This is too funny for words. From Kim:
So, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healeys campaign camp promised something this week to counter former President Bill Clintons visit for Deval Patrick.
Today we found out who her secret weapon is: Salem City Council President Jean M. John Pelletier….
When pressed by reporters, Pelletier said he voted for Gov. Mitt Romney in 2002. He said he couldnt remember if he voted for Bill Weld, Paul Cellucci, or Michael Dukakis in past gubernatorial elections.
When asked if Healey was a Clinton Republican, Pelletier responded: Clinton Republican? Basically.
OMFG. Can’t wait to see Healey’s new ads: “Vote for me. I’m a Clinton Republican.”
UPDATE: As pablo notes in the comments, there was quite a bit of hilarity at this event — at which, as I understand it, Healey’s lame-ass “debate” video between Clinton and Patrick was unveiled, but at which Healey herself did not bother to appear.
The event took an almost comedic twist as Pelletier continued to answer questions while Healey’s aides attempted to pull him off stage.
Asked if Healey could be considered a “Clinton Republican,” Pelletier replied, “A Clinton Republican? Basically.”
The remark prompted eye-rolling by Healey aides, while one of them tried to prompt Pelletier’s exit by pulling back a curtain next to the podium where he spoke.
“You’re through,” the aide said in an audible whisper from behind the curtain.
My kingdom for some video of that event …
Healey’s policies are probably closer to Clinton than Patrick’s: Welfare reform, Marriage, Free trade, affirmative action.
<
p>
Clinton’s ability was the ability to sell conservative or at best moderate-to-right to a broad voting base.
<
p>
Clinton visits will get money for Patrick, but no extra votes.
Healey’s policies are probably closer to Clinton than Patrick’s are to Clinton.
Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he passed it. And, he made sure that women coming off of welfare would have opportunities in education and employment before he would pass it. I don’t recall Patrick decrying welfare reform. Patrick worked on affirmative action at the behest of Clinton. Free trade would have happened regardless of who was in the Whitehouse, and I am unfamiliar with Deval taking an anti-free trade position. It would be kind of strange given that he handled the worldwide legal affairs for Coca Cola. The defense of marriage act was signed into law by Clinton, but promoted by the Republican lead house, and it did not include a ban on gay marriage. By the way, there really is no difference between supporting civil unions or gay marriage. It’s a matter of semantics, but whatever. Clinton would never have run a racist campaign. He’s no Kerry Healey.
So un-Healeyish of him. Here is an old Paul Krugman article on the Clinton proposal before it became law.
The Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes the same amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent. Think about that.
<
p>
The clever part of the plan was that although the top marginal rate increased, the Clinton plan increased the benefit differential toward capital gains. So, he took some tax away but gave a big capital gains tax plum.
<
p>
Clinton’s gift is that he could sell his moderate to right stance to the left and middle.
<
p>
Interesting how you give Clinton props and points for both subtlety of mind and fluidity of action but don’t extend that same respect to voters.
<
p>
Many of us thought then, and think now, that the problem was not the less than consistent adherence to hoary old labels like ‘right’ and ‘left’ (spun and contorted out of all useability) but rather that same hoary old shorthand political insiders and junkies used to divide the issues simplistically and the resulting stench of condescening paternalism that made voters wretch.
<
p>
What decisions are made matters much much less then how they are made. There is no indication that Mitt Romney uses anything other than a loaded coin toss to come to his conclusions… no matter what you think about the outcome that’s not a way to govern. Kerry Healey is his protege…
<
p>
Rather the depth of thought and deft use of intelligence, such as Clinton showed then and Patrick shows now, in the process weighs very heavily to me. I may not have agreed with every decision that Clinton made, and I’m certain not to agree with all the decisions Patrick has yet to make, but I am certain, in both instances, that they will arrive at the decision having excercised a lifetimes thinking, discussing, counselling and listening.
<
p>
This is beyond magic-button politics: wherein the candidates positions, past decisions and ideological bent are put in a cauldron, stirred and from which the resulting ‘correct’ decision emerges fully-formed and ready for implementation. That kind of magic is for childrens books. Here in adult-world we think deeply about how deeply others think.
<
p>
But he signed it. It was the right (and not left) thing to do.
