Newton rarely has truly competitive contests for our State Representative seats. But this November voters in the 11 Middlesex will get to vote in a rematch featuring State Rep. Kay Khan (Democrat) and Newton Alderman Greer Tan Swiston (Republican). Khan is seeking her tenth term. Swiston is serving her third term as an Alderman At Large from Ward 3.
Vote in our poll and then explain your vote in the comments section.
[polldaddy poll=”6552159″]
I had to open up this page in IE to see the poll as I could not view it in Chrome.
Well, I voted for me because I wouldn’t be running for this position if I didn’t think I could do the job.
I tend to approach problems and issues by working with people, building and organizing community momentum. Whether it be an online discussion group, a weekly company sushi gathering or a neighborhood resident/business partnership, I do enjoy bringing people together.
In speaking with many residents in Newton as I have been going door to door throughout the neighborhood, I have found that jobs, how to get to our jobs (transportation) and where we live (housing) are among the top concerns, so I would make Jobs, Transportation and Housing my top priorities. I consider elected office as a commitment to represent the concerns of the people in my district, not my own interests or agenda. What I bring to the table are my management and problem solving skills to address those concerns.
It has truly been an honor serving Newton as an Alderman and being a part of the dynamic changes at City Hall welcoming two of the largest “freshmen” classes to the Board of Alderman, new leadership and most recently, a new Mayor. I endeavor to bring the same energy, perspective and change to Beacon Hill.
I’m torn, since I like both candidates (nice to have this dilemma!) While I would like to see our Representatives include more Republicans – not because I’m Republican (which I’m not) but because I think the only way for our legislature to work well is to have an opposition party with enough votes to have weight in decision-making. OTOH, I’d hate to lose Greer from the Board of Aldermen.
I will be voting for Greer Tan Swiston because I believe that she will represent Newton with new energy and effectiveness, as she has done as Alderman at the city level. I have known Ms. Swiston for many years, and find her to be intelligent, thoughtful and highly effective at building coalitions among people of diverse political beliefs. I have met Kay Khan when I brought a problem to her office that I felt might merit legislation. I felt that my concerns were not heard, and I left feeling frustrated. In examining her record, I see much less legislation than I would expect from a long-term representative, and much less focus on the concerns of city residents regarding city infrastructure, jobs and housing. To me, Ms. Khan just doesn’t seem very effective in getting things done. One thing I know about Greer Tan Swiston is that she will work very hard and get projects done for our city, and will be responsive to all citizens.
I will be voting for Greer because of her complete and utter commitment to working with people to find solutions to the wide array of issues this state is up against. Greer has always met with people to personally hear their concerns. In every single instance, she has either assisted where she is able or has directed them on the path to resolve the problem.
While the current political dialogue is geared to dividing people, Greer has always been eager to bring people together and to work with them to find solutions that take all sides into account. Greer works hard to understand all sides of any issue so she can find the best solution for each circumstance. While the outcome may not please everyone, concerns have always been heard. In this same way she will be an excellent representative for a larger constituent.
Kay Khan is the only choice for State Rep. Greer has accomplished nothing on the Board of Alderman and often doesn’t even understand the issues in Newton. I am not sure that she understands the CPA after all these years. She would be lost trying to grasp the complexities of the issues in the State Legislature. We need someone who isn’t indebted to the NRA for support and would back stronger gun control legislation. Gun violence is a public health issue of epidemic proportions throughout our nation taking many more lives than West Nile virus or EEE. We can count on Kay Khan to stand up to the murder industry that cloaks its greedy pursuit of profits in a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
Kay has done a superb job as our State Representative. We are so blessed in Newton to have such high quality people who commit their lives to public service. Kay is well known in the State House for her hard work and integrity, and hopefully we will have the benefit of her representation for many years to come.
