Mara Liasson observed on NPR the other day that Republicans will not move on immigration in 2014, because they’re pretty much all in safe districts, but they will move on it in 2015, because they need Hispanic votes for the presidential race (and presumably a few Canadians).
I say, they’ll do neither and double down on the status quo. It’s a calculated gamble — we gain more than they do, so better to please their base, even though it’s dwindling.
For our part, I think we should move immigration from “useful wedge against the GOP” to “real issue we really want to solve.” That helps with the new voters, obviously, but might even help in the middle.
JimCsays
Could someone tell me two leading issues in the mayor’s race? One clearly is organized labor, and the perception that one candidate will go easy on them. Another (I guess) is education.
Anything else? Not grinding an axe here, I don’t vote in Boston (but would lean Walsh if I did).
cannoneosays
I’ve argued Walsh has more serious proposals on these issues and, in contrast to Connolly who has put all his chips on education, a much more comprehensive view of the challenges facing the city.
But it sounds like you mean not the issues that are most important to the city but those that define the difference between the candidates. I would say that if you find them hard to distinguish on the most important issues, you have to turn to evidence of their likely effectiveness in office: prior experience (making progress on tough issues), their base of support (who will they turn to when they need a big burst of political energy), and style (are they consensus-driven or divisive, calculating or straight-shooting?).
I think the policy differences are real, but not so definitive that you can ignore character and breadth of experience, too.
JimCsays
I’d like to hear more about poverty, from any candidate for any office.
HR's Kevinsays
If you go to his website, you will see pretty detailed proposals on a wide range of issues, and most of this has been there long before any other candidate had anything other than a “Contribute” button on their websites.
However, I agree that Connolly has bet a lost of his advertising chips on his education agenda, especially early in the campaign. I find this to be a little bit of a turnoff given that I don’t have any kids.
dasox1says
Looks like (1) education, (2) economy/jobs, and (3) crime, based on the tabs in the MassINC poll. The “two Bostons” concept, probably stretches across all three of those issues, and the labor issue probably fits in #2.
HR's Kevinsays
Both candidates have totally wimped out on the issue. When cornered both of them say “whatever the residents of East Boston want is the right thing”.
I am pretty sure Walsh has more publicly supported the casino bid in the past and Connolly has given some hints that suggest he might personally be somewhat against a casino, but it’s hard to tell for sure.
theloquaciousliberalsays
I agree with you that the Suffolk Downs casino – and whether there should be a citywide or just East Boston vote – should be more of an issue in the campaign.
And Walsh has certainly been more publicly in favor of casinos before. He voted, in 2011, in favor of the law allowing them to be built. In fairness, the state law he supported included the provision allowing for a local referendum on casinos.
BUT, I disagree that “Connolly has given some hints that suggest he might personally be somewhat against a casino.” That’s just wishful thinking on your part? To the contrary, I’ve never heard Connolly speak against casinos. Here’s his pretty unequivocal pro-casino answer in a 2007 City Council debate:
QUESTION: Do you support or oppose casino gambling in the City of Boston? And if a casino were to be built at Suffolk Downs, how would you anticipate your duties as City Councilor to be affected?
JOHN CONNOLLY: First and foremost, I support casino gambling. I think in a city where we have a resource crunch, particularly have major concerns over safety on our streets, and we need to find a way to get more officers on our streets as part of a way to implement more community policing strategy, that we do need to look at casino gambling to open up a source of revenue. On the destination casino issue, I think that we have to have a full process to hear what East Boston thinks on that. I really fear for the quality-of-life in that neighborhood, without it. Were it to go there? I think the biggest thing you could do as a Councilor-At-Large would be to advocate strongly for the community that would be impacted. Just having been over there this summer, concerns about traffic, concerns about quality-of-life when you’ve got people leaving the casino at 3 am, 4 am. I also worry for myself, because I can never remember whether to hit or to stay at sixteen.
Ha Ha.
Seriously, do you have any evidence that Connolly ever considered being opposed to casino gambling?
P.S. I think “personal” views on casinos are utterly irrelevant in deciding whom to elect. Me, personally, I like casinos. I know never to hit on 16. Never. But, as a matter of public policy, I’m 100% opposed to allowing legalized gambling. What I want to know is whether a candidate supports casinos as a matter of public policy.
HR's Kevinsays
I had not seen that. I was thinking of the last debate where Connolly said something like he found the Caesar’s withdrawal “troubling”, which made me think that might possibly suggest he was not all that in favor of the casino.
In any case, both candidates get dinged from me for being for the casino and for being too cowardly to say anything in public.
danfromwalthamsays
Sen. Manchin would support delay of individual mandate, Jeanne Shaheen wrote a letter to Obama about extending deadline for having health coverage.
How can we fine sone one who can’t even log into the system?
Looks like Ted Cruz was right all along…..one year delay around the corner?
JimCsays
I meant to click view voters.
danfromwalthamsays
It allows me to post comments without having to write a diary, which can be time consuming for me, since I have so many sources and is usually a few paragraphs.
This should be your thing, open thread Friday.
dasox1says
What was Ted Cruz right about?
danfromwalthamsays
Read for yourself. Now some on BMG have boxed themselves into a corner, stating we can’t delay the individual mandate, b/c that would destroy Obamacare.
He wanted to delay it only so that the Republicans would have more time to kill it entirely. Cruz does not want to delay it so that implementation goes more smoothly.
danfromwalthamsays
Makes sense, just repackage Ted Cruz’s idea and call it “saving Obamacare”.
I’m not in favor of delaying it all. In 5 years, ACA will be as popular as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Like part D, this stuff is hard to get right immediately. Democrats (some) want a delay to address implementation. Republicans want a “delay” because they know that they can’t defund it, successfully kill it by shutting the government down over it, or repeal it. Cruz’s delay is not really to “delay” implementation, it’s to buy more time to kill, defund, or repeal it.
fenway49says
Democrats (some) want a delay to address implementation.
