The kerfuffle surrounding Scott Lennon’s ad in the TAB, Ruthanne Fuller’s response, and Scott’s follow up have raised an important question: to what extent do our mayoral candidates have the sensitivity to identify and sympathy to address bias against women*?
The language in Scott’s ad about his years of full-time employment, critics of the ad (including this one) argue, reflects an insensitivity towards the fact that women have fewer opportunities to reach middle age with continuous employment and that “alternative” career paths more typically followed by women can provide valuable experience for elected office. On the other hand, Scott’s defenders have noted that Ruthanne’s history of donating to Republican Party candidates calls into question her sympathy to issues of gender bias, given the Republican Party’s abysmal track record on women’s issues.
To get a better picture of where they stand, I spoke with both of them. Spoiler alert: we should be optimistic.
For starters, Scott said, clearly and unequivocally, that he regrets the words he used, that he owns them, and that he has heard the message loud and clear, “Words matter.” In a campaign where 9 out of 10 voters want to know how to distinguish the two candidates, he mishandled his attempt to distinguish his work experience from Ruthanne’s.
Many of Scott’s defenders have noted that Scott really wants to be an inclusive mayor. I think that’s true. Scott talked to me about how proud he was at the kickoff of the Women’s Advancement Council — “I felt like I was really accomplishing something.” He wants to make Newton a better place for his daughter and all our young women. He wants to make sure women are represented in leadership positions in the city.
The question is whether he sufficiently attuned to the systemic bias that women face and to the advantages men (particularly CIS white men) have. Clearly, the ad suggests not. But, Scott recognizes that he missed how his words connect to the experience women have. And, I believe him when he says he wants to “take this as a learning experience” and “turn it into a positive.” Notably, in three different conversations with him, I didn’t sense even a hint of defensiveness (in contrast to his initial follow up). He seems to get it that he doesn’t wholly get it. And, I have little doubt that, if elected mayor, he would make an effort to get there.
A moment to address the suggestion in Scott’s original response and in comments here on V14 that somehow being accused of sexism (or racism or homophobia or able-ism, &c.) is an injury worse than sexism. It isn’t. Part of being sensitive to sexism (or racism or homophobia or able-ism, &c.) is recognizing that whatever slight you suffer undoubtedly pales in comparison with a woman’s experience (or that of a person of color or LGBTQ person or disabled person, &c.).
If a woman says that she understands that there is endemic structural bias against women, we should credit her with “getting it.” There have been suggestions that Ruthanne’s relative wealth insulates her from bias against women. Re-read her response to the ad. She’s speaking for all women. She feels it “in her gut” and says that as mayor you have to have “sensitivity in your bones.”
Does Ruthanne’s wealth insulate her from sexism in a way that might undermine her claims to get it? Funny and disturbing anecdote. Ruthanne relates knocking on doors with a male volunteer. At one house, the man who answered spoke only to Ruthanne’s associate.
The pertinent question is whether she’s sympathetic. Turns out, not all women are interested in fighting sexism. For Ruthanne skeptics, there’s the question of her contribution to Republican candidates, particularly George W. Bush. The Republican record on women’s issues is abysmal. Contributing to Republicans is a prima facie case of sexism or sexism defense.
Ruthanne’s response to my questions about her donations: “A friend asked me to write a check [to Bush]. I did. It was wrong. It was bad judgment.” Believe her? I do. Mostly because she did not apologize for her donations to Mitt Romney — a long-time family friend — and John McCain — whose service and heroism she admires. Seriously, Mitt “binders full of women” Romney?!?! Oy.
More relevant is her recent political activity. According to her, “I believe in the power of government [to do good]. The Republican party has moved away from everything I believe about the power of government.” Her support of Democrats at all levels over the last decade and her support from Democrats — particularly Democratic women — in this race give credibility to her claim that she’s a progressive generally and more specifically as relates to women’s issues.
So, where does that leave us on gender in the 2017 Newton mayoral race? On the one hand you’ve got a candidate who earnestly and credibly claims that he has and will continue to fight for women, who acknowledges that he doesn’t fully get it, but is committed to working up the ladder to full woke. On the other hand, you have a candidate with a track record of supporting progressives and progressive causes, tainted by questionable donations, who is, relevantly, a woman.
