ad might have the most impact. Not that I believe that he means it. This ad hits home with what is making a lot middle class Americans most angry right now.
<
p>Coakley’s is OK. She needs to remember that men are voters too.
<
p>Capuano’s has little impact. He should be addressing the economy and middle class American’s. Bringing money home to our state is important, but it’s not why someone goes to the voting booth.
<
p>Khazei’s has little impact also.
<
p>Both Capuano and Khazei need to do better with their ads.
stomvsays
Coakley’s is OK. She needs to remember that men are voters too.
<
p>Bah. I’m not so sure she does need to remember that. If she takes 60% of the female vote, she starts off with 30% in a 4-person race. Even if she only got 20% of the male vote, that gets her to 50%.
<
p>If people vote their gender, the three gentlemen are in trouble.
liveandletlivesays
I think it is most likely that she will win the primary.
stomvsays
Even if she got only 20% of the male vote, that gets her to 50% 40%.
<
p>40% is probably enough to win, though certainly not a guarantee. I’d bet she lands more than 20% of the male vote though.
<
p>I wonder: can we expect to see women get promoted to high levels quickly because of multi-person races? It seems to me that it is often an advantage to be the only (fill-in-the-demographic) in a race, and women are the largest fundamental demographic.
<
p>The State Senate (by my quick count) is only 27.5% female, the House 21%. Until the “minor league” is closer to 50-50, we should expect to see multiraces often have one female and two or more men in the race… and we may see the female win thanks to both genders preferring candidates of their gender and the male vote split.
<
p>
<
p>None of this is to imply that any candidate wins “because” of their gender — if you’re not qualified, you don’t win, period. But, when there are multiple qualified candidates, I do think that the gender balance can certainly come into play.
johnksays
did a nice job with her ad. It’s an issue ad and talks about accomplishment and fighting for people. Given that she has a sizable lead now, that ad is perfect.
<
p>I have to say that i’m not a big fan of delivering the bacon ad by Cap.
<
p>Pags and Khazei, Ehhh?
alexswillsays
Coakley – A-
Exactly the type of ad I would expect from the front-runner. It doesn’t try and rise above the fray, but instead gives a personal story to the front-runner name. Talking up your candidate is always more effective when someone else does it, especially when it’s a true personal story.
<
p>Capuano – D
Wow, that ad falls flat. I’m just really surprised by that. With someone who has so much to offer to the race, his TV ad just doesn’t do it. While the economy is certainly a great issue to call attention to, I’m not sure the “federal bacon” is the medium to reach voters. Not to mention, I found the actual editing to be quite amateurish.
<
p>Pagliuca – B+
I’m impressed and I would find it hard for others not to be. As most of us know his past voting and donor records, we can’t help but laugh, but to those who don’t, this, IMHO, is the medium in which to reach voters. His radio blitz already mentioned jobs, and now he’s speaking to the outrage over wall-street. If this primary becomes sort of a general in the race, these issues are going to be big for the more conservative, middle-class voters. Overall, it was probably the best approach for his campaign.
<
p>Khazei – C
Well I don’t think it will do much to sway undecided’s, it certainly reinforces the strongest (if only) theme from his campaign and does it in an somewhat effective way. In the end, I’m not sure it will do enough for the money it’s going to cost.
uffishthoughtsays
I think Capuano’s ad effectively highlights his experience in Congress, his familiarity with the issues that matter to Massachusetts and his knowledge of the system. It’s one thing to advertise what you’d like to do, it’s another entirely to reference steps you’ve already taken and legislation you’ve already fought for. Capuano’s record is one of his strongest attributes and his ad does a good job of emphasizing that.
alexswillsays
can’t disagree with any of that.
<
p>However, it doesn’t change the fact that the ad falls flat in a race where he desperately needs to gain some serious traction.
somervilletomsays
I liked all four ads. I rank them as something like:
<
p>1. Martha Coakley — Positive, focused, and effective.
2. Mike Capuano — Pedestrian, accurate, and uninspiring. I like him, I wish Doug Rubin were working for him instead of Mr. Pagliuca. He’ll need a miracle to win and I see nothing miraculous about his campaign so far.
3. Alan Khazei — Wishy-washy, touchy-feely and dated — still a fine ad, but about two years behind the curve. I’m sure he’s a good, sincere, and honest progressive. Too bad he missed the mark with this ad.
4. Steve Pagliuca — If it weren’t so shamelessly manipulative and misleading I would rank it first. Effectively targeted at the pain felt by too many Massachusetts voters. Sadly, also the least genuine. Of course he won’t “take a dime from special interests” — he doesn’t NEED any money because he is himself a wealthy “special interest”. His ad ignores the most important issue of the campaign — health care. In doing so, he clearly telegraphs his position against everything Massachusetts Democrats stand for.
<
p>I’m thankful that Steve Pagliuca doesn’t have a chance at winning this election. I don’t trust him and don’t want him anywhere near any significant public office.
<
p>I will vote for Mike Capuano in the primary. I think Alan Khazei is a great candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of winning this time around — I’m eager to see what he does next. I wish that I were more enthusiastic about Martha Coakley, because she seems likely to win the primary.
<
p>I will not vote for a Republican in the January primary. If Alan Khazei should win the primary (which he won’t), it will be easy for me to vote for him in January. If Martha Coakley wins the primary, I will have a difficult decision to make in January.