As far as I’ve seen, the only Democrats pushing this idea are Senators running for re-election in typically Republican states. Joe Manchin, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich — this is hardly the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
dasox1says
I agree; good point. Perhaps I should have substituted “a hand full” for “some.”
danfromwalthamsays
The signatories to the letter are Shaheen and Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Hagan (D-N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
Can some admit, if there is a delay, Ted Cruz was right all along?
fenway49says
Dianne Feinstein is nowhere near my list of decent Democratic Senators. She’s a professional concern troll. Frankly, that whole list is to the right of the midpoint in the Democratic caucus.
No, Ted Cruz was not “right.” He wanted to defund the law totally, then turned to delay as a backup plan before there was any stupid website issue. I think we should see how things go and make the appropriate decision as the March 31 enrollment deadline approaches.
Your statement is like saying the guy mumbling in Scollay Square about attacking Japan five years before Pearl Harbor was “right” all along because Congress voted for war after the attack.
danfromwalthamsays
Natalie Willes was interviewd by Breitbart, ahem, CBS News. She was happy with her health insurance, she paid $199 month, $1500 deductible. Who said “if you like your health plan, you can keep it?
Anyway, she lost her insurance, went On the exchange, now she will pay $278 per month and a $6500 deductible!!!!! Obama must want to help bankruptcy lawyers, b/c his plans will force many into bankruptcy with those deductible.
So when Ted Cruz quoted Jimmy Hoffa stating Obamacare will destroy healthcare as we know it, Natalie will surely agree with Ted Cruz.
How is that fair? Whatever the alterior motives, a delay is a delay
is a delay.
SomervilleTomsays
The right wing has spent the last three decades doing all in its power to dismantle, shrink, and hobble government. It spent the last six years obstructing, blocking, trashing, and rejecting EVERY initiative offered by the President in an explicitly and proudly trumpeted effort to destroy him.
Now the same thugs and political terrorists have the temerity to complain about start-up problems with the system they’ve worked so hard to destroy altogether.
What a nauseating joke. It’s like the Japanese complaining that the US navy ships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack were improperly painted.
danfromwalthamsays
And to describe fellow Americans as “thugs” and “political terrorists” because they disagree with you on policy? What’s next, some Republican told Obama he could stand to look at him? Oh wait, Dick Durbin posted that on Facebook, and the White House denied it ever happened. The Republican must have thought, right? It was in his sub-conscience, right Tom, since they are “thugs” and “political terrorists”?
When 10 Dems begin to push for the delay in the individual fines and mandate under Obamacare, they too are “thugs” and “political terrorists”, right Tom?
And you’d know that if you didn’t look at the world through the lens of your ideology. Pushing for an extension of the signup period due to rollout glitches is vastly different from delaying the mandate for a year like Republicans wanted to do.
SomervilleTomsays
The shutdown was masterminded by the GOP. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously said, in 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. The fact that they failed to accomplish that has caused the GOP to redouble its efforts.
The obsessive fixation on destroying Barack Obama — to the total and complete exclusion of rationality, reason, and facts, never mind good policy — is why I blame the GOP. The fact that they consciously, intentionally, and with full knowledge of the consequences, shut down the government ANYWAY — and came within a hairs-breadth of destroying the international credit rating of the US (along with the US economy) by defaulting on the national debt — is why I label the soldiers of the shutdown “political thugs and terrorists”.
The GOP lost in the voting booth, lost in congress, and lost in the courtroom. Rather than admit defeat, they chose to instead do all in their power to sabotage the entire nation. This is like a team who goes into the 2-minute warning with a 30 point deficit, and starts taking head-shots and grabbing face masks in order to injure the winning team.
It is, in fact, thuggery and terrorism. Read it and weep.
As far as I am concerned, when you defend those actions here, I read those comments as defending terrorist behavior.
danfromwalthamsays
And nobody here at least, gives a damn. People like Natalie Willes lose their health insurance, get screwed by higher premiums and thousands more in deductibles and even after that, just get 70% coverage.
Ted Crus wanted to prevent 7 million people from losing their health insurance, as is expected. But no worries Tom, all for the greater good, right?
And since this is an open forum, during the shutdown, did you hear Obama use the term “deadbeat” to describe if the govt, or anyone who doesn’t pay their bills. Ever wonder what Obama thinks of able-bodied people who actually have strangers (taxpayers) pay for basics, like their food and housing? Are they worse than a “deadbeat” who at least obtained credit and tried to pay their bills, but perhaps saw their hours slashed due to a bad law passed on 2010?
SomervilleTomsays
ALL Americans pay too much health care dollars for too little health care benefits. The ACA was a tiny step towards addressing that. Government-sponsored single-payer health care is the only answer that will work.
In the meantime, most Americans will get better insurance for less money under the ACA. Some Americans, like Ms. Willes, may pay more for a time. For every one of those, there are a great many others who will pay LESS.
Everybody I know was getting “screwed by higher premiums and thousands more in deductibles and even after that, just get 70% coverage”, long before ObamaCare. Welcome to the reality of Republican free-market health care. Attempting to blame that on the ACA or President Obama is, well, either a lie, distortion, or both. The truth is that such things have been epidemic for much longer than the ACA has been around. And those things were brought to us by “free market” Republicans.
Ted Crus wants to be elected President. He is under the apparent delusion that multitudes of right-wing worshipers will carry him into the Oval Office on their shoulders if he will only shout his lies loudly enough. He is the political equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.
Someone who signs a contract, accepts the services, and then refuses to pay (in spite of having the cash) IS a “deadbeat”. President Obama is talking about GOP representatives who passed legislation in full recognition of its costs — and then attempted to stop the government from those costs when they came due.
