Before being accused of going negative in the 11th hour, let me point out that the JP Gazette just released this story
, it is a new story (not like the crap the Bean tried to pull when she just rehashed 3 month old stories.) and I have more to add to that story. I think it merits discussion regardless of the timing of the election.
In 2005 then AG Tom Reilley brought charges against then State Senator Diane Wilkerson on corruption charges. When Coakley was elected AG, she inherited the case. Instead of pursuing the hard line that Riley had taken with Wilkerson, she settled the case.
“But the settlement included an unnoticed extra benefit for Wilkerson: immunity against any type of civil or criminal penalty for any campaign finance reporting violations she may have committed at any time through 2007.
This immunity aspect of the settlement became significant when new corruption charges were brought against Wilkerson in 2008 by the FBI.
“A conviction on any of those charges-or even some alternative explanations not involving bribery-could lead to related state charges or complaints, including for filing inaccurate campaign finance reports.”
The shear amount of different corruption charges that Wilkerson has been accused of make it difficult to talk about, so it bears repeating. Coakley settled a case that began in 2005 by extending immunity for Wilkerson into 2007. The FBI is pursuing an entirely different corruption case that began in 2008 for bribes taken in 2007.
The key is obviously that Coakley gave Wilkerson immunity for the time frame in which she was taking bribes. So she can’t pursue that charge. In other words, Coakley couldn’t pursue Wilkerson’s case if she wanted to. She tied her own hands.
This is certainly a blunder, and an embarrassing one at that. But, mistakes happen. It is not like she knowingly or intentionally gave her immunity to the 2008 Federal charges.
The big problem is that Coakley said she did not pursue Wilkerson because she didn’t have the resources. This is not true. She could not have pursued regardless of resources because she had granted her immunity for the time period in which she accepted bribes.
Bob Oakes, WBUR: But in your record, as was pointed out in a recent Boston magazine profile of you, you allowed federal prosecutors to pursue the recent indictments against former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi and former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, and there’s some suggestion that not moving on those issues was political, knowing that going after popular State House leaders causes political problems during campaigns because supporters of those leaders would be less likely to support you.Boston College law professor Bob Bloom says in that Boston magazine article: “I found Martha to be a less than courageous prosecutor.” Respond to that.
Coakley: The federal government has a huge budget, they can target cases, they have grand jury tools and investigatory tools that the state does not. And they also have the ability to have statutes that have penalties that are nowhere near what we have on the state level.
They have the FBI, they have folks who will focus on, you know, turning a witness, etc. We don’t have those tools. And maybe the legislature for whatever reason doesn’t want an attorney general to have the tools. But if you want the kinds of results that the federal government gets, you have to give someone the tools. No one understands that better than I.
There is no mention at all of the immunity Wilkerson had, no mention of the 2007 settlement at all. She instead frames it in terms of a lack of resources. This is patently false. If she had all the resources in the world, she could not pursue Wilkerson. And she absolutely knows this because she is the one that signed the documents that granted immunity.
I don’t know why she misstated these facts.
The real answer to why she did not pursue Wilkerson is because she granted her immunity. She could not pursue her if she wanted to.
Discuss
80 Comments . Leave a comment below.From the article. Here's the full citation, which doesn't support the spin the Capuano supporters behind this diary would like to place on the story.
This makes it abundantly clear that the State under the settlement could in fact go after Wilkerson and win harsher penalties for the alleged campaign finance violations in 2008 after Wilkerson's current bribery case is resolved.
This poster has selectively picked a few paragraghs of a longer piece and run them here with a demonstrably false interpretation.
Really weak.
Please note that "supporter" should be singular in the second line. One person posted this and after reading more carefully I notice that the diarist did not indicate which candidate s/he is supporting. Let's not be so quick to see a conspiracy.
I think BitB assumes that the diarist is not a supporter of Martha Coakley. I certainly share the "spin" that BitB complains of, so I think she's on firm enough ground in using the plural instead of the singular.
She is, nevertheless, mistaken in her objection.
