This is why I've stopped reading unsigned editorials.
The upcoming special State Senate election in Middlesex, Essex and Suffolk counties is an interesting, close race. Voters have a tough decision, mainly between an effective, experienced candidate with several DUIs (Anthony Galluccio) and a well-spoken, DUI-free prosecutor who seems thin on issues other than crime (Tim Flaherty).
The Globe parachutes into the race this morning with a few paragraphs that read like a coloring book -- they pick a template and fill in some color.
They endorse Flaherty because he has "the right mix of energy, agility, and experience to serve the district." They suggest his background will be useful in sections of the district with serious drug problems and in areas "where major [real estate] developments are now in play."
Maybe, but in both of the debates that I went to, Galluccio was the only one able to speak deeply and intelligently about real estate development and community approaches to fighting crime. Flaherty mostly harped on his experience as a prosecutor and assorted cliches that everybody voting next Tuesday agrees on.
I get the impression that the Globe editorial was written by somebody who hasn't followed the race. They read a few articles, had a few of the candidates stop by the office, then picked one because an editorial had to be written.
I could easily be wrong. It's possible the piece was written by somebody who knows the race intimately -- somebody who has a far better sense of the candidates than I do and sees a side of Flaherty that I haven't.
But since the piece is unsigned, and lacks any context or voice, there's no way to tell. So I'll probably end up voting for Galluccio.
Comments