Friday, October 8, 2010

Sinking to new lows... The League of Woman Voters

Last month I e mailed the League of Women Voters and asked if the debate scheduled for the October 13th was going to be televised live from the Town Hall.

As far as I can remember, the League of Women Voters has always sponsored a candidates night. Now comes word they are canceling the event on the 13th. This is the type of dirty politics that has corrupted the voting public and is NOT what the League is all about. If it were not for the debate Stephany has arranged for the 25th of this month, hardly a voter in this Town would have ever been able to see the differences in the candidates.

The League should be ashamed of themselves in lite of thier mission.
"Serving the people of Framingham, Massachusetts"

"The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan organization that provides voter education and encourages active participation of citizens in government".

e mail Co-Presidents Rosemary Weich and Andrea Haynes, and tell them how disappointed you are in their very partisan decision.


It's scheduled for town hall and (with some luck) they're always televised.

Good luck.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Jim Pillsbury wrote:

Good Day,

Is the debate scheduled for October going to be televised Live from the Town Hall?


Yes, basically very few members. I'm really disappointment.
See you at Temple Beth Am on the 24th I hope.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, wrote:


How unfortunate for the voters of Framingham, is there a reason?

Jim Pillsbury

On Oct 8, 2010, Rosemary Weich wrote:

Sorry to report that the candidates' night for the 13th will not only not be televised, but has been canceled.


At October 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM , Blogger Michael said...

Looking forward to the 25th to see how you all really stand on issues that matter to us. The League is not a very well managed or well organized bunch so I would not count on them to be able to do anything worthwhile of a political nature. Their day has passed in Framingham I think.

At October 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM , Blogger Edward said...

Anyone who dodges a debate has something to hide. That something can be he is not good in front of a crowd, or that he does not know this issues. But either of those is not a good quality have have as a state rep. Glad to see someone stepped up where the League failed and the voters will have a chance to see these candidates in a public forum.

At October 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM , Anonymous Mr. John Q. Public said...

I spoke with Chris Walsh and his attitudes about Pot are the same as Jim's.

Is this serious?

I am anti pot but if there is not a dimes worth of difference on this very important social issue then why, oh why should I not consider the Thomas Jefferson of the pot issue to be my elected rep?

Maybe this is the reason to dodge a debate. And to think that an organization that represents the some of the mother's of our great community do not want THIS potopia position on pot exposed. Women get the vote and just look what happens!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

At October 12, 2010 at 2:02 PM , Blogger Anderson said...

If you like the way the state has been running, then vote for the party that has had control for the last 20 years, the democrats. If you don’t like the way the state has been run, then vote for a change. Personally, I am not sure Pillsbury is going to be able to make a difference, but I am sure that Walsh won’t make a difference, so I am willing to take a chance on Pillsbury. At least I can see for the last 2 years what his thoughts are so he has a sort of track record I can follow. Walsh seems like a nice and genuine guy but he is one of the party that has screwed up this state so I just can not support him. Debate or no debate is not going to change those facts.

At October 12, 2010 at 4:36 PM , Blogger Dylan said...

Not to beat a dead horse but I think John Q has it a bit too simplistic. Don’t know Chris Walsh’s position on pot, but if what John Q says is accurate, it is not the same as Jim Pillsbury’s position. Like it or not, tax and regulate pot brings in lots and lots of money to this state. The state of MA already has a tax stamp specifically for this, so they must have figured at some point this would happen. So Jim advocates the state making money off of this. Anyone against the state making money off something that you personally are not forced to pay for? I don’t know about you, but they can tax it all they want, since I don’t buy it, I don’t have to pay that tax. Sounds good to me.

At October 12, 2010 at 8:05 PM , Anonymous John Q. Public said...

Chris Walsh is non confrontational about it but he does not object to what CA is proposing.

And the League cancels their traditional forum?

This helps Sannicandro and Spilka too, both of whom have opponents.

Suppose they gave an election and nobody came?

Nasty town, this Framingham.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home