MWDN: Dykema, Lamb disagree on small business

by susan on October 2, 2012

Post image for MWDN: Dykema, Lamb disagree on small business

Above: Rep. Carolyn Dykema (left) and Marty Lamb (right) campaigning in Southborough last spring (contributed photos)

The Metrowest Daily News talked with the two candidates who will be vying for your vote in the 8th Middlesex District about their views on small business. As you might imagine in what has been a contentious race, there wasn’t much common ground.

“I have history working in small business, so I’m very sensitive to their struggles and I know how hard they have to work,” said state Rep. Carolyn Dykema, D-Holliston, noting her experience at small environmental consulting firms. “I fully intend to be a strong partner moving forward.”

Republican challenger Marty Lamb argued Dykema is out of touch with the needs of small businesses.

“As a small business owner, I understand what they’re going through and what it takes,” said Lamb, the owner of a Holliston real estate practice. “I don’t think she understand what businesses are going through.”

You can read more on the candidates’ views in this article by the MWDN.

(Ed. note: I know many of you have strong views on the candidates, and I invite you to share them in the comments below. In an effort to keep things a bit more civil than they have been in the past, I ask you to limit your comments to what you think about the issues, not what you think about other commenters.)

1 Margaret Reeves October 2, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I think Mr. Lamb’s firsthand business experience is a plus. It’s also plain to see that his fellow small business owners see the value in him as well. This is not something learned in a text book. It takes real life experience every day dealing with economic ups and downs, making the smart decisions, keeping things in balance, being successful.

So many businesses have folded, closed doors, moved out of state. Mr. Lamb has kept his running in all economic climates. Like so many, he has a home, mortgage, wife and family to support. There’s a great deal he can relate to with voters who have the same challenges every day.

He also is the only one with economic plans and ideas, really concrete steps to help revive the economy. No one on Beacon Hill is producing that. He is. He has a strong resume and has also put forth steps as a citizen. I read more about the New Jobs For Massachusetts organization and his work there, and that they have worked with the Small Business Caucus on Beacon Hill.

See, Mr. Lamb has already been doing the job. That’s quite an endorsement in itself. He has demonstrated his capabilities in real ways that can’t be beat. That’s what’s needed on Beacon Hill – a big dose of realism, and Marty Lamb brings that. He’ll be an enormous asset as a State Representative.

2 Kelly Roney October 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM

“Mr. Lamb has kept his [law firm] running in all economic climates.”

Simply and incontrovertibly false. Carolyn Dykema is the candidate in this race who has succeeded in the private sector. I suppose some people think Carolyn’s MBA is just book-larnin’, but somehow Carolyn has managed to put it to good and successful use.

Marty’s New Jobs for Massachusetts has produced several press releases, two small meetings that preached to the Tea Party faithful, and exactly zero new jobs.

On the other side, just one of the things Carolyn Dykema has done to benefit employment in the district is to hammer out an agreement to connect part of Hopkinton to the Milford sewer line. That alone brought 300 high-quality jobs to the community, and it’s just the easiest example.

3 Margaret Reeves October 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM

Once again, these statements made about Marty Lamb and New Jobs For Massachusetts are patently false. There are close to 25 news items listed for the org.

This is the news link at the New Jobs website.

There have been a number of radio interviews, print media interviews, and panel working groups on Beacon Hill including with the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce development. There are several items listed as well as proposed solutions that would help the small business economy.

Marty Lamb has been part of this and made presentations on Beacon Hill and worked with legislators on both sides of the aisle. He’s already doing the job. He’s done more as a citizen to help bring forth ideas in a bipartisan way that both sides can agree on that legislators have done on their own. He has the business experience and the perspective. These ideas come from real world experience, not a textbook. Being in cookie cutter mode won’t work. It takes practical solutions from practical experience running a small business and Marty Lamb has that.

Beacon Hill has done nothing to help small business. Marty Lamb has done far more as a citizen and as a co-founder of this organization to work with the Small Business Caucus on Beacon Hill.

Ms.Dykema has refused to join this caucus. She has no part in it at all. Nothing.

4 Kelly Roney October 4, 2012 at 6:22 PM

LOL, twenty-five press releases, still zero jobs.

