Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Constituent Services

By

1. Press and Media outlets — Is Martha Coakley’s failure to respond to David when asked a question (if you received an answer, please let us know), coupled with her failure to want to answer Alison King on NECN, a sign that she doesn’t take seriously a Senator’s role in responding to constituents? Even if she had said she needed time to answer the question and got back to people, that would be fine. She didn’t do that.  This was not a gotcha question that doesn’t have an answer. It was a perfectly valid question regarding the very issue Senator Kennedy fought most of his adult life in the Senate on.

Here is the quote which I still find fascinating to read:

KING: If you’re in the Senate, and this comes before you and the amendment’s in the bill, you will vote it down because you think it’s more important to protect the abortion issue than the health care reform issue?

COAKLEY: Alison,  I’m not going to answer that question. I am not saying, you know, if I’m on the bridge and this is the only choice I have that, that you know, I’d say we’re not going to be there.

2. Grassroots outreach / engage the blogsphere — Every campaign has done it except the front-running Coakley campaign. Why? Why not? It is beyond me that a campaign running for statewide office would not engage the universe of activist, politico’s, elected officials and press types that read BMG every day. It is a failure of her campaign thus far.

I will put this in direct contrast to Mike Capuano who posted here last week:

I understand that some may be confused after reading recent media reports on health care reform.  I want to set the record straight and there is no better way of doing that than by communicating directly with you.

or Alan Khazei who also posted here recently.

3. Direct question from a constituent — No follow up to a call or an email to the campaign asking for clarification on her Health care position.

I called and emailed the campaign during last week’s craziness to see if I could get a clear answer. Why shouldn’t I try? We have campaigns putting out video statements (Khazei), commercials (Pagliuca) and my candidate coming to BMG to make sure the record was straight (Capuano), but crickets from the AG. To me that silence speaks volumes on how she will lead, or not lead as the case may be.  

Clearly, IMO the Coakley campaign doesn’t understand what constituent services are and how to provide them to people looking for answers.  

Why is it important? Whomever wins will follow in the footsteps of the standard bearer for delivering constituent services to Massachusetts residents. From a Globe article around the time of his death:

But out of the spotlight and behind the scenes, his constituents say, the senior senator and his staff have cut through red tape to change countless individual lives, advocating for even the narrowest personal needs with a ferocity and attention to detail that still inspires awe in those on the receiving end decades later.” -Jenna Russell (Boston Globe, Legions he aided now praise Kennedy Ordinary people recall his extraordinary help. Jenna Russell, 5/23/08).

For me this is one of the areas where Mike Capuano has a head start and distinct advantage over Martha Coakley and the rest of the pack.  I just noticed this video that came out on Boston.com, check it out. It is easy to like Mike Capuano and his honesty.  Also, easy to see how he feels about constituent services in this video. He mentions that you don’t know what you are made of until you get the call on a Friday at 5pm from a Senior who is running out of oil. Will Martha call them back?

I support Mike Capuano for Senate.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Michael Capuano has worked his way up the ladder in politics due to his modest background within Somerville. Any senator, or politician in general, would say that serving their constituents is their #1 priority. With a mayoral background, Mike knows how to take care of his constituents on a micro level which many congressmen or senators could not relate. Martha Coakley is extremely detached from this mentality. There is nothing but ice in her veins and meeting her in person verifies that. The cold approach of an AG is necessary to do ones job and I would prefer an AG to be this way. However when it comes to replacing the most caring politician within Massachusetts history, a man known for his constituent services…I can honestly say I could never vote for Martha Coakley.

    • AG is generally not a constituent service office whereas US House is.  Capuano is the only candidate with much practice in this regard.

        • securing settlements on out of state health insurance policies, big dig construction problems and home mortgages. I’m not in a position to say whether she brokered superior, equitable, or insufficient damages. Does anyone know?

          <

          p>The Jane ad, that plays the “unreimbursed mammogram” card, highlights her work on out of state health insurance policies and leaves the viewer with the impression that Martha’s constituent services are excellent, perhaps comparable to the late great Ted Kennedy. If Ted accomplished what he accomplished for constituents via litigation, it’s news to me.

          <

          p>I too have a problem with Martha’s communications. She does not advocate for her values she declares them and shows a hesitancy to explain and conduct discourse on it.  I wonder if she has the confidence of her convictions.  

          • So let’s look at Martha Coakley’s actions with regard to constitutient services (it’s really easy to find this stuff folks):

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office announced that it has entered into an agreement with Texas-based American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) that will provide significant benefits to approximately 8,200 Massachusetts borrowers holding loans originated by Option One Mortgage Corp. (“Option One”) and H&R Block Mortgage Corp. (“H&R Block Mortgage”).  Those mortgage loans are the subject of a lawsuit which the Attorney General’s Office filed in June 2008.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office obtained a consent judgment against City Realty Group, LLC, a Boston-based realty company, and its agent, Matthew A. Rose, resolving claims that the company refused to rent an apartment to a tester from the Boston Fair Housing Commission posing as a woman with a three-year old child whose presence would require abatement of lead paint hazards under state law.  The consent judgment, entered by Judge MaryLou Muirhead in Boston Housing Court, orders the defendants to pay a total of $5,000 to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Boston-based Lead Action Collaborative and bars the defendants from future acts of discrimination.