The original diarist (singular) published a link to the full article. I read it (and assume others did as well). The "fair use" policy of BMG is to cite fragments of published material -- presumably fragments that support the viewpoint of the commenter. The diarist found a story, published a diary pertaining to it, and supported the story with a link to the source material and carefully-chosen excerpts. That's what is supposed to happen here.
Bean in the 'Burbs found and cited a different paragraph supporting a different (although in my view incorrect) interpretation. Again, just what is supposed to happen here.
No harm, no foul.
Regarding the substance of Bean's dispute, I think she's simply mistaken. The issue in dispute is the accuracy of Ms. Coakley's claim that she could not pursue Ms. Wilkerson because "We don't have those tools." In fact, as the diarist points out, the AGs office could not have prosecuted Ms. Wilkerson for crimes committed through 2007 even with infinite resources -- because of the settlement agreement that Ms. Coakley herself negotiated.
Martha Coakley's answer to Bob Coakes in Wednesday's interview crosses my own boundary between spin and flat-out distortion. I appreciate the JP Gazette for picking up the story and I appreciate the diarist for posting it here.
I don't think it is criminal, corrupt or anything scandalous, but I do think it shows the modicum of courage and conviction our AG has.
One could say she lied when she answered the question and one could say she avoided the truth. Either way, it is not a totally honest answer and it would appear to be more of the same, politicaly charged answer that we have come to expect from the ruling class upon Beacon Hill.
It is a large contrast to my candidate Mike Capuano, who as bitb points out seems angry and claims to not have the temperament for a Senator. This is exactly why many of us are supporting the congressman. It is not spin to call it passion. Those of us who have spoken to him or joined him at an open mike (70 across the state since the campaign began!) know we need his combination of passion and smarts in the U.S. Senate. Capuano supporters also admire the brutally honest answers he gives which are not scripted and without filter.
but given her penchent for ineffective pre-trial parole agreements - Father Jack Geoghan, Diane Wilkerson - and her penchect for losing (or winning then losing) court cases - Melendez-Diaz SC appeal, Louise Woodward, Cheryl Lefave - shouldn't we recognize her strentgh not as a career prosecutor but as a DA and AG who ineffctively pled out cases because she didn't have the resources?
I think the added details on the settlement give some extra insight, which (to me at least) make Martha's decision even more baffling.
The paragraph you cited underlines the fact that the whole point of the settlement was to put the AG in a better position to prosecute any future infractions by Wilkerson. As you point out, immunity was granted in exchange for harsher penalties on any violations after 2007.
If Martha truly believed she didn't have the resources to pursue the Wilkerson case further, why would she make this agreement? Why settle a case you've already poured resources into investigating in exchange for harsher penalties on future cases you know you won't be able to pursue? It seems much smarter to invest in the charges you've already substantiated. If it was really a matter of time and money, Martha should never have signed the settlement.
This blame-game is just a way for Coakley to avoid answering to her actions and true motivations. Even if the settlement was perfectly justified, we don't get a chance to hear why, because Martha insists on dishonesty. As a voter, I'm sick of being misled. I want the truth, not a finger pointed at the easiest scapegoat.
Since Martha refuses to give a truthful answer, I think it's perfectly acceptable for us to speculate on her real reasons. Looking back at the Geoghan case, and at Martha's behavior during this campaign, I'm sensing a pattern. She does what's easy. She avoids confrontation and controversy.
As I've said before, I want a Senator who will make the hard decisions, who will stand up when others won't, who is passionate and courageous enough to incite real change. My candidate, Mike Capuano, has shown time and time again that he's willing to do that. I have yet to see any solid evidence of the same from Coakley.
He's been in Congress 10 years, and his entire record consists of placing earmarks in exchange for contributions linked to a lobbying firm that has gone out of business because it's under federal investigation. Oh woot.
"his entire record" - time for you do some a little reading.
That was the one where you posted the list headed by the proclamation for the Red Sox World Series victory.
Capuano's a back-bencher. Here is what it says about him on the govTrack website.
