HEY TONY, THAT'S BALONEY!

I awoke this morning to Town Council Update - Election Issue! from Town Councilor and candidate Tony Palomba.

The subject line caught my attention:

Final Appeal, My Choices, and Comment on Watertown's Nasty Politics

The email begins with a request for volunteers to make get-out-the-vote phone calls, do literature drops and provide poll coverage. Nothing interesting there.

He goes on to tell us how he will be voting, and there are a couple of newsworthy tidbits. First and foremost, Tiffany York is no longer the progressive darling in the race for District B. Tony will be casting his vote for Lisa Feltner, which means that she is now on everybody’s list, on both sides of the battle.

And you thought we would never agree on anything.

In the same breath, he endorsed (in his own way) John Gannon, who had been wandering the political desert, homeless. And then Tony graciously opened the door and put out a welcome mat for Dan D’Amico, without actually endorsing him.

Tony then gives us his picks for school committee and library trustee. You can read that for yourself. I have my own fish to fry and none of the fish in those races are in my mental frying pan.

Now we get to the nitty gritty − the section of Tony’s update titled:

The Most Nasty Election I Have Ever Seen In Watertown

(The underlining is mine. The typos, missed words, and questionable grammar are his. I proofread my nasty stuff.)

“I am sadden, but not surprised, about how contentious and nasty the races for Town Council and even School Committee have gotten. Yes, campaigns have an element of "us" against "them", particularly in a one-on-one race. That's the nature of two campaigns working as hard as they can to convince voters to support their candidate.  But in a district race we see the endless attack by one candidate on another even after the particular issue has been thoroughly addressed. Unfortunately, we know that negative campaigning has become part and parcel of elections.  We may not like it, but it is often used.

What is happening in Watertown is different and it is vicious and destructive.  There are Facebook groups, former elected officials, leaders of community organizations, and individuals who have spread lies, made innuendos, smeared candidates by association, and been downright mean and hostile.  There are groups of candidates - mostly ones you could call liberal or progressive and their allies - who have been called "self-righteous, ignorant, and uneducated individuals".  The issue of defunding the police as been used a dog-whistle and a stick to bludgeon anyone willing to talk about improving the Watertown Police Department no matter what the suggestion might be.  Candidates have been grouped as a cabal determined to destroy the WPF and as radicals whose only intention is to change Watertown beyond recognition.  It is "these people" who what to ruin the Watertown we all know and love.  And it "our duty" to save Watertown from the police-hating hordes.  Then there is the subtle effort to imply only those who live and work in Watertown, who have raised their children here, or gone to school here hold a real vision for Watertown. 

I usually use my FB page to post information about Watertown and community sponsored events and activities.  So I had to be directed to the FB groups that have helped turn this election nasty, as have the Op Ed pieces, and the replies to the Op Eds, in Watertown News.  However, "nasty" is not the best word to describe what is happening, since it implies both sides are equally responsible for the personal attacks, lies and misrepresentations.  From my read of the situation this is simply not true.  I have seen two lists of endorsed candidates - one by Watertown Faces Climate Change/Mass 350.org Action Fund and one by Watertown Community for Black Lives.  But I have not seen either of these groups attack or make negative remarks about the candidates they did not include. They focused on the reasons why they are supporting certain candidates.  This is not the case for others who pair their endorsement of certain candidates with attacks on those they are not endorsing.

Finally, what is particularly disheartening is the fact the candidates endorsed in letters and posts coming from individuals and groups that are spreading lies and disinformation do not call them out.  It has been consistently the same slate of councilors and school committee candidates that appear at the end of these letters and posts. Yet, none of these candidates have taken the time to hold the writers and bloggers responsible for their actions.  You would think the endorsed candidates would respond to name calling, smearing, and the spreading of false information.  Maybe I am wrong, but so far I have not seen this happen.

Off my soapbox and on to the question of what can we do about it.  At this point, there is only one thing you can do and that is VOTE for the candidates who most align with your values and desires for the future of Watertown.”

Thank you,

Tony

 

And now, it’s my turn.

Dear Councilor Palomba,

The district you are referring to at the beginning of this section, is District A.

The candidate you are referring to is Nicole Gardner.

The “issue” you are referring to is her letter to the town council, demanding that they defund the police by $2 million.  

And your statement that “the issue has been thoroughly addressed” is baloney. She was never forced to thoroughly address the issue because Councilor Piccirilli provided her with cover, just as you are doing here.

If Nicole Gardner wins, she will bring her credibility problem with her to the town council and that credibility problem will not be hers alone.

Regarding the “nasty,” “hostile” statements made in those Facebook groups: What exactly are the lies and innuendos, of which you speak? Should any candidate, let alone a sitting town councilor, make such inflammatory accusations without backing them up?

What you have discovered in those Facebook conversations and Watertown News OP-EDs and comments is genuine anger, generated by witnessing the public mugging of the WPD, while elected representatives bent over backwards to not disrespect the muggers.

So sorry you are “disheartened” by candidates not holding writers and bloggers responsible for what you consider to be name calling, smearing, and false information − again you provide no specifics. Many in this community are equally disheartened by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and blatant hypocrisy that has led us to where we are today.

I could go on, but I will leave it at this: Calling out other candidates for not joining you on your imaginary moral high ground is laughable.

 

Bruce Coltin

The Battle for Watertown