Martha Coakley has earned my respect and admiration over a period of years. She did not decide to enter politics at the top, but has worked as a diligent public servant over a period of years.
Martha Coakley was not born a member of the Boston establishment. She was born in Western Massachusetts, and has worked as an attorney in Boston and in Lowell. She left a posh berth in a downtown firm to serve the public as an Assistant District Attorney in Lowell.
On a personal note, I admired the way she supported and worked to protect her staff concerning the asbestos problem at the Edward J. Sullivan Court House which even lead Martha Coakley to be a named plaintiff in a politically charged suit.
I don’t expect my endorsement to carry the same weight as Kate Donahue’s of another candidate, but I did want to explain a bit more about who I think Martha Coakley IS – and why I see her as a courageous advocate and someone who will step up and do what is right in a way that means a great deal to me.
As I have said many times, I do not use “litmus tests” to choose candidates, nor expect my candidate or legislator to have the same position as I do about all issues. I think I have seen the “real Martha” in action and I like what I have seen.
Thanks for listening!
…because I believe when BMGers write diaries like this they contribute positively to the discussion and want to hold it up as an example. I’m supporting Capuano myself, but I wish more diaries were of the “Why I support candidate X” variety rather than “Reasons not to vote for candidate Y” variety.
That’s as well-reasoned an endorsement as I’ve read in a while. I’m inclined to support Capuano at this time, but your post was a goof plug for the front runner.
<
p>Come what may, we’ll get a good Senator in Washington.
“your post was a goof plug…”
<
p>Since F and D are consecutive keyboard letters I’m going to assume you meant “a good plug”!
Not Freudian; just lousy typing.
“fraudian”?
Thanks so much for your words in support of a terrific public servant, Martha Coackley, who will make us all proud as the next Senator from Massachusetts.
She can do a demonstratively better job than Mike Capuano, who, unlike Coakley, has a legislative record and has made the tough, right votes when they were politically unpopular.
<
p>I see in Coakley someone who’s afraid to make those tough calls, which is no clearer than someone who would, on behalf of Senator Murray, agree to create legislative cover that will appease legislators who are afraid to legalize casinos without some kind of lip service, when that industry would unabashedly create a lot of new crime. Coakley is paying that lip service, which is precisely the thing an Attorney General should not do — and the opposite of what Capuano did on the legislative front by voting against the Iraq war and voting against the Patriot Act.
<
p>We know Capuano can make the right votes when they’re tough — and we know that, at this very moment, Coakley is failing that test in courage. I always expected this to be a very tough vote for me to make and I never wanted to get involved in any of the campaigns this time around, but unfortunately Martha Coakley has made it a much easier decision for me because she is unwilling to go against the political grain when it matters most.
When Martha Coakley stood up for her employees in the Sullivan Courthouse situation, and thereby stood up to The Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert Mulligan [who is a true bully in my opinion] she also stood up to the entire judicial branch. That was real courage,. where it counted, not a mere vote where, in my view, your candidate knew his vote ‘would not count’ and would lose anyway so it is hard for me to tell whether this was “courage” or grandstanding to his known audience.
<
p>Further, for you to post on my endorsement accusing my chosen candidate of cowardice is beneath you. My post is all about what I see as positive in Martha, based on actions in the real world.
<
p>Your attack post is composed of mere speculation. I will admit I would read YOUR post as to what YOU admire about Capuano, and would not try to hijack your post with all my reasons for not supporting Capuano [which I do have].
<
p>As a practical matter, all Democrats will have the same candidate come December 9, 2009 – WHY belittle my candidate, in print rather than post your reasons for supporting your candidate? I gotta say I am NOT impressed with your choice and your judgment in this regard which does not incline me to view your pick in a more favorable light.
<
p>In my opinion, with regards to the Sullivan Court House issue – and so many more, Martha Coakley has shown political courage and understanding of the law, separation of powers, and what the role of an Attorney General is.