            “It is illegal to refuse to rent an apartment to a family with young children or to steer prospective tenants away from properties that may contain lead paint,” said Attorney General Coakley.  “Massachusetts landlords, real estate companies and others involved in the rental property business need to abide by important state laws that are designed to combat discrimination and protect the health and safety of our children.”

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office obtained a consent judgment against Inna Bogina, the owner of a three-bedroom rental property in Quincy, and her daughter Tatiana Bogina, the rental agent for the property, resolving allegations that they violated state anti-discrimination laws by refusing to rent to recipients of housing subsidies and a family with children.  The consent judgment, entered yesterday by Judge Barbara A. Dortch-Okara in Norfolk Superior Court, orders Inna and Tatiana Bogina to pay $5,000 to the victims, bars the Boginas from discriminating in the future, and requires Tatiana Bogina to attend a training on fair housing laws.

            “We are facing critical housing needs in the Commonwealth and the strain on families with children is particularly great,” said Attorney General Coakley.  “Massachusetts landlords, real estate companies, and others involved in the rental of property must abide by Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against persons who want to use a state or federal housing subsidy to pay for a portion of their rent.  These subsidies are important because they are designed to ensure equal housing opportunities.”

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office joined an 18-state coalition to defend a decision by President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that grants states the right to regulate global warming pollution from automobiles.  The coalition is opposing a lawsuit brought by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that seeks to deny individual states the ability to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office Reaches $3 Million Agreement with Wal-Mart to Settle Claims the Company Violated the Massachusetts Meal Break Law

            BOSTON – Today, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office announces that it has reached a settlement agreement with Bentonville, Arkansas based Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) to resolve allegations that the company failed to properly comply with the Massachusetts Meal Break Law.  The company has agreed to pay $3,000,000 to the Commonwealth to resolve all outstanding allegations asserted by the Attorney General.

            The Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division opened an investigation into Wal-Mart’s meal break policies after workers reported that they were required to work through their meal breaks, take meal breaks after they had worked over six hours, or spent less than thirty minutes on their meal breaks.  Under the Massachusetts Meal Break Law, employers cannot require employees to work more than six hours without a thirty minute meal break.  During the thirty minute period, employees must be relieved of all duties and must be free to leave the work premises.  The Massachusetts Meal Break Law does not mandate damages or restitution for workers. After being contacted by the Attorney General’s Office, Wal-Mart cooperated fully with the investigation and has re-affirmed its commitment to comply with all wage and hour laws.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office Opposes Bay State Gas Company’s Proposed $34 Million Rate Hike

            BOSTON – Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office filed briefs with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requesting that they reject a petition for a $34.6 million rate increase filed by Bay State Gas Company (Bay State) this past April. The office has also asked state regulators to reject an automatic rate increase mechanism that would result in the unnecessary recovery of millions of dollars in costs associated with its gas main infrastructure replacement program.

            “Under the guise of decoupling and increased energy efficiency, Bay State Gas Company is seeking a staggering rate increase and other benefits for shareholders when most customers in Massachusetts are trying to get by on less,” said Attorney General Coakley. “I fully support increased energy efficiency efforts and a balanced decoupled rate structure, but it has to protect Bay State customers and avoid the company’s ill-timed and unwarranted rate hike.”  

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley Reaches $17 Million Settlement with Health Insurers Regarding Unfair and Deceptive Conduct

            BOSTON – Today, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office resolved the Commonwealth’s consumer protection lawsuit against HealthMarkets, Inc., and its subsidiaries, the MEGA Life and Health Insurance and Mid-West National Life Insurance, settling allegations that the insurers engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in their marketing and administration of health plans sold to small businesses and individuals in Massachusetts.  These insurance carriers targeted the self-employed and small business owners in Massachusetts through sales of products packaged with association memberships in the National Association for the Self Employed, Americans for Financial Security and the Alliance for Affordable Services.

            Believed to be the largest consumer protection settlement against a health plan in Massachusetts history, the settlement followed an extensive multi-year investigation and litigation by the Attorney General’s Office.  The Massachusetts Division of Insuranc
            e conducted a parallel market conduct examination and recently entered a regulatory settlement agreement with the Defendants, with certain terms reflected in the Consent Judgment.

            Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, Defendants have agreed to pay the Commonwealth $17 million, including $11.25 million for consumer relief, $2.1 million in consumer relief (an amount that has already been paid), $3 million in civil penalties, and $750,000 in costs, including attorneys’ fees.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>This one is for EB III:

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley Reaches $110,000 Settlement with Boch Imports, Inc. Over Misleading Advertisements

            BOSTON – Today, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office reached an agreement with Boch Imports, Inc. (“Boch”) resolving allegations that the automobile dealer used deceptive prices in its print, television, and radio advertisements. The Attorney General’s Office filed an Assurance of Discontinuance in Suffolk Superior Court under the Consumer Protection Act and Boch has agreed to change its advertising practices and to pay $55,000 in civil penalties and costs and $55,000 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund.  

