Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A couple of sneak peeks of tonight’s WBGH debate

By

The Senate candidates debate is on tonight at 7 pm on WGBH.  I was at the taping (which was this afternoon).  A couple of highlights:

  • No one has yet decided to hammer at Martha Coakley.  Either they think it won’t work, or they think it’s too early.

  • The most spirited arguing came when Steve Pagliuca went after both Coakley and Capuano on their statements that they would vote against the House’s health care bill on final passage.  Coakley didn’t really engage, but Capuano did.  Most of the discussion was inaudible cross-talk, but Pags definitely got under Cap’s skin.  I couldn’t tell whether Capuano was trying to back off his original position that he’d reject the House bill on final passage; see what you think.

  • Coakley was asked about the Father Geoghan story in this morning’s Globe.  She defended her actions as “exactly what we should have done.”  No one challenged her on it.

  • Emily Rooney used the recent dust-up between Patrick Kennedy and the Bishop of RI to ask about religion and politics.  Three of the four candidates (all but Pagliuca, who was raised Episcopalian) are Catholic; all three of them said that there are issues (e.g. choice) as to which they disagree with their church.  Capuano was particularly forceful on this point: he said that his faith is between himself and God, not with anyone else.  He thought the Bishop of RI had “crossed the line,” and then added, “and they wonder why people stop going to church.”  Khazei said that he follows the teachings of Jesus (as distinct, I assume, from the current occupant of the Vatican, though he didn’t say that explicitly), and has lived his life by those values (e.g. helping the poor).  And Coakley considered it “ironic” that the same institution that shielded pedophile priests (including Geoghan, of course) for years is now telling people “who are good Christians” that they can’t take communion.  That discussion ought to raise a few hackles.

OK – go watch it yourself.  I got some video afterward – will post that later.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. If a vote to congratulate the Nonboston Whatevers for winning the NBA Championship came up in the Senate, and Steve Pagliuca were Senate, would that be seen as a conflict of interest?

    <

    p>I’m glad that the debate is starting out with some primo media navel-gazing: “To what degree is the media narrative about you accurate?”

    • Khazei had the chance to openly stand up for Democratic values, and speak clearly on the separation of church and state.  He didn’t have the guts.  Capuano stood up for those values on a big way.

      <

      p>This question doesn’t apply to Pagliuca (an Episcopalian) the moderator should admit that it is.

      <

      p>Coakley calling this an isolated issue, a “rogue issue” is uninformed.  Bishops from Providence to Scranton to St. Louis to Denver to Sacramento have tried to make hay out of this.

      • …unwilling to stop at trampling Constitutional federalism in education (“Raise to the Top”) advocates for doing the same in health (“Raise toward Health”).  

          • Federalism is built into the federal government through the legislature.  If Obama, Bush, Harper, or whomever wants to change state policy, the honest way to do it is to push for a certain bill through those bodies.  Unilterally shifting federal money around as an executive to influence states’ policy (the spending power) is an end-run around the principle of federalism, one that has undermined that principle significantly in other countries, Canada included.

            • The smaller the national government, the better, as a matter of federalism, by this argument.

              <

              p>Who would have guessed it! đŸ˜‰

              <

              p>I would have thought that when an elected government makes spending decisions — however objectionable they may seem to a particular observer — that is an affirmation of our federalist system, not a negation of it.

              • I’m a fan of the Constitution.  As in Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

                <

                p>A federal minimalist is someone who would insist that the federal government should steer clear of meddling in state competences, such as health care and education.  I don’t say that, but when the federal government does attempt to trump the Constiutition, at the very least it should the permission of the several states, as express through a legilsative vote.

                <

                p>This spending power is particularly odious, wherein the federal government claims 100% policy direction on the basis of 5% funding.

                <

                p>What I was speaking about previously is that as questionable as the spending power is, it is still worse when it is accomplished through executive fiat without even consulting the legislature.  If the federal executive can unilaterally move the federal government into state competences without even a vote of the federal legislature, then this is not truly a federal republic.

