There wasn’t a lot of news from this morning’s debate, which was held at Suffolk University and live-streamed at the Herald’s website (you can read my live-blog here, and watch a replay at this link). But a couple of points did stand out for me.
But more importantly, Khazei showed some political guts in saying, you know what, George W. Bush didn’t screw everything up. As I’m fond of observing, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Bush certainly had a few of those moments during his eight years in office. By answering the way he did, Khazei showed that he’s willing to give credit where credit is due — even if credit goes to someone on the other side of the aisle who is universally reviled by the very Democratic primary voters he’s counting on to show up for him next week. One might actually call such a move “senatorial,” if the Senate weren’t so sadly dysfunctional right now. Excellent answer.
By contrast, the other candidates handled this one poorly. Capuano, who answered first, said that he gave Bush credit for being someone who “stuck to his principles,” and that he “said what he believed, and actually tried to follow through what he believed in.” Capuano went on to say that he disagreed with what Bush believed in on just about everything. That’s a bad answer for two reasons. First, as I said above, Bush actually did get some things right, and Capuano (having been in D.C. the whole time) surely knows that. Second, Bush didn’t stick to his principles, at least, not the ones he ran on. If he had truly been a “compassionate conservative” who believed in limited government, as he claimed he was, things would have gone a lot differently. Sticking up for Bush being a principled guy doesn’t strike me as either accurate or a great idea.
Coakley opined that the only thing Bush did right was raise his daughters. Oy. First of all, the daughters weren’t exactly models of good behavior. And second, again, not being able to come up with anything positive is a bit hard to swallow — particularly from someone whose law-and-order tendencies could surely find comfort in at least a couple of the Bush administration Justice Department’s policies.
Pagliuca referred to Bush’s “supporting public service,” which was perhaps an allusion to what Khazei was talking about with AmeriCorps funding — he didn’t elaborate, so it’s hard to know. But otherwise, nothing. Again, I just think that’s a weak answer.
The exchange begins at about 37:45 in the video.
My guess is that any student with a student loan, especially if you’re middle class, your parents probably had to remortgage their houses, just like we had to do. And I’m the only one on this stage that has has gone through this; I’m the only one on this stage who will probably have to go through this. It’s not something I read about. I didn’t read a policy paper on this; I’m living it with my family, just like you are.
I have so far resisted joining in the criticism of Capuano coming from some quarters regarding his so-called “class-based anger” and “us-against-them attitude.” But I have to say, that’s exactly how this answer sounded to me. He was aggressively taking on Pagliuca for being rich, Coakley for not having kids (classy!), and Khazei for I’m not sure what (Khazei made good money as head of City Year for a few years, but he has left that job and at Be The Change he earns about what a Congressman makes, plus his kids are many years away from college). If anyone was looking for Capuano to show some “class-based anger,” they weren’t disappointed.
Discuss
63 Comments . Comments are closed.great article
although i am a cappy fan this made some great points any idea when the bmg endorsement comes out i hear its a true game changer
As far as the Bush question...
How many did you come up with? (...and wouldn't you say you are politically active)
If that's the best we got from this debate, I'm not going to listen.
But did Capuano actually attack Coakley for not having children? I will probably check that out tonight. I'm having trouble with that description of Capuano.
Other things Bush did right
2. Declared the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands a national monument, thereby creating the largest marine reserve to date.
3. Became the first U.S. president to visit Albania.
I agree it is not a very substantial record for eight years at the helm of the free world.
Bush also...
learned this new thing called grammar? whatever that is!
Bush was on the right
side of the immigration reform debate, too.
He took a lot of grief from the right wing noise machine at the time.
I'll probably get flack for this...
...but I'd put No Child Left Behind, sponsored in the Senate by none other than Ted Kennedy, in things done right column, at least in theory. I do share the disappointment of many, including I believe Ted Kennedy, that it was never fully funded/properly implemented.
He also signed into law
the bill making telemarketing a thing of the past. OK, so it ain't absolute (non-profits, politicos, other free speech) and it ain't perfect (remember those (illegal) auto warranty telemarketing calls), but it's clearly a dramatic improvement.
yes the $quot;do not call list$quot; was a
major accomplishment. Not quite enough for me to donate to the presidential library
I don't recall...
