Did anyone stay awake for the whole thing? I did!
I have to say that I found John Sullivan (on Mihos’s ticket) to be the most well spoken. He had clear ideas, stated them firmly and answered the moderator’s questions. He continued the Mihos approach of pit-bull attacks on the Healey-Romney administration/Big Dig.
In a low-charisma group, Tim Murray had the most charisma and stayed true to the Patrick-Murray message. It didn’t sound quite as good coming from his lips as it does from Patrick’s but I think Tim was able to hold is own.
I think Hillman is a better debater than Muffy. He didn’t break a sweat once, and never came across as the slightest bit defensive. (Of course, be didn’t have Pit Bull Mihos nipping at his heels, or Queen of Logic Grace Ross.) I’m glad he’s not running for governor.
The most painful part was poor Martina Robinson. For one thing, she was nearly invisible to the camera, because her wheelchair set her back from the other three, so the camera kept showing three suited men next to each other, and occasionally panning over. Then there’s the fact that her cerebral palsy makes it difficult for her to speak. She brought an aide to “translate” and the aide was terrible!!! She spoke in a monotone, forgot phrases, and in one incident almost too painful to watched, she froze solid on a soft-ball question for Martina (health care). The moderator was clearly exasperated with Martina’s aide, and eventually just started filling in the lost words for Martina himself. (I caught 90% of what she was saying and think most people there did too.)
I don’t think there was a clear winner in this one. The clear loser, alas, was Martina Robinson.
(The 5 parts of the debate can be viewed on NECN’s site in the list of video clips on the left.)
I don’t think there was any new ground broken tonight. Thus, since Deval is in the lead, a draw is a win. Fortunately there were no new attacks from Healey-Hillman, but also nothing new from Patrick-Murray to put Healey on the defensive. I doubt that this debate will change any minds.
that anyone watched. Even I had trouble making it through the debate.
yawn
I watched the debate with three neighbors…2 retirees and one 30-something…(my mind was made up going in, so my observations were totally biased and I kept them to myself to see what the others would conclude)…this is how they responded:
<
p>
Once the the retired couple heard that Reed Hillman has been getting a $105,000 per year state pension since he was in his 50’s, they started fuming…and when Hillman admitted his hefty pension would NOT be part of the pension reform he and Healey are offering to voters, both of these retirees who live on very fixed incomes were audibly disgusted. I don’t thnk anythink Hillman said after that could have won them over…everytime Hillman tried to recite the GOP “we won’t raise your taxes” mantra, one or the other of this older couple would revert to a disparaging remark about the huge pension that they feel they funded with their years of state taxes.
<
p>
As for the 30-something guy…when Murray mentioned how many over-ride elections there had been under Romney-Healey, it reminded him that there has been an override vote here 3 out of the last 5 years…and his property tax bill has been on the rise…it was the first time he made the connection between the severe cuts in local aid and the need to raise property taxes to meet basic services….to which the elderly man suggested that the young man call Hillman and ask him to chip in for the new school addition because “Hillman can afford it on that kind of pension! It’s our money he’s getting.”
<
p>
They said John Sullivan seemed nice and noted that he was agreeing with Tim Murray’s views on taxes and health care. They did not make a connection between Mihos and Sullivan and asked what party he was from. The older woman thought Sullivan seemed a bit forgetful, but chalked that up to his age and did not hold it against him.
<
p>
Murray’s energy and command of facts impressed them… particularly on the local tax stuff…and when Murray refered to the seniors getting squeezed on property taxes…they audibly agreed and ticked off people they knew who were hanging by a thread trying to keep their homes…the husband said state income taxes don’t affect seniors as much as property taxes do…
<
p>
All three expressed sympathy for Ms. Robinson, not because she was disabled, but because she did not seem to have enough knowledge about the subject matter to be able to give substantive answers. (and they could understand her better than her assistant did)
<
p>
political ads that were running before, during and after the debate drew some commentary…they like Coakley’s “calm authority”…Healey “comes off as cold, not sincere”…they are tired of the attacks and think that “hurting kids of politician’s families is mean and unfair”…and ALL of us agreed that we will be glad when the election has come and gone.
<
p>
I love hearing the perspectives of undecided “regular folk” to the debate. Thanks for that.
1- Damn, it is awesome to have Tim Murray constantly talking about ‘As Mayor of Worcester’ or ‘In Central Mass.’… Funny Reed Hillman didn’t manage to do the same even once as I recall. No Sturbridge REPRESENT moments. Also, Martina Robinson pulled through with some Western MA shoutouts. Tim did miss one huge opportunity when talking about rising crime, which was to note that the list of cities in peril due to crime epidemics does not include Worcester.