If Martha Coakley wins the primary, I will have a difficult decision to make in January.
<
p>You have GOT to be kidding. Whatever reservations you have about Martha Coakley being overly cautious or whatever, you cannot possibly think that she wouldn’t be a huge improvement over Scott Brown, who would actively work against everything Ted Kennedy stood for, and would represent a critical vote against actually getting anything done.
<
p>Vote for whoever you want in the primary. But make no mistake: anyone who starts making noises like “oh gosh, I just don’t know if I could support Martha/Mike/Alan/Steve in the general if my candidate doesn’t win the primary” is offering a big ol’ helping hand to those who want to dismantle everything Ted Kennedy helped build, and then some.
somervilletomsays
There’s no chance that the Democratic candidate will lose the January election. I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for her, I said it’s a difficult decision. This is supposed to be a reality-based site and that’s my reality.
<
p>I think you greatly underestimate the political impact of the upcoming blizzard of federal indictments against those who have created, enabled, and operated the various rackets that sustain the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines. Do any of you remember Buddy Cianci? I think that painting an even brighter target for the rightwing on this seat will offer its own “big ol’ helping hand…”, whether we are willing to talk about it or not.
<
p>IF Martha Coakley is the candidate, and IF she somehow opens some distance between her and these corrupt machines, and IF she demonstrates that she has the political chops to successfully fend off the attacks that WILL come her way, then I will happily support her in the January primary.
<
p>Let me offer a concrete example. Her office brought the indictments against Vitale. So far, she has been virtually silent about them during this campaign. She’s done the right thing — why doesn’t she talk about it? If she doesn’t want to do it, find somebody who will.
<
p>The opposition narrative is easy for even an amateur like me to write: “The election of Martha Coakley to the Senate proves that the deeply corrupt liberal Democratic machine cares only about keeping itself in power. First Chappaquidick, then Blago, now Menino. Senator Coakley and the machine that elected her supports [fill in the blank]. That should concern every American who supports honest government.”
<
p>Ignoring the political impact of the corruption unfolding all around us is, in my opinion, a serious strategic and tactical mistake.
bean-in-the-burbssays
You should worry about Capuano, PMA and Murtha, not Coakley. The AG’s seat is always a tough one to run from, because people who haven’t read the briefs or seen the evidence have opinions about what the AG should or shouldn’t have done. But that’s a far cry from potentially being embroiled in a pay-for-play scandal, which is where Capuano is.
somervilletomsays
My concern is about the political skills of each candidate to handle the firestorm. I have said repeatedly here that I am not accusing Ms. Coakley of direct or personal involvement with the corruption. Similarly, I see no evidence that Mr. Capuano is “embroiled” in the problems of Mr. Murtha. The attacks will not accuse Ms. Coakley or Mr. Capuano of outright corruption (those are too easy to defend), they will instead use guilt-by-association and target her supporters, endorsers, contributors, and so on.
<
p>The difference I see is that Ms. Coakley is dependent on the two interconnected Massachusetts political machines that are corrupt — the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines. Mr. Capuano has a much more distant relationship with Mr. Murtha.
<
p>My concern is whether Ms. Coakley has the political chops to handle the attacks — specifically in comparison to Mr. Capuano. So far, my money has been on Mr. Capuano. I must say that in this round of ads, Martha Coakley’s is the clear winner.
christophersays
This is the first I’m hearing a “pay-to-play” accusation directed at Capuano.
p>Sorry to be terse, I’d highlight some passages, but i’m posting via cell phone.
neilsagansays
This week, the scandal knocked PMA Group, by some measures one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms in Washington, out of business entirely (it announced it will cease operations by end of March). Two good-government watchdog types say they fully expect Murtha could be indicted.
By DAVID S. BERNSTEIN | March 3, 2009
somervilletomsays
I am interested in watching Mr. Capuano handle inquiries about this matter. I hope he demonstrates more skill than in his campaign ad above.
bean-in-the-burbssays
For those who don’t want to delve into the whole Phoenix article, this is the bit from the article that’s concerning to me.
Although he’s not a prolific fundraiser, Capuano still raised around $1.2 million during the 2007-’08 election cycle, the first since the Democrats re-gained the majority in the House. Roughly half came from PACs, including those from PMA Group and at least two of its clients, Parametric Technology and Textron, which received Capuano-sponsored earmarks in Murtha’s appropriations bills. Individual contributions were dominated by lobbyists and their clients – including nearly $60,000 given by PMA Group lobbyists, associates, and family in those two years, according to a Phoenix review. That includes all four individuals reportedly under a particular microscope in the federal investigation.
<
p>Here’s a link to another, more recent piece on the PMA connection. This appeared in the Boston Globe originally, although this link is to the piece reprinted on CREW’s site. Here’s a couple of quotes.
US Representative Michael E. Capuano tried to distance himself in March from a potential Capitol Hill scandal, donating to charity $64,500 his campaign committee had collected through a high-powered lobbying firm that is the subject of a federal pay-to-play investigation.
But Capuano has failed to return or give away at least another $47,500 that employees of the firm, PMA Group, and its associates, had given to a separate political action committee that he created in 2005, MASS PAC, according to a Globe analysis.
