Look what we got in the mail today:

Of course, as I've blathered, if Connolly loses because of this, it'll be because he attacked Murphy anonymously, not because what he said about Murphy was in any way untrue.

Election's tomorrow, natch.

Connolly's campaign is admitting sending out an anonymous mailing attacking incumbent city councilor Stephen Murphy.

I agree with the point the mailing makes - that Murphy seems bored with being a councilor, as shown by his repeated efforts to get another job. But if a gutless wunderkind thinks the only way to make a political argument is through an anonymous mailing, then he is equally worthy of scorn - and equally unfit to be a city councilor. There are seven other candidates besides these two running for the four at-large seats. How about voting for one (or two or four) of them?

Thanks to Ron Newman for noticing the statement on the Herald site.

Earlier:
A look at two mailings
What would a Boston election be without last-minute scurrilous attacks?

UPDATE: Connolly just lost my vote. His campaign admits sending out the Murphy piece.

Over the past two days, we've gotten a pair of mailings related to Tuesday's city council elections. One is from John Connolly and basically explains how wonderful he is and why he should be an at-large city councilor. The other is an anonymous mailing telling us how awful incumbent at-large councilor Stephen Murphy is.

What's interesting is the physical similarities between the two mailings. Both are the same size and use the same cardstock. Both make extensive use of dropshadow. The computer-generated mailing "labels" are identical (and in our case, both addressed to "The Gaffin Household"). And then there's the thing I find most interesting: That the cut-outs used to attribute something to the Boston Globe have the same exact scissor-like borders:

The Globe "cut-out" from the John Connolly mailing:

The Globe "cut-out" from the anti-Murphy mailing:

Now, this doesn't prove that the Connolly campaign had anything to do with the anti-Murphy mailing. There probably aren't a ton of union print shops (both mailings have the same union bug) that do political printing and it could be a case of two separate groups using the same shop by coincidence. And the Herald cut-outs on each flier have different borders. It sure would be interesting to find out who at 31 Milk St. (the address listed on the Murphy thing) published it.

And for me, ironically, the anti-Murphy mailing does spell out why I wasn't planning to vote for him: He seems terminally bored as a city councilor and keeps trying (and failing) to get other jobs. But if we do find out that another candidate is behind this gutless (because it's anonymous) mailing, he'll lose my vote as well.

UPDATE: Blame John Connolly.

Adam Rosi-Kessel reports getting several mailings attacking city-council candidates that don't say who put them out:

... My guess is these mailings are all meant to support John Connolly, a West Roxbury resident, attorney, and ostensibly good guy. I was feeling pretty happy about the possibility of Connolly replacing Murphy on the Council (I have to admit some unfair prejudice in that the only house in our neighborhood I've ever seen prominently posting a sign in support of Bush also features a Murphy billboard). But these questionable campaign tactics are giving me pause. Does anyone know anything more about this? ...

Edward Forry, publisher of the Dorchester Reporter, says the paper has absolutely nothing to do with a flier now being distributed in various neighborhoods (alas, he doesn't detail the contents for those of us in remoter parts of the city).

Stephen Murphy will be asking the state Legislature to let Boston skip a preliminary at-large election this year and simply put all nine candidates on the November ballot, Wayne Braverman reports. The move would save the city the $500,000 it would cost to eliminate one of the nine candidates.

OK, so saving money is good and if all nine are on the ballot, no harm, no foul, right? Never mind it helps Councilor Murphy, because it means one less election for people to galvanize around a candidate to displace the perennial also-ran/barely-made-it councilor. In any case, Braverman ruins it all with his contempt for candidates who followed the rules and the people who might vote for them:

... This actually makes sense. To hold a primary and spend at least a half million dollars to get rid of just one candidate among a field of challengers of whom four of the five have almost no chance of beating or even come close to beating any of the four incumbents seems like a waste of money. ...

Sure, Wayne. But then, why bother holding elections at all if we already know the outcome? Works for North Korea, no?

Earlier:
Wait a minute - aren't elections a good thing?

Jonelle marvels at a proposal by Boston City Councillor Stephen Murphy (who felt compelled to tell the Globe he doesn't go to the sort of bar where he might want to slip a roofie in somebody's drink anymore) to require lids on all cocktail drinks:

... It's starting to remind me of the scene in Jesus Camp when the little girl is talking about how she gets made fun of, and why it doesn't really bother her to be thought of as uncool. "Go ahead and judge us, everyone!" Boston similarly says. "Make fun of us for our overreaction to guerrilla advertising schemes and our antiquated blue laws and our proposal to make bartenders serve drinks in sippy cups! We don't care what you think of us!" ...

Ah, but the story does also quote fun-loving Councilor John Tobin, who wonders why the proposal doesn't allow for crazy straws.