Hello fellow BMGers-
I’m writing to ask you to stand with Steve this Thursday, April 17 at 1 p.m. in a press conference on the State House steps as he debates Jim Wallace, Executive Director of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) — the official Massachusetts state affiliate of the NRA.
Steve has proposed an aggressive plan to fight gun violence here in the Commonwealth. In a Blue Mass Group last week, Steve applauded Speaker DeLeo for taking the lead on gun control legislation soon to be proposed in the House. But he also urged lawmakers and the Attorney General to add three additional reforms: limit gun purchases to one a month, require gun manufacturers to use smart gun technology, and create an interstate regional task force to deal with the torrent of illegal guns crossing our borders.
I’m asking you to stand with Steve on Thursday at 1 p.m. on State House steps to show the NRA that the families of the Commonwealth want common-sense gun safety reform!
In full disclosure I work for the Steve Grossman Campaign.
JimC says
I support this in substance and style; I like that he’s doing it, and I like that he’s moving left.
Steve’s letting his hair down!
jconway says
When reality confronts fantasy reality usually wins. Steve can serve the Bill Nye role on this ‘controversy’ that really isn’t too controversial when you analyze the best practices employed by the UK and Australia after their massacres and the endless parade of deaths we have had to endure. A 9/11 every two months or so. Also really happy to see both Steve and Tolman take on the NRA in their campaigns. MA should be a leader on this issue.
methuenprogressive says
It seems Grossman is elevating some minor league gun club enthusiast with a Facebook page to “The NRA!”
fenway49 says
is a “minor league gun club” you’ve haven’t been paying attention as they’ve managed to block legislation here time and again.
methuenprogressive says
Maybe Grossman is trying to elevate himself by over stating his “debate” partner’s standing?
BTW, on Wallace’s Facebook page (400 likes! OMG he’s HUGE!!) he denies Grossman’s whack-a-doodle claim that he “praised” Coakley.
fenway49 says
NRA website, state affiliates page:
methuenprogressive says
Instead of the webmaster of the smallest of the 50 “affiliates”.
Christopher says
It makes more sense to be engaging with a state level person when you’re running for state office. When I interned for my rep. and GOAL was involved with lobbying against gun legislation I was basically told that GOAL was for those who find the NRA too moderate.
methuenprogressive says
I see GOAL as a minor league NRA-lite, specially brewed for Massachusetts’ sensibilities. But I’ll trust your personal experience over my mere second-hand impression. Thanks.
HeartlandDem says
is a serious player.
methuenprogressive says
After desperately claiming Coakley “was siding with the NRA” and releasing a bogus “GROSSMAN DENOUNCES COAKLEY’S SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED GUN PURCHASES,” press release, the Boston Globe reported:
The Globe further reported:
Grossman is the ultimate political insider with Romney-level financial backing – why can’t he employ smarter staff?
HeartlandDem says
….just sayin’
methuenprogressive says
Chandra Allard’s penchant for lying could earn her a show on FOX News.
Christopher says
Possibly exaggerating or spinning, but since I know Chandra I can confidently say she wouldn’t make something up. Do you have a source for that quote, possibly with context? I must say on this thread you sound like you are going out of your way to take Grossman down a peg.
methuenprogressive says
http://stevegrossman.com/press-release-gun-lobby-attacks-grossman-defends-coakley/
Is exaggeration and spin the truth? If it is not, then what is it?
Christopher says
“GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace defended and praised Coakley, calling her “wary of quick fixes like ‘One Gun’” and slammed Grossman for being “uninformed” about “how gun trafficking occurs.”
Praise might be too strong a word, but assuming Mr. Wallace was quoted accurately it sounds like he is the one drawing the distinction.
methuenprogressive says
https://votesmart.org/candidate/69567/martha-coakley#.U085WldN6LU
JimC says
… are from 2010, when Coakley had no Democratic opponent.
methuenprogressive says
Neither is the 20% rating from the Gun Owner’s lobby.
Unless you’re writing press releases for Steve Grossman, apparently.
JimC says
on that one.
JimC says
(Since you provided neither)
Link
The quote is sharp, but it is measured, and accurate. Who’s spinning again?
methuenprogressive says
When I typed
I was referring to Grossman’s bogus press release entitled “GROSSMAN DENOUNCES COAKLEY’S SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED GUN PURCHASES,” not the one you picked out. Your most important take-away should be this from the Globe report:
After a screaming claim of X, they whisper they have no proof of X.
The link, for those without the Google:
http://stevegrossman.com/grossman-denounces-coakleys-support-unlimited-gun-purchases/
JimC says
“The Globe further reported” and then quoted the article I linked to.
methuenprogressive says
then clearly cited the Globe story that reported his claim was without merit.