            The Assurance of Discontinuance also requires Boch to fully comply with the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Regulations on Advertising of Motor Vehicles, and to refrain from any other form of unfair or deceptive advertising consistent with the Consumer Protection Act. The Assurance applies to Boch Imports as well as all auto dealerships owned or controlled by Ernest Boch, Jr.  The Boch dealerships cooperated with the Attorney General’s investigation.

            Today’s agreement is part of an initiative by the Attorney General’s Office to target false and misleading advertising practices throughout the Commonwealth’s auto dealer industry. Since last year, the Attorney General’s Office has filed Assurances of Discontinuance in Suffolk Superior Court with the following fifteen auto dealerships and has collected a total of $295,000 in civil penalties:

               * The Herb Chambers Companies
               * Quirk Works, Inc.
               * Ira Motor Group
               * Kelly Automotive Group
               * The Colonial Dealerships (Colonial Nissan of Medford, Inc., Wellesley Buick-Volkswagen, Inc. d/b/a Wellesley Volkswagen, and Colonial Chrysler Jeep, Inc.)
               * Connolly Buick Co., Inc.
               * Liberty Motorcar, Inc. (formerly 128 Mazda)
               * Village Automotive Group
               * Clay Nissan
               * Peter Fuller Enterprises
               * Lawless Chrysler Jeep, Inc.
               * Nissan Automobiles of Marlborough, Inc.
               * R C Olsen Cadillac, Inc.
               * Saturn of Medford a/k/a York Saturn, Inc.
               * South Shore Imported Cars, Inc.  

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office Obtains $780,368 From Emerson College for Student Loan Borrowers

            Settlement is First Student Lending Resolution to Reimburse Students For “Preferred Lenders” Interest Charges
            BOSTON – Today, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office entered into a settlement with Emerson College (“Emerson”) concerning its student lending practices.  The settlement follows a Massachusetts-led investigation which found that Emerson unfairly steered students to borrow from certain lenders that gave undisclosed inducements to Emerson’s financial aid staff.  In many instances, these lenders failed to provide Emerson’s students with competitive loan terms.

            The settlement is the first student lending resolution to directly reimburse students for the extra costs they incurred by following their school’s misleading lending advice.  Under the terms of the settlement, Emerson will pay $775,859 to students who took Stafford loans from either Citizens Bank or JP Morgan Chase & Company (“Chase”) during academic years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, or 2006-2007.  The Attorney General’s investigation found that between 2004 and 2007, Emerson designated Citizens Bank and Chase as “preferred” lenders and led students to borrow from these lenders even though Citizens and Chase provided more expensive Stafford loans than other lenders.  Pursuant to the settlement, over 4,000 present and former undergraduate and graduate students will receive payments ranging from $50 to $839.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>

            First Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Buffer Zone Law
            Attorney General’s Office successfully defends constitutionality of statute

            BOSTON – In a decision issued yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of the Commonwealth’s buffer zone law.  That statute creates a 35-foot buffer zone around entrances and driveways of reproductive health care facilities that provide abortion-related services.  The law allows persons to enter the buffer zone only to enter or leave the clinic, to reach a destination other than the clinic, or if they work for the clinic or municipality and are acting within the scope of their employment.  Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office defended the constitutionality of the statute in the federal court proceedings.

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>And just one of the reasons my union has endorsed Martha Coakley for US Senate:

            <

            p>

            Attorney General’s Office Returns Nearly $560,000 to Workers and Fines Companies $195,000 as Part of Ongoing Efforts to Address Wage Violations in the Painting Industry

            BOSTON – As part of an ongoing effort to address wage violations in the painting industry, the Attorney General’s Office has resolved 27 cases and has recovered nearly $560,000 in restitution for over 250 employees of various employers and fined painting companies nearly $195,000 since the spring of 2008.  In addition to civil penalties, the Attorney General’s Office has also taken criminal enforcement action against several painting companies and owners, and has debarred companies that have violated the state’s Prevailing Wage laws, preventing them from bidding on public works projects in the Commonwealth.  The attached list details the painting cases that the Attorney General’s Office has resolved since the spring of 2008.

            “Our office is working diligently to level the playing field in the painting industry so that painting contractors that follow the rules are not at a competitive disadvantage,” Attorney General Martha Coakley said.  “We are committed to enforcing the law so that fewer workers are exploited and so that the Commonwealth no longer loses revenue because of employee misclassification.”  

            <

            p>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ca…

            <

            p>The list goes on and on and on . . .

            <

            p>Attorney General Martha Coakley’s actions on behalf of constitutients – be it individuals or all Massachusetts residents is well documented. It’s this advocacy that Martha Coakley will continue as our next US Senator. Upholding Senator Kennedy’s standard of standing up for and working for citizens across the Commonwealth and the country.

            • that I think people are trying to make is whether Martha has the ability to engage in the “give and take” of “constituent care,” which is a multi-layered thing.  the key word there is “care.”  It’s more than just the business at hand, it’s caring enough to choose the the right people to maintain a solid and effective constituent service office –  to handle communications, events, vet the issues and problems that come up, and interact effectively with the people who contact the senator.  

              <

              p>Martha has a good record as AG, and no one can detract from that.  There is a growing sense, however, that she is missing the personal touch of constitutent care, and that’s a liability.  Answering a few questions about her positions shouldn’t be this hard.  I met with our town Democratic Committee last night, and there were some concerns there.  