                <

                p>Imagine if George W Bush and his Republican friends decided to cut funding by 20% for any state the recognized same-sex marriage (a state competence).  That is the conservative equivalent to Khazei’s proposal.

              • .. which is just another way of stating the eleventh commandment for purists: “Thous shalt have no middle ground”.

                <

                p>

                The smaller the national government, the better, as a matter of federalism, by this argument.

                <

                p>I think that what Sabutai is arguing is that there is a proper size and scope to the federal government, as limned by the constitution and that he is opposed to movement outside these bounds.

                <

                p>

                I would have thought that when an elected government makes spending decisions — however objectionable they may seem to a particular observer — that is an affirmation of our federalist system, not a negation of it.

                <

                p>Personal objections to specific decisions might not take into account the two or three separate elected governments whose specific decisions are in tension: since we fund education, for example, primarily through property taxes, local, elected, school boards make decisions that might be in tension with decisions made by elected state officials which, likewise, might be in tension with decisions made at the federal (again elected) level…

                <

                p>It seems to me that, seeking to be the force majeure in the equation the federal government might be acting unconstitutionally (not to mention extremely inefficiently…)  

      • your comment about Khazei.  He said he follows the teachings of Jesus as he understands them and has spent his career in pursuit of those values, and he said he disagrees with the church on some issues.  Cap said something similar.  Rooney specifically asked Cap whether the Bishop of RI crossed the line, and he said yes.  Khazei wasn’t asked that question.

        • I can’t track that discussion without the transcript.  I remember an opening to make that clear and Khazei danced in front of it like Maroney.  If the transcript or video is posted, I’ll go back over that.

          <

          p>You’re right, Pagliuca does clearly get to Capuano…I think he’s just pissed that Pags’ spare change is getting him numbers close to Capuano’s years of experience.

      • Once again, TV has destroyed the sacredness of GOD, and incidentally, the solemn duty of positions of constitutionally-sworn public duties. The third section of the sixth article of our Constitution has been again ditched in a TV debate. I condemn Rick Pastor’s 2008 religious test between John McCain and our now incumbent American president. Last night, WGBH was just as bad as the Saddleback mega-church leader. Just because we the people who constitute the general public aren’t appointed judges in the capacity of throwing out bad evidence, that shouldn’t sanction TV to draw in ratings by driving a bunch of religious-beseeming noise into our ears. Although WGBH and Saddleback are not state institutions which can be prosecuted for unconstitutional state action, it’s their indiscretion and opportunism as producers of media productions (shows) that I rebuke. The two have peppered the ballots with cheap imitation perfume.

        • …applies only to legal requirements.  You cannot prohibit either the media from asking or the voters from considering religious issues in an election.  In this case the Church has been known to insert itself into politics so asking members how they feel about that seems fair game.

    • Did anyone notice the moment during the discussion of Stupak-Pitts when Capuano said, “If I had voted against the House bill, it would be dead”, Rooney offered that “Maybe it should be dead”?  I wondered if that was an indication of her own thoughts on the overall health reform effort (or just this particular bill), or if she was just throwing it out there to see if anyone bit. She seemed to be a bit contemptuous of Khazei and Pagliuca (especially Khazei), and to generally support Capuano and Coakley with little nods of encouragement or respectful silence when they spoke. Khazei spoke for too long in response to some question very early in the debate, and I think that might have got him on her s#!$ list or something- she seemed to interrupt and challenge him a bit more than the other candidates. She also had a funny way, sometimes, of seeming to spoonfeed questions to the debaters, offering them pre-made answers and arguments along with the question. She definitely seemed a little sick or tired (the flu, perhaps?), sometimes slurring words ever so slightly- but overall she did a pretty good job, I think.

    • “America is the best country in the world.” –  Pagliuca  

      <

      p>”When George Will and the NYT agree there’s some merit to the decision.”
      – Coakley

      <

      p>(oh god Coakley looks to George Will for the imprimatur of sound reasoning.)

