Because of the compressed nature of the campaign schedule and the miniscule distances between candidates positions on many issues, the campaigns of all the candidates, and indeed the race itself have been abysmally poor. There simply hasn’t been space, policy-wise, between the candidates. Much of the energy, such as it is, in the race was negative and has derived from the strenuous efforts of the candidates to push the other candidates out of their staked out territory. All but one candidate, Coakley, have overdone it in this respect. Coakley, if anything, has underplayed it, frankly failing to point out where this is a debate not worth having. I don’t know if Coakley made the deliberate decision to, essentially, refuse a silly debate or, as the BMG editors asserted, is merely keeping silent to protect her lead. I suspect, strongly, that it is the former. She’s too smart and has been playing a full-out ground game too well.
Despite the oft repeated insistence of others that endorsements don’t matter, I pay attention to them. When Michael Dukakis endorsed Capuano I gave him a long second look. When the Editors here at BMG endorsed Khazei I gave him, too, a long second look, but couldn’t get passed soem of the issues I’ve delineated. I don’t, however, think we’ve seen the last of Alan Khazei. Khazei, though obviously intelligent, doesn’t give me a sense of why he wants the job and I can’t determine when, if ever, he’s had to employ backbone. Some of his policy prescriptions, like greater citizen involvement seem squishy to me: not fully thought out and sorta populist by roundabout way of technocratic fiddling. In truth, I’m disappointed that nobody employed the slogan ‘I’m Crazei for Khazei!!‘, if only for fun, but I guess the silly season wouldn’t be the silly season if it were predictable.
So it came down to Martha Coakley and Mike Capuano. And I’ve made the final decision to endorse and to vote for Martha Coakley. I think both are fine public servants. I think both will continue to be fine public servants, regardless of the outcome of this race, for a long time to come. For that alone, we should be thankful. I also reject the proposition posited by some here (and you know who you are…) that commonalities are to be diminished and differences enlarged in order to make a caricature of your opponents and to sanctify your candidate. That’s just the grassroots version of trying to put distance between your candidate and the other candidate and it simple doesn’t work in campaigns where the policy stances of the candidates aren’t all that distinct from each other.
In so close a race, where the candidates occupy a lot of the same ideological space, it’s necessarily going to be little differences that make the final push in one direction. For me it’s Coakley’s clear-eyed and even-tempered approach. I think this is amply demonstrated by last nights debate wherein Coakley urged re-working the PATRIOT act and Capuano urged the wholesale trashing of the act: I don’t think a knee-jerk antipathy towards the PATRIOT act is any more productive than the initial knee-jerk rush to adopt it. It’s clear that Coakley would read the thing and not at all clear that Capuano has. I Think the term ‘PATRIOT ACT’ has taken on a not-entirely forthright sheen of unholiness. I guess the test is, if you took out the parts of the PATRIOT act that aren’t controversial, name it something else, and vote on it, what would be the result? I’m guessing that both Coakley and Capuano would vote on it. Nor does Capuano say, importantly, what he would to in replacement, if at all. If he thinks that the PATRIOT act is unnecessary and we have the tools, absent the act, to keep secure, fine. Say so. But if he doesn’t think we have the tools and continues to trash the act, he’s got to say what it is he’ll do instead.
So I think Martha Coakley has the better approach to this question and it’s an approach she shares with me and a lot of other democrats: reform the system from within. Take the existing framework and make it better. That, if anything, is the simple job description of a Senator.
So, I’m going to spend my two votes for Martha Coakley. I think, going back to my criteria stated earlier, she’s got intelligence and back-bone to spare, doesn’t make decisions rashly, is from the Commonwealth all her life, solidly progressive and wants the job because she really cares about the state and the law. All the other candidates fulfill some subset of these criteria, but only Martha Coakley exhibits all of them and that’s why I endorse her as the next Senator from the CommonWealth of Massachusetts.
It is true that Martha Coakley is the only one of these candidates that I have stood side-by-side with in a real fight.
<
p>I experienced Martha Coakley as the epitome of grace under fire.