...Bush leading the charge on that one. Also, I'm quite happy that the legislation made the exemptions you refer to.
Not exactly on #1.
Rumsfeld decision allowed Bin Laden to escape: Senate report http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/us...
AIDS and Africa
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28...
Capuano's Comment
I have not heard the debate, but I have heard Congressman Capuano make a similar statement. Essentially he said that he thinks it is likely that he is the only candidate who has had, or will have, the experience of refinancing to pay student loans. Although I myself would not classify it as class warfare, that was how it sounded to David. I don't think that it is appropriate to state that the Congressman was thus "aggressively taking on" his opponents. Class warfare that he highlighted the differences, maybe; but certainly not attacking the AG for not having children, the impression that Johnk had from David's words.
Here Here
^^^ Spot On!
I listened twice ...
on no occasion did I think that he had attacked Coakley, nor could I understand how anyone could go there from his words. But ...
Wow. No way.
The comment was all about the money, and I guess someone could take issue with that. Capuano clearly wants to tell middle class voters that he empathizes with them as he faces the same challenges.
An interesting perspective...
David, focusing on the Bush question does give an interesting take on the candidates. When they asked the question, I tried myself to come up with an answer and I stalled out after the AIDS funding for Africa. I thought Khazei lucked out a bit having been personally involved with at least 2 of the things Bush did right.
I agree on your assessment of the others Capuano was his class-angry self and Coakley and Pagliuca fell short on that one with very incomplete answers.
I thought this forum was poorly constructed. Ms. Cohen brought nothing to the table. And the questions from the net that she was asking were being filtered by a herald reporter. I sent in 2 questions one on Afghanistan troop increases and one on curtailing Wall St and investment bankers but the response back I received was that they were focusing on questions in tune with the student audience. So I think that is why the event came off more as a discussion between candidates and students about student-centric issues. I think that accounts for its dullness.
I am looking forward to the other debates this week. I hope there is more give and take. I hope when Pagliucca distorts Coakley's and Capuano's position on health care they both get to ram it back at him. He is becoming the Lumpy Rutherford of this race.
Alan Khazei ...there is something about Alan. I've seen him 3 times in person several times on these debates and interviews and his presentations while high-minded are starting to have a decidedly messianic feel to them. A crusader but not in a good way.
Umm
Care to elaborate?
David, if I embed a full page billboard in my response...
David, if I embed a full page billboard in my response...Will you allow me to have that free advertising at BMG? Can't help but notice that the folks at Capuano HQ are adding mini-billboards to their responses and those same embedded images are getting larger the closer we get to the election. I find them distracting when reading through a thread...and some of the very brief comments are only an excuse to get the ad on the thread..I would be just as annoyed if Pagliuca or Khazei or Coakley people were doing that...I think it constitutes advertising not commentary and BMG should be compensated for that as BMG survives with advertising revenue.
Yes, we have noticed that
It's not very classy, in my opinion -- forcing fellow BMGers to click over a big ad in one's profile -- but we probably won't do anything about it unless it becomes more of a nuisance. I very much doubt it inclines anyone to vote for Capuano.
I'm not talking about the profiles
I meant the embedded graphics in each comment placed.
they're no more annoying than...
...the white space in some poster's signatures.
Both are easy to skip over.
It's not against the rules
But if folks want to buy the ad space, we won't say no!
Adblock
I adblocked those sig images the second time I saw one. Problem solved.
but that would make you a nerd
And HL is anti-nerd.
So that I am not
incorporating Mike Capuano's likeness into comments in a way that is offensive to some, I have removed the ad.
Class warfare has been waged by the federal gov't
since at least 1980. Ronald Reagen launched the first salvos; Bush, Cheney and Rove brought it to full fruition. Has the middle and working class even had more than 5 or 6 good years since then?
Just as there's nothing wrong with a progressive praising the few things their opponents did right, there's nothing wrong with a progressive who will strongly defend the middle and working class, even if he or she calls it like they see it.
Class warfare, $quot;class-based anger$quot;, and $quot;us-against-them$quot;
Exactly what is this suppose to mean. The struggles of the middle class cannot be discussed because it is offensive to whom, exactly. There is nothing wrong with Mike Capuano identifying himself with middle income earners and the difficulties they face trying to muddle through every economic crisis that might occur during a lifetime.
