MARCHETTI’S IDIOTIC STATEMENT ON CRIME PROVES HE’S NOT READY FOR CORNER OFFICE … plus … PLANET RE-RUNS YESTERDAY’s COLUMN, WHICH SET A NEW RECORD FOR HITS … THE CAMPAIGN IS SIZZLING HOT, AND WE ARE THE ONLY ONES DISHING OUT THE TRUTH
By DAN VALENTI
PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary
(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, SATURDAY, NOV. 5, 2011) — Yesterday was a “houndstooth” kind of a day on THE PLANET. We had a record volume, and not by a little. Ironically, though, for more than a few, they could not read more than the headline of Friday’s post. We shall be posting it here, again [see below], having tweaked some “backstage format gizmos.” It should be good. Based on the number of hits yesterday and the number of contacts we got by various mean telling of the access problems, THE PLANET takes delight in the numbers now reading our daily blog.
Marchetti’s Idiotic Statement on Crime Should Be a Crime
On Monday, we shall have our endorsements in the municipal campaign. We will note in passing the comments of mayoral candidate Peter Marchetti on crime. He actually said (believe it was the WBEC debate) that the unprecedented rash of armed robberies plaguing Pittsfield were the result of good, honest people trying to put bread on their table for their families. Holy Jean Valjean!
You mean Marchetti actually believes that? He doesn’t think the drug lords and their slave users have anything to do with drugs? He doesn’t think the huge riff-raff element that has infested Pittsfield from Hartford, Springfield, and New York City might possibly be a causative factor? Or the rash of freeloaders who are on public assistance?
Marchetti also doesn’t seem intelligent enough to realize that every time he makes a statement about crime, the bad economy, the lack of jobs, or anything else that isn’t as it should be in Pittsfield, he’s pointing the finger at himself. Marchetti has been an at-large councilor for years. What has he done in that time to address these problems? He held a citywide post, one with considerable clout. Obviously, he didn’t do enough enough, unless we count working to please those who might give him approval, for he seems to be a man painfully uncomfortable in his own skin. He strikes THE PLANET as a certain type of child or student, one who has no self-confidence and little self-esteem, and is constantly looking for approval from a parent, teacher, professor, or some other authority figure.
Marchetti’s naive comments on crime prove what we said all along: We would let this campaign decide our leanings. It has. Dan Bianchi has run a solid campaign, saying the right things and looking mayoral. Marchetti has proved The Peter Principle. He has risen to his level of incompetence. Instead of being mayoral, he has acted emotionally, immaturely, and foolish. Marchetti’s is in way over his head, and if he gets the keys to the executive washroom in the corner office at city hall, he will be a puppet for his political masters, Gerry Doyle and Angelo Stracuzzi.
Marchetti is divorced from a woman and married to a man. In this marriage, people refer to Peter’s “husband,” making him the wife. There are too many people in blue-collar, traditionalist Pittsfield for whom this is a deal breaker. They should know these qualities in the candidate so they can cast what for them is an informed vote. Bianchi has been married to his wife, Teresa, all his married life. They have raised three children. Tell me, which man, in a neutral observation, would appear to be the more solid?
Marchetti has sold his political soul to Doyle and Stracuzzi. Bianchi has owned himself in this campaign. Marchetti has basically had the creepier elements of the Parade Committee as his campaign staff. Bianchi has surrounded himself with smart, hard-working, intelligent people. Marchetti has lost control of his emotions several times during crunch time. Bianchi has not. Which man do you honestly believe will make the better mayor.
With that preamble, here is yesterday’s post:
BIANCHI TO MARCHETTI: ‘YOU’RE NO JACK KENNEDY’ … SORT OF
(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, FRIDAY, NOV. 4, 2011) — It may go down in Pittsfield political lore along with the infamous botched at-large ballot in Jody Phillips’ first election as city clerk, Gerry Doyle throwing the city into receivership, or Peter Arlos and Jim McCaffrey duking it out on in the council chambers. It might be Pittsfield’s campaign equivalent to Lloyd Benson taking Dan Quayle to the woodshed in the 1988 vice-presidential debate (“Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I worked with Jack Kennedy, and believe me. You’re no Jack Kennedy”).
“I served with your husband” — Dan Bianchi to Peter Marchetti.
Walking into a Trap of His Own Making
The “family values” discussion at the PCTV debate on Wednesday night left moderator Dave Cachet dumbfounded, the TV audience riveted, and likely settled any doubts about the 2011 mayoral election.