<
p>Despite extreme pressure from a powerful, well connected authority figure, one whose style is autocratic and demanding to the point of being a true bully in my eyes, and risking much to protect those who looked to her for protection. I won’t go so far as to say those who have earned the enmity or stood up against the mistaken ideas of that particular public figure automatically get my vote – but it sure helps.
<
p>After choosing a presidential primary candidate based solely on his public positions and fine-sounding words [John Edwards – GROAN]…so-called “litmus tests” or “which candidate agrees with more of my positions” doesn’t matter to me much – if at all. Words are not the same as future actions. Talk is cheap. So I won’t bother to list the positions on which Martha Coakley and I agree – or disagree. There are some of each, I assure you.
<
p>In so far as possible, what I care about is what the candidate is like under pressure, and where their “disposable time” has gone. How I have seen that candidate treat ordinary people in their lives and communities before entering the senate race matters to me, too. It is impossible to see into a heart of another, but my impressions as to honesty, self-discipline, compassion, and moral courage matter a great deal, at least to me.
<
p>Also, I am a loyal type. When I pledge to a candidate in a primary, it takes a major, major disappointment in that candidate for me to change to another primary candidate. I I admit I will take my time as to the Auditor’s and Treasurer’s races. Because once I sign on, I am on.
<
p>Thanks for running, Martha, and giving me a candidate I can fully trust and believe in.
Just wondering, what about her support of things like the Melendez-Diaz issue and the Holly Wood death penalty case?
<
p>It’s positions on things like that (as well as her record as Middlesex DA – ending an open file policy, automatically opposing parole, refusing to breakdown potential penalties in drug cases, etc.) that make me think her current statements about the Patriot Act provisions are completely disingenuous.
<
p>When I was younger I read Chuck Yeagers autobiography. In it he had many stories about decision making under pressure. One such story he told involved a test flight of a two-seater jet that crashed in which both pilots survived. One pilot ejected and the other did not. Post crash analysis came to the conclusion that had they traded decisions, that is to say acted according to the manner of the other pilot, neither would have survived: because of the way the crash occurred and the impact and resulting damage, had the pilot who stayed put decided to eject, he would have died. Conversely, had the pilot who ejected decided to stay put he too would have died. Fascinating. Two decisions, both the right decision for that actor but the wrong decision for the other actor in nearly the exact same circumstances.
<
p>In general, that’s how I view some things: the difference that separates a good decision from a bad decision is often infinitesimal and so they are best left up to the professionals who study and train for them. As a prosecutor, Martha Coakley is vastly more studied-up on both the law and the reasons for the law, than I am. If I trust her integrity and professionalism (and I do) then I’m going to ignore your gut feeling that she’s being ‘disingenuous’. IF I trust that she’s been a good prosecutor (and I do) then I also trust that she’s worked well within the bounds of the law, which, as I’ve stated already, she understands far more deeply than I. As I wouldn’t want to second guess a test pilot about when, or when not, to eject I wouldn’t want to second-guess a career prosecutor about which laws need fixin or no.
<
p>I think you need to ask yourself a simple question: if she were not running, and you were, would you seek her advice on which laws to amend and/or fix? Unless you’re willing to argue that Coakley’s career up to now has been a continuous series of law-breaking and authority flouting, there’s absolutely nothing to recommend the notion that she’s being disingenuous nor that you wouldn’t consult with her on matters of law absent her campaign for the Senate seat.
<
p>I think it’s altogether too facile to second guess a career prosecutor on matters of the law. Due process, the heart of civil rights, often hinges upon subtlety and nuance that, at a gross remove, appears malformed and misshapen. Of course, if we went by how things ought to look at a gross remove, we’d all be inhabiting a rather large kindergarten waiting for nap n snaks…
<
p>In more specific terms, I’ve addressed the amicus brief in the Holly Wood case and am completely unfamiliar with Melendez-Diaz, so won’t comment here on that…
I don’t dispute her understanding of the law at all, what I have a problem with is her willingness to use the law in a way that is incredibly anti-defendant and I think anti-civil liberties. These are the same reasons I do not like the Patriot Act.