              • She does not advocate for her values she declares them and shows a hesitancy to explain and conduct discourse on it.  I wonder if she has the confidence of her convictions.

                <

                p>

                Consumer Affairs Division, for example.
                Pardon me. I should have said that it’s supposed to be.

                <

                p>”She does not advocate for her values” doesn’t sound like a she isn’t returning my phone call personally complaint, a lack of personal touch issue to me.

                <

                p>Yes, Martha Coakley’s record as Attorney General with regard to delivering for her constitutients is excellent. And as someone who dealt with the AG’s office on a regular basis, calls were always returned and issues always dealt with.

                <

                p>So in a ninety day campaign, where she had to start fundraising from 0, to compete with an existing federal account and a rich guy (who made his money destroying jobs) Coakley has had to make her time (and campaign staff time) decisions. Would I like it better if Martha could be at every DTC meeting or have called local activists at the beginning of the campaign – yes. But I would rather she have the resources to be elected and that required her to fundraise.

                <

                p>I seen Martha debate several times and her biggest fault is she wants to over-answer a questions – make sure the full detail is there. You can’t do that in a four person debate with a 60 second time slot but she doesn’t hesitate to explain or engage at all.  

                <

                p>So,I will judge her on her years of personal constitutient services and grassroots activism rather then the limits of a 90 day campaign.

                • by cutting and pasting press releases. Answer the hard questions.

                  <

                  p>Plenty of questions to answer.  Why not engage bmg? Why not respond to surveys’s — see below?

                  <

                  p>Why not answer a direct question from Alison King? If you don’t think it translates into constituent services, explain why? I do.

                  <

                  p>In an elected official’s world the press is far more important than the average Joe or Mary. If elected officials won’t respond to media outlets and a prominent political blog, then why respond to you or I?

                  <

                  p>  

                • If Martha is so eager to engage and explain her positions, I fail to understand why she hasn’t embraced calls from the other candidates to hold more debates. More debates would surely give her the chance to “make sure the full detail is there”, an impulse I haven’t seen from her to this point. Far from over-answering, it seems to me that Martha is doing all she can to maintain her lead by saying as little of substance as possible.

                  <

                  p>This article touches on Martha’s hesitancy to debate her challangers, stating:

                  <

                  p>

                  As is typical in the campaign debate dance, the candidate leading in the polls, Attorney General Martha Coakley, is seen as resisting more debates, while the candidates with the lowest name recognition, Steve Pagliuca and Alan Khazei, have been issuing the loudest challenges.

                  <

                  p>A shortened campaign cycle is no excuse to ignore questions from the voters. In fact, the quick pace makes it more important than ever to engage, explain, and participate. Do we really want a Senator who’s winning strategy is just not to blow her lead?  

                • The candidate in the lead rarely encourages more debates. That’s just campaigning 101, and hardly the sign of a character flaw. I’m not sure Ted Kennedy ever went out of his way to encourage debates with his opponents. Do you think Capuano is focusing on Coakley so much because he thinks she’s the worst candidate in the race? Or could it be becuase she’s the frontrunner? Everyone in the race is doing what they have to to win. That’s not unethical, it’s just common sense.

            • is not providing constituent services. Not even close. It is a one way form of communication that she does fairly well, but not the back and forth most of us have come to expect from our elected officials.

              <

              p>You can cut paste all the press releases you want, their is only one candidate who has not chosen to engage this forum and answer questions when asked.

              <

              p>Press releases as constituent services prove to me that she thinks she serves the media and opinion leaders more than the rest of us.

              • Challeneged on constituent services and provided the links and research to show how much Marha Coakley does for all residents of Massachusetts.

                <

                p>She didn’t send out a press release announcing “I am planning to take action”, she notified the public of actions taken.  

                • mean the lack of action, right? I am not arguing Martha Coakley as AG, although one could argue her silence responding to queries matches her silence in asking the hard questions of corrupt elected officials. That is not the argument I am trying to make (today).

              • Sending out press releases (0.00 / 0)

                is not providing constituent services.

                <

                p>But it is campaigning.

                <

                p>I’m unclear here: are you seriously dissing Martha Coakley because she’s not doing the job she doesn’t have yet… ?

                <

                p>

                It is a one way form of communication that she does fairly well, but not the back and forth most of us have come to expect from our elected officials.

                <

                p>Come to expect is a distance away from what the job may be.  Her present job, Attorney General,  is law enforcement and is a reactive position.  Her future job may be Senator, which is law enactment and is a proactive position.  Were she an AG who acted like a Senator, I’d be less inclined to vote for her, given the space between the two job descriptions.  

                • No, while running for Senate she has:

                  <

                  p>1. Not responded to inquiries from this blog.

                  <

                  p>2. Not posted (herself or campaign) on this blog to engage a universe of likely voters/activists.

                  <

                  p>3. Failed to respond to surveys.

                  <

                  p>4. Failed to show up to a forum.

                  <

                  p>5. Debates? What debates? Not willing to schedule a lot of televised debates.

                  <

                  p>6. Has not responded to a direct inquiry from a citizen, me.

                  <

                  p>7. Refused to answer a direct question from Alison King on how she would vote on HCR.

