ellen does not stand a chance. She is in line with Thongas, Butter face Murray and Peelosi. Not a chance
August 17th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Um, Ferson’s firm did communications for Eileen’s congressional campaign, too. Why didn’t Doherty speak up about it then?
August 17th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
If you read the comments before repeating the same punchlines and “lame” attacks you accuse Doherty of using, you’d know that he said that Donoghue tried to call him on not posting his donors. He had. Whether it was that day or not is not terribly relevant. Given that this has been in the air for months now, you’d think one of her “expert” staffers would have checked before the debate to make sure that they were not posted yet. Bad fact-checking there. Second, she tried to make it sound like he had to leave his job to run for office, rather than doing so voluntarily to commit fully to this campaign and office. He didn’t. Whether you think these are minor issues or not (Donoghue didn’t seem to think so,) she still got it wrong. As far as his “silly” and “childish” attacks; do I even need to point out the hypocrisy in your writing? It certainly makes whatever real points you may have seem less valid.
As far as the actual ISSUES, (which, you know, I thought campaigns were supposed to be about,) I’d say it was a much closer match than the “personal” portion, because then at least Donoghue didn’t have as many facts to screw up. Both gave fairly careful, politically minded answers, but Doherty seemed to go into more detail about the steps he would take. Whether you like his ideas or not is personal preference of course, but at least he gave a bit more to go on.
Oh and one last Important Note; if you are going to claim you don’t have a horse in this race, it better be true. i found this blog at the start of the campaign and have been following it, but I have on reliable sources that you yourself are on the staff of the Donoghue campaign, or were at one point. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if that’s true, it’s the job of a RESPONSIBLE journalist to disclose such connections, rather than hiding behind the facade of an impartial blog. People should know if this is true or not.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
“Oh and one last Important Note; if you are going to claim you don’t have a horse in this race, it better be true. i found this blog at the start of the campaign and have been following it,…”
Baloney. If you had been following it and had any comprehension skills, you’d know that Lynne never claimed not to have a dog in this race since at least June.
If this is your idea of paying attention I’m not surprised your a Dorherty supporter. Posting the list moments before the debate wasn’t any kind of sincere attempt at transparency, it was a trick to give the appearance of being on high ground. Falling for it is quite pathetic actually.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Concerned voter…Lynne has always disclosed that she is a Donahue supporter and never claimed to be impartial. Or are you just reading what you want to read?
August 17th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Robby - I have to seriously correct you on one score in particular: “but I remember praying that Eileen would win it out over Niki. Again, we may have not agreed on issues, but at least the citizens of this district would have some real representation. Instead, the “progressives” won out the Democratic nomination.”
First, the real progressive choice in the race was between Eldridge and Donoghue. On the true progressive radar these two candidates vied for that vote. Tsongas was considered something of an insider Dem candidate - though, honestly, there wasn’t much space on the issues between most of the candidates (except Miceli) anyway.
Also, Niki has actually done a fair job. For a freshman Rep, I think she’s accomplished some good for the district, and this is a hard thing to do. She’s also passionate about vet’s issues and worked hard on those committees. But no where under the sun was she the “progressive” choice in that primary.
Hey doormat, it’d be nice if you could spell your US Rep’s name right at least. Pelosi, BTW, is one of the best Speakers we’ve had in a long time. If you don’t like the issues she stands on, fine, but she has done a lot to whip the Dems in the House into some sort of shape. She is probably 2/3s of the reason anything is getting done at all in Congress.
OK to concerned voter - god, I’ll go over all this again for you, if you need me to.
“Donoghue tried to call him on not posting his donors”
Yes, she did, months ago in fact, and NO ONE except Doherty and his people even knew he had put them on his website. So, ergo, he was trying to basically one up her in an very immature fashion. Like I said, jr high antics.
“you’d think one of her “expert” staffers would have checked before the debate to make sure that they were not posted yet.”