<
p>As a DA, there are many decisions not made under pressure. These include the general policies of the office. Martha Coakley did not have to end the open-file policy (defense counsel can come in and see the state’s evidence), but she did. She did not have to automatically oppose parole, but she did. Her office did not have to be much harsher on non-violent drug offenses than other DAs, but it was.
<
p>All DAs, and especially female DAs, I think, have to appear “tough on crime.” That is a shame. Martha Coakley’s career is reflective of this very “tough on crime” approach. Nothing was illegal (or at least I hope not), some actions were unethical (like the Fells Acres post-conviction actions), but it is the approach to crime and the investigations of crime that I do not agree with. It is her policies, not her understanding of the law that is the problem.
<
p>Melendez-Diaz was a case about whether or not lab technicians at a drug lab should have to testify and be cross-examined by defendants in drug crimes. Until this case, in many states, the drug technicians would sign an affidavit and that would be used as evidence at trial. The defendant in this case believed he was denied a fair trial because his 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses was not upheld. He wanted to cross-examine the lab technician and make sure that the lab’s procedures were followed.
<
p>One of the main arguments Coakley made in this case was that Massachusetts could not afford to have lab technicians come in to testify at trial. At oral argument she did a pretty bad job defending this argument when the justices brought up how California has brought lab technicians into trial without any real increase in public costs. She lost this case, thankfully.
<
p>As far as the Holly Wood case is concerned, I think she was again arguing for a bad policy. Many people remain in prison due to wrongful convictions and I believe that these people should have access to appeals in federal court. Strict adherence to the idea of “finality” in criminal cases is a bad policy. This policy helps keep the wrongfully convicted in prison. As far as the actual facts of the case on appeal, I think it was a bad political move to sign on to an appeal connected to such a toxic case. I disagree with the potential outcome of death in that case AND the general policy of finality in state cases argued for in the amicus brief.
<
p>Her record tells me that she supports the more aggressive investigative powers and anti-defendant sentiment that the Patriot Act reflected.
<
p>If I were running, I would seek the advice of many people in power, including Martha Coakley. That does not mean that her advice would be the one I would take. I think she’s done an admirable job on things like the banking crisis and going after predatory lenders. Her views on drugs and the rights of the accused, however, are repugnant to me.
<
p>I completely disagree with the idea that we should necessarily defer to professionals on things like this.
<
p>If we don’t question the policies of career prosecutors, who will?
But that’s not what you said. You said she was disingenuous. Either it’s a difference in kind, where she is being disingenuous and completely disregards the rules, or it’s a difference in degree, where she is more aggressive than perhaps you would be, but within the framework you both find acceptable. But you can’t have it both ways.
<
p>
<
p>Why on earth not? If you want to know something about a profession, ask a professional. And, once having asked them, you kinda have to take what they say at face value…
<
p>
<
p>Um… career defense attorneys? Career judges? Juries that make the actual judgements? Other Prosecutors? Legislators? Governors. Oprah…?
What I say is disingenuous is her recent statements that she does not support the investigative techniques empowered by the Patriot Act. I think she supports these aggressive investigative powers that harm our civil liberties even though she claims she does not. Her record as DA belies her recent assertions. That’s why I think she is disingenuous. (And THAT IS what I said.)
<
p>The fact that I disagree with her stances on these issues has nothing to do with my belief that she is being disingenuous. I am comparing her record to her statements. The policy differences I have with her are a different issue.
<
p>You misunderstood what I wrote.
<
p>As far as deferring to “professionals,” I think you are wrong. When a politician, prosecutor, police officer, judge, or whatever authority figure advocates a policy, I do not automatically accept it. I think that is dangerous, and frankly, stupid.
<
p>You seem to be confusing facts and policies. Just because someone may know a lot about the law does not mean that they view the law in the appropriate way.
<
p>Antonin Scalia is a legal expert and professional, but guess what, I disagree with him on most issues (as do most people on this site).
<
p>What I see you saying is that citizens should accept authoritarian rule of professionals. That is a strange position for which to advocate.
<
p>I agree with about the end of you statement. Defense attorneys will challenges prosecutors, as will some judges, BUT we, as citizens, have a right and responsibility to challenge our elected officials when we disagree with their actions and policies.