Two good choices, but a meaningful difference.
* I know that the ad also raised issues of racial sensitivity. For this post, I’m going to stick to the issue of gender bias. I think the evidence about sensitivity to and sympathy for gender bias can fairly be extended to issues of race, sexual orientation, disability, &c. As always, the comment section is open for your feedback and insights!
“A friend asked me to write a check [to Bush]. I did. It was wrong. It was bad judgment.” I’m sorry, but WTF??? She wrote a check to Bush because a friend ASKED her to??? Does this strike anyone else as very odd?
I see absolutely no gender bias in this race, and that doesn’t mean I don’t get it.
Ruthann’s pollsters probably told her that Newton was open to taking the charge seriously, voila she embraces the idea. Don’t talk to me about Lennon’s ad, it was simply an obscure enough comment for her campaign to say, “OK close enough, use this. IMHO. I think this sexism charge goes hand in hand with her even more offensive ad, giant pink caps, best card stock, brilliant printing, “Newton can lead the Resistance”, end of her message. Am I the only one to have found this had nothing to do with qualifications to lead the city of Newton; quite the opposite. Nothing much makes me angry, that ad did!
Honestly, I don’t get the point of this post other than to keep the gender issue going. I guess that is the point.
Lennon stumbled. Fuller pounced. Damage done. End of story. Time to move on!
-both acting as children.
Tis a good thing we have a distraction such as the Charter question, now if we might be able to redirect their attention to the state of our future.
Sean, nice try. “I know that the ad also raised issues of racial sensitivity.” No, it didn’t. Ruthanne manufactured a potential racial issue out of whole cloth where none was meant, intended, implied or even hinted at. As she cynically manipulated the (granted, badly written) ad for her own political benefit you, Shirley Leung and other acolytes (or click-seekers??) eagerly joined in. To throw it in as an *extra after this sop is the worst. The equivalent of asking, “Ruthanne, have you stopped stealing lunch money from children at the local school?” You claim to want to stick to the (equally manufactured) issue of gender bias and then throw this in?
Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending at any fairness or even-handedness.
*I know Sean’s horrible yard maintenance annoys his neighbors, but I want to keep this comment to the piece in question.
See what I mean??
What Mike said. Ruthanne put out an ad with pink hats and said we were going to lead the resistance. Scott used a poor choice of words in an ad. I mistake + 1 mistake = a big fat zero.
Playing gotcha is not what we should be doing in any campaign. We can do better than this. Move on and have an intelligent, civil, respectful discussion of the issues facing Newton in the years to come.
For the record, I believe Scott isn’t a sexist.
But, are you guys serious?? You think if someone spends thousands of dollars (some of it maybe from your donations) on an ad that slants towards sexism, his opponent should sit there and take it and not bring attention to it???? Are you all serious????
Ruthanne had every right to stand up to that ad and make it public. If she didn’t. you all would say she’s too passive and we want a fighter. Seriously???? Shame on all of you!!!! You people are the ones keeping this issue going, not the candidates.
“You people are the ones keeping this issue going, not the candidates.”
No Sean is the one keeping it going starting this tread. Enough already!
I’m sad to see the responses this thread is getting.
I want to give you all some context here. These threads have in part been in response to real women and people of color who have contacted us because they are upset by the discussions here. I know this is a tough election season, but can we please try to get past the knee-jerk “my candidate was right” reactions and discuss the deeper issues here?
Our community is feeling hostile to some, and that’s bad. Bad for all of us. Maybe we need to wait until after the election to cool off but it’s a shame if that’s the case.
Tom – Sean is a thoughtful guy who has a tendency to beat a dead horse.
Do you think that the pink hat ad was inappropriate and a mistake? Of course. Most people did. The mayor’s not leading the resistance. The mayor is running the city. Could Scott’s campaign have jumped all over it? You bet. He didn’t.
These are distractions in a campaign that will determine the future of the city. Focus on the issues that matter – how are we going to pay our bills? How are we going to maintain city services? How are we going to rebuild at least 5 new schools when we’re facing a budget deficit and overcrowded schools?
