Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  3. did I hear correctly?

    <

    p>”you are for woman’s rights, or you’re not”

    <

    p>Who is she saying that to and what does that have to do with free speech?

    • but 9iu11ani territory folks?

      <

      p>I started listening around 9:30, so I do want to hear the beginning of the debate as well.

  5. Coakley stayed above the fray mostly, and the radio format allowed her to do that rather inconspicuously. I think she did what she wanted to here.

    <

    p>I think Capuano lost people talking about earmarks and the legislative process. I know he’s running on experience, but that’s is way too insider.

    <

    p>Khazei enabled Capuano’s wonkery by harping on earmarks.

    <

    p>Poor Pagliuca. That draft comment may be his Waterloo.

  6. especially as common wisdom derided Capuano as the big loser in the contretemps. Given all the facts, it appears Coakley was the big loser:

    <

    p>

    There is certainly a major difference between my position and Martha Coakley’s.  Coakley has said – and said again last night on NECN that she would have voted NO in the House.  That is a MAJOR difference between us.  I voted to keep the debate alive and continue the fight – she would have killed the bill which would have ended the debate and any hope of getting real health care reform.  And, as a point of information, in that same NECN interview Martha refused to answer the same hypothetical question that was posed to me – what would she do if she were in the Senate.

    – Cap

    <

    p>I submitted a question to WTKK that was not asked, “Would Martha choose the health care debate in the Senate as a battleground for the Hyde amendment and if not, would she vote for the health care reform bill with the Hyde Amendment intact?”  

    <

    p>I suppose if Martha won’t answer the question about voting for HCR with Stupak, she wouldn’t answer the question about voting for HCR with Hyde.

  7. Economy/Jobs:

    43

    Health care:

    35

    Other:

    6

    War:

    5

    Don’t know:

    5

    Education:

    2

    Taxes:

    1

    <

    p>A four-day poll by Suffolk University queried 600 likely voters here.

  8. Thanks for the live blog. Sadly, Mr. Khazei seems not to have followed your good advice and that of Frank about his jobs analysis, and continues to exhibit very confusing thinking on this subject. It seems completely impossible to reconcile these two statements (as paraphrased by you):

    <

    p>

    Q to KZ: about city year jobs – below minimum wage, etc.   should people judge you on what you’ve done, or what you’ve promised?

    KZ: judge me on both. they are often first jobs, and they’re good jobs. city year people love their jobs.

    <

    p>and, on casino jobs:

    <

    p>

    these are not good jobs – they pay $6.50 an hour, not even min wage. i have confidence in MA re jobs.   Not good jobs.

    <

    p>Considering that the City Year jobs only pay about $5 an hour in cash and boot you out the door after a year it’s hard to see how they are much better, in economic terms, than the derided casino jobs. Plus, some casino jobs pay much more, but all the City Year positions pay the same food stamps-eligible wages.

    • I just don’t understand it — what he’s doing in City Year is great, great stuff.  Not just for service for those served, but exposure to different fields for volunteers.  Khazei’s has something here of which he has every reason to be enormously proud, but it isn’t creating high-quality, dependable, well-paying job.  It just isn’t.  Frankly, creating a service ethic is more impressive in many ways than creating jobs, but his implications are rather fast and loose with the truth here.

      • Especially for a candidate who is barely moving the needle state-wide. He needs to make principled arguments that differentiate himself from politics as usual, not repeat standard-style campaign obfuscations like these.

Archives