Asked about the discrepancy, a spokeswoman for his US Senate campaign, Alison Mills, said the failure to scrub the PAC account was an oversight. She said his political staff is now going through records to identify PMA-related contributions to MASS PAC, an entity known as a leadership PAC, which many politicians operate to raise and donate funds to further their political careers and causes they support.
“We were focused on making sure that every dollar donated to the Capuano for Congress Committee from PMA-related entities was identified and donated to charity,” Mills said in a statement.
“We were not focused on the leadership PAC at the time because those funds did not directly benefit the congressman. We regret the oversight and will donate any PMA-related contributions from the leadership PAC to charity.”
<
p>
Among lawmakers who had received PMA-related donations, Capuano, by his amount collected, was ranked 10th earlier this year by another nonpartisan group, the Center for Responsive Politics. That ranking, however, was based on $57,000 he collected from 2001 to 2008 that was connected to the lobbying firm. By adding the $47,500 Capuano raised for his PAC from those connected with the firm from 2006 to 2008, Capuano would rank fourth out of more than 125 lawmakers listed.
Capuano’s earmarks to the firm’s clients in or near his 8th Congressional District totaled $4.4 million in the past two years. He has defended those funds as “perfectly appropriate,” and said the process for awarding them was transparent.
mrstassays
This is malarkey. Indictments are not convictions, and in our system of justice we should stand up for the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.
<
p>You seem concerned that Martha Coakley isn’t bragging about indictments. Of course she’s not! It’d be highly irresponsible of her to brag about them, and especially to campaign on them. I think it’s a testament to her character and her decency that she doesn’t take easy potshots.
<
p>This is why we have trials. Regardless of your personal opinion of Vitale, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Trying him in a court of public opinion is not the job of the state’s Attorney General.
somervilletomsays
Even if your argument were true, which it is not, it only buttresses the claim that it is hard to use the AG position as a launching pad.
<
p>But your argument is false. She doesn’t have to brag about specific indictments. She can say, much more loudly than she has, “Government corruption is a cancer in our system that I have worked hard to stop as Attorney General.”
<
p>That’s all. If pressed, she can say “I think the indictments I brought speak for themselves.”
<
p>Her inability or unwillingness to craft a message along these lines makes her — and therefore the rest of us — dangerously vulnerable to rightwing attacks.
neilsagansays
speeches she’s made in the last 2+ years so that we could assess her leadership on the job, and measure her accomplishments against her rhetoric.
mrstassays
Falsity is best reserved for facts. Arguments can be good or bad, correct or incorrect, based on facts or based on lies, but arguments cannot be false.
<
p>There’s no appearance of corruption with Martha Coakley herself. That’s not your argument. Nor is your argument that she has failed to address corruption as a prosecutor.
<
p>No, your argument has to do with the political side of her job – that she is not adequately bragging about her indictments. To that my answer remains that as a good prosecutor, she should not (and has not) bragged about incomplete outcomes.
<
p>An indictment is meaningless unless and until it’s followed by a conviction. Until then, it’s just allegations, and you can feel about it anyway you’d like, but it’s not the job of the Attorney General to try someone in the court of public opinion by comparing indictments and convictions, or bragging about indictments.
<
p>Convictions? That’s something else altogether.
<
p>Think about it this way: an indictment is a blueprint. It’s no more appropriate for a prosecutor to brag about an indictment than for an architect to brag about completing a blueprint. Until the building is built/the conviction is made, all you’ve got is a set of plans.
somervilletomsays
I have not proposed that Martha Coakley “brag about indictments.” Repeating your claim doesn’t change its correctness (or falsity).
<
p>Yes, my argument is political. This is a political campaign. Martha Coakley is running for Senator, not Attorney General and not prosecutor.
<
p>As a holder of or candidate for ANY public office, she is expected to oppose corruption in government. As a candidate for Senator, she ought to be able to communicate her opposition to government without bragging about any indictments.
<
p>A prosecutor who seeks higher office and who cannot loudly and proudly proclaim their opposition to government corruption without bragging about indictments is a failure as a politician, no matter how successful as a prosecutor.
mrstassays
First you said:
<
p>She doesn’t have to brag about specific indictments. She can say, much more loudly than she has, “Government corruption is a cancer in our system that I have worked hard to stop as Attorney General.”
<
p>That’s all. If pressed, she can say “I think the indictments I brought speak for themselves.”
<
p>Then you said:
<
p>I have not proposed that Martha Coakley “brag about indictments.”
<
p>—
<
p>I’ll agree that you didn’t use the word brag. It is however, what you’d like her to do, as your comment says in plain language.
<
p>As for me, I’m just happy the chief prosecutor in my state isn’t bragging about incomplete work, or trying people in a court of public opinion before they’re convicted in a court of law. If you think there’s a strong political reason why she should, then I’ll tell you that it means even more to me that she isn’t doing it, because it tells me she has personal integrity and a great level of respect for the justice system.
<
p>Now, to your other point, because you’re really hung up on this government corruption thing. It’s a GOP frame, like voter fraud, and I really wish you’d stop using it. Government has corruption, like other large entities have corruption and waste. It needs to be found, and the people need to be investigated and prosecuted.
<
p>However, the point of GOP fearmongering about government corruption is to destroy the trust people put in government. That way, when they fight government programs, people can just say “all those people are corrupt”. A government healthcare plan, according to the GOP, will involve high levels of waste and corruption. The chairman of non-profit Blue Cross flying around the country in first-class while denying claims to dying patients – that’s not corruption, just the private market doing its thing.