<
p>Your post shows no such understanding, frankly. I decided to be charitable and give you a 4, figuring that your poor judgment and lack of understanding of matters of law may have led to your misjudgment.
your in the kitchen, it gets hot. Don’t like that? You have some options there. And don’t tell me not to post, either, as I think your post implies. This is Blue Mass Group, not Kumbaya central. I’m sorry if this is harsh, I really do respect you a lot and usually agree with what you have to say, but calling me a “hijacker” when you post about a campaign and I post a disagreement is, quite frankly, beneath you.
<
p>I have not worked for any of the campaigns. The most I’ve done was sign nomination papers for Capuano on behalf of someone who asked me, which was very recently. Two to three weeks ago, I was completely open to three of the candidates, Coakley included.
<
p>I like Coakley a lot, but was tremendously disappointed by her move to pay lip service in fairly meaningless “reform” to allow the Senate President to eek out a few more votes in both chambers. She proved in that maneuver to be far more concerned with her political future than what is good policy for Massachusetts. If she truly cared about the people of Massachusetts, she wouldn’t agree to provide cover for anyone in order score political points when she needs it most. The fact that she won’t say she supports casinos makes it all the more laughable. This is not an example of political courage, right here in the now and present.
<
p>I don’t pretend to deeply understand matters of the law, but I know I understand politics. This is the political reality. Those who believe otherwise are naive.
<
p>Capuano, on the other hand, went against the grain — especially on Patriot Act, which was, as much as we’d like to pretend otherwise, tremendously popular legislation at the time. It had widespread support, quite likely even in the deepest blue of Massachusetts.
<
p>Bottom line, if you don’t want people to disagree with your posts, don’t post about that subject.
I want you to post, but I want you to be prepared for people to disagree. What is the point of all this if we don’t ever disagree and argue passionately upon our beliefs?
<
p>I just recently decided on Capuano, I’m willing to be pursuaded, but if Martha Coakley can’t convince me that she’s willing to make the tough votes that go against the grain, based on solid policy ground, then she’s not getting my vote. You can say that I’m ‘speculating,’ but ultimately it’s Martha’s job to convince me, not my job to be convinced. That’s politics.
First, you know very well I have engaged in heated debates in this, and other forums.
<
p>I don’t mind a good fight – in fact I like a good fight. That is why I am a solo litigating attorney and have been known to subpoena the sheriff, Commissioners, and take on whole departments. You know that I don’t mind a good fight – why imply that I am a wimp when you surely know better? Just because I consider your commenting post as weak, negative, and lacking any support or information – THAT is my actual opinion of your post.
<
p>I think you are the one who is irate because I am fighting back and not supporting the same candidate, frankly.
<
p>For you to suggest I “can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen” is also so out of character for you, I have to wonder what is going on.
<
p>I have made every effort to say why I prefer a candidate, and provide real information to support my reasons. I am not going to “knock” your candidate or any candidate, for that matter – even if you engage in mere speculation and innuendo to attack my candidate.
<
p>From your post [above] I have no idea what issue you believe Martha Coakley is allegedly dodging, or why you think she is. Therefore, your post comes across as a mere attack without any factual basis, links, or support of any kind – sort of trying to get people to speculate as to what Ryan is upset about.
<
p>My initial post provided links, backup information, and the back story on the Sullivan Courthouse fight, if you followed them and read them, that is.
<
p>Your post on the was total vagueness, sort of trying to attach Terry Murray to Martha Coakley with chewing gum[why?] in a nasty, speculative, unfounded, rather whiney sounding way, at least in my opinion.
<
p>So put up.
<
p>DO.
<
p>What are you REALLY trying to say? What are you actually upset about? Inquiring minds want to know.
you sure like to spread it.
<
p>
<
p>Nothing. Next time you think there is something, feel free to ask me personally. Insinuating there must be something wrong with me in a public forum because I don’t see eye to eye with you on this is contemptible.
<
p>
<
p>Great. I’m glad you’ve done so. I just disagree with them. You take offense to that, which is your right, but to expect me not to offer my opinion on the matter, simply because I don’t support Coakley, is not.
