a. Ms. Healy immediately pledges to cease all negative attack ads and disavows those placed on her behalf by others ( including Mr. Romney via the National Republican Governors) – a pledge Mr. Patrick will take with her, of course.;
b. The negotiations should cite and include specific ads and literature – once they are removed then a reasoned one on one debate is justified;
c. To debate one on one in a low class, mudslinging, irrational atmosphere would grant dignity to such a negative process, which only a minority of folks admire. Mr. Patrick is above that and the voters don’t want or deserve it.
Please share widely!
We are a representative form of government that quite frankly suffers from trying to take our freedom and democratic principles and wedge them into two parties. Christy Mihos and Grace Ross serve the very important function to remind voters of that fact, perhaps why the majority party in MA is independent. However clever the argument for all to remain the answer is simple. That was what the founding fathers envisioned.
Those darn facts really get in the way don’t they. Pernicious little things that find their way out no matter what.
Patrick’s going to be completely & totally in the pocket of the legislature and it’s going to grease the skids for the worst types of legislature. The more Healy can do to win the better. That’s why Patrick won’t debate her one-on-one.
but you are a troll, and a pathetic one at that. Please go away.
Nope.
Throwing myself on my sword for being a troll… yep. Sorry. Responded to myself with something less inflamatory.
You know, that previous comment was far too much of a troll-type statement. Please allow me to restate.
My problem here is that this state isn’t multi-party. It’s a single party system, except for the governors office for the last 16 years. By & large that’s simply been a speed-bump for the legislature as they regularly override veto’s, but at least that speed bump was in place or the legislature would be tearing through our neighborhoods doing 90. Until we get a truly disparate legislature with some degree of checks & balances, we need someone from a different party in the corner office, not a lackey like Patrick.
But, he’s not about to debate Healey one-on-one when having Mihos & what’s-her-name acts as a buffer.
<
p>
Kerry Healey was the one to ask, in the Springfield debate, ‘why would anybody vote for someone who doesn’t respect the will of the voter?” Now if you are going to argue that the state legislature, or the Governors office for the past 16 years doesn’t reflect the will of the voter, go ahead and do so. If, however, you are not going to argue that, then I can’t see as you have any thing worthwhile to say…
<
p>
That state legislature, far more than the actual paper they push, reflects the will of the voter.
…well first welcome to BMG…but honestly, if your going to just be repeating of talking points–single party system, blah, blah, blah you’re far worse than a troll. You’ll just be boring.
<
p>
I do have some time to waste, so I’ll remind you that we’ve had 16 years of Republican appointed Turnpike Boards, Massport Boards, Cabinet positions, judges, ec–how has this “balanced” things against hack politicans? And all you can harp on is the legislature. Seriously, pretty weak contention that a Republican Governor is the only thing that will save this state.
<
p>
Also, do you really think Kerry would fair any better one-on-one debating Deval? Come on, look how well she does against that fool Christy. And please don’t whine about she’s up against 3 opponents in the debates. Deval mostly ignores her and her attacks. Grace just makes her points and only attacks the overall system. It’s really Christy that attacks her and she can’t handle him. Can you imagine what Deval would do one-on-one against Kerry?
<
p>
Besides, it was your candidate that first wanted the 4 way debate–now her and her supporters are whining. Grow up.
<
p>
Yawn. Hope you got better stuff than this to offer.
Most of these arguments are tired in each direction. Yep, governors apppoint quite a large number of board & commission members. Yet, almost all the power to control the purse strings lies with the legislature.
I don’t really need to offer up much. I don’t want to see Patrick elected because I don’t see anything new. I see a 1980’s, hell, 1970’s, Democrat with the same tired-assed ideas of taxing people more and growing government. As you say, yawn.
Healey… there isn’t much there to speak of and that’s the honest truth. However, protestations to the less than perfectly progressive legislature aside, having a little (r) next to the governor’s name does provide some balance in this government. Or do you honestly believe that only one side in any of these issues has cornered the market on truth? That there is a single, right path? I sure don’t.
How can you argue that the Republicans don’t have any power, yet you are adamant that one be elected governor.
<
p>
If a Republican governor is powerless, then why not just stay home in November?
I didn’t say the Repubs had no power, simply that they only had the Governor’s office and I’d like to see them hold on to it. Shy that, yeah, they’ve got no power in this state at all.
…because if you did, maybe you’d have something interesting to add. I’m of course referring to your contention that the Legislature controls the purse strings of the “boards” I was pointing out the Governor appoints. Those boards of course are MassPort and the Turnpike Authority–the two undisputed champions of government waste and hackery. They are independent authorities that can levy their own fees and sell their own bonds without any approval from the legislature. Simply put they control their own purse strings and policies.
<
p>
Tell me why these two authorities are so screwed up after 16 years of Republican Governors appointments and control? And please don’t give me the same old talking point that the mean Legislature made them appoint hacks to get things done. It just undermines your whole argument that R Govs make any difference in the world. (But of course your whole argument is based on negative fear that an R Gov will do less harm than a D Gov. Real vision.)
that the reasoned voters have divorced themselves from the notion that Murph is a legitimate candidate. Thus leaving a narrow swath for “Granted” et al to meander through with talk of speed bumps (like when the Senate and House Republicans vote overwhelmingly to override Mitt’s vetoes) and “single party state” as if the likes of Morrissey, Baddour, O’Flaherty, Murray and their ilk would be Dems in any other state. If we were a single party state (assuming there is no Republican party, and thanks to Mitt it’s pretty much true) then the Ds are a two-party party. While this is a bit too sophisticated for Granted to comprehend, most people who read newspapers in Massachusetts understand that this state is far less blue, far less progressive than many states in various areas of public policy. The reason little gets done in MA, good or bad, has nothing to do with Mitt or Murph. It has to do with the fact that half (the 50-50 equation proffered in a response to my post yesterday) the legislature is conservative and half is progressive.