Ruthanne’s political donations to Republicans with anti-women policies and her flippant responses when questioned about it isn’t a deep enough issue?
Bryan – Your issue may have been relevant, but the timing is off by a mile. I’d suggest we put this on hold and have the discussion in two weeks.
Or if we want to talk about issues more relevant to Newton today, let’s talk about the anti-union sentiment by a self-proclaimed progressive? Say good-bye to our beloved school custodians if we have a Mayor Fuller.
Normally, I wouldn’t do this, but here’s why I decided to write this:
1. Gender bias is an incredibly important topic for this or any other mayoral election
2. Gender bias arose through events in the campaign
3. The typical and understandable impulse on supporters’ side to advocate for their woman or man is to make a caricature of the other person
4. I felt that the issue is less polarized and more nuanced than where the discussion has gotten
Peace.
Jane,
You had me at “thoughtful guy.”
I commented earlier that I realize that this is a blog not written by professional journalists with a duty to be balanced and not biased, but this post was especially biased.
I was offended by Scott’s bad choice of words about having 20 years of paid experience. As the world is seeing first hand every day, women face sexism every day. I can’t believe that 20 plus years in the work force, and I still see it and hear from friends who have awful experiences, whether it is not getting air time at a male dominated table or not being invited to play golf because she isn’t one of the guys. Every day women work harder and smarter to be recognized for the job she does, sometimes while balancing care for elders or kids. From my small pool of friends, it tends to be the women (who work full time) who are still responsible for taking care of their parents. While we are making strides that parents of any sex can care for a child, we still have a long time to go.
So yes, gender still matters.
Gender matters in Newton, Massachusetts, the US and the world. All over the globe women are not allowed what I am allowed to do (vote, drive, etc), and I think about this daily.
Gender matters.
Gender matters when your superior makes a rude remark and yet still has the power to promote you or give you a race.
Gender matters when you have the smarts but aren’t invited to the table for the deal.
Gender matters.
And what Scott said happens every day. Women and men are equal and one day women will have equal numbers at all levels in corporate America.
Sean, Your writing always seems to get my goat, and I can’t quite put my finger on why – I think it has something to do with assumptions you make on behalf of your reader. To my ear, your writing feels like there is an underlying agenda.
Sometimes – Often actually, I want to respond to a V14 post but don’t have the time, So I just let it go.
A few weeks ago, you posted an article a with the title ‘Lennon courts the women vote.’, and my first reaction was “What a silly title.”
Scott had just announced his intent to create a Women’s Advancement Council to promote “solutions to issues of pay equity, workplace discrimination, and other barriers to gender equality.”
My thinking was ‘man he (Sean) doesn’t get it.’ To say that he is courting the ‘women vote’ is divisive language. It implies that only women are concerned about women’s issues and Scott’s interest in matters of gender equality was purely strategic to get this special interest block called ‘women.’
In this article, you say “If a woman says that she understands that there is endemic structural bias against women, we should credit her with “getting it.” I would say that Scott’s announcement also credits him with “getting it.” There is no litmus test for ‘getting it’.
Regarding Scott’s words about being employed throughout his life … Yes, a mistake .. And a big one … However I’ve written and run media for many local campaigns, and I know that it is likely Scott or his campaign managers didn’t write or review carefully enough the words that went out on his behalf. I’m not saying he’s not responsible, but I do think his track record, initiatives and sensitivity speak much louder.
And finally, you write about Ruthanne “… a candidate with a track record of supporting progressives and progressive causes”. What exactly does that statement mean?
I’ve heard this term ‘Progressive’ tossed around for years. I wasn’t aware it was such a “thing” until this last political cycle. I wholeheartedly blame ‘progressives’ for our delivering our lunatic President from reality-show to reality.
It’s likely that I hold a lot of progressive views myself, but wrapping a platform of opinions up with a bow and defining that platform as being right, and all others wrong is divisive. A worldview defined as progressive vs. non-progressive, with no ability to listen and respect the life view of others will continue to produce Trump-like results, and progressives will continue to be branded as elitist.