The only other thing he's really got to his credit (besides the pork and the lobbyist ties) is the OCE. But how much credit should he really get for it? This piece from Roll Call is interesting:
Seldom have so many purported progressives been so in love with so little.
Of course I can. Here's a starter list:
Most significantly, in my eyes, he co-founded the Congressional Caucus on Sudan. While the majority of Washington was ignoring the brutal genocide in Darfur, Mike fought to bring attention to the crisis, and succeeded in pushing Congress to declare the mass killings a genocide. He proposed, and successfully secured, an additional $50 million be allocated for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. He worked with Rep. Moran to included funding to rebuild governmental institutions in Southern Sudan in the 2010 budget. He's made it a personal mission to press for international attention and an appropriate humanitarian response to what is undoubtedly one of the biggest tragedies of our time.
He also chaired the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, and created the Office of Congressional Ethics, allowing citizens oversight over ethics issues involving their elected officials. This was a huge step toward greater transparency and accountability in government.
Mike also earned the endorsement of the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters with his extensive record of fighting for more responsible environmental policy. He was responsible for hiring Massachusetts' first "Environmental Officer" during his tenure as Mayor of Somerville, leading the charge for government involvement in environmental protection. He's been a vocal advocate of cap and trade systems, and helped to pass the Climate Stewardship Act in the House. He co-sponsored the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, promoting energy security by increasing CAFE standards regulating the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the US.
And even when he isn't successful, Mike still makes it his policy to stand up for the issues he believes in, despite the level of opposition. He's fought against the Patriot Act, FISA, an underfunded, test-driven No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq war. Even if he wasn't on the winning side, he held his ground. Those displays of courage and conviction are just as significant to me as the legislation he successfully pushed through.
So I've answered your question....can you answer mine? If Coakley was telling the truth, and it really was a question of resources, why would she make the settlement? Why would she compromise in favor of future investigations she "knew" she wouldn't be able to pursue? Why not push for prosecution of crimes she'd already spent valuable resources investigating?
The bribery investigation that has resulted in charges against Wilkerson (better pursued by an investigative organization like the FBI) and the campaign finance reporting violations case brought by Reilly that dragged on until Coakley came in to office and settled it.
I assume that Coakley settled the campaign finance case because it wasn't worth taking to trial - that the costs and attorney-time involved in doing so, weighed against the likelihood of achieving a conviction, and the potential penalties in the event of conviction, made it a wiser decision to settle.
Here is some information about the relief sought in the original suit by Reilly.
It isn't much, is it? How many hours of attorney time in court do you think this relief would be worth? What other cases would not be able to be pursued in consequence? Did you think perhaps that Wilkerson was going to go to jail, or something, if the case wasn't settled?
If the settlement was entirely justified, why doesn't Coakley just come out and say that? Why be dishonest in her answer? The reason she didn't prosecute Wilkerson wasn't because she didn't have the resources to do so, it's because she made the decision to settle back in 2007. If that was the right decision, what's the problem? Why obfuscate your real motivations? Why say it was a lack of resources? You shouldn't have to come here to defend her decision to settle--but you're forced to, because she, once again, dances around the question. It seems that in interviews, she just gives the easiest answer, even if it isn't the truth. This is an extremely important campaign, I don't want everything boiled down to talking points. Martha's reasoning could be perfectly sound, but if she tells us something else entirely, we work with what we're given.
In its article, the JP Gazette says (emphasis mine)
This immunity will preclude federal investigators from pursuing any campaign finance charges in their prosecution of Wilkerson, limiting their options. The article goes on to say,
That certainly sounds like more than a little fudging on her OCPF reports. The "campaign finance violations" for which she was given blanket immunity (not, as Neil pointed out, immunity for specifically documented cases), seem to be closely tied with any potential bribery charges. Tens of thousands of unexplained reimbursements? I'm sure those crimes would enhance the case the FBI is building. These aren't entirely isolated incidents, this is a pattern of corruption. Martha ensured that a whole host of lies and shady financial transactions are off-limits in the FBI's case.