<
p>
<
p>And I made an illustration using a clear, easily read, anectdote that describes two different, indeed opposing, decisions that were made under the same circumstances.
<
p>So let me spell it out for you:
<
p>– If you don’t like how Martha Coakley acted in one instance, the complexities of the law and your paucity of understanding, with respect to the law, doesn’t allow you to conflate that with how you think she might act in another instance: you don’t have standing to call her disingenuous, given the complexity of the law and the difficulties of decisions made; which decisions often fall in the direction against which the split hair is thinnest…
<
p>You’re perfectly free to disagree with her decisions but you’re not free to extrapolate what decisions you think she would make, in opposition to stated policy and therefore call her untrustworthy (implicitly) or disingenuous (explicitly). The law, and politics, it is said, make strange bedfellows.
<
p>
<
p>You ought to look up the definition of the word ‘authority’. It would inform your argument better… so much better, in fact, that it would begin to resemble my argument.
I am absolutely not making your point because your point doesn’t make any sense.
<
p>You are acting as if THE law is some mysterious, complicated thing that most people cannot understand. I disagree with that. Also, for the record, I am not unfamiliar with the law (I am 2/3 of the way to being a lawyer). You treat THE law as something akin to the laws and rules of science. I do not view law in that way. There are rules, but what those rules mean is entirely open to interpretation and debate. Deferring to the opinions of supposed “experts” on these things is not necessarily the best thing to do (my Scalia example).
<
p>What I am saying is that I think her policies as DA are similar to the aggressive investigative techniques of the Patriot Act. I am not sure why you don’t understand that point. Much of the work of a prosecutor is about exercising discretion. I disagree with how Coakley exercised her discretion. Think of it this way – a prosecutor in Texas has charged someone with first degree murder. The prosecutor has to choose whether to pursue life in prison or the death penalty. I will disagree with the decision of the prosecutor if he or she pursues the death penalty. An understanding of the law is irrelevant to my judgment on that issue. The same principle applies here.
<
p>How I see it:
Her willingness to restrict the civil rights of the accused in drug cases (Melendez-Diaz) makes me think that she would be willing to restrict the civil rights of the accused in terrorism cases (Patriot Act). When she says she would not restrict those civil rights, I do not believe it given her record.
<
p>My point is very simple. You may disagree with my analysis, but that is not what you are saying. You are saying that I am not free to make that logical conclusion because somehow I don’t understand the law enough and should defer to Coakley.
<
p>I am free to disagree with Coakley. I am ALSO free to extrapolate what decisions I think she WILL make given the decisions she HAS made. That’s how we make decisions about candidates. A candidate who says she is going to do something in the future, but has done the opposite throughout her career is not trustworthy on that issue.
<
p>I still do not understand your point about professionals. I know what “authority” means. Your willingness to defer is crazy to me. This isn’t about deferring to a chemist one the question of what an electron is. It is about whether or not to defer to the policy decisions of an elected official. I don’t need to be a legal expert to know that unchecked wiretapping is a bad thing, but apparently you need the opinion of an expert on that. Not questioning our elected officials on these things is one of the most foolhardy things imaginable.
<
p>Martha is decidedly illiberal when it comes to civil rights. Her view is driven by the states need to protect the individuals not the need to be protected from the state.
<
p>
<
p>We know what she thought was an “appropriate balanace” in Melendez-Diaz and if it had prevailed, it would saved Massachusetts some money, as Martha argued, and simplified the logistics of having lab techs testify at trial, which was a big problem from Martha’s perspective but California has not trouble accomplishing it, and it would left every American citizen with no recourse to cross-examine a lab tech when their affidavit claims the subsatnace was crack or cocaine or pot or whatever, when it was not. Comprimise the rules for cost and simplicity and put an innocent man in jail. That’s Martha. But don’t worry cause we’ll all be safer.
<
p>
“I think it’s altogether too facile to second guess a career prosecutor on matters of the law. “
<
p>I disagree. The world of the prosecutor is, by design, skewed. It’s important to remember that the job of prosecutor is mission-centric, and that mission is convictions. It colors every interaction they have with the law. Balko in The Economist (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>Thus, owing to the adversarial system and the one-sided culture it can create among prosecutors, second guessing a prosecutor on the law should actually be encouraged. That last emphasis can’t be under-stated. The incentives for prosecutors is not ‘the interest of justice’ where as this is precisely the interest of law and lawmakers.
