Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

6Qs: Is Coakley right, a false choice? Is Adrian fair?

By

Adrian Walker writes in today’s Globe:

Coakley has been the front-runner from the second the race began. She has name recognition, a solid résumé, and a strong organization. Also, it certainly has not hurt to be the only woman in the field.

Even some of her supporters feel that these may not be the most inspiring reasons to support a Senate candidate, especially in a race to replace an icon like Ted Kennedy.

I got a call one day from an acquaintance who had just left her second event in support of Coakley’s campaign. “I just realized that I’m only supporting her because she’s a woman,” she said. “Honestly, she does nothing for me.”

I don’t put much weight on a one-up anecdote as evidence of a phenomenon. Nonetheless I find Coakley’s candidacy uninspiring. (You’re surprised, right!) In addition to name recognition, a solid résumé, and a strong organization, what does Martha bring to the table?

Hearing these candidates invoke Kennedy’s legacy is mildly amusing, because none of them bear much resemblance to Kennedy, especially in his seamless combination of passion and pragmatism.

Maybe that doesn’t matter much. Maybe there’s no real correlation between exciting the voters and serving effectively in the Senate. Clearly that’s what Coakley is banking on. She is solid, sane, and responsible, and in a short race, that will have to see her through. (Read the whole thing).

Is Adrian Walker right?  Is Martha Coakley the candidate as limited as he says she is?  

Here are my answers, what are yours?

A4: What else does Martha bring to the table? Three years in state-wide office and top flight law enforcement credentials but no experience in general government outside of FA and AG, and no passion.  She seems pretty reserved and extremely cautious.

A5: Is Adrian Walker right? Yes Adrian us largely correct.  

A6: Is Martha Coakley the candidate as limited as he says she is?  I think she has potential to be good as a Senator but her candidacy has not revealed the characteristics that would make her so.  For such an articulate and intellectually competent candidate, she is  remarkable poor describing complex issues in simple terms.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Full disclosure: NeilSagan has written before on behalf of Capuano so everyone should know where he is coming from.

    <

    p>Once again, code words–cautious, reserved, ambitious–are being used to describe a female candidate.  When are you guys going to change the language?

    <

    p>No passion?  Maybe that’s true–she did not go after and threaten to kill a few dogs frolicking in a public park, a la Capuano.  Martha is passionate about the issues—she just doesn’t yell and scream about them. She acts on her passions!  

    <

    p>Cautious?  Was it cautious for her to announce her candidacy without cowering in the wings waiting to hear the word on high from Joe Kennedy, as the other candidates did?  Was it cautious for her to be the only attorney general in the country to file suit against DOMA?  Was it cautious for her to speak out spontaneously in defense of a woman’s right to choose–in the face of the Pelosi crowd and the media drooling over a truly lousy (yes, lousy–even without Stupak) health care bill?  The cautious charge is just so much bull–because they can’t think of anything else to attack her on.  Martha has more guts than the other three combined.

    <

    p>Reserved?  So what?  Thoughtful?  Yes.  She doesn’t shoot from the hip–I would think that was a good thing in a candidate.  And if she did show emotion she would be accused of being weak–it’s okay for men to show emotions but not for women.  Just look at what happened to Hillary Clinton when her voice broke in that diner in New Hampshire–the other candidates and the press were all over her for supposedly crying.  But Mitt Romney “misted up” all over Iowa and that was a good thing.  

    <

    p>It’s time for the woman-hating to stop and to elect the best candidate in the race, who just happens to be a woman–Martha Coakley.

    • It’s almost enough to make me send Pags a check.  Seriously, the quarrelling between the coakley/capuano people is mind-numbing.  

      <

      p>Now I remember why I veer away from posts at RMG that involve christy mihos.  

    • I disagree, that’s in your mind. Answer the questions instead of falling back on sexism as a defense.  

    • NeilSagan has written before on behalf of Capuano so everyone should know where he is coming from.

      <

      p>You can see from my words where I am coming from.  Contrary to the implication, I do not work for any campaign and my opinions are my own.  

      <

      p>To get this back no topic, here are the questions:

      <

      p>Q1: Is Pagluica’s claim a false choice, and attempt to divert attention, a logical fallacy or did Coakley make it a choice by declaring she would have voted against health care reform in the house because of the Stupak Amendment?

      <

      p>Q2: Would Coakley make the same choice voting in the Senate?  

      <

      p>Q3: Don’t you wish reporters knew how to ask follow-up questions?  

      <

      p>Q4: What else does Martha bring to the table, in addition to name recognition, a solid résumé, and a strong organization?

      <

      p>Q5: Is Adrian Walker right?  

      <

      p>Q6: Is Martha Coakley the candidate as limited as Walker says she is?  

        1. The false choice that Coakley referred to is between having a bill with Stupak or no bill at all.  Isn’t abortion health care?  Frankly, I do not believe that Ted Kennedy would have supported the bill as it now stands–he was too strong a supporter of a woman’s right to choose.  He would have negotiated to get the bill right, something that the democratic leadership in the House did not do–they were too eager to get any bill out, rather than take the time to get the right bill.  And frankly the bill that they did pass is a lousy bill with or without Stupak.  I do not agree that any bill represents reform and is good enough–this bill does not address the core problems of health care in this country.

        <

        p>2.  I assume she would

        <

        p>3.  I wish reporters knew how to be reporters, instead of all wanting to be columnists–look at Matt Viser. When I studied journalism I learned that a reporter is not supposed to put her opinion into a news piece.  How can they learn to ask follow-up questions when they don’t even know how to be journalists?

        <

        p>4.  Competence, commitment, intelligence, warmth, compassion.  Check out her position papers on her web site and the article she co-wrote (New Republic, 11/9) with Harvard’s Elizabeth Warren on consumer protection.

        <

        p>5.  No, Adrian Walker is wrong.  A charisma shortage?  Who are the two most recent charismatic candidates you can think of?  His next column should be titled “a results shortage.”  This is an election for public office, not American Idol.  I can assure you (since I was around then) that Ted Kennedy certainly had zero charisma when he was first elected to the Senate.  What he did have was a brother in the White House.

        <

        p>6.  Absolutely not!  See above.

        <

        p>I did not suggest that you worked for Capuano, but you have written in support of him previously.  You are not an unbiased bystander.

        • If my preferences, opinions and criticisms comes through in a way you object to, do so on the merit.  I fail to see how that alone should be a fact cited to warn readers about some alleged prejudice. It’s ad hominem and you make much better arguments than that.  

  2. yesterday morning, presumptive front-runner Martha Coakley reaffirmed that she would vote against a bill that included the abortion stipulation. But the attorney general seized on the Senate’s newly unveiled legislation, which has the usual federal-funding abortion restrictions rather than the tougher House language, to argue that Pagliuca’s distinction was “a false choice.”link

    <

    p>Then we can reasonably assume Martha would vote against a conference bill that has the Stupak language.  

    <

    p>Martha wants to call it a false choice but she steps on her own argument by repeating and reaffirming her choice if it came to Stupak or Health Care.  

Archives