That’s fraud and theft — “deadbeat” is a nicer term than a bunch of other words that he might have chosen.
danfromwalthamsays
A single guy doesn’t need to buy coverage that only women need. That’s what is happening and why the sticker shock is occurring.
It was Obama who sold this bill as saving $2500 a year. I’m still waiting for my discount, yet, you refuse to hold him accountable.
“All Americans pay too much for health care”. Wrong, try agains. There is a large portion who pays nothing, they show up at the emergency room and stick Uncle Sap with the bill.
Ted Cruz or Benghazi Hillary? That’s an easy call in my book.
kbuschsays
Unless you like dueling with lawn sprinklers.
SomervilleTomsays
1. Insurance works by having healthy people — the “single guy [who] doesn’t need to buy coverage that only women need” — pay the costs of those require care. When only people who “need” health insurance (because they have higher health care expenses) buy it, the cost of that health insurance skyrockets. Meanwhile, insurers pressure health care providers to lower costs. How do providers accomplish that? By lowering costs for patients who frequently receive treatment, and by raising costs for everything else.
Don’t like it? Neither do I. That’s why single-payer government sponsored health care is better.
2. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health care. They bring their children to the ER to have a garden-variety ear infection treated — at astronomically higher cost than if that same infection were treated at a clinic. They bring their children to the ER to have teeth removed and expensive oral surgery because the children’s teeth are decayed and abscessed — problems that are readily avoided by routine teeth cleaning (that they can’t afford).
These aren’t deadbeats, and they pay little or nothing because they have little or nothing to pay with.
They do NOT “stick Uncle Sam with the bill”. They stick those of us with health insurance with the bill. And they stick YOU with the bill every time you DO pay, because the costs of providing that necessary care are paid by a combination of insurers and providers.
Are you suggesting that those children be denied care? Are you really so cruel as to propose that three year old lose her hearing for life, or lose what teeth she has left, because her parents are unemployed or underemployed?
Again, single-payer government sponsored health care is the answer.
Governments around the world have solved this problem. We have not, and we have not because we insist on allowing health insurance companies and large health-care companies to plunder us.
For all its weaknesses, the ACA does, in fact, make enormous progress in solving precisely the two problems you cite. Which is why it is so deceptive for you to make the delusional or dishonest claims you make in this comment.
danfromwalthamsays
Perhaps Tom, if you received a cancellation notice of your insurance policy that you liked, you wouldn’t be so dismissive of what the reality is on the ground.
Obama promised 2 things. First, he said if you like your current plan, you can keep it. That was LIE, Tom. Second, he promised costs for insurance will go down by $2500. Now, only a fool or misinformation voters swallowed that line of Obama’s. Reality is just the opposite.
So you believe a 56 year old woman should be forced to pay for prenatal coverage? My thinking is, if she wants to have it, but would leave the final decision “between her and her doctor”, I’m on the pro-choice side on that one.
The people you describe as examples who benefit from Obamacare are likely to end up on Medicaid, not buy insurance. In fact, it is likely most enrollies in Obamacare have signed up for Medicaid, which is going bankrupt by the way, and more and more doctors are refusing patients in Medicaid.
SomervilleTomsays
I’ve had enough, kbusch was correct.
kbuschsays
Where he really did just assert things about “what Obama said” that make really no sense whatever.
JimCsays
“technocratic centrism advertised as liberalism.” Brilliant line. This whole entry is worth a read. To sum, our side is supposed to deliver on stuff like this.
For the cheap-shot that gave Bruin Loius Eriksson a concussion.
geoffm33says
The hits like that will continue until the league does something like you mention. Or at least 40, 50, etc game suspension.
Jasiusays
Much like a lot of other situations, the problem isn’t only with the person at the bottom of the ladder. The coach had the responsibility for putting him in the game. The GM is responsible for the hire. Unless they and the team feel some pain in response to their actions, the cheap shots won’t go away.
danfromwalthamsays
Especially if they lose Erikkson for a long time.
Mark L. Bailsays
in cluttering up private business organizations with regulations? I’m appalled. Whatever happened to the free market?
danfromwalthamsays
Heck, it’s government that won’t even allow kids to keep score at youth games or play dodgeball at gym.
mike_cotesays
And I don’t know Jack about sports.
Your telling me that there are Federal Agents at every T-Ball game, arresting parents if they keep score! I have two legs, pull the other one for once. Please provide proof of this bullshit, and by proof, I don’t mean a comment by Hannity or O’Reilley or the other wackjobs you worship.
Mark L. Bailsays
When they gonna get dere hands off my T-ballsl?
Dan, you are a piece of work.
Mark L. Bailsays
about some regulations that didn’t go into effect in New York. It’s actually an example of government working. Bureaucracy came up with some stupid rules and elected officials shot it down.
mike_cotesays
and it is in-fact the government that is allowing kids to keep score and allowing kids to play dodgeball, and at no point, were these stupid rules ever in effect.
Based on that, since I was so easily duped, I am going to rush right down to City Hall and change my voter registration to Republican, gosh darn it. Thank you for showing me the light Dan. Thank You!
You started with not keeping score which is a policy some kiddie leagues have adopted, but no government is enforcing, doesn’t apply to competitive school sports, and we know the kids keep score anyway. Now you’re on dodgeball which actually has the potential, and too often reality, of physical injury and ganging up on someone.
danfromwalthamsays
The banning of dodgeball is from school committees, who are elected, which is an absolute disgrace. Dodgeball is a good life lesson.
“US Youth Soccer has recommended a policy of no scoring or standings for its younger programs”. While not directly ordered from government, who are the biggest influence in these programs? Government is. The youth programs are looking for better fields, outdoor lighting, turf constructed fields, etc. so we all know where these “no more dodgeball or scoring” comes from. In there world, everyone doesn’t get a trophy at the end of the season.
kirthsays
A co-worker coaches youth soccer teams in NH. His preteen son gets paid $10 an hour to referee games (not ones his father coaches). The father is one of the most antigovernment people I know, but in all the years he’s been telling me about his youth soccer involvement, I have never once heard him complain about government involvement.
darnfromwaltham, the rest of us would really appreciate it if you would, at least once in a while, question your assumptions. They are often wrong.
