Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 330

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php(10) : runtime-created function(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code on line 1
Left In Lowell » Blog Archive » Murphy’s Law as defined by Paper

Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!

September 30, 2012

Murphy’s Law as defined by Paper

by at 8:38 am.

Today’s Sun Column leads off with a piece on City Council vote on the 219 Westview Road re-zoning. I am assuming this portion of the “inside political news” was partially or completely written by the editor, Jim Campanini. He is credited as one of the contributors in this week’s edition.

“The City Council’s defeat ….left Lowell Developer David Daly disappointed but by Friday he said he was most frustrated by the roles two like-named Lowell politicians played.”

And the two elected officials are State Rep. Kevin Murphy and Mayor Patrick Murphy; no relations to each other. First of all, isn’t it convenient that the two have been targeted in the past by the paper?
Lately, not as much for the former and for the latter, almost daily.

But let’s review the charges against the two:

State Rep. Murphy: “Daily believes Murphy and his brother Gary Murphy helped convince the club (Mt. Pleasant Golf Club) oppose the rezoning because Murphy wanted to curry favor with voters in his district, which includes Westview Road.”

Is the inference that State Rep. Murphy does not have the support of that neighborhood so he has to “curry favor”? Really? Is there an upcoming challenger in that legislative district that is planning to run against Murphy in 2 years and because of his/her stand on issues will win the hearts and minds of that neighborhood over Murphy? Because if there isn’t the charge that State Rep. Murphy did this for vote is politically naïve and ludicrous. Also if he had decided to stay home last Tuesday, would the Westview neighbors stop supporting him? I do not think so.

Now to the comments about Mayor Murphy:

“The mayor did not show any courage to speak to the reasons he was opposed. It was a cowardly vote.”

There are a lot of adjectives you can attribute to Mayor Murphy but coward is not one of them. This is a guy who has taken on the Sun, Bill Taupier and CC Rita Mercier, all within a month. He is figuratively and literally a fighter. Some people may not like the fights he gets involved in but no one can say that he is afraid to express his views and willing to go to the mat for his beliefs.

From the beginning of the public discussion on this project, the Sun has been leading the public relations campaign; both with articles and an editorial. I am not sure of the motivation but I am going to guess the project consultant’s relationship with the editor may have played a part.

Frankly, I think Mr. Daly’s opinions were used by the paper to prop up their views on the two Murphys. But I do agree with Mr. Daly that “The issue became so much about politics rather than what was best for the city.” But he should have added “inside” politics with the paper as one of the players.

7 Responses to “Murphy’s Law as defined by Paper”

  1. Jen Myers Says:

    Bravo, Mimi.

  2. Huh Says:

    Let’s stop beating around the bush. The paper’s entire agenda (news coverage and editorial positions) is driven by Jim Campanini and largely based upon his relationship with former CM John Cox. In this case Cox is friendly and possibly related in some way (business and/or family) to Daly. All of the attacks on Lynch and Councilors who support “Lynch” positions are driven by the Campanini-Cox relationship. It is a very troubling situation made more so by the Publisher’s weakness in having control of the paper. Fortunately, more and more people I talk to around the City have come to see the paper for what it is.

  3. Prince Charming Says:

    Bud Caulfield - forgotten but not gone.

  4. Kathy Says:

    I agree with you all. I have given up on getting real news out of the paper. That’s why I canceled delivery some time ago. It is nothing but propaganda.

  5. Lynne Says:

    Great post, Mimi!

    What Huh said. Of course, we state this on like a weekly basis but it bears repeating.

  6. George DeLuca Says:

    A final attempt to seed the GOB legacy?

    The drums are beating louder.

    The end of an era is approaching.

    The signs are there.

  7. Joe S. Says:

    The best suggestion to come out of this was from the Mayor - re-zone this area to be conservation land. There would be a lot of trees preserved, the Middlesex Canal historic area would not be encroached upon, and the brook that was the canal would not be subject to the added run-off from developed property.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]

If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo


Recent Posts