Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Hmmmm? — Sat, 23 May 2009 16:19:07 GMT

Not so fast on Michlewitz, BostonVoiceofReason. You instruct us to look at all the people who kept supporting Diane Wilkerson despite her repeated abuses of power. I did. Couldn't find Aaron's name on her campaign finance report but I did see Susan Passoni's ($100 check on 11/22/07). What do you make of that?

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

BostonVoiceOf Reason — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:15:49 GMT

Hmmm, Aaron Michlewitz's former boss was a crook who had no trouble disregarding what was legal and moral, and now his newly-elected successor is now up to similar tricks. Really disappointing that the people in Boston put up with such crap again and again. Look at all the people who kept supporting Diane Wilkerson despite her repeated abuses of power.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

boatbabe — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:06:17 GMT

Leaking the questions is wrong, even if common in ward politics. And the Boston Globe has fallen right in step with ward handlers by endorsing Michelwitz. The Globe ought to retract its endorsement, and let Michelwitz prove himself, if he can.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Rob — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:35:30 GMT

I don't have a dog in this race and don't live in the district first off. Michlewitz has been around the State House and active in his neighborhood so he is not the inexperienced rookie that some commenters here are suggesting. That's a pretty standard background for a state rep candidate. Passoni's disadvantage is not the machine backing Michlewitz, which clearly is happening. Passoni's problem is she is again running for a seat that has its power base outside the South End. She did the same thing against Jim Kelly. That's not necessarily her fault, but lines are often drawn on the neighborhood loyalties, and her area provides less troops for her in that regard.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Boston Bertie — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:40:54 GMT

The hacks are coming...the hacks are coming...

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Observer — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:16:06 GMT

"Lying", "Cheating", "Apologize"? Seems a little judgmental to me. I didn't read his response as dishonest or a lie; having been provided questions that may be asked in advance of a forum (yes - these are forums not debates) is not cheating; and for what does he need to apologize for? Making sure he was prepared? Do we even know if Susan Passoni got a copy of the questions? No. Rob Whitney, the Ward 5 Chair, seems to be a voice of reason here. He doesn't "feel that anything horrendous occurred here, and that the South End News made too much of it. He says that the list of questions was not exactly a state secret; that having the list was no great advantage." So why should we care? For me, it is not about what someone told the candidates, its about what the candidates tell us. Seems Susan Passoni may have been telling us something different than what she has been telling others. www.mysouthend.com/index.php

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Ryan — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:05:56 GMT

Is having the list of questions truly an earth-shattering advantage? No, but it *is* an advantage - and not a small one. Passoni is viewed (justifiably) as the policy wonk, giving her a natural advantage in such a situation. Aaron himself is pretty good in that capacity too - I had both on my podcast (www.leftahead.com) and both performed admirably, but you can tell that Passoni has a slightly better handle on policy details. So having that list helps.

That said, I agree with what you said: I don't *blame* Aaron at all for taking the list. There are really two parties at fault here: 1) Waltz and 2) the committee for keeping the questions secret to begin with. In about half (or more) of state rep races -- and I'm speaking from experience here -- candidates are given a list of potential questions in which to prepare from. That levels the playing field and ensures that none of this behind the scenes cheating goes on. That should have happened here.

The only reason why Aaron deserves any blame here is for lying about it (giving a non-answer is lying, as far as I'm concerned). Trying to flip this just does NOT fly. If he had just explained what had happened and apologized, this issue wouldn't have mattered on election day -- it wouldn't have turned any voters. The fact that he didn't probably won't crush his campaign, but it's probably going to be a close race. So if he loses by 2-3%, despite all his tremendous advantages, this may help explain.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Tony Schinella — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:26:37 GMT

What? Ward 5 Democratic operatives rigging a political forum? Surely you jest? Seriously, I can tell you some horror stories about Boston's Ward Committees ...

That said, this is a legit story. It's embarrassing that the Ward 5 people are just shrugging it off. But this goes to point on why elected officials shouldn't even be involved in any of this stuff.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Boston Progressive — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:46:23 GMT

Inside baseball. The real issue is that Susan Passoni has all the credentials in the world that any rational person would hope for in a difficult time and yet the institutional support (and in a low turnout election, the electoral support) will go to a fairly unqualified person. Have you seen how the operatives in the North End empty out the elderly on election day. That machine will be at work while the part-time citizen/progressives in the rest of the district will be too busy to bother.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Farnkoff — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:23:11 GMT

Yes- to the uninitiated it looks like cheating and corruption.

re: Is There A Walz-Michelwitz Scandal?

Actually — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:16:14 GMT

Now, I'm not an operative for either campaign, and I live outside of the district so I really don't care who wins. That said, I've been at events with both candidates and it's clear to me that Susan Passoni has a better handle on the issues, ergo some folks feel she's a better candidate. Though Michelwitz ought to know all of these answers, I don't think it's a big secret that he's not as polished of a speaker and is less thoughtful on the issues than Passoni is. So what does having the questions do for Aaron in advance? It closes a gap, a big gap, and one that's perceived to be his biggest weakness. I also wonder what other members of the Ward 5 committee think about this. Not to mention that nobody has confirmed that A) Susan Passoni didn't get the questions form anyone in advance and B) That Walz did anything totally unethical according to anything agreed upon by the ward committees.