There is no dishonesty in Coakley's answer. Two different things were under discussion. The AG's office is not the FBI. The sting that took down Wilkerson involved, among other things, informants and an undercover agent. The campaign finance case preceeded it, and based on the information about the remedies sought in Reilly's original suit, there was little value in taking it to court. The feds don't need Wilkerson's old campaign finance sins to make a bribery case around what was discovered in the 2008 sting. The settlement provides for, in fact, harsher penalties for the 2008 issues.
Plus, who really cares at this point? Wilkerson's political career is over. Would adding a few more campaign finance violations to the charges she's already facing make a difference to anyone?
I'm completely with Amberpaw on the vacuity of this line of argument. It's just the flimsiest possible rationale for the Capuano hit squad to say 'Coakley' and 'lying' together 50 times.
and it belies your admission that Coakley's blanket immunity has become an issue in the Fed's case, not related to the current bribery in 2009 but past bribery in 2007.
If I didn't know better I'd think you didn't care about ACTUAL illegal acts by legislators peddling illegal influence for campaign donations but you've been going on and on about it, albeit without much substance, hence I'm sure you do care about it. So in this case you've vonveniently decided not to becuase it reflects poorly on Martha Ciakley.
Law enforcemrnt works when people pay the price for their illegal acts. To say, it doesn't matter becuase her political career is over is wrong in so many ways, the least of which is the counterincentive created for others by prosecuting and sentencing those known to do it. In this case Wilkerson with her blamket immunity given by Martha Coakley.
It doesn't matter whether it's on 20 counts or 40 counts. She's over.
Please don't try to interpret my motives, what I care about or claim I don't care about the law. You have no knowledge of any of these.
It doesn't matter to YOU. But that's not the same as it doesn't matter.
It's telling that you're ready to dismiss Wilkerson's 2007 law breaking because Coakley is implicated by her inneffective blanket immunity agreement but when it comes to other politicians, you're like a Rottweiller ripping into a child's face.
against any type of civil or criminal penalty for any campaign finance reporting violations Wilkerson may have committed at any time through 2007 as opposed to just the ones AG Tom Reilley had documented?
Reilly pressed his case with whatever resources he had. Coakley, with the same resources as Reilly, quickly settled with a $10,000 fine and a blank check to do more of the same with impugnity.
Do the math: How is a $10,000 fine plus immunity from complying with campaign finance law a consequence of significant impact to keep Wilkerson from doing the same again? Oh, nevermind. We know how that story ends. Wilkerson does it again and Coakley' immunity deal keeps the Feds from making their case.
Ever notice with Martha when the shit hits the fan she has a ready excuse? "We didn't have the reources" LIE!
But it's a convenient truth that allows the AG to avoid responsibility for an uncomfortable part of their job, prosecuting legislative corruption.
The most troubling part of the Wilkerson scandal to me, is the damage is has done politically to the minority community. Allowing Wilkerson (and Chuck Turner) to get away with this corruption marginalizes this community in terms of power and influence at the state and city levels. I think Coakley (and perhaps others) have a good deal of responsibility for that.
You presume Chuck to be guilty.
Not one shred of genuine evidence exists to bolster this conclusion.
Supposedly he took a bribe from an investigator. There is even a picture of him taking the money. That sounds like at least a "shred" of evidence to me.
It's a photograph of a frozen moment in time. One cannot ascertain from that photograph if money was entering Chuck's hands, leaving Chuck's hands, or simply there within his hands. One certainly cannot ascertain from that photograph why monies would be transferring hands, nor can one ascertain from that photograph the sum of monies in question. Please read this article by John Andrews.
As Mr. Andrews observed: "There is no evidence in the picture that an illegal cash transaction has occurred, and importantly, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo."
a campaign donation? His only issue would be a cash donation over the limit. Much different than a bribe. It is a shred of evidence of something, just not absolutely a bribe.