                  <

                  p>Is this how she will perform constituent services as a Senator? I like the idea that someone campaigns as they will serve. A responsive campaign = a responsive elected official, is that a stretch?

                  <

                  p>  

                • No, while running for Senate she has:
                  1. Not responded to inquiries from this blog.

                  2. Not posted (herself or campaign) on this blog to engage a universe of likely voters/activists.

                  <

                  p>… for not remembering that BMG is the center of the universe…

                  <

                  p>

                  3. Failed to respond to surveys.

                  4. Failed to show up to a forum.

                  5. Debates? What debates? Not willing to schedule a lot of televised debates.

                  6. Has not responded to a direct inquiry from a citizen, me.

                  7. Refused to answer a direct question from Alison King on how she would vote on HCR.

                  <

                  p>Were this a longer campaign, you might have some points. It is not and you do not.

                  <

                  p>

                  Is this how she will perform constituent services as a Senator?

                  <

                  p>Probably not…  Not unless the Senate terms are shortened by about five and three quarters years and her budget for constituent services is a made a mere fraction of all other Senators.

                  <

                  p>

                  I like the idea that someone campaigns as they will serve.

                  <

                  p>what does what you like have anything to do with it… ?

                  <

                  p>

                  A responsive campaign = a responsive elected official, is that a stretch?

                  <

                  p>In an ordinary campaign, not at all a stretch. Here and now, in this campaign, a stretch.  

                • So they are usually valid criticism of Coakley’s campaign but you’ll excuse it becuase time is short?

                  <

                  p>3. Failed to respond to surveys.

                  <

                  p>4. Failed to show up to a forum.

                  <

                  p>5. Debates? What debates? Not willing to schedule a lot of televised debates.

                  <

                  p>6. Has not responded to a direct inquiry from a citizen, me.

                  <

                  p>7. Refused to answer a direct question from Alison King on how she would vote on HCR.

                • So they are usually valid criticism of Coakley’s campaign but you’ll excuse it becuase time is short?

                  <

                  p>Sigh.  You are so eager to bash Coakley…   That’s kinda sad.

                  <

                  p>If, during the course of a more ‘traditional’ campaign, Martha Coakley acted in this manner then the previous posts might contain some points worth considering.   But I don’t believe for a second that Martha Coakley, given the time, would campaign in the same manner (and I believe the same is true for all other candidates in this race, all of whom have made mistakes that wouldn’t be made in a more traditional campaign.) so I don’t think that they are valid criticisms at all.

                  <

                  p>Still with me?  No… OK. consider an analogy: if you bake me a rhubarb pie (yum… how did you know?) but handed it to me and said “I didn’t have time to cook it per the directions so I double the heat and halved the time…” Well now… you’d hand me a rhubarb pie with burnt crust and a raw interior (which is how I like my steak, but not my pie, but no matter…) and I wouldn’t eat it, but I wouldn’t fault you (that much =-) for the effort.  If you did have the time, I’d expect an entirely different pie.

                  <

                  p>Mhmm..  pie…

                  <

                  p>Where was I? Oh yeah… SO   If you did have the time and still doubled the temp and halved the heat, then I would, I daresay, have some valid criticisms

                • even though you would not accept it in  a regular election cycle

                  <

                  p>

                  If, during the course of a more ‘traditional’ campaign, Martha Coakley acted in this manner then the previous posts might contain some points worth considering.   But I don’t believe for a second that Martha Coakley, given the time, would campaign in the same manner

                • *[new] you’ll accept it in a short campaign (0.00 / 0)

                  even though you would not accept it in  a regular election cycle

                  <

                  p>???

                  <

                  p>As I was at pains to point out, I’ve seen all the campaigns make mistakes that can be attributed to the shortened election cycle.  what would you have me do?  Shall I pick the mistake I least like and rail against that particular candidate?  Shall I say that the soggy I would not accept on a sunny day is equally unacceptable on a rainy day?  

        • 7 more 0 ratings “delete comment”, gets srtiker57’s cut&paste filibuster deleted,
          “Actions speak louder then blogposts“

          • Lobbying to have a post by the supporter of another campaign deleted is really starting to cross a line.

            <

            p>I’m a great advocate of the delete button, but this is not what it is for.  Encouraging people to abuse it is just asking for the Editors to further decrease its utility or remove it entirely.  

            <

            p>And to everyone else: Support your candidates.  Call opposing candidates ice queens, hotheads, over-caffeinated or secret Republicans.  Whatever you have to do.  In your enthusiasm, however, remember that you may have to ask for the vote tomorrow of the person you’re alienating today.  

            • with zero added commentary, in a conversation about constituents service, crosses the line.

              <

              p>if the editors didn’t want us to select delete they wouldn’t make it option.  Have you read the “comment” beginning to end?  

            • Striker’s comment is a tad lengthy, but certainly not appropriate for deletion.  Do not rate it “0” – that rating is reserved for rule-breakers.

              • an abuse but apparently it’s just fine, and I was unaware that there was such a thing as ratings abuse becuase I have never seen the editors comment on abusive ratings before. Now that I know, I’ll happily comply.