"Us against them" is completely hilarious. Who is so intimidated by the middle class that they have to come with such a term. Who is the middle class fighting against? Maybe the Boston Globe can clarify exactly what they mean by that ridiculous statement. I guess they would prefer that the those in the middle class would just shut up pretend that all is well in the world. It sure would make life easier for....who would that make life easier for again? I still haven't figured that out. You know, the intimidated ones who feel we are fighting against them.
It's pretty simple really.
If you argue that the rich should pay their fair share that is clearly class warfare, but if you argue the rich should get the favors of government that's just good old-fashioned capitalism!:)
good comment re Alan
but I disagree with your comment re Mike.
I was stumped myself about the Bush question so I can forgive the lame answers. Alan's answer was very good - I am always happy to be better informed.
A follow-up question I would have about Bush's AIDS funding is whether there were strings attached. Was this as good as it sounds? I know Bush attached anti-choice strings to family planning funding.
I have no problem with Capuano's response to the student loan question. Adding personal stories into the campaign seems like fair game, something every candidate does in his/her own way. (Various candidates have talked about how they worked with many groups, grew up in MA, were born into the middle class, parents were doctors, etc.)
As a member of the bottom 99% who are being hoodwinked by the top 1%, I share the "class-based anger". When a small number of powerful people always get their way, and their way does great damage to everyone else, shouldn't the rest of us get angry?
You would think Pagliuca
would have a better answer to the Bush question seeing as he is the only candidate who donated money to him. Guess he stopped paying attention after his taxes got cut ;)
LOL
ooooo, BURN.
This just in...
Boston Herald endorses Capuano, Brown
http://ow.ly/Hi5Y
The Boston Herald endorsement of Mike Capuano:
The reality is that as smart - and committed - as the Democratic contenders for U.S. Senate are, no flesh-and-blood human being can duplicate the four decades of experience the late Sen. Ted Kennedy brought to the job.
And while this newspaper often clashed with the senior senator on issues, what we admired most about him was his steadfastness to the causes in which he believed and his unparalleled devotion to this state, its people and the institutions which make it so special.
Those should be benchmarks by which voters choose his successor. And by that standard it's U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano who stands out as the best qualified of the Democratic candidates to fill that seat at a critical juncture in this nation's history.
yay!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another good thing W did....
...oh this hurts.
Let me save you from clicking on the above link...
...because I make you link from that link (pattern?). The Bush administration implemented programs that reduced chronic homelessness using the "Housing First" model.
Yes and no
Sure, they used the "Housing First" model, but they also cut funding for Section 8 vouchers pretty much every year they were in office and were opponents of project-based Section 8's as well. They also pursued a "homeownership at any cost" strategy at HUD, which contributed in part to the current foreclosure crisis.
Dismissing as $quot;class warfare$quot; is one of the most effective old
conservative phrases to diminish advocacy for social and economic justice. Capuano has this experience and it is OK to flaunt it to make a point -- just like Coakley would be justified in touting her experience growing up in Pittsfield as working class or as a DA to show she can be tough on crime, like Paglucca touting his modest beginnings and his experience as a businessman to show he can be good with money, and Khazei touting that he went to the same boarding school as John Kerry or his experience organizing nonprofit's as noble.
I'm listening to the debate and just
heard Capuano's answer to the question "How can you make attending college more affordable?"
There was nothing angry about it. He was simply stating how the college loan issue has affected him personally. Kudo's to him for being real.
pretty crass...
Frankly, this is clearly class-based belligerence: as David pointed out, he's slamming Pagliuca for being rich and Coakley for her (presumed) distance from the situation. The clear implication, in case you need it explained, is that Coakley and Pagliuca can only 'read about it' via position papers... and therefore lack standing because they didn't 'live it'. If Capuano is 'just like you', then Coakley and Pagliuca (and presumably Khazei) are not 'just like you.'
Fairly precisely crass and no mistake.
His words were not emphasized in the manner you described...
his inflection did not change, he didn't seek out to highlight them as you have. Nor did he attack Coakley. Take the entire paragraph and it context not the last sentences and make up a point that doesn't exist.