"Such a picture could be taken of almost any politician that the FBI chose to target," John wrote, as "... Almost every elected official on Beacon Hill has accepted such donations." Who, campaigning for public office, does not? I have accepted cash donations as well, during my own campaigns. However the FBI may hope to spin the facts in evidence, those facts now known can also point to perfectly legal activity. None of the known facts in evidence indicate Turner solicited monies from the witness, and none of the known facts in evidence indicate Turner had ever once attempted to secure for the witness a license.
What clearly does seem in evidence is that the FBI can tar nearly anyone's reputation merely by shoving a wad of bills in his face -- and that is just plain unacceptable. By the way, 65% of liquor licenses handed out in 2006 were to clients of one major law firm, a law firm that contributed over $100,000 in contributions to such as Menino and Connolly. The real quid pro quos, however, never seem to result in anyone being dragged off in handcuffs in front of the media.
This is definitely something that Coakley needs to clarify. There seems to be a major inconsistency here between what she knew to be true, and what she said about the case.
I think we all need to give her the benefit of the doubt though until she has a chance to answer tomorrow.
The only immunity provided related to campaign finance, which was the subject of the case settled. It didn't extend to bribery, which is the case the FBI pursued, using hidden cameras etc., against Wilkerson. Coakley's statement is simply ... accurate. She doesn't have an FBI to investigate cases with undercover agents and tools. She didn't tie the state's hand with regard to bribery.
The posts above make it sound like Coakley agreed to take a hands-off approach to any wrong-doing by Wilkerson and that's not how I read the settlement language quoted above. The case was settled in 2007. The case involved campaign finance violations. The immunity applies to "campaign finance reporting violations" committed through 2007. It is not uncommon when settling a case to include in the settlement unknown violations that could come to light later on. Both sides settling a case want finality, and both sides give up something. Many settlements contain a re-opener provision that is triggered by certain circumstances; I have no idea if this one does. But the posters above make it sound like Coakley gave Wilkerson a free pass on all crimes and that just isn't true.
Neither Coakley or Capuano are half as bad as these last-second attacks are trying to make them out to be. This is a compressed campaign, and it's already enough to make me wonder why anyone would willingly put their reputation through this.
Ridiculously spun interpretation of an egregious journalistic hit-piece: 1
number of hours since original post: 27
Number of posts without a response or reply from original poster[1]: 64
Using the first diary of a month old BMG account to poison the Democratic primary, and start the general election: Priceless....
Here's my ridiculously spun interpretation of this hit piece: Scott Browns polling tells him that Martha Coakley is the nominee...
[1] who claimed " I think it merits discussion...'
A chain of exchanges is gone.
Was this intentional? If so, why? If not, how?
What is going on?
I think you are making an assumption that the bribes Wilkerson took were not illegal campaign fund donations. Whether they were or not, that's what I'd be arguiing if I were Wilkerson seeing as Martha gave me a get out of jail free card instead of holding me (Wilkerson) accountable. There is no limit on "self-financed" campaign donations and Wilkerson had no treasurer.
$10,000 and immunity is a slap on the wrist. Why did Coakley go easy on violations of the misuse of campaign funds? Perahaps such laws are for little people, not elected officials.
Sorry Bean, but you're all wet here. We disagree, and we seem to have markedly different views of the same information. So what. Hopefully even you can recognize that such thing happen in political exchanges. Your shrill response -- accusing me and others of lying -- demeans you and this community. I wish you'd stop.
You seem to be, again, pursuing a strategy of shoot-at-anything-that-moves. Your list is particularly pathetic.
I certainly hope that this desperation fades when the primary silliness is over.
At least it isn't for me. I've been known to recommend diaries that I want to encourage discussion and learn more about even when I don't agree with the content.
burden of proof is specialized language. What a prosecutor, or defense attorney decides and does due diligence to determine is the odds the other side has of convicting (in a criminal case) or winning (in a civil case).
Not every alleged fact trumpeted in the media is in reality admissible evidence. To think you know something, to allege something happened is easy - it is why we have the saying "talk is cheap". We all know, for example, it is easier to lie, or start a rumor, than to take a lie back or extinquish a rumor.