<
p>
2- Speaking of Martina, by far the most frustrating moments of the night were the multiple occasions which we had to listen to her ‘assistant’ or whatever she was. I understood every point that Martina made, and I thought that it was remiss that she wound up with half the time to make her points due to the fact that her points had to be stated twice. Even worse, her assistant or translator continued to F-Up her points and undermine the statements Martina made. Braude and I definitely agreed on this, as he said more than once that he understood the candidate completely without anyone’s translation. Honestly, I felt that this added factor was a detriment. We understood her just fine, thanks.
<
p>
3- Mihos’ LG candidate, and I must apologize that I have forgotten his name, did bring up some good points and generally spoke well. So well, in fact, that it made me wonder why besides money that Christy would be the I candidate rather than this fellow. Sorry I don’t know much about him.
<
p>
4- Hillman wanted to interrupt every Murray statement all night, with a shit eating grin on to boot. Bad form.
<
p>
5- The pension discussion was his downfall tonight. Hillman is all for pension reform, but when asked critically about it the best he could muster was that it wouldn’t affect him as a ‘tenured’ employee and that it wouldn’t affect public safety workers? Lame…and insulting to librarians, DPW workers, and other hard working municipal employees marginalized and portrayed by Healey/Hillman as second class public employees. Especially coming from someone who retired at 50 making over 100k a year. Who here works in the private sector…? Who realistically expects a deal like this? I anticipate a complete and total lack of raised hands…Murray was right to call out his double standard.
In terms of public safety, where does the administration draw the line? Is public safety not an issue in trash collection? Take away trash collection for a month, then let me know…Is proper funding of libraries not public safety? A populous seeking knowledge is contributing to blight and crime how exactly?
Tim Murray was AWESOME on health care and the health care bill. He wasn’t so good talking about the attacks on Deval, which is shocking because they’re friggin easy to toss aside and pounce.
<
p>
Furthermore, why am I not shocked that there’s another green person who didn’t know some basic rules – such as the fact that you can’t ‘just let the people vote’ on a constitutional amendment until the legislature, by a 25% margin, decides to ‘let the people vote.’ Any person running for Lt Governor should know simple parliamentary procedures such as that.
<
p>
I’ve met one too many green voter who loves to get riled up about the parties, but knows absolutely nothing about them or government process. I’ve met green voters who had a whole litany of issues they cared about and they just loved to chat politics, yet as recently as May didn’t know who Deval Patrick even was! This is the type of person who protests at least once a week, goes to Mass-pirg-esque meetings, etc. and can’t even bother to look at a progressive Democratic candidate – even so much as to know their name?
<
p>
I’ve never met a group of people who, more often than not, I agree with… yet are just dense. Grace Ross is pretty much the only green candidate I’ve had the opportunity to see who I thought was actually somewhat likable and soemwhat well informed.
<
p>
In case anyone can’t tell, I’m NOT a fan of the Green Party.
How did you come to the conclusion that Martina Robinson doesn’t understand parliamentary procedure. Bearing in mind that her speech limitation forced her to stick to simple, short messages, I thought her saying “Let the people vote” meant that yes, it should go to a vote in the legislature so that it could then go to the people. Given the idiocy of her translater it isn’t like she could afford to go on at length about her views.
First, let me say that it had nothing to do with her cerebral palsy. I could understand what she was saying fine; I’m pretty sure the only one who needed a translator was the translator.
<
p>
However, there was a very simple question asked, something to the effect of ‘should the legislature give an up or down vote?”
<
p>
“I believe that if we’re going to have a vote, not in the legislature, let the people of Massachusetts. Like every person in Massachusetts.”
<
p>
click on video five, it’s right at the beginning. If you disagree as to my assertion, feel free to do so, but I just listened to it a second, third and forth time and came to the same conclusion. Is it a huge issue? No, lots of people – including politicians – don’t have a commanding knowledge of parliamentary procedure. However, I don’t think I can vote for someone at Beacon Hill who doesn’t have a rudementary understanding of how Constitutional Amendments work in Massachusetts.
<
p>
I agree with Martina on a lot of issues, just as I do with greens in general. Grace Ross has been particularly impressive in my light, especially her performance in Springfield (she won that debate, if you ask me, the videos are also on NECN – watch her answer to the “springfield” topic). However, I think there are far too many very active greens who lack a basic understanding of government and the other parties, who they so vehemently reject. Heck, the very fact that they continue to be greens despite the fact that the Republican Party has bankrolled them in many cases speaks to that very fact.
but in general, I will agree that I did not find Martina Robinson to be inspiring at last night’s debate. Her actual content was of course overshadowed by the incompetence of her “reader”, but what content there was didn’t move me. Her answers were straight-up Green Party, which I am actually strongly sympathic with, but she didn’t say anything to make them sound more compelling to the masses.