Right, because obsessively refreshing your opponents page and looking at the bottom of pages all day is good use of a staff person’s time. Right. Guess what? I looked ALL OVER after the debate and it took me ages to find the damn link. It’s hidden pretty well and not obvious from just perusing the site. So maybe you have all the time in the world to site-watch, but I’m guessing the Donoghue staff is trying to actually campaign. It’s not an onus on Donoghue to find a tucked-away link that in all likelihood went live RIGHT BEFORE the debate. What, you think Donoghue should be checking a smartphone during the debate to find these things?
“Second, she tried to make it sound like he had to leave his job to run for office, rather than doing so voluntarily to commit fully to this campaign and office. He didn’t.”
Actually, you can make a clear argument that he probably did. Having a committee officially raising funds for you is teh suck. No candidate really wants to do that - most quit their jobs, as long as they can financially hack it. Given that he makes $86K/year and is single without kids (not that that’s a bad thing, but $86K without family expenses is quite a bit of money). Doherty made this an issue by stating boldly that it’s all about being full time because the campaign deserves it - and that’s probably part of it. But it is almost certainly the case that being a public employee was a huge impediment to his campaign for its own sake as well. So questioning that, while I admit something of a minor point, stems from HIS assertion that it’s ALL about the job being important, which kinda rings hollow if you know campaigning and the rules around it.
I also agree though that in the grand scheme of probably bullshit things Doherty is asserting, it’s not that high on my list. I’m more concerned about his distortions and almost outright lies in his campaign - that speaks more about his character than whether or not he’s bending the truth about why he quit his job.
“at least he gave a bit more to go on.”
That’s severely debatable. Also he was pretty far off in some of his comments (for instance, his details for “going green” were a little off, given that the state/muni people are already under an injunction to begin retrofitting government buildings. Now you can argue, we need to step that up, but I would like to know exactly how he’d propose paying for that, since he’s all for cutting stuff and not raising taxes - sounds like promising something he can’t deliver really).
“Oh and one last Important Note; if you are going to claim you don’t have a horse in this race, it better be true”
How many fucking ways to I have to say it? I say it all the time. This whole blog (Mimi and myself) endorsed Eileen Donoghue back in June, and have never, EVER said we didn’t have a horse in the race. In fact, the only thing I DID say was that IF I didn’t have a horse in this race, I would STILL be disgusted and turned off by Doherty’s poor campaign.
Here, let me even quote it again so you can comprehend it! I’ll mark the parts in bold for you.
“I have on reliable sources”
Oooooh the Lowell rumor mill. Then it MUST be true! Wow! I am not on the staff of Donoghue’s campaign. I have volunteered, I have held a house party, and of course, we endorsed her on this blog. I have no reason monetarily to support Eileen as I am not being paid for anything. I will likely give some hours for door knocking at some future point. I have also donated in my limited way. But I am not on the staff.
“it’s the job of a RESPONSIBLE journalist”
How many ways do I have to say this, too? I am not a journalist. On some occasions, I do produce news, but I have never claimed, nor want to be, a journalist. I have also disclosed on any occasion that seems appropriate biases, interests and other possible conflicts of interest whenever it comes up. Please, stop casting aspersions on my character, you do not know me, you apparently don’t really read this blog, and you listen to the Lowell rumor mill, which at this point probably swears I eat babies and have pentagrams painted on the walls of my house.
There, is that easy enough to understand for you?
August 17th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Concerned Voter:
LeftInLowell has endorsed Eileen Donoghue. That was posted some time ago, and there have been pro-Donoghue postings and rants ever since.
I believe Donoghue’s biggest problem in this race has been the same problem Coakley faced this past winter. She thought, “Im the former two-term mayor of Lowell, was popular, and I am a shoe-in to win.” This mindset is a reason exactly why Coakley lost. Her ego seems to be getting in her way. Today’s political climate is very unusual right now. People are looking for change. Any incumbent, or even former members of government, will struggle this year. When Chris Doherty announced his candidacy, I bet a lot of people were saying to themselves; “Who?”, and never took him seriously. Eileen needs to learn that she has to EARN her votes. She isn’t running for city council anymore. Or Congress. This is years later, and people have an anti-incumbent mindset right now.