So someone - like Wilkerson - can get indicted, or arrested, and convicted by the press - but the prosecution, examining everything it has, determines whether a given allegation has sufficient admissible evidence to convict - and the defense also tries to determine, using discovery - sample book about what discovery is
That is precisely why I don't join the rushes to judgment based on media coverage about anyone who is arrested or indicted. Only in the cases where I am attorney of record, and get to read and ponder ALL the evidence and hear ALL the testimony do I come to a conclusion as to what the legal outcome will - or should - be.
So I find this whole discussion to have very little merit, and this post is not one I would recommend nor will I continue reading this thread as it is based on such a lack of understanding of how law, and criminal prosecution work as to annoy me.
And because of the tougher sanctions included in the 2007 settlement for future violations, may well result in more penalties on Wilkerson than she'd otherwise face, because the federal case includes alleged bribes taken in 2008, after the settlement.
As it's made clear in the article:
Just stop with the lying, already.
You're falling into the trap. When the tag team goes negative inappropriately using the slimmest of evidence to support base allegations- they think they're truth telling. When you do it...it's "shameful." Cease and desist, Neal. It's 7:12 PM, who have you called on behalf of Mike Capuano today? I had coffee with my Dad and flipped that vote.
Show were Coakley has taken any action beyond the crap-tastic immunity deal she made with Wilkerson for campaign financing violations. You can't because she hasn't.
The US Attorney has taken action and it's been noted that he cannot prosecute Wilkerson for campaign finance violations during 2007 because of the blanket immunity Coakley gave Wilkerson for campaign finance violations.
It is also clear Martha's deal was completely inneffective at holding Wilkerson accountable becuase she wasted no time doing the same again "taking bribes as secret campiagn contributions,"
When asked why she did not bring subsequent charges against Wilkerson, she says she doesn't have the resources and yet her predecessor brought the prior case against Wilkerson - facts that contradict her claim, and a case which she dispenssed with inneffectivly and which she failed to hold Wilkerson accountable for her crimes.
I won't accuse you with lying becuase I think you don't understand the facts. Anyway, you get the benefit of the doubt unlike EVERYONE who disagrees with you.
I have no problem with you defending your opinion. I am weary of accusations like "lying."
Bean, I like you too much to respond to these volleys of personal attacks that are a sad byproduct of your passion for Martha Coakley. Do you think they help your candidate, or the causes you hold dear? Are you even willing to accept the possibility that there could exist principled, thought-out reasons for supporting Congressman Capuano?
The article was released yesterday and contained information that was not well circulated if at all. It is current news involving a candidate for US Senate. We did not call her names, make questionable innuendos or use half truths to sensationalize a post. We are all dealing with facts released or revealed in the last 24 hours. These facts directly contrast the style, and record of Michael Capuano. It is fair. You continue to strain the truth to back up your argument. Just because you post it, does not make it an absolute truth. That is what this forum is for. Reality based commentary. It is not the world according to Bean and if you don't like it go screw. And oh by the way Capuano sucks.
You also have been reduced to repeat questionable character attacks on a esteemed member of congress who you don't know personlly.
So, then, should I take the comments made by Coakley's supporters as indicative of Martha Coakley herself? Should I start with the numerous times that I've been told I'm a traitor to my own gender because I'm not automatically supporting the female candidate? Should I extend that to the comment made on this site a while ago which compared my asking honest questions about the ramifications of the Stupak Amendment to gang rape? (Everyone remember that? That was awesome.)
Should I think it's a direct reflection of Coakley when I hear one of her supporters say that Capuano shouldn't be our Senator because his accent "makes it sound like he never went to school"?
Well, I'm not going to. I mean, yeah, those things piss me off in a huge way, but I see those comments only as reflections of the people who made them. I don't project that onto the AG. There are reasons - legitimate, concrete reasons - that I am supporting Capuano and not Coakley, and it is sad to me that you are ready to dismiss that as me simply being "deceived".
time better spent doing more outreach to undecided friends and family.