    • Torture is illegal. It has been illegal and it should always be illegal in my opinion. …follow the evidence, if it leads to Bush and Cheney then apply the law – Capuano  

      • He’s right on all the issues – and he did a great job, imho.

        <

        p>I cheered when he said that Cheney should be prosecuted for the torture policy!

        <

        p>Kudos to Mike Capuano!

        • He’s been in DC for six terms and he has not drifted to the center/right one iota.  I think he’d make a fine senator.  I think he’d be more visible and more active than our senior Senator, I think he’s the best in the field, I think he’s the most experienced and as a result the most qualified.

  4. in this morning’s Globe.  She defended her actions as “exactly what we should have done.”  No one challenged her on it.

    <

    p>I have to say she handle this question extremely well this go round.  She was not defensive nor did she blame anyone. She gave a sound, thorough and convincing answer about what happened and why it was right.

    • Bean likes a NeilSagan comment about Coakley.

      <

      p>Did hell freeze over and I failed to notice it or something?

  6. Testy / nettled by Pagliuca.  

    <

    p>It was interesting to see the candidates in a different type of forum, but I don’t think this one changed anything.

    <

    p>Was it just me, or has Emily Rooney aged suddenly?  She was not on her best game tonight – seemed peaked and tired.  

    • just annoyed by Khazei’s jabbering.

      <

      p>He is smart, thoughtful and is my second choice, but he (for me anyways) is not very likable.

      <

      p>I can’t pin it down, I just don’t like listening to him even though I agree with almost everything he says. Problably a quirk of mine more than anything else.

  8. it’s too bad those of us in Western MA couldn’t watch it on the tube.  

    <

    p>David, regarding this…

    <

    p>

    I couldn’t tell whether Capuano was trying to back off his original position that he’d reject the House bill on final passage; see what you think.

    <

    p>I don’t think Cap was trying to back track, what I do think is that he was trying to say that his vote will depend on what is in the bill. I believe Mike will look over the bill closely and vote against it if need be.  I would support him voting no on the final bill if it has a weak public option, and a mandate for all Americans to purchase plans with over the top premiums for lousy insurance. I still have concerns that the final bill will be a hand out to the corporate insurance companies. I believe Capuano will have the courage to vote no if that is the case.  

  9. The Bishop in my view was perfectly right in his sanctions against Patrick Kennedy. Patrick Kennedy first said he was willing to meet with the Bishop to discuss their differences and Bishop Burke even said that while he finds it terrible that Catholics like Kennedy disagree with their Church’s teachings, he acknowledged this was acceptable in an American society as open as ours, and that politics and religious adherence are separate things. Yet Patches then suddenly backtracked on the meeting, told a reporter that the Catholic Church was ‘fanning the flames of dissent in this country’-a statement that ironically echoed the Protestant sentiments expressed against his uncle when he ran for President, and then started criticizing the Bishop for invoking his own rights as an American to get involved in politics. So I would say the Bishop’s response since then, mainly to cancel the meeting by saying Kennedy was acting in bad faith and to call Kennedy out for his blatantly anti-Catholic statements, was a fair response. Most other bishops would have ex-communicated Kennedy, but Burke is not. Though he is right to question why someone who so clearly denounces the Catholic church and despises its teachings would want to remain in communion with it. Cultural reasons, as Burke argued, are not sufficient to keep someone Catholic, it is the faith that should sustain them.  

      • The guy is completely incoherent.  Either he had not thought through the most basic and obvious implications of his position, or he is being totally disingenuous in refusing to answer Matthews’ most basic inquiry.  Either way, it’s pretty embarrassing.  Good for Matthews.

        • The guy is completely incoherent.

          <

          p>I was frustrated by the video.  I agreed with Matthews’ premise, and I think Matthews had a great point.  Still, he bullied the guest, and was out of sync in the give-and-take more than once.