Marty Lamb is not in the least a bipartisan figure. In 2010, he was a Tea Party candidate. Now, he’s trying to chuck that fact down the memory hole.

Carolyn Dykema has the successful business experience, building on her MBA. Marty Lamb has left a trail of broken promises, tearing down his own reputation and law degree.

Marty Lamb’s ideas come from failing as a real estate lawyer, yet none of his ideas seem to come from that experience. They’re all about different kinds of businesses in which he has no experience.

The legislature has helped small businesses. When Carolyn toured the state, actually listening to businesspeople, their primary concern was healthcare costs. So she has worked on them, and the result is legislation that will lower their costs. Another concern was permitting, which she has worked to streamline. Another was unemployment insurance rates. She voted to freeze them. She has worked on water infrastructure, without which our economy would founder and sink. You have a peculiar definition of nothing.

So Carolyn didn’t join an organization, and that’s what you have against her?! You know, Marty didn’t join this or that environmental organization in the district, so he must be opposed to the environment. Piffle! See how silly that reasoning is!

5 Iron Mike October 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Government rarely does even it’s most basic functions – Defense and Law Enforcement – well.

In this past year we’ve seen our State Police Superintendent Marian McGovern ‘retire’ – then demand a $13K/month ‘disability’ [tax free]. Just WEEKS later we learn of a year-long COVER-UP of botched testing at the state drug lab. Thousands of drug convicts will be released – and reimbursed. We will pay.

The low-hanging fruit are fired. The evil chemist is arrested – and released on a mere $10K.

We have a mushrooming state debt of $103 Billion – over $15 K per person. We have 16.3 State Employees for every square mile. [Your town and city employees, – teachers, fire, police, highway – are in addition.] Three Speakers in a row have been convicted. Convicted sex pervert State Senator Marzilli will get a pension, and he’s filed for the big payout too.

And yet Mz Dykema’s legislative PRIORITY was the Transgender Bathroom Bill and unionizing day care centers. How much more madness will you vote for? Time to send in Marty Lamb!

6 Publius October 2, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Marty can say what he wants, its what a challenger can get away with the first time around but he has failed to show how he is going to work on Beacon Hill to get anything done. Gimmicks and media grabs do not get the job done. Dykema has doen a good job representing the district. Lamb has failed to articulate a compelling reason not to re-elect her. In addition, the lack of support show to the challenger from many registered Republicans says alot about Marty Lamb.

7 Margaret Reeves October 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

From all I read, there are many compelling reasons to vote for Mr. Lamb. There are many releases that outline his plans and positions. His background is a huge plus with his work at the New Jobs org and his background as a small business owner.

There are many reasons to vote out Ms. Dykema. Her voting record is a very strong reason to remove her from office. There are countless reasons to vote her out.

Also Mr. Lamb has Democrats supporting him instead of Ms. Dykema. This happens at all levels. There are Republicans for Pres. Obama and Democrats for Mitt Romney. You can find this at all levels. It’s nothing new, and it’s usually a small percentage. Nothing to write home about there.

Furthermore, Ms. Dykema’s voting record is very left wing and not in line with the people in this district. She can say one thing here and go on Beacon Hill and vote with the Speaker most of the time, in fact, it’s 95% of the time. That’s not independent. That’s towing the party line.

It’s all public record.

Here is some of it….it’s all outlined.

She voted to increase the sales tax 25%
She voted to double tax alcohol
She voted against the meals tax holiday
She voted to force home daycares to unionize
She voted against capping state pensions at $100,000
She voted against auditting legislative accounts
She voted to bail out Lawrence with $30 million
She voted to give convicted felons in jail pensions.
She did not sign on to the EBT bill. She only did this after Marty Lamb sent out his release on the subject. She made an election year flip flop.
There more…
and more…
and more…

She gets a 13% rating with Citizens for Limited Taxation. She gets a 38% rating from the National Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. Lamb was endorsed by Citizens For Limited Taxation. They keep a close eye on Beacon Hill all the time and evaluate each legislator based on their votes. That’s the truth.

As we know, actions speak louder than words. Watch what they do, not what they say.

8 Kelly Roney October 2, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Carolyn did not flip-flop on EBT reform. She voted for it.