I'll vote for Coakley, would be fine with Khazei, would settle for Pagliuca if I absolutely had to.
But I can't stomach Capuano.
Can certainly believe that people may think they have principled reasons for going there, but I think they're deceived.
Using the very source cited by the poster.
The post did in fact call Coakley a liar, used half truths, and made questionable innuendos.
So please spare me the phony outrage.
Thanks Judy. Heading to Cambridge to make calls and help out. Great 'I like Mike' video btw.
This is the defense 'because I tell you it happened, it really did'. Followed up by name calling, it is quite effective. I am sure the Coakley campaign sees you as a model supporter. I would have told you to cease your posting a long time ago.
As for the ratings nonsense, we all have better things to worry about.
So since you can't be bothered to look at what I posted above, I'll repeat it here.
Even on the T or most of it anyway.
This is a refreshingly honest answer. I wish you had started here. You profess a visceral dislike of Mike Capuano. I don't know about anyone else, but I have similarly visceral dislike of Martha Coakley.
It doesn't make either one of us dishonest, bad, wrong, or anything else. It makes a real people with real feelings.
Can we just leave it there?
Has he voted how you haven't liked? Have you had an encounter with him or his staff that left a bad taste in your mouth? I have a hard time believing you could take the PMA stuff you've criticized him for so personally, so there must be something more.
I know what it's like to have antipathy toward a candidate in a primary race. I guess I just don't know why that translates into personal antipathy for his/her supporters.
Since I asked Bean to explain her "visceral dislike" for Capuano I'd be curious as to your answer regarding Coakley. Personally, I don't dislike any of them; it's not like they've ever done anything to me.
To know if you are a dishonest person - I'd certainly hope not. But I do know there's dishonest stuff in this post, and I do know that there are some participants in the thread who aren't prepared when those things are identified to step back from them. I'm troubled by that.
I'd rather not add more fuel to the inferno already burning.
When the election is over, I'll be happy to return to it.
They are what they are. I respect how Bean feels, whether or not she reciprocates.
I think further attempts to belabor the question hurt far more than they help.
Let's move on.
I think it applies in Capuano's case. There is more than the PMA stuff. I lived in Somerville when Capuano was mayor, many years ago and there were corrupt dealings around cable company relationships. But it's so long ago that I can't substantiate it, and you see what happened when I raised concerns about the PMA lobbyist relationships that were well-documented in the NYT and other papers - I had everything hurled at me including the kitchen sink.
I don't go for the angry guy thing, either. Being a bit hot-headed myself, I like cooler, more dispassionate heads in leadership roles.
And I think the negative campaigning and downright bad behavior of some of Capuano's supporters here on BMG over the last few weeks has become inextricably associated for me with the man himself.
I truly do hope he loses on Tuesday, as I will have a real conundrum as an active Democrat if not. I can't possibly vote for the anti-gay Scott Brown. I'm not sure I could hold my nose and vote for Capuano. Hence, more phonebanking for Coakley tomorrow.
You certainly have not been part of the smear-fest by many of the Capuano supporters on BMG over the last few weeks.
and peddling misinformation.
You cannot be half as weary as I am.
So I don't know if it will. I think when clearly shown that misinformation has been peddled, as I've done in this post, that that should mean something. Peddling misinformation is... well, lying.
You can call me shrill, pathetic etc. - all the personal attacks that you and several other Capuano supporters have indulged themselves in over this primary season - it doesn't change the merits.
Tom Reilly pressed a case without probable cause? And Martha wrongly took $10,000 from Diane Wilkerson leaving her with nothing except blanket immunity?
and it's been a very good partnership, lo these many years. But I don't need my husband to prop up a lame argument, and downrate people to show support.
...in ratings abuse. Well actually, there is.
Dishing out 3s like chicklets doesn't make your argument more compelling.
We are talking about a state senator who took cash and stuck it her bra during a meal at number nine park? Don't tell me that a thorough review of her personal and campaign finances wouldn't allow an investigator to gleam incriminating information that would tell me or anyone not to give her immunity for anything.