I am delighted that Village14 has focused on this election so I’ll take an opportunity to say a few words about myself, how much I have accomplished, and why I am running for another term. It has been an honor and a pleasure to represent the citizens of the 11th Middlesex District and I hope to return to the legislature to continue to fight for the education of our children, a clean and safe environment and a vibrant economy that will benefit all citizens of Massachusetts. As a legislator I have had an opportunity to represent my constituents and participate in public policy decisions that affect the entire Commonwealth. As an advanced practice nurse with both a pediatric and mental health background and as the House Chair of the Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities, I bring with me a deep concern for our citizens who struggle with disabilities, and our many families who are in need of jobs, child care, and a safe place to sleep. I have been an effective and successful advocate for so many here in Newton and beyond. As a proud Democrat, I stand up for the values of my party and know that Newton is best served by a state representative who is part of the predominantly Democratic legislature, working with our Democratic Gov. Patrick. I could go on and list all of my many accomplishments both for Newton and for the entire Commonwealth, including areas like jobs and housing and transportation, but to really learn more, go to kaykhan.org to read about my work and my efforts. Thanks very much!
Mr Snyder is of course free to have his opinion about what I have or haven’t done on the Board of Aldermen.
However, I am not sure why Mr. Snyder thinks I would be indebted to the NRA. I have a lot of supporters and volunteers who are Democrats. How does that translate? I’m not sure I know anyone in the NRA. But even if one of my supporters was a member, I am grateful for his/her support, but there have never been any conditions attached to receiving support. I don’t court political Endorsements.
Tim,
I have to say that you’re blog is full of ridiculous assumptions. This is the perfect reason why I’ve left the party. The thought process is ridiculous. Everyone labels one another. The dem city committee has become party before people. Don’t look at someones qualities or characteristics or ideas, focus on the little letter (d) next to someone’s name. Oy.
I can’t vote in this election. I like both Kay and Greer, but when I see a supposed party leader (in this case ex-party leader) comment like this, it turns my stomach. (I gotta lose some weight anyway).
@Tim – we don’t have to act like the worst caricatures of Rovian Republicans to win elections. Character assassination not necessary. It’s possible to articulate why you think Kay would represent this district better without smearing a very effective Alderperson.
I’m voting the straight Democratic ticket and undecided in this race. I’m reluctant to vote for a Republican given the insanity that the national party and even state party represent, but I have a hard time respecting the independent vote of our current Representative when on an issue as crucial as gambling she changed her mind based on the political winds. When Speaker DiMasi was against it, so was she. Two years or less later, when Speaker DeLeo was for it, so was she. I’m leaning towards a vote for Greer because in MA we have the luxury of fighting for better Democrats, not just Democrats per se. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a state rep who does more than flow with the Beacon Hill tides.
Plus, Greer hasn’t shown – in her record as Alderperson or in her campaign for State Rep – any tendencies whatsoever towards ideological thinking. She seems refreshingly technocratic.
I could still be convinced but that’s my current thinking.
I also found Tim’s comments to be unfair and offensive. We don’t need that kind of personal attack injected into our local politics. Greer is a great person and I think she’s been a wonderful alderman. She’s very connected and responsive to her constituents. Let’s stick to the issues and get off the character attacks.
That being said, I won’t be voting for anyone running in a state race who does not specifically and explicitly support medical marijuana. I don’t live in the 11th Middlesex, but if I did I’d be voting for Kay Kahn in this race for a number of reasons. Principally her strong support for reforming marijuana laws. In previous posts on this blog, Greer has indicated she would not be in favor of significant reforms, and my personal experience tells me that is a position lacking in compassion for sick people who would benefit from marijuana.
The short version of my story: My wife, Laurie, passed away in 2011 after a three and a half year battle with brain cancer. Marijuana was the only thing that made it possible for her to tolerate monthly chemo treatments. Laurie and I were forced to break the law in order for her to live, because dealing with extreme nausea on top of a terminal illness was simply too much for her to handle. She would have voluntarily discontinued her treatment [and died much sooner], if she did not have access to marijuana.