But let’s get back to you, Sean. I have a request. If you are going to report news, please report without bias and undertones. If you’re going to be an opinion blogger, then fine, have at it. I just want to know who you are.
Village14 should take note because this is pertinent to your growth as a platform. Most Americans now get their news from their Facebook feed. The presence Village14 has developed is admirable and valuable to me. When you go to Fox News, you expect a bias. I would prefer that Village14 not be a progressive Fox News.
Mike
Mike,
I don’t have time this second to respond adequately to your thoughtful critique. I’ll try to do so before the weekend passes. (I have some other objectionable posts in the queue!)
I did want to address a factual issue. I did not post Lennon courts the women vote or write the headline. And, the content of the post was simply Scott’s press release, verbatim.
Sean Thank you. Apologies. I assume that you had written then headline.
This post is very disappointing. It’s title contains “in the candidates’ words”, but all I found were a few cherry picked selections, and even a set of phrases that the author has constructed into his own sentences.
In particular, this section I found very unhelpful in providing me information to help make a decision.
Quote from post:
—-
But, Scott recognizes that he missed how his words connect to the experience women have. And, I believe him when he says he wants to “take this as a learning experience” and “turn it into a positive.” Notably, in three different conversations with him, I didn’t sense even a hint of defensiveness (in contrast to his initial follow up). He seems to get it that he doesn’t wholly get it. And, I have little doubt that, if elected mayor, he would make an effort to get there.
—
The author here is just construing his beliefs about Scott’s position and how he has internalized his missteps with the ad. I would much prefer to see longer quotes directly from Scott that can convey his beliefs directly to me.
Say what you will about this post, but it pointed me to a crucial issue that has swung my vote: Ruthanne Fuller was a generous donor to the GOP through 2008. She donated thousands in 2004 to Bush / Cheney. Her claims to be a long-time progressive are not true. I cannot vote for her. Lennon’s ad, and his response to the controversy, were not impressive. But at least I am confident that he has consistent political beliefs.
BTW, kudos to village14.com. This is a very useful website.
@Dan – Yes, I think a more accurate title would have been:
“Gender: Sean’s take on the candidates words”
Jeez, everybody’s a media critic, eh?
In Ruthanne’s words in one of her flyers today: “Elect the Right Woman for the Job.”
Normally, I would have thought that was clever. But after last week, imagine if Scott’s flyer read “Elect the Right Man for the Job.”
I look forward to tomorrow’s gender thread. Which one of you men will moderate? 😉
Seriously Bill? Did this come to you home?Do you have a copy of that?
Claire: Yes. Oui. Sí.*
* not an endorsement of the Charter proposal.
@ Bill Brandel, I checked my mailbox and I received the same mailing on the front:
“To take charge of Newton’s future… ELECT THE RIGHT WOMAN FOR THE JOB”
On the back:
“Newton has never had a female Mayor, But Ruthanne Fuller is ready to change that_because of her long record of leadership and getting the job done”
Bill,
Nothing like a poor oppressed man story, amirite?
Can I make a different observation? Women (usually women) make the choice to step back from work to be more active in raising our children. This could mean taking a less demanding job, working part time, freelancing or leaving the workplace for a stretch. Note that these women are the ones who have the financial good fortune to be able to even make this choice. For the overwhelming majority of women in this category, this means that our marketability has gone down by the time we decide to ramp up again. Forget the petty and divisive Mommy Wars stuff. It’s not just the years of salary that you lose when you stop working full time. A woman’s economic earning power, career relevance and marketability goes down when she either scales back or leaves the work force altogether. So, when we want to re-enter, we either have to apologize for that gap or fabricate that our experience is in some way comparable to what we would have been doing if we hadn’t left. Apologize or fabricate. If you aren’t an elite business or law school graduate, just say, some mom making $60K, you take an earnings hit that you may never catch up on. What’s worse, you are likely going to be mommy tracked for years until you hit ageism. It’s an economic reality that women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes and it has huge societal implications, especially for women-led single earner households with children. Women who aren’t Harvard Business School grads really look to elite women leaders to change the rules, and more hopefully, change the trajectory. We need role models that show that we don’t have to apologize or fabricate. Or, that you can reinvent yourself and run for office at 50. There’s a journalist in Silicon Valley named Sarah Lacy who has written a book on the thesis that motherhood actually makes us better leaders, workers, problem solvers, etc. She advocates that women should turn the system on its heels and redefine the rules. Ruthanne had a chance to do that, in a small way, during this mayor’s race. She had a chance to create new women’s rules that are about quality of experience, not “years of” with a different life cycle for women’s careers. Instead, her professional experience was presented totally within the quantified context of men’s terms– “30 years”–presenting what appeared to be continuous employment to the casual observer. Apologize or fabricate. When this was challenged, she came out strong as a stay at home mom, something that would have been news to anyone who had been reading her direct mail pieces for months. I don’t see progress here.