The matter came about innocently enough. Peter Marchetti began a line of commentary designed to put Dan Bianchi on the defensive. Little did he know, but the trap Marchetti set ended up snaring himself. He dug the pit deep, put in the upturned sharpened stakes, put palm leaves over the opening, and then — while leading Bianchi down the jungle path — stepped into the hole.
Marchetti made the point that following Bianchi’s narrow loss to Jimmy Ruberto in 2009, Bianchi essentially disappeared from public service. Bianchi countered by providing a convincing litany of examples of his involvement in the community, including serving on a St. Mark’s Parish advisory board “with your husband.”
Bianchi said it neutrally and as a matter of fact. A smart campaigner in opposition would have let this pass without comment. Marchetti, however, became unglued. He got emotional and displayed a lack of maturity, reacting like a victim. Of what, it’s hard to say.
Is He Comfortable in His Own Skin?
One can only speculate — based on the evidence — that Marchetti isn’t comfortable letting the public know he is married to a man or that he has a husband. A friend of THE PLANET, a man who is familiar with gay culture, made the astute observation that most of his friends, including his partner, take pride in who they are. He said Pete, however, seems to be squirming in his own skin with his sexual identity.
And that is precisely what makes this a legitimate issue in the 2011 campaign. It’s not a referendum on lifestyle but on the solidity and maturity of judgment of two men. These men offer stark contrasts along many policy and political lines, but all of these pale in comparison to the polar juxtaposition of their lifestyles, the “family values” question.
Let’s get real. Bianchi is married to a woman. Marchetti is married to a man. Society may be ready for the latter in most social situations, since it’s hard to find objection to people finding genuine love in this veil of tears. The electorate, though, is NOT ready for a CEO — President, governor, or mayor — who is male and has a husband. A mayor isn’t like the CEO of a private corporation. A mayor is the person who represents the entire population of a city or town. Too many of the electorate in that population, in this case the city of Pittsfield, Mass., embrace the traditional view of marriage as a sacred and social contract between one man and one woman.
Actually, that Peter would be upset that the word is out would suggest one of the few times in his remarkably tone-deaf campaign where he has shown that he “gets” the mood of the electorate. Marchetti’s discomfort with his marital status matches up decently with that of the public.
One Man + One Woman = What the Electorate Calls a Marriage
Many, likely most, among the Pittsfield electorate do not want to be represented by a mayor who has a husband, unless that mayor is female. One cloud of unease that hung over Sara Hathaway’s head for her two year in office was her status as a single woman. Rumors circulated by her political opponents suggested she might be a lesbian. Like it or not the electorate in Berkshire County embraces traditionalist mores.
That is certainly true for senior citizens, who traditionally vote in the highest numbers of any age demographic.
There are too many people in Pittsfield who feel that, morally, the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. They would cite about 7,000 years of civilization history to support their claim that “traditional” marriage is the best, most stable arrangement for the good of the person and the good of society.
After Marchetti responded with petulance to Bianchi’s remark about serving with Peter’s “husband,” the discussion then explored traditional values. That’s where Bianchi rhetorically buried Marchetti. Peter lost sight of a fundamental rule of political combat: Don’t “go there” unless you have a full clip in the chamber and another in the ammo pouch.
Bianchi mentioned he was married to a woman, his wife, and talked favorably and convincingly, with pride, of his family. He didn’t have to do much more. Marchetti had nothing in response except a fractious and testy series of querulousness. Each of Marchetti’s salvos made him comes across as ineffectual. One and only one man came across as mayoral. The other came across as a political adolescence.
Withering Under the Glare of the Solo Spotlight
Not everyone is cut out to be a front man. Mick Jagger is, Ringo Starr isn’t.
After Marchetti’s latest meltdown, THE PLANET recalled an observation we made, and others have since made, about the unique nature of a mayoral campaign. Many wondered how Marchetti would do under the spotlight of a one-on-one campaign. A mayoral campaign is the opposite of running for the other citywide office, councilor at large. In the at-large race, you’re always sharing the stage with a bunch of others. It’s easy to hide and say nothing on the campaign trail. You’re part of the chorus. There’s too many people with too much to say and too little time or opportunity to say it.
We now know that when his time came, Marchetti wilted.
It might have been different, if, for example, he had accepted the offer made by Mayor Ruberto and John Barrett to help the campaign with fund-raising and strategy. Ruberto and Barrett made that offer to Marchetti at the East Side Cafe in June. Peter showed up at the meeting accompanied by his handler, Gerry Doyle.
THE PLANET doesn’t know word-for-word what happened that day at the East Side, but we can say that the meeting ended with Ruberto and Barrett going one way, Marchetti and Doyle the other.