<
p>
Fixed that for you. See Taxman. The NAACP paid the plaintiff off so the litigation would end. They were afraid his radical position would harm the AA movement.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m referring to NAFTA. Clinton signed it with only opposition being Democrat. Here’s what Mr. Patrick said about NAFTA:
<
p>
<
p>
What a joke! That’s a response to a question!? So, no, you got me! I have no idea what Mr. Patrick’s postion on NAFTA is. Does he?
<
p>
<
p>
Bold words! No diff between gay marriage and civil unions? Your Supreme court disagrees, and, I’m thinkin’ also a lot of folks on this board. Mr. Patrick too.
<
p>
Me? I think marriage is a sacred union between a man and a pregnant woman. Ba dum pum…
<
p>
<
p>
Get over the racist stuff. There’s been no mention of race in this campaign except from Mr. Patrick’s own campaign manager.
Seriously, Gary, why are you here? Instead of spending time criticizing Patrick on the BlueMass site, which gains you nothing, why dont you spend more time elsewhere where you might be able to sway people towards Muffy, cause it sure isn’t going to work here. Maybe it somehow makes you feel better to bash him then support a candidate as stale and unqualified as Muffy? What are you gaining by being here?
They do however provide sounding boards for various positions. Select the sucessful positions and use them where they count … or pay.
ok fair enough, but where are you using them ‘where they count’? Because as far as I can tell, 99.99% of people here are voting for Deval Patrick.
And you and I know that the 99.99% won’t change their mind if you paid ’em.
<
p>
However Rotary Clubs, Sportsman Clubs, Chambers of Commerce are always interested in hosting speakers (i.e. me) on the topic of Tax Policy and Politics.
<
p>
I get more from folks who are adversarial than echo chambers.
…and a higher opinion of his own contribution, apparently. The very idea that anyone would think or vote differently because they read one of your comments on this board is pathetic. An intelligent offering of a divergent view would absolutely be welcome, and I would be the first to defend whoever offered it. However, you just keep pouring the Kool-Aid, and nobody here is drinking it. Bombthrowing is not discussion. Ridicule is not debate. There’s a big difference between dismissive sarcasm and good-natured humor in terms of changing minds. When faced with a compelling counter-argument, you “cut and run” (oops, some of the Kool-Aid spilled out; I hope that’s not a trademark infringement!). You’re in a hole. Stop digging.
At 2400 baud, a flame war lasted for weeks…good times.
<
p>
– : ;)( <—-emoticon, some assembly required
We are what KEEPS you ‘Reality Based’!
<
p>
Ghost – why don’t you go everybody on your cell phone? /snark
what are you talking about?
(I think) is the recent thread suggesting that you call everyone whose number is stored in your cell phone (at least the MA residents) and urge them to vote for Patrick — this perhaps being more palatable than standard phonebanking for shy persons. I’m guessing the snark is directed at the idea that this will only reach already strongly pro-Patrick people.
hmmmm, interesting. i guess he assumes all of my friends are Democrats. most are, not by choice, this IS Massachusetts of course. i still have family members of friends im trying to persuade away from Mihos more than anything! 🙂
<
p>
thanks DaveMB for the clarification!
Don’t you get bored listening to all the DP evangelists?
<
p>
A: Wow, DP is God.
B: Yeah.
C: Yeah.
D: Yeah.
E: Well, he is just a man isn’t he.
F: No, he’s God.
E: Yeah.
<
p>
…
yup, agreed, its like listening to Romney and Bush evangelists. nauseating.
Charley is promoting a Daily Kos idea that everybody should call everyone in their own cell phone address book to promote Deval, which I think is a waste of time, and a fine use for Democrat energy.
<
p>
Gary, me and the others who are Differently Winged (did you notice us on the BMG blogroll?) are here to inject a note of reality into the rather heady mix of mutual admiration which can predominate from time to time.
Says they “jumped the shark.” I don’t know, I’m more inclined to keep them on regardless of how batty they get, but they haven’t been altogether very valuable or interesting lately.
<
p>
I may bring it up with the other guys, in any event.
Have you learned anything or changed a political position since you’ve been trolling on Democratic websites? I think it’s important to have diversity of opinion, but I wonder why those who are Differently Winged would waste their time here.
And we LIKE Charley! David, too! And COS – he is our God since he got Ted Kennedy to debate! And we both went through recount hell!
<
p>
Kathy – you can learn a hell of a lot more from those who disagree with you than you can form somebody who mirors your thoughts.
im asking this respectfully, and echoing what Kathy said … what have you learned here that made you change your mind on an issue? i really want to know, cause im not sure if i really believe you, no offense whatsoever is intended.