When I became a parent, I had a choice of either working and actually losing money because daycare was so expensive but keeping my career alive or becoming a SAHM. I’ve tried both and it’s hard either way. Forgive me if I don’t identify with Fuller and her wealth allowing her to continue being a “SAHM” even after her children were in their 20s. If she’s so pro-women and wants to empower us, why aren’t we hearing about city policies that she would implement to help moms? Free preschool, for one. Resources for lower income moms. Making it so single moms aren’t tasked with moving their cars at midnight to avoid a $25 fine in the winter even when it’s warm out. This feminist does not not buy into her rhetoric. She’s out of touch.
Sean: double standards generally should be avoided. It also puts the sincerity of Ruthanne’s claimed injury into stark relief. This week, it appears the message from her campaign is that gender bias is okay… That should never be the message.
I apologize for the double post. But seriously, Sean, we are electing the person who will oversee this City’s workforce, which does consist of men and women. This, I think, speaks to Ruthanne’s lack of management experience. You can’t exhibit one set of rules for one gender, and one for another. Who would do that in a corporate setting in 2017?
After last week, it’s disconcerting, and it’s not cute.
Bill,
There is a double standard. On the one hand, we have a candidate who gets all sort of systemic benefits just from being a white man. So, no, he should not traffic in language that suggests (regardless of his intention) that he should get the job because he has experience that are much less likely to be true of a woman. On the other hand, we have a woman who has to overcome all sorts of bias against women. So, she’s trying to take advantage of some of the good will for and political energy around women candidates right now and pointing out that it might be good for the city to try a differently gendered candidate.
As for the men and women who work for the city, the system has been rigged in favor of them getting men mayor bosses since the founding of the city. Maybe, they’d be better off with a woman mayor. Maybe, they (particularly the women) are not offended by the prospect of change.
For generations, men have implicitly benefited from being men in politics. Denying women the opportunity to now use gender in their favor because it’s not “fair” is just another mechanism to extend the patriarchy.
So, yes, I’m fine with a double standard. It’s a small price to pay for generations of discrimination. Based on my conversations with him, I suspect Scott gets this.
@Sean : As Emily Norton said on the other thread where you are trying to characterize NO voters as being diversity-adverse:
“@Sean with all due respect I’ve had it with you and various other straight white men on this blog telling the rest of us how to do diversity. Have you reviewed the list of No-On-Charter endorsers? If you don’t recognize the names, trust me – it’s as economically, racially, ethnically, & geographically diverse a list of your Newton neighbors as you’re going to find. Don’t tell them you know better than they do what’s in their best interest.”
I feel the same way about you becoming the official spokesperson for women voters of Newton. As you wrote: “Maybe, they (particularly the women) are not offended by the prospect of change.”
Are you speaking up for the women folks? Have YOUR years of male privilege and white man bias entitled you to speak for us little ladies?There are plenty of women on this blog. We sure as hell don’t need you speaking for us.
Don’t presume to know what women think or that you are the appropriate voice for us. It is both patronizing, disrespectful and diminishing to boil this all down to “it might be good for the city to try a differently gendered candidate”.