In hindsight, come Tuesday at 8:01 p.m., we will be able to say that Peter Marchetti lost the election on that sunny June day.
MIKE WARD FINDS PLANET’s LABEL OF ‘ODD’ ODD
THE PLANET received this message from our Right Honorable Good Friend, the esteemed Ward 4 councilor Mike Ward, in reference to yesterday’s column. We had noted his “odd” reluctance to publicly answer our query: Which man — Marchetti or Bianchi — would in his judgment is better equipped to handle the job of mayor. Thus spaketh Ward:
Dan – your post calls my reluctance to opine on who would make a better mayor “odd”. I can prove you wrong on that. Merriam-Webster’s definition of odd includes “differing markedly from the usual”. It is not at all usual for me to make endorsements. In fact I never do. It would be *odd* for me to start now.
The assessment of who would “make a better mayor” would be difficult even if I were willing go on record with one. The two candidates look similar on paper in terms of government and business experience. But the ability to be a *successful* mayor involves many external factors out of one’s control, such as relationship with the city council.
I suggest that voters look at Dan and Pete’s voting records and decide which candidate’s worldview more closely matches their own.
City Councilor Ward 4
We thank our right honorable good friend for his comments. We assure him, though, that we are familiar with the lexicon. We still have an old-fashioned dictionary on our bookshelf (Webster’s New World). There are multiple definitions of the word. Usage depends on the syntax of the sentence and the context of the sentence with the paragraph. We accept the Merriam-Webster definition that Mike offers. We will not accept it as proof, however, that he refuted THE PLANET’s contention, since we are not parsing words since, politically, an endorsement and a recommendation are two different things.
SCHOOL BUILDING NEEDS COMMISSION DOCUMENT IS A DOOZY
Since today’s column went in a different direction than anticipated, THE PLANET shall be sharing an explosive state document as it pertains to the school building needs commission. Rather than bury the document at the end of an already ponderous discussion, we shall be sharing soon, possibly tomorrow. Remember, in making our announcement about no more Saturday columns, we did reserve the right to break in on occasion. If time allows, that document shall be posted tomorrow. If not, on Monday.
WITH ALL OF THAT, MY GOOD FRIENDS, LET US LIVE IN LOVE, PEACE, AND HARMONY, REMEMBERING THAT POLITICS IS FLEETING. IT IS OUR LIVES OUTSIDE OF POLITICS (AND SPORTS, AND POPULAR CULTURE, AND …) THAT MATTERS THE MOST. THAT’S WHY WE SAY,
“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.” AND
LOVE TO ALL.
November 4, 2011 18 Comments
18 Responses to “CAMPAIGN FIREWORKS AND A DEFINING MOMENT: ‘I SERVED WITH YOUR HUSBAND’ … plus … MIKE WARD ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ENDORSEMENT AND A RECOMMENDATION — HOT STUFF AS ELECTION DAY NEARS”
Jim Gleason November 4, 2011 at 8:17 am # Edit
mayor ruberto, gerry lee and the Pittsfield Teachers Association just, on the steps of city hall, endorsed Pete Marchetti for mayor. Surprise!!!! None of us knew any of them were for Pete, right? More like all of us knew. The teachers want a soft touch in negotiations and someone pliable ti their will, and know Pete is that man. They also endorsed Pete White for State Rep. and look where that got them. I urge all teachers and Pittsfield municipal workers to use their own mind and not pay attention to your lame union leaders.
Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4 November 4, 2011 at 8:40 am # Edit
Who does Mike Ward” recommend” voting for in our Ward race? I think Mike has done a good job over his tenure and the 3 times I called him he was responsive and effective in dealing with our issues and questions. I figures since he was such a admirable advocate for our Ward he would at least have a “recommendation” for a new Ward 4 candidate. I have not asked him personally thou because I thought it would be public knowledge by now and more than a few of my neighbors have told me that Mike told them he feels Chuck V is more qualified but that it was “off the record”…What say ye Councilor Ward about who you” recommend” in Ward 4? Especially after the local rag went with Mr Connell.
Mike Ward November 4, 2011 at 2:49 pm # Edit
Thanks Hilly Billy. What I did instead was conduct a candidate survey and posted the responses on my website in a side by side format. Check it out at: http://www.ward4ward4.com/page.php?PageID=226&PageName=Meet+the+Candidates
dusty November 4, 2011 at 8:56 am # Edit
I personally do not care if Pete is married to a man or a woman. It really does not affect my life in any way and there are too many things occupying my mind to worry about what others are doing in their personal lives.