Carolyn did not vote “to give convicted felons in jail pensions.” State government workers who commit felonies in the course of their official duties lose their pensions entirely.

Carolyn did not vote to force family daycares to unionize. She voted to allow a segment of home daycares (those that accept state vouchers for the children of the working poor) to choose whether they want to unionize. The Lamb campaign has constantly brought forward this falsehood, and they won’t stop.

It’s really no surprise that NFIB and CLT have endorsed a Republican. Both are strongly Republican-leaning organizations.

We could watch what Marty Lamb has done – if he had ever done anything!

9 Margaret Reeves October 3, 2012 at 12:14 AM

The public record on her votes which is the truth states otherwise. Here are a few.

On EBT, Ms. Dykema voted against it, and yielded only when Mr. Lamb sent out a release on the subject.

Vote 09-66, 4/14/09 – amendment to prohibit pensions for felons for the period of the persons incarceration – Dykema voted NO.

Vote 11-138, 11/2/11 – amendment to prohibit pensions from the state giving out pensions greater than $100,000 – Dykema voted NO.

Vote 11-173, 4/28/11, – amendment to require Massachusetts to participate in the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program that helps deport criminal criminal illegal immigrants – Dykema voted NO.

On the daycare bill, If a home daycare accepts ONE child on a voucher they are forced into the union!!

If the legislature wanted to increase the rates they could just do it. Senate Republicans offered an amendment to increase the rates and Democrats voted it down. Hence, this is just to put home daycare people into a union.

Two years ago the union tried to recruit the home daycare centers into the union. They were turned down so now they got the legislature to force them into the union.

Why do daycare centers need a lobbyist??? That’s what is wrong

This puts home daycares at a competitive disadvantage, because they now have to pay union dues in the cost of doing business

Home daycare centers are being forced if they accept one child. Moreover, if the home daycare centers want to add children to their center to cover the costs, they can only take voucher children.

This really hurts local daycare business in the district. It’s puts women owned small daycare businesses out of work.

I’m really disappointed that Ms Dykema voted FOR this legislation which does nothing but hurt moms and kids.

10 Kelly Roney October 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Carolyn voted against one EBT proposal and for another one. Marty Lamb had nothing to do with her votes.

Felons remain legally entitled to their pensions, public or private. However, there is long-standing law that revokes a state pension for misbehavior in office. The bill that Marty wanted to pass was clearly prohibited by the Fifth Amendment prohibition on takings, not to mention contract law. Hmm, does he know that and just say the opposite, or has he forgotten what law school no doubt taught him?

Secure Communities is about data sharing with the FBI and Homeland Security, and Massachusetts communities are already sharing data on criminals who are here illegally. Rep. Dykema made sure of this in all the communities of the district before she voted as she did. If you read the Metrowest Daily regularly, you know that arrestees are frequently held on detainer warrants. Carolyn knew this, even if Marty didn’t.

Again, it is simply false that family daycare providers are forced into a union. They get to vote. You’d deny them that right? If recruitment failed last time, it could fail this time.

This does not hurt family daycares in the district. The Lamb villainization of this law is hysterically exaggerated. I once had a link to the bill, but I’ll have to find it.

I’m very disappointed that the Lamb campaign of fear-mongering has so little respect for the truth.

11 Wendy October 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Just a note on the day are unionization law that was passed. First, i had no idea it was coming up for a vote nor dod i know it was signed by the Governor. As a small business operator of a family childcare, I am appalled that just because I help my community by accepting children on financial assistance that I must join the union. I will be forced to pay union dues on what I make with these families. What do I get in return? I get the right to collectively bargain for higher rates for these children. Currently I make less than 14.00 a day for less than 6 hours and double that for a full day. This is quite a bit less than what I earn for a child whose family pays privately. As a part of the STATE union I will NOT get benefits like health insurance or dental or even vacations & holidays. And I will not be allowed to strike, not that I ever would, but I lose that right.

What I am saying is this: you may find this bill a bit unimportant, but I am very affected by it. If the union bill does not get repealed, I will be forced to stop giving back to my community by taking children on state aid because the union will be taking even more from that portion of my very little check. This will happen across the state. Those of you in the community who depend on financial assistance may no longer have quality family childcare providers to choose from when making the very important decision of where to send your infant or toddler while you are at work. This would be very sad.