Mark L. Bailsays
ever watched little kids play soccer knows that keeping standings is ridiculous. Anyone who calls it soccer is bordering on foolishness.
Doesn’t Dan need a pat on the back for changing the subject on which he thinks he knows something?
danfromwalthamsays
That’s the type of soccer I teach my teams in youth soccer. It’s all about ball control and short passes. True, there is no offsides in U10 Travel, but I make the adjustment if there is a goal hanger, just bring the keeper as a defenseman.
FYI, won’t believe it. Was in Lowell today for soccer (yes, we won) and guess what I hear? A rumbling sound behind me, I turned and saw the most beautiful thing. A CSX engine going down the tracks, heading north. And guess what was part of the cargo? Some oil cars, either from Alberta or North Dakota. It looked picturesque as it was behind a waving American flag. I wish I taken a picture, but had to get back to the game, but did put my hand over my heart for just a second. I knew it would be a great day today.
lodgersays
Long live Pep Guardiola.
JimCsays
The business delay arguably made some sense, because it was putting a new burden on businesses.
The individual delay does not make sense, because the signup (arguably) helps the individuals who join. This point is not arguable for those who don’t have insurance.
So Senator Cruz, though employing a tactic that is justifiable from his point of vew, was being a jerk and trying to damage the law.
All this said, the administration really screwed up allowing the business delay. They had plenty of time to prepare.
danfromwalthamsays
This, according to UCLA Dr. Gerry Kiminski.
I will state, if Obamacare was forced to roll out on Oct 1, 2012, no way Obama would have won re-election.
danfromwalthamsays
I was going to do a diary on this, but some don’t like sports diaries.
I say yes, but can keep the logo.
theloquaciousliberalsays
It is the name and not the relatively dignified logo of an African American that is the bigger problem. They have the opposite problem of the Cleveland Indians (and their ridiculous Chief Wahoo logo).
That said, this Washington Redskins logo change (from the folks over at PETA) sure makes an interesting argument that a logo change alone could actually solve the problem:
maybe they should change the name to the Washington Dan’s. They could use a troll as a mascot.
Alsays
that says Connolly has an 8% lead on Walsh. They’ve been running tag team columns that promote Connolly and degrade Walsh. When will their official endorsement appear on the Ed Page?
about the candidates, but wow, that’s a lot of undecideds.
GOTV is close to all, I would think.
mike_cotesays
regarding the better Doctor Who actor, I think it is about even amoung most die-hard fans!
Jasiusays
Although Smith still has a couple of episodes to change my mind (oops, one of those has Tennant in it again! 🙂 ).
mike_cotesays
My first Doctor was Peter Davison (The 5th Doctor), so of the 11 actors, I would list him first, but if we simply limit the list to Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant and Matt Smith, then there are individual moments of excellence with each of them, and episodes like, “The Impossible Astronaut” and “Day of the Moon” and “The Pandorica Opens’/”The Big Bang” which I would put above several of the David Tennant episodes like “Midnight” and “Planet of the Dead” and “The Satan Pit”
But then, David Tennant has “Human Nature”/”The Family of Blood” which is among my alltime favorites, but then Matt Smith has “Blink” and “Vincent and the Doctor”, so I am torn between liking them both.
Jasiusays
Of the new incarnation of the series, I just prefer the Russell T Davies work over Stephen Moffat, which is probably why I enjoy the Tennant work more. Too bad Eccleston didn’t do another year.
jconwaysays
Last nights game sucked but it was awesome to watch it on a plane full of Sox fans coming home from Chicago. We turned that plane into a rowdy sports bar!
Also on the way home from Logan it seemed like a clear 50/50 Walsh/Connolly split based on signage. Anyone know if this is true? Seems like an area Walsh needs to win
My parents are moving from Cambridge to Wakefield,
After decades of issues finally left a house they’ve grown to hate for a house that fits their (downsized) needs and are making a decent profit. That said, sad they couldn’t stay in Cambridge. Cambridge could use a de Blasio since this city can’t sustain a middle class anymore. It’s been hallowed out entirely.
On the plus side Wakefield seems nice-am I wrong?
fenway49says
A little too Republican for my taste, but they have a nice Main Street and the lake is beautiful.
jconwaysays
Yeah when I told my dad it voted for Romney and Brown he was a little appalled, but their area is closer to Melrose and they like the quiet downtown. It’s been easier parting with all my old toys and posters than I thought. Also I think the Cambridge public schools gave me FAR too many trophies.
dunwichdemsays
Hank Naughton (D-Clinton) is officially running for Attorney General, making him (I believe) the second declared candidate after Maura Healey. I’ve heard some good things about him from around the Worcester area.
With no Middlesex DA candidate (as far as I know), he’s the closest alternative and could be a strong contender.
danfromwalthamsays
Obama spying and tappping the cell phones of our allies like Angela Merkel of Germany OR Rumsfeld calling Germany “Old Europe”?
Answer: most here believe what Obama did was his own version of “trust but verify” and that George W. Bush started it all, thus, Rumsfeld was worse. Am I correct?
mike_cotesays
Christophersays
I don’t think the NSA (which is more accurate as Obama is not personally doing it) should tap their phones. I really don’t care about an offhand comment made by Rumsfeld, though his actions leave plenty to criticize. File under apples to oranges.
danfromwalthamsays
I could be wrong but has it been mentioned by anyone else?
Christophersays
But I have next to no patience for complaints about what isn’t addressed on BMG since every commenter also has diary-posting abilities.
