JConway has thrown down the gauntlet.
If you haven’t been following (and why not, hmm…?) there is an ongoing todo over whether or not to forgive Martha Coakley for past electoral sins.
Here are jconways’ terms regarding Martha Coakley:
What does Martha Coakley do better than the opponents?
What specific issues is Martha Coakley going to prioritize and in what order?
How is Martha Coakley going to win the general?
How is Martha Coakley going to get those priorities passed by the legislature we have (not the one we want to have but the one we actually have)?
In addition, jconway would like to discuss the following about Martha Coakley and her past actions:
Additionally feel free to offer the following:
A defense of Fells Acre and the Amirault prosecution
A defense of the Light Brite prosecution.
A defense of the Murray prosecution.
A defense of her strong record as a Patriot Act supporter, Wiretap law sponsor in the legislator, and broad government surveillance and detention powers. Her always siding with police against civil libertarians.
I’m formulating my answers and will reply in comments. Feel free to pile on…
kirth says
Is this a placeholder for content you’ll add later, once you formulate or obtain answers to the questions? Is it an invitation to others to do the formulating and obtaining, to save you the trouble?
What?
petr says
… I’m also trying to get real work done…
petr says
Discernment, judgment and prioritization, one hopes, and, what’s more, in a context of debate and contention. If being a lawyer is a good prerequisite for being a governor (and all of our past governors have had law degrees, it’s not a point worth sticking over…) then being a practicing lawyer is even better. We can’t be certain whether she does these things better or worse than some of her other opponents, but we can be certain that, to even be an AG, never mind a good one, she needs practice these things, daily.
Just one example: In the 2009/2010 special election primary, in a debate with her Democratic opponents she was asked directly if she would overturn the Patriot Act. She gave a more nuanced answer than most by saying that parts of the act were good and parts were horrible and that she would certainly move to take a second look at the horrible parts. Others gave a knee jerk ‘trash the whole thing’ and start anew, which was a distinctly unsatisfying answer.
So I think that, on a daily basis, Martha Coakley makes judgements that affect peoples lives. Some I agree with. Others I don’t. What’s equally of import as her is that she has to justify these decisions in the framework of the law and the context of the courts: judges, juries, defendants and prosecutors all have to, in a sense, sign off or push back.
In addition to what she does, there is how she does it and it appears, by all measures that she does it well. Whatever else you think of her, you cannot say that she phones it in. She’s a hard worker and, truly, if she’s as good an attorney as she is purported to be she could be in the private sector making orders of magnitude more money than she is right now… and with none of the hassle and public ire directed at her.
On a more personal note, I think that she’s also shown, many times over that she has exceedingly thick skin. I admire anyone who is willing to get back out there, even in the face of great, sometimes unfair, criticism. I think she’s made mistakes. But I also think that she knows she’s made mistakes and has decided to continue on.
petr says
Martha Coakleys’ web page lists the following, in the following order (under “issues”)…
Jobs and the Economy
Education
Healthcare
Civil Rights.
Energy and the Environment
Public Safety and Gun Control
Transportation
Infrastructure
Women
Seems pretty straightforward, no?
dasox1 says
It’s official, Coakley is sexist.
mike_cote says
they didn’t even make the list?
SomervilleTom says
“Public Safety and Gun Control”, “Transportation”, “Infrastructure” … all places where “old white guys” are being disproportionally hurt (and will be disproportionally helped).
Gender discrimination is real, and the male/female split in these three areas greatly exceeds the roughly 50/50 split in the general population.
petr says
Well, I’m not entirely sure. But those are variables out of the control of any of the candidates right now.
What I do know is that Martha Coakley negotiates daily. By her record, it seems like she knows what she’s doing. I recognize that there is a difference negotiating debate with prosecutors/judges/juries from negotiating legislation with legislators, etc, but I don’t feel that difference is sufficient to warrant anxiety.
Nor do I expect her to jump and be better than Deval Patrick, whose record of success, while good, isn’t perfect. Nobodies is… nor can… nor should we expect them… to be. The best we can hope for is just as good if not slightly better than Deval.
SomervilleTom says
The “to do” is NOT about “whether or not to forgive Martha Coakley for past electoral sins”. The “to do” is about your outrageous, unsupported, and categorically bullshit accusations of sexism. Your venom was especially directed at jconway, and some of it sprayed my way as well.
I think you owe jconway an apology and a retraction.
methuenprogressive says
“there is an ongoing todo over whether or not to forgive Martha Coakley for past electoral sins.”
The “to-do” is whether or not to characterize Scott Brown’s victory as a Coakley “sin”. And therefore, whether or she burn in eternal flames for it.
It is a petty, and small minded, revision of history, being peddled by those who never fully supported her.
kbusch says
You were born in 2011 and heard about this second-hand?
pogo says
…”Murray prosecution”?
SomervilleTom says
Tim Murray didn’t just decide to leave state government.
The fact that there was no “Murray prosecution”, together with marked absence of other prosecutions after the McLaughlin plea-bargain, reinforces the perception in yours truly that Martha Coakley at a minimum allowed her staff to manipulate the process to ensure that Mr. Murray was removed from her path to the corner office.
I think it was a “political assassination”, in venerable tradition of Ken Starr’s many, relentless, and groundless attacks on Bill Clinton.
kirth says
“If you can’t prosecute, persecute.”
Christopher says
…but honestly I’ve seen no real evidence that his departure wasn’t voluntary. I certainly don’t recall Murray himself complaining about Coakley.
SomervilleTom says
We went over the evidence countless times when the coup was going down. You refused to admit it then and you refuse to admit it now. Of course you’ve “seen” no evidence. I’m not going to rehash all that again now, it’s all in the BMG archives for any who care.
Christopher says
I don’t even recall having this discussion, at least not at this level of detail. You sure you’re not confusing this with our discussions of the probation scandal?