1. “GROSSMAN DENOUNCES COAKLEY’S SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED GUN PURCHASES”
2. “Grossman’s campaign did not cite any instances in which Coakley has said specifically she thinks people should be able to buy unlimited numbers of guns.”
isn’t the Google great?
JimC says
The bill would have restricted purchases; it is accurate that Coakley opposed it. To say that she never said that she specifically thinks they should be unlimited is also true, but it doesn’t disprove that she opposed the bill, and therefore opposed the restriction. The net effect is, unlimited.
Google can be great, yes, but logic is useful too.
methuenprogressive says
Unlike the author of Grossman’s press release.
andrews says
Coakley is on the record opposing legislation to limit gun purchases to one per month. Perhaps Grossman’s team made a logical leap to the conclusion that she supports unlimited gun purchases, but you’ll notice that the statement from her campaign to the Globe never actually refutes that conclusion. I find that concerning. Purchase limits seem to me to be a very sensible step toward preventing straw purchases, which fuel gun violence. I worry about the intentions of anyone who says they can’t wait a few weeks to purchase a second (or third, fourth, fifth…) gun.
fredrichlariccia says
I will proudly stand with you tomorrow. My fellow liberals…this is what leadership looks and sounds like !
“I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place you have to catch up to someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning knives. ” RIP MOLLY IVINS (January 31, 2007)
Fred Rich LaRiccia
methuenprogressive says
Perfect.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
When are you gonna run for governor?
Start focusing on Martha’s use of discretion. Ethics.
JimC says
Lacing his shoes, anyway. (Tying his gloves?) Pick your metaphor, he’s (starting to be) in motion.
methuenprogressive says
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/16/state-treasurer-grossman-wrestles-with-conflicts-over-family-firm/YNBWu2GsmgweqfN9H5Rn6I/story.html
This stuff, like his pocketing 45K from the liquor industry he “regulates,” makes him exactly the kind of person the GOP hopes we nominate.
williamstowndem says
He wants MA to lead the nation in sensible gun regulation, and I’m with him. Remember, the Second Amendment begins with: “A well regulated militia ….”
Christopher says
Could anybody hear them outside on the State House steps? Did it accomplish anything? I must admit I’ve had this nagging feeling all along that Grossman was playing Bill Nye to Wallace’s Ken Hamm – reasonable people with facts on their side legitimizing extremists.
methuenprogressive says
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/04/grossman_debates_head_of_massachusetts_gun_lobby
Sorry for the title, just playing by Grossman’s Rules, don’tchaknow.
Christopher says
Seriously, this is starting to sound personal and you’ve done nothing but slap around a good fellow Democrat who clearly happens not to be your choice in this particular race. There was nothing nefarious about the timing and in the article you linked, the very next line after the one that mentioned what Coakley happened to be doing at the time Grossman says they could have accomodated Coakley. Time for me to issue to you the invitation I often give and say write your own diary about whom you support and meanwhile take Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment for Republicans to heart and not speak ill of a fellow party member. If you object to Grossman’s position on guns, say so, but your whining about his alleged treatment of Coakley is childish and something we have not seen from her campaign.
methuenprogressive says
Is what you called it when your person said:
“It’s no surprise the Massachusetts gun lobby is defending and praising Martha Coakley,”
So, I just channeled Chandra:
“Grossman joined with the NRA to attack Coakley while she attended a hero cop’s funeral.”
Perhaps now you see why I objected to Chandra’s “possibly exaggerating or spinning,” as you put it?
Your Reagan Rule reference would be best directed at the Grossman campaign for it’s pattern of FOX-style attacks on Coakley. It makes him look small, petulant, and desperate. If Chandra thought up today’s stunt she should be fired.
Christopher says
The quote from Chandra is the campaign’s interpretation of Coakley’s position on an issue. Coakley attending a funeral has nothing to do with either one of their positions on any issue. I completely reject the comparison.
kbusch says
I am not aware that christopher has decided to vote for or work for any particular candidate in the race for governor.
I yearn to read a Coakley supporter more moderate in tone. Surely there must be one out there with time to comment on BMG.
SomervilleTom says
You’re with her or your against her. No middle ground.
See Kate’s comments towards my “hating”.
Christopher says
I have in fact committed to Grossman, am volunteering for him, and will vote for him both at the convention and in the primary.
methuenprogressive says
If you can influence message, this stuff:
“GROSSMAN DENOUNCES COAKLEY’S SUPPORT FOR UNLIMITED GUN PURCHASES”
isn’t exactly working for him.
methuenprogressive says
Christopher said he knew her.
kbusch says
is to make everything as personal as possible. That way everyone yells louder and their points get across more easily.
That’s your approach, no?
jconway says
That approach has made millions for Roger Ailes…
jconway says
I think you have run one of the most negative campaigns and comments on your candidates behalf, even though I didn’t ‘sign’ Fenway’s pledge I have actually followed it since that time. I would much rather applaud the two candidates I like best-Dr. Berwick and Mr. Grossman than tear anyone else down.