<
p>
<
p>I am. I provided reasons and justifications as to them. You’ve chosen not to address those reasons. Instead, you went after me, complete with using innuendo just as you rail against it (even though my opinions on the matter are based on actual facts — now, there’s an off chance my opinion is wrong, but it’s Martha Coakley’s job to make me believe them and she hasn’t even tried).
<
p>
<
p>I believe I have been open and honest about that, but apparently it’s your way or the highway.
<
p>
<
p>First, again your being hypocritical when you say my post is based on vagueness. Your attacks on me personally have absolutely not one thing factual about them, you simply believe them, apparently because I disagree with you. Wow.
<
p>As for commenting on the substance of this point: They’re close political allies. Lots of politicians have pointed to Coakley’s promised regulatory reform proposals as key in their voting for the bill. They said they’d need it ahead of time; Coakley knew this before she agreed to do it. How is that innuendo?
<
p>These decisions are not made in a vacuum — and I, quite frankly, would find any AG pursuing efforts that will enable more crime, abuse, suffering and addiction in the Commonwealth to be a move that puts at risk their very credibility as Attorney General. It’s everything they should be working against. Simply put, no casino bill passes if Martha doesn’t come up with that regulation — and Martha Coakley knows it. It still may not, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that Coakley’s cover helps the opposition — and, again, she knows it.
<
p>As someone who claims to care about casinos, addiction and social injustice, I’d think you’d care a lot more about that issue. It was never a make-it-or-break-it decision in the Senate vote for me, but I’ve had serious questions on it and they have never been answered. Instead of trying to answer those questions, Deb, you’ve personally attacked me.
The role of an Attorney General and a legislator are different due to separation of powers issues.
<
p>I still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! I asked for clarity and instead, go ad hominem attacks from you. Yes, I find your post [the one that started this internal thread] totally vague and incomprehensible. I don’t know what you are talking about and attacking me for saying you are unclear and I can’t tell what you mean is most unexpected from you!
<
p>I also don’t know if you followed the links in my original post and simply found them of no interest, or did not bother to read any of the information I provided. None of your subsequent posts answered that question.
<
p>Frankly, in my opinion, I stated that your post lacked clarify, lacked focus, and was so unclear I could not tell what you are talking about. You took that as a personal attack and then called me:
<
p>1. Too stupid to figure out what you are talking about. Well, I still cannot decode what you are complaining about. I will ask one more time – WHAT are you objecting to? Can you please be concrete and specific? I am not lying when I say I cannot even begin to figure out what you are talking about above.
<
p>2. Called me a hypocrit.
<
p>3. Accused me of not caring about social justice.
<
p>To quote you, “Wow”. You may think you were clear. I cannot figure out what you are referring to. AGs don’t legislate; they must enforce the legislation on the books. [note the unpalatable enforcement of DOMA by the Obama administration – would you like a link?]
<
p>Even your first comment in this threadcame across to me as an attack or at least in attack mode. Let’s agree to disagree.
<
p>I am not being anything but “open and honest” to quote you when I say I still have no idea what set you off as to Coakley and legislation – or why your initial tone even in your first comment in this thread – was so condescending and contained such personal language that I could only find to be in attack mode.
<
p>Not sure what makes you an expert on politics – but since you say you are, how about enlightening a poor little old lady, eh, Ryan?
for Coakley to come up with rules and regulations needed for a casino bill, before they pass said bill. Stuff for wiretapping, etc. If the casino bill does eventually get enough votes (which is not anywhere near a done deal), it would not have without Coakley’s actions, actions that I think are not befitting for any attorney general to take and which I find tremendously underwhelming when I think of “political courage.”
<
p>Here’s more about the legislation that was filed, to give cover to legalizing casinos. http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>I assumed you had known about that and am sorry if that was an incorrect assumption, but I am absolutely not sorry for stating my political opinion on a campaign in a political thread about that campaign, even if my opinion was tough. If I’ve defended myself in this thread, it’s because you prompted it. My first post only ever involved my thoughts on the race; you decided to make this about you and me, you decided to call me out, you decided to make this personal. I was content to heated, but constructive, debate on the race; you decided to take my critique on Martha Coakley as something worthy of attacks on me.