And yet, I have to follow many of the same regulations as a center, have the same or higher level of education and pay taxes like every other small business.

One more note: as far as I know, center based providers are not included in this bill.

12 Kelly Roney October 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Wendy, I don’t think this bill was unimportant. I think the hysterical claims being made about it are unimportant.

13 Wendy October 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

What ‘hysterical claims’ are you referring to?

14 Kelly Roney October 4, 2012 at 12:30 AM

The ones being made by the Lamb campaign’s proxies…

15 Margaret Reeves October 4, 2012 at 3:31 AM

I’m very disappointed that the Dykema campaign has so little regard for the truth. It’s plain to see they want to run away from the record as fast as they can, but the public record and the votes are there.

Your statement about data sharing is patently false. Data is not shared with ICE, which is the US immigration and customs enforcement. That’s the point. Ms. Dykema is siding with illegal immigrants when she voted NO.

Thankfully, Worcester county Sheriff Lew Evangelidis shined the light of truth on the Secure Communities debacle and how the Beacon Hill democrats were on the wrong side of the issue. This is an Obama administration program. Thankfully, now, we HAVE secure communities IN SPITE OF the opposition by legislators like Ms. Dykema who fought it.

We hear in the news about illegal immigrants committing these heinous crimes and one of them was against Matt Denice in Milford who was dragged to his death under a motorcycle by an illegal immigrant who was drunk driving a truck. This illegal immigrant had a prior record and was still free and in the country. If we had Secure communities in place at that time, he wouldn’t have been.

Secure communities crosses party lines and it’s common sense. Ms. Dykema voted NO to a common sense bipartisan bill. Again, this shows her extreme left wing voting record. Once again, the proof is there.

16 Kelly Roney October 4, 2012 at 6:41 PM

How did this thread on small business get hijacked into every politically motivated attack that a smear campaign could bring?

Look around, you’ll see why. Attacks are all the Lamb campaign has. They started out in January or February by attacking Carolyn Dykema’s car! They’ve made ugly baseless charges, trying to connect her in some way to the crime of Matthew Denice’s awful death. They’ve called her lazy, when anyone who has met her knows better. They’ve called her inaccessible, when we’ve all seen her at public events over and over and over again – she’s far more accessible than part-timers like Marty Lamb could ever be, but that hasn’t stopped their Karl Rove style attack on one of her clearly exceptional strengths.

If you want civil discourse and honest presentation of facts, you have to remember when you get to line 6 of your ballot on Nov. 6. Marty Lamb’s campaign has made politics nasty in the Eighth Middlesex – our community – and you should punish them for their conduct of their campaign.

17 Margaret Reeves October 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Something else I’ve seen in the news are many events to support Marty Lamb and there are many, many Republicans who come out to support him. It’s advertised when these events take place and where and with whom.

Republicans who support him are names – Mary Connaughton, Karyn Polito, Lew Evangelidis, Scott Brown, among others and many who fill the rooms.

Seems like plenty of support. He sure is raising money for the campaign, too, and that’s a sign of a great deal of support as well.

Sounds like plenty to me.

18 Neil Rossen October 2, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Some voters may wish to consider whether it is entirely healthy to have a governing body overloaded with one Party which sees tax increases as a solution to everything. These same voters may be detached from the herd to vote for real change as opposed to promises.

19 Iron Mike October 2, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Funny you’d say that Neil – since the masthead of this blog has a picture of Southborough’s famous heard of Galloway Cows!

You’re 100% on the money. Nothing on Beacon [Bacon] Hill will change until folks break that 5-generation voting habit – of ALWAYS voting ‘D’.

Ask any ardent Democrat you know – “What did we buy with $103 Billion borrowed dollars?” You’ll get a lot of blank stares. HINT: Check the size of our state payroll – and who many of them are related to…

20 MKatz October 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM

I fully agree with Neil Rossen. When one party rules, nothing gets done. I read somewhere that Marty has been involved with New Jobs for MA which worked with the House Small Business Caucus. Carolyn Dykema REFUSED to join this bipartisan caucus.. This is an indicator to how Dykema works. We need to break the one Party gridlock on Beacon Hill.

21 Kelly Roney October 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Carolyn Dykema has a tremendous record of working with whoever has a good idea, and that includes Republicans. They also work with her.