                <

                p>Since you’re here, I also never had a sense that the name calling that occurred on another thread where a commenter called another commented a “bully” and “fraud” was notified that name-calling is out of bounds.  Did that notification  happen?  If it did, do you think the editors could be consistently more transparent about calling out of bounds?  If it didn’t, why not?

                • on emails that may, or may not, have been sent to other users.

                  <

                  p>My advice to everyone invested in the Senate race is to dial it down.  No one is persuading anyone else of anything at this point, and isn’t that the goal?

                • You had no problem calling out my “suborning ratigs abuse” publicly and it serves a purpose, communicating the bounds of participation not just to the offender but all readers who pass that way.   When it comes to name-calling the editors choose to notify by e-mail privately and do not use it as an opportunity to communicate the bounds of participation. Why not comment on all rule breaking in the thread and take up the potential consequences in a private email? I know, it’s your blog, and I hope you know, I’m just making a suggestion.  
                   

                • There tend to be two types of people who abuse our rules: (1) the obnoxious, who eventually get banned for shorter or longer periods, and (2) the enthusiasts, who almost always behave impeccably after a reminder. Dragging a rules discussion out in the comments just prolongs the agony, encourages procedural discussions, which are often tedious in the extreme, and takes time.

                  <

                  p>The comments you objected to were indeed out of line, and got deleted this morning.

  2. He will be a strong and passionate voice for Main St America.  I hope so much that he wins.  

  3. I read this the other day – – Coakley was the only one to not answer the survey — on the Commonwelath Magazine Blog and it stuck out at me. I think even the republicans answered this survey, and I think CW is a pretty fair and balanced governemnt mag/blog. Why not answer?

    <

    p>It bothered me, but I chalked it up to “front runner” syndrome – (wishful)thinking that you can keep quiet until you inevitably get elected.

    <

    p>I never thought of it in terms of constituent services. Its a very valid point, especially considering the amazingly personal touch that Ted Kennedy had with everyone that he helped.

  4. while I think she’s done a lousy job engaging the blogosphere, I don’t think she’s the worst. I haven’t heard a single thing from Pags, which is honestly quite surprising with Rubin on board his campaign. I would have expected much, much more from him — and he has, indeed, been worse than Coakley (who’s campaign has at least been sending the blogs their press releases… for whatever that’s worth).

    <

    p>Khazei and Capuano are the only two candidates who inspire any confidence in me whatsoever in terms of fostering good constituent service, which shouldn’t be surprising since both of them have strong records there (Khazei’s record is in public service, which I think is very relevant when it comes to constituent services).  

    • 0nly Capuano and Pagluica have responded to Steve Garfield’s question.

      <

      p>If the Coakley campaign does respond to David’s question here, it might be a little hard to find it among all of striker57’s cut and paste jobs from the AG’s website.

      <

      p>t.eloise (or the editors) deleted the her diary about the PCCC campaign and whether it’s true that COakley, had she been in Congress for the HR3962 vote on health care, would have been a target of their “betrayal” campaign, “don’t elect someone just becuase they have a “D” next to their name” for voting no on health care. Well, since that diary and all of the comments were deleted, you  should know.  She would have.    

  6. This has a pretty specific meaning and does not include everything a representative does to serve his or her constituents.

    <

    p>It’s helping a vet to straighten out an individual problem with the VA bureaucracy, or moving an immigration request along, not voting for health care legislation or transit funding in the district.

    <

    p>I think Capuano has missed an opportunity to define this race on those terms. Who will best complement John Kerry? You want at least one of your two senators to be “Senator Pothole”–constituent-services oriented.

    <

    p>I appreciate candidates who post here, but honestly don’t see that mixing it up in the blogosphere (or not) tells us anything about what kind of constituent-services chops any of them has.

  7. In announcing their endorsement, MassEquality cited Coakley’s long-time record of proven leadership on behalf of the LGBT community in Massachusetts, a record that demonstrates her willingness to go beyond the call of duty to fight for equality.

    <

    p>”If the disheartening repeal of marriage equality in Maine earlier this month taught us anything, it’s that now more than ever our community needs more than just allies,” MassEquality Executive Director Scott Gortikov said. “We need strong leaders who will follow in the footsteps of Senator Kennedy and not rest until we have achieved full equality.”

    <

    p>”Martha Coakley has been a tireless advocate for LGBT equality throughout her entire career, fighting for everything from marriage equality to transgender non-discrimination to prosecution of hate crimes,” Gortikov said.  “She was also one of the first state-wide elected officials to publicly support the transgender non-discrimination bill, MassEquality’s top legislative priority.  In addition, her recent lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) clearly proves that she is not afraid to take a lead role on issues of importance to the LGBT community, no matter how controversial they may be.”

    <

    p>In July, Attorney General Coakley filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  She did so saying that “the time has come for this injustice to end,” that DOMA was a discriminatory and unconstitutional and that she was seeking to “remedy the fundamental unfairness that DOMA causes to Massachusetts and its residents by denying those residents equal treatment under the law.”

    <

    p>Gortikov also highlighted Coakley’s support of the MassHealth Equality bill, which ensured that Massachusetts cover the cost of health care for qualifying low-income and elderly same-sex couples who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid; her work to obtain civil rights injunctions in numerous cases involving hate crimes against members of the LGBT community; her longtime support for efforts to address domestic violence in the LGBT community; and the fact that as Attorney General, Coakley’s office has conducted trainings for police departments around the Commonwealth on how better to respond to hate crimes and assist LGBT victims who are especially vulnerable.  

