We favor Passoni for two reasons. First, she has impressive experience in the private sector as well as a long record of community service. Her bio says that "for 20 years, Susan worked as a research analyst in the investment banking industry." Wouldn't it be nice to have a few more people in the House who (a) actually understand what is happening in the financial markets, (b) would be able to comment and legislate intelligently on "swaptions" and other afflictions, and (c) understands what life is like for folks who don't hold government jobs (i.e., most of us)? Aaron Michlewitz's bio, in contrast, reflects no work experience outside of Sal DiMasi's office. There's of course nothing wrong with having worked for DiMasi, where Michlewitz apparently did good work, and we know of no reason to think that he had anything to do with the scandal that drove DiMasi from office. But we still see value in having spent time "outside the Building."
Second, Michlewitz's handling of the recent brouhaha over the debate questions was, we think, deeply disappointing. To refresh your recollection, the South End News reported that it had emails showing that Michlewitz received advance copies of the questions to be asked at the Wards 4 & 5 Debate on April 21.
Oh -- for the record, we asked the Passoni campaign about the suggestion that, maybe, Passoni also had advance copies. We were told unequivocally that she did not.
Anyway, Michlewitz's response -- which was, by the way, a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark -- was frankly pathetic.
"Whether candidates review questions in advance of forums is really not the issue here - this is about my privacy and an attempt by someone to take the focus off of the issues - which is hardly the politics of change."
That's not "the politics of change" either, Aaron. That's ducking the question. That's diverting attention from the real issue -- "hey, look at that shiny object over there!"
(Incidentally, Rep. Marty Walz, the apparent source of the questions, has maintained radio silence, returning phone calls neither to the South End News nor to the Phoenix. Talk about a profile in courage.)
Unfair, you say! No big deal -- and anyway, what was he supposed to do? Easy. (1) When he got the questions, he should either have (a) respectfully refused them, or (b) forwarded them to the other candidates, so as not to have an unfair advantage. Failing that, (2) when asked about it, he should have (a) answered the question, and (b) apologized for poor judgment. He did neither, instead retreating behind a classic pol's line: "this isn't really about me, it's about the scoundrel who leaked an embarrassing story about me to the press." Not impressive.
In sum, then, Passoni has the better experience, and Michlewitz bungled an early, and easy, test. Conclusion: Passoni should be the next representative of the 3rd Suffolk district. |