<
p>I dislike when things get personal, but I will defend myself, even against people who I consider friends or allies. That said, I am absolutely willing to accept your apologies for a) suggesting there was ‘something wrong with me’ and b) for suggesting that it is somehow wrong or inappropriate to offer political commentary on an election that is about that very election, because it is in disagreement with the author’s diary.
<
p>And while I know you care about social justice issues, I think anyone who’s supporting Coakley right now in any part whatsoever due to those issues is missing the forest for the trees. Her bill would do nothing but give cover to politicians wanting to find an excuse for being able to change their votes — expressly to create casinos, which are anathema to the causes of social justice.
<
p>In fact, the criminal defense attorneys I know have had uniformly positive things to say about the actual legislation – which – disclaimer – I have not read and am not sure where to find a copy, though I am sure if I ask, it will be sent to me electronically.
<
p>My practice, while a ‘defense’ practice is not a criminal law practice.
<
p>However, the criminal law attorneys I how, and I do know quite a few, have been very positive about this legislation. The provision allowing wiretaps in public corruption cases would have been very helpful last year and this year, I am told.
<
p>So I find your link does NOT support your argument, and does NOT demonstrate any lack of moral or political courage by Martha Coakley that I can see.
<
p>What that article demonstrated to me was an AG competently and zealously doing her job.
<
p>And as to women politicians sticking together, given the Old Boys Club around here and the paucity of women who run for office – that makes sense to me too. Some of us who pal around, us Women I mean, agree to disagree on issues and still back one another up. I don’t ditch a friend because they, mistakenly, believe casinos would lead to decent jobs instead of dead end minimum wage jobs.
<
p>I remind you once again that on 12/9/09 you and I will have the same candidate, whomever that will be.
Bay Windows endorsed Martha precisely because of her political courage. She would be one more vote in the US Senate with regard to eliminating DOMA.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very, very glad she has a great track record on issues of equality. It’s part of why I think we can’t lose, no matter who wins the primary, they’re all good picks. I just have some concerns on an issue that is near and dear to me and she is uniquely positioned to do something about. She’s the widely respected attorney general of this state: one word from her could kill the casino legislation for years to come.
It’s the fact that it’s the cover plenty of politicians would like to see made so they could vote for casinos. Decisions like this are not made in a vacuum. Martha Coakley knows what she’s doing.
<
p>
<
p>Huh? Why on earth are you making this about gender? I have made no comment whatsoever about women sticking together. I have no idea what you are talking about.
<
p>I will happily support whoever win’s the primary, but my support is not going to Coakley, unless she comments on this issue and proves to me she’s willing to take politically unpopular positions, when the times are against her, because they are the right decisions. That was something of a trademark for Ted Kennedy and Mike Capuano has a history there, too. Coakley’s going to have to prove me she can follow up on that legacy and she has not done that yet. This is the closest thing I can think of in which she had an opportunity to go against the grain, because the policy was right, and yet she has not stood firmly against casinos, and, indeed, filed the legislation that will enable at least some legislators to vote for it, knowing full well that it was the cover they wanted.
Further, AGs don’t kill legislation. Speakers do. A word from Martha Coakley won’t and couldn’t kill casino legislation if the Speaker, the Senate President, and the Governor are in agreement – and the SJC doesn’t hold whatever legislation if the legislature is dumb enough to pass casino legislation when casinos are tanking and going bankrupt right and left – again, separation of powers. AGs enforce; they do not legislate.
There are legislators who have said they wouldn’t vote for the casino bill without legislation in place that would tighten up regulation they thought necessary — this particular bill. It was said on numerous occasions, by numerous legislators, that this bill would have to come before any vote on casinos. From a SHNS over the summer (while I can’t link to SHNS, I can link to my blog about it in June http://www.ryanstake.net/2009/… )
<
p>
<
p>As if it’s a cure all to allow casinos in. That bill by Coakley is the very definition of political cover.