  8. Just to be clear: I asked several questions of all the campaigns during the Stupitts brouhaha.  I never heard back from either the Coakley or the Capuano campaign (though Capuano later posted here when they finally got their heads together).  I did hear back quickly from both the Khazei and Pagliuca campaigns.

    • The only candidate that you “never heard back from”, as nearly as I can tell, is Martha Coakley. At least, if you heard anything, it wasn’t posted here.

      <

      p>Responses to your question from three candidates have been visible here:

      <

      p>1. Mike Capuano
      2. Alan Khazei
      3. Steve Pagliuca

      <

      p>A response from one candidate has been invisible here:

      <

      p>1. Martha Coakley

    • Politico picked up the Stupitts story today, and cited Capuano’s BMG post.  However,

      <

      p>

      Phone calls and e-mails to Capuano campaign headquarters to determine whether he has signed the pledge were not returned.

  9. I have to say that Capuano’s supporters show a distressing tendency to focus on bashing the opposition. While Coakley may be accused of front-runner syndrome, it seems Capuano’s supporters have “bash the front-runner syndrome.” This post is quite a reach. Coakley fails to answer a question from the press in what you regard as an acceptable fashion, so that means she won’t provide constituent sevices? This is a breathtaking leap of logic. I know Capuano is trying hard to claim the Kennedy mantle, of which Kennedy’s legendary attention to constituents is a major part. But this is just weak. Don’t you think it would be a little more effective to provide examples of Capuano’s legendary constituent services, other than a campaign ad where he says how important the subject is to him? (I’m not saying you can’t. I have no idea what his reputation is in this regard.)

    <

    p>As for engaging the blogosphere, that would seem to be more a criticism of her campaign tactics. I’m not sure how posts on BMG translate to constituent services, either. Capuano has a lot of very vocal supporters on this blog. I’m not surprised that he would pay more attention to BMG.

    <

    p>And finally, campaigns are not designed to provide services to constituents. It would be nice if you had gotten your questions answered, but do you really think most campaigns, especially in a very short election cycle, will take the time to respond to every inquiry from a voter?

    <

    p>There are some legitimate criticisms of Coakley in this post. But the attempt to tie them into constituent services is a really transparent attempt to find any reason to bash Coakly, IMO.

    • I mention this above, but the way one runs a campaign is a reflection on how one will serve us all in office. If you think that the manner in which the Coakley campaign is serving us has been okay, then you have nothing to complain about.

      <

      p>I expect more.  

      • particularly between answering press questions and constituent services. “..the way one runs a campaign” is a pretty general statement. Are you saying that any flaws in a campaign relate directly to constituent services? It seesm you are conflating constituent services to mean “taking actions that please your constituents.” If I’m a citizen who needs help from my Senator, how exactly am I impacted by the way my Senator speaks to the press?

    • I do not agree with everything in ChrisO’s post, but the above statement really nails it.

      <

      p>The original poster is guilty of viewing this issue through Cap-colored glasses.

      <

      p>Yes, to some extent anything that a candidate and/or his or her campaign does is fair game and might tell you something about his or her competence in other fields.

      <

      p>But, judge not lest ye be judged. There are plenty of defects in Capuano’s campaign. Do you really want to elevate those to this level? Do you really want to say that the candidate with the worst campaign would do the worst job?

      <

      p>Maybe Coakley would not deliver on constituent services, or maybe she would, I don’t know.

  10. Clearly, IMO the Coakley campaign doesn’t understand what constituent services are and how to provide them to people looking for answers.  

    <

    p>Her current position is AG.  It is law enforcement.  I daresay you approach your local sheriff or police chief differently than you would your mayor, councilmen or selectmen.  Nor would you, I think, criticize your police chief for the same things for which you would criticize your mayor.

    <

    p>Unless, of course, you were looking for something to criticize, and couldn’t find much else…

    <

    p>In the course of a 90 day job interview, I’m not sure it’s all that efficacious to bust on the candidate for not doing the job for which they have not yet been hired… but that’s just me.   Capuano is already doing the job, not because he thinks he’ll get a neat new job, but because it’s already a part of his present job.  Khazei and Pags… well, they got time and money to spare it seems to me.

    <

    p>

    Why is it important? Whomever wins will follow in the footsteps of the standard bearer for delivering constituent services to Massachusetts residents. From a Globe article around the time of his death:

    <

    p>And… ?

    <

    p>Seriously… And…?  

    <

    p>Every new Senator starts anew. This is both a strength and a weakness of representative democracy.  I doubt very much that, in 1962, people thought that Ted Kennedy would be an exemplary purveyor of constituent services.

    <

    p>And, while Kennedy was the gold standard, it’s not necessary to default to thinking of anything else as dross.  

    • with constituent services as AG. As one runs for office as one will serve the office.

      <

      p>She is running away when she should be taking it all on.

  11. …that Martha Coakley has done some fantastic things as AG, and I have sincere respect and appreciation for her work (especially her defense of the clinic buffer zone law last year).