          <

          p>The great point (and I’m paraphrasing and interpreting): if abortion is murder, than the woman getting the abortion is a murderer.  For how long should that women go to prison for her crime?  Matthews’ insight is that the vast majority of Americans would feel very uncomfortable sending that woman to prison for even a single day; perhaps that means that the vast majority of Americans feel that abortion isn’t criminal, even if many/most Americans do feel it’s unethical or otherwise to be avoided.

    • First of all, I think Kennedy did go out of his way to stir something up.  However, a couple points you make are…questionable.

      <

      p>As far as I know, the Pope and only the pope may excommunicate a catholic, not a bishop.  And given that the current pope is altering Catholic doctrine to welcome the Lefebvrites rather than excommunicate them, I think we can agree that this is not happening.

      <

      p>Furthermore, the opinion of an individual about Patrick Kennedy’s taking of the Communion isn’t at issue here; it’s the opinion of a church official.  While that bishop has every right to be involved in passing judgment on a politician, he should do the honorable thing and rescind the diocese’s tax-free status beforehand.  The bishop refuses to do that, hence the problem.

      <

      p>Finally, I would say that I find it depressing that the Catholic Church will deny you communion for being pro-birth, but will grant it to others whose records of agitating and supporting warfare is anything but pro-life.

      • That’s a new one- what does that mean? But I agree wholeheartedly about the Church responding weakly to other morally reprehensible political positions, such as warmongering and support for torture. Were child-molesting priests ever denied communion? I don’t think I really understand the criteria here. Something about 100-year-old “Papal Encycopedias” or whatever, I suppose. “The Church” often strikes me as a terribly archaic and undemocratic institution, really (no offense, jconway)- even though I actually agree with them about abortion.

        • Here’s a quick summary of Church policy:

          <

          p>1. The purpose of marriage is procreation.
          2. Use of artificial birth control is a sin.
          3. Abortion is a sin.

          <

          p>That sounds “pro-birth” to me. What am I missing?

          • Finally, I would say that I find it depressing that the Catholic Church will deny you communion for being pro-birth,

            <

            p>From the context it sounds like he’s referring to “pro-choice” people being denied communion (unless people have been denied communion for being antiabortion?)- so it was either a typ-o or some kind of nuanced way of referring to pro-choicers.  

            • It was a typo…I meant to write that “insufficiently pro-birth” Catholics were being denied communion.  The Roman Catholic Church isn’t particularly pro-life from what I can tell — rather it’s anti-abortion/pro-birth.

          • The Church position used to be based on opposition to the “culture of death.”  

            <

            p>It was very consistent: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war.

            <

            p>sabutai is commenting, as I have in the past, on the apparent switch to caring only about choice.  

            <

            p>For example, the Church supported George Bush, an extremely pro-death penalty Protestant over John Kerry, a “keep abortion safe and legal” Catholic.

            • The Church position used to be based on opposition to the “culture of death.”  

              <

              p>… that position remains in effect.

              <

              p>

              It was very consistent: anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war.

              sabutai is commenting, as I have in the past, on the apparent switch to caring only about choice.  

              <

              p>And the discussion here is about enforcement of the policy and/or punishing breaches of the position,  not actual changes to the policy.  

              • Yet if enforcement of policy has been selective, then has policy not arguably been altered? His Excellency has argued that the Congressman is “not properly prepared to receive Holy Communion” due to his [i]alleged[/i] public support of a position “clearly contrary to an essential teaching of the church of a matter of critical morality.”

                <

                p>I disagree with His Excellency regarding this: I do not believe that it necessarily contradicts essential teachings of the Faith for one to suggest that the Faith should be mindful of its faithful rather than force its faith on others. However, should we grant that the Congressman’s position is as His Excellency described —

                <

                p>Then does it not follow that others publicly supporting a position so contrary to such teachings ought receive similar treatment? If so, then why has His Excellency not seen to this?  