<
p>That’s what the GOP would rather have, and I, for one, would really appreciate it if progressives didn’t give in to their frames.
<
p>Speaking of that … your entire point, at the beginning, was that the GOP would attack Martha for not having taken down enough corruption. Your point is that they’ll attack her? They’ll do it anyway. Remember when our other senator, the war hero, the one with shrapnel in his leg, and 3 purple hearts on his chest, was attacked for not being sufficiently patriotic? When GOP delegates wore purple bandages on their faces at the 2004 convention, to mock Kerry’s war service? When they ran ads accusing him of treason? The people who said that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers are buddies? These people have no concern for the truth, and you should have no concern for whatever crap they decide to fling at our candidates. They’ll find nonsense no matter what we do, or don’t do.
<
p>If you want to help our candidates, start by rejecting nonsense, not embracing it.
somervilletomsays
I am acutely aware of all the things you say. I am also acutely aware of John Kerry’s inept response when the issue was first raised. He attempted to ignore it, as you seem to be advocating. It didn’t work for him then, and it won’t work now for whoever wins this seat.
<
p>When (not “if”) federal indictments come down against the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines, the rightwing dogs will come snarling at whoever holds this seat.
<
p>Mentioning the indictments is not the same as bragging. She can even use the concern you raise along the lines of the following:
<
p>”You know that I can’t speak to the specifics of these indictments. This is too important an issue for me to endanger by politicizing.”
<
p>I argue that she MUST be proactive in this, she must LEAD, so that she has a record of public statements and actions to rely on when the inevitable rightwing lies arrive.
chrisosays
I keep reading comments about how Coakley should talk publicly about the cases she’s prosecuting. What prosecutor in their right mind would make in-depth public comments about cases they are prosecuting? Would you feel more positively about her if she undermined a case for the purpose of winning votes?
somervilletomsays
I have not suggested that Martha Coakley make “in-depth public comments about cases they are prosecuting.”
<
p>The fact that apparently neither she nor you demonstrate an appreciation for or competence in the political skills needed to oppose corruption without compromising active prosecutions further weakens the case in support of her candidacy for the Senate.
<
p>She is campaigning for the Big Show, and on the corruption issue she appears to be — at best — a AAA player. Earnest, honest, forthright, and totally unprepared for the spotlight she aspires to enter.
<
p>The first time she comes to the plate, she’s going to get burned with a high inside heater. She’ll never get to first base after that.
<
p>Sorry, that’s just the way I see it.
neilsagansays
If Martha Coakley wins the primary, I will have a difficult decision to make in January.
<
p>Explain what makes choosing Martha in January a hard choice for you if you please.
neilsagansays
do you think we could get Capuano to run as a third party “Liberal” Candidate?
With 4 weeks to go, Capuano desperately needs to turn the Special Primary into a two-person race between himself and Coakley. Otherwise, he loses.
<
p>Right now, Mike is essentially tied with (if not behind) Pagliuca in the polls. Looking at the Pagliuca and Capuano ads indicates that Capuano won’t be shaking off Pags anytime soon. Pagliuca’s ad is clearly the better of the two.
<
p>It doesn’t matter that Pags actions may not match his rhetoric, voters who decide based mostly on TV ads are also the type that won’t realize that Pags is really a Bain Capital wolf in sheep’s clothing.
<
p>Capuano’s ad reinforces the perception of Mike being a Washington insider. While being a Washington insider might be a great characteristic for being an actual US Senator, Mike is betting that the 2009 primary electorate, despite all indications otherwise, is not in an anti-incumbent mood. Capuano’s main message just might be exactly the wrong message for winning elections in 2009.
<
p>Meanwhile, Coakley’s campaign keeps rolling along. At this point, her campaign only needs to solidify voters who are already leaning towards voting for her. So, her campaign releases a issue ad popular with primary voters (health care) that also humanizes her (with a personal story by a constituent). In Coakley’s case, it’s particularly important to humanize her since many people have the perception that AGs like Coakley can be cold and impersonal.
<
p>As for Khazei’s ad, it’s a little late to be still introducing yourself to the voters. If primary voters don’t know by now that you founded City Year, they weren’t ever going to vote for you anyway.
cayres1says
Interested in local politics? Watch “Basic Black” tonight at 7:30 p.m. on ‘GBH 2 or at http://www.basicblack.org for a discussion about the local election results. The conversation will also cover the gay marriage referendum in Maine, and the black community’s attitude towards gay rights. You can participate by sending in your questions and comments through the live chat at basicblack.org. Let us know what you think!
Pagliucca’s was horrible. I know that because nobody likes Pagliucca, and he doesn’t have any defenders here.
Khazei’s ad was okay. I know that because he usually says lots of nice things, but is unlikely to threaten my candidate’s chances at winning.
My candidate’s ad is great. It is direct yet heartfelt, and says things in ways voters understand while motivating them to give him/her serious thought in the voting booth.
My candidate’s rival’s ad was horrible. It was mechanical, and off-target. It didn’t address the issues of this election, and showed his/her lack of leadership.
<
p>Perhaps someday I’ll actually watch them.
not-suresays
I know that because nobody likes Pagliucca, and he doesn’t have any defenders here.