I too, like most of us right now, share in that mindset. We have been getting screwed and cheated for years, so I fully understand the “lets get rid of all of em” attitude. But change isn’t always better, especially when you are changing for the worse. We have come to learn that with Obama’s presidency. But Eileen Donoghue is NOT an incumbent. She was a terrific mayor of Lowell (honestly best we have had for years) and left government when she felt was right. She now wants to use her experience and record of accomplishments to serve We The People again.
I believe she will be a great representative of the people in state government.
But enough of the childish bickering from BOTH sides. We The People are SICK of this! Let’s discuss issues; and which candidate will do a better job of working for the people in pursuit of fixing those issues.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Lynne says:
“First, the real progressive choice in the race was between Eldridge and Donoghue. On the true progressive radar these two candidates vied for that vote. Tsongas was considered something of an insider Dem candidate - though, honestly, there wasn’t much space on the issues between most of the candidates (except Miceli) anyway.
Also, Niki has actually done a fair job. For a freshman Rep, I think she’s accomplished some good for the district, and this is a hard thing to do. She’s also passionate about vet’s issues and worked hard on those committees. But no where under the sun was she the “progressive” choice in that primary.”
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Niki Tsongas was not living in the 5th District when she ran for Congress. In fact, she was not living here for a good 12 years before the election. These blow-ins are only in it for themselves. Just like the lawyer who blew in from Chicago named Deval. Or the Staples hero who blew-in from Utah or Michigan or wherever Mitt Romney. Perhaps our state and people will be in better shape if we actually send people to respresent us who actually LIVE HERE!
Niki has voted with Pelosi 99% of the time. That’s not respresentation. Its not even “thinking”. That’s being a puppet. Anyone who votes on a strict party-only line is no good in my opinion. Especially when it is practically 100% of the time. The 5th district is arguable one of the most independant districts in this state. Niki is not a good respresentative of that.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
“Her ego seems to be getting in her way.” and “Eileen needs to learn that she has to EARN her votes.”
I disagree, as someone who has volunteered for the campaign, they are hustling just fine - doing a lot of voter contacts. I don’t think they are taking anything for granted in any way, shape, or form. Having a little insight into her work on the campaign, I can tell you she is fully fully aware she needs to earn the votes. The people who are saying she has this attitude of incumbency, well, they are not friends of the campaign, they want you to think that - they are against her winning. But she worked her TAIL off in the MA-05 race, and she ran hard in the years she was on the Council, and there’s no one who understands more how to work a campaign and ask for the votes.
RE Tsongas, I’m sorry, but agreeing on the issues with Pelosi (which given what Tsongas ran on in the primary I would expect) is NOT being a puppet. I just don’t buy it. Anyway, she wasn’t my first choice either for the seat, for probably other reasons than you have listed, but I have not been unhappy with her tenure. Would I love to have Jamie in that seat instead? You bet! But I like her voting record, and just because she has a lot in common on the issues to the rest of the people in the caucus (again, reading her positions in the election, that’s to be expected completely) doesn’t mean she’s a puppet. Also, her campaign is hustling this summer as well. I see them everywhere.
RE her not being in the district, I agree it’s not ideal, but you cannot claim she doesn’t have some deep roots here. If I have any issue with her, that’s the last thing I really care about, I don’t even remember complaining about that when she first ran and wasn’t my candidate in the primary. What matters is, does she deliver for the district, and does she work hard and try to really understand the issues
“These blow-ins are only in it for themselves.”
I myself am pretty insulted by this, and I suspect so are a lot of other people who are committed to this community.
BTW Deval has deep roots in Massachusetts, and I’ll even give that to Mitt, who did also have some roots here (my big objection against him besides disagreeing on all the issues - well, at least all the ones he flipflopped on after leaving - was the fact he practically abandoned MA mid term for the prez run and used the office as a stepping stone only). Actually on that last point, you at least cannot argue that Deval Patrick hasn’t stuck around like NO recent Governor ever has. And no MA Gov has had as much opportunity to abandon us once Obama was elected, considering their history and the fact Patrick would do a LOT of good as head of one of the agencies.