There are thousands of people in Massachusetts faced with similar situations. Admittedly, some to a lesser degree, but nonetheless dealing with a health crisis where marijuana would be beneficial. Kay Kahn wants to reform marijuana laws, so that people like Laurie do not have to break the law to live. That’s the right thing to do, and that’s why I urge residents of the 11th Middlesex to vote for Kay Kahn in November.
I see that Representative Kahn is reading and contributing to this thread. Rep. Kahn, I’d like to personally thank you for working so tirelessly on behalf of people like my darling wife, Laurie. It truly heartens me to know there are people in our state legislature who recognize the issue, and despite the political risks are willing to stand up and fight for reform. Thank you, and good luck with your reelection campaign.
Mike,
Did you read the article in the Globe today about the effect of marijuana on the brains of teen-agers? I think it’s fair to say that if there were a legal, and like other states, loosely policed way to get especially strong marijuana, the teens would easily get it.
Even Lester Greenspoon, an advocate of legalizing marijuana, admitted concern in the article over this pretty convincing research about the brain of teen-agers. His take, and I disagree with it, is that, if it were legal and medical, it could be policed like alcohol to keep it away from teen-agers. So, I guess we’ve never seen a teen-ager, under legal drinking age, drunk.
Making it easier get, in very strong varieties, is a recipe for disaster. I’m voting against it, your wife notwithstanding, and I am sorry about your experience, but it’s not a convincing argument for legalization.
@Barry: If Mike’s story, and those of many others who have been helped in similiar circumstances, are not a convincing argument for legalization, what would be?
I am also curious what “disaster” you see looming on the horizon if this is passed. Are they the same ones that failed to materialized after decriminalization?
I am voting for Greer in this one. I have nothing against Kay but I don’t think anyone needs to be serving 10th term. The professional politician is a big problem with government these days at all levels. It seems to be an even bigger here in Mass.
The marijuana issue is going to be solved directly by the voters this fall, no?
Wally,
There is no convincing argument for legalization. It’s astounding to me that, if something in marijuana can have the effects it has, science can not produce a medication, extract or synthetic, that will do that. To have people getting stoned in order to alleviate the effect of chemotherapy, or whatever other help it provides, makes no sense to me. Even if it entails a state of inebriation, as some other pharmaceuticals create, it should be doable orally, and sold through a pharmacy, like prescription codeine cough syrup. This is merely step 1 towards full legalization of a substance that, unlike alcohol, has no use other than to get stoned. Beer, wine, cordials, whiskeys, etc., at least can taste good and enhance a meal, in spite of the often negative side of alcohol.
Greer has done so many excellent things for the community and she’s a really nice person, but I don’t agree with her politically. Plus, I think Greer is very valuable as an alderman and it would be a pity to lose her. My vote will ultimately go to Kay Khan, but not because I dislike Greer!
I’m glad to see (most) posters here are of the same opinion that I am, rather than the usual jerking of the knee toward one party or another.
Mrs. Swiston is a great candidate, and I think well-qualified to represent our district. I applaud Alderman Swiston for being a measured, independent voice. On the other hand, I agree that Rep. Khan has done a great job representing our district.
I’d vote for both candidates if I could. I doubt Mrs. Swiston can win this election because lots of people will show up and vote straight party line. But I have great respect for her service to our city, and for her willingness to challenge the incumbent and present a dissenting point of view.
@Ben– Hopefully reform will come at the ballot box this November, in the same way voters decriminalized small amounts of marijuana a few years ago. However, the judiciary has already tampered with the wording of the initiative on the ballot, and the new law would not be immune from a legislative re-write after it passes, [assuming it does]. That’s why it’s critically important that our legislators support progressive marijuana reform.
Mike,
Did you see the article?
@Barry– I just read the article online. Thanks for calling my attention to it.
Just to be clear, under no circumstances am I suggesting or advocating the use of marijuana by teenagers, unless they have a medical condition that warrants it and it’s prescribed for them by a doctor. I don’t think it’s a good idea for teens to drink alcohol either, but I’m not in favor of prohibition of alcohol anymore than prohibition of marijuana.
