Okay Juliette, that was a nice start today. I give it a C.
Too wordy and hard to follow. Needs to be concise yet simple to understand. And then that has to be turned into easy to understand phrases used over and over so the uneducated electorate can understand.
The theme is good. Martha is a fraud. Stick with it. Just tighten it up and add to it as you go along.
I suggest you take a look at her bloated press department in the A.G.’s office and how she uses it to promote herself. Compare that with the Tim Cahill prosecution.
And of course my ting, compare her handling of the Fells Acre with other jurisdictions and their day-care witch hunts of the 1980s.
This message will work great with lawyers, especially in fund raising appeals. Lawyers hate Martha you know. You should be targeting lawyers as a group. Remember, no matter what happens Martha won’t be A.G. anymore come next year. Lawyers not as afraid to give.
—
Hey Deval, you have the power to give Justina Pelletier back to her parents.
Funny how I can’t find the leaked opinion on line anymore. I did read when it first came out. Outrageous. The “best interest of the child” standard was tossed out the window and replaced with the “how dare the parents show push-back when Children’s Hospital wants to take their kid away” standard.
A Care and Protection decision is usually done by a judge writing a detailed “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law’ in which he details a history of abuse and neglect from which he concludes it is in the best interest of the child that the parents lose custody.
Not here. This judge wrote a short opinion in which he was most upset that Mr. Pelletier at one time called some people at Children’s “Nazi’s”.
Anyway, the plaintiff in the case is the Department of Children. The DCF reports to the governor who can order it to return the child to the family.
There is an appeal underway but who knows how long that can take.
Really Deval, do something for once, will you?
—
Well, I can finally sleep now that Kate, like Cher – no last name needed, has finally let the cat out of the bag and announced her endorsement of Maura Healy for A.G.
Personally not my favorite candidate. Maura wants to continue Martha Coakley’s way of doing things. We do not need as our A.G. a disciple of increased militarization of police and more laws giving police and prosecutors unilateral and grotesque powers to infringe more and more upon the civil liberties, the privacy rights and property rights of residents of the Commonwealth.
Quickly, name the organization and other person who co-sponsor Kate’s Christmas Party?
—–
Unless you want Deval to come to your house, see that everyone is passed out because the gas from the stove is turned on, then leave and do nothing you will follow me on twitter.
JimC says
I’ve decided to support Healey, but I’m glad you asked that, because I think it’s a perception that she needs to shake off, delicately. Is she Martha 2.0? My read is no, on gambling for one thing.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t see either AG candidate talking about privacy. Ms. Healey waves her hands and moves on (she offers similar platitudes to her predecessor about privacy and militarization). Mr. Tolman, on the other hand, can’t bring himself to unload his equity interest in his on-line gaming racket. Must be a great deal.
I’m thinking of skipping the “AG” line on the ballot.
HeartlandDem says
Ms. Healey are you any better than Mr. Tolman on privacy?
What are your specific positions on recent privacy protection laws proposed in the Commonwealth? Do you support Senator Spilka’s legislation or (former state Senator) US Rep. Katherine Clark and Martha Coakley’s position on government powers for surveillance?
Please elaborate. This is a fundamental concern for folks across the political spectrum. Thank you.
evertalen says
I don’t know what you mean, both candidates have talked about the subject of privacy vs. security at every debate so far. Go back on BlueMassGroup and find the Suffolk Rappaport Center Roundtable, or the Lexington Town Hall debate, it’s covered at both events. Healey mostly just talks around the issue, but Tolman brings up some great points about license plate scanners and online privacy.
dave-from-hvad says
why don’t you ask DDS to return Sara Duzan to her parents? I know you’ll argue that it’s a probate court case and you have no authority over the courts. But you do have authority over DDS, which is a party to the probate court case and has supported the unconscionable removal and isolation of Sara Duzan from her family. If DDS backed off, Sara could go home tomorrow.
Christopher says
…that the Governor has the authority to micromanage an agency to the point of telling it what to do about a particular case? I guess I assumed these agencies had some degree of legal protection from meddling by elected officials, an independent agency.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
It is not an independent agency. The buck stops at the Governor. He is responsible for the agency and nothing wrong with him meddling on specific things when there is a public outcry.
David says
most executive branch agencies do not have any legal protection from “meddling by elected officials.” Some agencies do have some such protection, but most don’t. And, while the Governor usually cannot himself overrule a decision by the head of an agency, he can make it clear that if the decision doesn’t go the way he wants it do, the agency head will be fired. Most agency heads serve at the Governor’s pleasure.
dave-from-hvad says
as last as far as the governor’s submission of that budget to the Legislature is concerned.
Christopher says
I have to say I’m not sure I’m completely comfortable with that. I could easily imagine a James Michael Curley making darn sure that an agency treats his friends or donors favorably, but others not so much.
Christopher says
…I believe was sponsored by the Westborough Democratic Town Committee.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
sounds like someone hijacked a party.
kate says
nt