August 17th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
More than clear, thank you for talking down to one of your incompetent readers. Fair enough that I phrased my questions about backing Donoghue poorly, I did know you had endorsed her earlier. Nonetheless, your reply certainly backs up my point about your hypocritical writing. Now, granted, you are not the one running for office, so you can afford to be so as much as you please, but to point the finger at Doherty for “attacks” about who she hires for her campaign, which is a legitimate issue that voters care about, while bashing someone for asking a fair (poorly phrased, but fair) question about your level of involvement with the campaign? Please. While you may not be a journalist in the traditional sense, i’m sure people would be interested to know if you were on her payroll. Just trying to get my facts straight; sorry for disturbing you up on your lofty perch.
Also, what is the point of questioning whether I do read this blog or not? If I haven’t, then I sure wouldn’t be inclined to come back after enduring the type of responses you give. If i do, (which I assure you I do,) isn’t it in your interest to keep me reading in order to push your obvious agenda and drive traffic to the site? What is the point of the personal attacks, other than to look petty and childish yourself? The very thing you accuse Doherty of doing last night.
And since I’d like to add something substantial to this, rather than let it degenerate into a flame war, I will respond to your questions about his retrofitting plans for state buildings. Just because the idea is already on the table or been mandated doesn’t mean that a proposal like this needs all the help it can get. No problem with Doherty adding his voice to the call for a responsible energy policy. As far as paying for it, the answer is twofold, and simple.
First, the waste in government that both candidates touched on can and should be redirected to capital projects like this, things that will benefit the state now by creating jobs, and in the future by saving on energy and environmental costs. Second, while the money may be tight now, the WHOLE POINT of an initiative like this is that it pays for itself over time; you pay a certain cost upfront in order to save in the long term. It’s how businesses do things all the time, and it is a model that works. Combined with the STEM initiatives he also touched upon, the state can create jobs to bolster a weak economy now, save on expenditures for the future, and also contribute to the energy and climate crisis that is inevitable at current rates of consumption.
Was that simple enough for YOU?
Since you are backing Donoghue though, I must say that the attitude in your response certainly gives me pause about the type of people who support her. You are not setting a very good example for the campaign you are supporting, whether you are directly affiliated with it or not.
Good day.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Your whole comment was full of insults and condescension for me. Sorry if you don’t like the tone of the response, but I literally - literally - upthread said exactly what was needed to have the information you wanted. You literally did not read. I am rather sick of having to repeat myself - on the same thread! It’s frustrating and also, a waste of my time.
“While you may not be a journalist in the traditional sense, i’m sure people would be interested to know if you were on her payroll. Just trying to get my facts straight”
If you had any facts to begin with, instead of nebulous “sources” - maybe that would sound more sincere. However, it appears from *your* tone that you wanted to cast aspersions. I cringe whenever one of you come on here and state “I know from reliable sources” - it’s always a predicate to something not one person has proven to be true but hey, it’s a rumor, so in Lowell it counts right?
“Also, what is the point of questioning whether I do read this blog or not?”
Actually I would wonder whether you read this thread or not. *shrug* Clearly, a lot of what you know about this blog or anyone writing on it is what you “hear.”
Also, let me quote your own comment: “i found this blog at the start of the campaign and have been following it…” Yet you made all sorts of mistakes about how the blog works, whether or not there was an endorsement, whether or not I have repeatedly stated there was an endorsement or support one candidate (even on this thread), and also decided to spill a rumor or two in there as well.
You didn’t ask, “I have heard you were on the staff - can you clarify?” You stated, “but I have on reliable sources that you yourself are on the staff of the Donoghue campaign, or were at one point. Please correct me if I am wrong” - that means you were pretty darn sure of yourself, you claim to read the blog and yet claim to know from rumor facts about me that are as false as the day is long. A more polite inquiry would have received a much more polite response. You weren’t here to get a clarification from me, you were here to attack me, and now are complaining because you got caught, you were taken to task about your own comment, and now it’s my fault for the tone. Well, well.
“isn’t it in your interest to keep me reading in order to push your obvious agenda and drive traffic to the site?”
You want an honest answer to that? I honestly don’t care who does or does not read this blog. I just state what I state and argue what I argue what I hope are points on merit and let the chips fall where they may. But I sure as hell will respond to personal attacks and insinuated rumors in kind. I hate that crap. It’s how this town has been run for far too long and I think it needs to stop.
