(“inspiring debate and raising issues” indeed! – promoted by eli_beckerman)
A local media personage recently slammed a newspaper that had endorsed my 2010 candidacy for State Representative in the 4th Berkshire District. Election results were cited as explanation for why the endorsement was unwarranted.
Huh? Endorsements are not validated or invalidated by election results. They will be validated or invalidated by the actions of public figures like me and my opponent down the road. In the case of my campaign we worked hard. We answered all questionnaires that were sent to us and reported our answers on our web site. We knocked on doors; we stood out; we attended public meetings. I’m sure there were those who were dismissive of the campaign right up to election day, but as we made contact with people and with editorial boards and with other community groups, our support grew. It’s a long road; it was never about one election cycle. It is about being persistent, clear and positive, and setting an example that, in the future, voters will demand more of. The work continues to demonstrate that the endorsements and praise which our campaign earned is deserving.
There are many ways to read and analyze voting patterns in greater context than by the results alone. For example, more voters than ever voted green for the very first time in both the 3rd and 4th Berkshire Districts. It was a milestone. Many have told us that it felt good to break the paradigms of habit; they will be more likely do it again. Several have already contacted us saying they regretted not having voted green; well, it will be easier for them to do so next time. In the future if we run our campaigns well and put good candidates on the ballot more voters will decide to vote green, and more good candidates will decide to run green. The votes we earned last week were very meaningful and of very high quality to us.
The same election results from Nov 2 showed the incumbent collecting far fewer votes than he received in his previous four re-election bids. As I said on election night to our supporters after I called the incumbent to congratulate him on his victory, I’d rather accept an electoral defeat knowing that support for our policies and vision is growing than celebrate a victory knowing that such support is waning. We were a small campaign this year. We worked hard. We got off to a great start. Next time we’ll be larger.
This media personage who took such offense at a peer’s endorsement of our campaign never once contacted me during the campaign to invite me talk in person. Other media outlets did, and were impressed with what they heard.
When the Berkshire Record endorsed me it noted: “[Scott will] inspire debate, raise issues, and ask questions that his entrenched peers won’t touch… Southern Berkshire county residents have a rare chance to make a real change in the House.”
The Berkshire Eagle endorsed my incumbent opponent, yet it had only positive things to say about my candidacy after it had followed our campaign since February and invited me to speak to its editorial board: “an impressive candidate,” “the kind of person the county needs more of in the years ahead,” “he has enriched the campaign and we hope he remains active politically,” “eloquent and enthusiastic,” and “feisty and outspoken.”
Dan Valenti, who co-moderated the only debate that my opponent appeared with me in, endorsed me with these words: “He had the more credible answer in this race on the question of the enormous budget deficit that will be facing the Commonwealth. Laugenour also had a winning issue with his stance on single-payer health care. His opponent says the two candidates both believe in single payer health care, but Laugenour pointed out the gap between talk and action.”
A little more on the subject of debates: that same media personage whose rantings brought on this post also lavished praise on Deval Patrick for participating in so many debates during the 2010 campaign. Gov. Patrick, like most politicians, only debates when he has to. He didn’t have to debate in the Berkshires, so he didn’t; he turned down invitations and offers to work on debate scheduling from a local media consortium. Gov. Patrick was the only reason that the Berkshires did not host a gubernatorial debate.
My public position on debates is that I will work with all debate sponsors to accept invitations to any debate only when all candidates on the ballot are invited. I won’t participate in a debate from which a fellow candidate has been excluded.
I was honored to learn after issuing the statement above that my position on debate participation is the same that Mel King took twenty years ago in Boston. Mr. King founded the coalition that bears the “Rainbow” name which, through a formal merger in 2003, gave our Green-Rainbow Party its name. He is an inspiring figure whom I hope to invite out to the Berkshires.
In the meantime, we will continue the work of building a party alternative and putting good candidates on the ballot whom, in the future, more fair-minded media personages will invite to the table.