Some might call that crass.
I think there are some real issues that we can discuss, this made up hokey BS is not it.
emphasis mine...
... to make it clear to those who, having eyes, still do not see... and, having ears, still will not hear...
His inflection did not need to change. I made those highlights for you, who wish to paper over them and claim they are not there. Clearly they are. I am sorry if this upsets your overly delicate sensibilities. Truth, it is said, sometimes hurts.
get a grip ... and a clue for that matter
you can choose to take whatever you want from the statement (and I guess you have). It was not an attack in any way shape or form.
So far as a front runner Coakley hasn't really been attacked, there have been some verbal jabs by all candidates, but not full blown attacks. A credit to the candidates.
I think the entry in this post and the comments are out of bounds, it's made up nonsense. Believe what you like, I really don't give a shit. I'm pointing out that it's non-existent. Some people like to vilify other candidates, sounds like your MO. Enjoy that.
Thanks for the 3 petr
Someone once said ...
just because truth hurts...
... doesn't mean that everything that hurts, is the truth.
very true ...
Petr argues his point by platitude:
"... to make it clear to those who, having eyes, still do not see... and, having ears, still will not hear... "
which is to say, if you can't see it it's your fault,not his fault for not making his case.
I think the word for that is pompous.
It is quite one thing...
... to miss or mistake the view...
... and quite another to deny it's there at all based upon an unwillingness to see it.
You should stop and have another think...
johnk
Petr confuses implied and inferred.
Of course his words were emphasized.
He had been answering this question for several minutes by the time he got to the part that petr quotes. Frankly, there was no need to go there -- he had already made his point repeatedly and well. Going the extra mile -- the "I'm the only one on this stage" routine -- was what I found distasteful and, yes, un-classy for the reasons stated in my post. And I'm afraid it's impossible to understand his comments as anything other than saying "Steve doesn't have to go through it because he's rich, and Martha doesn't have to go through it because she doesn't have kids." (Martha is not rich, so obviously that can't be it.) I still don't get Cap's assumption that Khazei won't have a similar experience to him, but whatever.
You can't explain Khazei because it was a general statement ..
to his theme. One that you described as class-warfare. I do not think that he was in any way shape or form attacking Coakley for not having children. That's crazy. His statement dealt with financial issues that voters face, he then detailed a similar financial situation is his personal life. He then finishes with the infamous "I'm the only one" statement. Which if you don't recall has been used one or two times (or 100) before. It was clearly a statement towards knowing was voters have to deal with. True, it didn't exactly fit a few candidates.
Khazei you agreed with that it was a confusing statement but with Coakley it was clear as day? What if Coakley was a male? See where I'm going. It's easy to do, I don't think it's right nor do I think it's factual.
So what you're saying
is that Capuano's "I'm the only one" statement made no sense at all. He was clearly referring to the other candidates - otherwise why talk about the other people "on this stage." The only possible reason to include Coakley in that is that she doesn't have kids. As for Khazei, like I said, I still just don't get it.
So either it made no sense, or it was a nasty dig at his fellow candidates. I'm not sure which is worse.
Also, to clarify one point: my comment was made under "The Editors," because that's how I was logged in at the time. I want to be clear that it was just me, and I should have posted it under my own name. Sorry about that.
$quot;I am the only one$quot; - Khazei
Khazei said "I am the only one" repetedly throughout the forum as part of his answer to a majority of questions. How is Khazei's unique and singular authority so different from Cauano's and why are you so willing to criicise one and praise the other?
Not saying that at all
I stated that he was clear in discussing this in financial terms. I have repeated that in every comment. I really do not know Coakley's financial position other than the flub on her papers. It could be modest, but maybe not. What's listed under her name or her husbands name, we don't know. Maybe we do, not sure and don't care. Khazei pulled 300k-400k per year for a period of time, maybe that's where he was going. Pags might have made a few bucks here or there. I personally don't care. I'm adding this as reference to the question at hand.
What I have repeatedly said is that Capuano's statement was stated in financial terms. I do not see how you or anyone could refer what you did from his statements.