<
p>
I have to say I was surprised by her answer to the gay marriage question, though. Whether your interpretation (“take it straight to the people”) or mine (“the legislature should take it to the people”), either one strikes me as at odds with most gay group’s stance on the issue: that such a fundamental right as marriage should be protected and not decided by majority (ie: no, the legislature should either no vote on it at all or they should vote no so that it does not go to the people). Freedom to Marry, for instance, has a brochure on why voting on issues of civil rights is unjust.
<
p>
So surprised that I’ll be writing to their campaign today to ask WTF.
I just replied to the wrong person, following up on Martina’s intentions regarding the gay marriage question:
<
p>
http://www.bluemassg…
I Tivo’d because I was off dialing for Deval and Tim.
<
p>
I just finished watching and I agree with much of what has already been said. Just want to add a few things:
<
p>
Jim Braude needs to lay off the coffee before moderating a debate. He was so hyper.
<
p>
Did Reed Hillman inherit Tom Reilly’s crazy glued-on smile, or what? The attacking thing is annoying and I got tired of him interrupting Tim Murray to take a swipe at Deval Patrick.
<
p>
Tim Murray did a great job. He’s great on the issues and he came off confident and made some great points. He really is a strong partner on this ticket.
<
p>
John Sullivan was great. Knows his stuff, kept the debate on topic. Too bad I have a better chance of being elected than he does.
<
p>
Martina Robinson did very well under the circumstances. It would have been better if they could have squeezed the chairs the guys were sitting in closer to Martina, so she could share the camera angle better. It’s obvious that Martina is a very passionate grassroots activist. She is very well spoken and I thought her visibly nervous aide did not do her justice.
why not watch? A chance to hear what people have to say without Mihos making a joke of the process? Count me in. It was refreshing to see four candidates (well, almost… poor Martina got screwed with her “translator”) be able to debate issues. You know, a real debate. Jim Braude did a good job. I’d take him as moderator any day.
Really? I hated the format. The questions were fine, but the rapid fire delivery and 10 second rebuttals drove me nuts, and as someone said above, Braude was downright hyper.
I thought he was able to let the people who wanted rebuttals to respond, and he respectfully didn’t tolerate interruptions.
<
p>
Hyper I can handle.
Murray kicks a##!
One of the pitfalls for Reed Hillman is that he does have a track record to run from, I mean run on.
<
p>
During the debate he referenced that one way to reduce crime is to have good jobs, who can argue with that, my question is why did he:
<
p>
vote no to investing in emerging technologies, math & science Fund.
<
p>
vote yes to requiring workfare for mothers of 2- to 6-year-olds and then
vote no to allowing parents on welfare to go back to school.
<
p>
why did he vote no to earmarking funds for women’s substance abuse program,
<
p>
aren’t these votes inconsitent with a person that wants to reduce crime and improve jobs?
Did Murray mention HIllman’s record? If he didn’t, shame on him for missing the opportunity.
as he should have been bashing healy, healy/romney and healy/hillman.
It was real nice to see Tim Murray use the John Adams symbolism in the debate. It is amazing to be to watch the power of the pen in this regard. While the John Adams connection was made by other people – I do get a sense of satisfaction that my letter to the editor has reached so many people and even made its way into the LT. GOV. debate.
<
p>
To me – this is just more evidence of what we can all do to lend a voice into the public square. Sometimes ideas and facts, spoken rationally and reasonably can have more impact that emotional arguments directed towards the lowest common denominator. I think that Deval said it best when he said that a candidate sets the tone for the race and for the debate.
Well, let’s see, I’m a resident of Worcester and a disbility activist myself, and use a wheelchair. So I guess I should weigh in with my humble opinion. Oops IMHO, sorry not used to blog lingo.
<
p>
Tim was awesome, and did stay on point. I think when a moderator picks the topics, candidates get frustrated because they may NOT get to talk about what is really important to us….the press DOES control things, as we know.
<
p>
I have to admit Sullivan, was good at trying to point out they were spending way too much time on the Gov. race and not enough on their own.
<
p>
I spend almost every Tuesday night in City Council in Worcester and watch Tim in action. At his young age (mid 30’s) he has a great grasp of what the cities and towns are up against. And that will be a great asset to Deval.
<
p>
And now to Martina, Don’t feel bad for her. I’m sure that interpreter was a last minute thing. But I bet she was fired right after the debate! Any true interpreter wouldn’t have botched it that bad.