Marty’s created New Jobs for Massachusetts entirely out of press releases and solely as a platform for his run for office. Its record so far: zero jobs created.

Meanwhile, Carolyn brought home funding for the Milford-Hopkinton sewer connection, which allowed 300 jobs in the district. She successfully supported the same advantageous tax treatment for small agricultural businesses that large ones get, which enabled the creation of more jobs. She supported lowering the corporate tax rate and freezing the unemployment insurance rate.

These are real accomplishments, of which you will find none on the other side.

22 Margaret Reeves October 4, 2012 at 3:40 AM

New Jobs For Massachusetts has worked with the Small Business Caucus on Beacon Hill, a caucus Ms. Dykema did not join. That’s very revealing.

So, how would she or any of her surrogates know what New Jobs are doing with this Caucus when Ms. Dykema is on the outside looking in. She did not choose to join this caucus. If she cared about Small Business, she would have and would have worked in a bipartisan way with legislators on both sides of the aisle and discussed and worked on the ideas that New Jobs has tabled, common sense steps that both sides can embrace.

Once again, another opportunity arose to work together in a bipartisan way on such an important issue as helping small business, and she refused. She can’t possibly know what this organization is doing with the caucus on Beacon Hill when she has no part in it whatsoever.

She has no knowledge of what this caucus is doing at all. Very, very telling indeed.

23 Kelly Roney October 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM

This political organization is an empty shell built for the purpose of electing an undeserving candidate to the legislature.

Meanwhile, Carolyn Dykema spends time talking to actual business people, not to a stalking horse organization with no stake in the economy. She has acted and will continue to act on what they tell her.

Marty Lamb can continue to paper the world in press releases that bring zero jobs. On the other hand, once the campaign is over, he won’t have anyone to write them for him.

24 Iron Mike October 4, 2012 at 8:17 AM


But THINKING voters must chose between 2 more years of Government by Taxacrats, – or actual Representative Government.

It comes down to your core beliefs: – do you believe Mz Dykema is qualified to regulate your life and charge you a fee [taxes] for doing it,…

… – or do you believe our state government is ALREADY TOO BIG, – and you’d like Marty to start trimming off parts of it, – and making sure the rest isn’t fudging test scores and hiring their relatives.

25 Kelly Roney October 4, 2012 at 6:49 PM

How is this responsible comment?

We have representative government. Carolyn Dykema was duly elected twice by voters who live in this district. In 2010, 71% of votes went to her. It takes a lot of gall to claim that our votes don’t count.

Carolyn is working to make your lives better, to build on a society that, frankly, leads America. Our public schools are the best in the country. Our economy is stronger than most of the rest of the country, especially states that don’t have a strong sense of commonwealth, the way we do. We are a high income state with unemployment two points below the national average. We have a strong entrepreneurial culture with modern economy work in biotech, pharmaceuticals, water resources, green energy, software, and healthcare. We have low rates of most social problems.

Why? People like Carolyn Dykema, who partner with other concerned citizens to make Massachusetts such a fine place to live and work and create that Forbes Magazine rated our quality of life number one in America.

26 Frank Crowell October 5, 2012 at 9:04 AM

No incumbent candidate can hide from his or her record, his or her party affiliation or whom he or she will vote for with respect to State House leadership if re-elected. If you do not like what is going on at Beacon Hill, you have a choice this election cycle. The choice is that simple.

27 Neil Rossen October 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Frank, I only hope people do look at records. At the state level certainly, but more importantly at the national level. On that basis it is a simple matter to draw the appropriate conclusion.

28 Kelly Roney October 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

It is important to look at records. Carolyn Dykema has a tremendous record of accomplishment in four years of service to the district. I was talking with a Southborough small businessman this morning, and he called her a rising star.

Carolyn’s work supports the commonwealth in its very successful role as America’s leader in many categories:
* Perennially number one in public education.
* A diversified, knowledge-based economy with strength, public-private partnership, and entrepreneurship in all major 21st century industries – biotech, pharmaceuticals, software, green energy, water resources, and healthcare.
* A highly educated, highly paid populace.
* Low incidence of social problems.
* An unemployment rate that’s been close to 2 points better than the nation as a whole (though no one is satisfied with 6%, nor with the even lower rate in Metrowest).
* Nearly 100% health insurance coverage.

