The Eagan and Braude show is the last hour of intelligent programming on 96.9 FM Talk, before the transmitter is turned over to O’Reilly and the radical right wingnuts.
I wish they would ask Ms. Healey about two of her past comments:
<
p>
First, four years ago, during the O’Brien-Romney race for Governor, she said “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” in Shannon O’Brien’s and Mitt Romney’s positions on choice and abortion. Who was lying at that time…Ms. Healey or Mitt Romney?
<
p>
Second, two years ago, she said that Senator John Kerry should resign his Senate seat because he was spending too much time outisde of Massachusetts campaigning for President. Does she now believe that Governor Romney, who is campaigning for President on a nearly full-time basis, should resign as well?
hamburglarsays
Her endorsement by the gun lobby is in complete conflict with her (false) image of being “tough on crime”. You simply can’t be tough on crime if you want to arm the citizenry, and make it easier for felons to get guns. She’s in the pocket on the gun lobby! Ask her why she got their endorsement. How does she feel about the assault rifle ban?
If your plan is to “outsource” public safety to private citizens. Screw the cops — let’s have an UZI in every home; that’ll keep crime down!
sunderlandroadsays
Um, how about the weather?
How often do you visit Baltimore?
Which past Governor of Massachusetts do you most admire, and why?
If H.L. Menchen and Anne Bradstreet were seated next to each other at dinner, what would they talk about?
What was Ida B. Well’s most important contribution to American society?
When was the last time you caught a fish, and how big was it?
mat-from-south-bostonsays
I’m new in these parts and trying to understand where the nickname Muffy comes from. Please enlighten me about this, thanks.
started using it all the time in the 2002 campaign. He’s sorry now, but it’s too late — it stuck. Heh.
hamburglarsays
LG Healey feels that the children of illegal immigrants who have graduated from our public high schools should be ineligible for an in-state tuition discount at our higher ed institutions. Does she therefore feel that they should be barred from attending our public schools, which are fully taxpayer funded? It seems to me that if you are going to make the investment in them at the secondary level, then you should certainly feel that it is in the public’s best interest to provide them with the best opportunity to further their education. While there seem to be many who oppose allowing the in-state tuition discount for illegal immigrants, I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that the children of illegal immigrants be barred from attending public schools!
the Supreme Court decided about 30 years ago that it was unconstitutional to do so. Plyler v. Doe is the case.
publiussays
would the same equal protection analysis the court applied in Plyler make charging a higher tuition to the Massachusetts-domiciled children of illegal immigrants unconstitutional as well? If you can’t deny these kids a public school education, can you differentially burden its availability by means of substantially higher tuition charges? Or would higher education be distinguished by the court from elementary and secondary?
<
p>
Is it possible that Healey’s position on this issue, were it embodied in a statute, would be struck down?
First, the Plyler case is pretty well limited to children, and a lower court very likely would not extend it to post-secondary education without the Supreme Court saying so. I don’t know whether this issue has actually been litigated, though. To my knowledge, it hasn’t.
<
p>
Second, today’s Supreme Court is a whole lot different from the one that decided Plyler. The chances that the Roberts Court would extend Plyler to higher ed. are exactly zero. That being so, no advocate in his or her right mind would bring this case at this time. At best, you’d lose; at worst, you’d lose big by having the Court overrule Plyler.
<
p>
You could try litigating it strictly on the basis of the state Constitution, which would mean the SJC rather than the US Supreme Court would be the last stop. But IMHO, this is the kind of issue that, if decided by the courts, leads to backlash. It should be decided by the legislature.
melaniesays
I’d like to know what about the REAL ID Act doesn’t Healey understand? Illegal immigrants could not board airplanes or recieve government services with driver’s licenses issued in MA. They can’t even get an official license. I’d also like to know if she understands that under federal law only illegal immigrants under 21 that have gone to secondary schools with our children would be eligible for in-state tution. her strawman ads every ten seconds are starting to tick me off.
Healey said during the debate that “we actually have 2,000 more police on the streets today than we did four years ago.”
Her campaign said later that she based that number on research by her staff showing that more than 2,100 new officers have been put on the street since January 2003. Campaign manager Tim O’Brien , however, acknowledged that the figure only counts graduates from police academies and does not count retirements and resignations.
<
p>
I want to know if Kerry Healey actually knows how many police officers are on the streets today, compared to police officers on the street four years ago. I also want to know if she can tell you the number of communities getting less state aid today compared to four years ago (Any number less than 100 is wrong.) and exactly, what is the impact of these local aid cuts?
Like pablo says above, and like I said earlier, Braude and Eagan should force Healey to concede her lie about the numbers of cops on the streets.
<
p>
2. Civil unions vs. gay marriage. What’s the point of Healey’s position? As far as the state is concerned, in terms of benefits, tax laws, child care, etc., they’re identical – that’s the point. What does it matter what it’s called?
danseidmansays
I don’t see the point in giving her a chance to spin her whiff on the cease-and-desist pitch. That told us all we need to know about her loyalty to Romney’s ambition vs. Massachusetts.
