Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Bob Oakes – You blew it

By

Anybody’s first reaction to a statement like that is “Who said that?” Because once they know who said it, they can speak to the motives of the accuser.

Of course Kerry Healey is going to say something bad about Deval. She’s running against him.

On the other hand, Deval’s answer was great…

I’m paraphrasing here,

I made a judgement call ten years ago without thoughts towards future aspirations.

Or In other words, he made the best decision given the information he had at the time. He didn’t stop and think, “Hmm, I bet I’ll be running for office ten years from now, I better not send a letter supporting LaGuer. Some nasty republican candidate might use it againt me in campaign ads.”

Would you really want a governor to be that cautious? Not me.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. SmartMass says “Some people say you are a lousy reporter….”

    <

    p>
    I can’t help but laugh out loud imagining various interviewees saying that to a whole host of reporters.

    <

    p>
    “You know (choose your reporter here), I’m glad you brought that up because I hear some people saying that you’re a fool who doesn’t know your ass from your elbow. I imagine that I’ll respond to the baseless, unacknowledged criticism the same way you are.”

  2. and I’ve read those remarks, some people have said that NPR used to be a great News organization, but now those same people are saying that NPR isn’t concerned with balance or doing a good job anymore and that NPR pursues liberals aggresively in their reporting, but not conservatives.

    <

    p>
    Oakes was on the panel in the debate moderated by Jean Shaheen. His question to Patrick about whether or not he’s too liberal for the people of Massachusetts was completely insane.

    <

    p>
    Here’s the YouTube clip: Mass Dem Debate – Q6 Liberal. Here’s my synopsis. Massachusetts elects a lot of liberal candidates to the State House. That’s why the people need a foil for liberal candidates in the governor’s office. People who ascribe to liberal values and elect candidates that share that vision should never be fully subjected to liberal politics.

    <

    p>
    Brilliant! We can all go to the Bahamas now for a nice little vacay before the hectic holidays. Some people say the fall is the best time of year to go.

  3. I wasn’t that impressed with Patrick’s answer on LaGuer.  He has got to do a better job addressing how that situation was handled.  Here’s a suggestion for what he should say:

    <

    p>

    First, as I’ve already acknowledged, my campaign and I screwed up in explaining my role in the LaGuer case.  We should have had all of those facts at our fingertips, and we didn’t, and I take responsibility for that.

    That said, everyone knows that hindsight is 20/20.  When I wrote those letters for Mr. LaGuer, we didn’t have the results of the DNA test, and there were very serious questions about whether he received a fair trial.  The jury foreman called him a “goddamned spic” and wondered why they needed a trial at all.  There were doubts about the eyewitness identification, which was the only evidence linking him to the crime.  And important fingerprint evidence that suggested he was innocent was withheld by the police.  Criminal law is a search for justice, and justice is not served by imprisoning the wrong man — even a “criminologist” like Kerry Healey should understand that.

    So yes, I gave money in order to make a DNA test possible, because a DNA test was the best way to figure out whether the wrong man was in prison.  And as we now know, the DNA test did not exonerate Mr. LaGuer.  That is what we needed to find out, and so in my view, justice has been served.  After the DNA test came back, my involvement in the LaGuer matter ended.  But I make no apology for taking seriously the possibility that the wrong man was in prison for a very serious crime.

    • but the letter was sent out twice?  That was something I had not read before.  He then said that LaGuer sent him lots of letters.  I think I heard that right. 

    • I’ve edited down your remarks. What you wrote, while good, is more ink and/or breath than the issue deserves. Here’s the short form:

      <

      p>

      [T]here were very serious questions about whether [LaGuer] received a fair trial.

      Criminal law is a search for justice, and justice is not served by imprisoning the wrong man — [  A] criminologist like Kerry Healey should understand that. 

      I make no apology for taking seriously the possibility that the wrong man was in prison for a very serious crime.

      <

      p>
      That’s really about all that is neccessary.  I’ve removed the word ‘even’ and the quotes around ‘criminologist’ because that kind of inflection during speech, or in writing, tends to make the speaker look smug… played straight however, as though Healey really were a criminologist, it puts the emphasis on her forcing her to defend her credentials. 

  4. without atleast mentioning that Deval Patrick oversaw the biggest federal investigation before 9/11, the southern church burnings investigation.  His team found that rather than one group several small independent groups were behind the arrson attacks, a number of whom were prosecuted.  I keep hearing Patrick being described as a defense attorney, which he was, but he was also a damb good prosecutor.

  5. The issues and campaign have moved a long way in the last ten days. Was this just old recording that finally worked its way into the AM time slot?

    • some of their interviews might be titled “Meditations on Republican Talking Points”.  The format runs as follows:

      <

      p>
      1. Program Introduction.  On today is X a Democrat who thinks Democrats should be in government.  Some say Democrats are traitors.  Some say they’re pond scum.  More after the news.

      <

      p>
      2. Re-introduction.  With us today is X whom some say is a traitor.

      <

      p>
      3. Initial Question.  So even your cousin says you are a traitor.  Are you?

      <

      p>
      4. Follow-up Question.  Polls in Idaho say you are a traitor.  What do you say to the people in Idaho?

      <

      p>
      5. Hard-hitting Question.  So you oppose Bush’s repeal of the Estate Tax.  Some think that is traitorous.  Are you saying they are completely wrong?

      <

      p>
      Generally, I find Oakes and Ashbrook unlistenable.  Compared to Lydon or Gross, they are poor interviewers who shed no light.

      • I’m pretty sure that, at this point, this phrase means:

        <

        p>
        things being discussed by the electorate that the speaker wishes were not being discussed

        <

        p>
        At least you did not use the phrase “framing,” the use of which means that the speaker reacts to inconvenient data or arguments by sticking index fingers into the ears and humming.

        <

        p> 

        • No, that is not what “Republican Talking Points” means.  You are presuming too that the Luntz-manufactured “language which works” might lead us to a better society or to the truth.  It demonstrably fails at that.

          <

          p>
          You can be assured, sir, that I only use the word “framing” in the sense that cognitive linguists and decision theorists use it and not in a neener-neener sense.

        • Oh great, just what this board needs, another sneering neo-con throwing mud on critical theory because it exposes the operations of the media within a broader social context.

          <

          p>
          Tell you what, why not go buy yourself a nice warm helping of “Freedom Fries” tune in to culture warrior Bill O’Reilly, and fume some more about the liberal bias of the media.

  7. Hasn’t Mitt been operating “that cautious” ever since he became Governor? And I would suspect because he always planned to run for President and Governor of the Commonwealth was just a stepping stone!

  8. I was about to reply that some people thought you were being a bit sensitive. But right at the end of the interview some crappy journalist brings LeGuer up AGAIN and some people think he used “some people” far too often.

    <

    p>
    For those who haven’t seen it Outfixed does a piece specifically on the “some people say” technique. It’s the classic “I don’t think you’re an asshole, but some people say…” and it should be viewed/listened to with suspicion.

    • to a “there are those who say” ambush: “I don’t respond to unattributed questions.”

      <

      p>
      Shut the interviewer right down.

  9. I agree today’s interview was bad.  I got so angry that I called BUR and vented to someone in the newsroom. But this is not new for Oates.  He seems to always focus on tax issues and did so during the Dem primary debate that he participated in. The questions to Deval on taxes this morning were almost as obnoxious as the LaGuer questions. WBUR does very little local news and much of what it does locally, it does badly.

Archives