As I’ve stated many times on this and other blogs, I personally believe marijuana should be legal, controlled, and taxed just like alcohol. But that’s not the point of my earlier post, which addressed the use of marijuana for medical purposes. I believe medical marijuana reform to be a moral imperative.
Am I worried about teens using marijuana? Sure. But it seems to me that regulation would offer some control that does not exist within the current dynamic.
Mike,
I’ll go back to what we debated in an earlier blog. If there is an ingredient or are ingredients in either marijuana leaves or marijuana smoke that has the therapeutic effects being sought, it seems to me that it could be produced as a prescription drug, like codeine cough syrup. I can’t believe that, if has these benefits, no-one is looking into how to make money off of it in a legitimate pharmaceutical business.
So, that aside, we should be discussing free recreational use because that’s where you and Grinspoon want to take this. Since there is marijuana that can make you totally spaced out, and dangerous behind the wheel, I’d say it’s not a simple matter of legalization. Were we able to keep it out of the hands of youth, which is unlikely, even having adults have easy access can have adverse effects. And if it were in widespread daily use, it may turn us into a non-productive Rastafarian type of society, which isn’t good. To some extent we are there, which may be why there are a lot of people on the government or labor union take, resenting the people who work hard, many stressful hours a day, and have high incomes to show for it.
Barry, I think the recent wave of maryjane legalization is all a bluff. The Mass pols that are calling for this are the same ones that voted to make it infinitely more difficult to buy or use tobacco. Now they want to allow marketing of something that promotes cancer at a yet higher level? End of life comfort is one thing — but no way are any of these pols ready to see a head shop on Needham Street and at Chestnut Hill Mall. Or allow millions of dollars spent of pot advertizing. They know it’s not going to happen — they’re flexing their inner William F Buckley.
This will be my last post about marijuana on this thread. I don’t want to be unfair to the two candidates by dominating the thread with a single topic, just because it’s important to me. If and when a new thread opens on the topic of the pending ballot initiative that would legalize medical marijuana, I’ll be glad to expand on the conversation. For now, I’ll just try to address comments by Barry and Hoss above, and leave it at that.
@Barry– The financial dynamic is exactly why marijuana remains illegal in many parts of the US today. Large pharmaceutical companies cannot control it. It supplants the need for other [less effective] drugs. And it is considered by that industry to be a direct threat to their bottom line. Their lobbying efforts are a large part of why marijuana reforms have for the most part come through the ballot box, rather than legislative process. In the last few years for example, there have been 18 ballot initiatives regarding marijuana reform in Massachusetts, [most of them non-binding, and regional]. Of the 18, 17 have passed, generally by large margins.
@Hoss– I think most of the legislators who support medical marijuana reform, have done so because they are compassionate people who understand how marijuana can improve the quality of life for people who suffer from various illnesses. There’s no “bluff” involved. As far as the full legalization of marijuana, I believe that is far more likely to come at the ballot box, rather than through the legislative process.
Hoss, you implied that marijuana “promotes cancer” at a higher level than cigarettes. Is that an assumption you’re making, or is it based on some study or source I am admittedly unfamiliar with?
Mike Striar — Touche’. I’m no doctor. I do enjoy reading every one of your thoughts Mike, particularly since I agree w most of them (including medical marijuana). Where we disagree is what we’re open for in our combined neighborhood. You’ve said yes to a head shops (effectively), no to leaf blowers (point-blank). That’s confusing me the same way as where Newton’s elected officials are saying yes to head shops, no to slot machines. We’re selling wishy-washy ideology (is that’s the right word)
Hoss– Just for clarification purposes. A “head shop” is a place that sells marijuana and drug paraphernalia, not a place that actually sells marijuana or drugs. It differs from the clinics, which have become the standard distribution facilities in states where medical marijuana is legal. My preference would be to fully legalize marijuana, and use the existing retail liquor infrastructure [liquor stores and such] to control and tax the product.