    <

    p>But that track record is not enough to help me get past what is happening right now: her silence & stonewalling re: defending her position that she would vote down any health care reform bill, even at the earliest stages of progress, if it contained language that limited coverage of elective abortions.  

    <

    p>This is NOT a small thing to me; having been married to someone who became chronically ill and disabled when he was 30, I spent years fighting with insurance companies to get them to cover the treatments, hospital stays and medication (which alone ran hundreds of dollars a month just in copays).  But at least we had an insurance company to fight with…MassHealth covered very little of his care since it was a rare subtype for which not many treatments had been FDA-approved (because too few people had it to make it worth the pharmas’ time to add separate studies) and they couldn’t pay for off-label uses of medication.

    <

    p>I can’t stand to think of what those years would have been like if we didn’t have insurance.  We would either have been easily 100k – 200k in debt in our early thirties, or he would have died a lot sooner than he did, in much greater pain.  

    <

    p>So when I ask Martha Coakley to explain to me why she would be willing to risk leaving thousands of people in that exact situation over coverage of a $400 procedure that 74% of people pay for by themselves anyway, it’s not a rhetorical question.  I’m not trying to trap her into anything.  I honestly, truly want to know how she justifies that position.  And without a direct, coherent answer, all the progressive consent judgments in the world will not make me want her to represent me in the Senate.

  12. This video reflects a little light on Coakley’s approach to campaigning and constituent services. link to Boston.com

    <

    p>

  13. Engaging the public is an important part of BOTH campaigning and serving as an elected official – Coakley’s silence on blogs, her refusal to debate, and her avoidance of answers in the press – shows a lot more about her governing style than many of you are admitting to. Regardless of the length of a campaign, it is of the utmost importance to show the public who you are and what you stand for. The other three candidates in the race are ready and willing to debate, eager to share their thoughts on the blogs, and able to give direct answers to questions posed by the press.

    <

    p>I think the fact that Coakley is neglecting to engage the public is more than just front-runner strategy. In her cautious attempts to keep her lead, she may be losing votes along the way by not making the effort to connect with people. As an undecided voter I, for one, have been turned off by her campaign style.  

  14. I agree with ChrisO: we’ve drifted very far in our definition of constituent services. Kaj and many others are stretching it to mean Press Relations, while Striker is stretching it to mean…everything that an elected official does. Supporting regulations for auto emissions, for example, is not constituent services, that’s just Policy Making. (See block quote #4.)

    <

    p>Constituent services has to do with individual case work that a representative’s office takes on behalf of their constituents, right? Constituent correspondence, which is the closest thing to what Kaj could be talking about, is just a small part of constituent services, and it wasn’t what Kennedy was beloved for. It’s backing a new Brookline senior center, getting cannons for a Medford memorial, and personally calling the families of every New Bedford fisherman lost at sea.

    <

    p>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…

    <

    p>Constituent services is a really hard thing to measure and test in a campaign setting–especially this thrown-together 90-day operation. But it is a very important part of the job, and I’d be interested in hearing from anyone with good specific anecdotes on the two electeds.

    <

    p>Let’s take answering-or-not-answering reporters’ questions out altogether; that’s definitely a communications issue.

    <

    p>Responding or not responding to survey requests from blogs is still very, very far removed from constituent services. You could argue it says something about access, or accountability, or general attitudes towards blogs. Would it be too cynical to say that it’s just a strategic calculation? That some of the campaigns did the math and decided that being attentive to the blogosphere in those particular cases was worth the votes-per-staff-hour, and some campaigns did not?  

    • On September 26, 1960, the first-ever televised presidential debate took place. Vice President Richard Nixon set back his political career by decades by ignoring the impact of television on the electorate. The skill with which Deval Patrick and then Barack Obama used the web — and the devastating effect that skill had on their opponents — demonstrates that the web is again revolutionizing politics.

      <

      p>There is more about the impact of the 1960 debate here. From this piece (emphasis mine):

      <

      p>

      The Great Debates marked television&#8217s grand entrance into presidential politics. They afforded the first real opportunity for voters to see their candidates in competition, and the visual contrast was dramatic. In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual “5:00 o’clock shadow.” Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. “I had never seen him looking so fit,” Nixon later wrote.

      In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy’s smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.

      <

      p>Does any of this sound familiar?

      <

      p>Hard-copy publishers are not the only advertising medium being destroyed by the web. Most web users choose the internet instead of broadcast television. A huge and growing segment of television watchers use their computer instead of separate hardware — meaning that much television advertising (including campaign spots) is covered by more interesting browser window(s) as soon as it begins. The two-way dialog of a blog is far more sticky than the one-way firehouse of a broadcast. We see echoes of this in the dominance of talk-shows in broadcast radio — and the resulting influence on the electorate. Broadcast audiences are down, advertising revenue is down, and the economics of the broadcast industry are not much better than those of print.

      <

      p>Meanwhile, blogs are — rightly or wrongly — fast becoming the news medium of choice, particularly for voters who are passionate about politics. The choice of any candidate to embrace blogs and the web makes that candidate look far more like the John F. Kennedy of 1960. The opposite choice tends to identify the candidate with Mr. Kennedy’s 1960 opposition.

Archives