HR's Kevinsays
The memo Snowden released that started all this was from 2006. Who was President in 2006 Dan?
JimCsays
… the slip could not have been more Freudian. Caps mine:
“I love Ted Cruz,” she says. “We’re smarter than what the media’s trying to play us for. Nobody’s divided. We all want freedom, we all want liberty and we want OUR rules followed. I think we’re willing to stand together and fight for that.”
Not “the rules,” “our rules.” Thanks for the candor. Link.
danfromwalthamsays
Umpires can ruin the game, as proven last night. The Sox third baseman was squatting up when the Cardinal player purposely flopped and tripped.
And the hit by the pitch in the 7th? I was at a party and the volume on mute, but it looked liked the Cardinal player put his padded elbow over the plate and got nicked. That’s another 2 runs that they scored as a result. Also, looked liked the umpire loves golf b/c he called strikes at the ankle height.
Mara Liasson observed on NPR the other day that Republicans will not move on immigration in 2014, because they’re pretty much all in safe districts, but they will move on it in 2015, because they need Hispanic votes for the presidential race (and presumably a few Canadians).
I say, they’ll do neither and double down on the status quo. It’s a calculated gamble — we gain more than they do, so better to please their base, even though it’s dwindling.
For our part, I think we should move immigration from “useful wedge against the GOP” to “real issue we really want to solve.” That helps with the new voters, obviously, but might even help in the middle.
Could someone tell me two leading issues in the mayor’s race? One clearly is organized labor, and the perception that one candidate will go easy on them. Another (I guess) is education.
Anything else? Not grinding an axe here, I don’t vote in Boston (but would lean Walsh if I did).
I’ve argued Walsh has more serious proposals on these issues and, in contrast to Connolly who has put all his chips on education, a much more comprehensive view of the challenges facing the city.
But it sounds like you mean not the issues that are most important to the city but those that define the difference between the candidates. I would say that if you find them hard to distinguish on the most important issues, you have to turn to evidence of their likely effectiveness in office: prior experience (making progress on tough issues), their base of support (who will they turn to when they need a big burst of political energy), and style (are they consensus-driven or divisive, calculating or straight-shooting?).
I think the policy differences are real, but not so definitive that you can ignore character and breadth of experience, too.
I’d like to hear more about poverty, from any candidate for any office.
If you go to his website, you will see pretty detailed proposals on a wide range of issues, and most of this has been there long before any other candidate had anything other than a “Contribute” button on their websites.
However, I agree that Connolly has bet a lost of his advertising chips on his education agenda, especially early in the campaign. I find this to be a little bit of a turnoff given that I don’t have any kids.
Looks like (1) education, (2) economy/jobs, and (3) crime, based on the tabs in the MassINC poll. The “two Bostons” concept, probably stretches across all three of those issues, and the labor issue probably fits in #2.
Both candidates have totally wimped out on the issue. When cornered both of them say “whatever the residents of East Boston want is the right thing”.
I am pretty sure Walsh has more publicly supported the casino bid in the past and Connolly has given some hints that suggest he might personally be somewhat against a casino, but it’s hard to tell for sure.
I agree with you that the Suffolk Downs casino – and whether there should be a citywide or just East Boston vote – should be more of an issue in the campaign.
And Walsh has certainly been more publicly in favor of casinos before. He voted, in 2011, in favor of the law allowing them to be built. In fairness, the state law he supported included the provision allowing for a local referendum on casinos.
BUT, I disagree that “Connolly has given some hints that suggest he might personally be somewhat against a casino.” That’s just wishful thinking on your part? To the contrary, I’ve never heard Connolly speak against casinos. Here’s his pretty unequivocal pro-casino answer in a 2007 City Council debate:
Ha Ha.
Seriously, do you have any evidence that Connolly ever considered being opposed to casino gambling?
P.S. I think “personal” views on casinos are utterly irrelevant in deciding whom to elect. Me, personally, I like casinos. I know never to hit on 16. Never. But, as a matter of public policy, I’m 100% opposed to allowing legalized gambling. What I want to know is whether a candidate supports casinos as a matter of public policy.
I had not seen that. I was thinking of the last debate where Connolly said something like he found the Caesar’s withdrawal “troubling”, which made me think that might possibly suggest he was not all that in favor of the casino.
In any case, both candidates get dinged from me for being for the casino and for being too cowardly to say anything in public.
Sen. Manchin would support delay of individual mandate, Jeanne Shaheen wrote a letter to Obama about extending deadline for having health coverage.
How can we fine sone one who can’t even log into the system?
Looks like Ted Cruz was right all along…..one year delay around the corner?
I meant to click view voters.
It allows me to post comments without having to write a diary, which can be time consuming for me, since I have so many sources and is usually a few paragraphs.
This should be your thing, open thread Friday.
What was Ted Cruz right about?
Read for yourself. Now some on BMG have boxed themselves into a corner, stating we can’t delay the individual mandate, b/c that would destroy Obamacare.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/24/democrats-waver-obamacare-delay-hagan/3181655/
He wanted to delay it only so that the Republicans would have more time to kill it entirely. Cruz does not want to delay it so that implementation goes more smoothly.
Makes sense, just repackage Ted Cruz’s idea and call it “saving Obamacare”.
Maybe people are exaggerating this as usual.
I’m not in favor of delaying it all. In 5 years, ACA will be as popular as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Like part D, this stuff is hard to get right immediately. Democrats (some) want a delay to address implementation. Republicans want a “delay” because they know that they can’t defund it, successfully kill it by shutting the government down over it, or repeal it. Cruz’s delay is not really to “delay” implementation, it’s to buy more time to kill, defund, or repeal it.
As far as I’ve seen, the only Democrats pushing this idea are Senators running for re-election in typically Republican states. Joe Manchin, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich — this is hardly the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
I agree; good point. Perhaps I should have substituted “a hand full” for “some.”