<
p>Certainly, I understand what AGs and Speakers do, but I also know a lot of legislators were specifically looking at Coakley to do this. As I’ve said, things don’t happen in a vacuum. The fact is Coakley has a lot of influence in this state. Her voice would weigh immensely, the fact that she did this bill for the state house is, imo (and many others) tacit approval, or at least acceptance that it would happen… and she certainly would have known that this would help DeLeo and Murray’s hands. A strong, courageous Attorney General would speak out against slots to the bitterest end, not do things that make it that much easier for them to become law.
<
p>I’m not going to waste anymore of my time on this issue. I would be disappointed if you can’t at least accept the fact that this bill was intended as political cover. I can accept that maybe it isn’t enough for you to change your opinion on your support for Coakley, that’s fine, but this is something she has done with full knowledge of the implications.
I do not accept your interpretation or analysis – I think you are totally wrong on this.
<
p>Why should I accept the interpretation of a nonattorney with a bias. My work involves the meaning of laws and legislation. I grapple with and interpret laws and statutes and regulations pretty much every day.
, many times a day.
<
p>After writing 128 briefs and making law 16 times, see for example reported decision this year Why would I accept your analysis of legislation over my own after interpreting laws, writing legislation, etc. for 26 years myself?
<
p>I studied legislative drafting, and draft proposed laws myself.
<
p>Again, I absolutely trust my training, education, and experience on this and consider that the wire tapping provisions in this law are essential to regulating lobbyists and NOT somehow cover for casinos coming in.
<
p>That you even think that absolutely boggles my mind!! And that is the truth, sir.
Thank you for rebutting with facts and honesty- So many slanderous and half truthful comments have been made on this blog about Martha Coakley it’s hard to keep up. I appreciate and applaud the manner in which you clearly lay out the specifics and do not allow innuendo and misinterpretations to persist. Keep up the good work-
<
p>Wish you could respond to the Globe, Herald and Phoenix inaccuracies as well-
<
p>Martha is lucky to have you on her team!
It is not difficult to figure out my e-mail from my profile on this site, or if you google me. My real name pops up on the bottom of each of my comments.
<
p>Martha can take the heat, though. One problem with being a front runner, esp. a female front-runner is that some folks cannot stand frontrunners, no matter whom, and will try to “take the front-runner down”.
<
p>I cannot understand why a bill to provide law enforcement with an updated set of tools to deal with technology and corruption is being viewed in such a distorted manner, though. The allegation that the crime fighting bill is in some fashion political cover is ludicrous to any attorney I have spoken with, as well as to me.
<
p>The bill is supported by all the DAs and the prosecutorial bar, and even much of the defense bar as bringing Massachusetts into this century, as it were.
Coakley hasn’t come out strongly enough against casinos so you’ll vote for Capuano who has expressed active support?!
<
p>Here’s the money quote:
I haven’t take the time. But I am willing to guess, given Bean’s quote.
endorsing casino gambling in MA. You raise an issue about PAC money without any facts to back it up. It’s not your best moment.
<
p>
<
p>This I think is one of the compelling reasons to oppose casino gambling. Capuano is arguing that the state must take responsibility for these costs and services and include it in the total cost benefit evaluation.
<
p>Capuano is pro-casino in this context. Coakley is uncommitted.
<
p>I don’t prefer Capuano’s position. I don’t know Coakley’s.
Forgive me, but I just don’t get your position.
<
p>You do know that the gaming industry considers Coakley an opponent?
It is not clear from that link that the Casino lobby has the same opinion (although they might).
Khazei is clearly against casinos. Coakley has sounded cautionary notes, and is not perceived as a friend by other gambling interests. Capuano is on record supporting casinos.
<
p>So Ryan’s position is – vote for Capuano because Coakley has not taken a strong enough stand against casinos? I just don’t get this position – it makes no sense.