You don't have to be an attorney to understand any of these concepts.
it has not been an equal forum for Coakley supporters here. Capuano folks are so aggressive and rude that most of the Martha people I know who come here refuse to interact. It's really quite threatening and if you don't know what I'm talking about than I don't think I can begin to explain. I think it's gotten somewhat better and Sabutai you have been fair and more even handed than most, that's appreciated. I'm betting that some of the Capuano people here will never vote for Coakley if she's the nominee, no matter what. The anger is palpable. Martha Coakley's image as formed by the frequent hits at BMG is a distortion of truth- Her colleagues of many years and friends are more than effusive in their praise of her high ethical and moral standing. Unfortunately many here have tried to twist the facts to make her sound like an out and out fraud and piker. Half truths are often lies.
Well, I was one of the only people skeptical of Deval Patrick on this site four years ago, so I know what it's like to be personally attacked on the basis of one's candidate. Of course, I did start this campaign in Coakley's corner, and it wasn't that long ago I was openly hoping she'd run against Deval next year (when she told me "stay tuned" last summer, I wasn't smart enough to realize about which office she was talking).
I think every campaign has extreme, "burn the bridges" voices, and the Coakley and Capuano ones are no exception. I certainly don't think they represent most supporters; regardless of who wins on Tuesday, I think they can expect the lion's share of their rivals' supporters tipping for them in January. As you say, there are exceptions...in both directions.
Yes, some (newly) prolific posters on this site are as hostile to Martha Coakley as they were to Hillary Clinton or Tom Reilly, but I'm not sure responding to anger with anger is helping anyone (except possibly Alan Khazei).
I would take that bet, if there were any way of settling it. Let me be the latest of many to say that I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. I do not think any of the Capuano supporters here will do differently. I take exception to your assertion that "Capuano folks are so aggressive and rude," because you've phrased it as a generalization that applies to all of us.
I admit that there is some aggression, but it comes from the legitimate frustration that many Capuano supporters have about how this race is unfolding.
First, it's tough to be in second place (in what likely will be a narrow loss).
More importantly, though, is that her campaign and most of her supporters on this site have proclaimed Attorney General Coakley to be a lifelong champion of civil rights. I (and many Capuano supporters) believe this to be completely false.
We have legitimate questions about her positions and past actions dealing with civil rights. Attorney General Coakley has been unwilling to address these questions during this campaign. Her supporters on this site are also unwilling to address these concerns.
I have yet to see a Coakley supporter on this site say that her Fells Acres actions were warranted, her position in Melendez-Diaz was correct, her stance on the Holly Wood amicus brief was a smart move, or in any way defend her incredibly "tough on crime" tenure as district attorney.
She's not a perfect candidate; no one is. The problem for me is that her civil rights record is so big and so bad. Normally, I think, these stances would sink the candidacy of someone entering a race in which all the voters would be strong progressives. Somehow most voters seem to be disregarding these issues. Maybe it is a failure of the media to cover them, maybe it is the failure of the other campaigns to attack these stances, or maybe some of her supporters aren't looking into her record.
Who wants to take this bet? Coakley supporters will support the Democratic nominee with their votes in January if it is not Coakley.
Mine is gone, too:
"it's orchestrated and a reflection of the man"? [6.00 / 8] Replies: 0 posted by: melora on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 19:29:18 PM EST attached to: Coakley ties her own hands, misleads public in Wilkerson Case
So at least 20 are missing.
It hasn't been hidden. Somebody chose to delete the entire string without notifying anyone. I hope this is the only comment string "cleaned out" the day before the primary. Personally, I thought it was useful to have all the Capuano people on the record promising to vote Coakley in the general when/if she's the nominee.
I posted a diary for this, rather than comment further here.
It certainly is "odd". Certainly BMG has been receiving more than usual traffic, so it could well be a technical issue. Nevertheless I, too, find the timing of the removal disturbing. I also share your hope that this only comment string where this is taken place.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 12:27 AM