<
p>
I could see Martina getting frustrated. I’m wondering if NECN or the other campaigns insisted on one out of fear, she’d take too long? I could understand everything she said, but then we advocates actually take the time and really listen. I thought
Brode did fine at understanding her. One thing that those with CP learn is how to say more with less words, and Martina is no exception.
<
p>
I have a feeling we have not heard the last of her or Sullivan, and I hope absolutely the last of Hillman. Just my 2 cents.
<
p>
Barb in Worcester
Per a Globe article recently about her: “Robinson will ask to be given extra time so her words can be repeated by a reader.”
<
p>
Martina’s marginalization at the debate is just what I feared would happen, when I posted earlier that I thought her nomination for Lt. Governor was a final sign that the Green-Rainbow party was not seriously trying to win the election.
First off, thanks for pointing out that the “translator” was Martina’s idea. I remembered that from the Globe myself. I’m guessing that she had planned on a better one, but so be it.
<
p>
when I posted earlier that I thought her nomination for Lt. Governor was a final sign that the Green-Rainbow party was not seriously trying to win the election.
<
p>
I have to say, while you probably didn’t mean it this way, that feels really condescending. The GRP has been polling below 5% for the whole race. They’re running to get a message out and to inject important issues into the debates that others (including Patrick) would ignore. To say that their choice of Martina as Grace Ross’ running mate shows that they aren’t serious seems to me to put way too much focus on Martina, and almost to imply that if only they hadn’t squandred their chances with the disabled woman, then the Greens would have had a chnace of winning.
<
p>
Again, I know that you didn’t mean it that way, but that seems to be the dynamic you’re constructing. And I think that it’s a dangerous one.
You and I know the Greens never had a chance, and their purposes for running Ross as a candidate aren’t so she can be governor but to bring a message. And also to help boost the party’s visibility and legitimacy (and keep them on the ballot in future elections).
<
p>
I don’t think Martina Robinson affects the viability of the candidacy one whit, in either direction. 99.99% of the people in the state hadn’t heard of her last week, and 99.98% still won’t have heard of her on Nov. 6.
<
p>
But…whenever I talk to a Green supporter (there are a few amongst my circle of friends) they all noisily decry the fact that Ross/Robinson is running for a message, not to win. So when I say things like “I like Ross, but I’m voting for Patrick so that Healey won’t win” they say things like “Well of course she can’t win if people like you vote that way. Don’t do that!”. And when I say things like “the Green party candidates just serve to split of the Democratic vote” they echo Ralph Nader and say “Maybe the Dems are stealing OUR votes!”
<
p>
There seems to be some sort of understanding amongst Greens to not admit that they can’t win, to play the part of a serious contender. I understand that. To admit you can’t win is to lose hope, to lose focus, and also to lose some power in your message. So we lefty-lefts have this tacit agreement to pretend there’s an actual race, for the good of the cause.
<
p>
but in order to maintain that illusion, the Green-Rainbow campaign has to at least act like a campaign that is making choices aimed at winning. This includes, among other things, a careful selection of running mate.
<
p>
So my point with that post was that Martina Robinson’s nomination on the Green ticket was a break in that tacit agreement. It was close to a public announcement of “We know we aren’t going to win so we aren’t even going to act as if we have a chance”, thereby flying in the face of all my Green friends’ adamant insistence that this is not true.
<
p>
I have mixed feelings about it, as I indicated. On one hand, I’m not a big fan of the pretense. But I AM a big fan of the message, and I worry that running a campaign that doesn’t at least maintain that pretense of being a “to win” campaign will dampen the message.
<
p>
I hope this clarifies my position, and that you understand that I don’t think Martina in any way hurts the Green’s chances of winning.
In order to be taken seriously enough to raise issues, voters have to believe you are viable.
<
p>
I am sure Martina is a strong advocate for people with disabilities and I understand she is a real community activist. However, even if your goal is to “make a point” you have to be able to keep voters/viewers interest for them to get the message.
<
p>
I find it hard to accept that there are not disabled advocates who could have presented the message as well as the image to a better benefit for the Greens.
<
p>
I did not take her comment to mean they “squandered their chnaces to win on a disabled woman” as you said (a tad overrecative there I think). The Greens missed an opportunity to gain creditability with the general voting population – something vital if you want to shift the debatetoward your issues.
<
p>
Note that Senator Fred Berry is a disabled elected official with speech problems and is a very effective Senator on issues far beyond disabilities.
I was wrong, sorry.
<
p>
I wrote to the Green campaign office today to ask for clarification on what Martina meant regarding the gay marriage questions last night.