              • Or failed to read my example.  And I know what the discussion is about.

                <

                p>Let me try again.  There has been a notable, and disturbing, switch from discussing the culture of life to focusing almost exclusively on fighting choice (and gay marriage).  Another example would be opposing health care reform, something clearly of benefit, based on allowing funding for abortions. Never mind that all existing insurance plans allow such.

      • As far as I know, the Pope and only the pope may excommunicate a catholic, not a bishop.

        <

        p>This is not so.  A bishop can excommunicate someone in his diocese. He can’t reach into another bishops diocese and excommunicate, but he can do it in his own.  The pope, on the other hand, can excommunicate any catholic.  Prelates like abbots in a particular religious order (e.g. Jesuits, Benedictines, etc…) can excommunicate within their order and/or monastery.  There is also something called a ‘general council’ (think Vatican II) whereby Catholics might be excommunicated by committee..  

    • it is the faith that should sustain them.

      <

      p>On this point, I concur. A Faith, being faith based, is accepted on faith – and ought to be sustained by faith, rather than propped up by the force of law.

      <

      p>Various persons of faith, within and outside of the Roman Catholic faith, have disagreements about the reproductive rights and liberties of women. It seems to me that a faith opposed to women’s exercise of such should be content in forbidding its flock such exercise, as opposed to legislating its proscription and forcing its faith on others

  10. Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:43 AM by No Elephants

    Watched a panel of the four candidates chaired by Emily Rooney. Coakley seemed to have the least knowledge of how Congress works, of the health care bill and the rest of the issues.

    <

    p>Health care reform

    It really seemed as though she had no knowledge of the issues or the bill beyond a few catch phrases like “strong public option.” Worse, she did not seem to realize when those catch phrases sounded bizarre because they had nothing to do with the subject of the discussion.

    For instance, when the subject was tort reform, she said “A strong public option is the best way to get competition.” Pagliuca informed her that her comment had absolutely nothing to do with tort reform, whereupon, she nodded and had nothing at all to say about the topic of tort reform, and Rooney did not press her on it.

    She said she would have voted against the house bill bc of the Stupak Amendment. Capuano informed her that, if she had done that, the panel would not be discussing the bill because health care reform would be dead already if the House had done that. Again, she had no follow up and Rooney did not press her for one.

    At one point, she was so far out in left field, Capuano asked her if she read the bill. She said she had, but nothing she said during the entire discussion suggested that she was familiar with the bill or with how to get it passed (or kill it, if that’s what she prefers).

    <

    p>Foreign policy

    On another occasion (different interview entirely), she was asked about her knowledge and experience regarding foreign policy and international affairs. She responded that her sister lives in Europe and she’s been to visit her there several times. Wowza. How Palinesque. “I can see international affairs from my sister’s European home?”

    <

    p>Father Jack

    She gave Fr. Geogan (child molesting priest who was convicted by someone else in the case of another child and ultimately killed in prison) probation the first time he was charged. She said probation was the best she could do, given the testimony of the witness. Again, wowza. I don’t think anyone pressed her on that, either, but they may have and just did not air the rest.

    <

    p>Summary

    Capuano has experience with both domestic and foreign issues. So, I would feel most comfortable with him, as opposed to putting a novice in Kennedy’s seat. And he is progressive. However, Karzai and Pagliuca seemed intelligent and totally up to speed on the issues. Coakley was the only one who stood out as lacking both. She was the only one who was embarrassing. Worse, she did not seem to realize that all the other candidates outclassed her by a lot.

    Although I do not like Coakley because she seems even less progressive than the corporatist, I take no pleasure in saying that the only female candidate also seems like the least competent candidate. To the contrary, it pains me.

    Yet, she is the only one who has name recognition across the entire state because of all her years as a prosecutor, has raised the most money, in great art because of her name recognition and a large donation from Emily’s List and , and therefore has been the front runner all along.

    Sad. I hope that changes fast. The primary is December 8. link

Archives