What work of Carolyn’s? A few examples:
* One of the important things we got from the sales tax increase 3 years ago (ratified by the voters in 2010) was continuing state support of local education.
* Continued support of transportation funding for Algonquin. The leadership wanted to zero it out of this year’s budget. Carolyn fought successfully to keep it in.
* Freezing of unemployment insurance rates.
* Lowering of corporate tax rates.
* Treatment of small local agricultural businesses to the same tax advantages of large agricultural businesses.
* Enablement of small businesses to buy less expensive health insurance through cooperatives run by the Chamber of Commerce.
* A first but very significant step in health insurance cost restraint.
* Enablement of towns to lower their health insurance costs, which has been benefiting the district for a couple of years now.

I’m glad to call Massachusetts my home. I look at my birth state, Tennessee, with its Tea Party ultraconservatism, and I know from my own experience that we’re far better off here.

29 Frank Crowell October 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Yes, Massachusetts also leads Tennessee in number of federally convicted State House Reps including three Speakers all of whom were Democrats. I included the word federal since our Attorney General wishes to do nothing about it. She is also a Democrat. It would not be good for business (as usual) to change course.

30 Neil Rossen October 9, 2012 at 11:39 AM

The old saying about “absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies in spades. That is another reason for change. The Dems have had absolute power for so long now that corruption is inevitable.

31 Iron Mike October 9, 2012 at 1:48 PM

And Mz Dykema already displays the symptoms…

What was that PUBLIC BUILDING where she was asking for campaign donations?

32 Kelly Roney October 9, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You’ve made up another baseless charge, disguising it as a question.

I know you’ll never be able to substantiate it.

33 sboronolonger October 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Maybe more prevalent in other states where a higher percentage of officials are Replublican, but surely there have been reports of enough Republican corruption nationwide (e.g. Tom Delay, Bill Frist) to provide some “balance”.

34 Frank Crowell October 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

So our answer to less corruption in this state is to elect more Democrats? I was looking to add a little balance in our state, which will limit corruption. I am not naïve enough to think it will end. Checks and balances – I wonder if that is being taught in school any more?

35 S'boroResident October 9, 2012 at 6:29 PM

I think this argument about corruption being the result of the Democratic majority in our state is ridiculous. If you’re a Republican and you want there to be more Republicans in the State House so that your values are better represented that is one thing. Good for you. Support the Republican Party, spread the word, raise money for Republican candidates, talk about the issues – hell, run for office. But don’t make up some fantasy of a Democratic State House incubating corruption.

Is there any proof at all that we have any more corruption in our State House than in other, more bipartisan State Houses across the country? Let’s say there is some statistical correlation. Is there any likelihood that one state representative race will change the culture of the State House? I think not. However, losing a dedicated and effective representative like Ms. Dykema will make a huge difference in the very short term to the 8th Middlesex District (FYI I had to look up the name of our district – shame on me). Ignoring the merits of the candidates and voting along party lines because of this “corruption conspiracy theory” is foolish. When are we going to learn that judging people based on group generalizations instead of as individuals is idiotic, and encouraging others to do the same is irresponsible.

Maybe a more balanced State House would be a good thing, but is this the way to effect change; proposing we toss out a dedicated and effective public servant “on principle?” Problem is that REAL solutions to the problem are harder than posting angry comments on a local blog. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe there is no problem. Maybe the majority of voters in Massachusetts like things just the way they are. That’s Democracy

36 Frank Crowell October 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Certainly one of us is angry – but not me.

I am not living in a fantasy where three former Speakers of the State House of Representatives are currently convicted felons. There is no evidence that this is going to change since there is currently another federal investigation going on and we will not know the outcome until after the election. I am presented with one solution to act upon. Sorry that Ms. Dykema is on the wrong side of that solution – although I guess she could offer a solution to what maybe only my dilemma.

As for your other questions, you can Google “correlation” “corruption” and “one party rule.” Your answers are out there.

Neil Rossen – you were right.

37 Neil Rossen October 9, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Other than expressing a preference for Dykema, I see you raise no defenses against the attacks on her record, nor provide any reason to reelect her other than that she is “dedicated”. Effective? That is a matter of opinion. There remains little doubt that longevity may incubate corruption. By either party.