I got home to read Ruthanne’s huge postcard to “ELECT THE RIGHT WOMAN FOR THE JOB” This is a strategy that is going to backfire because the only people that it’s going to appeal for are women over 60 who have never gotten over Geraldine Ferraro. Yes, there are a lot of them in Newton, but their numbers are being replaced by women that vote on actual issues. Still, Dems appease them, supporting losing causes like Martha Coakley and Hilary Clinton, just for the sake of electing a woman figurehead. Meanwhile, the women that do get elected are folks like my hero Elizabeth Warren, who never has and never would stoop to asking citizens to vote for her because of her gender. She doesn’t have to.
This “ELECT THE RIGHT WOMAN FOR THE JOB”line would have been marvelous and empowering if she was running against Amy. Instead it seems particularly pandering, tone deaf and out of touch.
Sometimes, the right man for the job IS a woman.
This is one of those times.
Ted Hess-Mahan
Alderwoman-at-Large, Ward 3
@THM: You just wrote a much better postcard headline than RAF’s political consultants!
Wonders never cease – Karen Nacht and I are in total agreement!
Elect the Right Woman For the Job? And we’re complaining about Scott’s ad? Please.
@KarenN, I wish I could take credit, but everyone from Ms. Magazine to Maggie Thatcher has used that line.
On Thursday nights, I teach RE to 7th and 8th graders at my church. Tonight we were talking about gender expression, gender roles and gender stereotypes. The young adults today really get it. They know when society places certain expectations on them because of their gender, and the adverse consequences for deviating from those norms. They are totally woke. Not like us old farts.
@Karen: I worked on Geraldine Ferraro’s campaign when I was at Barnard – an all female college! I agree – the recent mailer was definitely playing the gender card – similar to the pink hat mailer that said nothing except RESIST – which really says nothing about the issues facing our city.
Like many women, I wear many hats (not just pink ones). I am a stay-at-home mother, caregiver for my 92 year old mother with dementia, an environmental attorney, a Newton Public Schools parent, and a community activist. I care about our city and our city’s future and that’s why I want someone (if not me) to lead our city forward – someone who I can trust and someone who has the character, conviction, passion and experience to ensure a brighter future for our City. That’s why I’m voting for Scott Lennon and hope you all do too.
Karen,
I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say that I “presume” to speak for women. Bill suggested that city staff (who are both men and women) might have a problem with a woman running explicitly as a woman. In response, I posited that maybe city staff, particularly women, might in fact, prefer a woman mayor after generations of men. Two middle-aged white dudes speculating is hardly speaking for anybody. (Though, I wonder why you focused your ire at me, and not Bill or Matt and others who have been equally adamant about what words mean and how they might be interpreted.)
More generally, I intend to continue to write about gender and race (and LGBTQ and disabled and …) issues. First, you don’t have to be a member of a traditionally oppressed group to realize a benefit from equality and diversity. I’m pretty much done with toxic masculinity, toxic racism, toxic homophobia. Second, I believe strongly that we will not achieve true equality and diversity unless CIS white men are willing to speak up, recognize and give up CIS white male privilege, and identify systemic bias. Particularly in the months since we elected a white nationalist, admitted sexual offender as president, the message I’ve heard from women and people of color is that they want and expect men to speak up in the face of discrimination and bias. Third, I strongly believe that what happens in local government has a greater impact on our lives than the state and national politics that get more coverage. So, focusing on what’s happening in Newton — even when it risks making people I know well uncomfortable — is important. Frankly, I don’t do enough. I wish I could make more time for this.
Finally, before you read between the line, please read the lines. There’s a lot more to what I wrote than just “let’s try a gal this time around.” But, you basically have it right. All other things being roughly equal, it’s time for more women (and people of color and LGBTQ folks and disabled folks and …) in positions of leadership. Sorry if that offends you.
Ted – What does that have to do with this election? We’re trying to figure out who will lead the city forward.
Oh, come on now. How many times have mailers and ads said “I’m the right man for the job?” That’s because in the recent past, but hopefully less and less in the future, men almost always were running against men.
So now we are going to say it’s wrong for a women candidate to say, “I’m the right woman for the job?” Preposterous!
Women get faulted no matter how they campaign for jobs men have always held – particularly against a man.