“What is the point of the personal attacks, other than to look petty and childish yourself?”
Again, take a look at the tone of your comment, and tell me that it wasn’t personal? Just lowering myself to your level after all. Fight fire with fire, and I don’t really care what you think of me, but I do want the record straight for the rest of readers who, actually, read what’s written.
“Since you are backing Donoghue though, I must say that the attitude in your response certainly gives me pause about the type of people who support her.”
Right, because you were planning on voting for her? Apologies if I have a hard time believing that.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Lynne, I think the real bulk of the negative attacks in this campaign have come from this blog and while I disagree with almost everything concerned voter says, i do agree it is making me less likely to vote for Eileen. For the record, I like her a lot and I would have no problem with voting her.
Any of the attacks from Doherty don’t sway me at all because I know they are minor things. But contrary to the way that you have it portrayed, Chris Doherty does say positive things about himself and does have some good ideas.
And it is true that he wasn’t a politician, although he is now. You don’t have to be a politician to have a hand in crafting legislation. If you think its the elected officials who are actually doing the hands on work on writing bills then you really don’t have much idea of how the legislative process works. He was a staffer then a prosecutor, he isn’t a career politician. Now personally I don’t care, being a career politician is far from a disqualification in my book. But to deny the crux of his point is disingenous.
Also “could have been Lawrence?” who is exaggerating now? As someone who has lived in Lowell my whole life, I’ve seen the ups and downs of the city, and yes things were pretty bad in the early 90s and Eileen was a huge part of the city’s revitalization but do you have any idea how badly screwed up Lawrence is?? Lowell could have been Lawrence but that ship sailed 30-40 years ago with the arrival of National Historic Park and other initiatives at the time. Lowell certainly could be in much rougher shape but to say it could be Lawrence w/o Eileen? thats a stretch.
I was going to vote for Eileen but I happened to run into Chris at no less than 6 events over a one month period and he was warm, he remembers you and he is very positive. Further there is a generational thing. Doherty has been reaching out to the UMass Lowell community at least 10X as much as Donoghue has. Thats where a huge bulk of his base is, if you went to his event last Thursday you would have noticed it. To be fair I did see Eileen at a couple of the same events, but thats a huge part of Chris’s campaign, meeting people individually. If you follow the campaign exclusively in the Lowell Sun it does look like he’s constantly attacking her. If you are out and about in the community and run into him you’ll get a different perspective (if you were fair about it). Sure people who don’t like Donoghue are going to vote for her opponent. But to make him out to be a puppet of the GOBs like you repeatedly do is to demean the young people of the city of Lowell.
But then again, I shouldn’t be surprised because you will make any argument at any time to support your point. After all you launched a pre-emptive strike at Panagiotakos for waiting so long before retiring because he was obviously clearing the field for a chosen insider candidate….then the chosen insider candidate turned out to be who???? It wasn’t some unknown former legislative aide. It was Eileen Donoghue! Once Eileen became the only establishment candidate you stopped complaining about the nefarious plot that Pangy dreamed up to hand his seat over to one of the GOBs.
August 18th, 2010 at 11:48 am
My question on Doherty is still the same. How do you leave an $86K job with great benefits without having a job lined up? What “regular guy” who is recently engaged is able to float his expenses like that? It just doesn’t add up for me.
Doesn’t anyone else see that and wonder what the backstory is?
August 18th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Robby,
Where Nikki Tsongas lived has nothing to do with the point Lynne raised, which was your comments about Nikki being the “progressive” candidate. She was, arguably, to Donoghue’s right, and certainly Jamie Eldridge was the progressive in the race.
I think you are getting confused by the fact the Nikki won so heavily in places like Concord and Lexington, where there are indeed a lot of progressive voters. However, she didn’t win those places by being more progressive, but by being better-known and having a stronger organization out there. She also won in places like Dunstable and Westford - places that NOBODY is going to claim are hotbeds of progressivism - for the same reasons.