It’s what they can teach us. They don’t come here to learn, they come to teach, to save us from our misguided and ill-informed selves.
They almost never answer a direct question, and their posts usually snark or attack the poster rather than the position. PP is a little more polite than your average troll, but I’m still waiting for an enlightened, informed opinion to emanate from his keyboard.
to leave brief comments this far downthread because the column is very, very narrow.
What have you learned here? There are a lot of very intelligent, very informed Democrats who post on BMG. Have you changed a political opinion based upon evidence presented here? Judging by the tone of your posts, I doubt you’d change anyone’s mind around here. I’ve only seen snark and not rational, thoughtful posts from the right backed up by links to support your assertions.
<
p>
BTW I enjoy diversity of opinion, but I expect people to contribute constructively and rationally to political discourse, especially if they’re in enemy territory. 🙂
I was once neutral about Dibold voting machines,but after reading his experiences and going through my own recount, I am now dead set against anything that does not have a paper trail, and will work to defeat them.
<
p>
So Kathy – what opinions of yours have I changed?
…who hasn’t learned a goddamned thing from those he disagrees with.
I rest my case. For now. Be prepared for the possibility that what we learn from the Republicans on this board might not be exactly what you want to teach us.
I welcome reasonable conservative voices for exactly the reasons Gary & Peter cite. I’m pretty damn liberal, and I can’t pretend that the majority agrees with me on any number of issues. So much more reason to hear opposing viewpoints and learn how to address them — either by reinforcing one’s own opinions or by adjusting them. And the moderates and conservatives who post here regularly seem to be pretty good sports. It behooves us all to be as much in return.
<
p>
Furthermore, sometimes liberals and conservatives actually agree on things, especially at a local level. Who likes Amorello-style hackery, for example? And when we actually agree on things, we can be pretty powerful.
You are right, of course, when you say
But this guy isn’t one of them.
<
p>
I think your noble aim to allow intelligent and diverse discussion — which I wholeheartedly support and thank you for — does not mean we have to give a free pass to consider propaganda and disingenuous nonsense as equivalent to real examination and discussion of ideas. Unfortunately, good sportsmanship is too often an invitation for swiftboatmanship and williehortonship. There’s been enough of that in the public discourse since, oh, about the Nixon administration, and if the country is going to hell in a handbasket, that’s a big part of the reason. When I see this, I have to push back, and I at least try to contribute what I hope is a substantive response.
<
p>
I don’t think anyone called for anyone else to be kicked off the board, but as long as this guy’s stuff is OK with everyone, then I hope wondering why someone who is just using up bandwidth insists on hanging around is legitimate discourse as well.
<
p>
At least Peter Porcupine has a cute name.
Your quills can be sharp, but they are often so in the spirit of what Charley likes to call raillery. I, too, enjoy it, and hence appreciate a number of your posts. I sometimes even enjoy Gary’s comments: though to my mind virtually always wrong, they can sharpen discussion around here. So I’ve not minded your presence at all. But if the two of you do not see the racial subtexts that are at the center of Healey’s campaign, then you are either scandalously tone deaf about how American political culture works, shamefully ignorant of American political history, or both. Same goes for Muffy. I wouldn’t be totally shocked if, when she goes to sleep at night, she has a clean conscience and feels there’s not a whiff of racism in her campaign. I suspect that’s not the case, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. If Kerry Healey has gotten far enough in politics and in living her life of privilege that she is able to avoid seeing what her campaign is about, then that is a form of willful and self-serving obtuseness–of bad faith–for which she is morally culpable. It is, in the domain of political ethics, the rough analogue to what I believe people like Gary, when doing their day jobs, call “criminal negligence.” Since I, too, have a day job to which I must return right now, and since I am going to spend my free time over the next few days phone banking, I will not tarry just to give you a refresher course on racial signifiers and subtexts and the political fear-mongering in which they’re embedded. I’ll just say that if you can’t recognize that Kerry Healey is desperately trying to have every voter who walks into the booth on the first Tuesday in November thinking “Scary Black Man” when they see Deval’s name, then I respectfully submit that politics is probably not the subject on which you should be spending time commenting.
Could you please point to some specific examples of racist tactics being used by Kerry Healey?
I would be very disturbed to think she was a racist.
I genuinely have no idea that racism is an issue this year in this campaign.