<
p>
How about asking her about something we haven’t heard about during the entire campaign, even though it has become more and more important: campaign finance reform? Like the tax rollback, this was approved by referendum (I think both during the Cellucci administration), and has not been implemented. Does she reject “the will of the voters”? If so, why, and if not, what if any attempts did she and Romney make to implement it and what would be different in the next four years?
I wish they would ask Ms. Healey about two of her past comments:
<
p>
First, four years ago, during the O’Brien-Romney race for Governor, she said “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” in Shannon O’Brien’s and Mitt Romney’s positions on choice and abortion. Who was lying at that time…Ms. Healey or Mitt Romney?
<
p>
Second, two years ago, she said that Senator John Kerry should resign his Senate seat because he was spending too much time outisde of Massachusetts campaigning for President. Does she now believe that Governor Romney, who is campaigning for President on a nearly full-time basis, should resign as well?
Her endorsement by the gun lobby is in complete conflict with her (false) image of being “tough on crime”. You simply can’t be tough on crime if you want to arm the citizenry, and make it easier for felons to get guns. She’s in the pocket on the gun lobby! Ask her why she got their endorsement. How does she feel about the assault rifle ban?
If your plan is to “outsource” public safety to private citizens. Screw the cops — let’s have an UZI in every home; that’ll keep crime down!
Um, how about the weather?
How often do you visit Baltimore?
Which past Governor of Massachusetts do you most admire, and why?
If H.L. Menchen and Anne Bradstreet were seated next to each other at dinner, what would they talk about?
What was Ida B. Well’s most important contribution to American society?
When was the last time you caught a fish, and how big was it?
I’m new in these parts and trying to understand where the nickname Muffy comes from. Please enlighten me about this, thanks.
You’d never know she’s Irish…
started using it all the time in the 2002 campaign. He’s sorry now, but it’s too late — it stuck. Heh.
LG Healey feels that the children of illegal immigrants who have graduated from our public high schools should be ineligible for an in-state tuition discount at our higher ed institutions. Does she therefore feel that they should be barred from attending our public schools, which are fully taxpayer funded? It seems to me that if you are going to make the investment in them at the secondary level, then you should certainly feel that it is in the public’s best interest to provide them with the best opportunity to further their education. While there seem to be many who oppose allowing the in-state tuition discount for illegal immigrants, I have NEVER heard anyone suggest that the children of illegal immigrants be barred from attending public schools!
the Supreme Court decided about 30 years ago that it was unconstitutional to do so. Plyler v. Doe is the case.
would the same equal protection analysis the court applied in Plyler make charging a higher tuition to the Massachusetts-domiciled children of illegal immigrants unconstitutional as well? If you can’t deny these kids a public school education, can you differentially burden its availability by means of substantially higher tuition charges? Or would higher education be distinguished by the court from elementary and secondary?
<
p>
Is it possible that Healey’s position on this issue, were it embodied in a statute, would be struck down?
First, the Plyler case is pretty well limited to children, and a lower court very likely would not extend it to post-secondary education without the Supreme Court saying so. I don’t know whether this issue has actually been litigated, though. To my knowledge, it hasn’t.
<
p>
Second, today’s Supreme Court is a whole lot different from the one that decided Plyler. The chances that the Roberts Court would extend Plyler to higher ed. are exactly zero. That being so, no advocate in his or her right mind would bring this case at this time. At best, you’d lose; at worst, you’d lose big by having the Court overrule Plyler.
<
p>
You could try litigating it strictly on the basis of the state Constitution, which would mean the SJC rather than the US Supreme Court would be the last stop. But IMHO, this is the kind of issue that, if decided by the courts, leads to backlash. It should be decided by the legislature.
I’d like to know what about the REAL ID Act doesn’t Healey understand? Illegal immigrants could not board airplanes or recieve government services with driver’s licenses issued in MA. They can’t even get an official license. I’d also like to know if she understands that under federal law only illegal immigrants under 21 that have gone to secondary schools with our children would be eligible for in-state tution. her strawman ads every ten seconds are starting to tick me off.
The Boston Globe reported the following after the last debate:
<
p>
<
p>
I want to know if Kerry Healey actually knows how many police officers are on the streets today, compared to police officers on the street four years ago. I also want to know if she can tell you the number of communities getting less state aid today compared to four years ago (Any number less than 100 is wrong.) and exactly, what is the impact of these local aid cuts?
<
p>
2. Civil unions vs. gay marriage. What’s the point of Healey’s position? As far as the state is concerned, in terms of benefits, tax laws, child care, etc., they’re identical – that’s the point. What does it matter what it’s called?
I don’t see the point in giving her a chance to spin her whiff on the cease-and-desist pitch. That told us all we need to know about her loyalty to Romney’s ambition vs. Massachusetts.
<
p>
How about asking her about something we haven’t heard about during the entire campaign, even though it has become more and more important: campaign finance reform? Like the tax rollback, this was approved by referendum (I think both during the Cellucci administration), and has not been implemented. Does she reject “the will of the voters”? If so, why, and if not, what if any attempts did she and Romney make to implement it and what would be different in the next four years?
<
p> – Dan
The official spawn of Satan radio station.