<
p>It’s true Pags doesn’t have any defenders here. But that doesn’t mean he’s not currently polling second, ahead of Capuano who has plenty of defenders here.
<
p>Face it, these TV ads aren’t targeting voters who read BMG. I know it’s a leap of faith, but I think most, if not all, BMG posters/readers don’t rely on TV ads to decide how to vote.
<
p>Meanwhile, as hard as it is for me to say, I think there are a lot more Special Primary voters who don’t read BMG than there are those that do. And, unfortunately, there are plenty of voters out there than can be easily misled by good ads like Pags is running.
<
p>BTW, I don’t trust Pags either. I distrust people who made their fortune the way Pags has.
alexswillsays
you need to read the post again. This time with a sense of sarcasm and astute commentary.
bean-in-the-burbssays
Brilliant. More comments like this please, to keep this all in perspective.
It’s easy for me…for the first time in years I’ve equally liked the top two Democrats. If Khazei’s numbers really start to take off, my sense of humor may take a vacation…
lynpbsays
trickle-upsays
Coakley–10 of 10. Powerful story powerfully told. However much she paid for that spot, worth every dime.
<
p>Capuano–3. Surprisingly weak spot. Too much telling, not enough showing. Get a new media team stat.
<
p>Paglucia–4. Good message undercut by slick stock cliches (and arguably by the candidate’s own story). Why no personal story, like Coakley? Don’t Pag’s people actually know anyone who has been slapped around by the economic crisis?
<
p>Khazei–6. A solid spot and arguably just the sort of thing an unknown outsider like Khazei needs. But does he have time to sell this story?
<
p>All in all, a diverse sample of the spinners’ art (definitely not a science).
bean-in-the-burbssays
Of the ads. Although I can’t resist noting that Cap needs a new suit if he wants to be a Senator.
<
p>Thanks for posting these via YouTube. Made them viewable by iPhone when I surely should have been doing something else more constructive.
ad might have the most impact. Not that I believe that he means it. This ad hits home with what is making a lot middle class Americans most angry right now.
<
p>Coakley’s is OK. She needs to remember that men are voters too.
<
p>Capuano’s has little impact. He should be addressing the economy and middle class American’s. Bringing money home to our state is important, but it’s not why someone goes to the voting booth.
<
p>Khazei’s has little impact also.
<
p>Both Capuano and Khazei need to do better with their ads.
<
p>Bah. I’m not so sure she does need to remember that. If she takes 60% of the female vote, she starts off with 30% in a 4-person race. Even if she only got 20% of the male vote, that gets her to 50%.
<
p>If people vote their gender, the three gentlemen are in trouble.
I think it is most likely that she will win the primary.
Even if she got only 20% of the male vote, that gets her to
50%40%.<
p>40% is probably enough to win, though certainly not a guarantee. I’d bet she lands more than 20% of the male vote though.
<
p>I wonder: can we expect to see women get promoted to high levels quickly because of multi-person races? It seems to me that it is often an advantage to be the only (fill-in-the-demographic) in a race, and women are the largest fundamental demographic.
<
p>The State Senate (by my quick count) is only 27.5% female, the House 21%. Until the “minor league” is closer to 50-50, we should expect to see multiraces often have one female and two or more men in the race… and we may see the female win thanks to both genders preferring candidates of their gender and the male vote split.
<
p>
<
p>None of this is to imply that any candidate wins “because” of their gender — if you’re not qualified, you don’t win, period. But, when there are multiple qualified candidates, I do think that the gender balance can certainly come into play.
did a nice job with her ad. It’s an issue ad and talks about accomplishment and fighting for people. Given that she has a sizable lead now, that ad is perfect.
<
p>I have to say that i’m not a big fan of delivering the bacon ad by Cap.
<
p>Pags and Khazei, Ehhh?
Coakley – A-
Exactly the type of ad I would expect from the front-runner. It doesn’t try and rise above the fray, but instead gives a personal story to the front-runner name. Talking up your candidate is always more effective when someone else does it, especially when it’s a true personal story.
<
p>Capuano – D
Wow, that ad falls flat. I’m just really surprised by that. With someone who has so much to offer to the race, his TV ad just doesn’t do it. While the economy is certainly a great issue to call attention to, I’m not sure the “federal bacon” is the medium to reach voters. Not to mention, I found the actual editing to be quite amateurish.
<
p>Pagliuca – B+
I’m impressed and I would find it hard for others not to be. As most of us know his past voting and donor records, we can’t help but laugh, but to those who don’t, this, IMHO, is the medium in which to reach voters. His radio blitz already mentioned jobs, and now he’s speaking to the outrage over wall-street. If this primary becomes sort of a general in the race, these issues are going to be big for the more conservative, middle-class voters. Overall, it was probably the best approach for his campaign.
<
p>Khazei – C
Well I don’t think it will do much to sway undecided’s, it certainly reinforces the strongest (if only) theme from his campaign and does it in an somewhat effective way. In the end, I’m not sure it will do enough for the money it’s going to cost.
I think Capuano’s ad effectively highlights his experience in Congress, his familiarity with the issues that matter to Massachusetts and his knowledge of the system. It’s one thing to advertise what you’d like to do, it’s another entirely to reference steps you’ve already taken and legislation you’ve already fought for. Capuano’s record is one of his strongest attributes and his ad does a good job of emphasizing that.
can’t disagree with any of that.