That was well said.
but those that chose to, gain by listening to a different point of view (often backed up with some compelling data). And like it or not Gary and PP make some interesting points and BMG would not be the same without them.
<
p>
of course, absolutely, and i personally get enough of the other side by visiting their blogs and watching their news channels, and reading their newspapers, i just liked coming here as it was where Democrats came to chat with other Democrats, not to listen to more preaching from the other side of the aisle. it was just a calming place to come and read about what was going on in this BLUE MASSACHUSETTS. you know what i mean?
For me this is one of the few blogs that encourages a good discussion from both sides.
<
p>
I guess everyone comes here for different reasons.
<
p>
Count me among those that are happy to have Gary and PP to kick around…oops, I mean…to joust with. I think they help to keep us on our toes. Same reason why we like those pesky Dems for Healey.
<
p>
We’ve had a lot of knuckleheads come on throwing bombs, but these two guys do their homework. They usually come to the wrong conclusions, but they do their homework nonetheless. 😉
I’d rather have a sincere discussion with a true conservative who doesn’t get his/her information from the AM radio hatemongers.
Gary
But he signed it (welfare reform). It was the right (and not left) thing to do.
<
p>
In fact it was neither. The majority of Democrats in both Houses of Congress voted for it.
<
p>
Gary
I’m referring to NAFTA. Clinton signed it with only opposition being Democrat.
<
p>
Actually 10 of the 38 opposition votes were Republican. You may understand that ten year old international trade agreements are not on the top of Massachusetts voter’s list of important issues.
<
p>
Given the accuracy of your comments you must do opposition research for Republicans.
She said “do you really want ONE as your governor.” She didn’t mention race. That refers to one defense lawyer, silly. Th Willie Horton ad didn’t mention race, and neither do hers. And many immigrants are from Sweden, they’re practically albinos.
[blockquote]By the way, there really is no difference between supporting civil unions or gay marriage. It’s a matter of semantics, but whatever. [/blockquote]
<
p>
While I agree with most of your post and think that Kerry’s Clinton-grab is ridiculous, I have to object to this. There is a big difference to many people, a meaningful difference, a difference because this is not just about rights on paper but about true equality, and with different names for the supposed same thing we cannot have anything but a feeble illusion of equality. As for it being a mere matter of semantics, well so are the phrases “partial birth abortion,” “death tax,” “war on terror,” and “lawyers have the right to defend cop killers, but do we really want one as our governor?”. Semantics matter. They help shape the way people think. The semantical separation has the power to create a real separation in people’s minds, not just of the institution if that is what makes them comfortable with affording gay people those rights, but with gay people themselves.
<
p>
I would also direct you to Bob’s eloquent post on his wedding and the meaning of marriage. (Congrats, Bob!)
for my formatting issues
I just tend to think that politicians say things like “I’m against gay marriage but I’m for civil unions” to make their stance more palatable to the general public. However, were a couple to enter into a civil union would they say we’re civil unioned? No, they would say they were married and they would carry on their lives just like married couples.
Im old enough to have traveled through the South when every gas station had three bathrooms: Men, Women, and Colored. Separate but equal (but not really equal). Civil Unions are the Colored bathrooms of today. I’m just respectfully suggesting a way of looking at it that gives you an idea why it’s not acceptable to some.
Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat who practically owned real-estate in the center of the political spectrum. So, on any number of issues you could argue he was more toward Patrick or more toward Healey.
<
p>
Ultimately, Bill Clinton was a Democrat, and a talented and skilled politician, who is coming to town to raise money for our guy, who is also a Democrat and a talented and skilled politician. Kerry Healey is none of those things.
As a Deval supporter and a Salem voter, I am extremely disappointed in our Council President. A couple of things I would like to point out for all here… Councilor Pelletier is a ward councilor in Salem – he represents ward 3 (of our 7 wards), which is about 15% of our population, probably about 4000-6000 people, where Democrats out-number Republicans probably better than 5-1. His term as Council “President” (a figure-head position, anyway, chosen by his colleagues on the Council and not by the voters) expires in December.
<
p>
As a newly active Salem Democrat, I am going to be sure that Councilor Pelletier’s public endorsement of a Republican candidate brings the appropriate sanctions from our city Democratic Committee and the state party. And I hope it might inspire someone in the neighborhood to decide it’s time for a change for the better in Ward 3 in our city…
The Globe story gets better:
<
p>
<
p>
Stick a fork in that turkey, he’s done.