I believe Donoghue’s biggest problem in this race has been the same problem Coakley faced this past winter. She thought, “Im the former two-term mayor of Lowell, was popular, and I am a shoe-in to win.”
I don’t think that’s so. Eileen is busting her butt, a lot more than Coakley did.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Eileen should bust her butt a little more on getting her donors names up on the website. Been three days since her major faux pas at the debate, and still nothing from her side. Makes you wonder if she’s hiding something.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
What, you can put together your big list of everyone quicker? Gosh, I guess running a campaign for you must be cakewalk!
“Major faux pas” - Doherty WISHES! It was, as I said, a childish attempt on his part to spring it on her and “one up” her, and not her fault for not seeing the hidden link so conveniently recently put on his website, possibly right before the debate. Right.
Since you prefer posting comments under an anonymous nickname, I wonder what *you’re* hiding? Both questions are equally silly.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Makes you wonder if she’s hiding something.
No, it really doesn’t. Saying so isn’t going to make anyone care about this stuff.
Do you think a single voter in Dunstable is going to be swayed by anything involving the terms “campaign finance?” Even one?
August 19th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
No, not a single voter will be swayed by this nonsense. Just as nobody is going to be swayed by Eileen’s amateurish attempt months ago to imply something sinister behind Doherty’s campaign contributors.
It’s comical how the Donahue campaign and Left in Lowell crew thought they were on to something with the Doherty won’t publish his list of donors thing. Then when he does, Lynne tries to make a big deal out of the fact he tricked poor Eileen into looking foolish at the debate. And here we are going on four days later, she still hasn’t posted it.
Your excuse about needing time don’t fly either Lynne. She’s had months. She should have had it up there the day she challenged him to do it. She most certainly should have had it up there the day after she and her campaign staff looked foolish at the debate. And if you doubt me about her looking foolish, watch her face when LTC replays the debate. She looks like she wanted to murder her campaign handlers for not adequately preparing her on this.
August 19th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
They guy posted just before the debate to manufacture what he calculated to be a ‘gochya’ moment. If you’re that swayed by tactics over substance then I guess your the demographic he was going for.
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Say Whaaat???? Says:
August 19th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
No, not a single voter will be swayed by this nonsense. Just as nobody is going to be swayed by Eileen’s amateurish attempt months ago to imply something sinister behind Doherty’s campaign contributors.
Let’s not forget, Eileen raised that point in response to Doherty’s gambit about Eileen’s campaign finance. The Donoghue campaign’s pushback wasn’t an attempt to sway voters, but to shoot down Doherty’s campaign-finance-themed attack - which seems to have worked.
You this political tactic on the national level from Republicans. When you are accused of something, or about to be accused of it, charge your opponent wit it, too. That way, the media report it as “Campaigns trade charges” instead of the story being about the merits of the original charge.
When the issue is something as inside-baseball as campaign finance, the media is even more happy to write about the issue in terms of a political spat than to do into the weeds.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I’m sorry Joe. Come again? This is a national Republican strategy?
Correction: it’s a political strategy, used by Republicans, Democrats and anything in between. In case you didn’t notice, Doherty and Donahue are both Democrats and have been sniping at each other since the get-go. They’re following the lead of their national party leaders.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:08 am
A couple of thoughts:
The candidate-to-candidate questions were a waste. As I recall all of them were about campaign tactics rather than issues - big turn off. The Valley Patriot reporter came across like he had a chip on his shoulder.
Of topic but to address Niki Tsongas’ residence, I thought she lived in the Mass Mills apartments in downtown Lowell. She certainly has deep roots in the district anyway.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Funny how the snipes start in the Doherty camp though. I have followed a serious, district-wide race with Eileen Donoghue in it before, and it was definitely about 100% more civil. That entire race was elevated in its rhetoric and debate. The thing is, if as a candidate you don’t respond to attacks like Doherty’s, it can hurt you seriously. The manner in which the Donoghue camp has responded was actually, if you look at the press release battles, pretty smart and above board.
I agree, the candidate-to-candidate questions were a waste. I would have rather had, in retrospect, more in depth questions about policy, with rebuttals allowed by each candidate. THAT would have been a real debate!