The signatories to the letter are Shaheen and Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Hagan (D-N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
Can some admit, if there is a delay, Ted Cruz was right all along?
Dianne Feinstein is nowhere near my list of decent Democratic Senators. She’s a professional concern troll. Frankly, that whole list is to the right of the midpoint in the Democratic caucus.
No, Ted Cruz was not “right.” He wanted to defund the law totally, then turned to delay as a backup plan before there was any stupid website issue. I think we should see how things go and make the appropriate decision as the March 31 enrollment deadline approaches.
Your statement is like saying the guy mumbling in Scollay Square about attacking Japan five years before Pearl Harbor was “right” all along because Congress voted for war after the attack.
Natalie Willes was interviewd by Breitbart, ahem, CBS News. She was happy with her health insurance, she paid $199 month, $1500 deductible. Who said “if you like your health plan, you can keep it?
Anyway, she lost her insurance, went On the exchange, now she will pay $278 per month and a $6500 deductible!!!!! Obama must want to help bankruptcy lawyers, b/c his plans will force many into bankruptcy with those deductible.
So when Ted Cruz quoted Jimmy Hoffa stating Obamacare will destroy healthcare as we know it, Natalie will surely agree with Ted Cruz.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57609224/arrival-of-obamacare-forcing-insurers-to-drop-customers-with-low-coverage/
How is that fair? Whatever the alterior motives, a delay is a delay
is a delay.
The right wing has spent the last three decades doing all in its power to dismantle, shrink, and hobble government. It spent the last six years obstructing, blocking, trashing, and rejecting EVERY initiative offered by the President in an explicitly and proudly trumpeted effort to destroy him.
Now the same thugs and political terrorists have the temerity to complain about start-up problems with the system they’ve worked so hard to destroy altogether.
What a nauseating joke. It’s like the Japanese complaining that the US navy ships that survived the Pearl Harbor attack were improperly painted.
And to describe fellow Americans as “thugs” and “political terrorists” because they disagree with you on policy? What’s next, some Republican told Obama he could stand to look at him? Oh wait, Dick Durbin posted that on Facebook, and the White House denied it ever happened. The Republican must have thought, right? It was in his sub-conscience, right Tom, since they are “thugs” and “political terrorists”?
When 10 Dems begin to push for the delay in the individual fines and mandate under Obamacare, they too are “thugs” and “political terrorists”, right Tom?
And you’d know that if you didn’t look at the world through the lens of your ideology. Pushing for an extension of the signup period due to rollout glitches is vastly different from delaying the mandate for a year like Republicans wanted to do.
The shutdown was masterminded by the GOP. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously said, in 2010, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. The fact that they failed to accomplish that has caused the GOP to redouble its efforts.
The obsessive fixation on destroying Barack Obama — to the total and complete exclusion of rationality, reason, and facts, never mind good policy — is why I blame the GOP. The fact that they consciously, intentionally, and with full knowledge of the consequences, shut down the government ANYWAY — and came within a hairs-breadth of destroying the international credit rating of the US (along with the US economy) by defaulting on the national debt — is why I label the soldiers of the shutdown “political thugs and terrorists”.
The GOP lost in the voting booth, lost in congress, and lost in the courtroom. Rather than admit defeat, they chose to instead do all in their power to sabotage the entire nation. This is like a team who goes into the 2-minute warning with a 30 point deficit, and starts taking head-shots and grabbing face masks in order to injure the winning team.
It is, in fact, thuggery and terrorism. Read it and weep.
As far as I am concerned, when you defend those actions here, I read those comments as defending terrorist behavior.
And nobody here at least, gives a damn. People like Natalie Willes lose their health insurance, get screwed by higher premiums and thousands more in deductibles and even after that, just get 70% coverage.
Ted Crus wanted to prevent 7 million people from losing their health insurance, as is expected. But no worries Tom, all for the greater good, right?
And since this is an open forum, during the shutdown, did you hear Obama use the term “deadbeat” to describe if the govt, or anyone who doesn’t pay their bills. Ever wonder what Obama thinks of able-bodied people who actually have strangers (taxpayers) pay for basics, like their food and housing? Are they worse than a “deadbeat” who at least obtained credit and tried to pay their bills, but perhaps saw their hours slashed due to a bad law passed on 2010?
ALL Americans pay too much health care dollars for too little health care benefits. The ACA was a tiny step towards addressing that. Government-sponsored single-payer health care is the only answer that will work.
In the meantime, most Americans will get better insurance for less money under the ACA. Some Americans, like Ms. Willes, may pay more for a time. For every one of those, there are a great many others who will pay LESS.
Everybody I know was getting “screwed by higher premiums and thousands more in deductibles and even after that, just get 70% coverage”, long before ObamaCare. Welcome to the reality of Republican free-market health care. Attempting to blame that on the ACA or President Obama is, well, either a lie, distortion, or both. The truth is that such things have been epidemic for much longer than the ACA has been around. And those things were brought to us by “free market” Republicans.
Ted Crus wants to be elected President. He is under the apparent delusion that multitudes of right-wing worshipers will carry him into the Oval Office on their shoulders if he will only shout his lies loudly enough. He is the political equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.
Someone who signs a contract, accepts the services, and then refuses to pay (in spite of having the cash) IS a “deadbeat”. President Obama is talking about GOP representatives who passed legislation in full recognition of its costs — and then attempted to stop the government from those costs when they came due.
That’s fraud and theft — “deadbeat” is a nicer term than a bunch of other words that he might have chosen.
A single guy doesn’t need to buy coverage that only women need. That’s what is happening and why the sticker shock is occurring.
It was Obama who sold this bill as saving $2500 a year. I’m still waiting for my discount, yet, you refuse to hold him accountable.
“All Americans pay too much for health care”. Wrong, try agains. There is a large portion who pays nothing, they show up at the emergency room and stick Uncle Sap with the bill.