Scott Lennon’s ad wouldn’t have caused quite such an uproar if he wasn’t campaigning against a woman, Ruthanne Fuller. Yes, it still would have been off the mark because many successful, well qualified men have gaps in their employment over the years.
It’s because Ruthanne is a strong, smart woman who was able to have gaps in her paid positions that he (his campaign) chose to differentiate himself his continuous work experience.
Sean: Not exactly. To be clear:
Point 1: From a campaign perspective, it’s wrong for Ruthanne to make a big deal out of Scott’s vague, poorly-worded ad last week, and then attempt to clearly leverage gender this week in her own mailer. If it was wrong last week, then it was certainly wrong this week. That is, unless we accept a double-standard, which I think most people would agree that we do not or at least should not.
Point 2: These two candidates are vying to be Mayor. A major part of that job function is to manage a large force of men and women fairly and equally. In today’s world, managers cannot use double standards in terms of hiring, promotion, job performance evaluation, treatment, language, etc. Anyone who manages knows that. Ruthanne has never really managed people. It’s 2017. It begs the questions: Does she really not get this? Does she think these rules do not apply to her?
@Marti Bowen, please be intellectually honest. If Scott had said I am the right man for the you and Ruthanne would have been all over him.
It was a blatant appeal for people to vote for her because she is a woman.
Otherwise she could have said:
I am the right person for the job
or
I am the right leader for the job
or
I am the right candidate for the job
Folks, I was born in Newton. I’ve lived here most of my life.
I’ve seen so many people run for office in this city. As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I saw amazing candidates 0n the national level. I’ve been lucky to have known so many truly inspiring people who have run for office. Ruthanne Fuller is one of the best candidates I’ve ever seen. She’s the best person to be leader of this city.
I want to tell you a story that demonstrates why I’m urging you to vote for Ruthanne Fuller to be our next Mayor on November 7th:
When our country was in the worst recession in 75 years and our city faced a severe structural deficit in 2008, the current Mayor called upon Ruthanne to lead. As Vice Chair of the Citizen Advisory Group, Ruthanne worked with residents throughout the city to build consensus around a set of bold recommendations that have dramatically improved the city’s finances during the last eight years. These far-reaching proposals were essential ingredients in Mayor Setti Warren’s successful initiative to ensure Newton’s long-term financial health and stability.
Ruthanne understands the challenges that face our city both now and in the future. She’s done this in the past, and she’ll do it as our next Mayor.
During my years in government, I’ve had the privilege of working with some distinguished leaders. Ruthanne is one of them! She is meticulous, strong, and courageous. She is a leader.
There’s an old saying: managers do things right but leaders do the right thing. As our next Mayor, Ruthanne will always do the right thing, listen carefully, and lead Newton’s residents with distinction. I hope you’ll join me and so many others who care deeply about our city’s future by voting for Ruthanne Fuller on November 7th.
Marti, I don’t know that Scott would have used that employment argument against another opponent. I think it was in direct response to her repeated “30 years of experience” remark. I don’t think it was an attempt to disparage people with gaps of unemployment, but a statement directed at Ruthanne’s employment claim. I doubt he would have used that if he was running against Amy because Amy has been nothing but candid about her background. And of course, Ruthanne’s financial situation afforded her the choice to not work.
Marti: People can argue whether this stunt is shrewd politics or not (we will know Tuesday night), but it is worth remembering that this is not a national or state-wide race. This is a mayoral race and we are a community. Those of us bantering will have to deal with each other Wednesday morning. Scott Lennon is from this community (and no, that is not an anti-immigrant comment) and people have known him for a long time. And what they know is that he is a decent, hard-working man, true to who he has always presented himself to be. “Solid” is a word I would use to describe him. It is my belief that he will be rewarded for this on Tuesday, and this new form of political discourse will be rejected. We shall see.
@Steve Grossman, it is nice to have you as part of this conversation. Thank you. I would only note that it was former Mayor David Cohen, President of the Board of Aldermen Lisle Baker, and School Committee Chair Dori Zaleznik who called on Mal Salter and Ruthanne Fuller to head up the Citizens Advisory Group that developed the blueprint which Mayor Warren used to put Newton on a sustainable fiscal course.