<
p>However, it doesn’t change the fact that the ad falls flat in a race where he desperately needs to gain some serious traction.
I liked all four ads. I rank them as something like:
<
p>1. Martha Coakley — Positive, focused, and effective.
2. Mike Capuano — Pedestrian, accurate, and uninspiring. I like him, I wish Doug Rubin were working for him instead of Mr. Pagliuca. He’ll need a miracle to win and I see nothing miraculous about his campaign so far.
3. Alan Khazei — Wishy-washy, touchy-feely and dated — still a fine ad, but about two years behind the curve. I’m sure he’s a good, sincere, and honest progressive. Too bad he missed the mark with this ad.
4. Steve Pagliuca — If it weren’t so shamelessly manipulative and misleading I would rank it first. Effectively targeted at the pain felt by too many Massachusetts voters. Sadly, also the least genuine. Of course he won’t “take a dime from special interests” — he doesn’t NEED any money because he is himself a wealthy “special interest”. His ad ignores the most important issue of the campaign — health care. In doing so, he clearly telegraphs his position against everything Massachusetts Democrats stand for.
<
p>I’m thankful that Steve Pagliuca doesn’t have a chance at winning this election. I don’t trust him and don’t want him anywhere near any significant public office.
<
p>I will vote for Mike Capuano in the primary. I think Alan Khazei is a great candidate who doesn’t have a prayer of winning this time around — I’m eager to see what he does next. I wish that I were more enthusiastic about Martha Coakley, because she seems likely to win the primary.
<
p>I will not vote for a Republican in the January primary. If Alan Khazei should win the primary (which he won’t), it will be easy for me to vote for him in January. If Martha Coakley wins the primary, I will have a difficult decision to make in January.
<
p>You have GOT to be kidding. Whatever reservations you have about Martha Coakley being overly cautious or whatever, you cannot possibly think that she wouldn’t be a huge improvement over Scott Brown, who would actively work against everything Ted Kennedy stood for, and would represent a critical vote against actually getting anything done.
<
p>Vote for whoever you want in the primary. But make no mistake: anyone who starts making noises like “oh gosh, I just don’t know if I could support Martha/Mike/Alan/Steve in the general if my candidate doesn’t win the primary” is offering a big ol’ helping hand to those who want to dismantle everything Ted Kennedy helped build, and then some.
There’s no chance that the Democratic candidate will lose the January election. I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for her, I said it’s a difficult decision. This is supposed to be a reality-based site and that’s my reality.
<
p>I think you greatly underestimate the political impact of the upcoming blizzard of federal indictments against those who have created, enabled, and operated the various rackets that sustain the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines. Do any of you remember Buddy Cianci? I think that painting an even brighter target for the rightwing on this seat will offer its own “big ol’ helping hand…”, whether we are willing to talk about it or not.
<
p>IF Martha Coakley is the candidate, and IF she somehow opens some distance between her and these corrupt machines, and IF she demonstrates that she has the political chops to successfully fend off the attacks that WILL come her way, then I will happily support her in the January primary.
<
p>Let me offer a concrete example. Her office brought the indictments against Vitale. So far, she has been virtually silent about them during this campaign. She’s done the right thing — why doesn’t she talk about it? If she doesn’t want to do it, find somebody who will.
<
p>The opposition narrative is easy for even an amateur like me to write: “The election of Martha Coakley to the Senate proves that the deeply corrupt liberal Democratic machine cares only about keeping itself in power. First Chappaquidick, then Blago, now Menino. Senator Coakley and the machine that elected her supports [fill in the blank]. That should concern every American who supports honest government.”
<
p>Ignoring the political impact of the corruption unfolding all around us is, in my opinion, a serious strategic and tactical mistake.
You should worry about Capuano, PMA and Murtha, not Coakley. The AG’s seat is always a tough one to run from, because people who haven’t read the briefs or seen the evidence have opinions about what the AG should or shouldn’t have done. But that’s a far cry from potentially being embroiled in a pay-for-play scandal, which is where Capuano is.
My concern is about the political skills of each candidate to handle the firestorm. I have said repeatedly here that I am not accusing Ms. Coakley of direct or personal involvement with the corruption. Similarly, I see no evidence that Mr. Capuano is “embroiled” in the problems of Mr. Murtha. The attacks will not accuse Ms. Coakley or Mr. Capuano of outright corruption (those are too easy to defend), they will instead use guilt-by-association and target her supporters, endorsers, contributors, and so on.
<
p>The difference I see is that Ms. Coakley is dependent on the two interconnected Massachusetts political machines that are corrupt — the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines. Mr. Capuano has a much more distant relationship with Mr. Murtha.
<
p>My concern is whether Ms. Coakley has the political chops to handle the attacks — specifically in comparison to Mr. Capuano. So far, my money has been on Mr. Capuano. I must say that in this round of ads, Martha Coakley’s is the clear winner.
This is the first I’m hearing a “pay-to-play” accusation directed at Capuano.
Here’s a link.
<
p>Sorry to be terse, I’d highlight some passages, but i’m posting via cell phone.
I am interested in watching Mr. Capuano handle inquiries about this matter. I hope he demonstrates more skill than in his campaign ad above.
For those who don’t want to delve into the whole Phoenix article, this is the bit from the article that’s concerning to me.
<
p>Here’s a link to another, more recent piece on the PMA connection. This appeared in the Boston Globe originally, although this link is to the piece reprinted on CREW’s site. Here’s a couple of quotes.
<
p>
This is malarkey. Indictments are not convictions, and in our system of justice we should stand up for the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.
<
p>You seem concerned that Martha Coakley isn’t bragging about indictments. Of course she’s not! It’d be highly irresponsible of her to brag about them, and especially to campaign on them. I think it’s a testament to her character and her decency that she doesn’t take easy potshots.
<
p>This is why we have trials. Regardless of your personal opinion of Vitale, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Trying him in a court of public opinion is not the job of the state’s Attorney General.
Even if your argument were true, which it is not, it only buttresses the claim that it is hard to use the AG position as a launching pad.
<
p>But your argument is false. She doesn’t have to brag about specific indictments. She can say, much more loudly than she has, “Government corruption is a cancer in our system that I have worked hard to stop as Attorney General.”
<
p>That’s all. If pressed, she can say “I think the indictments I brought speak for themselves.”
<
p>Her inability or unwillingness to craft a message along these lines makes her — and therefore the rest of us — dangerously vulnerable to rightwing attacks.
speeches she’s made in the last 2+ years so that we could assess her leadership on the job, and measure her accomplishments against her rhetoric.
Falsity is best reserved for facts. Arguments can be good or bad, correct or incorrect, based on facts or based on lies, but arguments cannot be false.
<
p>There’s no appearance of corruption with Martha Coakley herself. That’s not your argument. Nor is your argument that she has failed to address corruption as a prosecutor.
<
p>No, your argument has to do with the political side of her job – that she is not adequately bragging about her indictments. To that my answer remains that as a good prosecutor, she should not (and has not) bragged about incomplete outcomes.
<
p>An indictment is meaningless unless and until it’s followed by a conviction. Until then, it’s just allegations, and you can feel about it anyway you’d like, but it’s not the job of the Attorney General to try someone in the court of public opinion by comparing indictments and convictions, or bragging about indictments.
<
p>Convictions? That’s something else altogether.
<
p>Think about it this way: an indictment is a blueprint. It’s no more appropriate for a prosecutor to brag about an indictment than for an architect to brag about completing a blueprint. Until the building is built/the conviction is made, all you’ve got is a set of plans.
I have not proposed that Martha Coakley “brag about indictments.” Repeating your claim doesn’t change its correctness (or falsity).
<
p>Yes, my argument is political. This is a political campaign. Martha Coakley is running for Senator, not Attorney General and not prosecutor.
<
p>As a holder of or candidate for ANY public office, she is expected to oppose corruption in government. As a candidate for Senator, she ought to be able to communicate her opposition to government without bragging about any indictments.
<
p>A prosecutor who seeks higher office and who cannot loudly and proudly proclaim their opposition to government corruption without bragging about indictments is a failure as a politician, no matter how successful as a prosecutor.
First you said:
<
p>She doesn’t have to brag about specific indictments. She can say, much more loudly than she has, “Government corruption is a cancer in our system that I have worked hard to stop as Attorney General.”
<
p>That’s all. If pressed, she can say “I think the indictments I brought speak for themselves.”
<
p>Then you said:
<
p>I have not proposed that Martha Coakley “brag about indictments.”
<
p>—
<
p>I’ll agree that you didn’t use the word brag. It is however, what you’d like her to do, as your comment says in plain language.
<
p>As for me, I’m just happy the chief prosecutor in my state isn’t bragging about incomplete work, or trying people in a court of public opinion before they’re convicted in a court of law. If you think there’s a strong political reason why she should, then I’ll tell you that it means even more to me that she isn’t doing it, because it tells me she has personal integrity and a great level of respect for the justice system.
<
p>Now, to your other point, because you’re really hung up on this government corruption thing. It’s a GOP frame, like voter fraud, and I really wish you’d stop using it. Government has corruption, like other large entities have corruption and waste. It needs to be found, and the people need to be investigated and prosecuted.
<
p>However, the point of GOP fearmongering about government corruption is to destroy the trust people put in government. That way, when they fight government programs, people can just say “all those people are corrupt”. A government healthcare plan, according to the GOP, will involve high levels of waste and corruption. The chairman of non-profit Blue Cross flying around the country in first-class while denying claims to dying patients – that’s not corruption, just the private market doing its thing.
<
p>That’s what the GOP would rather have, and I, for one, would really appreciate it if progressives didn’t give in to their frames.
<
p>Speaking of that … your entire point, at the beginning, was that the GOP would attack Martha for not having taken down enough corruption. Your point is that they’ll attack her? They’ll do it anyway. Remember when our other senator, the war hero, the one with shrapnel in his leg, and 3 purple hearts on his chest, was attacked for not being sufficiently patriotic? When GOP delegates wore purple bandages on their faces at the 2004 convention, to mock Kerry’s war service? When they ran ads accusing him of treason? The people who said that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers are buddies? These people have no concern for the truth, and you should have no concern for whatever crap they decide to fling at our candidates. They’ll find nonsense no matter what we do, or don’t do.
<
p>If you want to help our candidates, start by rejecting nonsense, not embracing it.