The reason I will not vote for him is because of his politics and association with people I have no respect for. I don’t know if he attached himself to Doyle or Doyle attached himself to Pete but either way, for the life of me, I cannot reason why. Had he attached himself to the Ruberto/Barrett tribe I would feel the same way. If he had come out with more respectable people I would have at least given him consideration.
Mrs. FL November 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm # Edit
i understand and respect dusty your observation. but let me just share that for my family, it does matter, a great deal. we hold marraige as one man, one woman, period. when i read this, mr. valenti simply pointed out that there are people like me and my family and most of my friends. for us, it matters. we have a voice too and i think mr. valenti for ackonwledging it, we are in the majority which is why the state legislators never gave us the chance to vote on this question.
Concern November 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm # Edit
There are some people who are not going to vote for PM because he is gay and married to a man. There are some that will vote for him because he is gay and married to a man. And that is our right to vote how we want for any reason we want. There are others who won’t care and vote for other reasons, either for or against. My vote goes to Dan Bianchi.
Joe Pinhead November 4, 2011 at 2:15 pm # Edit
People are going to base their vote on all sorts of criteria from family values, social values, economic issues etc. Most importantly they are free to decide and develop their criteria for themselves. As for myself Mr. Marchetti has demonstrated over the years that more than anything he wants to be part of the gobs. He has been involved in their campaigns and their dealings for years. I am not putting my head in the sand and ignoring the Bianchi connection to the What has been called the wojkowski camp.
I’m now in the position of voting against Marchetti than in favor of Bianchi. But that’s how it has to be this go round, no one to blame but myself.
Joe Pinhead November 4, 2011 at 2:36 pm # Edit
Just a question for Mr Ward, knowing you conducted business for ward 4 on a PC. Newsletter etc what are you planning on doing with the electronic data? Will the drives be archived and put into the public record? Do you not see the emails etc as part of the record and will be doing nothing with them? Just wondering if the city has a vehicle in place to handle such an issue. Thelaw is pretty clear. Its just a question.
Mike Ward November 4, 2011 at 3:15 pm # Edit
I couldn’t follow that link. Typo? As for emails, the city does not provide email accounts to councilors (I think they should) so we all use private accounts. Since that’s the case, no, I don’t plan to archive my emails.
Ray Ovac November 4, 2011 at 3:23 pm # Edit
Much time is being wasted focusing on the sexual orientation of the candidates, but the fact remains that we still don’t know where Dan Bianchi and Peter Marchetti stand on critical issues: For example: a commitment to voters to reopen the GE Consent Decree. (Silver Lake and Hill 78 will NOT be cleaned out if the Consent Decree is allowed to remain as presently worded.) For example: How do each of the candidates specifically propose to cut city spending to give taxpayers some much-needed tax relief?
Pompey November 4, 2011 at 4:24 pm # Edit
I want a mayor to fight for ME. I don;t know for sure about either guy but I’m going to give Bianchi a shot. Marchetti has had all those yrs as a at-large councilor and has done nothing but kiss up to the gobs. Im fed up with that and so is my vote. Bianchi, you get your chance with me. Don’t blow it.,/
art vandaly November 4, 2011 at 6:44 pm # Edit
Nice Debate Dan….
Joe blow November 4, 2011 at 8:15 pm # Edit
I can’t vote for either one,they’re both liberal Democrats. If I hear about culture and or north st. one more time my head will explode! I will be writing in Donald Duck for Mayor.
The Kraken November 5, 2011 at 9:09 am # Edit
JB, I do not think Bianchi is a liberal democrat. He strikes me as more of a centrist republican or a blue dog democrat. His voting record on the council and his views on taxes and family values leads me to think that. One thing is for sure, he is much less far left than Marchetti.
The Kraken November 5, 2011 at 9:12 am # Edit
I meant to type “I do NOT think Bianchi is liberal democrat”
danvalenti November 5, 2011 at 10:56 am # Edit
The Webmaster fixed your original posting. Your name evokes a great poem by one of THE PLANET’s faves, Alfred Tennyson.
Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4 November 5, 2011 at 8:25 am # Edit
Maybe the GOBs have finally hacked into this site and are trying to shut it down
danvalenti November 5, 2011 at 10:58 am # Edit
Not a chance. There were access problems because of the huge volume of traffic. Campaigns are good for circulation. Even if you don’t honestly cover a campaign, such as the BB, circulation spikes. We are addressing the “backstage” issues so ALL can have FULL access.
LET’s HOPE THOSE WHO TRIED BUT COULDN’T READ THIS YESTERDAY CAN DO SO NOW. HAPPY SUNNY WEEKEND, AND …
“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”
LOVE TO ALL.