<
p>
Here’s their answer:
<
p>
<
p>
I still have no idea if she understands the procedure required for an amendment, but at very least she seems to be saying she wishes the procedure were different.
<
p>
I still don’t understand why she’s advocating for the people voting over the legislature, even if that was a legal possibility. I find the arguments of groups like Freedom to Marry against making civil rights an issue for majority voting compelling.
Martina Robinson is a three time candidate for Select board in Belchertown, a Green-Rainbow Party State Committee member, and a former Green-Rainbow Party administrative committee member.
<
p>
She’s very knowledgeable in the laws, and in the Massachusetts constitution. She knows very well the inner working of gov’t.
<
p>
The question was, I must remind you all: “Should gay marriage get an up or down vote before the election?”
<
p>
Jim Braude did not ask WHO should have this up or down vote, HOW this theoretical up or down vote should be made, or what precisely this up or down vote should pertain to. He was urging hypothetical answers to a hypothetical question regarding a hypothetical happenstance that can’t happen.
<
p>
So, Martina was responding to a question inappropriately phrased, in a climate that encouraged snappy, pithy sound bite answers, during a debate where Braude would often incite arguments between those candidates who could speak with ease and rarely permit the one candidate who could not speak with ease the necessary time to give truly substantive replies.
<
p>
Had he asked, more appropriately, whether the Legislature should reconvene its Constitutional Convention before the general election, she would flat out have answered “No”.
“Had he asked, more appropriately, whether the Legislature should reconvene its Constitutional Convention before the general election…”
<
p>
Oh come on. That IS what he asked. Regardless of the phrasing, the three other candidates on the stage and all the politically aware people watching knew what he was asking. even if she was being deliberately dense about it, she was last in line, so she heard what the other candidates were saying, and could surely deduce the true intent of the question.
<
p>
But let’s step back from that for a second. Let’s take her answer at face value: the people should vote. That’s certainly a valid view, but it flies directly in the face of the view of every pro-gay-marriage group I know of. Right to Marry and other groups are falling over themselves explaining why civil rights issues should NOT be up for a popular vote, and here’s Martina saying that she disagrees.
<
p>
i wrote to the campaign and confirmed that (duh) she is pro gay marriage, but I didn’t get any explanation for what I consider her bizarre belief that the issue of gay marriage should go to a popular vote.
“Let’s take her answer at face value: the people should vote.”
<
p>
Obviously, you did not hear her reply – which in point of fact was not as you stated. You sought not to.
Amazing.
<
p>
Fortunately the video of the debate is still available, so I watched it. Here is what Martina said:
<
p>
“I believe if we are going to have a vote, not to let the Legislature decide, let the people decide. Let every person in Massachusetts.” (And then her aide said “I believe if we are going to have a vote the legislators should not be the ones who decide, the people of Massachusetts should decide.”)
<
p>
While I have the debate on the screen, let’s back up again and find the actual question the Braude presented to all four candidates: “Two days after the election, the constitutional convention is going to decide what to do with an amendment started by the people to ban gay marriage. Should it get an up or down vote by the 200 members of the legislature, yes or no?” then he ask Tim Murray for an answer who answered “Yes”, and Braude clarified, “You mean that they should vote?” and Tim said “Yes, they should vote”. He then offered the same question to John Sullivan by saying “how about an up or down vote on the gay marriage question?” and Sullivan also said yes. Next in line was Martina, and he simply gave her her turn by saying “Martina Robinson” and pointing toward her.
<
p>
When he presented the question to Hillman, Hillman responded that yes, they should vote, and they should have done so before the election. That prompted Braude to ask Tim Murray: “It was quite clear that the democratic legislature decided they didn’t want to deal with the issue before the election so they put over something where there are over 100 some thousand signatures till after the election, is that kosher politics?”
This to me makes it very clear that he was talking about a specific vote (on a gay marriage ban in the constitution) by a specific body (the legislature) at a specific time (first question, after the election, second to Tim, before the election).
<
p>
So I’m curious about your claim that the question was vague and hypothetical. The question seemed very very clear to me. Are you saying Martina misunderstood?
<
p>
I’m also curious about your claim that I misunderstood Martina. It certainly wasn’t her CP that make it hard to understand: the individual words were quite clear. Yet apparently you have some other interpretation of her words than I do. Please explain.
which it seems you do…
<
p>
It was kind of hard to find.
Click on this link to get to an NECN recap of the debate. When that loads, it will display links to several related videos to the right; click the “next” button several times to get to the screen that has links to all six parts of the debate (labelled, oddly enough, “Debate for Massachusetts”). The question pertaining to gay marriage is right at the beginning of part 5 (the link image shows Tim Murray’s face alone).