Mike Walsh lowers the boom on Mike Rush

You can't tell the players without a program so here is your program. The candidates for State Senate in the Suffolk and Norfolk District are;

• Democrats Mike Rush, a state representative from West Roxbury,
• Westwood lawyer Michael F. Walsh,
• Wayne Wilson, a Roslindale Democratic activist.
• Brad Williams, chairman of West Roxbury’s Ward 20 Republican Committee

Avoiding debates is nothing new for Mike Rush nor is blaming his opponent for not having a debate.

Besides shaking Mayor Menino's hand, and inadvertently violating campaign finance law, it's not clear what is keeping Rush from spending time on a debate. According to his campaign facebook page, he has held exactly five (5) events since April 13, and nothing between May 25 and August 19.

If Rush is not confident in his debate skills, why should we send him to Beacon Hill to advocate in the interest of the people of the Suffolk and Norfolk District? We deserve a person who shares our values and who can represent us effectively in the Senate. Making an argument, winning a debate, and bringing people around to your way of thinking are fundamental to that purpose. If Rush is the most qualified candidate in the race as I'm sure he would tell you, then he should be eagerly accepting an opportunity to show his skill and experience in a debate. Not so. Mike Rush was asked about debating Mike Walsh; his response in his own words were:

“Going to Dunkin Donuts and (having) a street brawl debate, I don’t think that anyone benefits from it.”

I'll let Mike Walsh respond for himself:

Rush does want to give the voters an opportunity to hear the democratic candidates, except at a “formalized, sanctioned debate,” which he also stated to the CNC [Dedham News Transcript, West Roxbury Transcript and Roslindale Transcript].

Despite assertions, Rush has failed to contact those in the community who could easily call for a “formalized sanctioned debate” such as the League of Women Voters or the Ward 20 Democratic committee to which Rush belongs.

The manner in which I have conducted myself throughout this campaign directly contradicts Rush’s baseless assertion that any debate, would be a “street brawl.” The frustration of Rush’s failure to give the voters the respect they deserve and debate the issues as well as his attempt to blame me for that failure, is an insult not only to me, but more so to my family, my parents and in-laws and my supporters. Any such assertion is baseless and insulting, and another example of how a Beacon Hill insider, such as Rush, demonstrates unacceptable behavior and entitlement.

They wonder why the rest of us are enraged to vote incumbents out.

If Rush chooses not to debate, which is apparent from his failure to answer my email requests and numerous public requests, voters may draw an unreasonable inference from Rush’s “street brawl” remark about me and my candidacy and for that reason I demand an apology. read the whole thing

Recall earlier that Mike Rush refused to explain his interests in a piece of legislation that moved "the trial court’s downtown administrative offices to public safety Siberia — the dingy top floor of Charlestown District Court" saying that he did not want to explain because there was a pending lawsuit to which he was a party as a witness. When given the choice to explain his record and role, Rush choose the "no accountability" option. Since he's not talking, you'll have to decide for yourself.

State Representative Michael F. Rush, the West Roxbury Democrat whose father served as chief probation officer of the district court there, was said to be furious when a draft report by the trial court’s affirmative action officer found merit to the allegations that his father discriminated against five women. The elder Rush announced his plan to retire three days before the report was completed.

The younger Rush is now sponsoring a budget amendment, backed by DeLeo, to move the trial court’s downtown administrative offices to public safety Siberia — the dingy top floor of Charlestown District Court — to save money. A source with direct knowledge of the matter said Rush has spoken of wanting to punish Mulligan, the chief administrative judge, for how his father was treated. Mulligan said James Rush was not pressured to retire.

"An agency where patronage is job one" Boston.com 5/23/2010

"A source with direct knowledge of the matter said Rush has spoken of wanting to punish Mulligan, the chief administrative judge, for how his father was treated." Mike Rush's deposition lends some evidence to this view. Is this what we send representatives and senators to state government for, settling family scores?