<
p>The question is (in general), when a person leaves the prosecutorial realm to run for higher office, to what extent are they able to leave that culture behind. This thorn is why, in general, I am usually pretty skeptical of the transition. More so because running on a record of ‘being tough on crime’ is the SOP in such a transition, it the meme belies the actual complexities of criminal (and other) legal issues which must be grappled with in the legislative realm. It’s as cliche a meme as ‘taxes bad! tax cuts good!’. Of course, because tough-on-crime campaign strategies often work, they also exacerbate the incentive issue for prosecutors working as prosecutors but who have higher office aspirations.
<
p>You make it sound like it happens in a vacuum…
<
p>I suppose the prosecutorial arts are skewed, which is why defense attorneys are similarly skewed, in the opposite direction. There is, too, a referee, in the form of a judge, or sometimes more than one…. all of which is presented to a jury, who decides the issue. So, while it may be true that prosecutors aggressively seek convictions they’re just as aggressively heading towards judgement on their attempts. It’s not like there isn’t a pretty strongly re-inforcing instant feedback mechanism in place…
<
p>I don’t mean to suggest that Martha Coakley, nor any prosecutor can never be wrong. That’s not what started this sub-thread: Doubleman accused her of being “disingenuous” because he disagrees with her stance. There’s no support for that argument. I attempted an illustration to show that good and bad decisions, from a distance, aren’t always what they seemed to be: there are other examples..
<
p>So, if I know that a good decision can look like a bad decision… and I likewise know that a bad decision can look like a good decision… What right have I to say her decisions are bad? Especially on highly technical and deeply complex issues like the law? As someone who has a great deal of training in science I’m often found cringing at non-scientists who try to explain science and fail… I also cringe at honest-to-gosh-scientists who similarly attempt to convey scientific concepts and can’t articulate it without getting deep in the weeds. At a distance, both the layman and the scientist look like stuttering imbeciles who can’t articulate. If I had to chose which one to endorse, I’d go for the guy with the Ph.D…. that is to say, the training.
<
p>I don’t know the law like Martha Coakley does. At some point, I have to sit back and say “OK, if that’s her view of the law, I can either accept it and vote for her, or reject and not vote for her” but it’s facile to say she’s wrong and puerile to say she’s being disingenuous simply out of disagreement. .
Many things in science are not open to interpretation. There are rules on which everyone (or almost everyone) agrees. The law is very different. Almost everything in the law is open to interpretation.
<
p>What I (and Mr. Lynne) are talking about, however, is policy, not necessarily THE law. Whether or not an action Coakley took was legal is a much different question than whether it was a good policy.
<
p>And I think it is easy to judge some of these decisions. A decision that restricts civil rights is bad in my book and I really don’t need too much additional information about the issue.
<
p>
… addressing Coakley, but rather the general principal of relying on a prosecutor as an expert on law in the same way you might rely on other experts in other fields such as physics, IT, or engineering.
<
p>I wanted to address this in particular because in evaluating the ‘value’ of a source of information on the subject in the form of a person, the contexts should be weighed. By way of example, there are scientists who are climate-change deniers. If I were to ‘trust’ them on the basis of their occupation alone, I might be very mislead. Of course in this case I have an excellent ‘correction factor’ I can reference in examining the context that this persons climate opinions (observations? findings?) have lead them to a distinctly minority opinion in the scientific community.
<
p>Now of course, in ‘trusting’ that particular context I’m also trusting ‘the majority’ in the same profession for those professional reasons. But why? Ostensibly because I believe that they are applying their professional skills toward the discovery of objective truth. Similarly in fields such as IT or engineering. Prosecutors, by contrast, are a sticky wicket, because they do not (as I pointed out earlier) ply their trade toward what could be called ‘objective justice’. Of course this makes sense in an adversarial system, but it must be admitted that any consultation of the Law that relied on the opinions of prosecutors alone would probably miss something. This must be acknowledged lest we let ourselves be deceived.