Do we overwhelmingly send Ted and the rest to DC every few elections? Of course, who the hell else should Ds and Rs support? Peter Blute? Give me a break. What’s he going to get for Massachusetts other than a lap dance?
I laid it out yesterday. Someone, anyone who is heaving rocks (or pebbles) at Deval tell me why they would consider voting for Kerry Healey. Mr. Porc-U-pine chose to respond in a more diminished capacity than I would have thought. The others found shelter in the shadows. If Deval isn’t for you, then is Healey? Will she make your party proud? Will she make your state proud? Will you vote for her and why? And as we see two-party rule is not a reason.
Just for my education (after all, I’m kind of dense, as you noticed), which are the many states & programs in those states that are far more progressive than MA?
California – energy
Vermont – health care
Oregon – criminal justice
But this is a silly question to answer.
<
p>
But I won’t go further since you and your ilk have yet to answer the standing question. So, you’re against Deval. What or who are you for? Is it Healey? Mitt? GWB? Dick Cheney? Linc Chafee? All you do is whine? Let me put down my chardonnay and again ask you what on earth do you stand for. Maybe you can’t answer it. Maybe you don’t stand for anything. You may just cut and paste the talking points and hit send. There is so little to respond to with your offering that all I can do is wonder why I’m still punching the ke
This is really interesting. You are right. I’m against Patrick. So, it makes me for Healey as the next most likely person to be elected. I’d be for Mihos if he had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.
Cut & paste talking points… This is the interesting part. If I happen to agree with some aspect of someone that you disagree with, then I’m copying & pasting their talking points (something I’ve never done). Yet, you espouse a point of view that is very clearly from a set of talking points as well. I’m not suggesting you’re copying & pasting but isn’t fascinating that you can’t see your own partisanship. Oh, wait, that’s right, your partisanship is based on intelligent reasoning. The rest of us are deluded, unintelligent automatons.
What do I believe? I believe in individual rights. You mention wanting Vermont style health care. Great, let’s see about getting it done, assuming it’s not just another government controls all scam. We can actually redirect a largish sum of money for it within our government by adopting Vermont style firearm ownership. Oh, but that would be anti-progressive right?
You know what, thanks for your time. I wish I could say it’s been enlightening. What I see here, are some seriously blinkered people. I hope you can enjoy your quite narrow view of the universe. There’s a lot more out there to see if you could open up your eyes & mind a bit. Go back to your chardonay. The creepy man who doesn’t think exactly like you is going away.
could you just state one thing about Kerry Healey that you think will make her a great governor? I get that you want someone other than a Democrat. I also get that you think Massachusetts is a one party state (which really it is in name only). But isn’t there just one thing about Kerry Healey that you can list that you think will make her a great governor? I will take from your silence that either you have already left us in a huff or you just cannot think of anything.
Have you lived any place else?
I can understand when real independent (unenrolled) voters express their sentiments toward trying to keep a semblance of what they define as balance. I still don’t agree with it.
<
p>
However, many unenrolled voters aren’t true independents. They tend to “hide” their committment to one party of another. Those people, “the hiders”, tend to be a bit more reserved about their true committment. Its ok to do so but lets not pretend they are less partisan.
<
p>
Reasonable people can determine with ease who the real independents are.
<
p>
Regarding the balance argument: If you truly believe in “balance” then im sure you cast a strong vote for “President” John Kerry to provide “balance” for the GOP congress. If you challenge a GOP voter on that issue, it makes them fold their tent pretty quickly and breaks down their argument with ease because it shows their duplicity.
<
p>
Its ok to have “balance” because they need to have some power in the government here and it serves them to support that view. However, voters keep putting Dems in office in mostly fair as far as I can tell (Diebold-free) elections. Nationally most GOP voters stress that we need to “win elections” if we want some power.
<
p>
Well, the same issue applies here in MA if you REALLY buy into your own bogus arguement. Put up more worthy candidate and you might get some victories one day. The Ken Chases and Michael Atwills and Kerry Healey’s are not the people the reasonable and intelligent citizens of this state want to help them govern this state.
<
p>
Kerry Healey also wanted this debate format. She specifically asked for it. In your eyes, wouldn’t she be a flip-flopper? Now that she is catching holy hell for her inability to turn back Christy, that Deval should just fall in line with her whining and grant her her wish like some spoiled child.
<
p>
My little troll, you have much to learn about the reality based community.
I think you’re on the wrong website, so I’ll help you out…
<
p>
I think you meant to go here.
1. Healey and Mihos debate for second place.
2. Deval Patrick waits until Mihos passes Healey in the polls. Patrick debates Mihos.
He’s got about 10% in polls right now, pretty much making any “deval vs. healey debate” moot.
<
p>
Furthermore, I wouldn’t trust Healey to honor such a pledge. She’d simply call the negative ads ‘policy differences.’
<
p>
Republicans just love it when dems try to play nice. Deval isn’t playing nice this election; he’s playing smart – at least smart for him, a guy who’s shown the ability to pull off “playing nice,” while not appearing weak or whiny.