I guess can can refer anything you like. I imagine Lasthorseman probably got something different from the statement as well. But if you take the entire statement, there are a lot of holes to what you refer.
$quot;I really do not know Coakley's financial position$quot;
Ah. You must have missed the several stories in the Globe remarking on the fact that she is much less wealthy than any of the other candidates (including Capuano), or how odd they thought it was that she had so little money, or the numerous times that she has been asked about that in interviews. I can assure you that Capuano (and the other candidates, for that matter) did not.
So what came of it?
What did Coakley detail what is defined under her husband's name?
That was all part of the first story about the filing, was it the Herald that noted that they don't own their home, etc. etc. Then Coakley noted that they do own their home she was providing what is under her name. That's all I got. Sorry. Never followed up on the rest.
No matter, it still doesn't change what Capuano said and how it was framed.
It's NOT about her financial position, David
It's the stone-cold fact that Martha Coakley doesn't have children and therefore will not have to do the insanely-complicated loan documents that accompany college funding today. Steve Pagliuca will never have to borrow money for his children. Perhaps Mike assumed the same about Alan Khazei, I don't know. For Martha Coakley and Steve Pagliuica, its an abstract issue whose consequences impact somebody else. For Mike Capuano, it's real and personal. I think he gave an honest, candid and frank answer -- and answer that resonated very strongly with me (a father of five, with three teenagers).
You're an attorney, you have children (I think) -- have you attempted to understand the documents Mike Capuano was talking about?
I have -- two done and three to go (one next fall). He was answering a question about student loans for an audience of students at a debate explicitly focused on student issues.
I think he scored a direct hit by speaking the unvarnished truth.
Course, crude, not refined, not sensible
First hand experience usually does accrue a fuller appreciation of an issue than one can clean from reading. Hence, Congress asks witnesses to testify as part of their research for laws we, as individuals, prefer to hire expereicned professionals with experience not beginners. First-hand experience counts and everybody knows it.
Until you've helped your kids finance their college education and four year later you see them carrying $150,000 in debt for school loans then it is a more abstract problem. Certainly, pointing our one experience beyond one's position is central to campaigning.
The question Petr raises, whether Capuano is course or crude or unrefined is class-based criticism which I am not surprised to hear from him.
Charles Emerson Winchester III doesn't like Capuano becuase he percieves Capuano as unrefined.
There's one thing you cnnot say about Capuano poisition on this issue, that it's not sensible or not imformed by first hand experience.
ah, well..
Not't all. While I like Capuano well enough, (tho' not well enough to vote for him, here) I do perceive his comment to be crass... and was attempting to point out such to the minimizers here... I'm neither the first nor the only one to have pointed this out.
You see, the point of the matter at hand wasn't Capuano's refinement or not, however adroitly you've attempted to shift it so, but that people who willfully ignore, or attempt to minimize, Capuanos crass statements because they do like him so awfully much.
Warts and all, your affinity for your candidate should not blind you to what is.
Who is practicing class warfare here?
I see, so it's "crass" to speak the truth about student loans from first-hand experience? That characterization sounds like it comes from someone who has not shared this particular pleasure of contemporary American life.
Call me crass then, I plead "guilty as charged."
um...
No. You don't see. As I, and others, have pointed out Capuano made some good and emminently defensible comments about student loans. He then went that little bit further as he pulled a crass 'compare-n-contrast' and made the clear implication that, since he's had that particular experience and the others haven't, he's the only one 'just like you.' Which is, ahem, crass.
Not at all. The largest slice of debt I have, right now, comes from student loans I've held since the early nineties. Your point is...?
Sounds like you weren't on the stage
My point is that Mike Capuano (and apparently you) speak from first-hand experience. The other candidates do not. I find the distinction important and meaningful.
If that's "crass" -- than so be it.
I agree BT
this has been a vile devisive thread. Fortunately, I'm proud to be crass. I tried the elitist thing for a while, it's really boring.
I'm looking forward to the moment...
...when Scott Brown has to talk about what he thinks President Obama has done right.
Wait, Republicans don't have to praise Democrats the way that Democrats must "bipartisanly" praise Republicans?
I can't wait until we talk about Scott Brown ...
instead of what we've been doing over the past few weeks.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 8:20 PM