38 Kelly Roney October 10, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Here is another item of particular interest to Southborough:

Carolyn was instrumental in getting our paramedics a waiver to work alone so that we can double our coverage by advanced life support. Not only are we safer because of it, we also save money.

39 S'boroResident October 10, 2012 at 8:19 AM

I’m not angry either. And the purpose of my post was not to defend Ms. Dykema’s record. (By the way is the misspelling of “Ms.” as “Mz.” some lame little commentary on the use of the title?) As far as I am concerned her record requires no defense. The dirty mudslinging by the Lamb campaign is just the typical tea party Republican tactic we are seeing everywhere this year and I don’t consider it worth refuting. Mudslinging and lying is no substitute for a solid record of dedicated public service. If you want specifics of that service, I refer you to Kelly’s posts for short hand.

My post was against the ridiculous suggestion that anyone vote against Ms. Dykema ONLY because she is a member of the Democratic party. If you choose to believe the lies Lamb is slinging or just don’t agree with Dykema’s policies, then don’t vote for her. But voting against her simply on the basis of her Democratic affiliation would be as stupid as voting for a convicted felon simply because he was a Republican.

Two sayings come to mind – “cutting off your nose to spite your face” and “throwing out the baby with the bath water.”

If the mob mentality we seem to be fostering in this country would subside then maybe we wouldn’t have the kind of problem you are so concerned about. Maybe if we didn’t lump all members of the same party into the same boat every time there was an instance of corruption, then maybe members of each party would not be reluctant to police their own. It is convenient for some to take one (or three in “Frank’s” case) instance of corruption and paint a picture of an entire corrupt party when it just so happens that you are against that particular party. If the shoe was on the other foot would you be calling “foul?”

Corrution should be rooted out by those who stand against it, regardless from which direction it comes. There are good and bad in both parties and, I will repeat my initial point, lumping any single group together is not constructive to the solving of any problem.

I am interested in your point about longevity and I will look further into the issue as you suggest. However, I don’t see how blindly voting AGAINST the majority party is any wiser than blindly voting FOR the majority party. Striving to change our partisan mob mentality seems like a better bet to me.

40 Neil Rossen October 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

We continue to await the defense against the ‘lies”. The Tea Party has apparently been effectively demonized by the Dems with a barrage of untruths. I’ve attended an event and been impressed by the seriousnes of their cause. The main problem seems to be their call for fiscal rectitude and reducing government. That is their agenda. Clearly that is against tax and spend that is the Dem mantra. Along with larger government. Make your choice.

41 Frank Crowell October 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

And doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result would be the definition of insanity – another good saying.

Enough said.

42 S'boroResident October 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

That is a very good saying. But it assumes the we are all looking for a “different result.” That’s where you are mistaken. You and those like you may want a “different result”, but obviously the majority of voters have chosen to have things the way they are. Maybe it is not perfect, but if Republicans offered a better alternative in the opinion of the voters, then they would be in the State House. So those of us who are, in your opinion, “doing the same thing over and over again” are not insane because we are NOT expecting a different result. We are quite happy with the results we have gotten for generations.

43 Iron Mike October 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM

INSANITY: Re-electing the same Democrats – cycle-after-cycle – and expecting our $103 billion State Debt to go away.

44 Kelly Roney October 15, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Those deep tax cuts you’re for are definitely the Tea Party way to “pay” debts. Somebody’s lost track of addition and subtraction.

45 Neil Rossen October 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM

A lot of people have been taken in by the persistent Dem propaganda about the tea party, and by the bogus assertion of a $5bn tax cut. All totally untrue but if you repeat untruths frequently enough, they can be mistaken for facts. Understandable, but it is much better to read up all about these things.

46 Northsider October 15, 2012 at 2:23 PM

actually my definition of insanity is voting someone into office who has a hidden agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with a political platform and my kids are moving forward not backwards to the 1950’s

47 Neil Rossen October 15, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by a “hidden agenda”. Does that simply mean he is a Republican? Or do you have further information. I know for sure that “Hope & Change” and reducing divisiveness turned into something completely different.

Previous post:

Next post: