My take: these are both effective ads. Cap seems cheerier, while also playing to one of his strengths, namely, a solid anti-Bush voting record. Coak also seems cheerier, and also plays to a strength, namely, some tangible Wall Street-related results. Good stuff from both.
Please share widely!
Martha is presenting herself in the context of her family and the values she learned.
<
p>Mike is presenting his national security credentials and highlighting his no vote on the Iraq War.
<
p>Do you think Mike’s right, that there is always a war hawk like Dick Cheney?
<
p>Do you find it strange that Martha’s husband is nowhere to be seen in this video? They’ve been together for a decade or two.
Just got back from the Capuano event in Watertown.
<
p>One woman asked about a key policy difference between Caps and Coakley that would make her vote for Capuano.
<
p>He answered with two things. One was his usual retort about the House vote on health care reform and how Coakley would have sunk it in the House.
<
p>The other part was a very detailed response about Civil Liberties. I’ve been hoping he would start talking about that because I think it is a key distinction.
<
p>He explained the Melendez-Diaz case and Coakley’s oral argument in that case. Surprisinly detailed for an event of this sort.
<
p>Maybe it’s going to be a new talking point for the campaign.
on Capauno’s critique of Coakley’s views regarding Melendez-Diaz? I mean apart from her lack of preparedness (she didn’t know CA was not party to the case nor how they handle all the lab tech court appearances.)
<
p>I’m particularly interested if he sees it as a window into how she balances individual and Constitutional rights against state interests.
Didn’t take notes or videos.
<
p>He said that the general principle she argued for was antithetical to Constitutional rights. He simplified the position in the case, but basically said that she does not care that much about 6th Amendment rights.
<
p>He argued that her experience as a prosecutor necessarily makes her less likely to vigorously fight for civil liberties – especially regarding investigations and the rights of the accused.
<
p>I think it is a good argument to appeal to liberal voters. With things like the Fells Acres parole deal, Melendez-Diaz, the au pair case, the aqua teen viral marketing thing, and the recent Holy Wood death penalty case amicus sign-on, I don’t think she wants to get too much into it. Her response would likely be about her years of protecting citizens, especially children as a prosecutor.
<
p>I wonder if Capuano will make a move in the debate. A back-and-forth about Melendez Diaz would be fun to watch.
Her Fells Acres decisions – to not oppose Cheryl Amirault LeFave’s release, to not retry her, and at the same time to fight Gerald Amirialts commutation – are fair game and of some concern. They were charged and found guilty of the same crimes, so what gives? She, contrary, to a 5-0 recommendation that included law enforcement officials kept Gerald locked up. Among his mothers last spoken words were, Don’t vote for Scott Harshbarger.
<
p>In Melendez-Diaz, unless she was bound to “uphold” the Commonwealth’s law and not exercise independent judgment about whether the MA statute conflicted with sixth amendment rights, she’s every bit accountable for her position, which I oppose for two reasons… if CA can manage having lab techs testify in court MA can too, and rolling back constitutional rights should be done rarely and only for overwhelmingly compelling reasons. If you recognize that death penalty should be abolished becuase of wrongful convictions, can you also recognize that defendants should have the right to question lab techs about process becuase even “scientific” process is subject to human error. She proclaimed this fight was one that would save the Commonwealth money. I’m appalled.
<
p>Charging Louise Woodward with second degree murder was overzealous prosecution. Thankfully the court fixed the miscarriage of justice reducing the conviction to manslaughter and time served. What’s surprising is that the notoriety from this case helped Coakley win the DA Middlesex office. I was surprised to learn recently that Martha Coakley was in the hospital room when Dr. Eappin pulled the plug on Baby Matthew and I wonder how her office had ruled out the parents as suspects and what her office made of the prior injuries. Martha was responsible for the medical evidence and Louise was convicted based on a theory of shaken baby syndrome. Look it up, it’s not settled science.
<
p>I’m convinced that Martha’s signing on the the amicus brief in the Holy Wood case does not make her in favor of the death penalty but it does make her in favor of limiting the scope of cases that can be appealed to the Federal courts. In the case of Holy Wood, it will mean he cannot get an appeal he needs to be heard on an valid legal issue that will cost him his life. The general issue is that Coakley is for limiting the issues that can be appealed to Federal court and I don’t see that as a good thing for the wrongly convicted and wrongly sentenced. This loops back to the Fells Acres appeal and the finality decision.
<
p>The marketing viral thing is a small issue but troubling. She did a great job getting $1,000,000 reimbursement for first responder costs and $1,000,000 good will but I really don’t understand why she would require the two boys, who were making money installing these advertising gimmicks and who were therefore not guilty of planting hoax devices, to sign a plea agreement that required them to do community service. They were not guilty. I’ve also wondered, since they were wrongly accused of a crime, should have had their legal fees reimbursed from the good will fund?
<
p>I hope Martha will address these concerns.
and prevent me from supporting Coakley’s candidacy as I, too, see them as civil rights issues. I’m leery of zealous law-and-order types anyway, so I’m inclined steer clear of someone coming from that sort of professional background. That is not to say that there isn’t a vital need for such folks in our society but simply that when given a choice, I’ll generally support someone else.
<
p>The big brouhaha on this site when Fells Acres was first raised really provided, as far as I’m concerned, a reasonably accurate glimpse into people’s calculus in deciding on a candidate. I admire your willingness and energy in continuing to raise these issues despite the constant barrage of hostility that has come your way.
Did he discuss the earmarks he placed in bills in return for campaign contributions from PMA clients?
<
p>Did he explain why he made a show of returning some PMA contributions to his campaign account, but did not return others made to his leadership PAC until called on it by the Boston Globe earlier this fall?
<
p>For those not familiar with this scandal, the Globe summarized the matter as follows
<
p>Capuano has tried to make it seem a virtue to be, as David put it, the “insideriest insider.” He’s tried to do that, but selling one’s office isn’t a virtue.
Is there any evidence that he violated any law? Has the ethics committee brought charges against him? The answer is no, and I’m guessing they’re more familiar with Congressional rules than any of us are.
<
p>If you want to start throwing accusations like this around, then I’m curious to know why Martha Coakley has had a federal “exploratory committee” open since 2004. Who donated to it, and what has she been doing with that money? I know that technically she wasn’t required to report donors unless she ran for an office, but most exploratory committees are short-lived, not five year federal campaign slush funds. Shouldn’t we hold the Commonwealth’s chief law enforcement officer to a higher standard on campaign finance laws? She wasn’t REQUIRED to disclose those donors, but she certainly could have done so. So much for open disclosure.
<
p>And how did she manage to have a Senate campaign up and running mere days after Senator Kennedy’s death, even though she didn’t have an active federal campaign account? How about using state campaign funds to print hundreds of signs that simply said “Martha Coakley” instead of “Martha Coakley for Attorney General”? Or creating a website that miraculously morphed into the “Coakley for Senate” website overnight?
<
p>Or, more recently, how about Jack Connors, Chairman of the Board of Partners Healthcare endorsing her? The AG has significant oversight authority over non-profits and health care non-profits in particular. There is a serious conflict of interest there. And whatever did happen to her investigations into the health care industry? The silence has been deafening from the AG’s office on the price fixing by Partners and BC/BS, etc.
From ABC:
<
p>Further in the same article:
<
p>Capuano and Murtha are, of course, close. Capuano was the only member of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation to attend a fundraiser for Murtha earlier this year. Ironically, since an endorsement for Coakley from someone in healthcare disturbed you above, the event Capuano attended was a shakedown of the healthcare industry for contributions.
<
p>
The second articleyou linked to above spells out who the FBI is investigating and it is not Mike Capuano. They are investigating “Paul Magliocchetti, who founded the lobbying firm in 1989 and is a focus of the probe.”
<
p>
<
p>Your attempts to prove guilt by association are no better than what the Republicans tried to do to Barck Obama…. Obama’s Rev Wright… Obama’s relationship with domestic terrorists…. Obama association with Muslims… he’s a Muslim. Your attempts are no better.
<
p>If you have a report from a journal that says Capuano is under investigation by the FBI, the House Ethics panel, or the FEC, share it.
<
p>For example, Coakley a complaint in front of the Federal Election Commission for using state campaign funds in a Federal election, which is illegal. That is a fact.
I certainly haven’t read all of your posts, but I don’t recall seeing a single one that focused on Capauano’s strengths. And just as a point of fact, you mention the complaint in front of the FEC, but conveniently forget to mention that the comnplaint was filed by the Republican Party.
<
p>For the record, I’m leaning toward Coakley, but I recognize that Congessmen have to take campaign contributions, often from businesses. And they will sometimes support legislation that benefits a business, particularly one in their home district or state. Absent compelling evidence, I hardly see that as a reason to start implying that the Congessman is corrupt. It’s fair game to say that it may be a campaign issue for him, but some on this thread seem to be suggesting nefarious motives on Capuano’s part. No one ever seems to get that businesses often contribute to politicians who are sympathetic to them, or whose good side they want to be on. We’re often quick to default to th notion that a politician got a contribution, and only then decided to help a company.
<
p>This back and forth, where we even get to the point that Republican charges are being cited as if they have credibility, helps no one.
has asserted that the FBI investigation into PMA and Paul Magliocchetti is an investigation into unethical or illegal acts by Mike Capuano. I am refuting that.
<
p>Bean’s argument amounts to nothing more than guilt by association.
The first two articles I’ve linked in this post are explicitly about Capuano and his associations with PMA. The third discusses the federal investigation.
<
p>Google ‘Vanity Fair and Capuano’ for an inside take on a night at the Capital Grille paid for by Magliocchetti and attended by interns and Capuano.
<
p>And I don’t see anything about Cap’s legislative accomplishments – no surprise there. There aren’t any to speak of.
You said:
<
p>I said:
<
p>The second article said:
<
p>Then you said:
<
p>So does the second article. If you can read (the second article), you can see the FBI is investigating Paul Magliocchetti.
Magliochetti steers contributions to Murtha, Capuano and others in Congress from himself, PMA and others he knows. Maybe Magliochetti also uses others as a front for his contributions, a violation of campaign finance law if true. Congress people, including Capuano, put millions of dollars’ worth of earmarks benefiting PMA clients in to bills. Congress people say – “oh, that was a good project, good for my district, there was no quid pro quo. And since the press on this is uncomfortable, I’ll return the related contributions.” Or “Oh, had no idea those weren’t legal contributions. Will return them right away.” Hard for investigators to prove otherwise. Easier for them to get Magliochetti for campaign finance violations. But not proof that Murtha, Capuano and others placing the earmarks were clean.
ad from the Campuano’s campaign regarding the economy. Do not get why he is not making this front and center in his advertisements.
by the Pags campaign. I wonder why he didn’t show up at the Brooks School in Lincoln today?
Lots of money that campaign has. I didn’t go through it to hear if it was a push poll, did you?
if you indicated that you hadn’t decided, or were open to another candidate. I stated up front who our candidate was, and when asked if we were open to learning more…I said no. That ended that.
Coakley still introducing herself, which is odd, but maybe what she needs.
<
p>Capuano, I think, trying to remind voters that there’s a significant political struggle under way in D.C. that he is already in the thick of. I’m not sure another 30 seconds of just him talking is the best way to drive that home, but it was well written.
<
p>It is refreshing to see someone being openly patriotic about civil liberties. I would not think that would be a winning strategy in most elections, unfortunately, but it may work here.
and unlikely to move any voters. Candidly, I don’t know why either one is wasting the money at this point. The primary is Coakley’s to lose and that doesn’t seem likely.
as long as she keeps showing up to campaign events.
In the most Democratic state in the nation, we may settle on mediocrity. We’ll be ok with someone who’s credentials on issues around civil liberties (CORI, wiretapping, three strikes) are in serious question.
<
p>I am volunteering for Mike Capuano because I know we can do better. I also know we have a long way to go and not much time to get there.
With 10 years in the house and little in the way of meaningful legislative accomplishments.
<
p>I am volunteering for Coakley because Capuano’s arrogance and wheeling/dealing is federal indictment waiting to happen.
There is no accusation, never mind evidence, of any wrong-doing on the part of Mike Capuano. His list of legislative accomplishments is long, particularly given that for most of that period he was a member of the minority party. You now seem to be at the point of throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.
<
p>”I like Martha because the other guy sucks” sounds like settling on mediocrity to me.
The only thing you’ll find to Cap’s credit in a decade is the OCE, which has been criticized for being too weak. Oh, and some pork, he’s apparently been big on the pork.
<
p>Read the articles I linked above. There is a federal investigation of earmarks placed for PMA clients by members of Congress in return for campaign contributions underway. PMA has gone out of business a result. Capuano is number four in Congress in receiving PMA-linked contributions.
<
p>About the worst outcome for this election that I could see would be Cap winning the primary, and something breaking in this investigation before the general election.
I read the articles you cited. Only the second even mentions Mike Capuano, and here’s what it says:
<
p>No investigation of Mr. Capuano. No accusations (except from you), no indictments. The Boston Globe says that Mr. Capuano returned the money — yet you say “Capuano is number four in Congress in receiving PMA-linked contributions.” Either you or the Globe is
lyingmistaken.<
p>You — and the campaign of Martha Coakley — should be ashamed of this exchange.
yeah, you’re right. the last thing you’d want is a member of Congress who fights hard for his state, negotiating with his colleagues to get what he needs for his constituents. I’m sure that federal indictment of Ted Kennedy will be coming any day now.
This wasn’t fighting for constituents. It was a pay-to-play scandal. It was placing of earmarks for defense contractors that were clients of the PMA group, a lobbying firm now out of business due to a federal investigation.
The pay-to-play scandal is about Mr. Murtha, not Mr. Capuano.
<
p>Your dishonest attempted smear of Mike Capuano is despicable.
<
p>Have you no shame?
Capuano and Murtha are very close and Murtha and PMA’ founder wazzhisname are very close and PMA’s founder is being investigated by the FBI, ergo, Capuano is under Federal investigation… and by the way, he’s palling around with domestic earmarkers.
Have all published articles indicating that other lawmakers close to Murtha, including Capuano, may be pulled in to the scandal. So if making note of this is ‘despicable’, I’m sure in good company.
<
p>You are the ones who should be ashamed for pumping this guy, when there are serious concerns that he’s for sale. It’s DiMasi all over again.
I don’t recall seeing anything to the effect that Capuano “may be pulled in,” but I certainly could have missed it.
Will collect them later this week.
If you have them why would tell us to wait until later this week?
To post links, I’ll need to be home, at a computer and have some time to give to it.
Placed by Capuano aren’t implications; they’re a fact. Whether the federal investigation ultimately results in Murtha being indicted, or expands to involve Capuano and others who placed earmarks for PMA clients and received contributions, what’s despicable is funding defense contractors through earmarks instead of through an appropriate appropriations process including evaluation and prioritization of the need for the services, documented requirements, and transparent and competitive bidding. The standard here isn’t just whether the FBI has the evidence to pursue indictment.