Ted Cruz or Benghazi Hillary? That’s an easy call in my book.
Unless you like dueling with lawn sprinklers.
1. Insurance works by having healthy people — the “single guy [who] doesn’t need to buy coverage that only women need” — pay the costs of those require care. When only people who “need” health insurance (because they have higher health care expenses) buy it, the cost of that health insurance skyrockets. Meanwhile, insurers pressure health care providers to lower costs. How do providers accomplish that? By lowering costs for patients who frequently receive treatment, and by raising costs for everything else.
Don’t like it? Neither do I. That’s why single-payer government sponsored health care is better.
2. There are millions of Americans who can’t afford health care. They bring their children to the ER to have a garden-variety ear infection treated — at astronomically higher cost than if that same infection were treated at a clinic. They bring their children to the ER to have teeth removed and expensive oral surgery because the children’s teeth are decayed and abscessed — problems that are readily avoided by routine teeth cleaning (that they can’t afford).
These aren’t deadbeats, and they pay little or nothing because they have little or nothing to pay with.
They do NOT “stick Uncle Sam with the bill”. They stick those of us with health insurance with the bill. And they stick YOU with the bill every time you DO pay, because the costs of providing that necessary care are paid by a combination of insurers and providers.
Are you suggesting that those children be denied care? Are you really so cruel as to propose that three year old lose her hearing for life, or lose what teeth she has left, because her parents are unemployed or underemployed?
Again, single-payer government sponsored health care is the answer.
Governments around the world have solved this problem. We have not, and we have not because we insist on allowing health insurance companies and large health-care companies to plunder us.
For all its weaknesses, the ACA does, in fact, make enormous progress in solving precisely the two problems you cite. Which is why it is so deceptive for you to make the delusional or dishonest claims you make in this comment.
Perhaps Tom, if you received a cancellation notice of your insurance policy that you liked, you wouldn’t be so dismissive of what the reality is on the ground.
Obama promised 2 things. First, he said if you like your current plan, you can keep it. That was LIE, Tom. Second, he promised costs for insurance will go down by $2500. Now, only a fool or misinformation voters swallowed that line of Obama’s. Reality is just the opposite.
So you believe a 56 year old woman should be forced to pay for prenatal coverage? My thinking is, if she wants to have it, but would leave the final decision “between her and her doctor”, I’m on the pro-choice side on that one.
The people you describe as examples who benefit from Obamacare are likely to end up on Medicaid, not buy insurance. In fact, it is likely most enrollies in Obamacare have signed up for Medicaid, which is going bankrupt by the way, and more and more doctors are refusing patients in Medicaid.
I’ve had enough, kbusch was correct.
Where he really did just assert things about “what Obama said” that make really no sense whatever.
“technocratic centrism advertised as liberalism.” Brilliant line. This whole entry is worth a read. To sum, our side is supposed to deliver on stuff like this.
Link
For the cheap-shot that gave Bruin Loius Eriksson a concussion.
The hits like that will continue until the league does something like you mention. Or at least 40, 50, etc game suspension.
Much like a lot of other situations, the problem isn’t only with the person at the bottom of the ladder. The coach had the responsibility for putting him in the game. The GM is responsible for the hire. Unless they and the team feel some pain in response to their actions, the cheap shots won’t go away.
Especially if they lose Erikkson for a long time.
in cluttering up private business organizations with regulations? I’m appalled. Whatever happened to the free market?
Heck, it’s government that won’t even allow kids to keep score at youth games or play dodgeball at gym.
And I don’t know Jack about sports.
Your telling me that there are Federal Agents at every T-Ball game, arresting parents if they keep score! I have two legs, pull the other one for once. Please provide proof of this bullshit, and by proof, I don’t mean a comment by Hannity or O’Reilley or the other wackjobs you worship.
When they gonna get dere hands off my T-ballsl?
Dan, you are a piece of work.
about some regulations that didn’t go into effect in New York. It’s actually an example of government working. Bureaucracy came up with some stupid rules and elected officials shot it down.
and it is in-fact the government that is allowing kids to keep score and allowing kids to play dodgeball, and at no point, were these stupid rules ever in effect.
Based on that, since I was so easily duped, I am going to rush right down to City Hall and change my voter registration to Republican, gosh darn it. Thank you for showing me the light Dan. Thank You!
Here you go Mark
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2973792
You started with not keeping score which is a policy some kiddie leagues have adopted, but no government is enforcing, doesn’t apply to competitive school sports, and we know the kids keep score anyway. Now you’re on dodgeball which actually has the potential, and too often reality, of physical injury and ganging up on someone.
The banning of dodgeball is from school committees, who are elected, which is an absolute disgrace. Dodgeball is a good life lesson.
“US Youth Soccer has recommended a policy of no scoring or standings for its younger programs”. While not directly ordered from government, who are the biggest influence in these programs? Government is. The youth programs are looking for better fields, outdoor lighting, turf constructed fields, etc. so we all know where these “no more dodgeball or scoring” comes from. In there world, everyone doesn’t get a trophy at the end of the season.
A co-worker coaches youth soccer teams in NH. His preteen son gets paid $10 an hour to referee games (not ones his father coaches). The father is one of the most antigovernment people I know, but in all the years he’s been telling me about his youth soccer involvement, I have never once heard him complain about government involvement.
darnfromwaltham, the rest of us would really appreciate it if you would, at least once in a while, question your assumptions. They are often wrong.
ever watched little kids play soccer knows that keeping standings is ridiculous. Anyone who calls it soccer is bordering on foolishness.
Doesn’t Dan need a pat on the back for changing the subject on which he thinks he knows something?
That’s the type of soccer I teach my teams in youth soccer. It’s all about ball control and short passes. True, there is no offsides in U10 Travel, but I make the adjustment if there is a goal hanger, just bring the keeper as a defenseman.