Just to revisit the leaf blower issue for a moment… I do not favor a total ban on leaf blowers. I favor banning gasoline powered leaf blowers, because of their noise and other environmental impact. Although I’m not crazy about them, I do not have the same objection to electric leaf blowers.
Lastly, I am in complete agreement with you about the [you called it “wishy-washy ideology”] that sends inconsistent messages to the public. Personally, I am a strong supporter of individual freedom. Along with that freedom, comes individual responsibility. So, my general belief is that people should be free to do as they wish, up until the point where it has a direct negative impact on others.
Re medical Marijuana: In 1973 my husband’s then 28 year old senior resident at (then named) New England Medical Center was diagnosed with Ewing’s Sarcoma. Marijuana, then not commonly used for severe nausea, extended his life by almost four years by getting him through multiple bouts of chemotherapy he could not have tolerated otherwise. We lost him shortly after he participated in the bicentennial in 1976.
Those who support legal medical use of marijuana are not condoning head shops. There is also currently no drug form of marijuana available. Not to say it won’t become available in the future, but there are people who need it for medical purposes NOW.
Marijuana can be regulated and dispensed in the same way that other drugs are regulated and distributed. Have mercy on those who benefit from the relief marijuana can give and let’s do the right thing here.
Thank you Kay Khan for your willingness to do what is right.
Vicki Danberg
Vicki and Mike,
Is there an equivalent effect regardless of whether the marijuana is burnt and smoked or ingested unburned.
Hopefully folks, someday soon the treatment of cancer will be less harsh than it was in 1973, and in 2012. But that can only be true with early detection (of cancer) and prevention. That doesn’t mean discovery in the emergency room. Good gawd what are we facing in this election season?
Barry– The clinics in California sell what are referred to as “edibles,” marijuana infused food. I’ve met a number of patients who have used edible marijuana products, with mixed results. It appears they work for some, but not for others. I’m also told that it’s easier for a patient to regulate the effective dosage through smoking rather than eating.
Easy for me. Greer’s website says she will gut the state’s affordable housing law. I am a long time affordable housing advocate and a member of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, which decides appeals from decisions to grant comprehensive permits to construct affordable housing. Close to 50,000 units of affordable housing in over 900 developments have been created since the 1970s under this law. Seventy percent of the affordable housing created in the Greater Boston area has been as a result of this law. The need for more affordable housing is still great. A recent statewide ballot initiative to repeal the affordable housing law was rejected overwhelmingly by voters. This is not the time to gut the law to accomplish a de facto repeal of its provisions.
Kay Khan supports affordable housing and our state laws promoting the creation of affordable housing. I am voting for Kay Khan for state representative.
Ted,
“Affordable housing” is another way to do Obama transfer of wealth. It’s using tax money to pay for housing.
From HUD
“(OAHP) administers three separate programs designed to address the nationwide shortage in affordable housing. The HOME Investment Partnerships, Self-Help Homeownership (SHOP), and Homeownership Zone programs bring federal resources directly to the state and local level for use in the development of affordable housing units, or to assist income-eligible households in purchasing, rehabilitating, or renting safe and decent housing. ”
It’s just another give-away program. When I was a kid “affordable housing” meant housing that you could afford on the normal housing market. It wasn’t necessarily great, but it gave you incentive to do well so someday you could live in a place like Newton. Today, you don’t have to do well. The government will give it to you along with everything else you might every want, and you don’t even have to work in order to get it. Vote Obama if this is what you think America should be.
Barry, I missed you. Really. You remind me why I am so proud to be a Democrat.
And you remind me of why the Democratic party I find impossible to support today, even though I once voted straight Democratic, is no longer the party it was in the days of JFK, who said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country.” sad really. As Thatcher I think said, “the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”
Gimme gimme gimme. Great philosophy of life.
Barry :
or the Bush transfer of wealth, or the Reagan transfer of wealth, or the Ford transfer of wealth…. Using tax money to subsidize housing for lower income people is not a recent development Barry.