I am acutely aware of all the things you say. I am also acutely aware of John Kerry’s inept response when the issue was first raised. He attempted to ignore it, as you seem to be advocating. It didn’t work for him then, and it won’t work now for whoever wins this seat.
<
p>When (not “if”) federal indictments come down against the Beacon Hill and City Hall machines, the rightwing dogs will come snarling at whoever holds this seat.
<
p>Mentioning the indictments is not the same as bragging. She can even use the concern you raise along the lines of the following:
<
p>”You know that I can’t speak to the specifics of these indictments. This is too important an issue for me to endanger by politicizing.”
<
p>I argue that she MUST be proactive in this, she must LEAD, so that she has a record of public statements and actions to rely on when the inevitable rightwing lies arrive.
I keep reading comments about how Coakley should talk publicly about the cases she’s prosecuting. What prosecutor in their right mind would make in-depth public comments about cases they are prosecuting? Would you feel more positively about her if she undermined a case for the purpose of winning votes?
I have not suggested that Martha Coakley make “in-depth public comments about cases they are prosecuting.”
<
p>The fact that apparently neither she nor you demonstrate an appreciation for or competence in the political skills needed to oppose corruption without compromising active prosecutions further weakens the case in support of her candidacy for the Senate.
<
p>She is campaigning for the Big Show, and on the corruption issue she appears to be — at best — a AAA player. Earnest, honest, forthright, and totally unprepared for the spotlight she aspires to enter.
<
p>The first time she comes to the plate, she’s going to get burned with a high inside heater. She’ll never get to first base after that.
<
p>Sorry, that’s just the way I see it.
<
p>Explain what makes choosing Martha in January a hard choice for you if you please.
do you think we could get Capuano to run as a third party “Liberal” Candidate?
Next Question.
With 4 weeks to go, Capuano desperately needs to turn the Special Primary into a two-person race between himself and Coakley. Otherwise, he loses.
<
p>Right now, Mike is essentially tied with (if not behind) Pagliuca in the polls. Looking at the Pagliuca and Capuano ads indicates that Capuano won’t be shaking off Pags anytime soon. Pagliuca’s ad is clearly the better of the two.
<
p>It doesn’t matter that Pags actions may not match his rhetoric, voters who decide based mostly on TV ads are also the type that won’t realize that Pags is really a Bain Capital wolf in sheep’s clothing.
<
p>Capuano’s ad reinforces the perception of Mike being a Washington insider. While being a Washington insider might be a great characteristic for being an actual US Senator, Mike is betting that the 2009 primary electorate, despite all indications otherwise, is not in an anti-incumbent mood. Capuano’s main message just might be exactly the wrong message for winning elections in 2009.
<
p>Meanwhile, Coakley’s campaign keeps rolling along. At this point, her campaign only needs to solidify voters who are already leaning towards voting for her. So, her campaign releases a issue ad popular with primary voters (health care) that also humanizes her (with a personal story by a constituent). In Coakley’s case, it’s particularly important to humanize her since many people have the perception that AGs like Coakley can be cold and impersonal.
<
p>As for Khazei’s ad, it’s a little late to be still introducing yourself to the voters. If primary voters don’t know by now that you founded City Year, they weren’t ever going to vote for you anyway.
Interested in local politics? Watch “Basic Black” tonight at 7:30 p.m. on ‘GBH 2 or at http://www.basicblack.org for a discussion about the local election results. The conversation will also cover the gay marriage referendum in Maine, and the black community’s attitude towards gay rights. You can participate by sending in your questions and comments through the live chat at basicblack.org. Let us know what you think!
<
p>Perhaps someday I’ll actually watch them.
<
p>It’s true Pags doesn’t have any defenders here. But that doesn’t mean he’s not currently polling second, ahead of Capuano who has plenty of defenders here.
<
p>Face it, these TV ads aren’t targeting voters who read BMG. I know it’s a leap of faith, but I think most, if not all, BMG posters/readers don’t rely on TV ads to decide how to vote.
<
p>Meanwhile, as hard as it is for me to say, I think there are a lot more Special Primary voters who don’t read BMG than there are those that do. And, unfortunately, there are plenty of voters out there than can be easily misled by good ads like Pags is running.
<
p>BTW, I don’t trust Pags either. I distrust people who made their fortune the way Pags has.
you need to read the post again. This time with a sense of sarcasm and astute commentary.
Brilliant. More comments like this please, to keep this all in perspective.
It’s easy for me…for the first time in years I’ve equally liked the top two Democrats. If Khazei’s numbers really start to take off, my sense of humor may take a vacation…
Coakley–10 of 10. Powerful story powerfully told. However much she paid for that spot, worth every dime.
<
p>Capuano–3. Surprisingly weak spot. Too much telling, not enough showing. Get a new media team stat.
<
p>Paglucia–4. Good message undercut by slick stock cliches (and arguably by the candidate’s own story). Why no personal story, like Coakley? Don’t Pag’s people actually know anyone who has been slapped around by the economic crisis?
<
p>Khazei–6. A solid spot and arguably just the sort of thing an unknown outsider like Khazei needs. But does he have time to sell this story?
<
p>All in all, a diverse sample of the spinners’ art (definitely not a science).
Of the ads. Although I can’t resist noting that Cap needs a new suit if he wants to be a Senator.
<
p>Thanks for posting these via YouTube. Made them viewable by iPhone when I surely should have been doing something else more constructive.