FYI, won’t believe it. Was in Lowell today for soccer (yes, we won) and guess what I hear? A rumbling sound behind me, I turned and saw the most beautiful thing. A CSX engine going down the tracks, heading north. And guess what was part of the cargo? Some oil cars, either from Alberta or North Dakota. It looked picturesque as it was behind a waving American flag. I wish I taken a picture, but had to get back to the game, but did put my hand over my heart for just a second. I knew it would be a great day today.
Long live Pep Guardiola.
The business delay arguably made some sense, because it was putting a new burden on businesses.
The individual delay does not make sense, because the signup (arguably) helps the individuals who join. This point is not arguable for those who don’t have insurance.
So Senator Cruz, though employing a tactic that is justifiable from his point of vew, was being a jerk and trying to damage the law.
All this said, the administration really screwed up allowing the business delay. They had plenty of time to prepare.
This, according to UCLA Dr. Gerry Kiminski.
I will state, if Obamacare was forced to roll out on Oct 1, 2012, no way Obama would have won re-election.
I was going to do a diary on this, but some don’t like sports diaries.
I say yes, but can keep the logo.
It is the name and not the relatively dignified logo of an African American that is the bigger problem. They have the opposite problem of the Cleveland Indians (and their ridiculous Chief Wahoo logo).
That said, this Washington Redskins logo change (from the folks over at PETA) sure makes an interesting argument that a logo change alone could actually solve the problem:
http://cdnl.complex.com/mp/620/400/80/0/bb/1/ffffff/03dccae519d2c749f4bb5efb1783f72e/images_/assets/CHANNEL_IMAGES/ART/2013/10/bwxyogrciaetuob.jpg
Love it.
Really?
maybe they should change the name to the Washington Dan’s. They could use a troll as a mascot.
that says Connolly has an 8% lead on Walsh. They’ve been running tag team columns that promote Connolly and degrade Walsh. When will their official endorsement appear on the Ed Page?
Pollster for those who like charts.
about the candidates, but wow, that’s a lot of undecideds.
GOTV is close to all, I would think.
regarding the better Doctor Who actor, I think it is about even amoung most die-hard fans!
Although Smith still has a couple of episodes to change my mind (oops, one of those has Tennant in it again! 🙂 ).
My first Doctor was Peter Davison (The 5th Doctor), so of the 11 actors, I would list him first, but if we simply limit the list to Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant and Matt Smith, then there are individual moments of excellence with each of them, and episodes like, “The Impossible Astronaut” and “Day of the Moon” and “The Pandorica Opens’/”The Big Bang” which I would put above several of the David Tennant episodes like “Midnight” and “Planet of the Dead” and “The Satan Pit”
But then, David Tennant has “Human Nature”/”The Family of Blood” which is among my alltime favorites, but then Matt Smith has “Blink” and “Vincent and the Doctor”, so I am torn between liking them both.
Of the new incarnation of the series, I just prefer the Russell T Davies work over Stephen Moffat, which is probably why I enjoy the Tennant work more. Too bad Eccleston didn’t do another year.
Last nights game sucked but it was awesome to watch it on a plane full of Sox fans coming home from Chicago. We turned that plane into a rowdy sports bar!
Also on the way home from Logan it seemed like a clear 50/50 Walsh/Connolly split based on signage. Anyone know if this is true? Seems like an area Walsh needs to win
My parents are moving from Cambridge to Wakefield,
After decades of issues finally left a house they’ve grown to hate for a house that fits their (downsized) needs and are making a decent profit. That said, sad they couldn’t stay in Cambridge. Cambridge could use a de Blasio since this city can’t sustain a middle class anymore. It’s been hallowed out entirely.
On the plus side Wakefield seems nice-am I wrong?
A little too Republican for my taste, but they have a nice Main Street and the lake is beautiful.
Yeah when I told my dad it voted for Romney and Brown he was a little appalled, but their area is closer to Melrose and they like the quiet downtown. It’s been easier parting with all my old toys and posters than I thought. Also I think the Cambridge public schools gave me FAR too many trophies.
Hank Naughton (D-Clinton) is officially running for Attorney General, making him (I believe) the second declared candidate after Maura Healey. I’ve heard some good things about him from around the Worcester area.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20131024/NEWS/310249873/1116
With no Middlesex DA candidate (as far as I know), he’s the closest alternative and could be a strong contender.
Obama spying and tappping the cell phones of our allies like Angela Merkel of Germany OR Rumsfeld calling Germany “Old Europe”?
Answer: most here believe what Obama did was his own version of “trust but verify” and that George W. Bush started it all, thus, Rumsfeld was worse. Am I correct?
I don’t think the NSA (which is more accurate as Obama is not personally doing it) should tap their phones. I really don’t care about an offhand comment made by Rumsfeld, though his actions leave plenty to criticize. File under apples to oranges.
I could be wrong but has it been mentioned by anyone else?
But I have next to no patience for complaints about what isn’t addressed on BMG since every commenter also has diary-posting abilities.
The memo Snowden released that started all this was from 2006. Who was President in 2006 Dan?
… the slip could not have been more Freudian. Caps mine:
“I love Ted Cruz,” she says. “We’re smarter than what the media’s trying to play us for. Nobody’s divided. We all want freedom, we all want liberty and we want OUR rules followed. I think we’re willing to stand together and fight for that.”
Not “the rules,” “our rules.” Thanks for the candor. Link.
Umpires can ruin the game, as proven last night. The Sox third baseman was squatting up when the Cardinal player purposely flopped and tripped.
And the hit by the pitch in the 7th? I was at a party and the volume on mute, but it looked liked the Cardinal player put his padded elbow over the plate and got nicked. That’s another 2 runs that they scored as a result. Also, looked liked the umpire loves golf b/c he called strikes at the ankle height.