<
p>Personally, since prosecutors allegedly represent my interests by representing the state, I wish there were more incentives toward pushing for ‘objective justice’ rather than ‘conviction-centric justice’, since that it what I think would serve society and the state best. The fact that our system seems to put people who allegedly represent the interests of our society in a position that is orthogonal at best and contrary at worst is lamentable IMO. As Balko said in the link I provided – “Most prosecutors are well-intentioned, honest public servants. But it’s deeply troubling that those who aren’t are almost never held accountable, and in fact are often re-elected, appointed as judges, or go on to get elected to political office.” Because Science’s goals (in general) are aligned with the goals of Science in genera, the field’s accountability mechanisms for Scientists serve the general goals of Science. However, because the the goals of Justice and the goals of Prosecutors necessarily differ (by design – the adversarial system that acknowledges that legal resolution must consider ‘spin’ from contrary points of view), many of the accountability mechanisms that serve the Prosecutor’s goals do not serve the goals of Justice in general.
<
p>This, of course, is the way of fields that are much more interpretive than science or engineering. I was joking around with a friend of mine when he was preparing for his biology PhD defense. At the time I had been planning to go onto graduate school in pursuit of a Doctorate in Musicology. I pointed out that his defense would be a lot less controversial and possibly easier than mine because when he provides his defense, what will be demonstrated is that he either did the work and analysis thoroughly and correctly or not – whether his thesis is intriguing or merely technically important. If I ever did a defense in Music, because it is a much more interpretive field, I may be defending a thesis that is at odds with positions that panel members have built their careers on. If that’s also true in his Biology defense, it won’t matter if he did his due diligence.
<
p>Fair points, all. However, they are orthogonal to the matter at hand, at least as I understood.
<
p>In the matter of making a decision, in science, IT, law, business, whatever… the distance between a good decision and a bad decision is often miniscule. I tried to illustrate this with story about test pilots and then with some discussion of science, because I thought the domains so cut and dried, and removed from our present circumstances as to be ‘objectively viewed’. It doesn’t matter the domain, what matters is the complexity. Now, a previous poster uses what he perceives to be a bad law, in toto and what he perceives to be bad decisions on Martha Coakley’s part and the opposite of what she has stated to make a gross statement that “Martha Coakley is bad on civil rights,” and disingenuous to boot.
<
p>So we’re talking about comparing a grossly oversimplified view of Martha Coakleys’ future actions to and equally grossly oversimplified view of Martha Coakleys past actions, with a dash of what she, specifically, has to say sprinkled in. My point is that Martha Coakley says that there are good reasons for her past actions, however grossly they may appear at fist glance and since A) I’m not qualified to judge her actions wrt law and 2) I know that good decisions can look like bad decisions from 10,000 feet, I’ll have to fall back on what I think of Martha Coakleys integrity to form an opinion. If I think she’s a professional, then I’ll rely on her to be a good professional and not second guess. I wouldn’t know where to find out what here rate of reversal upon appeal is to see if the justice system, in general, approves of her or has dunked on her in the past… I would imagine that, if this were an issue, one of her opponents would have brought it up.
<
p>Personally, I’ve been in too many discussions about laws, and looked at too many laws that, on the surface seemed ‘bad’, but, upon further inquiry turned out to be either necessary or not entirely evil, and in some instances good, to take any law, or action surrounding the law at face value. As I stated in the initial diary (paraphasing): knee-jerk antipathy isn’t any more productive or useful than knee-jerk adoption
<
p>We went through this during the 2006 election where someone made the bald assertion that “Deval Patrick defends rapists.” Well, yes he does. And when you dig down, there’s good reason why he was involved in the LaGuere case. Previous diaries here asked “Was Coakley right in the Geoghan Case” where proof of evil that developed later in time was used by some (not the original poster, whom I thought was in earnest…) to knock Coakley for not putting Geoghan away.
<
p>So, when I say, “facile second guessing” I mean not assuming she’s being disingenuous because your (not ‘your’ but the other poster…) particular view of the law is jaundiced.