I will even agree with you and stomv below that aspects of this were a little stunty, but the main critique, that he favors stronger gun control than Coakley is just plain fact. She didn’t endorse the one month purchase rule which would make a huge difference.
kbusch says
Possibly methuenprogressive has extraordinary skills at sweet talking, and so if we’re all battered and embittered by a Coakley victory in September and sullenly thinking we’ll ignore the gubernatorial race, methuenprogressive, employing as yet unused skills at comfort, assuasion, and kindness, will guide us back into the fold.
Well, it’s possible.
methuenprogressive says
that by objecting to Grossman’s style, and reflecting it back upon him, so many think I want to eat Irish babies.
Yum.
kbusch says
You’re a GOP plant: make us all sick of the front runner so that when she wins the primary we can’t stand to be within five feet of her or any of her supporters.
SomervilleTom says
I’m blown away by the multiple levels of humor and irony in this comment. Seriously! You could ghost-write for John LeCarre.
JimC says
I think methuen needs to harnesss his/her warrior spirit more constructively. A Coakley troll would go after the others too.
jcsinclair says
If not, I’m a little uncomfortable with the whole empty Coakley microphone optics. Not quite on the level of Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair at the RNC, but not exactly worthy of a serious debate about the issue either. I wasn’t there this afternoon, and I haven’t seen any accounts of how the debate actually went, but I didn’t like the pictures that were posted.
Scootermom says
Word was that she did not respond to the invitation. At the event, a reporter suggested that the reason for her absence was that she was attending a police officer’s funeral. Steve Grossman and Jim Wallace BOTH agreed that had they been notified of the conflict, they would have gladly rescheduled.
Patrick says
Kayyem, Berwick, Avellone at least? Maybe even Lively, Falchuk, McCormick, and Baker?
Otherwise it’s just Grossman asking Coakley to participate in his campaign stunt.
jcsinclair says
All of the announcements leading up to this event hyped Steve Grossman taking on the NRA, and yet in the 24 hours since the ‘debate’ all of the discussion on this thread has been about him taking on Martha Coakley. Since I was really interested in the substance of the debate I followed the above link to the Boston Herald (ugh) story and it was all about both men criticizing Coakley. If someone wants to point me to something that paints a different picture I’d welcome it.
As a Virginia Tech grad I’m painfully aware of the seriousness of the gun violence issue. I actually got a chance to go back to campus for the first time in years this past summer and visited the memorial to the victims of the mass shooting that took place in a building where I took classes as a student. Those kids could have been me.
Therefore as a delegate to this year’s convention the candidates positions on gun control will be a very important factor in my decision on who to support. There is plenty of time for Grossman, Coakley, and the other candidates to hold a serious debate on these issues. Unfortunately yesterday’s event ended up coming across to me as a cheap political stunt rather than a serious debate. I hope this is not indicative of the way the campaigns plan on conducting themselves going forward.
stomv says
Want to stand on the steps and debate guns? That’s cool. No problem there.
Want to host a formal debate where all gubernatorial candidates — or even all Democratic candidates — are invited? Strange, but I’ll allow it.
Want to just invite one other candidate in what can only be described as a political set-up, and then empty-podium it? That’s crap. It’s cheap. It’s playground nonsense.
JimC says
The only defense I would make is that Coakley’s lead is so commanding that, if he’s inviting one candidate, she is the logical choice. If he invites all five, it’s then a forum, and he has to un-invite the gun guy.
andrews says
As far as I know, there was no independent host or sponsor. Was it Grossman or GOAL, or some other entity that put this together and decided whom to invite?
methuenprogressive says
1:00 in.
https://screen.yahoo.com/keller-large-grossman-debates-gun-212200535.html
The stunt didn’t go as planned.
HeartlandDem says
to watch.
Not sure which was worse the dumb SNL Yahoo commercial or the lame attack Ad….er, “debate.”
Wallace is a smart guy who knows his appearance and getting GOAL into the media regardless of the D candidate who might be present (or not), serves to give his position of lawful gun owners free airtime that the would not have otherwise garnered.
Conclusion, Grossman portrayed himself as very small and Wallace got GOAL and the MA NRA into the news.
wareinmass says
how Grossman and Tolman’s finger print ID law will stop gun trafficking over state borders and I’ll give you a gold star. Also explain how a woman whose husband has been killed by a home invader will have access to her husband’s gun during a rape will be able to activate the trigger? This is NOT sound gun control policy as are background checks, an assault weapons ban, etc. This is just pandering. Sorry.
JimC says
She should have a gun too.
As should the kids. The home invader / rapist is surely on his way to cook them next. One-stop shopping.
How about we have background checks, an assault weapons ban, AND fingerprinting technology?